BOSTnet Summer Series II

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

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

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"?

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

Summer Is Here, Again

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

"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.