Assessing the Benefits of Extended Learning Programs_Vincent_Hamm

Assessing the Benefits of Extended Learning Programs: A Study of
Georgia Public Elementary Schools.
A Dissertation Submitted
to the Graduate School
Valdosta State University
in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
in Leadership
in the Department of Curriculum, Leadership, and Technology
of the Dewar College of Education and Human Services
December 2015
Vincent Maynard Hamm
M.Ed., Valdosta State University, 2008
B.S., Valdosta State University, 2005

i
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine and describe the prevalence,
characteristics, and structure of funding for extended learning programs in small,
medium, and large public elementary schools in Georgia. The researcher also sought to
identify principals’ perceptions of the benefits of extended learning programs. Although
some data and literature exist relating the effect of extended learning programs to student
achievement, additional data are needed at the state level. This study provides valuable
information related to the characteristics and benefits of extended learning programs in
Georgia elementary schools. The researcher compared third-grade mathematics Criterion
Reference Competency Test mean pass rates, as measured by the Georgia CRCT,
between schools that implemented an extended learning program and those that did not.
The researcher also compared third-grade mathematics CRCT mean pass rates, as
measured by the Georgia CRCT, among small, medium, and large Georgia public
elementary schools.
The researcher used a causal-comparative research design. A single survey
instrument was used to collect data from elementary school principals across the state of
Georgia. Two hypotheses were proposed to examine the effects of extended learning
programs on mean third-grade mathematics CRCT pass percentages. Neither hypothesis
was supported. An overall comparison of schools, either by program utilization or size,
suggested no group experienced any greater degree of increased mathematics pass rate.
However, principals surveyed in this study indicated that these types of programs were
beneficial to their schools. Principals perceived that student performance had increased
in mathematics and reading. According to principals surveyed in this study, extended

ii
learning programs provide students with opportunities to improve basic skills not
available during the regular school day. One must consider if program success can solely
be determined by standardized test score improvement.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter I: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem.............................................................................3
Conceptual Framework for the Study ..........................................................6
Purpose of the Study....................................................................................9
Research Questions....................................................................................10
Research Question 1.......................................................................10
Research Design.........................................................................................11
Procedures..................................................................................................12
Definitions..................................................................................................12
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)..................................................12
Characteristics................................................................................12
Criterion Referenced Competency Test (CRCT)...........................12
CRCT Pass Score...........................................................................13
Extended Learning Programs.........................................................13
Prevalence ......................................................................................13
School Size.....................................................................................13
Structure of Funding ......................................................................13

iv
Staff Qualification..........................................................................14
21ST Century Community Learning Center ...................................14
Significance of the Study...........................................................................14
Assumptions of the Study..........................................................................15
Organization of the Study..........................................................................15
Chapter II: LITERATURE REVIEW...............................................................................16
Introduction................................................................................................16
Historical Overview of Extended Learning Programs ...............................16
Development of Extended Learning Programs..............................17
Workforce Changes........................................................................18
Neighborhood Changes and Self-care............................................18
Social and Political Influences.......................................................19
Educational Reform and Extended Learning Programs.............................21
Overview of Extended Learning Programs................................................29
Funding for Extended Learning Programs.................................................33
Perceptions and Outcomes of Extended Learning Program Studies .........34
Keys to Successful Extended Learning Programs .....................................37
Chapter III: RESEARCH METHOD................................................................................40

v
Research Design.........................................................................................42
Survey Design................................................................................42
Threats to Validity .........................................................................42
Causal-Comparative Design ..........................................................43
Instrumentation ..........................................................................................44
Principal Data.................................................................................45
School Data....................................................................................46
Participants and Setting..............................................................................47
Setting ............................................................................................47
Principal Data.................................................................................47
School Data....................................................................................48
Procedures..................................................................................................48
Data Analysis .............................................................................................48
Chapter IV: RESULTS .....................................................................................................50
Introduction................................................................................................50
Instrumentation ..........................................................................................50
Principal Data.................................................................................50
School Data....................................................................................51
Data Collections Procedures ......................................................................51
Principal Data.................................................................................51
School Data....................................................................................52

vi
Sample........................................................................................................52
Quantitative Data Analysis Results ...........................................................52
Null Hypothesis 5 ..........................................................................61
Null Hypothesis 6 ..........................................................................61
Summary....................................................................................................62
Chapter V: DISCUSSION ................................................................................................64
Introduction................................................................................................64
Purpose.......................................................................................................70
Overview of the Study ...............................................................................71
Summary of Findings.................................................................................74

vii
Conclusions................................................................................................80
Implications for Future Practice.................................................................86
Limitations of the Study.............................................................................88
Recommendations for Future Research .....................................................89
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................91
APPENDIX A: Survey ...................................................................................................103
APPENDIX B: Survey Use Approval ............................................................................106
APPENDIX C: International Review Board Approval Letter........................................108
APPENDIX D: Participant Email...................................................................................110
APPENDIX E: Participant Confidentiality Statement....................................................112

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for School Size .................................................................51
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Program Prevalence ...................................................54
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Characteristics ............................................................57
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for Structure of Funding ..................................................54
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for School Size and Program Status ................................62

ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
“I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” Philippians 4:13.
Without faith in Jesus Christ and strength through prayer, this dissertation would not have
been completed.
Completion of this document would not have been possible without the support of
my committee, colleagues, friends, and family. I would like to gratefully and sincerely
thank my committee for their continued support, guidance, encouragement, and patience
throughout this process. Dr. Leon Pate, my committee chair, you set a high standard for
yourself and expect no less from your students. I would like to thank you for your
guidance and leadership throughout this journey. Dr. Nicole Gibson, thank you for your
patience and steadfast work in helping me complete my research. Dr. Ellen Wiley, thank
you for your APA expertise. Dr. Ellice Martin, thank you for your words of
encouragement and guidance in helping me complete this process. Completion of this
academic journey would not have been possible without all your help over the past few
years.
The completion of this dissertation would not have been possible without the
support of my friend and classmate, Brad Lawson. Although this experience has taken
longer than we expected, the lessons we have learned will allow us to accomplish great
things in the future. Thank you for joining me on this journey.

x
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Analiese, without your continued
support and encouragement I would not have been able to complete this journey. I
cannot express my appreciation for the many days, nights, and weekends she sacrificed in
order for me to complete this research.
In addition, I dedicate this work to my sons, Aiden and Tuck. Although I cannot
regain the time I have missed, my prayer is that the sacrifices made to complete this work
will enable us to share many new experiences that would not have been possible with the
completion of this journey. I hope that one day this will serve as an inspiration for you to
set goals and pursue your dreams.

1
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
Throughout time, families pass down skills needed for survival. Fathers taught
their sons trades such as hunting, fishing, and farming. Meanwhile daughters learned
how to cook, sew, and care for family members by their mothers. As technology
progressed, each generation passed on knowledge for future preservation. Advancements
in technology led to a need for basic education and formal schooling. Today, a job that
does not require a high school diploma is hard to find.
In the proposed reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), President Barack Obama (2011, May 27) stated that now, more than ever,
education is essential for future success. Today, however, the United States no longer
thrives as the dominant educational superpower of the world (Hanushek, 2012). The
1983 report, published by The National Commission on Excellence in Education, warned
that our nation was at risk of being taken over by zealous competitors throughout the
world (U.S. Department of Education, 1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative of
Education Reform (1983) identified many problems that existed in schools throughout the
country and provided ideas for how to change education in America. Although America
once led the world in education, other countries have now surpassed America in
educating students (Obama, 2011, May 27). Education serves as the driving force behind
a nation’s economy and success in a global society (Hanushek, 2012). Setting the mark

2
high, President Obama (2011, May 27) set a new goal for the United States when he
stated that by 2020, America would lead the world in college completion.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(NCLB), signed into law by President
George W. Bush, was developed to close the achievement gap between high- and low-
performing schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2002a). The blueprint for reform,
the proposed reauthorization of the ESEA (U.S. Department of Education, 2011, May 27)
proposed by President Barack Obama, specified that instructional supports would be
provided to meet the needs of all diverse learners. These acts ensured that all students
have a fair and equal opportunity to receive a high-quality education (U.S. Department of
Education, 2002a). NCLB raised the bar for school systems around the country by
requiring them to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) based on student test scores,
graduation rates, and other indicators (U.S. Department of Education, 2002a). Since the
passage of the NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2002a) and the proposed
reauthorization of the ESEA (U.S. Department of Education, 2011), the educational
landscape has drastically changed. These measures brought about sweeping changes in
accountability for school systems and created pressure on schools, administrators, and
teachers to perform at consistently high levels. One area of both the NCLB and ESEA
that has caused controversy is the emphasis placed on the collection of data through high-
stakes testing. Based on the increase in demand for higher test scores, schools are
examining new ways to improve student academic success.
As schools search for new ways to reach students, single parent and dual
employed homes have increased over the last half-century, creating a need for structured
after school time (Afterschool Alliance, 2014b). Adelman (1996) stated that “a former

3
Assistant Secretary of Education often pointed out, time in school actually represents
only 9% of a child’s life from birth to age 18” (p. 4). The United States (U.S)
Department of Justice (2014) indicated that juvenile crime peaks at 3 p.m. on school
days. During these after school hours, more than 15 million children across the U.S. are
without direct adult supervision (Afterschool Alliance, 2013). In Georgia over 400,000
or 25% of school aged children are alone during after school hours (Afterschool Alliance,
2014, May). The increase in need for supervised out-of-school-time (OST) and the
federally mandated NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2002a) to close the
achievement gaps between high- and low-performing students led to an increased
necessity for student academic success. One such avenue for ensuring student success
established under NCLB Title IV Part B, is the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers (21stCCLC). These centers provide low-performing students and schools with
academic enrichment and tutoring services in core subject areas (U.S. Department of
Education, 2002a). Schools and parents recognize the important role that extended
learning programs play in providing a safe, quality support service and environment, and
provide enrichment opportunities that compliment regular student academic programs
(Malone, 2007; U.S. Department of Education, 2002).
Statement of the Problem
Education reform has been an issue of public discussion for many years. A
Nation at Risk and NCLB brought renewed attention to the need for educational reform
and accountability. NCLB changed how states and school systems identified schools that
needed academic improvement (Mathis, 2004). Schools were no longer able to use
averages from all students to determine performance level; instead, schools were forced

4
to focus on student sub-groups through the disaggregation of test scores by student
characteristics (Education Week, 2004). Initially, NCLB focused on reading and
mathematics as subjects for improvement. Over time, this accountability expanded into
other core subject areas. Even with the dramatic changes brought about by NCLB,
students failed to show acceptable improvements in test scores. These changes left
schools and administrators searching for ways to improve student achievement and meet
the rigorous demands set forth under NCLB.
Although great strides had been made to close the gap between minority and
nonminority students, a separation still existed (Education Week, 2004). These
disparities could be attributed to many different factors: socioeconomic factors, race,
school policies, and funding were just a few of the possible reasons (Education Week,
2004). In today’s economic climate, students are expected to compete globally. Some
recommend that the school year or school day should be extended to help meet the needs
of struggling students, and to help prepare students to compete in a global economy
(Caldwell, 1982; Fashola, 1998; Leal, 2012, February 23). However, Adelman (1996)
found that increasing the amount of time in school could have adverse effects on other
important changes. Due to the economic downturn, many schools are cutting days from
their school year to stay within budget. The loss of academic time was a great concern
for many educators and placed more importance on the quality of time spent in learning.
Schools were transitioning their focus to improving the quality of time spent in school
(Caldwell, 1982)
Current educational reform seeks to raise the performance level of all students,
develop better assessments, implement school accountability measures, and ensure a

5
complete education for all children (U.S. Department of Education, 2002a, 2011, May
27). Under NCLB, schools are required to meet specific standards each year. Failure to
meet those standards requires schools to follow certain procedures to ensure future
student success. The proposed Blueprint for Reform shadows the NCLB act by holding
schools accountable for meeting the needs of English Language Learners (ELLs) and
other diverse learners (U.S. Department of Education, 2011, May 27). The standards set
forth by NCLB led school districts to invest in extended learning programs as a
mechanism for meeting the needs of low performing students and diverse learners (U.S.
Department of Education, 2002a).
One approach to improving student achievement and raising the performance
level of students came under NCLB, 21st CCLC were established as a strategy to improve
lower performing students by offering high quality education during after school hours
(U.S. Department of Education, 2002a). Extended learning programs offer a variety of
ways to engage students academically beyond the regular school day.
Over the last 10 years, the 21st CCLC initiative has served as a national model for
providing high quality extended learning programs (U.S. Department of Education,
2002a). Parsad and Lewis (2009) reported that public elementary school extended
learning programs account for an estimated 4 million students. Approximately 1.6
million students were served in 21st CCLC programs during the 2009-10 school year with
an average funding per student of $595 (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Programs
are often designed to meet the needs of each community they serve and help student’s
meet state academic standards. Although 21st CCLC programs established under NCLB
help students in all core subjects, a study of program practices found that during the

6
2006-07 school year 94% of all centers provided mathematics activities and 98% of all
centers provided reading activities (U.S. Department of Education, 2010, 2012).
Extended learning programs can serve four key functions: (a) provide
opportunities for academic assistance and enrichment, (b) develop social skills and self-
esteem, (c) provide a safe learning environment, and (d) reduce school absences and
behavior problems (Afterschool Alliance & MetLife Foundation, 2011; Harris, Malone,
& Sunnanon, 2011; Lauver, 2004, July; Malone, 2007; U.S. Department of Education,
2002a). Extended learning programs usually serve one or more of these goals based on
the needs of the students and community in which they serve.
Conceptual Framework for the Study
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 created unprecedented accountability for
schools throughout the United States. The law required that all students perform on
grade level based on a state testing system, meeting federal requirements, by the 2013-14
school year (U.S. Department of Education, 2002a). Since the 2001 requirement,
Georgia and other states have worked to establish ways of increasing student
achievement for all students not meeting state academic standards. One avenue that
schools have used to increase achievement is the implementation of an extended learning
program. Extended learning programs provide an opportunity to keep students safe, close
the achievement gap by increasing student academic skills, and provide students with an
alternative approach to academics (Beckett et al., 2009; Malone, 2007). Studies by the
Afterschool Alliance (2014a), Black, Somers, Doolittle, Unterman, and Grossman
(2009), Harris et al. (2011), and Lauver (2004, July) indicated that extended learning

7
programs provide an effective means for improving student academics and closing the
achievement gap between low- and high-achieving students.
The extended learning programs established today can be traced to the late
nineteenth century when America saw a decline in the need for child labor in the growing
urban economy and the increased focus on a child’s educational experiences (Halpern,
2002). Religious and non-religious organizations began to develop extended learning
programs that focused on keeping children off the streets (Halpern, 2002). The
expansion of urban neighborhoods and new regulations affecting child labor created a
need for safe environments for children during afterschool hours (Mahoney, 2009). Over
time, these programs began to serve specific ethnicities or religious views (Halpern,
2002).
All levels of k-12 education utilize extended learning programs. Programs are
structured in many different ways and provide students with many different enrichment
opportunities. According to Beckett et al. (2009), extended learning programs can
improve academic achievement if they align curriculum with school day, maximize
participation in the program, adapt instruction to individual needs of participants, provide
engaging learning experiences, and regularly assess program performance. These factors
provide schools, educational leaders, and other organizations with guidance when
establishing and maintaining extended learning programs.
Extended learning programs provide students with unique learning opportunities,
outside of the regular school day, that help to improve academic achievement and allow
students to compete at a global level (Malone, 2007). According to Adelman (1996),
students are actually willing to commit their free time to activities provided by the school

8
if the activities are well constructed. The Afterschool Alliance (2012b) found that
students who regularly attend extended learning programs have shown increases in
academic achievement and a reduction in behavior problems during regular school hours.
The reauthorization of the ESEA of 2002 brought a renewed focus to out-of-
school time learning and provided schools with additional options to improve student
academic achievement (Penuel & McGhee, 2010). The 21st CCLC was established to
provide students with academic enrichment opportunities outside of the regular school
day (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). As the only federally funded extended
learning program, the 21st CCLC is dedicated to improving low-performing and high-
poverty schools, by providing community support and education (Afterschool Alliance,
2012a). The 21st CCLC focuses not only on providing students opportunities to improve
academically, but aids families with improving literacy and educational development
(Afterschool Alliance, 2012a; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning,
Evaluation and Policy Development, & Policy and Program Studies Sevice, 2010).
The latest proposed changes to educational reform have come under current
President Barack Obama’s, A Blueprint for Reform, which was introduced in 2010 as a
way to reform the NCLB legislation of 2002 (U.S. Department of Education, 2011, May
27). Although this new legislation continues to focus on student growth, a new approach
was taken by offering incentives for success rather than punishment for not meeting goals
set forth through the legislation (U.S. Department of Education, 2011, May 27). A major
component of A Blueprint for Reform is that all students will be college and career ready
upon graduating high school. The Obama administration recognizes the importance that
early intervention programs play a role in creating future student success (U.S.

9
Department of Education, 2010). The U.S. Department of Education (2011, May 27)
challenges states and local districts to identify low performing schools.
Purpose of the Study
As the importance of education continues to grow in our society, some students
need extra time and help beyond the regular school day (Afterschool Alliance, 2014a).
The Afterschool Alliance (2009a), reported that 25% of Georgia’s K-12 students are
responsible for taking care of themselves during after school hours. Extended learning
programs help fill a void by enriching the academic lives of students, providing a safe
after school environment, and improving the social skills of students attending these
programs (Afterschool Alliance, 2012a; Harris et al., 2011; Lauver, 2004, July; U.S.
Department of Education, 2002a). Maximizing the effectiveness of extended learning
time could lead students to greater success in and outside in the classroom (Afterschool
Alliance, 2014a).
medium, and large public elementary schools in Georgia. The study also sought to
identify principals’ perceptions of the benefits of extended learning programs. Although
some data and literature exist relating the effect of extended learning programs to student
achievement, additional data are needed at the state level. This study provides valuable
information relating to the characteristics and benefits of extended learning programs in
Georgia elementary schools. The study compared third-grade mathematics CRCT mean
pass rates, as measured by the Georgia CRCT, between schools that implemented an
extended learning program and those that did not. The study also compared third-grade

10
mathematics CRCT mean pass rates, as measured by the Georgia CRCT, among small,
medium, and large Georgia public elementary schools.
Research Questions
This study was guided by six research questions:
Research Question 1
How do small, medium, and large Georgia public elementary schools utilize
extended learning programs?
Research Question 2
How do small, medium, and large Georgia public elementary schools utilizing
extended learning programs compare on teacher quality, program focus, and program
size?
Research Question 3
extended learning programs compare in structure of funding?
Research Question 4
What are principal perceptions of the benefits of Georgia public elementary
Research Question 5
Is there a statistically significant difference in mean third-grade mathematics pass
rates, as measured by the Georgia CRCT, between schools that implement an extended
learning program and those that do not?

11
Research Question 6
rates, as measured by the Georgia CRCT, among small, medium, and large Georgia
public elementary schools that implement an extended learning program?
Research Design
This study utilized quantitative measures to examine the effects of extended
learning programs on student achievement. A survey was used to gather data describing
teacher quality, program focus, program size, and structure of funding in extended
learning programs in Georgia public elementary schools. The survey was conducted
electronically and distributed using Qualtrics. A survey research design was
implemented to address Research Questions 1 through 4 of the study. These questions
focused on determining how small, medium, and large schools utilize extended learning
programs. The survey was also implemented to understand how these programs compare
on teacher quality, program focus, program size, and structure of funding. Open-ended
survey questions were used to determine how principals perceived the benefits of
extended learning programs in their schools. A causal-comparative research design was
utilized to address Research Questions 5 and 6. Question 5 was used to determine if a
statistically significant difference in mean third-grade mathematics pass rates, as
measured by the Georgia CRCT, between schools that implement an extended learning
program and those that do not. Question 6 was used to determine if a statistically
significant difference in mean third-grade mathematics pass rates, as measured by the
Georgia CRCT, among small, medium, and large Georgia public elementary schools.

12
Procedures
The survey was conducted electronically using Qualtrics. CRCT data were
collected through the Georgia Department of Education (GADOE) website. The
researcher sent an initial email to all public elementary school principals in Georgia
serving third-grade students. After a 2-week wait period, principals who had not
responded to the initial survey received a reminder email.
Definitions
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Established through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, AYP was developed
to measure student achievement on state assessments on a year-to-year basis. AYP is
used as a tool for measuring school progress (Georgia Department of Education, 2014c).
Characteristics
The staff qualifications, student-teacher ratio, accountability, and program focus
of extended learning programs (Afterschool Alliance, 2012a; Chatterji, Kwon, & Sng,
2006).
Criterion Referenced Competency Test (CRCT)
The criterion referenced competency test is designed to measure student strengths
and weaknesses based on state mandated standards in the areas of reading,
English/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. The CRCT was used to
measure student academic achievement at the individual, district, and state level (Georgia
Department of Education, n.d.)

13
CRCT Pass Score
A passing score on the Georgia third-grade mathematics CRCT is an 800 or above
(Georgia department of Education, 2012).
Extended Learning Programs
These activities occur outside of the normal school day or the regular school year.
Extended learning time is defined as early morning, evening, weekend, or summer
activities. The program supplies supplemental educational activities focused on
increasing student achievement in critical needs areas (Fashola, 1998; Learning Point
Associates & Berkeley Policy Associates, 2006; U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
Prevalence
The number of summer, weekend, before, and afterschool programs utilized in
Georgia public elementary schools (Afterschool Alliance, 2009a; Georgia Afterschool
Investment Council, 2007).
School Size
The number of small, medium, and large elementary schools in Georgia. The
following was used to identify school size based on student enrollment in Georgia public
elementary schools based on a design utilized by the Illinois department of education.
Schools were coded 0 (0-473), coded 1 (474-759), and coded 2 (greater than 759)
(Durflinger & Haeffele, 2011).
Structure of Funding
The funding control and the source of funding: private, local, and federal
(Afterschool Alliance, 2009a; Halpern, Deich, & Cohen, 2000).

14
Staff Qualifications
Extended learning program utilize many different types of staff members to meet
the needs of their students. Professional teachers, school support personnel, community
and parent volunteers can all serve as staff members in an extended learning program
(U.S. Department of Education, 2011).
21st Century Community Learning Center
Community learning centers designed to provide enrichment and academic
support for students in non-school hours in a public school building. The programs are
operated by a school district in conjunction with other service organizations (U.S.
Department of Education, 2004).
Significance of the Study
Principals and administrators play a vital role in creating school success and
ensuring student achievement (Soehner & Ryan, 2011). A principal must often approve
many policies and school programs before implementation. Principals often
communicate with their colleagues during the decision making process. This study could
provide principals and other educational leaders with valuable insight into extended
learning programs that currently exist in Georgia public elementary schools.
The study could provide administrators and educators with valuable insight into
the role that extended learning programs play in increasing student achievement. The
information gathered through this study could inform principals of potential barriers
associated with conducting an extended learning program and possible solutions to
overcoming these barriers. A study conducted throughout the state of Georgia could
provide valuable knowledge for principals planning to implement an extended learning

15
program in their school. Schools and educational leaders could use the results of this
study to increase student achievement by implementing extended learning programs.
Furthermore through this study, educators will gain an understanding of how extended
learning programs in the state of Georgia are being conducted, the characteristics of those
programs, and the challenges they face.
Assumptions of the Study
This study assumed that Georgia public elementary school principals have direct
knowledge and/or involvement with their schools extended learning program. Principals
are directly exposed to the day-to-day operations of the program and have knowledge of
the teacher quality, program focus, program size, and structure of funding. The study
assumed that the self-reported survey data is reliable and truthful.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. This chapter focuses on
introducing the topic and discusses the purpose of the study. Chapter 2 focuses on the
literature related to the teacher quality, program focus, program size, and structure of
funding in Georgia public elementary extended learning programs. Chapter 3 focuses on
a discussion of the methods and procedures used to collect data including the design,
survey participants, data collection, and analysis of data. Chapter 4 discusses the findings
of the study, and in Chapter 5, the researcher indicates the conclusions, implications and
recommendations for future studies.

16
Chapter II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
A renewed focus toward increasing student achievement was brought about by, A
Nation at Risk, in the early 1980s. This influential study transformed the way students
were taught in and out of the classroom (Hunt, 1996). In the early 2000s NCLB brought
about new and drastic changings to the field of education by requiring that all students be
on grade level (No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 2002). Common Core
Curriculum has been the most recent driving force to increase student achievement and
prepare students to compete at a global level (Mathis, 2010)
One major focus for improving student success at the federal, state, and local
level has been on the use of extended learning programs as a tool for improving student
achievement (Afterschool Alliance, 2014a; U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
Extended learning programs can be found in many different forms. These programs are
offered at different times and operated by many different organizations. One major focus
of extended learning programs is to meet the needs of students in the local community
(Thirteen, 2015).
Historical Overview of Extended Learning Programs
Extended learning programs emerged in the late 1800s as the educational
expectations of children increased and the need for child labor decreased (Halpern, 2002;
Mahoney, 2009). Compulsory education in the early 20th century required that students

17
attend school for longer periods of time and established truancy officers to enforce
attendance (Katz, 1976). Often charities and day nurseries provided childcare as a way to
help assimilate immigrant children and provide troubled youth with safe care (Seligson,
1983; Seppanen, 1993). Halpern (2002) described the 1930s as a time when school
became a focus among parents and many children began to attend school through the
eighth grade. The decrease in child labor and a desire for children to have formal school
led to free time during after school hours (Mahoney, 2009). With the influx of immigrant
families around the turn of the 20th century many children needed a safe environment in
which to play (Halpern, 2002; Seppanen, 1993). Halpern (2002) described how children
would often gather at local churches or storefronts during after school hours. He wrote
that the first extended learning programs were simply a meeting place for young boys.
These boys’ clubs, as described by Mahoney (2009) and Halpern (2002), eventually
became known as play school during the 1920s and 1930s (Schwendiman, 1999).
Development of Extended Learning Programs
Religion was the focus of many initial programs. Most served as a tool for
removing children from the dangerous inner-city streets and neighborhoods (Halpern,
2002). These first programs lacked goals, any real academic expectations, and were
mainly run by private organizations (Halpern, 2002; Schwendiman, 1999; Seppanen,
1993). Early extended learning programs set their own policies and varied based on
location (Halpern, 2002). During the 1920s and 30s private schools began offering arts
and crafts, recreational activities, and other activities for students during after school
hours (Schwendiman, 1999; Seppanen, 1993). Around this time many new educational
policies were established and professionals in the field of education began pushing a new

18
progressive stance toward the education of youth (Seppanen, 1993). As educational
policy evolved, extended learning programs expanded their role beyond, care and
protection, to providing enrichment opportunities for children (Halpern, 2002).
Throughout the 20th century, the role of extended learning programs evolved because of
several factors: (a) changes in workforce, (b) neighborhood changes and self-care of
children, and (c) social and political influences (Halpern, 2002; Mahoney, 2009;
Schwendiman, 1999; Seppanen, 1993).
Workforce Changes
With the emergence of an urban economy, child labor was no longer needed
(Mahoney, 2009). This led to an increase in school participation among children
(Halpern, 2002). The idea of children attending school rather than working became a
commonly accepted practice in the early 1900s (Katz, 1976). The country began to see
an increase in women in the workforce as rural families began migrating towards urban
areas looking for jobs and a better way of life (Mahoney, 2009). An increase in single-
parent homes and mothers forced to enter the workforce led to a decrease in parental
supervision during after school hours (Halpern, 2002; Mahoney, 2009; Seppanen, 1993).
Halpern (2002) stated that a distinct childhood culture, with its own norms, locations, and
rules, was created due to these factors.
Neighborhood Changes and Self-care
The lack of need for child labor and compulsory education led to an increase in
free time for children during non-school hours. Many children known as latchkey kids
found themselves without adult supervision during after school hours (Mahoney, 2009;
Seppanen, 1993). Halpern (2002) noted that self-care for pre-adolescent children can be

19
physically dangerous, as well as, have negative developmental impacts. As urban areas
became a primary place to live, small living quarters led to overcrowding (Halpern,
2002). Tight quarters combined with an increase in free time forced children to find new
places to gather and socialize (Halpern, 2002). The surrounding streets became a play
area for many children during this time period (Mahoney, 2009). During this time
automobiles became readily available to the masses making streets a more dangerous
place to play (Halpern, 2002). By the 1960s a drug culture had developed and the streets
of inner cities were no longer a safe harbor for playing children (Halpern, 2002). Halpern
(2002) described the streets as an unhealthy place for children that exposed them to
unsavory characters.
Data from the U.S. Department of Justice indicated that juvenile crime peaks
during non-school hours (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2010).
The Afterschool Alliance (2009b) indicated that over 15 million children are without
adult supervision during after school hours. In Georgia, 25% (446,650) of the youth were
unsupervised after school (Afterschool Alliance, 2009a). With the lack of supervision
during after school hours children were in danger of being victims of crimes, as well as,
being involved in substance abuse, gang activity, and other illegal activities (Afterschool
Alliance, 2009b).
Social and Political Influences
Politicians have been at odds for many years over the role of government in
education and family related matters (Mahoney, 2009). As the Great Depression
devastated most of the country, the federal government made efforts to create jobs for
men and women by funding extended learning programs (Schwendiman, 1999;

20
Seppanen, 1993). During World War II, notes Schwendiman (1999), the government’s
support of extended learning programs increased drastically again because many women
entered the workforce. Seppanen (1993) stated that over 3,000 extended learning
programs were developed during these war years to provide services for school-aged
children. During this time almost 95% of all extended learning programs were funded
and controlled by the federal government (Seppanen, 1993). However, by the end of
World War II many women had returned home which created a decline in the number of
extended learning programs (Schwendiman, 1999).
During the Nixon administration, the proposed Comprehensive Child
Development Act of 1971 would have provided the right to quality child care services for
of all socioeconomic status, however this legislation was vetoed by President Nixon after
being passed by congress (Mahoney, 2009). The 1970s saw a growth in the number of
young children due to the baby boomer generation, an increase in the employment of
mothers with young children, an increase in single-parent homes, and a decrease in the
number of extended family members available to care for school-age children
(Schwendiman, 1999). Although childcare continued to be a political discussion
throughout the 70s and 80s, no major increases to funding for afterschool childcare were
established (Mahoney, 2009). Beginning in the 1990s extended learning programs saw
continued growth and interest in using these programs as a tool for improving education
(Mahoney, 2009). President Clinton successfully passed the 21st CCLC legislation and
President Bush reauthorized this legislation under NCLB, however, studies have shown
that these types of programs were continually underfunded at the state and federal level
(Mahoney, 2009).

21
Educational Reform and Extended Learning Programs
In 1983, The National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) delivered
an eye opening view about the problems in education and proposed solutions to create a
better educational system (U.S. Department of Education, 1983). A Nation at Risk sought
to assess the quality of education throughout the country to ensure that the United States
did not lose its world dominance in science, technological innovation, and industry. The
18-month report found that over 23 million adults were functionally illiterate. The report
claimed that in 1983, the average high school student scored lower on most standardized
test scores than students did 26 years earlier. The report went on to state that about 13
percent of all 17-year-olds can be considered illiterate in the United States and that these
individuals do not possess the higher order thinking skills that were expected of them.
During this time, educational emphasis changed from the quantity of courses students
were taking to the quality of the curriculum being taught (U.S. Department of Education,
1998).
The Nation at Risk report received national attention and renewed suspicions that
the United States was no longer educating students at a higher level than the rest of the
world (Gardner, 1983). The commission believed that problems facing education in
America could be corrected if immediate action was taken. The report found that
education in the United States had become mediocre and lost sight of the purpose of
schooling. Concern for economic ruin and global dominance by other countries, as
reported by A Nation at Risk, did not resonate well with the American people. The
commission made recommendations for improving education in five major areas:
content, standards and expectations, time, teaching, and leadership and fiscal support. A

22
Nation at Risk suggested schools strengthen graduation requirements: (a) four years of
English, (b) three years of math, (c) three years of science for all students, (d) three years
of social studies, and (e) half a year of computer science. It was also recommended by
the commission that rigorous and measurable standards be established to create a
challenging environment that supports learning. The report went on to suggest that more
effective use of class time, increasing the school day, or extending the school year would
increase student achievement. The document also suggested that colleges and
universities must improve teacher preparation programs. Finally, the commission
recommended that educators and elected officials be held responsible for providing
leadership in education and that citizens provide the fiscal support necessary to improve
education (U.S. Department of Education, 1983).
Kartal (2007) indicated that basic education must begin at birth. The health and
care for a child’s early life have been major contributing factors to a child’s mental,
physical, and social development (Kartal, 2007). The skills needed to learn in later years,
noted Kartal (2007), were learned at home during a child’s early years. Kartal (2007)
stated that most developmental learning theories indicated that a child completed a great
deal of development before entering school. These basic skills needed for learning and
future development during a child’s formal education years must be taught at an early age
(Kartal, 2007). In 1988, Congress endorsed the Even Start Family Literacy Program to
ensure that the needs of children from all socio-economic backgrounds started school
with the proper skills to compete with their peers. The program served as a mechanism
to break the cycle of poverty and illiteracy throughout the United States (Iowa

23
The Even Start Family Literacy Program provided grants to support family
literacy projects for low-income families (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). The
1989 program was established under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, as a means to break the cycle of poverty and illiteracy in America (Iowa
Department of Education, 2014; St.Pierre, Swartz, Murray, & Deck, 1996; U.S.
Department of Education, 2014). The program focused on four core components of
family literacy: early childhood education, adult literacy, parenting education, and
interactive literacy activities (St. Pierre et al., 1996). The Even Start Program provided
funding to public entities, as well as, private and public community-based organizations
to improve literacy skills for adults and children from low-income families (U.S.
Department of Education, 2014). Participants in the program had to include an eligible
adult with a child under the age of eight (St. Pierre et al., 1996). These programs helped
to empower parents in becoming full partners in their child’s education (U.S. Department
of Education, 2014).
In March of 1994, President Clinton signed into law a set of eight educational
standards that were to be met by the year 2000 (National Center for Home Education,
2014, September). According to Heise (1994), this landmark educational reform was
started by President Bush in 1989 when he met with the nation’s governors to create
national goals for education. These standards were developed to combat the mediocrity
towards education in an ever-changing economic world (Heise, 1994). Goals 2000: The
Educate America Act was seen as a solution to the ailing public schools of the time and
were developed to help rectify the illiteracy problem in America (Campbell, 2003).
According to Campbell (2003), the program brought together federal, state, and local

24
governments with the purpose of reallocating the fiscal responsibility in education to the
federal level. Although the Goals 2000 was initially passed into legislation in 1994, the
law was amended in 1996 after the law’s biannual report (U.S. Department of Education,
1998). The U.S. Department of Education (1998) stated that Goals 2000 encouraged a
commitment from states and local communities to improve education, that states and
districts utilized coordinated planning, and ensured that all students were held to high
academic standards. Below is a list of the goals and objectives set for by the U.S.
Department of Education (1994) in the Goals 2000: The Educate America Act.
By the year 2000:
1. All children will start school ready to learn. The goal provided parental training,
preschool, nutrition, and healthcare to ensure that all students enter school with
equal developmental skills.
2. The high school graduation rate will be at least 90%. The goal ensured that the
disparity between non-minority and minority graduation rate would be eliminated.
3. All students in grades 4, 8, and 12 will have demonstrated competency in
challenging subject matter. The goal ensured that all students would demonstrate
reasoning skills, good citizenship, access to physical education, an increased
number of bilingual students, and knowledge of the cultural heritage of our
Nation.
4. The Nation’s teachers will have access to professional development for
adequately preparing all American children for the future. The goal provided
educators with the proper training to meet the increasingly diverse population of

25
students in America. Staff development opportunities were provided introducing
new teaching methods, forms of assessments, and technology.
5. United States students will be the first in the world in mathematics and science
achievement. The goal ensured that students would have a better understanding
of the metric system, that teachers in mathematical and science backgrounds
would be recruited to teach, and more women and minorities would graduate
college with mathematics, science, and engineering degrees.
6. Every adult American would be literate and have knowledge to compete in a
global economy. The goal ensured that businesses would be involved in creating
a connection between education and work. There would be an increase in the
number of programs available for adult learners and all programs would better
prepare students for entering the workforce.
7. Every school in America would be drug and violence free. The goal ensured that
schools would be a safe place that is conducive to learning and provide drug and
alcohol prevention programs for students of all ages.
8. Every school will increase parental participation in promoting the social,
emotional, and academic growth of students. The goal provided policy for
increasing partnerships between schools and the home. Parents would share in
educational decisions of their child (Sect, 102).
Goals 2000 set forth very ambitious goals for American education, but the goals
called for a renewed focus on education that one could not easily argue against
(Campbell, 2003). President Clinton saw that our Nation’s students were falling behind
other countries and called for a renewed focus towards educational reform (Heise, 1994).

26
According to Campbell (2003), these goals became a catalyst for change at the local,
state, and newly created National Education Standards and Improvement Council
(NESIC) (Heise, 1994). With the new goals, a national framework for education was to
be developed, all students would be provided equitable educational opportunities, and
necessary changes would be made to ensure that all students learn at high levels (U.S.
Less than a year into his first term in office, President George W. Bush, signed
into law the NCLB Act. NCLB, which was intended to strengthen the objectives, set forth
by Goals 2000 through school accountability and assessments (Kress, Zechmann, &
Schmitten, 2011). The NCLB was a revision of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and was regarded as one the most significant pieces of
educational legislation in generations (Illinois State Board of Education, n.d.). NCLB
was highly supported throughout the country by conveying the idea that every child can
learn (Florida Department of Education, 2015). The law went on to emphasize how we,
as a nation, would not accept public schools that failed to educate all students regardless
of race, religious preference, ability, or socio-economic status (Aske, Connolly, &
Corman, 2013; Florida Department of Education, 2015). This bipartisan piece of
legislation sought the following purposes: (a) statewide accountability systems through
testing of challenging state standards in mathematics and reading; (b) more school choice
for parents if students who attended failing schools; (c) flexibility for how federal funds
were used by states and school districts; and (d) increased emphasis on reading in
younger grade levels (U.S. Department of Education, 2002b, pp. 1-3).

27
One major component of NCLB was to provide parents with relevant information
regarding their child’s school so the best possible choice could be made regarding where
to send their children (Aske et al., 2013). To adequately inform parents, NCLB required
school systems to annually report test scores in grades 3 through 8 in mathematics and
reading (Illinois State Board of Education, n.d.; New America Foundation, 2014, April
24; U.S. Department of Education, 2002b). The law required that all students be on
grade level in mathematics and reading, so districts were required to report scores for
specific subgroups; low socio-economic status, students with disabilities, English
language learners, and by racial group (Georgia Department of Education, 2014c; New
America Foundation, 2014, April 24).
NCLB required schools to meet AYP or yearly testing goals set forth in the state’s
educational plan (Kress et al., 2011). Kress et al. (2011) went on to note that if a school
did not meet AYP it was identified as needing improvement and must implement
interventions to rectify the problems (Georgia School Council Institure, 2004, July).
Students attending schools that failed to meet AYP were given the option to attend other
schools that were meeting AYP status (Florida Department of Education, 2015; Kress et
al., 2011; U.S. Department of Education, 2002b). The Georgia Department of Education
(2014c) stated that schools and districts within Georgia met AYP through the following
criteria:
1. All student subgroups with at least 40 students must have a participation rate at or
above 95% in mathematics and reading/language arts testing.
2. Each school and student subgroup must meet or exceed the State’s Annual
Measurable Objective (AMO) based on the percentage of students meeting or

28
exceeding in mathematics and reading/language arts testing. AMO can be met
through the following:
a. direct comparison of student performance to AMO,
b. confidence interval,
c. multiyear averaging,
d. safe harbor.
3. Every school must meet the standard or show progress on a second indicator.
(para. 3)
AYP was a significant tool used to ensure that the needs of all students were
being met under NCLB and that disparities in the achievement gaps between students
were being closed (Georgia Department of Education, 2014c). The premise behind
NCLB was to hold schools and districts accountable for all students by creating
competition among the schools based on test scores (Aske et al., 2013). According to the
Georgia department of Education (2012) this data-driven approach to educational reform
held schools accountable for the success of all students.
In 2010, President Barack Obama introduced A Blueprint for Reform, the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as a platform
for overhauling the NCLB legislation (U.S. Department of Education, 2011, May 27).
Although NCLB brought education to the forefront of America and highlighted
achievement gaps between student subgroups, it allowed for little flexibility while
focusing on punishment for failure over rewarding success (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010). President Obama’s Blueprint for Reform focused on student growth
rather than solely on student test scores. Schools were charged with preparing all

29
students to be college and career ready when they graduated high school (U.S.
Department of Education, 2010). Based on the response to the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 the U.S. Department of Education (2011, May 27) noted that
this reform focused on four key areas: (a) improving the effectiveness of teachers and
principals; (b) helping parents to evaluate and improve their child’s school by providing
information about the school; (c) implementing college and career-ready standards; and
(d) providing support and interventions in low performing schools to improve student
achievement. The U.S. Department of Education (2010) stated that to meet these goals,
states and districts needed to be given flexibility in determining the best methods for
intervention based on individual needs.
Overview of Extended Learning Programs
Although extended learning programs have existed for many years in different
forms, NCLB helped bring them to the forefront as a way to establish supplemental
educational services to low-performing schools (Chatterji et al., 2006). Today, extended
learning programs can be found in many different forms. Before, after, weekend, and
summer programs have all existed to meet the needs of students (Malone, 2007).
Extended learning programs can vary greatly in focus, philosophy, and the structure of
programing (Shumow, 2001). Some programs focused on simply providing safe and
supervised activities for students, while others focused on academics through tutoring and
homework assistance. Dynarski et al. (2004) reported that some extended learning
programs have increased academic achievement and reduced negative behaviors.
However, the report went on to state that some extended learning programs had no effect
and even worsened certain outcomes.

30
Two Together, Inc., is a highly regarded extended learning literacy project in
Albany, New York (Fleming, 2005). The goal of Two Together was to strengthen the
social, cultural, and intellectual growth of children by improving literacy skills. The one-
to-one tutoring program was conducted in conjunction with a local YMCA program,
which helped to alleviate transportation issues. The program actively worked to involve
parents in the literacy project by hosting social suppers with the tutors. Tutors in the
program were from local colleges and high schools in the Albany area. Two Together has
observed an increase in student reading ability and noted that students showed an
increased enjoyment of reading (Fleming, 2005).
The Providence After School Alliance (PASA) created the AfterZone to meet the
needs and interests of youth in Providence, RI (Kauh, 2011). Many of the youth served
by PASA have been forced to overcome economic and educational challenges. The
AfterZone utilized sports, skill building, educational enrichment, and art activities in their
extended learning programs. The program utilized many community facilities, however
the school environment was at the core of the program. Kauh (2011) noted that the
yearlong program is conducted 4 days per week for 4 hours a day. With funding from the
Wallace Foundation, a 2-year study was conducted on the AfterZone program model.
Findings from the study indicated that participating in AfterZone benefited students in
relationship to school. However, this study also found that many of the benefits were not
long lasting. Participant school attendance increased at the end of year one, but the
increase in attendance had diminished by Year 2. One significant benefit from attending
AfterZone was the increase in math grades when compared to students that did not attend
the program (Kauh, 2011).

31
Project HOPE, Having Opportunities Promotes Excellence, was a kindergarten
through fifth grade extended learning program conducted on Saturdays (R. Miller &
Gentry, 2010). Participants in the program were from five school districts within
commuting distance of Purdue University. The program was funded by the Jack Kent
Cooke Foundation, which provided all expense and transportation for the Super Saturday
program. Project HOPE was designed for gifted and talented students as an enrichment
program. Students are able to choose classes of their interest and are taught the material
at two or more grades above the students’ actual level. The HOPE program is designed
to expose students of low socio-economic background with high potential to above grade
level work in their areas of interest. Miller and Gentry (2010) stated that courses are
offered in science, math, technology, engineering, and the arts. The study was conducted
on participants that attended Super Saturday sessions for three hours on six consecutive
Saturdays (R. Miller & Gentry, 2010)
The Communities Organizing Resources to Advance Learning, better known as
CORAL, is a five-city initiative designed to improve academic achievement for at-risk
students (Arbreton et al., 2008). The initiative utilized flexibility when implementing the
extended learning program by allowing site coordinators to implement strategies based
on the needs of students in their geographic location. The CORAL program was funded
by the James Irvine Foundation and supplemented with additional funding from the host
cities and private donors. Over time, the initiative focused all programs under CORAL to
literacy-focused sites. Students participated in 60 to 90 minute session for 3 to 4 days per
week. According to Arbreton et al. (2008), a 2-year study of the CORAL program found
that engagement in the program showed positive changes in a child’s attitude towards

32
reading, participants performed better on standardized tests, English language learners
showed similar gains as their peers, and many other positive attributes contributed to the
program.
Vandell, Reisner, and Pierce (2007) conducted a longitudinal study of 35 high-
quality extended learning programs. Participants in the study were from low socio-
economic backgrounds that regularly attended an extended learning program throughout
the school year. The study found that elementary students who regularly attended high-
quality extended learning programs over a 2-year period showed significant gains of up
to 20 percentile points on standardized math tests. Participants of the program showed a
decrease in aggressive behaviors toward their peers and showed significant gains in social
skills with their peers. When compared to students not attending an extended learning
program, participants had a reduced number of school misconduct reports (Vandell et al.,
2007).
NCLB created an increased amount of funding and a renewed focus for extended
learning programs as a method for increasing student achievement (U.S. Department of
Education, 2002a). Because of this legislation, communities established 21st CCLC
across the country to provide academic enrichment for low-performing students.
Dynarski et al. (2004) conducted a 2-year study of the federally funded extended learning
initiative to determine the outcomes from this program’s implementation. Year 2
findings were consistent with results of Year 1. Elementary students’ reading test scores
or grades were not affected by program participation. However, students reported that
they felt safer during after school hours when participating in a program. The report goes

33
on to note that parents were more likely to attend school events if their child participated
in a program (Dynarski et al., 2004).
Funding for Extended Learning Programs
Extended learning programs would not have existed without proper funding and
resources. Not only have these programs required funding for teachers and
administrators, the logistical concerns for transporting students home, in some cases
providing meals for students, were taken into consideration when budgeting for an
extended learning program (Parsad & Lewis, 2009; The Wallace Foundation, 2014).
Parent fees, foundation grants, federal tax monies, and local tax monies have all been
sources of funding for supporting extended learning programs (The Wallace Foundation,
2014). Although many programs utilized volunteers and donations, funding has been a
crucial element in meeting the needs of students served by extended learning programs.
The 21st CCLC initiative was the only federally funded source designated
exclusively to extended learning programs (Afterschool Alliance, 2012a). According to
the Afterschool Alliance (2012a), funding from the NCLB for 21st CCLC programs were
distributed to states based on their share of Title I funding for low-income students. They
also noted that in 2010 the U.S. Department of Education appropriated $1.166 billion for
extended learning programs throughout the United States, which served just over 1.5
million students. The money provided through the 21st CCLC initiative helped operate
over 10,000 programs with nearly half of these programs serving elementary age students
(Afterschool Alliance, 2012a).
Georgia currently receives just over $38 million in funding from the 21st CCLC
initiative, which has served over 38,000 students (Afterschool Alliance, 2014, May). In

34
2009, Georgia allocated $14 million in state funds for school- and community-based
extended learning programs (Afterschool Alliance, 2009a). Vouchers and subsidies for
low-income Georgia families have been provided by the Child Care and Development
Fund (CCDF) to pay for childcare, preschool, summer care, and extended learning
programs (Afterschool Alliance, 2014, May). The Afterschool Alliance stated that funds
provided for Georgia families through the CCDF were just under $238 million in 2013.
Private funding for extended learning programs has been found at the local and
national level. Many standalone programs that were not affiliated with a school and were
fee-based in nature accounted for almost half of all extended learning programs (Parsad
& Lewis, 2009). The amount of funding, at the local level has been limited based on
location, but often has come from the generous donations of community stakeholders
(Georgia Afterschool Investment Council, 2007). Many national foundations and
companies have offered grants to improve the academic of achievement of students. The
Wallace Foundation, the Mott Foundation, Verizon, and Target have been just a few of
the many organizations that offered grant money throughout the United States (The
After-School Corporation, 2014). Most organizations required an application process and
offered grant funds based on the socioeconomic needs of the communities that the
extended learning program served (Thirteen, 2015).
Perceptions and Outcomes of Extended Learning Program Studies
The research associated with extended learning programs has seen mixed results.
Lauver (2004, July) noted that students with high attendance in extended learning
programs have seen improvements in academic achievement, less regular school
absences, increased effort in school, and teachers reported improved student behavior.

35
With a lack of adult supervision during out of school hours, extended learning programs
provided a safe and orderly environment for students (Malone, 2007). A study conducted
by Durlak, Weissberg, and Pachan (2010) found that students attending extended learning
programs not only scored higher classroom grades, but also scored higher on
standardized tests when compared to non-participating students.
Researchers at the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing (CRESST) (2012) conducted a longitudinal study using qualitative and
quantitative measures to examine the similarities and differences of extended learning
programs throughout California. The overall findings of the study were neutral, however
positive effects were seen with increases in physical fitness of participants, students’
perceptions toward academic work, and in school attendance rates. Additionally, when
CRESST researchers further analyzed the data they found that African American, special
education, and below average students who attended programs performed better on
academic measures than students not participating in a program.
Vandell et al. (2007) examined the relationship between high-quality extended
learning programs and desired academic and behavioral outcomes for low-income
students over a 2-year period in the third and fourth or sixth and seventh grade level. The
researchers described high-quality programs as those that were free of charge, operated at
least 4 days per week, and strong community involvement. The researchers analyzed 35
programs with 2,914 students at the middle school and elementary level participating.
According to the study, elementary students who regularly attended the extended learning
programs saw gains of 20 percentiles on standardized math test scores. Students who

36
attended the program showed a reduction in aggressive behaviors and increased social
skills with peers.
Rothman and Henderson (2011) conducted a pre-post nonequivalent control
group study to determine the impact of an extended learning program on eighth grade
students’ New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK) test in language arts
and mathematics. The study was conducted in a large, ethnically diverse school district
with low socioeconomic status. Forty-three of the eighth grade students from the only
middle school in the district participated in the study. Twenty-three students were
assigned to the language arts group and 20 students were placed in the math group based
on their previous NJASK scores. The student’s pretest consisted of his seventh grade
NJASK scores and the posttest used the Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA).
Students in the treatment groups attended 90-minute tutoring sessions twice per week,
directly following the end of the regular school day from October to March. The
researchers conducted an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) on the initial NJASK to
determine any differences in test scores, which enabled the researchers to analyze any
differences on the eighth grade GEPA. The results of the study indicated that students
tutored in language arts and math significantly outperformed the control group.
Allen and Chavkin (2004) found that students who received increased amounts of
tutoring were more likely to pass core academic subjects than students who received less
tutoring. The researchers conducted a within-program control group design study on a
tutoring program that was created to help students who failed a core subject (math,
reading or ELA, science, or social studies) during the previous school year. The study
included 256 middle school students with 61% being male and 79% of the tutored

37
population was eligible for free/reduced lunch. Students were placed into groups based
on students receiving above 13.5 hours and those receiving less than 13.5 hours of
tutoring. The researchers stated that ethnicity and free/reduced lunch status did not affect
the results, however gender did. Female participants tended to be more likely to pass
than males. A paired t test showed that students made significant improvements from
their previous grades (t = 19.254, df = 216, p < 0.00025, two-tailed). The researchers
were unable to find any differences in pre- and post-grades by subject or grade level.
Keys to Successful Extended Learning Programs
Successful extended learning programs demonstrated several key attributes that
enabled them to be successful. Each key was no more important than the other, but these
keys worked in unison to create program success. The vision and leadership of an
extended learning program were two key factors that ensured a successful program
(Fletcher, 2004, May; Huang et al., 2008; Learning Point Associates & Berkeley Policy
Associates, 2006; The American Association of School Administrators, 2005). Fletcher
(2004, May) noted that a vision clarified the purpose of the program and ignited passion
in others towards making the program a success. The American Association of School
Administrators (AASA) (2004) indicated that the vision of the program should be
understood by all stakeholders and extended to superintendents at the top of the district.
Learning Point Associates and Berkeley Policy Associates (2006) extended this notation
by stating that the school district’s role in planning for the program was essential for
program success. Strong leadership was an essential element for the success of almost
any business or program. Extended learning programs were no different. Strong
involvement from the principal and other leaders was a contributing factor to successful

38
extended learning programs (Learning Point Associates & Berkeley Policy Associates,
2006). Successful programs with a great vision needed leadership to ensure the vision’s
execution (Fletcher, 2004, May). Often one leader cannot meet the demands of a
program; therefore, teams of leaders have been established throughout the program
(Fletcher, 2004, May).
The structure and content of an extended learning program were also key
elements for ensuring success (Fashola, 1998). Fashola (1998) indicated that structure
was essential to the achievement of the program and leaders must decide whether the
program was an extension of the school day or an academic enrichment program.
Beckett et al. (2009) indicated that programs were most successful when aligned with the
regular school day and connected with classroom activities to improve academic
performance. Instructional practices should be adapted to meet the needs of individuals
in small group settings (Beckett et al., 2009). Fashola (1998) recommended a
recreational component for programs to help develop all aspects of the child’s life. The
author stated that recreational activities provided students with academic downtime and a
safe environment in which to play. The ultimate decision for content and structure of a
program is meeting the needs of the children. Fashola (1998) recommended that
children, parents, and community members should have been included in the planning
process when establishing a program. The ultimate goal of an extended learning program
was not to extend the school day, but rather expand instructional opportunities to
reinforce what was learned throughout the regular school day (Fletcher, 2004, May).
Ensuring success of a program required continual evaluation of the program and
navigating the changes needed to ensure continued success (Fletcher, 2004, May). The

39
evaluation and assessment of performance has been a key element for improving and
maintaining the success of extended learning programs (Beckett et al., 2009; Fashola,
1998; Fletcher, 2004, May; Huang et al., 2008). Fletcher (2004, May) stated that leaders
should use a variety of techniques for assessing program performance and not solely rely
on student progress through test scores. Program evaluation should be seen as a tool for
program improvement and a way to identify areas of improvement (Beckett et al., 2009).
Fashola (1998) indicated that assessment should be built into extended learning programs
and the evaluation of a program should be tied to its vision to ensure that the program’s
goals were being met. Leaders used multiple forms of evaluation and ultimately used the
results to make appropriate changes and build on the established strengths of the program
(Fletcher, 2004, May).

40
Chapter III
RESEARCH METHOD
Introduction
medium, and large, public elementary schools in Georgia. In this study, the researcher
also sought to identify principals’ perceptions of the benefits of extended learning
programs. The study was divided into two parts: principal data and student data. A
researcher-created survey was used to collect principal data regarding teacher quality,
program focus, program size, and structure of funding in Georgia extended learning
programs. The survey also addressed information regarding the principals’ perceptions
of the effectiveness of extended learning programs in Georgia elementary schools.
Student data consisted of third-grade student CRCT mathematics mean pass rates from
the Georgia Department of Education.
This chapter describes the purpose for the study, research questions, and design of
the study. The chapter includes information pertaining to the participants and setting,
instrumentation, the process used to gather data, and data analysis.
Research Questions
This study was guided by six research questions:

41
Research Question 1
Research Question 2
size?
Research Question 3
Research Question 4
Research Question 5
Research Question 6

42
Research Design
This study utilized quantitative measures to examine the effects of extended
learning programs on student achievement. A survey was used to gather data describing
teacher quality, program focus, program size, and structure of funding in extended
learning programs in Georgia public elementary schools. The survey was conducted
electronically and distributed using Qualtrics.
Survey Design
Survey research provides an economical way for researchers to gather information
from a large number of participants throughout a large geographical location (Creswell,
2009). Survey research allows researchers to survey a sample of respondents and make
inferences about a general population based on survey results (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2010).
The use of electronic surveying allowed the researcher to access all elementary principals
in Georgia. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2010), response rates from non-personal
survey methods (i.e., mail or electronic) can vary by location and population subgroups.
Threats to Validity
The researcher must be aware of the threats to internal and external validity in
survey research. Creswell (2009) described internal validity as threats to the procedures,
treatments, or experiences that influence the researcher’s ability to draw correct
inferences from data about a population. Fraenkel and Wallen (2010) stated that attrition,
location, instrumentation, and instrument decay are the four major threats to internal
validity. Attrition did not pose a threat because the study was not conducted over a long
period. Internal validity was not influenced by instrumentation due to the survey being
conducted online. Respondents were not influenced or contacted by the researcher

43
during the instrumentation process. Instrument decay would only become a threat to the
survey if proper time were not given for respondents to complete the survey. Location
did not influence survey results because all elementary principals in Georgia were asked
to complete the survey. To help ensure an adequate response rate the researcher made a
second attempt to solicit a response from all principals who failed to complete the survey.
Location could affect survey results if only principals from a particular geographic
location responded to the survey. According to Creswell (2009) external validity threats
arise when the researcher draws incorrect inferences from the sample data to other
persons, settings, or situations. I understood that information gathered from the study
was not generalizable beyond the target population. Another threat to validity is
nonresponse from the population. A lack of response may reduce the validity of the
information gathered and produce bias in the results (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2010).
Causal-Comparative Design
To address research questions five and six a causal-comparative design was
implemented to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between third-
grade CRCT mathematics mean pass rates, between schools that implemented an
extended learning program and those that did not. A comparison was also conducted
among small, medium, and large schools that implemented an extended learning
program. Fraenkel and Wallen (2010) stated that casual-comparative research is used to
determine the cause of differences that currently exist between groups of individuals.
Causal-comparative research is occasionally referred to as ex post facto research because
the causes and effects have already occurred (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2010).

44
The causal-comparative design is considered an economical and fast alternative to
experimental research (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2010). Fraenkel and Wallen (2010) noted
that causal-comparative research frequently leads to future experimental studies.
Although this type of study has its strengths, there are limitations that must be taken into
account when conducting causal-comparative research. Threats to internal validity are a
major weakness of causal-comparative researcher because the manipulation of the
independent variable has already occurred (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2010). Causal-
comparative research can be used to identify relationships, however, causation cannot be
established (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2010). Fraenkel and Wallen (2010) stated that
unidentified variables can pose a threat to the internal validity in causal-comparative
research. Another threat to internal validity is the lack of randomization when assigning
test subjects to groups (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2010). The lack of randomization in
grouping could lead to unequal groups based on race, gender, socioeconomic status, or
intelligence (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2010).
Instrumentation
To address research questions one through four a survey design was implemented
to determine how small, medium, and large schools utilize extended learning programs.
The survey was also implemented to understand how these programs compared on
teacher quality, program focus, program size, and structure of funding. Open-ended
questions were included in the survey to understand principals’ perceptions of the
benefits of extended learning programs.

45
Principal Data
A 12-item survey (Appendix A) was used to acquire Georgia elementary school
data regarding the prevalence of extended learning programs, characteristics of extended
learning programs, and structure of funding of extended learning programs. Identical
self-report surveys were used to collect data from all Georgia elementary school
principals. The survey was conducted electronically using Qualtrics. The survey
consisted of descriptive items with Yes/No answers, multiple response items, and open-
ended questions. Dr. Kimberly Byars was contacted via electronic mail (Appendix B) to
request permission to use a modified version of her dissertation survey.
Survey Questions 3-5 addressed how extended learning programs were being
utilized in Georgia public elementary schools. These questions were used to determine
the prevalence of extended learning programs throughout the state of Georgia and when
the programs were being operated. Questions 6-8 were designed to gain insight into the
characteristics of the extended learning programs. These three questions were used to
determine the specific focus of the program, the facilities used to house the program, and
staff utilized to conduct the program. Survey Questions 9 and 10 solicited information
regarding the structure of governance and funding of extended learning programs.
Principals were asked questions pertaining to the funding sources used to conduct the
program and to identify the title of the person directly in charge of the program. Two
questions on the instrument consisted of dichotomous (yes/no) questions. The responses
were coded 1 (yes) and coded 0 (no). Eight questions consisted of multiple response
answers. The survey also contained two open-ended questions to determine the

46
principals’ perceptions of the extended learning program in their school, including
reasons why schools were not utilizing an extended learning program.
School Data
The Georgia CRCT is a test used to determine how well students obtain the skills
and knowledge designated by the state standards (Georgia Department of Education,
2007). The information gathered through the test is used to determine individual
strengths and weakness of a student in relation to the state defined standards (Georgia
department of Education, 2012). Questions in the CRCT item bank are rigorously tested
to insure that valid and reliable results are collected (Georgia Department of Education,
2013). CRCT items are developed through committees of educators and field test to
ensure that questions reflect the standards in which they address (Georgia Department of
Education, 2007, 2013). Educators and other academic professionals continually review
questions and compare them with state standards to certify that questions used for the test
adequately reflect standards set forth by the Georgia Department of Education (Georgia
Department of Education, 2007). Through rigorous testing the Georgia CRCT has a high
degree of validity because it serves to measure mastery of state designated curriculum
(Georgia Department of Education, 2013). The third-grade mathematics CRCT has been
shown to be reliable using the standard error of measurement and Cronbach’s alpha
which is computed using the Crocker and Algina’s formula (Georgia Department of
Education, 2013). With a standard error of measurement score of 3.02 and a reliability
coefficient of .93, the third-grade CRCT mathematics test is sufficiently reliable
(Georgia Department of Education, 2013). The third-grade mathematics CRCT validity

47
is established through a rigorous test development process and backed by strong
reliability indicators (Georgia Department of Education, 2013).
Participants and Setting
Setting
The target population for this study was state public schools serving third-grade
students during the 2013-2014 school year. According to the Georgia Department of
Education Georgia Department of Education (2014b), 1,233 schools serve third-grade
students. Elementary schools in Georgia are designed to meet the needs of students in the
urban settings of inner city Atlanta to the rural farm country of south Georgia. With
almost 62% of all Georgia students qualifying for free/reduced lunch, extended learning
programs can be found throughout the state (Georgia Department of Education, 2014a).
The Georgia Department of Education does not rank schools according to enrollment
size. Elementary schools were categorized as small, medium, or large based on a method
used by the Illinois Department of Education (Durflinger & Haeffele, 2011). Schools
that serve third-grade students were listed in descending order based on enrollment size.
The top 25% were categorized as large, the middle 50% were categorized as medium, and
the lower 25% categorized as small (Durflinger & Haeffele, 2011).
Principal Data
Participants for this study were principals in Georgia public elementary schools.
The names and email addresses of principals were provided by the Georgia Department
of Education. Principals willing to participate completed the online survey. Some school
districts do not allow surveys to be distributed to their employees which limited the

48
accessible population of Georgia elementary school principals. Another limitation of the
accessible population was principal turnover from the 2014 school year.
School Data
Students were not considered active participants in the study. Third-grade
mathematics CRCT pass rate for the 2013-2014 school year were collected through
public record at the GADOE website. School pass rate data were collected based on
principal participation in the study.
Procedures
Prior to beginning this study, an application was submitted requesting approval
from the Valdosta State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Appendix C).
Upon receiving permission from the IRB, an email was sent to all Georgia elementary
principals working in districts allowing surveys. The email briefly described the purpose
of the study and the importance of completing the survey. The names and contact
information for survey candidates was obtained from the Georgia Department of
Education. A follow-up email was sent to principals that had not responded after a two-
week period (Appendix D). All reasonable steps were taken to maintain confidentiality.
Data Analysis
The number of small, medium, and large elementary schools were tabulated based
on a design utilized by the Illinois department of education (Durflinger & Haeffele,
2011). Schools were ranked from least to greatest based on enrollment size. The top
25% of school were considered large, the middle 50% considered medium, and the lower
25% consider small. Based on this method schools were coded 0 (0-473), coded 1 (474-
759), and coded 2 (greater than 759). This method of tabulation was used to answer

49
Research Question 1 by determining the percentage of small, medium, and large schools
that utilize an extended learning program. Descriptive measures were used to determine
which size schools utilize extended learning programs most often. The tabulation of
schools and descriptive measures was also used to answer Research Question 2 by
determining the teacher quality, program focus, and program size. Research Question 3
was answered by utilizing the tabulation of small, medium, and large schools to compare
the structure of funding used to support extended learning programs throughout the state.
Research Question 4 was answered using two open-ended survey questions to understand
principal perceptions of the benefits of Georgia public elementary school extended
learning programs. The results of the open-ended survey questions were grouped
according to theme. Using open-ended questions, I sought to understand reasons for
schools not utilizing extended learning programs. I also sought to understand the
principals’ perceptions toward the benefits of their school’s extended learning program.
Research Questions 5 and 6 were answered using an ANOVA. A factorial ANOVA (2 x
3) determined if the main effect of extended learning program implementation was
significant and the main effect of school size was significant at the 0.05 level. The
factorial allowed me to examine the effect of extended learning programs and school size
on third-grade CRCT mathematics scores. I also computed effect size estimates for each
factor analyzed using partial eta squared (𝜂 𝜌
2
).
This chapter focused on the discussion of the methods and procedures used to
collect data including the design, survey participants, data collection, and analysis of
data. The results of the study are presented in Chapter 4. Conclusions and implications
of the findings and recommendations for future research are discussed in Chapter 5.

50
Chapter IV
RESULTS
Introduction
medium, and large, public elementary schools in Georgia. The study utilized a survey to
assess teacher quality, program focus, program size, and structure of funding in Georgia
extended learning programs among small, medium, and large schools. The Georgia
Criterion Reference Competency Test (CRCT) third-grade mathematics mean pass rates
for the 2013-2014 school year were used to compare schools that utilize extended
learning programs with schools that do not.
Descriptions of the instrumentation, data collection procedures, and descriptions
of the samples are reported in this chapter of the study. Results and discussion are
presented for each research question. An overview of the study and significant findings
are presented in the chapter summary.
Instrumentation
Principal Data
Principal perceptions of extended learning programs were obtained through a 12-
question survey, using open-ended, dichotomous, and multiple response questions. The
survey was used to gather responses relative to teacher quality, program focus, program

51
size, and structure of funding in Georgia extended learning programs. Table 1 describes
principal response rate based on school size.
School Data
Examination of research questions relating to student data was conducted using
the CRCT third-grade mathematics mean pass rates for the 2013-2014 school year.
Scores were obtained through the GADOE website using the school report card. I
gathered third-grade mathematics CRCT pass percent rates of schools with principals
responding to the survey.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for School Size
School Size Frequency Percent
Small 40 26.1
Medium 73 47.7
Large 40 26.1
Data Collection Procedures
Principal Data
Principal perceptions of extended learning programs were examined through the
researcher-created survey. The survey was also used to gather information regarding
teacher quality, program focus, program size, and structure of funding. Principals were
sent an email that included an overview of the study, directions for completing the
survey, and a survey link. Reminder emails were sent every 2 weeks for 6 weeks until

52
the survey was closed. Principals were not required to complete any questions they did
not feel comfortable answering (Appendix E).
School Data
The third-grade mathematics CRCT mean pass rates for the 2013-2014 school
year were collected through the Georgia Department of Education school report card for
all schools with principals participating in the survey.
Sample
The sample for this study was Georgia public elementary school principals
responding to the survey. One hundred fifty-three principals responded to the survey.
The accessible population for the study were principals (N = 459) from school systems
that do not utilize a local IRB policy, which created a 33% response rate. Of the
respondents, 112 utilized an extended learning program, while 41 did not. The school
sample was collected based on principal participation. Schools were categorized as
small, medium, or large based on student enrollment (Durflinger & Haeffele, 2011).
Quantitative Data Analysis and Results
Research Question 1
Responses to survey items 3 through 5 addressed the prevalence of schools
utilizing extended learning programs. The results of these questions are described in
Table 2. Examination of total percentages of schools that operated extended learning
programs indicated that 93% of programs offered were during after school time. During
after school hours 97% (31) of large schools, 93% (42) of medium schools, and 89% (24)

53
of small schools operated a program. Summer programs were offered by 37% of schools.
Further inspection of schools offering summer programs indicated that 48% (13) were
small, 29% (13) were medium, and 38% (12) were large schools. Weekend programs
were only utilized by 14% of schools. Results by school size indicated that 11% (3) of
small, 16% (7) of medium, and 13% (4) of large schools operated programs on weekends.
Programs offered before school hours were utilized by 12% of schools. Further
examination by school size indicated that 22% (6) of small schools offered before school
programs, while only 9% (4) of medium schools and 6% (2) of large schools offered
before school programs. School facilities were used by 100% of programs and
community locations were used by 7% of programs. All students are served in 37% of
programs, while 64% of programs served specific groups such as: migrant, ESOL, low
SES, or low academic students. Analysis of school size indicated that 48% (13) of small,
29% (13) of medium, and 36% (12) of large schools served all students. Specific
subgroups were served by 52% (14) of small schools. However, 71% (32) of medium
and 63% (20) of large schools served specific subgroups.

54
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Program Prevalence
Variable Frequency Percent
Time
Before 12 11.5
After 97 93.3
Weekend 14 13.5
Summer 38 36.5
Location
School Facilities 104 100
Community Facilities 7 6.7
Students Served
All Students 38 36.5
Other 66 63.5
A majority of schools (93%) offered extended learning programs during after
school hours; however, small schools tended to be the most diverse with 22% (6) of
schools offering before school programs and 48% (13) offering summer programs.
School facilities were the obvious choice with 100% of schools using their facilities to
operate a program. Almost half of small schools (48%) served all students, while

55
medium (71%) and large (63%) schools tended to focus on meeting the needs of specific
subgroups.
Research Question 2
size?
Responses to survey items 6 through 9 addressed how schools utilizing extended
learning programs compare in teacher quality, program focus, and program size. This
information is described in Table 3. Examination of total percentages of schools that
operated extended learning programs indicated that 100% of schools utilize certified
teachers to conduct their extended learning program. Paraprofessionals or support staff
were used by 50% of schools to serve students in their extended learning program.
Further inspection by school size indicated that 63% (17) of small, 47% (21) of medium,
and 44% (14) of large schools utilized paraprofessional or support staff. Community
volunteers were utilized by 10% of programs. Of schools utilizing community
volunteers, 19% (5) were small, 9% (4) were medium, and 3% (1) were large. Parents
were used by one medium-sized school. Student remediation was offered in 93% of
programs. Further examination by school size indicated that 93% (25) of small, 96% (43)
of medium, and 91% (29) of large schools offered student remediation as part of their
extended learning program. Enrichment activities were offered by 48% of programs.
While 48% (13) of small, 49% (22) of medium, and 47% (15) of large schools offered
enrichment activities. Homework was considered a focus in 33% of programs. Of

56
programs focused on homework, 41% (11) were small, 13% (13) were medium, and 33%
(10) were large. Programs ranging from 0-50 students were utilized by 21% of schools,
51-100 students by 51%, 101-150 students by 17%, 151-200 students by 5%, and more
than 200 students by 6% of schools. Programs ranging from 0-50 students consisted of
26% (7) small, 22% (10) medium, and 16% (5) large schools. Programs ranging from
51-100 consisted of 48% (13) small, 58% (26) medium, and 44% (14) large schools.
Results indicated that 15% (4) of small, 16% (7) of medium, and 16% (7) of large schools
utilized programs with 101-150 students. Programs with 151-200 students consisted of
4% (1) small, 2% (1) medium, and 9% (1) large. Of schools with programs larger than
200 students, 7% (2) were small, 2% (1) were medium, and 9% (3) were large. A school
administrator directed 50% of extended learning programs, while another member of the
school staff directed the other 50%. Further examination indicated that 59% (16) of
small, 56% (25) of medium, and 34% (11) of large schools utilized a school administrator
to direct their extended learning program, while 40% (11) of small, 44% (20) of medium,
and 66% (21) of large schools used another member of the school staff.

57
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Characteristics
Frequency Percent
Teacher Quality
Certified Teachers 104 100
Para-pros / Support Staff 52 50.0
Parents 1 1.0
Community Volunteers 10 9.6
Program Focus
Student Remediation 97 93.3
Homework 34 32.7
Enrichment Activities 50 48.1
Other 10 9.6
Program Size
0-50 Students 22 21.2
51-100 Students 53 51.0
101-150 Students 18 17.3
151-200 Students 5 4.8
More than 200 Students 6 5.8

58
Director
Administrator 52 50.0
Other Person 52 50.0
A comparison of results indicated that a high number of small schools (63%)
tended to use paraprofessionals or support staff. Small schools (19%) were more inclined
to use community volunteers in their programs. All schools tended to focus on
remediation and enrichment as key features of their extended learning program.
Interestingly, a higher percentage of small (41%) and large (31%) schools indicated
homework as a focus of their program. A majority of schools (51%) served between 51-
100 students; however, small schools (7%) and large schools (9%) had the greatest
number of programs serving more than 200 students. Further analysis of program
directors indicated that 66% (21) of large schools utilized someone other than the school
administrator as the program director.
Research Question 3
Responses to survey item 10 addressed how small, medium, and large schools
utilizing extended learning programs compare in structure of funding. This information
is described in Table 4. Examination of total percentages of schools that operated
extended learning programs indicated that 33% of schools were funded through local
monies, 65% of schools utilized federal funding, 4% of schools used private funding, and
18% of schools utilized other funding sources. Further examination by school size
indicated that 22% (6) of small, 22% (10) of medium, and 56% (18) of large schools

59
utilized local funding. Total percentages by school size indicated that 59% (16) of small,
69% (31) of medium, and 66% (21) of large schools used federal funding. Private funds
were utilized by 7% (2) of small schools, while only 2% (1) of medium and 3% (1) of
large schools used this form of funding. Results indicated that 30% (8) of small schools,
16% (7) of medium schools, and 13% (4) of large schools used other funding sources.
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for Structure of Funding
Source School Size %
Small Medium Large
Local 22.2 22.2 56.3
Federal 59.3 68.9 65.6
Private 7.4 2.2 3.1
Other 29.6 15.6 12.5
Analysis of funding structure indicated that federal funding (65%) was the
primary source of monies used by schools to support extended learning programs across
Georgia. Medium (69%) and large (66%) schools were able to secure a larger quantity
federal funding than small (59%) schools. Overwhelmingly, larger schools (56%) tended
to use more local funds to support their programs.
Research Question 4
Responses to survey items 11 and 12 addressed principal perceptions of the
benefits of Georgia public elementary school extended learning programs and reasons for

60
schools not utilizing a program. The results of the open-ended survey questions were
grouped according to theme. Meeting the academic needs of students, small group,
enrichment, mathematics, and increase learning time were the recurring themes
associated with principal responses. Of the 112 schools responding that utilized an
extended learning program, 83% cited meeting the academic needs of students as a
benefit of their program. Academic needs included remediation, tutoring, closing the
achievement gap, and improving test scores. One principal noted that the program
“provides students who need remediation an opportunity to close gaps in particular
content,” while another principal stated extended learning programs “provide additional
remediation for students that are struggling in their core academics.” Mathematics or
reading was considered a program focus by 19% of respondents. Extended learning
programs provide an opportunity to remediate students’ deficits in the areas of reading
and math,” noted a principal. Enrichment activities were considered a benefit by 15% of
respondents. One principal stated, “the extended learning program provides social
opportunities and exposure.” Principals cited small group (13%) and extended time with
students (11%) as a benefit of extended learning programs.
Of the 41 schools responding that did not utilize an extended learning program,
49% cited funding as the reason for their school not utilizing a program. An additional
7% of principals cited transportation issues as a factor in not utilizing an extended
learning program. One principal stated “our community struggles with transportation
needs,” while another noted, “if transportation was not offered, students would not
attend.” Of principals not utilizing an extended learning program, 37% did not indicate a
reason for not having a program.

61
Research Question 5
Null Hypothesis 5
There is no statistically significant difference in mean pass rates between schools
that implement extended learning programs and those that do not.
Research Question 6
Null Hypothesis 6
There is no statistically significant difference in the mean pass rates among small,
medium, and large schools.
A 2 (extended learning program implementation) X 3 (school size) ANOVA was
used to address Research questions 5 and 6. Effect size estimates were calculated using
partial eta squared (𝜂 𝜌
2
). Homogeneity of variance was assessed using Levene’s test,
which suggested samples met the criterion for the assumption of equal variances, F
(5,147) = 1.52, p = .18. I utilized the factorial ANOVA to analyze the interaction
between extended learning program status and school size. Results indicated a non-

62
significant interaction effect between extended learning program status and school size
on third-grade mathematics CRCT scores, F (2,147) = 0.61, p = .54, 𝜂 𝜌
2
= .01. No
statistical significance was found for the effect of extended learning program status and
mean third-grade mathematics CRCT pass percent, F (1,147) = 0.01, p = .92, 𝜂 𝜌
2
< .001.
Finally, the factorial also allowed me to examine the effect of school size on mean
third-grade mathematics CRCT pass percent. Results indicated there was a non-
significant main effect of school size on mean third-grade mathematics CRCT scores, F
(2,147) = 1.08, p = 0.34, 𝜂 𝜌
2
= .01. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the mean
pass rate of schools utilizing a program with those that did not and compare the mean
pass rate based on school size. This information can be found in Table 5. Further
examination indicated that mean pass rate was similar based on school size.
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics for School Size and Program Status
Program Status School Size
Small Medium Large
M SD M SD M SD
Program 78.1 17.1 78.7 14.6 79.96 12.1
No Program 73.7 15.7 80.1 18.1 83.5 6.6
Summary
This chapter reported procedures and results of this study. Data analysis and
discussion of outcomes were proposed for each research question. Research Questions 1
and 2 used descriptive statistics and cross-tabulation to determine how extended learning
programs were utilized and how schools that utilize extended learning programs compare

63
on teacher quality, program focus, and program size. Findings of this study indicated that
small, medium, and large schools utilizing an extended learning program were mostly
similar in teacher quality, program focus, and program size. The only differences found
were a majority of large schools (66%) utilized non-administrative personnel as program
directors.
Research Question 3 investigated how small, medium, and large schools compare
in structure of funding for extended learning programs. Findings of this study indicated
that small, medium, and large schools utilizing an extended learning program were
similar in structure of funding. The only major difference was the use of local funds by
large (56%), medium (22%), and small (22%) schools. Research Question 4 investigated
principal perceptions of the benefits of extended learning programs. Meeting the
academic needs of students was cited as a benefit by a majority (83%) of principals
utilizing an extended learning program. Of schools not utilizing an extended learning
program, 49% cited funding as the reason for not conducting a program.
Research Question 5 investigated mean third-grade mathematics pass rates
between schools that utilized an extended learning program and those that do not, while
Research Question 6, compared the mean pass rate between small, medium, and large
schools that utilized an extended learning program. Results indicated no significant
difference in pass rates was found for either main effect.
Conclusions, implications of the findings, limitations, and recommendations for
future research are discussed in Chapter 5. Following Chapter 5 is a list of references and
appendices.

64
Chapter V
DISCUSSION
Introduction
Educational reform and the role of the federal government plays in education has
been a topic of conversation for many years. In the early 1980s, A Nation at Risk brought
education to the forefront by identifying problems within public education (U.S.
Department of Education, 1983). The findings of A Nation at Risk altered the way
students were taught (Hunt, 1996). These changes were overshadowed by the
implementation of NCLB in the early 2000s by changing school accountability through
standardized testing (No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 2002; U.S. Department
of Education, 2002b). Recently, Common Core Curriculum has become the newest effort
to reform education and increase student achievement (Mathis, 2010).
Although our nation serves as a leader throughout the world, the United States no
longer thrives as the dominant educational superpower (Hanushek, 2012). In 2011,
President Obama stated that education has now become essential for future success
(Obama, 2011, May 27). The increased focus on improving student achievement and the
importance of education for a child’s future has left schools searching for new ways to
improve education.

65
One approach for improving student success at the federal, state, and local level
has been with extended learning programs (Afterschool Alliance, 2014a; U.S.
Department of Education, 2012). Under NCLB, a renewed focus was placed on out-of-
school time as a means for improving academic achievement (Chatterji et al., 2006;
Penuel & McGhee, 2010). These programs offer high quality education through a variety
of activities during after school hours and are designed to meet the needs of students in
the local community (Thirteen, 2015). Extended learning programs can provide
academic assistance and enrichment, improve social skills, provide a safe learning
environment, and reduce school absences and behavior problems (Afterschool Alliance &
MetLife Foundation, 2011; Harris et al., 2011; Lauver, 2004, July; Malone, 2007; U.S.
Department of Education, 2002a).
Extended learning programs began with the simple intention of providing a safe
place for children (Halpern, 2002). Although many early programs were developed with
a religious mindset, over time the programs developed academic expectations. The role
of extended learning programs evolved due to several factors: (a) changes in workforce,
(b) neighborhood changes and self-care of children, and (c) social and political influences
(Halpern, 2002; Mahoney, 2009; Schwendiman, 1999; Seppanen, 1993).
As the need for child labor decreased in the late 1800s due to the emergence of an
urban society and the introduction of compulsory education laws, extended learning
programs were created for children during after school hours (Halpern, 2002; Katz, 1976;
Mahoney, 2009). Many of the first extended learning programs were run by charities to
provide childcare for immigrant families and a safe environment for troubled youth
(Seligson, 1983; Seppanen, 1993). Education became a priority among parents and many

66
required children to attend school through the eighth grade (Halpern, 2002; Katz, 1976).
In the 1920s and 30s, professionals in education established new policies and pushed a
new progressive stance to education (Seppanen, 1993). Extended learning programs
began to expand beyond basic childcare to providing educational opportunities outside
the regular school day (Halpern, 2002).
As rural families began migrating towards urban areas, seeking a better way of
life, many women began entering the workforce creating a need for afterschool care
(Mahoney, 2009). An increase in single-parent homes and mothers entering the
workforce led to a lack of supervision for children known as latchkey kids (Halpern,
2002; Mahoney, 2009; Seppanen, 1993). The migration of families to urban areas led to
overcrowding as children were forced to find new places to gather and socialize (Halpern,
2002). As children used the streets as an escape for the tight living quarters, the increase
in automobile use created a dangerous situation (Halpern, 2002).
The Afterschool Alliance (2009b) indicated that over 15 million children are
without adult supervision during afterschool hours. In Georgia, almost 450,00 children
are unsupervised each day after school (Afterschool Alliance, 2009a). The U.S.
Department of Justice stated that juvenile crime peaks during non-school hours (Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2010). The lack of adult supervision
creates an increase risk for children to be involved in substance abuse, gang activity, and
other illegal activities (Afterschool Alliance, 2009b).
The role of government in education has been a debated topic for many years
(Mahoney, 2009). During the Great Depression, the federal government helped create
jobs by funding extended learning programs (Schwendiman, 1999). As the United States

67
entered World War II, the government once again increased funding for extended
learning programs because of the number of women entering the workforce
(Schwendiman, 1999). Seppanen (1993) reported that close to 95% (over 3000) of all
extended learning programs were funded by the federal government during World War II.
The Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1971 could have provided the right
to quality childcare for all children from all socioeconomic backgrounds. Unfortunately,
the legislation was vetoed by President Nixon (Mahoney, 2009). Childcare remained a
political topic through the 1980s, however no major increases to funding were established
(Mahoney, 2009). In the 1990s, schools began using extended learning programs as a
method for improving student achievement (Mahoney, 2009). The 21st CCLC legislation
initiated by President Clinton, later reauthorized by President Bush under NCLB,
established funding for extended learning programs to be used as a tool for improving
education (Mahoney, 2009).
The National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) sought to assess
the quality of education in the United States (U.S. Department of Education, 1983). The
results of the report, A Nation at Risk, received national attention and changed the focus
of education in America (Gardner, 1983). The report indicated that students did not
possess higher order thinking skills and changed the focus from the quantity of courses
students took to the quality of the curriculum taught (U.S. Department of Education,
1998). The report suggested a more effective use of class time, increasing the school day,
or extending the school year would increase student achievement. The commission
further recommended that educators and elected officials be held responsible for

68
providing leadership in education and the fiscal support necessary to improve education
(U.S. Department of Education, 1983).
The Even Start Family Literacy program established in 1998, provided grants to
support family literacy projects for low-income families (U.S. Department of Education,
2014). The program, developed as an attempt to break the cycle of poverty and illiteracy,
provided funding to private and public entities to improve literacy skills in adults and
children in low-income families (Iowa Department of Education, 2014; St. Pierre et al.,
1996; U.S. Department of Education, 2014). By including adults, the program sought to
empower parents to become active stakeholders in their child’s education (U.S.
Goals 2000: The Educate America was signed into law under President Clinton as
a way to combat the mediocrity towards education in the United States (Heise, 1994).
The eight standards developed under this legislation were to be met by the year 2000 and
encouraged a commitment from states and local communities to improve education
(National Center for Home Education, 2014, September; U.S. Department of Education,
1998). President Clinton recognized our students were lagging behind students of other
countries and initiated Goals 2000 as a way to create a renewed focus towards education
reform (Heise, 1994). The ambitious goals set forth in the legislation became a catalyst
for educational reform at the local, state, and federal level (Campbell, 2003).
The No Child Left Behind Act was developed to strengthen the objectives set forth
by Goals 2000 through assessments and school accountability (Kress et al., 2011). The
2001 legislation was signed into law by President George W. Bush and is regarded as one
of the most significant pieces of educational legislation in generations (Illinois State

69
Board of Education, n.d.). The notation that every child can learn drew overwhelming
support from across the country for the legislation (Florida Department of Education,
2015). Under the NCLB, schools were required to annually report test scores so parents
could make the best possible choices regarding their child’s education (Aske et al., 2013).
The data-driven approach to educational reform and school accountability, established
under NCLB, was developed to create competition among schools and theoretically
improve student achievement (Aske et al., 2013).
Extended learning programs have existed for many years and can be found in
many different forms (Chatterji et al., 2006). However, NCLB helped bring extended
learning programs to the forefront, through 21st CCLC, as a tool for meeting the
individual needs of learners and improving low-performing schools (Chatterji et al.,
2006). Extended learning programs can vary in focus, philosophy, structure of
programing, and when they are conducted (before, after, weekend, or summer) (Malone,
2007; Shumow, 2001). Some extended learning programs have seen increases in
academic achievement, while others have had on effect on increasing student
achievement (Dynarski et al., 2004).
Dynarski et al. (2004) conducted a 2-year study of 21st CCLC extended learning
programs, which found that elementary students’ reading test scores or grades were not
affected by program participation. The researchers found that students attending the
program felt safer during after school hours while attending a program and those parents
were more likely to attend school-sponsored events if their child participated in a
program. Vandell et al. (2007) found that regular participation in high-quality extended
learning programs can increase standardized test scores, improve work habits, and reduce

70
behavior problems among disadvantaged students. The researchers conducted a
longitudinal study of 35 high-quality extended learning programs and found that some
students increased their scores up to 20 percentile points on standardized math tests. A 2-
year study of the Communities Organizing Resources of Advanced Learning (CORAL)
found that program participation improved students attitudes towards reading and
increased standardized test scores (Arbreton et al., 2008). In a 2-year study of the
AfterZone extended learning program, researchers saw no improvements in student
school attendance and only slight improvements in math grades when compared to
students that did not attend the program (Kauh, 2011). The Massachusetts After-School
Research Study (MARS) conducted a study of 78 extended learning programs comparing
program features and youth outcomes (B. M. Miller, 2005). The study indicated that staff
background and training are keys to program quality. The study also indicated that high
quality programs where found to have a low student to teacher ratio. However, the study
indicated that many extended learning programs lack rigorous activities that provide
long-term student engagement.
Purpose
The importance of education continues to grow and some students need extra time
and help beyond the regular school day (Afterschool Alliance, 2014a). According to
Soehner and Ryan (2011), principals play a fundamental role in creating a successful
school and ensuring student achievement. Principals and administrators are continually
searching for new ways to improve student success. Continued research could provide
valuable insight for the planning, implementation, and running of extended learning
programs. A study conducted throughout the state of Georgia could provide knowledge

71
to principals of the potential barriers that currently exist when implementing an extended
learning program.
medium, and large public elementary schools in Georgia. The researcher also sought to
identify principals’ perceptions of the benefits of extended learning programs. Some data
and literature does exist comparing the effects of extended learning programs on student
achievement, however this study provides valuable information, at the state level, relating
to the characteristics and benefits of extended learning programs in Georgia elementary
schools. This study compared third-grade mathematics CRCT mean pass rates, as
measured by the Georgia CRCT, between schools that implemented an extended learning
program and those that did not. The researcher sought to also compare this relationship
between small, medium, and large Georgia public elementary schools.
Overview of Study
Accessible public elementary principals serving third-grade students throughout
the state of Georgia were invited to respond to a 12-item researcher-created survey,
comprised of dichotomous, multiple response, and open-ended questions. In this study,
the researcher examined the prevalence of extended learning programs, characteristics of
extended learning programs, and structure of funding for extended learning programs in
small, medium, and large schools utilizing extended learning programs. The researcher
also examined principals’ perceptions of the benefits of extended learning programs. The
collected data, categorized based on extended learning program participation (yes/no) and
school size (small, medium, or large), were compared with third-grade mathematics

72
CRCT pass rates from the 2013-2014 school year for each school responding to the
survey. School size was determined using a method utilized by the Illinois Department
of Education. Schools in the top 25% of enrollment or greater than 760 students were
considered large, between 474 and 759 students or the middle 50% were considered
medium, and the lower 25% or less than 474 students considered small (Durflinger &
Haeffele, 2011).
The survey was disseminated to 459 accessible principals in school districts that
do not utilize a local IRB policy. Approximately 33% or 153 of the target population
completed the survey. Of the respondents, 112 (24%) utilized an extended learning
program, while 41 (9%) did not. Respondents were adequately represented by school
size based on the method used to determine school size, with 26% being small from
schools, 48% medium schools, and 26% represented large schools. Mean third-grade
mathematics CRCT pass rate data for this study were obtained from the Georgia
Department of Education (GADOE) school report card for the 2013-2014 school year.
The researcher, utilizing a causal-comparative research design, examined the
effects of extended learning program status on mean third-grade mathematics student
achievement. The 12-item survey consisted of two dichotomous that determined program
status. Eight multiple response questions were used to determine the prevalence,
characteristics, and structure of funding for schools utilizing extended learning programs.
Finally, two open-ended questions were used to investigate principals’ perceptions of the
benefits of extended learning programs.
The quantitative data were compiled and analyzed to determine if the mean
mathematics pass rate of schools utilizing an extended learning program was compared

73
with the mean mathematics pass rate of schools that did not utilize a program. Survey
data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to determine the percentage of small,
medium, and large schools that utilize an extended learning program. Descriptive
measures were also used to determine teacher quality, program focus, program size, and
structure of funding for schools utilizing an extended learning program. A (2 x 3)
factorial ANOVA was used to determine if there was a statistically significant difference,
at the 0.05 level, between the mean third-grade CRCT mathematics pass rate between
schools that implemented an extended learning program and those that do not. The
factorial ANOVA also compared school size and mean third-grade mathematics CRCT
pass rates, to determine if a statistically significance existed, at the 0.05 level. Effect size
estimates were computed for each factor using omega squared (2). Data collected from
the open-ended questions were analyzed and grouped according to theme to determine
any trends in the data.
Research Questions
The study was guided by six research questions:
Research Question 1
Research Question 2
size?
Research Question 3

74
Research Question 4
Research Question 5
Research Question 6
Summary of Findings
Research Question 1
Survey items three through five were used to address Research Question 1. The
purpose of the research question was to determine how schools utilize (time, location,
students served) extended learning programs. Descriptive statistics were used to
determine total percentages. Results indicated that 93% of schools offered programs
during after school time. This was followed by summer (37%), weekend (13%), and
before school (12%). A surprisingly lower number of extended learning programs are

75
offered during the summer even though a majority of parents indicate that the summer is
the hardest time to find productive activities for their children (Duffett & Johnson, 2004).
A national study conducted by the Afterschool Alliance (2012c) indicated that 44% of
extended learning programs offer services during holidays or intersession. The study
further noted that 35% of programs are offered during before school hours and 19% are
open on weekends. No studies were found comparing school size and extended learning
programs.
Large schools (97%) reported the highest degree of frequency (31) offering
programs during after school hours, while medium (93%) and small (89%) followed in
succession. Parsad and Lewis (2009) indicated that 56% of extended learning programs
were located on school property. Results from this study indicated that 37% of programs
were open to all students, while 64% of programs were only open to a specific subgroup
(i.e. migrant, ESOL, low socio-economic status, or low academic students). Afterschool
Alliance (2012c) reported that 68% of students participating in extended learning
programs qualify for free or reduced lunch, 16% of participants have special needs, and
14% are Limited English Proficient (ELP). Duffett and Johnson (2004) found that low-
income (67%) and minority (61%) are more likely to want their children to participate in
extended learning programs.
Research Question 2
size?

76
The purpose of Research Question 2 was to determine how small, medium, and
large schools compare on teacher quality, program focus, and program size. Responses
to survey items 6 through 9 were used to address this question. In assessing the
descriptive statistics, 100% of respondents operating an extended learning program
utilized certified teachers to serve students in their program, while 50% of schools used
paraprofessionals or support staff. Small schools (67%) utilized paraprofessionals or
support staff most often, while medium (47%) and large (44%) followed in succession.
Miller (2005) found that the use of certified teachers is an indicator of a high quality
extended learning program. Huang et al. (2011) in support of Miller stated that well
qualified staff members are needed to maintain the quality of an extended learning
program. Huang et al. (2011) found only 61% of programs utilized a certified staff
member, while 88% used paraprofessionals.
Nearly half of all schools offered enrichment programs. The Afterschool Alliance
(2012c) indicated that 85% of extended learning programs offer some form of non-
academic enrichment activity. Only one medium sized school indicated they used
parents for their program. Small (93%), medium (96%), and large (91%) schools offered
remediation services during their extended learning program. Of the 33% of programs
that focused on homework, 41% (11) were small, 13% (13) were medium, and 31% (10)
were large. Huang et al. (2011) found that a high percentage (92%) of extended learning
programs offered remediation services. The Afterschool Alliance (2012c) reported that
92% of extended learning programs offer remediation type activities.
Over half of schools in this study (51%) served between 51 and 100 students.
Examination of results indicated that a school administrator directs about 50% of

77
programs, while the other programs used another school staff member. Large schools
(66%) were most likely to use a non-administrator while small schools (59%) were most
likely to use an administrator to direct their program. Huang et al. (2011), found that
program directors (81%) are much more likely to employ a collaborative approach rather
than a top-down (13%) management style.
Research Question 3
The third research question was used to determine how the structure of funding
compares among small, medium, and large schools utilizing an extended learning
program. Total percentages gathered from survey item 10 indicated that 65% of all
schools utilized federal funding to support their program, followed by local funds (33%),
other funding sources (18%), and private funds (4%). Further analysis indicated that
56% (18) of large schools utilized local funds, while only 22% of small (6) and medium
(10) schools used local monies.
The volatility of today’s economic situation has created funding issues within
extended learning programs (Afterschool Alliance, 2012c). Parsad and Lewis (2009)
found that 46% of public elementary schools reported that their students attended fee-
based extended learning programs. Grossman, Lind, Hayes, McMaken, and Gersick
(2009) found that extended learning programs often relied on three to five sources of
funding with a balance of public and private sources. According to the Afterschool
Alliance (2014, May), the current funding for 21st CCLC’s in Georgia is just over 38
million dollars, however if fully funded Georgia would receive over 83 million dollars.

78
Lind, Relave, Deich, Grossman, and Gersick (2006) indicated that it costs between $449
and $7,000 per student to run an extended learning program. The study indicated that
cost is heavily dependent upon program characteristics and program scale.
Research Question 4
The purpose of Research Question 4 was to ascertain principal perceptions of the
benefits of extended learning programs. Results of survey items 11 and 12 were grouped
according to theme to determine trends in the data. Meeting the academic needs of
students was cited as a benefit by 83% of the 112 respondents that utilized an extended
learning program. Remediation, tutoring, closing the achievement gap, and improving
test scores were considered as student academic needs. Program focus of mathematics or
reading was considered a benefit by 19% of respondents. Huang et al. (2011) found that
81% of survey respondents indicated mathematics activities were incorporated in their
extended learning program. Enrichment activities were considered a benefit by 15% of
principals that utilized an extended learning program. Respondents also indicated that
small group (13%) and extended time with students (11%) were benefits of their
programs. Miller (2005) indicated that a low student to teacher ratio as an attribute of
high quality extended learning programs.
Of the 41 schools responding that did not utilize an extended learning program,
37% did not indicate a reason for not having a program. However, 49% of respondents
not utilizing a program cited funding as the greatest barrier preventing them from
conducting an extended learning program. An additional 7% of respondents cited

79
transportation as a factor that prevented them from utilizing an extended learning
program. Parsad and Lewis (2009) support principal claims of transportation being an
issue for extended learning programs and their study indicated that transportation was
found to be a major barrier to conducting an extended learning program.
Research Question 5
Research Question 6
The purpose of Research Question 5 was to determine if a statistically significant
difference in mean third-grade mathematics pass rate existed between schools that
implemented an extended learning program and those that did not. Research Question 6
attempted to compare the same mean third-grade mathematics CRCT pass rate in
determining if a statistically significant difference existed based upon school size (small,
medium, or large). A 2 (extended learning program implementation) X 3 (school size)
ANOVA was used to address Research Questions 5 and 6. Effect size estimates were
calculated using partial eta squared (𝜂 𝜌
2
). Homogeneity of variance was assessed using
Leven’s test which Levene’s suggested samples met the criteria for assumption of equal
variances, F (5,147) = 1.52, p = .18. Results indicated a non-significant interaction effect
between extended learning program status and school size on third-grade mathematics

80
CRCT scores, F (2,147) = 0.61, p = .54, 𝜂 𝜌
2
= .01. No statistical significance was found
between extended learning program status and mean third-grade mathematics CRCT pass
percent, F (1,147) = 0.01, p = .92, 𝜂 𝜌
2
< .001. Results also indicated there was a non-
significant main effect of school size on mean third-grade mathematics CRCT scores, F
(2,147) = 1.08, p = 0.34, 𝜂 𝜌
2
= .01. Descriptive statistics indicated that the mean pass
rate between schools that implemented a program (M = 78.83, SD = 14.55) and those that
did not (M = 79.10, SD = 15.94) were relatively close.
Extended learning program studies have produced mixed results. Dynarski et al.
(2004) found that extended learning programs did not improve test score or class grades
in mathematics or language arts. Huang et al. (2011) conducted a control group study
that indicated extended learning program participation had no effect on students’
academic achievement. However, studies conducted by Vandell et al. (2007) and
Arbreton et al. (2008) indicated that extended learning programs have a positive effect on
student academic achievement and can improve standardized mathematics test scores.
Conclusions
This research study was designed to determine and describe the prevalence,
medium, and large, public elementary schools in Georgia. The researcher utilized mean
third-grade mathematics CRCT pass percent to determine if program utilization or school
size had an effect on student achievement. The study also sought to determine principals’
perception of the benefits of extended learning programs.
Findings indicated, extended learning programs had no effect on mean third-grade
mathematics CRCT pass percent. Schools that conducted an extended learning program,

81
mean pass rate was not statistically significant from schools that did not utilize an
extended learning program. Huang et al. (2011) indicated that extended learning program
participation has no effect on improving standardized test scores. Dynarski et al. (2004)
concluded that students participating in extended learning programs did not improve
classroom grades in mathematics or language arts.
Responses from open-ended questions indicated that principals, conducting
extended learning programs, perceive these programs as beneficial to their students in
many ways. One principal stated that extended learning programs “provide students with
additional assistance in math and reading,” another principal noted their program is
“individualized to the needs of the students.” Many principals indicated that extended
learning programs provide students with small group learning opportunities, extra
instructional time, and enrichment opportunities. Principals not currently utilizing an
extended learning program overwhelmingly cited funding as their biggest constraint to
beginning a program. The findings of this study support previous studies in that funding
is a major issue for extended learning programs (Afterschool Alliance, 2012c, 2014,
May; Duffett & Johnson, 2004). According to the Afterschool Alliance (2014, May),
almost 450,000 more students in Georgia could be utilizing extended learning programs
if a program was available to them.
Extended learning programs exist throughout the country to meet the needs of
students and the communities in which they serve (Malone, 2007). These programs can
greatly vary in focus, philosophy, and structure of programming (Shumow, 2001).
Results of the study indicate that funding plays a major role in the ability of a school to
support an extended learning program. School systems often turn to federally funded

82
programs and grants to cover expenses. The need for funding can often come at the cost
of control. As with many government-funded projects, strict oversight and regulations
are attached. The federal government places strict stipulations on extended learning
programs, which can hinder a program from meeting the true needs of students.
Although many extended learning programs studies have indicated these
programs can increase academic achievement and reduce negative discipline behaviors
during the regular school day, others have indicated that extended learning programs had
no effect on student achievement (Dynarski et al., 2004). Results showed that
participation in extended learning does not raise academic achievement in mathematics.
However, principals indicated that extended learning programs provide positive benefits
to students by meeting individual academic needs. One principal stated that extended
learning programs “provide small group, individualized attention to students that need the
most help.” Responses of principals not currently utilizing a program suggest they would
like to use a program if certain barriers did not exist. One principal indicated that “lack
of funds” was the determining factor in not utilizing an extended learning program, and
another principal stated “we can’t afford to provide transportation for the children.”
Extended learning programs in Georgia elementary schools did not appear
fundamentally different than extended learning programs in other states, with regard to
the prevalence, characteristics, and structure of funding. Extended learning programs in
Georgia elementary schools were operated before school, after school, on weekends, and
during the summer. Studies comparing school size and extended learning utilization
were not found. Georgia programs were similar to other programs across the country, as
report by Parsad and Lewis (2009) and Dynarski et al. (2004), in that they provided

83
extended learning programs that provided enrichment activities, certified teachers,
transportation for students, and a safe environment during out of school time.
Like other research on the effects of extended learning time programs on student
achievement, the researcher found that extended learning programs in elementary schools
across Georgia have no significant effect on student mathematics achievement. In a
larger study involving eleven extended learning programs, Gao, Hallar, and Hartmann
(2014) found that students attending extended learning programs did not have increased
test scores when compared to students not attending a program. However, many other
studies have shown extended learning programs provide a means to improve student
achievement and behavior. Results from this study indicate that participation in an
extended learning program does not improve student achievement on standardized tests.
Many factors could account for extended learning programs across Georgia not positively
affecting student achievement. Huang and Dietel (2011) indicate that goal setting,
leadership experience, staff experience, program alignment, and continual evaluation are
key components of a high quality afterschool program. The researcher found that 50% of
principals are not directly in charge of their schools extended learning program. The lack
of direct oversight and leadership skills of the principal may have a direct effect on the
quality of the extended learning program and could account for a lack of improvement in
student achievement. Huang and Dietel (2011) found that leaders of high functioning
programs had many years of experience with extended learning programs. Another
factor influencing extended learning program success is a focus on improving lower
performing students. Results of this study indicated that many schools offer programs to
all students, however, a majority of programs cater to subgroups that do not perform as

84
well as their peers. Less than 37% of programs served all students, while about 64%
focused their program on a specific subgroup (migrant, low SES, ESOL, at risk, etc.). A
lack of improvement in standardized test scores by extended learning programs could be
directly related to the students they serve. These at risk students, which accounted for
about 64% of students served by programs responding to the survey, are generally
perceived as needing more academic support (Hynes & Sanders, 2010). Dynarski et al.
(2004) conducted a 2-year study that found extended learning programs had no
significant impact on subgroup test scores or classroom grades.
A primary implication of the study’s findings is that principals have a positive
perception of extended learning programs and feel that they provide positive academic
intervention for students. One principal indicated that his students received assistance
with homework and were provided enrichment opportunities through an extended
learning program. Other principals discussed how extended learning programs provide
safe and supervised time during after school hours. As noted by The American
Association of School Administrators (2005), school leaders are essential to ensuring
extended learning program success. Huang and Dietel (2011) indicated that leadership
was a key component of high quality extended learning programs and leaders of these
programs articulate a clear mission, vision, and goals for the program. The positive
perceptions toward extended learning programs found in this study are an important trait
for ensuring program success. Diedrich, McElvain, and Kaufman (2005) indicated that
principal support helps determine extended learning program success. The findings of
this study are supported by Reisner, White, Russell, and Birmingham (2004), which
indicated that principals (66%) felt that extended learning programs provide students with

85
opportunities to improve basic skills and 95% of principals indicated programs provide
opportunities for students not available during the regular school day. Many principals
perceived that extended learning programs provided a benefit in the areas of math and
reading. Principals stated that student performance had increased in these subjects
through remediation, homework help, and small group instruction provided by an
extended learning program. Reisner et al. (2004) reported principals perceived students’
math (24%) and reading (23%) skills improved when participating in an extended
learning program. Although studies have shown mixed results pertaining to the
improvement of student standardized test scores, principals perceive that extended
learning programs provide benefits to students in many ways that are not measured
through by standardized tests. Principals are able to see the interworking of their
extended learning program on a daily basis. Although standardized test scores may not
show improvements, principals are able to recognize the daily improvements and benefits
that these types of programs can provide to meet the individual needs of students.
Another implication of the findings is that school size does not have an effect on
extended learning program status or student achievement. Although no studies were
found comparing school size, the results of this study did not find any differences in
prevalence of programs, program characteristics, and structure of funding based upon
school size. Principals planning to implement an extended learning program should
focus on the needs of their school and community rather than a particular program
characteristic.
Extended learning programs can be viewed as a powerful resource for principals
looking for ways to improve student achievement. The benefits of extended learning

86
programs may not be demonstrated through improvements in test scores. In this study,
the researcher found that extended learning programs had no significant effect on student
test scores; however, one should not conclude from that results alone that extended
learning programs do not affect mathematics achievement. Principals are on the front
lines of their school each day and those surveyed in this study indicated that these types
of programs are beneficial to their school. One must consider if program success is
solely determined by standardized test score improvement and if a few additional hours
of instructional time per week can affect student achievement.
Implications for Future Practice
Results from this study lead to the conclusion that principals perceive that
extended learning programs can provide benefits for elementary school students.
Principals felt that extended learning programs are providing positive benefits for
students through remediation services, homework help, enrichment activities, and many
other ways. Many other principals indicated they would like to offer a program if
funding and transportation barriers did not exist. Extended learning programs do provide
a safe time during non-school hours for students according to the principals surveyed in
this study. Considering no statistical significance was found between extended learning
program use and mean third-grade mathematics CRCT pass rates, schools utilizing a
program may need to consider the rigor of the program’s curriculum and ensure that the
curriculum is aligned with the regular school day. Extended learning programs should be
an expansion of the regular school day and activities should be adapted to meet the
individual needs of students by reinforcing concepts learned during the regular school
day. Planning and strong leadership accompanied with continual evaluation of the

87
program are essential keys to ensuring a program is successful. A continued focus on
elementary aged students and how we can best meet their needs can create a positive
affect on academic success for future generations of students.
Finally, principals, regardless of school size, planning to implement an extended
learning program should recognize funding as the greatest barrier to program
implementation. Miller (2005) indicated that utilizing certified teachers was an attribute
of high quality extended learning programs. Ensuring properly qualified personnel can
come at great financial cost. Although this study was unable to directly relate
transportation issues to funding, principals in areas that lack public transportation must be
aware of the need for transportation. This study provides a descriptive overview of
funding sources, program prevalence, students served, teacher quality, program size, and
program focus of extended learning programs in Georgia public elementary schools.
Principals, when preparing to implement an extended learning program, could use the
results of this study to inform decisions. The study gives principals an understanding of
the benefits associated with extended learning programs. Although no literature currently
exists, comparing extended learning programs and school size, this study provides insight
into how small, medium, and large schools utilize these programs. This unique
perspective gives principals an understanding of how comparative sized schools utilize
extended learning programs. Principals and other school administrators could use the
results of this study as a practical guide to understand the prevalence, program
characteristics, and structure of funding for extended learning programs throughout the
state of Georgia.

88
Limitations of the Study
The present study is not without several limitations worth noting. In this study,
the researcher was able to assess the effects of extended learning programs utilization on
student mathematics achievement, but the study does not account for possible reasons for
the outcomes. Quantitative designed studies require a large sample to provide statistical
validity and generalization to the population. The small response group may not
represent the opinion of the majority of principals throughout the state. The design of the
survey instrument that was used in the study is limited to the extent that results could be
applied to all public elementary extended learning programs in general. The types of
questions and topics addressed by the survey limited the extent to which results may be
applied to areas not covered by the study. Survey data collected through self-reporting
may be inaccurate due to participant error or lack of knowledge. The study was limited
to public elementary school principals in Georgia. In-depth data collection on the levels
of student achievement in the programs was not attempted. Therefore, participants’ level
of effort to progress academically could not be assessed. Schools often target lower
achieving students for placement in extended learning programs, this could account for
the lack of significant effect programs have on mathematics achievement. The researcher
did not examine the day-to-day operations of each individual extended learning program.
How a program operates and the leadership within the program could significantly
influence student achievement. Although principals perceive that extended learning
programs provide benefits to students, the researcher could not be certain that extended
learning programs increase student achievement.

89
Recommendations for Further Research
Additional research is recommended to better understand the impact of extended
learning programs on student achievement and provide a better understanding of the
variables that impact extended learning program success. Particularly, research into
specific program practices, criteria for student selection, student attendance in a program,
student expectations, and program alignment with the regular school day may provide
insight into how extended learning programs can best increase student achievement.
Expanded research in this area would help to determine what factors are most influential
for ensuring student success.
Future research could compare programs based on funding source. Many
programs are funded through 21st CCLC provided through federal funding. Due to
federal funding, these programs could have political influences affecting program
success, as compared to locally funded programs. Future research could also explore
extended learning programs in relation to community size and poverty to determine if a
relationship exists. A study of this nature could help provide principals with insight as to
what type of program would best fit their community.
Expanded research through a more comprehensive survey designed to collect
detailed data may help determine why most programs serve 51-100 students regardless of
school size, how students are selected for programs, or why schools do not utilize
weekend programs more often. A qualitative component could be added to determine the
attitudes and perspectives of students participating in an extended learning program.
Teacher and parent perceptions may also be factors in determining the success of an

90
extended learning program. Finally, a program evaluation of individual extended
learning programs could be conducted to compare students involved in a program with a
control group. Students could be compared to see if students utilizing the extended
program perform better on achievement tests.

91
REFERENCES
Adelman, N. E. (1996). The uses of time for teaching and learning. (Vol. I). Washington,
DC: Policy Studies Associates.
Afterschool Alliance. (2009a). Afterschool in Georgia. Retrieved from
http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/policyStateFacts.cfm?state_abbr=GA
Afterschool Alliance. (2009b). America after 3 PM: The most in-depth study of how
America's children spend their afternoons. Washington, DC: Author.
Afterschool Alliance. (2012a). 21st Century Community Learning Centers providing
afterschool supports to communitities nationwide. Retrieved from
http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/factsResearch/21stCCLC_Factshee
t.pdf
Afterschool Alliance. (2012b). Policy & action center. Retrieved from
http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/policy21stcclc.cfm
Afterschool Alliance. (2012c). Uncertain times: Afterschool programs are still
struggling in today's economy. Washington, DC: Author.
Afterschool Alliance. (2013). Afterschool essentials: Research and polling. Retrieved
from
http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/Essentials_and_Polling_2013_032713.pdf
Afterschool Alliance. (2014a). 21st century community learning centers. Retrieved from
http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/challenge2014/21stCCLCOvervie
w_FINAL.pdf

92
Afterschool Alliance. (2014b). America after 3PM: Afterschool programs in demand.
Washington, DC: Author.
Afterschool Alliance. (2014, May). Afterschool by the numbers in Georgia. from
http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/states_docs/pdfs/2014/Georgia_Fact_Sheet.
pdf
Afterschool Alliance, & MetLife Foundation. (2011). Aligning afterschool with the
regular school day: The perfect complement. (Issue Brief No. 50). Washington:
Author.
Allen, A., & Chavkin, N. F. (2004). New evidence that tutoring with community
volunteers can help middle school students improve their academic achievement.
School Community Journal, 14(2), 7-18.
Arbreton, A., Sheldon, J., Bradshaw, M., Goldsmith, J., Jucovy, L., & Pepper, S. (2008).
Advancing achievement: Findings from an independent evaluation of a major
after-school initiative. Los Angleles, CA: The James Irvine Foundation.
Aske, D. R., Connolly, L. S., & Corman, R. R. (2013). Accessibility or accountability?
The rhetoric and reality of no child left behind. Journal of Economics &
Economic Education Research, 14(3), 107-118.
Beckett, M., Borman, G., Capizzano, J., Parsley, D., Ross, S., Schirm, A., & Taylor, J.
(2009). Structuring out-of-school time to improve academic achievement: A
practice guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Black, A. R., Somers, M.-A., Doolittle, F., Unterman, R., & Grossman, J. B. (2009). The
evaluation of enhanced academic instruction in after-school programs: Final
report (NCEE 2009-4077). Jessup, MD: ED Pubs.

93
Caldwell, J. H., Huitt, W. G., & Graeber, A. O. (1982). Time spent in learning:
Implications from research. The Elementary School Journal, 82(5), 471-480.
Campbell, J. (2003). Goals 2000: A modest proposal for reform. Research for
Educational Reform, 8(2), 40-45.
Chatterji, M., Kwon, Y. A., & Sng, C. (2006). Gathering evidence on an after-school
supplemental instruction program: Design challenges and early findings in light of
NCLB. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(12), 1-47.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Quallitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Diedrich, K. C., McElvain, C. K., & Kaufman, S. (2005). Principals’ guide to effective
afterschool programs: Tools for school improvement. Retrieved from
http://www.nccap.net/media/pages/Beyond%20the%20Bell.pdf
Duffett, A., & Johnson, J. (2004). All Work and No Play? Listening to What Kids and
Parents Really Want from Out-of-school Time. New York, NY: Public Agenda.
Durflinger, N., & Haeffele, L. (2011). Illinois Public School District Consolidation: A
Tiered Approach. Normal, IL: Illinois State University.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school
programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and
adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3-4), 294-309.
Dynarski, M., James-Burdumy, S., Moore, M., Rosenburg, L., Deke, J., & Mansfield, W.
(2004). When schools stay open late: The national evaluation of the 21st century
community learning centers program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.

94
Education Week. (2004). Achievement gap. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/achievement-gap/
Fashola, O. S. (1998). Review of extended-day and after-school programs and their
effectiveness. (Research Report No. 24). Retrieved from:
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/report24.pdf.
Fleming, M. H. (2005). Two together after school: A literacy tutoring project. School
Community Journal, 15(1), 75-88.
Fletcher, A. J. (2004, May). Building exemplary after-school programs: Eight keys to
success. Retrieved from
http://www.greatsource.com/GreatSource/pdf/Afterschool_Article.pdf
Florida Department of Education. (2015). No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from
http://www.fldoe.org/nclb/
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2010). How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Gao, J., Hallar, B., & Hartmann, T. A. (2014). A snapshot of OST programs in
Philadelphia: An evaluation of eleven 21st Century Community Learning Center
grantees. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action.
Gardner, D. P., Larsen, Y. W., Baker, W., & Campbell, A. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office.
Georgia Afterschool Investment Council. (2007). The current state of afterschool in
Georgia: Building a strong foundation. Atlanta, GA: Author.

95
Georgia Department of Education. (2007). Georgia's testing program: Overview of test
development. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Department of Education Testing Division.
Georgia Department of Education. (2012). 2012 CRCT score interpretation guide.
Atlanta, GA: Author.
Georgia Department of Education. (2013). An assessment & accountability brief: 2013
CRCT validity and reliability. Atlanta, GA: Author.
Georgia Department of Education. (2014a). Free and reduced meal eligibility. Retrieved
from https://app3.doe.k12.ga.us/ows-bin/owa/fte_pack_frl001_public.entry_form
Georgia Department of Education. (2014b). FTE enrollment: Fiscal year 2014-3 data
report. Retieved from https://app3.doe.k12.ga.us/ows-
bin/owa/fte_pack_enrollgrade.entry_form.
Georgia Department of Education. (2014c). What is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)?
Retrieved from http://www.gadoe.org/AYP/Pages/AYP-FAQ.aspx
Georgia Department of Education. (n.d.). Criterion-Referenced Competency Test
(CRCT). Retrieved from http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/Curriculum-Instruction-and-
Assessment/Assessment/Pages/CRCT.aspx
Georgia School Council Institure. (2004, July). Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
Retrieved from http://www.georgiaeducation.org/topics/handouts/Adequate-
Yearly-Progress.pdf
Grossman, J. B., Lind, C., Hayes, C., McMaken, J., & Gersick, A. (2009). The Cost of
Quality out-of-school-time Programs. New York, NY: Public/Private Ventures.

96
Halpern, R. (2002). A different kind of child development institution: The history of
afterschool programs for low-income children. Teachers College Record, 104(2),
178-211.
Halpern, R., Deich, S., & Cohen, C. (2000). Financing after-school programs. Retrieved
from
http://www.financeproject.org/Publications/financing_afterschool_programs.htm
Hanushek, E. A., Peterson, P. E., & Woessmann, L. (2012). Achievement growth:
International and U.S. state trends in student performance. Boston, MA: Harvard
Program on Education Policy and Governance.
Harris, E., Malone, H., & Sunnanon, T. (2011). Out-of-school time programs in rural
areas (Research Update, No. 6). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research
Project.
Heise, M. M. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America act: The federalization and
legalization of educational policy. Fordham Law Review, 63(345-381).
Huang, D., & Dietel, R. (2011). Making Afterschool Programs Better. Loas Angeles, CA:
University of California.
Huang, D., La-Torre, D., Harven, A., Huber, L. P., Jiang, L., Leon, S., & Oh, C. (2008).
Identification of key indicators of quality in afterschool programs (CRESST
Report 748). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and Student Testing.
Huang, D., Silver, D., Cheung, M., Duong, N., Gualpa, A., Hodson, C., . . . Vazquez, V.
(2011). Independent statewide evaluation of after school programs: ASES and

97
21st CCLC year 2 annual report (CRESST Report 789). Los Angeles, CA:
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Huang, D., & Wang, J. (2012). Independent statewide evaluation of ASES and 21st
CCLC after school programs. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing
Hunt, S. L., & Staton, A. Q. (1996). The communication of educational reform: "A
Nation at Risk.” Communication Education, 45(4), 271-292.
Hynes, K., & Sanders, F. (2010). The changing landscap of afterschool programs., from
http://www.niost.org/pdf/afterschoolmatters/asm_2010_12_fall/asm_2010_12_fal
l-3.pdf
Illinois State Board of Education. (n.d.). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from
http://www.isbe.net/nclb/htmls/highlights.htm
Iowa Department of Education. (2014). Even start family literacy programs. Retrieved
from https://www.educateiowa.gov/pk-12/early-childhood/even-start-family-
literacy-programs
Kartal, H. (2007). Investments for future:Early childhood development and education.
Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(1), 543-554.
Katz, M. S. (1976). A history of compulsory education laws. Retrieved from: Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED119389.pdf
Kauh, T. J. (2011). AfterZone: Outcomes for youth participating in providence's citywide
after-school system. New York, NY: Public/Private Ventures.

98
Kress, S., Zechmann, S., & Schmitten, J. M. (2011). When performance Matters: The
past, present, and future of consequential accountability in public education.
Harvard Journal on Legislation, 48(1), 185-234.
Lauver, S., Little, P. M., & Weiss, H. B. (2004, July). Moving beyond the barriers:
Attracting and sustaining youth participation in out-of-school time programs.
Retrieved from
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/afterschool/resources/issuebrief6.html
Leal, F. (2012, February 23). O.C. education chief: Students need more school., from
http://www.ocregister.com/news/school-341623-students-education.html
Learning Point Associates & Berkeley Policy Associates. (2006). South Carolina
extended learning time study: Final report. Chicago, IL: Author.
Lind, C., Relave, N., Deich, S., Grossman, J., & Gersick, A. (2006). The cost of out-of-
school-time programs: A review of the available evidence: The Wallace
Foundation.
Mahoney, J. L., Parente, M. E., & Zigler, E. F. (2009). Afterschool programs in America:
Origins, growth, popularity, and politics. Journal of Youth Development, 4(3), 25-
44.
Malone, H. J. (2007, 2007). The role of out-of-school time under No Child Left Behind,
Editorial. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, p. 25.
Mathis, W. J. (2004). NCLB: Failed schools or failed law? Educational Horizons, 82(2),
143-152.

99
Mathis, W. J. (2010). The “Common Core” standards initiative: An effective reform
tool. East Lansing, MI: The Great Lakes Center for Education Research &
Practice.
Miller, B. M. (2005). Pathways to success for youth: What counts in after-school
(Massachusetts After-School Research Study (MARS) report. Arlington, MA:
United Way of Massachusetts Bay.
Miller, R., & Gentry, M. (2010). Developing talents among high-potential students from
low-income families in an out-of-school enrichment program. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 21(4), 594-627.
National Center for Home Education. (2014, September). The history of goals 2000.
Retrieved from http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200209010.asp
New America Foundation. (2014, April 24). No Child Left Behind-Overview. Retrieved
from http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/no-child-left-behind-
overview
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C, Pub. L. No. 107-110 § 6319
(2002).
Obama, B. (2011, May 27). A letter from the President. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/publication_pg2.html#part2
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2010). Statistical briefing book.
Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/offenders/qa03301.asp
Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2009). After-school programs in public elementary schools.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

100
Penuel, W. R., & McGhee, R., Jr. (2010). 21st Century Community Learning Centers:
Descriptive Study of Program Practices. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Reisner, E. R., White, R. N., Russell, C. A., & Birmingham, J. (2004). Building quality,
scale and effectiveness in after-school programs: Summary report of the TASC
evaluation. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc.
Rothman, T., & Henderson, M. (2011). Do school-based tutoring programs significantly
improve student performance on standardized tests? RMLE Online: Research in
Middle Level Education, 34(6), 1-10.
Schwendiman, J., & Fager, J. (1999). After-school programs: Good for kids, good for
communities. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Seligson, M., Genser, A., Gannet, E., & Gray, W. (1983). School-age child care: A
policy report. Wellesley, MA: School-Age Child Care Project.
Seppanen, P. S., Love, J. M., DcVries, D. K., & Bernstein, L. (1993). National study of
before-and after-school programs. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corportaion.
Shumow, L. (2001). Academic effects of after-school programs. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/obama-administrations-education-reform-
plan-emphasizes-flexibility-resources-and
Soehner, D., & Ryan, T. (2011). The interdependence of principal school leadership and
student achievement. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 5(3), 274-288.
St. Pierre, R. G., Swartz, J. P., Murray, S., & Deck, D. (1996). Improving Family
Literacy: Findings from the National Even Start Evaluation. Cambridge, MA:
Abt. Associates Inc.

101
The After-School Corporation. (2014). Find funding for your program. Retrieved from
http://www.expandedschools.org/get-
started/funding?field_ages_served_tid%5B%5D=2&field_ages_served_tid%5B%
5D=3&field_purpose_tid%5B%5D=8&field_purpose_tid%5B%5D=33&field_pu
rpose_tid%5B%5D=34&field_purpose_tid%5B%5D=35&field_application_dead
line_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=&keys=#sthash.dgxu3BlK.dpbs
The American Association of School Administrators. (2005). Afterschool programs:
Bureaucratic barriers and strategies for success. School Goveranance &
Leadership, 6(1), 8-11.
The Wallace Foundation. (2014). Cost of Quality: Out-of-school time cost calculator.
Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/cost-of-quality/funding-
sources/Pages/default.aspx
Thirteen. (2015). Afterschool programs: From vision to reality. Retrieved from
http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/afterschool/exploration.html
U.S. Department of Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington: DC: Washington,
DC: The National commission on Excellence in Education.
U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate america act. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/sec102.html
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Goals 2000: Reforming education to improve
student achievement. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002a). NCLB Title IV. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg55.html

102
U.S. Department of Education. (2002b). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Part B - 21st Century Community Learning
Centers. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg55.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Obama administration's education reform plan
emphasizes flexibility, resources and accountability for results. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/obama-administrations-education-reform-
plan-emphasizes-flexibility-resources-and
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). 21st Century Community Learning Centers
analytic support for evaluation and program monitoring: An overview of the 21st
CCLC performance data: 2009-2010 (7 ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2011, May 27). A blueprint for reform: The
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/publicationtoc.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). 21st Century Community Learning Centers.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Even start family literacy program. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/evenstartformula/index.html
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development,
& Policy and Program Studies Sevice. (2010). 21st Century Community Learning
Centers descriptive study of program practices. Alexandria, VA: Author.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2014). OJJDP statistical briefing book. Retrieved from
http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/offenders/qa03301.asp

103
Vandell, D. L., Reisner, E. R., & Pierce, K. M. (2007). Outcomes linked to high-quality
afterschool programs: Longitudinal findings from the study of promising
afterschool programs. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc.
APPENDIX A:
Survey

104
Extended Learning Programs Survey
Question 1. Did your school operate an extended learning program during the 2013-2014
school year?
 Yes
 No
Question 2. My school's extended learning program is open to third-grade students.
 Yes
 No
Question 3. My school's extended learning program is open to:
 All students
 Select students (i.e. migrant, ESOL, low SES, etc.) Please list.
____________________
Question 4. My school operates an extended learning program: (Check all that apply)
 Before school
 After school
 On weekends
 During the summer
Question 5. My school operates an extended learning program utilizing: (Check all that
apply)
 School facilities
 Community facilities
 Other ____________________

105
Question 6. My school's extended learning program focuses on: (Check all that apply)
 Student remediation type activities
 Homework
 Enrichment activities
 Other ____________________
Question 7. The following serve as staff members in my school's extended learning
program: (Check all that apply)
 Certified teachers
 Para-pros or support staff
 Parents
 Community volunteers
Question 8. My school's extended learning program serves approximately:
 0-50 students
 51-100 students
 101-150 students
 151-200 students
 more than 200 students
Question 9. My school's extended learning program is directed by:
 Principal
 Assistant Principal
 Other person ____________________
Question 10. My school's extended learning program is funded through: (Check all that
apply)
 Local funds
 Federal funds
 Private funds
 Other ____________________
Question 11. As the principal, please describe the main benefits of the extended learning
program in your school. (i.e. utilized in an efficient manner, serves the needs of students
in your school, etc.)

106
Question 12. Please describe why your school does not utilize an extended learning
program.
APPENDIX B:
Survey Use Approval

107
From: <Byars>, Kim <kbyars@fjsped.org>
Date: Wednesday,July30, 2014 at 1:55 PM
To: Vincent Hamm <vince.hamm@echols.k12.ga.us>
Subject: Re: Ph.D. Dissertation
Hi Vince,
Yes, you have the correct person. Pleasesend me any questions you may
have. You are also welcome to usemy survey.
Best wishes!
Kim
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Hamm, Vince
<vince.hamm@echols.k12.ga.us>wrote:
Dr. Byars,
My name is Vince Hammand I am currently working toward my doctrate
degree at Valdosta State University in Valdosta, Georgia. I came across a
dissertation about after-schoolprograms in Illinois elementary schools
which I believe that you had written. I plan to conduct research about
after-schoolprograms and would like to havepermission to use your
dissertation survey. However, I would liketo makesure that I am
contacting the correctperson. If this is your dissertation and would allow
me to send a couple of simple questions I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks in advance,

108
Vince Hamm
--
Dr. Kimberly Byars
Director of SpecialEducation
FJSPED #801
APPENDIX C:
International Review Board
Approval Letter

110
APPENDIX D:
Participant Email

111
Dear Principal,
My name is Vincent Hamm and I am a doctoral student in the Department of
Curriculum, Leadership, and Technology at Valdosta State University, in Valdosta,
Georgia. I am in the process of completing my dissertation and request your help by
completing a short (12-question) survey pertaining to extended learning programs (after,
before, weekend, or summer school programs). The survey is designed to gain an
understanding of the prevalence, characteristics, structure of funding, and principal
perceptions of extended learning programs serving Georgia public elementary school
students.
I greatly appreciate you taking the time to complete the survey and helping me to
complete my research. If you have any questions regarding the survey or study, please
feel free to contact me at vmhamm@valdosta.edu.
Sincerely,
Vincent M. Hamm

112
APPENDIX E:
Participant Confidentiality Statement

113
Participant Confidentiality Statement
You are being asked to participate in a research project, identifying principal
perceptions of extended learning programs, being conducted by Vincent Hamm, a
graduate student at Valdosta State University. This survey is NOT anonymous. Your
email address will be used as an identifier for linkage to survey results for analysis. Your
results will not be published and are only collected by the researcher for school
identification. All survey results will be stored on a password-protected computer. Your
participation is voluntary. You may choose not to take the survey, to stop responding at
any time, or to skip any questions you do not want to answer. You must be at least 18
years of age to participate in this study. Completion of the survey serves as your
voluntary agreement to participate in this research project and certifies you are 18 or
older.
This short survey is designed to gain an understanding of the prevalence,
characteristics, structure of funding, and principal perceptions of extended learning
programs serving Georgia public elementary school students. Questions regarding the
purpose or procedures of the research should be directed to Vincent Hamm at 229-740-
1932 or vmhamm@valdosta.edu. This study has been exempted from Institutional
Review Board (IRB) review in accordance with Federal regulations. The IRB, a
university committee established by Federal law, is responsible for protecting the rights
and welfare of research participants. If you have concerns or questions about your rights
as a research participant, you may contact the IRB Administrator at 229-259-5045 or
irb@valdosta.edu.

Assessing the Benefits of Extended Learning Programs_Vincent_Hamm

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to Assessing the Benefits of Extended Learning Programs_Vincent_Hamm (20)

Assessing the Benefits of Extended Learning Programs_Vincent_Hamm