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."

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.