education assignment - Achiever Papers

1) Individual:

a) Issues in Multicultural Education (Benchmark Assessment)

i) Explore local issues in your community that affect the education of diverse students. Possible issues may include but are not limited to inequities among districts in your area in regards to teaching materials, quality of school programs, funding for cultural enrichment activities, etc.

ii) Research an issue described above and analyze possible solutions.

iii) Develop a 750–1000 word plan of action to solve the chosen issue, including the following:

(1) A statement of the problem.

(2) Who is involved:

(a) As part of the problem?

(b) As part of the solution?

(3) What is the proposed solution?

(4) What will be needed to implement the solution (e.g., money, time, manpower, materials, etc.)?

(5) What is the projected timeline to implement the solution?

(6) What is the expected outcome?

iv) Use the GCU eLibrary to research a minimum of three to five peer-reviewed articles that can be used in support of your content.

v) Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the GCU Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

vi) Submit the assignment to the instructor by the end of Module 6.

I have provided 3 out of the 6 sources that I need. All sources MUST be academic sources only. I have provided the gcu style guide. This assignment is EXTREMELY important. I need strong writing skills with accurate English and grammar. full assignment is attached as well as grading rubric. Please follow instructions exactly. This is an essay of 750-1000 words. Again assignment is attached. The issue I chose was the quality of school programs for diverse students. This paper will be ran through a plagarism site so originality please.

by Rebecca London, Oded Gurantz, and Jon Norman

the effect of afterschool
program participation
on english
language acquisition

In the past quarter century, the nation’s K–12 public

schools have experienced a large infl ux of students who

speak languages other than English. In the 2008–09

school year, California public schools served 1.5 million

children (24 percent of the student population) whose

primary language was not English (California Depart-

ment of Education, 2010). This percentage represents a

substantial increase from 25 years earlier, when just 8

percent of California’s public school students were Eng-

lish learners (Williams et al., 2007).

Research has shown that many factors affect how
English learner (EL) students acquire English language
skills, including their preparation before entering U.S.
schools, their out-of-school environments, and schools’
educational practices (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders,
& Christian, 2006; Ready & Tindal, 2006; Saunders &

ReBeCCA LONDON is senior researcher at the John W. Gardner
Center for Youth and Their Communities at Stanford University. Her
research concentrates on disadvantaged youth and families, with
an emphasis on the role of community interventions in providing
opportunities for positive youth development. Her recent studies
include the effect of afterschool programs on physical fi tness, the
link between physical fi tness and academic achievement, and factors
affecting students’ high-school-to-college trajectories. She is a fellow
at the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan.
ODeD GURANTz is the senior policy analyst for the Youth Data
Archive initiative at the John W. Gardner Center for Youth and Their
Communities. His recent work uses linked longitudinal data to ex-
plore student pathways through the K–16 system, with a focus on
the transition from secondary to postsecondary education. Oded
holds a master’s degree in applied economics and fi nance from the
University of California, Santa Cruz, and a bachelor’s in mathematics
from the University of California, Berkeley.
JON R. NORMAN is assistant professor in the department of soci-
ology and the graduate program in public policy and urban affairs
at Loyola University Chicago. His research centers on urban social
and economic transformation. His recent work includes examination
of family and gender norms in housing policy, analysis of economic
inequality in small metro areas, and exploration of the role of cities
versus suburbs in metro area well-being. Jon is currently complet-
ing a book manuscript assessing social, demographic, and economic
changes in smaller U.S. cities.

London, Oded, & Norman the effect of afterschool program participation on english language acquisition 23

the effect of afterschool
program participation
on english
language acquisition

O’Brien, 2006; Valdés, 1998). An in-depth ethnographic
study by Valdés (1998) identified the importance of out-
of-school social settings, indicating that they heavily af-
fect EL students’ in-school perfor-
mance. A review of the limited
literature on out-of-school settings
and oral English language develop-
ment also supports this finding
(Saunders & O’Brien, 2006).

High-quality afterschool pro-
grams offer many benefits, including
academic achievement, but research
has not focused specifically on the
effects of afterschool programs on
English language development. In a
meta-analysis of 35 studies, Lauer
and colleagues (2006) found that afterschool program-
ming had positive effects on math and reading outcomes,
especially for low-income at-risk students. In addition,
research has shown that young people who participated
in afterschool programs attended school more regularly
than did non-participants (Espino, Fabiano, & Pearson,
2004; Fabiano, Pearson, Reisner, & Williams, 2006;
Huang, Kim, Marshall, & Pérez, 2005; Welsh, Russell,
Williams, Reisner, & White, 2002) and showed improve-
ments in their work habits (Vandell, Reisner, & Pierce,
2007). Some evidence supports a “dosage effect”: students
who attended programs more frequently experienced
stronger academic gains (McComb & Scott-Little, 2003).
This finding is difficult to replicate because many after-
school programs do not keep the detailed attendance re-
cords needed to examine dosage effects.

Together, these studies illustrate the benefits of after-
school programs on students’ academic performance, par-
ticularly for disadvantaged youth. However, the majority of
research on afterschool program participation focuses on
Anglo-American and African-American youth. Research has
not fully examined the experiences of Latino youth, who
may face different academic and social challenges. Latino
youth in afterschool programs are more likely to be EL stu-
dents, to be immigrants to the U.S., and to come from
lower-income households (KewelRamani, Gilbertson, Fox,
& Povasnik, 2007). Researchers have examined children of
migrant Latino workers (Riggs & Greenberg, 2004) and
rural Latino children (Riggs, 2006) who attend afterschool
programs, but few large-scale studies have examined Latino
students’ participation in afterschool programs or the effects
of participation on English language acquisition.

The literatures on both afterschool programming
and English acquisition point to the potential importance

of non-academic settings in helping EL students learn
English. In this article, we use an innovative data source—
the Youth Data Archive—to follow elementary and mid-

dle school students from a single
school district over four academic
years to discern any links between
their afterschool program participa-
tion and English language develop-
ment. We found that students at-
tending the program had greater
rates of gain in English develop-
ment, but they did not necessarily
achieve proficiency gains or redesig-
nation as “fluent English proficient”
sooner than non-participating stu-
dents. Our results point to the need

for increased examination of the link between in-school
and out-of-school activities in relation to English lan-
guage acquisition.

The Community and the Program
The setting for this work is Redwood City and the neigh-
boring unincorporated area of North Fair Oaks, located
about 25 miles south of San Francisco in San Mateo
County, California. The Redwood City School District
comprises 17 schools serving about 9,000 students in
grades K–8.

The afterschool program is the Boys & Girls Club of
the Peninsula (BGCP), which has several centers across
San Mateo County. Nearly all (97 percent) of the Redwood
City students who attend a Boys & Girls Club go to just
one clubhouse, which is located on the grounds of a K–8
school in the district. This site serves primarily as an
afterschool program, though the club is also open for
activities on weekends and hosts organizations during the
school day, including a small alternative high school.

Program activities start when school is dismissed.
The Boys & Girls Club has partnerships with several
other schools to have staff walk students to the program.
Students begin with homework help in computer class-
rooms or working with staff and volunteers. They may
complete extra worksheets, engage in independent read-
ing, or occasionally work on art projects. At the end of
the homework hour, students move on to activities for
which they or their parents have signed up, such as open
gym time, arts and crafts, or enrichment programs.
Structured programming ends about 5:30 p.m., when
students congregate in a game room stocked with foos-
ball, pool, and board games to wait for their parents to
pick them up.

the literatures on both
afterschool programming
and english acquisition
point to the potential

importance of
non-academic settings
in helping el students

learn english.

24 Afterschool Matters Spring 2011

Data and Methods
Data for this study come from the Youth Data Archive
(YDA), which consists of individual-level data for young
people in several San Francisco Bay Area communities.
The data are supplied by public and private agencies in-
cluding school districts, city and county agencies, and
local or regional nonprofit youth-serving agencies. The
data are linked individually across sources and over time
to create a longitudinal record of each youth’s schooling,
program participation, and services received.

Using identifiers such as name, address, birth date,
grade, and school, we linked school records individually
to participation data from the Boys & Girls Club.
District data contain detailed information on students’
demographic and socioeconomic characteristics as well
as academic performance. Program data include days of
participation collected by each program site.

We examined the effects of students’ program par-
ticipation on their English language development in the
subsequent year. Since such an analysis relies on con-
secutive years of data, we included only students who
were enrolled in the district at least two consecutive
years, concentrating on students who attended the pro-
gram up to eighth grade. Using data from four academic
years, we identified a total of 1,941 instances where a
student was enrolled in the district in consecutive years
and participated in the program one or both years.
Program participants attended an average of 48.5 days
per school year, mainly at the Redwood City club.

English Language Milestones
Analyses first considered program participation and then
examined the effects of participation and its extent (“dos-
age”) on students’ subsequent English language gains, as
measured by the California English Language Development
Test (CELDT). The CELDT—which is administered in the
fall of each academic year—assesses English proficiency
in four areas: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. In
each area, students receive a proficiency level of Beginner,
Early Intermediate, Intermediate, Early Advanced, or
Advanced. Their overall proficiency level is derived by
equally weighting the four subtests. K–1 students are test-
ed only on listening and speaking. Students are consid-
ered “English proficient” when they earn an overall score
of Early Advanced or higher, with a score of Intermediate
or higher on each subtest.

Students with a primary language other than English
and no previous history of English proficiency testing
must take the CELDT within 30 days of entry into a
California school district. Students who score at the

“English proficient” level on entry are classified as Initially
Fluent English Proficient (IFEP); those not meeting this
requirement are designated as English learners and must
retake the CELDT annually until they meet the require-
ments to become Redesignated Fluent English Proficient
(RFEP). Being “English proficient” is not the same as
meeting the RFEP requirements; RFEP requires English
proficiency as well as demonstrated language ability on
standardized tests and approval by teachers and parents.
Students who have English as their primary language are
referred to as English only (EO).

Our analysis considered three language milestones.
Two of these milestones, set out in Title III of No Child
Left Behind, are the Annual Measurable Achievement
Objectives (AMAO) that school districts must meet. The
third is redesignation.
• AMAO 1 measures the annual progress of EL students,

requiring that students whose overall scores are
Beginning, Early Intermediate, or Intermediate im-
prove one level by the following year. Those who score
Early Advanced or Advanced must attain or maintain
“English proficient” status.

• AMAO 2 measures the percentage of EL students who
have achieved “English proficient” status among those
who could reasonably be expected to have reached this
status, as defined by the California Department of
Education.

• Redesignated Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) stu-
dents meet all three of the following criteria: attaining
“English proficiency” on the CELDT; achieving a mini-
mum score on the California English Language Arts
Standards Test, which is administered in English; and
being evaluated as ready for reclassification by both
teacher and parents.

Methodology
We first used logistic regressions to model the determinants
of program participation among district students, control-
ling for a host of demographic and school-related factors.
We then examined the effects of program participation on
English proficiency gain. Program participation was volun-
tary, and students who attended could have other unob-
served characteristics, such as motivation for learning or a
desire to learn English, that would have facilitated earlier
English proficiency gain than their peers even if they had
not attended the program. As will be discussed below, we
modeled several versions of the participation regressions in
an attempt to better understand this issue. We were also
unable to control for other potentially important character-
istics that might influence participation and outcomes such

London, Oded, & Norman the effect of afterschool program participation on english language acquisition 25

as whether students with working parents were
more or less likely to participate in the program.

We supplemented these quantitative data
with qualitative data in an attempt to understand
better what was happening at the program and
how activities might help students to learn English.
Information was gleaned through interviews and
observations at two of the program sites, including
the site that most participating Redwood City stu-
dents attended. During fall 2007, we interviewed
or held focus groups with seven club staff mem-
bers, 20 students, and six parents about reasons
for youth attendance, types of services received,
program evaluation and satisfaction, and effects on
students’ educational outcomes.

Program Participation
Overall, 7.9 percent of students in the district at-
tended the afterschool program during one or more
of the years we studied. Rates of participation were
higher among English learners and those who were
redesignated than among other students, as illus-
trated in Figure 1. Table 1 compares all students in
the district to those who attended the program.
Program participants were more likely to be Latino
(89.9 percent compared to 64.7 percent of students
in the district) and EL students (63.5 percent com-
pared to 44.4 percent). Program participants also
had lower socioeconomic status, with 87.2 percent
receiving free and reduced price lunch, compared
to 60.8 percent of all Redwood City students.
Almost half of program participants (48.9 percent)
had parents who did not complete high school,
versus 32.6 percent for all district students.

Table 2 (page 26) shows very little difference in
the level of afterschool program attendance across
the four language proficiency groups. On average,
students who attended at least one day were present
at the program 48.5 days in the school year. English
only (EO) and Initially Fluent English Proficient
(IFEP) students had slightly higher average atten-
dance than English learner (EL) and Redesignated
Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) students.

We also looked at the extent of participation,
thinking that students who attended with greater
frequency might experience more pronounced ef-
fects on their English acquisition, as has been
shown in the literature with other academic gains.
Overall, nearly a quarter (22.0 percent) of pro-
gram students attended 90 or more days during

Table 1. Characteristics of Redwood City and BGCP Students
Grades 1–7 in 2004–05 to 2007–08

ALL
STUDeNTS

STUDeNTS eNROLLeD
iN BGCP

ENGlISh PROfICIENCy

El 44.4% 63.5%

RfEP 11.3% 15.

IfEP 7.1% 7.4%

EO 37.2% 14.1%

AvERAGE GRADE lEvEl 4.0 4.0

GENDER

female 49.4% 43.9%

Male 50.6% 56.1%

EThNICITy

latino 64.7% 89.9%

White 25.4% 4.0%

Asian 6.5% 2.5%

African American 2.2% 2.6%

Native American 0.3% 0.1%

free or reduced- priced
lunch

60.8% 87.2%

Special education 14.6% 15.8%

Parents’ education less
than hS

32.6% 48.9%

Entered U.S. schools
after age 6

11.2% 10.8%

Number of students
across four years

24,720 1,941

Figure 1. Percent of Redwood City Students Attending

BGCP

3.0%

8.2%

10.5%

11.2%

5% 10% 15%

english only
(n=9,204)

Initially Fluent
(n=1,757)

Redesignated
(n=2,785)

english learner
(n=10,974)

Grades 1–7
2004–05 to 2007–08

26 Afterschool Matters Spring 2011

the school year; this level of participation was similar
across all four language proficiency groups.

To understand the factors associated with program
attendance, we used three different regression models,
shown in Table 3. We used logistic regressions for atten-

dance outcomes that are measured as yes
or no and linear regressions for the number
of days attended, which is a continuous
measure. The first two columns show the
logistic regressions for characteristics asso-
ciated with an increased likelihood of at-
tending the program (column 1) and of
attending the program for 90 or more days
(column 2). These columns report odds
ratios, which explain the effect of each
control variable on the outcome variable in
terms of increased or decreased odds. An
odds ratio greater than 1 means that stu-
dents with this characteristic were more
likely than students without this charac-
teristic to attend the program or to attend
the program for 90 or more days. An odds
ratio of less than 1 means that students
with this characteristic were less likely to
experience the outcome than were other
students. An odds ratio near 1 indicates no
difference in outcomes for students with
and without the characteristic. The third
column shows a linear regression that ex-
amines the factors associated with the total
number of days attended among those
who are attending. In this column, the co-
efficients show whether students with the
specific characteristic had more or fewer
average days of attendance.

After controlling for ethnicity, we found
that language status had no effect on overall
participation (column 1). EL status had a
negative and significant effect both on
whether the student attended 90 or more
days and on the number of days attended.
Other factors than language proficiency
were stronger predictors of whether a stu-
dent ever participated in a Boys & Girls
Club. Students who were male, Latino, or
enrolled in the free and reduced-price lunch
program were all significantly more likely to
participate, even after controlling for wheth-
er students attended the school that had a
Boys & Girls Club program on site. As
would be expected, attending the school

where the club was located substantially increased both the
odds of attending and the number of days attended. Students
who attended that school frequented the club approximate-
ly 40 more days per school year than did other students.

Table 2. extent of Program Participation by eL Group

GRADeS 1–7 iN 2004–05 TO 2007–08

All
Students

EL RFEP IFEP EO

Average days attended 48.5 48.0 47.2 52.2 50.5

% Attended 1–89 days/year 78.0% 78.5% 76.7% 77.1% 77.7%

% Attended 90+ days/year 22.0% 21.5% 23.3% 22.9% 22.3%

Number of students across
four years

1,941 1,232 292 144 273

Table 3. Determinants of Program Participation with Three Participation
Measures

GRADeS 1–7 iN 2004–05 TO 2007–08

Participation

Odds Ratio

Attendance
90+ Days

Odds Ratio

Number of Days
Coefficient

iFeP 1.358 1.535 3.238

RFeP 0.971 0.867 -9.496

eL 1.028 0.563* -14.635**

Female 0.843* 1.102 4.410

Latino 3.838** 1.581 -14.449

Free lunch status 1.730** 2.136** 6.847

Reduced-price lunch
status

1.966** 2.306 6.764

Parents’ education
less than HS

1.332 1.140 -3.268

Parents’ education
HS graduate

1.373* 1.475 2.083

Attends school with
BGCP on site

11.527** 31.933** 40.789**

Number of students
across four years

24,670 24,670 1,940

Notes: * p<.05, **p<.01. Regressions also include the following variables: African American, Asian, grade-level dummy variables, age of entry to U.S. schools, special education status, and year. Standard errors have been adjusted for multiple observations per person using the Huber-White correction.

London, Oded, & Norman the effect of afterschool program participation on english language acquisition 27

Program Participation and
English Language Outcomes
We next focus on understanding how attending an after-
school program like the Boys & Girls Club might be as-
sociated with English language development among EL
learners. Tabulations shown in Figure 2 indicate that EL
students who attended the program had higher rates of
achievement on the English language milestones AMAO 1
and AMAO 2 than did non-participants. Among EL stu-
dents who did not attend the program, a total of 51.6 per-
cent achieved AMAO 1, indicating that they progressed in
their CELDT score between the prior and current years. A
higher percentage of afterschool participants achieved this
milestone in the same period: 56.5 percent of students
who attended for 1–89 days and 58.0 percent of those
who attended 90 or more days, respectively. AMAO 2

measures whether the student
reaches English proficiency and is
calculated only for students who
might reasonably be expected to
attain proficiency, as defined by
the California Department of
Education. A total of 32.2 percent
of students who did not attend
the program reached AMAO 2,
whereas 35.7 percent and 36.2
percent of those who attended
1–89 or 90 or more days achieved
AMAO 2.

However, we found no asso-
ciation between afterschool pro-
gram participation and the status
of Redesignated Fluent English

Proficient (RFEP). Participants attending for 90 or more
days were only slightly more likely than those not attend-
ing at all to be redesignated in the year after attendance, at
16.4 percent compared to 15.5 percent; the difference was
smaller than for the AMAO outcomes.

These tabulations do not allow us to assess whether
these differences in English language milestones are associ-
ated with program participation or with differences be-
tween students who did and did not attend the program.
The first three columns of Table 4 present results from lo-
gistic regressions that examined the association between
program participation and AMAO 1, AMAO 2, and redes-
ignation. These regression models control for a host of
background characteristics so that we can begin to isolate
the specific effect of afterschool program participation on

Table 4. Determinants of english Language Milestones among eL Students

AMAO 1 AMAO 2 RFeP

iMPROveMeNT iN SPeCiFiC SUBTeST

Reading Writing
Speaking/
Listening

Odds
Ratio

Odds
Ratio
Odds
Ratio

Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio

Attends BGCP 1–89 days 1.238* 1.023 0.811 1.077 1.142 1.174

Attends BGCP 90 or more days 1.354 0.875 0.703 1.096 1.183 1.080

Number of students across
four years

9,974 4,901 4,901 8,073 8,073 9,690

Notes: * p<.05, **p<.01. AMAO 1 indicates improvement in the CELDT test over the prior year. AMAO 2 indicates English proficiency achievement among a set of students who might be expected to reach proficiency. RFEP indicates that the student was redesignated from English learner to English speaking among a set of students who might be expected to reach redesignation. Regressions also include all the variables listed in Table 3. Standard errors have been adjusted for multiple observations per person using the Huber-White correction.

Figure 2. english Language Outcomes for BGCP Participants and Non-Participants

58.0%

36.2%

16.4%

56.5%

51.6%
32.2%

15.5%

35.7%

15.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Students
Attending BGCP
90 or More Days

Students
Attending BGCP

1-89 Days

Students
Not Attending

BGCP
AMAO 1 AMAO 2 RFeP

28 Afterschool Matters Spring 2011

English language outcomes. However, we are unable to
fully account for factors such as student motivation to learn
English. We can include only observable characteristics
that are present in the district database.

The results show that, after controlling for a host of
demographic and school-related outcomes, attending the
program for 1–89 days, relative to no participation, in-
creased the odds of reaching AMAO 1 by 1.24, a statistically
significant effect. Attending 90 or more days was associated
with slightly larger but not quite significant effect—an in-
creased odds of 1.35. The second and third columns of
Table 4 explore the determinants of reaching AMAO 2 and
RFEP. Whereas every EL student is subject to AMAO 1,
which measures annual progress on the CELDT, AMAO 2
and RFEP are based on the subset of EL students who are
reasonably expected to reach English fluency. For neither
AMAO 2 nor RFEP did we find that attending the program
had a measurable effect on reaching the milestone. Students
were redesignated based on several factors, including those
that factor into determining AMAO 1 and AMAO 2, but any
English gains students made at the
Boys & Girls Club did not appear to
be assisting them in being redesig-
nated more quickly than their peers
who did not attend the program.

Through the fieldwork we con-
ducted at two program sites, we
learned that the afterschool program-
ming was not specifically focused on
English language attainment. Why
then would we see an improved
chance of attaining AMAO 1 among
students who participated? We pro-
pose two possible explanations. First,
it may be that youth who attended
the club gained skills in specific as-
pects of language, but not in others. For instance, although
program staff members were all bilingual, adult volunteers
were mostly English speaking. Students who attended the
club were put in situations that required them to speak
English and follow instructions in English. If this exposure
helped them to understand or speak English better, they
may have improved more in the speaking and listening por-
tions of the CELDT but perhaps less in the reading and writ-
ing portions. Second, selection biases associated with who
attended the program and who attended more regularly
may be driving the results. We controlled for factors such as
family economic and educational background, but we were
unable to observe important factors such as student motiva-
tion or family drive for educational success.

To examine the aspects of language acquisition in
which students were making progress, we looked separate-
ly at scores on the reading, writing, listening, and speaking
portions of the CELDT, all of which are considered in
AMAOs 1 and 2. The second set of three columns in Table
4 report odds ratios from a set of logistic regressions exam-
ining the determinants of improvement for each of the sub-
tests. Attending the program for 1–89 days was associated
with increased odds of 1.17of improving the speaking and
listening portions of the test. Attending for 1–89 or 90 or
more days was positively associated with improvements in
the writing portion. However, none of these odds ratios
reach statistical significance, so they cannot be distin-
guished, statistically, from a zero effect.

Policy Implications
Using data from one elementary school district and a large
afterschool program provider in California’s San Francisco
Bay Area, we analyzed the effects of afterschool program
participation on English language development of EL stu-

dents in grades 1–7. Consistent
with the literature on the effects of
afterschool programming on aca-
demic outcomes, we found some
evidence that participation in the
program’s various activities, and
possibly at higher levels of engage-
ment, was associated with one mea-
sure of improvement in English
language development as measured
by the test used statewide to assess
EL students. We found this result
when we examined improvements
in English development overall, but
program participation did not ap-
pear to be affecting students’

English proficiency or their redesignation to Fluent
English Proficient. Some evidence suggests that after-
school participants may have made more gains in the lis-
tening and speaking portions of the test than in reading
and writing, but these results are not conclusive.

Our work suggests several policy-related conclu-
sions. First, although afterschool programming has
been linked to a host of positive academic outcomes,
particularly for disadvantaged youth, our results estab-
lish one of the first links between afterschool participa-
tion and language development among EL students. In
states with large immigrant populations like California,
where one quarter of the public school population is
designated as not proficient in English (Williams et al.,

although afterschool
programming has been

linked to a host of positive
academic outcomes,

particularly for
disadvantaged youth, our
results establish one of the

first links between
afterschool participation

and language development
among el students.

London, Oded, & Norman the effect of afterschool program participation on english language acquisition 29

2007), understanding the processes of language devel-
opment both in and out of school is critical in helping
students progress. The geographic context of this work
offers an important frame. Students in Redwood City,
particularly at the school in which the afterschool site is
located, live in communities that are heavily concen-
trated with Latino immigrants. Students’ social net-
works are likely to encourage the use of their primary
language; the afterschool program may be one of the
few places outside of school where students can try out
their English listening and speaking skills.

Finally, the value of linking disparate sources of data
in ways that allow for new cross-agency analyses has
many policy implications. The Youth Data Archive model
of tracking individual young people across the various
institutions that serve them throughout the community
can be applied to a variety of policy areas to answer a
host of questions about how we are and should be serv-
ing youth both in and out of school. Cross-agency data
sharing with the goal of supporting youth in communi-
ties offers tremendous potential in documenting the
mechanisms for creating positive youth outcomes.

References
California Department of Education. (2010). DataQuest.
Available from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/

Espino, J., Fabiano, L., & Pearson, L. M. (2004). Citizen
schools: Evidence from two student cohorts on the use of
community resources to promote youth development.
Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Fabiano, L., Pearson, L. M., Reisner, E. R., & Williams,
I. J. (2006). Preparing students in the middle grades to
succeed in high school. Washington, DC: Policy Studies
Associates.

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. M., &
Christian, D. (2006). Conclusions and future directions.
In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. M. Saunders, & D.
Christian (Eds.), Educating English learners: A synthesis of
research evidence (pp. 223–234). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Huang, D., Kim, K. S., Marshall, A., & Pérez, P. (2005).
Keeping kids in school: An LA’s BEST example study
examining the long-term impact of LA’s BEST on students’
dropout rates. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for
Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing
(CRESST), University of California, Los Angeles.

KewelRamani, A., Gilbertson, L., Fox, M. A., & Povasnik,
S. (2007). Status and trends in the education of racial and
ethnic minorities. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S.,
Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. (2006). Out-of-school
time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk
students. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 275–313.

McComb, E., & Scott-Little, C. (2003). After-school
programs: Evaluations and outcomes. Greensboro, NC:
SERVE: Improving Learning through Research &
Development.

Ready, D., & Tindal, G. (2006). An investigation of
language-minority children: Demographic characteristics,
initial performance, and growth in achievement. Los
Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST),
University of California, Los Angeles.

Riggs, N. R. (2006). After-school program attendance
and the social development of rural Latino children of
immigrant families. Journal of Community Psychology,
34(1), 75 –87.

Riggs, N. R., & Greenberg, M. T. (2004). Moderators in
the academic development of migrant Latino children
attending after-school programs. Applied Developmental
Psychology, 25, 349–367.

Saunders, W. M., & O’Brien, G. (2006). Oral language.
In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. M. Saunders, & D.
Christian (Eds.), Educating English learners: A synthesis of
research evidence (pp. 14 –63). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Valdés, G. (1998). The world outside and inside
schools: Language and immigrant children. Educational
Researcher, 27(6), 4–18.

Vandell, D. L., Reisner, E. R., & Pierce, K. M. (2007).
Outcomes linked to high-quality afterschool programs:
Longitudinal findings from the study of promising afterschool
programs. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Welsh, M. E., Russell, C. A., Williams, I. J., Reisner, E.
R., & White, R. N. (2002). Promoting learning and school
attendance through after-school programs: Student-level
changes in educational performance across TASC’s first three
years. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Williams, T., Hakuta, K., Haertel, E., Perry, M., Oregon,
I., Brazil, N.,…Levin, J. (2007). Similar English learner
students, different results: Why do some schools do better?
Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

BioMed Central

Page 1 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)

BMC Public Health

Open AccessResearch article
Pilot evaluation of a walking school bus program in a low-income,
urban community
Jason A Mendoza*1,2, David D Levinger3 and Brian D Johnston4

Address: 1USDA/ARS Children’s Nutrition Research Center and Academic General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, 1100 Bates St, Baylor
College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA , 2Dan L Duncan Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston TX, USA, 3T-Usability, 2808
NW 92nd St, Seattle, WA 98117, USA and 4Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington and Harborview Medical Center, 325 Ninth Ave,
Seattle, WA 98104-2499, USA

Email: Jason A Mendoza* – jason.mendoza@bcm.edu; David D Levinger – david@t-usability.com; Brian D Johnston – bdj@u.washington.edu

* Corresponding author

Abstract
Background: To evaluate the impact of a walking school bus (WSB) program on student
transport in a low-income, urban neighborhood.

Methods: The design was a controlled, quasi-experimental trial with consecutive cross-sectional
assessments. The setting was three urban, socioeconomically disadvantaged, public elementary
schools (1 intervention vs. 2 controls) in Seattle, Washington, USA. Participants were ethnically
diverse students in kindergarten-5th grade (aged 5–11 years). The intervention was a WSB program
consisting of a part-time WSB coordinator and parent volunteers. Students’ method of
transportation to school was assessed by a classroom survey at baseline and one-year follow-up.
The Pearson Chi-squared test compared students transported to school at the intervention versus
control schools at each time point. Due to multiple testing, we calculated adjusted p-values using
the Ryan-Holm stepdown Bonferroni procedure. McNemar’s test was used to examine the change
from baseline to 12-month follow-up for walking versus all other forms of school transport at the
intervention or control schools.

Results: At baseline, the proportions of students (n = 653) walking to the intervention (20% +/-
2%) or control schools (15% +/- 2%) did not differ (p = 0.39). At 12-month follow up, higher
proportions of students (n = 643, p = 0.001)) walked to the intervention (25% +/- 2%) versus the
control schools (7% +/- 1%). No significant changes were noted in the proportion of students riding
in a car or taking the school bus at baseline or 12-month follow up (all p > 0.05). Comparing
baseline to 12-month follow up, the numbers of students who walked to the intervention school
increased while the numbers of students who used the other forms of transport did not change (p
< 0.0001). In contrast, the numbers of students who walked to the control schools decreased while the numbers of students who used the other forms of transport did not change (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: A WSB program is a promising intervention among urban, low-income elementary
school students that may promote favorable changes toward active transport to school.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00402701

Published: 4 May 2009

BMC Public Health 2009, 9:122 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-122

Received: 2 August 2008
Accepted: 4 May 2009

This article is available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/122

© 2009 Mendoza et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=19413910

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/122

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0

http://www.biomedcentral.com/

http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/charter/

BMC Public Health 2009, 9:122 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/122

Page 2 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)

Background
Childhood obesity is a major public health problem in
the United States [1]. Increasing children’s physical activ-
ity has been shown to decrease obesity [2] and is a major
goal for Healthy People 2010 [3]. Walking to school is a
promising form of physical activity that has the potential
to make population-level changes to improve children’s
health. Walking to school is associated with higher levels
of overall physical activity [4-7], is consistent with obesity
prevention recommendations [8,9], and is one of the
objectives for children in Healthy People 2010 [3].
Greater numbers of children walking to school in organ-
ized programs may decrease motor vehicle traffic and car-
bon emissions, lower risk of pedestrian injury, and lower
air pollution around schools. However, several US studies
have reported substantial national declines in children
walking to school [10-12]. For example, in national sam-
ples of children, only 17% walked to or from school at
least once a week in 2004 [11] compared to the almost
50% of elementary school children who walked or biked
to school in 1969–1970 [13]. Reasons for the decline in
children walking to school are likely related to increased
distance from home to school, changes to the built envi-
ronment, and parental concerns [14]. Parents’ concern
about their children’s safety (traffic and crime-related) in
particular was cited as the most important barrier to
allowing their children to walk to school [11,14,15].

A walking school bus (WSB) is a group of children who
walk to and from school chaperoned by responsible
adults, usually parents. WSB programs address parents’
safety concerns by providing a period of physical activity
with adult supervision and teaching opportunities around
pedestrian safety skills. The idea for a WSB reportedly orig-
inated in Australia as a practical transportation solution to
promote physical activity and reduce congestion, pollu-
tion, and reliance on automobiles [16]. Parents took turns
leading WSBs on different days of the week, which pro-
vided for a practical and convenient way to transport chil-
dren to school. Children joined the WSB at various points
along the set route. Students who lived far away were
dropped off along the route to join the WSB. Heavy items
were transported to school on a wagon pulled by one of
the adult chaperones. The primary goal was to allow chil-
dren to actively and safely commute to school. An addi-
tional goal was to foster the development of skills,
confidence, and motivation to walk to school safely and
independently.

The published, peer-reviewed literature on active com-
muting to school, particularly on walk to school interven-
tion programs, is sparse as previously reviewed [17-19].
One study reported no change in the method of school
transport between intervention schools assigned a travel
coordinator and control schools in London [20]. An eval-

uation of an active transport intervention among Scottish
students reported significant increases in the mean dis-
tance walked to school by intervention students versus
control students [21]. In Marin County, California, a Safe
Routes to School program that included a walking school
bus component among several core activities, but lacked a
control group, reported increases in students who walked,
biked or carpooled to school and decreases in students
transported by motor vehicle [22].

Despite the growing popularity of walk to school pro-
grams in the US [23], long-term controlled studies are
lacking. We sought to help fill this gap by conducting a
pilot assessment of the effect of a WSB program in a low-
income community in Seattle, Washington. The main
hypothesis was that a WSB program would increase the
proportion of students walking to school and decrease the
proportion of students driven to school by car in the
short- and long-term.

Methods
Subjects
The Seattle Public Schools and Feet First, a pedestrian
advocacy organization, obtained funding for a single WSB
program from the Washington State Department of Trans-
portation. This grant provided the opportunity to conduct
a natural experiment. We conducted a controlled, quasi-
experimental trial with one intervention and two control
schools. Three public elementary schools were identified
and recruited by Feet First and the Seattle Public Schools
as potential sites for the WSB intervention, based on their
diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged popula-
tions. One intervention school was chosen by the grant-
ees, based on having the greatest “school readiness,” for
the initial WSB program. School readiness was indicated
by substantial support from the school principal and par-
ticipation of key staff members and parents in the WSB
program. The remaining two schools were placed on a
wait-list for future WSB program funding and served as
concurrent comparison sites.

All schools were urban, public, elementary schools in the
Central District of Seattle, Washington and enrolled an
ethnically diverse group of students from several socio-
economically disadvantaged neighborhoods (see Table 1)
[24]. The schools did not have active Parent Teacher
Organizations and parent involvement at the schools was
generally low as per the schools’ principals and key faculty
members. The schools also had similar neighborhood
attributes, such as adequate sidewalks, 1–2 major road
arterials within one-block of the school boundaries, and
relatively mildly graded hills. The communities were pri-
marily mixed use urban neighborhoods.

BMC Public Health 2009, 9:122 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/122

Page 3 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)

Instruments
The primary outcome measures were the proportions of
students who walked or were driven to school. These out-
comes were determined on the same dates (to control for
weather conditions) at all three schools by an in-class-
room survey conducted by the three schools’ homeroom
teachers (all homerooms were surveyed). The survey was
consistent with quantitative guidelines for WSB program
measures [25] and adapted from the Marin County Safe
Routes to School program [22]. Similar to the previous
Marin County evaluation, the students were asked to raise
their hands in class to indicate how they traveled to school
that morning. However, instead of relying on volunteers
[22], we partnered with the schools and had homeroom
teachers conduct the assessment, which allowed for
simultaneous, school-wide evaluations. They read from a
standard script and asked their students, “How did you get
to school today?” and read the following responses: (a)
walked with an adult, (b) walked without an adult, (c)
biked, (d) by school bus, (e) by metro bus, (f) by carpool,
and (g) by car. The teachers instructed their students to
raise their hands only once and ensured that the student
classroom survey total matched the actual student daily
attendance total. For the analyses, the “walked to school”
category included students who walked with or without
an adult. We combined carpool and car into one category
because carpools were an infrequent method of transport.

The WSB program inauguration was in March 2005 and
ran continuously through March 2006, except during
school holidays and summer break. Outcomes were
assessed by a series of 1-day, cross-sectional surveys at
baseline (November 2004), one-month follow-up (April
2005), 6-month follow-up (November 2005, which

allowed for time off for summer break), and 1-year fol-
low-up (March 2006). Because we were interested in
measuring the effect of the WSB program on usual student
transportation, none of the data collection occurred on
days with a planned walking school bus or walk-to-school
promotion event. Given the constraints of funding and
personnel for this pilot evaluation, we limited data collec-
tion to one day per assessment time point. We also used
trained and certified professional educators/evaluators
already working in the schools, i.e. teachers, who were not
paid by the investigators, to conduct the simple classroom
transportation assessments according to a standard script.

Procedure
The intervention school was assigned a WSB coordinator
who dedicated 10–15 hours per week throughout the
entire evaluation period (except for summer break) on the
project and was responsible for implementing and main-
taining the program. The coordinator was hired and
trained by Feet First, a Seattle pedestrian advocacy organi-
zation http://www.feetfirst.info/. In addition to establish-
ing WSB routes and recruiting adult volunteers and
students, the coordinator implemented school-wide activ-
ities and distributed materials on walking to school and
pedestrian safety. For example, she maintained a bulletin
board with walk to school and pedestrian safety materials,
provided walk to school materials and WSB information
in the school newsletter, arranged for classroom presenta-
tions on pedestrian safety by Seattle Police Officers,
organized “Two-Feet Tuesdays” (a weekly walk to school
day), and organized walking workshops and the annual
walk to school community celebration. She also con-
ducted an informal process evaluation by tracking WSB
student attendance weekly and by face-to-face interviews

Table 1: Demographics for the participating schools in the walking school bus evaluation.

Intervention School (n = 347) Control School 1 (n = 293) Control School 2 (n = 180) District-wide

Race/ethnicity (%)

American Indian 4 0 3 2

Asian 21 12 2 23

African American 50 67 80 22

Latino 20 18 8 11

Caucasian 5 3 8 41

Gender (%)

Female 44 43 52 49

Free or Reduced Lunch (%) 91 80 87 40

http://www.feetfirst.info/

BMC Public Health 2009, 9:122 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/122

Page 4 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)

with WSB parent leaders and volunteers. The WSB routes
were chosen by Feet First, school personnel, and parents
to maximize efficiency, safety, and participation. Parent
leaders and volunteers for the WSB program were first
identified by the school principal or staff. All WSB staff
and volunteers passed a standard criminal background
check. The intervention and control schools all received
standard information on preferred walking routes from
the Seattle Public Schools, access to a district-wide school
traffic and safety committee, and assistance with school
safety patrols.

Data Analysis
We used Stata version 9 for Windows (StataCorp, College
Station, TX). We used the Pearson Chi-squared test to
compare students transported to school at the interven-
tion versus control schools at each time point. We list esti-
mates with their standard errors. The control schools’ data
were pooled. The unit of study was the school group, i.e.
intervention versus the pooled control schools. Due to
multiple testing, we calculated adjusted p-values using the
Ryan-Holm stepdown Bonferroni procedure [26].

To examine the change from baseline to 12-month fol-
low-up for walking versus all other forms of school trans-
port at the intervention or control schools separately, we
used McNemar’s test statistic. We combined the other
forms of school transport into one category because the
Pearson chi-squared test indicated that only walking to
school was significantly different between intervention
and control schools. This study was approved by the Uni-
versity of Washington Human Subject Division and the
Seattle Public Schools. This study’s unique registration
number for ClinicalTrials.gov was NCT00402701.

Results
School characteristics were provided by the Seattle Public
Schools for 2005 (Table 1) [24]. The schools were closely
matched on the percentage of students who received free
or reduced price meals and the percentage of ethnic
minority students enrolled. For the baseline and all fol-
low-up measurements, greater than 78% of students were
counted at each school for the classroom surveys of school
transport. The percentage of K-2nd grade students sampled
at the intervention and control schools did not differ at
baseline (46% vs. 51%), 1-month (45% vs. 50%), 6-
month (54% vs. 55%), and 12-month (50% vs. 56%) fol-
low up.

From the process evaluation, we report that three WSBs
were developed and maintained throughout the study
period and each “bus” had its own set route to school
from different locations in the surrounding neighbor-
hoods. The routes ranged from approximately 0.3 to 1.5
miles long (as estimated by http://www.mapquest.com)

and took 15–40 minutes from start to finish. The WSBs
had 1–3 specified pick-up points along each route. Addi-
tionally, the shortest WSB also briefly went door-to-door
to pick up several students who were concentrated in a
neighborhood housing project. The WSBs, on average,
were staffed by a combination of four WSB parent leaders
and three to five other parent volunteers. Due to limita-
tions on volunteer availability, the WSBs operated once or
twice a week. On average, 20–25 students regularly partic-
ipated in a WSB at least once a week.

At baseline, the proportions of students who walked to
school at the intervention (20% +/- 2% versus control
(15% +/- 2%) schools were not significantly different
(Table 2, p = 0.39). However, at 1-month (25% +/- 3% vs.
11% +/- 2%, p = 0.0012), 6-month (24% +/- 2% vs. 11%
+/- 2%, p = 0.0011) and 12-month follow up (25% +/- 2%
vs. 7% +/- 1%, p = 0.001), higher proportions of students
walked to school at the intervention school versus control
schools, respectively (Table 2).

The differences in the proportion of students transported
by car to the intervention versus control schools (Table 2)
did not differ at baseline, 1-month, 6-month, or 12-
month follow up (all p > 0.05). Similarly, no significant
changes were detected in transport by school bus at the

Table 2: Percentage +/- standard errors (absolute counts of
students by mode of transport/total students) of K-5th grade
students transported to school by car, walking, or school bus.*, §

Baseline 1-month 6-month 12-month

By car
Intervention 47 +/- 3

(132/281)
36 +/- 3
(106/291)

36 +/- 3
(116/323)

34 +/- 3
(102/303)

Controls 41 +/- 3
(152/372)

38 +/- 2
(169/447)

41 +/- 2
(168/406)

39 +/- 3
(134/340)

By walking
Intervention 20 +/- 2

(56/281)
25 +/- 3†
(73/291)

24 +/- 2†
(79/323)

25 +/- 2†
(75/303)

Controls 15 +/- 2
(54/372)

11 +/- 2†
(51/447)

11 +/- 2†
(45/406)

7 +/- 1†
(24/340)

By school bus
Intervention 31 +/- 3

(88/281)
36 +/- 3
(105/291)

37 +/- 3
(119/323)

39 +/- 3
(118/303)

Controls 40 +/- 3
(149/372)

45 +/- 2
(200/447)

44 +/- 2
(177/406)

49 +/- 3
(165/340)

* Unless otherwise indicated, differences were not significant using a
Pearson Chi-squared test comparing intervention versus controls at
the specified time point for each mode of transport. P-values were
adjusted using the Ryan-Holm stepdown Bonferroni procedure.
§Other forms of school transport (metro bus and bicycle) were
excluded from the table due to low percentages.
†p = 0.0012 at 1-month, p = 0.0011 at 6-months, and p = 0.001 at 12-
months for differences between intervention versus controls.

http://www.mapquest.com

BMC Public Health 2009, 9:122 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/122

Page 5 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)

intervention or control schools at each assessment time
point (Table 2, all p > 0.05).

Comparing baseline to 12-month follow up, the numbers
of students at the intervention school who walked to
school increased while the numbers of students who used
the other forms of transport did not change (Table 3, p < 0.0001). In contrast, the numbers of students at the con- trol schools who walked to school decreased while the numbers of students who used the other forms of trans- port did not change (Table 3, p < 0.0001).

Bicycling and riding the metro bus were an infrequent
method of transport (0–2%) at the intervention and con-
trol schools at all assessment time points.

Discussion
With part-time administrative support, a walking school
bus program was implemented in a low-income, ethni-
cally diverse, urban, public elementary school. Interven-
tion and control schools had statistically similar baseline
proportions of students walking to school and these esti-
mates were comparable to previously published national
estimates [10-12]. The WSB program was associated with
significantly higher proportions of students who walked
to school at short and long-term follow-up, as compared
to the control schools. Comparing baseline to 12-month
follow up results, the WSB intervention was associated
with an increased number (n = 19) of students who
walked to school in contrast to the controls which had a
decline in students (n = 30) walking to school. A previous
intervention study reported increases in the number of
students walking to school, although that study lacked
control schools for comparison [22]. A short-term (10-
week), quasi-experimental trial reported significant
increases from baseline to immediate post-intervention in
the mean distance walked to school (+555 meters, P < 0.001) and decreases in the mean distance traveled by car to school (-850.5 meters, P < 0.001) by intervention

(Traveling Green) versus control students [21]. Our study
builds upon these studies by reporting long-term results
specifically for a WSB program with a study design that
included control schools. Taken together, WSB programs
may improve the numbers of children walking to school,
and may improve their physical activity, which are both
objectives of Healthy People 2010 [3]. While no long-
term differences in school travel patterns were detected as
a result of a previous randomized controlled trial [20],
that study’s school travel coordinator(s) offered only 16
hours of expert assistance over one school year to each
school, which may not provide sufficient time to develop,
implement, and sustain a long-term school-wide travel
plan. In comparison, the school coordinator for this
study’s WSB program spent about the same amount of
time each week at the intervention school.

These results may underestimate the change in propor-
tions of students who walked to school since they
reflected days without scheduled walking school buses.
Alternatively, the results suggest that WSB programs may
not need to operate WSB routes every school day to have
an impact on school travel patterns. Moreover, since data
collection was relatively comprehensive for each school
on assessment days, the changes in school travel patterns
reflect the WSB program’s school-wide impact, not just its
impact on students who regularly used the WSB program.

This pilot study has a number of limitations. First, the
evaluation used a non-randomized design. However, the
control schools were comparable to the intervention
school and served predominantly disadvantaged, minor-
ity populations from the Central District of Seattle, Wash-
ington, which should minimize selection threats to
internal validity. Second, method of transport to school
was assessed publicly in the classroom by self-report from
elementary school students similar to a previous study
[22], which may limit validity. However, the baseline per-
centage of students who walked to school at both the
intervention and control schools were consistent with pre-
vious national estimates [10-12], which suggests that the
transportation measurement method was comparable to
previous methods. While few active transport studies have
reported validity of students’ self report for method of
transport to school [4-7,10,27-29], previous studies exam-
ining students’ self reported school travel have demon-
strated acceptable test-retest reliability (kappa coefficient
0.96) and validity (kappa coefficient = 0.80) compared to
parental report in a sample of children aged 8–11 years
[30] and high concordance for test-retest reliability (97%)
and validity (97.5%) compared to parental report in a
sample of children aged 9–11 years [31]. These studies
suggest that child-assessed measures are reasonably valid
and reliable. Third, method of transport to school was
assessed by school teachers rather than research staff.

Table 3: Counts of student transportation (walking versus all
others combined) at baseline and 12-month follow-up for
intervention and control schools.

Baseline 12-month

Intervention School*

By walking 56 75
By all others combined 225 228

Control Schools*

By walking 54 24
By all others combined 318 316

* p < 0.0001 by McNemar's test.

BMC Public Health 2009, 9:122 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/122

Page 6 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)

Teachers were not specially trained nor informed of the
study’s goals or a priori hypotheses. Using teachers for the
evaluation allowed us to efficiently utilize an experienced
group of professionals. It seems unlikely that teachers
would knowingly or unknowingly bias results, given the
small nature of the WSB program, the infrequent and brief
transport assessments, and the multitude of academic
teaching demands that they faced. Fourth, we did not have
repeated measures on individual subjects nor socio-
demographic data. Instead, we conducted cross sectional
surveys with relatively high student participation (>78%)
at each assessment. Given the cross-sectional assessments,
we cannot determine if new students enrolled at the inter-
vention school were already more likely to walk to school
(or vice versa at the control schools) as a competing expla-
nation for the results, but this appears unlikely. Fifth, the
intervention occurred at a single urban, public elementary
school, which limits external validity. Sixth, the study
involved only three schools with a small sample size,
especially when the unit of analysis was the school group
level, which limits the ability to detect differences in the
study’s outcomes. Finally, the measurements were taken
on only one day per assessment point, due to constraints
inherent with pilot studies and natural experiments. Ide-
ally, transport would be assessed over multiple days, to
better estimate habitual school transport and account for
day to day variation.

This pilot evaluation was designed to efficiently provide
useful preliminary information from a natural experiment
within the constraints of a limited budget and rapid time-
line, to inform more methodologically rigorous studies.
Studies are needed to examine the impact of WSB pro-
grams on child pedestrian safety behaviors. Studies ideally
should be long-term group randomized controlled trials,
which longitudinally assess individual students and their
socio-demographics; use objective and validated meas-
ures for transport and physical activity; assess changes in
psychosocial constructs related to physical activity; and
consider the role of the built environment in moderating
the effects of WSB programs.

Conclusion
We report the successful implementation of a WSB pro-
gram specifically targeted to low-income, ethnically
diverse elementary schoolchildren and the first to provide
long-term results in the setting of a controlled trial. The
program was associated with higher proportions of stu-
dents walking to the intervention school compared to
control schools at 1-month follow up that was sustained
at 6- and 12-months follow up. Given the popularity of
WSB programs and their promotion by national health
and transportation authorities, additional research is nec-
essary to assess WSB programs’ impact on children’s over-

all physical activity, weight status, academic achievement,
and pedestrian safety.

Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions
All three authors were involved in the conception and
design of the study. JAM and BDJ were involved in the
data collection. JAM led the data analysis. JAM drafted the
manuscript and DDL and BDJ critically revised the manu-
script. All authors read and approved the final manu-
script.

Acknowledgements
Information and a helpful guide about walking school buses can be found at
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/walking_school_bus/index.cfm. The
authors are grateful to the principals, teachers, and students of the three
Seattle public elementary schools for their cooperation with the evaluation,
including Ms. Stella Bass and Ms. Kathryn O’Leary. We also thank the staff
and volunteers from Feet First and the Injury Free Coalition for Kids of
Seattle who made the Walking School Bus and its evaluation possible.
Finally, we thank Issa Zakeri, PhD, for guidance on the statistical analysis
approach and Tom Baranowski, PhD, for critically reviewing drafts of this
manuscript.

The first author had full access to all the data in the study and takes respon-
sibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. This
research project was conducted by the first author while a senior fellow in
the University of Washington Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Pro-
gram (2004–2006), which had no role in the design, analysis, or reporting
of this study. The WSB Program was funded by the Washington State
Department of Transportation, which had no role in the design, analysis, or
reporting of this study. The views expressed in this article are those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation, Feet First, or the University of Washington. This work
is also a publication of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA/
ARS) Children’s Nutrition Research Center, Department of Pediatrics,
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and had been funded in part
with federal funds from the USDA/ARS under Cooperative Agreement No.
58-6250-6001. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect
the views or policies of the USDA, nor does mention of trade names, com-
mercial products, or organizations imply endorsement from the U.S. gov-
ernment.

References
1. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, McDowell MA, Tabak CJ, Flegal

KM: Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United
States, 1999–2004. Jama 2006, 295(13):1549-1555.

2. Strong WB, Malina RM, Blimkie CJ, Daniels SR, Dishman RK, Gutin B,
Hergenroeder AC, Must A, Nixon PA, Pivarnik JM, et al.: Evidence
based physical activity for school-age youth. J Pediatr 2005,
146(6):732-737.

3. Healthy People 2010. 2nd edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office; 2000.

4. Cooper AR, Page AS, Foster LJ, Qahwaji D: Commuting to school:
are children who walk more physically active? Am J Prev Med
2003, 25(4):273-276.

5. Cooper AR, Andersen LB, Wedderkopp N, Page AS, Froberg K:
Physical activity levels of children who walk, cycle, or are
driven to school. Am J Prev Med 2005, 29(3):179-184.

http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/walking_school_bus/index.cfm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16595758

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15973308

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14580626

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16168866

Publish with BioMed Central and every
scientist can read your work free of charge

“BioMed Central will be the most significant development for
disseminating the results of biomedical research in our lifetime.”

Sir Paul Nurse, Cancer Research UK

Your research papers will be:

available free of charge to the entire biomedical community

peer reviewed and published immediately upon acceptance

cited in PubMed and archived on PubMed Central

yours — you keep the copyright

Submit your manuscript here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/publishing_adv.asp

BioMedcentral

BMC Public Health 2009, 9:122 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/122

Page 7 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)

6. Sirard JR, Riner WF Jr, McIver KL, Pate RR: Physical activity and
active commuting to elementary school. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2005, 37(12):2062-2069.

7. Saksvig BI, Catellier DJ, Pfeiffer K, Schmitz KH, Conway T, Going S,
Ward D, Strikmiller P, Treuth MS: Travel by walking before and
after school and physical activity among adolescent girls.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2007, 161(2):153-158.

8. Pate RR, Davis MG, Robinson TN, Stone EJ, McKenzie TL, Young JC:
Promoting physical activity in children and youth: a leader-
ship role for schools: a scientific statement from the Ameri-
can Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical
Activity, and Metabolism (Physical Activity Committee) in
collaboration with the Councils on Cardiovascular Disease in
the Young and Cardiovascular Nursing. Circulation 2006,
114(11):1214-1224.

9. Kushi LH, Byers T, Doyle C, Bandera EV, McCullough M, McTiernan
A, Gansler T, Andrews KS, Thun MJ: American Cancer Society
Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for cancer pre-
vention: reducing the risk of cancer with healthy food
choices and physical activity. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians
2006, 56(5):254-281. quiz 313-254

10. Fulton JE, Shisler JL, Yore MM, Caspersen CJ: Active transporta-
tion to school: findings from a national survey. Research quar-
terly for exercise and sport 2005, 76(3):352-357.

11. Barriers to Children Walking to or from School – United
States, 2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005, 54(38):949-952.

12. McDonald NC: Active transportation to school: trends among
U.S. schoolchildren, 1969–2001. Am J Prev Med 2007,
32(6):509-516.

13. US Department of Transportation; Federal Highway
Administration. National Personal Transportation Survey:
Transportation Characteristics of School Children. Wash-
ington, DC. US Department of Transportation; 1972.

14. Kerr J, Rosenberg D, Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Frank LD, Conway TL:
Active commuting to school: Associations with environment
and parental concerns. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006, 38(4):787-794.

15. Barriers to children walking and biking to school – United
States, 1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2002, 51(32):701-704.

16. Engwicht D: Reclaiming Our Cities and Towns: Better Living With Less
Traffic Philadelphia: New Society Publishers; 1993.

17. Jago R, Baranowski T: Non-curricular approaches for increasing
physical activity in youth: a review. Prev Med 2004,
39(1):157-163.

18. Davison KK, Werder JL, Lawson CT: Children’s active commut-
ing to school: current knowledge and future directions. Prev
Chronic Dis 2008, 5(3):A100.

19. Lee MC, Orenstein MR, Richardson MJ: Systematic review of
active commuting to school and children’s physical activity
and weight. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 2008, 5(6):930-949.

20. Rowland D, DiGuiseppi C, Gross M, Afolabi E, Roberts I: Ran-
domised controlled trial of site specific advice on school
travel patterns. Archives of disease in childhood 2003, 88(1):8-11.

21. McKee R, Mutrie N, Crawford F, Green B: Promoting walking to
school: results of a quasi-experimental trial. Journal of epidemi-
ology and community health 2007, 61(9):818-823.

22. Staunton CE, Hubsmith D, Kallins W: Promoting safe walking and
biking to school: the Marin County success story. Am J Public
Health 2003, 93(9):1431-1434.

23. Ward DS, Linnan L, Vaughn A, Neelon B, Martin SL, Fulton JE: Char-
acteristics Associated with US Walk to School Programs: A
cross-sectional study. The international journal of behavioral nutrition
and physical activity 2007, 4(1):67.

24. Student Information Services Office. Annual Reports, 2005.
Seattle, WA. Seattle Public Schools [http://www.seattle
schools.org/area/siso/test/smallsisoschoollist.xml]

25. Mackett RL, Lucas L, Paskins J, Turbin J: A methodology for eval-
uating walking buses as an instrument of urban transport
policy. Transport Policy 2003, 10:179-186.

26. Ludbrook J: Multiple comparison procedures updated. Clinical
and experimental pharmacology & physiology 1998, 25(12):1032-1037.

27. Sirard JR, Ainsworth BE, McIver KL, Pate RR: Prevalence of active
commuting at urban and suburban elementary schools in
Columbia, SC. Am J Public Health 2005, 95(2):236-237.

28. Cooper AR, Wedderkopp N, Wang H, Andersen LB, Froberg K, Page
AS: Active travel to school and cardiovascular fitness in Dan-

ish children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006,
38(10):1724-1731.

29. Merom D, Tudor-Locke C, Bauman A, Rissel C: Active commuting
to school among NSW primary school children: implications
for public health. Health & place 2006, 12(4):678-687.

30. Evenson KR, Neelon B, Ball SC, Vaughn A, Ward DS: Validity and
reliability of a school travel survey. Journal of physical activity &
health 2008, 5(Suppl 1):S1-15.

31. Heelan KA, Donnelly JE, Jacobsen DJ, Mayo MS, Washburn R, Greene
L: Active commuting to and from school and BMI in elemen-
tary school children-preliminary data. Child: care, health and
development 2005, 31(3):341-349.

Pre-publication history
The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed
here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/122/pre
pub

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16331130

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=17283300

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16908770

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=17005596

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16195692

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=17533067

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16679998

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12206284

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15207997

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=18558018

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12495948

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12948957

http://www.seattleschools.org/area/siso/test/smallsisoschoollist.xml

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9888002

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15671456

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=17019293

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16263323

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=18364515

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15840154

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/122/prepub

http://www.biomedcentral.com/

http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/publishing_adv.asp

http://www.biomedcentral.com/

SETTING UP A SUCCESSFUL AFTER SCHOOL
TUTORIAL PROGRAM:

ONE DISTRICT’S JOURNEY

DONNA R. SANDERSON
110 Recitation Hall

Elementary Education Department
West Chester University
West Chester, PA 19383

(H) 610 725-9991
(W) 610 738-0382

Born from the need for extended learning time and learning
opportunities to assist struggling young readers, the Upper Darby
School District’s Title I Program created the T.O.A.S.T. (Title
One After School Tutorial) program. Located on the western
boarder of Philadelphia, the Upper Darby School District is
home to over 10,000 students who construct an extremely
diverse student body. During the 1998-99 school year five ele-
mentary schools qualified for Title I services, but the need for
more remedial help was becoming glaringly obvious. It was at
that time extra monetary resources were found in the federal
budget due to recent administrative changes, and an after school
tutorial program was quickly envisioned. A few weeks later, the
T.O.A.S.T. program began to give struggling readers extra prac-
tice and instruction in acquiring literacy skills.

State Standards & Extended
Learning Time

The rationale for creating this program

lies in the fact that Pennsylvania has adopt-

ed and passed into law explicit state

standards in many academic disciplines,

including reading and the language arts.

The Title I program has been extremely

busy over the years realigning their instruc-
tion and assessments with the districts

reading series to help students reach these

challenging state standards. As a way of

addressing students individual needs to

further reading instruction, this newly

developed after school tutorial program
was designed to give students the boost
they need by providing high quality liter-
acy experiences in a supportive and caring
environment.

Why a Quality After School Program?

Current research and innovative studies
have produced evidence that tutoring
works! In addition, research has found
that tutoring result in improvements in
reading comprehension, word recognition,
and student attitudes towards reading.
More specifically, surveys of targeted

14/Reading Improvement

groups of students who are tutored in read-
ing have shown significant improvement in
students’ motivation to read, their self con-
fidence as readers, and their views of their
control over their reading abilities.

In the tutoring setting, students are fully
engaged in the learning process and the
bond they can form with their tutor can
provide a warm, supportive relationship
within which instruction occurs best. Dur-
ing these tutoring sessions tutors identify
the strengths and weaknesses of each stu-
dent’s pre-reading/reading performance
and encourage the continuation of pro-
ductive pre-reading/reading behaviors.

Additionally, after school programs
boost traditional learning time. This pro-
gram adds two additional intensive hours
of instruction to the students’ learning
week. Students are supervised in the after-
noon hours and are provided a “safe haven”
in a literacy enriched, caring environment.
This is viewed as a great strength, consid-
ering the unfortunate reality is that too
many young students return home to empty
houses at the end of the traditional school
day. The Mott Foundation had this to say
in regards to after school programs, “After
school programs are an important first step
in the process of changing not only how we
educate our children, but how we, the
school and community, come together to
ensure their success.” (p. 5)

Goals of the T.O.A.S.T. Program

The overall goal of the T.O.A.S.T. pro-
gram is to provide Upper Darby students
the instruction and practice that is neces-
sary for students to achieve higher

academic performance and do this in a
warm, caring environment. In addition to
strengthening the students’ pre-
reading/reading ability, the students’ self
esteem is a primary concern. The program
aims to nurture young learners and posi-
tively influence their self-esteem and
self-worth. This will enable the students
to return to their classrooms with a renewed
sense of interest in learning and the con-
fidence to participate in class.

Another critical program component
centers on increasing students’ positive
attitudes towards reading. Tutors intro-
duce high quality literature while exposing
students to grade level appropriate stories.
The aim is to begin instilling an apprecia-
tion for quality literature while surrounding
students with stories written at their abil-
ity level in which they are interested.

The last crucial program component is
to keep the student-teacher ratio low so
students can reap the greatest possible ben-
efits. The program provides a small group
setting and a certified teacher working with
only three students for thirteen consecutive
weeks. Working this closely in an inten-
sive, small group opens the door for many
positive social interactions between the
tutor and the students and between the stu-
dents themselves. The intimacy of the
small group invites the student’s trust with
the tutor since a strong student-teacher con-
nection can be formed and nurtured. It
also lets the teacher thoroughly evaluate
the students’ strengths and weaknesses and
keep close track of their progress made
over time.

Setting Up After School Tutorial Program…/ 15

A Framework for Excellence
When constructing the framework for

the initial program many teachers were
called into action to share their thoughts
and provide feedback. Title I reading spe-
cialists as well as regular classroom
teachers, district reading specialists, and
Title I coordinators from neighboring
school districts all provided input on how
they believed the program design could
best service students while staying under
our allotted budget. This cooperative and
collaborative effort resulted in five high
quality strands that when woven together
created our unique tutorial program. Areas
of focus centered on: teacher certification,
staff development, scheduling guidelines,
materials & assessments, and parental
involvement.

Teacher certification
It was agreed by central administration

that teachers holding a teaching certificate
in elementary and/or early childhood would
be eligible to teach the program. Addi-
tionally, teachers who also possessed a
Pennsylvania reading specialist certificate
would be eligible to apply for the positions.
The tutoring slots were posted across the
district, and eight qualified teachers were
hired to help define the logistics of the pro-
gram and become trained as T.O.A.S.T.
tutors.

Staff development
During the early part of October the

eight tutors and I met three times after
school to develop the rationale, objectives,
and the framework for the tutoring pro-
gram. Since all of the tutors were seasoned
teachers with years of teaching to their
credit, we began with a general and infor-
mal “assessment of need” of our students.

When we began to critically examine who
our students are we realized a reoccurring
theme which crept repeatedly into the con-
versations. We were aware that many of
our Title I students were bilingual, yet did
not qualify for the district’s English As a
Second Language (ESL) program due to
spatial limitations. Additionally, by check-
ing both Title I and elementary school
records, it was reported that an extremely
high percentage of students who qualify
for Title I services are transfers from other
schools both near and far. Since the Upper
Darby School District resides in the “inner
suburban ring” (Hodgkinson, 2000/2001)
surrounding a major metropolitan city, stu-
dent mobility rates are high and students
enter and leave the district frequently. It
has been reported that a large percentage
of the student body transfers in from not
only the nearby Philadelphia School Dis-
trict, but from a host of schools in many
foreign lands as well (Sanderson, 2001).

Based on these unique demographic fac-
tors and our students specific academic
needs, we decided the program design
should be semi-structured and based on the
best practices developed in reading
research. It was decided that the primary
focus of the program would concentrate
on three areas in which our students need-
ed extra academic assistance: reading
comprehension, word recognition, and
phonemic awareness. As a group we
devised a schedule that would allow us to
concentrate on these focus areas while
simultaneously giving teachers freedom to
incorporate the best reading practices
known.

As an organized front, aside from sched-
uling, we tackled logistical concerns such

16 /Reading Improvement

as: where to hold tutoring sessions, which
students would be selected for the program,
parental permission concerns, clearance
paperwork data, contact with the students’
regular classroom teachers and parents,
and pick up and drop off procedures.

Scheduling guidelines: Since we had
gained access to three Title I building dur-
ing the after school hours it was decided
that any parochial school students who

were involved in the program would be
tutored at the nearest district Title I school.
Tutoring session met on Tuesdays and
Thursdays in the fall and then again in the
spring for thirteen week sessions. Students
who participated did so during one of the
two sessions. This scheduling guideline
served as a general framework for literacy
activities.

Table 1

T.O.A.S.T Schedule Guide]ines – Weekly Cycle
Tuesday Thursday

Before class Before class

10 minutes L 0 inutes
snack, introduction, story reading/word snack, introduction, story reading/word
families, vocabulary families/vocabulary
25 minutes 25 minutes

Book Introduction Running Record of book.
Silent re-reading (previous books, LEA stories,

1. Predict through title and pictures.
2. Teacher reads book aloud. etc.)
3. Students/teacher choral read.
4. Students read silently. Skill strategy work from results of running
5. Oral reading (if applicable) records. (Will vary depending on students’

individual needs.)
*Check word rings
20 minutes 20 minutes

Language Experience Activities Direct Reading Activity

Write story as a group relating to the book Guided re-reading: incorporate new vocabulary,
read for the week. Demonstrate teacher prediction, guided comprehension, re-reading to
modeling when necessary. answer questions, higher order thinking activities

(inference, etc.)
Use standard LEA steps.
15 minutes 15 minutes
Sentence Writing Sentence Writing

I. Teacher dictates appropriate sentences Follow same procedure as Day 1. For step four,
that relate to the story read. do either sentence cut up, word building, or other

2. Students write without help. reinforcement.
3. Students compare with model (on strip or

from book), circle correct words.
4. Students cut up the sentence and glue it

back into their notebooks correctly. Re-
read sentence. * Give out word rings for weekend practice.

Setting Up After School Tutorial Program…/ 17

As can be seen from the schedule, tutors
could kept to the same guidelines as they
tutored their young students, plus they
could alter instruction to meet individual
needs and focus on specific skills. Read-
ing strategies such as book introductions
through the use of predictions, word rings,
and different types of reading were uti-
lized. Additionally, language experience
activities were conducted to strengthen
comprehension skills and promote writing
skills. Students were also afforded the
opportunity to write teacher created sen-
tences that related to the days reading and
manipulate the text back into place after the
sentences were cut up. Meanwhile, dur-
ing snack time before the tutoring sessions
would “officially” start, students were able
to listen to books read aloud, study word
families, conduct word sorts, and practice
vocabulary.

Students were evaluated weekly by the
use of a running record assessment and
needed skills and strategies would be the
center of focus for the day. Teachers mod-
eled good reading behaviors, incorporated
new vocabulary and higher level thinking
skills, and used guided reading techniques
to assist students in their learning. Over-
all, much was accomplished in a short
period of time due to the fact that activi-
ties changed frequently so students did not
become “bored” or uninterested in an activ-
ity. Plus, students took a hands-on
approach to reading by manipulated indi-
vidual words, sentences, word rings, and
stories to increase their interest and moti-
vate their learning in a non-competitive,
supportive environment.

Materials and assessments:

Since the first year the T.O.A.S.T. pro-
gram was implemented the district began
using a new reading series, the Title I Pro-
gram was obligated to use some of the
same materials. Yet, since students were
using the series during their regular read-
ing instruction with their primary teacher
during the school day, and with their Title
I teacher during the school day, to use the
materials again after school in the
T.O.A.S.T. program would be, in our opin-
ion, “overkill.” Hence, in addition the Title
I program purchased leveled readers from
a different publisher to ensure students
would be exposed to new materials and
keep their learning fresh. This nmixture of
materials helped tutors find alternative sto-
ries written on students’ multiple reading
levels which could be expanded when the
language experience activities and direct-
ed reading activities were conducted. For
example, after students experienced a pic-
ture walk, then reviewed vocabulary words
from the story, they listened as their tutor
read aloud a story centering on making a
salad. Students were then afforded the
opportunity to make a salad of their own
in the classroom using real ingredients,
and then as a group compose a story about
the experience.

The Fry Lists of the first 100 and sec-
ond 100 words were used to increase
student word recognition through the use
of word rings. These words make up the
majority of the text found in the reading
materials. As mentioned, running records
were used to assess students’ oral reading
skills as students had ample practice read-
ing familiar stories multiple times until

18 /Reading Improvement

they felt comfortable with the text.
Overall, student assessment methods

proved to be both formal and informal.
Formally teachers tracked the number of
sight word learned from word rings and
kept track of students’ oral reading skills
through the use of running records. Yet,
informal assessments proved just as wor-
thy. Teachers observed students’ reading
behaviors and use of reading strategies,
plus teachers could note changes in stu-
dents’ self-esteem and risk taking in regards
to reading.

Parental involvement:

“Thirty years of research show that
greater parent involvement in children’s
leaning is a critical link to achieving a high
quality education for every student. Par-
ent involvement can make a positive
difference in children’s learning when par-
ents do more. Indeed, controllable factors
account for almost all the differences in
average student achievement across the
states. Sometimes, however, parents do
not know they have the power to influence
their children’s learning. For these par-
ents, the availability of effective parent
involvement programs is key.” (Barton &
Coley, 1994, p. 4)

The greatest area of concern we had in
creating a new program focused on the
parental involvement part of the equation.
As educators, we know how critical a sup-
portive home life is to student’s literacy
success. We wanted to ensure that a par-
ent, or a grown-up a home, was committed
to the program and supporting it from the
homefront. We desperately wanted par-
ents to become knowledgeable on how to

support and encourage learning in the home
and to help them become full partners in
their child’s education. To help reach our
goal of “schooling” the parents, each of
the two T.O.A.S.T. sessions hosted two
parent meetings that were held at night to
accommodate the working adults.

The first meeting was held near the
beginning of the semester long sessions to
explain the programs’ purposes and the
tutors’ expectations. At this meeting, aside
from demonstrating what tutors and stu-
dents would be doing during the tutoring
sessions, parents were shown what they
could do at home with their child to expand
upon their child’s learning. Folders full of
literature and brochures explaining to par-
ents how to help their child increase their
sight words, pick out proper books at the
library, and what materials to have handy
to foster a writer at home were given out
free of charge. Information from the Inter-
national Reading Association that gave tips
to parents of beginning readers and young
children was carefully reviewed and dis-
seminated. Parents watched as home
literacy activities were modeled and lis-
tened as important questions such as: Why
read to your children? and How do I read
aloud? were answered.

The second parent meeting was held
near the end of the sessions and again, par-
ents were given plenty of materials to keep
the literacy wagon rolling at home. We
wanted nothing more that to expand upon
what was learned throughout the
T.O.A.S.T. program. Feedback from the
tutors was also given and each parent was
afforded the opportunity to conference face
to face with their child’s tutor. A narrative
report card commenting on students’

Setting Up After School Tutorial Program…/ 19

strengths and the progress they made

throughout the program was provided.

Similarly, challenging literacy skills in
which student’s still struggled with were

addressed, plus tutors shared creative ideas
and fun games that could be played at home
to help students maintain and build upon
their newly acquired skills.

Overall, parental involvement was
viewed as an underlying goal of the pro-

gram since the correlation between strong

parental support and classroom success
has been so widely documented. Phone
calls to parents were made repetitively by

the Title I administrator and T.O.A.S.T.
tutors to keep parents involved and inter-
ested throughout the program. It was our

belief that if we could convince the parents
that they have the power to be a major
influence in their child’s academic life and

that we could show them the tools they
need to help their child at home; part of the
literacy battle would be won.

Feedback:
Overall, feedback from the first year of

the program was overwhelmingly positive
from all levels. Collected data confirms
that students increased their sight word

vocabulary, learned additional literacy
skills and strategies for what to do when
reading, and strengthened their compre-
hension abilities. Likewise, students’
reading attitudes improved as they were
provided with some newfound confidence
in the classroom.

Jim Scheffer, CEO of the Division of

Federal Programs in Pennsylvania, wrote

a congratulatory letter stated that “this kind

of extended learning opportunity for stu-

dents has great potential to improve

learning.” Similarly, a building principal
of a Title I school wrote, “…because stu-

dents have had personalized attention and

intensive skill instruction they feel more
confident when they are in the larger class-
room setting. Their involvement in
T.O.A.S.T. gives them the boost they need
to be able to approach reading and writing
tasks with a sense that they can begin to
achieve.” He went on to add that, “Students
who are or have been enrolled in

T.O.A.S.T. have also been involved in the
Instructional Support process. There has
been a cohesive working relationship
between our Instructional Support teacher
and the T.O.A.S.T. teachers. This rela-
tionship has resulted in meaningful
learning interventions that have yielded
valuable diagnostic information about stu-
dents.”

The program became so popular that
staff writers from several local newspapers
wrote articles centering on the encourag-
ing nature of the program and its aims to
help students sharpen their reading skills.
Similarly parents, regular classroom teach-
ers and the T.O.A.S.T. students themselves
all have had positive comments to make
about the program. One tutor even over-
heard her three T.O.A.S.T. student chanting
down the hallway, “We love T.O.A.S.T.,
we love T.O.A.S.T., we love T.O.A.S.T.!”
This comforted us as we wondered if
selected T.O.A.S.T. students would feel
embarrassed in front of their classmates
for having to attend class after-school. Yet,
this comment confirmed that fact that the
T.O.A.S.T. students felt as if they were get-

ting something special at the end of the
day; a snack, a good book, and the gentle

support of a caring teacher. Cheers to a

M__

20 /Reading Improvement

highly successful first year!

References
The Mott Foundation. (2000). Afterschool alert:

Poll report. A report offindingsfrom the 1999
Mott Foundation/JCPenney nationvide survey
on afterschool programs. Washington, D.C.:
After School Alliance. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 438 083)

Barton, P.E. and Coley R. J. (1994). Testing in
America’s schools. Princeton, N.J.: Policy
Information Center. (ERIC Document Repro-
duction Service No. ED 366 616)

Hodgkinson, H. (2000/2001). Educational demo-
graphics: What teachers should know.
Educational Leadership, 58(4), 6-1 1.

Sanderson, D. R. (2001). Moving targets: An inter-
pretive look at how one school faces issues
related to transiency, achievement, and
instructional continuity. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Bell & Howell, UMI Dissertation Services
(No. 3008899)

TITLE: Setting Up a Successful After School Tutorial Program:
One District’s Journey

SOURCE: Read Improv 40 no1 Spr 2003
WN: 0310500995002

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it
is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited.

Grand Canyon University

GCU Style

Guide

for Lower-Division Students

Introduction

Lower-division students of Grand Canyon University (GCU) are required to use a writing style

based upon a simplified version of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological

Association for preparing written assignments, except where otherwise noted. In the interest of

providing resource material for student use, this guide to GCU style and format has been

developed and made available. A template has been provided in the Student Success Center’s

Writing Center for student download and use.

PLEASE NOTE:

The curriculum materials (Syllabus, Lectures, Resources, etc.) created and provided by GCU in

the online or Web-enhanced modalities are prepared using an editorial format that relies on APA

as a framework but that modifies some format and formatting criteria to better suit the nature and

purpose of instructional materials. Students and faculty are advised that GCU course materials do

not adhere strictly to APA format and should not be used as examples of correct format when

preparing written work for class.

GCU Style

General

Academic writing, which is independent thought supported by reliable and relevant research,

depends on the ability to integrate and cite the sources that have been consulted. Use APA style

for all references, in-text citations, formatting, etc.

Write in third-person point of view unless otherwise noted. Use first- and second-person

sparingly, if ever. This means, avoid using I, we, and you; instead, use he, she, and they. Do not

use contractions.

Paper Organization

The basic organization of a GCU-style paper includes the paper heading, the body, and

references, though students are encouraged to follow any specific directions given in the

syllabus.

Paper Heading

The paper heading includes four lines in the upper left-hand corner of the first page. The

student’s name, the course number, the date of submission, and the instructor’s name each take up

their own line. The whole paper, including the heading, body, and references should be double-

spaced.

An example paper heading would look like:

Figure 1 – Example of paper heading (document page viewpoint)

Body

The body will contain all of the author’s main points as well as detailed and documented support

for those ideas.

The title is centered on the line after the paper heading, in initial caps. Refer to the GCU Style

Guide Template for an example.

Due to the nature of most student essays, there is not usually a need for section headings and

subheadings (Introduction, Methods, Conclusion, etc.). If guidelines are required or helpful,

ensure there is a clear break in the flow of text and that the new heading/subheading is easy to

spot.

In-Text Citations

Citations are used to reference material from another source. Using citations to give credit to

others whose ideas or words you have used is an essential requirement to avoid issues of

plagiarism. Just as you would never steal someone else’s car, you should not steal their words

either. To avoid potential problems, always be sure to cite your sources by referring to the

author’s last name and the year of publication in parentheses at the end of the sentence, when

paraphrasing information into your own words, such as (Johnson, 2008) and page numbers if you

are using word for word materials (direct quotes), such as “ask not what your country can do for

you but what you can do for your country” (Kennedy, 1960, p. 34).

Preparing References and Citations for Sources Used in Papers

Source Citations

When to Cite

All quotations, paraphrases, and summaries must be documented with an in-text-citation and

reference note. Only common knowledge does not need to be cited. When in doubt, cite the

material. This is an issue of plagiarism; please reference GCU’s policy on Plagiarism in the

University Policy Handbook. And remember, any source cited in-text must also be listed on the

reference page.

In general, include an in-text citation immediately preceding or following the quote, paraphrase,

or summary being used. APA style does allow the writer to just use one in-text citation at the end

of a paragraph when only one source is used in that paragraph, even when multiple sentences

have been paraphrased from the same source.

How to Cite

PARAPHRASES AND DIRECT QUOTATIONS

In-text citations should note the author(s) and the publication date for a paraphrase. For a direct

quotations (using three or more words in a row that are the same as the source), citations should

include author(s), date, and page number(s). If there is no author, then the title, enclosed in

quotation marks, is used in its place. If there is no date, the abbreviation “n.d.” is used.

Examples:

 For paraphrasing: Ornstein and Levine (2008) expressed their concern with NCLB and

its effect on public education.

 For direct quotes: “Ethics examines moral values and the standards of ethical behavior”

(Ornstein & Levine, 2008, p. 162).

CITING THE BIBLE

When referencing the Bible, cite the book number, chapter number, and verse number(s)

(starting and ending). The first time you cite the Bible in your paper, also include the version you

are using. This system of citation for the Bible is sufficient and requires no reference note for the

Bible on the References page.

Examples:

 Citing the Bible, first reference: Use book, chapter, verse, and version (Luke 2:16-20

King James Version).

 Citing the Bible, subsequent references: Use only book, chapter, and verse (Luke 2:16-

20).

CITING ONLINE DOCUMENTS AND WEBSITES

Citations for online documents or websites include the title and date, but not the web address

(although the reference note on the References page does include the web address).

Example:

 Citing online document or webpage: Citation (this one has no date) would appear in

text like this (“Seventeen Moments in Soviet History,” n.d.).

CITING GCU COURSE LECTURE NOTES

When citing a GCU Lecture Note in your paper, use the title of the lecture and the copyright date

for the in-text citation.

Example:

 Citing a GCU Lecture Note: Citation would appear in text like this (“Lecture 1,” 2013).

The title in quotation marks is used instead of the author because lectures in GCU courses

are not attributed to individual authors; in this case, the title moves into the first position

in the in-text citation and is enclosed in quotation marks.

BLOCK QUOTATIONS

Direct quotations from a source that contain 40 or more words should be presented in “block”

format, uniformly indented rather than within quotation marks, according to the following

specifications:

 Start a block quote on a new line.

 Indent the entire quoted text block 0.5 inches from the left margin (in the same position

as a new paragraph)

 Do not use quotation marks around the quotation block.

 The parenthetical in-text citation for a block quote is placed outside the final punctuation

of the quoted passage.

 Block quotes are double-spaced as are all other elements of the paper.

In general, long quotations requiring block formatting should rarely be used, normally not more

than once in an academic paper. Some papers, especially those in which the subject of discussion

is the language of a specific text (such as an analysis essay on a work of literature or the rationale

of a court’s decision), may benefit from using long direct quotes more frequently, but these

should always be justified by explanation of the quoted language in the students own words.

The following example shows a variety of in-text citations, including how to present and cite a

block quotation.

An example paragraph with a block quotation would look like:

Figure 2 – Example of paragraph with a block quotation (document page viewpoint)

Reference List

When using other sources in the writing process, it is important to document the original sources

with complete information, which includes who wrote it, who published it, and where to find it.

Remember to obtain and make note of all of this information in the research process so that

creating references for your paper will be easier when it is time to make the references list. Also

remember that it is better to include documentation information that is not required than to not

include necessary information.

Reference Note/In-Text Citation Rule:

Each source you cite in the essay must appear in your References list; likewise, each entry

in the References list must be cited in the text of your essay

The exception to this rule is the Bible (and other classical works) which is cited in text (as

explained above) but does not require a reference note.

The References list provides the information necessary for a reader to locate and retrieve any

source you cite in the body of the essay. The reference list should be on a new page, separate

from and following the body of the essay. Label this page References (with no quotation marks,

underlining, etc.), centered at the top of the page. The References page should be double-spaced

just like the rest of your essay.

References on the References page are presented consistent with the following:

 All lines after the first line of each entry in your reference list should be indented a half

inch (0.5″) from the left margin. This is called hanging indentation.

 Authors’ names are inverted (last name first); give the last name and initials for all

authors of a particular

work.

 Reference list entries should be alphabetized by the last name of the first author of each

work.

 If you have more than one article by the same author, single-author references or

multiple-author references with the exact same authors in the exact same order are listed

in order by the year of publication, starting with the earliest.

 Italicize titles of longer works such as books and journals.

 Do not italicize, underline, or put quotes around the titles of shorter works such as journal

articles or essays in edited collections.

 For electronic resources, include access in the form of the website URL. When citing

parts of a GCU course (e.g., lectures), it is not necessary to include the URL in the

reference note because the instructor already has automatic access to the material within

the course. When referencing eBooks, the URL takes the place of the standard

publication information.

Reference Examples

Books

Book by a Single Author

Format:

Author, A. A. (Year). Book title: Subtitle after colon. Location, State Abbreviation:

Publisher.

Example:

Daresh, J. C. (2004). Beginning the assistant principalship: A practical guide for new school

administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Book by More Than One Author

Format:

Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Book title: Subtitle after colon.

Location, State Abbreviation: Publisher.

Example:

Black, J. A., & English, F. W. (1986). What they don’t tell you in schools of education about

school administration. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.

eBook by a Single Author

Format:

Author, A. (Year). Book title. Retrieved from URL

Example:

Cosgrove, M. (2006). Foundations of Christian thought. Retrieved from

http://gcumedia.com/digital-resources/kregel/2006/foundations-of-christian-thought_-

faith-learning-and-the-christian-worldview_ebook_1e.php

The Holy Bible

The Bible does not need to be listed on the reference page, but it does need to be cited in-text.

(Refer to in-text citation rule.)

Periodicals

Article in a Journal

Format:

Author, A. A. (Year). Title of article. Journal Title, Volume(Issue), Page numbers.

Example:

Arnold, J. B., & Dodge, H. W. (1994). Room for all. The American School Board Journal,

181(10), 22-26.

Online Periodical Article

Format:

Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Periodical Title,

Volume(Issue), Page numbers. Retrieved from URL

Example:

Smith, B. M. (2004). What will you do on summer vacation? Phi Delta Kappan, 85(10), 722.

Retrieved from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0406smi.htm

Electronic Resources

Stand-Alone Online Document or Web Page, No Author or Date

Format:

Title of page. (n.d.). Retrieved from URL

Example:

Seventeen moments in Soviet history. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://soviethistory.org/index.php?action=L2&SubjectID=1929collectivization&Year

=1929

GCU Class Lecture Notes

(Note: No URL is required for electronic resources within a GCU course.)

Format:

Lecture title. (date). PREFIX-number: Title of Course. Phoenix, AZ: Grand Canyon

University.

Example:

Lecture 1. (2013). CWV-101: Christian Worldview. Phoenix, AZ: Grand Canyon University.

Reference List
Reference Note/In-Text Citation Rule:

Reference Examples
Books
Book by a Single Author
Book by More Than One Author
eBook by a Single Author
The Holy Bible
Periodicals
Article in a Journal
Online Periodical Article
Electronic Resources
Stand-Alone Online Document or Web Page, No Author or Date
GCU Class Lecture Notes

Cultural Diversity in the Classroom EDU 230

EDU 230 Cultural Diversity in the Classroom
Benchmark Assessment and Rubric

Targeted Essential Learning

Effective teachers understand the issues that impact multicultural education in the United States, and the importance of providing a quality education in an equitable fashion to all of their students. (APTS 2,3,8; INTASC 3)

Assessment Tool Selected

Essay

Specific Performance/Task(s)

Reflect on the impact of diverse influences as they inform student learning, and adjust practice accordingly.(APTS 8.6)

Consider how schools are influenced by the larger community. (APTS 8.12)

Relevancy of Task to Teacher Candidate

Teacher’s practices are influenced by what they know about issues affecting the students in their classrooms.

Assessment: Student Prompts/Teacher Directions

Individual:

Issues in Multicultural Education

(Benchmark Assessment)

ii) Research an issue described above and analyze possible solutions.

iii) Develop a 750–1000 word plan of action to solve the chosen issue, including the following:

(1) A statement of the problem.

(2) Who is involved:

(a) As part of the problem?

(b) As part of the solution?

(3) What is the proposed solution?

(4) What will be needed to implement the solution (e.g., money, time, manpower, materials, etc.)?

(5) What is the projected timeline to implement the solution?

(6) What is the expected outcome?

iv) Use the GCU eLibrary to research a minimum of three to five peer-reviewed articles that can be used in support of your content.

v) Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the GCU Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

vi) Submit the assignment to the instructor by the end of Module 6.

vii) Additionally, submit the assignment in TaskStream. Directions for submitting to TaskStream can be found on the

College of Education

’s page in the Student Success Center.

Scoring Tool/Guide (Rubric)

Issues in Multicultural Education

Criteria

% Value

1: Unsatisfactory

2: Less Than Satisfactory

3: Satisfactory

4: Good

5: Excellent

% Scaling

0%

65%

75%

85%

100%

Content – 80%

Plan of Action

ACEI 3.2, 5.2

NCSS Themes 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5

NMSA 6

60%

Prompts are not included. They are not thoughtful, complete, and reflective.

Few prompts are included. They are not thoughtful and complete.

Most prompts are included. They are somewhat thoughtful and complete.

All prompts are included. They are thoughtful and complete.

All prompts are included.
They are thoughtful, complete, and persuasive.

Analysis of Process

ACEI 3.2, 5.2

NMSA 6

20%

Submission does not include an analysis.

Analysis is somewhat reflective and does not include beliefs or biases.

Analysis is somewhat reflective and includes beliefs and biases.

Analysis is reflective and includes beliefs and biases.

Analysis is clear, persuasive, and reflective; it includes beliefs and biases.

Organization and Effectiveness – 17%

Thesis Development and Purpose

6%

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Thesis and/or main claim is insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.

Thesis and/or main claim is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

Thesis and/or main claim is clear, forecasting development of paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

Thesis and/or main claim is comprehensive; contained within the thesis is the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

Paragraph Development and Transitions

6%

Paragraphs and transitions consistently lack unity and coherence. No apparent connections between paragraphs. Transitions are inappropriate to purpose and scope. Organization is disjointed.

Some paragraphs and transitions may lack logical progression of ideas, unity, coherence, and/or cohesiveness. Some degree of organization is evident.

Paragraphs are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other

A logical progression of ideas between paragraphs is apparent. Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Topic sentences and concluding remarks are as appropriate to purpose.

There is a sophisticated construction of paragraphs and transitions. Ideas progress and relate to each other. Paragraph and transition construction guide the reader. Paragraph structure is seamless.

Mechanics of Writing
(includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

5%

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction.

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language.

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. Uses a variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech.

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written academic English.

Format -3%

Paper Format
(1” Margins
12 point-font
Double Spaced
Times New Roman, Arial, or Courier)

1%

GCU Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

GCU Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.

GCU Template is used; Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

GCU Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

All format elements are correct.

Research Citations
(In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, reference page listing and formatting; (as appropriate to assignment)

2%

No reference page; no citations.

Reference page is present; Citation is inconsistently used.

Reference page is included which lists sources used in paper; Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present

Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources; Documentation is appropriate and GCU style is usually correct.

In-text citations and a Reference page are complete. The documentation of cited sources is error-free.

© 2010. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

January 4, 2010 EDU230.v1R1_BAR

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ education assignment ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer