Diversity of Children - Diversity of Programs?

What is a quality program? Can there be a single definition of quality for all programs, or does it depend on what a program offers (childcare, arts, sport, academics, socialization, etc.) and the children and youth it serves? We hear time and again that children and youth have diverse needs. If there are different programs, approaches, and environments are there also different standards that need to be applied? Over the past several years, it seems that the public educational system has been searching to become more uniform in approach and measurement. These are but one environment, however. What measurement is given to parochial schools, or the different private schools that espouse every shade of educational approach from the most radical progressive education to the most structured curriculum. How are these measured, or, because they are not "public" - that is run by the government - these other "publics" need not be considered because they fall outside the keen of observation, even if the children and youth of those systems are part of our main-stream American society. What are their quality environments. Considering Out-of-School, will there appear a similar system of quality following the two realms of those programs receiving public - that is government either state or federal - money and another public that uses strictly private funds and is not recognized nor beholden to the standards that are developed. It can be considered that this second group, like the confederation of private schools (these need not be exclusive of rich but may be lower and middle class), be another world?

These questions are part policy, yet belong in a conversation about quality at the point of service because that is where structures and budget expectations come into play with expectations. If all children must do all things, or allowing children to self-select, creates a different set of challenges. It may impact behavior and interactions between staff and child. If certain programs have to align while others opt out through different methods (or programs say they are aligning but find clever ways to go around formal expectations), what does that mean for the quality of experience for the children and youth? This is not to propose any one way has been shown to be better than another.

However, when Johnny hates art but must do it because that is what the program expects of all kids... Does that recognize and meet the needs of the diversity of children and youth? Seeking quality and having standards need not be mutually exclusive. Identifying which standards measure what environment may be important, not just in theory, but impacting the point of service where a child meets the program.

LOYD: Inclusion Roundtable

"There seems to be a growing number of kids with special needs" one program coordinator says. "In the [years] I have worked here, I don't know what it is... they just seem to need more and more." What do you do when all your kids have special needs? One site director reported that in the same program were children presenting ADD, OCD, PTSD, and Spectrum Disorders. Another program director asked whether how to practice inclusion when what seems to work is to remove the child from time to time. "If they're not included in gym, then what? If they are just put on the computer because that's the only way not to cause trouble... are we doing a service just babysitting?" What if the funding has remained flat (or vanished) while the needs increased as well as higher standards of quality. These questions are far above the old format of Inclusion that were challenges are posed and then strategies are employed. When people know several strategies but are overwhelmed, what then? "How do typical kids fit in when many children have challenges"

It appears from comments at the Roundtable that Inclusion is still part of the wealth of services that Out-of-School Time programs can provide and researchers such as Gary Siperstein of the Center for Social Development and Education claim that many school environments can learn from the success of Inclusion in Out-of-School. This is in keeping with the strong relationship-base within many programs and the flexibility that programs have in creating activities that instruct about life as well as socialize. Out-of-School staff want an open environment. They want to make accommodations as well as many at the Roundtable knew the basics about most disabilities and some had worked in therapeutic Out-of-School programs for years. There was a healthy feeling of "try and try again" in letting kids come to the program as who they were and to move them into forming new relationships with their peers as well as push out into new experiences. Nevertheless, there was frustration as it seems that many directors are beyond the "basics" of inclusion and are ready for the next level - a level of complexity that no longer allows for solutions on the cheep but a more thoughtful approach and consistent high-level supports to staff and understand the limits of Inclusion.

One limit would be over-representation of children and youth with special needs within a program. The other limit may be resources. A program that takes in a child or youth who otherwise has a one-on-one during the day may not be able to absorb that child or youth. Programs themselves need to have policies in place that structure how program directors can communicate to families the benefits of including their child in the program as well as some of the limitations. However, if there is a language barrier or family members are opposed to discussing a perceived condition, what then? When a parent demands that their child is included but not with a realistic timeframe or perhaps without taking into consideration the needs of other children or youth at the program, what then? A child with Autism may not be able to run into the program and be included in the first day, or three weeks, but may need time as well as the right amounts of inputs from staff. Too much and the staff forces relationships - too little and there is risk of a benign neglect. This time to negotiate with one family or parent may be available, but what if there are a majority of parents and families with similar demands but divergent issues. Again, the "all or nothing" approach to Inclusion may put ideology over practicality.

One interesting observation from this discussion and the many questions was that the majority of issues were with emotional or emotional disabilities. In an on-line survey of participants 82% wanted assistance on children and youth with ADD/ADHD. Emotional disabilities came in second at 73% and trailing that was working with children with undiagnosed disabilities at 55%. Amongst the "traditional" disabilities such as mobility, cognitive only 9% felt they needed support in those areas.

Programs are asking for increased assistance in providing quality training to staff (78%) and assistance in funding to pay for additional services (82%). This later one is such a complex subject it will be addressed in another posting at a later date.

There is good news and many free resources on-line. BOSTnet has some resources available on Inclusion that may help in training staff and funding opportunities are always included in the BUZZ and the website. Resources on the website are divided into different areas, the most predominant being sports and arts inclusion. These areas were central to a series of BOSTnet events in previous years under the LOYD initiative. The idea that sports (physical activity) and arts can serve as a way to include more children and youth with special needs and that these not form the basis of the program but can be engaged as needed. These areas are useful no matter what the program's own content is - such as academics, because with the flexibility that programs have, setting up time to work on an arts project or engage in physical activity may serve to get children to work together. BOSTnet is also working on the 5th All Means All Conference for 2009 which will be shaped in part by conversations in the field.

While there was a good deal of information covered in the presentation, this Roundtable seems to have raised more complex questions than answered them. We hope that we can work on these issues and find solutions that reinvigorate the field to reach out to children and youth with special needs and not be overwhelmed.

STEM in Out-of-School Time

The second training completed by the Museum of Science at the EEC, a small group of out-of-school workers from Greater Boston looked ahead to leading interesting engineering projects using the museum's original curriculum. This is an example of what some may call a new "collaboration" in learning and not just linking school to out-of-school by way of traditional classroom academics, but using out-of-school time for different ways to access learning. STEM as it was taught, was but another way of looking at project-based learning, a framework that has been around in different manifestations since the start of progressive education and has often been refined to fit the needs of out-of-school programs.

With project-based learning, programs can sequence activities in a way that they retain the "teachable moments" but are not tied to consistent attendance or the resource infrastructure (both human and program materials) to make out-of-school appear like school. The more the out-of-school attempts this duplication the more the question is raised as to whether larger dose of the same product will improve results (it may) or whether diverse experiences are beneficial (people usually say "diversity" but then work very hard to create seamless days - even if they have to stretch the meaning of "seamless" to fit the many disconnects and inconsistencies that exist between environments).

STEM participating programs will move ahead with the curriculum on an adventure and challenge. In the coming months BOSTnet will visit these programs and collect information and observations to examine ways that STEM concepts can be taught not only in participating programs but among a wider out-of-school audience. With so many calls to create an "evolution and revolution in schools" the work of out-of-school educators may be changing and the age of "Youth Development" may be indeed ushered out as more non-profits working with children are asked by government and private funders to "rethink how you do business" and by extension what services children get and how learning is done outside of the traditional school day.

Quality and Accountability - and then there is what you do each day for the kids

When the question was posed to a room of out-of-school program directors, site-based coordinators, researchers, graduate students, and direct-care workers as to what is the intended outcome of their program, the room fell silent.

There was that uncomfortable pause - the one that if cut short would produce cut-and-paste answers, but if held too long, would cause a meltdown in energy and perhaps get participants of the Boston Roundtable heading prematurely for the door.

Then one voice spoke up. "We want to hear kids laugh. We want them to have fun." Then the answers came more easily. "We want to hear that our kids feel self-esteem and make healthy choices outside our program." "We want kids to ask whether the program is running on days it isn't." "I don't want to write kids up [behavior reports]." The entrance to the conversation on evaluation and outcomes in Out-of-School Time was about what people saw at their programs and a sense of what they knew was good for children. This was both something that occurred at their point-of-service as well as beyond their direct control. It was, however, in contrast to the many benchmarks that are increasingly being set for programs linking them to various outcomes and creating an increasing amount of assessment burden on staff already handing the daily tasks of care and enrichment in the face of dwindling resources.

The presentation on tools covered only a certain amount of evaluations and assessments. Some of these "assessments" were actually evaluations (were monitors for program quality or accountability) while other "evaluations" were actually assessments (focused on child outcomes over program competencies). There was discussion about what tools were mandated by which funder or agency and whether certain tools were still required or were about to be phased out in light of new regulations from the Department of Early Education and Care or increasing interest in ELT by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (formerly the DOE). This confusion was indicative of the issues of quality ratings system development and the increasing confusion - even cynical burn-out - of many in the field who look for answers and find a multitude of shifting concerns. Many in the group asked who was going to advocate for them in the face of these changes in funding and the increase of required assessment and evaluation alongside a stagnation or decrease of funding.

There were no easy answers.

The presentation of the Boston Roundtable was intended to provide an approach to shopping for the right assessment tools as well as a critical discussion on how programs need to stop consuming every tool that comes their way and to start educating funders (one attendee said "argue with funders" and that may be the case, but we'll stake our middle ground with "educate funders") as to the realities on the ground around key issues of quality improvement. Many people wanted to know which tool was the preferred or met approval by either this organization or that trainer, however, the presentation was not a sales pitch for any one tool - but a call for people to go back to basics and ask, "what are we trying to do with all these things?" Are we researching, or managing our program? If we are using assessment and evaluation as a management tool, who do we really need to be talking to? Is there more value in self assessments? More questionnaires to children and families? Is there a balance between using face validity (going with our personal/professional observations and "gut") and formal processes?

Participants of the Boston Roundtable raised a number of issues that linked to or were directly related to the topic. These included:
The new regulations by the EEC for school-based centers, family child care, and Afterschool and Out-of-School programs do not have a clear enough plan for how to train staff (provide funding for extra time) to administer the child assessments
That arts programs are expected to deliver academics rather than focusing on their individual expertise (this may be extended to sports programs but none were represented at the meeting)
The connections to school may be valid for one kind of program but may not be the model for all programs given the diversity of program type and approach in out-of-school time (perhaps there needs to be a taxonomy of programs was not mentioned but perhaps should be discussed)
Some programs are asked to do one kind of assessment on year as a requirement and then that is dropped for another product
Program directors and on-site coordinators need to focus on staff development and that the most useful tools are those that assess staff competencies and help reduce employee turn-over - especially direct service
Programs need to stop following the system and must look to become more self-reliant economically so that they can meet the needs of the community they are in rather than attempt to align with a standard way of "doing things"

Again and again, there was a call to get organizations to take a stand on obtaining funding for the field to meet new of increased outcomes or adjust expectations to a reasonable level - focusing on what programs have historically done and can provide to our children and youth - supporting quality environments. There seems to be the subject of "quality and accountability" as it is seen through the lenses of several assessment and evaluation tools, and then what you do each day with the kids. It looks like there is a great deal more that has to be done to create tools that assist in managing a program, monitoring quality at point-of-service, and helping stakeholders have confidence in the quality and value of the program.

Perhaps we can all stand up together to bridge this gap between what and why we measure and the job we do every day working with children in our various settings.

YOU CAN FIND OUR QUALITY SELF ASSESSMENT TOOL HERE

Seamless Day?

With a snow day comes a good day to read and catch up on paperwork. There are many books on education that are part of the educator's library and of these the book 36 Children is one that continues to be read and discussed. This work was published back in 1967 and from that we can consider many things have changed in education and teaching as well as the social landscape that make this an historical text - however, there are many pages and passages where the author could be talking about 1967 or 1987 or 2007. For one thing, we seem to still be in need of educational reforms. Our inequalities have increased in many ways economically. Out cities continue to be a place the middle-class avoids to raise children rather than a center of socialization, art and learning as they historically have provided.

There is still disagreement as to what those reforms need to be, or how to reorder the learning process of our nation's young. The conversations surrounding schools impact the field of Out-of-School Time and how this field views youth development. For one thing, Out-of-School Time professionals are asked to follow the lead of in-school teachers. Out-of-School educators are asked to create standards and quality benchmarks in the name of accountability and may be required to create progress reports for each child.

This may sound like an advance for professionalism. However, when the traditional system of education, schools, and learning, is so unsettled and continues to be asked to "reform," how can Out-of-School Time educators follow knowing that the path they are taking will benefit the children and youth they serve. If schools are said to be failing children, why create more school to further fail those children? Is this a time to think critically of the direction/s schools are taking? Can youth development assist in creating healthy children and youth in a way that cannot always be linked to the school day - that an organic link is best and a seamless day the worst of both worlds?

The Boston Foundation has hosted two major school reform events in as many months - the first Boston's Education Pipeline Report Card, the other Informing the Debate: Comparing Boston's Charter, Pilot and Traditional Schools. These events were well attended by the formal education establishment but gave little room for Out-of-School providers unless Extended Learning Time is considered a representation of the current and future aspirations of the OST field. Amongst the charts the standard deviations, the two stage least squares, there remains as many questions about the effectiveness of 125 years of traditional schooling, 20 years of pilots, and 15 years of charters as to outcomes, benchmarks, and quality. And, this is with the sort of funding and inquiry that produces 114 page full color reports. Certainly 36 Children should not ring true 40 years later if the proposed advances in school reform of the past... 40 years... had achieved their goals.

Can OST afford to go down this path to quality, or must the field in the coming year look for other ways to demonstrate quality? Can the outcomes over time that quality environments for youth lead to fit into the same check boxes?

Out-of-School time will need to look hard and fast at the question of quality in the coming year so that programs can thrive and survive. It is no secret that this next fiscal year will bring with it intense pressure on programs, organizations, and individuals. We may find that in the effort to "professionalize" the field, we have lost the one part of quality that cannot be afforded no matter how many trainings or manuals are created, and that is the spirit to make a difference in the lives of young people and the work ethic to show up every working day to do so.

Sometimes things that appear to be made one way are in actuality comprised of much different material. That city pictured above. That's a collection of pots and pans.

Quality may be taking a step back and seeing that different materials can produce the same results or looking close up at what may look like a system from a distance turns out to be a number of diverse and unique parts.