Communication and Out-of-School Time

"Communication is key," we are always told. The Not-For-Profit field, and especially Out-of-School Time (including from early care through youth work), relies on "relationship building" and often those relationships are built over time and use a great deal of resources to manage. Site visits, meetings, cohorts, conferences, phone conferences, trainings, forums, mailings, events, and other point of organizational and professional contact take time and money. Recently, much of that money has evaporated. Increasingly (or is it immediately?) dollars are put to point-of-service and skipping over entire networks that have been grown or maintained over the past decade. Of course point-of-service money is needed, however, the infrastructure that was being assembled or had already been in place is also needed. The communications infrastructure of point-of-contact needed to maintain quality programs, a broad base of stakeholders, and professional development. Some of these points-of-contact may be provided by digital media.

Digital communications are not just communicating to funders, but looking at technology to reinvent how non-for-profits engage their stake holders as well as the fluidity that Out-of-School Time programs need to respond to as they meld their program or organizational message with the real-life cultures of the populations they serve. This is perhaps especially challenging for youth-serving organizations since the culture of youths are..... often incongruous with the culture of an organization, especially older mission driven organizations used to the brick and mortar one way control that print media allowed. Youth culture is garish, often filled with crude media images, commercialization and and now able to be uploaded to Youtube and linked to your organization at the click of a button. Scary stuff for staff used to well managed community bulletin boards or quarterly newsletters filled with passe clip art.

The change in communications does not just swap paper and ink for bites of information and blocks of color on a screen, it alters how information is created, consumed, and reinvented. The best example is how bloggers have eroded the traditional news media especially print. It is not just the Boston Globe feeling the burn, it is story after story being broken or covered by bloggers long before reporters with advanced degrees in journalism and years of experience ever get it off the wire. To communicate today is to do so faster, but also giving up a great deal of control over how content is used - or abused. There are risks to this move beyond the traditional fears of Out-of-School Time professions that youth served online may be connected to dangerous elements in society (time and again studies show youth to be more savvy on the WWW. than adults give them credit for). There is an unfamiliar feel to the way an organization has to expose more of itself as well as understand that associations will have to have increased management as well as more awareness by funders that they are seeing a fuller spectrum of who organizations serve and the connections they make - whether the organization enjoys that connection or not.

At the Roundtable a number of leaders and a handful of direct staff attended. It was telling that few direct service staff attended and that some who RSVPed were actually removed from the list by their supervisor. It is interesting to see that the more progressive programs saw all their staff as included in message creation and communication while the traditional organizations continue to think in terms of media marketing and message control - similar to how print has resisted digital and still does not know how to respond (outside of several newspapers shuttering their operations). This may be more of a style issue with organizations, with some able to support a common message while other more grassroots organizations allowing for a faster and looser control and more user generated/ staff generated content. It is hard to say which way is "correct" or whether both are appropriate for their audiences and typology of program.

Several organizations presented their work in communications to give some ideas about how to use the services out there as well as some challenges. Massachusetts Afterschool Partnership presented their MAP Facebook fansite work, while Boston Afterschool and Beyond discussed both the search features created by the BostonNavigator project as well as new work in using digital tracking to monitor youth using social services within the city. Teen Empowerment discussed their Teen Empowerment Youtube Channel and how this is used both by their youth as well as how more professional products are created and shared with funders. The Boston Children's Museum shared their free on-line curriculum especially made for and field tested by Out-of-School educators as well as highlighting that this work may expand - but will always remain free to the educators who need it. What is an interesting link between all these initiatives is that the users - viewer or whatever the new word may be - is not charged. The communication is not to create content that is paid for at the point-of-contact and this is in keeping with the spirit of the internet and new media as well as the challenge to the digital age - how do we pay for all these services?

Of those who RSVP'ed a very unscientific survey was taken using Survey Monkey. It showed that although Facebook and Linkedin use is high, few other communication services are used. This means that perhaps these services are not fitting to the organizations or perhaps the field, but also it may suggest that there is an opportunity for growth in Out-of-School Time communications.

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.

Technology and Out-of-School Time

There is a great deal of information out there through various media. We hear about newspapers being shuttered while also the ascendancy of new forms of communication that not only replace the paper format, but redefine how we communicate and construct knowledge.

That is not to say that the only thing we are constructing is knowledge. There is a great deal of clutter and with each advancement in communication, there seems to be an equal advancement in people's ability to turn something good into yet another stream of trash. The academic papers and open discussions of the Internet became chat rooms and.... pictures of questionable taste. E-mail became SPAM. Viral ideas, became viruses and Trojans or other malware. "Maleware" became a word.

Some react to these forces with a heightened sense of danger. Filter, restrict, create hoops to gain privilege to the network - and this is program staff not an attitude to children or youth. Others have taken the everything new is a new opportunity and jumped further and further to the "bleeding edge" (beyond the "cutting edge" for those of you old enough to remember proper grammar). Some organizations have unloaded millions of hard-raised dollars for web pages, search features, and Java script and encouraged others to "join the digital age." However, the non-profit sector in general and Out-of-School Time in particular seem to have not found a way to raise themselves above the clatter, hold on to a certain amount of control while realizing that new-technology redefines host and user content and may offer a more transparent window into their work - whether they like what outsiders are seeing or not.

Out-of-School programs are slowly coming into the digital age - as are training providers, OST researchers, and other supporting institutions as organizations jump in often using models applied by the corporate world or from personal experience (the hey, I use myspace with my friends so....). This topic will be explored at an upcoming Boston Roundtable organized by BOSTnet Thursday May 7th from 9:30 - 12PM at the Boston Public Library. If you would like to discuss what you do to promote your organization, meet funder needs, or integrate technology into what you bring to children and youth, please attend and be prepared to visit your website and tell others about how this or that aspect of technology captures an audience - or you feel drives away community.

Over ten years after the dot-com bubble/boom/bust, we continue to ask ourselves, is Twitter really going to help us? and then Twitter that exact message so our friends all know what we're doing now is wondering.

For more information on the May 7th Boston Leadership Roundtable or to participate go to www.bostnet.org.

LOYD: Inclusion Roundtable

"There seems to be a growing number of kids with special needs" one program coordinator says. "In the [years] I have worked here, I don't know what it is... they just seem to need more and more." What do you do when all your kids have special needs? One site director reported that in the same program were children presenting ADD, OCD, PTSD, and Spectrum Disorders. Another program director asked whether how to practice inclusion when what seems to work is to remove the child from time to time. "If they're not included in gym, then what? If they are just put on the computer because that's the only way not to cause trouble... are we doing a service just babysitting?" What if the funding has remained flat (or vanished) while the needs increased as well as higher standards of quality. These questions are far above the old format of Inclusion that were challenges are posed and then strategies are employed. When people know several strategies but are overwhelmed, what then? "How do typical kids fit in when many children have challenges"

It appears from comments at the Roundtable that Inclusion is still part of the wealth of services that Out-of-School Time programs can provide and researchers such as Gary Siperstein of the Center for Social Development and Education claim that many school environments can learn from the success of Inclusion in Out-of-School. This is in keeping with the strong relationship-base within many programs and the flexibility that programs have in creating activities that instruct about life as well as socialize. Out-of-School staff want an open environment. They want to make accommodations as well as many at the Roundtable knew the basics about most disabilities and some had worked in therapeutic Out-of-School programs for years. There was a healthy feeling of "try and try again" in letting kids come to the program as who they were and to move them into forming new relationships with their peers as well as push out into new experiences. Nevertheless, there was frustration as it seems that many directors are beyond the "basics" of inclusion and are ready for the next level - a level of complexity that no longer allows for solutions on the cheep but a more thoughtful approach and consistent high-level supports to staff and understand the limits of Inclusion.

One limit would be over-representation of children and youth with special needs within a program. The other limit may be resources. A program that takes in a child or youth who otherwise has a one-on-one during the day may not be able to absorb that child or youth. Programs themselves need to have policies in place that structure how program directors can communicate to families the benefits of including their child in the program as well as some of the limitations. However, if there is a language barrier or family members are opposed to discussing a perceived condition, what then? When a parent demands that their child is included but not with a realistic timeframe or perhaps without taking into consideration the needs of other children or youth at the program, what then? A child with Autism may not be able to run into the program and be included in the first day, or three weeks, but may need time as well as the right amounts of inputs from staff. Too much and the staff forces relationships - too little and there is risk of a benign neglect. This time to negotiate with one family or parent may be available, but what if there are a majority of parents and families with similar demands but divergent issues. Again, the "all or nothing" approach to Inclusion may put ideology over practicality.

One interesting observation from this discussion and the many questions was that the majority of issues were with emotional or emotional disabilities. In an on-line survey of participants 82% wanted assistance on children and youth with ADD/ADHD. Emotional disabilities came in second at 73% and trailing that was working with children with undiagnosed disabilities at 55%. Amongst the "traditional" disabilities such as mobility, cognitive only 9% felt they needed support in those areas.

Programs are asking for increased assistance in providing quality training to staff (78%) and assistance in funding to pay for additional services (82%). This later one is such a complex subject it will be addressed in another posting at a later date.

There is good news and many free resources on-line. BOSTnet has some resources available on Inclusion that may help in training staff and funding opportunities are always included in the BUZZ and the website. Resources on the website are divided into different areas, the most predominant being sports and arts inclusion. These areas were central to a series of BOSTnet events in previous years under the LOYD initiative. The idea that sports (physical activity) and arts can serve as a way to include more children and youth with special needs and that these not form the basis of the program but can be engaged as needed. These areas are useful no matter what the program's own content is - such as academics, because with the flexibility that programs have, setting up time to work on an arts project or engage in physical activity may serve to get children to work together. BOSTnet is also working on the 5th All Means All Conference for 2009 which will be shaped in part by conversations in the field.

While there was a good deal of information covered in the presentation, this Roundtable seems to have raised more complex questions than answered them. We hope that we can work on these issues and find solutions that reinvigorate the field to reach out to children and youth with special needs and not be overwhelmed.

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...

North Shore Directors Roundtable Reflections

Hosted by the YMCA of Peabody, the NDR gathered together providers from the North Shore region of Massachusetts. The presentation on Promoting Positive Behavior was the second in BOSTnet's series of free professional development for this community. Behavior is a very requested topic by programs as they seek to train a staff of varied backgrounds to work with children with varied needs. Promoting Promoting Positive Behavior is an approach with supports (tools and some on-site interventions) that seek to establish a culture of prevention and recognition that many challenging behaviors stem from staff needing to improve their group management and to establish strong relationships with the children or youth, some behaviors are passing or have no "quick fix" solutions, and a few children have special needs above what an average program can provide. The presentation was perhaps too much of an overview at times since the average experience level in the room was 13 years, however 50% of attendees greatly enjoyed the round table with 80% listing the presentation as beneficial. It was surprising that 99% of attendees supervised staff but not so surprising given OST that those same people also were administrators (95%), provided some level of direct service (59%), as well as raised funds (40%), or "did everything as program director." Also not surprising was that this seasoned staff had attended "tons," or "a lot," and even "a million!" trainings on OST subjects. While many say this is a "new field," this level of experience needs to be better used so that these leaders can not only be recognized for what they already know, but can pass these skills on to workers as well as future directors.

Some interesting moments of the event were the comments time and again saying that OST needed to distinguish itself from school and to be recognized for the value it brings as youth development and that the flexibility of programs and and the element of fun and engaging activities that have, as one practitioner said, "children running into the building." "When do you see children running into school?" Many directors said that they did not feel recognized by schools and that they did not see the benefit to "become more like schools... or being put into a partnership where you are bossed around." This is interesting to hear since there is a push for increased partnerships between programs as well as more emphasis on school partnerships and programs structuring themselves as extensions of the school day. "They're robbing them of their childhood" one director said in conversation. These are very strong words and indeed, the issue at stake is whether OST remains a distinct field that continues to grow, or is absorbed into the school system.

Out-of-School Time programs generally solve behavioral issues through a more relations-based approach, that certain behaviors are accepted (skipping, laughing, having fun with friends), and some behaviors are encouraged (asking questions, having a say in choosing an activity, voicing opinions). This is in contrast to an increasing use of "zero tolerance" at younger ages and a "school to prison pipeline" within many school districts, and certainly more so in low-income districts. The behavioral approach that encourages discussion and prevention may not work in the confines of school. However, this does not mean that this approach is not valid for the kind of environment most directors want their programs to be for young people.

For any partnership to thrive, it must be between equals.

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?