1
12
29
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/1909/archive/files/3062958d5fd3af85c59099f96f674bd9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=MExdsdiWi1pqwNXlngsHczV-JPARxa-Os26IWoqm6afQn5N40oCtitTKeXa%7EeQM05kLpDOpY%7Ef-BuGWaKIEqBaEYlHg2BXIc5lN2UCiQ4momMspWam9WFpgmtQFNkuVqk9jsN3NvgP%7E8yXgMimxIzj7gxFY31PoHYAj2JFTW3WMtAWPh6JGsg7Kz0AG0w%7EdvDSde-XkB%7EaPPK74bZtIur4fFNySQFidaibXXq7F7WuwViRBHVTumbjYcWdgJ%7EGIlkfR2EHkE5HWgmm9q-plRduLz3Tx78od8I1YVAleuh0LEfqac3COE8m70WEBZAdy6bXcjz4R%7E5JSyirWUNVkUNg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e2228b648d73166ade555e5c25b71d84
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Full text access to Wagner College theses in PDF format.
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
How budget cuts affect literacy development in the elementary school setting
Description
An account of the resource
MS Ed: Teaching Literacy
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
Recent budget cuts have drastically impacted elementary schools; depleting funding for the amount of supplies and materials educators use. One area in which these reductions are most critical is in the success of struggling readers and writers. Literacy is an important skill across all subject areas. Therefore, having the proper materials and resources to reach out to those struggling readers is essential. This study surveys teachers and an assistant principal of a nearby elementary school in Staten Island, NY, of how these recent cuts affected them within their own classroom. Results indicated that with these recent cuts schools were forced to cut support staff and resources essential for students to succeed.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Alfano, Alaina
Date Accepted
Date of acceptance of the resource. Examples of resources to which a Date Accepted may be relevant are a thesis (accepted by a university department) or an article (accepted by a journal).
2011
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Preskill, Stephen
Zanfini, Mary
Gonzalez-Acquaro, Katia
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
U.S. and international copyright laws may protect this work. It is provided by Wagner College for scholarly or research purposes only. Commercial use or distribution is not permitted without prior permission of the copyright holder.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
55 pages
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
Ed_2011_Alfano_How
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/1909/archive/files/2377c6c63ef279d4151f3ba3ebea5b31.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PzKYFF0bdIt3EF3EznirS6mzwj-uaDLRgYgTmsqV-ktumn8e0jK8wjxJm9CiMSCh6q13HDA8Unqcok23iamCkiEeNOwqbIWb5Z5ZllcsdIlddmQZe9nr%7EboxaVSuxLBla745Zm0i5CQzbQ9F2hsF3go0YlRIc1WRdiYMQAFS-w1C0OwmvQb8f8MLo65Xqt-TTqeAbWGUUCYb6LkgGNXyw5MqLTVsoiT5ulasEQSUDNJ5Xr%7EK0QWIB%7EHAoUERNLStPBlzQgvEC3O3JjfaKvkkHOgoWFrJRnzRUfD40IxPjmqpSBH0222HZ-fma%7EVLJA9OP%7EYLyfseKU09TKFFQDvZiQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a6e7f2860249787eb5ca43c32ce273f4
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Full text access to Wagner College theses in PDF format.
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Philosophy for children and its impact on student dialogue, language, and thinking skills
Description
An account of the resource
MS Ed
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
With high stakes testing and teachers focused on behavioral outcomes, it appears little time is left for effective group dialogue in the classroom (Fisher, 2007). However, Philosophy for Children is a program that can be implemented in the classroom to encourage student dialogue and improve language and thinking skills. This study explores the impact of Philosophy for Children in a preschool setting on dialogue, language, and thinking skills as measured by number of occurrences of student-initiated questions, connections made to personal experiences, support or elaboration provided for answers in the form of reasons or examples, and the length of time of discussion. The participants in this study were six preschool students ranging from age 3 years, 11 months to 4 years, 11 months. Students met with the researcher twice a week for a total of ten sessions. At each session, the researcher read a children's book and pursued a philosophical discussion with the students. Each session was recorded for assessment purposes. As the sessions progressed, there was no trend in student-initiated questions, an increased in the number of connections students made to personal experiences, and support and elaboration provided remained consistent throughout the sessions. The length of discussion time remained consistent as well. Looking at the variables for each student independently offered more insight into the impact of the program as well as limitations. This study has shown that preschool children can participate in discussion, ask questions to peers, make personal connections, and provide support and elaboration when discussing philosophical topics. Future research should explore the impact of time constraints, gender roles, and organization of discussion material has on student discussion, language, and thinking skills.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ardolli, Albane
Date Accepted
Date of acceptance of the resource. Examples of resources to which a Date Accepted may be relevant are a thesis (accepted by a university department) or an article (accepted by a journal).
2012
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Preskill, Stephen
Gazzard, Ann
Arena, Danielle
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
U.S. and international copyright laws may protect this work. It is provided by Wagner College for scholarly or research purposes only. Commercial use or distribution is not permitted without prior permission of the copyright holder.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
56 pages
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
Ed_2012_Ardolli_Philosophy
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/1909/archive/files/9af89ffb50c2fcceffd99e660245fe49.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=fe7vzrAhuvracp7LxlLSaM4zJeoIdefFbUQLgeEzKmGR03nbzCl%7E2MTV-72eZAckXvmVR%7EXlY0i4-UOD8Z4O2-1ANbkGURlSxFwfrk%7E9X1pBMV2dW0z9XAsGXiCsubWVI%7EJV3uxBHFsv1L40vdS8oRzRstfZriEFqwh5-EPjIUtJpA2eAJ0pQAuhqtH9%7Eqd5eYsd7ap7lnZvsVGcBVSwaNjLSNO%7E0dFZiBlUA%7ERYXnkh8GtA1IX2uhwbIc%7EAAf81YouXY8bpPYHZaKymZLE8EIX0z8eU%7EpL8i8HiejuBijHSr4F6l3RcZyAx8gcKRug%7EnhzAAoS-hBqUVVurxRRuQQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
90a5ba89d521d1b16fe3771a563a6de8
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Full text access to Wagner College theses in PDF format.
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
A study of teacher engagement in a dual language program
Description
An account of the resource
MS Ed: Teaching Literacy
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
Researchers have found that high-quality and long-term dual language programs promote academic achievement and high levels of language proficiency for learners from both language groups (Hood, 2011). The purpose of this study was to explore how a dual language approach was fostered in a new school designed to promote bilingual education. The study analyzed teachers' efforts to navigate language learning, teaching, and cultural assumptions. Results indicate that the dual language approach in the new school was supported through effective collaboration and planning to meet the needs of diverse English Language Learners. This study also explored the importance of lived teacher experiences of this new school. Each teacher was brought into the school with a different educational background. Although their backgrounds were different, they were brought into the school to work towards the school's goal: creating a successful dual language program. Their perception of what the program was going to be like before starting the school year went through major changes throughout the first four months of school. Teachers' understandings changed as a result of a series of meetings that were held throughout the first four months discussing the program and its effectiveness for students. Teachers' ability to share their ideas and feelings about what was working and what was not working was important for the change in attitudes and building of shared understandings. This study focuses on the six teachers who came together to apply the ideals and methods of the dual language program within each of their classrooms and in the school as a whole.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bauer, Alexandra
Date Accepted
Date of acceptance of the resource. Examples of resources to which a Date Accepted may be relevant are a thesis (accepted by a university department) or an article (accepted by a journal).
2014
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeMoss, Karen
Gonzalez, Katia
Frumkin, Rhoda
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
U.S. and international copyright laws may protect this work. It is provided by Wagner College for scholarly or research purposes only. Commercial use or distribution is not permitted without prior permission of the copyright holder.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
82 pages
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
Ed_2014_Bauer_Study
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/1909/archive/files/2737c6f40a49e80d1c078cf1f6174ab0.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=VHEPZ4A99ca1OEVPJywx3sgH%7EzbCY39gHyblEZsVA08akFW8nb2ytioCOXcrY40-1t2d89inR4qPNX9JjIrbR2UwRvdNGEPZDfDCfvJOwkVZZMxas9z9LInIBHMvTZaiGX1FDxU0S7v7Mc9hZ764wfeTCZ4UPMaXzuA8xqjQEOa1VoaOx4EJ0DpC%7ECOE0-DBAmMpgIUFWxuLOPwMP4KVqMzIj43lqVJvMKGWCvgT1xWu7tn4EXr0UyG8Egt%7Ef65jnVdYHIIUAls5jVYh9WhuEBhSTmZaHgEIGBnvyoGZD8tKiUCc5KcQSbteVHumZFekFxKSGxGPRUR8iaR4pe8Z%7Ew__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a74d40988fa6dd26c28d7f5c538c0b98
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Full text access to Wagner College theses in PDF format.
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Art immersion in preschools
Description
An account of the resource
MS Ed: Early Childhood/Special Education
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
This study examined how early child educators are immersing the arts into their curriculum in a standards based era while considering what approaches if any are followed. Through the utilization of research and interview questions developed and facilitated by the researcher, five early childhood educators provided information about variables impacting the way the arts were immersed in early childhood. The results of this study confirmed the impact that knowledge about early childhood approaches that utilize art can have on the selection of strategies and techniques that are embed in classroom practices in a standard space era.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Belluci, Kitrina
Date Accepted
Date of acceptance of the resource. Examples of resources to which a Date Accepted may be relevant are a thesis (accepted by a university department) or an article (accepted by a journal).
2014
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Gonzalez, Katia
Gordon, David
Gazzard, Ann
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
U.S. and international copyright laws may protect this work. It is provided by Wagner College for scholarly or research purposes only. Commercial use or distribution is not permitted without prior permission of the copyright holder.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
55 pages
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
Ed_2014_Belluci_Art
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/1909/archive/files/19ef58df5acd4a66ecf4286eeec7476a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=SzginV3KBF1I7fT-SQ5HX2nbbMRRDvRUU5TWLPuhm5a8-cv0WuP1jq2tSxNAA08tIVEv0dBi9mENrs06Nf97NLmybPdqHOmkXLIbB9tZ-KEoPUolY46QU5lHvPCHL3moewmlRkLBsU9kFciVgn9kz8lx21jdd5zc56f2FIEs5tJZv%7EhQR0zMvfWBKlFAeGpn3ZMPX2WqRW2A7u5ced7O9qhluCUb92tPhJ0hPBgoI-QbpjVhQCkfB6wS5bdohx5O0rmWAnAid-T7tEXLP84WnI7Gwu1bDty0IOU9AuoyMJWmL8g8CN8Xfz8hIWjH6tKxIqw9vd0s2gfYFL89ju8I5A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b683f8fcb71a1a2ec34c29f68e483bc1
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Full text access to Wagner College theses in PDF format.
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
How does the word processor influence writing in beginner writers?
Description
An account of the resource
MS Ed: Teaching Literacy
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
In today's age, it is as imperative as ever for children to know how to write and communicate effectively. With the advent of new technologies, it may be that new materials and strategies are needed for achieving these important goals. The purpose of this study is to see whether or not the word processor influences writing skills in children between the ages of 6 and 9. The study is meant to see the differences in the students' writing abilities when what they are using in order to write changes from a pencil and paper to a word processor.
After consent forms and permission forms were sent out and collected, the researcher explained the assent form to the students. The study was conducted over the course of 10 school days during a normal writing period. For the first five days, the students participating in the study were asked to write using a pencil and paper. For days six through ten, the students were given the opportunity to write using the word processor. The majority of topics were self selected by the students. Students filled out feelings chatis on days one and six.
The results from the study were quite compelling. The students enjoyed writing using the word processor. When using the word processor, the noise level in the classroom as well as the classroom dynamic changed. The teachers in the classroom went from being teachers to coaches. The conversations between students and teachers as well as student to student conversations were all about the writing assignment.
With the above results as well as the interest that students have for technology, it seems like a "no-brainer" to use the word processor when writing. When in doubt with writing, try
using the word processor. Using the word processor is influential for the majority of beginning writers because instead of concentrating on letter formation they are able to push a key and know that the letter is going to look the same every time.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Casey, Jennifer Marie
Date Accepted
Date of acceptance of the resource. Examples of resources to which a Date Accepted may be relevant are a thesis (accepted by a university department) or an article (accepted by a journal).
2012
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Preskill, Stephen
Frumkin, Rhoda
Zanfini, Mary
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
U.S. and international copyright laws may protect this work. It is provided by Wagner College for scholarly or research purposes only. Commercial use or distribution is not permitted without prior permission of the copyright holder.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
45 pages
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
Ed_2012_Casey_How
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/1909/archive/files/1a3d68cf5a3d2e9b913c4c8d23fe2221.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=rP0HHiUppReVMprz%7Esw8GIX3jHO66IM%7EnVz5PjNVGyIFO0j9nSjV88o6%7EuvTJ7YXKJ7s4Tv9ZpTHxCOC7Q5aVzaWwHqGg2Z1Tm8EdGwnJvhLD%7EoD47TnZI4s8y0lLwFOl-boSMwWsUJoLwlk1LU8o1blXQ6zJuYlYEUQNrfifFwgliCK3WilpTdP-3EfbMGGAqzRrGiYQNj%7EkPkelsJ8zz7Bflp2EBJyuLnP4U2-cD%7EHhRxLfdFheZ8yvD-pVPDpu%7EGfLMh2QOZ8ig180H5JULpSebjR2li-hJQkqfzdNb8r9sBRvtaoLfm17EYntnmJ6-%7EZQ3WHCg24JVRlgfXEsQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b7ebb3aec3987303813463cfc00c9bc8
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Full text access to Wagner College theses in PDF format.
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Utilizing self-reflective practices to create a classroom environment sensitive to gender diversity
Description
An account of the resource
MS Ed: Early Childhood/Special Education
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
Gender development begins in the early stages of life, and because of this it is the role of early childhood educators to carefully take into consideration the gender identity of their students. This study explored gender stereotypes within the preschool classroom in an effort to develop a classroom environment that is sensitive to gender diversity. The study consisted of eight questionnaires and a final group reflection to assist teachers in discovering if their classroom is accessible to a variety of students regardless of their gender. Research from this study suggests that gender roles are constructed within the preschool years. The reflections from the participants also revealed that being mindful of language and varying the materials within the classroom allows students of all genders to equally partake in the learning process.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Chartier, Amanda
Date Accepted
Date of acceptance of the resource. Examples of resources to which a Date Accepted may be relevant are a thesis (accepted by a university department) or an article (accepted by a journal).
2014
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Gazzard, Ann
DeMoss, Karen
Gonzalez, Katia
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
U.S. and international copyright laws may protect this work. It is provided by Wagner College for scholarly or research purposes only. Commercial use or distribution is not permitted without prior permission of the copyright holder.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
84 pages
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
Ed_2014_Chartier_Utilizing
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/1909/archive/files/8051b3121bd2f2d47e00da6ce156b7fc.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=WLIe%7EwOt7TS61g992nOx30N16%7EdZ643ksH3mDCeLXtIng19m-8HsIWZV7TVUuMANGc8zjUQ0oW8pPQMsB5BIU0ehKUSpuAJnjhd0VYKAddudlw8AxmdWzS9GiCd2WVApviZAwqOwCrfPirBVbP9pwfgSPqdYq8HUOeswy8JvbmyLf0Es7JgpHDINEECSntZxUqdLagplnGB83R8Ludc%7EiqmZ28O%7EVZBMd9vMpvrea-d2nHyf62GU6ClH1ti2ibXlXrpjIHYIms2AH8cGaYGg9fwrtAsdpTHLFUzrBosiKknbhxZyQ2GoHtfmIFr7OzdBitpLmqXZNaa7PcnrX8UlYw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
269d90bb1a616be851f672413c2d7504
PDF Text
Text
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
1
THE VALUE OF COMMUNITY-UNIVERSITY PARINERSHIPS FOR QUALITY
AFTERSCHOOL PROORAMMING
By
Tatum Colitz
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Education
Education Department
Wagner College
May, 2015
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
2
Wagner College
Division of Graduate Studies
Master's Thesis
Author:
Tatum Colitz
Title of thesis:
The Value of Community-University Partnerships for Quality
Aftcrschool Programming
Degree:
MSED: Teaching Literacy (B-Grade 6)
Date of Graduation:
May 2015
Thesis Review Committee:
Thesis Advisor:
Dr. Karen DeMoss
Date
Dr. Rhoda Frumkin
Date
Professor David Gordon
Date
Reader:
Reader:
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
3
Table of Contents
ABSTRACt' ....................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER I: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK............................................................8
GROWING DEMAND FOR HI(,II-QUAUTY AI' II':RSCHOOL PROGRAMS ............................ 8
AllflRISSSIN(; 'IIII' NEeDS OF CiIlLDI<EN AND FAMILIES IN URBAN AREAS
........... 10
U.S. DEPARI MENT OF EDIJCATION INVOLVEMEN r ....................... . .......................... 12
NEED FOR FEDERAL FUNDING
14
CRI'ATION OF 1'111:: AFT1RSCilOOL ALLIANCE
15
STUDENTS AT RISK: ENGLISII LAN<iUAGE LEARNI·:RS .................................................. 17
STUDENTS AI RISK: LEARNERS WITII SPECIAL NEEIlS ................................................. 18
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATLJRE ..............................................................22
DIFINING. ASSESSING. AND EVAUiATING QUALITY IN AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS ...22
LITERACY BASED PROGRAMS FOR URBAN. LOW-INCOME, AND 101.1. POPULATIONS... 24
Background ......... ..
N
CORAL Inilialivc
25
21 sl eefllllry C(IIIIIIIUllily Learning Celllers
26
Wriling Rock
Literacy Loop .....
KidzLil
Raberl F. Kelmedy COlllll1ul1ily Schools ................. ..
............................... 29
illlegralil1g Digital Lireracies ill Ajler-School ......................................... .
Johll W Gordner YowlT and COli/lilli/lilies a/ Slat!lill'd Universily
... 30
31
QI !ALlTY AFTERS(,IIOOL PROGRAMS FOR STUDENI S WITH SPECIAL NEEDS ............... 3l
Backgrouud. ......... ,' "',... "
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHTPS
4
Kids Included Togelher (KIT) ................................................................................ 32
Orange COIII1I), Public School AjlerscilOol.................................. ............................ 32
COMMUNlTy·UNIVFRSITY PARTNERSIIiPS AND TilE POTENTIAL IMPACT ................... 32
Carletol1
TIIEMES OF
's Commitment
/0
Communilv-Universilv Partnerships
35
PROGRAM MODELS AND IMPLEMENTATION ............................. .37
Clear Goals and Shared Visionfi'()1IJ Slakeholders ........ ..
37
Siaff, Swdel1l, and PrORrtlm Evalllalio/lS
38
Use of21" Celllurv Lileracies in Afierschool Model ......... ..
............................. 39
EfleClivClless ollhe Balallced Lileracy ModeL ...................... ..
39
Memlil1gfirl Professional lJel'elopmcfll anri Dedicaled SI({if ................................. .41
42
Ongoil1g Research l?lProwaJl1s
C] (APTER Ill: METHODS ...........................................................................................43
PARTICIPANT
ION, RISKS AND BENErlTS .......................................................... 45
SETTING
PAIUIl'lPANT OBSERVER ............
INSTlUJMENTATION DFSICiN ....................................................................................... ..47
DESJ( iN AND PROCEDURE
CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS AND RESUl,TS...............................................................50
DESCRIPIION OF PROGRAMS ........................................................................................ 50
Tech Kid, Ulllimiled al Wagm'r College Program Overview .................................. 50
Los Prom%res Program Overview
SURVFY ANAI.YSIS
or PRE·SERVICE EDUCATOR PARTIC'WA
TECI! KIDS
UNLIMITED ................................................................................................................................ 56
Preparalion and Alolivalion for the Program .................... .
57
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
5
Outreach and Commullicatioll. ................................................................................. 60
62
Logistics ofthe Progra!l1
Benefits and Strengths olthe Program ..................................................................... 65
Challellges and the Future of the Progralll ................................................ .............. 68
SURVEY ANALYSIS OF PRE-SERVICE EDUCATOR PARTICIPANTS, Los PROMOTORES. 70
Preparation und Motivation
10
Program.................................................................. 70
Outreach and Communicatioll. ......................................... .. .
72
Logistics (?lthe Pro).,'Yalil
74
Bell~jits
alld Strellgths olthe Program ................................................. .................... 77
Challenges aJ1(lthe Future ofthe Progra!l1
78
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•...•.................•..•..••..••.••••••.••.••.•••.••.•••80
CONTEXT OF BOTII PROGRAMS .................................................................................... 80
STRENG n IS OF BOTII PROGRAMS
STRENGTHS Of TECH KIDS UNLIMITED PARTNERSHiP ................................................. 82
STRENGTIIS OF Los PROMOTORES ................................................................................ 85
AREAS OF IMPROVEMENI I'OR Bonl PROGRAMS ......................................................... 88
AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR TECH Kills UNI.IMITED PARTNERSIIIP ......................... 89
AREAS OF IMPROVEMLN r I'OR Los PROMOTORES
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEAI"" .................. 92
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 96
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 104
ApPENDIX A: INFORMED CONSENT EMAIL rOR PRE-SERVICE EDUCATORS .............. 104
ApPENDIX B: INfORMED CONSENT FOR ASSOCIATED PROGRAM LEADERS ............... 106
ApPENDIX C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR ASSOCIATED PROGRAM LEADERS .......... 108
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
AI'I'ENDIX 0: TEel! KIllS UNLIMITED PROORAM SURVEY
6
109
ApPENlllX E: Los PROMOTORES AFTERSCIIOOL PROGRAM FEEDBACK SURVEY ...... 114
ApPENDIX
F: INTERVIEW DATA FOR ASSOCIATED
PROGRAM LEADERS
119
Tech Kid, Unlimited ......
ApPI:NllIX G: IN'J ERVIEW DATA FOR SURVEY ANALYSIS .........
Tech Kids Unlimited Pre-Service Educator Survey Results
Los Prom%res
Pre-~)'erl'ice
119
Educator 5'urvey Result,,",, .....
132
132
148
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
7
Abstract
This exploratory study closely documents and examines two anerschool programs
(Tech Kids
imit"cI and Los Promotorcs P,S. 20 Literacy Program) that were developed
using a community-university partnership model with the Wagner College Education
Department during the 2014-2015 academic year. Using a framework that closely
documents. analyzes, and assesses program quality. this study explores how
partnerships can help meet the growing demand for high-quality allerschool programs and
highlights the need for addressing and supporting at-risk groups, specifically in urban
areas.
a three-part mixed methods approach. the study included participant observer
fieldwork, two pre-service educator surveys, and interviews from associated professors and
program leaders in these community-university partnerships. Seventeen Wagner College
pre-service educators were surveyed aner working in onc or both educational partnerships
to explore how they were prepared and to learn more about their experiences
programs, Findings highlight the need
in a
college
uut:Il"
to perceive
are participating
organized structure in order to effectively plan and support these afterschool
Furthennore, findings suggest that when college students have relevant
professional development activities, previous background with the population, and
opportunities for reflection, they have a more positive sense of the impact the community
university model. Program improvements are discllssed to promote positive adaptations
for college students in fulure partnership programs. This study
research can potentially improve current programs
versitv model for
universities.
yuamy
to the potential impact of
aftcrschool programming at small, urban
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
8
Chapter I: Conceptual Framework
Growing Demand for High-Quality Afterschool Programs
A need for high-quality afterschool programs is rapidly increasing according to a
February 2008 publication by the Harvard Family Research Project. The national estimate
suggested that 6.5 million children and youth, in kindergarten through 12[h grade,
participated in afterschool programs nationwide (Harvard Family Research Project, 2008).
While this number is staggering, estimates capturing data only a short time later show there
was an even greater need for high-quality afterschool programs. The estimated attendance
for afterschool programs in 2009 skyrocketed to nearly 8.4 million children yearly
(Afterschool Alliance, 2009). In 2014, the attendance grew to 10.2 million K-12 children,
18 percent of all school-aged children, participating in afterschool programs, with an
additional 19.4 million that were surveyed as hopeful participants if a quality program were
available in their community (Afterschool Alliance, 2014). As this need increases,
programs need to adapt strategies and support student growth, particularly within literacy
development (Afterschool Alliance, 2014). Nationwide, there are numerous afterschool
programs, but ongoing issue remains with accessibility, sustainability, scale and overall
quality of the programs (Reisner et al. 2004). In order to benefit children nationwide, there
must be careful consideration of the effectiveness and variety of high-quality afterschool
programs available for youth literacy growth in the United States and attention to how these
programs can be implemented in areas of need.
This is an issue that must be addressed, as the annual afterschool research has
highlighted that youth need access to programs. According to "America After 3PM," a
national survey commissioned by the Afterschool Alliance, there is a significant gap
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
9
between demand and supply of afterschool programs. In the 2014 edition of this survey,
which surveyed 30,000 U.S. families, for every child in a program. there are two more who
are not and whose parents would enroll their child if a program were available (Afterschool
Alliance, 2(14).
new
nation's most comprehensive longitudinal survey
of how America's children are spending their afternoons provides pivotal information on
how participation and demand for afterschool have changed over the last decade and how
they vary by state, income level, ethnicity. and more. The findings from the 2014 repOlt
show that 15.1 million children are unsupervised when the school day ends. Also for the
first time this year, "America After 3PM" will include detailed data on STEM (science,
technology, education and mathematics) and physical activity in afterschool (Afterschool
Alliance, 2014, p. 2). This report is funded by the Charles Stewart Molt Foundation, the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, The Wallace Foundation
with additional support from the Heinz Endowments, The Robert Bowne Foundation and
the Samueli Foundation. Together, the commitment of these major foundations signals a
recognition of the impact that aJierschool programs can make onlhe development of youth
nationwide.
As shov.n
the results of this insightful study, this demand is greatest among
African American, Hispanic and low-income families. The demand is strong among these
groups precisely due to the understanding of afterschool program benefits. Notably, more
than live in six parents
children in atierschool programs agree that the programs keep
kids sale and out - ",-_.
and more than eight in 1() agree that the programs help working
parents keep their jobs (Aftcrschool Alliance, 2(14).
While there may be varying
motivations for enrolling in programs, many students come ii-om homes where both parents
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
arc working or struggle with
10
literacy skills at home (Afterschool Alliance, 2014). The
body of evidence demonstrates improvements
attendance. behavior, academic
achievement and more among children who participate in alterschool programs, while
researchers have also found that afterschool programs encourage increased parental
involvement whi... h is an important building block for student success (Afterschool
Alliance, 2014).
Addressing the Needs of Children and Families in Urban Areas
The National Institute on Out-of-School Time shows
there is a lack
0
f
affordable, accessible afterschool opportunities f(lr school-age children (de Kanter et
2000). It is estimated that up to
,IS
many as 15 million "latchkey children" on any given
day go home to an empty house after school, while 44 percent of third graders spend at
least a portion of their out-of-school time unsupervised (de Kanter et aI, 2000). In 2000
supply of afterschool programs for school-age children in urban areas met as little as 20
percent of the demand (de Kanter et aI, 2000). Although the Clinton-Gore Administration
was active in establishing new initiiltives to meet
need in the early 2000's, more action
must be taken.
More specitically in New York City. nearly three in ten children (28%) participate
an afterschool program, though parents overwhelmingly support more aftcrschool
unding compared to national averages (Afterschool Alliance, 2(08).
national statistic
shows that 83 percent of parents support public funding for afterschool programs, while an
astounding 91 perccnt of New York City parents support this type offunding (Afterschool
Alliance, 20(8).
city uscs
from the Department of Youth and Community
Development, which garners resources from city, state, and federal funding, while also
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHlPS
11
enjoying Advantage After-School Program monies through state funds. The partnerships
the After-School Corporation (TASC) also provides promising models to expand
and ways that children learn throughout New York City (Afterschool Alliance, 2008). Still,
programs citywide are being cut due to budget constraints,
Spielberger and Halpern (2002) state that, "Allcrschool programs can
reading and writing as a way for children to relleet on their family and culture and explore
the links between their heritage and the customs and cultures of other in their community
providing access to mentors and community partners," This connection of community,
culture, and lamily is one aspect of afterschoolthat is essential in urban neighborhoods that
feature various socioeconomic and cultural groups, Afierschool programs present a unique
educational outlet to encourage cultural expression in a safe, supervised location in bustling
metropolitan regions nationwide,
In vastly diverse and populated regions like New York City, afterschool programs
have the potential to meet the affinities and needs of many unique learners. Sadly, budget
cuts impact
out-()l~sehool
learning and can potentially eliminate quality aftcrschool
programs at the expense academic regimes
this standardized high-stake testing era,
Consider the story ofOghcnakpobo Efekoro, a 15-year-old sophomore at Forest Hills lJigh
School and alumnus of Brooklyn, New York's I.S.3 J8
experienced budget CLlts for his
nationally established allerschool chess team. Their school sutlered a 1,6 percent cut that
threatened to discontinue many oi'the aflerschool programs, In a retketiv.:: piece presented
by the Afterschool Alliance (2014), Efekoro poignantly stated that, "Education is not a
bargaining chip to be Llsed
politicians, It is a necessity that ensures the next generation
can excel in an increasingly competitive world. It is a pathway, a gateway to success" (p.
�~
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
12
4). He goes on to state that everything in life begins \\lith a good education, and that
includes, "every aspect of education, including extracurricular activities and learning
programs that happen aner the 'school day' has ended" (Aftcrschool Alliance Storybook,
2014, p. 4). These budget cuts continue to occur despite various public funding streams
available in cities
New York. In order to address shortfalls. those wanting to extend
afterschool educational programming must connect with
like-minded lo'TOUPS to form
partnerships to promote quality education afterschool in all live boroughs and beyond.
lJ.S. Department of Education Involvement
Over the past 15 years, the United States Department of Education has realized the
imp0l1ance
urgency of providing aftcrschool programming
has missed the mark on
meeting the nationwide demand. One maior educational endeavor created by the
Department ofEdueation was the 21 5t Century Community Learning Center, which offered
grants for alierschool programming to give students more time to learn, improve their
acadcmics, and engage in other educational activities outside of the structured school day
(de Kanter et ai, 2(00). To ensure the high-quality nature of these programs, the grantees
were trained t\\lice a year on quality elements of an alicrschool program, including how to
best provide academic enrichment.
creation of
initiative was based on the unique
philosophy of collaboration that was implemented between the Charles Stewart Mott
Foundation of Flint, Michigan and the U.S. Department of Education in 1997. This
government-supported initiative was created with collaboration as the cornerstone of the
21 st Century Community Learning Centers program, since both rural and inner-city
schools benelit from collaborative partnerships. This partnership program initially
provided $550
in direct services. training, technical assistance. best practices
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
13
idcntillcation, evaluation, and access/equity; the public-private partnership with the
foundation far outweighed what federal funds alone could offer (de Kanter el ai, 2000).
In 2000, there was sufficient funding lor only 310 of the 2,253 applications
~ftpr<,..hnAl
programs through the 21st Century Community Learning Partners, and more
than 1,000 high-quality applications were unJimded. Additionally, of the $1.34 billion in
funding requested by schools across the nation to start atlcrschool programming in 2000,
only $185.7
was available
Kanter et
The Clinton-Gore
Adminisuation requested $1 billion for the 2001 fiscal year, with hopes that the increase
in funding could potentially eliminate as much of a quatter of the nation's atlerschool
demands (de Kanter et ai, 2(00).
More recently,
United States Department
Education announced a joint
signing of a Memorandum of Understanding detailing a plan to strengthen partnerships
among federal and local govemments, schools, families, and other organizations with the
goal of advancing teaming, enhancing student engagement, and improving schools (NLC,
20J 4). At the Congressional City Conference in Washington, the National League of Cities
(NCL) held community conversations in a number of cities nationwide to discuss strategies
to meetlhree major concerns, one being anerschooJ programs, One
was to
strategies
of this discussion
provllhng children with access to high-quality allerschool
learning experiences, especially those including increasing student outcomes, closing
achievement gaps, and improving social-emotional skills (NCL, 2(14). According to the
NCL Strategy Guide for Strengthening Partnerships, mayors
leaders
promote paI1nerships by engaging a broad set of partners, keeping aftcrschooltime on the
public agenda, and leading efi()rts by city, school, and community leaders to establish a
�Running head: QUALlTY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
14
common set of outcomes and a shared visionlorout-of-school time (NLC, 2(14). The U.S.
Department of Educatioll and national research institutes like NCL may have recognized
the importance of quality indicators,
remain, a problem
access
afterschool programs
because of major funding concerns.
Need for Federal Funding
While the national spotlight has shone on afterschool in recent years,
federal investment in programs across the country has been far
essential
adequate. The CUlTent
chief federal funding stream for afterschool and summer programs is 21 st Century
Community Learning Centers (21 st CCLC). Studies show that in 2007, the No Child Left
Behind Act authorized $2.5 billion for CCLC; however
appropriations leave current
at less than half that today (Afterschool Alliance, 2(08). Afterschool Alliance
Executive Director Jodi Grant has noted the shortsightedness of underfunding afterschool
programs, stating that. "When afterschool programs struggle without enough resources to
mcet the needs
ChIldren and families, schools, communities and the country sufler"
(Aftersehool Alliance, 2008, p. I).
Furthermore, Grant stated that, "Quality afterschool programs keep students safe
and supervised, provide opportunities
school and in
to learn and grow, prepare youth to succeed
and help them expand their horizons through hands-on, engaging
activities that are both educational and fun. It is clear that every penny invested in an
afterschool programs pays dividends for years to come" (Afterschool Alliance, 2014, p 2).
Increased funding should
be a goal to encourage consistent programming nationwide.
Still, a more immediate and realistic approach may be to explore implementation models
that offer sustainable and cost-effective for quality programming.
�]5
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
Creation of the Aftcrschool Alliance
In an elfort to further strengthen the national spotl ight on afterschool education,
The Charles Stewart Molt Foundation partnered with the U.S Department of Education to
create an even broader partnership concept, the Afterschool Alliance. Established in 2000,
this organization also
n~rtn('r('tl
J.C. Penney Company,
Open Society
After-School Corporation, the Entertainment Industry Foundation and the
Creative Artists Agency Foundation (Afterschool Alliance, 2015). This is a coalition
devoted to raising awareness and expanding resources for afterschool programs, with an
initial vision that every child in America would have access to quality afterschool programs
by 20 I O. While this vision was created nearly fifteen years ago and remains unmet, it is
crucial
(0
explore (he ways that this vision was approached and how this partnership
attempted to close the gap of access, quality, and equity in aftersehool programming
nationwide. Some programs that the Aftcrschool Alliance began included a national puhlic
service advertising campaign ("Finding the Hero Within"), a national day of recognition
on Octo her 12th ("Lights on Afterschool"). and (he identification and deployment of a
cadre of practitioner ..Aftcrschool Ambassadors"
assistance and influence
increased
rerscnooi AllianCe, 2015). The current vision
programming
ensure
for
every state to provide
afterschool
organization is to
youth have access to affordable, quality afterschool programs, while the
mission is to engage puhlie will to increase public and private investment in quality
afterschool program initiatives at the national, state and local levels (Aftersehool
Alliance, 2015).
�16
Running head: QUALITY AfTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
Additionally, the Afterschool Alliance is the only organization dedicated to raising
awareness of the importance of atlerschool programs, while also advocating lor
improvements in existing programs. The Afterschool Alliance works with government
agencIes
the U.s. Congress, governors, mayors and other educational advocates across
the country. With more than 25,000 afterschool program partners. this organization also
boasts an national online petition that has produced a database of after school supporters;
a sustained media campaign; and a series of briefing papers, rcports
widely by media,
fact sheets lIsed
makers, eonccrned organizations and individuals. In recent years.
the Afterschool Alliance has helped conduct some of the largest longitudinal studies to
survey quality aftcrschool programs across the country.
As documented in their policy briefs, the Allerschool Alliance has introduced
nation to more initiatives to address this national issue of afterschool educational
programmlllg. I he Aftcrschool Alliance has also played a major role in highlighting how
afterschool programs can directly address and focus on literacy education for at-risk
student populations
English language learners and students
SpeCIal needs. It
promotes nonprofit public awarcncss and advocacy organization working to ensure that all
children and youth have access to quality aftcrschool programs. With each yearly study,
the Afterschool Alliance demonstrates that alkrschool programs are uniquely positioncd
address opportunity gaps and support the
U~'Iuw,
writing
among
underserved youth to help them build a brighter future.
As part of the recognition for awareness of afterschool programs, the Afterschool
Alliance organizes an annual nationwide evcnt. On October 23,,1 in 2014 more than one
million people nationwide participated
attending science lairs,
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
17
rallies, fun nms, community service cvcnts, music and dance performances, open hOllses
and other events at schools, community centers, malls, parks
museums, state capitols,
recreation centers,
settings (Aftersehool Alliance, 2014). These events were
structured to raise awarcncss and celebrate
aHerschool programs that keep kids safe,
inspire them to learn, and help working families. Programs that are supported by
alierschool initiatives such as this have highlighted the need for funding, high-quality
programs, and dedicated program coordinators. Public awareness is growing, but
unfortunately so is the numbcr of students who arc marginalized and underexposed to
appropriate educational opportunities. As a result, afierschool programming increasingly
I()cuses on the most pressing issues for these underservcd populations.
Students at Risk: English Language Learners
literacy programs that support low-income, English
language learners provide a unique opportunity to help children and families that have
tidlcn behind, giving them a second chance to refocus towards successful literacy
development. !fusing innovative literacy enrichment opportunities, the academic advances
in the classroom and developmental advances in life are unmatched. According to the
National Council of Teachers of English (NCfE), English language learners (ELLs) are
the fastest growing segment of the student population as they now comprise 10.5 percent
of the nation's K-12 enrollment, up
five percent in 1990 (NCTE, 20 J4). Furthermore,
ELLs do not fit easily into simple categories. comprising a very diverse
varied
language proficiency, Bodo-economic standing.
have
expectations of
schooling, content knowledge, and immigration status (NCTE, 2014). Formerly, large ELL
populations were concentrated in a few states, hut today almost all states have populations
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
18
of ELLs. In 2005, four percent of ELL eighth graders achieved proficiency on the reading
portion of the National Assessment
graders
years
Educational Progress
were
were 21 percent less
·OIlClcm.
versus 31 percent of
Non-native
speakers 14-18
to have completed high school than native English
speakers (NCTE, 2014).
Speeifically
Staten Island's Port Richmond neighborhood, many families of
Mexican descent face challenges as English language learners. These students encompass
a group that would benefit greatly from a quality, appropriate afterschool programs that
promote literacy skills. Furthermore. research and anecdotal evidence show that
afterschool programs with structured literacy components can contribute positively to
children's' success in school, improvement in reading, and their overall social
Kanter et. al. 2000).
Students at Risk: Learners with Special Needs
Children with spccialnecds have historically been educated separately from their
non·disabled peers, sometimes being institutionalized and Bot educated at al L With the civil
rights movemcnt, however, a shift began with parents demanding that their exceptional
children have access to fi'ee and appropriate public education. Students with disabilities
were finally given access to free and appropriate public education through legislation in
1975, but despite these advances children with significant disabilities are grossly under
represented in at1:erschool programs (At1:erschool Alliance, 20(8). According to the U.S.
Department of Education, only 14 percent
served in programs in 2003·2004.
so,
disabilities ages 3 to 21 were
Afterschool Alliance (2008) noted that more
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
19
than 2.S million families nationwide are raising at least one child with a disability between
the ages of 5 and 17, representing lout of every 10 American families raising children.
Additionally, youth with disabilities face significant challenges both in the school
environment and in the transition to adult lives. With these at-risk factors, students with
disabilities are less likely to receive a regular high school diploma compared to their non
disabled peers and as many as sixty five percent of individuals with disabilities are
unemployed or underemployed (Afterschool Alliance, 200S). More specifically, there is an
incredible need to discern what will happen to the post- school age population of youth
with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). With the current Center for Disease Control rates
of verified autistic children at 1 in 6S, the nation is now faced with large numbers of young
people on the spectrum who will need to find employment in the next decade (CDC, 2014).
According to Paul Shattuck, a lead autism researcher at the A..T. Drexel Autism Institute,
"Young people with an ASD had the highest risk of being completely disengaged from any
kind of postsecondary education or employment. This risk remained greater than 50% for
the first 2 years after high school" (Shattuck et aI, 2012, p. 144). Furthemlore he states that,
"It appears that youth with an ASD are uniquely at high risk for a period of struggling to
find ways to participate in work and school after leaving high school" (Shattuck et ai, 2012,
p. 142).
One way to begin addressing these needs is through quality, appropriate
afterschool programming to support social, technical, and relevant academic skills.
Afterschool programs must reach students of all various ages and needs. There are
promising practices for implementing or incorporating successful strategies to support
students with special needs in afterschool programs. The National Information Center for
Children and Youth with Disabilities (1995) states that inclusive settings promote
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
20
improved performance on standardized tests, mastery of individualized education goals,
higher grades, improved behavior, and increased motivation to learn. While this notion is
geared towards in-school inclusive settings, there is also validity that educators and
program leaders can implement these practices in out-of-school programs. Furthermore,
afterschool programs can use supplemental services and assistive technology to support
learners with special needs (Gardner, 1997). Certain successful factors include,
"afterschool programs positively impacting students with special needs in key areas of
academic, cognitive and social skills" (Afterschool Alliance, 2004, p. 2). It is clear that
atierschool programming can make a pivotal impact on academic and social growth, but
this programming must not just be available, it must be quality.
This study examined two atierschool models that support learners with English
learning and special needs in the Staten Island community. The intent of this study was to
closely document and examine ways that these programs implemented programs to meet
their goals and support youth through the community-university partnership model. The
demand, as seen in the national statistics, is evident, and the community-university
partnership model has the potential to create, support, and grow quality programs. In this
study, the researcher hoped to explore each program in terms of quality and overall
experiences from levels of participation and programming. Specific study questions were
as follows:
• What successes and challenges existed in two current Wagner Education
Department community-university partnerships that provide afterschool
programs for youth (Los Promotores Atierschool Literacy Program and
Tech Kids Unlimited Workshops)?
�21
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
• What were specific program goals, implementation processes, and
structures of the programs?
• How
did
program
coordinators,
faculty,
graduate
students,
and
undergraduate students experience program quality?
• How could these programs potentialiy increase their quality delivery of their
community-university partnership model?
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
22
Chapter II: Review of Literature
The overwhelming data about the national demand and need for quality after school
programs create a strong case for increased programming. However, in meeting these
nccds, it is important to understand what is known about models of successful afterschool
programming and cost-effective ways to sustain programs. This literature review will
explore the conceptual development, program curriculum, development, and participant
feedback of successful afterschool programs nationwide. In addition, the literature will
explore various themes to inform ways to sustain, support, and establish strong afterschool
program models by reviewing what ways successful afterschool programs nationwide
achieved quality and how this idea of
is defined, Furthermore, it
speciftcally
consider the community-university modcl in coordination with small universities in urban
settings to see how afterschool programs can be implemented using this model.
Defining, Assessing, and Evaluating Quality in Afterschool Programs
Afterschool programs can define and assess quality through careful program
evaluations. There are three basic reasons to define quality in out-of-school programs,
according the Harvard Family Research Project (2008). These major reasons include
making management decisions, demonstrating accountability, and building a case for
sustain ability. Although there is no definitive approach to evaluating a program, there arc
some basic principles for approaching this matter.
programs have
ability to evaluate,
but the type of evaluation often depends upon the degree to which program services are
established (HFRP, 2008).
Whether collecting attendance data or administering participant surveys, the
process of data collection does not need to be especially complex. Y(lung programs must
�23
Running head: QUALITY AFTER SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
examine start-up concerns like implementation and staff training, while more
programs can assess effects of their services. All programs must consider their stakeholders
when planning evaluations in order to establish consensus about their importance and help
avoid resentment when concerns may arise about evaluation processes or findings.
Evaluations can also be empowering because they can make stakeholders fcel they are
involved with a program that matters, helping to make these missions stronger and more
developed over time (HFRP, 200S).
One of the initial steps
any evaluation is to define program goals and how
services aim to meet them, As explained by the Harvard Family Research Project,
convemng all out-oj~school time stakeholders
helps all stakeholders, including
staft~
the program
clarifying goals together
specify program content and intentions, A lIsefill
approach to goal setting is the development of a logic model, which is a clear way to design
and summarize key elements of a program
show the cause-and-effect relationship
between the program and its intended results. A productive logic model example from
which programs can learn was created in 2000 by the Child Care Parlncrship Project and
features the clements of desired results, motivating conditions
causes, strategies,
activities, performance measures, and indicators (HFRP, 2008),
Another option for programs to help assess and evaluate their level of quality is the
Five-Tiered Approach to Program Evaluation, which can provide a helnful contextual
guide for assessing afterschool models.
programs are able to do at least some
evaluation, but the various tiers allow different types of program to explore quality,
only tier recommended for all programs is tier one, pre-implementation planning, which is
something that every program can and should do. The various tiers include Tier One: Pre
�24
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
Implementation Planning, Tier Two: Service Documentation, Tier Three: Program
Clarification, Tier
Program Modification, Tier Five: Program Impact (HFRP, 2008).
In overall evaluation planning, though, a program's intom1ation needs evolve as it develops
and, therefore, its evaluation approach must accommodate program change (HFRP, 2008).
Using this tiered model, programs can identify many ways to assess their level of impact,
quality,
sllstainabili ty.
Evaluation is an ongoing cycle of process-feedback
evaluation to shape
requIres phases of
next phase. Programs can usc any number of program evaluation
approaches to assess, define, and achieve quality, but the considerations
by each
program size, type, and model. There are variolls ways that programs can achieve quality,
but having clear goals and serving a population in need are o1ien major features in
definitions of quality programs. Nationwide, there arc many allerschool programs that have
achieved quality and set a standard of excellence.
Literacy Based Programs for Urban, Low-Income, and ELL populations
Background
Efl'ective programs have
ability to support language growth and literacy
acquisition for English language learners and native speakers. The following attcrschool
program examples provide insight to the literature documenting national successes in
afterschool programming related to literacy development. As literacy now encompasses
many digital aspects,
review of literature includes
digital and more traditional
literacy content. The specific programs detailed below have established strong afterschool
program models, which while using different approaches, have proven successful
according to close evaluations.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PAKINERSHIPS
25
CORAL Initiative
Calilornia, The James Irvine Foundation launched the Communities Organizing
Resources to Advance Learning (CORAL) initintiw
1999 with the goal
the academic achievement of children in the lowest-performing schools in live Calitornia
cities. CORAL adopted a targeted approach toward reaching this goal by integrating a
regular schedule ofliteracy instruction into its afterschool programs. This tightly focused
literacy program ran three to /()ur days a week and resulted in "pronounced gains in
achievement
a range of students (Arbreton. A., et. aI., 2008). CORAL implemented
high-quality and consistent literacy programming. To assess the impact of their focus on
literacy achievement, their evaluations examined parlicipants' characteristics, program
experiences, engagement, outcomes, and program quality and costs, based on child surveys
and assessments, program observations, parent surveys and foclIs groups, and statl'surveys
One major approach that helped the CORAL Initiative was the constant
documentation and quality review of all atierschool program functions. Sheldon, Arbreton,
Hopkins, and Grossman (2010) effectively examined the relationship between the
implementation quality of after-school literacy activities and student reading gains. Using
the locus of
CO RAL
1Illllall
they evaluated
multI-SIte aiterschool program in
California, ultimately helping this program improve the delivery of their balanced literacy
program. Some research highlights include specific strategies that programs should
implement, including targeted statTtraining throughout the year, regular observations and
coaching of staff; and the use of data to measure progress (Arbreton ct. a\., 2008). The
evaluation was realistic and provided an additional view of the CORAL oro gram, which
�26
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
,n,t"lIv
struggled to successfl
implement strategies early in the initiative. However.
with careful monitoring and program adaptations, (he afterschool model at this site
gradually improved quality and consistency. Results suggested that the size of student
reading gains were positively correlated with the quality of literacy programming provided
by each instructor (Arbreton, A, ct. ai., 2008). Clearly, the training and skill
of the
instructors in low income, urban California cities made a maior impact in the
balanced literacy model for
allerschool student population.
21s1 Century Community Learning Centers
The 21 st Century Community Learning Centers program was a key component of
the Clinton-Gore administration's commitment to help families and communities keep
their children safe and smart, supported by grants from the U.s. Department
(de Kanter ot ai, 2000). This program enabled school districts to fund public schools with
afterschool access, funding over 3,600 schools in morc than 900 communities (de Kanter
et aI, 2000). Through this partnership, grants were provided to fund public schools as
community education ccnters. Thcse centers included student access to afterschool
homework centers, tutors, cultural enrichment, and recreational
opportunities (de Kanter et
15 hours each week, with
onA
n .. tr't'~n<>
2(00). About 60 percent of these centers operated at least
vast majority focused on boosting achievement in core subject
areas.
A succcssful aspect of these 2 I st Century Community Learning Centers was the
communication with the regular school day program, found to be evident in several
collaborative activities. Onc of the most surprising statistics relating to
program was
atiersehool
approximately 90 percent of the learning centers collaborated with
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
27
community-based organizations (NCL, 2014). The 21st Century Community Learning
Centers program demonstrates that partnership models can be sustained with grant funding
to provide expanded support for children and their families in the crucial afterschool hours
(NCL,2014).
Writing Rock Stars
At George Mason University, Gring-Pemble and Gardner (2010) show how the
development, implementation, and preliminary findings of an innovative writing program
that drew upon a peer collaborative model and a community literacy perspective. While
this effort was developed as an afterschool program, the project demonstrated the value of
a community-university partnership, which was designed to provide an enjoyable forum
for teaching and learning writing techniques, including principles outside of strict state
curricular guidelines. Some of the most relevant and helpful data suggested that important
benefits of this type of partnership are for young children, parents, and the surrounding
community. It was applicable and relevant to the after-school literacy programs and
provided insight to the partnership model.
This program aimed to improve basic grammar and high-level writing skills by
providing an enjoyable forum for teaching and learning writing techniques and principles
beyond state curricular guidelines (Gring-Pemble & Garner, 2010). The writing instruction
program aim was created due to the community outcry for quality writing instruction, as
the Virginia Public schools' writing guidelines were lacking thc instructional strengths
parents and educators felt were necessary. This pilot program earned praise from school
administration and teachers, inspiring Fairfax County Schools to request writing program
support from other community stakeholders.
�28
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
Literacy Loop
Another successful afterschool program
IS
-itf':nwv
program engages
Loop.
cross-age tutors to complement Open Court, which is their dominant system or a phonics
based reading and writing curriculum implemented in students' regular school day. Linking
the afterschool program to the in-school curriculum created a sense of continuity to the
literacy instruction (Madsen, 2011). In this program, tutors were randomly paired with
afterschool
who were
identified as being low
reading skills and/or
reading l1ueney. Weekly, each dyad participated in a one-on-one session for 30 to 50
minutes lasting for 10 weeks. The paliicipants used cross-age tutoring, which is noted as
one of many useful tools for specifically enhancing reading achievement and is also
successful for reading remediation (Ritter et aI., 2009). At the end of the 10-week period,
each child was asked to write a short paragraph describing their reading experience, while
each college student was asked to write a lengthier description of their experiences
(Madsen, 2011). During the study, these college tutors were under the daily supervision of
the regular after-school elementary teacher who supervised the entire program (Madsen,
20 11).
KidzLit
A
based program known as KidzLit has
success
using a literaturc-based curriculum (Sheldon et. ai, 2012). This particular afterschool
program used similar features J()und in the phonics-based Literacy Loop. KidzLit provided
high-quality literature through read-alouds, independent reading, and additional extension
activities that included role-playing, writing, and creating music and art. Within Kidzlit,
instructors completed read
as a focus
the program, which also included "cool
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
words" vocabulary exercises and writing exercises (Sheldon ct.
29
2012, p. 397). Kidzlit
also emphasized additional strategies that allowed youth to think more deeply
texts-
for example, discussion, art, drama or music activities related to tbe read
(Sheldon ct
201
accompanying guides
p. 399). Kidzlit provided books to use for read alouds, as
suggested activities
as
relate to those books.
Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools
During a pilot afterschool program at Los Angeles Unified School District's Robert
F. Kennedy Community Schools, the use of digital literacies was studied using a
combination of field-notes, instructor and student retlections, photographs, video
recordings, and student work to illustrate the program's culture of participatory learning
(Felt et ai, 2012). Students were supported with acquisition of digital literacy skills, new
media literacies, and social and emotionalleal'lling competencies. In essence, this program
shows that aftcrschool programs can simultaneously build relationships with citizenship
while enhancing literacy skills for learners both online and online (Felt et ai, 2012).
Part of the sllccessful theoretical framework included practicing the 4 C's of
Participation, which invited and often demanded twelve new media literacies (NMLs). This
unique set of cultural competencies was based on the social shifts and skills that young
people need and recognized the participatory culture of online and amine "affinity" spaces
(Felt ct aI, 2012, p. 212).
The interest driven curriculum established heightened
motivations for new forms of engagement,
and
problems
215). Overall,
also, "creating opportunities for creating
a variety of meOla,
practices"
et ai,
afterschool program comnouteo to the
participatory learning and supported creative grov.'th.
2, p.
of
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
30
Integrating Digital Literacies in After-School
Another successful attcrschool program that aimed to address literacy skills
occurred through a New York graduate program for pre-service educators. McDermott and
Gormley (2013) show how instructors can integrate the digital literaeies into atterschool
programs, providing evidence that digital literacies can be successfully integrated into
lessons to help struggling learners in allerschool programs. The program used a model of
community-university partnerships with pre-service college students participating in an
atter-school practicum over a six-week period with a local elementary school. This
practicum was part or a required program for teachers completing their master's degrees in
literacy education or literacy and special education. In order to identify the structure of
their lessons and the impact of the types of digitalliteracies with the children, pre-service
educators helped students gain oral reading fluency, which helped them compose
multimedia texts.
A typical structure of a digital lesson included lesson openings, fluency practicc,
graphiea, and composing and comprehending (Gormley & McDermott, 2013). Thcse
reoccurring features introduced children to digital recorders like Audacity and graphic
comic creator websites
educators also used ,."lInJ.."".
Animoto. Some
leatures
Make Beliefs Comix. Students and pre-service
Oil
webquests
composed
texts using
digital literacy program included mini-Icssons
on graphic novels, acrostic poems, independent reading of conventional books, and
challenge questions. Teachcrs were able to capitalize on the social nature of digital
literacies while also recognizing the collaborative efi<.lfts of students to complete these
projects.
�31
Running head: QUALITY AI'TERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
John W. Gardner Youth and Communities at Stanford University
Another successful afterschool program initiative was created through a
community-university partnership between the John W. Gardner Youth and Communities
Program with Stanfi1rd University. Research has found
partnership is vital to improving
community-university
lives of youths, supporting community-development
and engaging civic leaders (Anyon & Fernandez, 2007). Furthermore, their
research shows how college students can impact different allerschool programs. In two San
Francisco Bay-area communities, Redwood City and West Oakland. programs highlight
how universities can be positively impacted by community partnerships. More specifically,
program was based on a youth-leadership model called Youth Engaged in Leadership
and Learning (YELL) that supported young people to lead projects on social justice (Anyon
and Fernandez (2007). This study showed how universities can connect to communities
while improving the program goals through documentation and research.
Quality Afterschool Programs for Students with Special Needs
Background
Effective collaboration among professionals can result in improved services and
enhanced quality of life for children with disabilities (Forlin & Hopewell, 2006).
FlIrthennore, collaboration
become an essential
serVing
within
schools and beyond (Friend & Cook, 2009). Community-university partnerships provide a
valuable model that may include businesses, health care facilities, and not-for-profit
organizations, as well as individuals (I lands, 2005; Sanders, 200 I). Hands (2005) descdbes
Stich partnerships to support students with disabilities as a "win-win situation" (p, 13).
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
32
Kids Included Together (KIT)
Kids Included Together (KIT) is one example of an afterschool model that actively
supports special needs youth.
non-profit organization supports recreational, child
youth developmcnt programs that include children with and without
disabilities (Alterschool Alliance. 2(08). One of the strengths of this program is the
training and support on best practices for the out-of-school time. KIT also recognizes the
power of partnerships and focuses on sustainability so that organizations continue to
provide inclusive environments.
Orange County Public School J\fterscbool
The county government established a fund to ensure
with disabilities, have access to 'I"'''''J
stuoents, IIlCluOlllg children
education during aftcrschool hours. This
also ensures that programs arc adequately funded and have a staff that is trained
through the county and school system to best meet the need of all students. Elizabeth
Fulmer of the School Age Child Care Services in Orange County, Florida, stated that,
"Afterschool program that include children with special needs allow all children to develop
social skills as well as participate in enrichment activities" (Fulmer, 2008, p. 3). It is
strongly based in the philosophy that all children have the opportunity to participate, since
modifications can always be made.
Community-University Partnerships and the Potential Impact
As seen in many of the previously explored afterschool programs, the use of
community-university partnerships can provide a wide anay of options for inl()rmal
educational programming. According to Novak, Murray, Scheuermann, and Cunan (2009),
three essential characteristics are present in authentic service learning experiences for
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCIIOOL PARTNERSHIPS
33
university students partnering with schools and community-based organizations. These
characteristics include a reciprocalrclationship through which a specitlc community-based
need is met, the integration of academic content within the service learning experience, and
ongoing rel1ection connecting the content and the experience to personal growth (Novak
et ai, 2009). At universities
Stanford,
n1Versltv of Pennsylvania. lniversitv of South
Carolina, Carleton College. and George Mason University. education departments are
placing significant emphasis on the role of valuable partnerships. These education
departments are paving the way for pre-service educators to gain valuable experience.
while also I()cusing on supporting local evaluation efforts and engaging major community
development initiatives. As found in many cases, these initiatives resulted in powerful new
knowled!!e for the academic field and transformative experiences for community members.
Although the partnerships ill many of these communities evolved differently, they strove
to support all stakeholders involved.
Using the hub of community-university partnerships to blend academic support
with community need, several atierschool programs have
Stanford
an effective method.
University of South Carolina were able to succeed using clear
program outlines and attainable objectives. Another feature was to use professional
learning communities and professional development site-inquiry based tcacher training,
which was explained and used effectively with Project RAISSE. In order to partner
em~ctively
with local elementary schools, the University of South Carolina used the theory
base of their professional development and applied it to direct practice on site (Clary et ai,
2012).
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
34
At the University of South Carolina, Clary, Stylsinger, and Oglan (2012) created a
literacy leaming community model that developed between two educational partnership
sites and their large southern public university. This successful program showed how
teacher collaboration and shared learning across content areas in the tlrst year impacted
teachers' learning about literacy instruction
Similar to
each K- I 2 schools' vision for literacy.
successful literacy programs, they embedded staff development
characterized by collaborative approaches to teachers' learning located in professional
learning communities; such an approach is effective especially with respect to teaching
content area reading (Clary ct aI, 2012). It was shown how teacher collaboration that
honors continuous professional leaming, either in a school-university partnership or within
a wider group at the school or district level, offers
possibilities for generating viable
literacy-based learning communities. The opportunities can be modeled after a working
program for literacy education.
Similarly, Harkvay (2005) presented the importance of researching and evaluating
university-community collaboration in an urban setting. Over a series of two decades, the
University of Pennsylvania, community organizations, and the
schools
Philadelphia Penn's Center for Community Partnerships (CCP) have worked with other
neighborhood resources to create university-assisted community schools that are centers of
education and engagement. Not only does this type of partnership provide a range of
additional services lor students, their parents, and other community members, it is backed
by credible research. The specific partnerships described arc
promotion
school-based community
disease prevention program at Sayre Middle School and the literacy
program at Drew Elementary School. Most specifically, the literacy program offers insights
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
into how the university and the community have worked together to create meaningful
change. Former U.S, Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley even said
schools, working with community partners, are the best place for aftcrschool programs ..
. they are at the center of
learning opportunities
community
a great position to offer high-quality
a sale place" (de Kanter et
2000, p, 6).
University of
Pennsylvania and the surrounding community have gained a sense of trust and shared
growth over these two decades of partnerships,
At Bowling Green University, the education department used the service-lcarning
model to partner with their surrounding community. In two different special education
tcacher preparation approaches, teacher candidates were supported in community
university partncrships, Notably, the undergraduate version involved an aftcrschool
learning program for students in need of additional skill development while the graduate
candidates developed and implemented specific projects of value to the community agency.
The collaborations prepared candidates to engage in service learning while combining the
experience with specific learning goals (Gonsicr-Gcrdin & Royce-Davis, 2(05). Students
also had clear course guidelines and used a consistent
of
nHrpnt
conference
checklists, student asscssments, lesson planning, progress reports, and reflection logs to
curriculum goals.
Carleton College's Commitment to Community-University Partnerships
Another strong example of successful community-university partnerships is The
CCCE Volunteer Tutoring Program provided at Carleton College ("Carleton College
Center for Community and Civic Engagement", 2015). According to the 2015 edition of
college rankings in the US, News and World Report, Carleton College was awarded the
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
36
number one spot lor undergraduate teaching at a national liberal arts college. As a small
private college, Carleton enrolls approximately 2,000 undergraduate students, and their
mission is strongly rooted in community engagement. Their education department and
civic engagement department coordinate a free tutoring program that matches Carleton
student volunteers with local NorthfIeld students in need of one-on-one academic
assistance in any subject.
In this atlerschool program,
needs
11nnl'W
seSSIons
arc InOlVIU
to
student's
can mclude review of concepts learned in school, preparation for upcoming tests,
help with homework, or other academic matters ("Carleton College Center for Community
and Civic Engagement", 2(15). All inlol1nation about this program is concisely outlined
on their education website and
interest
explained in Spanish Students and fiunilies that have
community arc providcd a link to the tutoring request forms, pairing them
with specific collegiate tutors. Beyond this partnership, Carleton College has numerous
community connections and opportunities. including Prqjeet Friendship. This program
matches college students
elementary
grades) IrOnl the
community district of Northfield schools. The goal of the program is to develop strong
friendships between college students who have made positive choices in their lives and
children who need such role models. In this program, pairs meet once a week, and
additionally participate with
pairs
a large group activity a few times a term.
Volunteers in this program must also receive training through an orientation and complete
an application ("Carleton College Center for Community and Civic Engagement", 2(15).
�37
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
strengthening.
higher education institution places a strong value on
and maintaining partnerships. They even highlight best practices and principles of good
partnerships for other universities and community partners to consider. Some of the
recommendations of best practices include allotting time for relationship building, \earning
to talk together about inequality and its causes with candor; identifying trust established
partnerships; understanding organizational contexts to explore nOTInS, culture, traditions
and value; ensuring fairness in the exchange of resources; sharing in
meticulous about
role ofexpert;
details of specific goals of the partnership ("Carleton College
Center for Community and Civic Engagement". 2015).
Themes of Quality Program Models and Implementation
These afterschool programs from across the country offer a rich picture of how
program providers have striven to ensure students have quality afterschool learning
opportunities.
Six themes stand out across the literature: Clear goals
vision, active
inclusion of 2 I" century literacics, use of balanced literacy approaches,
,trona
stalf and proICssional development,
rigorous research agendas.
Clear Goals and Shared Vision from Stakeholders
Having a collective goal with a sustainable vision creates a seamless partnership
for communities and universities. Stakeholders must develop positive relationships and
provide effective practices to confirm the value and contextual relevance of these
partnerships.
(CCPII),
further developing the research of Community-Campus Partnerships for
College has
he principles of good community
university partnerships. Some of the principles of good
('nmm
campus partnerships
include, "partners having agreed upon mission, values, goals and measurable outcomes
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
38
the partnership; the relationship hetween partners being characterized by mutual trust,
respect, genuineness and commitment; the partnership building upon identified strengths
and assets, but also addressing areas that need improvement; the partnership balancing
power among partners and enabling resources among partners to be shared" ("Carleton
College Center for Community and Civie Engagement", 2015). It also states that there must
be strong feedback to, among, and from all stakeholders in the partnership, with the goal
of continuously improving the partnership and its outcomes ("Carleton College Center for
Community and Civic Engagement", 2015). Such clarity and transparency help further the
partners to share credit for accomplishments and taking time to evolve over time. For
participants in the programs, the shared vision and goals make the process run more
smoothly.
Staff, Student, and Program Evaluations
One of the higgest benefits of the community-university model is the opportunity
to establish a strong learning agenda.
Successful afterschool programs using the
community-university partnership model consistently pursue collaborations that support
evaluation of practice for both students and the broader community (Anyon & Fernandez,
2007). A consistent argument of researchers shows that the most effective and influential
afterschool programs were able to reflect, evaluate, and critique their programs. For
example, in the KidzLit program, the programmers completed internal evaluations of staff
members and their impact on student development. In addition, all the programs and
curricula studied approach literacy differently and use different measures to determine
impact on students. Although the overall scope of the studies varied greatly, the focus for
student growth and literacy development was consistent. While some studies were
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
39
nationwide, others like the CORAL initiative, were conducted locally to meet specific
needs of the community.
Use of 21" Century Literacics in Afterschool Model
In this technological era, literacy's definition continues to grow to encompass more
types of literacy beyond the classic notion of reading and writing. Now, literacy
encompasses the digital age and addresses new literacies like blogging, wikis, e-readers,
and computer-competency skills. However, the constant seems to remain that low-income,
disenfranchised students across the U.S. are behind in literacy skills-including these new
literacies-due to unequal opportunities to learn both at home and in the classroom. Quality
afterschool programs often include these new literacies and promote innovative learning
experiences in an informal setting.
The NCTE Definition of 21st century literacies was adopted in February 2013,
noting the growth and change of the literacy skills needed in society. As they note in their
definition, since "literacy has always been a collection of cultural and communicative
practices shared among members of particular groups ... society and technology change,
so does literacy" (NCTE, 2014, p. 12). Furthermore, the updated NCTE definition states
that, "Because technology has increased the intensity and complexity of literate
environments. the 21 st century demands that a literate person possess a wide range of
abilities and competencies, many literacies" (p. 13). This is one aspect of engaging
afterschool programs that could be considered for appropriate afterschool curriculum.
Effectiveness of the Balanced Literacy Model
Within several effective afterschoolliteracy programs, balanced literacy was used
as a program model. For the CORAL afterschoollnitiative, "each lesson had to include, at
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
40
a minimum, an opportunity Jor staff to read aloud to youth and an opportunity for youth to
read individually with leveled book, while also including other key balanced literacy
strategies" (Sheldon et. aI, 2012, p. 399). Some of these effective tools within balanced
literacy included book discussion, writing, vocabulary building, and "fun" activities to
encourage
development orJiteracy
any given balanced literacy lesson, in
first year of implementation, the CORAl, instmctors generally led youth in about three
of those literacy activities.
CORAL used this model tollowing the eftective balanced literacy models of pa~t
afterschool programs including Kidzlit and
(Youth Education for Tomorrow). These
programs implemented the balanced literacy model
support ofone-on-one
and levcled classroom texts. Although Kidzlit docs not contain an independent reading
component as part of its standard curriculum, the CORAL cities included this component
in their programming in order to offer a complete balanced literacy curriculum.
Another use of the balanced literacy model was used and proven ellective by
afterschool research is from Youth Education for Tomorrow
This structured
program included five primary activities such as read ,1I0uds, youth reading independently,
skill activities to build youth's literacy skills, opportunities to talk about books during
"shout out," and writing (Sheldon et. aI, 2012, p. 398). Within this structure, instructors
were free to choose their own books, lesson topics and skill activities, although YET did
not provide additional suggestions. For independent reading, YET worked with 100 Rook
Challenge, an organization
provides sites with bins of leveled books to ensure
youth are reading at appropriate levels.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
41
Meaningful Professional Development and Dedicated Staff
One of the most consistent themes in successful aftersehool programs was the
incorporation of highly qualified and trained staff for programs. According to the 2014
NCTE, "Professional learning of educators is necessary for high-quality literacy instruction
and student learning at all academic levels," as this experience, "depends upon tapping the
substantial expertise that already exists and upon sharing constantly emerging knowledge
about literacy tcaching and learning" (NCTE, 2014, p. 3).
The inclusion of trained, prepared program volunteers is essential for quality
afterschool programs. Whether supporting pre-service educators or paid employees, the
stafr participants in successful afterschool programs were provided meaning instruction
prior, during, and after program implementation. One method that has been used is the
TEARS framework. This was originally defined by Leggett and Persichitte (1998) as a set
of implementation factors /()r classroom educational technology using five factors
including time, expertise, access, resources, and support (Gutierrez, N. et ai, 200S). Since
afterschool programs have unique schedules, programs,
needs, professional
development should help afterschool staff members to address program needs and student
leaming needs. By having an intentional planning process, high quality professional
development can help support a concise framework for detailed curriculum and well
prepared staff members. This planning process impacts the student learning outcomes and
makes the process of afterschool professional development a worthwhile endeavor.
Within the same idea of highly trained
the use of university partnerships can
provides a group of staff participants with specific skill sets. For example, schools
education can provide assistance in staff training and development to guide curricula and
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
42
programs to standards (NLC, 2014). Having students that arc being supported with
related coursework, especially in educational after school settings, provides a unique
opportunity for all stakeholders.
Ongoing Research of Programs
Another feature
successful aftcrschool programs and partnerships is the
accountability and rigorous quantitative indicators of program benefits through quasi
expclimental or experimental research designs. In recent evaluations of the After-School
Corporation's (TASC) programs (Reisner ct aI, 2002), evaluators combined quasl
experimental impact estimates with interviews, focus groups, reviews of program
documents,
in-depth site observations.
approach enabled cvaluators to identify
both likely program impacts (e.g., increa~ed math performance and school attendance) and
strong program components that seemed likely to have contributed to these impacts (e.g.,
intensity of activities and integration with host schools). Mixed-methods approaches
provided a morc holistic picture of the program and
program quality
might lead to youth outcomes. This approach helps establish program quality, whereby
quantitative results arc enriched and expanded through qualitative inquiry (Rossman &
Wilson, 1994).
�43
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
Chapter III: Methods
The literature guided this study design in an ellt)rtto identify
the beneficial use of the
research supports
partnership model for educational
atterschool programs. More speeilically, this project explored and closely documented two
afterschool programs offered through the Wagner College Education Department during
the 2014-2015 academic-year. The two programs being analyzed included the Los
Promotores P.S. 20 Aftersehool Literacy Program and Tech Kids Unlimited Workshops
(also referred to as Wagner TecKids U Lab and TKU). The goal of this study was not to
compare and contrast these partnerships, but rather to engage readers in each program's
complexities. While each program had a specific focus group of students,
strove for developing participants' lif..lnn
language learners
programs
the former supporting English
latter supporting learners with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Each
these aflerschool programs used different approaches to increase academic language,
social-emotional development, teehnical skills, and real-life applications of the knowledgc
and skills being learned. Though different in these respects, each program was
implemented in the community through a partnership with the education department and
provided experiences to benefit pre-service educators. While all associated pre-service
educators were invited to the study, they were not required to participate. With
the results show only a portion of participants and not
complete experiences of the
population.
careful planning and implementation, successful afterschool programs can
support youth with rich experiences. Therel(lre it is necessary f(lr researchers to help these
programs assess core faetors of quality and explore outcomes to create even higher quality
�44
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
programs (Afterschool Alliance, 20 II). This action research project strove to use document
analysis and participant feedback for each program, exploring intended and actual
experiences of undergraduate students, graduate students, professional educators, and
program coordinators. The goal was to create quality documentation to support program
improvement in each afterschool program, highlighting successes of each initiative based
on the college students' feedback, and showing areas that were most productive and/or
challenging for future programs using this model.
It is important to note that this research did not address the quality of the school
aged populations' experience or, in the case of Los Promotores, parents' experiences. The
focus of the study was strictly on the college students' perceptions, based on the reality that
such college-community partnerships rely heavily 011 college student particppation.
There are a variety of community-university partnership models that offer
afterschool programs, but research remains limited for how smaller universities can utilize
the models specifically for youth education. This research hoped to provide insight as to
how high-quality aftcrschool programs can function through the community-university
partnership model in smaller institutions. Although funding is limited in many of these
circumstances,
community-university
partnerships
allow
exciting
educational
collaborations in a cost-efficient model. This is a model that can support the development
ofpre-service educators by allowing quality, experiential learning to occur. The afterschool
program environment presents young learners with an unmatched arena with academic,
social, emotional and physical development, but quality matters; extra time spent in
program in not enough (Afterschool Alliance, 20 II). One possible way to help bridge the
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
45
gap for communities that lack quality programming is to consider the community
university partnership model.
More specifically, the questions of the study included the following:
• What successes and challenges existed in two current Wagner Education
Department community-university partnerships that provide afterschool
programs for youth (Los Promotores Afterschool Literacy Program and
Tech Kids Unlimited Workshops)?
• What were specific program goals, implementation processes, and
structures of the programs?
• How
did
program
coordinators,
faculty,
graduate
students,
and
undergraduate students experience program quality?
• How could these programs potentially increase their quality delivery of their
community-university partnership model?
Beyond these program specific questions, the research also strove to compare these
two local programs compare to the national literature on community-university
partnerships. Additionally, the study hoped to explore, if possible, the ways these two local
programs might learn from and more closely emulate, where appropriate, the national
literature on community-university partnerships.
Participant Selection, Risks and Benefits
This study was completely voluntary, inviting the 24 undergraduate and graduate
participants in the programs, with the hope of obtaining approximately 10 total participants.
Each program had a different context and focus for participants, as Tech Kids Unlimited
�46
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
was a paid weekend
entire semester
a~
mmortllnitv
Los Promotorcs stretched over the course of the
part of a graduate program requirement. In all, 17 undergraduate and
graduate students participated in the confidential survey portion of the research, Seven
participants from the graduate program were survey participants for Los Promotores while
10 participants from both undergraduate and graduate programs partook
lnlimited survey.
survey respondents
Kids
Los Promotores showed only a small sample
participants over one semester of the program, though all pre-service educators
were invited. This study did not intend to survey participants hom the four semesters of
thc program, but their experienccs could benefit future studies,
As was made clear in the consent
A),
individuals
for the participant survey (see Appendix
not choose to participate, there was no negati ve outcome.
Furthemlore, the study Llsed no deception and it ensured transparency for participants, as
stated in the email consent and survey agreement.
addition to the pre-service educators,
coordinators, laculty and program
research
program
interviews, They were also invited through a
voluntary invitation process and contacted via email.
Three key program leads
participated, two from TKU and one from Los Promotores.
These interviews were
conducted with initial assurances of confidentiality and a follow-up member cheek to allow
full publication of the data (Appendix Bl.
Setting
Each program took place at different settings over the course of the 2014-2015
academic year. The Tech Kids Unlimited Workshops took place in the Spiro Hall Mac Lah
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
47
at Wagner College on a series of four Sunday afternoon sessions fonn November 2014
through February 2015. Los Promotores Afterschool Literacy Program took place in two
classrooms ofP.S. 20 in the Port Richmond community of Staten Island, New York. This
program was an afterschool program that took place from 4:20-6:00 pm on Monday
afternoons from August 20 I 4-December 2014.
Participant Observer
A participant observation methodology following the guidelines of Patton (2002)
was used in this study. The research used participant observer notcs and document analysis.
The participant observer data was inclusive of all the researcher's own documents from
August 25th, 2014 through February 25 th , 2015 (Patton, 2001). The timeline allowed each
program to complete one full cycle of each afterschool program. The Los Promotores
Afterschool Literacy Program used participant observer notes from September 2014
December 2014. The Tech Kids Unlimited Workshop included participant observer notes
from November 2014 to February 2015.
Instrumentation Design
Based on the review ofliterature, two surveys were developed by the researcher for
pre-service educator participants in the two afterschool programs (See Appendices D and
E). The researcher used online surveys created through Qualtrics. Each survey was
designed with five blocks of questions divided into the following conceptual areas:
"Preparation and Motivation to Participate," "Outreach and Communication," "Logistics,"
"Benefits and Strengths ofthe Program," and "Challenges and the Future of the Program."
The questions consisted of the same structure for each afterschool program, using a
combination of sliding scale, multiple choice, and text entry to provide themes for analysis.
�48
Running head: QUALlTY AFTERSCIIOOL PARTNERSHIPS
The only variants were related to the program population (English Language Learners and
students with special needs). Each survey was emailed to pre-service educators and Wagner
College participants involved in the Los Promotores P.S. 20 Afterschool Literacy Program
(Appendix D)
Tech Kids
...."vu
participant observer notes, form
Workshops (Appendix
data,
basis for Chapter IV of the study.
The process lhr outreach aod communication was completed through documented
program rellection, email consent forms, and written documentation, with surveys being
distributed through Qualtries. The researcher emailed the program providers seeking
willing volunteers of both undergraduate and graduate level pre-service educators. The
consent [onns lilr all surveys were distributed through email invitation (Appendix A).
In addition to these two surveys, the researcher also created an interview protocol.
This document consisted of interview questions for program facilitators, associated
professors, and program coordinators for each program. The questions, which were
designed to help inlhrm interpretation of the surveys, had some similar themes to the pre
service educator surveys. These data are incorporated in the discussion in the final chapter
of this study to help elucidate trends and themes throughout the programs.
Design and Procedure
Permission for the researcher to conduct
study was granted through approval
the institutional review hoard (IRB) created hy the Wagner College Education
department to review the use
human participants
research. All participants were
contacted via email and inlhrmed of the consent prior to the study. There was no deception
in the study design and it ensured anonymity for participants, as stated in the email consent
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
49
and survey agreement (See Appendix A and 0). All participants were also notified about
the purpose of the study and their right to cease participation at any time.
This study followed a three-part, mixed methods approach. The first component of
the study included participant observations that took place for both eommunitY-l'rt;vM<;h,
partnership programs over the course
The observations allowed the
seven
researcher to learn more about each program's format and helped establish context tbr
surveys and interviews that took place later in the study.
The second part of this study used two surveys to learn more about the education
students' experiences participating in the community-university partnerships. These
surveys were created
Qualtries.
in/orm the pre-service educators, the researcher
em ailed the list of program participants that was assembled for Los Promotores P.S. 20
Aftersehool Literacy Program and the Tech Kids Unlimited Workshop.
The third part consisted of interviews with willing program coordinators,
community partners, and associated professors
each afterschool program. These
individuals were asked to pal1icipate via email for consent, explaining that the study was
to learn more about their experience with the specific community-university partnership
but that the researcher would be using their insights to further evaluate the programs. This
interview was voluntary and conducted either in-person or through
a close interview opportunitv,
eonferencing
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
50
Chapter IV: Analysis and Results
This chapter explores two
of
research. First.
section includes a
description of the programs based upon literature and participant observer notes. Second,
survey results from
Tech Kids Unlimited and Los Promotores are presented.
Data from interviews are included in the final chapter as part of the discussion of themes.
Description of Programs
The tollowing overviews of Tech Kids Unlimited and Los Promotores arc based
upon program literature, such as grant documents, associated syllabi, and reports, and
participant observer notes.
Tech Kids Unlimited at Wagner College Program Overview
The Tech Kids Unlimited Program at Wagner Collcge was a first-time communityuniversity partnership geared toward students
Kids Unlimited 0 ffered
special needs. Wagner College
aft.erschool program using the name Wagner TecKids U
This program was made possible
an Adventure grant that was provided by New
York Community Tmst and the HIVE NYC Learning Network. The aim of the project was
to teach 21st century technology skills to youth in Staten Island. The program took place
from Novcmber 2014 to February 2015. The goals of the project as outlined in the Hive
Adventure grant proposal were to complete the following: Expose youth with Autism
Spectrum Disorder to 21st century tecbnology skills through project-based learning such
as building websites and games; explore the interest level of maker fair activities with
specialnceds learners; teach future classroom teachers from the Education Department at
Wagner Collcgc how to teach technology to
development training; provide
on the spectrum via professional
a new and uniquc opportunity to work
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
51
with youth with Autism Spectrum Disorders; and explore the interest level and need on the
borough of Staten Island for this type of technology weekend programming.
Overall. The Wagner TeeKids U
participants over a series of tour
31
workshops. While some workshops had as many as five more families registered. last
minute cancellations due to travel transportation issues and ilJness hindered students,
making some unable to attend the workshops at the very last moment. Some parents
acknowledged
there was a large gap between session 2 and session 3 (December 7,
2014 and January 26, 2015 respectively) and that it was diflicult to coax their child to
attend subsequent events due to the extended timeframe between workshops.
From a family perspective, parents were Inn Ilea
there was a
and nurturing
plaee for their children to be dropped off and learn about technology on various Sundays
and continually asked when more programs would he available at Wagner College on
Staten Island. All students who pmticipated in the workshops were from Staten Island,
even though some of them went to school during the week in other boroughs or in New
Jersey. Wagner College education students were given an opportunity to take their special
needs classroom studies and apply their knowledge to working with students. Tech Kids
Unlimited was
10
expand programming
a hnrt1l1o
IS
for iIs large
special needs popUlation.
The Wagner TccKids U Lab was created to offer young people with autism some
exposure to technology skills and a chance of creating a successful and meaningful career
through a work-based leaming program.
Special needs students are rarely given the
opportunity to be creators and makers in typical youth in-school or afterschool programs.
Conversely, it is exactly these students who seem to have a natural proliciency tor
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
technology concepts because ofthcir neurological diflerences.
52
Wagner TecKids U Lab
is seeking to change the pamdigm of technology learning from typical high-achieving
students
are often exposed to technology concepts in school and afterschool progmms
to a set of special needs youth who are often marginalized in this area.
One major henefit of this progmm was the support of the Wagner College
Education Department. A total of21 Wagner students expressed interest in being a part of
this program. Sixteen Wagner students attended the original professional development
night, and live additional students showed serious interest in the program but
scheduling conflicts so could not attend that night.
were eight
education department graduate students and 13 undergraduate educatioll students (with
varIous
including mathematics, psychology, and Spanish). Dased on the
program staffing needs, TKU was able to include 13 ofthe interested students in the actual
program.
Following the completion of the workshops, many of the education majors reflected
positively upon their experience with TKU. One graduate student noted that working with
TKU was educational, enriching, and fun. Furthermore, the group reflected that it was
wonderful to watch the students
February P'. 201
loved getting to work
and customize
own video games (Fieldnotes,
undergraduate perspective, one student expressed that she
the kids and collaborate with the TKU staff. She cxplained how
the students clearly benefitted from the workshops academieally and socially, giving them
the opportunity to interact with other kids their age with similar interests, while still being
in a controlled academic setting that allowed them freedom of expression and freedom to
choose the outcome of their gamc (Fic1dnotes, February)". 2015).
These positive
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
53
reflections were also shared by parents of participating "tech kids," as many expressed
gratitude for having a technology, interest-driven program tailored for their children was
finally available on Staten Island.
Los Promotores Program Overview
This program was organized through a September 2013 grant from Deutsche Bank
to support the local Port Richmond community through educational and literacy based
programming. Various organizations including Wagner College, EI Centro, Project
Hospitality, Make the Road New York, and Public School 20 were recognized as
participating groups. Over the past two years, the program developed an appropriate
curriculum to help families learn specific strategies to assist their children with their
educational needs. Graduate students modeled literacy practices in both individualized and
small group instruction, supported through dyadic training with ongoing supervision from
two professors.
The P.S. 20 Afterschool Literacy program was one facet of this larger grant, aiming
to support the Port Richmond community and overall acquisition of literacy skills for
immigrant families. The documented version of the program took place from August 2014
to December 2014 on Monday afternoons from 4:20pm-6:00pm. The goals of this portion
of the program, as explained by associated professors, was to engage the students and
families in literacy development, to build a sense of cultural responsiveness among pre
service teachers, and to foster mutual respect.
As a major course component of the Wagner College Education Department, this
partnership grew over several versions and semesters, all with the goal to promote strong
literacy skills in Port Richmond families. Los Promotores was structured with adaptations
�54
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
from each semester, as seen in the various syllabi. For context of this study, the Fall 2014
and Spring 2015
were most relevant, though previous years' would reflect
growth and changes made over time. Within each syllabi, specific goals were expressed to
dellne learning outcomes, goals for class sessions, and resources available for participants.
More specifically, there were three face-to-face sessions with pre-service educators before
participants worked with children and families. Within these sessions, pre-service
educators were involved in exploring the background of the program, infonnation about
collaboration with stakeholders, culturally responsive practices, and instructional
inionnation. The syllabi clearly stated that. "All materials used must
responsive," and
culturally
teacher candidates are required to work collaboratively and
colleagues, families, students, "omm
members,
professors. "
Some specific goals and assignments that required deep rellection and insight
included Leaming Centers Lesson Plans. These plans allowed for pre-service educators to
collaborate with colleagues for planning, implementing, and evaluating three leaming
centers focusing on literacy leaming in conjunction with varied disciplines. These lessons
were aimed to incorporate specific language related to the disciplines being addressed and
scaf[()lded based on students' abilities and challenges. Teacher candidates were expected
to "plan, implement, and evaluate the learning center in order to receive full credit for the
specific center" Another aspect of the
was observed during learning centers
was the inclusion of Collegial Coaching,
reflection in pre-observation
post
observation conferencing. Furthe11ll0re, the addition of ongoing "Supervisor Observation
and Conferencing" helped pre-service educators to collaborate with professors lor post
observation conferencing.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
55
Some of the most powerful reflections occurred in a shared online forum through
MoodIe. Using "Paired Reflective Practice" with Brookfield's lenses after each class
session, pre-service educators had the chance to reflect on both learning and teaching in
the classroom (Preskill & Brookfield, 2009). Through ongoing online MoodIe sessions
and additional email contact, pre-service educators were ahle to provide support and extend
participants' learning through assignments and activities. These sessions involved specific
input from professors, including supporting resources such as print, media, and comparable
lenscs of expericnces. Every session of the Los Promotores program was supported with
teacher candidates, children, families, coordinator, and associated professors present.
Furthem10re, there was availability of program and course professors for consultation and
assistance during office hours and by arrangement, as well as onsite support for associated
professors.
Each week, students were given guidelines and email instructions with academic
resources to develop culturally responsive lessons. Pre-service educators were sometimes
paired III groups,
the attendance of program participants varied so the groups constantly
adapted. Professors provided literature. articles, and research to model various instructional
approaches to IIIClUoe
these afierschoolliteracy lessons. One specific approach
these
lessons incorporated was graphic organizers to help students extract and manipulate
essential information Irom the text. Another frequent strategy was the use of a word wall
to provide vocabulary support in a collaborative setting. According to Gaskins (2005),
word walls scaffold to help students develop their sight word and word identification
knowledge. Professors also supported the use of total physical response and critical
thinking skills that engaged students to examine, think, contribute observations and ideas,
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHlPS
56
listen, and build understanding together. More specifically, the total physical response
helped to bridge
language acquisition gap by engaging
body movements and
language. This strategy was used /()r warm-up activities that often included clapping, arm
movements, or stomping of feet to model differenl patterns. Together, these research-based
approaches supported learners and engaged families in culturally responsive lessons. At
the end of each weekly session, Wagner pre-service educators reflected using a j()ur-part
framework that provided their personal ret1ection, reflection on students, reflection on
fellow colleagues, and the rel1ection on relevant literature. This was posted in an online
forum for professors and classmates to read, respond to, and further reflect.
Overall.
program served nearly forty participants including many siblings
families. Pre-service educators worked with children as young as two and as old as 12
alongside parents, often times young mothers. From a family perspective, mothers seemed
thrilled that there was a sate and nurturing place for their filmily to learn about literacy
skills afterschool.
j(
also provided pre-service educators a valuable practicum to practice
literacy theories in an authentic setting with English language learners, All Wagner
students who paliicipatcd were enrolled in the graduate program tor various Wagner
College education majors including Teaching Literacy and Early Childhood (B-2) focuses.
Students were given an opportunity to provide support, Icarn
community, and cngage in valuable balanced literacy models.
Survey Analysis of Pre-Service Educator Participants, Tech Kids Unlimited
The j,]llowing sections will explore the results of the Qual tries survey taken by pre
service educators who participated in the Tech Kids Unlimited Program at Wagner Collcge.
These results are structured into five sections. Raw data for all of (he survey responses are
�57
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
included in Appendix Q, Results helped inform the interview questions for program leaders
subsequent data,
are included in Chapter 5,
Preparation and Motivation for the Program
Participants in the Tech Kids program were a combination of undergraduate
students (45%), though substantial proportions also came from graduate programs in
literacy (27%). The remaining participants identified as graduate students pursuing
adolescent education (14%) and those pursuing a combination of graduate programs
including childhood education and adolesccnt education (14%). These classifications are
general
not
Education Department,
making this program an interesting pilot for general experiences
education students
might take advantage of, Participants for Tech Kids were recruited through personal
relationships. These relationships included those with classmates (27%) and education
professors (64%).
The participants' backgrounds with afterschool programs, special education, and
technology cducation varied. Regarding prior experiences witb populations of students or
with educational afterschool programs,
one participant expressed not
previous
experiences. Five different participants expressed experience in self-contained classrooms,
District 75 schools, and field bours at Hungerford, a school dedicated to serving students
with low-incidence disabilities. One participant student noted that a parent was "a physical
therapist specializing in pediatrics, so I have been familiar with the jargon and background
of ASD Irom listening to [discussions] my entire life. In terms of physical experience I
was limited to a few
of volunteer work" at the school where her parent worked,
Furthermore, two participants noted their experience
afterschool programs
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
58
students with developmental disabilities focused on a religious curriculum. Another
participant had more educational experience as a paraprofessional during the summer for
an education consortium, working with children with severe disabilities, both mentally and
physically. This experience also included working with non-verbal students.
Another student also had experience in informal environments, including
"experience with special needs students in an athletic setting. I taught swim lessons and
coached a special needs swim team. I have also tutored students with autism." Other out
of-school experiences described by two participants were working with Lifestyles, a local
organization that supports adults with intellectual disabilities. Another previous experience
that an undergraduate student shared was working with a 12 year old girl with autism at
her home on academic, daily living skills, and assessing the community.
Exactly opposite the pattern of experience with the student population, only one
student noted having had experience in "tech-related programs" as a counselor and teacher
using various computer programs.
Participants provided feedback regarding their direct preparation for the program
after they decided to be involved. Responses showed that most participants felt prepared
and confident working with their peers and towards the program goals. However, slightly
less than half of survey participants felt that they learned about the technology aspects of
the workshops through programmatic training. The following table depicts feedback from
the total number of pre-service educators that identified with the statements regarding
direct preparation.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
59
TABLE 1: PRE-SERVICE EDUCATORS PREPARATION FOR TKU
I had professional development opportunities to learn about the student
population and program goals
I collabor~ed with peers th~ I feft comfortable working alongside
I felt prepared with necessary program logistics, including the program
goals, expectations, and overall mission of the community-universi
partnership
I learned about the technology aspects of the workshops
Other:
o
5
10
Regarding motivation, the majority Ofpatiicipants (five) noted that their interest in
the special needs population was their biggest motivation for being involved with Tech
Kids Unlimited. An additional three participants recognized experience in an informal
educational environment as their highest motivator. Only one participant noted an interest
in technology for educational purposes as the biggest motivator. The following table shows
the varying rankings of survey participants.
TABLE 2: RANKING PRE-SERVICE EDUCATOR MOTIV ATIONS
Answer
*J as the lowest motiva/ol", 6b eing
the highest
rT lS
l
~rotal Responses
�60
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
Real-Ii Ie application of classroom
theories
I
2
0
3
3
0
9
Professional experience/Resume
I
1
5
I
I
0
9
2
2
0
0
5
0
9
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
~
Earning desired compensation (paid
hourly ratc
!
!
Experience in informal educational
environment (afterschool program)
I
I
2
2
0
3
9
Interest in special needs population
2
2
0
0
0
5
9
Interest in technology for educational
purposes
Total
2
I
2
3
0
I
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
-
~~~~~~~~~
Outreach and Communication
Collaborating is a major aspect of community-university partnership modeJ, as seen
in the quality examples from the literature. The majority of survey experiences showed that
pre-service educators in the Tech Kids Unlimited Program felt they experienced effective
communication during outreach and preparation on several levels including those with
professors, community partners, peers, and program students and families. Table 3 shows
the average values of their survey feedback. The most effective collaboration, according
survey results, was
collaboration
the students and families was most elIective
(87.40%).
The least eftective collaboration, according to the average value of survey results,
was the collaboration with program leaders and community partners (77.30%). In further
feedback, one participant noted that, "the program ran smoothly, but I didn't feel that we
were included in the preparation process with the specific curriculum. I felt a little thrown
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
61
into the experience and I think we could have given beneficial feedback to the in structors
from Tech Kids. A lot of the wording of the instruction was unnecessarily confusing and
didn't always hold the attention of the students. More collaboration between the technology
expertise of the Tech Kids staff and the Wagner students could have helped. " Another
participant expressed that, "At tim es it felt like there was a distance between the TKU
teclmology teachers and the Wagner volunteers. In terms of peer collaboration, we did the
best we could, but for the most part we were working I: I with the students and did not
understand the technology fully."
Additionally, all other average values regarding collaboration with peers and
professors were above 80%. One participant even noted that, " It was great to work with
different students and families while still seeing repeat visitors during the workshops." The
following table depicts the perceived effectiveness of these collaborations from the view
of pre-service educators in the Tech Kids Unlimited Program.
TABLE
3: PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATIONS
100
CoUaborltiOn with
professors
Collaboration with
program
coordinators and
community panners
Collaboration with my Collaboration with
peers
students and families
�62
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
Logistics of the Program
Logistically, 40% of Wagner students had been involved
for two sessions, while 20% \\'Crc involved
three sessions.
participants were involved with Tech Kids Unlimited
Tcch Kids
remaining
or more sessions. When
asked to describe the goals and objectives ofTcch Kids Unlimited, participants were fairly
consistent in their feedback. Three participants were able to confidently state objectives or
goals. Participants in the Tech Kids program expressed relatively similar goals when asked
to describe the objectives of the workshops. Their descriptions were not dramatically
different (rom the vision that the community partners at Tech Kids Unlimited expressed in
later interviews. One participant noted that, "TKU works to teach students with ASD
technology skills while offering a safe environment where they can communicate and
foster social interactions with peers that have similar interests." Another participant stated,
"Tech Kids Unlimited strives to teach students who learn differently to engage in social
skills and exciting applications of technology in a supportive environment. The students
and tcachers worked together to engage in these technology skills and leave each workshop
some type
population
created project or model. It helped teachers learn more about the
reall y gave these students a chance to socialize and be part of something
they enjoy." Another respollse was, "The TKU program aimed to introduce
interactive programming and other technological opportunities
engaged
students to
minds
and built their skill set for the future. While the program was specilically meant to children
on the spectrum, we worked with students with all different challenges and it was beneficial
for everyone." Each survey participant expressed clear goals that directly related to
technology and social skills that matched the mission of Tech Kids Unlimited.
�63
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
Participants were also asked to consider a quote by Little, Wilmer, and Weiss
(2008) that stated while afierschool programs "have the potential to impact a range of
positive learning and development outcomes," some programs do not "maximize this
potentiaL" Participants were asked if this quote related to their experiences with the Tech
Kids Unlimited program and the idea of maximizing potential. Six of the survey
participants found this quote to be an accurate statement and further elaborated on the idea
of maximizing potential.
One participant stated that, "I think this quotation is accurate, because while the
program was engaging for the students it may not have been as effective as it could have
been. I only say this because the students seemed to be enjoying themselves, but often
times they were only sitting at a computer screen which is not the most engaging fonn of
activity," Another participant expressed that, "I agree with this quote as I do believe that
classroom instruction is iust the wann up and that the real learning happens by applying
base knowledge
outside world." Beyond
idea of expanding
socialization beyond the computer screen, some participants recognized the potential based
on resources and experience at the new program site.
Another participant explain that the program was sometimes too simple for more
advanced coders, She expressed that, '"I think that this program maximized the potential
for the resources that were provided, Each week the number ofpacticipants grew, and we
had a few students continue to come back. The students were genuinely interestcd in
coding and building games and talked about pursuing a future career in game building, My
only criticism is that some of the coding was too easy for certain students, so they spent a
good deal o('time complaining and asking to go on other sites like YouTube,"
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
64
There was additional feedback from one participant who felt, "this program was a
pilot project and it
wa~
over a span of 4 different sessions. My experiences with this
program was very positive and it was a great learning experience for me. I was learning
more about technology that I never knew about. I worked with the population, but working
population and technology at first I was nervous to know how the program would
start. Alier doing the program I can say there is way to maximize potential
program.
The students that I worked with were extremely happy to be working with the technology.
I felt the environment was a positive learning experience for the staff and the students that
were involved in the program. Overall I think that this quote shows that it takes a while for
a program to come about to produce positive learning and development outcomes. A
program is a growing experience and I think that this program would be a great asset to
Wagner and can help many students in the future." This feedback related to the idea
maximizing potential and gaining momentum for future programs.
In looking forward, two participants expressed feedback
msplfe
adaptions of the Tech Kids Unlimited Programs. One participant stated that, "I would say
that this program is working toward having that positive impact. The idea behind it is
positive and while I think it was very successful, it was just a few sessions of the program
so the true impact could not be fully determined. I think that with some more development
that an expanded version of the program, which is in the works for the summer, would be
more bencfieial." Beyond repeated programming and continual impact, one participant
expressed the need for more diJ1crential for higher skill levels of "tech kids." This
participant noticed
"A few students moved past the goals of each session
minutes and were left to their own devices for the rest of the session,"
15
�65
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
Benefits and Strengths of the Program
The clear goals made for positive collaborations. When asked to describe one of
the best examples of how pre-service educators collaborated with professors, peers,
students, families, or the community during this program, the feedback varied. All survey
participants recognized that collaboration was key for effectiveness. Some feedback stated
that, "I f there is no communication among everyone, then there cannot be an effective
program. I collaborated with professors before the workshops. r collaborated with the TKU
team before and during the workshops.
r collaborated
my peers that I was working
with, so that the workshops can go smoothly for the students. I collaborated with parents
asking if their child liked the program and what can be some improvements."
Two participants also recognized how the professional development evening had a
major impact on their community-university partnership experience. The one participant
expressed, "I really enjoyed the professional development experience. It was clear how
dedicated Ithe director] is to her organization and I
it was a great opportunity for our
Education Department to be a part of This gave us a chance to collaborate
a new
population, practice classroom theories, and give back to our local community in Staten
Island. It's not often that we get something like this on campus that is so connected to our
coursework. I loved collaborating with the students and seeing how proud they were to
share their projects with friends and family after each session.
made this partnership
really valuable for everyone involved." Similarly, another survey participant explained
that, "Prior to the beginning of the program, there was a professional development where
the leader ofTKU came to our school and inftmncd us of the purpose of the program and
�66
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
how the partnership would work. This gave liS a clear idea of what would be expected from
us and what the goal was."
Survey participants also shared various rewarding experiences that they had over
the course of the Tech Kids Unlimited Program. When asked to describe how this positive
impact was valuable to them, all participants expressed the connections to the students.
More specifically, one pre-service educator expressed that, "It was an honor and a privilege
to be able to make the connection I made
my studcnt. It was an incredible experience
that taught me so much about the Autistic population and also taught me so much about
myself and my abilities as a future educator:' Another participant shared that she was
impressed with the rewarding outcomes and, "getting a chance to see students who don't
necessarily succeed in the traditional classroom setting excelling and exceeding their own
expectations."
Several other pre-service educators expressed thel r personal experience with a
particular student they had worked
into the
"One of the students was very hesitant to come
at the beginning onhc workshops. He took a long time to warm UD to
staff,
and the idea of being separated from his parents made him very uncoml()rtable. He would
roam around, complain, and moan because he wanted to go home. By the last workshop,
he was walking in and doing work on his own with littlc (if any) fuss. He engaged in
conversations with the Wagner students, and successfully built his own game. Personally,
watching his comfort in the social situation and change was a huge positive experience to
have as a future educator." The second participant shared that, "My favorite experience
was seeing one
students respond so
to
counselors
projects. There was a
student with Do\\'ll's Syndrome and this workshop was a new experience for him. Whether
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSIIIPS
it
WdS
67
using Photoshop techniques, playing Twister and or practicing soeialization games
that we learned in classes,
was a great experience. I
hc was an example of
students gained social connections, while still gaining valuable technology skills."
Othcr participants expressed their excitement about using new types of technology.
One survey partieipant shared that, "Working with students with special needs and learning
about programming was amazing to sec ... these students were capable working with
technology
creating things
they were proud of. I was glad I was given the
opportunity to work with TKU and learning about their program. Working with students
with special needs and watching them maneuver technology was most valuable and
rewarding to me." Parents seemed to respond well to the program also, and one of the
survey participants shared that, "Onc of the most rewarding experiences that I had during
program was hearing from the parents about their child's experiences. Yes, the kids
said they had fun but hearing that they could not slop taking about what they did when they
got home was really rewarding to hear. It showed me that we were making a memorable
experience for the students.
As the tollowing table indicates, pre-service educators identified several benefits
associated with their involvement in the Tech Kids Unlimited Program. When identified
by pre-service educators, they believed
working
stmlcnts with special needs
their families was the largest benefit (90.67% average) on a scale of zero to 100. The
smallest benefit recognized the collaboration with community partners al Tech Kids
Unlimited (65.38% average). Falling between these two percentages was the real life
application of theory (72.33% average), the successful experiencc in an informalleaming
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
68
environment (79.44% average), and the great additional to their educational resume
(83.78%).
TABLE 4: BE NEFITS OF TKU PROGRAMS FOR PRE-SERVICE EDUCATORS
Real·life application of educational
Cortabontion with comrnunhy partners 1t
Tech kidt Unlimited
SlKcessfui experience in an informal
learning environment ~Ifler tchool
prognm.)
Gre:n addition to my educwonal resume
~!II!!II!!!!!!II!!II!!II!~!II!!II!!!!!~~:::JL_~
I
___,
12'
Challenges and the Future of the Program
When asked to reflect on th e challenging aspects of this program, most parti cipants
expressed the st m ggle to understand some of the technology. Four parti cipants expressed
their chall enges, with one sharing that, "I found that it was sometimes challenging to work
with the technology aspects of the workshop. I thought that our lead technology counselor
was reall y talented, but it came very naturall y to him. I think in the fut ure, it wou ld be
helpful to have a sheet of technology tips for counselors and ed ucators to refer to. This
could help us help the students complete their tasks without interrupting the technology
teacher repeatedl y." Another pre-service educator claimed, " I fo und it most challengi ng
not knowing what to be doing on the computers. I constantl y had to ask the TKU staff
exactly what to do. I wish I had prepared more on doing the programming before the
workshops, so that I could have easily helped the student." FUlthermore, a thi rd participant
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
69
believed that she "wasn't completely competent in everything programming wise that we
were teaching the students. It was cool to learn alongside the students but when they had
questions, I wasn't able to help them right away. While this was challenging, it was also
good for them to see that everyone needs help sometimes and not to be afraid to ask."
Another reoccurring challenge in this program was keeping the students focused.
Three survey participants expressed this challenge and one noted that, "Keeping the
students on task was particularly difficult. They are all tech savvy, but were not necessarily
interested in the coding activities. They each had their own favorite site that they would
go consistently go to (You Tube, Sesame Street, Google Earth, etc.) and I did my best to
use those sites as a reward for completing their game. It was also occasionally difficult to
engage the students in social conversations. Some students did not want to talk at all, and
some students got frustrated if they had to wait their turn to speak." Another participant
expressed difficulty with, "encouraging students to stay focused during the preliminary
presentation. It didn't hold their attention." Additionally, one participant expressed
frustration about the struggle to provide separate instruction in reference to a non-verbal
student. She said that because her student, "was not on the part of the spectrum that the
program had desired I felt as though we were cast out to fend for ourselves alongside
instruction from the amazing professors and counselors. We managed but it was a bit
disheartening."
Despite these challenges, 78% of survey participants stated that they would be
interested in learning about more opportunities, while II % said that they would possibly
be involved if some small changes were made. The remaining II % stated that they are only
uninterested in future programs because they are graduating and moving out of the area.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
70
Survey Analysis of Pre-Service Educator Participants, Los Promotores
The following sections explore the results of the survey taken by pre-service
educators who participated in Los Promotores at P.S. 20 in Port Richmond during the Fall
2014 academic semester. The following participants represent a small portion of willing
pre-service educators over the course of one semester (Fall 2014) with Los Promotores.
Results are structured into five sections and helped frame the subsequent interview
questions for program leaders.
Preparation and Motivation to Program
Of the seven participants who completed the Los Promotores Pre-Service Educator
survey, 100% of the participants were involved in the graduate program. Of those seven
participants, there were students pursuing degrees in Teaching Literacy (57%), Childhood
Education 1-6 (14%), and Early Childhood B-2 (29%). Furthermore, 100% of survey
participant stated that their involvement in this program began out of a graduate class
requirement
Survey participants were requested to provide any relevant educational
backgrounds in atierschool or with populations of English language learners. In this
sample, three participants expressed some background with English language learner
populations through student teaching. Additionally, one participant expressed that they
were involved in the first ever Los Promotores Program several semesters ago. However,
the remaining three participants expressed no background with this population.
100% of survey participants believed that they collaborated with peers that they felt
comfortable working alongside. Only 14% of participants believed that they felt prepared
with the necessary program logistics including program goals, expectations, and overall
�71
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
mission of the community-university partnership.
they had
professional development opportunities about the student population and program goals.
In reference to learning about the flipped model of instruction, only 29% of survey
participants felt comfortable using this model. Another participant added that, "There was
not a lot of preparation prior to the beginning of this program. The program goals were
explained but the preparation for how to reach these goals was lacking."
The following table describes the motivation for involvement in the Los Promotores
P.S. 20 Atterschool Literacy Program. Two participants expressed earning a desirable class
grade as the highest motivator, while two participants ranked experience in an informal
education envirorunent as their lowest motivator.
TABLE
5: MOTIVAHONAL RANKING
FOR INVOLVEMENT IN
Answer
I
Los PROMOTORES
2
3
4
5
Total Responses
*1 as the lowest motivator, 5 being
the highest
-----
Real-life application of classroom
theories
I
2
0
1
1
5
Professional experience/Resume
1
I
2
0
1
5
I
0
I
I
2
5
2
0
I
1
1
5
0
2
I
2
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
-
------
Earning desired class grade
(requirement for eoursework)
-------
Experience in infonnal educational
i environment (afierschoo\ program)
- - - - - - - - - - -
Interest in wurking with ELL and
Spanish speaking community
members (students, families, etc.)
-------
Total
L _______
_____
_______
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
72
Outreach and Communication
Collaborating is a major aspect of the community-university partnership model, as
seen
111
the examples
pre-service educators
the literature. The majority of survey respondents showed
Los Promotores Program fclt
experienced ineffective
communication during outreach and preparation on several levels including those with
professors, community partners, peers, and program students and families. The table below
shows the average values of their survey feedback. The most effective collaboration,
according the survey results, was that collaboration with their peers (71.00%).
All Los Promotores survey participants explained some collaborative challenges
during the program. Using sliding scale labels trom 0-100 to best describe their experience,
the average response from graduate students i{)r collaboration with professors was the
lowest score (44.29%). The average collaboration with community partners was slightly
higher (45.83%), but the higher average scores I()r collaborative experiences related to
collaboration with peers (71.00%) and collaboration with students and families (66.0%).
The following table depicts how positively pre-service educators viewed the levels of
effectiveness in the partnership.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
TABLE
73
6: LEVELS OF EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION, Los PROMOTORES
10
~
60
c:J
40
CJ
D
20
0-'-----
Collaboration with
professors
Collaboration with Collaboration with my Collaboration with
program
peers
students and families
coordiniJtors and
community partners
These responses were further clarified by some survey participants. One participant
expressed, " I think it was helpful to work closely with a specific group of students and
parents throughout the time at P.S. 20. However, I think it would have been more helpful
to learn about the profile of the students or have access to their reading levels before starting
the program. This way, we could effectively group students to teachers that have strengths
in different age groups and subjects. I think the benefit of our collaboration in this program
is having educators from every possible program (literacy, early childhood, etc.) and
learning how to support the population best." Another patiicipant regarded the frustrations
of organization by stating, "Once arriving with plans I felt a lack of communication with
professors and partners which sometimes led to an issue communicating with the families."
This same participant noted that there were successful collaborations as she, "was able to
collaborate with peers during all assignments and together we would have a plan for our
students. "
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
74
Another valuable piece of feedback described that although there was some
collaboration, "the concept behind it was strong but the actual implementation wasn't.
Groups were not able to get together to do work and one person always ended up doing
most of the work. Also the way the program is run, collaboration and working with group
did not always work out as students were absent and teachers were shuffled around. I felt
that while the teachers wanted us to do specific work with the students and parents it was
more to fit the needs of the attached class then actually help the student with a specific
need."
Logistics of the Program
Logistically, 71 % of participants had been involved with Los Promotores for two
semesters, while 14% were involved three semesters. The remaining 14% of participants
were involved with Los Promotores for one semester. When asked to describe the goals
and objectives of the Los Promotores Program, participants varied in their feedback. Three
participants were unable to confidently state objectives or goals as they were "not
reinforced and unclear." These participants stated similar sentiments that they were, "often
confused about the goals and objectives as they seemed to change frequently. My
understanding is that we were to create a line of communication between families, students,
and teachers in order to work on the common goal of improving literacy skills." Despite
this feedback, three other participants were able to state goals and objectives. One
participant noted that the goal was, "to support families and students at P.S. 20/Port
Richmond to learn valuable literacy skills and prepare for academic rigor before higher
grade levels," while another stated that, "program is intended to improve the literacy skills
�75
Running head: QUALITY AFlERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
of students while collaborating with the parents on how to better support their children's
literacy development at home."
This feedback about unclear goals appeared to inform participants' responses to the
question relating to research by Little, Wilmer, and Weiss (2008) that described the
potential of community-university partnerships. The quote participants responded to stated
that while afterschool programs "have the potential to impact a range of positive learning
and development outcomcs," some programs "do not maximize this potential." Pre-service
educators were asked how this quote either related, or did not relate, to their experiences
the Los Promotores program and the idea of maximizing potential.
reinforced and agreed
by
quote was
survey respondents. One participant reflected
"I
think the quote is accurate in describing the PS 20 partnership. It was a positive experience
for the students, teachers, and moms in academic and social ways." Another positive
remark noted that, "I believe that this program offers an enriching experience to belp
develop their oral language abilities and facilitate engaging discussions to further their
academic growth"
However, some of the most constructive responses shared that the intention of Los
Promotores was promising, but the implementation was lacking. One participant stated
that, "I agree with the quote and I think the program is approaching potential but needs to
be more organized in the implementation. I think we did the best we could with the format,
1 think having sct objectives for each week planned bef{)rehand would help us clearly
plan. 1 also believe that picking our partners and groups
be
to maximize
potential and work around difllcult graduate schedules." Another linked piece of feedback
expressed that, "I think the idea of the program is great and it could be extremely beneficial
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCllOOL PARTNERSHIPS
76
as the students, parents, and Wagner students are eager to work together. I feel
lack
of organization cripples a lot of the beneJicial outcomes that could occur."
Another view about maximizing potential recognizes the unique opportunity of this
type of pat1nership. The participant expressed, "I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with this
quote. I believe that the basic setup for the Los Promotores has a lot of potential. but I feel
like the current program is not reaching its goals and is allowing tor a
of opportunities
to slip by. In order to maximize the potential, there needs to be so much more organization
exists. There is entirelv too much time wasted
people having no idea
they are supposed to be doing/nccd to be doing. There is also a real lack of consistency.
This program would work a million times better with two things: A) a clear
curriculum/j()cus on lesson planning and B) A consistency and commitment between
students and teachers so that the students can really progress and the teachers can mark this
progression."
Two more participants further stated feelings of potential and organizational /laws.
One expressed, "I agree. This program had great potential. The students in
community
could truly benefit from an after school literacy program. However, I felt it was extremely
unorganized to the point where very little or none of the objectives were met.'· Another
survey participant noted that, "the idea hehind this program is a good one but the
implementation is not. The assignments given were more to till class requirements and not
serve the specific needs for the children we are working with ... the program is simply
chaotic and unorganized.
cither need to give you the freedom to do
IS
necessary to help improve that child's literacy skills or making it completely structure with
detailed plans. The in-between that currently exists does not work." These views correlate
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
that community-university partnerships need clear structure, vision,
77
implementation to
succeed.
Benefits and Strengths of the Program
When asked to describe one positive experience that they had during the program
relating to collaborations, participants had various feedback. Three participants stated
working closely with their peers to develop lessons was their best experience. They enjoyed
"the ability to collaborate with my peers on lesson plans. I really think this allowed for
things to go more smoothly. Additionally, the P.S. students were always willing to learn
and work with the teachers, so that was some nice collaboration." Two participants
expressed strong collaborations with the mothers. One experience described how, "each
week after the lesson was completed. we would provide
parents
translated notes
on things that they could do at home with their child in order to improve the
worked
on tol' tile day:' Another particip,mt noted the relationship with the mothers and stated that,
"I found that working closely with the moms was a valuable experience. I loved seeing our
group's mother participate and practice vocabulary practice alongside her children. It was
a great opportunity to see growth and passion as an educator."
All survey participants recognized a connection with their students as the most
reward experience during the Los Promotores experience. One participant stated, "I loved
learning that my student achieved two levels higher in his reading level during the course
of the program. It felt like our hard work was paying off as educators. It was also a chance
to lei the student see that their dedication to the program was for something great. Watching
his mom smile and grow together was
special." Another participant shared
perception and stated that, "the best experience was when one of my students told my peer
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
78
and myse! fthat we were the best teachers and that she wanted to become a teacher and go
to college because she wanted to be just like us and make learning
rewarding moment for the both of us." Other
IOU"'.
responses included seeing the students
learning how to interact
grow ITom the various semesters
One participant added that,
It was such a
meaning/ul experiences
provided me with opportunities to implement
some of the things that I had learned during my career as a student in order to prepare me
for future employment as a teacher."
Another participant remarked that, "this was rewarding to me because I enjoyed
seeing how happy the students were when they succeed in anything from learning new
vocabulary to understanding a difficult sentence in a book. I'll take what I learned about
how to reach ELLs with me into my career as an educator. I plan to continue my education
for a certification in TESOL in the future." These benefits encompass a love of teaching
and a true dedication to the professional and personal experiences that can occur in informal
educational settings.
Challenges and the Future of the Program
Looking at the challenges of this program, almost all participants stated
communication and structure were the most frustrating. The levels of communication
varicd from communicating
participant stated that,
and,
professors to communicating
was very unclear
was expected
coordinators. One
me weck by week,"
of communication and organization was the most challenging." Another
participant added to the theme of communication, stating that at times, "I would think we
were doing one thing, as would my peers, and then the expectation would be very different.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
Many would come prepared with certain activities and then
79
goal of
day
WVUIU
change without noticc."
Rcgarding the challenge ofstructure, one participant noted that, "It was chaotic and
unorganized and I felt that hindered the impact that could have come from this program."
The aspect of planning and not always having the space needed to implement a Jesson was
sometimes frustrating to the survey participants of Los Promotores. One participant
expressed that, "I wish we had more concrete and defined goals to meet for each session,
rather than the more general goals in literacy. Having too many students also made the
flipped model dinicult to meet every grade and specific need of students. With a short time
frame, it was important to work closely
a small group to be successful.
interest of involvement in future programs like Los Promotores
varied. J 4% of participants were interested in learning about more opportunities. 14% of
participants would consider being involved if some small changes were made, while 29%
would consider bcing involved if major changes were made. The largest statistic was 43%
of survey participants that had no interest in participating in future programs.
�Running head: QUALITY MTERSCHOOL PAR'INERSHIPS
80
Chapter V: Discussion
As a fonn of evaluation and discussion, this section will explore strengths, areas
improvement, and general recommendations tor both Los Promotores and Tech Kids
Unlimited. These insights build on the surveys of the 17 Wagner College pre-service
educators from the two community-university partnership programs that are part of this
study, creating an analytic synthesis of survey responses and three interviews with
associated program leaders from Los Promotores and Tech Kids Unlimited. These
individuals will be rcf'erred to as LP (Los Promotores) Leader A. LP Leader B, TKU (Tech
Kids Unlimited) Leader A, and TKU Leader B. The Los Promotores leaders were
interviewed together, while the Tech Kids Unlimited leaders were interviewed
individually. Each section will also incorporate literature to further highlight strengths,
areas of improvement, and further implications for both Los Promotores and Tech Kids
Unlimited.
Context of Both Programs
It is important to recognize
contexts of each program before discussing major
strengths and areas ofimprovement. The goal ofthis study was not to compare and contrast
these partnerships, but rather to engage readers in each program's complexities for further
growth. In Tech Kids Unlimited, pre-service educators arc a combination of vol unteers and
paid counselors, supporting a program that is aimed to be a fun, educational weekend
experience. Children arc brought in with parents for these sessions and they are intended
to be singular workshops, although many students participated in multiple Sunday
workshops.
perspective of pre-service educators, there is the expectation of paid
work that could influence various perceptions and motivations. These counselors involved
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
81
in TKU are actively engaged in a program of their choosing, while also earning experience
andlor payment during in a defined, singular frame of work.
Within Los Promotores, however, there is a further complexity to the partnership.
Wagner College is linked to P.S. 20 and all that this entails. These tactors include student
exhaustion
the afterschool setting, less control over logistics due to publie school
protocol, and families
arc actively involved in the program. Additionally, the outlook
from pre-service educators may vary, as there is the worry of earning class grades and
weekly expectations of lesson planning, student illncss, and ongoing stressors of extended
partnerships. FurthemlOrc, it is exceedingly difficult to fully prepare for the vast ages,
reading levels, and needs of students involved in a program of this seale for only one
session per week. Although the educators, families, and associated program leaders are
passionate, the relationship is complex since specific pre-service educator and student
pairings are limited over the course of one semester.
Strengths of Both Programs
In looking into the various experiences from pre-service educators in both Los
Promotores and Tech Kids Unlimited, it appears that pre-service educators enjoyed some
similar themes of the community-university partnership programs. Most enjoyed exposure
to new educational groups, working with their peers, and interacting c10scly with children
and families of specific popUlations. Additionally, pre-service educators may have had
various motivations for participating, including earning a desired course grade or gaining
valuable educational experience, but a constant theme was a sense of passion fi)r supporting
students and families to reach their program goals in an authentic setting, Each Wagner
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
82
College partnership had moments of genuine success, especially relating to the aspects of
a dedicated and engaged staff.
Strengths of Tech Kids Unlimited Partnership
As explained in the literature review, young programs must examine start-up
concerns like implementation and staff training, while more stable programs can assess
effects of their services (HFRP, 2008). In the case of Tech Kids Unlimited, this was a
unique partnership because the two partner groups had different experiences and strengths.
This was a new program in terms of Wagner College, based on the new site, new
counselors, and Education Department-focused version of a partnership. However, Tech
Kids Unlimited was more familiar with their program expectations from past partnerships
with local universities like Pace and New York University Polytechnic School of
Engineering. With these prior experiences, various strengths could be applauded from the
partnership.
Although this partnership was not a brand new program, it was unique and
successful in several ways. This was the first time that Tech Kids Unlimited offered a
program on Staten Island. Additionally, this partnership was the first one that focused
solely on an education department for counselors and connections. Interestingly enough,
this strength could also be viewed as an area for improvement based on the pre-service
educator feedback, which will be explored later in this discussion. The benefits of involving
pre-service educators, trom the view of Tech Kids Unlimited program leaders, was
outstanding. TKU Leader A even expressed that, "Working with education students in and
of itself was a new experience for the group. We had amazing women who got the program
very quickly and learned how to address the goals immediately. It was a thrill to see and
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
83
they seemed natural in the program. Having a set of experienced educators that attached to
the program was a real joy and thaI's why the program ran so well at Wagner." This positive
feedback helped the Tech Kids Unlimited leaders recognize that importance of blending
counselors of different backgrounds to strengthen the group experience. Tech Kids
Unlimited includes counselors, social workers, and technology teachers,
A was truly impressed with the level of passion
TKU Leader
patience exhibited by the Wagner pre-
service educators.
Another strength of
partnership was the consideration of stakeholders and the
planning process. Wagner and Tech Kids Unlimited modeled Harvard Family Research
Project's findings in that they considered their stakeholders when planning evaluations and
program goals. As explained in this research, leaders must convene all out-or-school time
stakeholders for the program to clarify goals together, as this helps all stakeholders,
including staff, specify program content and intentions (2008). TKU Leader B strongly
believed that, "I think we had very clear organization. We worked so well and knew our
roles. I also think that utilizing the pre-service educators was awesome because our partners
had never done that before. It was great for all involved, a different level of staffing and
people that really understand learning objectives. Pre-service educators are always looking
for practice and this program really involved the community standpoint on Staten Island. I
hope to grow it in the next chapter."
Clarifying goals was something that Tech Kids Unlimited and Wagner Collcge
Depat1ment of Education did from the first conversation. TKU Leader B even noted that,
"By using goal setting, our program leaders were able to identify key elements of this
technology-based program and show the relationship between the partners for its intended
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
84
results, Having students really understand what they are working towards sets direction,
goal, and tone. It's not just about doing hours; you arc helping them reaeh objectives and
learning
helping students achieve their goals." He went on to state
premise of getting a grant, philosophically, is about collaboration. Wagner and TKU
realized
it needed to be a strong communication with expectations, goals, and planning
to get 'there.' It is such an essential part. and I would not want it any other way, but it needs
to feel right. And we found it. We knew our shared goals for the project and because we
were clear on future goals and objectives. I think that knowing the vision and having a clear
direction made the challenges more doable. Additionally, pre-service educators and kids
benefited from the experience. We were dedicated to the collaborative roles and we bought
in which made it easier and more valuable for all stakeholders involved,'> Furthermore, this
program used many principles of good community-university partnerships, including
"partners having agreed upon mission, values, goals and measurable outcomes for the
partnership," while also ensuring that the partnership balanced, "power among partners and
enabling resources among partners to be shared" (CCPH, 2014, p. 9). The partners at
Wagner College and Tech Kids
lnlim,tpil
established clear goals and organizational
features to ensure a smooth pilot partnership,
strength of focusing on interest-driven programs helped this program engage
with students who learn differently. As explained in the NCTE Definition of 21st Century
Literacies, the growth of literacy skills needed in society is constantly evolving since,
"literacy has always been a collection of cultural and communicative practices shared
among members of particular groups, .. society and technology change, so does literacy"
(NCTE, 2014, p. 2). In this technological era, literacy's definition continues to grow to
�85
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
encompass more types of literacy beyond the classic notion of reading and writing, and
Teeh Kids Unlimited recognizes this movement.
specifIc program has had success in
part because oftheirrelevant curriculum and incorporation ofcomputer-programming, web
design, and gaming skills.
inclusion of students and the incorporation of rclevant and
engaging activities helped
partnership thrive.
Strengths of Los Promotores
Los Promotores continues to impact a community orIeamers in Staten Island's Port
Richmond neighborhood and provide authentic opportunities fi:)r growth of pre-service
educators. According to Novak, Murray, Scheuermann, and Curran (2009), there are
certain essential characteristics present in authentic service learning experiences for
university students partncring with schools and community-based organizations. In the
case of Los Promotores and the afterschoolliteracy program at P.S. 20, the characteristics
of a reciprocal relationship in which a specific community-based need was met, as well as
the integration of academic content within the service learning experience (Novak et aI,
2009). In addition, there was ongoing reflection connecting the content and the experience
to personal growth (Novak et aI, 2009). Each of these aspects positively impacted pre
service educators. This program gave a truly authentic experience that could not be
replicated in traditional classroom instruction.
Another strength of this program was the connections made with families. LP
Leader A and B shared that, 'The entire program is just a beautiful collaboration. These
parents arc really making strides at home that help their kids' literacy. I think that these
reading level improvements arc just a small part of a larger intercultural development."
continued to expand on
connections
stated
"We are
�Running head: QUALITY AFTER SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
86
building on the strategies they are already using to encourage additional growth and
everyone involved something valuable to share. There are clear academic goals and growth
oflhe students, but what is amazing is how we learn and connect with one another's cultural
background, values, and traditions." These connections and relationships formed over
variolls semesters remained one of the most consistent responses in the pre-service
educator feedback.
LP Leader A and B also shared that, "We provided relevant assignments for
students but really hoped the collaborations with their peers and respective families would
be the most valuable." This was fully suppotted by pre-service educator feedback, as most
participants expressed their collaborations with families and peers a<; the most positive and
beneficial. This program also highlighted one of the principles of good community
university partnerships by valuing "the relationship between partners being characterized
by mutual trust, respect, genuineness and commitment" (CCPH, 2014). LP Leaders A and
B expressed that, "Seeing the mutual respect and relationships
have been built in our
Wagner education department and this community is astounding and truly touching."
Moments like this were powerful and the program encouraged constant reflection from
families, students, professionals, and pre-service educators, helping help the program to
achieve growth.
Ongoing reflection was a major strength of Los Promotores that impacted group
experiences. Through connecting the content and the experience to personal growth,
Wagner pre-service educators, families, and professors engaged in ongoing development
(Novak et ai, 2009). LP Leader A and B recognized that, "There were a variety of
opportunities to reflect. We are now in the fourth version of this program with a new set of
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
87
graduate education students each time; the program implementation and objectives have
blossomed." These leaders also expressed their excitement about the reflections that pre
service educators shared in their online journals, where they responded and professionally
critiqued one another in their lessons. LP Leader A and B stated that, "Using the reflective
online posts from our graduate students each week, we were able to see their reactions and
experiences over time. As each semcster had some new and some familiar graduate
students, we were careful to adapt the program and prov ide support when needed. The pre,
during, and post conversations were the most valuable moments of reflection because we
were with families, students, and using the resources available to the best of our ability."
This type of deep reflection also occurred with the lead professors, as they were, "active
observers and participants, supporting our pre-service educators as we surveyed each
group. It became evident that our graduate students were prepared and comfortable making
minute adaptations, which is fhe sign of a confident and caring educator. We also
provided relevant assignments for students but really hoped fhe collaborations with
peers
respective families would be the most valuable. As professionals. we grew
every aspect ofthe partnership."
Some powerful observations and rellections occurred in fhcse written passages,
the associated professors often noticed how the role of families was discussed in the
retlections. LP Leaders A and B believed that, "The role of parent involvement and
meaningful intercultural connections became new objectives. and there is a sense of
comfort in the families led to greater acquisition of literacy skills. Children and mothers
arc now morc likely to speak openly with their associated pre-service educator, especially
if they fclt a sense of respect, care, and appreciation of one another."
�88
Running head: QUALITY AFTER SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
program also highlighted several principles of good community-university
partnerships. One of the principlcs
good community campus that this program truly
valucd was, "the relationship between partners being characterized by mutual
respect,
genuineness and commitment," in addition to, "thc partnership building upon identified
strengths and assets, but also addressing arcas that need improvement" (CCPH. 20]4, p.
3). This program encouraged constant reflection irom families, students, professionals, and
pre-service educators, which will certainly help the program continue to achieve continued
growth.
Areas of Improvement for Both Programs
There are several areas of improvement based on the challenges that arosc in the
two programs. Regarding Los Promotores, pre-service educators were often frustrated hy
organization and a need for more guidance with weekly objectives. [n reference to Tech
Kids Unlimited, pre-service educators did not feel fully prepared to use more advanced
aspects of technology with the program participants. These broad areas of improvement
could largely be attributed to the nature of community-university partnerships and the idea
of "trial and error" that often occurs in new partnerships, but it is important to recognize
repeated challenging feedback for future improvements.
successful partnerships, there should be dedicated, passionate, and engaged staff.
This is one of the biggest factors for quality programs and a way for
stakeholders to
benefit. National literature recognizes this need for community-university partnerships,
and many programs have approached this through specialized and relevant professional
developmcnt. In referencc to Los Promotores and Tech Kids Unlimited, one of the most
effective ways to improve these programs would be to improve specific professional
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
89
development. Each program's pre-service educators expressed certain areas they felt
unprepared approaching, including aspects of technology support for Tech Kids Unlimited
and truly understanding the daily
o~jectives
and tasks for Los Promotores. Ongoing,
relevant, professional development and ongoing support of the program logistics could
improve these programs based on the feedback of pre-service educators that were involved.
Furthermore, clear goals and attainable objectives could be improved for each
program, specifically regarding the role of pre-service educators. These are developing
programs, so the structure is often growing alongside these objectives. Still, each program
should always promote target outcomes with clearly organized and engaging activities.
This cannot be stressed enough in afterschool settings, as the timeframe is especially
limited. For Los Promotores and Tech Kids Unlimited, a shared vision, clear goals, and
daily objectives for the programs are essential, as is a valued, prepared, and organized staff.
Each program could have more defined expectations for participants and it is evident that
shared values from all stakeholders can make all the difference. Wagner College and the
target communities have the potential to make a difference through these valuable
partnerships, especially with consideration to supporting families and using examples from
successful programs nationwide.
Areas of Improvement for Tech Kids Unlimited Partnership
The Wagner College pre-service educators that expressed challenges were most
critical of their lack of preparation with specific technology used in the workshops. This
was not especially surprising after interviewing TKU Leader A. When discussing her
experiences with finding counselors in these programs, she traditionally partnered with
technology-centered schools such as NYU Poly and Pace. In these versions of the Tech
�90
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
Kids Unlimited partnership, she works with undergraduate and graduates from various
departments
are technology-based. TKU Leader A describes these traditional
interests
counselors as, "hybrid kids, often graduate students with
computers, game design, and digital marketing." She also expressed that they have
practical technology skills and when working with them, the tocus is "training the
educational pieces as we learned together." Additionally, she noted that, "Sometimes, our
training involves educational aspects of translating goals and objectives to the group and
kids. For other groups, it's teaching about the nature of ASD and what the Iitemture says
works for informal education.
to take on anyone
has a desire,
we have
to continue valuing the professional development of these individuals, teach the tmining.
and support the vocabulary growth of new tenns for our studcnts." TKU Leader A was
strongly invested in ongoing training and professional development of counselors and
staft~
but at Wagner College the focus of this professional development could be improved for
future programs.
Notably,
Wagner College partnership with Teeh Kids Unlimited was the tlrst
partnership that was training and working almost exclusively
an education
department. TKO Leader A explained that, "It was a really amazing experience, despite
the technology proliciency. That piece always helps, but with the education students, there
is a new sensc of proficiency and it runs so efficiently. They bring another set of skills that
counselors were not previously bringing our program."
With that in mind, it scemed that the professional development process was not
adapted enough for the Wagncr popUlation of counselors. Unlike the professional
developments and training that Tcch Kids Unlimited has at other university partner sites,
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
91
most of the pre-service educators arc minimally trained or exposed to cutting edge
technology and computer software. In future collaborations, it would be beneficial to train
the Wagner pre-service educators more deeply
the technological aspects than in the
educational and programming pieces, as most felt comfortable working in an infonnal
educational setting.
Areas of Improvement for Los Promotores
Some improvements that pre-service educators involved in the Los Promotores P .S.
20 afterschool partnership ",;th Wagner College included the desire for more organization
and clear objectives. Participants felt strongly about the need
the program in the Port
Richmond community, but many recognized the stress and lack of planning that often
occurred. Pre-service educators noted that there was not enough time during each session
to achieve their desired objectives, and while the potential was there, the need is not quite
being met with the cuncnt model.
LP Leader A and B shared valuable feedback regarding maximizing potentiaL They
shared that, "I think every semester we arc reaching new goals and making stronger
connections. We are now in the fourth version of this program and the role of parent
involvement has grown and meaningful intercultural connections are incredible. We
promote these positive learning outcomes, but it is a sense of shared understanding and
compassion with our students and families that are maximizing the potential. It's the work
with the returning families, the connections we are making to these communities, and the
many ways that they teach us every day that arc helping us reach our potentiaL There's
always room for growth, but we couldn't be happier with the bonds that everyone is
�92
Running head: QUALITY AFTER SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
fonning at P.S. 20." This sentiment reflects with many responses regarding the gained
relationships, but also reinforces the fact that is it an ever-changing program.
As the previous quote explains, each semester the objectives and goals are evolving
subtle
with Los Promotores. However, pre-service educators are not always aware of
changes and are struggling to adapt lessons or approach the class with a clear sense of
structure. These aspects of planning are hindering the experiences of pre-service educators
and leaving them feeling trustrated and often discouraged in their preparations.
In future programs, there could be value to sharing and creating a vision, mission,
and goal together on the first meeting. Having written, weekly objectives and a shared
calendar of weekly goals could also positively enhance
experience for stakeholders.
There must be ongoing adaptations and quick thinking in the education field,
a level of
compromise could be met in regards to planning alongside prc-serviec educators.
General Recommendations, Implications, and Future Research
The purpose ofthis exploratory study was to closely document, examine, and assess
two aflcrschool programs utilizing the community-university partnership model. The
specific aims of
study were to provide documentation and close analysis to improve
these current programs and shed light to the potential impact of the community-university
model for quality afterschool programming at small, urban universities. The researcher
recognizes that in closely documenting two afterschool programs (Tech Kids Unlimited
and Los Promotores P.S. 20 Literacy Program), some features may lack full detail based
on the length and experiences of various pre-service educators.
There were some implications and limitations of this study. By nature, a small
exploratory
of two aflerschool programs cannot draw conclusions
can be
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
93
generalized to broader populations. Additionally, the survey analysis for each program only
accounted for about 50 percent of the potential Wagner College pre-service educators
involved in each program, so it was not a full depiction of program feedback. Still, this
study allowed the researched to consider national literature and assess these programs
based on larger scale models. These two different afterschool programs also ranged in size,
scope, and demographics, as did programs within the national literature. Still, it is clear
that program leads appreciated the evaluation and documentation process in order to
continue program growth. Some additional limitations occurred in part due to the levels of
the three-part mixed methods approach; the study included participant observer
frameworks, two pre-service education surveys, and close interviews from associated
professors and program leaders in these community-university partnerships. These were
ambitious goals and were layered in different program contexts. An alternative or
supplemental approach might have been to identify a closer examination of one subject
group for closer focus. The researcher also reflected that the pre-service educator survey
could have included a pre and post survey to assess baseline knowledge rather than just
reflective growth and feedback.
Valuable research and feedback from pre-service educators and program leaders is
paramount to having quality programs. As explored in earlier sections of this study, The
Harvard Family Research Project (2008) identified these three critical factors as access to
and sustained participation in program, quality programming and staffing, and strong
partnerships. As referenced in both the interview protocol and surveys, "Afterschool
programs can promote positive learning and developmental outcomes, but some programs
are not maximizing their potential." Programs must make an effort to tailor their goals, "to
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
94
their interests, needs, and schedules, as well as from those providing exposure to new ideas,
challenges, and people." Throughout this study, the researcher found aspects of Tech Kids
Unlimited and Los Promotores that tailored their goals to interests while providing
exposure to sometimes challenging situations.
Some general recommendations can be made about community-university
partnerships, as found in the literature and discovery of this study. Communication is the
basis of any strong partnership. Providing concrete instructions, setting structured blocks
of time to reflect, and sharing a common mission each are evidence-based practices for
improvement. Additionally, partnerships of this kind must promote growth through "sub"
goals to support smaller objectives within often "big-picture" missions. This shared sense
of goals can strengthen that essential trust that is necessary for successful partnerships.
There are several general recommendations about Los Promotores that are
suggested for future improvement. One specific example is that pre-service educators could
learn more about the profile of the students or have access to their reading levels before
starting the program. This way, the program leads could effectively group students to pre
service educators that have strengths in different age groups and subjects since the program
includes pre-service educators from every possible program (literacy, early childhood,
childhood/special education, etc.). This could truly impact the expertise of different pre
service educators and help the groups learn how to support the population best.
Regarding Tech Kids Unlimited, there are also general recommendations suggested
for future improvement. Pre-service educators expressed their wish to have a technology
focused seminar before the start of the program to prepare their skills in order to best
support students. One simple way to reinforce this improvement would be to provide a one
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
95
page list of technology tips for the counselors to access when working with students. This
could mitigate confusion and help to alleviate stress when they are approached with
technology questions. Another possible solution, though more focused towards the
university, is to include more technology-based professional development on campus for
interested undergraduate and graduate students.
In future research, studies could use experiences of families, students, and parents
involved in afterschool programs. It would be interesting to see the impact and feedback
while still considering critical factors for successful outcomes. Additionally, it would be
interesting to revisit programs that are reoccurring in the Wagner Education Department or
to see the growth of Los Promotores and Tech Kids Unlimited in further programming.
The community-university partnership model is one that can be effective and successful if
implemented carefully. However, challenges may arise and, as poignantly described by
TKU Leader 8, "You have to be okay with failure and you need to learn that it happens ..
. we need to have all experiences. That's what these community-university partnerships
offer, these excited students taking on beautiful unexpected moments." This study helped
the researcher gain a wealth of knowledge regarding afterschool programming,
community-university partnerships, and the importance of preparation for quality
implementation in any successful program, while also appreciating the dedication of
educators and community partners that make this a valuable and worthwhile endeavor.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
96
References
Afterschool Alliance Encourages Communities to Leave the Lights On. (2013). Stales
News Service.
Afterschool Alliance, & MetLife Foundation. (2011). Literacy in afterschool: An essential
building block for learning and development. MetL!fe Foundation Ajierschool
Alert. IS'sue BriefNo. 53. Afterschool Alliance.
Afterschool Alliance (2014). Quality afterschool: Helping programs achieve it
strengthening policies to support
Afierschool Alert. Issue Brief No. 47.
Afterschool Alliance.
Afterschool Alliance (2004). Afterschool and students with special needs. Afterschool
Alert. Issue BriefNo./. Afterschool Alliance.
Afterschool Alliance (2007). Afterschool partnerships with higher education. Afierschool
Alert. Issue BriefNo.2. Afterschool Alliance.
Afterschool Alliance (2008). Afterschool benefits
special needs.
Alert. Issue BriefNo 2. Allerschool Alliance.
Alves,
(2014). Five prolessional development resources (hat promote family
engagement. Family invo/l'cment Network oj'Educa/or.l (FINFJ Newsleller, 5(2).
Retrieved
from htlp:llwww.hfrp.org/out-of-sehool-time/publications
resources/five-professional-development-resources-that-promote-family
engagement
Otaiba, S" & Pappamihiel,
E, (2005). Guidelines for Using Volunteer Literacy
Tutors to Support Reading Instruction for English Language Learners. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 37(6), 6-11.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
97
Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A (2003). Summer vacation: an educational setback.
Current, (458). 3.
Anyon, Y., & Fernandez, M. A (2007). Realizing the Potential of Community-University
Partnerships. Change: The Magazine ofHigher Learning, 39(6-), 40--45.
Arbreton, A. J. A, Goldsmith. J., Sheldon, J., James Irvine Foundation, & Public/Private
Ventures. (2005). Launching Literacy in After-School Programs: Early Lessons
from the CORAL Iniliative. Public/Private Ventures.
Carleton College Center for Community
Civic Engagement (2015). Retrieved April
21, 20 I 5 from https://apps.carelton.edulccce/
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). March 27, 2014. "CDC estimates I in
68 children has been identilied with autism spectrum disorder." Retrieved April 2,
20 15
from
http://www.cdc.gov/medialreIeasesI2014/p0327-autism-spectrum
disorder.html
Cities Partner with U.S. Dept. of Education to Improve Schools Through Early Childhood,
Afterschool and Postsecondary Attainmcnt Programs. (2014). PR Newswirc.
Clary, D. M., Styslinger, M. E., & Oglan, V. A (2012). Literacy Learning Communities in
Partnership. School-University Partnerships, 5(1),28-39.
de Kanter, A. A., Chung, A, & Stonehill, R. M. (2002). Ensuring quality and sustainability
after-school programs. In G. G. Noam, B. M. Miller, G. G. Noam, B. M. Miller
(Eds.) , Youth development and after-school time: A tale of many cities (pp. 133
139). San Francisco, CA. US: Jossey-Bass.
Demand is High for More Afterschool Programs. (2014). UWIRE Text. Event spotlights
aftcrschool programs. (2002). Reading Today, (2), 7.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
98
Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). The impact of after-school programs that
promote personal and social skills. Chicago: Collaborative for Academic, Social,
and Emotional Learning. (NCLS & Harvard Family Research Project Brief Series:
ELO Research, Policy, and Practice No.1).
Dweck, C. (2007). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Ballantine Books.
Felt, L. J., Vartabedian, V., Literat, I., & Mehta, R. (2012). Explore Locally, Excel
Digitally: A Participatory Learning After-School Program for Enriching
Citizenship On- and Omine. Journal OfMedia Literacy Education, 4(3), 213-228.
Ferguson, R. F., & Clay, P. L., with Snipes, J. C., & Roaf, P. (1996). YouthBuild in
developmental perspective: A formative evaluation of the YouthBuild program.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning.
Forlin, c., & Hopewell, T. (2006). Inclusion - the heart of the matter: Trainee teachers'
perceptions of a parent's journey. British Journal of Special Education, 33(2), 55
61.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2009). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals
(6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gaskins, I. (2005).Success with struggling readers: The Benchmark School approach. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Gardner, H. (1997). Extraordinary minds: Portraits of exceptional individuals and an
examination of our extraordinariness. New York, NY: Basic Books. British edition,
London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1997
Gieselmann, S. (2008). Successful University & School Partnerships: Social Studies Clubs
in Elementary Afterschool Programs. Childhood Education, 85(2), 81-85.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
99
Goldsmith, J., Jucovy, L., Arbreton, A., James Irvine Foundation, & Public/Private
Ventures. (2008a). Gaining Ground: Supporting English Learners through After
School Literacy Programming. PubliclPrivate Ventures.
Gonsier-Gerdin, J., & Royce-Davis, .T. (2005). Developing advocates and leaders through
service-learning in preservice and in service special education programs. In S. Root,
J. Callahan, & S. H. Billig (Eds.), Improving service-learning practice: Research
on models to enhance impacts (pp. 37-57). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Gring-Pemble, L. M., & Garner, P. (2010). Writing Rock Stars: An After-School
Community Partnership in Childhood Literacy. Community Literacy Journal, 5(1),
57-73.
Gutierrez, N., Bradshaw, M., Furano, K., James Irvine Foundation, & Public/Private
Ventures. (2008). After-School Toolkit: Tips, Techniques and Templates for
Improving Program Quality. Public/Private Ventures.
Halpern, R. (2003). Supporting the literacy development of low-income children in
afterschool programs: Challenges in and exemplary practices. Afterschool Matters.
The Robert Brown Foundation.
Halpern, R., Spielberger, J., & Robb, S. (2002). Evaluation of the MOST (Making the Most
of Out-of School Tme) Initiative: Final Report. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center
for Children.
Hands, C. (2005). It's who you know and what you know: The process of creating
partnerships between schools and communities. The School Community Journal,
15(2),63-84
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
100
Harkavy, L (2005). University-Assisted Community School Program of West Philadelphia:
Democratic Partnerships that Make a Difference. New Directions for Youth
Development, (107), 35·A3.
Harkavy,
t, & Hartley, M. (2009). University-school-community partnerships for youth
development and democratic renewal.
Directions for Youth Development,
122),7-18.
Harris, E., Deschenes, S., & Wallace, A. (20 II). Helpiny, older youth succeed through
expanded learning opportunities. (NCLS & Harvard Family Research Project Brief
Series: ELO Research, Policy, and Practice No.
Hynes, K., O'Connor, S., Chlmg, A.-M., & Wellesley Coli., M. C. for R. on W. (1999).
Literacy: Exploring Strategies To Enhance Learning in After-School Programs.
James Irvine Foundation, & Public/Private Ventures. (2008). What Matters. What Works:
Advancing Achievement ajier School. Public/Private Ventures.
Kearney, J., Wood, L., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2013). Community--University Partnerships.
Gateways: International Journal Of Community Research & Engagement, 6113
l30.
Leggett, W. P., & Persichitte, K. A. (1998). Blood, sweat, and TEARS: 50 years of
technology implemcntat
obstacles. Techtrend~: Linking Research & Practice To
Improve Learniny" 43(3), 33.
Little, P. D., Wilmer, C .. & Weiss, H. B. (2008). After Schoo) Programs in the 21 st
Century: Their Potential and What It Takes to Achieve It. Issues and Opportunitics
in Out-of-School Time Evaluation. Number 10. Harvard Family Research Project.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
101
Madsen, C. K. (20 II). Music Teacher Education Students as Cross-Age Reading Tutors in
an After-School Setting. Journal olMusic Teacher Education, 20(2), 40-54.
National League of Cities (NLC), I. F. (2014). The Afterschool Hours: A New Focus for
America's Cities. National League of Cities Institute For Youth, Education And
Families,
National Council of Teachers of English (2014). "NCTE position statements on literacy."
Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/positions/literacy on November 2,2014.
Novak, J., Murray, M., Scheuermann, A., & Curran, E. (2009). Enhancing the preparation
of special educators through service learning: Evidence from two pre-service
courses. International Journal of Special Education, 24(1),32-44.
Onore, C., & Gildin, B. (2010). Preparing Urban Teachers as Public Professionals through
a University-Community Partnership. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(3), 27--44.
Paberzs, Adam (04/01/2014). "Strengthening Community Involvement in Grant Review:
Insights from the Community- University Research Partnership (CURES) Pilot
Review Process". Clinical and translational science (1752-8054), 7 (2), p. 156.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Pediatrics, "Postsecondary Education and Employment Among Youth With an Autism
Spectrum Disorder," May 14,2012.
Pedicone, J. (2010). Setting priorities for after-school programs to do more than occupy
kids' time. Inside Tucson Business, 19 (44), 21.
PR Newswire. (2014). America Will Tum the Lights On for Afterschool October 23rd.
Lights-on-Ajierschool.
�102
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
Reisner, E, R., Russell, C. A., Welsh, M.
llirmingham, J., & White, R. N. (2002).
Supporting quali(v and scale in ajier-schoo/ services 10 urban youth: Evalualion of
program implementation and s/udenl engagement in TASC Ajler-School Program's
third year. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.
Resnick, L. (1990). Literacy in school and out. Daclaus Journal ofthc American Academy
of Arts and Sciences, Spring 1990, 169-185.
Rossman, G. 13., & Wilson, B. 1,. (1994). Numbers and words revisited: Being
"shamelessly methodologically eclectic." Quali/y and Quan/i(V, 28, 315-327.
Sanders, M. G. (2001). The role of "community" in comprehensive school, family, and
community
programs.
The
Elementary
School
Journal,
102( 1),
19-34.
doi: 10.1 086/499691
Shattuck, P (2012). Postsecondary education and employment among
with an autism
spectrum disorder. American Academy ofPediatrics.
Shattuck, PT., Wagner, M., Narcndorf, S., Sterzing, P., & Hensley, M. (2012).
Postsecondary education and employment among youth with an autism spectrum
disorder. Archives ofPediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 165, 141-146.
Sheldon, .r., Arbreton, A., Hopkins, L., & Grossman, J. B. (2010). Investing in success: key
strategies for building quality in after-school programs. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 45(3/4), 394-404.
Spielberger, J. & Halpern, R. (2002). The role of (!fler-.I'chool programs in children's
literacy development. Chapin
Center for Children at the University of Chicago.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
103
United States General Accounting Office (1997, May). Welfare Relimn: Implications of
Increased Work Participation for Child Care, GAO/HEHS-97-7S. Washington, DC:
Author.
U.S. News and World Report: Education (2015). "National Liberal Arts Colleges
Rankings."
Retrieved
April
on
4,
2015
from
hltp:/lcolleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankingslnational
liberal-arts-colleges?int=a73d09.
Vandell, D. L. L. S. (1999). Afterschool child care programs. When School is out, Volume
9, Number2 Fall 1999, 64-8 L
Wilmer, c., Bouffard. S., Little, P., & Closs, C. (2008). Measurement tools/or evaluating
out-aI-school time programs: An evaluation resource. (NCLS & Harvard Family
Research Project Brief Series:
Welsh, M. E., Russell, C. A., Williams.
Research, Policy. and Practice No.6).
Reisner,
R., & White, R. N. (2002).
Promoting learning and school allendance through afler-school programs:
Student-level changes in educational performance across TASC'sfirstthree years.
Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
104
Appendices
Appendix A: Informed Consent Email for Pre-Service Educators
Good Afternoon,
I hope this email finds you well and that you are having a great week. As part of
my master's degree requirements at Wagner College, I am conducting research to learn
how community-university partnerships can be a strengthened for quality afterschool
programmmg. I! you are willing, I hope you will consider participating in this research
project. This email will provide you with information that will help you decide whether or
not you wish to participate.
In this study, I will be using an "action research" model, where participants are co
learners
me around the question at hand. During the course of this project, it is
assumed that you have participated in either the P.S. 20 Afterschool Literacy Program or
Tech Kids Unlimited Workshop. If you were to participate in this research study, you
would be asked to complete a
ef online program survey. This survey
take
10
minutes and consists of various multiple choice, ranking, slider scale, and open ended
reflections. In clicking the link below to this survey, you consent to participating in the
research, though you may stop participation at any point.
In addition to the survey, you will have the chance to attend an informal
professional dialogue to discuss results from the surveys and future goals li)r these
programs. This reflective conversation is not expected if you participate in the survey, but
I hope you will consider anending to discuss your views with fellow pre-service educators
and also have a chance win a Barnes and Noble or Dunkin Donuts gift card. My goal is to
create a conversation about afterschool programming and how our experiences as pre
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
105
service educators can be learned from and help improve future cormnunity-university
efforts in educational programming.
This project does not carry any fbrcseeable risks beyond those associated with
everyday liIe in our profession. If for any reason you felt uncomfortable, you could leavc
this study at any time with no penalty. All data collected will remain confidential and will
not be associated
your name. It you leave the project alier having provided data,
your data will be destroyed immediately on your request to exit participation. When this
study is complete, you will be provided with the results of the study if you request them,
and you will be free to ask any questions.
If you have any further questions concerning this study please feel free to contact
me through phone or email: Tatum Colitz at tatum.colitz@wagner.edu (610-301-3918) or
Karen DeMoss at Karen.demoss@wagner.edu(718-420-4070). Thank you for considering
being part of my study.
Sincerely,
Tatum Colitz, Investigator
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
106
Appendix B: Informed Consent for Associated Program Leaders
Good Afternoon,
T hope this email finds you well and you are having a great week. As part of my
master's degree requirements at Wagner College, I am conducting research to learn how
community-university partnerships can be strengthened to improve the quality of
aiterschool programming. If you are willing, I hope you will consider participating in this
research project. This document will provide you with infonnation that will help you
decide whether or not you wish to participate.
In this study, 1
be using an "action research" model, where patticipants are eo
learners with me around questions of improving after school programming quality in
community-university partnerships. During the course of this project, I will bc surveying
Wagner College undergraduate
graduate students that have participated in either the
P.S. 20 Afterschool Literacy Program or Tech Kids Unlimited Workshop. These
participants are the co-learners with me on the project.
If you were to participate, you would be asked to complete an in-person, phone, or
vidco-conferenced interview. This interview will take about 15 minutes to complete and
consists of open-ended reflections to learn more about your experiences in the program
that will hopefully help guide improvements and strengthen the goals in
future. The
other participants would have access to unidentifiable, aggregated perceptions from
program leaders like you to help infonn their understandings ofprogram goals and possible
improvement areas.
This project does not carry any foreseeable risks outside normal, everyday work
risks related to comfort with discussing things. If for any reason you felt uncomfortable,
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
J07
you could leave this study at any time with no penalty. When this study is complete, you
will be provided with the results of the study if you request them, and you will be free to
ask any questions.
you have any further questions concerning this study please feel free to contact
me through phone or email:
Colitz attatum.colitz@wagner.edu (6
Karen DeMoss at Karen.demoss@wagner.edu
-3918) or
8-420-4(70). Thank you for considering
to be a part of my study related to research for a master's thesis in Education at Wagner
College. I truly appreciate it!
Sincerely,
Tatum Colitz, Investigator
Additional Data Follow-Up
Good Afternoon,
revlewmg my (mal thesis revisions, I was hoping to follow up regarding confidentiality
with my data results. From the interview that we conducted several weeks
regarding
community-university partnerships, I have been actively editing my study. However, I
wanted to check to see your willingness to allow full publication of your interview data in
the appendices. While your name is not listed within the study for confidentiality reasons,
the appendices could include details and full disclosure of our in Ibrmal conversation based
on my notes.
Please let me know your willingness to consent as soon as possible. If you would like to
see a copy of your interview data in order to make an informed decision, I would be happy
to send you a copy! Thank you again and have a wonderful day!
Sincerely,
Tatum
�108
Running head: QUALITY AFTER SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
Appendix C: Interview Questions for Associated Program Leaders
I.
How did you learn about
opportunity and
become involved with
this program?
2.
Before this project, did you have any other experiences with afterschool
education models, community-university partnerships, or this population?
3.
What arc some of the most successful ways that you have found to prepare
pre-service educators to work
students from diverse and spccial nceds backgrounds?
4.
Were there any aspects of this program that made collaboration difficult?
5.
In your opinion, what aspects of the program were most successful whcn
implemented?
6.
What oppOliunities did you have to reflect on your practice as the program
progressed?
7.
What role did collaboration play in the planning and delivery of
program? How would you describe the success or collaboration with professionals,
coordinators, pre-service educators, and program participants?
8.
What are your thoughts about having more community-university
partnerships, whethcr at Wagner College or more gcncrally across the country?
program?
9.
What was the most memorable expcriencc for
10.
Little, Wilmer, and Weiss (2008) wrote that while afterschool programs
"have the potential to impact a range of positive learning and development outcomes,"
some programs "do not maximize this potential." How does/doesn't this quote relate to
your experiences with this program and the idea of maximizing potential?
�Running head: QUALITY AFTER SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
109
Appendix D: Tech Kids Unlimited Program Survey
QI.I How would you describe your current academic standing at Wagner College? Please
check all that apply
o
Undergraduate Student (if so, please identify current major or
majors and year
in the space below) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
o
Graduate Student, MS
o
Graduate Student, MS Ed in Teaching Literacy
o
Graduate Student, MS Ed in Childhood 1-6/Special Ed
o
Graduate Student, MS Ed
in Early Childhood ISpecial Ed
Adolescent/Special Ed( (if so, please identify
concentration the space below) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
o
Graduate Student, MS Ed in Educational Leadership
QI.2 Which answer best describes how you learned about the Tech Kids Unlimited
Workshop at Wagner College?
o
This program was part of a class requirement
o
I was invited by an education professor
o
I heard about this program through classmate
o
I was recommended to participate from the program coordinator.
o
Other:
Q1.3 Did you have any prior experiences involving this population of students or with
educational afterschool programs? Please list and describe any experiences that may be
applicable.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCIIOOL PARTNERSHIPS
110
Q 1.4 In what ways were you directly prepared through programmatic efforts once you
knew you would participate in it?
[J
I had professional development opportunities to learn about the student population
and program goals
[J I
collaborated
[J I
peers
prepared
comfortable working alongside
necessary program logistics. including the program goals.
expectations, and overall mission of the community-university partnership
[J
I learned about the technology aspects of the workshops
[J
Other: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Ql.5 Please rank which aspects of the Tech Kids Unlimited Workshops most motivated
you in your participation.
*Please usc 1 as the lowest motivator, 6 being the highest.
___ Real-life application of classroom theories
___ Professional experience/Resume
___ Earning desired compensation (paid hourly rate)
Experience in informal educational environment (afterschool literacy
program)
_______ Interest in speeial needs popUlation
____ Interest in technology for educational purposes
Q2.1 How effectively did you feel you collaborated with the
program. Please use
sliding scale labels from
groups ounng
to best describe your experience.
___ Collaboration with professors
___ Collaboration with program coordinators and community partners
�III
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
~~_
Collaboration
~~_Collaboration
my peers
with students and families
Q2.2 Are there any aspects of the previously listed collaborations that you would like to
clarify?
Q2.3 How would you describe the ways the program pIarming logistics (time, location,
objectives fbr the session) were communicated to you? Please use the sliding scale labels
from 0-100 to best describe your experience.
1 received helpful cmail communication
___ I engaged in reflective conversations following each session
___ I had the chance to have one-on-one support from professors, program
coordinators, and/or peers.
Q3.1 How would you describe the goals and objectives of the Tech Kids Unlimited
program?
Q3.2 About how much time did you spend preparing for each session of this program?
Average time spent
preparing for one
workshop
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
----"--- -_.
Q3.3 How many sessions have you been involved with Tech Kids Unlimited? (Please
include any prolessional development sessions as well as actual workshops)
o
o
I session
2 sessions
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
o
3 sessions
o
o
112
4 or more sessions
Other: _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Q3.4 Litlle, Wilmer, and Weiss (2008) wrote that while afterschool programs "have the
potential to impact a range of positive learning and development outcomes," some
programs do not maximize this potential." How does this quote relate to your experiences
with this program and the idea of maximizing potential?
Q4.l Collaboration is essential
effective community-university partnerships. Can you
describe one of the best examples of how you collaborated with professors, peers,
students, families, or the community during this program?
Q4.2 How would you rank the benetits of this program? *Please use the sliding scale labels
from 0-100 to best describe your experience.
_ _ _ Real-life application of educational theory
_ _ _ Working with students with special needs and their families
Collaboration with community partners at Tech Kids
Successful experience in an informal learning environment (afterschool
programs)
_ _ _ Great addition to my educational resume
Q4.3 What was one ofthe most rewarding experiences you had during this program? Please
describe
positive aspect ofthe program vias valuable to you.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
113
Q5.1 What aspects of til is program did you find most challenging? Please be as specific as
possible.
Q5.2 Would you havc any interest being involved with this program in the future?
o
Yes, I am interested in learning more
o
Possibly, I would eonsider being involved if some small changes were made.
o
Maybe, but I would like to sec some major changes before 1 would participate.
o
No, I would not be interested in participating in the future.
o
Other: _ _ _ _ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~_
opportunities.
Q5.3 As a source or feedback and professional development to assist my thesis research,
would you consider attending a brief and informal forum (with coffee, tea, and desserts) to
voice your experiences with fellow Wagner pre-service educators involved in communityuniversity partnership programs?
attendees will be provided with a ehance for a nnn!.>;n
Donuts or Barnes and Noble gift card.
o
Yes, I would like to learn more about logistics of this brief event and the chance to
win a gift-card.
o
No, 1 would not like to paliicipate in this brief even!.
o
Other: _ _ ~
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PAKINERSHIPS
114
Appendix E: Los Promotores AfterschooJ Program Feedback Survey
Ql.1 How would you describe your current academic standing at Wagner College? Please
check all that apply
1, Undergraduate Student (if so, please identify current major or dual majors and year
space below) _ _ _ _ _~
2. Graduate Student, MS Ed in Early Childhood ISpecial Ed
3. Graduate Student, MS Ed in Teaching Literacy
4. Graduate Student, MS Ed in Childhood 1-6/Special Ed
5. Graduate Student, MS Ed in Adolescent/Special Ed( (if so, please identify
concentration the space below) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
6. Graduate Student, MS Ed in Educational Leadership
QI ,2 Which answer best describes how you learned about the P ,So 20 Afterschool Literacy
program (Los Promotores)?
1. This program was part of a class requirement
2, I was invited by an education professor
3. I heard about this program through classmate
4. I was recommended to participate
the program coordinator.
5. Other: _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Q1.3 Did you have any prior experiences involving this population of students or with
educational afterschool programs? Please list and describe any experiences that may be
applicable.
Ql.4 In what ways were you directly prepared through programmatic efforts once you
knew you would participate
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
115
o I had professional development opportunities to learn about the student population and
program goils
o I collaborated with peers that I felt comfortable working alongside during class
assignments
o I fel! prepared with necessary program logistics, including the program goals,
expectations, and overall mission of the community-university partnership
o I learned about the flipped model of instruction and felt comfortable using this model
o
Other: _ _~. _ _ _ _ __
QJ.5 Please rank you motivation for the involvement with the Los Promotores P.S. 20
Afterschool Literacy Program *Please use J as the lowest motivator, 5 being the highest.
_____~ Real-life application of classroom theories
_ _~ Professional experience/Resume
___ Earning a desirable class grade (requirement for eoursework)
Experience in informal educational environment (afterschool literacy
program)
Interest in working with ELL and Spanish speaking community members
(students, families, etc.)
Q2.3 How effectively did you feel you collaborated with the following groups during this
program. Please use the sliding scale labels from 0-100 to best describe your experience.
_____ Collaboration with professors
___ Collaboration with program coordinators and community partners
___ Collaboration with my peers
Collaboration with students and families
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PAR1NERSHIPS
Q2.4 Are there any aspects of
previously listed collaborations
116
you would like to
clarify?
Q20 How would you describe the ways the program planning logistics (time, location,
ohjectives for the session) were communicated to you? Please usc the sliding scale lahels
from 0-100 to hest descrihe your experience.
___ r received helpful email communication
___ I engaged in reflective conversations following each session
___ J had the chance to have one-on-one support Jrom professors, program
coordinators. and/or peers.
Q2.1 How would you descrihe the goals and
o~iectives
of this program?
Q3.2 About how much time did you spend preparing for each session of this program?
Average time spent
preparing for one
session at P.S. 20
Q3.3 How many semesters have you been involved in this program?
involved with this semester, you may count
o
I semester
o
2 semesters
o
3 semesters
o
4 or more semesters
o
Other: - - - - - - -
as "] semester)
1\
are currently
�Running head: QUALITY AFTER SCHOOL PARTNERSIIIPS
117
Q3.1 Little, Wilmer, and Weiss (2008) wrote that while afierschool programs "have the
potential to impact a range of positive learning and development outcomes," some
programs do not maximize this potential." How does this quote relate to your experiences
this program and the idea of maximizing potential?
Q2.2 Collahoration is essential for effective community-university partnerships. Can you
describe one of the best examples of how you collaborated with professors, peers,
students, families, or the community during this program?
Q4.1 How would you rank the benefits ofthis program? *Please usc the sliding scale labels
from 0-100 to best describe your experience.
_~~~~~~~
~ __
Real-life application of educational theory
Working with low income, ELL students and families
___ Collaboration with community partners at Port Richmond
___ Successful experience in an informal learning environment (afterschool
programs)
___ Greal addition to my educational resume
Q4.2 What was one ofthe most rewarding experiences you had during this program? Please
describe how
positive aspect ofthe program was valuable to you.
Q5.1 What aspects of this program did you find most challenging? Please be as specific as
possible.
Q5.2 Would you have any interest being involved with this program in the future?
o
Yes, I am interested in leaming more about opportunities.
o Possibly, I would consider being involved if some small changes were made.
o Maybe, but I would like to see some major changes before I would participate.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PAKINERSHIPS
11 &
o No, I would not be interested in participating in the future.
o Other: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
Q5.3 As a source or feedback and professional development to assist my thesis research,
would you consider attcnding a brief and informal forum (with coffee, tea, and desserts) to
voice your experiences with fellow Wagner pre-service educators involved in community
university partnership programs? All attendees will be provided with a chance for a Dunkin
Donuts or Barnes and Noble gift card.
o Yes, I would like to learn more about logistics of this brief event and the chance
to win a gift-card.
o No. I would not Iikc to participate in this brief event.
o Other:
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
I 19
Appendix F: Interview Data for Associated Program Leaders
Tech Kids Unlimited
A. Tech Kids Unlimited Pro gam Leader A, Phone Interview, April 13,2015
1. How did you first become involved with the Wagner version of this program?
"Basically I was began my community involvement from my experiences with a
son that has ASD. I technically created TKU in 2009, then in 2014 received non-for profit
status. I was making rounds in digital media grants and learned about Leah Gilliam and I
reached out to Brooklyn office to hear about the partnerships that the HIVE NYC Learning
Network had to off We talked and I wanted to hear if I was eligible for grants and the
chance to continue these projects for children who learn differently. I learned then that you
could apply for grants at HIVE with larger, "lead" organizations and that's where I found
out about Wagner College.
I had had experience with New York Hall of Science through consultant work
regarding ASD. With the six degrees of separation, an educator that works closely with
Wagner at NYSCI (Anthony Negron) connected us to Wagner College. During our initial
phone call, it was clear we had similar goals and motivations for learners. Our proposal
happened overnight and it was a fast process, but it was a clear no brainer. This gave the
ASD community another chance for programs and gave TKU the perfect opportunity for
borough expansion (having already organized technology workshops in Manhattan,
Brooklyn, and Queens). The best place to partner, in my opinion, is with these universities."
2. Before this project, how would you describe your other partnerships with colleges?
How was it different working with the Education department and education students
specifically?
�Running head: QUALITY AFTRRSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
120
"Tech Kids Unlimited developed organically in 2009. I had programs at the ICC
Manhattan media lab followed by Paee as T pursued my education technology degree. At
this time, I applied for internal grant through Jonathan Hill and earned an internal grant
with Verizon with a faculty member. This gave me a taste of the university partnership
model and it worked even better at Pace. This partnership helped tremendously, using
students as counselors that are already are trdined in so many aspects of technology. It was
a better experience. JCC was practical, I was using my daughter and her friends in NYC
for conununity service as our counselors. This was social activity for them, and free
volunteers for our program. The program participants were mueh younger and counselors
were also young. But wow, has it developed! At universities we have specialized computer
science majors, like those I often hire at Pace with the technology lab and program. Two
years ago, in 2013 at NYU Poly, my educational consultant work led to new exciting
partnerships. My director was opening a new space and wanted a program in this
technology based ability lab. The K-12 STEM program opportunity helped TKU partner
with NYU Poly in Brooklyn, working with undergraduate and graduates in their various
departments. These were hybrid kids, often graduate students with multiple interests within
computers, and marketing, social media, ",-jth any previous undergraduate majors. This
program infused practical technology skills and we really
started working
those
students closely, training the educational pieces as we learned together.
More specifically, Wagner was first time with just education students. It was a
really amazing experience, despite the technology proficiency. That piece always helps,
but with the education students, there is a new sense ofproficiency and it runs so ellieiently.
bring another set of
that counselors were not previousl y bringing our program.
�121
Running head: QLJALlTY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
'n1is opened my eyes to ncw structural aspects of staffing; there needs to be a mix of
students, We necd to have technology specialist, education students, speech therapy,
educational therapy, computer science majors! This even mix of departments, and other
departments at these schools wanting to be involved, is so exciting. The program improves
as we begin pushing out to
counselors with skill sets from a variety of disciplines,
Looking back from 2009 to 2015, it has been an incredibly wonderful trajectory, having
started with my daughters and her high school friends to now having specialized graduate
students. "
3, What are some of the most successful ways that you have found to prepare pre-service
educators to work with students from diverse and special needs backgrounds?
"It always goes back to training counselors. Having teachers in STEM is vital and
we need train more teachers in STEM who can also teach special needs, This is a totally
different way, but finding great teachers is like finding a needle in a haystack. Finding
counselors from this program is easier because there is almost a science of what your
specialty is (computer science/engineering/education). It is hard to train counselors that do
not have a passion for the popUlation or a rcal love of interacting
children and
supporting their goals. We also know there needs to be respect for the population.
Ultimately, the trial and error of counselors that works well
population and want to
be there makes the difference."
Our bi-yearly training is paid, with all counselors and pre,service educators to have
quality training. The goal to is to train all students and we only allow 30 people into each
training program. In the afterschool and informal education world, our counselors are
constantly evolving and having programs at different sites changes the types of training
�122
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
that are needed. Still, we all can learn from one another and from different sets oflearners.
I also believe that communication effectiveness and technology teacher training are
essential. I make sure our lead counselors are training in the lesson plans that work well in
this workshop and that the objectivcs are clear. Sometimes, our training involves
educational aspects of translating goals and objectives to the group and kids. For other
groups, it's teaching about the nature of ASD and what the literature says works for
informal education. I'm willing to take on anyone that has a desire, but we have to continue
valuing the proiessional development of these individuals, teach the training, and support
the vocabulary growth of new terms for our students.
4. Were there any aspects
program that made collaboration ditlicult?
"'Like in any first time with a new partnership, there is a lot of unknown. Whether
that is with the new students, location, or organization goals, it is a learning experience.
The hardest aspect of this program was the quick turnaround from a grant standpoint and
only having certain resources available at the new Wagner site. We were spoiled
10
some
of the technology-centered universities and the space was brand new here, so it was just a
lot of learning. Not a bad thing, but always something to consider in a new partnership."
5. In your opinion, what aspects of the program were most successful when implemented?
"This was our time working with education students, both graduate and
undergraduate. I think that the Wagner version ofTKU had a strong bond with the students.
Working with education students in and of itself was a new experience for the group. We
had amazing women who got the program very quickly and learned how to address the
goals immediately. It was a thrill to see and they seemed natural in the program. Having a
�123
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
set of experienced educators that attached to the program was a real joy and that's why the
program ran so we II."
6. What opportunities did you have to relleet on your practice as the program progressed'?
"As in any grant-based partnership, we are expeeted to evaluate and assess every
level of the program. This makes for constant rellection, whether in informal phone
conversations or written reports to funders. It's something I have grown accustomed to
over the years and having that analytical eye is huge."
7. What role
collaboration play in the planning and delivery of this program? How
would you describe the success of collaboration with professionals, coordinators, pre
service educators, and program participants?
"David Gordon was a great partner and our Wagner program coordinator Tatum
partnership was a seamless
were always willing to work hard and make it work.
transition and we were able and willing to
ways that worked. Their previous
relationships with the schools that made it so easy to market
helped us become familiar
with the community on Staten Island. These department connections, with schools like
Hungerf()rd, made the marketing work so well, even the fact that there was a place for each
kid. Seeing how our unexpected non-verbal student connected with an education student
was amazing. She essentially created a program on
spot for Michael. Amazing work.
Above and beyond connections. Education students are able to see the need, create it, and
love every second of doing it. This mini pilot would not have happened without education
pre-service teachers, and that was the great part
the program at Wagner. It was a
great example of a new experience from educators and a collaborative dream team."
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
124
8. What are your thoughts about having more community-university partnerships,
whether at Wagner College or more generally across the country?
"It's the best way to learn and grow in these type ofpartnerships. In my experience,
there are these stellar students that bite off anything placed in front of them. The
community-university partnership, I love it. It combines the interests of world educators,
community, connects minds and shared interests of every stakeholder. Seeing what
happens at university, with the most innovative learning and minds, incredible hardware,
tpf'hn,,,,jo{nr
needs, these are aspects
are not always available to communities and
nonprofits that want to make these connections. This is significant part of my program
modeL I prefer colleges more than anywhere because the community served in a way that
people are learning, assessing, and caring.
Communities gain the programs and access to great educational opportunities,
while colleges like Wagncr make an impact and learning about people behind the figures
in the surrounding community. This type of partnership model also helps non-for profits to
grow,
and experiment. It is pardmount. Beyond donated space and
space that supports lcarning and colleges provide that in spades. It is not
it is just a
a quality
professional experience for counselors, but for universities like Wagner, NYU, and Pace
that embrace, support, and connect to thc community."
9. What was the most memorable expericnce for you in this program?
"This entire experience was really memorable since Wagner was first time having
exclusively education students as our counselors. It was a really amazing experience since
they bring another set of skills
counselors were not previously bringing our program.
I was also was thrilled at the response from parents and
reactions I was hearing from
�125
Running head: QUALITY AFTFRSCHOOL PARTNERSlIIPS
the reflective moments. I had parents asking me when TKU would be back on Staten Island
and how their children could sign up lor more programs when the grant project had
completed.
moments rcmind us
we are doing something
and supporting
the community in a respectful, caring way."
10. Little, Wimer, and Weiss (2008) wrote that while afterschool progranls "have the
potential to impact a range of positive learning and development outcomes," some
programs "do not maximize this potential." How does/doesn't this quote relate to your
expeflences
this program and the idea of maximizing potential?
think it is a great point about any type of partnership or informal educational
program because there is a constant need to evolve and meet new goals, especially since
so many programs are based out of grant-Iunding. AI'terschool and
out-ot~school
activities
give chi Idrcn a chance to pursue their affinities and find what makes them the best version
themsel ves. I
the TKU program really focuses on interest-driven learning and
finding a way to maximize the potential of these super talented children. The technology
and career goals of the program are what drives the learning outcomes and developmental
pieces."
I J. What are your goals for your program?
"My ultimate goal is 10 change the paradigm of employment for kids who learn
difTerently. Kids of all backgrounds have a hard time finding employment. But for students
that are in school until 21 ,parents of students with special needs ask, "then what?" If 117
of your life is controlled, how can we ensure that the rest of that life is meaningful and
wonderful? We want these kids to contribute to society. Whether that is volunteering, part
time jobs, having a chance to be productive and happy members ofsociety. The technology
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
126
aspect gets kids excited, but in the long run, TKU gets them the skills to be literale in tech
skills, life skills, and get them jobs. My next dream is to make a "work boot camp" in the
summer. With would help them meet a real client and help design company websites. This
is for real clients, with our kids looking at website and change it through wire frames, so
on. Having a chance to map it out is a real resume experience. This is a first step for down
the line intcmships at video software companies or gaming networks that these kids often
admire. In a perfect world, everyone has a chance for employment, but it'sjust not the case.
Clearly our kids have unique characteristics and need more focus to leam. While this
program began out of fear that my son would not have this meaningful life experience, I
am reminded every day that there is hope and prot,'Tams like TKU have a chance to change
the stigma."
B. Tech Kids Unlimited Program Leader B, Phone Interview, April 10th, 2015
1. How did you learn about this opportunity and first become involved with this program?
"My involvement with Beth and Tech Kids Unlimited happened very quickly
through our connection HIVE, which is a great connective learning nctwork in New York
City
iliai!",)
based learning and non-profits. Essentially, Beth contacted us and thcy wcre
looking to partner on a grant-based HIVE project. As a new Hive membcr
reach out to a lead organization and Wagner seemed like a great fit from
wanted to
cnds. They
wanted to partner and it sounded good so we set up initial meetings that really made us
click. We had similar goals and visions for the community on Staten Island, so it was a no
brainer. My involvement with our undergraduate and graduatc education studcnts also
hclped us COllncct to new counselors for the program."
�127
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
2. Before this project, did you have any other experiences with atlerschool education
models, community-university partnerships, or this population?
"'Yes, most of my experiences in education have been through partnerships. I've
been involved in projects at New York Hall of Science (NYSCJ)
Wagner, and with
various non-profits at Wagner. This population of special needs is a newer experience,
specifically with ASD. My background is rcally with chronic medical conditions so
working so closely with ASD and technology was a new experience. I've also worked in
partnerships with adults with intellectual disabilities like at Lifestyles, but I was very open
to a new type of practice."
3. What arc some of the most suecessful ways
you have found to prepare pre-service
educators to work with students from diverse and special needs backgrounds?
"I have found
the most efiective way is getting students in there with real
experiences. By having pre-service educators observing, then participating, and then reaIly
doing the work, there is a sense of trust and creativity. This helps them to get a sense of the
population and working in program. In this type of workshop, the space and opportunity to
actually work with the popUlation is key. There should always be a real, practical, tangible
piece that is very hands on and focused towards a clear goal. Grant-based projects should
have students participating but there is a need to have a learning objective clarity. This also
provides pre-service teachers
learning objectives. Having students really understand
what they are working towards sets direction, goal, and tone. It' s not just about doing hours,
you arc helping them reach objectives and learning about helping students achieve their
goals."
4. Were there any aspects of this program that made collaboration difficult?
�128
RW1Iling head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
"Any time that you involve different types of people, interpersonal collaborations
and specific goals and agendas need to be considered. Sometimes, stakeholders have their
own goals for their professional growth and communication sometimes needs to be worked
on. Partners must be conscious of goals and continue to make sure everyone is focused on
the same direction. Conl1ieting goals is the biggest issue that can occur in these types of
partnerships. Another diflicult aspect was that our project was funded through another
non-profit, so the level of reporting hom a specilic timeline was a very new experience.
Due to the tight time line, we needed to adjust to the quick turnaround of HIVE
expectations,
grant timeline really pushed us to create the program quickly and rushed
us to carry out grant before the next round of grants, We were IUshing to get all four
sessions in, as expected by the funder, but it would have been nice to have spaced out our
grant and ran two sessions ofTKU in the spring.
need f()r quick feedback to HlVE and
New York Community Trust (funder) was a stressful but necessary aspect of the grant
garne."
5. In your opinion, what aspects of the program were most successful when implemented?
"The strengths of the lead members made it work and I
we had very clear
organization. We worked so well and knew our roles. I also think that utilizing the pre
service educators was awesome because our partners had never done that before. It was
great for all involved, a dillerent level ofstaffing and people that really understand learning
objectives. Pre-service educators arc always looking for practice and this program had the
community standpoint on Staten Island. I hope to grow it in the next chapter:'
6. What opportunities
you have to reflect on your practice as the program progressed?
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
129
"In some ways, we had a forced opportunity due to participant that wasn't
necessarily appropriate for population. This student arrived on the first day of the workshop
and made us change advertisement and assess our outreach. It really forced us to re
calibrate and think on our feet quickly. Our immediate reflections made us challenge
ourselves and really create a new program need and provided clarity for the original project.
In those first 15 minutes on the first day of the program, we were reflecting deeply.
Additionally, after the end of each session we thought through success and challenges of
the day with the counselors and program leaders. This was huge to learn about their
experiences and helped us as we put in the next size of the grant. With the grant-writing
process, we were able to refl ect on what we did and assess the future. We had both forced
and natural reflection, through the expectations of detailed grant reports and close
conversations with our program participants."
7. What role did collaboration play in the planning and delivery of this program? How
would you describe the success of collaboration with professionals, coordinators, pre
service educators, and program participants?
"The whole premise of getting a grant, philosophically, is about collaboration.
Wagner and TKU realized that it needed to be a strong communication with expectations,
goals, and planning to get 'there.' It is such an essential part, and I would not want it any
other way but it needs to feel right. And we found it. We knew our shared goals for the
project and because we were clear on future goals and objectives. I think that knowing the
vision and having a clear direction made the challenges more doable. Additionally, pre
service educators and kids benefited from the experience. We were dedicated to the
collaborative roles and we bought in which made it easier and more valuable for all
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
130
stakeholders involved. This worked well because Beth is clear in her role as a parent with
a child that has ASD needs. She is very straight-I()r\vard and we bought into shared goals;
neither of the pamJers are in it selfishly but for the kids first and other stakeholders second.
That's part of what people responded to so positively and it's always about improving kid's
experience. "
8. What are your thoughts about having more community-university partnerships,
whether at Wagner College or more generally across the country?
"Non-profits are going to survive through this and giving the best of both worlds.
Education and informal education is the way of the future and how people learn. You take
the best of the skill sets of each organization and work towards a common goal that
everyone wants to serve. This is the type of work I've done for eight years and I know this
model just as this idea was coming into forefront. This is how everyone moves forward
and its part of our world. Colleges can bring such a value of the research component and
chance to study this type oflearning and understand what is really effective."
9. What was the most memorable experience for you in this program?
"Having a kid who was non-verbal show up every single session and just smile ear
to ear. It was not the goal of the program but it worked. Just a beautiful tailure, but it was
so different than our expectations and we had to deal with it so quickly. We were
thoughtful, did right by the kid who was not the best lit, we wanted him to have a good
experience and the others that were more the ideal situation. It was exciting to see the one
on-onc collaboration and we took what could have been a deal breaker turn into a caring,
education student doing the right thing, It was so memorable and speaks to
fact that
doing this type of work and a risk gives a chance for failure, but we need to be willing to
�131
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
take a risk. My philosophy really played out and it was a great experience. You have to be
okay with failure but you need to learn
it happens,
need to have
expenences.
'Ibat's what these community-university partnerships offer, these excited students taking
on beautltul unexpected moments."
10. Little, Wilmer, and Weiss (2008) wrote that while afterschool programs "have the
potential to impact a range of positive learning and development outcomes," some
programs "do not maximize this potential." How does/doesn'tthis quote relate to your
experiences with this program and the idea of maximizing potential?
"It's pretty accurate in my experience I think that our work with TKU really is about
maximizing potential of students and having a program that does justthal. We bope to give
students access to technology and to support the ASD community . Youth don't always
have access to these expensive computers and programming aspects but they have an
affinity. Getting it into their hands can spark interest and career skills down the road. Out
of school programs are always about maximizing potential of students, and
in-particular is about gaining
we arc and
to
a happy independent
we want go and where we want to head."
It matches so well to
�132
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
Appendix G: Interview Data for Survey Analysis
Tech Kids Unlimited Pre-Service Educator Survey Results
1. How would you describe your current academic standing at Wagner College?
Please check all that apply
4
5
6
7
8
Undergraduate Student
(if so, please identify current
major or dual majors and year in
the space below)
Graduate Student, MS Ed •
in Teaching Literacy
Graduate Student, MS Ed •
in Childhood 1-6/Special Ed
Graduate Student, MS Ed
in Early Childhood /SpeciaI Ed
Graduate Student, MS Ed
in Adolescent/Special Ed (if so,
please identify concentration the
space below)
Graduate Student, MS Ed
in Educational Leadership
5
3
18%
o
English
0%
2
Childhood Education & Psychology
Elementary Education! Special
Education! Psychology
Elementary/Special Education and
Psychology
Childhood education and Spanish
Freshmen
18%
o
I
27%
2
I
45%
0%
�133
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
2. Which answer hest describes how you learned ahoutthe Tech Kids Unlimited
al
2
3
4
This program was
part of a class
requirement
I was invited by
an education professor
I heard about this
program through
classmate
I was
recommended to
participate from the
program coordinator.
_ _ _5
__
Other:
Total
o
0%
7
64%
3
27%
I
o
0%
I
I
9%
II
100%
3. Did you have any prior experiences involving this population ofstudents or wilh
educational ajierschool programs? Please list and describe any experiences that may be
applicable.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
134
Text Response
No experience with aftcrschool programs, but experience in self-contained classrooms in
District 75 schools.
Prior to working with TKU I had observed and also helped out in classes at the Hungerford
school on Staten Island.
I had a good amount of knowledge about this population before coming to TKU. My mom is
a physical therapist specializing in pediatrics, so I have been familiar with the jargon and hackground
ASD from listening to her my entire life. In terms of physical experience I was limited to a few
hOllrs of volunteer work at Children At Play (the school my mother works
I had experience with special needs students in an athletic setting. I taught swim lessons and
coached a Special Needs swim team. I also have had experience with the Hungerford School and
various field hours with special needs students. Additionally, I have tutored students with autism.
Yes.l worked with Lifestyles with the disabled during my freshman learning community. As
well) work for A Very Special Place with a 12 year old girl with autism at her home on academic,
daily living skills, and assessing the community. During my ohservation hours I have also worked
with students with disabilities.
I have not.
I have worked in other tech related programs prior to this one. I have taught in some and was
a counselor in others. My prior experience with Student on the Spectrum include my interaction with
friends who have children on the spectrum and some interaction in practicum experiences
I worked with disabled students in high schnol, but never specifically with Tech Kids
Unlimited
I've been working with students with developmental disabilities for about 6 years. I have
experience working at an afterschonl program, religious education program, and respite work.
I am a para during the summer for an education consortium. I have worked with children with
severe disabilities both mentally and physically. I have also worked with non-verbal students.
�135
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
4. In what ways were you directly prepared through programmatic efforts once
would participate in it
I had professional developmenl
opportunities to learn about the student
population and program goals
I collaborated with peers that I felt
comfortable working alongside
I felt prepared with necessary
program logistics, including the program
goals, expectations, and overall mission of
the community-university partnership
I learned about the technology
aspects ofthe workshops
6
55%
73%
8
5
45%
o
Other:
73%
0%
5. Please rank which aspects of/he Tech Kids Unlimited Workshops l110st
motivated you il1 your participation *Pfease use 1 as the lowest motivator, 6 being the
Real-life
application
of
2
0
3
0
9
0
3
9
classroom theories
Profession
al
5
experience/Resume
Earning
desired
compensation (paid
0
5
0
9
2
0
3
9
0
0
0
5
9
2
2
0
2
2
3
0
9
9
9
hourly rate)
Experienc
e In
informal
educational
environment
(afterschool literacy
program)
Interest In
special
needs
population
Interest
technology
educational
2
2
In
for
2
purposes
Total
9
9
9
�Running head: QUAliTY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
136
Min Value
5
Max Value
Mean
Variance
3.
56
Total
Responses
.25
I.
.12
51
9
9
6
3.44
3.89
3.36
1.88
2.
5
3.53
3
.00
28
Standard
Deviation
5
1.83
9
9
(,
4.
00
5.
75
2.
40
9
6
3.11
2.61
1.62
9
6. How effectively did you feel you collaborated with the/()llowing groups during
this program? Please use the sliding scale labels .from O-JOO to best describe your
experience.
�137
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSIIIPS
1
Collaboration with
professors
70.00
100.00
88.00
J0.19
IO
2
Collaboration with
program
coordinators and
community
partners
40.00
99.00
77.30
15.54
10
3
Collaboration with
my peers
60.00
99.00
81.60
13.37
10
4
Collaboration with
students and
fanlilies
80.00
98.00
87.40
5.99
10
7. Are there any aspects o/the previously listed collaborations that you would
like to clarifY?
Text Response
The program nm smoothly, but I didn't feel that we were included in the preparation
process. I felt a little thrown into the experience and I think we could have given beneficial
feedback to the instructors from Tech Kids. A lot of the wording of the instruction was
unnecessarily confusing and didn't hold the attention of the students. More collaboration
between the Tech Kids stall' and the Wagner students could have helped.
No thank you
The TKU staff were not as flexible and open as they initially seemed.
At times it felt like there was a distance between the TKU technology teachers and
Wagner voluntecrs. [n terms of peer collaboration, we did the best we could, but (()r the
most patt we were working I: I with the students.
It was great to work with dillerent students and families while
visitors during the workshops.
seeing repeat
I enjoyed the collaboration with all aspects that arc listed above.
No
The program coordinator and program leader was very active in preparing us to work
in the program. There was great comnnmication with the professor in change as well as with
students that we were working with. We worked one on one or in small groups with students
so there was not mllch interaction between me and my peers as far as collaboration goes but
when we did interaction was effective and helped work toward the program goa\.
�w
00
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
139
8. How would you describe the ways the program planning logistics (time.
location, objectives/or the session) were communicated to you? Please use the sliding
scale labelsfrom O-JOO to best describe your experience.
(O'=far too little, 50~about right, JOO==.far too often)
.' ,
Min
Max
Average Standard
#
Responses
A ns"el
\' a Iue V' a Iue V aIue
0' ,
eVlatlon
I received
4
helpful email
6.00
0.00
8.50
communication
I engaged in
reflective
4
conversations
0.00
4.00
8.40
following each session
I had the
chance to have one-on
one support from
4
5,90
professors, program
0.00
0.00
coordinators, and/or
peers,
9, How would you describe the goals and objectives ofthe
program?
6.62
10
11,89
10
11.02
10
Tech Kids Unlimited
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
140
Text Response
I thought it was to teach them skills that could be used in the computer programming
workforce, but it came off as more as guided free time on the computer.
To provide HIGH FUNCTIONING Autistic children with technological tools to help
them find employment later in life.
TKU works to teach students with ASD technology skills while offering a safe
environment where they can communicate and foster social interactions with peers that have
similar interests.
Tech Kids Unlimited strives to teach students who learn differently to engage in
social skills and exciting applications of technology in a supportive environment. The
students and teachers worked together to engage in these technology skills and leave each
workshop with some type of created project or model. It helped teachers learn more about
the population but really gave these students a chance to socialize and be part of something
they enjoy.
The goals and objectives ofTKU was to have students with disabilities working with
technology. Having students working with the programming and collaborating with the TKU
team and the Wagner college students. There was a heavy focus with working with students
that were higher functioning. It is a technology and educational based program. Kids are in
love with technology this program allows them to use what they love in an educational way.
One objective was allow the students to create what they wanted with the help of the TKU
team.
Very clear and effective
The TKU program aimed to introduce the students to interactive programming and
other technological opportunities that engaged their minds and built their skill set for the
future. While the program was specifically meant to children on the spectrum we worked
with students with all different challenges and it was beneficial for everyone.
To help children with disabilities become engaged through working with technology
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
141
10. About how much time did you .Ipend preparingJor each session oJthis
Average
time spent
preparIng
for one
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
10
workshop
11.
Unlimited?
workshops)
How many sessions have you been involved with Tech Khl.l
(Please include any projessional development sessions as well as actual
session
2 sessions
4
40%
3 sessions
2
20%
4 or more
sessions
3
30%
1
10%
10
100%
Other:
Total
•
12. Little, Wilmer, (lnd Weiss (2008) wrote that while ajierschool programs "have
the potential to impact a range (!f positive learning and development au/comes, " some
programs do not maximize this potential. " How does this quote relate to your experiences
with this program and the idea ofmaximizing potential?
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
142
moved past the goals of each session within 15 minutes and wcre left
to their own devices for the rest of the session. Planned scaffolding for students who need the
extra support and extra activities for students who finish early will help maximize the potential
of this program.
I agree with this quote as I do believe that classroom instruction is just the warm up
and that the rcal learning happens by applying that base knowledge after hours and in the
outside world.
I think that this program maximized the potential for the resources that were provided.
Each week the number ofpmiicipants grew, and we had a few students continue to come back.
The students were genuinely interested in coding and building games and talked about perusing
a future career in game building. My only criticism is that some of the coding was too easy
for certain students, so they spent a good deal of time complaining and asking to go on other
sites like Y outube.
I think this program did a great job of maximizing potential, based on the first time
experience at Wagner. I think the professors, program coordinators, and TKU staff were really
engaging and dedicated to the program. It was clear that they were passionate about the
workshop and mission of the program. They created a positive environment for students,
families, and all people involved. I al so cnjoyed that students left every workshop with a
completed project. It was amazing to see how well the students responded to the activities.
I feel this program was a pilot project and it was over a span of 4 different sessions.
My experiences with this program was very posi tive and it was a great learning experience for
me. I was learning more about technology that I never knew about. I worked with the
population, but working with this popUlation and technology at first I was nervous to know
how the program would start. After doing the program I can say there is way to maximize
potential of the program. The students that I worked with were extremely happy to be working
with the technology. I felt the envirorunent was a positive learning experience for the staff and
the students that were invol ved in the program. Overall I think that this quote shows that it
takes a while for a program to come about to produce positive leaming and development
outcomes. A program is a growing experience and I think that this program would be a great
asset to Wagner and can help many students in the future.
I would say that thi s program is working toward having that positive impact. The idea
behind it is positive and while I think it was very successful, it was just a few sessions of the
program so the true impact could not be fully determined. I think that with some more
development that an expanded version of the program , which is in the works for the sunmler,
would be more beneficial.
I think this quotation is accurate, because while the program was engaging for the
students it may not have been as effective as it could have been. I only say this because the
students seemed to be enjoying themselves, but often times they were only sitting at a computer
screen which is not the most engaging form of activity.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
143
13. Collaboration is essentialfor e.Uective community-university partnerships. Can
you describe one of the best examples ql how you collaborated with professors, peers,
students, families, or the community during this program?
Text Response
didn't occur in my personal experience, but it could in the (titure: collaboration
between Wagner student volunteers and TKU stan'when planning sessions/presentations.
The student I personally worked with, Michael, brought me to collaborate with peers.
professors, and his parents to ensure he was benefitting from our program.
After one of the TKU sessions we debriefed and talked about what worked best in
preparing us for the workshops. I commented on a poem that one of the TKU workers read,
saying that it helped me put the students and their families in perspective. Having the initial
meeting with the TKU teachers was really beneficial before starting the workshops. We
collaborated from the very beginning and things went smoothly throughout the duration of
the program.
I really enjoyed Ihe professional development experience. It was clear how dedicated
Beth is to her organization and I think it was a great opportunity tor our Education Department
to be a part of. This gave us a chance to collaborate wilh a new population, practice classroom
theories, and give back to our local community in Staten Island. It's not often that we get
something like this on campus that is so connected to our eoursework. I loved collaborating
with the students and seeing how proud they were to share their projects with friends and
family after each session. That made this partnership really valuable for everyone involved.
Collaboration is key. Ifthere is no communication among everyone, then there cannot
be an effective program. I collaboratcd with professors before the workshops. I collaborated
with the TKU team before and during the workshops. I collaborated with my peers that I was
working with, so that the workshops can go smoothly for the students. I collaborated with
parents asking if their child liked the program and what can be some improvements.
Prior to the beginning of the program, there was a professional develop where the
leader of TKU came to our school and informed us of the purpose of the program and how
the partnership would work. This gave us a clear idea of what would be expected from us and
what the goal was.
I collaborated with a peer in working with a nonverbal student.
14. How would you rank the benefits ofthis program? *Please use the sliding scale
labels .from 0-100 to best describe your experience.
�144
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
.
Answcr
l'v1 in
Value
l'vl
ax
V I
a LIe
Average
....
Value
Standard
. .
DeVIatIOn
Rcspons
cs
Real-life
18
39
100
72
J application of
9
.00
.55
educational
.00
.33
theory
Working
with students
15
90
50
100
9
: with special
.00
.00
.67
.83
needs and their
families
CoHabor
ation with
65
20
47
99.
8
: community
00
.87
.00
.38
partners at Tech
Kids Unlimited
Successf
ul experience in
an infonnal
18
49
100
79
9
, learning
.08
.00
.00
.44
environment
(afterschool
programs)
Great
14
50
98.
83
, addition to my
9
00
.78
.37
- educational
.00
resume
15. What was one ofthe most rewarding experiences you had during this
program? Please describe how this positive aspect ofthe program was valuable to you.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
145
a chance to see students who don't necessarily succeed
classroom setting excelling and exceeding their own expectations.
It was all honor and a privilege to be able to make the connection I made with Michael.
It was an incredible expericnce that taught me so much about the Autistic population and also
taught me so much about myself and my abilities as a future educator.
One of the students was very hesitant to come into the lab at the beginning of the
workshops. He took a long time to warm up to the staff, and the idea of being separated from
his parents made him very uncomfortable. He would roam around, complain, and moan because
he wanted to go home. By the last workshop, he was walking in and doing work on his own
with little (if any) fuss. He engaged in conversations with the Wagner students, and successfully
built his own game. Personally, watching his comfOit in the social situation and change was a
huge positive experience to have as a future educator.
My favorite experience was seeing one of the students, Tommy, respond so well to the
counselors and projects. Tommy was a student with Down's Syndrome and this workshop was
a new experience for him. Whether it was using Photoshop techniques, playing Twister and or
practicing socialization games that we learned in classes, this was a great experience. I think
Tommy was an example of how students gained social connections, while still gaining valuable
technology skills.
Working with students with special needs and learning about programming. It was
amazing to see that these students were capable working with technology and creating things
that they were proud of. I was glad I was given the opportunity to work with TKU and learning
about their program. Working with students with special needs and watching them maneuver
technology was most valuable and rewarding to me.
One of the most rewarding experiences that I had during this program was hearing from
the parents about their child's experiences. Yes the kids said they had fun but hearing that they
could not stop taking about what they did when they got home was really rewarding to hear. It
showed me that we were making a memorable experience for the students.
One of the most rewarding experiences I had during the sholt time I spent with the
program was working with a nonverbal student. We worked with him on getting to use his
cornnlUnication device by asking him questions alone in a room. Then we got him up on campus
and tried to get him to communicate with others, which he was hesitant with at first. However,
after a few attempts he statted to use his speech device more with strangers, and that was
rewarding to watch.
16. What aspects ofthis program did you find mosl challenging? Please be as
specific as possible.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
146
Text Response
Encouraging students to stay focused during the preliminary presentation. It didn't
hold their attention.
Because Michael was not on the part of the spectrum that the program had desired I
felt as though we were cast out to fend for ourselves alongside instruction from the amazing
Professor Gordon. We managed but it was a bit disheartening.
Keeping the students on task was particularly difficult. They are all tech savvy, but
were not necessarily interested in the coding activities. They each had their own favorite site
that they would go consistently go to (YouTube, Sesame Street, Google Earth, etc.) and I did
my best to use those sites as a reward for completing their game. It was also occasionally
difficult to engage the students in social conversations. Some students did not want to talk at
all, and some students got frustrated if they had to wait their turn to speak.
I found that it was sometimes challenging to work with the technology aspects of
workshop. I thought that our lead technology counselor was really talented, but it came very
naturally to him. I think in the future, it would be helpful to have a sheet of technology tips
for counselors and educators to refer to. This could help us help the students complete their
tasks without interrupting the technology teacher repeatedly.
I found it most challenging not knowing what to be doing on the computers. I
constantly had to ask the TKU stafr exactly what to do. I wish J was prepared more on doing
the programming before the workshops, so that I could have easily helped the studcnt.
The most challenging aspect of the program was that J wasn't completely competent
in everything programming ",;se that we were teaching the students. It was cool to
alongside the students but when they had questions, I wasn't able to help them right away.
While this was challenging, it was also good them to see that everyone needs help sometimes
and not to be afraid to ask.
The most challenging part of the program was sometimes not knowing how to work
the computer programs myself.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
2
,
~
4
5
Yes, I am interested in
learning more about
opportunities.
Possibly, I would
consider being involved if
some small changes were
made.
Maybe, but I would like
to see some major changes
before I would participate.
No, I would not be
interested in participating in the
future.
Other:
Total
No because I'm graduating.
147
7
11%
0%
0
I
J
0
I
78%
0%
1
11%
9
100%
�148
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
Los Promotores Pre-Service Educator Survey Results
I. How would you describe your curren! academic standing a! Wagner College?
Please check all !hal
Undergraduate Student (if
so, please identify current major or
dual majors and year in the space
below)
0
0%
4
Graduate Student, MS Ed in
Teaching Literacy
4
57%
5
Graduate Student, MS Ed in •
Childhood 1-6/Special Ed
6
Graduate Student, MS Ed in _
Early Childhood /Special Ed
2
29%
7
Graduate Student, MS Ed in
Adolcscent/Spccial Ed( (if so,
please identify concentration the
space below)
0
0%
0
0%
Graduate Student, MS Ed in
8 Educational Leadership
14%
�149
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
2. Which answer besl describes how you learned aboullhe
Thi s
program was
part of a class
requirement
I was
invi ted by an
2
education
professor
I heard
about this
program
3
through
classmate
1 was
recommended
to palticipate
4
from the
program
coordinator.
S
p.s. 20 Afterschool
7
100%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Other:
0
0%
Total
7
100%
�Rwming head: QUALITY AFTER SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
150
3. Did you have any prior experiences involving this population ofstudents or with
educational aflerschool programs? Please list and describe any experiences that may be
applicable.
Text Responsl'
Student Teaching
I worked in academic tutoring settings with youth in ELA support. I also worked
in a ELL classroom during my student tcaching experience in Rosebank at P,S, 13.
Yes, I worked with the first group of P,S, 20 families when this program first
started.
None
I havc had experience working with ELL learners during my practicum
experIences,
I worked with an after school group in Richmond, VA consisting of the struggling
readers of a diverse population. I'vc never worked with another group from Port Richmond.
No
�lSI
RUlming head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHlPS
4. In 1-"hal ways were you direclly prepared Ihrough programmalic efjorls once
wO/lld l}orlicil}afe in if?
I had professional
development opportunities
to learn about the student •
population and program
goals
2
3
4
5
I co llaborated with
peers that I felt
comfortable working
alongside during class
assignments
I felt prepared with
necessary program
logistics, including the
program goals,
expectations, and overall
mission of the community
university p~rtnership
I learned about the
flipped model of
instruction and felt
comfortable using this
model
Ot her:
14%
7
•
14%
2
•
100%
29%
14%
There was no a lot ofprcp prior to the beginning of this program. The program
goals were explained but the prep for how to reach these goals was lacking. 4
�I
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
5. Please rank you motivation for the involvement with the Los Promotores P.s.
20 Afterschool Literacy Program.
*Please lise 1 as the lowest motivator, 5 being the highest.
Real-life
application of
classroom theories
5
2
0
1
1
I
2
0
1
5
1
1
2
5
2
Professional
experience/Resume
3
Earning a desirable
class grade
(requirement for
coursework)
1
0
4
Experience in
informal
educational
environment
(aflerschool
literacy program)
2
0
5
Interest in working
with ELL and
Spanish speaking
community
members (students,
families, etc.)
0
2
5
5
5
2
--- -
Total
5
0
5
5
5
�153
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
2
Min Value
Max Value
5
5
5
5
4
Mean
2.80
2.80
3.60
2.80
3.00
Variance
2.70
2.20
2.80
3.20
1.00
1.64
1.48
1.67
1.79
1.00
5
5
5
5
Standard
Deviation
Total
Responses
5
6. How effectively did you/eel you collaborated with the jiJl/owing groups during
this program? Please use the sliding scale labels/rom 0- J00 to best describe your
experience.
,
#
.,.,
Ans\I\cr
Collaboration with
professors
Collaboration with
program
coordinators and
community
partners
Collaboration with
my peers
Collaboration with
students and
families
.,
Max
A wrage
VaIue
[cVlattOn
)..
9.00
72.00
44.29
26.71
7
5.00
77.00
45.83
28.94
6
55.00
91.00
71.00
11.92
7
0.00
96.00
66.00
30.96
7
Mill Value
Va1uc
Standard
,.
. •.
Responses
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
154
7. Are there any aspects (~rthe previously listed collaborations that you would
like to clarifY?
Text Response
I think it was helpful to work closely with a specific group of students and parents
throughout the time at P.S. 20. However, I think it would have been more helpful to learn
about the profile of the students or have access to their reading levels before starting the
program. This way, we could effectively group students to teachers that have strengths in
different age groups and subjects. I think the benefit of our collaboration in this program is
having educators from evcry possible program (literacy, early childhood, etc.) and learning
how to support the population best.
I felt I was able to collaborate with peers during all assignments and together we would
have a plan for our students. Once arriving with plans I fell a lack of communication with
professors and paltners which sometimes lead to an issue communicating with the families.
There was some collaboration and while the concept behind it was good the actual
implementation wasn't. Groups were not able to get together to do work and one person
always ended up doing most of the work. Also the way the program is run, collaboration and
working with group did not always work out as students were absent and teachers were
shuffled around. I felt that while the teachers wanted us to do specific work with the students
and parents it was more to lit the needs of the attached class then actually help the student
with a specific need.
I felt the professors did not successfully collaborate with the Wagner students. I felt I
was not as useful to the students and/or moms as I could have been.
8. How would you describe the ways the program planning logistics (time.
location, objectives for the session) were communicated to you? Please use the sliding
scale labels from 0-100 to best describe your e.xperiellce. (O=filr too little, 50=aboul
right, JOO~far too often)
�155
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARINERSHIPS
#
2
3
Answer
I received
helpful email
communication
I engaged in
reflective
conversations
following each
seSSJon
I had the
chance to have
one-on-one
support from
proJessors,
program
coordinators,
and/or peers.
A vcrage
'
Value
Standard
..
Devwtlon
Rcspon ses
71.00
31.14
27.01
7
9.00
72.00
35.00
25.77
7
5.00
50.00
31.57
19.38
7
Min
Value
Max
Value
1.00
:
r
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
156
9. How would you describe the goals and objectives ofthis program?
Text Response
Promoting literacy skills to enhance their oral language development
To support families and students at P.S. 201P0rt Richmond to learn valuable litemcy
skills and prepare for academic rigor before higher grade levels
I was often confused about the goals and objectives as they seemed to change
frequently. My understanding is that we were to create a line of communication between
fami! ies, students, and teachers in order to work on the common goal of improving literacy
skills.
I am mostly uncertain of the goals of this program but I would say it was to help the
individual students advance in their literacy skills while also helping their second language
mom's prcpare to help their children at home with their school work.
This program is intended to improve the literacy skills of students while collaborating
with the parents on how to better support their children's literacy development at home.
Unclear and not reinforced
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
157
10. About how much lime did you spend preparing/or each session o/this
Average
time spe llt
preparing for
o
0
2
o
o
4
7
one session
at P.S. 20
11. How many semesters have you been involved in this program? ({{you are
"flr"""//" invoh'ed with this semester. vou mal' countthat as "1" <pmR"/"")
1 semester
I
14%
2
2 semes ters
5
71%
3
3 semesters
I
14%
4
4 or more
semesters
o
0%
Other:
o
0%
Total
7
100%
5
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSIIlPS
158
12. Little. Wilmer. and Weiss (2008) wrote thai while afterschool programs "have
the potential to impact a range ojpositive learning and development outcomes, " some
programs do not maximize this potential. " How does this quote relate to your
experiences with this program and the idea ojmaximizing potential?
Text Response
I believe that this program otTers an enriching experience to help develop their oral
language abilities and facilitate engaging discussions to further their academic growth.
I think the program is approaching potcntial but needs to be more organized in the
implementation. I think we did the hest we could with the format, but I think having sct
objectives for each week planned beforchand would help us clearly plan. I also believe that
picking our partnCfs and groups could he helpful to maximize potential and work around
difficult graduate schedules.
I think the idea of the program is great and it could be extremely beneticial as the
students, parcnts, and Wagner students are eager to work together. I feel that the lack of
organization cripples a lot of the beneficial outcomes that could occur.
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with this quote. I believe that the basic setup (If the
Los Promotores has a lot of potential, but I feel like the current program is not reaching its
goals and allowing for a lot of oppOltunities to slip by. In order to maximize the potential,
there needs to he so much more organization then is existing. There is entirely too much time
wasted with people having no idea what they are supposed to be doing/need to be doing.
There is also a real lack of consistency. This program would work a million times better with
two things: A clear curriculum/focus on lesson planning and 8) A consistcncy and
commitment between students and teachers so that the students can really progress and the
teachers can mark this progression.
Yea like stated heli.)re the idea behind this program is a good one but the
implementation is not. The assignments given were more to fill class requirements and not
serve the specific needs for the children we are working with. Also they was the program is
run is chaotic and unorganized. They either need to give you the freedom to do what you feel
is necessary to help improve that child's literacy skills or making it completely structure
detailed plans. The in-between that currently exists does not work.
I agree. This program had great potential. The students in this community could
benefit ti"Om an after school literacy program. However, I felt it was extremely unorganized
to the point where very little or none of the objectives were met.
I think the quote is accurate in describing the PS 20 partnership. It was a positive
experience It)r the students, teachers, and moms in academic and social ways.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
159
A. Benefits and Strengths of the Program
13. Collaboralion is essential for effective community-university partnerships.
Can you describe one ofthe best examples ofhow you collaborated with
professors, peers, students. families. or the community during this program?
Text Response
Learning Centers and class discussions.
I found that working closcIy with thc moms was a valuable experience. I loved seeing
our group's mother pa11icipate and practice vocabulary practice alongside her children. It was
a great opportunity to see growth and passion as an educator.
My best collaborative experiences was with my peers when we developed our lessons
to meet the needs and interests oj" our students. We both loved seeing how excited and how
much our students were able to learn from the experience.
One thing that I was allowed to do this semester that greatly improved from last
semester is the ability to collaborate with my peers on lesson plans. I really think this allowed
f()r things to go more smoothly. Additionally, the students were always willing to Icarn and
work with the teachers, so that was some nice collaboration.
Each week after the lesson was completed, we would provide the parents with
translated notes on things that they could do at home with their child in order to improve the
skill worked on for the day.
I worked well with my two partners to create effective lessons for our days at PS 20.
I never truly feIt a strong connection with the moms and I had very little collaboration with
the professors.
I worked WIth my peers.
comfortable environment.
students,
moms, and the professors each week
In
a
�]60
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
14. How w(Juldyou rank the benefits ofthis program? *Please use the sliding
scale labels from 0-100 to best describe your exnerience
Real-life
application of
educational theory
5.00
72.00
37.86
21.29
7
2
Working
with low income,
ELL students and
families
14.00
95.00
55.43
27.20
7
3
Collaboration
with community
partners at Port
Richmond
9.00
89.00
36.86
28.50
7
4
Successful
ex peri ence in an
inforrnallearning
environment
(alterschool
programs)
5.00
87.00
35.00
29.01
7
5
Great
addition to my
educational resume
1.00
94.00
50.57
35.91
7
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCIIOOL PARTNERSHIPS
161
15. What was one ofthe most rewarding experiences you had during this
program? Please describe how this positive aspect ofthe program was valuable 10 you,
Text Response
Engaging with the students
over the course of three semesters.
families; Observing their growth as students
I loved learning that my student achieved two levels higher in his reading level during
the course or the program, It felt like our hard work was paying off as educators. It was also
a chance to let the student see that their dedication to the program was for something great.
Watching his mom smile and grow together was really special.
The best experience was when one of my student told my peer and myself that we
were the best teachers and that she wanted to become a teacher and go to college because
she wanted to be just like us and make learning fun, It was such a rewarding moment tor the
both of us.
The most rewarding experience is the bonds I was able to make with the students.
This program was valuable in that it gave me some more meaningful experience with
ELL learners, It provided me with opportunities to implement some of the things that J had
learned during my career as a student in order to prepare me 11Jr future employment as a
teacher.
I really enjoyed working with the students as individual learners. They want the best
I(Jr themselves and work hard to achieve it.
was rewarding to me because I enjoy seeing how happy the students are when
they succeed in anything from learning new vocabulary to understanding a difficult sentence
a book. I'll take what I learned about how to reach ELLs v.ith me into my career as an
educator. I plan to continue my education lor a certification in TESOL in the future.
�Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
162
J6. What aspects of this program did you find most challenging? Please be as
specific as possible.
Text Response
Time management.
The aspect ofplanning and not always having the space needed to implement a lesson
was sometimes frustrating. I wish we had more concrete and dctincd goals to meet ttlr each
session, rather than the more general goals in literacy. Having too many students also madc
the flipped model difficult to meet every grade and specific need of students. With a short
time frame, it was important to work closely with a small group to be successful.
Communication. Many times I would think we were doing one thing as would my
peers and then the expectation would be very different. Many would come preparcd with
certain activities and then the goal of the day would change.
The Jack of communication and organization was the most challenging.
watching such an opportunity be wasted.
And
The most challenging aspect was how it was structured. It was chaotic and
unorganized and I felt that hindered the impact that could have come from this program.
II was very unclear what was expected from me week by week.
I found communicating with the moms to be the most challenging
�163
Running head: QUALITY AFTERSCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
-
Yes, I am
interested in
learning more
about
opportunities.
Possibly, I
would consider
being involved if
2
some small
changes were
made.
Maybe,
but I would like
3 to see some major changes before I
would participate.
No, I
would not be
4 interested in
participating in
the future.
5
14%
14%
2
29%
3
43%
Other:
0
0%
Total
7
100%
�Wagner College
Graduate Thesis Copyt1ght Release Fonn
Docllment Identification
Student Name: Tat!1lll.rolitz _____.
Thesis Title:
The Value_9f Community-UlliversjtyP!lrlner~hiJlS for Quality Afterschgol
Programming
Department:
;t;:Q~l~fition
_ ___
..
_
____.. _________ .._
_____________ .._________ _
Author Agl'cClllent
I hereby grant to the Board of Tmstees ofWngner College and its agents the non-exclusive license to
cop)" publicly display, arch"·e, lend, and make accessible, my thesis in whole or In part in all fomlS of
mcdia, now or llcrcaficr know1\.
1 tlnderstand that Wagner College will make my work available to nIl patrons of its libra!)·, including
interlibrary sharing.
I agree to the unrestricted display of the billliogrnphic illfonnation and the abstract of tile above title.
I retain all other O\\11crship rights to the copyright of the work.
SigllCd_'j~q~( a:Wt9
Dale
8/ S lIS
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Full text access to Wagner College theses in PDF format.
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The value of community-university partnerships for quality afterschool programming
Description
An account of the resource
MS Ed: Teaching Literacy
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
This exploratory study closely documents and examines two afterschool programs (Tech Kids Unlimited and Los Promotores P.S. 20 Literacy Program) that were developed using a community-university partnership model with the Wagner College Education Department during the 2014-2015 academic year. Using a framework that closely documents, analyzes, and assesses program quality, this study explores how partnerships can help meet the growing demand for high-quality afterschool programs and highlights the need for addressing and supporting at-risk groups, specifically in urban areas. Using a three-part mixed methods approach, the study included participant observer fieldwork, two pre-service educator surveys, and interviews from associated professors and program leaders in these community-university partnerships. Seventeen Wagner College pre-service educators were surveyed after working in one or both educational partnerships to explore how they were prepared and to learn more about their experiences programs, Findings highlight the need college students to perceive they are participating in a organized structure in order to effectively plan and support these afterschool. Furthermore, findings suggest that when college students have relevant professional development activities, previous background with the population, and opportunities for reflection, they have a more positive sense of the impact the community-university model. Program improvements are discussed to promote positive adaptations for college students in future partnership programs. This study found that qualitative research can potentially improve current programs and shed light to the potential impact of the community-university model for quality afterschool programming at small, urban universities.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Colitz, Tatum
Date Accepted
Date of acceptance of the resource. Examples of resources to which a Date Accepted may be relevant are a thesis (accepted by a university department) or an article (accepted by a journal).
2015
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeMoss, Karen
Frumkin, Rhoda
Gordon, David
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
U.S. and international copyright laws may protect this work. It is provided by Wagner College for scholarly or research purposes only. Commercial use or distribution is not permitted without prior permission of the copyright holder.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
162 pages
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
Ed_2015_Colitz_Value
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/1909/archive/files/6c4a351e5ab03193c4f683fc526b107e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PAHSFiUot2oy1YxfT2XmiuCz0qfTcQNcbyAUPN7wnzKJE9Wq6ZAptsvcJiHGfkcKt9YfBUg2fM3lw4egwakwHsQgROXWELDNA7ijBF3e-QZjO7Kwg%7EqCCp-17v%7EAlrUAfg16kkCzDFmQQw4FNiI41BZirLbg00nToMIT3%7Ebfe3jNkPWWkx92Vcf9%7E72U-N1MVzcsNpgqUF5AbvdOZRU4QohABxOrOZEcb17zB05GBT-vk0ny2DQ%7EkJ2Jk74OBWPJ49rNOkdLpr1KxQ5GIHmqh6Z6oWksgjotW5vsrng6E6ZVG2aOtZ4KPWjkagBvvlJ4rLBuvNeOchz2GHpqdd6OxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
17ce2fe159d5511b070f47ca47f681a0
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Full text access to Wagner College theses in PDF format.
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
A comparative study of novice and veteran teachers in response to high-stakes testing preparation
Description
An account of the resource
MS Ed: Teaching Literacy
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 mandated both assessment and accountability across all the states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. NCLB's highstakes accountability system rewards or punishes school districts, schools, and teachers for the academic performance of their students (Dworkin, 2005). Rewards include school funding and job security while punishments can be as severe as the closing of an entire school. The highstakes tests, which begin in third grade, require plenty of preparation from both teachers and students.
The purpose of this study was to explore the different literacy test preparation approaches both novice and veteran 3rd, 4th and 5th grade teachers of one school used in their classrooms and to examine whether and how they shared these approaches. The study also analyzed teachers' perceptions ofthe strengths and weaknesses of these practices and how they were able to bridge the generational gap between novice and veteran teachers in order to professionally collaborate with one another and create a positive school culture. Results indicate that although professional collaboration was evident, novice and veteran teachers possessed different perceptions on test preparation and utilized different practices in their classrooms. These practices were directly related to both their perceptions of accountability and years of experience within the field.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
D' Alessio, Amanda
Date Accepted
Date of acceptance of the resource. Examples of resources to which a Date Accepted may be relevant are a thesis (accepted by a university department) or an article (accepted by a journal).
2013
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeMoss, Karen
Preskill, Stephen
Frumkin, Rhoda
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
U.S. and international copyright laws may protect this work. It is provided by Wagner College for scholarly or research purposes only. Commercial use or distribution is not permitted without prior permission of the copyright holder.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
54 pages
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
Ed_2013_DAlessio_Comparative
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/1909/archive/files/aed421058893354756c5252c9fdcbd89.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=tUe%7E91pZtxUzPLHnhSskpd2GULL7p0Y2AeeUv1BH82s25H2V%7E1Z43VeH3Udp23HmNlb1f8rf-qdJ0O5aTmCVxKgSg-nkfPSM08rbblQYED7Wsrhb2AEAgxw0J88UsdWEkFz3PRmpJRzkOLKnbthifA3aOc4Pi8%7EaBvnKAL7AM7zQR%7EY9y8D1-YoGDc5H%7EAlT33AD88MQgHYKFWH9Rjxf1pM3Eqj3AhK6VAFSrs5nGtuIoIxfW8s5lnHTAxmdHlOyzYbznYwnUL51sPouzMSiKgXYRsUFrGQlVthFbLnUFF15LUVyzTpVgIiWd8U0Qa5OyDVqx6cxl1L8zE40hbKL1g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8ba2b8fe05e25eb15e8410adb8413a96
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Full text access to Wagner College theses in PDF format.
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Differentiated literacy instruction and its effect on students' reading comprehension
Description
An account of the resource
MS Ed: Teaching Literacy
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
In today's diverse school systems throughout the United States, different types of students are constantly grouped together in classrooms. Many students have different levels of ability as well as different learning styles. With the pressure of standardized testing and curriculum goals, teachers may feel forced to design instruction based on what students will be tested on rather than being able to incorporate students' interests into lesson planning. This study tested students' performance while students' were placed in their reading groups and the teacher chose the book for them versus students' performance in interest groups where they were able to select a text for themselves.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
DeLucrezia, Lauren
Date Accepted
Date of acceptance of the resource. Examples of resources to which a Date Accepted may be relevant are a thesis (accepted by a university department) or an article (accepted by a journal).
2012
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Preskill, Stephen
Lauria, Jennifer
Zanfini, Mary
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
U.S. and international copyright laws may protect this work. It is provided by Wagner College for scholarly or research purposes only. Commercial use or distribution is not permitted without prior permission of the copyright holder.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
56 pages
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
Ed_2012_DeLucrezia_Differentiated
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/1909/archive/files/4a1455534d9d9a599e790d7647143b72.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=AemqMxQuCg6UKF6FdLZLCZ2H-68770oSnjXQKQ%7EMmrV3NVStKqGqkYdBZKShiGvXrw5IG6EBAxvFeHT73o-WgNdmYTq8xLceaenLM9AfaFdz3UkAHxOGFRpMWGwjPhsHg8BaziOBMpVlUsokMRsqZoEGXonvipIMlenDD7BbENJk4FNbI9qQOfyc83vIRwDOWeRKDfQ%7E-9BsoUI8stWy0UhzfZGMnceKxJPaoRHtwjCyhj4cfTyQGpzgqBvFyNqOmKsbcns8u6y4UbE3mi7nuoCOB4q0fVyqPk%7E89ai4DRqr2-lFV6sPxz6JEHp2imdgDAZSsuII6R4OUbMNiqcx1g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
84fba443496269d9b472abf6d3830ec8
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Full text access to Wagner College theses in PDF format.
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
In what ways might flipped instruction using technology support students' success with word problems?
Description
An account of the resource
MS Ed: Teaching Literacy
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
This study explored whether the implementation of technology-based flipped instruction might have any effect on students' success with mathematics word problems. During the study, two 5th grade classes were asked to fill out pre- and post-questionnaires describing their attitudes and opinions towards technology in the classroom, math word problems, and major academic subjects in general. There were also two assignments that compared the results of instructional methods that were linked to each assignment: flipped instruction and traditional instruction. Evidence showed that flipped instruction had a possible positive impact on students' performance on math word problems.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Doxey, Brian
Date Accepted
Date of acceptance of the resource. Examples of resources to which a Date Accepted may be relevant are a thesis (accepted by a university department) or an article (accepted by a journal).
2013
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeMoss, Karen
Frumkin, Rhoda
Fitzgerald, Jason
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
U.S. and international copyright laws may protect this work. It is provided by Wagner College for scholarly or research purposes only. Commercial use or distribution is not permitted without prior permission of the copyright holder.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
72 pages
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
Ed_2013_Doxey_In
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/1909/archive/files/84f940a3f6fd40caf0382b11568abf96.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Hjz9xakQ9hik0wN7zh7ds-q2kfafXJGcN-iEGGrCMHic5Xfq4O0%7EaT91jQjbtlVipOKfes92-AePet0l-gyHEdvCpymPeQPtuueogrxhlSkHYtwxR96Z5iC2FvNXAoz-VTDJhEXWAFv-wfo9E8Qi32f88s5TziNC1G3gFEYnQ6zyDQQVZMYI0tJSbrFEJGX4liHvvLZBL4anafrgrU0GVWxbwV2GsrIq2JOE-mI-OrS6YCGMEibamZyqAC8tDuctAX-gpxelrnvttBcYkLp5C6n78QzX4yVqdApfAdRJ6VDPqP76x7r1vzb%7E7KcN04FSprmVz3RA4lNx6uJqUQ1zoA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
922a63049c3723b5e3cc985167036eae
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Full text access to Wagner College theses in PDF format.
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Children's descriptions of early childhood after-dinner learning experiences: constructive activities vs. passive activities
Description
An account of the resource
MS Ed: Early Childhood/Special Education
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
This study explored the differences in how children experienced active and passive play in the late evenings in a daycare environment. Children were observed in ten- to thirty-minute activities, then asked questions about the activities ranging from whether they enjoyed the activity, such as playing with blocks or watching the television, to how they felt when participating in the activity. The researcher learned that students enjoyed most of the activities provided, and they do feel that they learn from the specific activities. Analysis of the data shows that constructive activities do indeed provoke more language than the passive activities. Educators can use this information to improve their practice and help children, especially those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, maximize their learning.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Durkin, Jaclyn
Date Accepted
Date of acceptance of the resource. Examples of resources to which a Date Accepted may be relevant are a thesis (accepted by a university department) or an article (accepted by a journal).
2013
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeMoss, Karen
Gonzalez, Katia
Frumkin, Rhoda
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
U.S. and international copyright laws may protect this work. It is provided by Wagner College for scholarly or research purposes only. Commercial use or distribution is not permitted without prior permission of the copyright holder.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
71 pages
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
Ed_2013_Durkin_Childrens
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/1909/archive/files/515684940df5929c5d1c93541749c4b6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=LhqSsEr7Ye%7E4HXPGACkzWuxRsKXE-ivqcfocGp4qgVyMptgVMm2QttX8-rYOjK1-BLPatdlpbjtzlB0424c3QKISGEHSCzWlC8f3X1vd031QcUsLqWSEmoYnQ0dWden82TWsQwAi-tHpk4iLTMzyNdmtUsZDS3cEbOrYdcj-ZTG2KTJZnMaMyOHMWAlvvBR84xcDvF8NXUMMvLA5JyOP5nBPmSlksYnhAvKJzL4tFhKZN8VlMkiJwuTCXnwPpJ4EhlYUWl3NIrNbSl%7EhobjsaZoizH2qx8G-%7Er8-3coGF4m1peSAX2TJkNhlXqUAlwQmVedEyr6PCbGvRXzr9pVfGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e9e692d586e96b688fdbdd1c989158c1
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Full text access to Wagner College theses in PDF format.
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
An analysis of teacher preparation policies across four states : exploring policies that may raise student achievement
Description
An account of the resource
MS Ed: Adolescent Education
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
Students in the United States have consistently performed poorly on international mathematics assessments, which could be attributed to numerous factors. This analysis concerns the impact that teacher preparation policies throughout the United States might have on students' mathematics performance. Four states-New York, Mississippi, Massachusetts, and Montana-were chosen according to their students' mathematics performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) examination. The areas of teacher policy analyzed were the selection requirements for teacher preparation programs, the level and number of required mathematics courses, the mathematics tests required for certification, and the student teaching experience. The results showed that the level of content and rigor of certification tests were among the most variable factors in teacher preparation and hence may also be among the most important for student achievement. Massachusetts, which required the most advanced mathematics courses and most rigorous testing for teacher candidates, was also the state with the highest performing math students. Massachusetts teacher policies could serve as a model for other states to follow so that United States can remain competitive in mathematics.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Farina, Michael
Date Accepted
Date of acceptance of the resource. Examples of resources to which a Date Accepted may be relevant are a thesis (accepted by a university department) or an article (accepted by a journal).
2014
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
DeMoss, Karen
Preskill, Stephen
Gazzard, Ann
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
U.S. and international copyright laws may protect this work. It is provided by Wagner College for scholarly or research purposes only. Commercial use or distribution is not permitted without prior permission of the copyright holder.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Wagner College Electronic Thesis Collection
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
47 pages
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
Ed_2014_Farina_Analysis