Support Your Blog By Commenting

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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.