After-school: right or reward?

by Debs Gardner

A recent article in the New York Times showcases a new policy about after-school and academic performance in a school near Buffalo, NY. The school's principal has made participation in extracurricular activities dependent on students' grades, so that a student with poor grades is not allowed to participate in sports, art, drama, dances, or other activities.

I see two major problems with this policy. The first is, it assumes the only reason students are doing poorly in school is that they aren't trying hard enough. If we take away something fun, the argument goes, those kids will stop being lazy and shape up. That's probably true for some kids, and it's a nice compliment to after-school programs, but most kids who are doing poorly in school have more barriers than effort, including social, economic, personal, instructional, learning-style, or bias-related barriers. If a kid isn't doing well in school because she's coming to class hungry, how do you expect withholding after-school programs to improve her grades?

The second major problem is that the rule implies after-school programs are only social, fun rewards rather than beneficial experiences in their own right. The kids who are doing poorly in school need –- and are entitled to –- quality after-school programs. Not to provide extra tutoring or academics, necessarily, but to provide some of the socio-emotional supports and motivation that it's hard to experience when one is doing poorly in school.

A good after-school or youth development program helps kids succeed in school and in life, regardless of whether the program has academic content. This happens for a few reasons.

Kids who are doing poorly in school often lack a sense of hope and aspiration, although it's hard to say whether that feeling causes failure, the reverse is true, or it's simply an association. It's hard to feel you're good at something when you're constantly receiving papers back with red marks and low numbers. However, if a kid finds something he enjoys and connects with through after-school or youth development programs (theatre, running, painting, photography...), he learns that he has aspirations and passions, that he can enjoy and improve at something that's hard at first, and that he's not going to fail at everything. Those lessons and the well-being and confidence they inspire transfer back to school performance.

Also, quality programs are yet another place outside of school, and without the academic pressures of school, where youth can connect with caring adults and peers from beyond their classrooms, and learn important social and emotional skills to help them succeed in school and beyond.

Granted, not every after-school program is a quality, positive experience for youth, but most are, especially when they're thoughtfully designed and implemented. In worst case scenarios, such programs can feel like an extent ion of school, babysitting, or yet another grounds for the kind of bullying and social problems rampant in many schools. However, that's becoming increasingly anomalous in a country that's learning to value after-school and other youth development programs as places where children and youth. The more we care about after-school programs, the better they'll be.

In general, I'm all for trying new and innovative methods in education and youth development. Encouraging innovation inspires schools and youth programs to experiment, to build on what they know, and to develop models that can be used by other schools and programs. There's usually some merit to every approach, and experimentation leads to new and better ideas.

In the case of this school's approach, however, I think the experiment brings too many hazards. I worry for the kids who are getting yet another message that they're not good enough. A quality after-school program should give them the opposite message, and a positive message may help them succeed in school and feel better about being there.

And speaking of messages, if we're striving for quality, designating after-school as a reward to be doled out sparingly like dessert sets us up to provide poor-quality programs. If after-school staff are told by the school that their programs are essential to helping kids succeed, they will run their programs accordingly. If their programs are considered an indulgence rather than essential, there is little motivation to focus the program on helping kids succeed.

On the other hand, most program staff already know the value of their programs. I can't imagine the staff at that school are thrilled with the new rule. From the article, it sounds like the students aren't either.

Thanks to dave_mcmt for the Creative Commons photo.