Celebration and Learning

This week we celebrate national Lights On! Afterschool. Thousands of programs across the nation have registered their Lights On! Afterschool events with the Afterschool Alliance (see event listings). The value of celebrating together nationwide is immense, but I especially appreciate how we do it in Vermont. Lights On! Afterschool in Vermont features local events and celebrations where we highlight our kids and programs by inviting in families and community members to celebrate with us. And then at the end of the week, we come together at the statewide afterschool conference as professionals, teachers, instructors, and staff for a full day of learning and sharing to improve our practice. This combination of celebration and learning is a powerful one, especially if we bring the same level of excitement and enthusiasm to both.

Over the last three years our statewide afterschool conference has grown to serve between 350-400 participants each year. We enjoy the consistent support of three major sponsors (Vermont Department of Education, Child Development Division- Department of Children and Families, and Scholastic) and the contributions of countless talented presenters and supporting businesses and organizations. These contributions allow us to bring 30 workshops for conference participants to choose from during the course of this single day.

But how do you choose which workshops to attend? One strategy I’ve seen employed by projects with many staff is to divvy up the workshops and get staff to as many different things as possible with the idea that it’s best to spread out and have people see lots of different things. Others follow the theory that you should have everyone on staff hear the same thing with the thought that this will make it easier to implement new programs and strategies back home. I’ve also heard people say that the best way to make workshop selections is to encourage each individual to pick the options that most interest him or her and then have high expectations that everyone bring back real and applicable knowledge from whatever they attended.

Often we design our professional development opportunities and make our selections by asking ourselves: What training or support do our staff and directors need? Or what topics am I personally or professionally interested in? But perhaps we should back up a bit and ask instead: What outcomes do we want to see for our kids and how will this training support us in helping them to achieve those outcomes? The difference in these questions is subtle but critical. By focusing on the goals and desires we have for the children and youth in our programs, we do three things:

1. We put the kids back in the center of what we are doing;
2. We create an expectation that any workshop or training we attend should have a positive and tangible impact on the way we run our programs; and
3. We add a sense of urgency to the experience.

Wouldn’t it be better for someone to attend a workshop on “Hands-on Science” not because she needs the hours for her license or because a report said doing more science afterschool was good, but because she recognizes that the kids in her program are struggling in this area and are counting on her to create opportunities and experience that will help them out?

I recently read an interesting blog on Learning Forward where the author reflects on different levels of enthusiasm in corporate trainings versus educational settings. While based on observations at one moment in time, the author’s points made me think about how we approach professional development opportunities and whether or not we bring the same sense of purpose and energy to the workshops we attend. See what you think at about her Reflections and if you agree with her points.

The conference this week will give us all the chance to make choices and attend workshops that best match what our kids need for us to learn. I also encourage readers to check out some of the other conferences and training events held in other states. You can find listings and links to upcoming conferences and events around the country at the statewide networks webpage. If you see a topic or resource that would help you to better support the kids in your program, please let us know.

Looking forward with enthusiasm and excitement to Lights On! Afterschool and the Vermont Afterschool Conference-

Discussions in DC

Last week I attended the national meeting for network leads of the Mott Statewide Afterschool Networks. The C.S. Mott Foundation currently funds Statewide Afterschool Networks in 40 different states and networks leads gathered for three days last week to focus on leadership, policy, and network management.

As at any conference, there were a number of different important issues to discuss, debate, and consider. I'd like to share with you one particular stream that generated much discussion: Federal policy regarding expanded learning opportunities. This discussion opened with a plenary featuring two congressional staffers as panelists: Lillian Pace, Office of Congressman Dale Kildee, House Education and Labor Committee, and Lindsay Hunsicker, Office of Senator Enzi, Senate HELP Committee. (HELP stands for Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions.)

The context for the plenary was how the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (the legislation that includes the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program) can support continued investments in afterschool and new thinking on Expanded Learning Opportunities (ELO). Both panelists were well-informed on the topic, and it was interesting to see this inside, staffer view on federal policy discussions about afterschool and ELO. Below are a few of the points I took away from the panel and subsequent discussions:

• It's about the money. Supporters of both afterschool and of extended day have similar goals and desired outcomes in mind. Both approaches look at using time differently to support learning and at expanding the amount of time during the day and over the summer that children and youth have access to programs and supports. However, proposed changes to the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21C) program that would include "extended day" as an allowable use puts these two program types into competition for the same pot of money. Despite their commonalities in goals and outcomes, this direct competition for funds has tended to result in these two approaches to ELO finding themselves on different sides of the debate.
  
• Appropriations versus Authorization. By adding "extended day programs" to the allowable uses of funds for the 21C program in the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Appropriations Committee essentially moved this discussion forward at a quicker pace than the Committee members and staff on the authorizing side of ESEA expected. (Simply put: "Authorization" is where the laws are written and "Appropriations" is where money is allocated to fund the laws.) Concerns have been raised about whether or not Appropriations is the appropriate place to have these conversations or whether these types of policy changes should remain in the purview of the committees responsible for the reauthorization of ESEA.
• Bipartisan Issue. The speakers were very clear in stating that this current debate on ELO and educational policy is not a partisan issue. You will find both Democrats and Republicans speaking strongly in favor of afterschool programming and you will also find members of both parties in favor of extended day programs. The debate does not follow party lines. The message I heard was that both sides of the aisle are interested in education reform and in providing more time for learning, more opportunities for children and youth, and in finding creative approaches for doing so.
• Flexibility and Choice. One of the strongest argument I heard coming out of this discussion on behalf of including extended day programs as one of the allowable uses for 21C funding was that opening up the legislation in this way gives schools and communities more flexibility in exploring a range of options and program types to best meet their students' needs.
  
• Cost Difference. A strong argument I heard on the other side for why opening up 21C funding in this way does not make sense focused on the great cost difference between running an afterschool program versus an extended day program. The concern voiced was that the cost to run one extended day program (adding about 30% more time to the school day/year) would run much higher than what it currently costs to run a comprehensive afterschool program. The concern is that using 21C funds for extended day programs in a few communities could result in many other communities losing their afterschool programs altogether.
  
• Role of Community Partners. Regardless of ELO model favored, it seems that both sides are looking carefully at the role of community partners and how these outside partners and organizations can best be used to support student learning opportunities.
  
• More Information Needed. I came away from these discussions with a clear desire to understand more about what these different models and approaches to ELO would look like in Vermont. What examples do we have that are currently working in Vermont schools and communities? What are the outcomes for students ? What are the cost trade-offs? What role do community partners play in these different contexts? What information will communities need in order to make these decisions and choose between the different models as education reform moves forward?

If you are interested in following more on these discussions, I encourage you to check out Mary-Ellen Phelps Deily's blog, Beyond School. Mary-Ellen has worked as both an editor and reporter for Education Week and she's been following the discussions on expanded learning time at the national level.