California Educational Research AssociationAnnual Meeting

CERA – Effective Teaching and LearningRancho Las Palmas, CA – December 4, 2008

Denise Huang, Deborah La Torre, Christine Oh

Behind the Scenes: Staffing at High Functioning Afterschool Programs

2 / 27

The National Partnership for Quality Afterschool Learning

• SEDL• National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing

(CRESST)• Mid-Continent Resources for Education and Learning (MCREL)• Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL)• SERVE• WGBH Educational Foundation• US Department of Education Office of Secondary and Elementary Education

3 / 27

Purpose

• To examine what works in high functioning programs and to provide models, tools, and assistance that 21st CCLC programs need so that they can offer high quality research-based academic content while attracting high levels of student participation.

4 / 27

Goals of the National Partnership for Quality Afterschool Learning

• The Partnership has five goals targeted at helping improve academic content, teaching, and training in afterschool programs.

5 / 27

Goal 1: Site Identification

Identify afterschool sites across the U.S. that are demonstrating exemplary or promising practices in:

reading math science arts technology homework help

6 / 27

Goals2. Validate afterschool success in these content areas

through site visitation and data analysis

3. Develop tools, models, expertise, and other assistance to increase the quality of afterschool sites across the United States

4. Provides Technical Assistance to state education agencies to build their TA capacity in assisting grantees in that process.

5. Partner with US Department of Education, the National Center for Community Education (NCCE), and state education agencies to provide training opportunities for afterschool sites in adopting high quality practices to increase student achievement and attract high levels of student participation.

7 / 27

Validation ModelIndicators Design & Process Immediate Outcome Expected Outcome

ContentAcademic

Design

ContentAcademic

Design

ProcessAfterschool

Program Implementatio

n

ProcessAfterschool

Program Implementatio

n

Academic Attitudes & Skills

Academic Attitudes & Skills

Engagement

Engagement

Linkage with

Standard

Research-based

InterviewObservati

on

Parent/Staff Perceived Change

Internal Program Structure

External Communication & Support

Student/Adult

Interaction

ParentRelationshi

ps Satisfaction

Structure Program Structure

Structure Program Structure

Linkage with

School

8 / 27

Staff Education

9 / 27

Staff Experience

Years Experience in Afterschool Instructors

Less than 1 year 13%

1 to 2 years 15%

3 to 5 years 41%

6 to 9 years 17%

10+ years 10%

Did not report 4%

10 / 27

Staff Participation in PD

• Over 50% reported program offered training over 4 times a year

• Only 10% of the staff participated in these trainings 2 or more times

• 58% to 78% indicated they never participated in PD offered by program

• 32% reported they rarely participated

• Technology had the highest participation rate (50% two or more times a year, 42% never)

11 / 27

Common Features of High Quality Programs

• Clear goals

• Aligned program structure and content to meet those goals

• Established relationship with the day school

• Curriculum in general reflect a linkage to Standards, some more obvious than others

• Most programs used research based strategies

• Maintain some form of evaluative structures

• staff members related well to the students

• Build rapport, maintain high expectations, keep students motivated and engaged

12 / 27

Research Questions

• What are the qualifications of the staff at high-quality afterschool programs?

• How are relationships characterized in high-quality afterschool programs?

• What is the role of professional development in high quality afterschool programs?

13 / 27

Study Sample

Criteria for site selection

Services elementary and or middle school students

21st CCLC grantee

Improvement in student achievement in reading and math for the school years 2005–2006 and 2006–2007 (data derived from PPICS or state achievement test data)

Afterschool program goals are met for the 2 years prior (2006 and 2007)

Geographically diverse (i.e., north, south, east, and west as well as urban and rural areas)

Diversity of grantee type (i.e., school district related and community-based organizations [CBO])

14 / 27

Resulting Sample

Four Programs

California

Florida

Texas

Indiana

15 / 27

Number of Participants

Programs

Number of ParticipantsProgram

Administrators Site-Level Staff ParentsIndiana 1 8 5

Florida 2 12 5

Texas 3 8 4

California 2 10 10

16 / 27

Methods

• Intruments were developed collaboratively with SEDL

• Including interview protocols for project directors, site coordinators, site instructors, and parents

• Qualitative analyses were performed using Atlas. Ti

• Coding were conducted , themes were extracted and analyzed using the constant comparison methods (Strauss & Corbin, 1990)

• Cross case analyses were then conducted by program

17 / 27

Program Background and Structure

Afterschool programs

Operation length

Student to staff ratio Urban/rural Program affiliation

California 3 years 20:1 Urban Community based organization

4 years 20:1

Florida 5 years 15:1 Urban/low density

School district

4 years 15:1

Indiana 5 years 15:1 Urban/low density

School district

3 years 10:1

Texas 4 years 20:1 Urban School district

4 years 20:1

18 / 27

Demographics of Student Population

ProgramNumber of students Grade levels Ethnicities

California 80–85 K–6 Mostly Latino/Hispanic

78 1–5 Mostly Latino/Hispanic

Florida 80–100 3–5 Mostly African American

80–150 2–5 Mostly African American

Indiana 129 1–5 Mostly Caucasian & African American; some Hispanic & Asian American

40–50 6–8 Mostly Caucasian, African American

Texas 160–180 K–4 Mostly Latino/Hispanic

150 6–8 Mostly Latino/Hispanic

19 / 27

Staff

Program Project director Site coordinator Instructor

California 2 3.6 4.8

Florida 4 2.75 2.6

Indiana 1 2 2.5

Texas 6 months 1.5 3.4

Mean Number of Years in Current Position at the Afterschool Program Site, by State.

20 / 27

Staff Recruitment

Structured Hiring process

• The application process was managed by the administration of the afterschool program, the school district, or County agency

• Application forms were completed online on the afterschool program’s website or a hard copy was submitted to the administrative offices of the afterschool program.

• Most staff members (i.e., program directors, site coordinators, and instructors) reported that the process included a background check and verifications of three to four references.

21 / 27

Hierarchal Review System

• Pool of applicants were first reviewed and narrowed by the Human Resources department of the program, then the project director, site coordinator, and day school principal

• The principals’ involvement in the hiring process for the site coordinators were highly valued and often required by the project directors

22 / 27

Recruiting Strategies

• Informal recruiting was done personally, either by another colleague who was also an afterschool instructor or by the principal of the school site

• Formal recruiting strategies consisted of an e-mail to the entire school faculty, notifying the day school administration, or posting the open job at the school site

• Program administrations preferred to recruit from the site’s day school teachers

23 / 27

Desired Qualifications

• Some of the minimum qualifications consisted of character or personality traits, work experiences, and education levels

• More than the educational background and prior professional experience of the instructors, management staff and parents desired a prior relationship of the afterschool instructor to the students

• Some program directors and site coordinators listed personality traits such as humble, friendly, responsible, energetic, and inquisitive to learning.

• Commonly voiced preferences were interest in the education field and dedication and passion in working with children,

• Many of the supervisors also prefer instructors who had classroom management skills.

24 / 27

Staff Retention

• All staff across the four afterschool programs consistently reported an intrinsic reason for working in their program

• The desire to “make a difference” in the lives of the students was a shared sentiment among the staff members

• Most of the staff reported that they planned to stay in the afterschool setting indefinitely, or as funding allowed

• Other more practical reasons: convenience, additional income, learning experiences

25 / 27

Incentives

• A majority of the interviewees stated that the pay offered was not an incentive, whether the pay was viewed as good or inadequate

• Site directors used career ladder, recognition, and positive working environment as additional incentives to retain staff

I. The Nature of RelationshipsA. Staff Relationships

1. Managerial and site-level staff relationships

-Project directors and afterschool staff:

“I consider it a friendship. And when I started in this position that was one of my fears…I didn’t want to come in and [have them] see me as a threat, or you know somebody who is just going to come in and tell you how to do everything. That’s not the way I wanted to be and that’s not the way it should be…”

2. Upper-Managerial Relations

-Project directors, site coordinators and principals

“I could pick up the phone [and talk to] any one of them today…We’re on the first name basis, where we’re very collegial. It could be just a , “How do you think we could do this better? Or they’ll call and ask, “Can we do this? Do you think I should do this? So I think it’s a two-way street. It’s not my way or the highway.”

B. Staff-Student Relationships

1. Afterschool managerial staff and student relationships

-project director, students, parents:

“When I go out to evening functions, I do sit with the parents, talk with the children. But as far as knowing the children on a first name basis—I’m thinking, do I actually know these children? I know their scores…data. I know their numbers. I know how each school…but I’m not [on the site] as much as I used to be.”

-site coordinators, students and parents:

“ I know every single student. I know them by name and I know all about them…We give lots of hugs and lots of praise. And I get little from notes from them, little pictures from them. They’re what make the difference. They’re why we’re here.”

“[Their relationship with the students is] professional. These are teachers and they stay in a teacher/ educator’s mode. Whereas with me, they are a little bit more relaxed. They know I’m not one of their regular teachers.”

2. Afterschool instructor and student relationships

C. Staff-parent relationships

“I was a little concerned about her algebra and I talked to her [afterschool instructor]. I called here, left a message, and he called me back within an hour and then we talked for about 20 minutes, so [the afterschool program staff are] very responsive. [The afterschool program is] like home to me, I have never felt uncomfortable. Every issue I’ve had has been addressed right then.”

II. Team Building Strategies

A. Building Teamwork

“Sometimes we’ll get together….like I said, we’re all pretty flexible and easy going…Let’s say a student is struggling with science, they’ll let me know. You know, “Can you go ahead and work on them with this?” We’ll get together and see what we can do for the child that will benefit them.”

B. Linkage with Day School, and Establishing Liaisons

“This year, I helped [the site coordinator] set up some expectations for behavior so that our expectation is with the day school is followed up and is consistent with the afterschool program. There were some issues where the rules of the day weren’t being enforced in the afternoon. So we kind of coordinated that and helped her facilitate a way to communicate with the parents so that the parents understood what the expectations were and what the consequences were from this…everyone is on the same page.”

C. Conflict Resolution

-w/ staff:

“Okay, we have steps…we have this process…It’s basically, “this is how I feel, this is what I feel that you did and this is what you said…” Then the other person responds with “okay, so what you’re saying is that you feel that I’ve been X and Y and Z,” whatever it may be and then that’s the time for, if the issue was with me, for them then to open up [and say] “okay my intentions weren’t like that but if that’s what happened because that’s what I’m hearing, I’m apologizing, I’m sorry” and so forth.”

-w parents:

“Well, I talk with the parent. Find out exactly what the situation was and what happened. Because a lot of times parents may get upset and they don’t really realize that, you know, there are procedures and policies that we have to follow, you know, not just in this school building, but we’re under corporation…So we just try to work with everybody to figure out, okay how can we resolve this problem? Was there a misunderstanding on your part? Was there a misunderstanding on the school’s part? How can we address this issue?”

36 / 27

Professional Development and TrainingContinual process including:

1.Preparing new employees

2.Identifying professional development needs

3.Providing professional development and training to existing employees

37 / 27

Preparing New Employees

• Two types of new employee orientation:

Program-level

Site-level

• Job specific preparation for:

Site coordinators

Instructors

38 / 27

Program-Level Orientation

• Primarily conducted by the human resources departments

• Primarily took place upon hiring

• Offered to all new program employees

• Focused on human resources issues

39 / 27

Site-Level Orientation

• Conducted by the site coordinators

• Took place upon hiring and/or the beginning of the school year

• Offered to most new site staff

• Focused on site information and procedures

40 / 27

Job Preparation for Site Coordinators

• Provided at three of the four afterschool programs

• Conducted by the program administrators

• Took place during the same time period as the program-level orientation

• Two programs provided site-level job preparation as well

• Focused on site management

41 / 27

Job Preparation for Instructors

• Provided at most of the afterschool sites

• Provided by the site coordinator and/or certified instructors

• Timing of the job preparation varied

• Two programs provided site-level job preparation as well

• Focused on working with students

42 / 27

Identifying Professional Development Needs

• Identify needs at two levels:

Program-level

Site-level

43 / 27

Program-Level Needs

• Focus on program-wide needs

• Determine what professional development and training to offer

• Data-based methods often combined with informal feedback

44 / 27

Site-Level Needs

• Focus on site needs

• Determine what professional development and training to have individual staff attend

• Informal conversations often combined with data-based methods

45 / 27

Professional Development for Existing Employees

• Formal professional development and training

Afterschool programs

School districts

External sources

• Informal opportunities

46 / 27

Professional Development offered by the Afterschool Programs

• Primary source of formal professional development and training

• Timing varied among the programs

• Mainly provided by the site coordinators and/or certified instructors

• Focus based on job position

47 / 27

Professional Development offered by the School Districts

• Primarily made available to certified instructors

• Focused on classroom management and programming

48 / 27

Professional Development offered by External Sources

• Primarily made available to site coordinators and their supervisors at the program-level

• Timing ranged from periodic to monthly

• Provided by national, state, and county organizations

• Focused on similar topics to the professional development offered by the afterschool programs and districts

49 / 27

Informal Professional Development

• Used to enhance day-to-day knowledge and experience

• Provided to:

Site coordinators at the program-level

Site staff at the site-level

• Mainly structured as staff meetings

latorre@cse.ucla.edu