mahoney08 - 13 ORGANIZED ACTIVITY PARTIClPATlON FOR...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–18. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 12
Background image of page 13

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 14
Background image of page 15

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 16
Background image of page 17

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 18
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 13 ORGANIZED ACTIVITY PARTIClPATlON FOR CHILDREN FROM LOW- AND MIDLE~ lNCOME FAMILIES Joseph L. Mahoney Yale University J acquelynne S. Eccles University of Michigan Recent research demonstrates that how children spend their after—school time has i'mplicati ons for their development in multiple domains (Mahoney, Larson, & Eccles, 2005: National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2002). In this regard, it is noteworthy that the after—school experiences of children from low~ and middle income families differ. A salient difference is participation in organized activities (eg, extracurricular activities, after~school and community programs). National estimates show that children’s participation in school— and connnunity-based sports, clubs, lessons, and after—school programs increase as family income rises (Ehrle & Anderson Moore, 1999:, Lugaila, 2003; McNeal, 1998). Qualitative research resonates with these estimates (Lareau, 2003; Lareau & Weininger, this volume). The aftermschool lives of children from middle—income families typically involve more participation in organized activities than their low—income counterparts. The economic—related discrepancy in rates of organized activity participation has generated different concerns for children from low- and middle—income families. Although research often demonstrates benefits of organized activity participation, one concern is that such participation is excessive for children from middle-income families. As a result, it has been proposed that organized activities may contribute to an “ovenscheduling” for middle‘class families and that this may be detrimental to family functioning and child adjustment. By contrast, for children from low— income families, the concern is that a lack of organized activities may result in failed opportunities to build competencies developed through participation and increases risks associated with after—school arrangements that are unstructured or unsupervised. In this chapter we consider the scientific evidence surrounding these concerns. 207 ‘ 208 MAHONEY EC (5 [—1 (‘11 m Are Children from Middle-«income Families Oven-Scheduled in Organized Activities? [Over—scheduled child rearing] unbalances families, damages marriage and contributes to unhappy, overstressed children being diagnosed as learning disabled, ADD, bipolar, and depressed, and to adolescents getting involved with drugs, alcohol, and premature sex (Rosenfield, 2003', p. 1). Whether children participate in organized activities depends, in part, on the behavior of their parents. Children are more likely to become involved and to stay involved in organized activities when parents value and encourage their participation, provide the necessary material resources, and are participants themselves (Fletcher5 Elder, & Mekos, 2000; Simpkins, Davis—Kean, & Eccles, 2005). However, there is evidence that the time budgeting and schedule commitments required of parents to support their children’s activity participation can be challenging particularly for working parents with several children (Lareau, 2003). _ There has been speculation in the popular media that families managing child participation in several organized activities are “over—scheduled”, resulting in a disruption of family life and contributing to psychological distress for children (Gilbert, 1999; Noonan, 2001; Roscnfield, 2003). This contention has drawn on research showing that as children from relatively affluent families enter adolescence they may be at heightened risk for substance use, depression, and anxiety compared to their low~income counterparts (Luthar & Latendresse, 2005a). Factors such achievement pressures and isolation from parents help to account for these findings (Luthar & Becker, 2002; Luthar & Latendresse, 2005b). Accordingly, part of what we term the “over—scheduling” hypothesis (OS), children from middle~inc0me families may experience a decline in parent~child relationships and an increase in psychological distress as organized activity participation increases. In opposition to the OS hypothesis, a scientific basis exists to expect that increasing amounts of organized activity participation may be associated with incremental benefits for children and families. We refer to this as the “organized activity” hypothesis (CA). With some qualifications, the bulk of the evidence indicates that organized activity participation is linked with positive adjustment for children across a range of psychological, social, and educational outcomes and for samples diverse in socioeconomic status (for reviews see, cg, Dubois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002; Eccles, Barber, Stone, & Hunt, 2003; Eccles & Templeton, 2002; Mahoney, Larson, & Eccles, 2005; National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2002; Vandell, Pierce, & Dadisman, 2005). However, only a few longitudinal studies have assessed directly whether the benefits hold for children participating in many organized activities. Moreover, little consideration UKUAN 145 El) AL 1 l V l 1 I fAK 1 lLllt'Al lUlV 1" UK L l‘lLLJJKL‘JV AU? as been given to whether it is normative for children from middle~income families demonstrate excessive participation in organized activities. To evaluate the OS and 0A hypotheses we first examine the amount of time hat children ordinarily devote to organized activity participation. Then we consider evelopmental consequences for children and families (i.e., parent-child relationships, psychological distress, social and educational adjustment) with ncreasing amounts of organized activity participation. 0w M itch Time Do Children Spend in Organized Activities? review of time use studies employing the Experience Sampling Method and/or me diary approach suggests that American children experience 40—50% of their faking hours as discretionary time (Larson & Verona, 1999). This amount of time as been fairly consistent over the past century and estimates of free time are only lightly greater for children from lower—income families. On average, organized ctivitics such as sports, art, music, and clubs consume 50—80 minutes of middle— lass adolescents’ free time each day (about 13—l6% of free time per week). National stimates of children ages 6~l 2 are slightly lower (i.e., 20~30 minutes per day; 5— % of free time per week) (Lareau & Weininger, this volume)I i Accordingly, young ersons spend the vast majority of their free time in pursuits other than organized ctivity participation (e. g, watching television. talking, household chores, or paid abor). Moreover, although participation in organized activities is a normative evelopmental experience for children (Ehrle & Anderson Moore, 1999; Lareau & Weininger, this volume; Lugaila, 2003), longitudinal investigations suggest that [adolescents typically participate in about two organized activities per year (see below). Accordingly, organized activities do not ordinarily dominate the free—time xperience of young persons. Does Adjustment Decline with. Increasing Amounts of Organized _ctivity Participation? \ ’0 address this question, we consider findings from three longitudinal studies hat focus on children’s organized activity participation and psychosocial djustment. Our expectation is that increasing amounts of organized activity .-participati011 will not be associated with a decline in adjustment. The basis for this erctation derives from studies examining the mechanisms by which participation 11 organized activities relate to positive outcomes (eg, Eccles & Templeton, 2002; ahoney, Larson, & Eccles,'2()05; National Research Council and Institute of _ 1 Ti me is based on one child sampled in a given family. It may be misleading to estimate organizcd activity :Wflicipation for all children in a family by multiplying a single child’s estimate by the number of children. All children in a family do not necessarily spend the same amount of time on organized activities. It may also be misleading TO assume that parents‘ time commitment to children’s activities can be inferred from a single child's schedule. hildrcn in the same family often have partially overlapping activity schedules and parents are unlikely to participate Hectiy in every activity function for each child. 2n) MAHONEY a: E,qu Medicine, 2002). Among other things, this work suggests that the organized activ context is rich with respect to: (l) structuring time in a conventional pursuit tha socially valued and that helps form linkages between family, school, and communi (2) providing opportunities for developing supportive social relationships, W peers and adults; (3) creating a shared experience and point of communication fl?) parents and children that may otherwise be unavailable; (4) facilitating paren ‘ knowledge of child whereabouts, peer relationships, and free time pursuits; an (5) providing an avenue for identity development, initiative, belonging, and 33E worth. To the extent that emphasis on any given mechanism varies, or is reinforced across different activities, then children‘s positive adjustment should be expecte to increase with greater amounts of participation. To begin, the amount of organized activity participation was assessed] relation to aspects of the parentechild relationship and indicators of chi psychological distress in a sample of 1,227 middle~class youth followe longitudinally across grades 8 and 9. The sample represents 92% of all stude attending grade 8 from a middle—sized city located in central Sweden (populatio about l20,000). In both years, students reported the number of organized activitie they participated in at least one day/week over the past year (e.g., sports, music theatre, church, scouts, political, hobby clubs, etc.) At each assessment, the also responded to multi-item scales concerning parental knowledge of their fre time (e.g., “Do your parents know what you do during your free timely”). parent child communication through child disclosure (e.g., “Do you keep secrets from your parents about what happens during your free time?”) and parent solicitati ' (e.g., “How often do your parents start a conversation with you about your fre, time‘?”). parent-child trust (e.g., “Do you parents trust that you will stay outo trouble during your free time 17”) and their frequency of psychological distress terms of depressed and anxious mood (e.g., frequency of sadness, rumination worries about the future, social anxiety). Average responses to the scales wer standardized across the two assessments. The number of activities participatedi at each grade was summed to create a 6-point scale (0 = no participation, 5 participation in five activities or more). Too few participants (3.9%) reporte involvement six activities or more to be considered as separate categories. _ Aspects of the parent—child relationship and indicators of psychologica distress were compared with the number of organized activities using an Analysi of Variance (ANOVA). Descriptive information is shown in Table l3.l. With th exception ol‘parent—child trust, all results were statistically significant (p < .05). A the number of activities increased, parental knowledge and parentchil communication tended to increase in a linear fashion. The trend for parent—chil trust was similar (p < .10). Moreover, both indicators of psychological distres decreased with greater amounts of participation. Thus, during early adolescence the results indicate that increasing amounts of organized activity participation arr positively associated with aspects of parent-child relationships and negatively: linked to indicators of children’s psychological distress. ' I J. \JKKJ’AN lLfllJ /'\\J l l V 11. I KARI ibll’Al iUiV FUR LIILLJJJKLDI A1 1 Table l3.l Organized Activity Participation, Parent-Child Relationships, and “ ndicamrs QfPsyc/zology Distress (N = 1227) Number of Oro anized Activities (Grades 8 and 9)'_(Standardi7.ed Scores) 0 1 2 3 4 5+ MSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSD (N: 136) (N: 277') (N: 397) (N: 196) (N: 109) (N: 112.) Parent Knowledge ofChilcl --.20 .78 :05 .63 —.01 .63 .00 .6l .ll .62 .ll .52 Parent-Chil d Communication ChildDisclosure ~17 .77 -.09 .69 -.01 .65 .01 .61 .14 .66 .15 .57 Pm‘entSolicitation ~29 .61 ~09 .62 .01 .61 .11 .59 .10 .54 .11 .57 Parent-Child Trust ~14 .75 —.02 .65 --.02 .68 .03 .68 .04 .71 .ll .58 'Anxious Mood .12 .78 .06 .76 .01 .71 —.05 .65 .01 .76 :18 .67 Depressed Mood .15 .59 .01 .57 —.02 .49 :05 .47 —.04 .47 —.03 .47 ‘Avcragc number of activities for Grades 8 and 9 were 1.3 (_ SD = .93) and 1.2 (SD = .95). respectively. For a long—term accounting of organized activity participation and serious maladjustment we consider findings from the Carolina Longitudinal Study (Cairns & Cairns, 1994) that tracked 695 children annually from early adolescence through Young adulthood. The socioeconomic status (SES) of this sample was approximately "average for American families when the study began (1981—1982). Participation in “one form of organized activitieswmschool—based extracurricular activitieswwas determined from school yearbook information gathered over a six—year interval (grades 6:12). For the following analyses, we first performed a median split of SES to identify participants below and above average. Next, we categorized the total “number of extracurricular activities children were involved in during the six years “of secondary school along a 5~point continuum (i.e., 0 = none, 1 = l—»—5 activities, 2 6—1 0 activities, 3 = 11—15 activities, 4 = 16—20 activities, 5 : 21+ activities). Again, too few participants (5.8%) were involved in 22 or more extracurricular activities uring secondary school to categorize participation further. Finally, we compared f’fhcse activityhased categories to rates of school dropout and subsequent criminal , rrests in young adulthood as determined, in part, by school records and State Bureau of Investigation records, respectively (cf, Mahoney, 2000; Mahoney & Cairns, 1997; Mahoncy, Cairns, & Farmer, 2003). Descriptive information is shown in Table 13.2. For children from families bellow or above the median SES, findings from an ANOVA show that the likelihood 0f experiencing school dropout or criminal arrests in young adulthood decrease Significantly (p < .01) with increasing amounts of extracurricular activity participation. Because the rates of dropout and criminal arrests decline to near zero ,(a floor effect) as extracurricular activity participation increases, there is no evidence 212 MAHONEY & ECCLE that increasing amounts of extracurricular activity participation place children- a risk for these outcomes.3 To the contrary, increasing amounts of extracurricul activities during secondary school are negatively associated with school failure and criminal offending. Table 13.2 Extracurricular Activity Participation, School Dropout. and Criminal Arrests According to SE5 (N = 662) Number of Extracurricular Activities (Grades omit)th 0 1‘5 6-10 ll—l5 l6~20 21+ SES Below Average (N = 76) (N = 147) (N = 55) (N: 28) (N: 21) (N = 14) SE3 AboveAverage (N = 27) (N 2 105) (N = 70) (N: 47) (N 30) (N: 42) Proportion of Dropouts SES Below Average .61 .23 .02 .00 .00 .00 L SES Above Average .44 .09 .00 .02 .00 .00 Proportion Arrested (ages 18—24) SES Below Average .34 .16 .09 .07 .06 .07 SES Above Average .26 .07 .04 .02 .00 .00 ‘ Extracurricular activity participation increases across adolescence (Malioney & Cairns. 1997). The average number of activities participated in across grades 6—12 was 1.3. At the peak w during Grade 12 — the average was 2.5. \ Note. = Socioeconomic Status, The third set of findings summarized here comes from the Michigan Study 0 Adolescent Life Transitions (MSALT). In this longitudinal study of working— an middle—class youth and their families in southeastern Michigan, adolescents wer surveyed at school in grades 6, 7, 10, and l2 and again at ages 21 and 25 on a wid variety of indicators of psychosocial functioning, including participation i extracurricular and other outwit—school activities. Here we summarize the finding for the relation of grade 10 activity participation to adjustment and academ’ performance at grades l0, 1 l. and 12 and on post~high school educational an occupational outcomes (for full details see Barber, Eccles & Stone, 2001; Eccles Barber. 1999; Eccles et al., 2003). First, as was true in the previous two studie , virtually no adolescents could be classified as over-scheduled. The majority of th " youth participated in at least one activity. with the average being a little more tha 2. Girls participated in more and a wider variety of activities than boys. Adolescen whose mothers had some college education participated in more activities tha adolescents whose mothers had completed high school or less. 3 Mahoney (2000) found similar results when the sample was disaggregated into homogeneous contiguratio ditterin in hi(Lsocizileacademic adiustment and family econom ie. h sical maturation. aggression. io' llltitl g . . y 3’ t l with peers. academic competence. socioeconomic status). \JKLHM‘J MILL) [AL 11 V 1 1 I fALil lLlL’Z-Xl lUlV FUR L/HLLUKDIV A l 3 Second, there were strong associations between activity participation and bsequent functioning, even when controlling for the adolescents’ functioning grade l0. For every type of activity participation, participants showed more preventth over time than non—participants in school achievement (GPA, high on] completion. college attendance and completion), feelings of school elonging, and self—esteem. These effects were particularly strong for participation ti competitive team sports but also emerged for participation in school clubs, chool performing arts programs, and school leadership activities. Involvement in unteer activities and faith based activity programs predicted higher high school hievement well lowered rates of drinking and drug use. All of these effects ‘ ld even when grade 10 levels on the dependent measure, as well as scores on the ifferential Aptitude Test and mother’s education were controlled. Interestingly, {ch school sport participation also predicted higher income and better jobs at 25. Finally, there was no evidence of declines in the benefits of participation as doleseents participated in more activities. In every case except sports, there was inear increase in the indicators of positive functioning with increasing numbers activities. In addition, the benefits increased linearly as the range of activity pes broadened. Participation in sports did show a leveling off ofbenefits following icipation in two competitive team sports. Together. these last two results suggest at participating in a wider range of activities is more beneficial than participating more team sports. One troubling finding did emerge: participation in competitive athletics redicted increases in alcohol use during the high school years. This change, Qwever. was not reflected in either drug use or cigarette smokingmboth of which 'ere less frequent among athletes than non—athletes. It is likely that the increase in milking reflects the peer culture of athletes in US. high schools at the time of this tidy. Interestingly, this difference in alcohol consumption disappeared by two I rs post‘high school for two reasons: the mean levels of all students going on to Ollege caught up to the athletes’ level of drinking, and the mean level of drinking lined for those high school athletes who did not go on to college. 'llnmrds a reconciliation. The quantitative findings summarized above are W should these results be viewed in light of qualitative evidence demonstrating hat the scheduling of organized activities presents a challenge for middle—class 'lies ('Lareau, 2003; Lareau & Weininger, this volume)? One obvious possibility he quantitative and qualitative research is not in conflict. It is entirely OSSible that children’s organized activity schedules can be challenging—even “densome——for some families and that such participation is beneficial Dnetheless. :3“ e: H 214 MAHONEY & BCCLE A second possibility is that the qualitative and quantitative method; a w' somewhat different facets of the phenomenon. Quantitative research has seldq considered how activity participation affects family—level processes and the exisfin qualitative research provides a limited accounting of such processes across l'amili with children who differ in their amount of participation or in terms oi children adjustment. Investigations that marry these approaches should be fruitful. A final possibility is that parenting behaviors characterizing some inid‘dl class families may lead to adjustment difficulties for children, and organized activiu have been confused with these behaviors. For example, one recent study of affine families (Luthar, Shoum, 8: Brown, 2006) shows that perceived parenting (cg, criticism, achievement pressure), rather than organized activities, predi psychological distress and substance use in young persons. However, it seem reasonable to assume that if organized activities are. a focus of such parentm then participation could be a catalyst in the development of these negati outcomes. Research is available to show that for some young athletes, perceiv pressure from parents to participate and meet expectations is a source ot‘competiti stress (e. g.,Averill & Power, l995; Leticia Hoyle, 1995; Scanlan, 1984), Consiste with the idea 01’ OS, this increased level of stress is particularly likeiy for childr‘ and adolescents who are participating at the highest levels of sport competitio‘ Heightened stress and perceived parental pressure are two of the most comm reasons athletes and musicians give for dropping out of their sports: or mus activities (Fredricks et al., 2002). However, this is not true of the majority of athlet and musicians. in fact, many high school athletes and musicians site support f _ their parents and peers two of the main reasons they continue participa‘ throughout their high school years. Other reasons for continued participati, include high expectations for success, great intrinsic enjoyment of the activ and the centrality of the activity for one’s personal and social identit _ Accordingly, an important direction to pursue is chiid and parent motivation goals, values, and expectations concerning organized activity participa as they relate to family processes and child adjustment (e.g., Duda, 199 Eecles, Wigt‘ield, & Schiel'ele, 1998;1'i‘redricks & Eccles, 2005; Jacobs, Vernon, Eccles, 2005). J r C3 {3 or p- {3‘ I n H $2.. t” is a Lack of Organized Activity Participation Detrimenta for Low—income Chiidren ? We noted at the outset that children from low—income families are less likel participate in organized activities. As an example, the 2000 Census shows th children in poverty are about half as likely to participate in sports, clubs, or lesson compared to children from families at ieast 200% above the poverty thres , (Lugaila, 2003). Time use and ethnographic research provide converging eviden on this point (Lareau & Weininger, this volume; Larson St Verma, l 999),, ()KUANILEDAC’i'lVl'l‘Y l’AR’l‘lCll’Al‘lON FORCHILDREN 215 Limited availability, and affordability of organized activities in low- come areas coupled with parents’ work schedules are established barriers to articipation (e.g., Casey, Ripke. & Huston, 2005; Lareau & Weininger, this volume; ahoney, Larson, & Eccles, 2005). With reference to access and availability, for sample, the gap in supply vs. demand of organized activities in low—income areas— both in terms of current: provisions and the funding to sustain existing aetivities~ s documented (ega Afterschool Alliance, 2005; Mahoney & Zigler, 2006). Thus, many cases lowdncome parents and their children want to he more involved in ganized activities but are not able (Lareau & Weininger, this volume). For instance, ata from the Yale Study of Children ’s After—School Time (Y—CAST)—»~a longitudinal udy of after~school time for children from poor families (Table 13 .3)—shows that 0st parents believe their child should spend more time in organized activities ports, clubs, lessons) (Table 13.4). Parents” belief that their child spends too uch time in organized activities was nearly absent. able 13.3 emographz’c Characteristics of Participants from. the Yale Study of Children’s fter~school Time articipants '1 st» to 3rd—grade students from 3 public schools onsent Rate / Sample Size 73% / N 2 599 udy Design 4—year longitudinal; biannual assessments Juld Race/Ethnicity African American 36% European American 10% Hispanic 50% Asian 02% Other 02% Mtylhreshold 1 Under 50% 22% 5l~100% 35% lOl~l75% 27% Above 175% l6% irnary Caregiver Not Married 58% imary Caregiver Employed 54% " ance/lnconie Support 72% Editin Annual Household income $l (7,794 ‘ 7aniily Size 4.4 ._. 0‘ .._. H ("D y r f ,. (I) n» < o E Q o) m if ased on poverty thresholds from the 2002 Census. ‘ les all household income (earnings. public assistance, compensation, etc.) i E 216 MAHounv & ECC Table 13.4 Parent Beliefs About Child ’5 Time Spent in After—school Activities (N : 402); Parent Beliefs (Proportion of Parents) Activity Not Enough Time Right Amount of Time Too Much Ti WWW Homework .16 .79 .05 Watching Television .02 .64 ’ .34 Household Chores .23 .74 .03 Caring for Siblings .16 .78 .06 Religious Activities .33 .64 .03 Organized Sports .59 .40 .0] Organized Clubs .56 .42 .02 Organized Lessons .56 .43 .Ol a 8. The fact that children from low—income families show relatively low a of organized activity participation raises two interrelated concerns. First. orv‘ activities can provide developmental supports for lowaincome children with workin parents through the provision of a safe and supervised context. Secon participation in such activities is linked to a reduced likelihood that low—incom: children will develop certain adjustment problems associated with socioeconor disadvantage. Drawing on recent findings from the Y—CAST study, we outline empirical base for these concerns. _ Children who spend relatively large amounts of their free time in unstructur activities (i.e., “hanging out”, driving in cars. con gregatin g at unstructured yo: centers) are at risk for developing antisocial and criminal behaviors (e.g.. Mahon Stattin, & Lord, 2004; Osgood et 31., 1996; Richardson. RadziszeWska. Dent; Flay, 1993). The likelihood of such outcomes is greater for children whose aft school arrangement is predominated by a lack of adult supervision (i c. self car and those living in socioeconomic disadvantaged areas (Pettit, Bates, Dodgc,_& Meece, 1999). Although the amount of self care experienced by children from lo and middle—income families is not vastly different (Ehrle & Anderson Moore, 1999 Vandell & Shumow, 1999). this arrangement may be of greater consequence : poor children. ‘ Lord and Mahoney (2006; Mahoney, 2005) examined the interaction betwe neighborhood crime levels and after—school supervision in relation to t development of academic performance and aggression. Official crime reports w used to classify the census blocks in which Y—CAST participants lived as eithe high or average with respect to the level of crime (no areas in the city couldb characterized as low crime in comparison to regional or national crime rates). 0 a two—year interval, children living in high—crime areas showed significant decrca in academic performance and increases in aggression compared to those in averag crime areas. This was true after controlling for multiple demographic dimensions the census blocks and children’s social—academic adjustment at the outset of study. (1 5 ,... N ,l 3. UKUANlLb'DACl'lVl l'Y PAKl‘lClPA'l’iUN FUR CHlLDREN 217 However, the risks associated with living in a hi ghwcrime area were especially marked for children whose primary after-school arrangement was self—care. By contrast, children whose primary arrangement was after-school program participation were significantly buffered against the risks of living in a high—crime area. F or example, reading achievement differences between children in after—school programs and those in self—care were equivalent to about two thirds of a school year in expected gains. Mahoney (2005) showed the associated buffering also applies to the development of aggression. The findings suggest that organized activities provide an important safety and supervision function for low—income working families. In this circumstance, simple enrollment in organized activities appears beneficial compared to unsupervised after—school arrangements. Beyond enrollment, children from low~income families may benefit most when organized activity participation is a regular part of their after—school experience. For example, the benefits of after—school program participation are more apparent when attendance is consistent (i.e., more than 1 or 2 days in an average week) and sustained for a year or longer (e.g., Kane, 2004; Simpkins, Little, & Weiss, 2004; Welsh et a1. 2002). An example is provided by a longitudinal study of child obesity and after—school program participation using the Y—CAST data set (Mahoney, Lord. & Carryl, 2005a). Consistent with risks of poverty and minority status, 22% of children in this sample were clinically obese at age 5. By age 8, 29% of the sample was obese. However, the body mass index (BMI) of children who showed regular and sustained attendance in after-school programs increased significantly less compared to children in other after—school arrangements. The BMl difference translated into significant differences in rates of clinical obesity. The study also found evidence of a dosage~related effect whereby BMl decreased linearly over time with greater attendance in after-school programs. The explanation likely involves the controlled eating environment and/or physical exercise common to after-school programs (of, Vandell et at, 2005). An implication is that, for some Outcomes, benefits of organized activities may not be evident unless participation is a regular part of children‘s after~sehool experience. On this score, the supportive role ofparents seems critical (Simpkins, Davis—Kean. & Eccles, 2006). Finally. the extent to which organized activities relate to positive development for children from low—income families can be expected to depend on their value and ‘_'motivation for participation. To this end, discussion of a third aspect of participation—engagement-v—is pertinent. By engagement we refer to the child’s level of enjoyment, interest, and effort in organized activities (and other developmental contexts) (Larson, 2000; Weiss, Little, & Bouffard, 2005). High levels of engagement (rather than psychological distress) are typical of organized activity participation; however, high engagement does not characterize the EXperience of all participants. Because individual differences in activity engagement predict the extent to which benefits are observed for poor children (Mahoney, Lord, Carryl, 2005b), understanding the reasons behind this individual variability is important. Program quality and content relate to engagement for children from 2 l 8 MAHONEY 35 ECCLE low-income families {Mahoney, 2005) and children’s social experiences in gut, programs are also important (Pierce, Hamm, & Vandell, 1999). Yet, little is know about the role of family and parenting in this process. The Y—CAST data set show 5,, that individual differences in after~school program engagement correlate positively with the frequency of parent involvement (i.c., parent meetings and conversatie with program staff, attending program events) (1"{1 13) = .32, p < .01 ) and how we ‘ parents and staff know one another (1' (130) = .22, p : .Ol). Nonetheless, the laekbf information about the ways in which parents contribute to the quality of Children experiences in organized activities represents a gap in the existing knowledge base. Filling the gap will require additional longitudinal research involving qualitative and quantitative methods designed specifically to do so. Summary and Conclusion '1‘ he data reviewed here support three conclusions. First, there is little eviden that organized activity participation contributes to an over—schedulin g of children that is detrimental to their psychological, social, or educational well—being. lndee most of the findings show that children’s adjustment becomes increasingly positive with greater amounts of organized activity participation. Second, there merit J the concern that children from low—income families are under—involved in organized activities. F or these children, a lack of participation is linked to increased adj ustment problems associated with socioeconomic disadvantage. Finally, support and: encouragement from parents ordinarily play a positive role in children‘s activitv enrollment, attendance, and engagement. However, when children experience stre and perceived pressure from parents connected to their participation they are more likely to drop out of organized activities. Future research will need to provide a better understanding of how the expectations and values that children and parents hold for organized activity participation interact with parenting style amounts of activity participation, and child adjustment. Acknowledgment Findings presented in this chapter were supported, in part, by grants to the first author from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (ROI HD MH39909) and the Smith Richardson Foundation. l3. ORGAN lZED ACTIVITY PARTlCl PA l ‘lUN EUR CHmDKbN 2 1 9 References Afterschool Alliance (2005). Working families and cg‘terschool. A special report from America After 3PM: A household survey on aftemchool in America. Retrieved September 18, 2005 from httn://www.afterschoolalliance.oramress archives flogging Familiesttpdl'. Averill, P. M., & Power. T. G (1995). Parental attitudes and children’s experiences in soccer: Correlates of effort and enjoyment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 18, 263—976. Barber, B. L., Eccles. J . S., 8: Stone, M. R. (2001). Whatever happened to the jock, the brain, and the princess? Young adult pathways linked to adolescent activity involvement and , social identity. Journal (y‘Adolescent Research, I 6. 429455. , Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways ofyouth in our time. New York: Cambridge University Press. ; Casey. D. M., Ripke, M. N, & Huston, A. C. (2005). Activity participation and the well— being of children and adolescents in the context of welfare reform. In .1. L. Mahoney, R. W’. Larson, & J. S. Eccles (Eds), Organized activities as contexts ofdevelopment: Extracurricular activities, after—school and community programs (pp. 65—84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dubois, D. L, Holloway, B. 13., Valentine, J. C, & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta—analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157—197. -’ Duda, .l. L. (1996). Maximizing molivation in sport and physical education among children and adolescents: The case [or greater task involvement. Quest, 48, 290—302. ‘C Eccles. .l. & Barber. B. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kinds of extracunicular involvement matters? Journal ofAdolescent Research, 14, 1043. Eccles, J. 5., Barber, B. L., Stone, M., & Hunt, J. (2003). Extracurricular activities and I adolescent developmcnt. Journal oj'SoCial Issues, 59, 10443. 7 Eccles, l. S., & Templeton, J. (2002). Extracurricular and other after-school activities for youth. Review of Educational Research, 26, l 13—l 80. r .;. J. S., Wigt'ield, A., St Schiefelc, U. (l998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, ancipersonality development (pp. IOU—1073). New York: John Wiley 8: Sons. Ehrle, L, & Anderson Moore, K. (1999). 1997 NSAF benchmarking measures of child and family well—being. Methodology Reports No. 6. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Fletcher, A. C., Elder, G. H., In, & Mekos, D. (2000). Parental influences on adolescent involvement in community activities. Journal of Research on adolescence, l 0, 2948. Fredricks, J.A., Alfeldeiro, C., Hruda, L, Eccles, J. Patrick, H., & Ryan, A. (2002). A qualitative exploration of adolescents’ commitment to athletics and the arts. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 68-«97. Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Family socialization, gender, and sport motivation and involvement. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 27, 3—3 1. Gilbert, 5. (1999, August 3). For some children, it’s an afterschool pressure cooker. New York Times (p. 7). [T] o c _. rs , 220 MAHONEY & ECCLES Jacobs, J. Vernon. M. K., & Eccles. J. (1995). Activity choices in middle chilthQ The roles of gentler, self—beliefs, and parent’s influence. In J. L. Mahoney, R. W. & J . S. Eccles (Eds), Organized activities as contexts ofdevelopment: Extracurricular activities, afletvschool and community programs (pp. 235—254). Mahwah, NJ: JZrlhau “ Kane, T. J. (2004). The impact of after—school programs: Interpreting the results (ifbe recent evaluations. Retrieved July 27, 2005, from htt ://Www.wt rantloundam usr doc/Alter—school paperpdl Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childltoocls: Class, race, andfamily Berkeley: University of California Press. ' “ Larson. R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55, 170—183. Larson, R. W., & Verma, S. (l999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world: Work. play, and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 12 70l—736. Left. S. 8.. & Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Young athletes’ perceptions of parental support and pressure. Journal of Youth at/szdolescence, 24, 1877203. " Lord. H., & Mahoney, J. L. (2006). Neighborhood crime and self care: Risks t'or aggressiofi and lower academic performance. Manuscript submitted for publication. Lugaila, T. A. (2003). A child’s day: 2000 (Selected indicators of child wc11~bcin Curre Population Reports, P70-89. Washington. DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Luthar. S. 8., Shoum. K. A.. & Brown, P. J. (2006)Extracurricular involvement among affluent youth: A scapegoat for “ubiquitous achievement pressures”? Detrelopmcntal Psychology, 42, 583—697. Luther, S. 3., & Becker, B. E. (2002). Privileged but pressured‘.7 A study of affluent youth, Child Development. 73, 1593-1610. f Luther, S. S., & Latendrcsse, S. J. (2005 a). Children of the affluent: Challenges to well—being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14. 49-63. ‘ Luthar, S. S., & Latendresse, J. (2005b). Comparable “risks” at the socioeconomic stat extremes: Preadolescents’ perceptions o l' parenting. Development and Psychopatlzola I 7, 207—230. Mahoncy, J . L. (2000). Participation in school extracurricular activities as a moderator in the development of antisocial patterns. Child Development. 7], 502‘516. Mahoney. J. L. (2005, July). Beyond achievement: Possibilities for and outcomes of after« school program participation. Paper presented at the School of the 213‘ Century National Conference. New Haven, CT. I ‘ Mahoney J. L... & Cairns. R. B. (1997). Do extracurricular activities protect against early school dropout? Developmental Psychology 32. 241—253. Mahoney, J. L., Cairns. B. D., & Farmer, T. (2003). Promoting interpersonal competence and educational success through extracurricular activity participation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 409418. 'y Mahoney. J. L., Larson, R. W.. & Eccles, .l. (Eds) (2005). Organized activities as contexts of development: Extract!rricular activities, after-school and community programs} Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ' Mahoney, J. l.., Lord, H., & Carryl, (20053). Al'terschool program participation and the development of child obesity and peer acceptance. Applied Developmental .Science. ,._ 2027215. [—i S m C 1 3. ORGANIZED ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION FOR CHILDREN 22 l Mahoney, I. L., Lord, II, & Carryl, E. (2005b). An ecological analysis of after~school program participation and the development of academic performance and motivational attributes for disadvantaged children. Child Development, 76, 811—825. Mahoncy, I. L., Stattin, H., & Lord, H. (2004). Participation in unstructured youth recreation centers and the development of antisocial behavior: Selection processes and the moderating role of deviant peers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 553—560. Mahoney, .l. L., & Zigler, F. (2006). Translating science to policy under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Lessons from the national evaluation of the 21“—Centui‘y Community Learning Centers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 282—294, McNeal, R. B. (1998). High school extracunicular activities: Closed structures and stratifying patterns of participation. The Journal QfEdLlCflllOflfll Research, 9], 183—191. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Committee on Community—Level Programs for Youth. 3. Eccles & I. A. Gootman (Eds) Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Noonan, D. (2001, January 29). Stop stressing me: For a growing number of kids, the whirlwind of activities can be overwhelming. How to spot burnout. Newsweek (pp. 54—55). Osgood. D. W., Wilson, I. K, O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, .I. G, & Johnston, L. D. (1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 6], 635—655. Pettit, G. S., Bates, .l. E, Dodge, K. A., & Meece, D. W. (1999). The impact of after’school peer contact on early adolescent externalizing problems in moderated by parental monitoring, perceived neighborhood safety, and prior adjustment. Child Development, 70, 768—778. Pierce, K. M., Hamm, I. V., & Vandell, D. L. (1999). Experiences in after-school programs and children’s adjustment in first—grade classrooms. Child Development, 70, 756—767. Richardson, J., Radziszewska, 8., Dent, C., & Flay, B. (1993). Relationship between after— school care of adolescents and substance use, risk taking, depressed mood, and academic achievement. Pediatrics, 92, 32~28. Rosenfield, A. (2003). Over'scheduling children and hyper—patch ting. Retreived August 30. 2005 from http://WWW.hypgjjarenting.com/talkbriclthtm Scanlan, T. K. (1984). Competitive sports and the child athlete. In J. M. Silva III & R. S. Weinberg (Eds), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 118429). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Simpkins, S. C., Little, P. M. D., & Weiss, H. B. (2004). Understanding and measuring attendance in out—of—school programs. Retrieved .luly 27, 2005, from http:// WWW. gse.harvardedu/hfro/proiects/afterschool/resources/issuebrieW .htrnl Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., 6; Eccles, I. S. (2005). Parents‘ socializing behavior and children’s participation in math, science, and computer out-ofnschool activities. Applied Developmental Science, 9, 14—30. 222 MAHONEY & ECCLES} Sirnpkins, D., Fredricks. .l., Davis—Kean, P., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Healthy mind, healthy habits: The influence of activity involvement in middle Childhood. In A. C. Huston &_ M. N. Ripke (Eds), Developmental contexts in middle childhood (pp. 283302.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Vandell, D. L., Pierce, K. M., & Dadisman, K. (2005). Out-of—school settings as a developmental context for children and youth. in R. Kail (Ed) Advances in child development. Vol. 33. Oxford: Elsevier. Vandell, D. L., & Posner, .l. K. (l999). Conceptualization and measurement of children’s after-school environments. in. S. L. Friedman & T. Waehs (Eds), Measuring environments across the lifespan: Emerging methods and concepts (pp. 167M196); Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation. Vandell, D. L, Shcrnoi'f, D. J., Pierce, K. M., Bolt, D. M., Dadisman, K., & Brown, R. B, (2005). Activities, engagement, and emotion in after—school programs. in H. B. Weiss, P. M. D. Little, & S. M. Bouffard (Issue Eds.) &. G. (l. Noam (Editor—in-Chiet), New directions in youth development: Vol. 105. Participation in youthprograms." Enrollment, attendance, and engagement (pp. 121429). San Francisco: Jossey—Bass. Vandell, D. L., & Shumow, L. (1999). After—school child care programs. The Future of Children, 9 (pp. 64—80). Los Altos, CA: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Weiss, H. B., Little, P. M. D., & Bouffard, M. (2005). More than just being there; Balancing the participation equation. In ll. B. Weiss, P. M. D. Little, & M. Bouffard 1 (Issue Eds.) & G. G. Noam (Editor—ineChief), New directions in youth development: Vol. [05. Participation in youth programs: Enrollment, attendance. and engagement (pp. 15731). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Welsh. M. E, Russell. C. A., Williams, 1., Reisner, E. R., & White, R. N. (2002). Promoting learning and school attendance through aflerwschool programs: Student-1e v’e/ rhanges in educational performance across TAS C is First Three Years. Washington, DC: Poliq Studies Associates. Inc. DISPARITIES 1N SCHOOL READINESS How Families Coniribufe To Transitions into Schooi EDiTED BY ALAN BOOTH a ANN C. CROUTER Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Taylor&Francis Group New York London Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Lawrence Erlliaum Associates Taylor & Francis Group Taylor 84 Francis Group 270 Madison Avenue 2 Park Square New York, NY 10016 Milton Park, Abingdon Oxon OX14 4RN © 2008 by Taylor 84 Francis Group, LLC Lawrence Erlbaum Associates is an imprint of'l'aylor & Francis Group, an lnforma business Printed in the United States ofArnerica on acid—free paper 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 International Standard Book Nuinbervllfi: 978—0-8058—59812 (Softcover) 9780780586435 9 (l iardeover) No part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilining, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to in {ringer Library of Congress Cataloging—ianublication Data Disparities in School readiness : how families contribute to transitions into school/ editors Alan Booth and Ann C. Crouter p, cm. w (The Penn State University family issues syrnposia series) includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN»13: 978-0305859812 (alk. paper) 1, Readiness for sciioolenited States. 2. Child development—~United States, I. Booth, Alan, 1935— iii Crouter, Ann C. LBll32 ,D57 2007 372.21’8ndc22 2007014909 Visit the Taylor 84 Francis Web site at htip://www.taylomndfranciscam and the LEA \Veb site at 1.1L‘r/I_..w ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/21/2012 for the course PYSC 521 taught by Professor Dr.zarrett during the Spring '11 term at South Carolina.

Page1 / 18

mahoney08 - 13 ORGANIZED ACTIVITY PARTIClPATlON FOR...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 18. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online