Are Kids Too Busy

8/10/2019 Are Kids Too Busy

1/7

R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E

Are Kids Too Busy? Early AdolescentsPerceptions of Discretionary Activities,Overscheduling, and StressSTEPHEN L. BROWN, PhDa BRANDYE D. NOBILING, PhD, CHESb JAMES TEUFELc DAVID A. BIRCH, PhD, CHESd

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The activity patterns of children, especially after-school patterns, are receiving more professional attention.However, evidence regarding the value of various activities in childrens lives is contradictory. The purpose of this study was to

assess perceptions of discretionary activities, overscheduling, and levels of stress from adolescents perspective.

METHODS: A sample of 882 children, ages 9 to 13, recruited at 9 health education centers in the United States was selectedfor this study. Children answered questionnaires using remote, handheld devices. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics

and multivariate logistic regression. The outcomes of interest were activity-based stress and desire for more free time.

RESULTS: The primary predictor for the desire for more free time was hours of screen time (television, computer, videogames): those who reported 3 or more hours were nearly 3 times more likely to desire more free time. Further, children who

chose their own activities experienced more activity-related stress than those who shared decisions with parents. The single

greatest predictor of activity-related stress was the reported number of hours spent on homework. Students who averaged at

least 2 hours on homework per night were nearly twice as likely to report frequent activity-related stress.

CONCLUSION: Parents of school-aged children should assess activity-related stress and the degree to which children perceivethey are busy. Teachers, school counselors, and school administrators should be aware of these perceptions as they are making

decisions regarding school schedules and should teach personal skills such as time management and stress control.

Keywords: children and adolescent health; perceived stress; overscheduling of activities.

Citation: Brown SL, Nobiling BD, Teufel J, Birch DA. Are kids too busy? Early adolescents perceptions of discretionary activities,

overscheduling, and stress. J Sch Health J Sch Health. 2011; 81: 574-580.

Received on February 12, 2010

Accepted on September 2, 2010

With increasing rates of childhood overweight,more attention has been given to the activitypatterns of children, especially after-school patterns.

Studies have shown that increases in television

viewing and homework among children since the

1970s are leading to more sedentary lifestyles.13

According to the Youth Risk Behavior Study in 2007,

more than a third of adolescents watched television for

3 or more hours on an typical school day,4 and about

one fourth played video games or used computers

for nonscholastic purposes 3 or more hours on an

average school day.

4

Television viewing of more than3 to 4 hours a day has been linked to lower school

performance.5

A recent study by the Youth Media Campaign

Longitudinal Survey (YMCLS) explored the potential

associations among limit-setting, physical activity, and

screen time among 9-13-year-olds.6 This study found

aAssociate Professor, ([email protected]), SouthernIllinois University, 475Clocktower Drive(Mailcode4632),Carbondale, IL 62901.bAssistant Professor, ([email protected]), Salisbury University, 1100Camden Ave,Salisbury, MD.

positive associations among age, male gender, black

race/ethnicity, low-income, and hours of screen time.

Conversely, the study found negative associations

among physical activity (both free-time and organized

activities), parental limits on screen time, and

likelihood to exceed 2 hours of screen time each

day.6 Associations found in this study raise questions

regarding the parental role in screen time restriction

and parental control over other daily activities.

Findings like these have prompted questions about

what childrens schedules are really like. In a culture

where parents are encouraged to value their childrensautonomy,7 are children allowed to be involved in too

many activities? Are parents encouraging too many

activities? And, in addition to calorie imbalances, are

children and adolescents experiencing other undesir-

able side effects? To date, there has been little research

on childrens perceptions of stress and busyness.

574 Journal of School Health September 2011, Vol. 81, No. 9 2011, American School Health Association


2/7

Perhaps the most important study on childrens

time was conducted by Hofferth and Sandberg.7,8 It

investigated how children under the age of 13 spend

their time, and how variables such as parents level of

education, family size, and family dynamics affected

childrens school achievement. They categorized time

usage in 4 ways: (a) time spent in school settings;

(b) free play versus organized activities; (c) learning

activities outside the classroom; and (d) family activ-ities. Although television viewing time did not affect

scores of achievement tests of reading, writing, and

mathematics abilities, family time did.7 Children who

reported more family meal time were more proficient

identifying letters and reading words aloud, as well as

solving word problems. Family time also affected scores

of the behavioral index, which measures parental per-

ceptions of their childrens behavior problems. The

study also found that children with employed mothers

had less free time for both structured and unstructured

activities, primarily due to increased time in daycare

settings.7

Compared to teens in East Asia or Europe, American

teens spend more of their waking hours in discre-

tionary activities, 50% versus 25-35% in East Asia and

35-45% in Europe.5 Hofferth7 compared American

childrens lives in 1997 to those in 1981, concluding

that children have lost 12% of regular free time, 25%

of play activities, and 50% of unstructured activities.

Conversely, contemporary children spend 50% more

time involved with structured sports and homework.7

Research regarding the value of structured versus

unstructured activity is unclear. Some studies report

mostly positive outcomes from structured activities,

while others have shown associations with increasedstress and overscheduling conflicts. Similarly, while

a few studies suggest that unstructured (and unsuper-

vised) play can lead to delinquency, others argue that

depriving children of unorganized activities dampens

creativity and decisionmaking.9,10

Social scientists as early as Piaget believed that

unstructured play was an opportunity for vari-

ous forms of development, including social, lin-

guistic, cognitive, and emotional. Research suggests

that unstructured play is crucial in providing chil-

dren opportunities to acquire resiliency skills.11,12

Wenner13 gives 3 propositions to support the need

for free play in childhood: (1) Childhood play iscrucial for social, emotional, and cognitive develop-

ment. (2) Imaginative and rambunctious free play,

as opposed to games or structured activities, is the

most essential type. (3) Kids and animals that do not

play when they are young may grow into anxious,

cDoctoral Candidate, ([email protected]), SouthernIllinois University, 475Clocktower Drive(Mailcode4632), Carbondale, IL 62901.dProfessor, ([email protected]), Department of HealthEducationand Promotion,East Carolina University, 3106Carol BelkBuilding, Greenville, NC27858-4353.

Address correspondence to: Brandye D. Nobiling, Assistant Professor, ([email protected]), Salisbury University, 1100CamdenAve,Salisbury, MD.

socially maladjusted adults13 (p. 24). His last point

alludes to the work of psychiatrist Stuart Brown, who

interviewed approximately 6000 individuals regarding

their childhoods. Browns data suggest a clear asso-

ciation between the amount of free play as children

and adjustment and happiness as adults. Lawson5 sug-

gests that the best approach for development is likely a

combination of structured and unstructured activities

that can teach personal and social skills, develop goodhabits, and allow kids to play as an outlet to combat

daily stressors.

This study investigated early adolescents percep-

tions of the degree of busyness and stress in their

own lives. Eight research questions guided the study.

Although not specifically written to measure the per-

formance indicators related to the National Health

Education Standards, 3 items generally addressed 3

standards (NHES) for grades 3-5 and 6-8 (Table 1).14

METHODS

This study was conducted as part of KidsHealth Kids-

Poll. The project was a collaborative effort among a

university research team, the Nemours Foundation,

the National Association of Health Education Centers

(NAHEC), and participating NAHEC member, health

education centers.

Subjects

Following institutional review board approval, chil-

dren aged 9 to 13 years, who were students at schools

attending classes in 9 health education centers across

6 states, were recruited for the study. Prior to each

schools visit to the center, officials at the schoolwere contacted for permission to administer the sur-

vey to students during the visit to the center. If

the school agreed, passive parent permission for the

survey was obtained with each parents permission

for the student to visit the center. As a sample of

convenience, demographic data for the students in

the sample approximated National Center for Edu-

cation Statistics (NCES) statistics for the same age

group. Students in the group ranged in age from

9 to 13, with an average age of 10.3; 53% were

boys.

Other demographic data were collected at the school

level, rather than from each student. A total of 883students came from 21 schools. At the school level,

61% were White, 23% Black, 13% Hispanic, 2%

Asian or Pacific Islander, and 1% Native American.

The US Census Bureau Metropolitan Statistical Area

(MSA) was used to measure locale. Seventeen percent

of schools were in large city centers, 9% midsize city

Journal of School Health September 2011, Vol. 81, No. 9 2011, American School Health Association 575


3/7

Table 1. Relationship Between Research Questions and National Health Education Standards15 (NHES)

NHESResearch Question

Item

Number

1 How many non-school-relatedactivities are children involvedin?

2 Who chooses childrensactivities?

3 Whatis theaverage amount ofdailyscreentime(ie, TV, videogames,

computer)childrenengagein?

4 Whatis the average time spent doing homeworkduring the school

week?5 Whatarechildrensperceptions of the amount of time dedicatedto

homeworkregularly?

Standard2.8.4:Analyze how theschool andcommunity canimpact

healthpractices andbehaviors

htlaehlanosrepstcapmitnemnorivnewohezylanA:3.8.1dradnatS?emiteerferomdahyehthsiwnerdlihcoD6

7 Dochildrenfeel stressed?

8 Whatwouldchildrenchoosetodowithmorefreetime? Standard5.8.7: Analyze the outcomes of a health-relateddecision

centers, 28% large city fringe, 5% midsize city fringe,

1% large towns, 18% small towns, and 9% rural.

Average school size was 501.

Instrumentation and Procedure

Instrument items were not on a scale; therefore,internal reliability was not applicable. To address

face validity of the survey, the research team along

with experts in the area of child development, school

health education, and stress in children constructed the

instrument. These experts represented both the edu-

cation and medical professions. In addition, the final

version of the instrument was reviewed by school

principals and teachers prior to administration. The

instrument was piloted with 1 class at 1 participating

center. The data collection method, using handheld

devices, had been used at all of the participating cen-

ters in previous KidsHealth KidsPoll studies. Before the

actual administration of the questionnaire, studentswere allowed to practice with the handheld devices.

The 10-item child-friendly questionnaire included

2 demographic items and 8 construct-related items.

Students answered each item using handheld data

collection devices. Items on the instrument addressed

each of the studys 8 research questions, including the

amount and type of activities in which participants are

involved. In this study, child participants were told the

word activity meant activities that are planned or

organized, such as sports, lessons, teams, clubs, groups,

scouts, or tutoring.

Data Analysis

Data collected with handheld response devices were

imported into the Statistical Program for the Social

Sciences (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). An alpha level

of .05 was established a priori. Descriptive statistics

such as proportions, central tendency, and variance

were calculated. Inferential statistics included Pearson

product correlation and multivariate logistic regression

for nominal data assessing odds ratios for outcomes

based on predictive variables.

RESULTS

Kids Busyness Levels

The vast majority (62%) of students claim that they

choose their own out-of-school activities, followed by

29% who say they use cooperative decisionmaking

with their parents. Only 9% said their parents chosemost of their activities. Older students were more likely

to claim autonomy over their activities.

Reports of screen time were bimodal; about half

reported 2 or fewer hours of screen time, while over

40% reported more than 3 hours. Boys were more

likely to report more than 3 hours. Older students were

also more likely to report 3 or more hours of screen

time. There were no gender differences among those

who chose the activities or the number of activities.

More than three fourths (82%) of participants

claimed to have an hour or less of homework per

night. Ten percent said they have about 2 hours, and

8% reported having 3 or more hours per night. Neither

gender, age, who chose activities, or number of activ-

ities was associated with time spent on homework.

Interestingly, most participants either said their

school gave the right amount (39%) or way too

much homework (36%). There were no differences by

gender, number of activities, or who chose activities.

About the same proportion of those who reported


4/7

Table 2. Frequencies of Responses by Gender and Age for Items 1-4

Gender Age

Total (%) Boys (%) Girls (%) 9 (%) 10 (%) 11 (%) 12+ (%)

Activitiesbesides school:

None 14 14 15 11 15 13 25

One 25 26 23 34 24 21 19

Two 22 23 21 22 24 21 17

Three 15 13 17 9 13 18 15Four or more 24 24 24 24 24 27 24

Who chooses activities?

My parents/guardians 9 10 6 14 8 7 3

We both choose 29 28 31 33 29 27 28

I choose most activities 62 62 63 53 63 66 69

How manyhours of screen

timeon most schooldays?,

Less than 1 hour 20 15 23 21 23 21 9

1 hour 15 14 17 19 17 12 11

2 hours 16 14 19 16 16 18 15

3 hours 7 7 6 9 6 7 3

3 or more hours 42 50 35 35 38 42 62

Hours of homework on schooldays:

Less than 1 hour 59 59 58 64 56 61 53

1 hour 23 22 23 21 26 21 25

2 hours 10 11 10 7 11 11 12

3 or more hours 8 8 9 8 7 7 10

2 tests statistically significant for age (p < .05); N = 882.

2 tests statistically significant for gender (p < .05).

activity (32% vs. 19%), whereas girls were more apt to

select time with friends (52% vs. 39%). Older students

were also more likely to name time with friends (9 =

37%, 10 = 43%, 11 = 49%, 12+ = 58%) (Table 3).

To statistically control for intercorrelation among

variables, odds ratios were calculated using multivari-

ate logistic regression. The outcomes of interest wereactivity-based stress and desire for more free time.

When analyzed together, the primary predictor for

desire for more free time was hours of screen time.

Those who reported 3 or more hours of screen time

per day were nearly 3 times more likely to desire more

free time than those who reported 2 or fewer hours of

screen time.

When analyzed with the effect of the other vari-

ables, participants who said they cooperate with their

parents in choosing activities were less likely to be

frequently stressed about all they do than those

who either chose their own activities or whose parents

chose most of their activities. Further, having moreactivities, particularly 3 or more, doubled the likeli-

hood that children will say they are stressed by all they

do. Excessive screen time also doubled the likelihood of

frequent stress. The single greatest predictor of activity-

related stress was the reported number of hours spent

on homework. Students who said they average about

2 hours of homework per night were nearly twice as

likely to report frequent activity-related stress. Those

who said they do 3 or more hours per night were

almost 5 times as likely to report this stress (Table 4).

DISCUSSION

Results of average screen time reported in this study

are consistent with existing literature. Other studies

have found that children spend an average range

of 13-30 hours per week watching television.15,16

Participants most often recorded that if they had more

free time they would most likely choose to spend it

hanging out with friends. Since the term hanging

out is likely to involve unstructured activities, this

finding supports research indicating that children and

adolescents prefer free play.9,10,13 And although a few

research studies warn that excessive unstructured play

with peers may lead to delinquency,8 spending more

time with others can build interpersonal skills and

foster the development of social health.12

Studies have also linked levels of child busyness

to levels of parents busyness, implying that the

busier parents are, the busier their children tend to

be. Quist posits that if parents are the ones whoare too busy, perhaps the children are registered in

a myriad of organized activities because Mom and

Dad dont have the time in their schedule to spend

with them10 (p. 27). Clearly interventions including

parents are necessary to promote the importance

of spending quality and quantity time with their

children. Quantity time does not have to be structured;

deliberate activities, such as doing chores around the

house, going for a walk, or sitting outside together,

can offer many teaching moments. For quantity time to

Journal of School Health September 2011, Vol. 81, No. 9 2011, American School Health Association 577


5/7

Table 3. Frequencies of Responses by Gender and Agefor Items 5-8

Gender Age

Total (%) Boys (%) Girls (%) 9 (%) 10 (%) 11 (%) 12+ (%)

Doyouthink schoolgives you:

Somewhat or way too little homework 11 11 10 11 9 15 8

About right amount of homework 39 36 44 40 43 43 24

Somewhat too much homework 14 13 15 10 13 13 24

Way too much homework 36 40 31 39 35 29 44

Which matchesyour feelings:

Wish had a little or a lot less free time 4 3 4 4 3 4 2

Feel have the right amount of free time 18 16 22 22 17 18 14

Wish had a little more free time 17 15 20 13 20 17 17

Wish had a lot more free time 61 66 54 61 60 61 67

Howoftendoyoufeel stressed?

Never 10 11 7 10 11 10 5

Once in a while 26 24 29 33 27 25 17

Some of the time 23 23 24 18 23 23 29

Most of the time 17 16 18 17 15 18 23

Always 24 26 22 22 24 24 26

What wouldyoudo withmoretime?,

Play sports/physical activity 26 32 19 29 28 23 24

Spend time with family 13 12 15 12 16 15 5

Read 6 5 6 11 4 4 4

Hang out/play with friends 45 39 52 37 43 49 58

None of these 10 12 8 11 9 9

2 tests statistically significant for age (p < .05); N = 882.

2 tests statistically significant for gender (p < .05).

occur, parents and children alike need to unschedule

themselves5 (p. 27).

Future studies should explore childrens perceptions

of their parents busyness. Recent polling data17,18

have shown that many parents (especially middle-

class parents) have become increasingly aware and

concerned about these trends, yet feel powerless to

make changes and stem the tide. A Search Institute

poll found that 41% of parents said their child

being overscheduled in so many activities made

parenting difficult19 (p. 9). School and community

officials can also add to the problem of overscheduled

children by promoting numerous extracurricular

activities to children without considering the possible

consequences these activities may have on the family

unit.

New initiatives, such as Family Time First and Fam-

ily Time IN, community action initiatives developed

by Doherty20 and colleagues with Eden Prairie and

Southeast Minnesota community members, respec-

tively, have been developed to teach families how toincrease and prioritize family time. These community-

organizing approaches, though relatively new, expect

to strengthen the family by trying to prevent family

overscheduling and hyperactivity.20

Family mealtime has also been receiving more focus

as a research topic. Controlling for variables such as

income, family structure, and social class, frequency of

family mealtime is positively associated with childhood

well-being.21,22 Unfortunately there has been a decline

in the proportion of married-couple households who

eat dinner together.23 One study showed a decrease

from 50% in 1977 to 34% in 1999.7 Family structure

and age of children also influence family mealtime. For

instance, families where mothers are employed16 and

families whose children are older23 spend less time eat-

ing as a family. Investigating how societal family time

trends are filtered through cultural influences may

also deserve further exploration. For example, Whitefamilies spend less time eating together than Black and

Hispanic families, who in turn eat together less than

Asian families.22 All of these researches suggest that

the decline in family mealtime due to busier sched-

ules of children and parents may have implications for

children and parents alike.

These societal changes also show up in other parent-

child time interactions. For instance, children in male

breadwinner-female homemaker families read more

than children in any other types of families. The

researchers concluded that the differences were largely

predicted by the amount of time the parent had

available.7

Interestingly, the study found no significantassociation between homework during the elemen-

tary grades and academic achievement, meaning the

amount of homework given by elementary school

teachers predicts nothing in terms of childrens aca-

demic achievement. However, there was a significant

association with the amount of time spent reading

outside the classroom. All these perhaps suggest that

educators and parents should work together to ensure

that more homework time is devoted to reading at

home.



6/7

Table 4. OddsRatio (OR) (With 95% CI) for Wish for More Free

Time and Stressed Always or Most of the Time Because

ofTooMuch toDo

Wish for More

Free Time

Stressed Always or

Most of the TimeOR (CI) OR (CI)

Gender

Girls 1.0 1.0

Boys 1.3 (0.88-1.94) 1.1(0.77-1.54)

Age(years)

9 1.0 1.0

10 1.4 (0.82-2.30) 1.1 (0.72-1.79)

11 1.1 (0.68-1.91) 1.1 (0.70-1.80)

12+ 1.5(0.74-3.01) 1.2(0.66-2.08)

Who chooses activities?

Child 1.0 1.0

50/50 0.8 (0.53-1.27) 0.6 (0.40-0.90)

Parent 1.1 (0.52-2.36) 1.5 (0.78-2.78)

Number of activities

0 1.0 1.0

1 1.0 (0.50-2.03) 1.2 (0.59-2.28)

2 1.0 (0.51-2.12) 1.4 (0.73-2.82)

3 1.7 (0.77-3.90) 2.1

(1.01-4.23)4 or more 1.4 (0.68-2.90) 2.2 (1.13-4.29)

Hoursof homework


7/7

for example, may allow students to analyze outcomes

of health-related decisions (NHES, 5.8.7).14

Human Subjects Approval Statement

This study was approved by the institutional review

board at Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

REFERENCES

1. Forum of Child and Family Statistics. Americas children: key

national indicators of well-being. 2009. Available at: http://

www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables.asp. Accessed May

19, 2009.

2. Lowry R, Weschler H, Galuska DA, Fulton JE, Kann L. Televi-

sion viewing and its associations with overweight, sedentary

lifestyle, and insufficient consumption of fruits and vegetables

among US high school students: differences by race, ethnicity,

and gender. J Sch Health. 2002;72(10):413-421.

3. Robinson TM. Does television cause childhood obesity?JAMA.

1998;279(12):959-960.

4. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health

Promotion, Division of Adolescent and School Health.

YRBSS: Youth risk behavior surveillance system. Avail-able at: http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/index.htm.

Updated April 2, 2009. Accessed May 21, 2009.

5. Lawson RW. How U.S. children and adolescents spend

their time: what it does (and doesnt) tell us about their

development.Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2001;10(5):160-164.

6. Carlson SA, Fulton JE, Lee SM, Foley JT, Heitzler C, Huh-

man M. Influence of limit-setting and participation in physical

activity on youth screen time. Pediatrics. 2010;126(1):89-96.

7. Hofferth SH, Sandberg JF. How American children spend their

time.J Marriage Fam. 2001;63(2):295-308.

8. Newman PR, Newman BM. Development Through Life: A Psy-

chosocial Approach.10th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage

Learning; 2009.

9. Burdette HL, Whitaker RC. Resurrecting free play in young

children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:46-50.

10. Quist D. Whos Playing Around Now? Overscheduled Parents Mean

Overscheduled Kids. IMFC Review. Canada: Institute of Marriage

and Family; 2007. Available at: http://www.imfcanada.org/

article_files/Whos_Playing_Around_Now.pdf. Accessed May

18, 2009.

11. McHale SM, Crouter AC, Tucker CJ. Free-time activities in

middle childhood: links with adjustment in early adolescence.

Child Dev.2001;72(6):1764-1778.

12. Ginsburg KR. The importance of play in promoting healthy

child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds.

Pediatrics.2007;119(1):182-191.

13. Wenner M. The serious need for play. Sci Am Mind.

2009;20(1):22-29.

14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National

Health Education Standards. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/

HealthyYouth/SHER/standards/index.htm. Updated October

15, 2007. Accessed December 5, 2009.

15. Bianchi SM, Robinson J. What did you do today? Childrens

use of time, family composition, and the acquisition of social

capital.J Marriage Fam. 1997;59(2):332-344.

16. Medrich EA, Roizen J, Rubin V, Buckley S.The Serious Business

of Growing Up: A Study of Childrens Lives Outside School. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press; 1982.

17. Anderssen E, McIlroy A. Quebec distinct in nursery too,

poll finds. The Globe and Mail. 2004. Available at:

www.theglobeandmail.com. Accessed May 19, 2009.

18. Center for the New American Dream. What do kids really

want that money cant buy? 2003. Available at: http://www.

newdream.org/publications/bookrelease.php. Accessed May

21, 2009.

19. Roehlkepartain EC, Scales PC, Roehlkepartain JL, Gallo C,

Rude SP. Building strong families: highlights from a pre-

liminary survey from YMCA of the USA and Search Insti-

tute on what parents need to succeed. 2002. Available at:http://www.abundantassets.org/pdfs/BSF-Highlights.pdf. Ac-

cessed May 21, 2009.

20. Anderson JR, Doherty WJ. Democratic community initiatives:

the case of overscheduled children. Fam Relat.2005;54:654-665.

21. Neumark-Sztainer D, Hannan PJ, Story M, Croll J, Perry C.

Family meal patterns: associations with sociodemographic

characteristics and improved dietary intake among adolescents.

J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103(3):317-322.

22. Eisenberg ME, Neumark-Sztainer D, Feldman S. Does TV

viewing during family meals make a difference in adolescent

substance use?Prev Med. 2009;48(6):585-587.

23. Putnam R. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American

Community.New York, NY: Simon & Schuster; 2000.

24. National Center for Education Statistics. State profiles: Illinois.

2006. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp. Accessed October 21, 2009.

25. Birch DA. Step by Step to Involving Parents in Health Education.

Santa Cruz, CA: ETR Associates; 1996.

26. Miller BM. The promise of after-school programs. Educ

Leadersh. 2001;58(7):6-12.

27. Posner JK, Lowe Vandell D. Low-income childrens after-

school care: are there beneficial effects of after-school

programs?Child Dev. 1999;65:440-456.


Documents

Are Kids Too Busy