Quality is "Job One"?

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

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

Technology and Out-of-School Time

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.

Program Profiles on Youtube

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: Inclusion Roundtable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

North Shore Roundtables: Outcomes and Evaluations

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

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.

BOSTnet on Television

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.

Coalition We Must?

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

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

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

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

Boston Roundtable Reflections

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

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

To reach this understanding the room was given some Learning Goals

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

To answer this we:

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

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

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

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

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

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