Luter, Lester, Kronick, 2014 AERA 2015 Paper – Accepted November 2014

1

Introduction

The varied ways that universities and schools collaborate has been well documented.

Usually these partnerships fall into six categories: (1) efforts to change curriculum or

instructional approaches in the classroom (Balfanz & McIver, 2000); (2) efforts to improve

school leadership, such as principal preparation or leadership development (Sanzo, Myran, &

Clayton, 2011); (3) teacher preparation and professional development (Causton-Theoharis,

Theoharis, Bull, Cosier, & Dempf-Aldrich, 2010; Holmes Group, 1986; Johnston, Wetherill,

High, & Greenebaum, 2002); (4) central office improvement (Honig & Ikemoto, 2008), (5)

research endeavors of interest to school systems (Ehrlich, Gwynne, Pareja, & Allensworth, 2014;

Preston, Goldring, Guthrie, & Ramsey, 2012); and (6) extended learning time (Luter, Lester, &

Kronick, 2013). A growing body of literature highlights the challenges experienced when

universities and schools collaborate (Higgins & Marickel, 1997; Kezar, 2007; Watson & Fullan,

1992). Goodlad pioneered the study of these partnerships based on his extensive experiences

actually doing the work (1993).

More recently, though, the university-school partnership literature has grown to include a

wider variety of partnerships, extending beyond the school and university walls and out into the

community (Kronick, Lester, & Luter, 2013). Further, the higher education civic engagement

movement advanced a compelling moral, ethical, practical, and economic case for universities to

catalyze community partnerships (Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2011; Stanton, 2008). One particular

strand of this literature proposed that universities (and other anchor institutions, see Taylor &

Luter, 2013) could catalyze simultaneous neighborhood transformation and school reform

partnerships. Some of this literature sought to empirically investigate the impact of these

partnerships on districts, schools, students, or community members (Patterson & Silverman,

Luter, Lester, Kronick, 2014 AERA 2015 Paper – Accepted November 2014

2

2013). However, no empirical studies have examined the experiences of children and families

involved in specific programs. In this paper, we present findings from a qualitative study

exploring both the experiences of parents and children who participated in a university-assisted

community schools (UACS) after-school project. We position this study at the intersection of

after-school research and university-school-community partnerships.

Purpose of the Study

The literature suggests that after-school programs can have a variety of impacts on

children (Auger, Pierce, & Vandell, 2013; Hall, Williams, & Daniel, 2010; Pierce, Auger &

Vandell, 2013). While most studies have focused on the general population of students, some

studies have examined after school’s impact on economically disadvantaged students and/or

students of color (Hall, Williams, & Daniel, 2010; Mahoney, Lord, & Carryl, 2005). No studies,

however, have examined how an after-school program operated by a university might affect

children and families.

The UACS intervention advanced by the University of Pennsylvania’s Barbara and

Edward Netter Center for Community Partnerships has been the subject of many theoretical and

practitioner-oriented publications (e.g. Harkavy, Hartley, Axelroth-Hodges, & Weeks, 2013).

However, to date, no publications have explored this intervention’s implementation and what

influence, if any, it has on children in schools. The dearth of empirical studies is because UACS

efforts fit the needs of a particular school in a particular place at a particular time (Lawson,

2013). It is, in other words, a complex process and product innovation designed to improve the

components of the schooling (and non-schooling) enterprise that are mutually agreed upon by the

school, university, and community stakeholders (Lawson, 2010).

Luter, Lester, Kronick, 2014 AERA 2015 Paper – Accepted November 2014

3

Situated within this body of literature, we sought to understand the students’ and parents’

perspectives on and experiences with a UACS after-school project located in the southeast region

of the US. The purpose of the study was two-fold: (1) to understand the experiences and

perceptions of youth and parents/caregivers about UACS after-school program; and (2) to

explore the initial influences of the UACS after-school program on families and youth.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework informing our research design and analysis was positive youth

development (PYD) (Weissberg & O’Brien, 2004), or core competencies that children should

acquire through school-based prevention programs. Since after-school programs have been

shown to improve PYD outcomes (Durlack, Weissberg, &, Pachan, 2010) we recognized that a

framework centered on the academic, social and emotional well-being of children was well

suited. Based on the University of Illinois-Chicago’s Collaborative for Academic, Social, and

Emotional Learning (CASEL), evidence-based social and emotional learning programs seek to

develop the following competencies: (1) self-awareness, (2) social awareness, (3) self-

management, (4) relationship skills, and (5) responsible decision-making (CASEL, 2003). These

five competencies informed our coding scheme and the way by which we interpreted the dataset.

Methods

Context of Study

This UACS after-school program started after a local businessman provided three years

of funding to a university education faculty member for an afterschool program. The faculty

member, who had been working with principals and local elementary schools for well over 10

years, collaborated with one elementary school principal who wanted to expand the services her

school was offering by developing an afterschool program embedded within a community school

Luter, Lester, Kronick, 2014 AERA 2015 Paper – Accepted November 2014

4

model. Together, they hired an afterschool coordinator, while also coordinating the involvement

of various university departments, community agencies, and volunteers. This Title I school

included grades K–5, with a total of 320 students. At the time of this study, the school had a 34%

mobility rate, and 90% of its students received free or reduced-fee lunch. Across the student

population, 23 different countries and 19 languages were represented.

Design

We employed qualitative case study methods (Yin, 2014) along with hybrid participant-

observation (Salway, Harriss, & Chowbey, 2010) to study the experiences of youth and parents

who participated in a UACS after-school program. We wanted to understand how youth and

adults made meaning of the after-school program through the interactions with staff—both day

school (employed by the public school system) and after-school staff (employed by the

university). This line of inquiry offers advantages in this case because students and parents

could individually reflect on what the after-school program meant to them and how it shaped

their life and school experiences.

Participant Description

We used a purposeful sample, which included 17 children and 12 parents. Of the 17

children, ten boys and seven girls were interviewed. Of those children, 76% (n=13/17) identified

as black, 12% identified as white (n=2/17), and 12% identified as Hispanic (n=2/17). Of the 12

parents, nine women and three men were interviewed. Of those parents, 42% (n=5/12) identified

as black, 42% identified as white (n=5/12), and 16% (n=2/12) identified as Hispanic.

Data Sources

This study relied on several sources of data: field notes, parent interviews, child focus

groups, and participant-observations. The interviews and focus groups occurred over five days

Luter, Lester, Kronick, 2014 AERA 2015 Paper – Accepted November 2014

5

in the last month of the school year. Child focus groups lasted, on average, twenty minutes,

while parent interviews lasted an average of ten minutes. Participant-observation sessions

occurred over the course of one week in the last month of the school year. On-going field notes

were taken by the supervising faculty member two times per month over the course of the school

year. The research team worked closely with the after-school program staff to extend invitations

to all parents and students to participate in data collection. Each of the participating researchers

was active in the program in previous years, which helped to gain access to the population under

investigation.

Data Analysis

We used an inductive approach to the analysis, conducting a thematic analysis (Saldaña,

2013). After transcribing the data, we engaged in multiple iterations of line-by-line coding,

working toward consensus on the coding scheme between researchers to enhance reliability

(DeCuir-Gunby, Marshall, & McCulloch, 2011). We used codes directly informed by the

theoretical framework, as well as descriptive and in-vivo coding (Saldaña, 2013). Next, given

the relationships between data sources, we developed categories and subcategories of codes. We

eventually developed abstract themes, which are briefly discussed next.

Initial Findings

1. “Different:” Two Worlds, One School—Students and parents indicated that the UACS

program was separate and distinct from the day school experience. In fact, the principal

even referred to students as “full service kids” because of the UACS program’s evolution

out of a full service community school model that operated in the school for three years

prior. After-school staff exhibited substantial amounts of autonomy over the program

structure, while remaining responsive to the school’s desire for academic enrichment.

Luter, Lester, Kronick, 2014 AERA 2015 Paper – Accepted November 2014

6

Some children said that the “regular school day is boring,” and they seemed excited when

the “really…really super-duper fun” after-school program introduced different forms of

enrichment such as circus, Chinese language instruction, and music. At times, children

seemed “bored” by the learning in the after-school program, but they saw it as teaching

“different stuff.” One student said, “I learn to be intelligent,” while another student

expressed it as “we just learn new things.” This finding suggests on one hand that the

UACS created a unique space in the school that could potentially engage students in

enhanced learning opportunities. On the other hand, it is possible that UACS program’s

“different” space could create divisions between the school and the program.

2. “We was the baddest kids ever:” UACS as a path for PYD: Over half of the students

and parents interviewed articulated that students improved their behavior, relationship

skills, and responsible decision-making skills. One particular component of the

university’s program, circus arts, was cited as a specific program that contributed to this

youth development. For example, in circus, one student recalled that he learned to do

meditation to “calm yourself and be quiet and breathe for a couple of minutes or so.”

Parents recognized these improvements, as well. One parent continued to say, “My ‘wild

child’ wouldn’t listen to no one…now he interacts with people. And you know he listens

to the staff …talks with people…plays with kids. He's changed.” Another parent simply

stated, “She’s more social.” Yet another parent claimed that “it just helped her become

more confident in herself.” One parent went further and claimed, “Change nothing

[about the program]…because what they doing is they...they [are] sowing the seed[s] into

them so they are going to be able to take to the fifth and the sixth grade…if it was 24

hours [all-day program], it would be great.” This finding suggests that the UACS after-

Luter, Lester, Kronick, 2014 AERA 2015 Paper – Accepted November 2014

7

school program could be a source of improved behavior and social/emotional learning for

participating children.

3. “Like a special volunteer:” Universities hiding in plain sight—Innovations for

community schools after-school programs—The UACS program includes a variety of

programs, including circus, Chinese language instruction, music, university students and

faculty tutoring, nightly family dinner, mental health groups, and adult GED classes. All

of these things can be found in the UACS program. Given the high levels of satisfaction

expressed by children and families, this study suggests that universities are well-

positioned to build and operate innovative after-school programming in collaboration

with individual schools. While some of these activities mentioned in interviews and

observed during field visits were not necessarily new (e.g. music, dinner, GED classes),

others were viewed as non-traditional (e.g. circus, Chinese instruction). However, the

university was mentioned only once across all interviews and focus groups. It was also

not mentioned during field work observations. One student referred to the faculty

member who operated the program “like a special volunteer…who owns the University

of [the Southeast].” This finding suggests that university staff operate programs in

schools become true insiders and therefore have enormous potential to impact student

learning and school operations.

Scholarly significance

There are three main reasons why this study is an important contribution to the literature.

First, the UACS intervention has never been empirically analyzed for its meanings to actively

involved individuals. This study is a step forward in understanding how students and parents

make sense of the UACS intervention. Second, this study gives voice to students and parents

Luter, Lester, Kronick, 2014 AERA 2015 Paper – Accepted November 2014

8

involved in a UACS program. While their voices are typically excluded, sharing these voices

means the scholarly community can acquire a deeper understanding of how students and parents

experience these program, moving beyond that which is typically measured (e.g. classroom

academic achievement, attendance, behavior, and standardized test scores). Finally, since the

community-school-university partnership literature is a burgeoning one, insights emerged about

how universities and schools collaboratively construct solutions to jointly-identified problems

both in the school and in the community.

Luter, Lester, Kronick, 2014 AERA 2015 Paper – Accepted November 2014

9

References

Auger, A., Piece, K., & Vandell, D. L. (2013, April). Participation in out-of-school settings and

student academic and behavioral outcomes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of

the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from

http://expandinglearning.org/research/vandell/resources/AERA_Promising_Programs_FI

NAL.pdf

Balfanz, R., & Mac Iver, D. (2000). Transforming high-poverty urban middle schools into strong

learning institutions: Lessons from the first five years of the Talent Development Middle

School. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 5(1-2), 137-158.

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (2003). Safe and sound: An

educational leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning (SEL)

programs. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED482011.pdf

Causton-Theoharis, J., Theoharis, G., Bull, T., Cosier, M., & Dempf-Aldrich, K. (2010). Schools

of promise: A school district–university partnership centered on inclusive school

reform. Remedial and Special Education. 32(3) 192-205.

DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and using a

codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional

development research project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136-155.

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.

Luter, Lester, Kronick, 2014 AERA 2015 Paper – Accepted November 2014

10

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI:

Author.

Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., Pareja, A. S. & Allensworth, E. M. (2014). Preschool attendance in

Chicago Public Schools: Relationships with learning outcomes and reasons for absences.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved

from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Pre-

K%20Attendance%20Report.pdf

Goodlad, J. I. (1993). School–university partnerships and partner schools. Educational Policy

7(1), 24–39.

Hall, K. W., Williams, L. M., & Daniel, L. G. (2010). An Afterschool Program for Economically

Disadvantaged Youth: Perceptions of Parents, Staff, and Students. Research in the

Schools, 17(1), 12-28.

Harkavy, I., Hartley, M., Axelroth Hodges, R., & Weeks, J. (2013). The Promise of university-

assisted community schools to transform American schooling: A report from the field,

1985–2012. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(5), 525-540.

Honig, M. I., & Ikemoto, G. S. (2008). Adaptive assistance for learning improvement efforts:

The case of the Institute for Learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 328-363.

Johnston, B., Wetherill, K., High, H., & Greenebaum, H. (2002). Teacher socialization:

Opportunities for university-school partnerships to improve professional cultures. The

High School Journal, 85(4), 23-39.

Luter, D. G., Lester, J. L., & Kronick, R. F. (2013). “Remember, it’s a pilot”: Exploring the

experiences of teachers/staff at a University-Assisted Community School. School

Community Journal, 23(2), 161-184.

Luter, Lester, Kronick, 2014 AERA 2015 Paper – Accepted November 2014

11

Kezar, A. (2007). A tale of two cultures: Schools and universities in partnership for school

reform and student success. Metropolitan Universities, 18(4), 28-47.

Kronick, R. F., Lester, J. N., & Luter, D. G. (2013) Conclusion to “Higher education’s role in

public school reform and community engagement.” Peabody Journal of Education,

88(5), 657-664.

Lawson, H. A. (2013). Third-generation partnerships for P-16 pipelines and cradle-through-

career education systems. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(5), 637-656.

Lawson, H. A. (2010). An appreciation and a selective enhancement of the developing model for

university-assisted community schools. Universities and Community Schools, 8(1–2), 5–

20.

Mahoney, J. L., Lord, H., & Carryl, E. (2005). An ecological analysis of after-school program

participation and the development of academic performance and attributions for

disadvantaged children. Child Development, 76, 811-825.

Patterson, K. L. & Silverman, R. M. (2013). Schools and urban revitalization: Rethinking

institutions and community redevelopment. New York: Routledge.

Pierce, K. M., Auger, A. & Vandell, D. L. (2013, April). Narrowing the achievement gap:

Consistency and intensity of structured activities during elementary school. Paper

presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Meeting, Seattle,

WA. See http://expandinglearning.org/research/vandell/resources/VANDELL_K4.pdf

Preston, C., Goldring, E., Guthrie, J. E., & Ramsey, R. (2012) conceptualizing essential

components of effective high school. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Peabody

College National Center for Scaling Up Effective Schools. Retrieved from

Luter, Lester, Kronick, 2014 AERA 2015 Paper – Accepted November 2014

12

http://www.scalingupcenter.org/data/files/gallery/ContentGallery/NCSU_2012Conf_Pres

ton1.pdf

Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Saltmarsh, J., & Hartley, M. (Eds.). (2011). "To serve a larger purpose": Engagement for

democracy and the transformation of higher education. Temple University Press.

Salway, S., Harriss, K. & Chowbey, P. (2010). Using participatory, observational and “rapid

appraisal” methods. In J. Mason. & A. Dale. (Eds.) Understanding social research:

thinking creatively about method (pp. 134-149). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sanzo, K. L., Myran, S., & Clayton, J. K. (2011). Building bridges between knowledge and

practice: A university-school district leadership preparation program partnership. Journal

of Educational Administration, 49(3), 292-312.

Taylor, H. T., & Luter, D. G. (2013). Anchor institutions: An interpretive review essay. A report

by the Anchor Institutions Task Force (AITF). New York, NY: Marga, Inc.

Weissberg, R. P. & O’Brien, M. U. (2004). What works in school-based and emotional learning

programs for positive youth development. The ANNALS of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, 591, 86-97. doi:10.1177/0002716203260093.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.