Lead to Opportunities for Youth with Disabilities Advisory Committee, 2009

Lead to Opportunities for Youth with Disabilities (LOYD) is an initiative entering its fifth year. In marking this point in the initiative, we have to spend some time considering where the field of Out-of-School time has come, where the disability movement is, and where these two distinct areas fit together or where there are new advances and learning that need to be reconciled.

Over the next few months, the LOYD Advisory Committee will be posting to BOSTnet Quality Environments for Youth discussing informally the issues of inclusion, disability rights, and developments in the field of Out-of-School Time.

Many of these discussions will help guide the fifth All Means All Conference as well as inform the work BOSTnet is currently doing with its cohort of programs receiving on-site support from BOSTnet. LOYD Advisory Committee will also inform the coming BOSTnet Roundtable event on Inclusion.

Our discussions will also include comments from members of the field and interested parties. Often committee work and the important conversations that lead to setting directions or assisting with actionable plans are held between the confines of whatever meeting spaces these committees convene.

Here, the LOYD committee will meet in the public green of the virtual world, where anyone, anywhere, can enter into the informal discussion or be appraised of the latest thoughts as we move ahead refining our ideas or just thinking aloud. We look forward to this work and the impact on children in Massachusetts, Boston, and wherever children of all abilities require quality places to grow and thrive.

Coalition We Must?

There is a great deal of talk around building quality programs and presenting a united front to funders. In the funder community - and amongst government officials - there is an increasing call by the state and city for organizations to stop their "siloing" and to come together in increased collaborations - or coalitions.

Coalitions are built on common purpose. Despite differences in special interests and approaches, everyone is gathered to bring resources to children and develop quality environments - yet these days it seems hard to keep coalitions together as so many of us are working from the same limited and proscriptive funding sources. How can we both compete and work together? Perhaps it was not a good idea of make non-profits more "corporate" in making funding and the culture of organizations more competitive. Along with competition comes... not working together but working for self interest and organizational survival.

True coalitions are built from common practices and good ones are those that agree on common language and concepts and can martial resources around concepts that hold true to the work on the ground as they do in expressing the complexities at the administrative level. Coalition we must. Yet, where are we with building those coalitions when out-of-school time field cannot agree on what the field offers as a product. We seem not to be able to agree how to measure the quality of that service or which organization gets to set standards, competencies, and the direction of the field (this had been done through committees at times, but committees grind so slowly the field conditions change before we get the first public draft of whatever is being... "committee'd".

Coalition we must. However, we need to do some damage control in our field - and non-profits in general. The attitude of the free market has gotten us into a great deal of trouble. Out need for competition has led to less cooperation and more duplication of services, our love of free will has led to a rogue attitude of self-interest, and accountability seems something fostered on the non-for-profit community because it has no use in other more lucrative industries. Today, perhaps we can again capture the excitement of a new field of work and connect to our like-minded friends doing this work with us and turn a new page in Out-of-School Time as well as breath a little life back into the Great Society we have allowed to falter and may yet be able to rebuild.

Building Careers in Out-of-School: Non-traditional workers

The other day the BE SAFE collaborative had their first annual meeting. BE SAFE is a group that wants to "maximize the ability of OST programs to provide positive environments for youth." This is very much a push to use OST programs as good places of social-emotional support and a means to train staff at these programs to talk about issues they may not feel confident in discussing because of a lack of knowledge or perhaps are afraid to address because of our litigious culture of liabilities and opposing cultural viewpoints. Whatever the quality of work of BE SAFE is not under review here.

What is of interest at the BE SAFE event was the group assembled on "stage" and in the room. Be SAFE appears to give simple tools that anyone who enters youth development can use. These resources are not intended to make any youth workers experts in the field of mental health but to allow them to respond to young people's needs with professional level supports. Increasingly, thought leaders and policy advocates are discussing a "star system" for program quality. One proposal floating out there is to get more staff certified or credentialed. This may require staff to commit to a regime of college classes, 45 hours or community training, professional observations, interviews, a portfolio or at least attend 5 - 40 hours of "orientation training" before their first day of work. While we want workers to be competent, can we create a competent workforce that understands the temporary nature of our workers and the limited resources of time and money for the field of OST?

The BE SAFE panel was a very diverse group of youth workers from all ages and backgrounds. A representative from a reproductive rights organization, the head of a sports/academic program - a former principal - two youth leaders, a teen center head, a representative from a domestic violence prevention organization, and a farmer.

Yes. A farmer.

This farmer, we will call her Jane the Farmer with a wink to the spirit of recent media events, had a background in organic farming. She did not think she had what it took to work with young people but seemed to have done such a good job in her short time in the field that she was featured on this panel. The organization she works for has youth development as a key aspect of their work, but it is not the only part of her organization's responsibility. Running a farm seems the primary activity. Yet, Jane the Farmer was a youth worker. OST gains an individual with knowledge of a much different field - no pun intended - and brings with her all sorts of content knowledge she and can share that with young people. In a season's time or two, she may leave youth work for more intensive farming or private farming whatever her life goals may be. In the meantime, youth benefit and the OST field of researchers, arts education specialists, inclusion specialists, and executive directors has a farmer working along side them.

OST programs need to be seen as quality programs for youth development. Professional development is a key to providing these quality services since competent staff are the life of any program. However, there needs some way to achieve this quality without closing the gates of youth development to those who can afford to commit to certificates that may take months or years. Considering that youth development work pay for direct service falls roughly between $8.25 - $11 an hour and that even program directors/coordinators may earn around $21,000 per year, are there ways of getting people to learn skills while they work? Credentials seems like an expensive and potentially risky solution. It follows the path set by colleges and universities rather than service economy jobs. The "pass/fail" certification process itself has currently only produced only 13 accredited programs within Massachusetts. Would credentials and certification of workers have a similar bottle neck effect?

Would a certification process following traditional "school of education" models prevent her and people like her from entering the field? Can the field be permeable to these skilled and caring individuals or must we close ranks as teachers have in creating their own system of "closed shops"? Upper level OST leaders may think certification will elevate the field. It may. It may also lead to a more organized workforce, and perhaps workers who cost more than the current rate of pay - robbing us of temporary talent and meaningful jobs that hire from and serve very local communities.

Extended Learning Time - The End of Afterschool?

Friday November 5th was the Extended Learning Time Summit, a rather lavish affair of color brochures, video screens, "A list" guests and hotel amenities at a time when budgets are constricting for youth development and resources for community-based programs are being increasingly strained.

As Paul Reville, Secratary of Education for the Commonwealth said, the point of the summit was to achieve the simple goal of extending the school day until 4 PM - or 90 minutes per day assuming the existing school calendar and move beyond an "America's agrarian past, one that made sense when students had to plant and harvest crops but that is ill-suited for the demands of the 21st century" forgetting the creation of high school (c. 1890) junior high school (c. 1910) middle school (c. 1950), and of course centralization of schools that started about 1900 and continued well into the 1950s already broke down the regional system and mechanized schooling for the good of factory life and the wars of the last century. Nevertheless, this flaw in rhetoric, bundled into this push for "more time" was a host of other educational reforms such as examining the structure of teacher planning time as well as how subjects are taught. These school reforms under the guise of "time" are perhaps a reaction to what may people see as a failure of the entire system of public education, but when hasn't "school reform" been a rallying cry. At least since Plato uttered "...compulsory learning never sticks in the mind." up to and blowing past Ronald Regan's A Nation At Risk and crashing in a bundle at NCLB and our current state of education where we are asking our children of today to quickly invent us a valid economy.

Whether ELT is a valid "reform" is a discussion for another venue. Time and again, the speakers at the ELT Summit called out "naysayers" and "traditional thinkers" reminiscent of Spiro Agnew's rally against "nattering nabobs of negativity" - and we all know how that turned out... So, the matter is not to dissuade the school establishment on what reforms to take, but what reforms take into account the needs of various communities and the good work of over an hundred years of youth development organizations and institutions. Will ELT create that bridge to learning that can be a collaboration between the sanctioned educational system and that of informal learning, exploration, and the unique developmental setting of Out-of-School programs?

In the current manifestation of ELT, there is no clear opportunities for community-based programs. In the presentation The Power of Partnership: A Strategic Approach to engaging Multiple Partners in and ELT School, there was a very clear understanding as how a school extends its day 90 minutes - engage the union, the teachers, the community, etc. There was much said about how to talk to providers and "include them" however, they for the most part had to bring their own funding to the table while the school receives funding from secure and relatively stable channels - the state and federal government.

So, what kind of partnership is this when one party is relying on soft money, is seen as not being "as competent in group management as teachers" or needs to reorder itself according to the "rules of the school" because OST providers "need to closely align school objectives with what they do"? Perhaps here "partnership" is not the "traditional thinkers" sort of that of equals but rather a "civil union" of lessor equals.

ELT demands of its partners a "seamless day." Yet there is not seamless funding. The school gets ELT money for the extended day. The district could use the money for partnerships. However, from what was said at the session, the school will "provide financial support only when [the district] can." Does "when I can" make sense for the survival of community programs and the competencies they bring to working with children and youth? Is this a sustainable aspect of an ELT plan that has "community partnerships" as a highlight of the strategy yet appears to leave their existence to the chances of the capriciousness of private support? Have we not seen enough of what wisdom an entirely private market brings to bear?

It may also be that the effects of this relationship take a few cycles to play out. The partners examined in the session were all coming to work with the school in question with their own private support. One organization said this partnership saved $35K by removing fees of operating within the school building but did not answer the question as to how the organization made up for the extra staff time to extend into the school day or what other ways the budget was impacted on a yearly basis. The other represented organization appeared more solvent, with a 2 millions dollar operating budget - however, many in the philanthropy community say that there will be a "seismic shift" for organizations with operational budgets under 5 millions and the staff are majority volunteers which may either be impacted by more people having to return to work or any certain instabilities built into the reliance of volunteers to provide consistent youth development. So, does the district's "aggressive grant writing" make up for this need or does the district move on to another set of community partners when the resources of the first set have been exhausted?

Finally, will ELT burn itself out as so many "reforms" have in the past thirty years? It is an expensive solution to extend the school day 90 minutes. It does not seem to have really involved community partners in the funding streams that exist nor the channels intended to ensure that "enrichment time" is used for actual enrichment rather than further traditional academics. It is interesting that 90 minutes per day (assuming a 180 day school year) adds on only 270 hours of extended time while an afterschool program adds 540 hours with the potential of a strong community-based provider to offer summer (180 hours est.) and weekend programs (192 hours est.)in addition to this work totaling a potential 912 hours of contact time in one year - a full 642 more hours than ELT. That is 10,944 potential hours of contact assuming a full 12 year engagement a full 7704 hours more than the proposed ELT solution.

Out-of-School providers also add a voice of the community they serve. They can employ local talent and even generate interest in education and teaching among under represented populations. These community-based providers can be small engines of local economy, offering a bridge between school and the community that can not always fall into closely "aligned school objectives." One vestige of 19th century school systems and "agrarian past" Messrs Reville and Gabrieli speak about is seeing a single institution as the only solution - and this current solution very much looks like that. We talk a great deal about diversity these days, yet with more of our institutionalization, standardization, and alignment we are preventing a diverse landscape of services, solutions, and innovation that are not only the fundamentals of 21st century learning skills, are the foundational values of this nation.

Boston Roundtable Reflections

The group of programs that gathered were indeed diverse in their approaches. Of the programs that attended, 74% said their staff led academic activities (homework included) 31% STEM activities (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math), 66% visual arts, 41% music, 38% dramatic arts, and only 15 media arts. What united these programs was not their topics of choice but their approach - all these programs could and many already supported project-based learning as an approach to create some structure around very open learning.

The framework is simple. Have fun projects that are guided by staff interests rather than set curriculum. Create three or four learning goals set up as open-ended questions you can ask the children you are working with (not "you will learn about dinosaurs, but "what creatures lived long ago"?) so that children are able to begin exploring these questions with what they already know rather than waiting for you to tell them answers. Set a goal that is tangible and achievable. Change these plans to go around obstructions and challenges.

To reach this understanding the room was given some Learning Goals

1. what are fun projects I can do with children and youth?
2. how to I plan my project?
3. what will I need to make an effective project?
4 what skills do I need to work effectively with youth?

To answer this we:

Created projects using the project planning sheets (learning goals 1 and 2)
Did a hands-on activity with soda cans (learning goals 1, 3, 4)
Did a hands on activity with apples (learning goals 1 - 4)
Listened to a short lecturette about the fundamentals of project-based learning (learning goals 1 - 4)

Our final product (for many of us) was a project plan that was started we can take back and use at our sites.

Our evaluation was - well, the evaluations everyone always does at the end of any event, training, gathering, or movement. From this evaluation we learned that 94% of the people felt it was a good use of their time. We also learned that 78% of the people self-identified as "direct service" even though 48% of those people were directors and 5% were engaged in fund raising for their site or organization.

In all, what was interesting was the level of engagement - especially during the apple activity where people all made really complicated artistic creations out of their apples rather than cutting them up only in a scientific way (here, we had the flexibility to allow that rather than a narrow definition of what is appropriate). What was challenging was getting through so much material in such a short amount of time (I have in the past done entire summer institutes on this topic for OST members) and that OST has, after all these years, not embraced PBL an approach that allows learning to be done differently out of school.

The pervasive mentality appears to be that of formal education, get them to do their homework and if there are activities they are aligned with curriculum and done with expensive specialists. This prospect to link school and after school is tantalizing yet why keep linking things to create a "seamless day"? Think of yourself eating corn all day. All you eat is corn. Would you want, given an opportunity, to eat more corn or try something different? No one is saying the corn isn't good for you... But, why, if we are given the opportunity to lead new and exciting projects, do we want to struggle with our meager budgets to align with schools to do more of the same - the thing that may not be working for all children in the first place?

Project-based learning has worked in many programs, but I would be the first to admit that after ten years of teaching it, few programs see it as the center to a unique developmental setting rather than an add-on when they have solved behavior, enrollment, vouchers, and relations with the school which may or may not be assisting or hindering the growth of the community-based program. Project-based learning has, after all, been the way private progressive schools have moved learning out of books and into the minds of children. Do we at least want that opportunity for all children and can we not provide at least a taste of that approach in our Out-of-School programs?