After-School Programs for Migrant Students: Benefits and Challenges

Introduction: Challenges Facing Migrant Students

Frequent mobility by itself causes numerous difficulties because of days lost moving between schools and the lack of curriculum continuity. Together, poverty and mobility are a combination that can have a lethal impact on the educational aspirations of migrant children. With the vast majority of migrant students coming from homes where a language other than English is spoken, effective teaching and learning faces an even more formidable challenge (Troja, 2004).

The migrant child population, however large it is, is both a homogenous and heterogeneous group — alike in the sense that a majority of them are, or are descendants of, Mexican-American immigrants, but widely different because the total includes relatively small numbers of many minorities: Haitians, Puerto Ricans, African-Americans, poor Whites, Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Eastern European refugees. Clearly, neither race, language, nor nationality determines one's status for the Migrant Education Program (MEP). Neither is it poverty per se. It is only mobility — in the specific sense outlined in the statute — that makes a child eligible for the program (Branz-Spall et al., 2002).

By definition, then, examining the positive and negative outcomes associated with after-school programs for migrant students is challenged by the fact that these young learners move frequently and there are few studies available concerning them. In the United States, the law defines the term "migratory child" to mean:

1. A child who is, or whose parent, spouse, or guardian is, a migratory agricultural worker, including a migratory dairy worker, or a migratory fisher, and who, in the preceding 36 months, in order to obtain or accompany such parent, spouse, or guardian in order to obtain temporary or seasonal employment in agricultural or fishing work,

2. Has moved from one school district to another;

3. In a state that is comprised of a single school district, has moved from one administrative area to another within such district; or

4. Resides in a school district of more than 15,000 square miles, and migrates a distance of 20 miles or more to a temporary residence to engage in a fishing activity. (Migrant Education Program, P.L. 107-110, Title I, Part C, Section 1309)

Positive Contributions of After-School Programs

It is possible to discern the positive contributions of after-school programs for this population by examining how well such initiatives satisfy evidence-based criteria for effective after-school programs and what features characterize effective versus ineffective approaches. Some of the common activities provided in many after-school programs include:

1. Playing games and sports; 2. Watching movies; 3. Exercising; 4. Singing; 5. Dancing; and 6. Cooking (Soukup, Schilling, Stelzer, Scott, Crawford, Kahan et al., 2006).

All of these activities provide migrant students with the opportunity to interact with their mainstream peers in ways that might not otherwise ever be available to them. During this interaction, all students learn to appreciate, respect, and better understand the cultural differences among themselves (Soukup et al., 2006). Research has shown that irrespective of program content, the increased social interaction that takes place in after-school programs promotes improved academic outcomes and school attendance.

While there is some disagreement about whether after-school programs should be extensions of the school-day curriculum or simply "fun" activities, there is widespread agreement among educators that if young learners do not enjoy the after-school program, they will not return. As Garner et al. emphasize, "If children do not like an after-school program's activities or staff, they will stop coming. If they stop coming, they may drift into some variety of self-care" (2002, p. 5).

For migrant students, the decision to provide curricular offerings, physical fitness and sports activities, or recreational activities such as movies or games will depend on the unique mix of students present at any given time. Because this mixture is highly dynamic, it is important for teachers to remain flexible in their after-school program offerings and tailor them to the current blend of migrant student preferences (Soukup et al., 2006).

Negative Effects of After-School Programs

The primary negative effect identified in the existing literature concerning migrant students is the potential impact on family income. Because migrant students are children of migrant workers, family income levels are low and the labor of every family member is frequently required for the household to survive (Branz-Spall et al., 2002).

In addition, placing young migrant students in after-school programs can potentially exacerbate existing psychosocial problems characteristic of many migrant students. As Branz-Spall and colleagues emphasize, "Most important, in many instances the education of migrant children is interrupted by their migrancy. In other situations, though their education may not be interrupted, their transience creates dislocation, disorientation, and significant educational disadvantages" (2002, p. 56). Identifying how after-school programs have succeeded or failed in various settings can therefore help inform practice, and these issues are examined further below.

Evaluating After-School Program Successes and Failures

Although after-school programs differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, they share the common feature of providing young learners with an alternative to self-care in a safe environment (Garner, Zhao & Gillingham, 2002). Beyond this commonality, after-school programs across the country vary in their offerings, personnel, and especially the venue in which they are provided. As Jones and Compton report, "Over 1.7 million children leave school to attend an after-school program while their parents are working. Thousands of these after-school programs are housed in nearby churches, recreation centers, and school cafeterias" (2003, p. 275).

One measure of a successful after-school program is therefore the degree to which the environment it provides keeps children from harm's way. Another measure is how well a program satisfies the specific needs of the school district in which it functions. In some communities, young learners may suffer from a high incidence of obesity, making physical fitness activities most beneficial; in others — especially for migrant students — additional assistance with English language instruction or mathematics may be the greater need. As Garner et al. observe, "In general, after-school programs exist to keep kids safe while parents are at work. In recent years, however, parents, schools, governments, and communities have begun to expect the after-school program to teach the social and emotional skills that schools lack time for during the academic day" (2003, p. 275).

Although there remains a shortage of timely and relevant studies on the effectiveness of after-school programs in general — and a near absence of such studies concerning migrant students — Kail (2005) reports that students who participated in a middle school after-school recreation and physical activities program performed better academically and had higher attendance rates at their regular daytime classes compared to peers who did not participate. This suggests a meaningful relationship between enhanced social interaction, physical fitness, and overall improved academic outcomes.

Accessibility is another important measure of program success, and it presents a particular challenge for rural school districts that may have large migrant student populations by virtue of their agricultural base. Most after-school programs are offered only in higher-density population areas such as inner-city settings. As Garner et al. note, most after-school programs "are concentrated in urban and suburban areas, so many small towns do not have them. Small and widely scattered populations and high transportation costs are obstacles" (2002, p. 5).

These constraints, however, do not mean that small school districts are unable to provide effective after-school programs. By drawing on local community resources, innovative approaches to program delivery can be developed. As Jones and Compton explain, "There are a variety of organizations running after-school programs. Some are grassroots and specific to one school or community; others are part of a national organization. The national organizations running after-school programs might lease, rent, or receive rent-free the use of the school building for the program" (2003, p. 37).

Program frequency is yet another measure of success. According to Zhang and Byrd, "With such a variety of locations, the number of after-school programs has increased in all major urban areas, and youth participation in these programs strengthens every year. Indeed, it is currently estimated that approximately 25 to 30% of American youths spend between three and five afternoons each week in organized after-school programs" (2005, p. 6).

According to Dietal (2009), students participating in effective after-school programs that offer services three to five times per week achieve significantly higher math, science, and reading grades compared to non-participating peers. Students who participated in five or more of the activities offered by after-school programs also attained higher reading scores compared to both non-participants and those who participated in fewer than five activities. Dietal concludes that "Measuring breadth of activities, together with intensity and duration, seems a worthwhile approach to future after-school evaluations" (2009, p. 63).

A study by Frankel and Daly (2007) used attendance intervals in their evaluation of the Beyond the Bells Partner Agencies after-school program. These researchers identified a relationship between after-school attendance and higher scores in math and language arts, as well as attendance at regularly scheduled daytime school. The after-school program became ineffective when students failed to attend a minimum number of activities throughout the school year, with higher ineffectiveness rates for younger students. Elementary students who failed to attend at least 100 days of after-school activities, and middle school students who failed to attend at least 50 days of after-school activities, did not achieve the higher math and language arts scores seen in other program participants (Frankel & Daly, 2007).

Beyond these attributes, it is also possible to gauge successful initiatives by assessing their responsiveness to the changing needs of migrant students. As Zhang and Byrd emphasize, "Although there is no single formula for establishing quality after-school programs, successful programs typically combine academic, recreational, physical, and artistic elements within a curriculum designed to engage youths in a variety of structured and supervised activities" (2005, p. 6).

Conclusion

As can be readily discerned from the characteristics of ineffective after-school programs, there is no shortage of pitfalls — but there are also a number of attributes of effective programs that can serve as best practices in the development and implementation of these initiatives based on the unique needs of the migrant students present at any given time. In order to be as effective as possible, administrators of after-school programs for migrant students must make an ongoing effort to assess the individual needs of current participants as well as the pool of other migrant students who could benefit from participation.

Clearly, this is a challenging enterprise. Attracting new participants and retaining existing ones can be facilitated by providing curricular offerings combined with recreational, sports, or other engaging activities. While research on this specific population remains limited, the evidence available consistently points to the value of flexible, community-connected, and frequently offered programs as the most promising model for serving migrant students effectively.

References

Branz-Spall, A.M., Rosenthal, R. & Wright, A. (2003). Children of the road: Migrant students, our nation's most mobile population. The Journal of Negro Education, 72(1), 55–57.

Dietal, R. (2009). After-school programs: Finding the right dose — if the dose of time and activity are right, after-school programs can impact student learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(3), 62–64.

Frankel, S. & Daley, G. (2007). An evaluation of after school programs provided by Beyond the Bell's partner agencies: Executive summary and synopsis of methodology and findings. New York: Partnership for After School Education.

Garner, R., Zhao, Y. & Gillingham, M. (2002). Hanging out: Community-based after-school programs for children. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

Jones, T.S. & Compton, R. (2003). Kids working it out: Strategies and stories for making peace in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kail, R.V. (2005). Advances in child development and behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Lomeli, J., Parks, J., Basurto, I. & Padilla, F. (2006). California Mini-Corps: Developing quality teachers for 40 years. Education, 127(1), 100–103.

Soukup, G.J., Schilling, E., Stelzer, J. et al. (2006). Should after-school programs be structured as an extension of the school day? JOPERD — The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 77(8), 51–53.

Troja, G.A. (2004). Migrant students with limited English proficiency: Can Fast ForWord Language make a difference in their language skills and academic achievement? Remedial and Special Education, 25(6), 353–355.

Zhang, J.J. & Byrd, C.E. (2005). Enhancing the quality of after-school programs through effective program management. JOPERD — The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 76(8), 5–6.