Occasional Paper 01

31
Afterschool Matters OCCASIONAL PAPERS SERIES FALL 2003 Supporting the Literacy Development of Low-Income Children in Afterschool Programs Challenges and Exemplary Practices by Robert Halpern, PhD The Robert Bowne Foundation

Transcript of Occasional Paper 01

Page 1: Occasional Paper 01

Afterschool MattersO C C A S I O N A L P A P E R S S E R I E S

F A L L 2 0 0 3

Supporting the Literacy Developmentof Low-Income Children

in Afterschool ProgramsChallenges and Exemplary Practices

by Robert Halpern, PhD

TheRobert

BowneFoundation

Page 2: Occasional Paper 01

The Robert Bowne Foundation Board of Trustees

Edmund A. Stanley, Jr., ChairJennifer Stanley, President Suzanne C. Carothers, First Vice PresidentDianne Kangisser, Second Vice PresidentHali Lee, Secretary Susan W. Cummiskey, TreasurerRobert M. Johnson, J.D. Franz von Ziegesar

Afterschool Matters Publications Advisory Committee

Rodney FullerFresh Youth Initiatives

Eric GurowitzDevelopment without Limits

Sara HillThe Robert Bowne Foundation

Susan IngallsFoundation for Children and the Classics

Anne LawrenceThe Robert Bowne Foundation

Pamela LittleLiteracy Consultant

Eileen LyonsInterfaith Neighbors

Tanya OrtizFresh Youth Initiatives

Diana TorresPartnership for Afterschool Education

Lena TownsendThe Robert Bowne Foundation

Claudia UllmanFamily Literacy Forum

Page 3: Occasional Paper 01

Supporting Literacy Development 3Halpern

Dear Afterschool Colleagues,AFTERSCHOOL MATTERS! At the Robert Bowne Foundation, we

take the title of our journal seriously; we have supported afterschooleducation programs for more than 15 years.You have before you ournewest endeavor, the Afterschool Matters Occasional Paper Series. Itsgoal is to add to the knowledge base of the afterschool field.

Afterschool programs are at a pivotal point in their history. Nowmore than ever, policymakers and funders agree that afterschool pro-grams are necessary for positive youth development. In turn, programsare being held increasingly accountable. However, most programs havenot been provided with the resources—time, staff, or funding—todemonstrate their effectiveness and value. Furthermore, as a result ofour economic climate, the sources of public and private funding that canprovide even basic support for these programs are tenuous. As after-school education evolves into a field in its own right, the need forresearch, documentation, and dissemination of key issues and topics inthe theory and practice of the field increases. The Occasional PaperSeries will provide an avenue for afterschool program managers andpractitioners, researchers, and policymakers to explore such key issues.

We are proud that our premier paper for the Occasional Paper Serieshas been written by Robert Halpern, Ph.D. Dr. Halpern is a professor atthe Erikson Institute and is on the faculty at the Chapin Hall Center forChildren at the University of Chicago. In the late 1980s, he was one ofthe first researchers to examine inner-city afterschool programs. He hasconducted a national study on literacy practices in programs for school-aged children, funded by the DeWitt Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund. Thispaper draws on that research. His current research focuses on evalua-tion of early childhood intervention programs for poor children andtheir families and on afterschool programs and youth service initiatives.Dr. Halpern writes extensively on public policy issues; his most recentbook is Making Play Work: A History of After-School Programs for Low-Income Children (Teachers College Press, 2003).

The mission of the Robert Bowne Foundation is to increase access toquality out-of-school programs for all young people. I hope this paperwill provoke conversations among youth practitioners, funders,researchers, and policymakers so that, together, we can meet this goal.

Lena O. TownsendExecutive Director

The Robert BowneFoundation Staff

Lena O. TownsendExecutive Director

Anne H. LawrenceProgram Officer

Sara Hill, Ed.D.Research Officer

Afterschool Matters

Sara Hill, Ed.D.Project Manager

Jan GallagherEditor

Amy MenaschéDesigner

TheRobert Bowne

Foundation

Page 4: Occasional Paper 01

ii Afterschool Matters Occasional Paper Fall 2003

About the Author Robert Halpern is a professor at the Erikson Institute for GraduateStudy in Child Development in Chicago and a faculty associate atChapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. He isthe author of Fragile Families, Fragile Solutions: A History of SupportiveServices for Families in Poverty (Columbia University Press, 1999) andRebuilding the Inner City: A History of Neighborhood Initiatives toAddress Poverty (Columbia University Press, 1995). He has also writtennumerous articles and chapters on the effects of poverty on childrenand families and on the role of services in poor families’ lives. Inrecent years, Dr. Halpern’s research has focused on afterschool pro-grams. This paper reflects some of the results of his study, funded bythe Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund, of the role of afterschool programsin fostering low-income children’s literacy. Dr. Halpern’s new book,Making Play Work: The Promise of After-School Programs for Low-IncomeChildren, was recently published by Teachers College Press.

Contents Supporting the Literacy Development of Low-Income Children in Afterschool Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Appendix: The Role of Specific Activities in Children’s Literacy Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Author’s Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Page 5: Occasional Paper 01

Supporting Literacy Development 1

Acquisition of literacy is a central develop-mental task of middle childhood. How-ever, this task is problematic for manylow- and moderate-income children.

Although urban school systems are working tostrengthen literacy instruction, many experts nowrecognize that improving instruction in school isnot the only key to meeting these children’s literacyneeds. Some have argued for a renewed emphasison parents’ role—and responsibility—in supportingchildren’s literacy development.Yet many low- andmoderate-income parents lack the time or ability to help significantly with this task. Funders andpolicymakers have begun to turn to other institu-tions, and particularly to afterschool programs, toaddress children’s literacy support needs. While ahandful of afterschool programs have been able tobuild on a long history of involvement with literacyactivity, for many it is new territory.

In this paper, I reflect on afterschool programsas settings for promoting low-income children’s lit-eracy development.1 Three sources of informationinform these reflections:

• The findings of a two-year study examiningliteracy goals and practices in afterschoolprograms in three cities (Spielberger &Halpern, 2002)

• Other literature discussing literacy activity inafterschool programs

• The literature on the broader issue ofchildren’s literacy development

Although my main concern is to clarify both thepotential and the limits of afterschool programs assettings for literacy development, I also consider

Supporting the Literacy Development of Low-Income Children in Afterschool ProgramsChallenges and Exemplary Practices

by Robert HalpernErikson Institute for Graduate Study in Child Development

While much of the current concern over theliteracy development of low- and moderate-income children focuses on schools (and, to alesser degree, on parents), many observers arearguing for a role for other institutions. Inparticular, funders are turning to afterschoolprograms to address this critical develop-mental task. This paper explores the rolesafterschool programs can and do play in theliteracy development of low-income children,drawing on surveys and observations ofafterschool programs in Chicago, New York,and Seattle.

Virtually all the afterschool programssurveyed and observed address the diverse lit-eracy needs of children from varied cultures—a sizeable number of whom are “lost”atschool—while being constrained by limitedresources. Some exemplary programs, however,surmount at least some of their difficulties toprovide a rich environment for literacy devel-opment that differs—intentionally—from theschool environment. An examination of thecharacteristics of these exemplary programsleads to suggestions for strengthening literacyactivity in afterschool programs. An appendixdiscusses the role of specific activities, such asbook discussions and storytelling, in children’sliteracy development.

Executive Summary

Halpern

Page 6: Occasional Paper 01

2 Afterschool Matters Occasional Paper Fall 2003

afterschool programs in relation to schools. I arguethat afterschool programs’philosophy, purpose, andapproach to nurturing literacy has to be different—in some ways fundamentally different—from thatfound in most urban schools.

Why Focus on Literacy in Afterschool Programs?

The sense that children’s literacy developmentposes a major problem is not new. Literacy

“crises”have recurred every ten or twenty years forthe past century, sometimes focused on children,sometimes on adults. Such crises are not typicallylinked to objective data (McQuillan, 1998). Over thepast three decades, reading achievement scores haveremained more or less stable. American childrencontinue to be proficient at the basics, less proficientat higher-level comprehension and understanding.In the past, literacy crises have been linked toheightened concerns about public education andAmerican society’s need to “compete”: a perceptionthat effective labor force participation, decent earn-ings, and effective citizenship demanded high levelsof literacy and, less consistently, the acculturation oflarge numbers of immigrants. The current percep-tion of crisis is not only driven by historical con-cerns, but also stems from the new standards and

testing movement in public education, which hasfound sizable numbers of urban children not meet-ing state or national standards.

Most efforts to address the current worries aboutliteracy are centered on schools. At the urging of theBush administration, the U.S. Department ofEducation has made reading a top priority. TheNational Institute of Child Health and Developmentalso has a significant reading initiative underway(National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment, 2002). The ostensible focus of federalefforts has been identifying and disseminatingresearch-based, empirically proven reading instruc-tion strategies. In reality, such criteria are proving tobe euphemisms for approaches focused on phone-mic awareness, phonics, word-attack skills, and

some guided oral reading. At the local level, urbanschool systems are hiring more reading specialists,requiring “failing”schools to adopt skills-based,teacher-proof curricula, and requiring classroomteachers to devote significant time daily to basicskills instruction.

Parents are also being urged by school authori-ties—and politicians—to make a greater contributionto their children’s literacy development by readingto them regularly, helping with homework, andtaking children to the library.Yet the percentage oflow-income parents with limited English languageliteracy—and sometimes with low levels of literacyin their native language—appears to be growing. Inaddition, many low-income parents are workinglong hours due to low pay, welfare reform, or both,making them less available to their children. Chinand Newman (2002) recently studied the conflictbetween welfare reform—which has sent largenumbers of poor mothers, many of them single par-ents, back to work, often for long hours—anddemands by urban school authorities that parentsplay a more active role in supporting their children’sschool progress. Chin and Newman cite a New YorkCity Board of Education brochure in which parentsare “admonished to read to their children nightly, tolisten to their children read back, to visit librariesand museums. . . . ”(p. 16).Yet of one newly working

mother they note: “Debrasimply does not have theenergy to check homeworkor to read to [her children]like she used to. She knowshow important monitoringis; she believes it is herresponsibility; but she can

only do so much”(p. 36). Another child in this studyhad been doing his homework only two days aweek—the days he went to an afterschool program(Chin & Newman, 2002).

Many are therefore beginning to recognize a role for other settings and institutions in literacydevelopment, what some call informal or non-formallearning environments. Afterschool programs arebecoming a notably important informal learningenvironment for low- and moderate-income chil-dren. About 25 percent of such children now regu-larly participate in afterschool programs, and thatpercentage is growing (Halpern, 2002). Because theirmandates, purposes, and approaches are flexible,afterschool programs can address a variety of tasksand be responsive to prevailing social concerns. In

Afterschool programs are becoming a notably important informallearning environment for low- and moderate-income children.About 25 percent of such children now regularly participate inafterschool programs, and that percentage is growing.

Page 7: Occasional Paper 01

Supporting Literacy Development 3Halpern

my work with afterschool programs around thecountry, I have observed that funders increasinglyare asking afterschool providers to address the taskof nurturing literacy or at least to help with children’sschool-related difficulties.

Yet a number of attributes of afterschool pro-grams complicate a focus on literacy. One is theimportance of attending to other developmentalneeds, including opportunity to explore the visualand performing arts; opportunity for physical activity;and some time to decompress, play and have somesimple fun. Another is the reality that afterschoolprograms are fundamentally modest institutions,with limited resources and staffing. The majority ofprograms operate barely above a survival level. Asignificant number of programs rely on borrowed orshared space. The majority of afterschool staff, whotypically earn seven or eight dollars an hour, haveless than a college education, and many have mixedexperiences with literacy themselves. In addition,afterschool programs and their staff—for reasons Iwill discuss later—have had almost no access to theextensive knowledge of and experience with chil-dren’s literacy development that has been built overthe past thirty years.

It is also unclear—or perhaps there is no agree-ment on—what the goals, expectations, and activi-ties of afterschool programs’ literacy efforts shouldbe. In a number of cities—Boston and Seattle beingprime examples—funders and elected officials haveurged afterschool programs to align their literacyactivity with school district curricula and learningstandards. The 21st Century Community LearningCenter program, a major federal funder of school-based afterschool programs, requires grantees todemonstrate how they are contributing to children’sacademic achievement and test-readiness (U.S.Department of Education, 2001).Yet, as one staffmember at Interfaith Neighbors, a youth-servingagency in New York City, told me, this agencyapproached literacy differently from the schools,“because we can.”

A Perspective on Children’s Literacy Development

Defining an appropriate role for afterschool programs in supporting literacy development

requires consideration of the process of literacydevelopment, as well as where, how, and why after-school programs might fit in. Literacy developmentis, first, a multifaceted process. It involves developing:

• The skills necessary for reading and writing• The habit of reading and writing• A disposition toward reading and writing• A view of what, how, where, and why one

reads and writes• A particular identity as a reader and writer

Except in the case of children who have innatedifficulties processing print, motivation may be thedriving force in literacy development. The impor-tance of skill-building and practice should not beminimized, but, as Hawkins (1990) notes, “childrencan learn to read and write with commitment justin proportion as they are engaged with matters ofimportance to them”(p. 6). He argues that childrenneed not only to achieve competence in literacy butalso to “themselves recognize and enjoy its expres-sion”(p. 10). At a minimum, skill, habit, and moti-vation are intertwined and mutually reinforcing.Children who read and write well will read andwrite more, improving their vocabulary, compre-hension, and skill at self-expression. Improved skillswill lead to more positive feedback from adults. Allthese factors will motivate children to read andwrite still more.

Literacy development is a contextually shapedand socially-driven process. Each of the settings inwhich children grow up—home, community institu-tions, school, the streets, the mass media—providessome of the background knowledge and experiencechildren bring to reading and writing, giving them acontext for making sense of words and ideas, as wellas providing a basis for their own narratives. Eachsetting exposes children to specific ideas, materials,and practices: reasons for engaging in literacyactivity; kinds and amounts of literacy materials;kinds and patterns of language use; adult roles inencouraging, guiding, instructing and discussingreading and writing; adults’own literacy practicesand talk about reading and writing. Each settingprovides opportunity to develop a distinctive role.The same child who is an apprentice at schoolmight be the audience for a grandparent, the expertfor a younger sibling, and the partner for a friend.Each role shapes motivation and identity. If adultswho are important to children enjoy reading andwriting, children will internalize the habit and pleas-ure of these activities (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Ifchildren do not see adults reading, they are less like-ly to develop the habit. If children are praised fortheir literacy efforts, they will be more likely toincorporate literacy into their emerging selves; if

Page 8: Occasional Paper 01

4 Afterschool Matters Occasional Paper Fall 2003

they are criticized, they will be less likely to do so.If children learn that they will not be attacked orbelittled for expressing their ideas and imaginationin their writing, they will do so; if they fear personalattacks, they will learn not to express themselves.

As important as the availability of multiple set-tings is the opportunity to engage in a wide rangeof literacy practices. Some activities are likely to befound in all kinds of settings, for example, readingto children and oral reading by children, independ-ent reading, and talk about reading and writing.Some are more likely to be found in formal or semi-formal learning settings, such as book discussions;story dramatization; vocabulary-building activities;open-ended and creative writing; journal writing,especially dialogue journals; collaborative writing;reading and writing to conduct research; and, lessdirectly, participation in visual and expressive arts.Each activity has a distinctive role in children’sliteracy development and therefore deserves a dis-tinctive place in children’s lives. (Appendix 1 brieflyelaborates on the role of specific activities. Thereader should bear in mind that there is a sizableliterature on each.)

As a group, low-income children appear to haveless opportunity than more advantaged children toengage in the range of practices, in their many set-

tings, that arecritical to literacydevelopment(Greenleaf,Schoenbach,Cziko, & Mueller,2001). Low-income childrenare more likelythan their eco-

nomically advantaged peers to experience discrep-ancies in literacy practice between settings. They aremore likely to come from homes in which a lan-guage other than English is spoken. They alsoappear to have less of the “cultural capital”thathelps children make sense of texts (Heath, 2001;Delpit, 1988). There are, of course, significant indi-vidual differences within groups. Reading, and to anextent writing, are inherently more difficult or lesspleasurable for some children than for others. Still,class differences trump individual differences inAmerican society. The result is a literacy develop-ment experience that leads to cumulative advantagefor some groups of children and cumulative disad-vantage for others (Mosenthal, 1999).

Urban Schools as Literacy DevelopmentContexts for Low-Income Children

As children grow older, school becomes increas-ingly influential in their literacy development.

Yet for low-income urban children, school is fre-quently a problematic literacy setting. One reason iscurrent instructional trends: Finding balancedapproaches to literacy instruction in urban schoolsis increasingly difficult. In most cases, the imbalancemeans a skills-based curriculum—especially inschools with low aggregate test scores, which inmany cities are now required to adopt such curricula.Another reason is that schools promulgate differentkinds of literacy for different kinds of children: more“powerful”literacy for economically advantagedchildren, more “functional”literacy for low- andmoderate-income children (Finn, 1999).

Yet another reason is the inherent characteristicsof schools as learning contexts. Generally, schoolsare not positive developmental settings for manylow-income children. If schools’ formal work isteaching and learning, their de facto work is appor-tioning success and failure (Varenne & McDermott,1998; Deschenes, Cuban, & Tyack, 2001). Schoolgenerally becomes a less welcoming place forchildren as they advance in grade (Stipek, 1992).Teaching styles become less nurturing; for instance,teachers give less positive reinforcement to children,spend less time conversing with them, and haveless time (and patience) to listen to what childrenare expressing. Calkins (2001) notes that “In manyclassrooms, kids talk as if no one is listening”(p. 21).By middle school, children confront:

• A growing emphasis on competition andcomparison

• Less willingness to accept and deal withindividual differences in learning speed, style,capacity, and motivation, as well as withlanguage difficulties

• Less attention to how an individual child is faring

• Less room for the knowledge and experiencechildren bring from their home communities

In some urban schools and school systems, theseinherent attributes are complemented by military-style discipline; lack of recess, arts, and physicaleducation (Roth, Brooks-Gunn, Linver, & Hofferth,2002); and anxiety associated with the threat ofbeing held back or of being singled out for summerschool or afterschool remediation.

As important as theavailability of multiplesettings is the opportunityto engage in a wide rangeof literacy practices.

Page 9: Occasional Paper 01

The difficulties posed for children by the generalattributes of schooling are compounded by schools’predominant approach to literacy. Of course, scoresof individual teachers, schools, and local school dis-tricts have created, and struggled to sustain, positiveand creative literacy programs. Stein and D’Amico(2002), for instance, describe a balanced literacyprogram implemented in District 2 inNew York City under the leadership ofAnthony Alvaredo. The program is builtaround the simple but powerful conceptof reading by, with, and to children, thatis, independent, shared, and guidedreading. The program starts with the ideathat “teachers must know individual children deeply as readers”(p. 1318), and use that knowledge toprovide carefully tailored assistance. To the extentpracticable, word study and related forms of skill-building are embedded in meaningful activity, andthe primary focus is on meaning rather than oncorrectness per se. The deeper goal is to create aclassroom community “in which reading is modeledand valued every day”(p. 1339). This and similarexamples do not, however, characterize literacyinstruction for the great majority of low-incomechildren.

For one thing, the prevailing view in most urbanschools is that children have to master basic skillsbefore they can use reading and writing for personaland social purposes. The emphasis on building skillsminimizes children’s opportunity to explore literacyas a vehicle for self-exploration and expression,understanding the world, or exercising imagination(Silberman, 1989; Carney, 1990). It also pushes thetask of nurturing motivation to the background.Furthermore, because reading and writing in schoolare tied to tests, grades, and promotion, the moti-vation that does develop is primarily extrinsic.Children focus their energy either on trying tounderstand and respond to the teacher’s agenda oron hiding from that agenda. Silberman (1989) notesthat children “produce assignments, not in order tobe heard, but in order to give teachers something tojudge on the basis of their agenda”(p. 550). This pat-tern has intensified with the growth of high-stakestesting. Strickland and colleagues (2001) quote anexperienced sixth-grade teacher, whose writingcurriculum has been narrowed to focus on the typesof writing children must produce on a statewideassessment: “I think my students may be doingmore writing than in the past, [but] . . . as theirpapers begin to conform to the rubric, the writing

begins to become more uniform and much lessinteresting. I’m concerned about this, but I haven’tfigured out how to deal with it and still keep themfocused on the rubric”(pp. 385–386).

Critics of literacy instruction in school havefocused also on the poor quality of basal readers andother commercial textbooks, the principal sources of

reading material (see, for example, Antonacci &Colasco, 1994). Stories and nonfiction passages insuch texts are constructed using readability formulasand controlled vocabulary lists; children sometimescan write only from those lists. Commercial text-books have been criticized as “commodities”whosepurpose is profit for publishers; they are thereforedesigned to contain knowledge “acceptable to thewidest possible audience”(Shannon, 1990, p. 151).The texts typically avoid difficult issues and conflict;they are often unconnected, even alien, to children’slives, experiences, and interests. Because lessonplanning tied to commercial texts is standardized,teachers have little opportunity to incorporateknowledge of what their particular group of childrenbrings to the learning experience. In contrast to lit-erature, commercial textbooks offer less to question,debate, and wonder about. Even when teachers arenot using basal readers, their language arts lessonstend to reflect the structure of basal lessons(Shannon,1990). Children are often silenced byquestions about a text because they have learnedthrough experience with basal readers that theteacher only has one answer in mind—not theiranswer (Calkins, 2001).

Through the instructional practices that they aresocialized into—and are required to use—teacherscome to emphasize the deficits rather than thestrengths that children bring to literacy activities.Csikszentmihalyi (1990) notes that, while childrenneed feedback to stay on track, that feedback shouldbe “informational”(p. 136), not controlling.Yet whenteachers provide feedback on children’s reading orwriting, they are more likely to focus on errors inmechanics than on fluency or creativity or commit-ment, in part because they tend to feel that theythemselves will be evaluated on their students’mis-takes, rather than on their students’excitement or

Supporting Literacy Development 5Halpern

The prevailing view in most urban schools is that children have to master basic skills before they can usereading and writing for personal and social purposes.

Page 10: Occasional Paper 01

motivation or creativity (Bettelheim & Zelan, 1982;Silberman, 1989).

The consequence of the school literacy practicesexperienced by most low-income children is theopposite of their intent. Low-income children tendto fall steadily behind in reading between first andfourth grade, regardless of their initial reading skills.Many who acquire and maintain reading skills stilldo not learn how to “read to learn”(Gee, 1999, p.365). They pay “too much attention to the surfacestructure of a text”(Shannon, 1990, p. 135) and can-not “tell us what words on the page add up to, whatsense they make”(Greenleaf, Schoenbach, Cziko, &Mueller, 2001, p. 85). Children who like reading andwriting in elementary school often come to dislikethese activities by middle school. In one study, low-income children reported that they stopped readingin middle school and that they “faked”reading dur-ing silent reading periods (Greenleaf, Schoenbach,Cziko, & Mueller, 2001). As Silberman (1989)describes it, children’s eagerness to write “diminisheswhen they find their ideas and language beingpushed aside”(p. xiii). As children lose faith in theirown thoughts, they may come to prefer an assignedtopic, “no matter how dreary it may be”(p. 3).

Over the long term, the majority of low-incomechildren develop literacy identities that are limitedin specific ways. A few children, either against thegrain or with the support of a teacher, parent, librar-ian, or some other adult figure, acquire the “power-ful”literacy that Finn (1999) describes. Manychildren develop a kind of pseudo-literacy: They can

engage in the mechanics of reading and writing butdo not enjoy these activities or use them for reflec-tion, exploration, or becoming competent in the dis-ciplines. For those who have failed to acquire thebasics, shame becomes a prominent element of theliteracy experience. This shame, in turn, causes chil-dren to read and write less. As older children losetouch with literacy and learning, observers note thattheir sense of possible later identities is foreclosed,an outcome MacLeod (1987) has described as “leveled aspirations.”

A Role for Afterschool Programs?

Given the constraints on schools as literacydevelopment contexts for low-income children,

defining a role for afterschool programs might seemstraightforward—they should provide the literacy-nurturing experiences that schools cannot (or willnot) provide.Yet elaborating an appropriate role forafterschool programs in children’s literacy develop-ment requires consideration of the history andqualities of afterschool programs as settings forliteracy development and of how much consistencyis desirable between settings. Each afterschool pro-gram also needs a coherent set of assumptionsabout what literacy is for.

Afterschool Programs as Historical Contexts for Nurturing LiteracyAttention to literacy is not new to afterschool pro-grams. Almost as soon as such programs beganappearing in settlement houses and boys’clubs latein the nineteenth century, they included libraries,reading and study rooms, book discussions, poetryclubs in which children wrote as well as read poetry,and newsletters produced by children (Halpern,2003). For instance, as early as 1907, New York City’sHenry Street Settlement provided study roomswhere children could do homework and receiveassistance from residents and volunteers (Wald,1915). On Fridays, time was set aside for book selec-tion and reading. In 1909, Chicago Commons start-ed a “study hour”where children “of the 6th, 7th and8th grades can bring their homework and study

in a quiet place”(ChicagoCommons, 1910, p. 3). Inthose formative decades,drama clubs enacted stories,staged fairy tales, wrote andstaged their own plays, anddid dramatic readings of con-temporary and classic plays.Some of the varied non-liter-

acy activities in afterschool programs—includingdebate, parliamentary law, cooking, stenography,and poster-making—also required reading andwriting.

The historic level and pattern of literacy activ-ity—present, but low-key and informal, focusing onenrichment—continued until the 1960s. With theWar on Poverty, afterschool programs were askedfor the first time to contribute to the new compen-satory education agenda in urban school systems.For instance, the 1967 afterschool program guide to

6 Afterschool Matters Occasional Paper Fall 2003

The historic level and pattern of literacy activity—present, but low-key and informal, focusing on enrichment—continueduntil the 1960s. With the War on Poverty, afterschool programswere asked for the first time to contribute to the newcompensatory education agenda in urban school systems.

Page 11: Occasional Paper 01

the Hudson Guild, located in Manhattan’s Chelseadistrict, included homework help and tutoring aswell as such traditional activities as arts and crafts,activity clubs, gym, music, and dance lessons. TheHudson Guild developed a program called“Operation Brainstorm,”which provided bothtutoring and educational and cultural activities forseventh to ninth graders, as well as a “Study Den,”which provided homework help and tutoring forelementary and junior high children. Programreports from this era noted such literacy-relatedactivities as spelling bees, Scrabble tournaments,and book clubs (Halpern, 2003).

Consistency among Literacy Development SettingsAlthough pressures on afterschool programs to con-tribute to low-income children’s academic successcontinued through the next two decades, theyremained limited until the early 1990s. By mid-decade, the afterschool field was being pulled into a tighter embrace by schools and school systems.Afterschool programs were mentioned in rhetoriccalling for longer school days and increased effortsto ensure that low-income children met new learn-ing standards. The desire to link afterschool programsto school agendas animated private afterschoolinitiatives, including Extended Service Schools andNew York City’s The Afterschool Corporation (TASC);mayoral initiatives in numerous cities, includingBoston, Columbus, Denver, and Seattle; and thefederal 21st Century Community Learning Centerprogram.

At a practical level, homework time began to eatinto time for other activities and projects, as well asinto time to relax, play, or sit and have conversations.A growing number of afterschool programs, includ-ing those run by community-based agencies, werelocated in schools and so experienced pressure fromprincipals and funders to help foster academicachievement.

Visions of Literacy DevelopmentAt the same time that academic pressures on after-school programs were growing, a handful of studieswere—purposely or incidentally—raising questionsabout the range and quality of prevailing literacyactivity in afterschool programs. (Halpern, 1990;Ellowitch, et al., 1991; Halpern, Spielberger, & Robb,1999). These studies found literacy activity to beconstrained to varying degrees by limitations in staffmembers’own experience with literacy, understand-

ing of children’s literacy development, and skill inimplementing literacy activity; staff members wererarely connected to the knowledge and experienceof the literacy field. Studies also observed generalprogram resource constraints and quality problems.For instance, staff usually had little or no time toplan. Activities were routine and fragmented. Manyhistoric literacy activities, such as poetry and drama-writing, had allbut disappeared.The bulk of timenot devoted tohomework wasoccupied by rou-tine activitiessuch as boardgames, arts and crafts, group games such as bingo,and open gym recreation. Activities and projectswere usually short-term, often seemed designedwith relatively little thought, and tended not tocreate opportunities for children to express theirown intentions and creativity or to work graduallytoward mastery.

The modest group of afterschool providers whohad given children’s literacy development somethought were sure that they did not want to serve asextensions of school. As one afterschool leader inSeattle told me and my colleagues,“It’s very impor-tant for us [the afterschool community] not tochange our global view of reaching and caring forthe whole child. . . .You know what their [schoolofficials’] idea would be for an ideal afterschool pro-gram: drill-and-practice, to fill the gap in whatdidn’t happen between 9 AM and 3 PM”(Halpern,Spielberger, & Robb, 1999). At the same time, with ahandful of exceptions, afterschool providers wereunsure of what exactly they ought to be doingaround literacy and why.

A Study of Literacy Practices inAfterschool Programs

In this context of apparent potential, heightenedexpectations, and questions about program quality

and about roles and responsibilities, my colleagueJulie Spielberger and I embarked in early 2000 on atwo-year study of literacy goals, resources, and prac-tices in urban afterschool programs. We began byasking ourselves what purposes and types of literacyactivity made sense for afterschool programs. Takinghistorical roles into account, we asked how thedefining qualities of afterschool programs as devel-

Supporting Literacy Development 7Halpern

Many afterschool providerswere unsure of what exactlythey ought to be doingaround literacy and why.

Page 12: Occasional Paper 01

opmental settings—at least in ideal terms—couldbe linked to the literature on literacy developmentto suggest an appropriate set of literacy-related pur-poses and practices.

An Ideal Vision of Afterschool Literacy Practices and PurposesWe knew that, at their best, afterschool programscope well with individual differences, attend to chil-dren’s point of view and encourage their sense of“voice,”try to respond to children’s interests, and putchildren in active roles as learners. Because they can

incorporate children’s home and community culture,afterschool programs are good settings in which toexplore links between “a society’s cultural heritageand [children’s] personal experience”(Damon, 1990,p. 48). Because learning and experience are notdivided up by time period or subject matter, after-school programs can easily design activities thatwork across different disciplines. Because theiragenda is not so full, afterschool programs theoreti-cally have time to pursue activities in depth.Afterschool programs can support the social dimen-sions of children’s learning, allowing children toshare, collaborate, help each other, and work andplay together. Adults play supportive, nonjudgmentalroles; children usually feel safe psychologically aswell as physically, with a relatively low risk of failure.Moreover, afterschool program staff have the luxuryof attending to children’s developmental struggleswithout defining children by those struggles.

Such qualities suggested a variety of literacy-related purposes and practices—some supportive of,others clearly distinct from, the purposes and prac-tices found in urban schools. For instance, after-school programs can afford to expose children to awide range of forms and uses of literacy and to dif-ferent kinds of reading and writing experiences,allowing children to use literacy for their own ends.They afford opportunity to work on projects inwhich children use reading and writing for aes-thetic, informational, cultural, and deeply personalpurposes. Afterschool programs can provide oppor-tunities for children to learn the literacies of theirown heritage—the forms, the stories, the particular

uses of language—and can make connectionsbetween the literacies of home or community andschool literacy. They can encourage children to usetheir own histories and experiences as a spring-board for writing (Hill, Townsend, Lawrence, Shevin,& Ingalls, 1995). They have, at least in theory, thetime and resources to contribute to low-incomechildren’s store of cultural capital, the knowledgechildren bring to their reading and writing.

Afterschool programs are well suited to fosteringliteracy through the visual and expressive arts andthrough activities that work simultaneously across

different symbol systems: words,pictures, music, movement. Sinceeach art form has its own vocabu-lary and grammar, children also canmake connections between creativeexpression and language, learn cor-respondences between movement

and sentences or between jazz notation and writing,and better understand narrative structure. The artshelp children understand the crucial link betweencreativity and discipline. Cushman (1998) notes thatthe arts “disrupt convention, control, predictability;they require discipline and mentorship”(p. 1).

In theory at least, afterschool programs canafford to take the time needed to help childrenacquire and practice literacy skills. Children neednot feel pressure to read or write quickly. Except forhomework, afterschool programs emphasize theprocess of a task as much as the timely completionof it. Afterschool programs can give children timeand opportunity to explore literature, time whichhas become scarcer in school.2 They can allow chil-dren to read independently and to discuss bookswith no external agenda. Indeed, afterschool pro-grams can afford children the “freedom”to havetheir own reactions to a text: “what they see, feel,think and remember as they read”(Wilhelm, 1997,p. 21). They can offer a variety of ways to respond to,and make sense of, texts—through talk, drawing, orspontaneous dramatization (Sipe, 2000).

Because afterschool programs are as much peeroriented as adult oriented, they can make readingand writing social. They can link children in cross-age pairs for reading aloud or give children a chanceto read with others, jointly write poems or stories, orwrite for a broader audience than is usually possiblein school. Afterschool programs can create, in mod-est form, a new literacy community in which chil-dren read and write together. The basic qualities ofafterschool programs also suggest a different role for

8 Afterschool Matters Occasional Paper Fall 2003

Afterschool programs can support the social dimensions ofchildren’s learning, allowing children to share, collaborate,help each other, and work and play together.

Page 13: Occasional Paper 01

adults than that found in most urban schools—onethat is essentially more supportive than directive.

Searching for These Ideals in PracticeUsing this conceptual framework as a kind of idealcase, my colleague and I set out to examine actualpractice in the field. Fieldwork included a survey ofprograms in Chicago and Seattle; case studies,involving observations and interviews, of sixteenafterschool programs in Chicago, New York City, andSeattle; and key informant interviews with trainers,literacy specialists, and foundation staff (Spielberger& Halpern, 2002). We also drew on program obser-vations and interviews conducted in ten afterschoolprograms as part of an earlier study (Halpern,Spielberger, & Robb, 1999).3

In the survey, we were primarily interested inbuilding a basic picture of literacy arrangements andpractices. We asked about:

• Goals

• Schedules

• Specific types of activities

• The material literacy environment

• Staff roles and skills

• Issues and challenges faced

We also gathered information on general programcharacteristics that might help explain variations wefound among programs (an issue not discussed inthis article). We surveyed 212 programs, 47 percent

of the identified universe of some 450 afterschoolprograms in Chicago and Seattle. The sampleincluded programs sponsored by child-care centers,social service agencies (settlement houses, commu-nity centers, child and family service agencies),youth-serving organizations, and parks and recre-ation departments. Some programs were based inschools, but none were run by them.

In the case studies, we were interested not onlyin confirming and deepening the picture created inthe survey, but also in exploring exemplary literacyapproaches, activities, and principles that seemed agood “fit”for afterschool programs. We constructeda convenience sample, half of which was selected toreflect diverse sponsors, neighborhoods, and popu-lations of low-income children, as well as, to a lesserextent, philosophy and emphases. The other half of the sample was identified—by us, by staff inresource organizations or foundations, or throughprevious reports—as doing interesting or exemplaryliteracy work.4

Literacy Practices Typical of Afterschool Programs

Material and Space for Literacy

The material literacy environment of afterschoolprograms provides an important foundation for lit-eracy activity. This environment is especially impor-tant in low-income communities because familiesoften lack the resources to provide materials and

Supporting Literacy Development 9Halpern

Lower Eastside Girls Club, New York City

Page 14: Occasional Paper 01

space for reading and writing. The programs wesurveyed and observed varied widely in both spaceand material for literacy activity, but the majorityprovided at least a moderate foundation. Most sur-veyed programs reported having at least a modestselection of fiction and nonfiction books, althoughour observations showed that collections were typi-cally limited and somewhat haphazard. To buildbook collections, programs relied on small bookbudgets; the public library; and donated books from

individuals, businesses, and nonprofit book distribu-tors. Most programs provided writing tools andmaterials; they had dictionaries, rulers, and calcula-tors available. Programs also typically had props fordramatic play, as well as pen-and-paper wordgames such as crossword puzzles. About half theprograms surveyed had a set of encyclopedias andcomputers for word processing. About a third hadbooks on audiotape and books in languages otherthan English.

The nature—dedicated, shared, or borrowed—and amount of space available to afterschool pro-grams affect the amount of literacy materials aprogram can make available, the opportunity to dis-play literacy products, and the ability to create pro-tected space for reading and writing. Most programswith dedicated space reported providing displayareas for children’s artwork; the majority also dis-played children’s writing. Displays we observedincluded poems, sets of rules or instructions com-posed by children, homemade books, book reportsand writing assignments on particular topics, andoccasional school work. A few programs designedword-rich bulletin boards, with words to unjumble,riddles to solve, or brain teasers; a few used chalk-boards for writing or word games.

For space-related and other reasons, programsvaried widely in whether and how they organizedbook collections. About half of the programs sur-veyed and observed were deliberate in displayingbooks; for example, they highlighted a few titles and,less commonly, rotated highlighted titles, labeledbooks for degree of difficulty, or used book cards forquick reviews. A handful of programs, rather thanplacing all books in a central location, provided

small collections of books in several different areasof the room and rotated books periodically.

Nature and Frequency of Literacy ActivitiesWhile we found hints of the range of purposes andactivities outlined in our conceptual framework,they remained just that—hints. Homework was byfar the dominant literacy activity in afterschool pro-grams in our study, followed, in moderate degree,by independent reading. Although policies and

philosophies varied, for all practical pur-poses homework was a universal dailyactivity except on Fridays.Younger childrenreportedly spent a half hour or less onhomework, children nine years or older upto an hour. At least a third of the surveyedprograms assigned homework if a child had

none. In our observations, children were assignedwork sheets, asked to work in textbooks, or requiredto read quietly if they had no homework or finishedit quickly. Staff interviews suggested that, amongsome programs, homework was viewed as a centralactivity, almost the main reason-for-being of theprogram; among others, it seemed to be treated asa necessary, but not defining, activity.

In program observations, the climate duringhomework time was typically purposeful, more orless orderly, and relaxed.Yet a strict, school-likeclimate was not uncommon; we occasionally saw anoisy and chaotic one. In the majority of programs,staff and volunteers were engaged with children,sitting with them, explaining, asking questions,prodding, hinting, and otherwise helping children tostay on task. In a few, staff did not interact with chil-dren except to ask them to be quiet, using this timeto do paperwork, talk with each other, or plan forlater activities. More often than not, staff or volun-teers checked children’s work—usually to see that ithad been done, not whether it had been done cor-rectly. Children themselves approached homeworkin different ways. Some preferred to get it over with,others appeared restless, and a handful were obvi-ously frustrated. In a few programs we observedstaff use homework time to talk with children aboutschool in general—about particular experiences inschool, about what it takes to do well, or about howand when to seek help.

Apart from homework time, most afterschoolprograms reported scheduling a modest amount oftime for specific literacy activities, typically once ortwice weekly—not too different from the timeallotted to other “special”activities. Two-thirds of

10 Afterschool Matters Occasional Paper Fall 2003

Homework was by far the dominant literacy activityin afterschool programs in our study, followed, inmoderate degree, by independent reading.

Page 15: Occasional Paper 01

programs reported scheduling time at least once aweek for children to read on their own, and halfreported scheduling time for children to write.Comments in survey responses and interviews sug-gested a belief that children who had been in schoolall day needed a chance to engage in other activities,that the need for reading and writing was met dur-ing homework time, and that it was up to childrento find time for reading and writing. (About half ofall surveyed programs allowed children to borrowbooks to bring home.) Program observations sug-gested that a third or more of scheduled literacyactivities (as with other activities) either did not takeplace or did not get the time scheduled.

Three-fourths of the survey respondents report-ed that children read independently. Observationssuggest that independent reading varied by childand was more unplanned than planned. Childrentypically chose to read during unstructuredmoments, when they finished homework early orbetween or during other activities. Adults reportedlyread to children in about two-thirds of programs,and children read to others in half of all programs.Observations suggest that these percentages seemaccurate, with the actual practice of reading tochildren being more irregular than regular. Abouthalf of all programs also reported that adults toldchildren stories, although we were able to observefew such instances. Book discussions and literaturecircles were reported and observed to be an elementin a small number of programs.

Writing—as a distinct activity other than forhomework—was not common in afterschool pro-grams in our study. About a third of programsreported that children wrote “stories, plays, or poet-ry”at least occasionally; about 20 percent that chil-dren “write about their experiences”; and about 20percent that children wrote in their own journals ona regular basis. Staff or volunteers read children’swriting (primarily homework) in 58 percent of pro-grams and wrote responses to children’s writing in20 percent of programs. In our observations, weoften spotted children’s journals, sometimes sawchildren writing in journals, and less commonly saw children writing poetry, stories, or plays or sawperformances of these writings.

We found three clearly positive aspects of literacypractice in our study:

• Some reading and writing occurredincidentally in the course of activities notdefined specifically as literacy. For instance,we observed children incorporate reading and

writing into dramatic play, label a drawing,read the words of a song they were learningfor a performance, check schedules, readinstructions in a board game, read a recipe formaking pizza, and read instructions for usingphotography equipment, among many otheractivities.

• Literacy activities in afterschool programswere often strongly social. Children sattogether to read or read to each other; theysought help from each other with a difficultword in a book. Children helped each otherwrite, commented on each other’s work, tookturns reading, or simply talked while workingon a piece of writing.

• In programs serving children fromimmigrant and refugee families, children’shome languages and literacy traditions wererecognized and supported. We observed stafftelling children stories and using dramaticforms from their homelands, teaching thecharacters of a different alphabet, and so forth.The majority of programs serving Englishlanguage learners tended to be bilingual intheir practices, with staff and childrenswitching naturally back and forth betweenEnglish and the children’s home language.

In general, then, we found that, though the goalof contributing to children’s literacy development isnow on the “radar screen”of afterschool programs inthe study—something that would not have beentrue even a decade ago—most are not yet deliberateand active in this area of programming. Homeworkremains the dominant literacy activity. Beyond someindependent reading—itself a good thing—otheractivities are catch as catch can. Few programs havethought through a philosophy or approach to theirliteracy activities or are implementing literacy-basedprojects on anything like a regular basis. The surveyand program observations revealed varied obstaclesto fuller implementation of literacy activity, which Iwill discuss in detail later in this paper.

Exemplary Approaches to Literacy ActivityA central goal of our study was to identify after-school programs that were doing interesting work infostering literacy and to describe their approachesand activities in order to derive some tentative prin-ciples of potential use to the larger field. The pro-grams selected were diverse in many ways. Theywere sponsored by settlements, churches,YMCAs,

Supporting Literacy Development 11Halpern

Page 16: Occasional Paper 01

Boys and Girls Clubs, independent youth-workagencies, and public housing developments. Theyserved children from a variety of ethnic and racialgroups and family situations. They had distinctivephilosophies and emphases.

Yet they also shared certain general characteris-tics, for instance:

• They were thoughtful about their work.Directors, and sometimes front-line staff, wereable to articulate goals for literacy and otheractivity, and in some cases a guidingphilosophy.

• Most made an effort to socialize new staffinto a shared understanding of the work.

• Staff created settings in which children feltsafe and valued. They took children seriously.

• Staff conveyed excitement about programactivities and made an effort to connectactivities to children’s lives.

• Directors and experienced staff wereconcerned about the details ofimplementation and paid attention to theimportance of regularity and consistency.

• Almost all the programs structured time forstaff to plan and discuss the daily work withchildren. These meetings served as occasionsfor program directors to reiterate coreprinciples and practices.

In general, fostering literacy was not the organ-izing purpose of these programs. However, it was anidentifiable focus, one to which thought had beengiven and to which regular time, strong support,and a program-wide commitment were devoted. Weobserved plenty of reading and writing, sometimesinfused into other types of activity. Staff regularlyencouraged children’s efforts to read and write.Deliberate attention to words, language, and vocab-ulary was common. Staff discussed literacy duringstaff meetings, including, on occasion, their ownformative experiences as readers and writers, as wellas their ideas and beliefs about literacy development.

Like the larger community of afterschool pro-grams, this group did not use commercial curriculaor packaged reading development programs. A fewhad developed their own curricula. For example,Interfaith Neighbors in New York City had devel-oped its own writing curriculum called “PATH.”The Chicago Commons afterschool programs hadadapted a well-known early childhood curriculum,“Reggio Emilia,”which shaped literacy activity, as

well as the larger program. Staff in a number of pro-grams maintained their own notebooks of ideas forliteracy activities that they had read about, learned ina workshop, or tried with children. Some programsalso used arts and literacy resources from the broadercommunity. For instance, a YMCA-sponsored pro-gram at Bailey Gatzert School in Seattle worked forseveral months with Hugo House, a local literacyorganization, to implement a drama project thatinvolved a variety of literacy-related activities—talk-ing, writing, reading, drawing, and performing. At ElCentro de la Raza in Seattle, a local poet came everyWednesday evening to work with school-age chil-dren and adults on poetry writing.

Creating a Rich Material Literacy EnvironmentThe exemplary programs generally were thoughtfulabout the material literacy environment. They used avariety of means to highlight books and to helpchildren choose books: rotating book selectionsperiodically; organizing and labeling books by topicor degree of difficulty; providing multiple copies ofpopular books or of books used in group readingactivities; using book cards for quick reviews; writ-ing about books in a program newsletter; exhibitingbook jackets on bulletin boards, sometimes with astaff- or child-written book review; locating smallcollections of books in different areas of the room oron book carts. They encouraged children to sign outbooks to take home. Some programs had createdbook corners or reading lofts. In selected programs,we saw literacy artifacts in dramatic play areas,various signs including some in languages otherthan English, printed instructions for projects andactivities, and maps of all kinds: of the United Statesand the world, of imaginary places depicted inbooks, of the neighborhood. We observed conceptwebs and bulletin boards based on a particulartheme or displaying riddles and word puzzles.

Goals of Literacy ActivityCollectively, the exemplary programs seemed tofocus on strengthening motivation to read andwrite, exposing children to different purposes forengaging in literacy activity, and encouraging asense of playfulness about reading and writing.They wanted children to learn that reading andwriting are not only things one does at school, butthat they can be used for self-discovery and self-definition, to find a voice, to explore where one fits.The programs wanted children to come to believethat their own histories and experiences were worth

12 Afterschool Matters Occasional Paper Fall 2003

Page 17: Occasional Paper 01

communicating and pondering. They wanted chil-dren to use reading and writing to reflect on family,social class, and culture, as well as to explore linksbetween their personal experiences and heritageand those of other people.

Literacy activity was often used as a vehicle toexplore issues both close to home and out in theworld. For instance, Latino children at ChicagoCommons’Guadalupano Center developed pen-palrelationships with children of the same age in atown in Nicaragua. The drama teacher at the Artsand Literacy Program of the Coalition for HispanicFamily Services in the Bushwicksection of Brooklyn worked withchildren to bring a Mexican folk-tale,“The Cornmaidens,”to life.One of the writing teachers inthis program conducted activitiesin both English and Spanish, not-ing that he wanted children to“value Spanish more.”Programs used reading andwriting to examine issues of identity and groupmembership. At Forest Hills Community House inQueens, New York, a discussion of the book SummerWheels by Eve Bunting explored the concept of“toughness,”especially in relation to bullying. AtRiverdale Neighborhood House in New York, weobserved a group of sixth and seventh graders read-ing and discussing The Outsiders by S. E. Hinton, onone occasion discussing the difference between“socks”and “greasers,”as well as the meaning of“rat race.”

Interfaith Neighbors in New York City wasexceptionally thoughtful in developing a variety ofreading and writing curricula intended to helpmiddle-school children maintain a sense of self inthe face of external pressures. At GirlSpace, a weeklywriting group focused on middle-school girls’ lossof confidence and sense of self as they enter adoles-cence. Writing included autobiography, individualand group poems, and pop songs. As girls becamecomfortable in their group, they were encouraged toshare their writing and give each other feedback.They also read literature selected to generate discus-sion about their lives and experiences. Interfaith haddeveloped similar writing and discussion groups forearly adolescent boys in order to provide a safespace and non-aggressive means for boys to expresstheir ideas and process their experiences—too manyof which had involved witnessing, being subjectedto, or participating in violent acts. In all these exam-ples, implicit goals included giving children a con-

crete sense that there are reasons to read and writeand overcoming anxieties about writing.

Incorporating Literacy into Program LifeA number of the exemplary programs were notablefor the ways in which they incorporated literacyactivity into the full life of the program. For instance,many programs consciously linked reading to otherkinds of activities. At the Riverdale NeighborhoodHouse in New York, children made apple crisp afterreading a book about Johnny Appleseed and thenbaked Irish soda bread in conjunction with a book

called Albert’s Bad Word. During our visit to theCYCLE Wiz Factory in Chicago, children were read-ing Charlotte’s Web throughout the hallways of thecenter in anticipation of a weekend field trip to see aperformance of the story. When children arrived, thedirector greeted them and asked,“Do you have acopy of Charlotte’s Web yet?”If they did not, shehanded them one.

Deliberate attention to language and vocabularywas common across a range of activities. Plans forart activities typically included a vocabulary list thatreminded staff to go over particular key words orconcepts with children. Children in the program atInterfaith Neighbors in New York developed andposted lists of “cool words”from books they hadread. At the Hartley House in New York, we saw awall display explaining what genre means: “Thegenre of a story tells us what kind of story it is.”Avariety of genres—tall tale, nonfiction, fable, fairy-tale, realistic fiction, article, and folktale—werepresented with their definitions. Book discussionactivities sometimes involved developing themati-cally organized word lists or lists of words to define.We sometimes observed staff pointing out andtalking about particular words with children orcomparing words in different languages. The poetryinstructor at the CYCLE Wiz Factory told us,“Weplay with words as a child would play with sand inthe sandbox.”

Children in these programs did more writingthan is typical in afterschool programs; they hadgreater opportunity to explore different purposes for

Supporting Literacy Development 13Halpern

The exemplary programs seemed to focus on strengtheningmotivation to read and write, exposing children to differentpurposes for engaging in literacy activity, and encouraging a sense of playfulness about reading and writing.

Page 18: Occasional Paper 01

and forms of writing. In addition to use of dialoguejournals, we observed projects in which childrenexplored the structure and rhythms of poetry (forexample, writing Chinese calligraphy poems), createdcomic strips using storyboards, and wrote andperformed skits. One writing teacher had childrencreate “noise poems”: He had children go out intothe streets, identify neighborhoods sounds, and“convert”them to poetry, which could use made-upwords. One program’s year-end street festival fea-tured kites with tails made up of index cards onwhich children had written wishes.

Fostering Literacy through Other Art FormsA few programs deliberately used the visual andperforming arts—dance and movement, photogra-phy, video, instrumental music, musical notationand composition, drawing, mural making, cartoon-ing, comic book illustration—as a foundation forliteracy. The Arts and Literacy Program Coalition forHispanic Family Services in Brooklyn illustrates theways in which literacy and the arts can be connect-ed. The staff in this program were mostly youngartists in various fields. Activities were based onmonth-long projects designed by individual staff,sometimes with input from children. There was ageneral plan that included the basic concepts to beconveyed, learning and skill development goals, the

steps in carrying out the project, and the vocabularyinvolved. For example, one photography projectincluded such concepts as composition and “color asmood”; vocabulary included focus, documentary, andperspective, as well as aperture and shutter.

Such arts projects attended to literacy bothdirectly and indirectly. Most included writing in oneor another form. The drama teacher read stories tochildren and had them share in the reading, passingthe book around a circle. She had them writemonologues, using specific objects for inspiration,and then perform their pieces. In one music project,the children worked in groups to write lyrics. In theprocess, they learned about verse and chorus andabout constructing a story around a theme. Thecartooning instructor had children write about whothe characters were before drawing them. Afterevery project, children completed written reviewsand critiques of their work; these formed part oftheir individual portfolios.

A lot of activities and projects involved workacross symbol systems: drawing to complementwriting, writing to explain pictures or photographs,translating words into movement, writing lyrics toaccompany a melody. We observed a writinginstructor lead an exercise in which children wroteshort stories and then drew pictures representingscenes in the story, which were put on a “picture

14 Afterschool Matters Occasional Paper Fall 2003

Lower Eastside Girls Club, New York City

Page 19: Occasional Paper 01

wheel”that rotated as the story progressed. Thedance teacher used words, poetry, and stories toshape movement. For example, she asked childrento think of movement and action words that beginwith s—swinging, stretching, standing—and thendemonstrate those words. She sometimes read apoem and then asked children to develop move-ment corresponding to the images of the poem.

Sometimes this work was designed to help chil-dren see correspondences among the concepts,vocabulary, and creative process in different artforms, for example, between the elements of narra-tive in a dance and those in a story. On one occa-sion, the dance teacher worked with children tocreate a dance out of the pictures and story in abook about a Puerto Rican myth. In some instances,staff were trying to help children see how each artform has its own distinct structure and vocabulary.The photography teacher told us that he wanted tohelp children develop what he called “a visuallanguage,”by which he meant the ability to use avariety of concepts—foreground-background, per-spective, shape, silhouette, isolating, and framing—to create a visual composition. The dance teacherspoke of “movement vocabulary,”with individualmovements the equivalent of words that are com-bined to create “movement sentences,”a group ofmovements which, when combined, convey acomplete thought.

Celebrating and Validating Children’s Literacy Work

A number of programs created opportunities forchildren to exhibit, publicize, and perform the prod-ucts of their literacy work. For instance, staffarranged for children from East Harlem Tutorial’swriting group to read their poetry at a local Barnes& Noble. Both Interfaith Neighbors and Arts andLiteracy sponsored public festivals where childrenread and performed their writing. In the Arts andLiteracy Program, children performed the songs theyhad written for family and friends. The programpublished an annual anthology of children’s work,which was mostly poetry but also included a playand some mini-biography. Creating opportunitiesfor children to read and perform their writinghelped parents and the broader community see thattheir children were capable, creative writers whohad something valuable to say. It allowed childrento see connections between reading and writingactivity and oral performance. It affirmed for chil-dren the value of their work.

Limitations and Challenges to Literacy Work in Afterschool Programs

We were gratified to find a variety of creative andengaging literacy practices in a handful of after-school programs, but this finding also highlightedthe enormous challenges to effective literacy practicefacing the larger afterschool field. For the greatmajority of programs in our study, these included:

• Time, space, and material resource constraints

• Lack of staff skill and experience in fosteringliteracy, as well as limitations in staff members’own literacy skills

• The wide range of literacy support needs,interests, and identities among participatingchildren

• Lack of support for programs—in particularfor program directors—in thinking throughand trying to implement a coherent approachto literacy activity

In addition to these challenges, many afterschoolprograms in our study were struggling to find anappropriate stance in relation to schools and torespond to pressure—from funders, parents, andother stakeholders—to become more school-likeand help address school-related agendas.

Time, Space, and Material ConstraintsThe afterschool programs we observed had lessfunctional time for sustained literacy activity thanmight seem available. Many tended not to use avail-able time optimally because they divided the dayinto short fragments that prevented deep engage-ment in an activity. By the time children arrived,settled in, did homework, had snacks, and had somefree time, there was often not enough time left forany meaningful literacy activity. The effect of timeconstraints was exacerbated when children struggledwith homework, a problem that was surprisinglycommon in the programs we observed and was alsoreported by a number of program directors in thesurvey. Additionally, in some programs, childrenarrived individually or in small clusters from differ-ent schools over the course of an hour or more. Theend of the afternoon was often rushed and some-times disorganized, with parents or siblings arrivingat different times to take children home. When chil-dren knew they were leaving in a few minutes, theywere less likely to settle down to an activity.

Time constraints on literacy activity are directlyrelated to children’s needs after a day at school.

Supporting Literacy Development 15Halpern

Page 20: Occasional Paper 01

Schools in low-income neighborhoods are increas-ingly programmed, and staff are strict. Childrenexperience tight control of all movement—silence isrequired in the halls, and in general extraordinaryself-control is demanded. On top of these restric-tions, more and more children are coming from

school having hadno recess or gym.Under increasedpressure and withfewer outlets fordecompressingduring the schoolday, children needtime to unwindand “regroup”psy-chologically after

school. Many children also desperately need somephysical activity. (This need is on the verge ofbecoming another theme in the afterschool field.)They may not be interested in taking on even themost engaging literacy activity. Ironically, one issuethat we observed in some afterschool programs waslack of flexibility for children who did want to sitand read. A child might settle down to read, per-haps after finishing homework, and then within afew minutes be asked to stop in order to move toanother activity.

In a quarter to a third of the programs, lack ofdedicated space affected literacy-related physicalarrangements (as well as other activities). Having toshare space or to set up and put away furniture andmaterials daily hampered the creation of a language-rich physical environment or quiet and comfortableareas for reading. Combined with fragmented use oftime, this physical constraint limited opportunitiesto carry out long-term projects or to create areas fordramatic play.

Less commonly, lack of literacy materials or ofbudgets to purchase materials created moderateconstraints on literacy activity. For instance, someprograms could not afford multiple copies of booksneeded for book discussions. Programs were some-times unable to update libraries or to purchase par-ticular kinds of books.

Staff LimitationsStaff limitations create a major obstacle to after-school programs’capacity to provide enriching liter-acy experiences. Adults play important roles inscaffolding or structuring children’s literacy experi-ences and nurturing their literacy-related identities:

They help children choose appropriate books,demonstrate different ways of engaging texts, modelexcitement about reading and writing, frame andguide book discussions, help connect texts to chil-dren’s experiences, serve as an audience andrespondent to children’s writing, introduce childrento new authors, and so forth. These and other criti-cal mediating tasks are difficult enough even forskilled literacy mentors. Through no fault of theirown, the great majority of frontline staff and eventhe majority of supervisory staff in afterschool pro-grams are not skilled in this domain. For example,we rarely observed staff engaging in pre-readingactivities: They seldom previewed a story or bookchapter before reading it aloud to children or pre-pared children in book discussion groups for a par-ticular book by giving background, reviewingvocabulary, and so forth.

Our observations and discussions with staff sug-gest that many were uncomfortable with their ownidentity and strengths as readers and writers. Staffwho do not see themselves as readers and writersusually will not provide literacy models for children.For instance, children in afterschool programs weobserved rarely saw staff reading, writing, or dis-cussing reading and writing. Lack of staff convictionaround literacy was sometimes apparent in lack offollow-through; they would start to read a story andnot finish it, for example, or begin a writing projectand then not respond to the writing or do anythingwith the products.

When afterschool staff were insecure aboutliteracy-related activity or did not receive training,information, and support, they tended to imitatethe worst literacy practices of schools instead of thebest ones: giving children worksheets to fill out,having them trace letters, or subjecting them todrills. This school-like drilling was even more inap-propriate because it was not part of a surroundingconceptual framework: Assignments were not partof a sequenced program, were completed haphaz-ardly, and received little or no feedback. Afterschoolstaff often had difficulty in building children’s con-fidence as readers and writers. They sometimes hadtrouble responding primarily as an interested audi-ence for children’s writing, focusing instead oncorrecting mistakes.

As afterschool programs have come to use morevolunteers for homework help, tutoring, reading tochildren, and so forth, the literacy skills of theseauxiliary staff have become an issue. In our study,high-school youth proved particularly variable in

16 Afterschool Matters Occasional Paper Fall 2003

Our observations anddiscussions with staffsuggest that many wereuncomfortable with theirown identity and strengthsas readers and writers.

Page 21: Occasional Paper 01

these roles. We observed instances in which theywere patient, persistent, and good at explaining con-cepts, and other instances in which they showed lit-tle skill. The staff member in charge of homeworkhelp at East Harlem Tutorial told us that some highschool tutors had trouble reading deeply for com-prehension themselves and so could not really helpyounger children learn to read more deeply.Increasingly, college students also have variable lit-eracy skills. One New York City settlement housethat relies on college students as staff feels com-pelled to test these students on basic skills beforehiring them in order to be sure they have adequateliteracy and numeracy skills to help children withhomework.

Children’s Diverse Literacy Support NeedsChildren served by afterschool programs havediverse literacy support needs, interests, and identi-ties. This diversity created all kinds of challenges forthe afterschool programs in our study. A group of 15or 20 children might have almost as many differenthomework assignments. A group pulled together fora book discussion might include children who haveread a particular book with ease and children whobarely understood it. A program might serve chil-dren from three, four, or more linguistic communi-ties. As noted above, after a day at school, a fewchildren like curling up with a book, while othershave no interest in or endurance for more readingand writing.

Staff in the case study programs reported a vari-ety of distinctive—but not unexpected—literacysupport needs among the children they served.Beyond inability to do their homework, some chil-dren had limited experience in reading and writingoutside the school context. Many children reportedlydid not enjoy reading for pleasure and did not knowhow either to choose books or to use writing forself-expression. A growing number of immigrantand refugee children were struggling with weak lit-eracy foundations in their native languages. Staffreported that older children, especially, were reluc-tant to write, and that it was difficult to convincechildren that they had something to say. Some chil-dren found it hard to write about themselves, per-haps having never been asked to think ofthemselves as worth writing about. Staff noted chil-dren’s complaints that reading or writing were “bor-ing”; such complaints appeared to serve as adefense for reading or writing difficulties. Such diffi-culties were often a subtle mixture of fear, shame,

and skill deficits. Speaking of the child she workedwith, a tutor at one program told us that “sometimesshe wouldn’t show up at all, or she would be hid-ing”in a different part of the building.

Specific literacy problems were often intertwinedwith general difficulties with school. A sizableminority of children served by the afterschool pro-grams we observed were, in one way or another, lostat school. The fact that as many as a quarter of thechildren in many programs seemed to have seriousproblems doing their homework was a symptom ofthis difficulty. In some cases, older children did noteven bother to pretend to do homework anymore.Staff in programs serving immigrant and refugeecommunities noted a surprising number and varietyof school problems among children served, contra-dicting the received wisdom that such children arestrongly committed to schooling. When afterschoolstaff reached out to teachers, they often had receivedlittle response.

Struggling with Literacy Activity in IsolationAn important finding of our study was that mostafterschool programs struggle in isolation in theirefforts—whether modest or significant—to fosterliteracy. Although many program directors expressedinterest in reconfiguring their programs to includemore literacy activity, they typically did not knowhow to begin to acton that interest. Theywere either unawareof or lacked the timeand energy to pursueexternal literacyresources.

The literacy fieldis full of wonderfuland practical booksabout children’s reading and writing development.Although most of these books are implicitly orexplicitly directed at teachers, they could be useful toafterschool providers. The literacy field also includesa sizable group of resource people and centers thatconduct training and technical assistance aroundliteracy. Of these, a handful at most are payingattention to afterschool programs. Local arts organi-zations, museums, libraries, and other cultural insti-tutions are all potentially available to support andenrich afterschool programs’ literacy efforts. Manycities offer individuals and institutions that could belinked to afterschool programs for story-reading,writing workshops, and the like. A number of inter-

Supporting Literacy Development 17Halpern

A sizable minority ofchildren served by theafterschool programs weobserved were, in one wayor another, lost at school.

Page 22: Occasional Paper 01

Strengths of Most Afterschool Programs Observed• Provide a “safe” environment for children’s

literacy activities

• Respect children’s home languages and cultures

• Understand the social dimensions of literacyactivity

Challenges for Most Afterschool Programs Observed• Must deal with constraints of time, space (often

shared or borrowed), and money that limit theirability to provide a rich material literacyenvironment

• Must often hire staff with little or no literacyexperience or training, sometimes with limitedliteracy skills themselves

• Struggle with the diverse needs of children froma variety of cultural backgrounds and with a widerange of literacy abilities and habits

• Are relatively isolated from the rich array ofresources available in the field of children’sliteracy development

Strengths of Most Exemplary Programs Observed• Are intentional about planning to integrate

literacy activities into program life

• Create a rich material literacy environment withbook displays, dedicated areas for reading andwriting, displays of literacy artifacts

• Purposefully integrate literacy into other programactivities such as arts activities

• Strengthen children’s motivation for reading andwriting; explore varied reasons for literacy

• Can hire staff with specific training andexperience in literacy or literacy-related activities

• Attempt to socialize staff into a shared understanding of the work

mediary organizations have developed resourcesand training experiences for afterschool literacyactivity, such as the Developmental StudiesCenter in Oakland, School’s Out Consortium inSeattle, Partnership for After School Education inNew York City, and the National Institute onOut-of-School Time.

However, many programs work in suchisolation that directors are not aware of thesesupports or don’t have time to seek them out. Inaddition, limited budgets often don’t allow fundsfor outside consultation.

ConclusionsThe findings of our research, when placed in thelarger context of literature on children’s literacydevelopment, suggest that afterschool programscan be “truly alternative settings for literacy prac-tice”(Resnick, 1990), freed from the constraintsfaced by schools. Afterschool programs’psycho-logical climate, motivational structure, temporalstructure, and adult roles clearly distinguish themfrom schools as literacy nurturing environments.At the same time, the great majority of after-school programs currently operate at such a basiclevel that a good deal of capacity-building workwill be needed to help them fulfill their potentialas literacy development settings (as well as inother program areas).

The principal strength of afterschool programstoday is the fact that children typically see themas a safe context. For literacy activity this percep-tion is no small thing. Feeling and being safe—not just physically but psychologically safe—arepre-requisites for learning. Csikszentmihalyi(1990) notes that “Because everyone’s priority isto keep the self safe, whenever danger or ridiculethreatens it, we lose concentration and focusattention on defending ourselves rather than ongetting involved with the task”(p. 137). If low-income children do not read and write becausethey perceive reading and writing as risky or eventhreatening activities, afterschool programs canhelp counter those feelings. Several staff in ourexemplary programs noted that children have tofeel not only safe, but also accepted for who theyare, before they can take risks.

We learned in our study that literacy activitiesnaturally fit differently into different programs,tending to work best when they reflected theprogram’s character and were integrated into itsdaily life. We observed also that some literacy

18 Afterschool Matters Occasional Paper Fall 2003

Page 23: Occasional Paper 01

activity in afterschool programs was embedded inactivity that had other purposes; the exemplary pro-grams tended to be more aware of this congruenceand built on it in designing a range of activities andprojects. These findings reflect and confirm the oft-cited principle that “children often learn best bybeing absorbed in tasks thatrequire the incidental use of skillsand ideas”(Robinson, 2001).

Although the exemplary pro-grams differed from each other,they shared some important char-acteristics. These included helpingchildren explore varied reasons toread and write, strengtheningchildren’s belief that what they had to say is impor-tant, and enhancing children’s sense of ownershipof reading and writing—their sense of themselves asreaders and writers. We observed and learned aboutchildren using reading (including discussion of texts)and writing to explore identity, reflect on their lives,exercise their imaginations, and analyze their expe-riences. In programs with strong arts components,children had an opportunity to explore the structureof and correspondences between different symbolicsystems. A number of the exemplary programs hadactivities designed to help children explore theparticular literacy traditions of their families andcommunities.

Our findings confirmed that when the contextpermits or encourages it, children’s literacy activity isoften strongly social. We observed children kibbitz-ing, sharing ideas, seeking and giving help, readingpassages out loud, commenting to each other abouta book, asking each other to listen, responding toand critiquing each other. We were struck also byhow playful children often were with words andlanguage. These patterns, made possible by after-school programs’modest adult agenda and lack ofcompetitive culture, were positive in many respects:They fit the context, and they fit how children learn.To an extent, children were engaging each otheraround literacy because adults were hanging back.

Strengthening Literacy Activity inAfterschool Programs

Children’s ownership of literacy is enhancedwhen they can act on their own initiative and

use materials and other resources to their own ends.This goal is in turn enhanced when staff respectchildren’s choice of reading material, the connec-

tions children make in their reading, and the wayschildren express ideas.Yet reading, and to someextent writing, are complex activities, sometimesrequiring skilled adult support to enrich the processand help children achieve mastery. As in the arts,there is some apprenticeship involved: “the invisible

mental processes involved in the task [of readingand interpreting text] must be made visible andavailable to apprentices”(Greenleaf, Schoenbach,Cziko, & Mueller, 2001, p. 88). Referring to writingdevelopment, Silberman (1989, p. 87), argues that it“is neither spinach nor ice cream, neither rote mem-orization of conventions and nothing else, norundisciplined self-expression without carefulthought and correct form.”

With exceptions, the afterschool field currentlylacks the staff who can apprentice children to lit-eracy. Filling this gap will require recruiting outsidehelp. Fuller and more consistent support for artsand literacy resource organizations would be a start,as would recruitment of professional writers whoare interested in working with children. A growingnumber of arts-oriented organizations include liter-acy activities among their offerings. The CommunityWord Project in New York City, for instance, providesboth resident artists and staff training in collabora-tive creative writing, drama, performance, and visualarts. It also emphasizes creative ways of using wordsand language to build vocabulary. Experience indi-cates that effectively linking outside resources toafterschool programs takes a good deal of work, butthis linkage is in some respects one of the most crit-ical challenges facing the afterschool field and itsproponents.

What role, if any, afterschool programs have inhelping to address the needs of children who haveidentified problems with reading and writing isunclear. At a modest level, afterschool programs canbe settings in which children re-approach literacywith less at stake. Afterschool programs can helpchildren recover some of their motivation to readand write, as well as their sense of pleasure in theseactivities. They can perhaps help correct basic

Supporting Literacy Development 19Halpern

Experience indicates that effectively linking outside resourcesto afterschool programs takes a good deal of work, but thislinkage is in some respects one of the most critical challengesfacing the afterschool field and its proponents.

Page 24: Occasional Paper 01

misapprehensions about reading that discouragesome children.Yet, as children grow older, the workof reading and writing recovery requires specializedskill that few afterschool programs can be expectedto acquire (see, e.g., Greenleaf, Schoenbach, Cziko,& Mueller, 2001).

Encouraging and supporting afterschool pro-grams to be more thoughtful in how they use timeand label activities should free some space for liter-acy activity. This process might start by re-thinkingresponsibility—and setting limits on parental pres-sures—for homework time and help. For example,programs might set aside two afternoons a weekwhen parents knew children were not going to bedoing homework, freeing up more time for in-depthprojects and activities. Such projects in turn createmore opportunity to incorporate reading and writ-ing into program life.

In their relationship with schools, afterschoolprograms will have to walk a fine line. School agen-das intrude in the world of afterschool programs.Much new funding is tied to school-related worriesand goals. Children bring homework to afterschoolprograms every day. Some—but by no means all—afterschool staff see it as their role to monitor schoolprogress by, for instance, checking report cards andasking about school experiences; they often learn

about and feel compelled to help with school prob-lems. At the same time, afterschool programs wouldnot want the attributes that lead children to feel dis-couraged in school—fragmented and disembeddedlearning, a preoccupation with compliance and obe-dience, the constant experience of being judged andranked, the all-too-often accompanying experienceof failure, the lack of time for processing and forsimple respite—to filter into their own literacydevelopment activities.

There is a clear danger that if afterschool pro-grams are pulled into the orbit of schools, they willlose the opportunity to forge their own distinctivegoals for children’s literacy development. Moreover,children appear to want and need boundariesbetween different types of experiences (Sutton-Smith, 1997; Heath, 2001). Our observations suggestthat children instinctively understand and value thedifferences in reading and writing in school andoutside it. Afterschool programs surely need helpgaining access to the specialized knowledge andexperience about literacy development in the educa-tional literature. But they themselves will still beresponsible for forging a literacy-related identitythat makes sense given their distinctive qualities.With their generally modest capacity, they will haveto build this identity a step at a time.

20 Afterschool Matters Occasional Paper Fall 2003

Page 25: Occasional Paper 01

Reading to ChildrenThe literature is virtually unanimous on the benefitsof reading to children. These include developing alove of books; learning to distinguish types of lan-guage; developing an understanding of story struc-ture and narrative; learning to think or imagine“ahead”; improving vocabulary, listening compre-hension, and more general “attending”abilities;strengthening bonds with the reader/caregiver; andcreating a reading “community”(Sipe, 2000, p. 252;Calkins, 2001). For some children, hearing a storyread aloud fluently lets them experience the story as a whole, which helps them see the deeper mean-ings in words or the story that they might notunderstand when they read themselves becausethey are working too hard (Allen, 2000). Becausechildren’s oral understanding and listening compre-hension is at a higher level than their print under-standing, reading aloud to children can introducethem to higher-level books than they could read ontheir own, exposing them to more interesting andchallenging material. Reading aloud introduceschildren to books that they may later chose to readthemselves. Children who are read to gradually“appropriate”the reading act for themselves(Resnick, 1990, p. 181).

Sustained Silent ReadingAlthough there is obviously no substitute for readingitself in learning to read and in making reading partof one’s life, what is sometimes called “sustainedsilent reading”is often neglected in the settings inwhich children spend their days. Sustained silentreading provides a good opportunity to read forpleasure, which Resnick (1990) defines as the free-dom to pick up or put down a book at will, with “noneed to prove to others that one has read”(p. 182).As Calkins (2001) puts it,“children benefit from dailyopportunities to read books they choose for them-selves for their own purposes and pleasures”(p. 8).

Book DiscussionsText can be a stimulus for discussion and creativeexpression. Talking about what they have read orheard read aloud allows children to connect one textto other texts and to personal experiences. It allows

them to develop—or simply to recognize that theyhave—a distinct perspective (Wilhelm, 1997).Calkins (2001) writes,“We teach children to thinkwith and between and against texts by helping themsay aloud, in conversation with us and others, thethoughts they will eventually be able to developwithout the interaction of conversation”(p. 226).There is some debate about how much to structurebook discussions with children. Some argue thatchildren do well with free or open discussion, usuallyfinding their way to key elements of the narrative,especially if they have knowledge of key concepts;the group leader directs merely by asking key ques-tions (Sipe, 2000). Others emphasize the value ofsome adult framing, such as asking children to dis-cuss what they liked or disliked about a text, whatpuzzled them, or how a book compares to othersthey have read (Carney, 1990).

Story andLiteratureDramatizationDramatizingstories, plays, andother literatureprovides an activemeans of exploringtext, one that istherefore moreengaging for some

children than passive reading or listening. Actingout a story deepens children’s sense of character,plot, and narrative, thereby providing an opportunityfor deeper understanding. Speaking and acting outstories gives children a different pathway into thedistinctive language of literature. Dramatizationmakes abstract attributes of a piece of literature con-crete. When children temporarily take on otheridentities, they think about what they have in com-mon with and how they differ from others. Thematicfantasy play, akin to story dramatization in somerespects, sometimes incorporates stories that childrenhave heard or read. Children “re-tell”those storiesin their own ways, perhaps changing characters orother elements, but usually retaining the basicnarrative structure (see Pellegrini & Galda, 2002).

Supporting Literacy Development 21Halpern

Appendix

The Role of Specific Activities in Children’s Literacy Development

Page 26: Occasional Paper 01

22 Afterschool Matters Occasional Paper Fall 2003

Writing ActivitiesSome have noted that children are more naturallywriters than readers. Most children want to sharetheir experiences and internal worlds with others,and most love to experiment with writing in thesame way they love to experiment with drawing—as forms of self-expression, as ways of representingexperience, their culture, their feelings, even theirquestions. When children begin to write, they buildon what they know. They draw also upon theirexperiences with other symbolic media—not onlytalk but also drawing and dramatic play (Dyson,1993).

A variety of writing experiences for differentpurposes, both guided by adults and unguided,encourages attention to language and helps childrendevelop understanding of word sounds, sound-spelling relationships, and meanings (Calkins, 1994,1997; Graves & Stuart, 1986). Open-ended andcreative writing activities foster interest in literacy aswell as specific skills such as narrative structure orcharacter development. Journal writing encourageschildren to express their ideas, concerns, and experi-ences in their own way, without fear of censure byan adult. Dialogue journals (with a strong assuranceof privacy and confidentiality) provide an opportu-nity for children to record responses to their experi-ences or reading and to share those responses witha teacher or other adult who responds in writing.Collaborative writing groups allow children to stim-ulate, help, and constructively critique each other;they learn to revise and to connect their own ideasto those of others. Children sometimes enjoy read-ing what they have produced, a process that can beinvested with a bit of ritual. One idea is to have an“author’s chair”used especially for children to readtheir writing.

Using Reading and Writing for ResearchPutting reading and writing in the service of someother end—say, learning about elephants or plan-ning a group construction project—is also a helpfulliteracy development activity, because children arenot self-consciously focused on learning how toread or write, but are using these tools to thinkabout and learn something new of interest to them.Connecting books to field trips, art, and otheractivities, such as making applesauce after readinga book about Johnny Appleseed or making origamibirds after reading A Thousand Cranes, is anothercommon way to extend learning and foster interestin reading.

Reading to acquire information is often neglected.Children have to learn to read for information dif-ferently than they read stories, sometimes scanningand reading selectively. They also have to learn howto read different kinds of documents, including dia-grams, maps, graphs, tables, photographs, and other“visual”texts (Moline, 1995). Children’s understand-ing of literacy expands when they read a schedule inorder to see what activities are happening, instruc-tions in order to play a game, or recipes in order toprepare food. Children enjoy informational writingthat combines words with pictures or diagrams, asin flow charts, webs, maps, or timelines.

Participation in Visual andExpressive Arts The arts—drama,movement,photography,video, music, songwriting, drawing,mural making,cartooning, comicbook illustration—provide other

pathways into literacy. The arts reveal unrecognizedabilities in children, allowing children to lead fromstrength and to gain confidence for taking risks.Some children express themselves better throughother symbol systems than through writing andthereby learn they have something to say. Somechildren’s verbal imagination is sparked by theirvisual imagination; they express something first inpictures and then move into using words. Somechildren have difficulty ordering and expressing theideas in their heads in words and can more easilypractice that process using other art forms. Forchildren who are struggling with literacy, re-approaching it through and incorporating it intoanother art form removes some of the psychologicalbaggage that may have begun to accumulate.

Crossing back and forth between differentmedia—for example, acting out a poem throughmovement—can lead to understanding and insight.Sometimes activity in one art form stimulates activityin another—a book or story stimulates a child topaint or draw something or to act something out. Thearts help children distinguish the subjective from theobjective, the concrete from the abstract; they alsofoster what Shirley Brice Heath (2001) has calledconditional reasoning: What if we tried this . . . ? ■

Page 27: Occasional Paper 01

Supporting Literacy Development 23Halpern

ReferencesAllen, J. (2000). Yellow brick roads: Shared and guided

paths to independent reading. Portland, ME:Stenhouse.

Antonacci, P., & Colasco, J. (1994). A literacy contextfor the 21st century child. In N. Ellsworth, C.Hedley, & A. Baratta (Eds.), Literacy: A redefinition(pp. 213-231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bettelheim, B., & Zelan, K. (1982). On learning toread. New York: Knopf.

Calkins, L. (2001). The art of teaching reading. NewYork: Longman.

Calkins, L. (1997). Raising lifelong learners.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Carney, T. (1990). Other worlds: The endless possibilitiesof literature. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Chicago Commons. (1910). Chicago Commonsnewsletter. Chicago: Author.

Chin, M., & Newman, K. (2002). High stakes: Timepoverty, testing and the children of the working poor.New York: Foundation for Child Development.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Literacy and intrinsicmotivation. Daedalus, 119 (2), 115-140.

Cushman, K. (1998). How the arts transformschools: A challenge for all to share. ChallengeJournal, 31 (1), 1-8.

Damon, W. (1990). Reconciling the literacies ofgenerations. Daedalus, 119 (2), 33-54.

Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power andpedagogy in educating other peoples’ children.Harvard Educational Review, 58 (3), 280-298.

Deschenes, S., Cuban, L., & Tyack, D. (2001).Mismatch: Historical perspectives on schools andstudents who don’t fit them. Teachers CollegeRecord, 103 (4), 525-547.

Dyson, A. (1993). Symbol makers, symbol weavers:How children link play, pictures and print. YoungChildren, 45 (2), 50-57.

Ellowitch, A., et al. (1991). Portraits of youth programs:Education after school. New York: Institute forLiteracy Studies, Lehman College, City Universityof New York.

Finn, P. (1999). Literacy with an attitude. Albany:SUNY Press

Gee, J. (1999). Critical issues: Reading and the newliteracy studies: Reframing the National Academyof Sciences report on reading. Journal of LiteracyResearch, 31 (3), 355-374.

Graves, D., & Stuart,V. (1986). Write from the start:Tapping your child’s natural writing ability. NewYork: Plume.

Greenleaf, C., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller,F. (2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers toacademic literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71(1), 79-118.

Halpern, R. (2003). Making play work: The promise ofafter-school programs for low-income children. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Halpern, R. (2002). A different kind of childdevelopment institution: A history of after-schoolprograms for low-income children. TeachersCollege Record, 104 (2), 178-211.

Halpern, R. (1990). The role of after-school programs inthe lives of inner-city children: A study of the ChicagoYouth Centers after-school programs. Chicago:Chapin Hall Center for Children, University ofChicago.

Halpern, R., Spielberger, J., & Robb, S. (1999).Evaluation of the MOST (Making the Most of Out ofSchool Time) Initiative: Final report. Chicago:Chapin Hall Center for Children, University ofChicago.

Hawkins, D. (1990). The roots of literacy. Daedalus,119 (2), 1-14.

Heath, S. (2001). Three’s not a crowd: Plans, rolesand focus in the arts. Educational Researcher, 30(7), 10-17.

Hill, S., Townsend, L., Lawrence, A., Shevin, S., &Ingalls, S. (1995). Supporting community learning.New York: Institute for Literacy Studies, LehmanCollege.

MacLeod, J. (1987). Ain’t no making it: Leveledaspirations in a low-income neighborhood. Boulder,CO: Westview Press.

McQuillan, J. (1998). The literacy crisis. Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.

Moline, S. (1995). I see what you mean: Children atwork with visual information.York, ME: Stenhouse.

Mosenthal, P. (1999). Understanding engagement:Historical and political contexts. In J. Guthrie &D. Alverman (Eds.), Engaged reading: Processes,practices and policy implications (pp. 1-17). NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Author’s NoteSupport for the preparation of this paper was provided by the Robert Bowne Foundation and the William T.Grant Foundation.Views expressed are my own.

Page 28: Occasional Paper 01

National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment. (2002). Reading researchresources. Retrieved July 23, 2003, fromhttp://www.nichd.nih.gov/crmc/cdb/reading.htm.

Pellegrini, A., & Galda, L. (2002). The effects ofthematic fantasy play training on thedevelopment of children’s story completion. In R.Deasy (Ed.), Critical links: Learning in the arts andstudent academic and social development.Washington, DC : Arts and Education Partnership,National Endowment for the Arts.

Resnick, L. (1990). Literacy in school and out.Daedalus, 119 (2), 169-186.

Robinson, K. (2001). Foreword. In G. Burnaford, etal, (Eds.), Renaissance in the classroom: Artsintegration and meaningful learning. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum. [19]

Roth, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Linver, M., & Hofferth, S.(2002). What happens during the school day?Time diaries from a national sample ofelementary school teachers. Teachers CollegeRecord, online, summer, 1–27. Retrieved June 30,2003, from http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentID=11018

Shannon, P. (1990). The struggle to continue:Progressive reading instruction in the United States.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

Silberman, A. (1989). Growing up writing. New York:New York Times Books.

Sipe, L. (2000). The construction of literaryunderstanding by first and second graders in oralresponse to picture story book read-alouds.Reading Research Quarterly, 35 (2), 252-275.

Spielberger, J., & Halpern, R. (2002). The role of after-school programs in low-income children’s literacydevelopment. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center forChildren, University of Chicago.

Stein, M., & D’Amico, L. (2002). Inquiry at thecrossroads of policy and learning: A study of adistrict-wide literacy initiative. Teachers CollegeRecord, 104 (7), 1313-1344.

Stipek, D. (1992). The child at school. In M.Bornstein & M. Lamb (Eds.), Developmentalpsychology: An advanced textbook. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Strickland, D. et al. (2001). Teaching writing in atime of reform. The Elementary School Journal, 101(4), 385-397.

Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Trelease, J. (1985). The read-aloud handbook. NewYork: Penguin.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). 21st CenturyCommunity Learning Centers: Providing qualityafterschool learning opportunities for America’sfamilies. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

Varenne, H., & McDermott, R. (1998). Successfulfailure: The schools America builds. Boulder, CO:Westview.

Vargas Llosa, M. (2001). Why literature? The NewRepublic, May 14, 31-35.

Wald, L. (1915). The house on Henry Street. New York:Henry Holt.

Wilhelm, J. (1997). You gotta be the book. New York:Teachers College Press.

24 Afterschool Matters Occasional Paper Fall 2003

Page 29: Occasional Paper 01

Supporting Literacy Development 25Halpern

Notes

1. When I speak of afterschool programs, I use the term in its traditionalsense, referring to programs that provide care and supervision, enrichment—through arts, sports, cultural activities, and so on—homework help, andopportunity for play and fun, albeit with varying emphases on each. I do not include efforts to extend the school day for the purpose of academicremediation. By literacy, I mean reading and writing, as well as activitiesimmediately tied to reading and writing, for example, talk about texts andabout reading and writing in general, story dramatization, drawings meantto represent texts, vocabulary-building activities, and so forth. This definitionmay seem narrow in that it does not include, for example, use of computers,but a narrow definition provides conceptual clarity and meets a practicalneed for boundaries.

2. Trelease (1985) points out that among the qualities of literature absentfrom textbook fiction is conflict, which “allows us to vent our emotions withtears, laughter, love and hate.”Literature also “releases us from life’s pres-sures by allowing us to escape into other people’s lives”(p. 10).Vargas Llosa(2001) writes that, through literature, human beings recognize themselves,converse with each other, transcend time and place, learn what all humansshare (or not). Literature is a source of beauty, an expression of human cre-ativity, and a nurturer of language.

3. This was an evaluation of a three-city afterschool “system-building”initia-tive, called MOST (Making the Most of Out-of-School Time), sponsored bythe Wallace-Readers Digest Fund in Boston, Chicago, and Seattle. TheMOST case study programs do not overlap with those undertaken for theliteracy study. We observed literacy activities as well as a variety of other foci.

4. The sponsoring agencies in Chicago were Chicago CommonsGuadalupano Center, Chicago Commons NIA Center, Chinese AmericanService League, Erie Neighborhood House, LaSalle Street Cycle, and StreetLevel Youth Media; in New York, Coalition for Hispanic Family Services (Arts& Literacy Program), East Harlem Tutorial, Forest Hills Community House,Hartley House, Interfaith Neighbors, and Riverdale Neighborhood House; inSeattle, Chinese Information Service Center, El Centro de la Raza, RefugeeWomen’s Alliance, and the YMCA Enrichment Program at Bailey Gatzert.

Page 30: Occasional Paper 01

Acknowledgment

The Robert Bowne Foundation would like to thank the Lower Eastside GirlsClub of New York for the use of photographs from their programs.

The Lower Eastside Girls Club provides a place where girls age 8 to 18 cangrow, learn, have fun, and develop confidence in themselves and their abilityto make a difference in the world. Through strong and innovative programsin the arts, sciences, literacy, entrepreneurial training, health, and wellness,the Girls Club encourages girls to develop and celebrate their own uniquegifts and talents. To learn more about their programs visit: www.girlsclub.org.

Page 31: Occasional Paper 01

Afterschool Matters InitiativeThe Robert Bowne Foundation (RBF), seeking to have a long-term and substantial effect on the fieldof out-of-school education, launched several new initiatives to accomplish this mission. AfterschoolMatters is one of the initiatives, the goals of which are to:

• Generate and disseminate research about community-based organizations serving youth during out-of-school hours

• Build a network of scholars studying community-based organizations serving youth

• Contribute to basic knowledge and the improvement of practice and policy in the area of community-based youth programs

Afterschool Matters/Occasional PapersOne of the projects of the Afterschool Matters Initiative is the journal Afterschool Matters, a national,peer-reviewed journal dedicated to promoting professionalism, scholarship, and consciousness of thefield of afterschool education. The journal serves those involved in developing and running programsfor youth during the out-of-school hours, in addition to those engaged in research and in shapingpolicy. Articles for the journals are solicited from the field, and a range of academic perspectives areconsidered along with personal or inspirational narratives and essays, book reviews, artwork, andphotographs.

The RBF Occasional Papers is a peer-reviewed series published twice a year. The goal of theOccasional Papers is to provide a venue for publishing research that explores key issues and topics inthe practice and theory of afterschool programming, youth development, and learning during thenon-school hours. In addition, the Occasional Papers address key policy issues in the area of youthdevelopment. The intended audience for this series includes researchers, university staff, afterschoolprogram managers and practitioners, and policy makers. Prospective papers are solicited by the RBF.

Copies of both Afterschool Matters and the Occasional Papers are available on the RBF website,www.robertbownefoundation.org

Research Grants/Research FellowshipThe RBF sponsors a national Research Grant competition. Four grants of $10,000 are awarded tosupport either original empirical research in or about community-based youth programs during thenon-school hours or research syntheses or policy analyses of community-based youth programs.

Now in its second year, the RBF Research Fellowship is dedicated to building the capacity ofyouth program staff to design and conduct research in the areas of youth development andeducation during the out-of-school hours. The goals of the Research Fellowship include generatingand disseminating research in the area of education in community-based organizations servingyouth during the out-of-school hours, building a network of scholars, contributing to basicknowledge and the improvement of practice, and informing policy in the area of community-basedyouth programs.

RBF Research Fellows are selected by application and work in youth programs in New York City.They meet twice a month for six months and once a month for the remainder of the year. Fellowsbecome members of a community of researchers, learn methods of qualitative research, read anddiscuss research articles, and conduct site-specific research projects. Finally, fellows participate in awriting institute in which they write a research article or other piece for publication and present it ata research roundtable.

For more information about the RBF Afterschool Matters Inititiave, contact

Sara Hill, Ed.D.Research Officer

The Robert Bowne Foundation345 Hudson St

New York, NY 10014

[email protected]