Transcript Document

Keeping Kids in School: An LA’s BEST Example
Denise Huang
American Educational Research Association
Annual Meeting
San Francisco, CA - April 7-11, 2006
UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies
National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and Student Testing
The Purposes of After School Program
• In the 80s, after school programs were available to
students at a much smaller scale
• The purpose is mainly to provide safety
• The opportunities for students to engage in
enrichment activities
• Develop healthy habits and citizenship
‹#›/28
No Child Left Behind Act (2002):
• An emphasis is placed on schools to improve
academic achievement, particularly for students at
risk
• Schools that are not performing well can use after
school programs as supplemental services to
improve student performance
• More funding becomes available, both from the
government and private sector
• For the last 3 years, the 21st Community Learning
Center is working with a budget of $1 billion
‹#›/28
LA’s BEST: Better Educated students
for Tomorrow
• Serving 23,000 students over 147 school sites
• Focus on developing the “whole” child
• Education, enrichment, & recreation
• Community resources
• Research-based curricula
‹#›/28
Summary of Findings: Academic Performance
• Overall LA’s BEST students either maintained or
improved their SAT-9 /CAT-6 or CST performances
• Pre-post analyses indicates that students improved
their school attendance after participating in LA’s
BEST
‹#›/28
Summary of Findings: Social Development
• concerns about safety
• conflict resolution
• academic self-efficacy
• study habits
• family involvement
• future aspirations
‹#›/28
Who Benefited Most :
• LEP students
• Female students
• Students who attended more regularly
• Students who scored low initially on attitudinal
surveys (self-efficacy, work habits, conflict
resolution skills)
• Students with low performance in test scores
‹#›/28
Purpose of this Study:
• Does participation in the LA’s BEST program have
an impact on former participants’ long-term
educational behaviors, such as staying in school?
• What is the minimum number of years of
participation in LA’s BEST needed to see an effect
on dropout rates?
• Does participation in the LA’s BEST program have
a varying effect on dropout rates for different gender,
language, income level, and ethnic groups?
‹#›/28
Significance of the Study
• 745,000 students enrolled in LAUSD, a third would
not graduate
• In 2003-2004 academic year only 66.4% LAUSD
students graduated vs. 79.3% of LA county rate and
85.3% of CBEDS
• Provide concrete evidences for the public/private
investment in ASP
• Filled a gap in the current literature
• Spark the interest for future long-term effect studies
to follow
‹#›/28
Data Source
• LAUSD longitudinal database
• LA’s BEST attendance record
• Four cohorts of LA’s BEST participants (6th
through 9th grade in 1998-1999)
• Three levels of participation examined: 1 year, 2
years, and 3+ years
‹#›/28
Sample
• All LA’s BEST students were included
• A stratified random sample of non-participants
matched on grade level, gender, ethnicity, and
standardized test scores
• Approximately 6000 participants and 6000 nonparticipants
‹#›/28
Statistical Approach
• Descriptive statistics to provide demographic
profiles
• Chi-square analysis
• Cox survival analysis to examine the effects of
participation, gender, ethnicity, low income status,
and LEP status
‹#›/28
Demographics
Total Sample
(n = 5,930)
Gender, Grade Level, and Ethnicity
LA’s BEST Participants
(n = 2,967 )
Non-participants
(n = 2,963)
Gender
Male
50.8%
50.7%
50.9%
Female
49.2%
49.3%
49.1%
6th grade
29.6%
29.6%
29.6%
7th grade
29.7%
29.7%
29.7%
8th grade
21.1%
21.2%
21.1%
9th grade
19.5%
19.5%
19.5%
Hispanic
75.5%
75.5%
75.6%
African American
20.2%
20.2%
20.2%
White
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
Asian/Pacific Islander
2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
Other
.4%
.5%
.4%
Free/Reduced Lunch
84.6%
84.6%
84.6%
39.0%
39.0%
39.0%
Grade level
Ethnicity
Language Indicator
LEP
‹#›/28
Results
• Chi square analysis indicate no difference for 1 year
of participation
• Statistical difference was found with 2 years of
participation with the 9th grade cohort in 1998
• Difference was strongest for the 3 years+
participants.
‹#›/28
Comparison of dropout rates for LA’s BEST vs
LAUSD non participants (3+ years)
60.0%
Percent Dropouts
50.0%
40.0%
LA's Best
LAUSD
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
98-99
99-00
00-01
01-02
Academic Year
‹#›/28
Results of Cox Analysis
• Male students, Hispanic students, and LEP students
were more likely to drop out
• Participation in LA’s BEST can significantly reduce
LAUSD students’ drop out rate
• This effect is compounded with intensity of
participation
• This effect is also significant with low-income
students
‹#›/28
Conclusion
• It appears that LA’s BEST has provided a supportive
structure for the kids to stay in school
• After school programs that focused on fostering
meaningful and substantive activities could lead to
positive social and academic development, thereby
increasing the likelihood of finishing high school
and future success.
‹#›/28
Next Steps
• Develop strategies to increase high participation and
attendance of afterschool programs
• Develop strategies to recruit the kids most in need
e.g. male, LEP students, low income students
• DOJ study to share more precise findings
‹#›/28