BOSTnet Policy and Advocacy

Gov. Patrick Establishes Six Readiness Centers

2009-10-22T05:29:00.000-07:00

Secretary Paul Reville announced at the October 9th All Means All Conference that the state had just announced the establishment of six regional Readiness Centers across the Commonwealth as a key strategy in Governor Patrick’s education agenda to improve teacher quality. According to a EOE press release, “Readiness Centers will help improve the theory and action of teaching by providing educators with greater access to proven instructional practices, proven practices in the use of student data to help inform instruction and increased and more focused professional development opportunities. For example, the Centers will provide teachers with assistance regarding curriculum development and alignment, including strategies for lesson planning and helping all students access complex content.”

“The establishment of the regional Readiness Centers will result in the development of a robust network of institutions and organizations focused on supporting the teaching profession,” said Education Secretary Paul Reville. “These Centers will have a significant impact on all aspects of our public education system including early education and care, elementary and secondary education and higher education, and unite them in common goals of dramatically improving the quality of teaching and addressing other critical education priorities.”

The six Readiness Centers and the primary partners are as follows.

1. Berkshire Readiness Center: Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, Berkshire Community College and the Berkshire Compact for Higher Education.

2. Central Massachusetts Readiness Center: Fitchburg State College, Massachusetts Elementary School Principals’ Association and Worcester State College.

3. Greater Boston Readiness Center: Framingham State College, UMASS Boston, Wheelock College, Massachusetts Bay Community College and the Greater Boston Regional Collaboratives Organization.

4. Northeast Regional Readiness Center: Salem State College, UMASS Lowell, North Shore Community College, Middlesex Community College, Northern Essex Community College, Merrimack College, Endicott College and Gordon College.

5. Pioneer Valley Readiness Center: Westfield State College, UMASS Amherst, Hampshire Educational Collaborative and the Lower Pioneer Valley Educational Collaborative.

6. Southeastern Massachusetts Readiness Center: Bridgewater State College, UMASS Dartmouth, Bristol Community College, Cape Cod Community College, Massasoit Community College, Massachusetts Maritime Academy, Brockton Workforce Investment Board, New Bedford Workforce Investment Board, Southeast Collaboratives Regional Organization, Lighthouse Superintendents’ Group and the Lighthouse Assistant Superintendents’ Group.

There are few details about the specific functions and programs of these centers, and each will be developing a program plan over the coming year. There is also, at this time, no funding dedicated to the functioning of these centers. Despite these caveats, we see an important opportunity to integrate professional development opportunities for school age and youth workers through these centers. As the July 2009 Request for Responses noted, “The Readiness Centers will also serve as hubs for collaboration among local, regional, and state stakeholders including institutions of higher education, educational collaboratives, educational service providers, business and community partners, state agencies, and other stakeholders. The development of partnerships among these stakeholder will result in the delivery of more targeted, aligned, and coherent services to early education and out-of-school time programs, schools, districts, and communities.”

This is a great opportunity for OST leaders and advocates to push for more rigorous workforce development opportunities for OST educators and youth workers across the Commonwealth.

Behavior Supports in OST

2009-05-05T06:34:00.000-07:00

Effective group management skills, especially those related to behavior, are consistently seen as critical in promoting regular participation, engagement and learning in out-of-school time activities. Unfortunately, most programs do not have integrated behavior management systems in place, and even when they do, these systems are often ineffective. This is due to a variety of challenges programs face every day: high staff turnover rates and insufficient training; children who are both physically and emotionally tired after their school day; and constantly changing conditions, including the number and mix of kids or limitations of space. OST workers need proper training and referral information to work with families when a child needs to be assessed for mental health supports. Developing staff competencies in addressing these problems has a lasting effect on children and has real benefits on the quality and sustainability of out-of-school time providers. Moreover, research-based models for inclusion and promoting positive behavior have a community value that must be recognized by policymakers and funders who decide on whether or not to invest in afterschool programs.

There is a very real social cost when afterschool programs struggle with behavior management. Often, youth are expelled, voluntarily withdrawn or referred to another program if available. In our experience, many programs view behavior management as intervention for youth who are “at-risk” rather than a program-wide approach. “Get tough” strategies, including punishment, exclusion and containment, are ineffective and reduce the ability of a child to benefit from positive social interaction with staff and other children. These outcomes are not only destructive they are unnecessary. Research suggests that children and youth, including those who need mental health services, will show measurable improvement in areas of behavioral adjustment when they are in supportive environments that promote positive social behavior.

Looking forward, it is clear that there are very real challenges. We need strong policies that support consistent funding to provide opportunities for staff development in behavioral training, more appropriate staff-to-child ratios and better systems for addressing children’s mental health issues. Sustained technical assistance is critical to foster long-term benefits for all children in out-of-school time programs. We need to support efforts to define and nurture a statewide professional workforce development system that identifies core competencies every youth worker needs to succeed and establishes well-defined pathways for career advancement. We need to continue to promote accreditation as a viable and sustainable path for organizations seeking to enhance the quality of their programs. Developing strong networks enables individual programs to leverage resources through collective power. We need to create capacity within the field to promote mentoring and support structures between programs so that the knowledge being generated in the field is shared. When we truly utilize the power of our community and networks to address these common issues, we will be better able to create lasting change.

Lastly, we need to think of all out-of-school time quality initiatives as an integrated system of program and staff development. We cannot separate a program’s ability to engage families from its skill in including children with disabilities, its use of space, or its efforts to promote positive behavior. All of these competencies are linked to broader systemic issues that need to be continually reinforced so that quality programming can be sustained for all children.

OST and Emotional Intelligence

2009-04-06T07:26:00.001-07:00

A recent article in the Boston Globe--"The Other Kind of Smart"--highlights the growing movement to teach emotional intelligence in schools. Over the past few years, the article notes, researchers have learned much about the value of social and emotional knowledge and the techniques for teaching this knowledge to children and youth. These studies, coupled with emerging brain research, has elevated the ideas of education reformers that curricula designed to address skill building in social and emotional knowledge should become as standard to the school day as reading, writing and arithmetic. Moreover, these same reformers believe that the new research will play well within the Obama Administration's education agenda and their reliance on "data-driven decision making."

While we should all welcome improvements to our public school system, none of this is new to thousands of afterschool and youth programs across the state. For more than a century, youth programs embedded in settlement houses, outdoor clubs, immigrant fraternal societies and other organizations have been engaging youth in ways that build their social and emotional intelligence. These programs and their more current iterations teach children pro-social behaviors, civic responsibility, conflict resolution and group dynamics in a safe, flexible, and uncompetitive environment.

There is abundant research that points to the value of youth programs as unique developmental settings grounded in healthy adult-child relationships and peer learning that connects directly to the individual needs of children. Let's continue to infuse our schools with innovative approaches to teaching and learning, but lets also build upon the youth development opportunities that aready exist in our communities. By their very nature, these programs compliment school day learning. However, we will fail the field if we do not recognize that their value is much broader than supporting academic achievement and providing enriching activities. It is somewhat ironic that at the same time advocates are pushing our schools to integrate more social and emotional learning in children, we are asking afterschool programs to adopt the expectations of schools and greater alignment with academic learning.

A few years ago my son started in his first afterschool program. At the time, he was dealing with a varity of changes in his life--new city, new school and the very confusing and scary reality of adjusting to life in two homes. As a parent, I saw the effects of this stress everyday. I picked him up during his first week in afterschool and he was sitting in a circle with a group of kids and a staff member. As we were walking home I asked him what they were doing. He said, "we were talking about our emotions." It was a profound moment for me that ultimately got me engaged in working in this field. With three years of afterschool participation in this same program my son has thrived academically, but more importantly as a developing human being. We need to value what these programs do and provide them with the tools and the permission to work with children and youth in profound and meaningful ways.

A Good System for Children and Youth

2009-04-01T05:39:00.001-07:00

Too often the discussions around what constitutes a comprehensive system of out-of-school time supports for children and youth revolves around data collection, accountability measures, and quality rating systems. It is important that we shift this dialogue to focus more squarely on the needs of youth, the needs of families and the needs of communities. Data and outcome measures should be a part of a system, but they should be secondary to what are really at the core of a good system for children and youth--quality youth programs and quality youth workers.

Recently, the deep structural problems with the Massachusetts state budget have become more clear. These problems, moreover, transcend the immediate and growing budget deficit that is necessitating deep and lasting cuts to critical state services. At a recent forum at The Boston Foundation, Barry Bluestone of Northeastern University and Michael Goodman of the University of Massachusetts illuminated a variety of issues that will continue to impact the state budget process in the coming years.

Between January 2008 and January 2009, Massachusetts lost about 72,000 jobs, 68,000 in the last quarter alone. The projections of the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy are anticipating a total of about 150,000 job loses for the state before the environment improves. Driven by an increasingly tight job market and high housing prices, Massachusetts lost over 300,000 people since 2000, further reducing revenues coming into the state. Most people leaving are between 24 and 54 years old, meaning that we are a rapidly aging population that will require more expensive services in the near future. Currently, over 40% of the state budget goes to debt service and pensions, and this could rise to nearly 70% by 2018 if we do not address these problems. Moreover, the cost of state services is rapidly rising while the ability of the public to access those services and recieve value is shrinking.

As Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo has recent stated, the federal stimulus bill will not address these problems. They are too deep for the flow of stimulus money to do anything more than fill some of the gaps until that money runs out in the next two years. What does all this mean for the children and youth of the Commonwealth?

The economists and others at the forum advocated for investments in two key areas: people and place. In the view of the group we need to invest aggressively in the skills and health of the people who stay in Massachusetts and in the quality of life here. Quality environments for children and youth to learn, have fun, and develop into productive, engaged citizens are critical to the future viability of the state. Investments in youth programs stimulate economic growth in communities in a way that investing in large education systems do not. Community-based youth programs are small businesses that are traditionally the key drivers of economic growth in our country. These programs not only provide children and families valuable supports, but also provide employment opportunities for local youth and adults and a pathway not only to future employement opportunities but also higher education. They also improve the quality of life for so many residents who both need child care options and want to provide their children with enriching informal learning and positive socialization.

A good system for children and youth adds value to our communities and to our state. In includes innovative schools and innovative youth programs that are not necessarily aligned or seamless, but complimentary. A good system for children and youth would drive more resources into improving program quality and developing an effective workforce than into data systems and processes that do not address needs. A good system for children and youth recognize that outcomes are a shared responsiblity and cumulative over time. If we invest in education and healthy youth development in a way that values the diversity of supports children and youth need we will begin to see results. And these results will be more than academic achievement, they will be healthier communities, high graduation rates, lower crime rates, employment opportunities and the chance to have a voice in civic life.

A colleague who has worked with youth in Boston for many decades perhaps said it best when he noted that a good system must start with the goal "to make every minute we spend with children a good minute."

Federal Stimulus Bill Brings Opportunities and Questions

2009-02-19T10:42:00.000-08:00

After a contentious few weeks on capital hill, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 on February 17, 2009. The legislation provides for a combination of stimulus spending and tax cuts totaling $789 billion (according to some estimates, approximately 40% of the total is tax cuts). Speaking to reporters the day after the bill was signed, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick noted that the state will receive somewhere between $6 and $9 billion in federal money. Patrick also noted that the state has limited flexibility in how these funds are used because under the provisions of the bill funds will go to “specific programs with specific purposes.”

A variety of provisions in the bill will have either a direct or indirect impact on funding for afterschool and out-of-school time services for families in Massachusetts. While the details are still unclear, the key provisions for our field include:

1. $2 Billion for Child Care and Development Block Grants (CCDBG)—The CCDBG is one of the largest funding streams for childcare subsidies, such as vouchers. According to the Massachusetts Afterschool Partnership, MA will receive approximately $24 million in these funds. This represents a 23% increase in the FY2009 allocation, to be used within the next 2-3 years:
· Over $20 million in non-targeted CCDBG funds
· Nearly $2 million in non-targeted quality improvement funds
· Over $1 million in targeted quality improvement funds for infants and toddlers
2. $2.1 billion for Head Start and Early Head Start. The Department of Early Education and Care anticipate an additional $10.1 million for Massachusetts.
3. $13 Billion for Title 1 Funds—These funds are used to support programs that improve the academic opportunities for disadvantaged and underrepresented students, including both in-school and out-of-school programs.
· MA will likely receive over $208 million for Title 1 funding
4. The Workforce Investment Act grants that support job training services will receive $1.2 billion for youth job training programs and summer employment opportunities for youth. The WIA also includes $50 million for the YouthBuild program providing at-risk youth educational and occupational experience and credentials while building affordable housing.
· MA set to receive approximately $25 million for youth job services and summer job opportunities.
5. The AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps VISTA program will receive $160 million through the stimulus bill to support existing state and national grantees and to support AmeriCorps Volunteers, many of who provide staffing for afterschool programs.
6. $53.6 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Funds—Included in these funds are $5 billion to be coordinated by the Department of Education through state grants and a $650 innovation fund. States will also receive approximately $40 billion in Education Blog Grants.
· MA will receive approximately $813 million for education spending. This funding is targeted to make up for cuts in k-12 funding since FY2008; to fund increases in education spending based on state funding formulas; and, to make up for funding cuts to higher education since FY2008.

We will continue to keep you updated as more details become clear about how these funds will be specifically allocated. It is crucial that we remain vocal and reach out to our state leaders to ensure that funding decisions provide the most critical supports for the children and youth of Massachusetts. For more information on the state's use of ARRA funds, visit www.mass.gov/recovery

On Message

2009-02-06T11:44:00.000-08:00

"When does the protest start tomorrow?"

This question was asked of me by program staff when I picked up my kids from afterschool on Wednesday. It was the night before many of us gathered at the State House for Advocacy Day 2009. These OST educators were ready to bring hula-hoops and whistles to make a big noise in support of community-based organizations. While I encouraged them to come and be engaged in the dialogue with their colleagues, I had to explain that it is better thought of as an opportunity to network, speak to legislators and rally together than an opportunity to protest certain policies. The question, however, does highlight some simmering tension among providers who are being asked to do much more with fewer resources. How do we tap that energy to further sound policies for children and youth across a long budget process?

With the policy season in full swing, there is a heightened awareness of an issue that can be contentious and often fraught with difficult questions—MESSAGE. What is the proper frame to move an idea or goal forward? How important is it to control that message for maximum impact? The challenge for any coalition of diverse members is keeping people engaged around a shared goal while recognizing that people have diverse opinions on how to reach that goal. In fact, part of the value of coalitions is drawing on the varied perspectives of members and utilizing the best ideas available. Any attempts to inhibit open discussion in the name of political expediency will fail to mobilize people in the strongest possible way.

To keep this dialoge moving, I would like to offer two powerful ways of talking about the value of investing in youth programs:

Youth Programs Support Heathly Youth Development
An extensive body of research shows that quality youth programs support resiliency and build developmental assets in children and youth. By providing children key supports—safe and supportive environments, caring relationships, variety of interesting enrichment activities, flexible opportunities for skill building, opportunities for youth contribution and choice, and parental involvement—OST programs help youth become empowered, set acceptable boundaries, more engaged in their community and learning, and develop positive values, social competencies and self-identity. Research in youth development has long made the connection between the extent to which children have these assets and their resiliency—the skills and behaviors necessary to cope with life’s challenges.

Youth Development is Community Development
Investing in youth is investing in healthy communities. The research is clear. Young people who participate in quality youth development programs are more likely to be engaged in their communities, vote, maintain stable personal relationships, stay employed and have a postive outlook on life. Youth programs provide employment opportunities for young people in the community who can mentor others and provide a deeper connection to community life. Youth development programs also have an explicit role in helping youth transition from dependent child to productive adult. All of these are important, measurable benefits to communities.

As a community, we need to understand that there is an objective value to supporting youth programs that are linked to outcomes that are cumulative over time and can’t be easily measured through some point-in-time assessment. We also need to continue to advocate for the unique strengths and assets that these programs bring to partnerships and collaborations with other organizations so that their work is valued and respected and that partnerships yield the best results for our children and youth. Wouldn't we tap deeper creative energy by empowering youth programs to define their own expectations for quality services based on their understanding of community needs?

Outcomes and Assessment?

2009-01-30T07:34:00.001-08:00

In developing a presentation on out-of-school outcomes and assessment, I was amazed at the number of tools out there to measure program quality or lead to other management outcomes. These tools are too numerous to get into an in-depth discussion here, but the larger issue raised is a good one: If we are measuring, who has the authority to determine what is measured? Another follow up question may be, is that authority final, or subject to change in two, three, four years and every two or more years after?

Damned Lies and Statistics by Joel Best is a well-known work poking a few holes in our use of numbers in shaping social programs or solving societal issues. The first case tackled in the book is that of a statistic used in 1994 that claimed that every year the number of "American children who have been gunned down has doubled." Taking aside that "children" by 1994 had expanded to include 21 years old (today "youth violence" seems to include 27 years old) the number of children "gunned down" would have by that year been 35 trillion since the source of that "fact" was from 1950 and even if one child had been gunned down, that number would have grown exponentially.

So, in our popular media we cannot trust 90% of the statistics %100 of the time and for many of us, this is not a new part of life. What is related, however, to our work and the use of numbers, is how were the numbers gathered in the first place and what tools shaped which outcomes or "facts" are elevated? These assessments and the outcomes they highlight are not just exercises, they are increasingly seen as a way to merit (read fund) a program. Take for example the 21st Century Learning Center process. Programs rushed to the initial funding, altered how they structured their programs and even how they interacted with children, and then when the reapplication process came due, how many met the criteria of "exemplary"? Fewer than the initial cohort of sites, and of those achieving "exemplary" status, it is no secret that funding ends in 2010 and that this program is perhaps a ghost of the past administration.

And, these 21st Century Learning Centers were but one example of a move for increased "outcomes" and more "standards" that applied across communities and programmatic forms. Who created those assessments, and what do they hold up as examples of a quality program. It appears that in this current "free market" of ideas, we still have competing interests and attitudes vying for the Nihil Obstat of funders, the Out-of-School field, and the formal educational community that impacts and shapes an increasing amount of childrens' time.

In researching the topic of outcomes and assessment in Out-of-School Time for a future BOSTnet Roundtable, there are many questions that are being raised. Do these current tools lead to quality? What are we measuring as "quality" and does this need to reflect individual programmatic goals or are there indeed larger "systems" in place?

We will see and in the mean time, caveat emptor.

Fragmentation: Is Youth Development a Field?

2008-12-18T07:00:00.000-08:00

Working in the field of Youth Development the strongest characteristic of the profession is fragmentation.

Organizations and individual researchers write about the unique aspects of Youth Development and then create programs that continue NCLB-style academic formats or "follow the money" to further marry Youth Development to traditional models of school.

Various voices compete to create systems of credentialing, licensing, or "systematize" the work and expecting the field to "professionalize" according to collegiate models or other professions where compensation and the type of service differ greatly (a lawyer and a youth worker may both work hard, but they don't work the same).

Consultants, trainers, and certificate programs compete and sprout up and use models and frameworks that are often presented prematurely in the rush to take small pilots "to scale" and untested ideas "national."

Funders support work inconsistently and do not make long-term investments so that many Youth Development programs have to re-cast themselves every year or jump from one pilot to another never getting past the start-up stage.

Programs do not see themselves in the same work. Program providers don't identify with each other or collaborate for funding, focus, or message. The "field" of the youth worker has more vulnerabilities than it has assets.

This does not mean that the type of work need be unified into one system. What it may require, however, is for more youth workers to look beyond their population's needs, the mission of their organization, or agenda, and see that the work of Youth Development covers diverse programs, people, and approaches from inner city child care to suburban arts enrichment and outdoor exploration. It is an umbrella that should gather together various good quality people who work with youth to develop their social and emotional well being rather than it is today - fragmented and under threat as each individual organization and program vies with the next for scarce resources. We cannot blame the policy makers for crashing around from school to after-school, from private to public monies, they cannot know the work we do if we do not articulate it well.

Is it time for an Economic Youth Development Summit?

2008-12-18T06:59:00.000-08:00

In recent years the Out-of-School field has grown to include diverse programming from urban after-school programs for school age children to theater, arts, and community service for all ages. However, fragmentation of funding, a host of competing forces to standardize diverse programmatic approaches and a push to formalize a work force that has traditionally been permeable and reliant on local talent all threaten the existence of an increasing number of programs that work with children and youth but do so in different ways that the established school system.

This shift - currently compounded by the economic climate - has created a high-level of stress in a field that is also experiencing an identity problem. Recent cuts to state budgets has strained public funding and private foundations are seeing their endowments shrink as more nonprofits turn to them for investments. OST programs are asked to form partnerships that may not honor their particular approach to youth development. They also do not ensure the sustainability of community-based organizations as increasing attention is given to school-based solutions and a "pipeline" mentality to education and learning.

The Out-of-School Time field is increasingly asked to adopt new school-based models as it is increasingly framed against the needs of the school system rather than looking at the potential of using these diverse programs to address social needs that are today and have traditionally been outside the keen of the governmental school system. There is a wider issue of youth development that may need to supersede the uncertain identity of "after-school" and "out-of-school." Many practitioners are looking toward new research on the importance of youth development and a more integrated "whole child" approach but are locked into language that places them in competition with or in a very unequal relationship with the current educational system.

BOSTnet is proposing an Economics of Youth Development Summit to bring together the diverse field as it stands today and look ahead to how these programs and organizations can survive in the future. The field of Youth Development must create dialogue as well as lead to new ways of elevating the work many organizations have developed after a century of practice.

Perhaps the outcome of this could be a stronger platform and an energized support network that honors social-emotional work, informal learning, and community development.

More Time (and Money) for Youth Development

2008-12-08T08:24:00.000-08:00

For those of us who attended the recent conference on Expanded Learning Time sponsored by Massachusetts 2020, one message was made very clear. Schools need more time to foster high impact student learning. While I am not going to debate the rationale of that here, it did get me thinking about youth development.

My son entered Boston Public Schools in first grade and from that time has participated in a youth arts program for about 15 hours a week. This program has a very intentional mission to promote positive adult-child relationships, positive self-identity, creative expression and community/cultural awareness. It has a project-based structure that is based on 9-week classes that ends with a performance week where kids and parents enjoy the outcomes of every class. Each week my son gets to take extra classes on book making, video-production, theater and creative arts, tree-house design, swimming, basketball, etc. Over the course of a regular school year, he gets over 500 hours of informal learning and positive youth development. At the end of this year, he will have had more than 2100 extra hours of support, equal to 2 FULL YEARS OF SCHOOL.

The social and academic impact on my son has been amazing. The staff is dedicated to a vision of inspiring children and providing them the opportunity to explore who they are as individuals. They do this, often, through force of will. Like all programs they experience high staff turnover and are constantly struggling to find resources to pay salaries, rent and utilities. Staff are young and from the community, but all share a very creative outlook on life that they bring to the program and the children who take part. It is an inclusive program that often works with children that have both physical and cognitive disabilities, including turrets syndrome, ADHD, and obsessive-compulsive disorders. They do this primarily through patience, family engagement, and an inherent sense of community responsibility because they do not receive additional support to work with special needs children. Yet, they are very successful. The program is licensed by the EEC to serve 45 children (K-5) and enrollment is generally about 50/50 between families with vouchers and families who pay tuition out-of-pocket.

Programs like this one are extraordinarily valuable to communities and youth. They provide the time and the kind of community-based support that fosters healthy youth development and academic success. If a child is fortunate enough to participate in these types of programs from the time they are in first grade until they graduate they will receive additional learning and enrichment equal to over 7 years of school. Now that is amazing!

While few of us would argue that many students and many schools can and will improve under an expanded learning time initiative, let us not forget the hundreds of youth development programs in the city of Boston that already do this work. Lets create new streams of funding to support these programs that are not tied to the education system and their incessant need for accountability. Lets understand that learning is a collective community value and responsibility and we need a mixed system that supports both schools and community-based organizations. There is an objective value in supporting safe, supportive and engaging opportunities for children and youth that are not tied to outcome measures dictated by tests or standards. As many of our current funding streams align more closely with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, programs that foster healthy youth development are becoming more vulnerable.

Reverse Logic

2008-11-19T05:39:00.000-08:00

So, the education reform "rocking chair" continues to rock. The newly created Education Secretariat, under the leadership of Paul Reville, is proposing an expansion of the MCAS tests. As more and more business leaders are bemoaning the lack of 21st century skills, including problem solving, critical thinking, collaboration and communications, the state is looking for ways to create a testing regimen to analyze these skills. These would potentially lead to MCAS tests that include lab work, oral presentations, and team-based activities. (In the spirit of full disclosure, BOSTnet advocated for a much broader evaluative framework for students in Massachusetts in a report on Expanded Learning Time and Out-of-School Time in 2007).

This movement is a backlash against the current MCAS system that many believe have pushed Massachusetts to the forefront of academic achievement. These successes, however, have their price and have not quelled concerns over post-graduation "readiness." As Gary Gottlieb, president of Brigham & Women's Hospital stated, "even highly educated people are not able to express themselves and convey the knowledge they have." Or, as Paul Toner of the Massachusetts Teachers Association argues, "we have to have kids do things, as opposed to just sitting and studying things."

Critics of the proposals who are more concerned with maintaining high standards and school accountability, such as the Center for School Reform at the Pioneer Institute, are troubled by the plan. The center's director, Jamie Gass, argues "what we are seeing here is an incremental dismantling of education reform that has made Massachusetts the highest-performing state in the country." Gass continues to note, "Many of the skills are unmeasurable and ill-defined."

It seems that 15 years of education reform have created clear results. The focus on a more narrowly defined academic curriculum has elevated Massachusetts as a beacon of academic success nationwide. But, this focus has diminished schools' ability to foster skills that are valued in society--critical thinking, teamwork, creative problem solving and engagement. More disturbing, this focus has failed to engage and lift the academic achievement of many of our underrepresented residents. And, as a recent report notes, even those students that do graduate and go on to higher education in urban areas such as Boston, few complete their coursework and earn a degree.

Perhaps most concerning about this is the emphasis on evaluating these skills as opposed to teaching them. There is a very real debate that needs to take place on whether or not schools are best equipped to foster these skills when they already have the very difficult and important job of educating youth in core subject areas, such as math, literacy, science and social studies. The current response is to extend the school day, but is the most cost effective and appropriate strategy? Significantly, it is precisely these types of skills that the out-of-school time field is best at providing. OST programs that follow a youth development framework can provide high-quality informal learning and relationship-based programming that builds resiliency and developmental assets that are the foundation of 21st century skills. Unfortunately, federal and state funding for these programs tend to lock them into models child care or academic remediation.

Perhaps it is time that we unleash the creative energy of the OST field to work with children and youth in a way that is true to its potential. Good youth development should not be reserved for the children of parents who can afford to pay tuition to OST programs. And state and federally funded OST programs should not be charged with supporting the academic outcomes that schools are responsible for achieving. Gass is correct is saying that these skills are ill-defined and difficult to measure. Investing in quality OST programs is an investment in outcomes that are cumulative over time. Assessing quality on short-term measures that are linked to school-driven outcomes does not serve the field or, more importantly, children and youth.

It is time that OST leaders and providers step up to create a vision for the field that addresses the problems that are so clearly in front of us.

OST--Are we a Profession?

2008-11-17T07:12:00.000-08:00

We often hear how afterschool and out-of-school time is a distinct field within the nonprofit sector. But what does this mean? Clearly, the expansion of both private and public funding over the past 10 years, new academic research on the value of OST participation, and the movement toward a more structured system of professional development all point to some professional recognition. However, as Louis Menand writes in his book The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America (2001):

Professionialism means disciplinary autonomy. A field of study (or any line of work) is a profession when its practitioners are answerable for the content of their work only to fellow practitioners, and not to persons outside the field.

Can we honestly say this is the case with OST? The volume of research that highlights the value of OST and a distinct developmental setting for healthy youth development is impressive. Yet, so often we find programs that are set up to provide academic services or extended day supports for children and youth in struggling schools. This has as much to do with funding streams for OST programs as it does for providing the best services for students. The problem is that when these systems are created, practitioners find that they are less answerable to the OST field as they are to the formal education systems' desire for academic outcomes.

Over the past year in Massachusetts advocates for afterschool and OST have struggled to answer the question, "Is afterschool part of the education system?" The fact that this question is yet unresolved points to the fact that as a field, OST needs to strengthen its identity. OST clearly can be part of an education system. Informal learning, relationship-building, intentional activities and fun all have a place in the education and development of a child over time. Unfortunately, OST professionals and researchers do not have a place at the table when curriculum frameworks are created the way that science, math and english professionals do.

The problem is not linking schools and afterschools. In fact, there is evidence that a lot of good can come from integrating a child's learning experiences across multiple contexts in their day. The problem is when programming is structured around educational remediation rather than the expectations and goals of youth development. Within the formal education system, the fields of science, math and english retain their professional autonomy. It does not seem out of line to think that youth development should also maintain a level of professional autonomy to work with children and youth in ways the field recognizes as valuable.

Doing More With Less?

2008-10-21T12:58:00.001-07:00

Our programs are increasingly asked to do more with less. Again, after the Governor of MA announced the "9C cuts" (post budget cuts that are part of the state office's executive privilege), already lean programs are asked to "be creative." This is a strange request - but then, what have we come to take as normal? We put bumper stickers on our cars that exclaim, imagination a world where education has limitless funding and the Air Force has to have a bake sale to buy an F15! We tell our friends we wish for that to happen - but then we snicker people who try to make that happen saying they don't know how the world works. Perhaps deep down we don't want that to happen. We seem to ensure that for every 42.3 cents that go to the military that only 4.4 cents go to education, training, and social services not just one year, but each year. Do we not control over our priorities? Are these things the way that are because people actually want them that way? Perhaps we need to spend a moment and really reflect on the world that we really want not by our words alone, but by our actions and those of our extended networks. With our programs vying for those 4 cents (shared by schools, training, and social services, what are our proper investments and how does OST play a role in making those investments rather than responding time and again to cuts?

Investing in Out-of-School programs is usually cast as charity money - that old worn social services mantel that the inner cities are limitless slums and the people within them desperate and only able to provide their children with chaos and uncertainty for which OST programs are solutions to crisis after crisis. We need to rethink OST's role as neither an add-on to school nor only about intervention in cycles of abuse and poverty, but as investment in local economies. This investment is for today, and not for a distant future. This investment produces meaningful employment for young adults and integrated learning for children, the kind found less and less in Public Schools and increasingly the privilege of a private (voucher, charter, parochial, home) school.

"Children are our future" is a cliche we traditionally sell for investment in these programs. Today, we need less "future" outcomes and more delivered to our economy right now through meaningful jobs for our young adults, community foundations for working families, and quality learning environments where children get the privilege of get to have a childhood that is not tested or drilled.

Out of School Time programs can provide:
Meaningful employment for young adults
Learning experiences that move beyond homework and synthetic seamless days
Serving as micro economic redevelopment of a block or street
Making a low income area more attractive to families
Responding to community needs
Being able to influence school and community relationships

These are some potential ways programs can position themselves is they so choose to. The 9C cuts may be only the beginning of our economic hardships. The OST field must look now and really consider, what world do we want to belong to? We are already being asked by our policy makers to be more creative and true, many programs can survive or limp along using tried and true methods of funding and description of services. However, are we taking some of our own advice and "reaching for the stars"?

Perhaps it is time we answered that call with some actual creativity.

New Directions in Youth Policy

2008-10-09T13:40:00.000-07:00

At the invitation of PPV, BOSTnet was able to attend the New Directions in Youth Policy event October 7th, 2008 in New York City. Held at the Ford Foundation (supporter of PPV), a large building reminiscent of the now-distant era of Cold War philanthropy, the agenda was dominated by the discussion of the economy. Not as you would expect the economy at hand - the financial meltdown that is occurring now and which may last for years - but the economy of youth as workers. This loss in employed youth is not a new trend, the result of video games and youtube, but a hollowing out of our economy over the past thirty years. It was proposed that young people who work at 17 are more likely to work at 18 and so on. They develop habits of mind as well as need to work in situations that get them in contact with people different from themselves - and the back room of McDonald's does not offer that socio-economic as well as skill set diversity.

Andrew Sum, Director of the Center for Labor Studies at Northeastern University and a professor at the same institution painted a bleak picture of the landscape of young people in this country. According to the data on youth, young people are struggling to achieve economic and social stability. They are failing to sustain long-term personal relationships beneficial to the economic well being of children. They are failing to learn common job skills. Life expectancy and fertility are increasingly correlated to income level in ways that haven't been since in this country.

Andrew Sum proposed that this was the result of several administrations not taking youth employment seriously and allowing the industrial economy to be replaced with, what Wilbur Toss, an older businessman interviewed on NPR's Marketplace recently said out service economy was a sham. That we cannot build the sort of level of prosperity we are accustomed to by "flipping burgers, selling scraps of papers, or suing each other." This loss of employment with low barriers to entry (not requiring degrees and certifications) that connected young people to a world of work was not the inevitability of "globalization" but a lack of policies that protected our workforce and nurtured our native economy.

This was also not an issue with recessions apparently, since the only time where the numbers of employed youth increased was for a few years during the late 1990s. Youth in the labor market have been facing trouble whether the economy is robust or recession and the past eight years have been dismal. One issue is a loss of job usually held by young people to undocumented workers. Another issue is that adult workers are increasingly needing to fill jobs once held by teens. (Not spoken about but of note is the expansion of elderly in the workforce - such as at Walmarts and the like). For teens and young adults who still want to work, few of these jobs expose young workers to skilled people, train them in marketable skills, or pay them a wage they can live on. This, Andrew Sum argues, has led to an across the board decline in living standard that is not left behind when this generation grows up but leads to a lifetime of underemployment of unemployment. Sum noted a rise in unstable single parent homes, increasing numbers of children born to proportional to the lack of income, and lower life expectancies - especially for native-born minorities.

The presentation was compelling, as it was dismal news, especially to a room of people who had worked in philanthropy for thirty years or more. However, within this great problem there is great opportunity for Out-of-School programs. More than reaching out to teach more children in need and to compensate for the shortcomings of young parents unable to provide for their off spring, Out-of-School programs can serve as a place of meaningful employment for young people and job creation so that these young workers can learn meaningful skills as they provide needed labor to programs that cannot afford to pay high wages and yet need qualified and quality people.

What are the costs of Out-of-School programs? What are some ways to maximize their benefit to communities, especially low income communities? There is usually a coordinator/director and then "direct-service" or line staff. Those Direct Service staff are paid perhaps $8.25 - $11 per hour and in some areas or programs as much as $20 per hour. The major and constant issue with staffing is employee turn over and (at least prior to the melt down) many programs have constant trouble attracting staff at all. Staff come in, work a few months and leave. In New York State these after-school employees were considered "migrant workers" the same as farm help. Very telling. This is a labor issue, and an issue of compensation but also an issue of who is the appropriate workforce. If compensation is raised too much, it may put the programs out of business since overhead will outstrip resources. If a constant drum beat is on professionalization with its certificates, degrees, and career ladders, will that actually prevent the creation of a viable workforce? Young people need meaningful employment. Out-of-School programs need low-cost quality staff for direct service. Looking at a particular segment of the population as these workers would allow for more refined approach to training and development.

Out-of-School programs, if intentionally done, can learn to market to that workforce outreach, training and technical assistance, and provide dual services - one to children and youth development, the other to economic development of communities and the youth who need to learn how to work as they learn how to do that work. (The US military looks towards a particular age group and skill level, why not OST?). Youth learn marketable skills working at an out-of-school program they may not folding shirts or waiting for the buzzer of the fry-o-later to sound. They learn critical thinking skills, problem solving, and perhaps project management if their program has a project-based learning focus. Many young people may themselves want to go into youth work as a career. Many will see adults with skills they can learn from. Trainings are no longer cattle calls trying to reach out to diverse skills and competencies (how many OST trainings include teachers of 10 years and 16 year old high school students?) but can focus on a certain level and develop and refine a language to speak to that level. Staff turn over need not be seen as a bad thing, if the staff last for the academic year. In this way, the turn over is build into the system rather than fought against. A battle that cannot be won by increasing moral, raising a low wage a few cents, printed certificates, or top heavy college degree programs.

Perhaps after-school and OST programs can serve as that job that made a difference as the programs are to make a difference to children. We need to use this crises in youth employment and see the opportunities OST can provide. Perhaps rather than another set of competencies we need come up with who we see actually doing this work now, and in the years to come.

Thoughts on the Economics of Out-of-School

2008-10-08T12:52:00.000-07:00

Mention that there has never been a more uncertain time, and chances are that someone will bring up a past uncertain time - even if they have to reach back to 1529 to make their tortured point.

Call it what you will, a "market correction" or the "end of capitalism," the direction forward has not been fought with so many variables since... perhaps 1848. What is at stake is the heart of how we fund social programs. How we care for ourselves. How we individually and collectively raise our children. How we want our children to learn out-of-school and what kind of places we want them to enjoy on weekends and the summer. Today, the Out-of-School Time field works with youth uncertain as to who we are shaping those children to become when they grow up. We talk about 21st century skills uncertain as to what those skills need be or where they will work in this world. We are uncertain as to what sort of world we can look forward to as more and more people on the planet ask for more resources and contribute less to common goals. This current uncertainty in this nation is the result of more than thirty years of struggle (or since ... AD 476) as the New Deal and the Great Society social programs have eroded and we have altered our society to a consumer nation taking up a disproportional amount of natural resources. This struggle has intensified between two opposing views of capitalism and the nation state as our place in the world is contested by ancient powers again restored (China, Russia). The view that the state cares for social needs and is the manager of society collides with the view that the private sector is solution to all social issues. Not-for-profits, particularly those that work with youth, blend together capitalism and socialism in what the head of the New York Historical Society once said did not create democracy but "feudalism." Perhaps this is more a neo-feudalism invading all sectors (hence "private public ventures", corporate bailouts, etc).

In this neo-feudalism of the not-for-profit world, youth workers have been bounced between the camps. Those closest to direct service run faster and faster as they manage programs, deal with children and youth, are asked to train staff with no time or resources, and educate themselves on the latest funder focus/report format/evidence/ outcome target/and educational fad taking more and more time away from direct service and building quality programs. The non-for-profit corporate management seems to try to solve this neo-feudalism by creating more and more committees, debating more standards, and saying the word "evidence-based research" a great deal (isn't the nature of research based on evidence?) as not-for-profits proliferate until in Massachusetts they account for 14% of the total workforce. Youth Development has suffered in the meantime as well meaning people on the ground are pulled apart to please everyone. In the process, practitioners are told to do more with less and less and each year, those children we are here to tend to grow up and - ready or not - move uncertainly into the adult world.

Our current situation of neo-feudalism comes in part from uncertainty in all aspects from funding to practice. It comes in not knowing who we are, and our being caught up in the fog of a culture war that blazes in our national consciousness while those embers of Watts and Newark may be resting under the apparent economic improvement of new condominiums and renovated science museums. Our current uncertainty comes from not knowing our economic place as organizations, programs, and projects. Are we free market? Are we New Deal? Can private organizations meet complex social challenges when funding is erratic and organizations change directions every few years in the light of new business-minded executive directors, boards, and "marketing" as if these were for-profit company products in the realm of New or Vanilla, or Zero, or C2 Coke. The funding has already been uncertain and often inexplicable and now we are told there will be a "shake out" of the not-for-profit sector as the wine and roses days (at least for trendy causes) vanishes.

Federal support shrinks while their mandates grow, states step in and out, and an increasing landscape of foundations move about with impunity as they sprinkle their endowments according to the whims and applications they dictate as their own regulation and accountability shrinks. Large banks acquire and manage trusts appointing bank trustees who dictate funding to their pet projects or spend inordinate amounts of their funds on administrating those funds. Our program live in constant fear of being closed and not because of poor performance or lack of need in the community, but because of a far-off board room flip of the coin. Usually when a job has this level of uncertainty, the compensation makes up for it. However, people who work with youth have learned to live this this uncertainty, and yet it increases. Our uncertainty today is compounded from the far-off financial markets of New York, Taipei, and London and their impact of these foundations and their activities. In addition, unlike the era of the New Deal, the Federal government has to contend with tax cuts and further spending on internal defense (homeland security is another word for internal defense) and external defense with Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts and their impact on the budget. Those who work in with youth must also face the economic challenges at home of "9 C" cuts in the budget (the power of the governor of the Commonwealth to remove line items in the budget after these items have been approved) and the progress of "Question #1" (the removal of the 1916 income tax) as an issue this year which appears to be a grassroots effort opposed by organized labor, the state, schools, and nearly every traditional institution within the Commonwealth impacted by a close to 40% reduction of taxpayer money.

These two issues alone would send shivers down the spines of most who work in in Out-of-School time doing Youth Development. However, these issues in the Commonwealth are but footnotes in a nation in trouble. They are folded into a landscape where funding has always been erratic and never up to the demands placed upon programs and practitioners. What Out-of-School time may have going for it, however, is that we in this field know how to get the most value with the least resources. Even in the prosperous times in this nation, most programs were making do. It may just be that no matter what direction this economy and by extension the nation takes, programs will continue to provide safe environments where clever youth workers create wonderful programs using whatever is at hand because they are at their heart not professionals, but human beings who care about children, anybody's children. After all, the best teaching aids don't have to be more than twine and bits of wood and paper and the best teacher is not that person with the highest degree but the most intense willingness to share, guide, and explore this world with young people. Most who provide our youth with care do so at the detriment of their incomes. It is perhaps to those people those in the board rooms of foundations and backrooms of policy should look to and stop trying to build systems that squash the very people it is intended to systematize.

In the coming months and years much will have to be settled about who we are and how we care as a society about society. We must face these issues and talk more about how we are funded amongst ourselves and to our current funders. We must create more open conversations between youth serving organizations and identify those issues that are complex and often uncomfortable - such as executive pay of hundreds of thousands versus direct service care giver pay of between 8.25 - 15 bucks or, given an 180 day school year at three hours a day, $4,455 - $8,100. We must do what we can with what we have and not wait for a bail out. Whatever direction we take, we have to take it now. Our children are not waiting for us to decide on a direction before they grow up.

A "Bolder" Approach

2008-09-16T11:49:00.000-07:00

A few months ago a recently convened task force of national policy experts launched a campaign aimed at improving education policies to address the achievement gap nationwide—“A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.” The task force is co-chaired by Helen Ladd of Duke University, Pedro Noguera of New York University, and Tom Payzant of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and former superintendent of the Boston Public School District. The campaign is significant in that it challenges the current approach to education reform under No Child Left Behind and argues that in order to improve education and youth development for disadvantaged children we must move beyond a limited school improvement strategy.

Supported by a diverse group of 60 education, policy, religious and economic leaders, the basic premise of the campaign is that schools are not equipped to address the achievement gap and get children on the pathway to success. As co-chair Noguera notes, “After six years, it has become clear that No Child Left Behind has not succeeded in improving the quality of education available to America’s neediest children. This Task Force is united around the need for a more comprehensive approach to federal policy that specifically responds to the needs of children and schools in low-income areas. Our ‘Bold Approach’ identifies critical community support systems that can effectively work to narrow the disheartening achievement gap that exists in America.” As the task force’s policy statement makes clear that the prevailing assumption that bad schools are the cause of achievement gap and that school reforms based on standards, testing and accountability are flawed and need to be addressed head on.

Backed by a preponderance of evidence from research over the past 10 years, the Task Force argues for an expanded concept of education that addresses, directly, the importance of both formal and informal education, as well as other support services such as health and social development. Specifically, the Task Force puts forth four key recommendations:

1. Continue School Improvement Efforts: Research continues to point to the necessity of smaller class sizes, high-quality teacher training and support, better coordination between grades, curriculum improvements, and more attention to the special needs children, including recent immigrants, to improve achievement.

2. Increase Investment in Developmentally Appropriate and High-Quality Early Childhood, Pre-school, and Kindergarten Education: Investing in early education and care must be the foundation of any education policy approach.

3. Increase Investment in Health Services: Expand health services for low-income families, potentially through full-service health clinics located in schools, to provide all preventative and routine pediatric, dental, and optometric care for infants, toddlers, and school-age youth in order to minimize the effect of health problems on school success.

4. Pay More Attention to the Time Students Spend Out of School: Build on the research that shows that much of the achievement gap is rooted in what happens out of school. Increase investments in afterschool programs, summer programs, in-school enrichment programs, school-to-work programs and other opportunities that have a track record of success. Moreover, these programs should be empowered to provide a range of social, cultural, organizational, athletic and academic supports.

The report recognizes the need for accountability, but argues that the emphasis on test scores is has weakened schools. New accountability systems should be developed that combine a range of qualitative and quantitative methods that targets both academic and developmental indicators. As we gear up for another round of budget debates and policy work, we hope everyone has an opportunity to read “A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.” It is the latest in a growing chorus of advocates who are pushing our policymakers to be champions of a more holistic approach to education and youth development for all children and youth in the State of Massachusetts. For more information, visit: www.boldapproach.org

Reframing the Expectations for OST

2008-08-28T12:54:00.000-07:00

The Big Picture—Our recent emphasis on budget lines items and amendments should not obscure the need to take a long-term view in advocating for the field. A critical element of this advocacy must continue to be building public will around a strong identity for afterschool and out-of-school time learning. Unfortunately, the field is often inhibited by two somewhat conflicting expectations:

>Afterschool as childcare
>Afterschool as an extension of the school day

When parents view afterschool as childcare they often utilize it inconsistently in response to periodic need. Research shows, however, that such sporadic attendance limits a program’s ability to have a positive impact. Moreover, reducing the basic function of afterschool to childcare excludes the role these programs play in healthy youth development. Viewing afterschool as an extension of the school day also limits the potential of the field. Focusing on academic achievement and structuring content in a school-like way overshadows the unique characteristics of afterschool that make it a valuable alternative learning environment. Regardless of the content a program offers, it will not tap deeper developmental assets in youth if it does not strengthen its assets as a distinct developmental setting.

As we continue to advocate for the field, it is critical that we work to reframe the expectations of the field. As a community, we need to understand that there is an objective value to supporting youth programs that are linked to outcomes that are cumulative over time and can’t be easily measured through some point-in-time assessment. We also need to continue to advocate for the unique strengths and assets that these programs bring to partnerships and collaborations with other organizations so that their work is valued and respected and that partnerships yield the best results for our children and youth.

FY2009...Another one bites the dust

2008-08-27T07:54:00.001-07:00

Just when you think it is over, it starts all over again. . . On July 13, 2008, Governor Deval Patrick signed the FY2009 budget and we are proud that the efforts of a great many people led to substantial increases in funding for afterschool programming. The ASOST Quality Grants administered by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education will be funded at $5.55 million, more than a 150 % increase over the $2 million allocated in FY2008 (which served 48 programs statewide). The Youth Violence Prevention grant at the Department of Public Health, moreover, has increased to $3.5 million. These are important increases that signal renewed support for afterschool programs on the heels of the work of the Special Commission on Afterschool and Out-of-School Time. In the next couple months we will be scheduling meetings with legislators, working with our networks to develop budget asks for FY2010 and start the entire process over again. In fact, we are somewhat late as the first budget hearings for FY2010 were held on August 12!

As we move forward with our work around the FY2010 budget, what do you think would make the most difference in the lives of children and youth in Massachusetts? Clearly, more resources are always a goal, but we have been thinking lately about the best way to manage and coordinate those resources. If the DESE already receives significant funding for academic OST programs through 21st Century Community Learning Center funds, perhaps the Afterschool and OST Quality Grants should be administered by another agency that can champion a well-defined youth development framework for those funds? As long as the ASOST grant is administered by DESE, it will compete with other agency initiatives, such as Expanded Learning Time, for state funds.

What do you think?