Gov. Patrick Establishes Six Readiness Centers

Secretary Paul Reville announced at the October 9th All Means All Conference that the state had just announced the establishment of six regional Readiness Centers across the Commonwealth as a key strategy in Governor Patrick’s education agenda to improve teacher quality. According to a EOE press release, “Readiness Centers will help improve the theory and action of teaching by providing educators with greater access to proven instructional practices, proven practices in the use of student data to help inform instruction and increased and more focused professional development opportunities. For example, the Centers will provide teachers with assistance regarding curriculum development and alignment, including strategies for lesson planning and helping all students access complex content.”

“The establishment of the regional Readiness Centers will result in the development of a robust network of institutions and organizations focused on supporting the teaching profession,” said Education Secretary Paul Reville. “These Centers will have a significant impact on all aspects of our public education system including early education and care, elementary and secondary education and higher education, and unite them in common goals of dramatically improving the quality of teaching and addressing other critical education priorities.”

The six Readiness Centers and the primary partners are as follows.

1. Berkshire Readiness Center: Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, Berkshire Community College and the Berkshire Compact for Higher Education.

2. Central Massachusetts Readiness Center: Fitchburg State College, Massachusetts Elementary School Principals’ Association and Worcester State College.

3. Greater Boston Readiness Center: Framingham State College, UMASS Boston, Wheelock College, Massachusetts Bay Community College and the Greater Boston Regional Collaboratives Organization.

4. Northeast Regional Readiness Center: Salem State College, UMASS Lowell, North Shore Community College, Middlesex Community College, Northern Essex Community College, Merrimack College, Endicott College and Gordon College.

5. Pioneer Valley Readiness Center: Westfield State College, UMASS Amherst, Hampshire Educational Collaborative and the Lower Pioneer Valley Educational Collaborative.

6. Southeastern Massachusetts Readiness Center: Bridgewater State College, UMASS Dartmouth, Bristol Community College, Cape Cod Community College, Massasoit Community College, Massachusetts Maritime Academy, Brockton Workforce Investment Board, New Bedford Workforce Investment Board, Southeast Collaboratives Regional Organization, Lighthouse Superintendents’ Group and the Lighthouse Assistant Superintendents’ Group.

There are few details about the specific functions and programs of these centers, and each will be developing a program plan over the coming year. There is also, at this time, no funding dedicated to the functioning of these centers. Despite these caveats, we see an important opportunity to integrate professional development opportunities for school age and youth workers through these centers. As the July 2009 Request for Responses noted, “The Readiness Centers will also serve as hubs for collaboration among local, regional, and state stakeholders including institutions of higher education, educational collaboratives, educational service providers, business and community partners, state agencies, and other stakeholders. The development of partnerships among these stakeholder will result in the delivery of more targeted, aligned, and coherent services to early education and out-of-school time programs, schools, districts, and communities.”

This is a great opportunity for OST leaders and advocates to push for more rigorous workforce development opportunities for OST educators and youth workers across the Commonwealth.

Behavior Supports in OST

Effective group management skills, especially those related to behavior, are consistently seen as critical in promoting regular participation, engagement and learning in out-of-school time activities. Unfortunately, most programs do not have integrated behavior management systems in place, and even when they do, these systems are often ineffective. This is due to a variety of challenges programs face every day: high staff turnover rates and insufficient training; children who are both physically and emotionally tired after their school day; and constantly changing conditions, including the number and mix of kids or limitations of space. OST workers need proper training and referral information to work with families when a child needs to be assessed for mental health supports. Developing staff competencies in addressing these problems has a lasting effect on children and has real benefits on the quality and sustainability of out-of-school time providers. Moreover, research-based models for inclusion and promoting positive behavior have a community value that must be recognized by policymakers and funders who decide on whether or not to invest in afterschool programs.

There is a very real social cost when afterschool programs struggle with behavior management. Often, youth are expelled, voluntarily withdrawn or referred to another program if available. In our experience, many programs view behavior management as intervention for youth who are “at-risk” rather than a program-wide approach. “Get tough” strategies, including punishment, exclusion and containment, are ineffective and reduce the ability of a child to benefit from positive social interaction with staff and other children. These outcomes are not only destructive they are unnecessary. Research suggests that children and youth, including those who need mental health services, will show measurable improvement in areas of behavioral adjustment when they are in supportive environments that promote positive social behavior.

Looking forward, it is clear that there are very real challenges. We need strong policies that support consistent funding to provide opportunities for staff development in behavioral training, more appropriate staff-to-child ratios and better systems for addressing children’s mental health issues. Sustained technical assistance is critical to foster long-term benefits for all children in out-of-school time programs. We need to support efforts to define and nurture a statewide professional workforce development system that identifies core competencies every youth worker needs to succeed and establishes well-defined pathways for career advancement. We need to continue to promote accreditation as a viable and sustainable path for organizations seeking to enhance the quality of their programs. Developing strong networks enables individual programs to leverage resources through collective power. We need to create capacity within the field to promote mentoring and support structures between programs so that the knowledge being generated in the field is shared. When we truly utilize the power of our community and networks to address these common issues, we will be better able to create lasting change.

Lastly, we need to think of all out-of-school time quality initiatives as an integrated system of program and staff development. We cannot separate a program’s ability to engage families from its skill in including children with disabilities, its use of space, or its efforts to promote positive behavior. All of these competencies are linked to broader systemic issues that need to be continually reinforced so that quality programming can be sustained for all children.

OST and Emotional Intelligence

A recent article in the Boston Globe--"The Other Kind of Smart"--highlights the growing movement to teach emotional intelligence in schools. Over the past few years, the article notes, researchers have learned much about the value of social and emotional knowledge and the techniques for teaching this knowledge to children and youth. These studies, coupled with emerging brain research, has elevated the ideas of education reformers that curricula designed to address skill building in social and emotional knowledge should become as standard to the school day as reading, writing and arithmetic. Moreover, these same reformers believe that the new research will play well within the Obama Administration's education agenda and their reliance on "data-driven decision making."

While we should all welcome improvements to our public school system, none of this is new to thousands of afterschool and youth programs across the state. For more than a century, youth programs embedded in settlement houses, outdoor clubs, immigrant fraternal societies and other organizations have been engaging youth in ways that build their social and emotional intelligence. These programs and their more current iterations teach children pro-social behaviors, civic responsibility, conflict resolution and group dynamics in a safe, flexible, and uncompetitive environment.

There is abundant research that points to the value of youth programs as unique developmental settings grounded in healthy adult-child relationships and peer learning that connects directly to the individual needs of children. Let's continue to infuse our schools with innovative approaches to teaching and learning, but lets also build upon the youth development opportunities that aready exist in our communities. By their very nature, these programs compliment school day learning. However, we will fail the field if we do not recognize that their value is much broader than supporting academic achievement and providing enriching activities. It is somewhat ironic that at the same time advocates are pushing our schools to integrate more social and emotional learning in children, we are asking afterschool programs to adopt the expectations of schools and greater alignment with academic learning.

A few years ago my son started in his first afterschool program. At the time, he was dealing with a varity of changes in his life--new city, new school and the very confusing and scary reality of adjusting to life in two homes. As a parent, I saw the effects of this stress everyday. I picked him up during his first week in afterschool and he was sitting in a circle with a group of kids and a staff member. As we were walking home I asked him what they were doing. He said, "we were talking about our emotions." It was a profound moment for me that ultimately got me engaged in working in this field. With three years of afterschool participation in this same program my son has thrived academically, but more importantly as a developing human being. We need to value what these programs do and provide them with the tools and the permission to work with children and youth in profound and meaningful ways.

A Good System for Children and Youth

Too often the discussions around what constitutes a comprehensive system of out-of-school time supports for children and youth revolves around data collection, accountability measures, and quality rating systems. It is important that we shift this dialogue to focus more squarely on the needs of youth, the needs of families and the needs of communities. Data and outcome measures should be a part of a system, but they should be secondary to what are really at the core of a good system for children and youth--quality youth programs and quality youth workers.

Recently, the deep structural problems with the Massachusetts state budget have become more clear. These problems, moreover, transcend the immediate and growing budget deficit that is necessitating deep and lasting cuts to critical state services. At a recent forum at The Boston Foundation, Barry Bluestone of Northeastern University and Michael Goodman of the University of Massachusetts illuminated a variety of issues that will continue to impact the state budget process in the coming years.

Between January 2008 and January 2009, Massachusetts lost about 72,000 jobs, 68,000 in the last quarter alone. The projections of the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy are anticipating a total of about 150,000 job loses for the state before the environment improves. Driven by an increasingly tight job market and high housing prices, Massachusetts lost over 300,000 people since 2000, further reducing revenues coming into the state. Most people leaving are between 24 and 54 years old, meaning that we are a rapidly aging population that will require more expensive services in the near future. Currently, over 40% of the state budget goes to debt service and pensions, and this could rise to nearly 70% by 2018 if we do not address these problems. Moreover, the cost of state services is rapidly rising while the ability of the public to access those services and recieve value is shrinking.

As Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo has recent stated, the federal stimulus bill will not address these problems. They are too deep for the flow of stimulus money to do anything more than fill some of the gaps until that money runs out in the next two years. What does all this mean for the children and youth of the Commonwealth?

The economists and others at the forum advocated for investments in two key areas: people and place. In the view of the group we need to invest aggressively in the skills and health of the people who stay in Massachusetts and in the quality of life here. Quality environments for children and youth to learn, have fun, and develop into productive, engaged citizens are critical to the future viability of the state. Investments in youth programs stimulate economic growth in communities in a way that investing in large education systems do not. Community-based youth programs are small businesses that are traditionally the key drivers of economic growth in our country. These programs not only provide children and families valuable supports, but also provide employment opportunities for local youth and adults and a pathway not only to future employement opportunities but also higher education. They also improve the quality of life for so many residents who both need child care options and want to provide their children with enriching informal learning and positive socialization.

A good system for children and youth adds value to our communities and to our state. In includes innovative schools and innovative youth programs that are not necessarily aligned or seamless, but complimentary. A good system for children and youth would drive more resources into improving program quality and developing an effective workforce than into data systems and processes that do not address needs. A good system for children and youth recognize that outcomes are a shared responsiblity and cumulative over time. If we invest in education and healthy youth development in a way that values the diversity of supports children and youth need we will begin to see results. And these results will be more than academic achievement, they will be healthier communities, high graduation rates, lower crime rates, employment opportunities and the chance to have a voice in civic life.

A colleague who has worked with youth in Boston for many decades perhaps said it best when he noted that a good system must start with the goal "to make every minute we spend with children a good minute."

Federal Stimulus Bill Brings Opportunities and Questions

After a contentious few weeks on capital hill, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 on February 17, 2009. The legislation provides for a combination of stimulus spending and tax cuts totaling $789 billion (according to some estimates, approximately 40% of the total is tax cuts). Speaking to reporters the day after the bill was signed, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick noted that the state will receive somewhere between $6 and $9 billion in federal money. Patrick also noted that the state has limited flexibility in how these funds are used because under the provisions of the bill funds will go to “specific programs with specific purposes.”

A variety of provisions in the bill will have either a direct or indirect impact on funding for afterschool and out-of-school time services for families in Massachusetts. While the details are still unclear, the key provisions for our field include:

1. $2 Billion for Child Care and Development Block Grants (CCDBG)—The CCDBG is one of the largest funding streams for childcare subsidies, such as vouchers. According to the Massachusetts Afterschool Partnership, MA will receive approximately $24 million in these funds. This represents a 23% increase in the FY2009 allocation, to be used within the next 2-3 years:
· Over $20 million in non-targeted CCDBG funds
· Nearly $2 million in non-targeted quality improvement funds
· Over $1 million in targeted quality improvement funds for infants and toddlers
2. $2.1 billion for Head Start and Early Head Start. The Department of Early Education and Care anticipate an additional $10.1 million for Massachusetts.
3. $13 Billion for Title 1 Funds—These funds are used to support programs that improve the academic opportunities for disadvantaged and underrepresented students, including both in-school and out-of-school programs.
· MA will likely receive over $208 million for Title 1 funding
4. The Workforce Investment Act grants that support job training services will receive $1.2 billion for youth job training programs and summer employment opportunities for youth. The WIA also includes $50 million for the YouthBuild program providing at-risk youth educational and occupational experience and credentials while building affordable housing.
· MA set to receive approximately $25 million for youth job services and summer job opportunities.
5. The AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps VISTA program will receive $160 million through the stimulus bill to support existing state and national grantees and to support AmeriCorps Volunteers, many of who provide staffing for afterschool programs.
6. $53.6 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Funds—Included in these funds are $5 billion to be coordinated by the Department of Education through state grants and a $650 innovation fund. States will also receive approximately $40 billion in Education Blog Grants.
· MA will receive approximately $813 million for education spending. This funding is targeted to make up for cuts in k-12 funding since FY2008; to fund increases in education spending based on state funding formulas; and, to make up for funding cuts to higher education since FY2008.

We will continue to keep you updated as more details become clear about how these funds will be specifically allocated. It is crucial that we remain vocal and reach out to our state leaders to ensure that funding decisions provide the most critical supports for the children and youth of Massachusetts. For more information on the state's use of ARRA funds, visit www.mass.gov/recovery

On Message

"When does the protest start tomorrow?"

This question was asked of me by program staff when I picked up my kids from afterschool on Wednesday. It was the night before many of us gathered at the State House for Advocacy Day 2009. These OST educators were ready to bring hula-hoops and whistles to make a big noise in support of community-based organizations. While I encouraged them to come and be engaged in the dialogue with their colleagues, I had to explain that it is better thought of as an opportunity to network, speak to legislators and rally together than an opportunity to protest certain policies. The question, however, does highlight some simmering tension among providers who are being asked to do much more with fewer resources. How do we tap that energy to further sound policies for children and youth across a long budget process?

With the policy season in full swing, there is a heightened awareness of an issue that can be contentious and often fraught with difficult questions—MESSAGE. What is the proper frame to move an idea or goal forward? How important is it to control that message for maximum impact? The challenge for any coalition of diverse members is keeping people engaged around a shared goal while recognizing that people have diverse opinions on how to reach that goal. In fact, part of the value of coalitions is drawing on the varied perspectives of members and utilizing the best ideas available. Any attempts to inhibit open discussion in the name of political expediency will fail to mobilize people in the strongest possible way.

To keep this dialoge moving, I would like to offer two powerful ways of talking about the value of investing in youth programs:

Youth Programs Support Heathly Youth Development
An extensive body of research shows that quality youth programs support resiliency and build developmental assets in children and youth. By providing children key supports—safe and supportive environments, caring relationships, variety of interesting enrichment activities, flexible opportunities for skill building, opportunities for youth contribution and choice, and parental involvement—OST programs help youth become empowered, set acceptable boundaries, more engaged in their community and learning, and develop positive values, social competencies and self-identity. Research in youth development has long made the connection between the extent to which children have these assets and their resiliency—the skills and behaviors necessary to cope with life’s challenges.

Youth Development is Community Development
Investing in youth is investing in healthy communities. The research is clear. Young people who participate in quality youth development programs are more likely to be engaged in their communities, vote, maintain stable personal relationships, stay employed and have a postive outlook on life. Youth programs provide employment opportunities for young people in the community who can mentor others and provide a deeper connection to community life. Youth development programs also have an explicit role in helping youth transition from dependent child to productive adult. All of these are important, measurable benefits to communities.

As a community, we need to understand that there is an objective value to supporting youth programs that are linked to outcomes that are cumulative over time and can’t be easily measured through some point-in-time assessment. We also need to continue to advocate for the unique strengths and assets that these programs bring to partnerships and collaborations with other organizations so that their work is valued and respected and that partnerships yield the best results for our children and youth. Wouldn't we tap deeper creative energy by empowering youth programs to define their own expectations for quality services based on their understanding of community needs?

Outcomes and Assessment?

In developing a presentation on out-of-school outcomes and assessment, I was amazed at the number of tools out there to measure program quality or lead to other management outcomes. These tools are too numerous to get into an in-depth discussion here, but the larger issue raised is a good one: If we are measuring, who has the authority to determine what is measured? Another follow up question may be, is that authority final, or subject to change in two, three, four years and every two or more years after?

Damned Lies and Statistics by Joel Best is a well-known work poking a few holes in our use of numbers in shaping social programs or solving societal issues. The first case tackled in the book is that of a statistic used in 1994 that claimed that every year the number of "American children who have been gunned down has doubled." Taking aside that "children" by 1994 had expanded to include 21 years old (today "youth violence" seems to include 27 years old) the number of children "gunned down" would have by that year been 35 trillion since the source of that "fact" was from 1950 and even if one child had been gunned down, that number would have grown exponentially.

So, in our popular media we cannot trust 90% of the statistics %100 of the time and for many of us, this is not a new part of life. What is related, however, to our work and the use of numbers, is how were the numbers gathered in the first place and what tools shaped which outcomes or "facts" are elevated? These assessments and the outcomes they highlight are not just exercises, they are increasingly seen as a way to merit (read fund) a program. Take for example the 21st Century Learning Center process. Programs rushed to the initial funding, altered how they structured their programs and even how they interacted with children, and then when the reapplication process came due, how many met the criteria of "exemplary"? Fewer than the initial cohort of sites, and of those achieving "exemplary" status, it is no secret that funding ends in 2010 and that this program is perhaps a ghost of the past administration.

And, these 21st Century Learning Centers were but one example of a move for increased "outcomes" and more "standards" that applied across communities and programmatic forms. Who created those assessments, and what do they hold up as examples of a quality program. It appears that in this current "free market" of ideas, we still have competing interests and attitudes vying for the Nihil Obstat of funders, the Out-of-School field, and the formal educational community that impacts and shapes an increasing amount of childrens' time.

In researching the topic of outcomes and assessment in Out-of-School Time for a future BOSTnet Roundtable, there are many questions that are being raised. Do these current tools lead to quality? What are we measuring as "quality" and does this need to reflect individual programmatic goals or are there indeed larger "systems" in place?

We will see and in the mean time, caveat emptor.