Reverse Logic

So, the education reform "rocking chair" continues to rock. The newly created Education Secretariat, under the leadership of Paul Reville, is proposing an expansion of the MCAS tests. As more and more business leaders are bemoaning the lack of 21st century skills, including problem solving, critical thinking, collaboration and communications, the state is looking for ways to create a testing regimen to analyze these skills. These would potentially lead to MCAS tests that include lab work, oral presentations, and team-based activities. (In the spirit of full disclosure, BOSTnet advocated for a much broader evaluative framework for students in Massachusetts in a report on Expanded Learning Time and Out-of-School Time in 2007).

This movement is a backlash against the current MCAS system that many believe have pushed Massachusetts to the forefront of academic achievement. These successes, however, have their price and have not quelled concerns over post-graduation "readiness." As Gary Gottlieb, president of Brigham & Women's Hospital stated, "even highly educated people are not able to express themselves and convey the knowledge they have." Or, as Paul Toner of the Massachusetts Teachers Association argues, "we have to have kids do things, as opposed to just sitting and studying things."

Critics of the proposals who are more concerned with maintaining high standards and school accountability, such as the Center for School Reform at the Pioneer Institute, are troubled by the plan. The center's director, Jamie Gass, argues "what we are seeing here is an incremental dismantling of education reform that has made Massachusetts the highest-performing state in the country." Gass continues to note, "Many of the skills are unmeasurable and ill-defined."

It seems that 15 years of education reform have created clear results. The focus on a more narrowly defined academic curriculum has elevated Massachusetts as a beacon of academic success nationwide. But, this focus has diminished schools' ability to foster skills that are valued in society--critical thinking, teamwork, creative problem solving and engagement. More disturbing, this focus has failed to engage and lift the academic achievement of many of our underrepresented residents. And, as a recent report notes, even those students that do graduate and go on to higher education in urban areas such as Boston, few complete their coursework and earn a degree.

Perhaps most concerning about this is the emphasis on evaluating these skills as opposed to teaching them. There is a very real debate that needs to take place on whether or not schools are best equipped to foster these skills when they already have the very difficult and important job of educating youth in core subject areas, such as math, literacy, science and social studies. The current response is to extend the school day, but is the most cost effective and appropriate strategy? Significantly, it is precisely these types of skills that the out-of-school time field is best at providing. OST programs that follow a youth development framework can provide high-quality informal learning and relationship-based programming that builds resiliency and developmental assets that are the foundation of 21st century skills. Unfortunately, federal and state funding for these programs tend to lock them into models child care or academic remediation.

Perhaps it is time that we unleash the creative energy of the OST field to work with children and youth in a way that is true to its potential. Good youth development should not be reserved for the children of parents who can afford to pay tuition to OST programs. And state and federally funded OST programs should not be charged with supporting the academic outcomes that schools are responsible for achieving. Gass is correct is saying that these skills are ill-defined and difficult to measure. Investing in quality OST programs is an investment in outcomes that are cumulative over time. Assessing quality on short-term measures that are linked to school-driven outcomes does not serve the field or, more importantly, children and youth.

It is time that OST leaders and providers step up to create a vision for the field that addresses the problems that are so clearly in front of us.

OST--Are we a Profession?

We often hear how afterschool and out-of-school time is a distinct field within the nonprofit sector. But what does this mean? Clearly, the expansion of both private and public funding over the past 10 years, new academic research on the value of OST participation, and the movement toward a more structured system of professional development all point to some professional recognition. However, as Louis Menand writes in his book The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America (2001):

Professionialism means disciplinary autonomy. A field of study (or any line of work) is a profession when its practitioners are answerable for the content of their work only to fellow practitioners, and not to persons outside the field.

Can we honestly say this is the case with OST? The volume of research that highlights the value of OST and a distinct developmental setting for healthy youth development is impressive. Yet, so often we find programs that are set up to provide academic services or extended day supports for children and youth in struggling schools. This has as much to do with funding streams for OST programs as it does for providing the best services for students. The problem is that when these systems are created, practitioners find that they are less answerable to the OST field as they are to the formal education systems' desire for academic outcomes.

Over the past year in Massachusetts advocates for afterschool and OST have struggled to answer the question, "Is afterschool part of the education system?" The fact that this question is yet unresolved points to the fact that as a field, OST needs to strengthen its identity. OST clearly can be part of an education system. Informal learning, relationship-building, intentional activities and fun all have a place in the education and development of a child over time. Unfortunately, OST professionals and researchers do not have a place at the table when curriculum frameworks are created the way that science, math and english professionals do.

The problem is not linking schools and afterschools. In fact, there is evidence that a lot of good can come from integrating a child's learning experiences across multiple contexts in their day. The problem is when programming is structured around educational remediation rather than the expectations and goals of youth development. Within the formal education system, the fields of science, math and english retain their professional autonomy. It does not seem out of line to think that youth development should also maintain a level of professional autonomy to work with children and youth in ways the field recognizes as valuable.