Extended Learning Time - The End of Afterschool?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boston Roundtable Reflections

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

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

To reach this understanding the room was given some Learning Goals

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

To answer this we:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inclusion Series: Promoting Positive Behavior Survey

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

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?

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

"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

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.