New vision for schools?

An article in today's New York Times highlights the vision of Randi Weingarten, the incumbent president of the American Federation of Teachers, which is the national teachers union. Sepcifically, Ms. Weingarten envisions replacing No Child Left Behind with a new model that focuses not on test scores, but on expanding schools as community resources. Schools, under this vision, would expand upon traditional classroom education to provide students with after-school programs, child care, tutoring, medical, dental, and social support.

It sounds a lot like the idea of Community Learning Centers, only expanded and taken to scale as a national model rather than scattered sites that worry about losing or renewing funding. Granted, this is coming from the AFT rather than from the Department of Education, which still strongly supports No Child Left Behind. But it will be interesting to see in the comming months, particularly with a shift in presidential administration in one direction or the other, what happens with the national vision for education, and whether this idea takes sway.

I'm also curious what you think of the idea.

Inclusion of children and youth with developmental disabilities II

This is part 2 in an ongoing series featuring SOAR's paper on including children and youth with developmental disabilities in after-school and youth development programs. Inclusion means creating or sustaining programs for children and youth to interact together, across all lines of ability and development. The sign at the left is not what we might call inclusive.



...Continued from July 3rd:


CHANGING POLICY

Programs and communities can articulate their commitments to inclusion through developing and following written policies. At a program level, organizations can include in their mission, values or policy statements about how and why they are inclusive of children with disabilities, (as well as other children and youth who are often disenfranchised). At a community level, local governments, community collaboratives, and networks can make written commitments to inclusion, also focusing on why they value inclusion and what they can do to increase it.

Cities can commit to inclusion by providing support, training, and funding for all programs to become inclusive, just as communities have committed to other large efforts such as accrediting child care centers or ending homelessness. Some communities are already starting to look at this option. In its London-based report Listening to Parents of Disabled Children About Childcare, funded by the Department for Children, Schools & Families and the London Development Agency, the National Childcare Campaign Daycare Trust recommends a goal of “ensuring that every childcare setting in London is disability-friendly.”[i] Such recommendations can expand beyond the childcare world to after-school as well; communities can set goals to help as many local programs as possible become inclusive.


APPROACHES: CHALLENGE-BASED AND ASSET-BASED

· Challenge-based Approach: How to meet basic needs, manage risk, and avoid problems. Focus on safety, barriers, cost, bias, and needs that seem difficult to meet.

In discussions on inclusion of children and youth with developmental disabilities, it is common to hear about the challenges involved. Parents and caregivers face difficulties finding programs for their children. Advocates work hard to raise awareness and increase funding for inclusive programs. Programs face hurdles as they develop, expand or change.

In programming in particular, the discussion often comes down to overcoming barriers. How will we prevent this child from getting hurt? From feeling isolated? How can we afford more staff? How will we make activities physically accessible? How will we make them understandable to this child? How do we manage behavior issues? Challenges stem from funding, liability issues, safety, old ways of doing things, and difficulty changing attitudes and expectations. Further, programs that are marketed as “inclusive” may not be as popular among families whose children do not have disabilities; there may be an assumption that “inclusive” is code for “primarily or exclusively for children with special needs” or that children and youth without disabilities will not be prioritized. Additionally, such programs face pervasive fear-driven bias against those with disabilities that impacts the willingness of families to send children without disabilities to such programs. Changing attitudes is a long-term, systemic-level project that can feel daunting.

Funding in particular stands out as the largest issue for many programs. Inclusion and support of children with disabilities is very realistically expensive, in terms of staffing, facility changes, program changes, just to name a few areas.

These are all genuine difficulties and must be addressed frankly. Yet, a challenge-based approach misses the positive reasons we create youth development programming in the first place. All children and youth deserve to have places to go outside of school and home where they experience friendship, creativity, leadership, learning, caring adults, interesting activities, and nurturing. By adding an asset-based approach to balance out our challenge-based approach, we keep in mind why we’re creating inclusive programming in the first place. We do this because the programming itself is valuable.

· Asset-based Approach: How to ensure children and youth are getting the beneficial assets, experiences, and opportunities they deserve. Focus on quality, youth involvement, and positive experience.

An asset-based approach reflects the values of inclusion, namely, that all children and youth benefit from positive experiences, and that we benefit as a society from including them. Focusing on assets reminds us that inclusion is beneficial for children both with and without disabilities. Inclusive programs highlight similarities among children and youth across lines of ability.[ii]

Both challenge-based and asset-based approaches are necessary. In the positive light of assets, glossing over challenges can put participants at risk of negative or unsafe experiences. A balance between challenge-based and asset-based approaches sets communities up to succeed.


PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATIONS

Collaboration is useful at all levels of programming, particularly curriculum design and program development. Some groups developing model programs, such as the Intentionally Inclusive 4-H Club Program model of North Carolina, include collaborative partnership from the outset.[iii] Collaboration on an ongoing basis also helps ensure successful programming. At all stages, from curriculum development to program maintenance to sharing of models, partners might include:

• Youth with disabilities (and youth without disabilities)
• Parents and caregivers
• Adults with a range of developmental disabilities who can provide a personal perspective about how programs could have served them better as youth
• Representatives from youth programs, including direct service staff
• Students and specialists from universities working in relevant areas
• Health professionals and specialists
• Home care providers
• Community advocates (individuals or organizations)
• Schools
• Those providing resources to people with developmental disabilities (existing specialized programs, transportation services, educators, etc)
• Funders (foundations and/or corporate sponsors)
• Existing programs
• Facilities for programming (camps, universities, parks, etc)

Including a wide range of stakeholders, particularly the youth and families who will be affected, is triply beneficial. First, programming developed with insights, cautions, and ideas of people coming from each of those perspectives will avoid the pitfalls that might seem obvious to one but not the other. Second, including voices such as youth, families and staff in development sends a powerful message internally and externally that the program in question empowers and comes from the community served. Third, collaboration can be beneficial for outreach and marketing of the program since those developing the program will feel ownership of it, and want it to succeed. Families can spread the word to other families; state professionals can publicize the program within their networks.

YOUTH AND FAMILY INVOLVEMENT

As often-disenfranchised members of society, youth need opportunities to advocate for themselves and other youth, to make decisions about the things that impact them, and to have a voice where usually only adults are heard. These opportunities are part of positive youth development experiences for all youth. Youth with disabilities face a double-whammy of ageism and ableism; not only do they experience the disenfranchisement of being young, they also experience a society that overlooks their ability to think, contribute ideas, and participate in decision making because of their disabilities. This is especially true for youth whose disabilities affect language and communication.

Consequently, it is crucial to include children and youth in program development as well as in determining how best to include them in a given program. Certainly different youth will have different extents to which they can contribute, but all can contribute in a way that is meaningful and realistic for their individual abilities.

Further, youth and families know their own situations, needs, preferences and abilities better than anyone else. Programs will be more likely to succeed at inclusion when knowledge from children, youth, and families is incorporated at all levels.

Older youth and young adults can provide particularly useful perspectives, being able to reflect on what would have made programs better for them when they were young.

Programs should bear in mind that parents and caregivers may have experienced setbacks and challenges when trying to involve their children in programs in the past. Having faced rejection from programs, or because of fears that their children will not be accepted, some parents and caregivers will not inform a program of their child’s disability, or will wait until a late opportunity to do so. Proactively creating a safe, welcoming environment will help parents and caregivers feel comfortable and welcome. Involving parents and caregivers as partners in the program will support and empower them while programs benefit from their knowledge. Some of the resources at the end of this report offer suggestions and scenarios to help programs work with parents and caregivers.

Family support and involvement is an ongoing process. As with any parents or caregivers, programs should communicate successes as well as challenges.[iv] Families will appreciate knowing the ways in which their children are growing and thriving. Just as children and youth can connect with peers through integrated programs, families can connect to other families with children with disabilities as well as with typically-developing children.[v]
When families have the option to be involved as volunteers or assistants, programs will get better results because the family members have become true stakeholders in the process. With work and life schedules, this is not always realistic for all families, and assorted types of optional volunteer and engagement opportunities should be available to match the interests, skills, and time constraints of the families involved.

[i] National Childcare Campaign Daycare Trust. “Listening to parents of disabled children about childcare.” Department for Children, Schools & Families and the London Development Agency, 2007.
[ii] Siperstein et al., 2007
[iii] Stumpf et al., 2002
[iv] Harper-Whalen, Susan Ed.M., Morris, Sandra L., B.A. “Child Care Plus Curriculum on Inclusion: Facilitator’s Guide.” Child Care Plus. Missoula: The University of Montana, 2000.
[v] Mulvihill et al., 2004

Thanks to jbcurio for the flickr Creative Commons photo.

Summertime... but is the living easy?

What does the word "summertime" make you think of, when you're daydreaming during the darkest days of winter? Lemonade on a hot day? A picnic? Aimlessly wandering through meadows?

There's a bucolic fantasy of childhood summers as times of carefree adventure, exploratory laziness, and joy. For some it's a memory, for others a fantasy, and for a few, a reality. Most of the time, I tend to hear from baby boomers and their elders that summers used to be that way, from kids and youth now that it's not that way at all, and from folks in between those two ages that childhood summers were a little structured and a little unstructured when they were growing up. It seems we're trending toward more and more structured time and indoor time in the months between school.

There are pros and cons to this. The world may be less safe for kids to play alone and outdoors than it used to be, or it may be perceived as less safe; it's hard to say. Structured programs provide kids with a safe place to be, and with meals their families might not otherwise be able to afford. Programs can help kids catch up on academic learning that is overwhelming them during the school year, and can take kids on field trips to places they would never otherwise imagine getting to go, or engage them in creative activities like rocketry or photography.

Structured programs also don't have to be indoors; they can bring kids into the wilderness or city parks to explore their environment, play sports, splash in the water, or otherwise frolic, all with new friends and with caring adults to supervise.

And yet it's important to make sure children get some semblance of unstructured outdoor play time in the summer, not in front of a video game or in a classroom. A recent book argues that today's kids have "Nature Deficit Disorder" and that it's contributing to obesity and attention deficit. There may have been a reason we thought nostalgically about bucolic summers past, even if we never experienced them; explorative time in nature may be essential to our development. Kids today may be missing out on that need, and losing some skills and confidence as a result.

I'm not surprised. Earlier this month, I spent an hour exploring the lowest tide in four years on a sunny afternoon north of Golden Gardens Park here in Seattle. I walked far out on the sand flats, examining colorful starfish, fascinating anemones, geoducks that spit water, and all sorts of marine life. I overlapped a little with a few parents who had brought their young children on the adventure. The children were terrified. Not of the funny-looking creatures, but of being dirty and wet. The water, the sand, the seaweed were all shocking. They wanted to be dry and indoors.

A generation or two ago, I'm guessing that would have been more rare. Children were more used to exploring outside, to getting dirty, to jumping in puddles. It makes sense; we evolved in a natural environment, and we evolved to learn in one. When they're comfortable outdoors, children are naturally inquisitive and creative.

It's not easy to ensure your kids get some creative outdoor play time this summer, if you have kids or if you run a program. But see if you can make it happen. Bring the kids to the beach or a meadow, with some general guidelines for safety, and let them explore. Comfort in the natural world, a sense of inquiry and curiosity, fitness from moving around, and the creativity to explore will all benefit them later on -- in school and in life.

Quality foods and school meals

Just when the passage of Local Farms - Healthy Kids was getting our hopes up about nutrition in school lunches, the Seattle Times reports that the rising price of food is hitting schools hard and forcing them to buy worse quality foods, and to raise prices.

There is no easy answer, but I think the best answer is to increase subsidies for healthful school food. If you like to think in simply economic terms, investing in kids’ health now saves money down the road from the effects of poor nutrition on physical and mental wellness, not to mention academic performance.

The quality of the food we feed our kids, like the quality of the education we give them, reflects what we’re telling them they’re worth. It's not that schools want to feed kids poorly; dedicated, caring people work for school districts trying to make sure kids are fed. Yet, with budgets getting tighter around the country, food prices rising, and less money for schools, it sounds like schools have fewer options for feeding kids the nutritious food they deserve and need to help them thrive. Is this what kids are worth to us? Is this the message we want to send?

UPDATE:
Check out this editorial in the Seattle P-I about the issue. They've contacted Seattle Public Schools, which states that the district will not decrease the quality of their food, even if costs go up. Cheers for the P-I and SPS for taking a stand on the importance of nutrition for kids.


Thanks to vnysia for the Creative Commons photo.

News about graduation rates

by Debs Gardner

I wish it had been an April Fool's Day joke, but the news released on April 1st about graduation rates in urban school districts was truthful and sobering. The report (which you can find here), compiled by America's Promise, revealed that not only are graduation rates in the nation's 50 largest cities at an alarmingly low rate (about 58% graduating), but that the gap nationally between urban districts and their suburban counterparts (about 75% graduating) is significant.

Note that a school district being located in a suburban area doesn't cause kids to stay in school any more than a school district being in a city causes kids to drop out. There are some factors worth noting, especially poverty, racism, health, access to opportunities, and school funding that have a pretty strong impact on whether kids will succeed. Notably, some urban areas had a much higher discrepancy between suburban and urban graduation rates than others. Seattle had about a 10% discrepancy.

By the way, the same day the report was released, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announced that the US would now require a standard means of reporting graduation rates. Also not an April Fool's joke. I'm curious; what do schools think of this? Does it make sense? Is the procedure or formula a good one?

We'll explore the issue of graduation more in future posts, including how to increase graduation without depleting the other ingredients youth need and deserve in their lives. Please share your thoughts as well.

Thanks to gadgetdude on Flickr for the Creative Commons photo.

After-school: right or reward?

by Debs Gardner

A recent article in the New York Times showcases a new policy about after-school and academic performance in a school near Buffalo, NY. The school's principal has made participation in extracurricular activities dependent on students' grades, so that a student with poor grades is not allowed to participate in sports, art, drama, dances, or other activities.

I see two major problems with this policy. The first is, it assumes the only reason students are doing poorly in school is that they aren't trying hard enough. If we take away something fun, the argument goes, those kids will stop being lazy and shape up. That's probably true for some kids, and it's a nice compliment to after-school programs, but most kids who are doing poorly in school have more barriers than effort, including social, economic, personal, instructional, learning-style, or bias-related barriers. If a kid isn't doing well in school because she's coming to class hungry, how do you expect withholding after-school programs to improve her grades?

The second major problem is that the rule implies after-school programs are only social, fun rewards rather than beneficial experiences in their own right. The kids who are doing poorly in school need –- and are entitled to –- quality after-school programs. Not to provide extra tutoring or academics, necessarily, but to provide some of the socio-emotional supports and motivation that it's hard to experience when one is doing poorly in school.

A good after-school or youth development program helps kids succeed in school and in life, regardless of whether the program has academic content. This happens for a few reasons.

Kids who are doing poorly in school often lack a sense of hope and aspiration, although it's hard to say whether that feeling causes failure, the reverse is true, or it's simply an association. It's hard to feel you're good at something when you're constantly receiving papers back with red marks and low numbers. However, if a kid finds something he enjoys and connects with through after-school or youth development programs (theatre, running, painting, photography...), he learns that he has aspirations and passions, that he can enjoy and improve at something that's hard at first, and that he's not going to fail at everything. Those lessons and the well-being and confidence they inspire transfer back to school performance.

Also, quality programs are yet another place outside of school, and without the academic pressures of school, where youth can connect with caring adults and peers from beyond their classrooms, and learn important social and emotional skills to help them succeed in school and beyond.

Granted, not every after-school program is a quality, positive experience for youth, but most are, especially when they're thoughtfully designed and implemented. In worst case scenarios, such programs can feel like an extent ion of school, babysitting, or yet another grounds for the kind of bullying and social problems rampant in many schools. However, that's becoming increasingly anomalous in a country that's learning to value after-school and other youth development programs as places where children and youth. The more we care about after-school programs, the better they'll be.

In general, I'm all for trying new and innovative methods in education and youth development. Encouraging innovation inspires schools and youth programs to experiment, to build on what they know, and to develop models that can be used by other schools and programs. There's usually some merit to every approach, and experimentation leads to new and better ideas.

In the case of this school's approach, however, I think the experiment brings too many hazards. I worry for the kids who are getting yet another message that they're not good enough. A quality after-school program should give them the opposite message, and a positive message may help them succeed in school and feel better about being there.

And speaking of messages, if we're striving for quality, designating after-school as a reward to be doled out sparingly like dessert sets us up to provide poor-quality programs. If after-school staff are told by the school that their programs are essential to helping kids succeed, they will run their programs accordingly. If their programs are considered an indulgence rather than essential, there is little motivation to focus the program on helping kids succeed.

On the other hand, most program staff already know the value of their programs. I can't imagine the staff at that school are thrilled with the new rule. From the article, it sounds like the students aren't either.

Thanks to dave_mcmt for the Creative Commons photo.