You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.

www.HFRP.org

The Harvard Family Research Project separated from the Harvard Graduate School of Education to become the Global Family Research Project as of January 1, 2017. It is no longer affiliated with Harvard University.

Terms of Use ▼


Program Description

Overview 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC)—Texas serves youth as part of a federal program aimed at creating or expanding the role of community learning centers for economically disadvantaged and at-risk youth. The centers are intended to complement the youth’s regular academic program during nonschool hours (e.g., after school, weekends, summer) by providing academic enrichment activities and other valuable services and activities (e.g., drug and violence prevention, character education, technology, art, music, recreation). The program also provides academic and enrichment activities targeted at youth’s adult family members and younger siblings and strives to help working parents by providing a safe, supervised environment for their children during nonschool hours.
Start Date July 2003 (Texas Education Agency first cohort grantees)
Scope state
Type after school, summer/vacation, before school, weekend, comprehensive services
Location urban, suburban, rural
Setting public school, private school, community-based organization, religious institution, private facility, recreation center
Participants preschool through high school students
Number of Sites/Grantees 32 grantees representing 136 21st CCLC sites in 2003–2004. Although districts and other entities can submit multiple grant applications, only five centers are allowed per grant, and individual campuses may only participate in one grant cycle; duplication across cycles is not allowed.
Number Served 35,154 youth in 2003–2004
Components Grants are given to schools and organizations that primarily will serve youth who attend schools with high concentrations of economically disadvantaged (e.g., Title I) students (at least 40% of the student body). Grantees are expected to provide tutorial services and academic enrichment activities designed to help youth meet local and state academic standards in subjects such as reading and math. The 21st CCLC programs also provide activities focusing on youth development, drug and violence prevention, technology education, art, music, recreation counseling, and character education to enhance the academic component of the program. In addition, 21st CCLCs offer opportunities for literacy and related educational development to families of participating youth (both youth’s parents and younger siblings). The 21st CCLC programs rely on both teaching staff, some of whom work with program participants during the regular school day, and on volunteers to effectively deliver the academic enrichment services offered by the programs.

Distinctive features of 21st CCLCs in Texas include (a) grantees are not allowed to offer field trips but may implement service learning and community service activities, and (b) project directors may not oversee more than five centers.
Funding Level $24.5 million in 2003–2004
Funding Sources U.S. Department of Education’s 21st Century Community Learning Centers program


Evaluation

Overview The Texas Education Agency (TEA) collected data from 21st CCLC grantees in Texas on program implementation and on participants’ academic outcomes during the 2003–2004 school year as part of requirements related to the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Evaluators Andrew Moellmer, Joseph Shields, and Sonia Castañeda, Texas Education Agency Office for Planning, Grants, and Evaluation
Evaluations Profiled 21st Century Community Learning Centers: Evaluation of Projects Funded for the 2003–04 School Year
Evaluations Planned The program will continue to be evaluated on an annual basis, and future reports will include longitudinal analyses and comparison groups.
Report Availability Texas Education Agency. (2004). 21st Century Community Learning Centers: Evaluation of projects funded for the 2003–04 school year. Austin, TX: Author.


Contacts

Evaluation Andrew Moellmer
The Texas Education Agency
William Travis Building
1701 N. Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
Tel: 512-463-9734
Email: andrew.moellmer@tea.state.tx.us
Program Geraldine Kidwell
21st Century Community Learning Centers
High School Completion and Student Support Programs
The Texas Education Agency
William Travis Building
1701 N. Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
Tel: 512-463-9068
Fax: 512-463-4584
Email: geraldine.kidwell@tea.state.tx.us
Profile Updated September 29, 2005

Evaluation: 21st Century Community Learning Centers: Evaluation of Projects Funded for the 2003–04 School Year



Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To examine the effect of program participation on youth’s academic performance.
Evaluation Design Quasi-Experimental and Non-Experimental: Evaluators collected data from grantees on youth participation in the programs overall and in specific program activities, as well as pretest/posttest outcome data in reading, math, and science. Gains in youth’s test scores were analyzed according to their differing levels of participation in the programs, as well as according to their participation in specific program activities (e.g., reading tutorials, science tutorials). Every grantee is required to submit data, and every grantee complied with this requirement.
Data Collection Methods Secondary Source/Data Review: Grantees submitted progress reports that reported data on the number and type of activities (e.g., academic, fine arts, sports) in which youth and family members (e.g., parents, younger siblings) participated (primarily for the spring 2004 semester); the number of program days that each youth attended during the program year; the percentage of available 21st CCLC reading, math, science, and social science tutorials in which youth participated; the number of community partnerships that centers maintained and added; and other information related to program content and structure.

Test/Assessments: Grantees provide data from preprogram and postprogram testing administered to youth participants in the subjects of reading, math, and science. These data were derived from a variety of instruments to assess student ability, including such tests as Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Plato, and the Stanford 9 and 10. In the fall, 2,013 youth participants were tested in reading, 1,559 were tested in math, and 390 were tested in science. In the spring, 7,954 youth participants were tested in reading, 7,031 were tested in math, and 1,627 were tested in science. All of the students tested in the fall had matched pretest/posttest data (i.e., all 2,013 in fall for reading, 1,559 in fall for math, etc.).
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected in the 2003–2004 school year.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation Academic content activities (reading/language arts, math, science, and social studies) accounted for nearly half of all activities (43%) in spring 2004. Fine arts and sports together accounted for another 29% of 21st CCLC activities.

Participation in a higher percentage of academic content activities was required of students overall during the spring term, as compared to enrichment content activities (e.g., fine arts). Nearly two thirds (63%) of math activities offered at Texas 21st CCLCs were required. Reading/language arts and social studies activities were fairly evenly split, with 56% and 47% of activities in these subject areas being required, respectively. Science comprised the lowest percentage (40%) of content activities that were required.

In the spring, approximately half (51%) of the reading/language arts activities were offered in an individual rather than group setting. A majority of activities in math (61%), science (69%), and social studies (72%) were offered only in a group setting.

In the spring, a substantially higher percentage of Limited English Proficiency (LEP)-related (80%), technology skills (67%), and mentoring (47%) activities were required of 21st CCLC youth, as compared to other enrichment content areas. Similarly, a higher percentage of LEP (43%) and technology skills (59%) activities were offered individually to youth, as compared to activities in other enrichment content areas. Approximately three fourths or more of the activities in these other areas were offered only in a group setting.

Literacy classes for parents and other adult family members were the most common family activities offered in the spring, accounting for more than one third (35%) of all family activities. GED preparation and technology classes (e.g., computer skills training) to improve employability/job skills each accounted for another 17% of all activities. The vast majority of 21st CCLC funded activities offered to adult family members were provided in a group setting. Only for technology classes were a substantial proportion of activities (45%) offered to adults individually. None of the adult family member activities were classified as required.

Few of the activities for younger sibling participants (preliteracy classes, story time, and child care) in the spring were classified as required (approximately 10% or fewer). Nearly one third (31%) of the preliteracy classes were offered individually, while only 17% of the child care activities and none of the story time activities were provided individually.

In the spring, slightly more than half (51.6%) of the 21st CCLCs offered activities to youth and their families 4 days per week on Mondays through Thursdays. Approximately a third (31%) offered activities 5 days per week on Mondays through Fridays. Another 11.9% offered activities 6 days per week, including Saturdays, with the remaining 5.6% offering activities on some other schedule.

In the spring, nearly two thirds (65%) of the centers provided activities for an average of 3 hours per day. Another 21% offered activities for only 2 hours per day on average, and 14% offered activities for 4 or 5 hours per day. Less than 1% offered activities for a single hour per day.

In the spring, 60% of the centers provided services for 11–15 hours per week, while 20% provided activities for 6–10 hours per week, another 18% for 16–20 hours per week, and less than 2% were in operation for 2–5 hours per week.
Parent/Community Involvement All parents and extended family members of students enrolled in campuses participating in the grant program were eligible to participate in center activities. Not all eligible adults were targeted by grantees for participation, however. Grantees established their own targets based on their estimation of the resources available to market the program within the community. Only 5% of fall youth participants and 7% of spring participants had one or more adult family members participating in 21st CCLC after school activities. There were 56,962 eligible adults in fall and 89,755 eligible adults in spring. In the fall, a total of 5,073 eligible adult family members were served by a 21st CCLC, and 8,188 were served in the spring. Across both semesters, approximately 9% of eligible adults participated. Grantees targeted 14,035 eligible adult family members for participation in 21st CCLC activities during the school year. Of these, 6,811 were actually served by the program (49% of the targeted number of family members). Approximately 14% of families (as opposed to individual adults) who were eligible to participate in 21st CCLC funded activities were actually served by 21st CCLCs during the year. A total of 5,416 families were served in the fall, and 7,801 were served during the spring.

The percentage of youth’s family members who participated in the fall and returned in the spring was high among both adult family members and young siblings. This was especially so among younger siblings, nearly three fourths of whom (73%) returned. Adult family members returned at a somewhat lower rate (66%).

In fall 2003, 242 new partners and collaborators (community-based organizations, nonprofit/for-profit organizations, faith-based groups) came on board to help the grantees to implement the 21st CCLC program, and 221 more joined in spring 2004. By the end of fall 2003, there were a total of 431 partners and collaborators across all sites. By the end of spring 2004, there were a total of 562 community partners and collaborators, a 30% increase over the course of the school year. Though these numbers would imply 652 community partners and collaborators by the end of spring 2004, evaluators note that some community partners and collaborators likely dropped out and some grantees may have miscalculated their numbers of partners.
Program Context/Infrastructure Over the duration of the 2003-2004 school year, there were a total of 2,029 meetings held by the 33 Texas 21st CCLC grantees to plan, coordinate, and implement the program, and nearly half (48%) of these meetings involved local staff and community-based partners working in collaboration to achieve the program’s goals. In addition, 48% of all meetings were for the purpose of coordinating and implementing the 21st CCLC academic-based supplemental learning time program. Of these latter 48%, the vast majority (96%) involved local and center staff.
Recruitment/Participation Over half of the youth participants were elementary school students enrolled in kindergarten through Grade 5 (56%), which is slightly higher than the 49% of all students statewide that fall within these grade levels. Approximately 39% of 21st CCLC youth were enrolled in middle school (Grades 6–8), and only a small percentage were enrolled in high school (5%). Statewide, middle school and high school students are approximately 23% and 28% of students, respectively.

Nearly three quarters (74%) of the youth who participated in the 21st CCLC program during the fall returned in the spring. Return rates tended to be highest among pre-K (91%) and elementary school students in Grades K–5 (78%–81% across these grades) and lowest among middle school students in Grades 6–8 (66%–69% across these grades). Within the small population of high school students served by the 21st CCLC program, return rates varied substantially by grade level: ninth grade (84%), tenth grade (65%), and eleventh grade (87%).

Approximately 66% of the youth enrolled in the program during the 2003–2004 school year were Hispanic, compared to 43% in Texas public schools as a whole. About a quarter of the youth were African American, which is higher than the percentage of African American youth in Texas public schools (14%). White youth accounted for only 6% of all 21st CCLC youth in the fall and 9% in the spring, which was much lower than the proportion of White students in the Texas public school system (40%).

Approximately 53% of fall participants and 52% of spring participants were female.

The overwhelming majority of youth participants were classified as economically disadvantaged (81% in the fall, 82% in the spring). A considerably lower percentage (52%) of Texas public school students generally were similarly classified.

Approximately one third (33%) of fall program participants were classified as LEP. A somewhat lower percentage of spring participants (28%) were similarly classified. These percentages are substantially higher than the percentage of LEP students in the Texas public school system (15%).

In fall 2003, approximately 30% (n = 22,909) of the eligible youth were served by a community learning center. The number of eligible youth was determined by grantees as the number of youth in their jurisdiction classified as at-risk (economically disadvantaged, LEP, etc.). A higher percentage of eligible youth (35%, n = 29,280) were served in spring 2004.

The total number of youth served during the 2003–2004 school year was 9% above the annual target that grantees set in their applications as the projected number of youth that they would serve over the course of the year.

Twenty-three percent of participants in the fall and 26% in the spring participated in 25% or less of available activities, 27% of participants in the fall and 21% in the spring participated in 26%–50% of available activities, 16% of participants in the fall and 20% in the spring participated in 51%–75% of activities, and 34% of participants in the fall and 34% in the spring participated in more than 75% of activities.

In total, 39% of participants attended 25% or less of available program days, 18% attended 26%–50% of program days, 12% attended 51%–75% of program days, and 31% attended more than 75% of program days.

Reading tutorials were the most attended tutorials among youth in both the fall and the spring, with 50% attending at least one each semester. Math tutorials were attended by a somewhat smaller percentage of youth, with 44% of youth in the fall and 48% of youth in the spring participating in at least one math tutorial. Participation in science tutorials was less common, with only 16% and 21% of fall and spring participants, respectively, attending a science tutorial.

In fall 2003, approximately 4 out of every 10 youth attended the majority (i.e., 51% or more) of available reading and math tutorials, while just over a quarter of the youth (28%) attended the majority of available science tutorials. In spring 2004, youth attended more tutorials on average than in the fall, with higher percentages of youth attending over 50% of available reading (46%), math (42%), and science (48%) tutorials. Approximately 56% attended a majority of available social studies tutorials (data available for spring only).

Grantee progress reports revealed that fall and spring youth attended an average of 10 and 14 days, respectively, when reading/language arts instruction was provided. The corresponding figures in other subjects were math for 10 and 12 days, science for 9 and 7 days, and social studies for 9 and 6 days. Among the areas of academic enrichment (data only available for the spring term), youth attended computer-based activities most often, with an average of 10 days of activities devoted to Learning Technology as a Tool to Accomplish Classroom Objectives, and 5 days of activities devoted to learning technology applications. Together, these comprised an average of 15 days where computer-based activities were attended by youth. Days when sports activities were provided were the second most popular, with youth attending an average of 10 days of such activities. Fine arts activities were also popular, with youth attending an average of 9 program days where such instruction was provided. Less common were youth development activities (5 days), language acquisition activities (4 days), parent/mentoring activities (3 days), community service activities (1 day), and service learning activities (1 day).

In the fall, average grades for all 21st CCLC participants were in the low B range, with average grades in the spring in the high B range.

More than three fourths (79%) of fall youth enrollees with at least one adult family member in the program participated in 75% or more of available activities, compared to just 36% of youth with no adult family members participating in the program. This difference was less pronounced among spring youth (57% vs. 32%). A comparison of the mean participation rate showed that youth with at least one adult family member participating in center activities participated in an average of 21% more activities than youth whose adult family members do not participate in the program. This difference was statistically significant (p < .01).
Staffing/Training The vast majority of teachers in the 21st CCLC program were certified in both fall 2003 (83%) and spring 2004 (79%).

In fall 2003, there were a total of 556 volunteers, 98 of whom (18%) were senior citizens. In spring 2004, a total of 861 volunteers were working at 21st CCLC programs, and 176 were senior citizens (20%).


Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic Less than half (46%) of youth who attended 25% or less of available tutorials showed improved reading ability at the end of the semester, compared to 64% of youth who attended more than 75% of reading tutorials. Conversely, 40% of participants who attended less than one quarter of the fall reading tutorials experienced a decline in their reading ability, as measured by pretests and posttests, compared to just 20% of youth who attended more than 75% of the reading tutorials. Similar results were observed for reading in the spring 2004 term. After controlling for demographic factors, youth who participated in 26%–50%, 51%–75%, and over 75% of available spring reading tutorials showed more increased reading ability than youth attending less than 25%. These relationships were all statistically significant (p < .05).

In the fall, 62% of the youth who attended more than 75% of the math tutorials improved their tested math abilities, compared to 41% of youth who attended 25% or less of the math tutorials. This trend was much less evident in the spring, where 50% of those youth attending one quarter or less of the math tutorials improved their tested math abilities versus 56% of the youth who attended more than 75% of the math tutorials. Similarly, in the fall, 45% of those who took less than 25% of math tutorials showed declines in math abilities, compared to 26% of those youth who attended 75% or more of the math tutorials. The corresponding figures in the spring were 39% and 43%, respectively. After controlling for demographic factors, youth who participated in 26%–50%, 51%–75%, and over 75% of available math tutorials were not significantly more likely to improve their math ability than youth attending less than 25%.

In the fall 2003 term, only 47% of those youth attending one quarter or less of the science tutorials improved their science abilities, compared to 76% of those attending at least three quarters of the science tutorials. This trend was much less evident in the spring, where 51% of those youth attending one quarter or less of the science tutorials improved their tested science abilities versus 59% of the youth who attended more than 75% of the science tutorials. Similarly, in the fall, 22% of those youth who attended 75% or more of the science tutorials showed declines in science abilities, compared to 46% of those who took less than 25% of science tutorials. The corresponding figures in the spring were 34% and 37%, respectively. After controlling for demographic factors, youth who participated in 26%–50% and 51%–75% of available science tutorials were more likely to improve their science ability than youth attending less than 25%. These relationships were all statistically significant (p < .05). Those who attended over 75% of available science tutorials showed no increase in the odds of improving their science abilities compared to those who attended less than 25%.

Youth who participated in a higher percentage of available activities had slightly higher average grades than youth who participated in fewer activities. For example, in the fall, youth participating in over 50% of available activities had an average grade value of a 6.6 (mid to high B), as compared to 6.3 (mid to low B) for youth participating in 25% or less of available activities. A similar trend was evident in the spring, though there were no significant overall differences between youth participating in over 50% of activities and less than 50% of activities. After controlling for demographic factors, those youth participating in 26%–50% and 76%–100% of available activities had significantly higher grades than those participating in 25% or fewer activities (p < .01).

Approximately one in five youth (21%) who participated in one fourth or less of the available 21st CCLC activities passed all of their classes in the fall semester, compared to 39% of youth who participated in more than three quarters of the available 21st CCLC activities. The corresponding percentages for spring were 26% and 29%, respectively. Youth who participated in at least half of the available 21st CCLC activities passed an average of 92% of their regular school day classes. Youth who participated in less than half of available 21st CCLC activities passed an average of 90% of their regular school day classes, a difference of two percentage points (p < .05). After controlling for demographic factors, those youth participating in 26%–50%, 51%–75%, and 76%–100% of available activities passed significantly more classes than those participating in 25% or fewer activities (p < .01).

Approximately half (48%) of youth who participated in three quarters or more of the available 21st CCLC activities missed 5 or fewer days of school during the fall semester, compared to 17% of youth who participated in less than one quarter of the available activities. The corresponding percentages for spring were 33% and 26%, respectively. Youth who participated in 50% or more of the available 21st CCLC activities were absent approximately 2 regular school days less in the spring term than youth who participated in less than 50% of the available 21st CCLC activities. This difference was statistically significant (p < .01). After controlling for demographic factors, those youth participating in 26%–50%, 51%–75%, and 75%–100% of available activities missed significantly fewer days of school than those participating in 25% or fewer activities (p < .01).

© 2016 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College
Published by Harvard Family Research Project