A R T I C L EEFFECTS OF AN OUT-OF-SCHOOLPROGRAM ON URBAN.docx

A R T I C L E
EFFECTS OF AN OUT-OF-SCHOOL
PROGRAM ON URBAN HIGH
SCHOOL YOUTH’S ACADEMIC
PERFORMANCE
Julie O’Donnell and Sandra L. Kirkner
California State University, Long Beach
Research strongly indicates that low-income youth, particularly
those of
color who are overrepresented in poverty, have lower levels of
academic
performance than their higher-income peers. It has been
suggested that
community-based out-of-school programs can play an important
role in
reducing these academic differences. This study examined the
effect of the
YMCA High School Youth Institute on the grades, test scores,
and school
attendance of urban high school youth using a randomly
selected matched
comparison group. Those involved in the program had
significantly higher
English-language art and math standardized test scores and
somewhat
fewer absences than the comparison group. Active program
participants
had significantly higher academic grade-point averages (GPAs)
and math
test scores as well as somewhat higher total GPA. The findings

suggest that
high-quality out-of-school programs can positively influence
the academic
performance of low-income youth. Implications for practice are
discussed.
C© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
In recent years, there has been substantial interest around
increasing high school grad-
uation rates, yet youth from low-income families and
communities seem to be espe-
cially vulnerable to experiencing academic challenges and
dropping out of high school
(Balfanz & Legters, 2004; Hammond, Linton, Smink, & Drew,
2007; Reardon, 2011;
The funding for this study was provided by the Beneventures
Foundation.
We thank Robert Cabeza, Les Peters and the Office of Research,
Planning and Evaluation for Long Beach
Unified School District for their contributions to this research.
Please address correspondence to: Sandra Kirkner, Child
Welfare Training Centre, School of Social Work,
California State University, Long Beach. 6300 E. State
University Drive, Suite 180, Long Beach, California,
90815. E-mail: [email protected]
JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 42, No. 2,
176–190 (2014)
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jcop).
C© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.21603
High School Youth Program and Academic Outcomes � 177

Tyler & Lofstrom, 2009). The achievement gap between
children from low- and high-
income families has been growing for many years, and students
who live in poverty remain
well behind their more affluent peers (Center on Education
Policy, 2011; Reardon, 2011;
Tavernise, 2012) in grades, standardized test scores, and high
school completion rates
(Balfanz & Legters, 2004; Education Weekly, 2011; Guskey,
2011; Hopson & Lee, 2011;
Newcomb et al., 2002; Reardon, 2011; Stuart & Hahnel, 2011).
It has been found that a
$1,000 increase in annual income can raise reading and math
scores by 6% of a standard
deviation (Dahl & Lochner, 2012). Youth from low-income
families are also five times
more likely than youth from high-income families to drop out of
high school (Chapman,
Laird, Ifll, & KewalRamani, 2011).
It has been suggested that to increase and sustain higher levels
of academic achieve-
ment among low-income students, social supports must be put in
place (Greene & Anyon,
2010). Unfortunately, youth from lower income families usually
have fewer opportunities
for out-of-school programs, although quality programs have the
potential to increase high
school success and encourage postsecondary education
(Deschenes et al., 2010; Ferguson,
Bovaird, & Mueller, 2007). This study investigates the effects
of an out-of-school program
on low-income, culturally diverse high school students’
academic achievement and school
attendance.

Academic Performance and Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic status is one of strongest and most consistent
predictors of academic
achievement. Multiple studies and reviews have indicated that
youth from low-income
families, schools, and communities have significantly lower
grades and test scores than
their peers with higher socioeconomic levels (Hammond et al.,
2007; Lacour & Tissington,
2011; Center on Education Policy, 2011; Okpala, Smith, Jones
& Ellis, 2000; Malecki &
Demaray, 2006; Caldas & Bankston, 1997). In a study of the
effects of family poverty on
education and behavior, Hopson and Lee (2011) found that
middle and high school
students from poor families self-reported significantly lower
grades than their higher
income peers. Another study reported that high school students
eligible for the school
free and reduced lunch program had significantly lower grades
at both the first and the
last reporting periods. In addition, free and reduced lunch status
was related to larger
declines in high school students’ grades over time, while the
grades of students from
higher socioeconomic status levels remained more consistent.
This research indicated
poverty was an important and consistent factor in predicting
grades (Guskey, 2011).
A study of standardized test scores in Indiana found that family
socioeconomic status
was positively predictive of proficiency in language arts and
math at both the district

and the school levels (Paulson & Marchant, 2009). Similarly,
Okpala, Okpala, and Smith
(2001) reported that involvement in the free and reduced school
lunch program was
significantly related to lower proficiency levels on math tests
among fourth-grade students.
Elementary and middle school youth in high-poverty schools
have also been found to
have significantly lower math and reading achievement test
scores (Southworth, 2010;
Okpala et al., 2000). Low-income high school students also
score significantly lower on
standardized reading, writing, and math than their higher
income peers (Hoyle, O’Dwyer,
& Chang, 2011) and science tests (Miller-Whitehead, 2001).
Edward and Malcolm (2002) concluded that youth whose
parents were unemployed
or in low-skill or low-status jobs were more likely to be truant
from school. Likewise,
children from low-income families are significantly more likely
to be absent from school in
kindergarten and first grade than their higher income
counterparts (Ready, 2010; Chang
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
178 � Journal of Community Psychology, M arch 2014
& Romero, 2008). Studies on school attendance in England
found that child poverty was
predictive or related to lower school attendance in elementary,
middle, and high school
(Zhang, 2003; Attwood & Croll, 2006). Given the link between

school attendance and
academic performance (Shoenfelt & Huddleston, 2006; Roby,
2004; Claes, Hooghe, &
Reeskens, 2009), it is important to implement strategies to
increase the attendance of
youth from low-income families and communities.
Regardless of ethnicity, children who are low-income have been
shown to have below
average test scores (Bergeson, 2006) and academic performance
(Caldas & Bankston,
1997). However, youth of color, especially Latinos and African
Americans, are overrep-
resented in low-income communities (Balfanz & Legters, 2006;
Greene & Anyon, 2010;
Stuart & Hahnel, 2011) and have been shown to have lower
academic achievement and
higher high school dropout rates than White students (Behnke,
Gonzalez, & Cox, 2010;
Hemphill & Vanneman, 2011). Indeed, Latinos, particularly
those who are foreign-born,
and African American youth have more difficulty than other
adolescents completing
school at each stage of the educational system (Fuligni &
Hardway, 2004; Fry, 2003).
Nationwide, approximately 42% of Latino, 43% of African
American, and 46% of Native
American students will not graduate on time with a regular
diploma, compared to 17%
of Asian American and 22% of White students (Alliance for
Excellent Education, 2011).
In California, approximately 22% of Latino and 29% of African
American students do
not graduate from high school, compared to 11% of Whites and
7% of Asian Americans
(California Department of Education, 2010). Truancy tends to

be more predominant
among African Americans and Latinos as well (Weden & Zabin,
2005; Woo & Sakamoto,
2010). Students living in poverty and those who are members of
an ethnic minority are
often concentrated in the lowest achieving schools, further
contributing to their poor aca-
demic outcomes (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2011;
Balfanz, 2007; Education Trust,
2010). Given these academic concerns, it is important to
develop programs to support
the academic achievement of low-income youth of color.
Out-of-School Programs
Although the research on out-of-school programs has been
described as emerging (Scott-
Little, Hamann, & Jurs, 2002), quality programs can have a
positive effect on the academic
achievement, social skills, and behavioral outcomes of youth
(Barr, Birmingham, Fornal,
Klein, & Piha, 2006; National Dropout Prevention Center, 2012;
Hall, Yohalem, Tolman, &
Wilson, 2003). According to Hall et al., (2003), the challenge
for these programs is to find
ways to counteract the negative effects of poverty by creating
engaging, motivating, and
inspiring learning environments for youth. Out-of-school
programs that are grounded in
positive youth development principles can assist vulnerable
youth to overcome barriers
to learning and enhance academic achievement and social skills
(Hall et al., 2003) while
reducing involvement in adolescent problem behaviors
(Roffman, Pagano, & Hirsch,
2001; Meltzer, Fitzgibbon, Leahy, & Petsko, 2006; Catalano,

Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, &
Hawkins, 2004).
A positive youth development framework requires out-of-school
programs to provide
safety, supportive relationships, meaningful youth involvement,
skill building, and com-
munity involvement to effectively move youth toward positive
long-term outcomes (Com-
munity Network for Youth Development, 2001). Peterson and
Fox (2004) suggested that
some of the key ingredients in successful out-of-school
programs are as follows: academic
offerings (homework assistance, tutoring, hands-on learning);
enrichment and acceler-
ated learning (field trips, character education, critical thinking
skills, and technology);
recreation (sports and sports education); and service
opportunities to connect students
to their community. Other research indicates the importance of
offering diverse program
opportunities and allowing high school youth to choose how to
be involved (Birmingham
& White, 2005; Durlak & Weissberg, 2007).
In a review of the formal evaluations done on a variety of out-
of-school programs, the
Afterschool Alliance (2008) concluded that participation in
quality programs can result

in improved school attendance, engagement in learning, test
scores, and grades. Further,
the students at the greatest risk are likely to evidence the
greatest gains. It also appears
that more frequent and longer participation increases academic
benefits (Afterschool
Alliance, 2008). In a longitudinal study looking at the
relationship between high-quality
after-school programs and academic and behavioral outcomes
for low-income students,
Vandell, Reisner, and Pierce (2007) found that students who
attended high-quality after-
school programs across 2 years showed significant gains in
work habits and standardized
math test scores, compared to their peers who did not attend. A
meta-analysis of 73 after-
school programs by Durlak and Weissberg (2007) concluded
that after-school program
participation significantly improved youth’s grades and
achievement test scores, but only
20 of the programs collected data on grades and only 5% of the
studies included focused
on high school youth. In contrast, a meta-analysis by Zief,
Lauver, and Maynard (2006)
on the out-of-school programs found no significant differences
between participants
and nonparticipants on test scores or grade-point average (GPA)
on the five studies
used.
In a summary report of statewide and local evaluations of the
After School Learning
and Safe Neighborhoods Partnership Program, the California
Department of Education
(2002) noted many positive effects of quality after-school
programs on the academic

performance of elementary and middle schools students. The
findings included large
improvements in achievement among the most at-risk students,
including those in the
lowest quartile on standardized tests and English language
learner students, improved
both SAT-9 reading and math test scores and school attendance
(California Department
of Education, 2002). Despite all of these potential benefits,
quality high school out-of-
school programs are in extremely short supply (Barr et al.,
2006). Little research on the
effects of such participation on academic achievement has been
published on the high
school population and this age group is rarely included in meta-
analyses (Zeif et al., 2006;
Durlak & Weissberg, 2007).
Although an evaluation of After School Matters reported no
differences in grades
or school attendance between intervention and control high
school students (Hirsch,
Hedges, Stawicki, & Mekinda, 2011), an evaluation of the Exito
after-school program
found its’ predominantly low-income Latino participants were
less likely than comparison
students to have failed English and been retained (Hartman,
Good, & Edmunds, 2011).
In a study of The Afterschool Corporation, Birmingham and
White (2005) also reported
better school attendance and a higher rate of test passing among
program participants
in comparison with nonparticipants. Given the academic
challenges facing low-income
youth combined with the lack of research in this area, it is
important to explore the effect

of specific out-of-school program models on the academic
performance of low-income
high school students.
The YMCA Youth Institute
The YMCA of Greater Long Beach Youth Institute, established
in 2001, is an intensive,
year-round, community-based program that uses technology as
mechanism for promoting
positive youth development and enhancing the academic success
and career readiness
of low-income, culturally diverse high school students
(O’Donnell & Coe-Regan, 2006;
Coe-Regan & O’Donnell, 2006). The goals of the Youth
Institute (YI) are as follows:
(a) improve the technology, career, leadership, and decision-
making skills of youth to
promote readiness for higher education or career entry after
graduation; (b) improve
academic achievement and stimulate interest in higher education
among low-income,
culturally diverse, urban high school youth; and (c) promote
bonding to prosocial
adults and community attachment among urban youth to ensure
that they remain
engaged in their schools and communities. Youth interested in
participating in this
program must submit an application. The selection process is

structured to ensure, to the
greatest degree possible, gender and ethnic diversity among
each incoming class. The
neighborhoods in which almost all YI youth live are densely
populated, ethnically diverse,
and have the highest poverty rates in the city. Youth are
prioritized for program selection
based on a question about adversity they have experienced in
their lives so that vulnerable
youth are served. New cohorts are selected in the spring and
enter the program each
summer.
The program has two components: the intensive summer
technology program and
the year-round academic support program. Incoming youth
participate in a 35-hour per
week 8-week summer program. The first week is spent at a
wilderness retreat at a national
park and focuses on team building, cultural diversity training,
decision making, and
life sciences. Participants are assigned to project teams
comprising mixed gender and
ethnicity that work together the entire summer. Initiative games
and a low-ropes course
are designed to promote group cohesion and leadership skills
while improving problem-
solving and communication skills. Activities to increase cultural
awareness and tolerance
are integrated into the week, which is critical because it helps
the youth develop the group
and problem-solving skills they will need to successfully
accomplish their summer tasks
(O’Donnell & Coe-Regan, 2006; Coe-Regan, & O’Donnell,
2006).

During the rest of the summer, the program uses project-based
learning to teach
information technology skills. Projects include (a) digital story
telling/movie making,
(b) graphic design, (c) web site creation, (d) presentation and
office software, (e) 3D
animation, and (f) use of peripheral hardware (scanner, DV
cameras, etc.). A wide
range of the latest software is used including Cinema 4D, Adobe
Illustrator, Adobe
Photoshop, iMovie, Final Cut Pro, PowerPoint, Keynote, Adobe
PageMaker, Adobe Flash,
Adobe InDesign, Extensis, GarageBand, and Macromedia
Dreamweaver. Participants
also learn how to connect, troubleshoot, and use computer
networks. All classes have
a curriculum that includes the pedagogical approach, the skill
sets to be learned, and
the content. Products include animated logos, 5- to 10-minute
movies, a magazine
focused on teen issues, and a website. All projects are designed
to help participants gain
literacy, math, and higher level thinking skills, are linked to
school content standards,
and completed in teams (O’Donnell & Coe-Regan, 2006; Coe-
Regan & O’Donnell,
2006). Youth are paid a $500 stipend for successfully
completing the summer program,
which culminates in a graduation and film festival celebration
for family and community
members.
Upon graduation from the summer program, participants become
“Youth Institute
Alumni,” who are then able to voluntarily participate in a wide
range of year-round

programs throughout their high school and college years.
Involvement opportunities
include, but are not limited to, daily digital art labs and
homework assistance, academic
and personal advising, community service, equipment check-
out, field trips, weekend
leisure activities, community leadership positions, and social
work support (O’Donnell
& Coe-Regan, 2006; Coe-Regan & O’Donnell, 2006). Alumni
can also apply to receive a
stipend for returning as mentors for future summer program
participants or work as a paid
intern with Change Agent Productions, a multimedia social
enterprise associated with the
program (O’Donnell, Tan, & Kirkner, 2012). The YI also has a
College Readiness program
that takes youth on college field trips and assists them in
selecting the courses needed to
transition to higher educational institutions, and in completing
college and financial aid
and scholarship forms. An earlier evaluation of the program
suggested that key elements
related to the program’s success in attracting and involving high
school youth were the
positive youth development framework, the use of technology,
service learning, project-
based learning, and the development of positive relationships
(Coe-Regan & O’Donnell,
2006). The current study investigates the effects of participation

in the Youth Institute on
grades, test scores, and school attendance.
METHODS
Data Collection
Both the youth and their parent signed an informed consent
allowing researchers to
collect grades, school attendance, and test scores from the Long
Beach Unified School
District (LBUSD). The research was approved by both the
university and the school district
institutional review boards. Research staff from the school
district then randomly selected
a comparison sample of high school students who were matched
to the YI sample based
on gender, ethnicity, and year in school. Approximately five
comparison students were
matched for each YI youth. The district provided academic
GPA, total GPA, absences, and
truancies from the last semesters of both 2010 and 2011.
Academic GPA comprised the
mean of grades from English, math, science, social science, and
foreign language courses,
and total GPA incorporated electives and other course. English
language arts (ELA) and
math content standard test scores were provided from the end of
2010 and 2011 for those
students who took the tests.
Sample Description
One hundred eighteen (81%) of the YI participants who finished
the program in the
summers between 2007 and 2010 had both parent and child

informed consents, and
some useable data for the 2010–2011 academic year. However,
the district was unable to
provide matched comparison youth for the ninth graders, so nine
YI youth were removed
from the analyses. Table 1 displays the demographic
characteristics of the YI sample (109)
and the matched comparison sample (N = 545). There were no
significant demographic
differences between the two groups.
ANALYSIS
Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to
compare outcome differences
between high school YI and comparison students on GPA,
standardized test score, and
school attendance while controlling for baseline scores. Because
of the exploratory nature
of this study and the hypothesized positive program effect,
results are reported out at the
.10 level.
Table 1. Demographics of YMCA YI Participants and
Comparison Students for the 2010–2011 Academic
Year
HSYI participants Comparison students
(N = 109) (N = 545)

% N % N
Gender
Male 55% 60 55% 300
Female 45% 49 45% 245
Ethnicity
Latino 50% 55 50% 275
African American 25% 27 21% 115
Asian American/Pacific Islander 19% 21 23% 125
European American 6% 6 6% 30
Grade
10th grade 28% 30 28% 150
11th grade 41% 45 41% 225
12th grade 31% 34 31% 170
Note. YI = Youth Institute; HSYI = high school Youth Institute.
Table 2. Academic Comparisons Between YI Participants and
Comparison Students for the 2010–2011
Academic Year
HSYI participants Comparison students
Measure Adjusted mean N Adjusted mean N F-value
Academic GPA 2.45 101 2.33 545 2.60
Total GPA 2.55 106 2.47 545 1.49
Absences 7.19 108 8.69 545 2.98*
Truancies 2.81 108 3.05 545 .18
Content standards
English language arts† 338.51 67 326.78 356 6.16**
Math† 309.65 57 295.35 319 5.41**

Note. YI = Youth Institute; HSYI = high school Youth Institute;
GPA = grade-point average.
**Significant at the .05 level.
*Approaching significance at the .10 level.
†10th and 11th graders only.
Academic Comparisons Between All YI Participants and
Comparison Students
As shown in Table 2, YI participants had significantly higher
ELA, F (1, 422) = 6.16, p <
.05, and math, F (1, 375) = 6.91, p < .05, content standard
scores, and somewhat lower
absences, F (1, 652) = 2.98, p < .10, than comparison students.
Academic Comparisons between Active YI Participants and
Comparison Students
Given that prior studies have shown that program attendance is
an important factor in
outcomes of after-school programs, a second analysis was
completed comparing “active”
(53) YI youth and their matched comparison students. To be
classified as active, YI par-
ticipants had to have participated in the year-round program for
at least 30 days over the
past 2 years. On average, these youth attended the YI 119 times
over a 2-year period with

Table 3. Comparisons of Grades, Absences, Truancies, ELA,
and Math Content Standard Test Scores Between
Active YI Participants and Comparison Students for the 2010–
2011 Academic Year
Active YI participants Comparison students
Measure Adjusted mean N Adjusted mean N F-value
Academic GPA 2.52 50 2.26 265 5.59**
Total GPA 2.61 52 2.41 265 3.44*
Absences 6.88 52 8.80 265 2.36
Truancies 2.69 52 3.27 265 .54
Content standards
ELA† 342.90 35 335.14 178 1.24
Math† 318.79 28 300.35 155 3.99**
Note. YI = Youth Institute; GPA = grade-point average; ELA =
English language arts.
**Significant at the .05 level.
*Approaching significance at the .10 level.
†10th and 11th graders only.
a standard deviation of 92. As shown in Table 3, active YI
participants had significantly
higher academic GPA, F (1, 314) = 5.59, p < .05, and math
content standard scores, F (1,
182) = 3.99, p < .05, than comparison students. Active YI
participants also had somewhat
higher total GPAs than comparison students, F (1, 316) = 3.44,
p < .10.
DISCUSSION

Research indicates that high-quality out-of-school programs can
result in better academic
achievement and school attendance (Durlack & Weissberg,
2007; Vandell et al., 2007).
However, fewer studies have been completed on the effects of
these programs on high
school students and those results have been mixed (Hirsch et
al., 2011; Hartman et al.,
2011). This study investigated the effects of participation in the
YMCA Youth Institute
on the grades, test scores, and school attendance of low-income,
culturally diverse, high
school youth using a randomly selected matched comparison
group. It is particularly
important to understand the effectiveness of out-of-school
programs with this population
given that poverty is related to lower academic achievement,
poorer school attendance,
and school dropout (Hammond et al., 2007; Lacour &
Tissington, 2011; Center on Edu-
cation Policy, 2011).
YI youth scored significantly higher on both ELA and math
content standard
measures and had somewhat fewer absences than comparison
students. Similar findings
have been found in other studies of out-of-school programs
(Durlack & Weissberg, 2007;
Hartman et al., 2011). Because more frequent participation in
after-school analyses have
been linked to better outcomes (Roth, Malone, & Brooks-Gunn,
2010), a second analysis
was completed with actively involved YI participants. Active YI
youth had significantly
higher academic GPA and math content standard scores, and

somewhat higher total GPA
than comparison students. The findings related to GPA are
particularly encouraging
given that in the prior year, their academic and total GPAs were
significantly lower than
those of the comparison group. In more practical terms, 31% of
Active YI youth improved
their academic GPA to a higher grade level, while only 20% of
comparison youth did
the same. It is possible that these higher grades will make them
more competitive when
applying for colleges in the future given that GPA is often
considered in admission
decisions.
In addition, their higher test scores in both ELA (17% of active
youth moved from
“basic” to “proficient” or from “proficient” to “advanced,”
while only 6% of comparison
youth did the same) and math (4% of active youth versus 2% of
comparison youth)
will make them eligible for some of the more competitive
academic high school prepa-
ration programs, which may prove beneficial for both college
and career preparation.
These findings provide preliminary support to the notion that
high-quality out-of-school
programs grounded in youth development practices and focused
on technology can pos-

itively influence academic performance among low-income
youth and, possibly, school
attendance.
Implications for Practice
The YI provides year-round out-so-school programming for
low-income urban high school
youth, a population that is sometimes difficult to attract and
retain given the many compet-
ing activities youth this age may choose to be involved in (The
After-School Corporation,
2007). The ability to accomplish these tasks are critical for
effective after-school pro-
grams because consistent and ongoing participation over an
extended period of time has
been linked to positive academic and behavioral outcomes in
multiple studies (Strobel,
Kirshner, O’Donoghue, & McLaughlin, 2008; Roth & Brooks-
Gunn, 2000). There are sev-
eral likely aspects of the YI that contributed to the outcomes
found here and inclusion of
these components in other programs for this population may
prove valuable. First, the YI
also has a fully developed conceptual framework with clearly
articulated program compo-
nents and hypothesized outcomes. Having such a framework has
been shown to improve
the quality of youth development programs (Catalano et al.,
2002). The YI is a compre-
hensive program that allows youth to have a voice in the
activities that are offered and
in which they participate. All of these things have been found to
increase the likelihood
of high school youth after-school program participation (The
After-School Corporation,

2007; Strobel et al., 2008).
The use of a youth development framework, providing safety,
supportive relationships,
meaningful youth involvement, skill-building, and community
involvement to effectively
move youth toward positive long-term outcomes (Community
Network for Youth Develop-
ment, 2001), is essential to the development of programs for
this population. In particular,
developing positive relationships with adults and peers that
support success, safety, and
meaningful learning opportunities (Strobel et al., 2008) should
encourage youth to stay
involved. Given that bonding to prosocial others including
positive adult role models can
contribute to better test scores and grades (Fleming et al., 2008;
Wright, John, & Sheel,
2006), having staff who can establish positive relationships with
and among youth may be
particularly important (Barr et al., 2006). It is possible that
when youth are bonded to
others who highly value academic performance, they will be
more likely to attend school
and try harder. Participation in after-school activities has been
found to result in having
more academic and prosocial peers (Fredricks & Eccles, 2008).
To encourage and support high school youth performing better
academically, the YI
utilized a number of strategies. It provided daily homework
assistance, a college readiness
program that helped youth to better understand how their high
school performance
was associated with long-term success, allowed youth to use
state-of-the-art digital media

technology to complete school projects or make class
presentations, and made participa-
tion in internship opportunities contingent upon maintaining an
acceptable GPA. This
approach is important given the use of a multipronged approach
to supporting academics
has been found to be more helpful than the use of homework
assistance alone (Barr et al.,
2006). In addition, the YI linked its technology curriculum to
state content standards
and utilized project-based learning to complete all tasks during
its summer program
as project-based learning has been shown to increase decision-
making and social skills
and academic achievement (Strobel & van Barneveld, 2009).
Noam (2003) suggested
that the use of projects in out-of-school programs was beneficial
because it creatively
engages youth in ways that are more participatory, hands-on,
and community-focused
than the learning that typically happens during the school day.
Programs that link these
creative learning opportunities with school learning
expectations may be more effective
in developing the skills needed to improve grades and test
scores.
Finally, the YI taught youth state-of-the art technology and
software and software skills.

This is crucial since technology affects every facet of life and
enormous opportunities exist
for youth who possess technology knowledge and skills
(Wilhelm, Carmen, & Reynolds,
2002). Technology use and competence is related to positive
educational and career
outcomes (Huffman & Huffman, 2012; Jackson et al., 2006).
Unfortunately, a large gap
still exists between the haves and the have-nots regarding
access and knowledge about
technology (Davis, Fuller, Jackson, Pittman, & Sweet, 2007;
Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone,
2004; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010).
In addition, even when low-income youth have access to
technology at home and
school, they are more likely to use it to focus on developing
basic skills, whereas higher
income users are more likely to use it to develop higher level
thinking and problem-
solving skills (Warschauer et al., 2004; Warschauer &
Matuchniak, 2010; Morse, 2004).
However, there is evidence that community-based technology
learning programs that
promote the critical use of media and technology may help
youth develop 21st century
learning skills and contribute to their later success (Warschauer
& Matuchniak, 2010).
Thus, out-of-school programs for low-income youth should help
them to develop technol-
ogy skills to promote their access to information and the
development of critical think-
ing and problem-solving skills. All of these things should
contribute to better academic
achievement.

Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. First, this study used
a quasi-experimental
design with a matched, comparison group. However, it has been
argued that although
quasi-experimental designs do control for many threats to
validity, it is possible that the
groups may not actually be comparable (Scott-Little et al.,
2002). Second, because the
data were collected directly from the school district, there is no
way of knowing whether
comparison youth were themselves involved in out-of-school
programs, which may have
influenced the results found here. Finally, although YI youth
were all low-income, there
was no measure of socioeconomic status provided on the
comparison youth, so it is
unclear whether they were all low income as well. In the future,
it might be useful to
explore whether these youth are performing as well as, or
closing the gap with, their
higher income peers. Although this research indicates high
school out-of-school pro-
grams can positively influence some aspects of academic
performance, future research,
particularly experimental research, will need to be conducted to
more definitively iden-
tify the effect of out-of-school programs on the academic
achievement of low-income
youth.

REFERENCES
Afterschool Alliance (2008). Evaluations backgrounder: A
summary of formal evaluations of the
academic impact of afterschool programs. Retrieved from
http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/
Evaluations%20Backgrounder%20Academic_08_FINAL.pdf
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2011). The high cost of high
school dropouts: What the nation
pays for inadequate high schools. Retrieved from
http://www.all4ed.org/files/HighCost.pdf
Attwood, G., & Croll, P. (2006). Truancy in secondary school
pupils: Prevalence, trajectories and
pupil perspectives. Research Papers in Education, 27, 467–484.
Balfanz, R. (2007). Locating and transforming the low
performing high schools which produce
the nation’s dropouts. John Hopkins University, Center for
Social Organization of Schools,
Baltimore, MD. Retrieved from
http://www.all4ed.org/files/Balfanz.pdf
Balfanz, R., & Legters, N. (2004). Locating the dropout crisis:
Which high schools produce
the nation’s dropouts? In G. Orfield (Ed.), Dropouts in
America: Confronting the grad-
uation rate crisis (pp. 57–84). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press. Retrieved from
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report70.pdf
Balfanz, R., & Legters, N. (2006). Closing ‘dropout factories’:
The graduation-rate crisis we know,

and what can be done about it. Education Week, 25, 42–43.
Barr, S., Birmingham, J., Fornal, J., Klein, R., & Piha, S.
(2006). Three high school after-school
initiatives: Lessons learned. New Directions for Youth
Development, 111, 67–79.
Behnke, A. O., Gonzalez, L. M., & Cox, R. B. (2010). Latino
students in new arrival states: Factors
and services to prevent youth from dropping out. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32,
385–409.
Bergeson, T. (2006). Using response to intervention (RTI) for
Washington’s students. Retrieved
from http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/pubdocs/RTI/RTI.pdf
Birmingham, J., & White, R. N. (2005). Promoting positive
youth development for high school
students after school: Services and outcomes for high school
youth in TASC programs. Wash-
ington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.
Caldas, S. J., & Bankston, C. L., III. (1997). “The effect of
school population socioeconomic sta-
tus on individual student academic achievement.” The Journal
of Educational Research, 90,
269–277.
California Department of Education. (2002). Evaluation of
California’s After School Learning and
Safe Neighborhoods Partnerships Program: 1999–2001.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.
gov/ls/ba/as/execsummary.asp
California Department of Education. (2010). Cohort outcome

summary by ethnicity for the class
of 2009–10: Statewide results. Retrieved from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/cohortrates/
GradRates.aspx?cds=00000000000000&TheYear=2009-
10&Agg=T&Topic=Dropouts&RC=
State&SubGroup=Ethnic/Racial
Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J.A., Lonczak, H. S., &
Hawkins J. D. (2004). Positive
youth development in the United States: Research findings on
evaluations of positive youth
development programs. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 591,
98–124.
Center on Education Policy. (2011). Is achievement improving
and are gaps narrowing for Title
I students? State test score trends through 2008–09, Part 4.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=371
Chang, H. N., & Romero, M. (2008). Present, engaged, and
accounted for: The critical importance
of addressing chronic absence in the early grades. National
Center for Children in Poverty.
Retrieved from http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_837.html
Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., & KewalRamani, A. (2011).
Trends in high school dropout and
completion rates in the United States: 1972–2009 (NCES 2012–
006). U.S. Department of

Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics. Retrieved from http://
nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
Claes, E., Hooghe, M., & Reeskens, T. (2009). Truancy as a
contextual and school-related problem: a
comparative multilevel analysis of country and school
characteristics on civic knowledge among
14 year olds. Educational Studies (03055698), 35, 123–142.
Coe-Regan, J. R., & O’Donnell, J. (2006). Best practices for
integrating technology and service
learning in a youth development program. Journal of Evidence-
Based Social Work, 3, 201–220.
Community Network for Youth Development. (2001). Youth
development framework for practice.
Retrieved from http://www.cnyd.org/framework/index.php
Dahl, G. B., & Lochner, L. (2012). The impact of family income
on child achievement: Evidence
from the earned income tax credit. American Economic Review,
102, 1927–1956.
Davis, T., Fuller, M., Jackson, S., Pittman, J., & Sweet, J.
(2007). A national consideration of digital
equity. Washington, D.C.: International Society for Technology
in Education. Retrieved from
http://www.iste.org/digitalequity
Deschenes, S. N., Arbreton, A., Little, P. M., Herrera, C.,
Baldwin-Grossman, J., Weiss, H. B., &
Lee, D. (2010). Engaging older youth: Program and city-level
strategies to support sustained

participation in out-of-school time. Retrieved from
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/
knowledge-center/after-school/coordinating-after-school-
resources/Documents/Engaging-
Older-Youth-City-Level-Strategies-Support-Sustained-
Participation-Out-of-School-Time.pdf
Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). The impact of after-
school programs that promote personal
and social skills. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic,
Social, and Emotional Learning.
Retrieved from
http://www.lionsquest.org/pdfs/AfterSchoolProgramsStudy2007.
pdf
Education Trust. (2010). Access denied: 2009 API rankings
reveal unequal access
to California’s best schools. Retrieved from
http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/
files/publications/files/Access%20Denied.pdf
Education Weekly. (2011). Achievement gap. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/
achievement-gap/.
Edward, S., & Malcolm, H. (2002). The causes and effects of
truancy. SCRE Newsletter, 71. Retrieved
from http://www.scre.ac.uk/rie/nl71/truancy.html
Ferguson, H. B., Bovaird, S., & Mueller, M. P. (2007). The
impact of poverty on educational outcomes
for children. Pediatric Child Health, 12, 701–706.
Fleming, C. B., Haggerty, K. P., Catalano, R. F., Harachi, T.
W., Mazza, J. J., & Fredricks, J. A., &
Eccles, J. S. (2008). Participation in extracurricular activities in

the middle school years: Are
there developmental benefits for African American and
European American youth? Journal of
Adolescence, 37, 1029–1043.
Fry, R. (2003). Hispanic youth dropping out of schools:
Measuring the challenge. Retrieved from
http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/19.pdf
Fuligni, A. J., & Hardway, C. (2004). Preparing diverse
adolescents for the transition to adulthood.
Future of Children, 14, 99–119.
Greene, K., & Anyon, J. (2010). Urban school reform, family
support, and student achievement.
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 26, 223–236.
Guskey, T. R. (2011). Stability and change in high school
grades. NASSP Bulletin, 95, 85–98.
Hall, G., Yohalem, N., Tolman, J., & Wilson, A. (2003). How
afterschool programs can most effec-
tively promote positive youth development as a support to
academic achievement: A report
commissioned by the Boston After-School for All Partnership.
Retrieved from National Institute
on Out-of-School Time:
http://nmforumforyouth.org/documents/ostn/ASandPYD.pdf
Hammond, C., Linton, D., Smink, J., & Drew, S. (2007).
Dropout risk factors and exemplary
programs. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center,
Communities In Schools, Inc.
Retrieved from http://www.cisdetroit.org/research/2007/2007-
DropoutRiskFactors-Full.pdf

Hartmann, T., Good, D., & Edmunds, K. (2011). Exito: Keeping
high-risk youth on track to gradu-
ation through out-of-school time supports. Afterschool Matters,
Fall, 2011, 20–29.
Hemphill, F.C., & Vanneman, A. (2011). Achievement gaps:
How Hispanic and White students in
public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the
National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NCES 2011-459). National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Hirsch, B. J., Hedges, L. V., Stawicki, J., & Mekinda, M. A.
(2011). After-school programs for high
school students: An evaluation of after-school matters.
Northwestern University, 2011. Retrieved
from
http://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/docs/publications/190235552
34df57ecd0d6c5.pdf
Hopson, L. M., & Lee, E. (2011). Mitigating the effect of
family poverty on academic and behavioral
outcomes: The role of school climate in middle and high school.
Children and Youth Services
Review, 33, 2221–2229.
Hoyle, C. D., O’Dwyer, L. M., & Chang, Q. (2011). How
student and school characteristics are
associated with performance on the Maine High School

Assessment. Issues & Answers Report,
REL 2011–No. 102. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Regional Educa-
tional Laboratory Northeast and Islands. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Huffman, W. H., & Huffman, A. H. (2012). Beyond basic study
skills: The use of technology for
success in college. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 583–590.
Jackson, L. A., Von Eye, A., Biocca, F. A., Barbatsis, G., Zhao,
Y., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (2006). Does home
Internet use influence the academic performance of low-income
children? Developmental
Psychology, 42, 429–435.
Lacour, M., & Tissington, L. D. (2011). The effects of poverty
on academic achievement. Educational
Research and Reviews, 6, 522–527.
Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2006). Social support as a
buffer in the relationship between
socioeconomic status and academic performance. School
Psychology Quarterly, 21, 375–395.
Meltzer, I. J., Fitzgibbon, J. J., Leahy, P. J., & Petsko, K. E.
(2006). A youth development program:
Lasting impact. Clinical Pediatrics, 45, 655–660.
Miller-Whitehead, M. (2001). Science achievement, class size,
and demographics: The debate con-
tinues. Research in the Schools, 8, 33–44.
Morse, T. E. (2004). Ensuring equality of educational

opportunity in the digital age. Education and
Urban Society, 36, 266–279.
National Dropout Prevention Center/Network (2012). After-
school opportunities. Retrieved from
http://www.dropoutprevention.org/effective-strategies/after-
school-opportunities
Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., Hawkins, J.
D., Battin-Pearson, S., & Hill, K. (2002).
Mediational and deviance theories of late high school failure:
Process roles of structural strains,
academic competence, and general versus specific problem
behaviors. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 49, 172–186.
Noam, G. G. (2003). Learning with excitement: Bridging school
and after-school worlds and project-
based learning. New Directions for Youth Development, 97,
121–138.
O’Donnell, J., & Coe-Regan, J. (2006). Promoting youth
development and community involvement
with technology: The Long Beach YMCA CORAL Youth
Institute. Journal of Technology in
Human Services, 24, 55–82.
O’Donnell, J., Tan, P. P., & Kirkner, S. L. (2012). Youth
perceptions of a technology-focused social
enterprise. Child Adolescent Social Work Journal, 29, 427–446.
doi:10.1007/s10560-012-0268-y
Okpala, C. O., Okpala, A. O., & Smith, F. E. (2001). Parental
involvement, instructional expendi-
tures, family socioeconomic attributes, and student
achievement. The Journal of Educational

Research, 95, 110–115.
Okpala, C. O., Smith, F., Jones, E., & Ellis, R. (2000). A clear
link between school and teacher
characteristics, student demographics, and student achievement.
Education, 120, 487–494.
Paulson, S. E., & Marchant, G. J. (2009). Background variables,
levels of aggregation, and standard-
ized test scores. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 17(23).
Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.
edu/epaa/v17n23/
Peterson, T. K., & Fox, B. (2004). After-school program
experiences: A time and tool to reduce
dropouts. In J. Smink & F. P. Schargel (Eds.). Helping students
graduate: A strategic approach
to dropout prevention (pp. 177–184). Larchmont, NY: Eye on
Education.
Ready, D. D. (2010). Socioeconomic disadvantage, school
attendance, and early cognitive develop-
ment: The differential effects of school exposure. Sociology of
Education, 83, 271–286.
Reardon, S.F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap
between the rich and the poor: New
evidence and possible explanations. In R. Murnane & G.
Duncan (Eds.), Whither opportunity?
Rising Inequality and the Uncertain Life Chances of Low-

Income Children. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation Press.
Roby, D. (2004). Research on school attendance and student
achievement: A study of Ohio Schools.
Educational Research Quarterly, 28, 3–14.
Roffman, J. G., Pagano, M. E., & Hirsch, B. J. (2001). Youth
functioning and experiences in inner-
city after-school programs among age, gender, and race groups.
Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 10, 85–100.
Roth, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). What do adolescents need
for healthy development?: Impli-
cations for youth policy. Social Policy Report. Society for
Research in Child Development.
Retrieved from
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/urbanpoverty/Urban%20Seminars/D
ecember
1999/Brooksgunn.pdf
Roth, J. L., Malone, L. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Does the
amount of participation in afterschool
programs relate to developmental outcomes? A review of the
literature. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 45, 310–324.
Scott-Little, C., Hamann, M. S., & Jurs, S. G. (2002).
Evaluations of afterschool programs: A meta-
evaluation of methodologies and narrative synthesis of findings.
American Journal of Educa-
tion, 23, 387–419.
Shoenfelt, E., & Huddleston, M. (2006). The Truancy Court
Diversion Program of the Family

Court, Warren Circuit Court Division III, Bowling Green,
Kentucky: An evaluation of impact
on attendance and academic performance. Family Court Review,
44(4), 683–695.
Southworth, S. (2010). Examining the effects of school
composition on North Carolina student
achievement over time. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18,
1–45.
Strobel, K., Kirshner, B., O’Donoghue, J., & McLaughlin, M.
(2008). Qualities that attract urban
youth to after-school settings and promote continued
participation. Teachers College Record,
110, 1677–1705.
Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more
effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-
analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-
Based Learning, 3(1). Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046
Stuart, L., & Hahnel, C. (2011). A report card on district
achievement: How low-income African
American and Latino students fare in California school districts.
Retrieved from The Education
Trust—West website:
http://www.keydatasys.com/common/downloads/EdTrustARepor
tCard
RiversideCounty.pdf
Tavernise, S. (2012, February 9). Education gap grows between
rich and poor, studies say. The
New York Times. Retrieved from website:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/education/

education-gap-grows-between-rich-and-poor-studies-
show.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The After-School Corporation. (2007). Meeting the high school
challenge: Making after-school
work for older students. Retrieved from
http://www.expandedschools.org/policy-documents/
meeting-high-school-challenge-making-after-school-work-older-
students
Tyler, J. H., & Lofstrom, M. (2009). Finishing high school:
Alternative pathways and dropout
recovery. Future of Children, 19, 77–103.
Vandell, D., Reisner, E., & Pierce, K. (2007). Outcomes linked
to high-quality afterschool pro-
grams: Longitudinal findings from the study of promising
practices. Irvine, CA: University of
California and Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.
Retrieved from http://www.gse.uci.
edu/childcare/pdf/afterschool/PP%20Longitudinal%20Findings
%20Final%20Report.pdf
Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology
and equity in schooling: Deconstruct-
ing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18, 562–588.
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and
digital worlds: Analyzing evidence
of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in

Education, 34, 179–225.
Weden, M. M., & Zabin, L. S. (2005). Gender and ethnic
differences in the co-occurrence of
adolescent risk behaviors. Ethnicity and Health, 10, 213–234.
Wilhelm, T., Carmen, D., & Reynolds, M. (2002). Connecting
kids to technology: Challenges and
opportunities. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation
(ED 467 133). Retrieved from
http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/connecting%20kids
%20technology.pdf
Woo, H., & Sakamoto, A. (2010). Racial and ethnic differentials
in idleness, highest-risk idleness,
and dropping out of high school. Race and Social Problems, 2,
115–124.
Wright, R., John, L., & Sheel, J. (2006). Lessons learned from
the national arts and youth demon-
stration project: Longitudinal study of a Canadian after-school
program. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 16, 49–59.
Zhang, M. (2003). Links between school absenteeism and child
poverty. Pastoral Care in Education,
21, 10–17.
Zief, S. G., Lauver, S., & Maynard, R. (2006). The impacts of
after-school programs on student
outcomes: A systematic review for the Campbell Collaboration.
Retrieved from www.campbell
collaboration.org/lib/download/58/

Copyright of Journal of Community Psychology is the property
of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.
Security Training Platforms Pt. 1
By Li-Wey Lu
Agenda
Homework
Quiz
Assignment Drop
Security Training Platforms
Next Week
Homework
Homework – Due Next Week
Create a Python script that solves
http://10.15.1.10:8080/injection/lab_3/index.php
Pip install requests
Use the uploaded template to help get you started
OR

Find three more vulnerabilities in CandyPal
(http://10.15.1.10:9090)
Provide the following per vulnerability:
Name
Image
Description
Quiz
Quiz – Answers
Q1. Which of the following is not a type of Cross-Site
Scripting?
A1. Mirrored
Q2. What does SOP stand for?
A2. Same Origin Policy
Q3. What does CORS stand for?
A3. Cross-Origin Resource Sharing
Q4. Cross-Site Scripting attacks can only be performed against
HTTP GET requests
A4. False
Q5. SOP looks at the protocol, host, and port
A5. True
Assignment Drop
Assignment Drop – Overview
Lowest homework score will be dropped
Lowest quiz score will be dropped

Security Training Platforms
Security Training Platforms – DVWA
NAME: Damn Vulnerable Web Application (DVWA)
DETAILS: Link
URL: http://10.15.1.10:8082/
USERNAME: admin
PASSWORD: password
Security Training Platforms – WebGoat
NAME: OWASP WebGoat
DETAILS: Link
URL: http://10.15.1.10:8083/WebGoat
USERNAME: Register New User
PASSWORD: Register New User
Next Week
Next Week
Topic:
Assignments:
Week 5 Homework
Week 5 Quiz

OWASP Top 10 Pt. 2
By Li-Wey Lu
Agenda
Homework
Quiz
OWASP Top 10
Next Week
Homework
Homework – Due Next Week
Find three vulnerabilities in CandyPal (http://10.15.1.10:9090)
Vulnerabilities must fall under the risks discussed during
lecture
Provide the following per vulnerability:
Name
Image
Description
Quiz
Quiz – Answers
Q1. What does OWASP stand for?
A1. Open Web Application Security Project
Q2. Which of the OWASP Top 10 was removed from 2017’s
list?
A2. Cross-Site Request Forgery

Q3. What is Session Fixation an example of?
A3. Broken Authentication
Q4. DTD stands for Document Type Description.
A4. False
Q5. There is more than one type of injection attack.
A5. True
OWASP Top 10
OWASP Top 10 – Risks
Injection
Broken Authentication
Sensitive Data Exposure
XML External Entities
Broken Access Control
Security Misconfiguration
Cross-Site Scripting
Cross-Site Request Forgery
Insecure Deserialization
Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
Insufficient Logging & Monitoring
OWASP Top 10 – Cross-Site Scripting (Overview)
When an attacker gets their JavaScript to execute on a victim’s
browser
OWASP Top 10 – Cross-Site Scripting (Examples)
Reflected XSS – Payload in HTTP request comes back in HTTP
response body

Stored XSS – Payload is stored in the application’s database
and returned in an HTTP response body
DOM-Based XSS – Normal JavaScript comes from the HTTP
response body and retrieves the payload from the URL to place
on the page
OWASP Top 10 – Cross-Site Scripting (Labs)
URL: http://10.15.1.10:8081
Lab 1 – Reflected XSS
Lab 2 – Stored XSS
Lab 3 – DOM-Based XSS (Try Different Browsers)
Lab 4 – XSS in Tag Attributes
Lab 5 – POST XSS
Discussion – Remediation
OWASP Top 10 – Cross-Site Request Forgery (Overview)
When an attacker gets a victim’s browser to perform an action
with their session
OWASP Top 10 – Cross-Site Request Forgery (Examples)
Victim is logged into an application
Attacker sends an email containing a link to victim
Link leads to the application’s logout endpoint
Victim clicks on the link and gets logged out
OWASP Top 10 – Cross-Site Request Forgery (Labs)
URL: http://10.15.1.10:8081
Lab 1 – CSRF to XSS Chained Attack
Discussion – SOP & CORS

Lab 2 – Steal Comments
OWASP Top 10 – Insecure Deserialization (Overview)
Serialization is the process of converting an object into a format
that can be stored or transferred
Deserialization is the process of converting serialized data back
into an object
Insecure Deserialization occurs when untrusted input gets
deserialized
OWASP Top 10 – Insecure Deserialization (Examples)
Application A serializes objects and sends them to Application
B
Application B does not authenticate Application A
An attacker makes direct requests to Application B with
serialized data
Attacker’s serialized data gets deserialized and the object’s
functions are executed
OWASP Top 10 – Insecure Deserialization (Labs)
URL: http://10.15.1.10:8081
Lab 1 – PHP Object Injection
OWASP Top 10 – Using Components with Known
Vulnerabilities (Overview)
Self explanatory
Just because an application is using a component with known
vulnerabilities does not mean it is exploitable

OWASP Top 10 – Using Components with Known
Vulnerabilities (Examples)
https://nvd.nist.gov/
https://jeremylong.github.io/DependencyCheck/
https://dependencytrack.org/
OWASP Top 10 – Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
(Overview)
Redirect is when someone sends you elsewhere for an answer
Forward is when someone answers you after asking elsewhere
Rest is self explanatory
OWASP Top 10 – Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
(Examples)
An attacker borrows the reputation of a trusted domain to then
send a victim somewhere malicious
An attacker gets an application to retrieve resources from a
malicious server to achieve XSS
An attacker gets an application to communicate with a
malicious server to steal credentials
OWASP Top 10 – Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (Labs)
URL: http://10.15.1.10:8081
Lab 1 – Unvalidated Redirect
Lab 2 – Server Side Request Forgery (Credentials)
Lab 3 – Server Side Request Forgery (XSS)
OWASP Top 10 – Insufficient Logging & Monitoring
(Overview)

Self explanatory
OWASP Top 10 – Insufficient Logging & Monitoring
(Examples)
Users authenticating
Impersonation functionality
Payment functionality
Password reset functionality
Brute force attempts
Malicious traffic
Etc.
Next Week
Next Week
Topic:
Assignments:
Week 4 Homework
Week 4 Quiz
EBSCO Publishing Citation Format:
MLA (Modern Language Assoc.):
NOTE: Review the instructions at
http://support.ebsco.com/help/?int=ehost&lang=en&feature_id=
MLA
and make any necessary
corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal

names, capitalization, and dates. Always consult your library
resources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines.
Works Cited
Barwegen, Laura Mezzano, et al. “Academic Achievement of
Homeschool and Public School Students and Student Perception
of Parent Involvement.” School Community Journal, vol. 14, no.
1, Jan. 2004, pp. 39–58. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uncfsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=tru
e&db=eric&AN=EJ794828&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Author: Stair, Esther E
Title: Academic Achievement of Homeschool and Public School
Students and Student Perception of Parent Involvement
Source: Sch Community J; Spring 2004; 14, 1; pg. 39-58
ISSN: 1059-308X
Publisher: Academic Development Institute
© 2004 Copyright Academic Development Institute . Provided
by ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a survey of 127 seniors in a
diverse suburban high school to determine the impact of the
subjects' perceptions of parent involvement on their levels of
achievement as measured by the standardized national ACT test.
Independent-samples t tests were then used to assess whether
there were any differences in achievement as reported in
national test scores among students with a perception of a high
level of parent involvement, students with a perception of a low
level of parent involvement, and homeschool students. The

findings of the study were that the perception of a high level of
parent involvement does have a significant impact upon
achievement. Students who perceived a high level of parent
involvement performed significantly better on the national ACT
exam than students who perceived a low level of parent
involvement. There was no difference in academic achievement
between public school students who perceived a high level of
parent involvement and homeschool students.
Key Words: parent involvement, academic achievement,
homeschool students, high school students, student perceptions
Introduction
According to data from the 1999 Parent Survey of the National
Household Education Surveys Program, a study by the U.S.
Department of Education, the number of homeschool students
has risen from 360,000 in 1994 to 850,000 by 1999 (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2001), with many experts
placing that figure closer to 2 million (Bielick, Chandler, &
Broughman, 2001; Ray, 1997). In addition, the author of a
recent study has reported that the academic achievement of
these homeschool students on the national ACT is higher than
that of public school students (Rudner, 1999). A recent article
in a professional education journal, Educational Leadership,
stated that the number of homeschool students was up
dramatically, with the National Home Education Research
Institute estimating between 1.7 million and 2.1 million last
school year, up from 1.2 million in 1996. Their ACT college
admission scores are also consistently above the national
average (22.5 vs. 20.8 in 2003), and an education institute study
of 5,400 homeschooled students found scores on standardized
exams consistently above national averages in 1995 and 1996
(Ray, 2002). One of the limitations to this kind of comparison is
the nature of the reporting of achievement. Homeschool student
achievement results are voluntary and do not include all
students, while the public school achievement results include all
test takers. A second limitation involves the demographics of
the homes in which the students live. One study reported that

many of the variables that are common among homeschool
families may influence academic achievement, such as higher
income, religious faith, and a higher incidence of stay-at-home
mothers (Rudner, 1999). Rudner himself cites this as a
limitation to the comparisons with the achievement of public
school students (1999).
Each of these variables-socioeconomic status, religious faith,
stay-athome mothers, and parent involvement in education-can
have an effect upon the academic achievement of students.
Therefore, we sought to isolate one variable, parent
involvement, to determine its impact upon the academic
achievement of high school students. Although the schools
cannot influence a family's income level, commitment to faith,
or incidence of mothers staying at home full-time, they may be
able to influence the involvement of parents in their child's
education. This higher level of parent involvement is by
definition evidenced in homeschool students' lives (Lines,
2002). Because of this, our research focused on the perception
of parent involvement of public high school students.
Review of the Literature
The review of the literature did not reveal any studies
comparing academic achievement for homeschool students and
public school students dependent upon perceived levels of
parent involvement. For this reason, the review focuses mainly
on two different kinds of studies: those that relate to
homeschool students in particular, and those that relate to
parent involvement in general.
Homeschool Students
Although growing, the literature about homeschooling is
extremely limited. One descriptive article defined
homeschooling as "educating children under the supervision of
parents instead of school teachers" (Lines, 2002, p. 1). Lines
raised questions of whether the same children would perform
better or worse academically in a classroom than at home, but
stated that with the information available, it is difficult to draw
any conclusions. One reason for this is that there is a lack of

reliable data due to the voluntary nature of achievement testing
for homeschool students. The largest study to date (Rudner,
1999) utilized the results of tests taken by homeschool students
across the nation with a sample size of 20,760 students in
grades K-12. He reported that homeschool students scored
higher than their public school peers did on standardized tests.
However, the results of this survey were based upon voluntary
participation and may not reflect the true situation. In the study,
Rudner stated that homeschool parents are, by definition,
heavily involved in their children's education but the same,
unfortunately, is not true of all public or private school parents.
This statement influenced our study, in that it led us to question
whether public school students have levels of achievement
comparable to that of homeschool students when a perception of
high levels of parent involvement exists.
Our study was prompted by reports about the higher levels of
achievement of homeschool students in popular magazines and
newspapers, such as Time (Cloud & Morse, 2001), Chicago
Sun-Times (Grossman, 2003), Christianity Today (Scheller,
2002), ABCNEWS.com (Schabner, 2001; abcnews.com, 2001),
and educational journals such as Educational Leadership
(Grossman, 2003; Ray, 1997). In his key study of the academic
achievement of homeschool students, Lawrence Rudner (1999)
commented about the dangers of outright comparisons between
homeschool students and public school students because of the
vast number of variables that have an impact on these
environments. In an interview with Michael Farris, chair of the
Home School Legal Defense Association, Rudner said, "We
can't, and really shouldn't, compare homeschooling to public
schools. The environment is different. We [homeschoolers]
don't have discipline problems, or at least not as many
discipline problems. Homeschooling is one-on-one. There's the
utmost level of parent involvement. No matter what you factor
out, you cannot control the vast array of differences" (Farris,
1999). However, as is shown throughout these popular
magazines and professional journals, comparisons are being

made regularly. In addition, the homeschool groups are also
making these comparisons in their publications. On its website,
the Home School Legal Defense Association provides a link to a
report from Dr. Brian Ray of the National Home Education
Research Institute. In this document, Ray stated that "home
educated students excelled on nationally-normed standardized
achievement exams. On average, homeschoolers outperformed
their public school peers 30 to 37 percentile points across all
subjects" (Ray & Rudner, 2001).
A letter-to-the-editor in Christianity Today piqued our interest
in relation to all of these various reports. The writer commented
on the most recent report which cited homeschool student
academic achievement as higher than public school student
achievement. She stated, "Find me statistics that compare
homeschooled children with those learning in a classroom who
have involved parents. I am confident that virtually no
difference will be found" (Neufeld, 2002, p. 12-13). We
wondered the same thing. Our purpose was to consider these
comparisons and examine whether public school students'
perception of parent involvement would influence their
academic achievement.
Parental Involvement and Academic Achievement
In order to ask questions regarding "parent involvement," it was
necessary to define what is meant by that term. Various studies
have defined parent involvement differently, and these
variations in definition have led to different findings. One
study, which found no significant correlation between parent
involvement and student achievement, defined parent
involvement as the number of hours the parent spent
volunteering at the school (Okpala, Okpala, & Smith, 2001).
Another study (Griffith, 1996) expanded on this definition,
focusing on the interaction of parent involvement and parent
empowerment as they related to student achievement. Parent
involvement in this study was defined as the frequency with
which parents volunteered at the school, attended parent/teacher
conferences, and attended back-to-school nights. Parent

empowerment was defined as the extent to which parents
perceived that the school accommodated parent participation in
decision-making and activities through information sharing and
convenient arrangements. Although Griffith found consistent
correlation between parent involvement and student test
performance, the definition of parent involvement was still
limited and did not include academic activities outside of the
school environment.
A different definition of parent involvement was provided by
Sealover (1995) who defined it as parents' direct involvement
with students' academic assignments. This involvement was
measured quantitatively by the number of hours per month spent
helping students with assignments. Although Sealover found no
significant parallel between this type of parent involvement and
student academic achievement, this study was useful in
supplementing more qualitative information about parent
involvement and attitudes.
Another way of defining parent involvement is more
encompassing through a system of categorization of activities.
In one study, parent involvement was separated into four
categories: helping, controlling, supporting, and participating
(Mau, 1997). Although Mau did not specifically study the
effects of parent involvement on achievement, the research
method was helpful to our study because it presented a much
more comprehensive definition of involvement than those that
were used by any of the aforementioned researchers.
Another comprehensive way of defining parent involvement
used Epstein's six categories: basic obligations/positive
environment, parent/school communications, parent
participation in school activities, parent/school communications
about homework, parent involvement in school decisions, and
collaborating with the community (Epstein, 1988; 1995).
Epstein suggested ways that parents could improve their level of
involvement. Using these same criteria, Catsambis (1998) found
that for 8th graders, high parent expectations were the strongest
indicators of academic achievement. For 12th graders, parent

encouragement to attend college had the strongest effect on
In addition to the literature that offered definitions of parent
involvement, there was no lack of literature that, although it
lacked specific definitions, explored parents' involvement and
its effect upon academic achievement in various circumstances.
One research study reported the attempt to discover whether the
link between parent involvement and student achievement was
affected by race or income (DiSimone, 1999). DiSimone
concluded that a relationship did exist between race and parent
involvement. Other studies included comparisons between
parent expectations and academic achievement (Reynolds,
1992), comparisons between students' and parents' perceptions
of parent involvement (Freeman & Karr-Kidwell, 1988),
socioeconomic status and parent involvement strategies and
their impact upon academic achievement (Baker & Stevenson,
1986; Hickman, Greenwood, & Miller, 1995), discussions about
school experiences and future plans among African-Americans
and academic achievement (Yan, 1999), and parenting styles
and academic achievement (Zellman & Waterman, 1998). A
comprehensive study (Henderson & Berla, 1994) reviewed 64
studies on parent involvement and came to the conclusion that,
taken as a whole, the studies strongly suggest that children do
better in school when parents are involved in their children's
education at home.
The review of the literature supported the claim that in general,
studies which attempted to use comprehensive measures of
parent involvement tended to find a relationship between parent
involvement and academic achievement, while those using only
one or two factors generally failed to do so. In addition, it
seemed that activities taking place in the home, such as
discussions, assistance, and parents giving advice, had a greater
positive effect on student achievement than school-based
activities, such as conferences, parent-teacher communication,
and volunteering at school functions.
With these findings in mind, we designed a survey that included

many questions about parent involvement and attitudes at home,
along with questions about school involvement. We attempted
to create a survey which encompassed definitions of parent
involvement including students' perceptions of levels of
encouragement, parents' expectations, parents' involvement and
volunteerism in the school itself, time spent on
assignments/homework outside of school, communications
between teachers and parents, and parents' influence in
decision-making.
In addition to constructs which identified the students'
perceptions of parent involvement, we also included one
construct with six items which examined the students'
perceptions of their teachers' roles in seeking out a relationship
with the home. This construct was included because of current
research indicating that the teacher is the most important factor
in influencing student achievement (National Commission on
Teaching & America's Future, 1996).
Purpose
The primary purpose of this study was to determine if the score
of homeschool students on the national ACT exam remained
higher than the score for public school students when the
perception of parent involvement throughout their school career
was factored.
In addition to this primary purpose, two other goals were
incorporated into this study: (1) to determine if there was a
statistically significant difference in the academic achievement
of students who perceived a higher level of parent involvement
and students who perceived a lower level of parent involvement,
and (2) to ascertain the difference in academic achievement of
public school students, depending upon perception of parent
involvement, as compared to national norms of all students and
national norms of homeschool students.
Study Limitations
One limitation of this study is that although it focused upon
parent involvement, it did not use a strict experimental design
in which researchers observed the parents involved in their

children's education. Instead, we depended upon the perception
of the students themselves to report their attitudes of how
involved their parents were. This perception may or may not
reflect the reality of their parents' involvement. Even though
this is listed as a limitation of the study, we believe that the
child's perception of parent involvement is as important as, if
not more important than, the parents' actual involvement. Extant
research studies have documented the impact that a perception
of achievement has upon actual achievement, providing
evidence of the importance of perception in effecting actual
performance (Bandura, 1989; Weiner, 1974). Observing the
reality of the parents' involvement, however, would assist in
informing other parents specifically to what extent and in what
manner one needs to be involved in his/her child's education to
have an impact upon their achievement levels, as well as to
make comparisons between the parents' actual involvement and
the child's perception of it.
A second limitation to this study is the sample size. This study
was conducted in one suburban high school which was
demographically representative of the state and the nation. The
recent No Child Left Behind Act requires each school district to
have a plan for how it will allow research to be conducted with
students, and many of the high schools approached to
participate in this study did not yet have an approved plan in
place. The survey was distributed in the American government
classes, which are required for all seniors. The response rate
from those surveyed was 85%; however, the respondents
comprised just 21% of the population of the senior class. These
were the classes that were provided to the researchers for the
purposes of this study.
Methodology
This quantitative study was conducted through the distribution
of surveys. The surveys were a compilation of 35 questions
designed to determine the level of perceived parent
involvement, with six of the questions designed to determine
the teachers' role in reaching out to involve parents. Questions

were asked concerning parent expectations, relationship to the
school, involvement in the child's school, relationship with the
teachers, teachers' relationships with parents, and perception of
overall involvement. In addition, demographic questions were
asked about the student's ethnicity, gender, GPA, and ACT
score. The participating school was a large, suburban high
school located in a diverse community. The school was chosen
using two criteria: willingness to participate and the school's
similar demographics to that of the wider state population in the
areas of ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Table 1 provides
information about the racial composition of the school and of
the population taking the survey.
One week prior to the distribution of the surveys, students under
the age of 18 were given permission slips to take home and have
their parents sign granting permission to complete the survey.
The surveys were distributed through the general American
government classes, which is required of all graduating seniors,
and completed by 127 out of a total 604 graduating seniors who
signed the permission slips, a response rate of 21%. Surveys
were completed by 68 (53.5%) males and 59 (46.5%) females.
Seniors were chosen because they had already taken and
received scores back from the ACT exam; this was the
independent variable chosen to compare achievement levels to
that of homeschool students.
In addition to surveying the students, a similar survey was sent
home to the parents via the student. There were two additional
questions on the parents' surveys that were not included in the
student surveys. The parent/guardian was asked to define their
household regarding family situation and also regarding the
family's annual gross income. Of the 127 parent surveys that
were distributed, 23 (18.9%) were completed and returned.
For each survey item, students and parents were asked to
respond using a Likert scale, with 4 indicating the highest level
of perceived parent involvement and 1 indicating the lowest
level of perceived parent involvement. Each construct differed
in its response, with some asking level of agreement with the

item, some asking level of regularity for the item, and others
asking about the likeliness of parent expectations for each item.
In categorizing the level of parent involvement, responses of
"1" or "2" were defined as low level of parent involvement and
responses of "3" or "4" were defined as high level of parent
involvement.
After the collection of the completed surveys, independent
samples t tests were used to determine significant differences
for each survey item, if any, in student achievement levels
between those students who perceived a high level of parent
involvement and those who did not, and paired samples t tests
were used to determine significant differences, if any, between
student perceptions of parent involvement and their parent's
perceptions. Single sample t tests were used to compare student
perceptions of parent involvement to the national scores on the
ACT exam of both the overall average and of homeschool
students. In addition, Pearson correlations were conducted to
determine if correlations existed between the overall mean
perception of parent involvement and academic achievement, as
well as a perception of the teachers' role in reaching out to
parents and academic achievement.
Results
Relationship Between Parent Involvement and Student
Achievement
Overall, the results of this study concur with other research in
the field: there is a relationship between the perception of
parent involvement and academic achievement. Students who
perceived a high level of parent involvement had a higher ACT
score (m = 23.15, sd = 4.48) than students who perceived a low
level of parent involvement (m = 20.64, sd = 4.89) (t=-
2.509(110), p < .05). In addition to the summary results, each
survey item was analyzed to determine the relationship between
students' perceptions of parent involvement with their academic
achievement. Independent samples t tests were conducted to
determine if there was a significant difference in achievement
between students who believed their parents were involved as

compared to students who did not believe this. When each
survey item was analyzed, there were some items in the
perception of parent involvement which made a significant
difference in student achievement. Table 2 represents the survey
items that were found to have a significant impact upon
The survey items where parent involvement was not found to
have an impact upon academic achievement were: helping with
school work, listening to students about school work,
encouraging students regarding school work, attending teacher
conferences, attending school functions, reviewing student
report cards, teachers contacting parents about school, teachers
sending information home, teachers notifying parents about
school occurrences, and teachers effectively communicating
with parents. All survey items showed either higher academic
achievement by students perceiving higher levels of parent
involvement or no difference at all.
Student Perceptions Compared to Their Parents' Perceptions
Surveys were returned from 23 out of a total of 127 surveys
distributed to parents. There was no significant difference in the
academic achievement of students whose parents returned the
survey compared to students whose parents did not return the
survey (t= -.881(110), p >.05). The results of a paired samples
t-test comparing the students' perceptions of their parents'
involvement and the parents' perceptions of their own
involvement indicated a significant difference in many items
from the survey. Table 3 lists each of the survey items where a
significant difference in perceptions was found.
Out of a total of 31 survey items, there was a significant
difference in the perceptions between the students and their
parents on 13 items of those surveys returned, or 42%, with the
parents perceiving their involvement to be higher than their
child's perceptions of their involvement. Of these items where a
difference in perceptions was found, three of them, or 23%,
were found to have an impact upon overall academic
achievement: regularly asking about school work, regularly

supporting students with school work, and regularly
volunteering at school.
Perceptions of the Role of the Teacher and Academic
Achievement
A Pearson correlation was calculated examining the relationship
between the students' ACT scores and the students' perceptions
of teacher behaviors. The teacher behaviors which appeared on
the survey were: contacting parents about school issues, sending
information home about the activities at school, notifying
parents about occurrences at school, effectively communicating
with parents, being flexible to parents' schedules when
arranging conferences or meetings, and desiring a partnership
with parents for the purpose of improving student achievement.
A weak correlation that was not significant was found in each of
the items analyzed (p > .05). The students' perception of these
teacher behaviors were not related to students' ACT score
performance.
Comparisons of Public School Students and Homeschool
Students
Our initial research question when beginning this study was
whether students who perceived a higher level of parent
involvement performed worse than, equal to, or better than
homeschool students on the national ACT test, the gauge by
which the success of homeschooling has been measured in
recent reports. An overall mean was determined for each student
by averaging the total responses to each of the survey items.
The scores ranged from 1.48 to 3.79. We determined an overall
definition of parent involvement by assigning those means that
were 2.5 or below the category perception of low parent
involvement, and those means that were 2.51 or above the
designation of perception of high parent involvement. The
national ACT scores used for comparative measures in this
study are those reported by the ACT Enrollment Information
Service for 2002 (C. Parmaly, personal communication, July 7,
2003). The mean ACT score of all students in our sample group
was 22.5, which is the same as the 2002 reported national ACT

score for homeschool students. A single sample t test compared
the mean ACT score of the sample population to the national
average ACT score for all students of 20.8. A significant
difference was found (t(111) = 3.891, p < .01). The same mean
of 22.53 (sd = 4.70) was significantly higher than the national
average ACT score.
For students in our sample group who perceived high levels of
parent involvement (72% of respondents), the mean ACT score
was 23.15; for students in our sample group who perceived low
levels of parent involvement (28% of respondents), the mean
ACT score was 20.64. The national mean score of all students
taking the 2002 ACT exam was 20.8 and the national mean
score reported for homeschool students taking the 2002 ACT
exam was 22.5. A single sample t test compared the ACT scores
of students from the sample population with the national
comparison groups.
Our research found: (1) for students in this sample reporting a
perception of high levels of parent involvement, there was no
significant difference between them and homeschool students
(t(83) = 1.338, p > .05), but a significant difference was found
between their academic achievement and that of the overall
population as measured by the ACT exam (t(83) = 4.813, p <
.01); and (2) for students in this sample reporting a perception
of low levels of parent involvement, there was not a significant
difference between them and homeschool students (t(27) = -
2.008, p = .055), and no difference was found between them and
the overall population as measured by the ACT exam (t(27) = -
.170, p > .05). Table 4 lists the outcomes of these tests.
Discussion
Relationship Between Parent Involvement and Student
Achievement
The results of this study support others which indicate that
parent involvement has a significant impact upon the academic
achievement of students (Bempechat, 1992; Epstein, 1995;
Henderson, 1981; Hickman, Greenwood, & Miller, 1995; Juang
& Silbereisen, 2002; Stevenson & Baker, 1986; Thorkildsen &

Stein, 1998; Zellman & Waterman, 1998). Much of the research
identified the need for high levels of parent involvement during
the elementary, formative years of a child's life (Reynolds,
1992). This study furthers these findings by suggesting that
even through the high school years, not only is this involvement
important, it is imperative that high school students believe that
their parents have been involved throughout their school
careers.
The categories of items which had a significant impact upon
student achievement were varied. Some of the items are
categorized as support for students outside of the school (asking
about school work, supporting school work, reviewing
information sent home, and assisting in making decisions about
the future); some of the items are directly related to
involvement with the school (volunteering at various school
functions, serving on school committees, and flexibility to
teachers' schedules); and others are the expectations parents
have for their children (maintain a 3.0 GPA and involvement in
extra curricular activities). These categories align with the work
of both Mau (1997) and Epstein (1988; 1995).
Student Perceptions Compared to Their Parents' Perceptions
Along with Freeman & Karr-Kidwell (1988), the authors of this
study found a difference between the ways that students
perceived their parents' involvement and the way that parents
perceived it. A conclusion that can be drawn from this is that
parents need to communicate to their children ways that they
are involved in their child's school, education, and life, making
explicit those areas of involvement. Many times, parents may
wait until the child is not around to make contacts with teachers
or to review information sent home from the school, and they
may never talk with their children about ways in which they are
volunteering at the school or serving on school committees. The
greater the awareness the child has about his/her parents'
involvement in the school, the greater impact this involvement
may have upon the child's academic performance.
Only 23 parent surveys were returned (18%), compared to the

127 that were distributed. Parent surveys were given to students
to bring home to their parents on the same day that the students
completed the surveys in class. There could be many
explanations for this paucity of responses, including the surveys
not getting to the parents, parents' lack of time to complete
them, loss of surveys by parents, etc. However, since there was
such a low response rate, it is difficult to make any
generalizations, except to note that of those responses received,
there was a difference of perception on 42% of the survey
items. This may be an indication that there is a significant
difference of perception between parents and their children in
what constitutes high levels of parent involvement. Because the
results of this study found a significant difference in academic
achievement between students who perceive high levels of
parent involvement and those students who perceive low levels
of parent involvement, parents may want to examine how their
children perceive their (parents') level of involvement in their
academic lives. Needless to say, additional studies may need to
be conducted to further the understanding of the differences
between student and parent perceptions of parent involvement.
Perceptions of the Role of the Teacher and Academic
Achievement
Although the main focus of this study was in comparing the
academic achievement of students dependent upon their
perception of parent involvement, one construct with six items
was devoted to teacher behaviors. Each of the identified teacher
behaviors examined their connection to the parents and/ or the
home. The items examined included the extent to which teachers
were perceived as having: contacted parents about school, sent
information home, notified parents about school occurrences,
effectively communicated with parents, been flexible to parents'
schedules, and desired a partnership with parents. There has
been much research about the impact that teachers have upon
student achievement, most notably the National Commission
Report entitled What Matters Most: Teachers for Our Nation's
Schools (Darling-Hammond, 1995). However, the results of this

study did not indicate that the behaviors of the teacher in
his/her interactions with the home had an effect upon student
achievement, whereas this study did find that some of the
parents' behaviors did have an effect. This does not mean that
the behaviors or activities of the teacher in maintaining
relationships with the parents are not important, just that their
perception by students was not found in this particular study to
have a significant impact upon student academic performance
on the ACT.
Comparisons of Public School Students and Homeschool
Students
In this particular sample, the mean ACT score of the sample
population (m = 22.53, sd = 4.70) was equal to that of the
national homeschool population (m = 22.50), and significantly
higher than the overall average population (m = 20.8). Because
of this, the sample group may not be a true representative
sample of the national population as a whole. Given this, when
public school students perceived higher levels of parent
involvement, they performed as well as those students who were
homeschooled. The one known similarity between these groups
is that they had high levels of parent involvement. Both groups
performed better than the overall national averages of public
school students. However, in this particular sample, when a
comparison is drawn between the ACT scores of homeschool
students and those public school students with a perception of
higher levels of parent involvement, there is no significant
difference.
Conclusions and Recommendations
In our current political milieu of accountability for student
achievement, as well as the changing societal mores of two-
income families, questions of parent involvement and academic
achievement are raised, including specifics about the types of
parent involvement (Weiss et al., 2003). A recently published
book, No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning
(Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003) examines the large IQ and
academic achievement gap between black and white children,

stating that this cognitive skill gap precedes entry to school and
can be documented as early as age three. The authors point out
that family and parenting characteristics (including
socioeconomic factors) are major causes of this learning gap.
David Armor provides the following review of this book:
The problem with both NCLB and the school reforms proposed
in No Excuses is that they assume schools can close this gap
without any changes in families. This is problematic because
the family factors that cause the gap and that continue to
influence children throughout their school career are generally
unaffected by changes in school policies. It is puzzling that the
Thernstroms cite numerous findings from my book, Maximizing
Intelligence (Armor, 2003), about the strong influence of family
risk factors on children's IQ and achievement and yet ignore the
substantial evidence about how hard it is to change achievement
scores relying only on school resources and programs during the
school years? By ignoring the causes of lower achievement, and
by continuing to put most of our resources into school remedies
that are likely to fail because they ignore the family, I believe
we put unrealistic and unfair burdens on school systems (Armor,
2004).
Our solutions to improving the academic achievement of all
students in our public schools begins with addressing the
necessary involvement of the parents and identifying which
activities are most beneficial to their students. This is evidenced
in this study where no difference in achievement is found
between homeschool students, who have natural parent
involvement built into the model, and public school students
who perceived high parent involvement. This is one step in the
right direction.
The following recommendations are made based upon this
study's results:
1. Parents should communicate their school involvement clearly
to their children so that the students are aware of the ways in
which their parents are involved. Results of this study showed
that in 42% of the cases, the students perceived their parents'

involvement to be lower than the parents did. In some instances,
it is natural that the students wouldn't be as knowledgeable
about their parents' involvement, such as in contacting teachers,
notifying teachers of occurrences at home, and desiring a
partnership with teachers. There may be reasons why parents
don't alert their children to these items. In other cases, parents
may not think to tell their children of their involvement, such as
in attending school functions and teacher conferences and
volunteering at school. In other cases, however, the students
should have been aware of their parents' involvement or lack
thereof. Of these cases, three have been found to be related to
increased student achievement: regularly asking about school
work, regularly supporting students in their school work, and
assisting students in choosing courses over their school careers.
Because the perception of the student is significantly lower than
that of their parents' in these areas, by increasing their
involvement in these areas and/or their children's awareness of
their involvement, parents may increase the level of
achievement of their children. It is important to note that it is
impossible to generalize over an entire population on the basis
of only 23 parent responses.
2. Parents should be aware of what actions, when perceived by
students, demonstrate an impact upon academic achievement.
Table 5 lists the survey items which indicated a significant
difference in ACT scores between students who perceived a
higher level of parent involvement in this item and students who
perceived a lower level of parent involvement. Time is a limited
commodity in our society and by knowing what actions and
behaviors are effective in influencing student achievement,
parents can be sure that time is spent in these significant areas.
3. When parents and public schools partner together for the
purposes of improving student achievement, and when students
perceive this involvement, academic performance increases.
This is demonstrated by the increase in performance of both
homeschool and public school students when the variable of
parent involvement is considered. Public school students

A R T I C L EEFFECTS OF AN OUT-OF-SCHOOLPROGRAM ON URBAN.docx

A R T I C L EEFFECTS OF AN OUT-OF-SCHOOLPROGRAM ON URBAN.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A R T I C L EEFFECTS OF AN OUT-OF-SCHOOLPROGRAM ON URBAN.docx

Similar to A R T I C L EEFFECTS OF AN OUT-OF-SCHOOLPROGRAM ON URBAN.docx (20)

More from blondellchancy

More from blondellchancy (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A R T I C L EEFFECTS OF AN OUT-OF-SCHOOLPROGRAM ON URBAN.docx