[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS: HOW
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S BUDGET
IMPACTS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 11, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-81
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
--------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-040 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Senior Republican Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Kenny Marchant, Texas
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Tom Price, Georgia
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Louisiana
David Loebsack, Iowa Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania York
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky Rob Bishop, Utah
Phil Hare, Illinois David Davis, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Joe Courtney, Connecticut [Vacancy]
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan, Chairman
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Michael N. Castle, Delaware,
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
Susan A. Davis, California Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Judy Biggert, Illinois
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Linda T. Sanchez, California Rob Bishop, Utah
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Ric Keller, Florida
David Loebsack, Iowa Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Phil Hare, Illinois Louisiana
Lynn C. Woolsey, California John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas York
[Vacancy]
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 11, 2008................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Castle, Hon. Michael N., Senior Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education.................................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education.............. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Additional submissions:
Letter from the National Coalition for Public
Education.......................................... 42
Letter from the National School Boards Association... 43
Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 42
Statement of Witnesses:
Carroll, Michael J., chief of police, West Goshen Township
Police Department.......................................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Gamble, LaDonna, interim project director, Bridges to the
Future Before and Afterschool Program's 21st Century
Community Learning Centers................................. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Kough, Theresa Vendrzyk, education associate, Delaware
Department of Education, After School Programs............. 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Little, Priscilla M., associate director, Harvard Family
Research Project, on behalf of Harvard Family Research
Project.................................................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS: HOW THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S BUDGET
IMPACTS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
----------
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dale Kildee
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kildee, Kucinich, Davis of
California, Payne, Sarbanes, Sestak, Hirono, Hare, Castle,
Platts, and Kuhl.
Staff present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; David Hartzler,
Systems Administrator; Lloyd Horwich, Policy Advisor for
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education; Lamont Ivey, Staff Assistant, Education; Danielle
Lee, Press/Outreach Assistant; Jill Morningstar, Education
Policy Advisor; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Joe Novotny,
Chief Clerk; Rachel Racusen, Deputy Communications Director;
Dray Thorne, Senior Systems Administrator; Margaret Young,
Staff Assistant, Education; Stephanie Arras, Minority
Legislative Assistant; James Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director
of Education and Human Services Policy; Cameron Coursen,
Minority Assistant Communications Director; Minority Chad
Miller, Minority Professional Staff; Susan Ross, Minority
Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; and Linda
Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel.
Chairman Kildee [presiding]. A quorum being present, the
hearing of the subcommittee will come to order.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 12A, any member may submit an
opening statement in writing, which will be made part of the
permanent record.
I will now recognize myself, followed by Ranking Member
Castle, for opening statements.
I am very pleased to welcome my fellow subcommittee
members, the public and our witnesses to this hearing on After-
School Programs: How the Bush Administration's Budget Impacts
Children and Families.
I helped write this program back in 1994, when Dick Riley
was secretary of education and the former governor of South
Carolina. We had a lot of meetings at the White House at that
time on this. It is a very important program, and it is a
program that I have seen the productiveness throughout the
country. So I appreciate all our witnesses being here this
morning.
There is no doubt in my mind in my 32 years that I have
been in Congress that, without the expert testimony of people
like yourself, we could not write the quality of legislation
that we, hopefully, sometimes do. But with your input, we do
improve the quality of the legislation. So I really appreciate
your being here.
Last year Congress increased funding for 21st Century
Community Learning Centers, the federally supported after-
school program, by $100 million. This has always had good
congressional support. As I say, I started this in 1994, but
when we did No Child Left Behind, John Boehner, who was
chairman of the full committee at that time, worked very
closely with us, and we included that. So this has always been
a bipartisan program, and we have kept it that way through the
years.
This year these centers will provide services to more than
1.5 million children and their families, and they are doing a
good job. As we will hear today from Priscilla Little of the
Harvard Family Research Project, research shows that good
after-school programs including 21st Century Community Learning
Centers improve academic, social and emotional outcomes,
especially for low-income children.
Chief Carroll, from Representative Sestak's district, will
tell us about the difference good programs are making in the
lives of children in their communities by providing safe,
nurturing environments after school.
And I am especially proud that LaDonna Gamble, who directs
the Bridges to the Future program for the Flint Community
Schools in my hometown is here to tell us about their
outstanding work. I had the pleasure of working for that school
system for 8 years.
Ms. Gamble, I read in your testimony that one of the ways
that you make learning fun for students is to teach them
engineering principles by building catapults. As a former Latin
teacher, I tried that but was not as successful as you, causing
some damage in the classroom itself.
It is beyond me why the president would propose not only to
slash after-school funding by 26 percent, or $281 million, but
also to turn the program into a voucher program. There is
something about that end of Pennsylvania Avenue that vouchers
seem to be a lure for many of the people who occupied that most
expensive public housing in the country, the White House.
By the administration's own calculations, its proposal
could result in more than 1 million fewer students receiving
services. That is their calculation. I had hoped that the
president's final education budget would be an improvement over
his previous ones, but it is hard to see anything positive
about increases for Title 1 and special education that don't
even keep up with inflation or cuts to drug and violence
prevention and after-school programs, eliminating educational
technology and career and technical education, and divisive
private-school and after-school voucher proposals.
On that last point, I will quote Ms. Kough, our fourth
witness, who I note was invited by the minority, who has always
been very helpful in this program. She says, ``The
administration's current proposal to convert the after-school
program to a voucher system may force programs to close, which
would result in more students with no place to go after school.
The move to a voucher system would undermine existing public-
private community and faith-based partnerships that are working
well.''
Fortunately, congressional support for after-school
programs is bipartisan. In 2005, I joined with Representatives
Lowey, Regula and Ros-Lehtinen to form the Afterschool Caucus
to help build support for after-school programs. Today the
caucus has nearly 80 members, including my friend and Ranking
Member Governor Castle.
And earlier this month I joined with Representative Kuhl, a
member of this subcommittee, to circulate a bipartisan letter
to appropriators requesting a $250 million increase for after-
school programs.
So I do not fear for the future of this fine program but
rather look forward to hearing our witnesses describe how well
it has worked and how we can make it work better.
I now yield to the ranking member of this subcommittee and
my very dear friend for many, many years, Governor Castle, for
his opening statement.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dale E. Kildee, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
I'm pleased to welcome my fellow subcommittee members, the public,
and our witnesses, to this hearing on ``After School Programs: How the
Bush Administration's Budget Impacts Children and Families.''
Last year, Congress increased funding for 21st Century Community
Learning Centers--the federally supported after school program--by $100
million.
This year, those centers will provide services to more than 1.5
million children and their families.
And, they're doing a good job.
As we will hear today from Priscilla Little, of the Harvard Family
Research Project, research shows that good after school programs,
including 21st Century Community Learning Centers, improve academic,
social and emotional, and other outcomes--especially for low-income
children.
Chief Carroll, from Representative Sestak's district, will tell us
about the difference good programs are making in the lives of children
and their communities by providing safe, nurturing environments after
school.
And, I'm especially proud that Ladonna Gamble, who directs the
Bridges to the Future Program for the Flint community schools in my
hometown, is here to tell us about their outstanding work.
Ms. Gamble, I read in your testimony that one of the ways that you
make learning fun for students is to teach them engineering principles
by building catapults.
As a former Latin teacher, I tried that myself, but was not as
successful as you have been in that endeavor.
It is beyond me, then, why the president would propose not only to
slash after school funding by 26 percent or $281 million, but also to
turn the program into a voucher program.
By the administration's own calculations, its proposal could result
in more than one million fewer students receiving services.
I had hoped that the president's final education budget would be an
improvement over his previous ones, but it is hard to see much positive
about increases for Title I and special education that don't even keep
up with inflation, or cuts to drug and violence prevention and after
school programs, eliminating education technology and career and
technical education, and divisive private school and after school
voucher proposals.
On that last point, I will quote Ms. Kough, our fourth witness, who
I would note was invited by the minority--``the administration's
current proposal to convert the 21st century community learning centers
program to a voucher system may force programs to close, which would
result in more students with no place to go after school. In addition,
the move to a voucher system would undermine existing public, private,
community, and faith-based partnerships that are working well.''
Fortunately, congressional support for after school programs is
bipartisan.
In 2005, I joined with Representatives Lowey, Regula and Ros-
Lehtinen to form the After School Caucus to help build support for
after school programs.
Today, the Caucus has nearly 80 members, including my friend and
Ranking Member, Governor Castle.
And, earlier this month, I joined with Representative Kuhl, a
member of this subcommittee, to circulate a bipartisan letter to
appropriators requesting a $250 million increase for after school
programs.
So, I do not fear for the future of this fine program, but rather
look forward to hearing our witnesses describe how well it has worked
and how we can make it work even better.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Castle. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
pleased, always, to work with you, and I am pleased to have a
distinguished group of panelists here and many interested
people, and I think this is an important subject.
We are here today to examine 21st Century Community
Learning Centers, which, as you know, provide a variety of
important services, including education support, community
service and other enriching activities to many students across
the country.
I would like to recognize, obviously, Ms. Theresa Kough of
my state, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss
the changes made to the 21st Century Community Learning Centers
(CCLC) program under the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act and the
benefits of after-school programs. I hope we can discuss the
ways in which the program is working to increase student
achievement and how the program can be strengthened.
As you know, when NCLB was signed into law, the
administration of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers
program was transferred from the United States Department of
Education to individual state departments of education.
Since 2002, states have awarded competitive grants to safe
entities, such as school districts and local and national
community-based organizations, to offer an array of activities
to complement regular academic programs to not only improve
academic skills but also to provide social opportunities.
In my home state of Delaware, Ms. Kough receives 25 21st
CCLC programs, which operate in 55 sites throughout the state.
As Ms. Kough will discuss in her testimony, the number of
Delaware students enrolled in its 21st CCLC programs has grown
substantially over the last several years. Delaware students in
21st CCLC programs have also made a number of academic gains in
reading and mathematics.
In Delaware and throughout the United States, the
importance of after-school programs is apparent. Each afternoon
millions of students around the nation leave school with no
place to go because they lack affordable, accessible, after-
school opportunities. In the hours when children are most
likely to commit or be the victim of a crime, parents and
caretakers, for a variety of reasons, are unable to arrange or
afford a better alternative.
21st CCLC programs give school-age children the option of
using this time for growth and opportunity instead. In fact,
according to the Afterschool Alliance, results of evaluations
and teacher reports have revealed positive trends in behavior
and achievement for students who regularly attend 21st Century
Community Learning Centers.
However, federal funding for 21st CCLC programs was never
intended to merely keep students off the streets. Instead, the
program is intended to provide meaningful educational
opportunities.
Although there are many positive outcomes associated with
CCLC's, the U.S. Department of Education reports, which
evaluated CCLC after-school programs from 2001 and 2004, did
not find significant improvements in academic achievement.
Additionally, a third report from the U.S. Department of
Education and the Institute of Education Sciences found that,
generally, the program had no impact on reading test scores or
grades.
I find these results to be problematic and hope to hear
from the witnesses their suggestions for raising academic
standards within this important program.
Additionally, before considering the administration's
proposal to transform the program into an after-school and
summer-school scholarship program, it is important that we
consider ways in which the program can be improved to continue
serving all deserving children while making strides toward
closing the achievement gap.
I believe strongly in the principles of No Child Left
Behind and the programs which fall under No Child Left Behind.
The importance of closing the achievement gap cannot be
overstated, and I look forward to hearing from today's
witnesses and their suggestions for doing so.
Thank you, all, again.
And I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael N. Castle, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Good Morning. We're here today to examine 21st Century Community
Learning Centers--which as you know--provide a variety of important
services, including education, sports, community service and other
enriching activities to many students around the country.
I would also like to welcome our witnesses and thank all of you for
being here to testify today. Specifically, I would like to recognize
Ms. Theresa Kough.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the changes made
to the 21st Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) program under the
2001 No Child Left Behind Act, the benefits of after school programs. I
hope we can discuss the ways in which program is working to increase
student achievement and how the program can be strengthened.
As you know, when NCLB was signed into law, the administration of
the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program was transferred
from the United States Department of Education to individual state
departments of education.
Since 2002, states have awarded competitive grants to state
entities such as school districts, and local and national community-
based organizations to offer an array of activities to complement
regular academic programs to not only improve academic skills, but also
to provide social opportunities.
In my home state of Delaware, Ms. Kough oversees twenty-five 21st
CCLC programs which operate in 55 sites throughout the state.
As Ms. Kough will discuss in her testimony, the number of Delaware
students enrolled in its 21st CCLC programs has grown substantially
over the last several years. Delaware students in 21st CCLC programs
have also made a number of academic gains in reading and mathematics.
In Delaware and throughout the United States, the importance of
after school programs is apparent. Each afternoon millions of students
around the nation leave school with no place to go because they lack
affordable, accessible after school opportunities. In the hours when
children are most likely to commit or be the victim of a crime, parents
and caretakers, for a variety of reasons are unable to arrange or
afford a better alternative.
21st CCLC programs give school-aged children the option of using
this time for growth and opportunity instead. In fact, according to the
Afterschool Alliance, results of evaluations and teacher reports have
revealed positive trends in behavior and achievement for students who
regularly attend 21st Century Community Learning Centers. However,
federal funding for 21st CCLC programs was never intended to merely
keep students off the streets. Instead, the program is intended to
provide meaningful educational opportunities.
Although there are many positive outcomes associated with CCLCs,
U.S. Department of Education reports which evaluated CCLC after school
programs, from 2001 and 2004, did not find significant improvements in
academic achievement. Additionally, a third report from the U.S.
Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences (IES)
found that generally, the program had no impact on reading test scores
or grades.
I find these results to be problematical and hope to hear from the
witnesses their suggestions for raising academic standards within this
important program.
Additionally, before considering the Administration's proposal to
transform the program into an after school and summer school
scholarship program, it is important that we consider ways in which the
program can be improved to continue serving all deserving children
while making strides towards closing the achievement gap.
I believe strongly in the principles of No Child Left Behind and
the programs which fall under NCLB. The importance of closing the
achievement gap cannot be overstated and I look forward to hearing from
today's witnesses their suggestions for doing so. Thank you all again--
I yield back the balance of my time.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Governor.
Without objection, all members will have 7 calendar days to
submit additional materials or questions for the hearing
record.
I would like now to introduce the very distinguished panel
of witnesses here with us this morning. I am going to share the
responsibility on that.
I first will introduce LaDonna Gamble, who is the interim
project director of the Flint Community Schools Bridges to the
Future after-school program. In partnership with the Genesee
Intermediate School District and the United Way of Genesee
County, the program serves thousands of students at 109
schools, 37 in Flint, Michigan.
Ms. Gamble attended the Flint Community Schools and holds
degrees from the University of Michigan, where I have my
Master's degree, and Central Michigan University.
I now yield to Admiral Sestak to introduce Chief Carroll.
Admiral?
Mr. Sestak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Castle.
I am very pleased to introduce chief of police of West
Goshen Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania, Chief Michael
Carroll. He has had 41 years in Pennsylvania law enforcement
and has quite a reputation, both on the national and
international levels. In fact, he is presently serving as the
vice president of the International Chiefs of Police
Association, having served as president of three organizations
before that: the Chester County Police Chiefs Association, the
Police Chiefs Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania and the
Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association. But what I am most
proud of is the last 19 years he has served as chief of police
of West Goshen.
In particular, however, he is also an instructor at
Delaware County's police academy, and he also does guest
lecturing at several other institutions, including the United
States Naval Academy, and this is particularly hard since he is
such an avid Notre Dame football fan. And last year, as
everybody here watched the game, I am sure, Navy broke one of
the longest losing streaks in the nation, and I hope you
weren't there that day at the academy lecturing.
Chief Carroll is an active member of a program that I
strongly support, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. I truly believe
in this program because I spent my entire 36 or so years in the
Navy serving with the youth of America. The average age on an
aircraft carrier--5,000 sailors--is 19\1/2\. They are the youth
of America. And we always knew, get them while they are young.
And if you get it into the right cognitive reasoning, you will
show them the right way, they will be mighty fine.
This organization, in particular, is composed of police
chiefs, prosecutors, sheriffs and violence survivors that
examine what makes our youth likely to commit crime and focuses
on prevention strategies, like high-quality early-education
programs and after-school programs. This is what we all would
like to do: to get troubled kids back on the path toward
personal achievement, to where we all benefit.
He has recently been inducted into the International Police
Chiefs Hall of Fame, and so I am really proud, today, Chief, to
sit here and introduce you, and thank you for coming.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Admiral.
Chief, there are certain bonds that tie people together.
Interestingly enough, I see you served in the Honor Guard for
President Kennedy's funeral. I was in room 310 at Flint Central
High School teaching Latin when I got word of President
Kennedy's assassination, and it was that week that I determined
that I was going to run for public office, feeling that perhaps
I could touch even more people in that arena. So those dates
stand in both our memories in a very profound way.
Priscilla Little is the associate director of the Harvard
Family Research Project. She recently completed a summary of 10
years worth of research on after-school programs, which she
will discuss with us today.
Ms. Little serves on the advisory board of the Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory's National Partnership for
Quality Afterschool Learning, as well as other state after-
school boards, and speaks nationally on research and evaluation
of after-school programs. She holds degrees from Smith College
and Tufts University.
I now yield to the Ranking Member Governor Castle to
introduce Ms. Kough.
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will try to get through this introduction without
mentioning what the University of Delaware did to Navy, Admiral
Sestak, in this last football season just before that Notre
Dame game.
I would like to welcome Theresa Kough to today's hearing. I
have already talked about her a little bit. She is an education
associate in the Delaware Department of Education. She is
currently responsible for administering three major after-
school programs in Delaware, including 21st Century Community
Learning Centers, state Extra Time funding and Supplemental
Educational Services.
Before going with the Delaware Department of Education, she
was with Newcastle County Vocational School District, and her
work in score reform technology and the creation of a strong
library program brought her to the Delaware Department of
Education as the education associate responsible for school
library programming.
In 1999, Ms. Kough became the department's director of the
Technology, Management and Design workgroup, where she managed
the implementation of the statewide pupil accounting system and
the development of the department's data warehouse.
In her 30 years in education, Ms. Kough has always worked
with after-school programming because of her strong belief in
programming, which offers students and schools the opportunity
to pursue new and different approaches to learning.
Ms. Kough holds a Master's degree in library and
information systems from Drexel University, a Bachelor's in
Science degree from Shippensburg State University in elementary
education with a concentration reading and library science. She
has also pursued graduate work at the University of Pittsburgh
and the University of Pennsylvania.
Thank you, Ms. Kough, for being here today, and I look
forward to hearing your testimony on 21st Century Community
Learning Centers.
I yield back.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Governor.
Again, welcome to all our witnesses.
For those of you who have not testified before this
subcommittee before, I will explain our lighting system and the
5-minute rule.
Everyone, including members, is limited to 5 minutes of
presentation or questioning. The green light will be
illuminated when you begin to speak, and when you see the
yellow light, it means that you have one minute remaining. When
you see the red light, it means that your time has expired and
you need to conclude your testimony. There is no ejection seat,
however, so you can finish your paragraph, at least your
thought.
Please be certain, as you testify, to turn on and speak
into the microphone in front of you and turn it off when you
are finished.
We will now hear from our first witness, Ms. Gamble.
Ms. Gamble?
STATEMENT OF LADONNA GAMBLE, INTERIM PROJECT DIRECTOR, FLINT
COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, BRIDGES TO THE FUTURE
Ms. Gamble. Good morning. My name is LaDonna Gamble, and I
am interim project director for Bridges to the Future before-
and after-school program 21st Century Community Learning
Centers in Flint, Michigan.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. This is
a first for me, but it is easier because my congressman,
Representative Kildee, is here with us. Thank you for
supporting the after-school program.
I bring the perspective of someone who has seen after-
school work miracles from several vantage points. I experienced
it as a child growing up in Flint, which was the birthplace of
community education.
I have worked as a front-line staffer and administrator at
an after-school site, and now I administer Flint's 21st Century
Community Learning Centers program. I see the difference after-
school makes for children and families.
So I am here today to respond from the field to the
president's proposal to revamp the 21st Century Community
Learning Centers initiative into a voucher program, as well as
his proposed budget cut for after-school. I think both are very
bad ideas and that it would have a disastrous effect on after-
school programs in Flint, across Michigan and around the
nation.
More than that, they are bad ideas that distract us from
what we really need to do, which is to increase funding to get
it closer to the level authorized under the No Child Left
Behind Act, $2.5 billion.
Let me tell you a little bit about our program in Flint.
Bridges to the Future serves all of Genesee County, serving
more than 17,000 children from kindergarten through ninth
grade.
Countywide Bridges has 109 sites. I oversee Bridges'
program in Flint, which includes 32 elementary schools and
seven middle schools. On any given day, we have 4,000 children
attend in Flint.
We have two 21st Century Community Learning Centers grants
currently in Flint, one that supports five of our middle
schools and a second that funds five of our elementary schools.
There are two basic components to our daily program. First,
the students receive academic support, or what we call mind
time. It includes lessons that reinforce what they learn during
the school day, individual homework help and activities like
chess that build math skills. Second, students enjoy enrichment
activities, including visual arts, music, writing, choir and
more.
Our kids also get a healthy dose of science and technology.
We offer a terrific Legolab and robotics program in the middle
schools, courtesy of our 21st Century grant. The kids just love
it. This weekend our middle school sites will participate in a
science Olympiad competition at Mott Community College,
competing with children across the region. They are building
rockets and having so much fun preparing that they might not
even notice all the engineering and science learning they are
doing.
Of course, we also make sure the kids get physical activity
through sports, active play and more.
Our summer programs are funded by 21st Century monies, and
for the past 3 years, we have focused on fitness and nutrition.
In addition to providing our kids with a nutritious snack, many
of them rely on us for a healthy dinner.
Our two major funding sources are the C. S. Mott Foundation
grant to the United Way of Genesee County and a 21st Century
Community Learning Centers grant. We work to raise other funds
as well. But in Flint we don't have that many options. It is
not 1965, and the automotive industry isn't pouring money into
our economy anymore. We need our grants.
A recent third-party evaluation of the Bridges to the
Future program found that more than 90 percent of parents say
their children do better in school and learn new things as a
result of the program. They also felt that their children were
safer in Bridges.
If Congress adopts the president's budget cut, Michigan
could lose about $8 million, down from its current funding of
$37 million. On the ground that would mean about 8,000 children
would lose after-school.
In Michigan already there are many more grant applications
than the 21st Century funds can support. Between 2004 and 2006
the state could only fund 21 percent of the proposals it
received. That is a lot of unmet demand for after-school, and
cutting the budget would make matters worse.
In Flint we already have waiting lists. A cut would
exacerbate the problem, and a cut would harm our summer program
or perhaps even cause it to fold.
We are very grateful to the government and, particularly,
to Congress for what you have done to make after-school
programs available. Your after-school funding has created
opportunities for millions of children across the nation. I
thank you on behalf of those kids and families.
But also on their behalf, I urge you to reject the
president's unwise proposal, and more than that, I urge you to
remember that after-school pays incredible dividends today and
in the future.
So it is important that the president's proposal be
defeated, but it is also important that defeating it does not
distract from the important work of expanding after-school
activities for children and families nationwide by increasing
21st Century Community Learning Centers funding for next year.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Gamble follows:]
Prepared Statement of LaDonna Gamble, Interim Project Director, Bridges
to the Future Before and Afterschool Program's 21st Century Community
Learning Centers
Good morning. My name's LaDonna Gamble, and I'm the Interim Project
Director of the Bridges to the Future Before and Afterschool Program's
21st Century Community Learning Centers in Flint, Michigan.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. This is a
first for me, but it's a lot easier because my Congressman,
Representative Kildee is here today. It's good to see you, sir. Thank
you for your support for afterschool programs. It means so very much.
I bring today the perspective of someone who has seen afterschool
work its miracles from several vantage points. I've experienced it as a
child growing up in Flint, the birthplace of community education. I've
worked as a front line staffer and administrator at an afterschool
site, working with children. And now I administer Flint's 21st Century
Community Learning Centers programs. I see what a difference
afterschool makes in the lives of our children and their families. I
know how crucial it is.
So I'm here today to respond, as a voice from the field, to the
President's proposal to revamp the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers initiative into a voucher program, as well as to his proposed
budget cut for afterschool. I think both are very bad ideas that would
have a disastrous effect on afterschool programs in Flint, across
Michigan, and around the nation.
More than that, I think they're bad ideas that distract us from
doing what we need to do for the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers (21st CCLC) initiative, which is to increase funding to get it
closer to the level authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act--$2.5
billion.
Let me start by telling you about our program in Flint. The Bridges
to the Future program spans all of Genesee County, serving more than
17,000 children, from kindergarten through 9th grade. County-wide,
Bridges has 109 sites. I oversee the Bridges program in Flint, which
includes programs in 32 elementary schools and five middle schools. On
any given day, about 4,000 children attend Bridges programs in Flint.
Total enrollment is larger, but for various reasons (illness, family
matters, student choice, etc), perfect attendance is rare.
We have two separate 21st Century Community Learning Centers grants
in Flint, one that supports five of our seven middle school programs,
and a second grant that funds five of our elementary programs. We're
also very fortunate to have the support of the Charles Stewart Mott
Foundation, based in Flint, which, as you know, is a major supporter of
afterschool. They give a very significant grant to our community
partner, the United Way of Genesee County, which in turn supports the
Bridges program in Flint and county-wide.
Let me tell you what that funding supports. There are two basic
components to our daily program. First, students receive academic
support, or what we call ``mind time.'' And second is broad program of
enrichment activities.
``Mind time'' includes lessons reinforcing what students are
learning during the regular school day, as well as group and individual
help with homework. Mind Time can also include activities such as
chess, which some studies have shown builds students' math skills. We
coordinate with our school day staff to make sure we're on track with
their curriculum, and to try to shore up any weaknesses that the
teachers are seeing.
Our enrichment activities include a wide range of things, and many
of them involve our various community partners. Many of our activities
involve the arts, and we have an invaluable partner in the Flint
Cultural Center, which provides lessons and programs for our children
that introduce them to the visual arts, music, writing and more.
Our kids also get a healthy dose of science and technology. We
offer a terrific Lego Lab and robotics program in middle schools,
courtesy of our 21st CCLC grant. The kids just love it. It's pretty
popular with the adults, too, to tell the truth!
We conduct a number of activities that were once part of the
regular school day, but that between tight budgets and the focus on
state assessment tests, were discontinued. So we have a choir program,
and we train students for the spelling bee. This coming weekend, our
middle school sites will participate in a Science Olympiad Competition,
competing with children from across the county and the region. They are
building rockets. There will be a trebuchet competition--those are the
very large catapult-type devices that were the Peacekeeper Missiles of
the Middle Ages. It will be a remarkable event, so much fun for the
kids that they aren't even noticing all the engineering and science
learning they are doing to prepare!
Of course, we also make sure the kids run around, and get physical
activity through sports, active play and more. Our summer programs are
funded by 21st CCLC, and for the past three years we have had a much
needed focus on fitness and nutrition. In addition to providing our
kids with a nutritious snack in the afternoon, many of them also rely
on us for a healthy dinner after programming ends.
That's a very quick sketch of what we do. Our two major funding
sources are the C.S. Mott Foundation grant to the United Way of Genesee
County, and our 21st Century Community Learning Centers grants. We work
to raise other funds and in-kind donations as well. We do that program-
wide and also site-by-site, as individual afterschool sites engage with
local businesses and community organizations. But I want to make clear
that in Flint, we don't have all that many options. It's not 1965, and
the automotive industry isn't pouring money into our local economy
anymore. We need our grants.
So on the budget cut, I feel as if we've had this conversation
before. I think you all know that in 2003, the President proposed
cutting the 21st CCLC initiative back by 40 percent. The public
erupted. Parents, educators, business leaders, pretty much everybody
with a stake in our children's safety and education rose as one to
object. Members of Congress heard from their constituents and decided
to reject the President's unwise proposal.
Now it's back. The numbers are different, and it's got the
additional bad idea of a voucher program attached to it, but it's still
a very large, and entirely unjustified, budget cut.
The President's proposal is at odds with any number of independent,
scientific evaluations of afterschool programs. One very recent study
that you might have heard of is the ``Study of Promising Afterschool
Programs,'' by scholars Deborah Lowe Vandell and Kim Pierce of the
University of California at Irvine, and Elizabeth Reisner of Policy
Studies Associates. It showed that regular participation in high
quality programs led to significant gains in test scores and work
habits.
And believe me, that's just one of many, many studies that
demonstrate with hard numbers what I would guess is also intuitive for
all of us. If we spend time with kids, helping them with their studies,
giving them incentive to come to school, engaging them in relationships
with caring adults, making sure they're safe in the afternoons,
exposing them to new, horizon-expanding activities, getting them off
the couch and onto the playing field * * * if we do all those things,
good things happen for our kids. One of those good things is that they
do better in school. And a number of studies show other positive
impacts, including improved behavior, better fitness and less obesity,
and less stress on working parents--which makes them better employees,
and probably better parents!
So it's not by accident that you hear over and over again from
parents and educators that afterschool works. It keeps kids safe, it
inspires students to learn, and it helps working families. We say it
because it's what we see happening every day.
A recent third-party evaluation of the Bridges to the Future
program found that more than 90 percent of parents with kids in the
program say their children do better in school and learn new things as
a result of the program. They also overwhelmingly felt that their
children were safer in Bridges. So while we're always focused on
improving what we do, we know what we're doing is working.
Now, in Michigan, estimates are that the state would lose about $8
million in grant monies from this plan, down from its current funding
of $37 million. On the ground, that'd mean that more than 8,000
children would lose afterschool across the state. Nationwide, the
estimate is that more than a quarter million children would lose
afterschool. In Flint, we already have waiting lists of children
wanting to be in our afterschool programs. A cut would only exacerbate
the problem.
I should also point out that in Michigan, there are many more grant
applications submitted than can be funded by the 21st CCLC initiative.
Between 2004 and 2006, the state could fund only 21 percent of the
proposals it received. That's a lot of unmet demand for afterschool,
and cutting the budget would make matters worse. I can't imagine that
Michigan is unique in that respect. For example, from data gathered by
the Afterschool Alliance, we know that the parents of at least 15
million children say they'd enroll their kids in an afterschool program
if one were available to them.
Now, what would this cut mean for the children of Flint, Michigan?
It would depend, of course, on how Michigan decides to implement it,
but it could be a disaster. The proposed cut, if enacted by Congress,
would almost certainly mean that Michigan would make no new grants next
year. So while a fifth or more of the state's grants would expire, no
new grants or renewals would go out to replace them. Quite simply,
that'd mean fewer afterschool programs, fewer children safe, and fewer
families served.
The state might also elect to implement an across-the-board
cutback, or perhaps a cutback for some of the grantees--those in their
final year of multi-year grants, for example. That would hit us hard,
because our elementary school 21st CCLC grant enters its final year
this June. So conceivably, we could start the 2008-09 school year, and
then lose funding mid-stream. That'd be a disaster.
Our summer program for kids would also suffer, perhaps have to
fold. It's entirely dependent on our 21st CCLC grant.
None of those are good outcomes, and all of them cry out for
rejecting this proposal.
I want you to know that I'm very proud of the work we do at Bridges
to the Future. I'm proud that our community has recognized the
importance of afterschool in the lives of children and families. I'm
proud of the work we've done to create a vibrant afterschool program.
I'm proud of all the afterschool professionals who give their hearts,
their brains, their energy, and their perseverance to afterschool every
day. And I'm especially proud of our kids for taking part in programs
that mix fun with learning, and meeting the adults more than half way.
It's a remarkable thing to see it all come together.
And we're very grateful to the federal government and, particularly
to Members of Congress, for what you've done to make it possible.
Without the 21st CCLC initiative, it's hard to imagine that afterschool
would have grown as much as it has over the last 10 years. Your support
of afterschool funding has created opportunities for millions of
children across the nation. So I thank you on behalf of those kids and
their families.
But also on their behalf, I urge you to reject this unwise
proposal. And more than that, I urge you to make good on the letter and
intent of the No Child Left Behind Act where it concerns afterschool.
It mapped out a series of modest but steady increases in afterschool
funding through Fiscal Year 2007, none of which came to pass. For 2008,
you found funds for a modest increase, and believe me, parents and
families noticed and appreciated it. That was a terrific down-payment
on the expansion that is so critical to increasing and improving
afterschool opportunities from coast to coast.
So I ask you to stay on that path, by increasing funding this year
as well. I know you have competing priorities. But afterschool pays
such incredible dividends today and in the future, that I hope you'll
find space in the budget to increase funding.
And I ask you to remember that converting 21st Century Community
Learning Centers to a voucher program would completely undermine what
we're doing. It'd make funding precarious, because we wouldn't know
from semester to semester, maybe even month to month, what our funding
base would be. We're already struggling with uncertainty about funding.
A voucher plan would only make it worse.
Also, I'm not sure what it would accomplish. I presume the
Administration wants to involve more community organizations in
afterschool. But those organizations, including faith-based
organizations, are already partners in afterschool programs across the
nation.
Another problem it would create has to do with sustained
participation by children. Studies tell us that for afterschool to have
its best impact, sustained and regular attendance is key. I worry that
a voucher approach would work against that because it would encourage
children and families to drop in and out of programs, taking funding
with them.
In short, I think the voucher proposal is trying to solve a problem
that doesn't exist. And in fact, I think it would create problems by
destabilizing funding for existing programs, and undermining existing
community partnerships.
One other point I'd like to make very quickly on the voucher aspect
of the proposal is that it would make it exponentially more difficult
to get new afterschool programs off the ground. One of the very best
ways to launch a program is with a 21st CCLC grant. It gives programs a
multi-year funding base from the first day of the grant. There are
other funding sources, of course, but not everywhere and they're hard
to come by. They're especially hard to come by in Flint. And they're
incredibly scarce in rural communities. And of course, those difficult
economic realities also make afterschool all the more important to the
community. So I think that taking away the stability of the 21st CCLC
grant would drain much of the energy out of the afterschool movement.
It's already incredibly difficult to get an afterschool program off the
ground. The President's proposal would make it that much harder.
Along those same lines, we use our 21st CCLC grant to leverage
other funding sources. Conversion to a voucher program would take that
away from us, and hurt us in our pursuit of additional support. It
would also be nearly impossible to devise a sustainability plan for
afterschool programs, without knowing what kind of revenue to expect
from voucher students.
So both in terms of the cut, and in terms of the conversion to a
voucher program, it's important that the President's proposal be
defeated. But it's also important that defeating it not distract us
from the important work of expanding afterschool opportunities for
children and families across the nation.
Thank you very much.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Ms. Gamble.
Chief?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. CARROLL, CHIEF, WEST GOSHEN TOWNSHIP
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Carroll. Chairman Kildee, members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
My name is Michael Carroll. For 19 years I have been the
chief of police of West Goshen Township in Chester County,
Pennsylvania. I am currently the second vice president of the
International Associations of Chiefs of Police.
I am also a member of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, an
organization of over 3,500 police chiefs, prosecutors, sheriffs
and violence survivors dedicated to examining the research on
what works to keep kids from becoming criminals.
When violence occurs, punishment is important and
necessary, but we must also invest in prudent approaches that
keep at-risk kids from committing crimes in the first place.
The research and my experience in law enforcement shows that
quality after-school programs do just that.
When the school bell rings, millions of children and teens
head to the street with neither constructive activities nor
supervision by caring, responsible adults, and violent juvenile
crime soars. Research from across the country consistently
shows that on school days the hours from 3:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.
are also the peak hours when children are most likely to become
victims of crime, be in automobile accidents, smoke, drink
alcohol or use drugs.
Fortunately, quality after-school programs can cut crime
and transform the primetime for juvenile crime into hours of
academic achievement, constructive recreation and community
service.
For example, in a study conducted in several U.S. cities,
five housing projects with Boys and Girls Clubs were compared
to five without Boys and Girls Clubs. At the beginning, drug
activity and vandalism were the same, but by the time the study
ended, the project without the programs had 50 percent more
vandalism and scored 37 percent worse on drug activity.
An evaluation of an antigang Boys' and Girls' Club approach
found that the high-risk children and teens in these clubs
showed decreases in several gang and delinquent behaviors.
These youths also exhibited positive changes in their
engagement or achievement in school.
A study of the San Francisco Bayview Safe Haven after-
school program found that, among kids with prior histories of
arrest, those who did not participate in the programs were
twice as likely to be arrested during the 6-month initial
intervention period as program participants. Among kids with no
prior histories of arrest, those who did not participate were
three times as likely as participants to be arrested during the
same intervention period.
When we invest in what works, it has a big payoff.
Professor Mark A. Cohen of Vanderbilt University estimates that
for each high-risk youth prevented from adopting a life of
crime, the country saves up to $7 million.
Despite the clear evidence that quality after-school
programs can prevent crime and improve other youth outcomes,
there remains a dramatic shortage of after-school programs.
Fourteen million children are left unsupervised after school
each year. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2008 funding for this
program--just over $1 billion--is far below the $2.5 billion
authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act.
Given the inadequacy of current federal funding for after-
school programs, it was surprising and disturbing that the
administration recently proposed a deep cut of $300 million for
fiscal year 2009, a 27 percent cut. That is one out of every
four kids now served who would be out on the streets after
school. The proposed cut in funding for the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers program would result in 300,000
fewer kids served by the program.
Also troubling was a proposal that the program be
reconstituted from funding for the establishment and support of
quality after-school programs in high-need communities to
funding for payments for individual kids to pay for after-
school activities.
This proposal was troubling in two ways. Number one, it may
lead to kids being relegated to lower-quality programs; and,
two, without seed money to establish programs, many high-need
communities won't even have an after-school program so kids
will lose out on after-school opportunities altogether.
The proposed cut and restructuring are policy directions
that would result in fewer after-school opportunities for at-
risk youth and would make our communities and all of our
citizens more vulnerable to crime with all of crime's cost,
both financial and human.
Government's most fundamental responsibility is to protect
the public safety. I commend this subcommittee for drawing
attention to the need to reject the administration's proposal
to cut the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program by
$300 million, as well as its ill-advised proposal to voucherize
the program.
I urge Congress to, instead, substantially increase funding
to support and expand quality after-school programs that offer
kids constructive activities during the peak hours of juvenile
crime, with new designated funding for middle and high school
youths who now experience the greatest unmet need and are at
greatest risk of perpetrating or being victims of crime.
Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
[The statement of Mr. Carroll follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael J. Carroll, Chief of Police, West Goshen
Township Police Department
Chairman Kildee and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Michael Carroll and
I have served in various law enforcement positions in Chester County,
Pennsylvania for forty-one years. For nineteen years, I have been Chief
of West Goshen Township. I have previously served as President of the
Chester County Police Chiefs Association, the Police Chiefs Association
of Southeastern Pennsylvania, and the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police
Association and I am currently the 2nd Vice President of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police. I am also a member of
FIGHT CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS--an organization of over 3,500 police
chiefs, prosecutors, sheriffs and violence survivors dedicated to
examining the research on what makes kids more likely to commit
criminal offenses, and the most effective ways to ensure that, instead,
they are on the path toward lives of personal achievement and positive
community contributions.
When violence occurs, punishment is important and necessary. But we
must also invest in proven approaches that keep at-risk kids from
committing crimes in the first place. The research, and my experience
in law enforcement, show that quality afterschool programs do just
that.
When the school bell rings, millions of children and teens head to
the street with neither constructive activities nor supervision by
caring, responsible adults--and violent juvenile crime soars. Research
from across the country consistently shows that on school days, the
hours from 3 to 6 pm are also the peak hours when children are most
likely to become victims of crime, be in an automobile accident, smoke,
drink alcohol, or use drugs.
Fortunately, quality afterschool programs can cut crime and
transform the ``prime time for juvenile crime'' into hours of academic
enrichment, constructive recreation and community service. For example,
in a study conducted in several U.S. cities, five housing projects
without Boys & Girls Clubs were compared to five receiving new clubs.
At the beginning, drug activity and vandalism were the same. But by the
time the study ended, the projects without the programs had 50 percent
more vandalism and scored 37 percent worse on drug activity. More than
fifty years of research findings show Boys & Girls Clubs can
successfully reduce crime. A recent study showed that specially
designed anti-gang Boys & Girls Club programs can effectively recruit
and retain children who are at high risk of becoming involved in gangs,
and even youths who are already in gangs. The evaluation of the anti-
gang Boys & Girls Club programs found that the high-risk children and
teens in these clubs showed decreases in several gang and delinquent
behaviors. These youth also exhibited positive changes in their
engagement or achievement in school.
A study of San Francisco's Bayview Safe Haven afterschool program
found that, among kids with prior histories of arrest, those who did
not participate in the program were twice as likely to be arrested
during the six-month initial intervention period as program
participants. Among kids with no prior histories of arrest, those who
did not participate were three times more likely than participants to
be arrested during the same intervention period.
Unfortunately, not all out-of-school-time programs will produce
solid results. Quality matters. Turning children away from involvement
in crime takes well-designed programs with adequate numbers of caring,
well-trained staff. In addition, to have maximum crime-prevention
results, programs must target kids in the most at-risk areas as the
21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program does. When
we do invest in what works it has a big pay-off. Professor Mark A.
Cohen, of Vanderbilt University, estimates that for each high-risk
youth prevented from adopting a life of crime, the country saves up to
$7 million.
Despite the clear evidence that quality afterschool programs can
prevent crime and improve other youth outcomes, there remains a
dramatic shortage of after-school programs. Fourteen million children
are left unsupervised after school each year.
The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program is the federal
government's principal afterschool program investment. Unfortunately,
the program was reduced from $1 billion to $981 million in FY06, where
it remained for FY07. For FY08, Congress provided an additional $100
million in funding, for a total of just over $1 billion--still far
below the $2.5 billion authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act.
Given the inadequacy of current federal funding for afterschool
programs, it was surprising and disturbing that the Administration
recently proposed a deep cut of $300 million for FY09--a 27% cut.
That's one out of every four kids now served who would be out on the
streets after school. The proposed cut in funding for the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers program would result in 300,000 fewer kids
served by the program. Also troubling was a proposal that the program
be reconstituted--from funding for the establishment and support of
quality after school programs in high-need communities to funding for
payments for individual kids to pay for after-school activities. This
proposal is troubling in two ways: (1) it may lead to kids being
relegated to lower quality programs, and (2) without seed money to
establish programs, many high-need communities won't even have an
afterschool program, so kids will lose out on afterschool opportunities
altogether.
The proposed cut and restructuring are policy directions that would
result in fewer afterschool opportunities for at-risk youth, and would
make our communities and all our citizens more vulnerable to crime--
with all of crime's costs, both financial and human.
Instead, the No Child Left Behind Act reauthorization, now awaiting
action in this Committee, provides an opportunity to expand and
strengthen the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program.
Although these programs are available to all grade levels, elementary
school students are the group most frequently targeted for services by
the centers. About half of the centers serve elementary school students
exclusively, and at least two thirds of all centers serve some
elementary students. Only 20 percent of the centers exclusively target
middle school students and only 5 percent of centers exclusively target
high school students. We recommend that new, increased resources be
designated for after-school for at-risk middle and high school students
who now experience the greatest unmet need--and are at greatest risk of
perpetrating or being victims of crime.
Government's most fundamental responsibility is to protect the
public safety. I commend the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education for drawing
attention to the need to reject the Administration's proposal to cut
the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program by $300 million, as
well as its ill-advised proposal to voucherize the program. I urge
Congress to, instead, substantially increase funding to support and
expand afterschool programs that offer kids constructive activities
during the peak hours of juvenile crime. Thank you.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Chief Carroll.
Without objection, I will make a little comment on your
testimony, which I very much appreciated.
You mention the $2.5 billion authorization level, and most
of the members up here have heard me say this for many years,
but you raise a very good point.
An authorization really tells what we think should be
spent. An authorization is like a get-well card. If I have a
friend who is ill, I will send my friend a get-well card that
shows how I value my friend. What my friend really needs is the
Blue Cross card to pay the bills. And the president's Blue
Cross card has been quite short of the get-well card. And
Congress has always tried to add to that, but I think your
point is very well taken--$2.5 billion does show how the
Congress values this program, but we need to send that Blue
Cross card, so I appreciate your point, Chief, very much.
Ms. Little?
STATEMENT OF PRISCILLA LITTLE, HARVARD FAMILY RESEARCH PROJECT
Ms. Little. Thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony at this important hearing on after-school programs at
this critical juncture in their future.
My name is Priscilla Little, and I am the associate
director of the Harvard Family Research Project at the Harvard
Graduate School of Education.
I have spent the past 10 years of my work devoted to
building the knowledge base for after-school, compiling
literally hundreds of research and evaluation studies into a
national database and helping people understand what they are
telling us both about effective programming and how best to use
research for policy and practice.
I want to start with a very simple message: After-school
programs are a critical component of children's education and
development, and, in part thanks to the 21st Century grants
program, we have a good, solid evidence base on which to make
this claim.
The 21st Century grants program spawn new money, new
programs and new research and evaluation studies.
In addition to the studies conducted of 21st Century
programs directly, many other evaluations that I have tracked,
read and written about include programs which receive 21st
Century funding as one of many blended funding sources they
have used to leverage support. It is in this larger evidence
base on which I base my testimony today.
The studies I have chosen to illustrate my points all
employed rigorous research designs that involve either a
comparison or a control group, thus increasing the
generalizability of the findings.
Even though the 21st Century program began in the 20th
century, it was aptly named as a program that could support the
development of skills necessary for young people to support
America's effort to stay competitive in a 21st century global
economy.
Since its inception 10 years ago, we have learned a lot
about the enormous potential after-school programs have to
support a range of positive learning and developmental outcomes
that can help young people succeed in schools, in their
communities, in their jobs and in their future.
Participation in well-implemented after-school programs can
support academic achievement and school success. There is lots
of research that says that. For example, a statewide evaluation
of Louisiana's 21st Century programs indicates that
participants showed significant improvements over
nonparticipants on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, particularly
those who attended regularly.
Similarly, newly released findings from the promising
practices study included over 300 students participating in its
programs nationwide, including some funded by 21st Century, and
they found significant increases on standardized math scores.
But to succeed in a global competitive economy, young
people need to be equipped with a set of skills that go well
beyond the three R's. They need to become effective
communicators, know how to develop and sustain relationships,
solve problems and have a strong sense of self.
Turning to the research, there is solid evidence that 21st
Century and other after-school programs can do this. In a
recent meta-analysis of 73 after-school programs, researchers
found that participation in an after-school program could
significantly improve students' self-esteem.
In addition to cutting crime, participation in after-school
programs gets children and youth off the streets and under
supervision and potentially prevents some very risky behaviors,
such as drug and alcohol use and teen sex.
After-school programs are viewed as one of many places that
can tackle the growing problem of obesity among our nation's
children and youth. Startling new statistics reveal that by
2010 almost 50 percent of America's children will be obese,
and, furthermore, almost two-thirds of American children--my
children included--get little or no physical activity.
An after-school programs can contribute to healthy
lifestyles and increase knowledge about nutrition and exercise.
A study of 600 elementary school children found that obesity
prevalence was significantly lower among children who
participated in a citywide after-school initiative in the New
Haven public schools.
Now, do all after-school programs deliver on all these
outcomes? Of course, not. First, different programs target
different sets of skills, and it isn't appropriate to think one
program can do it all.
Second, we have learned a lot from the research about
specific factors that make a big difference in whether or not a
program can get these outcomes.
I am running short on time, so I am going to pick one that
I think is the most critical to 21st Century, and I refer you
to my written testimony.
Learning doesn't stop when the school bell rings.
Supporting learning throughout the day, throughout the year and
throughout a child's life requires partnership, and this is an
area where 21st Century programs are particularly strong. The
typical 21st Century program has six community partners who
contribute to the project by providing services and resources
not directly funded by the program itself. These partners help
improve quality, help engage children and youth through the
community, and help 21st Century programs leverage additional
resources for sustainability.
In closing, I want to reiterate that we know a lot about
what works for children and youth during the after-school
hours, and I want to underscore the importance of 21st Century
grants program as a core education and developmental support
for our nation's children. I encourage you to use the research
I have presented and written about to make informed decisions
about resource allocations and set reasonable expectations for
participation in 21st Century programs.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Little follows:]
Prepared Statement of Priscilla M. Little, Associate Director, Harvard
Family Research Project, on Behalf of Harvard Family Research Project
Chairman Kildee and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony at this important hearing on after
school programs. My name is Priscilla Little and I am the associate
director of the Harvard Family Research Project at the Harvard
University Graduate School of Education. I have spent the past ten
years of my work devoted to building the knowledge base for after
school, compiling literally hundreds of research and evaluation studies
into a national database and helping people understand what these
studies are telling us about effective programming and how best to use
research for policy and practice. I also sit on numerous evaluation
advisory boards, including the technical working group for the 21st
CCLC implementation study and the evaluation task force for the 21st
CCLC Profile and Performance Information Collection System (PPICs), the
monitoring and evaluation tool used by all 21st CCLC programs.
I want to start with a very simple message: After school programs
are a critical component of children's education and development and,
in part thanks to the 21st CCLC grants program, we have a good solid
evidence base to support this claim. The 21st CCLC grants program
spawned new money, new programs, and new research and evaluation
studies. In addition to the studies conducted of 21st CCLC programs
directly, many other evaluations that I have tracked, read, and written
about, like the TASC programs in New York and LAs BEST in Los Angeles
include programs which receive 21st CCLC funding as one of many blended
funding sources they have leveraged to support their work. And it is
this larger evidence base on which I base my testimony to you today.
The studies that I have chosen all employed rigorous research designs
that involved either a comparison or control group, thus increasing the
generalizability of the findings.
Even though the 21st CCLC program began in the 20th century, it was
aptly named as a program that could support the development of the
skills necessary for young people to support America's effort to stay
competitive in a 21st century global economy. Since its inception 10
years ago we have learned a lot about the enormous potential after
school programs have to support a range of positive learning and
developmental outcomes, outcomes that can help young people succeed in
school and in their community and prepare them for post secondary
success, including attending college, getting competitive wage jobs,
and being engaged community and family members.
Participation in well implemented after school programs can support
academic achievement and school success. It can result in: less
disciplinary action; lower dropout rates; better academic performance
in school, including better grades and test scores; greater on-time
promotion; improved homework completion; and improved work habits. For
example:
A statewide evaluation of Louisiana's 21st CCLC programs
revealed that participants showed significant improvements over
nonparticipants on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, particularly for
those students who attended the programs regularly.\1\
A two-year longitudinal Study of Promising After-School
Programs examined the effects of participation in quality after school
programs among almost 3,000 youth in 35 elementary and middle school
after school programs located in 14 cities and 8 states. New findings
from that study indicate that elementary and middle school students who
participated in high-quality after school programs, alone or in
combination with other activities, across two years demonstrated
significant gains in standardized math test scores, when compared to
their peers who were regularly unsupervised after school.
Further, regular participation in after school programs was
associated with improvements in work habits and task persistence.\2\ A
recent meta-analysis combined the results of 56 quasi-experimental and
experimental studies of after school programs for at-risk youth and
found that programs demonstrated positive effects on both reading and
math achievement.\3\
Evaluations of the school-based TASC programs in New York, which
emphasize academic enrichment, homework assistance, the arts, and
recreation, have demonstrated that participants outperform similar
nonparticipants on math test scores and high school Regents Examination
scores, as well as high school credits earned and school attendance
rates.\4\
Foundations, Inc. operates extended-day enrichment programs before
school, after school, and during the summer. Its evaluation of 19
elementary school after school programs in three states found highly
statistically significant improvements in both reading and math scores
between pretest and posttest.\5\
Many research studies that I have reviewed go on to say that the
most successful programs are ones that foster engagement in learning as
a precursor to getting good academic results. For example:
Evaluations of Citizen Schools, which provides hands-on
apprenticeships, academic skill-building activities, leadership skills
development, and homework help found that participants outperformed
comparable nonparticipants on many measures of academic success, such
as selecting higher quality high schools, school attendance, promotion
rates, lower suspension rates, and some measures of grades and test
scores.\6\
In addition to focused academic content, the TASC
evaluation revealed that including a broad variety of enrichment
activities, in addition to activities devoted to developing skill
building and mastery, was one of the primary common features of high-
performing programs.\7\
A review of academic achievement programs conducted by
Child Trends, as well as first year findings from an evaluation of 550
out-of-school time programs sponsored by New York City's Department of
Youth and Community Development (DYCD), conclude that developing a
highly focused academic component aligned with academic goals may be
important for producing good outcomes. However, an all-encompassing and
exclusive focus on academics may be detrimental. In other words, the
more multifaceted after school programs are likely to reap the biggest
academic gains.\8\
A meta-analysis of 93 studies of summer school programs
found that they led to increases in participants' knowledge and skills.
In particular, programs aimed at remediation of learning deficiencies
and programs focused on learning acceleration both produced positive
impacts on youth's knowledge and skills.\9\
It is important to note that the common thread among all these
studies is not just that the programs intentionally tried to improve
academic performance and therefore offered academic support, but that
they combined it with other enrichment activities to achieve positive
academic outcomes, and this is what many 21st CCLC programs strive to
do. Extra time for academics by itself may be necessary but may not be
sufficient to improve academic outcomes. Balancing academic support
with a variety of engaging, fun, and structured extracurricular or
cocurricular activities that promote youth development in a variety of
real-world contexts appears to support and improve academic
performance.
But to succeed in a competitive global economy young people need to
be equipped with a set of skills that goes beyond the 3 R's * * * they
need to become effective communicators, know how to develop and sustain
relationships, solve problems, and have a strong sense of self. Turning
to the research there is solid evidence that 21st CCLC and other after
school programs can support a range of behavioral outcomes including:
social and communication skills; relationships with others; self-
confidence; development of initiative; and feelings and attitudes
toward self and school. For example:
A random-assignment evaluation of the Go Grrrls program in
Arizona, which provides girls with structured group sessions built
around tasks considered critical for the healthy psychosocial
development of early adolescent girls in contemporary society, found
that the program improved girls' body image, assertiveness, self-
efficacy, self-liking, and competence.\10\
The Siblings of Children With Developmental Disabilities
After School Support Program, which combines group discussion,
structured and unstructured recreation, and homework help, found
positive impact on participants in outcome areas like lower depression,
lower anxiety, and increased self-esteem.\11\
Evaluations of mentoring programs also reveal that
participation in programs primarily targeted at supporting student
academic performance actually can significantly impact social/emotional
development. For example, Across Ages pairs older mentors (age 55 and
older) with middle school youth in and out of school, and teams the
mentoring component with community service, a life skills curriculum,
and family activities. An evaluation of Across Ages revealed that youth
in the mentor group reported significantly higher self-control and
self-confidence levels than youth who participated in other components
but not mentoring.\12\
In addition to these individual studies, a recent meta-
analysis of over 70 after school programs that attempted to promote
personal and social skills found that across studies, after school
programs could improve youth self-esteem and self-confidence,
particularly in programs with a strong intentional focus on improving
social and personal skills.\13\ This is a particularly important
finding: It speaks to the need for strong program design with an
intentional focus on the desired outcomes, regardless of what those
outcomes might be.
The hours from 3 to 6 p.m. present several potential hazards to a
young person's development. These are the hours associated with the
peak time for juvenile crime and juvenile victimization and the hours
when teens ages 16--17 are most likely to be in or cause a car crash.
Furthermore, based on a survey of 2,000 high school students that
looked at the relationship between after school supervision and sexual
activity, the American Academy of Pediatrics found that 56% of youth
surveyed reported being home for 4 or more hours unsupervised after
school. Youth who were unsupervised for 30 or more hours per week were
more likely to be sexually active than those who were left alone for 5
hours a week or less. In addition, those left unsupervised for more
than 5 hours per week had more sexually transmitted diseases,
particularly among boys.
Participation in after school programs gets children and youth off
the streets and under supervision and potentially prevents some risky
behaviors. Beyond a safe haven, research and evaluation studies have
also demonstrated the positive impact of participation in after school
programs on a range of prevention outcomes including: avoidance of drug
and alcohol use, avoidance of sexual behaviors, and reduction in
juvenile violence. For example:
The Children's Aid Society Carrera Adolescent Pregnancy
Prevention Program showed positive impacts on reducing pregnancies,
teen sex, and boys' marijuana usage.\14\
Girls Inc.'s Friendly PEERsuasion program, which provides
girls with a structured curriculum of fun activities focused on
preventing substance use, found that participants showed positive
benefits on outcomes such as delaying the onset of alcohol use and
avoiding situations where alcohol was present.\15\
Project Venture, which provides skill-building, community
service, and leadership opportunities and outdoor experiential learning
activities, reduced youth's increasing substance use over time.\16\
A longitudinal study of the effect of participation in
LA's BEST programs on juvenile crime tracked students from 1994 through
2003. It compared LA's BEST participants to two matched groups of
students who either attended LA's BEST schools but not LA's BEST
programs, or attended schools that did not have an LA's BEST program.
Results indicate that participation in LA's BEST was significantly
related to lower incidences of juvenile crime. Researchers estimate
that this translates into an average savings to society of $2.50 for
every dollar invested in the program.\17\ While participation rates
were a key factor in crime reduction (see discussion of participation
below), this is powerful evidence of the potential long-term effects of
and benefits to society from after school programs.
Finally, after school programs are viewed as one of many places
that can tackle the growing problem of obesity among our nation's
children and youth. Startling new statistics reveal that, by 2010,
almost 50% of America's children will be obese; furthermore, almost two
thirds of American children get little or no physical activity. Can
after school programs promise to reduce body mass index (the common
measure for obesity)? Probably not, although some evaluations have
demonstrated improvements on this measure. Similar to impact on
academic achievement test scores, it takes more than a few hours a week
of after school participation to move the needle on significant markers
of change. But after school programs can contribute to healthy
lifestyles and increased knowledge about nutrition and exercise.
An experimental study of the Girlfriends for KEEPS program
in Minnesota, which includes fun skill-building activities and physical
activity, showed benefits to girls' intentions to maintain healthy
behaviors, knowledge about proper diet practices, and preferences for
physical activity.\18\
The experimental study of the Cooke Middle School After
School Recreation Program found increases in participants' time spent
on strength training activities.\19\
The experimental study of the Medical College of Georgia's
FitKid program, which combines academic enrichment, healthy snacks, and
physical activity, found that participants benefited from the program
in terms of their percentage of body fat and cardiovascular
fitness.\20\ The Yale Study of Children's After School Time, a
longitudinal study of over 650 youth at 25 after school programs in
Connecticut, found that youth who participated in after school programs
were more likely than nonparticipants to experience reductions in
obesity, after accounting for a variety of differences between
participants and nonparticipants. This was true even after controlling
for youth's initial BMI status at the beginning of the study, as well
as demographic factors like poverty, race, and ethnicity.\21\
Now, do all after school programs deliver on all these outcomes? Of
course not. First, different programs target different sets of skills
and it isn't appropriate to think one program can do it all. Second, we
have learned a lot from the research about specific factors that make a
big difference in whether or not a program can get these outcomes, and
these map onto some key aspects of the 21st CCLC programs.
First, the research I have conducted underscores a consistent
pattern of winners and losers when it comes to access to after school
opportunities, with middle and upper income children and youth getting
access to and taking more advantage of enrichment outside of
school.\22\ Specifically, children and youth whose families have higher
incomes and more education:
are more likely to participate in after school activities.
do so with greater frequency during the week.
participate in a greater number of different activities
within a week or a month
are more likely to participate in enrichment programs,
while their disadvantaged peers are more likely to participate in
tutoring programs, thus not reaping the benefits associated with
enrichment experiences.
These findings are particularly troublesome given the many studies
and research syntheses--such as those from Child Trends, American Youth
Policy Forum, and Harvard Family Research Project--which conclude that
youth experience greater gains across a wide variety of outcomes if
they participate with greater frequency (more days per week) in a more
sustained manner (over a number of years).\23\
21sT CCLC investments help level the playing field by targeting low
income and poorly performing schools to ensure that all children and
youth have access to programs, not just those who can afford them.
Second, as I said above, sustained and frequent participation in
programs is important in getting good outcomes. The latest 21st CCLC
PPICS data indicates that more mature programs are more likely to be
able to deliver on quality (Learning Points Associates, 2007), which
gets students participating more frequently, with higher levels of
engagement, which then helps them reap maximum benefit from the
participation. Other research studies confirm this.
Following up on students with long-term involvement (at least four
years) in the LA's BEST program revealed that greater participation was
significantly related to positive achievement on standardized tests of
mathematics, reading, and language arts, when the influence of gender,
ethnicity, income, and language status was controlled for.\24\
Teach Baltimore is a summer academic program that proactively
addresses the problem of summer learning loss by helping students
develop and practice literacy skills over the summer vacation in a safe
and fun environment. A randomized three-year field trial explored the
effects of a multiyear summer school program in preventing summer
learning losses and promoting longitudinal achievement growth. The
total treatment group included 438 students from high-poverty schools.
Results from the study indicate that students who participated at high
levels for at least two of the three summers demonstrated statistically
significant effects on learning across all three literacy domains that
were tested.\25\
These findings underscore the importance of programs being able to
count on sustainable, multi-year funding that enables them the maturity
to get good results.
Third, many new research studies indicate that program quality is
inextricably tied to student outcomes, with low quality programming
actually doing harm in terms of supporting students' development\26\
(Vandell, Shumow, and Posner, 2005). Emerging research on after school
program quality and its relationship to outcomes indicates that quality
after school programs must do more than just ensure effective
management practices and provide adequate physical and psychological
safety. Quality after school programs also share the following
features: appropriate supervision and structure, well-prepared staff;
intentional programming with opportunities for autonomy and choice, and
strong partnerships among the various settings in which program
participants spend their day--schools, after school programs, and
families.
Unlike research on outcomes, research on after school program
quality is largely descriptive, with only a handful of rigorously
designed studies. Evidence regarding the characteristics of program
quality is largely dependent on correlational studies and expert
opinion. However, a small but powerful set of studies provides an
emerging picture of some of the key elements of after school program
quality and how they affect a range of developmental outcomes.
One of the primary conclusions of the Study of Promising
After-School Programs was that children and youth benefit from an array
of after school experiences which include quality after school programs
as well as other structured school and community based activities
supervised by adults. Specifically, researchers found that, in
comparison to a less-supervised group, school-age children who
frequently attended high-quality after school programs, alone and in
combination with other supervised activities,\27\ displayed better work
habits, task persistence, social skills, prosocial behaviors, and
academic performance, and less aggressive behavior at the end of the
school year.\28\
In a similar vein, both a comparative case study of two
urban after school programs and the Maryland Afterschool Community
Grants Program evaluation found that low-quality programs had staff who
engaged in very negative and punitive interactions with youth rather
than engaging in supportive behavior and practicing positive behavior
management techniques.\29\
In their meta-analysis of 73 after school programs'
impacts, Durlak and Weisberg found that positive impacts on academic,
prevention, and developmental outcomes were concentrated in the
programs that utilized strategies characterized as sequenced (using a
sequenced set of activities designed to achieve skill development
objectives), active (using active forms of learning to help youth
develop skills), focused (program components devoted to developing
personal or social skills), and explicit (targeting of specific
personal or social skills). Moreover, the researchers found that, as a
group, programs missing any of these four characteristics did not
achieve positive results. These findings point to the importance of
targeting specific goals, and designing activities around those goals
intentionally.\30\
21st CCLC programs are particularly well-poised to deliver quality
programming. 21st CCLC is an extremely competitive program which means
that only the best, well-implemented programs receive funding. Also
related to quality, there is a 3 percent set-aside for states to use
for training, technical assistance, and evaluation and State Education
Agencies use this to provide ongoing training and technical assistance
on resources and tools to promote quality implementation and staff
development.
Finally, we all know that learning doesn't stop when the school
bell rings. Supporting learning throughout the day, throughout the
year, and throughout a child's life requires partnerships. Programs are
more likely to exhibit high quality when they effectively develop,
utilize, and leverage partnerships with a variety of stakeholders like
families, schools, and communities. A few research examples illustrate
my point:
A review of over 20 years of research on Boys & Girls
Clubs found that programs benefited from partnerships with schools,
probation and police officers, and community-based providers by gaining
referrals and access to information on youth, such as school records.
Strong partnerships can also provide programs with important resources,
such as information, in-kind resources, and other sources of support
that can make individual programs become more efficient in
accomplishing their goals of benefiting youth.\31\
In the Massachusetts Afterschool Research Study,
researchers found that programs with stronger relationships with school
teachers and principals were more successful at improving youth's
homework completion, homework effort, positive behavior, and
initiative. This may be because positive relationships with schools can
foster high-quality, engaging, and challenging activities and can also
promote staff engagement.\32\
Developing partnerships is an area where 21st CCLC programs are
strong. The typical 21st CCLC program has six community partners who
contribute to the project by providing services and resources not
directly funded by the program itself. These partners serve to improve
program quality, help engage children and youth throughout the
community, and help 21st CCLC programs leverage additional resources
for sustainability
In closing, I want to reiterate that we know a lot about what works
for children and youth during the after school hours and underscore the
importance of the 21st CCLC grants program as a core educational and
developmental support for our nation's children. I encourage you to use
the research I have presented to make informed decisions about resource
allocations, and set reasonable expectations for participation in 21st
CCLC programs.
Thank you. Priscilla M. Little
endnotes
\1\ Jenner, E. J., & Jenner, L. W. (2004). Academic outcomes in
Louisiana's 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Baton Rouge, LA:
Policy & Research Group.
\2\ Vandell, D., Reisner, E., & Pierce, K. (2007). Outcomes linked
to high-quality afterschool programs: Longitudinal findings from the
study of promising practices. Irvine, CA: University of California and
Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. Available at http://
www.gse.uci.edu/docs/PASP%20Final%20Report.pdf.
\3\ Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S.,
Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. L. (2006). Out-ofschool time programs: A
meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational
Research, 76, 275--313.
\4\ Reisner, E. R., White, R. N., Birmingham, J., & Welsh, M.
(2001). Building quality and supporting expansion of After-School
Projects: Evaluation results from the TASC After-School Program's
second year. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates; White, R. N.,
Reisner, E. R., Welsh, M., & Russell, C. (2001). Patterns of student-
level change linked to TASC participation, based on TASC projects in
Year 2. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.
\5\ Klein, S. P., & Bolus, R. (2002). Improvements in math and
reading scores of students who did and did not participate in the
Foundations After School Enrichment Program during the 2001--2002
school year. Santa Monica, CA: Gansk & Associates.
\6\ Espino, J., Fabiano, L., & Pearson, L. M. (with Kirkwood K. P.,
Afolabi, K., & Pasatta, K.). (2004). Citizen Schools: Evidence from two
student cohorts on the use of community resources to promote youth
development. Phase II report of the Citizen Schools evaluation.
Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates; Fabiano, L., Pearson, L. M.,
& Williams, I. J. (2005). Putting students on a pathway to academic and
social success: Phase III findings of the Citizen Schools evaluation.
Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates; Fabiano, L., Pearson, L. M.,
Reisner, E. R., & Williams, I. J. (2006). Preparing students in the
middle grades to succeed in high school: Findings from Phase IV of the
Citizen Schools evaluation. Washington, D.C.: Policy Studies
Associates. Available at http://www.policystudies.com/studies/youth/
Citizen%20Schools%20Phase%20IV%20Final%20Report--12-26-06.pdf.
\7\ Birmingham, J., Pechman, E. M., Russell, C. A., & Mielke, M.
(2005). Shared features of high-performing after-school programs: A
follow-up to the TASC evaluation. Washington, DC: Policy Studies
Associates.
\8\ Redd, Z., Cochran, S., Hair, E., & Moore, K. (2002). Academic
Achievement Programs and Youth Development: A Synthesis. Washington DC:
Child Trends; Russell, C. A., Reisner, E. R., Pearson, L. M., Afolabi,
K. P., Miller, T. D., & Mielke, M. B. (2006). Evaluation of DYCD's Out-
of-School Time Initiative: Report on the first year. Washington, DC:
Policy Studies Associates. Available at http://www.policystudies.com/
studies/youth/OST.html.
\9\ Cooper, H., Charlton, K., Valentine, J. C., & Muhlenbruck, L.
(2000). Making the most of summer school: A meta-analytic and narrative
review. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
65(1), 1--118.
\10\ LeCroy, C. W. (2003). Experimental evaluation of ``Go
Grrrls.'' Tucson, AZ: Author.
\11\ Phillips, R. S. C. (1999). Intervention with siblings of
children with developmental disabilities from economically
disadvantaged families. Families in Society: The Journal of
Contemporary Human Services, 80(6), 569--577.
\12\ Taylor, A., LoSciuto, L., Fox, M., & Hilbert, S. (1999). The
mentoring factor: An evaluation of Across Ages. Intergenerational
program research: Understanding what we have created. Binghamton, NY:
Haworth.
\13\ Durlak, R., & Weissberg, R. (2007). The Impact of After-School
Programs That Promote Personal and Social Skills. Chicago: CASEL.
\14\ Philliber, S., Kaye, J. W., & Herrling, S. (2001, May). The
national evaluation of the Children's Aid Society Carrera-Model Program
to prevent teen pregnancy. Accord, NY: Philliber Research Associates.
Available at http://www.childrensaidsociety.org/media/general/cas-
Teen--Pregnancy--Prevention.pdf; Philliber, S., Kaye, J. W., Herrling,
S., & West, E. (2002). Preventing pregnancy and improving health care
access among teenagers: An evaluation of the Children's Aid Society--
Carrera Model. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 34(5),
244--251. Available at http://www.agiusa.org/pubs/journals/3424402.pdf.
\15\ Weiss, F. L., & Nicholson, H. J. (1998). Friendly PEERsuasion
against substance use: The Girls Incorporated model and evaluation.
Drugs & Society, 12(1/2), 7--22.
\16\ Carter, S. L., Straits, K. J. E., & Hall, M. (2006, November).
Project Venture: Evaluation of a positive, culture-based approach to
substance abuse prevention with American Indian youth. Paper presented
at the Symposium for Experiential Education Research, St. Paul, MN.
\17\ As described in Goldschmidt, P., Huang, D., & Chinen, M.
(2007). The long-term effects of after-school programming on
educational adjustment and juvenile crime: A study of the LA's BEST
after-school program. Los Angeles: UCLA/CRESST. Available at http://
www.lasbest.org/resourcecenter/LASBEST--DOJ--Study--Brief.pdf.
\18\ Story, M., Sherwood, N. E., Himes, J. H., Davis, M., Jacobs,
Jr., D. R., Cartwright, Y., et al. (2003). An after-school obesity
prevention program for African-American girls: The Minnesota GEMS Pilot
Study [Supplement 1]. Ethnicity & Disease, 13(1), 54--64.
\19\ Lauver, S. C. (2002). Assessing the benefits of an after-
school program for urban youth: An impact and process evaluation.
Philadelphia: Author.
\20\ Yin, Z., Gutin, B., Johnson, M., Hanes, J., Jr., Moore, J. B.,
Cavnar, M., et al. (2005). An environmental approach to obesity
prevention in children: Medical College of Georgia FitKid Project year
1 results. Obesity Research, 13, 2153--2161.
\21\ Mahoney, J. L., Lord, H., & Carryl, E. (2005). Afterschool
program participation and the development of child obesity and peer
acceptance. Applied Developmental Science, 9(4), 202--215. Available at
http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s1532480xads0904--3.
\22\ This information is based on research conducted by Harvard
Family Research Project on the contextual predictors of participation
in out-of-school time. For a complete description of the study and its
methodology, visit the HFRP website at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/
projects/ost--participation.html
\23\ Redd, Cochran, Hair, & Moore, 2002; American Youth Policy
Forum. (2006). Helping youth succeed through out-of-school time
programs. Washington, DC: Author; Simpkins-Chaput, S., Little, P. M.
D., & Weiss, H. B. (2004). Understanding and measuring attendance in
out-of-school time programs. Issues and Opportunities in Out-of-School
Time Evaluation Brief No. 7. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research
Project; Chaskin, R. J., & Baker, S. (2006). Negotiating among
opportunity and constraint: The participation of young people in out-
of-school-time activities. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children;
Moore, K., & Zaff, J. F. (2002). Building a better teenager.
Washington, DC: Child Trends.
\24\ Huang et al., 2007.
\25\ Borman, G., Dowling, N., Fairchild, R., Boulay, M., & Kaplan,
J. (2006). The longitudinal achievement effects of multi-year summer
school: Evidence from the Teach Baltimore Randomized Field Trial.
Baltimore: Center for Summer Learning.
\26\ Vandell, D. L., Shumow, L., & Posner, J. (2005). After-school
programs for low-income children: Differences in program quality. In J.
Mahoney, J. Eccles, & R. Larson (Eds.), Organized activities as
contexts for development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and
community programs (pp. 437--456). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
\27\ Programs were rated using the Promising Practices Rating Scale
which assesses eight processes: 1) supportive relations with adults, 2)
supportive relations with peers, 3) student engagement in activities,
4) opportunities for cognitive growth, 5) mastery orientation, 6)
appropriate program structure, 7) setting chaos, and 8) staff
overcontrol.
\28\ Vandell et al., 2006.
\29\ Vandell, D. L., Shumow, L., & Posner, J. (2005). After-school
programs for low-income children: Differences in program quality. In J.
Mahoney, J. Eccles, & R. Larson (Eds.), Organized activities as
contexts for development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and
community programs (pp. 437--456). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; Gerstenblith,
S., Soule, D., Gottfredson, D., Lu, S., Kellstrom, M., Womer, S., et
al. (2005). After-school programs, antisocial behavior, and positive
youth development: An exploration of the relationship between program
implementation and changes in youth behavior. In J. Mahoney, J. Eccles,
& R. Larson (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts for development:
Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs (pp.
457--477). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
\30\ Durlak & Weissberg, 2007.
\31\ Arbreton, A. J. A., Sheldon, J., & Herrera, C. (2005). Beyond
safe havens: A synthesis of research on the Boys & Girls Clubs.
Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.
\32\ Intercultural Center for Research in Education & National
Institute on Out-of-School Time, 2005.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Ms. Little.
Ms. Kough?
STATEMENT OF THERESA KOUGH, EDUCATION ASSOCIATE, DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Ms. Kough. Hello. My name is Theresa Vendrzyk Kough, and I
am the Delaware Department of Education's director for after-
school programs.
My testimony is going to take a bit of a different tactic
than my other witnesses because I really think the power of
21st Century programs is a partnership that is being built up
between schools and community-based organizations, and in my
presentation I want to highlight the steps we take at the state
education department to assure that academics are a part of
21st Century.
In Delaware we view the 21st Century grant program as a
tool to provide low-income and low-achieving students with rich
learning experiences, which will impact academic achievement.
One of the things we do is we provide technical assistance
to potential grantees, and these technical assistance meetings
are held before a competition. In the first technical
assistance meeting, we discuss the 21st Century program, its
goals and stress the importance of creating a strong
partnership between a school and another agency and the
importance of imbedding academic content within enrichment
activity.
In our second technical assistance meetings with potential
grantees, we discuss the request for proposal and the use of
JADA in forming a measuring grant goal.
Then we try to select high-quality proposals. We provide
training for our review team on the 21st Century program and
goals and the importance, again, of funding programs that are
going to be a strong relationship between schools and
partnering agency.
Then we have a site-visit component. If you are lucky
enough to get a grant, you get a visit from Teresita Cuevas,
who is our technical assistance coordinator. And Teresita also
works with all of our site monitors and provides professional
development for our grantees. And in her initial visit, she
will review with the grantee what we are expecting of them, she
will explain how we are going to monitor with the tools and
explain the site-visit process.
Our sites are visited at least twice a year--fall and
spring--and once in the summer if you have a summer program.
Each visit is a 3-hour minimum, and in addition to checking on
things like safety, enrollment, we also monitor for lesson
plans, we monitor for communication between the after-school
program and the regular school program and the academic content
being seen in the activities that the students are
participating in.
After we do that, a site report is issued to the main grant
contact, the site coordinators and the school principal. We
give the site report to the principals who have students in the
after-school program. We have been doing this for about a year
and a half, and the principals have been very positive about
the feedback that they receive. A site report, too, can result
in another visit from either Teresita or myself depending on
what we see.
Our final step in assuring quality in 21st Century
programs, is our continuation application. Each year grantees
must complete a continuation application and provide evidence
on measurable goals, which include academic outcome. Failure to
reach goals may result in a reduced funding, and our grantees
have gotten very good at looking at where they want to be with
their program.
Our next step--this year what is happening in Delaware,
Delaware has a unique student identifier, and so we are quite
lucky with that. And this year what we are doing is all
participating schools must tag the students receiving 21st
Century services in our eSchoolPlus system, which is our
statewide people accounting system.
That tagging of students is going to allow us to populate a
supplement education data cube within our warehouse. The data
cube was created by a genius we have working for us, Dr. Qi
Tao, and what Tawny and I are trying to do is look at for the
first time what is happening to students across programs, not
just in one out-of-school situation. And so the data in this
cube will be for Extra Time, Supplemental Education Services
and the 21st Century. We hope to add to the growing research
base that Priscilla is working on so hard.
In conclusion, the strength of the current 21st Century
program lies in the partnerships being created between schools
and community-based organizations. The programs being created
are stronger than either schools or community agencies could
provide on their own, and a change in this funding, in my
opinion, will have a negative effect on the quality and number
of after-school programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The statement of Ms. Kough follows:]
Prepared Statement of Theresa Vendrzyk Kough, Education Associate,
Delaware Department of Education, After School Programs
As Delaware's Department of Education (DDOE) After School Program
co-coordinator, I am honored to present testimony about the work we are
doing in Delaware's 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC). My
testimony describes DDOE's current monitoring initiative, our approach
to accountability, and plans for continued improvement of our CCLC
program.
As the 21st CCLC state program officer, I take very seriously the
monitoring, funding, and continuous improvement of our 25 programs
operating in 55 sites throughout the state. The DDOE views the 21st
CCLC grant program as a tool to provide students with rich learning
experiences that will directly affect their academic achievement. DDOE
is working hard with its 21st CCLC centers to ensure that center
personnel are addressing its program goals of improving students'
performance on statewide assessments and offering services designed to
reinforce and complement traditional academic programs.
DDOE's Current Monitoring Initiative
Grantees' Applications for Funding.
The first step in developing centers that can meet our program
goals is helping grantees understand how to respond to a DDOE-issued
Request for Proposal (RFP). Delaware's grantees include school
districts, institutions of higher learning, and both local and
nationally affiliated community based organizations. It is important
that they realize, from the beginning of the grant process, that the
DDOE will hold them accountable for the objectives they outline in
their initial responses to an RFP.
We help potential grantees apply for funding through technical
assistance meetings, at least two of which occur prior to the release
date of a new RFP. In particular, we provide instruction on the
creation of goals and outcome statements, since a potential grantee
must provide concrete goals, objectives, and milestones for a proposed
program in the initial request for funding. We also include examples,
such as the following taken from a current RFP:
Goals, objectives and milestones are all outcomes. Your proposal
should identify these three kinds of outcomes. Outcomes themselves are
statements that tell how the project's target population would improve.
Every outcome should describe a change in a target population. In
addition, they set standards of progress towards alleviating the
problems identified in the needs assessment. Statements that describe
strategies or management issues are not proper outcome statements.''
An example of an outcome statement containing all the above
elements:
By June 2008, 70% of eighth graders in the two participating middle
school sites who scored a 1 or 2 on the DSTP in the fifth grade will
achieve a rating of 3 or more on the DSTP reading examination, a 20%
increase over current levels.
In addition, we encourage grantees to include local baseline data
when constructing objectives for their programs and to use both local
and state testing data as evidence of success.
Selecting High-Quality Proposals.
An independent panel comprised of persons with experience in such
areas as out-of-school programs, reading/language arts, mathematics,
and strategies to improve the success of at-risk students or schools,
reviews each response to a new 21st CCLC proposal. The review panel
attends a training session prior to reviewing the applications, which
emphasizes the importance of funding programs that represent strong
relationships between schools and their partnering agencies that will
help participating students succeed.
Monitoring Program Performance.
Site visits. DDOE, through a contract with the University of
Delaware, continues to monitor and provide technical assistance to
grantees after the initial grant award. This process begins with a
visit by a technical assistance coordinator who outlines the grantees'
responsibilities, such as the creation of a sustainability plan,
compliance with the Office of Child Care Licensing regulations, site-
monitoring schedules, data collection and required attendance at 21st
CCLC professional development sessions.
Next site monitors, retired teachers with a broad base of
experience and who receive training on the 21st CCLC program, make
periodic site visits. Monitors visit all 21st CCLC sites operating a
school-year program twice a year and those operating a school-year-
plus-summer program three times per year. At least one visit is
unannounced. Each monitor spends a minimum of three hours at each site
and writes a report documenting the site visit, which is sent to the
grant contact, principals of participating school, and site
coordinators. In these three hours, monitors review enrollment numbers,
overall safety, check-in and dismissal procedures, as well as document
evidence of communication with participating students' teachers,
evidence of lesson planning and embedded academic activities within
recreational pursuits. For example, at a current site that offers
cooking lessons, the monitor looks for evidence that the program
includes information on fractions. The technical assistance coordinator
and I as state program director both review all site visit reports.
They request clarification and/or a meeting with appropriate site
personnel to resolve any problems noted in the report. Feedback,
especially from school principals on the site-visit review process, has
been positive. This process, which has evolved over the last several
years, helps ensure that after-school and regular school activities are
in alignment.
Assessment Tools. Beginning this year, as part of our continued
effort to build quality after-school programs, we require that grantees
use a Self Assessment and Continuous Improvement tool which was adapted
from the North Carolina Center for Afterschool Programs Established
Standards of Excellence Self-Assessment Tool: K-12. This self-
assessment tool groups the following eleven (11) characteristics, into
four (4) key categories that are indicative of high-quality after-
school programming:
Program Management and Delivery
Safe, Healthy, and Orderly Environment
Qualified and Diverse Staff
Opportunities to Learn in Diverse Environments
Program Connections
Positive Participant and Staff Interactions
Active Family and Community Partnerships
Consistent Participant Attendance
Program Participants
Greater Personal Responsibility
Improved Academics Achievement
Greater Creativity and Well-Being
Program Finance and Growth
Fiscal Planning and Management
Sustainability
Guidelines in the self-assessment tool help both new and
experienced grantees plan and appraise their progress in providing the
best programs possible for the children and families they serve. Our
monitors also evaluate evidence of the use of the assessment tool in
their site-visit reports.
Application for Continued Support.
The final step in our efforts to build programs that play a role in
improving students' academic performance is use of the Continuation
Application. Delaware initially awards five-year 21st CCLC grants with
full funding for the three years, followed by a 25 percent reduction in
year four, and a 50 percent reduction in year five. After the initial
grant, award grantees must complete a Continuation Application
annually. In the Continuation Application, each grantee must provide
evidence of progress on the measurable goals and outcomes listed in the
grant application. These goals and objectives include academic
outcomes.
Accountability
Delaware's Contract with RMC Research Corporation.
To comply with federal legislation requiring comprehensive
evaluation of the effectiveness of the state's 21st CCLC programs, the
DDOE gathers data related to each site. The state contracted with RMC
Research Corporation to review this existing data and address questions
related to program implementation and effectiveness.
Conclusions RMC Evaluation.
1. The Delaware 21st CCLC program is reaching out to the community.
Between 2003 and 2004, the number of centers grew more than 250
percent, from 18 to 46. Grantees grew more diversified, with an
increased presence of local and nationally-affiliated community-based
organizations, in addition to school districts and institutions of
higher education. All programs reported partnerships with public and
private organizations, both for profit and not-for-profit, and
including faith-based organizations. The program reached 123 schools
ranging from preK to the ninth grade, including a growing number of
charter schools. In the past school year, five of the 17 charter
schools in Delaware (29 percent) participated in the program.
2. The program is serving large percentages of minorities and low-
income students. In SY 2005-2006, 46 centers served 3,792 students and
933 adults. Of these 48 percent were eligible for the free and reduced
meal program (FARM), compared to 34 percent in the statewide student
enrollment. Minority students comprised 45 percent of the student
enrollment statewide and 73 percent of the 21st CCLC students. However,
students with disabilities were less likely to attend the centers (nine
vs. 14 percent statewide). The 48 centers served mostly students at the
elementary grade levels, with fewer than 10 percent in grades seven to
nine. In response to this finding, the DDOE included competitive
priority points for grantees proposing to serve middle and high school
students in the recently concluded Cohort 5-21st CCLC competition. Of
the ten new grantees added after this competition; eight are serving
middle and high school students.
3. The program is providing academic support and a broad array of
additional services for the youth. In the past school year, the 46
centers offered a total of 1,603 hours a week (34.84 hr/week per
program) of academic activities and support, in addition to 439 hours
(9.54 hr/week per program) of additional activities. Frequently
addressed academic contact areas included reading, mathematics,
technology, and arts/music. Academic support included tutoring,
mentoring, remedial education, and supplemental education. Most
programs also offered recreation, cultural enrichment, health
education, and drug and violence prevention activities.
4. 21st CCLC participants are making academic gains. The analysis
of results in the DSTP Reading and Mathematics suggest that 21st CCLC
students improved scores at a rate that were consistent with average
Delaware students, even though the program is serving large numbers of
children and youth at-risk of academic failure. When compared with
statewide averages, the 21st CCLC students have lower DSTP scores; yet,
when compared to peers from the same schools, they showed stronger
performances. A longitudinal analysis indicated that gains in DSTP
mathematics scores of third-grade CCLC students were larger than the
average gains for all Delaware students.
Next Steps
This year (2007-2008) all schools and/or districts, serving as
either the lead or partnering agency in a 21st CCLC grant, must tag
students receiving services through 21st CCLC programs in eSchool Plus,
Delaware's statewide pupil-accounting system. Tagging students' unique
identifiers to indicate that they are receiving CCLC services, will
allow for analyses of these students over their entire school careers.
Dr. Qi Tao, Education Associate in the Technology Management and Design
workgroup, has designed a supplemental service data cube within DDOE's
data warehouse which will allow for the analysis of data across
programs. In addition, we will be able to compare measures of
attendance, disciplinary action, graduation, and DSTP proficiency of
students who have received 21st CCLC services with those who have not
received them
Conclusion
21st CCLC is a relatively new program. It will celebrate its tenth
birthday this year. The program as it exists today has only been in
operation since 2002. It has made great strides. I believe its main
strength lies in building partnerships between the school and
community-based organizations. This partnership has resulted in
stronger and better programs than either the schools or agencies could
create on their own. We know that all students need to participate in
vibrant and exciting after school programming to learn to connect with
the world beyond school. Currently, over 14 million students leave
school at 3:00 pm or earlier, with nowhere to go. The administration's
current proposal to convert the 21st CCLC program to a voucher system
may force programs to close, which would result in more students with
no place to go after school. In addition, the move to a voucher system
would undermine existing public, private, community, and faith-based
partnerships that are working well. I think the 21st CCLC program, as
it now exists, has earned the right to continue. It offers the best
chance to offer seamless services to our children.
Thank-you for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
references
DDOE 21st CCLC Recommended Self Assessment Tool. Available at; at:
http://www.doe.state.de.us/programs/si/files/DE%2021st%20CCLC%20Self-
Asessment%20Tool4categories.pdf
21st CCLC Profile and Performance Information Collection System(PPICS).
Available at:
http://ppics.learningpt.org/ppics/index.asp.
RMC research Corporation (2006). Delaware 21st Century Community
Learning Centers: Evaluation Report (SY2003-0 04-SY2005-06).
Available at:
http://www.doe.state.de.us/programs/si/files/
Delaware%2021st%20Century%20Community%20Learning%20Centers%20Final%20Rep
ort.pdf
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Ms. Kough. Appreciate
your testimony, the testimony of all of you.
The Admiral serves in several committees down here now and
has to go to another committee at this time, but he wanted to
remain here, of course, to hear all your testimony, and I
appreciate that very much.
The rules of the committee adopted on January 24 give the
chair the discretion in how to recognize members for
questioning. It is my intention, as chair of this subcommittee,
to recognize those members present at the beginning of the
hearings in order of their seniority on this subcommittee.
Members arriving after the hearing began will be recognized in
order of appearance, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Gamble, can you discuss the importance of after-school
programs forming stable partnerships in the community? How
would the president's after-school voucher proposal impact the
ability of high-quality programs to establish and maintain the
stability necessary to foster those partnerships?
Ms. Gamble. Well, first of all, I think the voucher program
would take away a lot of stability we currently have,
particularly in terms of regular student attendance in a
particular after-school program.
As far as the voucher program is concerned, I believe it
would be quite difficult for us to sustain partnerships with a
voucher program. We already have very good partnerships with--
and if you are talking about a voucher program, where money
could possibly go to those partners, it would just be self-
defeating to have money going a lot of different areas.
Chairman Kildee. Also, could you comment on just about the
importance of making learning fun for kids in the after-school
programs? And I have been to certain programs, where the kids
seem to be really happy to be there. They are learning, but it
is a different process of learning and different environment of
learning than you get in the traditional classroom.
Can you discuss how--even for helping children
academically--it is important that these programs be designed
so kids don't see them just as an extension of the regular
school day?
Ms. Gamble. Sure. One of the first things we do is poll the
students on what kinds of activities they would like. After
that, it is our job to integrate academics into whatever they
are asking for. Even if it is art, gym, nutrition, anything, we
try to integrate academics into each of those subject matters.
Some other things we might do is talk to teachers and
administrators about what the needs are in that particular
building.
But on the top of the list, we always want to make sure the
kids don't know that they are learning, but we do want to be
sort of an extension of the school day in terms of offering
subject matter that is going to help those kids in the areas
they need help in.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
Chief Carroll, you recommended that there be an increased
focus on after-school programs for at-risk middle school and
high school students. Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. The older school children are more
at risk for gang activity, they are more at risk for drug
activity, and then they are more at risk for being victims of
automobile accidents or other types of crime. That particular
age group is least served in this process so we are
recommending that funding be increased for middle and high
school students so that can be corrected.
Chairman Kildee. So you would maintain the programs for the
younger students but increase the participation by having more
middle school and high school students involved in that.
Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. That is correct.
Chairman Kildee. We do find almost weekly, if not more
often, children in cars speeding home from school maiming
themselves or killing themselves.
Mr. Carroll. In my particular area, we have a particular
problem with that because our kids are of the economic status
they can have cars. But even where the economic status is not
that, what you have then is you have six or seven kids in the
same car, and that, obviously, causes a different kind of
problem.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Chief.
Ms. Little, can you discuss how federal funding helps
after-school programs access and leverage other funding and the
impact that the president's proposed cut would have on that
ability?
Ms. Little. Sure. The programs that I look at through the
evaluations I have seen and certainly through the work that we
have done tracking indicates no program just gets any one
funding stream. But what 21st Century does is provide some
stable resources that can then be leveraged with other work.
There is a study about to be released on the cost of
quality programming that the Wallace Foundation supported and
the finance project and public-private ventures did, and I
encourage you to get your hands on it as soon as it comes out
because what you will see is that programs have multiple
funding streams and most of the ones in this had public dollars
from 21st Century. These programs can't survive without it.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
And, Ms. Kough, you mentioned the challenge of ensuring
that students with disabilities attend after-school programs.
Could you expand on that?
Ms. Kough. Yes. One of the things that we had done when we
did our initial look at which students and the state were
getting services, we realized that the bulk was at elementary,
and we had very few doing something for disability. So within
our competition, what we do is we give priority points now for
middle and high school programs and those with disabilities. We
are in the middle of a competition as we speak, and one of our
potential grantees is looking at a program that would serve
children with disabilities.
So we do a lot, again, in that preconference to talk about
the children who aren't being served and how people can partner
to get programs for those students. So we are doing a lot with
that kind of work.
Chairman Kildee. I am personally very happy with that. I am
sure the governor is also, because he and I both have pushed
the IDEA program. But that should be all kids with
disabilities, and all programs should be included.
Ms. Kough. Yes, one of our problems that we have had is
some of the facilities, making sure that there are enough
facilities available for children with disabilities. So that
seems to have been a barrier, but we are moving forward.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
I now recognize and yield to my friend the governor of
Delaware, Mr. Castle.
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank all the witnesses.
And I want to--sort of a general question about the
educational component of what you are doing.
It is my understanding, when this program merged into No
Child Left Behind, part of what happened there was an increase
in the educational component--academic component of these
programs. And I am all for these programs. You don't have to
argue with me about the money needed or whatever it may be. But
I am very concerned about making sure that we are improving the
academic status of these kids as well, and I would be
interested in your comments with respect to that.
And I will start with you, Ms. Kough, if I can. Just
looking at what you stated and what you wrote in your written
testimony about the review of all this, which included academic
activities and support, can you talk to us a little bit about
the focus on that activity, either in terms of hours, time or
methodology used to make sure there is an academic aspect to
the after-school programs?
Ms. Kough. I think so. First of all, I have been working
with these programs now for 3 years, and as I said, when I
really looked at the data to try to look at what was happening
in the programs as I took things over, I, like you,
Representative Castle, had a concern about what children were
doing in these programs. Because I feel, if parents and
children are investing time, they should be getting a lot out
of it.
So one of the things that we have done in Delaware is we
have adapted North Carolina's self-assessment tool because what
we want to do is have our grantees take ownership of their
program. And it is a formal process that we are doing
professional development around, and one of the things they
look at on a continuous-improvement model is what are we doing
every day, and are there academic components?
For instance, we have one middle school program where it
has a big cooking component. The grantees looked at what they
were doing in that and realized with things like the
Afterschool Alliance toolkit that that cooking activity would
be a really great place to deal with math issues. And so then
we help facilitate those conversations between the after-school
and the school to say, ``Okay, these kids, where are they in
fractions?''
So I think, again, the power of 21st Century is that it
allows those conversations to go on. But the big thing we are
trying to do is get ownership for our grantees and give them
the tools to do assessments of their own programs so that they
are continually looking at what they are providing those
students.
Mr. Castle. Thank you.
Ms. Gamble, you are on the ground in these programs. Tell
us your understanding of the academic--you did a little bit in
your testimony--but the academic component.
Ms. Gamble. Sure. We address that in a number of different
ways, but it is important that you do have constant
conversations with the academic people in the school building.
One good example of a way that we align ourselves with
academics is in our summer program. We do a program called
Don't Sit Get Fit, which is a nutrition and fitness program. We
actually have math teachers do the morning portion--the
nutrition portion--and the kids are actually getting more math
skills in the morning. Then in the afternoon they do the
recreation piece.
But I think it is very important that we stay on top of
what is going on and with specific buildings because each
building has its own needs. So we do a lot of looking at state-
assessment tests, talking to staff in the buildings and making
sure we are offering something that is going to help build the
weaknesses in those particular buildings.
Mr. Castle. Do you have any kind of a review system to
determine if they are doing better academically? You may not
have a comparison to other kids, but, I mean, you do it, but
can you judge that you are actually doing better----
Ms. Gamble. Sure. Our external evaluator, which is Michigan
State University Outreach & Partnerships, evaluates all the
Bridges programs on a yearly basis, and we are starting to see
some very positive results--and I can get that information to
you if you like--in terms of how kids and their parents and
teachers--who we all survey--how they feel about the kids'
academics, and we are really starting to see positive results
as a result of the 21st Century funding.
Mr. Castle. Good.
Chief Carroll and Ms. Little, I would like to sort of
direct the same question in your roles as to how you see the
academic component of these after-school programs, if you
could----
Mr. Carroll. Well, I think, Congressman, from a law
enforcement point of view, this is a crime-prevention program
in its best thought. You are not only teaching these kids
academically, you are teaching them socially, you are teaching
them community, placement, what they should be doing as far as
sociability goes. And every bit of that that helps the child
stay away from law enforcement is an amazing, positive step.
If we don't end up with them, that is only good, and this
is a program that allows them to take their energy to a
positive side and then to get some responsibility for their
actions, which I can't think of a downside to it. It seems to
me that we are spending money on a program like this, or we are
spending money later to build prisons, and this is much better
than that.
Mr. Castle. Thank you.
Ms. Little, do you have any comments on----
Ms. Little. I will briefly. What the research clearly
shouts out at you is the academic component is necessary but
not sufficient if you want to get academic gain. Because what
you want to do is have sound academics provided in a holistic
approach, a developmental education approach, if you will. The
enrichment activities that Ms. Gamble and Ms Kough were talking
about combined with good sports, good arts, good rec, good
health--and you name it--you can do a number of combinations--
but that is what is getting the good outcomes. The straight-up
academic programs, you are not seeing as good outcomes as if
you combine it with other activities.
Mr. Castle. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Governor.
The gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hirono, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Little, perhaps you can answer this for me. Do all of
the states have money from the 21st Century program? All 50
states? Do you know?
Ms. Little. I believe they do, but I actually don't know
the answer to that. Could I defer to someone else, or no?
Ms. Hirono. Is there someone else on the panel who can
answer that question?
Ms. Kough. Yes, I am sure they do.
Ms. Hirono. Ms. Kough?
Ms. Kough. Yes, they do.
Ms. Hirono. Ms. Little, again, you have done a lot of
research on the importance of quality after-school programs,
and I am glad that there is a research basis for this, just as
research now shows how important quality early education is to
the students' success in life.
And I was wondering whether--I had earlier asked a question
whether every state gets money from the 21st Century program
because Hawaii--that is the state I represent--has an A Plus
program that it put in place many--it preceded the 21st Century
program. And I wonder whether you have done any research on the
efficacy of Hawaii's after-school program?
Ms. Little. I am familiar with it. I am not aware of a
statewide evaluation of it, but certainly it has a good
reputation. And what I can say is that, what 21st Century has
been very good with--across the board the SEA's have been very
good about taking their 3 percent set-aside and using it both
for evaluation and quality-improvement efforts, which I think
is why the 21st Century programs are as strong as they are
today.
Ms. Hirono. And I am glad that all of you noted that what
the 21st Century program does is it creates partnerships all
across the board, and the chief certainly talked about that.
And as far as the president's idea for moving toward a
voucher program, would all of you agree that that is fixing a
problem that is not broken?
(All heads nod yes.)
Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Platts.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't have a question, but I, first, want to just commend
you and the ranking member for your focus on this very
important issue and to all of our panelists for your work that
in the end benefits the children of our nation. I think there
is no more important priority here at home than giving that
foundation to our children, our future leaders.
And I especially want to highlight, as a fellow
Pennsylvanian, to Chief Carroll for your service in uniform
over many years and then also for you and your organization of
really helping us in Washington understand the importance of
these investments because, when we think of education-related
or after-school programs, typically we don't make that jump
that we need to to crime prevention, juvenile delinquency
prevention and that societal benefit that goes well beyond. And
when my seniors back home say, ``Well, why would we want to
spend money on this?'' I say, ``Do you want your community to
be safe, to have less crime?'' Your organization, D.A.'s,
chiefs of police, others that have helped make that point help
us better understand as a society the importance of these
investments.
So, again, I commend all of you for your testimony here
today and your work day in and day out on important issues that
impact our children.
And, again, Mr. Chairman, thanks for your leadership on the
issue.
Yield back.
Chairman Kildee. Again, I thank the gentleman for
Pennsylvania for his hard work on this committee.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
this hearing. It is extremely important, this issue, and the
president's budget is troubling--alarming really in terms of
what the impact would be on after-school programs.
I would like any of you who wish to to comment on the idea
that after-school programming is a place where we can model new
or old components of what a well-rounded educational program
ought to be for our children.
What I find interesting is that the place where now we are
talking about, giving kids an opportunity to get some exercise,
which is something that has been cut out. It is a place where
some of the specials, for which there is less room because of
the overfocus that some people feel on math and reading has led
to kind of a crowding out. And whether it is summer programming
or after-school programming, it strikes me that we are seeing
there a kind of laboratory for things that ought to become part
of the regular school day and the regular school year.
And so I would like to get your thoughts on that, anybody
who wants to jump in.
Ms. Kough. I think all children deserve rich experiences,
and what I always tell people, the filter I use is I want all
children to have what my children were able to have.
And we have a school in Delaware, a Charter school, Kuumba
Academy--inner city--and what they have done with their 21st
Century program is they have a total enrichment summer program
only. And during that summer program, they take the children on
field trips. They have a partnership with the Christiana
Cultural Center to introduce them to art and music.
And I think coming from a reading and elementary school
background, those experiences that you don't have--if you don't
have those, and you try to go to a test or relate to something
in a book, they are needed. And I think, again, 21st Century is
the place where so many of these activities can happen that, as
you had said, Representative Sarbanes, can't always happen at
school, so I agree.
Mr. Sarbanes. There is a bill that I have introduced on
this side called the No Child Left Inside Act, which is a play
on words with No Child Left Behind, but basically the concept
is to try to get children out of the classroom and into nature
and into the environment.
Looking at research which indicates that the amount of
unstructured time that children spend outside every day is
about 4 minutes a day on average vs. about 4 or 5 hours of
screen time--including television, video games, Internet and so
forth--on a daily basis, and so the idea of getting kids into
different settings--field trips--you know, mixing it up to make
it more interesting and make it more valuable for them is
something that really appeals to me.
Let me ask you this--let me flip a question around on you
and ask you this: Which kids out there do not need after-school
programs?
Ms. Little. I would like to take that one. All kids need
after-school programs, but sometimes it happens more naturally.
So what we see in the research we have done at Harvard is there
is a consistent pattern of winners and losers when it comes to
after-school opportunities. With middle-and upper-income kids,
getting those opportunities naturally through better schools,
through families, through extracurricular. And that is where, I
think, is the beauty and strength of 21st Century is because
they are targeting the kids who aren't getting it anywhere
else. They are trying to level the playing field.
So the simple answer is everyone needs an after-school
program. It is just some kids are getting it, and some kids
aren't.
Mr. Sarbanes. Great. Thank you.
Chairman Kildee. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady
from California, Ms. Davis, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, all, for being here.
I am sorry I missed some of the earlier remarks, but I
wonder if you could link into a little more specifically
community service learning and the extent to which after-school
programs which engage students in that way. Is there research
to identify that that does make a difference down the line in
terms of choices that children make? Do we know anything more
about that?
Ms. Little. I am happy to take that one first, and then
maybe my colleagues would like to join in.
Yes, we do know a fair amount about it. There are some very
well-evaluated studies of apprenticeship models: the Citizens
Schools program in Boston, the After School Matters program in
Chicago, both of whom blend 21st Century funding with other
funding. When the woman from Hawaii was asking about is A Plus
evaluated, many folks get 21st Century money but don't call
themselves a 21st Century program. So it is hard to tease out
when you say the ``effects of a program,'' so I just want to
clarify that.
What we know is that apprenticeship models, where you are
getting young people out and about in a community doing
community service, partnering and apprenticing with people
working in a community, have enormous effects, particularly for
middle and high school kids because it gives them a window into
what their lives could be like. It gives them a sense that,
``Oh, this is a career path for me,'' or ``You know what? That
is not what I want to do. I want to do something else.'' But it
is an opportunity for them to experiment and get out, and we
have very good research.
It also helps keep them in high school. It improves greater
on-time promotion from middle school to high school and more
participation in college-level courses.
Ms. Gamble. I would like to add also that, on a local level
in Flint, one of the requirements in the Bridges program is for
each site to have a youth advisory council, and that group--and
it is open to any student. They don't have to be your best
students. But those kids are the ones that are given leadership
roles. They are also given community service activities that
they usually choose on their own. They can apply for grant
money through United Way, money that is specifically set aside
for youth advisory councils. So they get great experience
seeking resources and asking for resources.
Mrs. Davis of California. I think, Ms. Gamble, if I could
just go on. I am sorry. I don't mean to interrupt, but we only
have a few minutes, and I wanted to try and----
How then would this be affected by the president's budget?
Because I think one of the things that we don't do very well is
tell the story. We would probably have these cuts even if we
told a good story, to be quite honest, because I think that in
this atmosphere that we are experiencing right now, it is
really not the efficacy of programs necessarily that we are
looking at but other issues, other necessities that the
administration feels in terms of other priorities that are
being cut, quite unfortunately, I think, from our point of
view.
But I am just wondering whether--I have heard some very
good stories in this regard, and I don't know whether we should
do a far better job in trying to get that message out.
I wanted to also just follow up in another way with the
link, and I think that you have talked about connecting this
within the schools. I know the programs that I have seen that
are very effective is where the teachers have a very strong
role in providing feedback to the people that are providing the
programs about the students and what is happening and how they
are able to bring that experience back into the classroom. And,
again, it worries me that we are--there is a very important
story to tell here. How can we do that better?
Ms. Little. I think it is up to all of us to collect these
stories and get them out.
I think in terms of the voucher program specifically, there
is no research that suggests that vouchers will improve
programming, increase participation, increase access. There may
be in 50 years, but there is no research to suggest that that
will help the after-school arena in the problems it already
faces, which is there aren't enough programs already. There is
not enough funding already. Access to programs is problematic.
We are still not reaching all the kids we need to reach.
Vouchers aren't the first solution that would come to my mind.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Hare.
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I apologize if these questions were asked before, I
came in late, and I hope you will bear with me.
But my district in Illinois has 23 counties, and most of
them are rural, and most people are aware of the lack of
financial resources, but many are shocked to find out that
there is a higher percentage of rural children that live in
poverty when you compare that to children that live in nonrural
areas. And, unfortunately, there are very few programs that
provide academic enrichment in a safe and supervised
environment.
Ms. Gamble, in your testimony you briefly mentioned the
scarcity and importance of after-school programs in the rural
communities, and I wonder if you could touch on the need for
those programs and the challenges that rural communities face?
Also, how will drastic cuts to the 21st Century program and
the shift from a grant program to a voucher program, in your
opinion, impact rural communities?
Ms. Gamble. Okay. As far as the rural population, we were
just having that conversation in the backroom before we came in
here because I had a discussion with one of my counterparts
that heads up the rural 21st Century grant, and one of the
questions I asked her was, ``What are the issues for rural
kids?'' because I wanted to make sure I had that flavor in my
presentation also. And she was saying that they get into the
same kind of trouble at the same timeframe--3:00 to 6:00 P.M.--
might be a different type of trouble, but they have the same
issues as the urban kids. And, like you said, 21st Century is
one of the few pots of money that are available for rural
communities so it would really hurt them.
And I am not sure about your second question?
Mr. Hare. Well, are there any other programs that you would
suggest or that we could try in the rural communities? And, you
know, I guess let me just--instead of just additional
resources, more money, what other measures do you think
Congress could do to improve access to after-school programs in
rural communities? I mean, are there any additional programs
that you would support or think that we should support? And
then, again, once you have the programs, you have to have
access to them in the rural communities, people have to go
quite a ways just to get from where they want to go to where
the program is going to be.
Ms. Gamble. Right. I think transportation would be a big
issue in rural communities. Perhaps some type of program where
the activities could come to the children, not necessarily
where they live, but in areas where enough kids could come
together in one place and have the partners come to them, as
opposed to the kids trying to figure out how they are going to
get to a certain place.
But I don't know of any particular pots of money or program
that could serve in that capacity. But I just think we just
need to be more creative. But the 21st Century money is a good
anchor to begin with.
Mr. Hare. Ms. Little, in my district there is a program
called Homework Hangout, and it has done a wonderful job. The
director of the program told me that, without the 21st Century
funds, they would be forced to significantly reduce the number
of staff for the tutoring services and would either have to be
cut or eliminated and he would have to scale back on the number
of hours. This is a program that is just incredibly effective,
and I think, as the chief mentioned, we can pay now and invest
now, or we can pay a tremendous price later.
I am wondering--you know, you testified that research shows
that programs need reliable, multiyear funding. And so, again,
I would ask you, what would be the impact on the president's
proposal on these programs to develop that maturity?
Ms. Little. What we see really clearly is that a first-year
program is arguably not going to be as well implemented as a
third-or fourth-year program. And what do I mean by well
implemented? The kinks aren't worked out. You know, it is like
the first pancake off the griddle. It is not quite right.
And as you move into maturity, what that buys for you is
higher program quality. If you have better quality, kids are
going to want to come so your participation goes up.
Participation then feeds quality because, when you get to a
certain size, professional development efforts kick in.
So it is this symbiotic relationship between program
quality and participation, but you are not going to get to the
quality if you keep having to start a new program every year.
It is the mature programs that we are seeing are doing a better
job on the quality.
Mr. Hare. Well, let me just thank you all.
And, Chief, thank you. I think your remarks--again, you hit
the nail on the head. People need to understand that, if we
don't do these programs, if we let them go by the wayside,
eventually we will see what happens when we don't fund these
programs up, when we don't expand them.
And as you said, Ms. Gamble, I have people in my district--
it is a huge district--23 counties. But young people,
particularly in rural communities, have the same needs that the
other kids have. And a lot of times they are sort of the--they
are forgotten out there.
So whatever we can do on our end to make sure that we get
necessary funds, I think we need to do that. These programs
work, and as I think my colleague Ms. Hirono mentioned, if it
isn't broke, why are we trying to fix it?
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Hare. Appreciate
that very much.
Governor Castle?
Mr. Castle. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had one additional question, and I may not be 100 percent
sure I know how to ask this so--answer as you please.
But I am looking at the budget summary, and apparently in
this year we are spending $1,081,000,000 on this program.
My first question--and I would like to get the answer from
anybody--maybe I can't get it now from staff or whatever, but
if somebody knows the answer of--or if any of you know it, I
would love to hear it--of how much other money is put into
these programs by foundations, United Way, states, perhaps
local school districts or whatever? I don't know if anyone has
actually summarized that someplace or another, but I would be
interested in what extra money is actually put into the
programs. So that is one question that I have in general, which
I can learn after the hearing if that is what it would take.
And the other question I have--and I am going to ask this
of you, Ms. Kough--is in Delaware, as I understand it, this is
a--we take the federal money--the $1,081,000,000, and it is
apportioned among the states in accordance with population or
whatever. Of course, we are a small state. And then we have in
Delaware separate grantees which are set up; is that correct?
And what are their responsibilities in terms of how long they
are going to get funding and what they have to do to sustain
themselves, et cetera?
Ms. Kough. 21st Century is a competitive grant program, and
so when I said we were in the middle of a competition, we put
out a request for proposal. In Delaware we give 5-year grants.
The first 3 years we are at full funding, the fourth year we
give them a 25 percent cut, and the fifth year we give them a
50 percent cut, and then they are to sustain.
One of the biggest costs and barriers to sustaining,
especially in rural areas, has been transportation. And one of
the things, again, that has come from 21st Century--we have a
site in Lake Forest, which is one of our rural areas, that
developed a program, which I am not sure they would have had an
after-school program if it hadn't been for 21st Century. And
what they did is they worked out that we have a community
agency actually providing services at the school level, and
then they have worked out a partnership with their
transportation within the school to get the kids home.
So what we do, again, is 5-year grants. At the end of the
sixth year, they know they have to be self-sustaining. In that
5 years, we work with the business community and help them
write a business plan, show them how to go after different
money. So in Delaware, at least, they know that at the end of
the fifth year, they are to be self-sustaining.
This is our sixth competition. In the fourth round of
competition, we did not grant any proposals because we didn't
think they were strong enough. Our Cohort 1 has now gone, and
out of six, we have four sustaining. So I think that is pretty
good----
Mr. Castle. So some have become self-sustaining, others
don't quite make it or whatever it may be? Okay.
Ms. Kough. Right. I hope that answers your question.
Mr. Castle. No, it does. And I appreciate it.
And I would love to get the other answer at some point from
some knowledgeable person here who has looked at all these
budget figures.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Governor.
First of all, this has been an excellent panel. I have been
very impressed, and the interaction among the panel has been
very, very good. I think all of you recognize that all of you
have something to contribute to our understanding and insight
into this program, and we don't always get that in these
panels. Sometimes it is more argumentative out there. Here you
have maybe a different nuance or a different approach, but I
think you all recognize that all of you have something to
contribute, and that has certainly benefited us. The governor
and I were talking about that up here. So I deeply appreciate
that.
It is very interesting, too, Mr. Hare's question about
rural--that the gentlelady from Flint, Michigan, which is about
as urban as you can get, having talked to someone in the
Democratic anteroom, where we gather all our people--Democrat
or Republican--before these meetings--was able to give a good
response, and I think that is an indication that there is
discussion among yourselves here and other places. But you
recognize that all of you have something to contribute, and all
of you have contributed to this. One of the best panels--I have
been in Congress for 32 years--this is a very memorable panel,
very, very helpful to us.
Governor Castle talked about is other money available, is
other money leveraged? And I know that Mr. Bill White--William
White--head of the Mott Foundation in Flint, is a very
compassionate person, very informed person, but he is very
concerned, rather than just giving, investing in the future of
kids. So he looks at things where he can really do the most to
help with these dollars, and he looks at this type of program
as something that is really worth that private investment too,
and he comes from that world where he wants some return on that
investment. So he and Governor Riley, by the way, were very,
very good friends and worked very closely together during the
90s on this program.
But, again, I can't thank you enough. This panel has been
very, very helpful to us.
And as previously ordered, members will have 7 calendar
days to submit additional materials for the hearing record. Any
member who wishes to submit follow-up questions in writing to
the witnesses should coordinate with the majority staff within
the requisite time.
And with great thanks and without objection, the hearing is
adjourned.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lynn C. Woolsey, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
Every child deserves a safe place to go after school. The 21st
Century Community Learning Centers provides millions of children with
that safe place where they can do their homework, receive tutoring
help, and play in a safe area away from the dangers of drugs and gangs.
These after school sites also provide our nation's poorest students
with the extra help they need to succeed in life by expanding
children's access to tutoring and enrichment services. However, more
than 14 million children who need after school services do not have
access because there aren't enough programs being funded.
Now, more than ever, we need to help working families by providing
safe places for children to go after school. Today, in about 65% of
two-parent families, both parents work and 75% of all mothers are in
the workplace. Not only do children need a safe place to go after
school where they can learn and play, but working parents need to know
their children are safe when they can't be home to watch them.
That is why the Administration's proposal to cut funding to 21st
Century Community Learning Centers program is such a misguided
approach. If the proposed cut goes through, between 635,000 and over a
million students would be forced out of after school programs. Already,
14 million children are not able to benefit from after school services
because of lack of funding. This cut could add 1.1 million more
children to this group of students who go home alone after school and
not to a safe environment. Our children deserve better. That's why we
should block the Administration's recommendation to cut funding and
increase funding to these valuable programs so that no child has to go
home alone. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that
21st Century Community Learning Centers get the support they need to
provide our nation's neediest children with a safe place to learn and
play after school. Thank you.
______
[Additional submissions by Mr. Kildee follow:]
The National Coalition for Public Education,
March 10, 2008.
Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: A hearing is scheduled before the U.S. House
of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor to consider the
federal afterschool initiative termed 21st Century Community Learning
Centers. The National Coalition for Public Education (NCPE) strongly
opposes programs that allow public money to be diverted to private
schools through vouchers, and therefore urges you to oppose President
Bush's proposal to replace the current federal afterschool initiative,
called 21st Century Community Learning Centers, with an unworkable
voucher program with a catchy new name: 21st Century Learning
Opportunities Scholarships.
For approximately 1.5 million children, the 21st Century Community
Learning Center program provides peace of mind, safety and inspires
learning. Their value has been tested and proven. According to the U.S.
Department of Education, nearly half the children who regularly attend
these centers raise their grades in reading/language arts and
mathematics. Three-quarters complete more homework and participate more
in class. In 26 statewide referenda from coast to coast through
November 2007 millions of American voters have rejected school vouchers
or their variants by an average margin of two to one.
In contrast, the proposal for the so-called ``learning
opportunities scholarships'' by the President is an unproven,
ideologically driven voucher scheme that would permit federal funding
of pervasively sectarian instruction and activities, and threaten the
quality afterschool learning opportunities.
NCPE has consistently opposed the funneling of public money to
private and religious schools through such mechanisms. We strongly urge
you to reject such private school proposals that have been set forth by
the Administration. We thank you for your consideration of our views on
this important issue. If you have any questions or would like
additional information, please contact Mary Kusler at (703) 875-0733 or
[email protected].
Sincerely,
American Association of School Administrators,
American Association of University Women,
American Civil Liberties Union,
American Federation of Teachers,
American Humanist Association,
American Jewish Committee,
Americans for Religious Liberty,
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State,
Association of Educational Service Agencies,
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty,
International Reading Association,
National Association of Elementary School Principals,
National Association of Secondary School Principals,
National Association of State Directors of Special
Education,
National Education Association,
National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition,
National School Boards Association,
People for the American Way,
Secular Coalition for America,
Union for Reform Judaism,
Women of Reform Judaism.
______
March 10, 2008.
Hon. Dale E. Kildee, Chairman; Hon. Michael N. Castle, Ranking Member,
House Early Education, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kildee and Ranking Member Castle: On behalf of the
95,000 school board members who serve the nation's 49 million students
in our local public school districts, the National School Boards
Association (NSBA) respectfully requests that this letter be entered
into the record in conjunction with tomorrow's hearing on the
Administration's FY2009 budget proposal regarding afterschool programs.
NSBA is opposed to the plan put forward by the Administration to
cut approximately $300 million from the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers program and to convert the program into a voucher experiment.
Under the proposal, the remaining $800 million essentially would be
given to individual parents to spend on afterschool programs at their
discretion.
Currently, states distribute grants competitively to afterschool
programs, typically for a 3- to 5-year period, assisting organizations
with planning and developing a long-term quality program with a
reliable and stable funding stream. Almost 1.5 million children benefit
from the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, with nearly
half the students demonstrating improvement in reading, language arts
and math, and approximately three-quarters completing more homework and
increasing class participation, according to the U.S. Department of
Education.
The Administration's voucher plan would eliminate public
accountability, undermine afterschool programs and jeopardize their
quality by introducing a far more unstable and uncertain funding
stream. Programs may not reasonably be able to budget for out years if
the Administration's voucher proposal were adopted.
The plan is an attempt to incorporate the unproven, unpopular and
unaccountable concept of vouchers into federal education policy. We
urge the subcommittee to closely scrutinize and oppose this current
proposal.
Thank you for considering our views on this issue. If you have any
questions or would like further information, please contact Marcus
Egan, Director of Federal Affairs, at (703) 838-6707, or
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Michael A. Resnick, Associate Executive Director,
National School Boards Association.
______
[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]