ÜBERMAD

GoalsReview

After-school programmes for personal and social skills may raise grades and test scores.

HelpedThe short version

Across 25 studies, youths in these programmes got better grades than youths who did not attend.

A girl on school steps lifts her marked test sheet to eye level while a calm youth leader sits beside her.
25
studies pooled

The review

  1. Who took part

    Its 68 studies covered children and teenagers aged 5 to 18, all in the United States. Most served elementary or middle-school pupils, and the paper does not give the total number of young people.

  2. What they did

    Adults ran these programmes after school, and they aimed to build personal and social skills. Comparison youths mostly did not attend, though some went to other activities. Most programmes lasted under a year.

  3. What happened

    Compared with other youths, those in programmes showed better self-image, school bonds, social behaviour and fewer problem behaviours. Test scores and grades also rose, but drug use and school attendance did not differ clearly. Published studies gained more than unpublished ones, so some results may be missing.

What the review found

  1. Helped

    Across 25 studies, youths in these programmes got better grades than youths who did not attend.

    Pooled analysis of 25 studies · vs youths who did not attend the programme · ⚠ signs that small negative studies went unpublished; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

  2. Helped

    Across 20 studies, youths in these programmes scored higher on achievement tests than youths who did not attend.

    Pooled analysis of 20 studies · vs youths who did not attend the programme · ⚠ signs that small negative studies went unpublished; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

  3. No difference

    Across 21 studies, youths in these programmes went to school no more often than youths who did not attend.

    Pooled analysis of 21 studies · vs youths who did not attend the programme · behaviour was recorded · ⚠ signs that small negative studies went unpublished; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

How solid is this?

  • Unclear how groups were picked
  • Whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
  • Mixes trials with other kinds of study
  • Signs that small negative studies went unpublished

Source

A Meta-Analysis of After-School Programs That Seek to Promote Personal and Social Skills in Children and Adolescents (2010)

DOI: 10.1007/s10464-010-9300-6 (opens in a new tab)

More on goals

See all