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 ▼

Research Description

Overview and Components This research study examined lessons learned from the Museum Youth Initiative (MYI). MYI sought to strengthen California museums’ ability to educate youth during out-of-school hours by providing them with financial and technical support to implement creative strategies for after school programs. A primary intention of MYI was to give museums resources to better fulfill their roles as educational institutions by creating and implementing programs aimed at increasing youth academic achievement. Toward that end, a key premise of MYI was that museum programs must link to in-school curriculum.
Start Date 2000; initiative completed 2004 (museum programs were expected to continue with individual funding from other sources)
Scope state
Type after school, summer/vacation, weekend
Location urban, suburban, rural
Setting community-based organization (museums)
Participants elementary through high school students
Number of Sites/Grantees 10 museums (5 covered art, 5 covered natural history, 2 covered history, and 1 was a “children’s museum”; 2 served elementary students only, 3 served middle school students only, 2 served high school students only, 1 served elementary and middle school students, and 2 served middle and high school students)
Number Served 544 in 2002–2003; 466 in 2003–2004
Study Details The research study was based on interviews with practitioners and program directors, along with observations and assessments conducted during a 4-year evaluation of the program.

While program content and target population varied by museum, all worked with youth from low-income families and incorporated the following components: focus on academic achievement and youth development; youth inclusion in program planning and in advisory committees; formal relationships between museums and partner organizations in the community; emphasis on long-term, comprehensive programs for youth and families; and strategies to increase museum use by youth and families. In addition, each MYI grantee related its program to California school curriculum standards in one or more of the four California core academic areas (English/language arts, science, social studies, and math), and many were also tied to art curriculum standards, which was not a core academic area. The museums also worked with teachers and school administrators to relate programming to teachers’ in-class instruction.

Programs were based on the Youth Development Framework (YDF), a research-based roadmap developed by the Community Network for Youth Development to help identify desired long-term youth outcomes and the practices that need to be in place to achieve these outcomes (Community Network for Youth Development, 2001). The core YDF characteristics that MYI sought to promote included: an organizational mission and structure focused on youth and the capacity to integrate youth development concepts throughout the organization’s work; safe, accessible places where youth can investigate their interests and express themselves; youth engagement in program and activity planning; opportunities for long-term relationships with caring and skilled adults; and structured activities to provide hands-on, active learning.

Reference:
Community Network for Youth Development (2001). Youth development guide: Engaging young people in after-school programming. San Francisco, CA: Author.
Funding Level Irvine awarded each museum $100,000 per year for years 1 and 2 (2000–2001 and 2001–2002). In year 3 (2002–2003), the grant was reduced to $75,000 as a challenge to museums to raise the additional $25,000. In year 4 (2003–2004), the grant was further reduced to $50,000 and museums were expected to match this amount.
Funding Sources The James Irvine Foundation
Researchers The James Irvine Foundation
Research Profiled Museums After School: How Museums Are Reaching Kids, Partnering with Schools, and Making a Difference
Research Planned None.
Report Availability The James Irvine Foundation. (2005). Museums after School: How museums are reaching kids, partnering with schools, and making a difference. San Francisco: Author. Available at: www.irvine.org/publications/by_topic/youth.shtml


Contacts

Research Martha S. Campbell
Vice President for Programs
The James Irvine Foundation
575 Market Street, Suite 3400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel.: 415-777-2244
Fax: 415-777-0869
Email: mscampbell@irvine.org
Program Martha S. Campbell
Vice President for Programs
The James Irvine Foundation
575 Market Street, Suite 3400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel.: 415-777-2244
Fax: 415-777-0869
Email: mscampbell@irvine.org
Profile Updated October 3, 2006

Research Study: Museums After School: How Museums Are Reaching Kids, Partnering with Schools, and Making a Difference


Research Description

Research Purpose To focus on lessons learned by MYI museum leaders about doing after school work effectively.
Research Design Non-Experimental: Data were collected through 19 interviews with practitioners/leaders in the museum and education fields (both at museums participating in MYI as well as museums that were not participating in MYI), as well as observations and assessments made during a 4-year evaluation of MYI.
Data Collection Methods Document Review: Evaluation reports from the four years of MYI’s evaluation were reviewed to examine lessons learned from the initiative.

Interviews/Focus Groups: Practitioner interviews focused on topics emerging from MYI and perceptions of the program.
Data Collection Timeframe Interviews were conducted in 2004–2005. Evaluation data were collected from 2000 to 2004.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation There was considerable variation in the program length and offerings. Program hours per year among the MYI programs ranged from 70 to 265 in 2003–2004 with the average being 137 program hours offered per year.
Costs/Revenues Most museums succeeded in sustaining their programs during the full term of MYI through fundraising, but once Irvine funding ended, some museums decided to drop or scale back their after school programs. According to museum leaders, fundraising for intensive programs with high costs per youth was difficult.

Many of the MYI museums were committed to doing the fundraising necessary to sustain their programs. Some executives said they wished they had done more to diversify their funding sources earlier, including finding other donors to invest in the program and make it their own, as well as charging families small fees for participation at the outset.

Although most of the museums did not directly engage trustees in developing funding for future after school programming while the initiative was underway, the executives interviewed tended to be optimistic about the fundraising potential of after school programs. Many were encouraged by their successful efforts to raise the $50,000 in matching funds in year 4 of the initiative, accomplished by 8 of the museums.
Program Context/Infrastructure Following the end of initiative funding, 6 of the 10 MYI museums continued their programs without Irvine funding; 3 others may continue a portion of their programs.

Museum leaders reported that the main reasons they offered after school programs were to help kids learn, create connection to the community and build youth’s appreciation for museums, and grow as institutions.

Museum leaders struggled to define their after school programs’ learning role, focus, and target impact. Some focused on what to learn, emphasizing academic achievement as measured by grades, test scores, and specific knowledge, while others focused on how to learn, to help youth develop general academic skills and a love of learning. Many leaders indicated that they leaned toward informal learning as the most appropriate and feasible focus, and felt that museums were uniquely positioned to provide this type of learning. As one leader explained, “A lot of teacher feedback we received is that the most important coordination has to do with the other side of the report card—the whole social realm, speaking skills, confidence, all those qualities that make a well-rounded and healthy child.” Another colleague added, “Museums have a role in fulfilling some of these needs. We’re able to do this because we have a real-world setting rather than school classrooms.”

Museum leaders were asked about the institutional factors they considered key to success in after school programs. Their answers fell into two categories: “hard” ingredients, such as sufficient allocation of money, staff, space and time; and “soft” ingredients, such as staff skills, organizational culture, and community credibility and relationships. Although museum leaders acknowledged that programs could not get off the ground without a substantial commitment of hard resources, they tended to focus on the softer side when reflecting on factors key to success. Three ingredients emerged: (a) staff buy-in and commitment; (b) clarity about institutional benefit to sustain support and reach new audiences; and (c) adaptability in customizing programs to the particular circumstances of partner schools and student populations and in responding to changing players, incoming feedback on programs, and unanticipated needs expressed by youth, teachers, and parents.

According to interviews, using YDF as a guiding set of practices had a “profound impact on how MYI programs were delivered.” Participating museums found some YDF practices to be especially useful. One was the premium on youth involvement in program planning. According to one leader, “We’ve brought in the youth club as part of the museum family and try to integrate them in various activities. If students feel we’re a credible part of their life, we’ve won, because they realize that museums are a significant resource in their landscape.” Another YDF practice, using structured activities to provide hands-on, active learning, was widely used, yet many museums still did not provide direct connections to museums. According to one leader: “The closer you can get the kids to the actual resources of the museum—in most cases, that means the collections, the artifacts, the objects—the stronger a platform you build for success… One reason why it’s been difficult for museums to make this connection is that we’re so protective of our collections, and often for good reason.”
Program–School Linkages Museum leaders expressed a belief in what museums can add to youth’s education: “Museums are places of things. We can engage kids with a real object because there’s a story behind it, we’re doing research on it, and it can be used as a springboard to a real learning experience.”

MYI’s core principle of coordinating after school programs with classroom curricula proved to be vexing; museums found it difficult to align with state curriculum standards and to coordinate with teachers to complement in-class instruction. MYI museums developed several ways to realize this coordination. “It helped to have an advocate at the school site willing to share information about the curriculum with us so that our museum’s educators could apply it in a timely fashion,” said one leader. Staff at another site determined that they weren’t serving teachers and students as well as they could in tying programs with curriculum standards. “We’ve gone back and developed workshops, curricula, and high-quality objects in line with what the teacher needs.”

According to leaders interviewed and evaluators, several factors contributed to successful museum–school partnerships: a clear and common understanding from the outset about the partnership’s goals; an effective communication strategy; and teacher participation.
Recruitment/Participation MYI programs served predominantly minority children from low-income families. MYI programs served 466 students in its last year (2003–2004) of which 66% were students of color and over 80% of the students of color identifying as Latino. Nearly one third of MYI participants were elementary school students; two thirds of the youth were in middle school or high school. In addition, MYI participants tended to be youth who are at the highest risk for school failure, and thus MYI reached a target group most in need of extra academic support. In 2004, similar to previous years, 23% were educationally disadvantaged (this category includes Title I and Special Education students and students considered to have low academic performance).

Across program sites in 2003–2004, youth participated in the programs approximately 75% of the hours that the programs were offered. This ranged from 33% to 100% across individual sites.
Satisfaction All the museum leaders interviewed attested to the value of participating in the initiative.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic Improvements in GPA among participating students were of a relatively low magnitude in any one year and inconsistent across all years. A higher percentage of youth participants achieved an increase in their GPAs than the percentage that experienced no change or a decline in their GPAs at only three of the eight museums that reported GPAs.

Participants who had higher attendance rates and more exposure to MYI programs experienced better outcomes in terms of improved study skills and improved higher order thinking skills, according to teacher assessments.
Systemic According to interviews, as a result of MYI, all participating museums underwent substantial institutional changes, established new ties to their communities, and learned new ways of serving youth.

 

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