BOSTnet Quality Environments for Youth

BOSTnet Summer Series II

2009-06-17T07:31:00.000-07:00

As part of BOSTnet's Summer Series, we reflect on the issues brought up in conversation or as part of the presentation. This meeting covered behavior, however, many aspects of staffing and program needs came up in group discussion. Summer is less then two weeks away. Whether the program is 5 weeks or up to 10 weeks, Summer presents certain challenges as well as opportunities - both for children and youth as well as for the program itself.

One very common aspect of summer programming is that many programs rely on this period to raise money. Some programs refer to the summer as their "cash cow" since fee-for-service is high and there are more families willing to pay. These sums often cover activities for summer and then work as a bridge fund in autumn until grants, contracts, and payments come in or a fund for the end of the academic year where funds have been spent and resources are few.

So there is an economic aspect of this service where summer subsidizes the academic year. There is another aspect where programs have to ramp up into full time services and work with children or youth who may be part of the academic year or may follow another configuration - such as several sites being consolidated into one site. This need for high enrollment as well as the reconfiguration can stress site directors as well as lead to a summer where activities are not always as organized or purposeful as as activities at the same program but during the academic calendar.

Summer is full of opportunities to grow program funds and deliver more in depth services as there is a longer day. Often this day is full of recreational activities - which are needed. However, there are often summer reading or other summer work that has been assigned by the school for completion by summer programs. Getting children and youth to work on academics was seen as a challenge as well as leading projects that made participants to resist because - and rightly so - they say "we're not in school!"

Summer programs can do learning, however, the group felt that if these activities needed to be fun and engaging - getting in field trips and special visitors. Summer time can be learning time, but a longer day does not mean longer activities. Children and youth still want to go swimming. And rightly so.

One member of the Summer Series group said that themes worked for the summer. These themes could change week by week rather than run for a month. This allows for staff to come up with activities easier as well as focusing the program on short-term goals since every week there is a "final show."

Whether summer time is catching up on school assigned reading, theme projects, or recreation, summer programs have a short span of time with their own challenges. This time is not just an expansion of the afterschool program, but has to look different - even if the staff and students are the same. Perhaps more work needs to be done in focusing this work and pulling out best practices for summer fun and learning.

BOSTnet Summer Series

2009-06-11T09:27:00.000-07:00

The training was convened in the Boston Public Library. Participants come from all over the state of Massachusetts with a heavy representation of the city of Boston. Program range in type, age, and their focus, but all gathered to learn how to make their summer program engaging for children and youth. What is interesting is that the majority of participants have already run or been part of a summer program. So, what is new about summer?

Summer time programs are not just extensions of the school year program. They are often opportunities to do activities or create the type of learning environment that the school year time slot just does not afford. They may also be additionally challenging because staff are different and children or youth may also be there inconsistently, be new to the program or staff, and have a set idea of what they will or won't do in the summer. One pressure is on programs to perform more and have more clear goals and objectives - especially with the talk of "summer learning loss" and the need to provide children - primarily inner city or minority - with additional structured academic time. Some form of academic assistance may indeed be needed over the summer, however, summer school has been around for almost as long as there has been the public institution of school. What is difficult now is that programs thrive being fun and engaging places and do not have the desire or often capacity to transform their program from what it is today into a program that can be better managed and analysed centrally.

It seems that summer is itself almost like a project.

There is a beginning, middle, and end. The run is 8 - 10 weeks. There are learning goals. Those things that the director of the program really wants children or youth to experience or learn (from academics to social emotional skills). Then there is the final product. This can both be whatever is in the show at the end of the school year, but also the goals set by the director (perhaps with program staff) to answer the question, "what do we want children or youth to have done by summer's end?"

Now, we will go on to list all the many things we could do with children or youth over the summer. From that, we will look at creating a "doable" list that can fit on the schedule and which can be realistically done.

Summertime is a time for young people to break out of school, and take out their knowledge to solve problems or just experience the bumps, bites, and bruises of being a kid.

BOSTnet Quality Forum 2009

2009-06-10T09:37:00.000-07:00

The Quality Forum, held at The Boston Foundation, was attended by over a hundred program staff, directors, administrators, board members, and funders. It is very telling that even with the financial crisis and all the pressure on organizations and their programs that quality matters. Not just doing the job. Beyond just "trying our best," each attendee seemed committed to making their program a quality service for the children and youth it was designed to serve.

What did this quality look like in the many diverse programs represented at the forum? It is hard to say. Outside of the forum and in many meetings leading up to it, we have heard program directors say they want more information on what children and youth need, what families think about their program, and ways to measure their impact not just for grant requirements, but to answer the questions, "how is my program doing" and "how do I know?" There are a great many program directors feeling stressed by demands for further and more in-depth assessments, reportage, and being held responsible for youth outcomes that they have little direct control over, such as in school attendance or performance. While the definitions of "quality" as a unified front continue to grow (when they do not ebb for lack of funding), staff at the program level continue to do their best to examine their programs and the needs of those they serve.

What was presented at the Quality Forum was not an attempt to promote a unified message around quality, but rather an examination of several views. The view of quality started with research. Dr. Gil Noam, Founder and Director of Program in Education, Afterschool & Resiliency (PEAR) presented a quality view that looked at programs addressing developmental needs of children and youth first and foremost in program design. Young children need different supports than older. The atmosphere of a middle school program needs to be social and active. Older youth need to choose activities and need to be motivated to attend rather than compelled or mandated. This work will soon be made more available to a wider audience but for the meantime, it shows that research is supporting the social-emotional power of out-of-school time as a unique environment for youth development.

BOSTnet presented its own research-based framework. This framework looks in depth at the environment and approach of programs. Based on BOSTnet's 21 years of work, this framework is very simple for those who have worked a long time in the field--almost too simple according to the evaluations returned. However, to those who are new to the field or those who continue to not understand the "story of out-of-school" this framework is accessible and demonstrates how the variables of the environment and the approach meet at the point of service to create a quality environment for youth. If this framework appears simple, the mechanics of making it happen are complex and take a great deal of work. The presentation and tools from the 2008 - 2009 field work were disseminated for use by other programs.

Corey Zimmerman, Director of Strategic Planning and Analysis of the Department of early Education and Care (EEC) presented the state's answer to quality through its developing system of quality improvement and program assessment that may be mandated as part of licencing requirements for school-age programs. The Quality Ratings and Improvement System (QRIS), is a "fast-spreading policy innovation because they align standards, supports to programs, and accountability efforts into one non-duplicative system." This effort appears to need a unified system to support it which the out-of-school time field has yet to develop (and often the field asks whether this should ever be developed). This innovation is perhaps useful to staff at programs but also is seen by many in the field as an unfunded mandate since some of the quality improvements don't appear to come attached to additional funding needed for staff time or other expenses. Of course, this is a work in progress, so we cannot point to the nature of the QRIS innovation nor its impact.

The final part of the day was a panel of directors. For Kids Only Afterschool (FKO) and Bird Street Community Center (BSCC) both discussed specific examples of quality in their organizations. For FKO the issue was investment in staff development and an allowance to work with staff at their particular stage in their career and educational growth. This meant a great deal of professional development where their time was paid for. This meant swing time to attend college courses or support to gain a certificate. A great deal of training was done internally so that the FKO approach was reinforced and outside trainers brought in for targeted work such as behavior or curriculum development. BSCC also invested in staff. BSCC worked hard to rais funds to increase the number of full time staff so that the positions and the work could be the primary focus of staff and the job as a career was feasible. Staff were supported internally and also provided professional development since now with the extra hours, program staff were paid for these trainings. Both these quality strategies focused on staff. Without good consistent and prepared staff, program quality would suffer. While many in the audience said their organizations could never cover the funding needed to provide such supports, it demonstrated that to achieve quality programming perhaps piecing a workforce together and expecting full time commitment at part time pay is not feasible.

In all, the Quality Forum presented a lot of information in too little time. This is also a sign of the times. Programs have reported less time to devote to outside meetings, conferences, even training. It was decided that it was better to fit in too much information - allowing learning points for everyone - rather than a brief survey of information surrounded by ample coffee breaks. Also, as another sign of the time, there was no catering budget.

We welcome further evaluation or response to our Quality Forum. There will be a more formal discussion of this event in the BOSTnet BUZZ, BOSTnet's e-newsletter.

Quality is "Job One"?

2009-06-03T06:43:00.000-07:00

The days to the Quality Forum are short - the questions around "quality" as it relates to out-of-school time seem to grow. "Quality" is one of those terms that we hear a great many times - from corporations, from product salespeople, from former automotive giants. Whether "job one" or "continuous improvement" or "quality improvement" or other flashy catch phrases and academically or research supported systems, the question remains - what is a quality out-of-school program?

Also, built into this question is other question. Who asks for this "quality."

If "out-of-school time" is any program that works with children but is not run directly by public education employees then these program include more than "after-school" and reach into museums, summer camps, and enrichment programs - even if some part of these programs take place within the confines of a public school facility or during the hours of school and in collaboration with school teachers or officials. Out-of-school is an approach that transcends programmatic focus, mission, or population as it is a number of very diverse programs bringing ways of learning that may differ (not detract but differ) from the approach the public system is currently taking.

Perhaps, then, quality is different for different programs but can be measured if those measurements are directed to the focus of the program or the ability of staff to create the type of environment where children and youth are cared for and can learn - differently.

And who asks for quality? Yes, regulators, funders, parents, politicos, endorsers, and sundry other influences that have piled on to the backs of programs.

However, it is children and youth that ask for this. True, no seven year old will say, "can I have a quality program and how are you going to assess this so that I know both empirically and based on research drawn from data that was appropriately cleaned and triangulated that my youth outcomes improve based on my attendance" - which seems what many are asking site coordinators and program directors - but "What am I doing today?"

That's at the center of quality, a child or youth asking - "what am I doing today?" Right now, in the moment.

Our job is to make that "doing" fun, engaging, learning, positive, supportive, and safe.

Each one of these elements may be measured in great detail - what is "fun" how do we know when we are having "fun" - however, is that appropriate for a field where the work is not to answer philosophical conundrums but to provide a point-of-service.

How about measuring:

Children or youth participation by attendance of program
What days do children or youth come? When are they picked up? How much of the year or season do they stay? Do they also use the program for other times of the year?

Children or youth return rates
Do children and youth keep coming back?

Parent or family involvement
Do parents pick their children up early? Do they attend events or assist in the program?

Staff retention
Do staff work the duration of the program? Do they return again to work another season or year? When they leave, do they continue to work in a similar position or move on to a higher position?

Children or youth satisfaction
What do they say about the program? Do they feel stuck there or can't wait to attend?

Perhaps by focusing on measurements that are obtainable by programs, meaningful data can be gathered and program quality can be assessed not by a multitude of indicators, but by a finite number of contact points that can span programmatic type, approach, and environment.

Learning in Out-of-School

2009-05-25T10:53:00.000-07:00

Project-based learning has been around for a long time. Many of the early progressive educators were indeed doing projects. The educational philosopher John Dewey was looking to make learning more real than the factory-style learning he saw about him. In the decades since, there has been innovation in teaching and learning inside and outside of the classroom.

Today, there are student centered classrooms, reading corners, rocking chairs, and carpet areas and many other innovative strategies and frameworks being used inside the school day. There is still a great deal of traditional structure and those who see a further erosion of free time, recreation, and creative problem solving in the school day. There is a great deal of pressure on schools. They are asked to carry many of the traditional roles assigned to parents, and yet, teach a specific body of information and create a common culture. With schools mandated to have delivered outcomes for every hour of the day, cannot out-of-school programs assist by creating a different learning environment not to augment the school-day tasks, or in opposition to the learning styles of traditional education, but to create that social-emotional playground where children and youth can learn by hands-on activities and the socialization that contextualizes all understanding?

Project-based learning in out-of-school is not just about dissecting eels, improving the process of making clay dough, or creating a model of the neighborhood to understand the importance of places, it is also about the process. A time to see what others know, understand how actions impact the group as well as to take individual initiative. The papier-Mâché float, or the community map, or the fundraiser run by the children and youth is not always the largest, or finished on time, or as grand as the original plans, and the outcomes cannot always fit the metrics of the school day. Nevertheless, when the framework is clear, when adult staff are energized about leading projects that dig into a topic over roughly connected activities (theme activities, arts and crafts without context, etc) there is a learning environment that can reach out to children and youth and really dig into the benefits of out-of-school time as a place of social contact and deeper learning.

At a recent training, a group of group leaders were learning how to become project specialist. Being a project specialist means not just leading fun activities, but sequencing activities to answer or explore big questions and fun and engaging topics. The group was led on a simple activity. Make pasta drawings. Everyone seems to have remembered what this meant. Some asked questions about whether they could draw lines first, plan, or what the picture was to be about. They were told that they could do this activity any way they wanted. They were even provided tooth picks to add into their pasta drawings if they wanted. After a short period of time, the group was gathered together. They were told to get up and look at other tables, look at other works, and if need be, make constructive comments. When they were sitting, the group was asked - was this a project.

The unanimous opinion was "yes." It was hands-on, it was an open ended activity, they shared the materials and showed each other what they made. However, what was the deeper learning? "We learned to work together" one staff member said. However, did they now know that before the start of the activity? It may be that it reinforced what they knew, which is not a bad thing, but what new learning did it lead to? Also, did the product they made matter. "No. I'm going to throw it out as soon as we leave." This is similar to how many children respond to the things they are asked to make in out-of-school. The "done and dump" outcome.

The group was then led through what project elements were in the activity but how that activity did not reach as far as we can go in out-of-school - even though it was a fun activity in-of-itself.

The day before at the training one project example given was zombies.

Yes, zombies.

The group revisited that topic - used as a comical example that this group of adult learners - because it spoke to them. "Zombies" then became the focus of our project simulation, even if it was not a child-ready topic. It was engaging for the adults, therefore, they could better see the process and experience some of that fun in learning and exploring we hope children and youth will engage in but which many staff cannot find then discussing clay modeling as if they were themselves children. The group discussed what they would make in a zombie project. The title selected was "Zombie Attack." The final product an escape plan. The group talked and discussed what they needed to learn. "What do zombies eat," "why are they here," "are they fast or slow." The group put down some of those questions as well as "how do we work together" an then looked at the project. The group made a list of things they could do as activities as well as resources. When this was done, they again looked at the learning goals. Were some of those questions short-lived or limited? They asked larger questions which would naturally capture smaller fact-based questions. "What do we need to know about zombies?" was the first learning goal, collecting the other zombie fact questions into one bucket. The next was "what do we need to survive?" This question is not just about zombies, but can be taken as "what do we bring" or at a deeper level "what are the basics of life or things that are important to us?" The Third question was "how do we make a plan?" This came up because the group was divided between where to go (Home Depot or Walmart) and how to get there (run as a group, everyone for themselves, cars, etc). This also meant we needed to revise the "how do we work together" to "How do we help each other survive?" A deeper question and one that goes into community at a much deeper level.

With these questions, we looked at the activities and revised several based on what we could do (simple materials or low schedule impact) and what would take more funds than we wanted to use (e.g. renting a helicopter and getting MTV to film out process). There could be research (zombie movies, books, common lore, internet sites), discussion (debate, shared experience, etc), and field trips (trip to Home Depot, Walmart, looking at the building for how to defend or escape from it). To show how this was done, the group actually was charged with leaving the building simulating a zombie attack. After much discussion, the group did not choose a leader, and when time was called two groups formed and left from two different directions. The escape was hampered by confusion. When we regrouped everyone was sure they would be the survivor, but others would succumb to the zombie hordes. The group then discussed the experience. We were no longer talking about escape and planning, we lived an experience and could see first hand the flaws in our planning ability, our need for leadership or shared decision making, and a need to learn how to help others survive. This comical example was fun, and that is also central to the project. At the end of this process, we could all see that as adults we'd love to do a zombie project - and with children and youth we can see that we want to go deeper into questions and use sequenced activities that get children and youth to move, to laugh, to bring in their own knowledge and to experience something they may not do on their own.

There will be other trainings and who knows what topics will be used as an example. With practice, it seems that this group of learners will now be project leaders and while perhaps avoiding the entire topic of zombies, create fun projects that matter.

Learn more about project-based learning for out-of-school time at www.bostnet.org

Summer Is Here, Again

2009-05-19T08:20:00.000-07:00

Summer is here and city children will soon be spotted wearing agency tee shirts and filling parks and recreational places. Other children will be enrolled in arts camps, band camps, and other camps where the tee shirt is optional or non-extant. Leaders will again discuss key issues about where children and youth go for the summer and what they should be engaged in. There is a great deal of discussion on "summer learning loss" and how summer programs geared towards academics can prevent this loss from occurring. These discussions are generally aimed at urban children and youth, since the data suggests the loss is greatest in urban minority populations. That there is a loss over the summer for children may be true for all children but the effects of this impact those who struggle the most at school or have language or cultural barriers. What to do about this, is less clear.

It may be that all children benefit from great activities that make them think, meet new friends or engage with others in structured an unstructured ways. It would be a shame if inner-city children get a version of summer school while others get:

Trips to a zoo or visits by a nature program
Getting away to a camp for the day or a sleep away
Engaging in a project that involves trips to museums or cultural centers
Cleaning up a neighborhood park or other service projects
Sports programs and athletics

It seems that there is a great deal of discussion between those who want to see summer as an extension of the school process - think "summer school" and those who want to see youth be active in recreation - the "send this kid to camp" tradition. There are those who are looking to meld the two into a hybrid form where children and youth learn formal topics but do so in a more active and participatory learning format. There are many programs that already do participatory learning, however, the press is filled with more conversations about childrens' "time" or following "youth outcomes" (these more than not include events outside the control of the out-of-school program like attendance in school over attendance in the program) or looking at links to this or that curriculum.

Again, summer is here. Children are growing, their minds changing and the road to adulthood is set according to a calendar. We seem to know we want to do something positive with our kids, but as in summers past, we may not agree on what this positive thing looks like.

Communication and Out-of-School Time

2009-05-08T07:48:00.000-07:00

"Communication is key," we are always told. The Not-For-Profit field, and especially Out-of-School Time (including from early care through youth work), relies on "relationship building" and often those relationships are built over time and use a great deal of resources to manage. Site visits, meetings, cohorts, conferences, phone conferences, trainings, forums, mailings, events, and other point of organizational and professional contact take time and money. Recently, much of that money has evaporated. Increasingly (or is it immediately?) dollars are put to point-of-service and skipping over entire networks that have been grown or maintained over the past decade. Of course point-of-service money is needed, however, the infrastructure that was being assembled or had already been in place is also needed. The communications infrastructure of point-of-contact needed to maintain quality programs, a broad base of stakeholders, and professional development. Some of these points-of-contact may be provided by digital media.

Digital communications are not just communicating to funders, but looking at technology to reinvent how non-for-profits engage their stake holders as well as the fluidity that Out-of-School Time programs need to respond to as they meld their program or organizational message with the real-life cultures of the populations they serve. This is perhaps especially challenging for youth-serving organizations since the culture of youths are..... often incongruous with the culture of an organization, especially older mission driven organizations used to the brick and mortar one way control that print media allowed. Youth culture is garish, often filled with crude media images, commercialization and and now able to be uploaded to Youtube and linked to your organization at the click of a button. Scary stuff for staff used to well managed community bulletin boards or quarterly newsletters filled with passe clip art.

The change in communications does not just swap paper and ink for bites of information and blocks of color on a screen, it alters how information is created, consumed, and reinvented. The best example is how bloggers have eroded the traditional news media especially print. It is not just the Boston Globe feeling the burn, it is story after story being broken or covered by bloggers long before reporters with advanced degrees in journalism and years of experience ever get it off the wire. To communicate today is to do so faster, but also giving up a great deal of control over how content is used - or abused. There are risks to this move beyond the traditional fears of Out-of-School Time professions that youth served online may be connected to dangerous elements in society (time and again studies show youth to be more savvy on the WWW. than adults give them credit for). There is an unfamiliar feel to the way an organization has to expose more of itself as well as understand that associations will have to have increased management as well as more awareness by funders that they are seeing a fuller spectrum of who organizations serve and the connections they make - whether the organization enjoys that connection or not.

At the Roundtable a number of leaders and a handful of direct staff attended. It was telling that few direct service staff attended and that some who RSVPed were actually removed from the list by their supervisor. It is interesting to see that the more progressive programs saw all their staff as included in message creation and communication while the traditional organizations continue to think in terms of media marketing and message control - similar to how print has resisted digital and still does not know how to respond (outside of several newspapers shuttering their operations). This may be more of a style issue with organizations, with some able to support a common message while other more grassroots organizations allowing for a faster and looser control and more user generated/ staff generated content. It is hard to say which way is "correct" or whether both are appropriate for their audiences and typology of program.

Several organizations presented their work in communications to give some ideas about how to use the services out there as well as some challenges. Massachusetts Afterschool Partnership presented their MAP Facebook fansite work, while Boston Afterschool and Beyond discussed both the search features created by the BostonNavigator project as well as new work in using digital tracking to monitor youth using social services within the city. Teen Empowerment discussed their Teen Empowerment Youtube Channel and how this is used both by their youth as well as how more professional products are created and shared with funders. The Boston Children's Museum shared their free on-line curriculum especially made for and field tested by Out-of-School educators as well as highlighting that this work may expand - but will always remain free to the educators who need it. What is an interesting link between all these initiatives is that the users - viewer or whatever the new word may be - is not charged. The communication is not to create content that is paid for at the point-of-contact and this is in keeping with the spirit of the internet and new media as well as the challenge to the digital age - how do we pay for all these services?

Of those who RSVP'ed a very unscientific survey was taken using Survey Monkey. It showed that although Facebook and Linkedin use is high, few other communication services are used. This means that perhaps these services are not fitting to the organizations or perhaps the field, but also it may suggest that there is an opportunity for growth in Out-of-School Time communications.

Support Your Blog By Commenting

2009-04-24T06:57:00.000-07:00

The concept of academic freedom has not always existed. In theory, perhaps since the first teaching institutions, but in practice here in the United States it did not take hold until 1940 in the Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. This document was authored not by the state, but jointly authored by the American Association of University Professors, a membership organization founded in 1915 to give voice to the developing field of university professors that was under stress from conservative college and university boards and funders. The issue that created this organization, migrant workers rights in the classroom led to a professor being fired.

Out-of-School may be very different work, but we need a free voice in developing our practices and the ability to promote what is unique about our work. Many programs are seen by the mainstream as disposable additions to the day of children and youth. Arts, sports, enrichment through hands on activities, social emotional development, are often seen as "soft skills" or done by "wide eyed 21 year olds" (personal communication, 2008) who lack classroom management when what Out-of-School Time workers are trying to create is not a classroom but a learning community.

This blog has been an experiment in such academic freedom - a developing voice to stimulate ideas and to demonstrate that the Out-of-School field is a growing area that offers children and youth opportunities they cannot get anywhere else.

We'd like to hear that this experiment has merit. In the past three months there have been over 350 readers from Massachusetts, across the United States, all countries in South America, and one reader in Africa. This is exciting that our local work can have such an impact. We invite readers to comment or e-mail a few words of support or concern so we can better assess this endeavor.

Thanks

The BOSTnet Roundtable Year in Review

2009-04-22T11:14:00.000-07:00

2008/2009 Leadership Roundtable Series Reflection

Overview
For fourteen years, BOSTnet’s Leadership Roundtables have been one of the many professional development services we provide to the out-of-school time (OST) field. They are a key activity in our approach to quality improvement that focuses on building staff skills around identified field competencies. This past year, we updated the format and began holding Roundtables in communities outside of Greater Boston that have limited networking and professional development opportunities. In the past the Roundtable relied on panel discussions in which participants discussed effective practices used in their programs. This season’s offerings combined networking opportunities with research-based training presentations and collegiate conversations to foster a more inclusive learning community. Training topics were sequenced to build a body of core knowledge and to meet the needs of program staff for professional development credits through the Department of Early Education and Care. Thanks to the generous support of For Kids Only After School, Inc., BOSTnet re-launched the Leadership Roundtable on the North Shore while the Shapiro Foundation, the Boston Foundation, State Street, and others provided support for the Boston series to continue into its fourteenth year.

Review of Activities
The sequencing of events was an original concept. It has long been recognized that staff at OST programs experience turnover during or after the summer and there is a need for refresher materials at the beginning of the academic year with older staff in new positions or assuming new program projects. To address this need to orientate OST staff (including directors, coordinators, and new staff), BOSTnet launched the fall series with Quality Environments for Youth, an overview of what makes OST programs a unique developmental setting for youth, how it differs from formal education environments, and its potential as the primary pathway to healthy youth development. This environmental approach to building quality programs represents BOSTnet’s view of the field as a complimentary support for children and youth from what they receive during the school day.
The series continued with Promoting Positive Behavior, purposely front-loaded at the beginning of the academic year to address behavioral and group management issues as programs are assembling. Behavioral support training is consistently one of most requested and well-attended trainings we offer. As the year continued, Project-Based Learning provided a working structure for programs to intentionally frame enrichment activities, meet academic standards, and allow program staff to develop their own fun and engaging projects. The beginning of the Spring Series we had the opportunity to dig down into more complex issues that are a perpetual challenge for providers, including accountability and inclusion. To help support programs faced with shifting expectations and increasingly complex requirements, BOSTnet surveyed the many different tools for measuring program quality and provided a forum for programs to discuss some current issues they are facing in obtaining meaningful data. Inclusion also raised many questions for programs that are seeing many disabilities manifest as behavioral challenges – especially as the definition of disability is shifting to include social-emotional or cognitive disorders. The final Roundtable in the 2008–2009 series set for May 7th, Effective OST Communication in a Digital Age, will discuss program communication, outreach, and new web-based technology.

The presentations provided built upon the knowledge we have gained over the past few years running the Lead to Opportunities for Youth with Disabilities (LOYD), Promoting Positive Behavior, Engaging Families, the Facilities Initiatives, as well as best practices gathered from BOSTnet’s fieldwork. Leadership Roundtables on the North Shore were hosted by different organizations such as Girls Inc., the YMCA of Greater Lynn, Boys and Girls Club of Salem, Community Teamwork, Inc., and the North Shore Community College department of Education who also generously provided refreshments. The Boston Public Library where wireless Internet allowed for “real time” web searches and video feeds hosted Boston Roundtables. Every roundtable was evaluated and reflected upon on the day of the event, elevating key issues and capturing quotes and conversations, while providing transparency as to effectiveness and participant satisfaction. Reflections were posted on the BOSTnet blog at www.bostnet.blogspot.com and indexed according to topic or initiative. Comments were welcome to these pages by interested parties and attendees, allowing for anonymous comments to create a higher level of academic freedom and dialogue in the field. Research support was provided by Michael Bennett Monica Zgola handled logistics. Evaluations were developed and reviewed by Manosi Datta.

Observations
Over the past year we have connected to many great programs and staff and heard inspiring stories from staff that are working hard to make a difference in the lives of children and youth. Nearly 500 attendees participated in the 2008/2009 Leadership Roundtables in Boston and the North Shore. The level of experience of attendees was on average ten years or more in the field. Some commented that they felt most professional development was not raising their abilities but “refreshing” strategies or approaches they already felt confident they knew. There was also consistent representation by “line staff” however; this was more the case for Boston than the North Shore.

Programs are stressed by shifting and increasingly unrealistic expectations, inconsistent directions set by funders and policy makers, and, of course, the economy. Many see a diminishing of the community they found in the OST movement, and are interested in continuing to network and share ideas. A major obstacle to this is the limited funding strategies available to programs that creates a more competitive environment and less cohesion in the movement. Many current leaders (many attendees over 20 years in the field) wonder about the upcoming leaders that are needed to keep the field growing and strong. Response to the Leadership Roundtables was positive, as evidenced by solid attendance, increases in blog readership, and positive reviews collected in evaluations. With fewer professional development dollars available and increasing professional development requirements for licensed programs, many providers see BOSTnet’s Roundtables as their primary staff-training option. We will continue to use participant’s feedback to improve our offerings to better serve the field. A few of the suggestions we are currently evaluating include providing specific Roundtables for different level staff, and providing more afternoon trainings for direct staff when they have paid program time.

The Coming Year
We are currently working with partners to plan the upcoming series and expand the Roundtables in the South Shore and Central Massachusetts for the 2009/2010-year. As BOSTnet assumes its role as the Massachusetts’ affiliate for the National Afterschool Association, some changes may be made to both the delivery and geographic reach of our Roundtables. We are constantly developing new topics and refining old ones based on lessons learned from our fieldwork and research. In collaboration with the DEEC, Roundtables will be evaluated according to standard expectations of training organizations and other entities may be involved in delivering these events or informing the content. Funding for these events may be provided by organizations acting in unison, as was demonstrated by organizations on the North Shore this past year, or assistance may come from private or governmental channels as has traditionally supported the Boston series. The series topics with locations and hours will be listed on www.bostnet.org.

Technology and Out-of-School Time

2009-04-21T12:52:00.001-07:00

There is a great deal of information out there through various media. We hear about newspapers being shuttered while also the ascendancy of new forms of communication that not only replace the paper format, but redefine how we communicate and construct knowledge.

That is not to say that the only thing we are constructing is knowledge. There is a great deal of clutter and with each advancement in communication, there seems to be an equal advancement in people's ability to turn something good into yet another stream of trash. The academic papers and open discussions of the Internet became chat rooms and.... pictures of questionable taste. E-mail became SPAM. Viral ideas, became viruses and Trojans or other malware. "Maleware" became a word.

Some react to these forces with a heightened sense of danger. Filter, restrict, create hoops to gain privilege to the network - and this is program staff not an attitude to children or youth. Others have taken the everything new is a new opportunity and jumped further and further to the "bleeding edge" (beyond the "cutting edge" for those of you old enough to remember proper grammar). Some organizations have unloaded millions of hard-raised dollars for web pages, search features, and Java script and encouraged others to "join the digital age." However, the non-profit sector in general and Out-of-School Time in particular seem to have not found a way to raise themselves above the clatter, hold on to a certain amount of control while realizing that new-technology redefines host and user content and may offer a more transparent window into their work - whether they like what outsiders are seeing or not.

Out-of-School programs are slowly coming into the digital age - as are training providers, OST researchers, and other supporting institutions as organizations jump in often using models applied by the corporate world or from personal experience (the hey, I use myspace with my friends so....). This topic will be explored at an upcoming Boston Roundtable organized by BOSTnet Thursday May 7th from 9:30 - 12PM at the Boston Public Library. If you would like to discuss what you do to promote your organization, meet funder needs, or integrate technology into what you bring to children and youth, please attend and be prepared to visit your website and tell others about how this or that aspect of technology captures an audience - or you feel drives away community.

Over ten years after the dot-com bubble/boom/bust, we continue to ask ourselves, is Twitter really going to help us? and then Twitter that exact message so our friends all know what we're doing now is wondering.

For more information on the May 7th Boston Leadership Roundtable or to participate go to www.bostnet.org.

Behavior in Out-of-School Time

2009-04-09T08:18:00.000-07:00

Reflecting on a number of trainings on Promoting Positive Behavior, BOSTnet's approach to behavior in OST, there has been a number of trainees from all program levels who have asked, "what's up with kids today?"

It seems that many in the field claim that there has been a shift in difficult behaviors in the past five or ten years making them question what is happening with children these days and how can programs respond.

"I used to be able to call a parent," one site coordinator said, "[children] are like... go head, call my house I don't care!" Another training had people wondering whether there were more difficult children being placed in OST for a number of reasons (vouchers being given to children with special needs - many of these needs disabilities with a high behavioral component) or whether there was a change in how children act and how parents are raising their kids. These comments perhaps can be dismissed as an aging workforce looking to the past with nostalgia or getting weary of the repeating behaviors year after year as different children express challenging behaviors. It may also be that the supports - a challenge/strategy approach - is not able to address the issues since there are so many factors that make each individual situation different. A child likes to lick other children. This child seems to have a developmental issue that is not diagnosed. The staff have talked to the parent, met with teachers, reinforce positive behavior at the program, but still, Sally licks other children. "We've done so many interventions" the staff say. Now what? Listening to many staff talk about their solutions there were some situations that have been so complex that there is no "out of the box" solution (such as in a case where the strategy is clear but there is no staff available to follow this strategy because it takes time that the already stretched program does not have - how at a training can the trainer invent more time?). Perhaps this is because much of the materials for behavior are borrowed and "adapted" for out of school but they retain much of their original more formal approach to a youth environment - that of the day school. Is OST behavior different? Screaming and punching, no, that is still an issue, but is there a scope of acceptable noise and movement that may appear more messy? "I look for a healthy noise" one director remarked.

Another issue is that program staff want to create a different kind of relationship in their program between children and between staff and children. This is marked by informality, active discussion, and relying on strong relationships to promote a positive environment for youth. Many issues staff have with behavior seem to stem from their having to switch back and forth from caring adult to trying to recreate a classroom environment. With more programs working in school facilities or partnering with schools, what are the dynamics of being known as "Sue" inside the OST program room but "Ms. Watson" with the same children but in the hallway? There are challenges in maintaining each relationship - and perhaps many staff seeing even greater difficulty in achieving both.

Behavior support is one of the most popular BOSTnet trainings and consistently the highest attended Roundtable (in all locations). Some trainers have joked that they can make any training popular just by throwing in the word "behavior." In a previous post on BOSTnet's Inclusion Roundtable was the reflection that in the discussion on Inclusion, the issues raised was not so much how to include children of all needs but "what do I do with Johnny who throws things does not listen and may have ADD ADHD learning disabilities and has not been diagnosed and we are not provided the one-on-one he gets in school."

As programs are preparing to be judged or rated by various systems or departments, how can behavior be approached in a way where the apparent chaos may not be, in the context of an approach developed specifically for OST, anything other than positive noise?

Program Profiles on Youtube

2009-04-06T06:47:00.000-07:00

As part of BOSTnet's on-going series of on-line program profiles, KidsArts! was featured. A program that was founded by families almost two decades ago to provide arts education and child care, KidsArts! is currently operating in the recreational area of an historic church in Jamaica Plain. The program has an arts focus, but at the center of this program is building a community of learners and taking care of children. The staff are all artists who are trained to provide educational enrichment and act as teachers. The program takes in children from many schools as well as children who are home schooled. This program is an example of a small scale independent program that fills an important role in the community and may represent the kind of program that appears to have a high level of quality, but that quality may look very different to a more standardized approach. That the program has lasted almost two decades (with one staff member there from the beginning of the program) demonstrates that individual community-based solutions are not necessarily temporary situations depending on a certain group of parents or a limited scope of activities. While KidsArts! may have been created to fill a void left by the cuts in arts funding and programming in the day school so many years ago, the program is no longer about the deficits of formal educational programming. KidsArts! today provides parents of different economics as well as parenting strategies a vibrant learning community for their children. There may be hundreds of similar programs throughout the Commonwealth that do similar work.

LOYD: Boston Inclusion Roundtable

2009-04-03T06:50:00.000-07:00

The BOSTnet Inclusion Roundtable brought together a small number of program directors, direct care staff, and Inclusion specialists. The presentation initiated a great deal of conversation around the sorts of supports that Out-of-School Time can offer children and youth with disabilities and the need for increased funding of staff development to ensure that programs can provide a quality environment.

What was interesting was that unlike the last roundtable, this group did not say that they lacked the same supports as the school day because they questioned the supports of the school day itself. One support was the "one-to-one aide." It is common to hear many Out-of-School professionals mention that children they include in their programs are done so without the support of these aides and this reduces the quality of their program both for the individual who requires the support by day and for the other program participants. At the Roundtable, many questioned whether the aide model was good for the child in school or whether it set that child apart and allowed teachers and students to remove themselves from care-giving. One OST program staff said that it was a good thing that they did not have aides and that these children who were provided aides or sent to special programs within the school for the majority of the academic day were included in an authentic way during their program time (some mentioned that severe mobility impairment or intense mental or cognitive disabilities that lead to aggressive behavior may need additional supports). This was an interesting to hear since it is very common to hear lists of program challenges around Inclusion rather than a confident point of view that said "schools should learn from us about what we do" rather than "we are deficient in this area without funding."

There was a great deal of talk about how many schools continue to exclude children and youth with disabilities - and that these programs while they may not take place during the entire day are often in re-purposed areas of the school facility; basements, former bathrooms, former closets, former mechanical rooms. While many said that their programs operated in less-than-optimal facility environments, many programs felt that their program did a better job of including children or youth with special needs so that the physical space did not move these members of the community "out of sight." Some of the attendees had personal experiences with the Special Education system and spoke directly of being in a "closet classroom." One staff member said that he was diagnosed with a learning disability while the school support staff never questioned why he had missed so much school in the previous years. So the issue treated was the inability to read "on grade level" not the social issue of truancy. He claimed that this experience of being in Special Education classes increased his difficulties with school rather than elevating them - the primary reason being social/emotional not whether the mechanics of reading were being taught in a different way. His ability to be excepted by peers was impacted as well as self esteem. Another attendee picked up this thread and asked how it was that schools seem to teach exclusion during the day and then leave it to programs to "un-teach" what they have done. "We have to much to do in just a few short hours... We got to show them a different point of view than their school... maybe their family... has on children with special needs" a staff from an arts program exclaimed. "Well, all children have special needs" another staff chimed in. "We have to see that the modifications we make benefit all the children in the program.... I mean, we do this for everyone, not to accommodate only a few."

In all, the Roundtable only briefly touched on the formal presentation. One highlight of the presentation was a short discussion of Dr. Gary Siperstein's work on Inclusion and his thoughts that Out-of-School Time programs actually are bridging the social barriers between children of different abilities and do so because the environments of these programs are focused on relationships first, activities second, and have a flexibility that many formal settings do not have (one example was a program that was in an old building so that mobility impaired children could only attend the basement. The program did not have money to get in an elevator, so they moved the most popular activities - media and computers - to the basement. This created a situation where youth who wanted to access the resources needed to confront the Inclusive nature of the program. One girl was so unfamiliar with interacting with others in wheelchairs that she refused to come in but would stand at the door. By having discussions and allowing interactions to grow organically, this child finally entered the room and got rid of her fears while the program developed a culture of Inclusion that remains to today).

It appears that while there remain challenges (especially around having funding for quality professional development) there is perhaps an emerging attitude of many program staff that they are able to provide a very high quality of service - even if that service does not look like solutions provided during the school-day. While research and the voices from the field tell us that Out-of-School Time is providing Inclusive environments, these programs in the room felt that they were not recognized for the work that they did or the successes they were having.

Quality Forum Countdown

2009-04-01T11:42:00.000-07:00

There is a great deal of discussion in school-age programs around the new quality ratings system being devised by the EEC as there is about new EEC regulations and for many in the Out-of-School Time field, a larger discussion on quality of service and how best to measure unique contributions to youth development that these environments offer.

BOSTnet is planning a Quality Half-Day Forum and will attempt to bring together some of the current issues as well as examples of quality programs in a range of program types. This forum will soon be looking for presenters and identifying programs that can serve as an example of quality in action.

It is hoped that this forum covers a ranger of issues as well as providing concrete examples and tools or resources around how to improve quality at the point of service and some of the challenges in meeting larger system improvements. The Forum will contribute to the discussion on program quality at a time when more people are asking how much funding is needed to support quality programs.

The Quality Forum may touch on subjects such as supervision, retention and staff recruitment, STEM in Out-of-School Time, and other issues of quality such as the QRIS.

BOSTnet is looking for input from the field and welcomes thoughts or advice on what subjects are currently being sought and what resources may be the most useful to the field.

More information on the Forum can be found here or at www.bostnet.org

Diversity of Children - Diversity of Programs?

2009-03-27T10:23:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-24T12:32:00.000-07:00

"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

2009-03-12T10:44:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-05T11:49:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-03-02T08:11:00.001-08:00

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.

North Shore Roundtables: Outcomes and Evaluations

2009-02-24T11:14:00.000-08:00

There is a great deal of discussion at the funder level - and the policy - about how programs should assess themselves and how the diverse field of Out-of-School Time (that many say spans all ages and types of programs from year around to summer and weekend) needs to be evaluated.

There are basically two modes of thought: One proposes that Out-of-School Time needs to be evaluated vis-a-vis the school day. That improving programs means aligning them with school methods, norms, and expectations. This is a de facto if not in sutu way of extending the school day - which is a fancy way of saying Out-of-School Time becomes like-school-time. The other mode of thought is that programs need to be assessed based on the specific and unique elements that define a Out-of-School Time program and that evaluation of programs need only be against other programs. If there is improvement in academics in school and that student is a child in an Out-of-School program that is good, but not a benchmark of program quality.

The group gathered on the North Shore were lively and there were many ways people took up the idea of assessment and evaluation. There was discussion that assessment and evaluation are often used interchangeably - or at times mistakenly - to mean a similar thing (just as many competencies or outcomes are not on students but part of elements of effective management) One program director remarked that there is a distinction and one way to avoid confusion is to consider any tool to be assessment as long as it measures specific aspects of the program (an arts project, family engagement, etc) and larger program-wide data to be part of evaluating the program or organization. An interesting discussion was also about what tools promoted an academic-focus or put links to the school day or subjects as major elements of quality - missing the focus on the social-emotional development of children or the long-term values added to the community. In all, most agreed that they were not professional evaluators and that sometimes they will just collect data and "let the funders make sense of this all."

Evaluation and assessment are part of our popular mind. They are enforced by a culture of customer service that has been so pervasive in the past thirty years many of us seem not to remember a time when our civil society gave us what was good for us rather than constantly asking us what we want. Whether this is a positive or negative development has yet to be seen. Years of viewing social services as customer driven and creating an attitude that the public does not have a commonwealth but is comprised of a diverse network of consumers has indeed changed our landscape and how we interact with one another and run our programs. The resources we have placed into assessment and evaluation may perhaps give us a better point of view - or at least numbers to toss around and fun data charts we can post on our walls. However, has this process of constant assessment and evaluation led to an increase of quality at our programs? This question may actually require further evaluation. Perhaps we need to ask only those questions we want to answer - we are consumers after all...

STEM in Out of School

2009-02-23T11:54:00.000-08:00

In a time of rather depressing news - take your pick as to what that may be for you personally or for your program or organization, there is some really interesting movement in getting Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math projects into Out-of-School Programs.

Currently the United States is not faring too wall in science education when compared to other countries. This may be due to how it is hard to measure one country against another. The difficulty to uncover standards or norms when there are so many variables and the fluid nature of knowledge when measured by strict instruments. Perhaps comparing Finland and the United States is like comparing informal learning environments to formal education. Or holding informal learning environments responsible for what occurs during the school day. Nevertheless, many researches think we can measure Finland against the United States and clean the data to give us a clear picture of the quality of our science education in this nation. If that is the case, as so many educational statisticians argue, we are not doing too well when compared against that and other nations. In fact, we rank #29th of 57 nations. Finland is #1.

Leaving the debate over evaluation and assessment of nations or learning, we can always use an extra hand in science education. Some say that our nation's financial health can only be saved by increased investment in science education.

This has led some to identify Out-of-School Time programs as the logical place for expansion of learning - and a natural place for learning that is by its nature out of the classroom and outside of the tests and answer sheets associated with current educational systems and academic-focused Out-of-School Time environments. Out-of-School Time programs have used projects for years to enrich their offerings and raise their quality.

Nevertheless, we will have to see whether STEM can work in the OST environment and the latest pilot to do so runs now until the end of summer. There are two groups in Massachusetts one in the west managed by WESTmost and the other in the east. The Eastern Cohort Group is run though a partnership of Build the Out of School Time Network, The Department of Early Education and Care, Department of Higher Education, Massachusetts Afterschool Partnership, The Museum of Science, and the Donahue Institute. The four sites and representatives of the six partners gathered today at City Year in Boston to learn about how to teach engineering using the Museum of Science's Engineering is Elementary curriculum. The training covered the fundamentals of engineering - have goals and ask questions until you solve these challenges with the materials at hand. The group was surprised at how simple materials were all that was needed. They also learned that through projects many children who may get factual answers wrong on a science actually can innovate in projects and become engaged in ways they may not through text books and discussions.

Over the next coming weeks, this group of STEM pilots will launch their projects and we will see what potential there is for this work and what challenges programs face in implementing these projects looking at what supports are needed, whether "out of the box" curriculum works, child engagement, and if these projects are fun for staff and children.

At a point in time when science, technology and engineering are opening all these incredible potentials in our world from micro-computers to green technologies, the United States is falling behind in the production of graduates in these fields. We need to do something towards growing the next generation of STEM workers. Already "by 2010, only four years from now, more than 90 percent of all scientists and engineers in the world will live in Asia." We have our work cut out for use to bring our rating up from #29th in the world science community and to make this country again the innovation powerhouse we are accustomed to.

Field Work: ASPIRE

2009-02-19T09:14:00.000-08:00

As part of BOSTnet's on-going field work, we are profiling programs as well as collecting individual voices from the field from leaders in Out-of-School Time. This allows unfiltered voices to come through, allowing program staff to speak about their experiences and views as well as making this work more visible to a general audience.

Last week ASPIRE After School Program staff were interviewed about their program. They did not respond to any re-scripted questions but spoke about what they did at the program as well as share some of their passion for youth work. We hope to increase the number of profiles in the coming weeks and to present this work at our Quality Forum in June.

Quality In the Face of Challenges

2009-02-17T07:02:00.000-08:00

Recently there has been a great deal of talk about the economy. It is on everyone's minds as daily we hear a constant drumbeat of bad news. More jobs lost, the "market" down, this or that company looking for a bailout.

The Out-of-School Time field has not been immune. Many programs are worried about summer enrollment, private and government dollars, and the use of a constant or diminished number of resources becoming ever more contested by programs and organizations - many of which are currently burning through 2009 reserves prior to the 2010 fiscal year meltdown. This is a time when the cohesion of the field is being challenged as many program managers and directors are in open competition with their peers. Applications to every source of funding, no matter how small, are up. While this may lead to many fractures - often between people who have known one another or worked together for years - these economic conditions make it more important for the Out-of-School Time field to come together and settle on an identity and key areas of quality. Managers and organization leaders must also be frank about financing, funding, and how supporting each other can help sustain yourself.

Over the past several years there have been various large system-building or capacity-building initiatives. These initiatives have taken much energy and often funding away from the work at the ground. Considering where the economy is, large-scale system-building initiatives may have to be reviewed for what is useful - and what of these endeavors are boondoggles that can no longer be supported with private or public funds. Leaders in the field may have to reflect on what their practices and expectations have been and use this period to bring these in to line with our current realities. What are we asking of the direct service staff? What training are we providing them? What is the actual scope of the work and can we continue to measure Out-of-School program quality against individual child in-school performance?

Programs may need to openly discuss what it means to share resources. We hear a great deal about "share resources" but what does that mean?
Share staff (some programs have been doing this)?
Share costs for materials?
Share space (many programs have be doing this)?
Share program participants?
Write grants together?
Merge management and close some organizations?

The last item is perhaps the most sticky of the points. Sharing of craft sticks or direct-service staff always is more popular than closing down upper management and even consolidating the infrastructure of organizations that provide similar services. It begs the sticky question of who is taking over whom?

The market conditions have not been favorable even in times of plenty (or at least the past eight years by comparison to today) to smaller programs or individual actions by managers to adapt their program in the face of NCLB-style initiatives and educational and enrichment misadventures. Certainly there have been many more barriers to entry placed in the way by creeping and pervasive "professionalization" that has provided no back end infrastructure of consistent funding, agreed upon standards of quality, or a sold commitment to either placing Out-of-School Time within the area of Youth Development or adjunct to academic remediation. Gone are the days when an interested community member could launch a needed program for idle children around her. With start-up times, organizational bureaucracy and funding restrictions such as restricted or project-driven funds, many of these elementary-age children may be adults before the program gets off the ground. Can a field that has slowed down in innovation respond to economic challenges in a timely manner?

Much of our current situation did not arise all at once but came from years of unsuitable development and unsustainable investments. Despite the many conferences and committees, the field appears at a social level (colleague to colleague) to be more fractured than united. This is indeed a larger symptom of the problems in how funding was deployed. The amount of unrestricted funding has diminished or vanished, inspiring many programs to higher levels of activities often outside of their traditional keen. The inconsistent "investment" by private and public entities and individuals that created programs at whim and abandoned them inexplicably.

What may be needed now is for more members of the field to come together and a renewal in that spirit that launched the Out-of-School Time field in the first place. Individuals inspired by the idea that children and youth can benefit from an expanded number of developmental settings and that those settings are intentional and provide the context for the learning that occurs in formal settings and does not extend nor replace that formal system. Out-of-School Time is more than challenged by current market forces and that once over, business can resume as usual.

The field of Out-of-School Time faces a critical juncture. We must look at the old ways of thinking and shed them. We must brush aside our differences in philosophy and approach and look to the fundamentals of the work and then advocate methodically for consistent funding for the kind of work this field was meant for, not the sort of work we are often given or demanded of us. Increasingly on the ground there is a frustration in the way things are done. Change happens only when we are the first ones to make it in ourselves. Time will tell what direction each one of us chooses.

LOYD Guest Blogger: Donna Folan

2009-02-09T09:26:00.000-08:00

As part of our ongoing Lead to Opportunities for Youth with Disabilities (LOYD) and quality discussion, we are posting guest authors who are contributing to the Out-of-School Time Field. As an artist, director, and teacher, Donna Folan, Director of Until Tomorrow Productions, embraces both the nontraditional and unconventional. She believes that the outcome of creative work should never be known in advance, so something new is always shared and learned. The process of exploration in all activities is always changing, engaging all the participants in new and unexpected ways.

There is not one central place that provides support for OST participants with disabilities. While economic times are difficult, not all solutions are financial.

Some important considerations are:
o What is your current organizations level of physical and programmatic access?
o What are the needs of all your participants.
What supports or accommodations needed for participants with disabilities?
o Does your organization have a line item in the budget dedicated to accommodations in grants? This is a clear indication of commitment to inclusion to funders and may provide a way to pay for some needed accommodations.

Many people can have the same disability that does not mean they all have the same assistance. Disability is not one size fits all. Accommodations need to be individually designed.

All people connect to learning in a variety of ways, when designing activities have as many ways "in" as possible for all participants. Think about a flexible model that grows up around your groups. Provide information in a variety of formats and Multi-Modal Approaches gives much support. Everyone can and will achieve goals and will do so in a different way. A lot of creativity and coloring outside the lines.

Donna has extensive experience in acting, directing, and knowledge of most other areas of performing arts. She utilizes this experience to assist group members to identify their areas of interest and passion. Donna has a personal understanding of how creativity and theater enable individuals to decide how large or small a part they want their disability to play in their artistic work. Donna is able to help youth with disabilities and those without gain a realization that regardless of the challenges, or obstacles they face, no one factor can solely decide who they are. Participating in creating theater teaches this valuable lesson. It is imperative to provide fully inclusive and accessible settings where all people can learn from each other in a positive and equal environment.

Point of Service Quality

2009-02-06T11:42:00.000-08:00

There is a great deal of discussion about the impact and quality of out-of-school programs - about as much as there is continued discussion on the definition of what out-of-school programs are - Early care? Elementary school? Teenager programs? Weekends? Summer programs? Are we stuck in a world of dead ideas and ways of seeing things that are out modded as Fortune Magazine's Matt Miller claims our nation as a whole is? Can we still provide quality service and keep the process of delivering that simple and effective?

Many providers in this year's BOSTnet Cohort of programs have discussed their frustration as to the definition of quality and the many and often competing tools and opinions out there vying for recognition. "I don't find much use in [an outside quality assessment tool]" one program leader claimed. "I do those [outside quality assessment tools] because I have to. Then, I create my own to learn what I need to know to improve my program." Are these tools focused on measuring dead ideas?

Many programs are asked to be held accountable to improving school-day performances either surrendering their unique offerings and substituting increased formal academics ("classroom" style learning) and linking their outcomes not to those that a unique developmental setting can provide but those improvements that may be very much out of their control - those performances of the classroom of such-and-such public school or schools depending on the composition of the program.

"We need to focus on what we do, and what we do well" seems to be the opinion of many leaders within the cohort yet upper level management often stifles innovation by holding on to older ideas of management and definitions of the field. Many emerging leaders as well as veterans see themselves needing high-level supports yet do not feel this clearly expressed need is being met. Again, older ideas of training and professional development continue to send experienced people back to the same old trainings they had the year before. How many "refreshers" are needed? "I am not sure why I am expected to attend a [professional development training] and expect to cover the same material that entry level staff are" one long-time program manager said. It is strange that in this field so many of the trainings are expected to meet the needs of all staff from the upper levels to the line-staff - not to mention the unrealistic expectations that a single trainer can "adapt" the materials to meet all these different needs in a single contact period.

Focusing on the needs of each level of staff and increasing the number of upper level opportunities may be one way that more experienced leadership can continue to grow and to shape their programs. This experienced leadership seems ready now, perhaps after years of developing the field and watching the out-of-school time community grow, to focus on what they do well, and reach to measure the sort of Point-of-Service results that are representative of their true contribution to healthy and resilient youth.

A viral video from NASA may shed some light on this situation since many issues of innovation and management cross boundaries and perhaps what is good for healthy science is good for healthy out-of-school time. Perhaps we need to throw out dead ideas and ways of framing what outcomes we are measuring and replace that with a focus on measuring the quality at the point of service and only those things we have direct control over in the multi-layered and ever complex lives of the children and youth we serve.

Out-of-School Goes to the State House

2009-02-05T12:35:00.000-08:00

Today was Advocacy Day for Out-of-School time programs up at the State House on Beacon Hill. This event brought together a diverse audience of many different programs and workers of many different ages and walks of life. The event was organized by Massachusetts Afterschool Partnership had speakers from government, programs, and youth voices.

The room was full of many professionals in the field of Out-of-School Time and one thing was certain from several of the conversations in the room - advocacy was not a single day event this year but will involve hard work and determination over the next few months to make sure that funding is either preserved or that lawmakers and the public see that often social programs need more government funding when times are tough not less.

Program coordinators are reporting an increase in the need for assistance to families who cannot pay fees they were used to paying just a year ago. Summer attendance of fee-for-service programs have also dropped last year and there seems to be worry that this year will see a substantial drop off in enrollment. One coordinator said that she posted a part time position at her program on craigslist and rather than a one-day bump in resumes, she has received about 25 per day for the past week and a half - many from people who claim they are looking for work because their program was closed or position eliminated. What was more shocking was that many of these resumes were coming from other locations in the state, and region.

These are hard times indeed, if these reports reflect the reality out there. Representative St. Fleur when she spoke said that she sees our glass as half-full. She said that attorneys are only as good as the last case they've won and that each year the field of Out-of-School Time must again "win" funding. This may indeed be the case. One person in the OST field joked that anyone who claims they know what to do in these financial times is either fooling themselves or others or both.

One good thing about Out-of-School programs is that they have already learned to operate with little funding and do extraordinary things using few resources. Staff are usually part time. Technology is kept to a minimum. It may be that the funding needed to continue these programs is actually small amount considering the overall state budget or the costs of operating other educational services, such as the Boston Public Schools or flat funding certain line items over others. Glue, craft sticks, some creative energy from staff have already provide numerous youth development opportunities. It may be that our ask is not that much. After all, give even 1/100th or 1/1000th of 900 billion dollars (the current number for the stimulus plan) and our field can change the lives of young people and give children places to play and learn.

BOSTnet on Television

2009-02-03T12:33:00.000-08:00

Suffolk County Criminal Justice Connection hosted by Maura Hennigan interviewed Executive Director Maryellen Coffey and Project Director Peter C. Griffin on the current state of out-of-school time and the future of the field.

Maura Hennigan is Suffolk County Clerk of Court, Criminal Division and host of the weekly program where she interviews community and political leaders from in and around Boston. The program airs on Boston Neighborhood Network weekly.

The BOSTnet appearance will premiere Tuesday night at 10PM on Live Channel 9 and then rebroadcast according to their schedule. Learn more about BNN Here.

LOYD: Building Our Community

2009-01-30T07:12:00.000-08:00

Many people in the field of out-of-school time programs are grappling with the realities of working with an expanding definition of "disability" and with fewer and fewer resources. At a recent training on Inclusion, the staff were aware of what strategies they needed, but did not have the time to provide these supports. They asked, if children with special needs are included in our programs without supports, is this a service to any of us?

For many programs, this is not a theoretical issue. Many programs are identifying larger percentages of children and youth with what they consider emotional or cognitive disabilities. Many of these children are on vouchers as DSS prioritizes children in the system, many of whom OST practitioners feel have untreated or undiagnosed disabilities. As we work on the BOSTnet All Means All Conference, we have to consider what solutions are there in front of us. A leading lawyer said it best about teachers that "[teaching] is not about being brilliant, it is about being a human being" and we so often are told to follow procedures rather than our own common sense. Are there some approaches to inclusion that do not take additional resources (time+money)?

The LOYD community is starting to grapple with large questions as the field goes through a transformation in stressful times. We are not only asking how we do inclusion, we are perhaps having to examine what it means to have an out-of-school community and what is the identity of the field.

LOYD: What is Inclusion?

2009-01-26T10:03:00.000-08:00

What is inclusion? In the classroom, inclusion means to put disabled students in typical classrooms rather than special education settings. Broadly speaking, Inclusion means to provide access to all people no matter what their ability. The issues is then, what is Inclusion when it comes to Out-of-School Time? Is it the "inclusion" of the classroom, or the "inclusion" of the wider disability rights movement?

There remains a controversy to Inclusion - there are many camps in this issue. There are those who claim that inclusion strips services and does not provide the needed supports. There are those who argue that inclusion can be more effective in certain environments. Then, there are those who look at inclusion as more than just traditional disabled and view inclusion as expanding to all needs and abilities in attitude and support. As we discuss inclusion, perhaps we will think more about the division on the issue as well as ways that programs can come together and provide quality supports.

If we look at inclusion as a fundamental aspect of a quality Out-of-School Time program, we then have to tackle what this inclusion means. More people are seeing inclusion as that of including the "traditional disabilities" (e.g. physical impairment, mobility, physical trauma, developmental), and the "new" disabilities (e.g. emotional, social, cognitive). Researchers, such as Dr. Siperstein, director of the Center for Social Development and Education at the University of Massachusetts Boston, Out of School programs may be able to offer a version of inclusion that is broad in definition as it is flexible in getting children and youth with disabilities not only to be next to typical children and youth but to become friends and develop meaningful long-term social interactions with their peers.

This growing evidence demonstrates that Out-of-School practitioners are on to something in seeing their programs as a space that is more fitted to using inclusion as a strategy than more formal settings. It may be that Out-of-School Time programs can adapt to the needs of children and youth and offer a wide range of activities for a version of inclusion - that itself is broad and inclusive.

These are, but the first words in what looks like a longer conversation.

STEM in Out-of-School Time

2009-01-22T13:02:00.000-08:00

I love science, and it pains me to think that so many are terrified of the subject and feel that choosing science means you cannot also choose compassion, or the arts, or be awed by nature. Science is not meant to cure us of mystery, but to reinvent and reinvigorate it. -Robert Sapolsky

Science is a wonderful subject to teach children and youth. Earth science almost writes its own curriculum - and the materials are always at hand: water, dirt, organic materials, air, etc. Many people, such as the Coalition for Science After School think that Out-of-School time is a perfect place to do science projects. In a recent development, progressive educators have conceptualized the Science Technology Engineering and Math approach - or STEM for use in and out of school. The STEM initiative seems to thrive in the after school environment and there appears to be increasing research supporting this.

That is exciting that the learning that occurs in OST is beginning to be recognized and the unique developmental setting being used for what it can be rather than molded into an additional classroom experience. With STEM (as with project-based learning or the social emotional development) OST can serve to compliment formal education and in this way both institutions lead to positive youth outcomes. Learning, after all, is academic skills and social emotional development. As Sapolsky suggests above, these need not be mutually exclusive.

However, it will take further investigation to see how STEM can be implemented in programs. BOSTnet is working with several other agencies to realize this goal. As part of a statewide project the STEM pilot is a joint initiative of DHE and EEC. BOSTnet has selected four programs in and around Boston (the other programs are being selected by another organization out in the most western part of the state). These programs will be receiving units of instruction from the Museum of Science's Engineering is Elementary curriculum originally designed for use in the classroom but adapted for use by Out-of-School Time. Program staff will earn how to do a simple engineering project with children and test the idea that these programs can implement a fuller set of STEM initiatives.

The time for science education is always now. It does not matter whether we as a nation are doing worse than other nations in science or better than other nations in science,what matters is that all children know the stages of water, the theory of gravity, and perhaps be able to understand that plastic takes 20 generations to break down into non-complex hydro carbons and to think twice about disposing of thoseplastic toys.

We will move ahead with our own investigation and post further outcomes as we see how STEM can be brought to life in our programs and reinvent and reinvigorate the mystery of the world for all children.

Lead to Opportunities for Youth with Disabilities Advisory Committee, 2009

2008-12-29T11:34:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-12-24T06:10:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-12T11:10:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-12-08T07:46:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-04T13:07:00.001-08:00

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?

Inclusion Series: Promoting Positive Behavior Survey

2008-11-20T07:48:00.000-08:00

Based on our Promoting Positive Behavior Tool kit, developed by PEAR and BOSTnet, we are experimenting with a web-survey version.

Please contribute to this work by taking this short on-line self assessment. We will contact participating programs with the results.

Click Here to take survey

North Shore Roundtable Reflections

2008-11-19T13:51:00.000-08:00

Question: Who taught you to ride a bike?

Did you go to school for that? Was the teacher certified? Did they hold some credentials of any kind? Were they interested in your performance? Did they hold your handlebars for a time and then slowly let go as your balance improved?

Perhaps you did go to school for that, but chances are you were taught informally and perhaps even learned a few things from a peer.

Much of the world around us can be explored by us sharing what we know with others and Out-of-School time can provide that chance to learn new skills or practice using the knowledge all those hours of formal education are supposed to provide.

With the winter chill upon us, our North Shore Roundtable groups met at the North Shore Community College in Danvers. Situated in a "smart classroom" of the college, our group explored project-based learning and learned one approach created specifically for Out-of-School time. Along with a semi-formal presentation, there were hands-on activities: we explored projects as learners ourselves by experimenting with cans of cola, with apples, with our own interests - making observations, assumptions, and finally just plunging in and learning the old way by doing.

Out-of-School Time is a wonderful environment to explore the world around us. Not because of MCAS testing or 21st century learning skills needs, or because policy makers say we are falling behind the rest of the world in our knowledge of science, technology, engineering, and math, but for because the world around us is a mystery to young people and it is fun for us to explore it together.

Having taught project-based learning for close to 10 years in various after-school programs, presenting it at National Association of Afterschool conferences as well as regional gatherings in the northeast, it is a wonder why this practice is not central to our programming rather than an aside or something we would do if only our other issues would just be fixed once and for all. I often wonder, unless we're going to do something fun and engaging, why should Johnny connect to our program? Can we not teach differently?

The room was filled with a great many experienced people ranging between 3 months in the field of Out-of-School Time to 25 years. 76% provided some direct service, 81% supervised staff, yet only 20% provided or led training in their program. There was an overall satisfaction of 90% for the event.

The activities and handouts were few, and intentionally so. Outside of the method described, the practice has to be done one staff person, one group, and one project at a time with a simple set of tools that need modification by each program to fit local needs and capacity. It is important for more programs to see that building competent program staff is the same as learning the bicycle - we learn it first, so we may pass it on to others, holding their balance until they seem to have gotten the hang of it, allowing them the chance to take what we have shown them and building on it for themselves.

In the coming weeks BOSTnet will be posting the training slides and discussion and helping more programs integrate a type of learning into their program that supports their unique developmental setting.

Project-Based Learning?

2008-11-13T09:22:00.001-08:00

This next month, BOSTnet will focus on Project-Based Learning. The idea of Project-Based Learning (PBL) has been around for a number of years and has its roots in progressive education - a formula that seems for the time being out of fashion.

In this age of MCAS and increased testing, improvement rubrics imposed for the best intentions but often resulting in a decrease in the quality of life for young people - even if there is am improvement in their test scores - there has been pressure on programs to assume more of a teaching capacity and to do so in alignment with the school day and increasingly using the tools and techniques of the school day rather than exploring how our Out-of-School time field can provide a unique developmental setting.

People at the ground level - those who work with children - are increasingly saying their children are stressed and tired by the time they get to their program. More staff are commenting aside that they are feeling overwhelmed by their programs shift towards formal academics and competing with the extend school day movement.

What are program staff to do? Can they be told to teach and not be compensated and trained as teachers? How are programs going to respond when it appears the next fad is to extend the school day and funding and opportunities all - for this moment - point them in this direction?

Schools perhaps can benefit from a more project-based approach (non-parochial private schools and home-schoolers/ unschoolers apply this method successfully) while programs can always use additional resources to attract and retain staff, additional educational materials, and sustained and sequenced training to get the most out of the kind of staff who work in Out-of-School Time.

Our next Roundtable will explore Project-Based Learning in detail and present an easy to use framework that programs can use to retain or expand the type of learning they do - even if that learning is digging for worms and asking big questions rather than memorizing hard answers and increased worksheets.

You can sign up to be part of this training and learn more about BOSTnet's professional development Roundtable Series HERE or at www.bostnet.org

Boston Roundtable Reflections

2008-11-06T12:48:00.000-08:00

"The things they ask us to do for the money they give us is lunatic. I can't hire staff. When I do, I can't keep them. These children are such an issue, and I can tell you, it wasn't like this fifteen years ago. These kids are driving out my staff and scaring away parents with normal kids" a staff person told me in private.

Across the board there are reports of increased behavior problems at out-of-school programs. There are many speculations as to why this is.

Many believe that it is video games and the media.
Others, say that it is parents who lack proper parenting skills or who are high stressed because of the economy or other concerns.
There are some who way that vouchers are seen as an increasing source of predictable revenue in a time when funding is seen as capricious, inconsistent, and never enough for the level of work and quality that is demanded.

Our Boston Roundtable attempted to address some of the challenges around behavior and put these challenges in context. There is no way we could expect to solve all the individual issues and challenges, however, we wanted to try to step back from our individual children - our little Johnny and Jane Does - and look at behavior as an expression of:

The environment of the program (community, families, culture, etc)
The group management by individual staff
The result of approach (fun engaging activities, negotiating and discussing with children rather than power struggles)
How staff work with each other and are self-aware of their own management style

We started off the roundtable with a short discussion of issues as people experienced them. We heard of children unafraid of consequences, unwilling to learn to modify their behavior, who had involved parents - but those parents never changed their behavior or used corporal punishment or had other cultural perspectives not in keeping with the program - and staff who were asked to give a level of care to children they were untrained to provide and for which additional resources were not given. From this discussion we transitioned into an interactive presentation. We looked at environment and approach and touched on issues related to building a program that promotes positive behavior.

At the basics, positive behavior promotion is common sense. Common, if you tend to think that way. However, as we heard from many in the group, dialoging with a child so that a challenge becomes a teachable moment, giving children options for their activity to meet their needs, and allowing for more give and take as well as a higher tolerance for "childish" behavior that has in recent times become forbidden in school does not seem to be the common sense experience of so many children who have only known a new authoritarianism that does not seem to teach children how to behave or regulate themselves. We worked to unpack some of these issues, seeing that there was no simple "in-the-box" strategies but there was a framework we could apply to look at behavior in a different light.

First, behavior issues are part of our work. We won't ever and cannot "solve" it in a finite manner. This is part of our continuous improvement of the children themselves as well as our programs. We need to examine what it is that we are asking of our children. What are the "good" behaviors? Write them down on paper. Look at the list. How long is this list, what do these positive behaviors look like in action? Knowing our children, and how they need to play and invent games as well as be social and spend their energy, what of these expectations we have are realistic? Are we asking children who are sitting for hours to sit an additional three? With these behaviors, then what are ways we can promote them. That is, to reduce the number of reprimands and increase the number of times children hear what they are doing good. Look not to build complex systems and reward charts - or create charts where the entire group benefits from positive behavior. We have to think of the fun we can have in our programs and how our children can contribute to that fun by their positive behavior - after all, what is in it for them to behave? To make your work life easier? Well.... at a certain point, that's what we want. Now, what do they want?

We moved from a semi-formal presentation to our large group activity. It went very well. It is a simple activity to do with staff - and perhaps you can modify it for your children.

We took colored candies. Everyone got one, but could not show it to others. Each color was assigned a set of personality traits. People were to group up with others, but were not able to show their colored candy nor say any of the words on the list. After about 15 minutes, we looked at the groups we had. As it turns out, the majority of the room found their like-minded people and formed those groups. Afterwords, we discussed what was it like to be given a personality trait selected by another? How did you present your personality trait? How did you find your group/ select your group? Did you group up with similar people? How did you know? What made you select the particular group you selected? What are some lessons you feel apply to your work with children?

This activity is based on the numerous personality tests and associated prevalence of diagnosing behavior as defined “thing” and our popular understanding of personality (the “type A theory” etc.) This activity explores the way a “diagnosis” may alter behavior (Stanford Prison Experiment) as well as how practitioners themselves assess not only their own behavior vis-à-vis an assumed identity, but how they identify others and form groups based on these “similar traits.”

This is much like the work of OST, where practitioners are given various individual children, some of which have recognized diagnoses and additional support in school but may not have these supports for OST nor may all the relevant information be shared with an OST practitioner along official channels. OST also is expected to provide supports to a heterogeneous group of children with various needs and do this both at an individual level and while maintaining a large group.

We closed the event and collected evaluations. Of our participants who reported to us, 85% found it a good use of time, with 60% of participants reporting learning something from the interactive presentation and 63% from the discussion. We had 95% of attendees providing direct service, 17% being supervisors,10% reporting leading any training at their program and only 3% involved in fund raising. The range of experience was from one week to over twenty-five years with the average in the room of 5.35 years (yes, weeks and months were factored in).

For more resources visit our website at www.bostnet.org and you can download the Promising Practices Document.

Inclusion Series: ALL Means ALL

2008-10-16T08:31:00.000-07:00

What do you get when you combine about 150 afterschool and out-of-school time providers, a couple legislators, a specialist in developmental pediatrics, innovative workshop presenters dedicated to inclusion, two Olympians and a real life Olympic Gold Medal? The 4th Annual All Means All Conference!

It is clear from the comments we have received from attendees that this year’s conference once again provided program staff with hands-on strategies and opportunities to network and learn together as a field:

· “Fantastic – keep the information coming!”
· “Very well organized”
· “Excellent”
· “Outstanding!!! So motivational and inspirational”
· “Great energy/thought provoking”
· “It was a great day of learning for me. I have walked away pregnant with ideas!”
· “It was awesome. I really enjoyed myself”
· “Great presenters, tons of useful information/networking!”
· “Excellent new workshops and presenters!”

Typical for BOSTnet’s professional development and networking events, attendees represented the entire span of OST providers, from first year direct service staff to program coordinators and executive directors with over 20 years experience. Of the 50 attendees who reported on how many years they have worked in the field the average was 6.5. This is significant because it reflects the importance of continuing education and peer learning in the field. As one six-year veteran noted, “I got refocused on meeting our kids where they are.” It also highlights the need for BOSTnet to outreach more aggressively to newer staff who are looking to network and need basic training to better prepare them for the school year. Attendees responded positively to new workshops offered on brain development and reading skills by Children's Hospital, Boston; inclusive literacy activities by ReadBoston; children exposed to trauma by Project Joy; and working with physically disabled children by Piers Park, Adaptive Sailing Program. Among the topics that respondents reported they would like to see include, diversity training and cultural competence, activities and curriculum on building the social skills of children with disabilities, and working with children with mental health issues, such as bipolar and obsessive compulsive disorders.

BOSTnet wishes to thank everyone who contributed to the success of this year’s All Means All Conference. It has become clear to us that this is a special and unique event. We are unaware of other ongoing conferences – nationwide – that are dedicated, specifically, to the goal of increasing the capacity of afterschool and out-of-school time programs to include children and youth with physical disabilities, developmental disorders and behavioral problems. We wish to thank our generous supporters who continue to make this event possible: The Boston Foundation; The Damman Boston Fund; Northeastern University’s Center for the Study of Sport in Society; and, The Disability Inclusion Initiative of the Carl and Ruth Shapiro Family Foundation.

BOSTnet would like to thank our opening session speakers, including Eli Wolff, a longtime supporter of All Means All and a leader who always inspires us to think of inclusion as social justice and what it means to be human in society; Senator Thomas McGee and Representative Marie St. Fleur who have emerged as champions of the afterschool and OST field and who are quick to challenge us to be more innovative and collaborative during a time of fiscal uncertainty; and Dr. Alison Schonwald who provided us with very thought provoking information on developmental disorders in a very clear and understandable way. We would also like to thank all the workshop presenters, many of who are veterans of All Means All, who do the important work of teaching program staff new strategies for creating engaging learning environments for ALL children, especially those with special needs.

A very special “shout-out” is due to Michal Shapiro and the BCYF’s Urban Youth Leadership Corps Peace Fellows. These energetic and engaged youth were a huge help with registration and they provided additional insights into the workshops by providing critical reviews of the presentations. The Peace Fellows will be working with the Center for the Study of Sport in Society’s Project Teamwork to be trained in violence prevention and diversity awareness. They will be using these skills to provide peer mediation and conflict resolution in community centers and schools. Thank you and best of luck on this important project. We know you will continue to grow as leaders through your experiences this year.

As always, this is one of the few events we have to see old friends and meet new ones. As we look toward next year we are already considering ideas to improve the 5th Annual All Means All Conference through broader collaborations, new perspectives, and an expanded offering of workshops. Please stay tuned and check www.bostnet.org often. To watch video excerpts from the opening session, click here.

North Shore Directors Roundtable Reflections

2008-10-15T13:16:00.000-07:00

Hosted by the YMCA of Peabody, the NDR gathered together providers from the North Shore region of Massachusetts. The presentation on Promoting Positive Behavior was the second in BOSTnet's series of free professional development for this community. Behavior is a very requested topic by programs as they seek to train a staff of varied backgrounds to work with children with varied needs. Promoting Promoting Positive Behavior is an approach with supports (tools and some on-site interventions) that seek to establish a culture of prevention and recognition that many challenging behaviors stem from staff needing to improve their group management and to establish strong relationships with the children or youth, some behaviors are passing or have no "quick fix" solutions, and a few children have special needs above what an average program can provide. The presentation was perhaps too much of an overview at times since the average experience level in the room was 13 years, however 50% of attendees greatly enjoyed the round table with 80% listing the presentation as beneficial. It was surprising that 99% of attendees supervised staff but not so surprising given OST that those same people also were administrators (95%), provided some level of direct service (59%), as well as raised funds (40%), or "did everything as program director." Also not surprising was that this seasoned staff had attended "tons," or "a lot," and even "a million!" trainings on OST subjects. While many say this is a "new field," this level of experience needs to be better used so that these leaders can not only be recognized for what they already know, but can pass these skills on to workers as well as future directors.

Some interesting moments of the event were the comments time and again saying that OST needed to distinguish itself from school and to be recognized for the value it brings as youth development and that the flexibility of programs and and the element of fun and engaging activities that have, as one practitioner said, "children running into the building." "When do you see children running into school?" Many directors said that they did not feel recognized by schools and that they did not see the benefit to "become more like schools... or being put into a partnership where you are bossed around." This is interesting to hear since there is a push for increased partnerships between programs as well as more emphasis on school partnerships and programs structuring themselves as extensions of the school day. "They're robbing them of their childhood" one director said in conversation. These are very strong words and indeed, the issue at stake is whether OST remains a distinct field that continues to grow, or is absorbed into the school system.

Out-of-School Time programs generally solve behavioral issues through a more relations-based approach, that certain behaviors are accepted (skipping, laughing, having fun with friends), and some behaviors are encouraged (asking questions, having a say in choosing an activity, voicing opinions). This is in contrast to an increasing use of "zero tolerance" at younger ages and a "school to prison pipeline" within many school districts, and certainly more so in low-income districts. The behavioral approach that encourages discussion and prevention may not work in the confines of school. However, this does not mean that this approach is not valid for the kind of environment most directors want their programs to be for young people.

For any partnership to thrive, it must be between equals.

Inclusion Series: Promoting Positive Behavior

2008-09-25T13:28:00.000-07:00

To make the work we do in the field more accessible and raise the bar for dialogue and freedom of ideas in the Out-of-School Field, we are posting many notes we use to compile our project reports on this space. We hope that these full reports will bring much needed transparency to not just the product, but the process of a project. Additionally, in this format, we welcome comments (anonymous if need be to protect yourself from your organization's politics and fear of funder opinion) positive and negative, hoping that some comments are critical analysis we can use to further our thinking and do so in a forum where we "think aloud" and "puncture the corporate veil" that blankets many non-for-profit organizations and especially those who work in the high stakes of youth development, academics, and the lightning rod of "education."

Promoting Positive Behavior is a project that is in its second year, having been funded by the Department of Education and Early Childcare the previous pilot year. The previous year's project was to develop research-based supports and tools specific to the Out-of-School Environment. This was achieved by working with Program in Education, Afterschool & Resiliency and contracting several behavioral specialist organizations in the geographic regions in and around Boston. This past year the project was funded by the Department of Education (now Department of Elementary and Secondary Education)to build on the investment of last year and create and refine supports around the tools and take the research and fold it into practice. The goals were to improve services to children with special needs (emotional and physical) and provide staff development. This work was funded in part by the ASOST grants.

In the coming weeks this document may be edited to include more information or fold in other views or to refine the language to better describe the project. Names and identifying remarks have been removed to protect the privacy of the participants and facilitate intellectual freedom. All edits in CAPS are there to cover identifying details the remainder of the report is based on what was submitted to whatever funder/s required it.

Project Overview:
Promoting Positive Behavior continued the work of a previous year of development of tools and supports designed to improve program ability to serve special needs populations and develop highly qualified staff. These supports are intended to get program staff to focus on problem behavior as part of overall management of their groups and an extension of a common programmatic language around how behavior is addressed and a culture of prevention rather than a punitive approach. BOSTnet selected seven programs in and around Boston representing a diversity of programmatic type, neighborhood, and a span of ages from elementary to middle school in which to deploy the tools and develop supports around Promoting Positive Behavior (PPB) as an approach specifically designed for the Out-of-School field. The primary tool developed and used for the 2007-2008 project cycle was Behavior and Emotional Support Assessment Tool. This tool is divided into four areas: Assets, Behavior Support, and Resiliency, Children’s Socio-Emotional, Behavioral & Mental Health, Mental Health Services, and Staff Self Care. Each section gets staff to rate current practices, prevalence of behavioral challenges, and identify common procedures and resources. Staff are then to create a priority list (either individually or as a group). These priorities could serve as the basis of an action plan that is developed as a group, however, as the project progressed, there seemed to be increased value in collecting assessments and identifying and reflecting back trends to staff and site coordinators. Five programs received services as part of the project. None of the programs had received the completed tool before while three of the programs had been part of the original project group (2006-2007). These programs were located in AND AROUND BOSTON. Collaborating organizations were TWO YOUTH SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS. AN ADDITIONAL YOUTH SERVICE ORGANIZATION had been on the original application but were not selected for the project to accommodate the budget changes.

After an initial contact, it was determined that the use of consultants would be excluded from the current project. The previous year of development necessitated the contracting of certain behavioral specialists to work in developing the Behavioral and Emotional Assessment Tool by collecting anecdotal evidence, expulsion data, and interviewing staff and children. Behavioral specialists also collected strategies from programs that contributed to the publication of Promising Practices, a supporting document in the PPB approach. In the process of developing the tool the previous year, several programs in that cohort had developed a reliance on the specialist rather then developing in-house competencies and improving the professional development of their staff. This model would be unsustainable and the Behavior and Emotional Support Assessment Tool was designed to allow site coordinators minimum support to achieve maximum outcomes in staff development and reaching special needs populations. In addition to the monitoring expulsion data, this current year (2007-2008) would use delivery as a way to develop supports that would assist program independence from expensive supports. BOSTnet adjusted the proposal to fit a truncated time line (funding and the hiring of qualified staff) to reach out to sites to make initial observations to serve as a baseline, train the site coordinators and convene them as a cohort, deploy the tool at respective site staffs and collect completed assessments for use as data, design and test supports (formal trainings, coaching, etc), and make adaptations to the tools and supports to reach a larger audience and create a model that could be released at the state or national level.

Initial Observations
BOSTnet staff visited sites individually to meet staff and make observations of the program in action prior to administration and assess the current supports in place at programs. After these initial observations it was determined that one site originally listed on the application should be substituted for another site within the same organization due to a higher reported number of behavioral issues at this alternate site. ONE site was housed in a school that has recently switched to an Extended Day Schedule. The site had several programs working in the school day but it was determined that only one program (a YOUTH SERVING ORGANIZATION) was appropriate for the work since it occurred after the extended day. The YOUTH SERVING ORGANIZATION ran the other LOCATION program although it operated in a mid-sized elementary school and had more space within the school than the LOCAION site. There, the majority of children had mobility issues or other physical impairments while the staff were majority young college students or older high school students. The site coordinator for that site was concerned with the training level of his young staff and their ability to not just care for disabled children but to “involve them and really engage them every day.” Several children with special needs were observed at other programs. The SCHOOL-BASED program had two special needs children. During the first observation these children were disengaged from the activities and it appeared other students too. The site director reported that these children had special services during the day but that they didn’t have access to these services. One child was suspected of having an attention deficit because he was active and often aggressive to other children. He was reported on the verge of expulsion because of behavioral problems and was at the time of the first observation on the verge of a “third strike” that would remove him from the program. Another special needs student at the SCHOOL-BASED program was suspected of being on the autism spectrum because he received supports during the day in an intensive classroom. The Child was a common fixture at the program but did not participate in all the activities with the others in his group and appeared marginalized – standing at the edge of large group activities, not being involved with peers. The SCHOOL-BASED programs were very different from each other even through they were operated by the same organization. All sites visited reported having mild behavioral issues with some severe issues on occasion. All sites reported that there had been no expulsion or suspension due to behavior the previous year although some site directors did mention that many “problem children” had existed. Many of these children left the program due to being removed by parents, moving neighborhoods, or non-attendance.

Foundational Training
The participating site directors were gathered together to meet as a cohort and discuss their expectations for the project as well as issues common to the programs. BOSTnet staff reviewed the past year’s PPB project and developed preliminary expectations and project activities. Some of the challenges of the project were identified such as the truncated time frame as well as getting sites to recognize the importance of building staff competencies over receiving direct assistance from outside Behavioral Specialists. BOSTnet staff convened site directors and discussed the goals of the program as well as the challenges. The site coordinators used the assessments and results were discussed. From these first assessments it seemed that there were no severe mental health issues (there was a discussion as to what information programs were given and what had to be constructed based on parent communication or connections to day school administrators and teachers) even though the directors thought it a pervasive issue in the school age population. One site director thought that there was an over-medicalization of the OST field and related a personal experience with a special needs child and his resistance of medication. Site coordinators tended to discuss specific children rather than identifying programmatic changes or training needs as a whole. Site coordinators believed that they already had behavioral plans and needed instead a few strategies for a very small minority of children.

Building the Action Plan
Using the assessments, observations from initial site visits and interviews with site coordinators and line staff, BOSTnet staff developed an action plan for each site. These action plans synthesized the self-reported goals along with observations and reflected back to the site coordinator gaps in service or areas that needed improvement. It was common that sites needed staff to receive more training on child and youth development as well as group management. Based on the assessments, staff across programs needed opportunities to develop self-awareness and strategies to deal with problem. Site coordinators were presented with action plans for discussion and goal setting. Assessments were gathered from line-staff as part of meetings in order to present additional perspectives for the action plans. Many gaps appeared between understandings of site coordinators and that of the staff (i.e. site coordinators felt that procedures were in place to work with community agencies while line staff thought this was non existent or needed improvement). The assessments provided a pattern on how the program staff viewed the work as well as identifying areas where the staff most or least agreed on challenges, strategies, and the need for mental health services. Most action plans created in the beginning of the project followed a format that was alter refined so as to better step out activities and to identify the responsibilities and expectations of all interested parties.

Refining of Training and Supports
BOSTnet staff reviewed the previous years training with an eye to making the work reflect more on the Out-of-School environment as well as underscoring how PPB fits into an overall strategy for creating a quality environment for youth development. The original training was considered somewhat technical and focused on a few strategies that did not address the key issues around the types of schedules, activities, and group compositions that are widespread in the Out-of-School field. The revised trainings were presented at a Boston Leadership Roundtable and a BEST training where evaluations were collected as well as anecdotes from participants. These trainings were revised and included as part of the sequence of PPB supports.

Trainings and Supports
Each site has a specific action plan as well as sequence of trainings and supports. Many of the sites found it difficult to meet with BOSTnet staff or commit too many staff to the trainings. BOSTnet staff conducted on-site support to direct-service staff, getting them to use the Self Assessment as the lead activity. These assessments were tabulated and their results were shared with the site coordinators. The majority of staff felt that they let their children know they are doing a good job (Q#1) but that other strategies were rated all across the scale from “not at all” to Always.” These first applications of the assessment always revealed a span of opinions. On the second section of “challenges” many of the staff felt that there was a “mild/moderate” amount of social or interpersonal/ family problems (Q#17) while there was “insignificant” issues around gang-related problems (Q#21), suicidal thoughts or behavior (Q#22), alcohol/drug problems (Q#23), and eating problems (Q#24) This may be because elementary school age students were over-represented as well as staff awareness to identify these issues in their populations. When it came to mental health services (section 3), the questions moved staff to think about the procedures of their program as well as get staff to reveal their familiarity with how their program deals with issues. Most program staff reported that there was no outside consultant and often wasn’t clarity on what procedures were in plce to get information (Q#38) or whether there was a referral system (Q#31). The majority of programs did not have consistent resources share among staff (Q27) or have funding for outside consultants (Q#29). There was often a disagreement with procedural questions as to whether the program had these procedures (Q#37, #40). Staff generally reported less frequency to practices of self care with many program staff reporting no or infrequent access to staff building time (Q #41 - #45 see attached). The Action plans looked to training as the primary formal exposure to developing staff competencies with follow-up visits conducted. SCHOOL BASED siteS coordinators combined their staff trainings. This was least effective as the issues at the sites were very different at each site even though the population of staff was similar (teen and college-age). The follow-up visits were also decided to be combined as during certain times both staff were serving their program populations at a single location (SCHOOL-BASED). This presented challenges since there were multiple sites in addition to the aforementioned. In addition, the children were out of their routine and environment making it more difficult to determine what behavioral issues came up during “typical schedules.” The SCHOOL-BASED ELEMENTARY received supports on a regular basis, with the most progress as children who were disengaged were folded into the program yet there was a schedule disruption as the site took on creating “zones” in accordance with common 21st Century Learning Center practices. The SCHOOL-BASED SITE was also going through changes in expanding to fill rooms that were given for use by the school so the program would not have to use as much shared space. The rooms were being designed including the participant’s voices and this program received supports around how to structure use of time as well as creating space where children had common rituals to limit issues with transitions. The STAND ALONE FACILITY site with its own facility had issues in that the local school was in the process of switching to an Extended Learning Time schedule and the program was threatened by being replaced with other vendors, other models within the school itself, and arguments over future access to children in the community. This impacted the operations of the program and many staff left the site. At the site was a student who showed behavior that was difficult for the staff to manage. This child was thought to exhibit behaviors of ADD or ADHD. The site staff were convened to discuss ways of making the entire program supportive in meeting the needs of all students, as well as creating a behavior chart to share with the student and his family. This chart was framed in a positive way and worked with the child to become more self-reflective on their mood. Staff also were to reinforce the concept of getting the child to give himself time outs or let staff know when he felt overwhelmed. All YOUTH SERVING ORGANIZATION "A" sites received a group cross site training and like the YOUTH SERVING ORGANIZATION "B" multi-site training, it is difficult to assess whether it was as effective as specific and customized work.

Post Observations
Site Coordinators were met with and the action plans discussed. Many changes to the format were suggested to make the action plans more “readable” by coordinators. As the initiative was coming to a culmination during the end of the program year, it was difficult to interview staff about their use of the tool but some reflections were gathered. Many staff reported positive experiences, however, it seemed that many staff still wanted more support and had additional questions about specific children. Data was collected on expulsions. Across the programs, there was no expulsion reported for the project year.
Evaluations of the training showed that it was well received, that the child development section was helpful, and that looking at specific behaviors against the Out-of-School environment made it helpful to ground staff in making judgments about what was acceptable for children to engage in within the context of youth development.

Next Steps
PPB Assessment tools were collected from the programs as well as a control group of outside programs and forwarded to Dr. Noam. Pending funding, these will be reviewed and modifications will be made to the tool incorporating insights from this program year. The trainings and supports developed can now be used with greater accuracy to assist other Out-of-School programs in creating a positive approach to behavior. The use of expulsion as a measure of the project, however, may have to be revisited and replaced with a more specific measure of project effectiveness and outcomes.

There were three measures to evaluate the work and monitor outcomes: collection and interpretation of Behavior and Emotional Support Assessment Tool as a pre and post test, collection of expulsion/ withdrawal data for 2006-2007 and 2007 – 2008, and collected observations and anecdotes.

Assessment Tool Measurements and outcomes:
Each program used the tool in two different ways. The first was a cohort of coordinators who used the tool after an initial contact with BOSTnet staff and then discussed what priorities they were going to set for the year. Site coordinators who used the tool as individual managers were more likely to say they had some individual children who cause issues at their program but felt secure that their programs had the capacity to meet children with special needs (defined as cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and mobility). This same tool was administered to staff at each site and a very different picture often came about. Staff were often unsure as to the issues or how to deal with them. Staffs seemed to think their site had “insignificant” challenges around most categories (Q#16 – Q#25) with most “moderate” or “severe” ratings given to “Social, interpersonal or family problems” (Q#17) and “Aggressive/disruptive behavior, bullying” (Q#20). However, staff were usually hesitant to place a priority as far as programmatic goals and when a site staff did set priorities, they seldom matched those of other workers at the same site. This disagreement on challenges, strategies, and identification of the divergent thinking on key issues was identified by the tool and was used for discussion among staff as well as reporting to the site coordinator and developing the action plan. Here, the tool allowed site coordinators to look at their own reactions of the tool, their ability as managers to understand the needs and competencies of their staff, and for the staff to discuss with one another in a non confrontational manner the skills or knowledge they lacked and how to better work as a team. Having identified gaps in understanding of children with special needs, BOSTnet staff was able to refine training in child development as well as offer more specific group management skills.

Expulsion/ withdrawal data for 2006-2007 and 2007 – 2008
In the collection of expulsion/ withdrawal data, BOSTnet staff collected information from 2006-2007 and then at the conclusion of the program for 2007-2008. Form this information it was learned the number of children in the project, demographic information, and the level of expulsion/ withdrawal for each site as well as aggregating the data to get a clearer understanding of the field. Programs in the initiative served 301 children. Of these, 163 received financial assistance form the Department of Early Education and Child Care (EEC). There were 164 males and 137 females. Programs reported between 72% - 100% low income. Within the programs as a whole 45% were Latino/a, 8% African American, 1% Asian, and the remainder multi-racial or European with no reported Native Americans, Cape Verdeans, Africans and 6% as “other.” The leading reported reason of children leaving the program in 2006 – 2007 was moving neighborhoods. This data remained the same for 2007-2008. The second reported reason was “affordability” or “lost voucher” (aged out of program). This remained the second place reported reason for 2007-2008 as well. Of the children who left the program voluntarily, 5 were reported in 2006 –2007 numbers as having IEPs and 3 in 2007 – 2008. There was 1 expulsion in 2006 – 2007 of a student who was reported “caught breaking into school property.” There were no reported expulsions in 2007 – 2008.

Collected observations and anecdotes
Over the course of the project, observations were made with anecdotes collected on observations of children and staff comments that gave insight into their professional development as well as the special needs of children within the program. Several staff were observed during the beginning of the project having difficulty with managing their groups or trouble with certain children. Staffs at one site were having trouble getting the group to follow instructions and staff members rather than solving the issues were bringing children in one by one or requesting the site coordinator solve group management issues. “They’re getting wet out there, jumping in puddles. The group isn’t listening to directions” one staff member pleaded with her coordinator (01/08/08). It was common to see these staff needing such assistance. At another program, the staffs were more confident, yet there were children who they did not have the confidence to engage. “We’re not sure what to do with him [a disengaged child many suspected of being on the Autism spectrum]. We want him to join in more but he is… in his own world” (11/28/07). “These kids need serious help” one site coordinator said, hoping that the project would work with individual children rather than raising the quality of group management and by extension the program (12/4/07). As the project progressed, staff at the programs saw that the tool led to discussions that they would not normally have. Many staff reported on changes in special needs children. “He is so confident now. I was like, where’d you get that walk” one staff member commented on a child that had for much of the year been withdrawn prior to changing the group schedule and reorganizing how activities were sequenced (03/24/08). Staff appeared more confident in their interactions with children and appeared to share and support with other staff more in working with challenges they were presented with. Rather than taking a strict discipline approach, staff worked to prevent problems and get children to communicate more. “Believe me, when they have a real problem, they know me so they come to me…” (04/18/08). Site coordinators in general felt that their staff had improved in working with children with special needs by seeing fewer children brought to them since they had identified self care (second 4 of the tool) as a gap in their program. “The other day [two male staff members] brought in Guitar Hero as an activity. It was a blast. I could see that the kids were having fun because [the staff] were just having a ball!” (5/20/08). Other programs were able to focus on raising the quality of the program in general as staff were able to discuss issues and see that the majority of behavioral challenges were not due to special needs but were the result of a need to improve skills around group management. These comments and observations demonstrated that the tool use created discussion and moved the process of staff development as well as increasing the quality of service to children with special needs.

Teamwork and its Discontents

2008-09-12T08:19:00.000-07:00

What are the limitations of teamwork? We hear a great deal about the 21st century workforce and how we need to learn to cooperate and work in teams to produce... whatever it is that we are going to be producing to base our economy on... We are not always sure what this is, but we know what it is not. We are told what this is not a) industrial b) agriculture.

We are told it is "Service" or "Knowledge" or other vague concepts that translate into - hey, we really don't have any idea what we are preparing kids today for in the jobs of tomorrow but let's all pretend we do know and pass on the savings. We may be preparing children and youth for the complexities of climate control and nano technology, or a world filled with George Jetson jobs. We talk a great deal about "21st century skills" or "readiness" and that these skills, this readiness requires "teamwork." We don't know what the future work is or the conditions, but we do propose more than ever we need cooperation and teamwork. The only problem is, how do we teach teamwork? What is the value or limitations of teamwork?

Have we as a field really thought critically about what teamwork means as concepts as well as the difficulty in educating children and youth to work together? Are 21st Century Learning Skills just buzz words that perk the ears of funders? When so many of our peers and organizations cannot collectively make a simple decision, it does make one muse whether this is so important because - as Freud proposed - we seek to impart to others that aspect of ourselves we lack?

We try to develop many skills of children and youth during Out of School Time. We want our children and youth to work together, to live together, and in many activity-focused programs, how to solve questions and make discoveries that raise awareness among the entire group rather than benefiting a few "good students." Raising children and youth in groups necessitate a certain amount of teamwork whether for fun activities or for just the basics of maintaining order.

Teamwork, then is something those working in youth development should get to understand in-depth and to practice on a more regular basis both within our organizations and between organizations.

In a recent Boston Leadership Roundtable, we led an activity called "Chess Club" based on the management concepts of Dr. Malik who proposed that teamwork was pushed onto areas it does not belong and that what "we are increasingly confronted with today are senseless forms of organization and impracticable types of labour division, which prevent almost any productive work or make it inhumanly difficult" to accomplish goals to which we need to work individually and for which "teamwork" is an organic part of what it means to be human rather than a learned skill that can be taught. Dr. Malik proposes that often matrix organizations (the division of labor) are part of organizations that actually are "performance-hindering" rather than separating out areas of expertise or flattening the workload.

Chess Club riffs off of the idea he proposed that one cannot play chess as a team as well as the crowd chess site where an organization of a thousand people attempt to beat a single chess master. This is exactly what we are asked to do in Youth Development. We are given a game - developing youth - we may know from experience having played it as a youth ourselves but not touched as an adult, or we studied it and have practiced it for years learning basic and advanced moves, there are defined rules, there are multiple pieces each of which act in predictable but well defined ways, and we are having to not only consider all of the multiple complexities of our own pieces but the pieces, the strategy, and the ability of our opponents - detractors of youth development, etc. We play chess with regulations, families, communities, funders, children and youth, staff, schools, lawyers and courts, and our own personal lives and that like chess, youth development success is achieved over a very long time period - a length of time few spectators want to follow as they are increasingly demanding that each move we make produce a "win."

We made the rules to Chess Club simple. The room was divided into teams arbitrarily. Everyone had to be involved, but the roles were suggested. We were not there to teach anyone how to play chess. They had to hope to find that knowledge in their team. What happened was very interesting.

Each side, after an initial discomfort, brought themselves to understand who had what knowledge and what roles they were going to assign. There was a great deal of laughter but OST people are generally very gregarious and able to deal with disorder and ambiguity. Teams formed by much discussion and "who wants to be the" and "I never played chess." The possible roles were commonly sited aspects of teamwork; coordinator (the leader), shaper, team worker, completer finisher, and monitor evaluator. The majority of the participants didn't remember or know how to play chess and this caused a great deal of initial anxiety. After some discussion, each team was able to identify a person who knew how to play and could teach others. These individuals were assigned different roles on each team. They were also the younger people in the room. One team (team 1) huddled up and looked over the possible roles, talked about who was strong in what area, and voted on who should be the leader and placed the person who knew about chess as the shaper, the person who is full of drive to make things happen. The other team was in disarray and everyone wanted to have the role that was three steps away from the board (the coordinator) but not actually make decisions associated with the coordinator's role. The person who knew how to play chess (taught by his grandfather) on team 2 was pushed into the coordinator position. Team 1huddled and started discussing strategy at once. Team 2's coordinator looked over the roles that were assigned and then identified two roles that were indispensable - the team worker (the person who could move the pieces) and the completer finisher (the person who could finish moves involving a capture of the opponent's piece) and the other members of the team moved to the sidelines offering to repeat the rules or self-assigning tasks (cheering, saying "yes" etc.).

The play moved along with great gusto and fun and laugher... and then, after team 2 made its first capture, a pale of seriousness came over the room. This was about winning. Moves were timed based on estimates rather than fixed, and each group had a few minutes to communicate to their group, think about strategy, agree on direction, and make their needed move or gear at the opposing team.

What occurred when time was called was interesting. Team 1 that had grouped together quickly, really thought about roles, discussed movements, huddled together with their backs facing out, shared ideas, concepts, and discussed strategy... captured one pawn.

Team 2 where the coordinator was shoved into his position and who actually took the hand of the team worker and/or finisher and moved their arm a la Ratatoue while the rest of their team stood by doing... nothing.... captured a pawn, a knight, a bishop, and had the only "check" of the play before time was called

It is up to interpretation as to who won to this point and would would win the overall game had it been played to "checkmate." Would it be the team that worked involving all members but capturing a single low level piece, or was it the leader who was so involved that while they "could not touch the board" managed to find wiggle room by guiding the hands of the workers and captured several pieces and was leading an offensive move at the close of game? At the call of time, who had won?

We would have to play an entire game to discover this while most people would say that team 2 won at the call of time. Would the first team more effective in the long run while losing short term terrain? Would those who were being directly manipulated stop laughing and resist or would they learn by example and fall into being able to provide advise as well as action? Would any of the other watchers in the second team actually do anything?

Think of your organization and the teamwork experiences you have had. What of teamwork can we "teach" children and youth, and what opportunities can be provide where teamwork evolves organically as we communicate and create common goals? There is a great deal of talk about working together today. When was the last time you experienced teamwork bring about a successful project on time and on budget? Were you part of team 1 or team 2 when that happened and are we talking about a long-term play or the short win when time is called?

Inclusion Series: Where is the Fun?

2008-09-05T07:00:00.000-07:00

Situated within a conference room in the newer section of the Boston Public Library, the BOSTnet Roundtable series kicked off to a small audience. The date of the meeting happened to fall on the first day of school and of the many programs in the city and surrounding area. The people who attended were from all different types of program from music and arts to academic and legal aid. The majority of the attendees were familiar with BOSTnet events having attended them before. This was good since there was little need to introduce the organization and we could get right to the work at hand.

The presentation was an overview of Out-of-School time looking at how this environment was a unique developmental setting for youth and that programs needed to define themselves more against what they do rather than constantly be working to prove themselves in ares they have no control over (in school performance, family life, economic well being of the community). The key ideas seemed to go over well when we discussed the role of OST in the lives of children, the parameters of this work and the expectations, but one idea seemed to scatter common agreement and could have perhaps run rampant throughout the entire session: that was fun.

"Fun" was proposed as a central aspect of OST programming. Fun was learning academics in engaging ways, using art material, discovering musical talents, or having the much eroded "free time" educators are horrified to see young people have and it seems greatly assumed leads to immoral and depraved acts. (Not sure what these people did growing up two generations ago in the age of a great deal of free time... perhaps these fears are Freudian projections best skipped.) This was not the debut of "fun" but a second try at brining fun to the table. The last resulted in a great deal of wasted time in a training as staff argued that it was not "fun" but "safety" that was the central core of their program.

Safety?!

I mean... we engage in certain activities not to use the safety devices, but to enjoy them or to have fun. When have you gone to dinner and said, gee, I hope this meal I have will be safe? Or, "we went to this little French Bistro. My goodness, the food there was soooooo safe." Seeing fun as such an alien concept is indeed sad, but these times fun is relegated to the dustbin of an unsafe world where children were left to their own devices or just ignored. Fun, in recent times, has gotten a bad reputation. It is considered something negative or immoral. The safety officer looking for the kids smoking in the bathroom because they are in there having fun. To many "fun" is "Hippie talk." It is sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll (good enough for the older generation, but bad for us, and terrible for our children).

Fun need not be a bad word. It should be the foundation of learning and engagement from early childhood on. The laughter of an infant discovering something. Fun need not be immoral activities nor achieving a constant state of "whee" driven by the ID, but that sustained fun of engagement, discovery, and exploration - the sort of fun that drives many scientists during long days and nights of research. The fun may also be enjoyment of socialization. The fun may also be the ability to play with others without the constant proctoring of time that contemporary adults seem to bring.

Seeing how OST works with children, this fun may indeed be "whee!" Children perhaps need more examples of healthy "whee!".

Uncertainty in Back to School Ritual

2008-09-02T10:51:00.000-07:00

Rather than Labor Day, "back to school" sales mark the unofficial end of summer. The two lazy weeks of August are spent with stores pulling out the unsold flip-flops and towels and filling them with child-friendly office supplies, organizers, and sundry trinkets of learning. College age people disappear from the general population, from keeping watch at cash registers and serving at local restaurants and amass at designated "college towns" where they won't be seen until next summer. Teachers vanish into their rooms with cans of paint and their own brushes if in poor neighborhoods to renovate their classrooms and to stock shelves with new book orders in well to do areas. After-School also is ready - that is, scrambling to see if the vouchers are approved, the space permit asked for in June has been signed, whether there is staff, if the staff hired two weeks ago will show up to work on the first day or "call in" and handle a full mail bin whether paper or electronic.

Add to this ritual, the new uncertainty. There are many crises in the world, and rather than these being far-off conflicts, famines, and troubles, these worries from a world away are all very close to home in our newspapers, on television, and across the internet. The economy is foremost in the minds of many Americans as they send their children to school. A mother mused to me over the long weekend, "We thought we knew what kind of world Fay was born into. But that world of thirteen months ago is gone and we're not sure what it has been replaced with."

The gloom-and-doom crowd are latching on to this uncertainty and compiling long lists of the erosion of rights as well as touting an end of the middle class. They point to bus routes canceled, further cut back on activities - but this time to pay for heating and lights rather than lowering taxes, and more students in greater debt for higher education. In some areas, this uncertainty is not new. In some areas the lack of resources didn't need an economy in recession - the gap was already there.

After School has always worked with little money, few resources, and an often pushed aside agenda of youth development when many districts see this time as a further addition to the school day of 21st century tests and necessary preparation for those tests. Like Chicago, where years of inequality is coming to a head, or New York City where year after year the state did not provide those schools with the funding they were due, Boston perhaps will also see in these uncertain times a good opportunity to examine the quality of resources for all children and see that while some children are having to do more with less now, many children have always lived in that uncertainty.

After School programs may find it harder to survive in the coming months. They may, however, be the programs that can be an example to others as to how to make the most out of the least. Like many people, we may have to just wait a few months and see.

Reinvent the Wheel

2008-08-27T07:44:00.001-07:00

How many times have you heard an educator say, "let's not reinvent the wheel" or a variant of that statement? Often people say what they wish they didn't do. This statement would not be used so often if it did not describe exactly what goes on in the world of education (this includes out of school time programs as well as formal school time). Educators reinvent the wheel with frightening regularity. One reason may be that there is always an influx of new people into the field of education, and they may want to do things differently because of a host of reasons: not experienced enough to recognize the wheels invented by others, not told where wheels are filed or what box they are kept so newbies create their own, or in most cases, the old wheel is covered in the cooties of whomever came before (effacing the past was good enough for pharaohs and emperors, so why not managers and middle managers? ). The wheel is reinvented and then klatches of colleagues moan, "why did so-and-so think they had to reinvent the wheel?"

The other issue may be that of funding. Funding is measured and managed by a host of computer programs such as Razors Edge and a host of organizations that sell services to non-for-profits such as The Foundation Center, but computer programs and development consultants are still trying to uncover the thinking behind people, the heart of the funding community. These people, like all people, are human and act in often unpredictable ways. Boards of foundations follow their own trends, internal discussions, and while we don't want to lose funing to say it, a great deal of woolgathering. Patterns change, language changes in grants, and educators recast the same old questions to attract new dollars or interest. How often are long-standing programs or initiatives canceled or recast not because they were not working or were ineffective, but because funders had lost interest? The wheel is again reinvented, and again a room full of educations say, "there's no need to reinvent the wheel."

It can be said that all business needs to reinvent themselves. The consumer culture demands the new. Coke, New Coke, Old Coke. Same product, but different logo or tag lines associated with these practices. There are many who would say, but "New Coke" is different. They would be somewhat correct. It was a slightly different recipe. A kind of new metallic taste from the old one. The marketing did say "new" a great deal. Nevertheless, the fundamentals of the product remained the same: fizzy sugar/caffeine water in a bottle with a label and all proceeds benefiting the same company. And, it failed. If anything, the New Coke fiasco defined the term "failure" for years.

The same is true for education. Fads come and go. Initiatives have different names, create trainings, binders, and supports, but are often a reinvention of the wheel. The fundamentals of education remain the same while the games we play differ from year to year as our programs invent "new" only to then return to "old" - or in the marketing parlance of Coke, "Classic." Martin A. Kozloff of the Watson School of Education, University of North Carolina at Wilmington put cast the question in a harder light saying the "pernicious innovations in education waste time, money, energy, hope, learning opportunities, and the chances for beneficent outcomes."

The big question here is not whether fads occur, or if every new idea is the "New Coke" in education, but how much energy is lost in chasing the new and do practitioners uncover and discover new ideas or are we responding and reacting to demands from funders, policy makers, and communities of people disconnected from the daily work of education? How many programs, projects, and quality services are lost to needless tinkering? In a world quick to forget the past and move on, we may reinvent that question, and the wheel, for some time to come.

In the mean time, pour me another glass of Classic Coke.

September Comes Early This Year

2008-08-26T12:19:00.000-07:00

The summer was wet. The heat of the day built up and then spilled over the area of Greater Boston brining inches of rain and then, for a few hours or the night, cool weather. Now, the end of August, the cool weather has already made an appearance making many wonder if this winter will be cold and long. This September air reminds us that the academic year is to again start up and all that planning from summer is de facto finished as the schools dust off their classrooms and prepare to take up the challenge of the coming year while Out-of-School programs vie for space, resources, and working with the new structures placed upon them by Extended Day and other schemes to increase formal instructional time.

Can we still run programs and teach the children and youth in our care with the rising costs of basic products? Our summer may have been spent asking just this question. Will enrollment be down? What will the next increase in costs be? Will schools become more collaborative, or will budgets strain existing programs and shutter them completely? Can we build quality programs that access learning in different ways and work on improving Out-of-School time point of service rather than being the solution to all social and academic issues?

It seem here in the last two weeks of August that September has come early. We look ahead to the coming year, my meeting the the challenges of children no matter their abilities, interests, or cultures. We move ahead with cautious optimism that our children will be given the services they need, the attention they want, and the learning experiences they deserve.

BOSTnet will be moving ahead with the Autumn Training Series Roundtable Workshop. The first one will be held at the Boston Library September 4th 10 Am - 12 Noon. (Check out bostnet.org for complete information) and will address key elements of the OST environment and will meet the needs of diverse students that coms throught he doors of every program.

BOSTnet Blog

2008-07-25T07:57:00.001-07:00

We will be building this page about exciting news on BOSTnet activities.