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.

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.

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

The BOSTnet Roundtable Year in Review

2008/2009 Leadership Roundtable Series Reflection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: Boston Inclusion Roundtable

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

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

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

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

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

Diversity of Children - Diversity of Programs?

What is a quality program? Can there be a single definition of quality for all programs, or does it depend on what a program offers (childcare, arts, sport, academics, socialization, etc.) and the children and youth it serves? We hear time and again that children and youth have diverse needs. If there are different programs, approaches, and environments are there also different standards that need to be applied? Over the past several years, it seems that the public educational system has been searching to become more uniform in approach and measurement. These are but one environment, however. What measurement is given to parochial schools, or the different private schools that espouse every shade of educational approach from the most radical progressive education to the most structured curriculum. How are these measured, or, because they are not "public" - that is run by the government - these other "publics" need not be considered because they fall outside the keen of observation, even if the children and youth of those systems are part of our main-stream American society. What are their quality environments. Considering Out-of-School, will there appear a similar system of quality following the two realms of those programs receiving public - that is government either state or federal - money and another public that uses strictly private funds and is not recognized nor beholden to the standards that are developed. It can be considered that this second group, like the confederation of private schools (these need not be exclusive of rich but may be lower and middle class), be another world?

These questions are part policy, yet belong in a conversation about quality at the point of service because that is where structures and budget expectations come into play with expectations. If all children must do all things, or allowing children to self-select, creates a different set of challenges. It may impact behavior and interactions between staff and child. If certain programs have to align while others opt out through different methods (or programs say they are aligning but find clever ways to go around formal expectations), what does that mean for the quality of experience for the children and youth? This is not to propose any one way has been shown to be better than another.

However, when Johnny hates art but must do it because that is what the program expects of all kids... Does that recognize and meet the needs of the diversity of children and youth? Seeking quality and having standards need not be mutually exclusive. Identifying which standards measure what environment may be important, not just in theory, but impacting the point of service where a child meets the program.

STEM in Out-of-School Time

The second training completed by the Museum of Science at the EEC, a small group of out-of-school workers from Greater Boston looked ahead to leading interesting engineering projects using the museum's original curriculum. This is an example of what some may call a new "collaboration" in learning and not just linking school to out-of-school by way of traditional classroom academics, but using out-of-school time for different ways to access learning. STEM as it was taught, was but another way of looking at project-based learning, a framework that has been around in different manifestations since the start of progressive education and has often been refined to fit the needs of out-of-school programs.

With project-based learning, programs can sequence activities in a way that they retain the "teachable moments" but are not tied to consistent attendance or the resource infrastructure (both human and program materials) to make out-of-school appear like school. The more the out-of-school attempts this duplication the more the question is raised as to whether larger dose of the same product will improve results (it may) or whether diverse experiences are beneficial (people usually say "diversity" but then work very hard to create seamless days - even if they have to stretch the meaning of "seamless" to fit the many disconnects and inconsistencies that exist between environments).

STEM participating programs will move ahead with the curriculum on an adventure and challenge. In the coming months BOSTnet will visit these programs and collect information and observations to examine ways that STEM concepts can be taught not only in participating programs but among a wider out-of-school audience. With so many calls to create an "evolution and revolution in schools" the work of out-of-school educators may be changing and the age of "Youth Development" may be indeed ushered out as more non-profits working with children are asked by government and private funders to "rethink how you do business" and by extension what services children get and how learning is done outside of the traditional school day.

Quality and Accountability - and then there is what you do each day for the kids

When the question was posed to a room of out-of-school program directors, site-based coordinators, researchers, graduate students, and direct-care workers as to what is the intended outcome of their program, the room fell silent.

There was that uncomfortable pause - the one that if cut short would produce cut-and-paste answers, but if held too long, would cause a meltdown in energy and perhaps get participants of the Boston Roundtable heading prematurely for the door.

Then one voice spoke up. "We want to hear kids laugh. We want them to have fun." Then the answers came more easily. "We want to hear that our kids feel self-esteem and make healthy choices outside our program." "We want kids to ask whether the program is running on days it isn't." "I don't want to write kids up [behavior reports]." The entrance to the conversation on evaluation and outcomes in Out-of-School Time was about what people saw at their programs and a sense of what they knew was good for children. This was both something that occurred at their point-of-service as well as beyond their direct control. It was, however, in contrast to the many benchmarks that are increasingly being set for programs linking them to various outcomes and creating an increasing amount of assessment burden on staff already handing the daily tasks of care and enrichment in the face of dwindling resources.

The presentation on tools covered only a certain amount of evaluations and assessments. Some of these "assessments" were actually evaluations (were monitors for program quality or accountability) while other "evaluations" were actually assessments (focused on child outcomes over program competencies). There was discussion about what tools were mandated by which funder or agency and whether certain tools were still required or were about to be phased out in light of new regulations from the Department of Early Education and Care or increasing interest in ELT by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (formerly the DOE). This confusion was indicative of the issues of quality ratings system development and the increasing confusion - even cynical burn-out - of many in the field who look for answers and find a multitude of shifting concerns. Many in the group asked who was going to advocate for them in the face of these changes in funding and the increase of required assessment and evaluation alongside a stagnation or decrease of funding.

There were no easy answers.

The presentation of the Boston Roundtable was intended to provide an approach to shopping for the right assessment tools as well as a critical discussion on how programs need to stop consuming every tool that comes their way and to start educating funders (one attendee said "argue with funders" and that may be the case, but we'll stake our middle ground with "educate funders") as to the realities on the ground around key issues of quality improvement. Many people wanted to know which tool was the preferred or met approval by either this organization or that trainer, however, the presentation was not a sales pitch for any one tool - but a call for people to go back to basics and ask, "what are we trying to do with all these things?" Are we researching, or managing our program? If we are using assessment and evaluation as a management tool, who do we really need to be talking to? Is there more value in self assessments? More questionnaires to children and families? Is there a balance between using face validity (going with our personal/professional observations and "gut") and formal processes?

Participants of the Boston Roundtable raised a number of issues that linked to or were directly related to the topic. These included:
The new regulations by the EEC for school-based centers, family child care, and Afterschool and Out-of-School programs do not have a clear enough plan for how to train staff (provide funding for extra time) to administer the child assessments
That arts programs are expected to deliver academics rather than focusing on their individual expertise (this may be extended to sports programs but none were represented at the meeting)
The connections to school may be valid for one kind of program but may not be the model for all programs given the diversity of program type and approach in out-of-school time (perhaps there needs to be a taxonomy of programs was not mentioned but perhaps should be discussed)
Some programs are asked to do one kind of assessment on year as a requirement and then that is dropped for another product
Program directors and on-site coordinators need to focus on staff development and that the most useful tools are those that assess staff competencies and help reduce employee turn-over - especially direct service
Programs need to stop following the system and must look to become more self-reliant economically so that they can meet the needs of the community they are in rather than attempt to align with a standard way of "doing things"

Again and again, there was a call to get organizations to take a stand on obtaining funding for the field to meet new of increased outcomes or adjust expectations to a reasonable level - focusing on what programs have historically done and can provide to our children and youth - supporting quality environments. There seems to be the subject of "quality and accountability" as it is seen through the lenses of several assessment and evaluation tools, and then what you do each day with the kids. It looks like there is a great deal more that has to be done to create tools that assist in managing a program, monitoring quality at point-of-service, and helping stakeholders have confidence in the quality and value of the program.

Perhaps we can all stand up together to bridge this gap between what and why we measure and the job we do every day working with children in our various settings.

YOU CAN FIND OUR QUALITY SELF ASSESSMENT TOOL HERE

Field Work: ASPIRE

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

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

Quality In the Face of Challenges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point of Service Quality

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out-of-School Goes to the State House

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

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

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

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

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

BOSTnet on Television

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

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

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

LOYD: Building Our Community

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

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

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

STEM in Out-of-School Time

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead to Opportunities for Youth with Disabilities Advisory Committee, 2009

Lead to Opportunities for Youth with Disabilities (LOYD) is an initiative entering its fifth year. In marking this point in the initiative, we have to spend some time considering where the field of Out-of-School time has come, where the disability movement is, and where these two distinct areas fit together or where there are new advances and learning that need to be reconciled.

Over the next few months, the LOYD Advisory Committee will be posting to BOSTnet Quality Environments for Youth discussing informally the issues of inclusion, disability rights, and developments in the field of Out-of-School Time.

Many of these discussions will help guide the fifth All Means All Conference as well as inform the work BOSTnet is currently doing with its cohort of programs receiving on-site support from BOSTnet. LOYD Advisory Committee will also inform the coming BOSTnet Roundtable event on Inclusion.

Our discussions will also include comments from members of the field and interested parties. Often committee work and the important conversations that lead to setting directions or assisting with actionable plans are held between the confines of whatever meeting spaces these committees convene.

Here, the LOYD committee will meet in the public green of the virtual world, where anyone, anywhere, can enter into the informal discussion or be appraised of the latest thoughts as we move ahead refining our ideas or just thinking aloud. We look forward to this work and the impact on children in Massachusetts, Boston, and wherever children of all abilities require quality places to grow and thrive.

Coalition We Must?

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

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

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

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

Building Careers in Out-of-School: Non-traditional workers

The other day the BE SAFE collaborative had their first annual meeting. BE SAFE is a group that wants to "maximize the ability of OST programs to provide positive environments for youth." This is very much a push to use OST programs as good places of social-emotional support and a means to train staff at these programs to talk about issues they may not feel confident in discussing because of a lack of knowledge or perhaps are afraid to address because of our litigious culture of liabilities and opposing cultural viewpoints. Whatever the quality of work of BE SAFE is not under review here.

What is of interest at the BE SAFE event was the group assembled on "stage" and in the room. Be SAFE appears to give simple tools that anyone who enters youth development can use. These resources are not intended to make any youth workers experts in the field of mental health but to allow them to respond to young people's needs with professional level supports. Increasingly, thought leaders and policy advocates are discussing a "star system" for program quality. One proposal floating out there is to get more staff certified or credentialed. This may require staff to commit to a regime of college classes, 45 hours or community training, professional observations, interviews, a portfolio or at least attend 5 - 40 hours of "orientation training" before their first day of work. While we want workers to be competent, can we create a competent workforce that understands the temporary nature of our workers and the limited resources of time and money for the field of OST?

The BE SAFE panel was a very diverse group of youth workers from all ages and backgrounds. A representative from a reproductive rights organization, the head of a sports/academic program - a former principal - two youth leaders, a teen center head, a representative from a domestic violence prevention organization, and a farmer.

Yes. A farmer.

This farmer, we will call her Jane the Farmer with a wink to the spirit of recent media events, had a background in organic farming. She did not think she had what it took to work with young people but seemed to have done such a good job in her short time in the field that she was featured on this panel. The organization she works for has youth development as a key aspect of their work, but it is not the only part of her organization's responsibility. Running a farm seems the primary activity. Yet, Jane the Farmer was a youth worker. OST gains an individual with knowledge of a much different field - no pun intended - and brings with her all sorts of content knowledge she and can share that with young people. In a season's time or two, she may leave youth work for more intensive farming or private farming whatever her life goals may be. In the meantime, youth benefit and the OST field of researchers, arts education specialists, inclusion specialists, and executive directors has a farmer working along side them.

OST programs need to be seen as quality programs for youth development. Professional development is a key to providing these quality services since competent staff are the life of any program. However, there needs some way to achieve this quality without closing the gates of youth development to those who can afford to commit to certificates that may take months or years. Considering that youth development work pay for direct service falls roughly between $8.25 - $11 an hour and that even program directors/coordinators may earn around $21,000 per year, are there ways of getting people to learn skills while they work? Credentials seems like an expensive and potentially risky solution. It follows the path set by colleges and universities rather than service economy jobs. The "pass/fail" certification process itself has currently only produced only 13 accredited programs within Massachusetts. Would credentials and certification of workers have a similar bottle neck effect?

Would a certification process following traditional "school of education" models prevent her and people like her from entering the field? Can the field be permeable to these skilled and caring individuals or must we close ranks as teachers have in creating their own system of "closed shops"? Upper level OST leaders may think certification will elevate the field. It may. It may also lead to a more organized workforce, and perhaps workers who cost more than the current rate of pay - robbing us of temporary talent and meaningful jobs that hire from and serve very local communities.

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?