Community- and School-Sponsored Program Participation and Academic Achievement in a Full-Service Community School

Abstract

Community schools represent a school reform approach that purports to address the multifaceted and intertwined challenges faced by poor urban communities and schools. The community school approach includes partnering with community organizations, making the school a community hub where services are provided during and outside of the school day, and targeting broad student, family, and community outcomes. This study examines one of the primary components of community schools, school- and community-sponsored extracurricular programming, and its relationship to academic achievement. The study was performed at an urban community school serving Grades 7 through 12. Descriptive analyses indicated high levels of participation and variation in participation, and academic achievement by demographic group. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that both school- and community-sponsored program participation were significant predictors of academic achievement. Implications of the results and future directions for research are discussed.

Keywords

community schools extracurricular participation academic achievement urban education

Introduction

Urban schools and their communities face a plethora of challenges, including the impacts of poverty (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997), limited school resources (Evans, 2004; Warren, 2005), less qualified teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2001; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002), and low levels of social capital in their communities (Evans, 2004). These urban schools also generally have lower academic achievement and graduation rates than their rural and suburban counterparts (Balfanz & Legters, 2004; Wirt et al., 2005). Multiple reforms and solutions for better outcomes in these communities have been proposed, but the complex and multifaceted nature of the challenges faced in urban schools appear to require a similarly complex and multifaceted approach to address them. Educational professionals are increasingly recognizing the need to think in terms of systemic change to aid students whose needs are not being met presently by educational policy and practice. Currently, however, much of this attention is on microsystems, such as the classroom, rather than macrosystems, like neighborhoods and policy issues (Power, 2009; Warren, 2011). Despite this, models of school–community collaboration have emerged to address the larger systemic issues facing struggling urban schools. These collaborative models operate by having schools and communities work together to address common issues, increase access to and provision of services, and build social capital among students, families, and communities.

Research Regarding Community Schools

Tracing their roots back to the work of John Dewey and Jane Addams at the beginning of the 20th century, full-service community schools (or just community schools) are one such model of school–community collaboration. Community schools emphasize curriculum and instruction grounded in the life of the community, as well as the provision of a range of holistic services for students, their families, and neighbors through community partnerships (Blank, Melaville, & Shah, 2003; The Children’s Aid Society, 2001; Dewey, 1916/2009; Dryfoos, 2005; Lawson, 2010). Although literature exists (see Blank et al., 2003; Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002) that provides examples of what constitutes “best practices” as a community school, each is intended to meet the unique needs and contexts of its setting and does not have one idealized prescriptive model (Lawson, 2010). The community is incorporated into both the means and the ends of a community school. As Lawson defines it, “a community school employs strategic partnerships to expand the boundaries of school improvement; and, at the same time, to increase the stakeholders who make decisions about the school and its relations with surrounding neighborhood-communities” (p. 11). Community schools commonly provide case management, primary health clinics, youth development programs, family resource centers, early childhood development programs, referral systems, after-school programs, and school reform initiatives (Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002). Current research on community schools is sparse, though studies have suggested improvements in academic, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes in some schools implementing a community school approach (e.g., Blank et al., 2003; Dryfoos, 2000; Dryfoos, Quinn, & Barkin, 2005; Noguera, 2011).

Theory of Change

Consistent with ecological-systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), community schools aim to impact student outcomes by creating positive change in the various systems its students are nested within. Of particular focus in community schools are mesosystems or the relationships among the individual and the various systems impacting them. Theory of change for community school frameworks is also influenced by Lewin’s (1947/2009) force field analysis, whereby community schools attempt to increase forces for positive change in student and community outcomes while removing barriers to learning and growth. In their community school logic model, the Coalition for Community Schools (n.d.) claimed that by engaging families, providing extended learning and broad youth development opportunities, offering health and social supports, and linking schools and community partners, community schools are better able to ensure early school readiness, school engagement, and family involvement. These, in turn, contribute to long-term academic success and healthy development for students. This is done through the expansion of service provision across multiple dimensions.

Community schools expand upon traditional school practice in terms of (a) expanded time by providing substantial after-school programming; (b) expanded learning and developmental opportunities by targeting intellectual, social, emotional, and physical development; (c) expanded target population by serving students, families, and community members; and (d) expanded service providers by linking and integrating with community partners. A community school curriculum extends beyond the core school-day classroom instruction to include programming provided through community partnerships that targets academic, social, emotional, and character development. Community schools also improve access to and integration of wraparound services to address barriers to learning and healthy development by linking such services through the school.

Community-sponsored extracurricular programming is a key component of the community school model, as it extends the curriculum beyond the typical school day and provides integrated access to ameliorative services that address barriers to learning and development. It has been proposed that the relationship between participation in extracurricular activities and academic outcomes may be mediated by developing social capital, personal identity, and school identification and commitment (Brown & Evans, 2002; Eccles, Barber, Stone, & Hunt, 2003; Glanville, Sikkink, & Hernandez, 2008; Marsh & Kleitman, 2002). Research into the impact of extracurricular participation on student outcomes has regularly shown that adolescent involvement in organized activities is related to positive adolescent outcomes (e.g., Busseri et al., 2011; Denault & Poulin, 2009; Eccles et al., 2003; Feldman & Matjasko, 2005; Fredricks & Eccles, 2006, 2008; Holland & Andre, 1987; Shulruf, 2010). Participation in various types of programming is associated with future grade point average (GPA), college enrollment, and positive attitude toward school, and may be of particular benefit for those at-risk for school dropout or failure (Mahoney & Cairns, 1997).

While the link between extracurricular participation and positive outcomes in a general education setting has been well explored, what has not been studied is if the positive associations between extracurricular participation and student outcomes holds for community school models where services are provided by community organizations rather than as school-sponsored programs. Marsh and Kleitman (2002) found that school-based activities were associated with students’ increased sense of school identification and commitment as well as academic outcomes, but that this relationship was not as positive for out-of-school extracurricular activities. However, having community-sponsored programming closely tied to the school by providing services coordinated with and at the school, community schools should, theoretically, be better equipped to translate engagement in community-based activities to positive school outcomes.

The purpose of this study is to provide insight into the impact of one key aspect of the community school model, the provision of student focused community-sponsored programming at a model community school. This was done by examining trends in student extracurricular participation in a community school as well as the extent to which participation in school and community programming linked through a community school is associated with academic achievement. Given the importance of culturally relevant practice and meeting the needs of diverse groups in both urban education and in the community school model, differences in demographics are considered relative to both overall participation and its relationship with academic achievement. The specific research questions guiding the study include the following:

Research Question 1: What are the levels of student program participation in a full-service community school?

Research Question 2: How does participation in school- and community-sponsored programming predict academic achievement?

Method

Participants and Setting

Participants in this study were students at George Washington Community High School (GWCHS) during the 2008-2009 school year. Of the 852 students reported as enrolled at GWCHS in 2008-2009, data were available for 89% (n = 755) of the population. GWCHS is a Grades 7 to 12 full-service community school located near downtown Indianapolis, Indiana. The school has a unique history and multiple exemplary features that make it an ideal setting for assessment of the community school model (see Bringle, Officer, Grim, & Hatcher, 2009, and Grim & Officer, 2010, for a more in-depth history). George Washington was originally a traditional high school located in west-central Indianapolis. In the mid-1990s, the high school was shut down due to declining enrollment in the district. The closing of the school was met with outcry from community members and representatives, and the local neighborhood center began organizing a collaborative effort to re-open the school as a place that addressed the needs of the larger community as well as its students. In 2000, with the backing of two other local community centers and the local university, the school re-opened and currently serves students from Grades 7 through 12.

As a community school, GWCHS provides services beyond those seen in the traditional schools. The school provides community leadership, General Education Development (GED), and adult English as a Second Language (ESL) classes to community members. Partnerships with local organizations and agencies have led to various programming that are available to students, their families, and the larger community before, during, and after the school day. For example, the pool in the school is managed by the city’s parks and recreation department, and is made available to the public outside of school hours, as are the school’s workout facilities. The lead neighborhood center hosts regular Family Nights, the local hospital offers a Teen Health Fitness program, the Chamber of Commerce offers a graduation coach, a local community mental health agency offers counseling, and local university dentistry school offers dental care, all in coordination with and through GWCHS. The school currently has more than 50 community partners who provide services through or in partnership with the school.

These services are managed and orchestrated by a full-time Director of Community Schools, Community School Coordinator, and Learning Center Manager, all located within GWCHS but employed and funded through the lead neighborhood center. Once a month, representatives from the various community partners and other community stakeholders convene to consult with the school principal and community programming facilitators from the neighborhood center as members of the Community Advisory Council. These meetings provide an opportunity for school and community leaders to discuss needs, events, and initiatives, providing a regular opportunity to dialogue and collaborate around their common work and mission regarding education, development, and quality of life in the school and community.

Measures

Demographics

Student demographic data were obtained from the district database. The racial/ethnic makeup of the sample was 42% White (n = 314), 31% Hispanic (n = 234), and 23% African American (n = 172). Four percent (n = 31) of the sample fell into other racial/ethnic categories consisting of those identifying as Asian/Pacific Islander (n = 2), multiracial (n = 28), and Native American (n = 1). Four participants did not specify race or ethnicity. The makeup of the sample was representative of the school population overall, which included 42% White, 30% Hispanic, 24% African American, 4% multiracial, 0.4% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.1% Native American. The sample consisted of 56% males (n = 426) and 44% females (n = 329). The vast majority of the students in the school came from low-income households: 79% qualified for free lunch and 10% qualified for reduced lunch.

Program characteristics

Programs were categorized as school- or community-sponsored programming depending on their primary means of funding and their staffing sources. School-sponsored programming included 14 programs. These included most athletic programs, academic programming, and some social programming. Community-sponsored programming included 22 programs, such as academic remediation and enrichment programs, mentoring, college readiness programs, special interest activities (e.g., Salsa Band), and health and wellness programming. Some programs were targeted to specific gender groups (e.g., football, cheerleading) or racial/ethnic groups (e.g., Mother and Daughter, Father and Son). A breakdown of each included program, its sponsor type, and its target population (if any) is provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Included Extracurricular Programs’ Sponsor Type, Description, and Target Group.

	Brief description
Community programming
Mentoring	Provided by multiple organizations, focus on building relationships with an adult mentor
Teen Fitness Challenge	Fitness program run by university physical education students
Tutoring	Provided by local university students and business employees
Standard of Excellence Tutoring	Tutoring programming for students in need of remediation
Service Learning	Students involved with service learning programming provided through university
Career Counseling	Student advising on career and college plans
Fit for Life	Health program provided by university physical education and nursing students
Dance Club	Students performed step-dancing and traditional Latin dance, targeted Hispanic and African American students
Family Nights	Provided opportunities for parents and students to socialize together
Indy After School	Provided as 21st Century Community Learning Center initiative by local community center
Create Your World	Arts and service learning program provided as part of after-school programming
Teen Nights	Evening recreational programming provided by Parks and Recreation Department
Hispanic Town Hall Meeting	Sought input from Spanish-speaking students and families regarding the interests for school-based programs and initiatives
Success Makers	Academic enrichment program for high school students provided by Goodwill Industries
Salsa Band	Taught by schoolteacher who was funded through local community center, targeted Hispanic students
College Goal Sunday	Support in filing for college financial aid
The HUB	General after-school programming, linking point for more specialized after-school programs
Bridge Program	Programming initiated by Hispanic parents, involved Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officers working with Hispanic students with noted behavioral concerns
Father and Son	Parent/child programming to strengthen cultural identity and support college readiness for Hispanic middle school males
Mother and Daughter	Parent/child programming to strengthen cultural identity and support college readiness for Hispanic middle school females
Best Buddies Service Program	Fostered one-on-one relationships between students and individuals with intellectual disabilities
Soccer Club	Club sport, primarily initiated and managed by Hispanic parents and community members; Hispanic males and females were the primary participants
School programming
Fashion Show	Initiative for students to model appropriate prom attire
Drama Club	Theatrical club run by teacher at school
Credit Recovery	Title I supported programming for obtaining course credit for failed courses
Key Club	Service club
National Honor Society	Honor society for those showing strong scholarship, leadership, and service
Science Bound	University/school district partnership designed to support low-income students interested in science careers
Parent–Teacher–Student Organization	Volunteer organization supporting school operations and strengthening relationships among participants
Cheerleading	All female participants
Football	All male participants
Basketball
Wrestling	All male participants
Track
Baseball	All male participants
Softball	All female participants

Extracurricular participation

Participation data were obtained from rosters in the school yearbook and a database maintained by the school’s director of community school programming. What constitutes participation was defined in collaboration with the Department of Education as part of a federally funded evaluation of the effectiveness of the community school model at GWCHS. Participation was established as attending two or more sessions of a program or involvement that cumulated in 4 or more hours over the entire school year.

These data were available by the number of programs each student participated in, rather than intensity of participation, and thus participation was operationalized by breadth of participation for the purposes of this study. Both breadth and intensity of extracurricular activity have been found to be important predictors of developmental functioning (e.g., Busseri et al., 2011; Denault & Poulin, 2009; Rose-Krasnor, Busseri, Willoughby, & Chalmers, 2006). Busseri, Rose-Krasnor, Willoughby, and Chalmers (2006) explored the impact of breadth (i.e., number of programs) versus intensity (i.e., frequency of program participation) of extracurricular participation among high school students and found that while breadth and intensity are correlated, breadth of programming was a more robust predictor of future developmental outcomes.

Academic achievement

GPAs were collected from the end of the 2008-2009 school year from the school district database. GPAs were unweighted and scored on a 4-point scale. These were not included for students who attended alternative education programs that were housed within the school or who were listed in the school roster but did not remain enrolled in the school long enough to be recorded as having an enrolled course on their transcripts. For the regression analyses investigating the relationship between demographics, participation, and academic achievement, 37 subjects were dropped due to missing GPA scores and four subjects removed due to missing race/ethnicity data (n = 714). Chi-square analyses conducted between those with and without GPA data found no significant difference between the groups in regard to gender and race/ethnicity. An independent t test indicated that those without GPAs participated in significantly fewer activities (M = 0.97) relative to those with GPAs (M = 2.29; p < .001).

Data Analysis

Descriptive analyses were performed to document participation rates in the sample population, including participation by programming sponsor. Mean GPAs by subgroup were also calculated. Hierarchical regression analyses were performed to determine whether gender, race/ethnicity, and program and sponsor predict variance in GPA.

Results

Participation Rates and GPA

In this community school sample, 76% (n = 576) of students participated in at least one program. Of the 36 available programs, student participation levels ranged from 0 to 14 programs, and averaged 2.22 programs per student. Students were more than 4 times as likely to participate in community- (M = 1.80) than school-sponsored (M = 0.42) programming. Seventy-five percent of students (n = 567) participated in at least one community-sponsored program, whereas only 28% of students (n = 214) participated in at least one school-sponsored program. Twenty-seven percent (n = 205) of students participated in at least one community- and one school-sponsored program. The maximum number of community-sponsored programming participation for any one student was eight programs, whereas for school programs the maximum was six.

Students identified as Hispanic had the highest rates of participation (M = 2.86 programs per student), followed by Other (M = 2.71), African American (M = 2.48), and White (M = 1.58) student groups. Males (M = 2.32) were more likely to participate in programming than females (M = 2.09), though this difference was largely concentrated among Hispanic males (see Figure 1). Cell means, standard deviations, and sample sizes for participation in programming by programming sponsor, gender, and race/ethnicity can be found in Table 2.

Figure 1.

Participation in total programming by race/ethnicity and gender.

Table 2.

Mean Participation Rates in Programming by Programming Sponsor, Gender, and Race/Ethnicity.

	Gender				Race/ethnicity
	Male (n = 426)		Female (n = 329)		African American (n = 172)		White (n = 314)		Hispanic (n = 234)		Other (n = 31)		Total (n = 755)
School	0.48	(0.90)	0.33	(0.65)	0.64	(0.97)	0.28	(0.59)	0.44	(0.81)	0.48	(1.31)	0.42	(0.81)
Community	1.84	(1.74)	1.76	(1.47)	1.83	(1.58)	1.30	(1.35)	2.42	(1.71)	2.23	(2.08)	1.81	(1.63)
Total	2.32	(2.34)	2.09	(1.78)	2.48	(2.20)	1.58	(1.69)	2.86	(2.17)	2.71	(3.09)	2.22	(2.11)

Note. The values in parentheses represent SD.

Statistics on participation sponsor are provided for those who participated in at least one program of the type. Females had higher GPAs (M = 2.06) than their male counterparts (M = 1.88). Hispanic students had the highest overall GPAs (M = 2.26), followed by students of Other race/ethnicity (M = 2.03), African American students (M = 1.95), and White students (M = 1.74). Breakdown by program sponsor shows that students who participated in at least one school-sponsored program were fewer and had higher GPAs (n = 210, M = 2.37) than those who participated in at least one community-sponsored program (n = 553, M = 2.11). Number of students and GPA mean and standard deviation by independent variable are provided in Table 3.

Table 3.

Measures Used to Evaluate Impact of Program Participation on Academic Achievement.

		2008-2009 GPA
Variable	n	M	SD
Gender
Male	406	1.88	1.02
Female	312	2.06	1.02
Race/ethnicity
African American	163	1.95	1.00
White	295	1.74	1.03
Hispanic	228	2.26	0.96
Other	28	2.03	1.06
Programming sponsor
School sponsored	210	2.37	0.92
Community sponsored	553	2.11	0.94
Total	718	1.96	1.03

Note. For programming sponsor, data are reported for those who participated in at least one of each type of programming. GPA = grade point average.

Relationship of Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Program Participation, and GPA

To examine the relationship of gender, race/ethnicity, and different programming sponsor and types with GPA, descriptive and hierarchical regression analyses were performed. For the regression analyses, gender, race/ethnicity, and interaction variables were modeled to predict GPA. Models were then performed for total participation and participation by sponsor in addition to the demographic variables to assess the increase in accounted variance. Thirty-seven subjects were dropped from the regression analysis due to missing GPA scores, and 4 due to missing race/ethnicity data (n = 714). Results of these analyses for predicting unique variance in GPA are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables, Including Total Participation, Predicting Grade Point Average (n = 714).

	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
Variable	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Constant	1.95***	.08		1.69***	.09		1.71***	.09
Demographics
Male	−0.43	.09	−.21***	−0.40	.09	−.19***	−0.41	.09	−.20***
African American	0.28	.15	.12	0.17	.14	.07	0.16	.14	.07
Hispanic	0.25	.13	.11	0.16	.13	.07	0.17	.13	.08
Other	−0.26	.28	−.05	−0.40	.27	−.08	−0.39	.27	−.07
Male × African American	−0.02	.07	−.02	−0.03	.06	−.03	−0.03	.06	−.03
Male × Hispanic	0.52	.18	.20**	0.37	.17	.14*	0.37	.17	.14*
Male × Other	1.11	.39	.15**	1.01	.37	.14**	1.01	.37	.14**
Total participation				0.15	.02	.30***
Programming sponsor
School sponsored							0.21	.05	.17***
Community sponsored							0.12	.03	.19***
R² (adjusted R²)	.08 (.07)			.16 (.15)			.17 (.16)
F	8.71***			17.28***			15.57***
ΔR² (Δ adjusted R²)				.08 (.08)			.09 (.09)
ΔF				71.18***			36.51***

Note. Gender and race/ethnicity groups were represented as dummy variables (e.g., male; male = 1, female = 0). Female and White served as comparison groups. ΔR², Δ adjusted R², and ΔF for Models 2 and 3 are relative to Model 1.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Gender and race/ethnicity as predictors of GPA

Model 1 in Table 4 demonstrates an interaction effect between gender and race/ethnicity, and that gender and race/ethnicity together significantly predicted GPA. The interaction between gender and race/ethnicity is graphically displayed in Figure 1. Significant interaction effects for Male × Hispanic (β = .20; p < .01) and Male × Other (β = .15; p < .01) highlight that while females have higher GPAs overall as indicated by the significant main effect for male (β = −.21; p < .001), this relationship is not found for Hispanics and those in the Other group. Rather, being male is a positive predictor of GPA for those in the Hispanic and Other group. Gender, race/ethnicity, and their interaction effects account for 8% of overall variance in GPA. The interaction of gender and race/ethnicity for GPA is displayed in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

GPA by race/ethnicity and gender.

Gender, race/ethnicity, and total programming as predictors of GPA

Model 2 demonstrates that when total participation is added to the model, total participation significantly predicted GPA (β = .30; p < .001) and significantly increased the amount of variance explained in the model, explaining 8% more variance in GPA (p < .001) and accounting for 16% of overall variance. Inclusion of total participation resulted in small decreases in beta coefficients for the significant interaction and main effects of gender and race/ethnicity, suggesting total participation partially mediates the relationship between demographics and GPA.

Gender, race/ethnicity, and programming sponsor as predictors of GPA

In Model 3, school- and community-sponsored programming were entered simultaneously following the inclusion of demographics to assess the increase in accounted variance. Model 3 demonstrates that adding participation in school- and community-sponsored programs to the model significantly increased the amount of variance explained in Model 1, explaining 9% more variance in GPA (p < .001) and accounting for 17% of overall variance. Both school- and community-sponsored programming significantly and positively contributed to the accounted variance (β = .17, .19; p < .001). Inclusion of school- and community-sponsored program participation resulted in similar decreases in beta coefficients for the significant interaction and main effects of gender and race/ethnicity to those seen with the inclusion of total participation, suggesting similar levels of mediation between demographics and GPA as was seen with total participation.

Discussion

This research extends findings from previous research on extracurricular participation into the context of a full-service community school, a reform model with little research regarding student outcomes. This study provides new findings suggesting that in the context of a full-service community school, participation in community-sponsored programming has the same positive association with academic achievement as participation in school-sponsored programming. This study also provides new findings related to types of participation found in a community school, differences in participation among demographic groups, and to what degree participation in different types of programs relates to academic achievement. The major findings that emerged from this urban community school investigation are (a) a sizable majority of students engaged in community-sponsored programming, including many more than participated in school-sponsored programming, indicating that efforts to encourage participation in these community programs by offering them in collaboration with the schools were successful; (b) total participation significantly predicted variance in academic achievement in addition to race/ethnicity and gender; and (c) both school- and community-sponsored programming significantly predicted variance in academic achievement.

Of initial interest in the results of this study is the descriptive analysis of level of participation in programming. The particular aspect of community schools of interest in this study was the addition of community-sponsored programming offered in conjunction with and through the school. Given that community-based programming in community schools serves as both an extension of the curriculum that is grounded in the life of the community, as well as serves to address barriers to learning as identified by the school and community, participation in such programming is an essential component of community schools. Implementation of community-sponsored programming was successful in terms of engaging a majority of students at some level, as 75% of students participated in at least one activity sponsored by an outside community organization. In comparison, only 28% participated in school-sponsored programming. Given the modicum of research currently available regarding community schools, these findings are important in that they demonstrate that community-sponsored programs can be effective in attracting broad student participation in a community school environment.

Regression analyses suggest that the relationship between demographics and academic achievement is partially mediated by extracurricular participation. Standardized coefficients decreased for nearly every demographic variable upon the inclusion of participation data in the regression models. The nature of the achievement gap at GWCHS is of particular interest, as White and African American males both had significantly lower GPAs than Hispanic males and their female counterparts. This stands in contrast to national trends in which the achievement gap between White students and their Hispanic and African American counterparts is a topic of much concern (Planty et al., 2008). Also, while Hispanic females tend to have better academic outcomes than Hispanic males in the United States (e.g., Saenz & Ponjuan, 2009), this does not appear to be the case at GWCHS. More research is needed to determine whether these atypical trends are related to the impacts of services and other aspects of functioning in a community school model, other unique aspects of the school unrelated to the community school model, or local trends.

Of specific interest is discerning why Hispanic students, in particular Hispanic males, appeared to outperform their White and African American peers. As was highlighted in Table 1, a number of the community-sponsored programs at GWCHS targeted Hispanic students (e.g., Mother and Daughter, Father and Son) or were grounded in Latin American culture (e.g., Salsa Band, Dance Club). The relationship between high academic achievement and culturally relevant programming available to Hispanic students is consistent with theories regarding the importance of school engagement and school identification in academic success (e.g., Eccles et al., 2003; Marsh & Kleitman, 2002), including findings regarding Mexican American students in particular (Gonzalez & Padilla, 1997). This relationship suggests that an important consideration for community schools serving diverse populations is to provide activities that appeal to students from a broad range of backgrounds and cultures, facilitating equitable participation, engagement, and benefit. Analysis of participation in programming by sponsor type suggested participation in both school- and community-funded programs were significant predictors of academic achievement. The association of both types of programming with academic achievement suggests that by providing community-sponsored programming in and through the school, community-sponsored programming may be able to develop increased school identification, connectiveness, and commitment among its participants in a way not allowed by traditional school models. Furthermore, the significance of the relationship between community-sponsored programming and academic achievement suggests studies of extracurricular participation that account for school-sponsored programming alone may not be providing a comprehensive portrayal of actual student participation.

Overall, these results support the claims of community school proponents that participation in activities important to the life of the community as well as programs that address barriers to learning and development is intimately intertwined with the educational process. Particularly at a time when discussions of education policy are dominated with talk of accountability through high-stakes testing, this research highlights the value and importance of programming that goes beyond assessments for basic skills in mathematics and language arts. As market-based reformers emphasize the importance of school choice, conceptualizing schools as interchangeable service providers divorced from the life of the community and families as consumers who choose their schools in the open marketplace, community schools offer a rival conceptualization of schools and the role of education. Rather than treating the school as an autonomous, interchangeable unit that dispenses value-neutral knowledge, community schools offer a vision of the school as an extension and manifestation of the community and as uniquely shaped by the assets, needs, values, and priorities of the community it serves.

Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations warrant caution when interpreting the results of this study. This research focused on students in only one school, and thus the impact of functioning under a community school model cannot be isolated from other variables and traits unique to this school. As such, findings cannot be generalized to other community schools where demographics and support services differ substantially. Further studies with more schools operating under a community school model and compared with similar traditional schools would better isolate “community school” traits from those idosyncratic to GWCHS or common to both community and traditional schools. This is further complicated by the current lack of a standardized definition of community schools, as there is no clear way to discriminate what accounts for a community school versus a traditional model, rather than how that school identifies itself. Beyond being an issue in operationalizing “community school” for study purposes, this lack of clear conceptualization also limits the validity of generalizing the findings from the school studied here to other schools who also claim the community school mantle.

Limitations also exist in how measures were defined in this study. This study looked only at number of programs, and not at quality, intensity, or total time spent, and thus only portrays one particular dimension of participation. While Busseri and colleagues (2006) found that the use of breadth of participation was a more robust predictor of developmental outcomes in a study with a similar population, they also found that measures of intensity (i.e., frequency) of participation shared only about a quarter of their variance with measures of breadth of participation. Thus, one measure cannot be considered a proxy for the other. The low threshold for defining participation in this study of two sessions or four hours treats participation in a sport with regular, intensive participation the same as a attending a few sessions of an after-school program; thus, acknowledging the difference between breadth and intensity of participation is of particular importance in interpreting these results. The use of GPA as a measure of academic achievement provides a particular conceptualization of academic achievement and the results would likely vary from other studies that may conceptualize achievement by high school graduation, college and career attainment, or standardized test scores.

The results of this study illuminate multiple routes of study for future investigation. The collection of data for only the 2008-2009 school year prevented interpretation of causation between participation and academic achievement. While still not completely able to factor out the impact of self-selection in the relationship between extracurricular participation and outcomes, continuation of this study longitudinally could control for earlier traits to provide more insight into the impact of participation on academic achievement. The causal relationship between participation and academic achievement is most likely bidirectional to some degree.

While significant relationships were established between participation and academic achievement, analysis into the degree to which participation mediates academic achievement was beyond the scope of the current study and remains of interest for future analysis. Also of interest is how demographic group moderates the relationship between participation and achievement. The regression analyses in the current study only calculated the differences between demographic groups relative to the intercept, but did not account for possible differences in slope in regard to the relationship between extracurricular participation and academic achievement. Such an analysis of moderating effects may suggest what groups have a stronger relationship between extracurricular activities and academic achievement. Moderating of effects between the groups may indicate which groups would be more useful to target with increased programming, or populations for which currently available extracurricular programming does not strongly relate to academic achievement.

Including an assessment of variables that are theorized to connect extracurricular participation with positive outcomes would contribute to an understanding of the pathways by which extracurricular activities relates to student outcomes. Such variables include fostering peer and adult relationships, identity formation, opportunity for skill mastery, school identification and engagement, community identification and engagement, personal recognition, and social capital. These analyses would provide insight into what specific mechanisms might mediate the relationship between participation in extracurricular activities and positive outcomes. In turn, these may help policy makers and administrators decide the value of investments in promoting extracurricular activities or implementing a community school model as school reform.

In regard to this particular community school setting, the unexpected differences in participation and GPA by race/ethnicity and gender merit further investigation. An in-depth qualitative analysis may reveal differences in population or services that better explain why Hispanic males are more successful academically than their White and African American counterparts at GWCHS. To better understand these differences, more needs to be known about how programs are marketed and delivered, perceptions and beliefs regarding programming and academics by students and their families. Using methods such as participatory action research to elicit community feedback and explore these issues in the schools and community could provide valuable insight while being consistent with GWCHS’s goals and values regarding community participation and input.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the Center for Urban and Multicultural Education (CUME) at the Indiana University School of Education, Indianapolis, for their support in conducting this study and creating this manuscript, as well as Jack Cummings, Joshua Smith, Jeff Anderson, and Scott Bellini for their guidance and feedback.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: U.S. Department of Education Grant #: U215J080108.

Author Biography

John H. W. Houser is a clinical psychologist at the Civitan-Sparks Clinics in the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine. He has a doctorate in school psychology with a minor in community collaboration from Indiana University. His research interests include school and community partnerships, community schools, school reform, mixed-methods program evaluation, philosophical psychology, and social justice.

References

Balfanz

Legters

(2004). Locating the dropout crisis: Which high schools produce the nation’s dropouts? Where are they located? Who attends them? Baltimore, MD: Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University.

Blank

M. J.

Melaville

Shah

B. P.

(2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in community schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools.

Bringle

R. G.

Officer

S. D. H.

Grim

Hatcher

J. A.

(2009). George Washington Community High School: Analysis of a partnership network. New Directions for Youth Development, 2009(122), 41-60.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brooks-Gunn

Duncan

(1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children, 7(2), 55-71.

Brown

Evans

W. P.

(2002). Extracurricular activity and ethnicity: Creating greater school connection among diverse student populations. Urban Education, 37, 41-58.

Busseri

M. A.

Rose-Krasnor

Pancer

S. M.

Pratt

M. W.

Adams

G. R.

Birnie-Lefcovitch

. . .Wintre

(2011). A longitudinal study of breadth and intensity of activity involvement and the transition to university. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 512-518. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00691.x

Busseri

M. A.

Rose-Krasnor

Willoughby

Chalmers

(2006). A longitudinal examination of breadth and intensity of youth activity involvement and successful development. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1313-1326.

The Children’s Aid Society. (2001). Building a community school (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Author.

10.

Coalition for Community Schools. (n.d.). Community schools: Promoting student success: A rationale and results framework. Washington, DC: Author.

11.

Darling-Hammond

(2001). The challenge of staffing our schools. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 12-17.

12.

Denault

A.-S.

Poulin

(2009). Intensity and breadth of participation in organized activities during the adolescent years: Multiple associations with youth outcomes. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 38, 1199-1213. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9437-5

13.

Dewey

(2009). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education (Kindle Touch version). Available from amazon.com (Original work published 1916)

14.

Dryfoos

J. G.

(2000). Evaluation of community schools: Findings to date. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools.

15.

Dryfoos

J. G.

(2005). Full-service community schools: A strategy—Not a program. New Directions for Youth Development, 2005(107), 7-14.

16.

Dryfoos

J. G.

Maguire

(2002). Inside full-service community schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

17.

Dryfoos

J. G.

Quinn

Barkin

(Eds.). (2005). Community schools in action: Lessons from a decade of practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

18.

Eccles

J. S.

Barber

B. L.

Stone

Hunt

(2003). Extracurricular activities and adolescent development. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 865-889.

19.

Evans

(2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist, 59, 77-92.

20.

Feldman

A. F.

Matjasko

J. L.

(2005). The role of school-based extracurricular activities in adolescent development: A comprehensive review and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 75, 159-210.

21.

Fredricks

J. A.

Eccles

J. S.

(2006). Extracurricular involvement and adolescent adjustment: Impact of duration, number of activities, and breadth of participation. Applied Developmental Science, 10, 132-146.

22.

Fredricks

J. A.

Eccles

J. S.

(2008). Participation in extracurricular activities in the middle school years: Are there developmental benefits for African American and European American youth? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 1029-1043.

23.

Glanville

Sikkink

Hernandez

(2008). Religious involvement and educational outcomes: The role of social capital and extracurricular participation. Sociological Quarterly, 49, 105-137.

24.

Gonzalez

Padilla

A. M.

(1997). The academic resilience of Mexican American high school students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19, 301-317. doi:10.1177/07399863970193004

25.

Grim

Officer

(2010). George Washington Community High School: A community-university partnership success story. Universities and Community Schools, 8, 55-62.

26.

Holland

Andre

(1987). Participation in extracurricular activities in secondary school: What is known, what needs to be known? Review of Educational Research, 57, 437-466.

27.

Lankford

Loeb

Wyckoff

(2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 37-62.

28.

Lawson

H. A.

(2010). An appreciation and a selective enhancement of the developing model for university-assisted community schools. Universities and Community Schools, 8, 5-20.

29.

Lewin

(2009). Quasi-stationary social equilibria and the problem of permanent change. In Burke

W. W.

Lake

D. G.

Paine

J. W.

(Eds.), Organization change: A comprehensive reader (pp. 73-77). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley. (Original work published 1947)

30.

Mahoney

J. L.

Cairns

R. B.

(1997). Do extracurricular activities protect against early school dropout? Developmental Psychology, 33, 241-253.

31.

Marsh

Kleitman

(2002). Extracurricular school activities: The good, the bad, and the nonlinear. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 464-515.

32.

Noguera

P. A.

(2011). A broader and bolder approach uses education to break the cycle of poverty. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(3), 8-14.

33.

Planty

Hussar

Snyder

Provasnik

Kena

Dinkes

. . .Kemp

(2008). The condition of education 2008. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

34.

Power

T. J.

(2009). Editorial note: Promoting social justice. School Psychology Review, 37, 451-452.

35.

Rose-Krasnor

Busseri

Willoughby

Chalmers

(2006). Breadth and intensity of youth activity involvement as contexts for positive development. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 35, 365-379. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9037-6

36.

Saenz

V. B.

Ponjuan

(2009). The vanishing Latino male in higher education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8, 54-89. doi:10.1177/1538192708326995

37.

Shulruf

(2010). Do extra-curricular activities in schools improve educational outcomes? A critical review and meta-analysis of the literature. International Review of Education, 56, 591-612. doi:10.1007/s11159-010-9180-x

38.

Warren

M. R.

(2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 75, 133-173.

39.

Warren

M. R.

(2011). Building a political constituency for urban school reform. Urban Education, 46, 484-512.

40.

Wirt

Choy

Rooney

Hussar

Provasnik

Hampden-Thompson

(2005). The condition of education 2005. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.