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.

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.

Project-Based Learning?

This next month, BOSTnet will focus on Project-Based Learning. The idea of Project-Based Learning (PBL) has been around for a number of years and has its roots in progressive education - a formula that seems for the time being out of fashion.

In this age of MCAS and increased testing, improvement rubrics imposed for the best intentions but often resulting in a decrease in the quality of life for young people - even if there is am improvement in their test scores - there has been pressure on programs to assume more of a teaching capacity and to do so in alignment with the school day and increasingly using the tools and techniques of the school day rather than exploring how our Out-of-School time field can provide a unique developmental setting.

People at the ground level - those who work with children - are increasingly saying their children are stressed and tired by the time they get to their program. More staff are commenting aside that they are feeling overwhelmed by their programs shift towards formal academics and competing with the extend school day movement.

What are program staff to do? Can they be told to teach and not be compensated and trained as teachers? How are programs going to respond when it appears the next fad is to extend the school day and funding and opportunities all - for this moment - point them in this direction?

Schools perhaps can benefit from a more project-based approach (non-parochial private schools and home-schoolers/ unschoolers apply this method successfully) while programs can always use additional resources to attract and retain staff, additional educational materials, and sustained and sequenced training to get the most out of the kind of staff who work in Out-of-School Time.

Our next Roundtable will explore Project-Based Learning in detail and present an easy to use framework that programs can use to retain or expand the type of learning they do - even if that learning is digging for worms and asking big questions rather than memorizing hard answers and increased worksheets.

You can sign up to be part of this training and learn more about BOSTnet's professional development Roundtable Series HERE or at www.bostnet.org

Teamwork and its Discontents

What are the limitations of teamwork? We hear a great deal about the 21st century workforce and how we need to learn to cooperate and work in teams to produce... whatever it is that we are going to be producing to base our economy on... We are not always sure what this is, but we know what it is not. We are told what this is not a) industrial b) agriculture.

We are told it is "Service" or "Knowledge" or other vague concepts that translate into - hey, we really don't have any idea what we are preparing kids today for in the jobs of tomorrow but let's all pretend we do know and pass on the savings. We may be preparing children and youth for the complexities of climate control and nano technology, or a world filled with George Jetson jobs. We talk a great deal about "21st century skills" or "readiness" and that these skills, this readiness requires "teamwork." We don't know what the future work is or the conditions, but we do propose more than ever we need cooperation and teamwork. The only problem is, how do we teach teamwork? What is the value or limitations of teamwork?

Have we as a field really thought critically about what teamwork means as concepts as well as the difficulty in educating children and youth to work together? Are 21st Century Learning Skills just buzz words that perk the ears of funders? When so many of our peers and organizations cannot collectively make a simple decision, it does make one muse whether this is so important because - as Freud proposed - we seek to impart to others that aspect of ourselves we lack?

We try to develop many skills of children and youth during Out of School Time. We want our children and youth to work together, to live together, and in many activity-focused programs, how to solve questions and make discoveries that raise awareness among the entire group rather than benefiting a few "good students." Raising children and youth in groups necessitate a certain amount of teamwork whether for fun activities or for just the basics of maintaining order.

Teamwork, then is something those working in youth development should get to understand in-depth and to practice on a more regular basis both within our organizations and between organizations.

In a recent Boston Leadership Roundtable, we led an activity called "Chess Club" based on the management concepts of Dr. Malik who proposed that teamwork was pushed onto areas it does not belong and that what "we are increasingly confronted with today are senseless forms of organization and impracticable types of labour division, which prevent almost any productive work or make it inhumanly difficult" to accomplish goals to which we need to work individually and for which "teamwork" is an organic part of what it means to be human rather than a learned skill that can be taught. Dr. Malik proposes that often matrix organizations (the division of labor) are part of organizations that actually are "performance-hindering" rather than separating out areas of expertise or flattening the workload.

Chess Club riffs off of the idea he proposed that one cannot play chess as a team as well as the crowd chess site where an organization of a thousand people attempt to beat a single chess master. This is exactly what we are asked to do in Youth Development. We are given a game - developing youth - we may know from experience having played it as a youth ourselves but not touched as an adult, or we studied it and have practiced it for years learning basic and advanced moves, there are defined rules, there are multiple pieces each of which act in predictable but well defined ways, and we are having to not only consider all of the multiple complexities of our own pieces but the pieces, the strategy, and the ability of our opponents - detractors of youth development, etc. We play chess with regulations, families, communities, funders, children and youth, staff, schools, lawyers and courts, and our own personal lives and that like chess, youth development success is achieved over a very long time period - a length of time few spectators want to follow as they are increasingly demanding that each move we make produce a "win."

We made the rules to Chess Club simple. The room was divided into teams arbitrarily. Everyone had to be involved, but the roles were suggested. We were not there to teach anyone how to play chess. They had to hope to find that knowledge in their team. What happened was very interesting.

Each side, after an initial discomfort, brought themselves to understand who had what knowledge and what roles they were going to assign. There was a great deal of laughter but OST people are generally very gregarious and able to deal with disorder and ambiguity. Teams formed by much discussion and "who wants to be the" and "I never played chess." The possible roles were commonly sited aspects of teamwork; coordinator (the leader), shaper, team worker, completer finisher, and monitor evaluator. The majority of the participants didn't remember or know how to play chess and this caused a great deal of initial anxiety. After some discussion, each team was able to identify a person who knew how to play and could teach others. These individuals were assigned different roles on each team. They were also the younger people in the room. One team (team 1) huddled up and looked over the possible roles, talked about who was strong in what area, and voted on who should be the leader and placed the person who knew about chess as the shaper, the person who is full of drive to make things happen. The other team was in disarray and everyone wanted to have the role that was three steps away from the board (the coordinator) but not actually make decisions associated with the coordinator's role. The person who knew how to play chess (taught by his grandfather) on team 2 was pushed into the coordinator position. Team 1huddled and started discussing strategy at once. Team 2's coordinator looked over the roles that were assigned and then identified two roles that were indispensable - the team worker (the person who could move the pieces) and the completer finisher (the person who could finish moves involving a capture of the opponent's piece) and the other members of the team moved to the sidelines offering to repeat the rules or self-assigning tasks (cheering, saying "yes" etc.).

The play moved along with great gusto and fun and laugher... and then, after team 2 made its first capture, a pale of seriousness came over the room. This was about winning. Moves were timed based on estimates rather than fixed, and each group had a few minutes to communicate to their group, think about strategy, agree on direction, and make their needed move or gear at the opposing team.

What occurred when time was called was interesting. Team 1 that had grouped together quickly, really thought about roles, discussed movements, huddled together with their backs facing out, shared ideas, concepts, and discussed strategy... captured one pawn.

Team 2 where the coordinator was shoved into his position and who actually took the hand of the team worker and/or finisher and moved their arm a la Ratatoue while the rest of their team stood by doing... nothing.... captured a pawn, a knight, a bishop, and had the only "check" of the play before time was called

It is up to interpretation as to who won to this point and would would win the overall game had it been played to "checkmate." Would it be the team that worked involving all members but capturing a single low level piece, or was it the leader who was so involved that while they "could not touch the board" managed to find wiggle room by guiding the hands of the workers and captured several pieces and was leading an offensive move at the close of game? At the call of time, who had won?

We would have to play an entire game to discover this while most people would say that team 2 won at the call of time. Would the first team more effective in the long run while losing short term terrain? Would those who were being directly manipulated stop laughing and resist or would they learn by example and fall into being able to provide advise as well as action? Would any of the other watchers in the second team actually do anything?

Think of your organization and the teamwork experiences you have had. What of teamwork can we "teach" children and youth, and what opportunities can be provide where teamwork evolves organically as we communicate and create common goals? There is a great deal of talk about working together today. When was the last time you experienced teamwork bring about a successful project on time and on budget? Were you part of team 1 or team 2 when that happened and are we talking about a long-term play or the short win when time is called?