blurring the lines for learning: the role of out-of-school programs as complements to formal...

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, NO. 101, SPRING 2004 © WILEY PERIODICALS, INC.

19

As debates continue over the effectiveness of after-school programs, we need to create stronger linksbetween schools and out-of-school activities. Wheredo such connections begin? How can we integrateskill-building and academic competence into theout-of-school-time context?

3Blurring the lines for learning: The role of out-of-school programsas complements to formal learning

Karen J. Pittman, Merita Irby, Nicole Yohalem,Alicia Wilson-Ahlstrom

Today’s education system faces irrelevance unless webridge the gap between how students live and how theylearn. Schools are struggling to keep pace with theastonishing rate of change in students’ lives outside ofschool. Students will spend their adult lives in a multi-tasking, multifaceted, technology-driven, diverse,vibrant world—and they must be equipped to do so.

The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2003

AS WE ENTER the twenty-first century, there is broad agreement inthis country that all young people need to be fully prepared work-ers, citizens, parents, and partners. Public opinion and develop-mental research agree: academic competence, although critical, isnot enough. Essential outcomes span a range of functional areas,

20 AFTER-SCHOOL WORLDS

pushing beyond academic knowledge or cognitive development toencompass broader moral, physical, civic, social, and vocationalgoals.1

At the same time, there is growing evidence that educators, pol-icymakers, planners, philanthropists, and the public understand theneed to push beyond the traditional boundaries of the school day,the school building, and the school agenda. Schools do not havethe capacity on their own to ensure that all young people are pre-pared for the transition to careers, citizenship, and family and com-munity life. They cannot and should not be the only learningorganizations in young people’s lives.

From a time perspective, schools fill, at best, a quarter ofyoung people’s waking hours. From a mandate perspective,schools have primary responsibility for young people’s academiclearning, not for the full range of areas in which young peopleneed to be learning and engaged. In other words, schools simplycannot do it alone.

Teachers and administrators recognize the need for more sup-ports. The sweeping federal requirements of the “No Child LeftBehind” initiative may have dampened many educators’ interestin expanding the indicators of school success beyond core academ-ics, but they have also challenged educators to embrace innova-tive strategies and find new partners to help deliver on theirmandate (see Figure 3.1). Simultaneously, this pressure has rein-forced communities’ efforts to articulate their role as partners ineducation.

From both the school and community sides of the equation, thisredoubled focus on academics and achievement has given momen-tum to shifts that were already occurring within and across the tra-ditional divides of school and community, school day and beyond.These shifts present potential strategies and resources for expand-ing opportunities for learning and engagement on four fronts:

1. Schools are reorganizing within, creating more opportunities fora more engaged learning experience.

2. Schools are staying open, offering students and parents moreoptions during critical out-of-school-time hours.

21BLURRING THE LINES FOR LEARNING

Figure 3.1. Blurring the lines for learning: More time, moreplaces, more people

Source: The Forum for Youth Investment. (2003, September). Community partnershipsfor learning: Blurring the lines. Forum Focus, 1(2). Washington, DC: Author.

3. Schools are reaching out, seeking partnerships with businesses,colleges, social service agencies, and community-based orga-nizations to bring more services and learning opportunities tostudents during the school day and beyond.

4. Nonprofit organizations are stepping up, ranging from youth-serving to civic, human services to faith-based. These orga-nizations are among the many that are increasing theircapacity to offer formal and informal learning opportunitiesthat not only supplement and complement school curriculabut also reach out to students who have left the formal K–12system.

Each of these fronts represents a quadrant of what is essentiallya political-legal “space” that is defined less by what is known aboutchild and adolescent learning than by the traditional definition ofK–12 education in the United States. This traditional definitionrests authority for teaching and credentialing with a single institu-tion—school. But from both school and community perspectives,there is increased urgency not only to build linkages across these


traditional lines but to actually blur the lines, especially when itcomes to outcomes, approaches, and content.

The authors have previously explored the concept of “blurringthe lines” in an earlier volume of this series,2 the focus of which ison blurring the lines during the out-of-school hours. Specifically,how does out-of-school-time programming complement formallearning?

First, we unpack and broaden the traditional definition of “aca-demic” outcomes and content. What do we know about how out-of-school-time programming affects academic outcomes? What isthe broader set of learning-related content (beyond core academics)that is essential, has traditionally been addressed in the out-of-school-time space, and has potential for in-school connections?

Next, we turn to a discussion of content delivery approachestaken to address this broadened set of outcomes through out-of-school-time programming. What do we know about how out-of-school-time programming affects academic outcomes? And whatis the broader set of learning-related content, beyond core academ-ics, that is essential, has traditionally been addressed in the out-of-school space, and has potential for in-school connections?

Next, we turn to a discussion of approaches taken to addressthese outcomes through out-of-school-time programming. Arestrategies to improve academic achievement explicitly addressed inthe programming? Are they intentionally embedded in the pro-gramming yet aligned with academic goals? Does the programmingtake a broader enrichment focus that still addresses critical learn-ing outcomes? We explore this explicit-embedded-enrichment con-tinuum by zooming in on three illustrative programs with varyingdegrees of intentionality and transparency in their links to academ-ics and broader learning goals.

Finally, we touch on the question of scale. Highlighting a fewexamples at the district, community, network, and city levels, webriefly explore how such efforts are helping to build bridges andblur the lines, not only from a curriculum and content perspectivebut in terms of building coherent communitywide systems of sup-port for learning.


Unpacking academic content: “Basics plus,” both inschool and out

Schools are clearly under the gun to show kids are doingbetter academically. But many believe, including teachersand principals, that the function of after-school programsshould be to provide activities kids aren’t getting elsewhere.

Karen Walker, Public/Private Ventures

The out-of-school hours have traditionally been seen as the time tofocus on the “softer” outcomes: social, emotional, physical, and civicattitudes, skills, and behaviors. Increasingly, providers of out-of-school programming have been challenged to show how theyaddress academic achievement. Although academic achievement iscritical, and a case can be made for how out-of-school programmingcontributes to this particular result, a broader range of skills and con-tent knowledge is needed to be able to fully contribute in the twenty-first century. To understand the challenge facing out-of-schoolproviders, we explore both the connections that these programs haveto academic achievement and to this broader set of skills.

Consensus is emerging among the practice, research, and policycommunities that programming in the out-of-school hours cancontribute to academic success by increasing student engagement inlearning (see Figure 3.2). In Critical Hours, a new report funded bythe Nellie Mae Education Foundation focusing on early adoles-cents, the authors summarize evidence that we and others havenoted about after-school participation: student involvement inafter-school activities is linked to greater engagement in learning,including increased school attendance, improved work habits andbehavior, and positive attitudes toward school, as well as betteremotional adjustment, positive relationships with peers and adults,and a greater sense of belonging in the community.3

There is, however, an important distinction to be made betweenincreasing engagement in learning and directly improving academicachievement. A strong research base supports the notion thatengagement in learning leads to long-term academic success, but


Figure 3.2. How after-school programming contributes to academic achievement

the link to measurable academic improvements is not necessarilyan immediate or direct one. This is not surprising. Extensive stud-ies of student “connectedness” to school, conducted as part of theAddHealth survey data, show that student connectedness to schoolis among the most powerful factors associated with protecting ado-lescents from participation in risky behaviors (for example, alcoholuse) but is not associated with increased academic achievement.4

The takeaway: creating environments in which students feelengaged and connected increases their interest in learning anddecreases their experimentation in high-risk behaviors, but it doesnot, in and of itself, lead to improved academic achievement.

Unpacking what is meant by “academic achievement” can pro-vide deeper insight into the current and potential connectionsbetween out-of-school programming and educational outcomes.Common agreements about what young people should know andbe able to do include three important components: (1) basic skills(reading, writing, and mathematics), (2) basic content (core sub-jects like math, science, reading, writing, and social studies), and(3) the application of knowledge and skills. Districts and states cre-ate timelines, guidelines, and frameworks for academic outcomes,and virtually all state and national standards include some combi-nation of skills, content, and application.


Table 3.1. What kinds of content are important? A sampleTwenty-First-Century Interest-Driven

Core Content1 Content1 Content2

Acquisition Literacy Technology Artof skills and Science Problem solving History of jazzknowledge Math Global awareness Astronomy

History Financial literacy

Application Essay writing Web site design Paintingof skills and Applied math Project planning Playing an instrumentknowledge Cartography Community service Learning gymnastics

1Acquisition examples of Core Content and Twenty-First Century Content draw onLearning for the 21st Century (2003).2Examples of Interest-Driven Content such as these are sometimes referred to as“free-choice learning” (Falk & Dierking, 2002).

Source: Wilson-Ahlstrom, A., Yohalem, N., & Pittman, K. (2003). Policy commen-tary #5: Inside the black box: What is the “content” of after-school? Washington,DC: Author. Available: www.forumforyouthinvestment.org/comment/ostpc5.pdf.

But there is growing recognition within education and employ-ment circles, now backed up by public opinion polls, that childrenand youth need to learn more than the basics in order to enteradulthood successfully. There is also growing recognition that inorder to develop the full range of necessary skills, students needauthentic opportunities to apply their knowledge in real-life con-texts. Good after-school programs are well positioned in terms ofboth expertise and flexibility to deliver “beyond the basics” skillsand offer hands-on opportunities for application (see Table 3.1).These programs are also places where young people are exposedto, and can develop, a range of interest-driven skills and hobbies inthe arts, music, sports, and other areas—avocations that contributesignificantly to their development and their quality of life.

In June 2003, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a public-private organization formed in 2002 to create a model of learningfor the twenty-first century, issued a call-to-action report thatpresents a menu of the skills, knowledge, and experiences youngpeople need and a clear set of recommendations for what schoolscan do to increase their capacity to teach, manage, and partner.5


The framework builds on earlier efforts to define “basics plus”menus—most notably the 1991 Secretary’s Commission on Achiev-ing Necessary Skills Report,6 the work of the 2002 National SkillsStandards Board, and Murnane and Levy’s “new basic skills,”7 andreflects an extensive consensus-building process with educators,employers, parents, community members, and students.

Recent polling conducted by Lake, Snell, Perry, and Associates forthe Time Warner Foundation8 suggests that the core academic skillsthat educators, business leaders, and the public consider importantfor young people to master go well beyond the basics of reading, writ-ing, and mathematics. The content the public and key stakeholdersagree is critical includes both “twenty-first-century skills” such as col-laboration, adaptability, communication, and technology (see Table3.2) and “twenty-first-century content” such as global understandingand critical media analysis. The same poll revealed that Americansare concerned that young people are not adequately prepared fortwenty-first-century success. Only four out of ten Americans polledbelieve that schools currently do a good job of teaching basic skills;less than a quarter of those polled believe most students are learningany of the twenty-first-century skills identified.

Although the vast majority of the public (90 percent), teachers (94percent), and business executives (93 percent) believe schools need toteach this package of skills, and two-thirds believe it is realistic toexpect schools to integrate the new skills, stakeholders do see a role forother settings, including after-school settings, in supporting learning.

A majority of those polled believe that it could be very effectiveto teach these twenty-first-century skills outside of school by

• Complementing what happens in schools by teaching these skills(51 percent)

• Providing all young people with access to high-quality after-school and summer programs that include these skills (59 percent)

Although schools are considered, by far, the primary places andspaces for organized learning, the increasing association of thebasic, twenty-first-century, and related skills as part of a redefined


Table 3.2. Twenty-first-century skills

Information and Information and media literacy skillscommunication Analyzing, accessing, managing, integrating, evaluating,skills and creating information in a variety of forms and

media; understanding the role of media in society

Communication skillsUnderstanding, managing, and creating effective oral,written, and multimedia communication in a variety offorms and contexts

Thinking and Critical thinking and systems thinkingproblem-solving Exercising sound reasoning in understanding andskills making complex choices, understanding the intercon-

nections among systems

Problem identification, formulation, and solutionFraming, analyzing, and solving problems

Creativity and intellectual curiosityDeveloping, implementing, and communicating newideas to others; staying open and responsive to new anddiverse perspectives

Interpersonal and Interpersonal and collaborative skillsself-directional Demonstrating teamwork and leadership, adapting to skills varied roles and responsibilities, working productively

with others, exercising empathy, respecting diverse perspectives

Self-directionMonitoring one’s own understanding and learningneeds, locating appropriate resources, transferringlearning from one domain to another

Accountability and adaptabilityExercising personal responsibility and flexibility in personal, workplace, and community contexts; settingand meeting high standards and goals for one’s self andothers; tolerating ambiguity

Social responsibilityActing responsibly with the interests of the larger community in mind; demonstrating ethical behavior in personal, workplace, and community contexts

Note: Excerpted from Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2003). Learning for the 21stCentury: A Report and Mile Guide for 21st Century Skills. Washington, DC: Author, p.9. Retrieved September 22, 2003, from www.21stcenturyskills.org.


“common core” appears to align with the public’s growing under-standing and support for the range of places, including after-schoolprograms where learning can and should intentionally occur. Froma blurring-the-lines perspective, increased connections between in-school and out-of-school approaches are likely, as this “basics plus”agenda may require schools to intentionally include some of thebroader skills (for example, social and civic skills) that have beenthe hallmark of many after-school programs. For learning-relatedprogramming in the out-of-school hours, the question of howmuch focus is on “basics” and how much is on “plus” is key. What-ever the mix, the policy and research communities are in agreementthat intentionality is key.

We turn next to explore examples of how out-of-school pro-grams can support academic achievement, both narrowly andbroadly defined, when they do so by design.

Content delivery: Explicit, embedded, and enrichmentapproaches to incorporating academics in program design

We need to do everything we can to support kids aca-demically in multiple ways. And we need to do it for thekids who are struggling, the kids who don’t like school,and those who have difficulty making progress. Thechallenge is how to entice those students back into expe-riencing success, and how to do so in an after-schoolcontext. No one answer is always right. In some cases,the student needs direct instruction tutoring to under-stand basic concepts taught during the school day—theyneed the extra time. In other cases you have to be cleverabout how you do it; you may be working on reading asa way to learn some other skill. The challenge is tounderstand the entire range of that bag of tricks.

Robert Stonehill, U.S. Department of Education

Practitioners who implement successful program approaches arevery intentional about what they do and how they do it. The“whats” and the “hows” vary considerably. This is no less trueamong programs that are committed to helping students acquire


and apply academic skills and knowledge. In discussions aboutafter-school programming, especially school-based programming,we often hear the concern that “extended day” will mean “more ofthe same.” In these cases, “the same” is usually translated to meana basics-only content and a traditional mode of delivery. But, as inschools, intentional strategies for infusing academic content andproviding enriched opportunities for learning and engagement canmove far beyond this definition in terms of both content and deliv-ery. In this section, we explore examples along a range ofapproaches that move beyond “extended,” including

• Explicit (explicit content, innovative delivery). These programshave an intentional focus on improving academic skills such asreading or math. Students attending these programs know thatthey are enrolled in remedial or enrichment academic programs.

• Embedded (embedded content, innovative delivery). These pro-grams are focused primarily on the arts, sports, or service butintentionally integrate academic content throughout the cur-riculum. Intentionality is the operative word.

• Enrichment (authentic content, innovative delivery). Highlyintentional programs that engage young people in positive,authentic ways; though not expressly “academic,” they are cer-tainly programs that support learning.

We turn now to explore examples of each of these approaches.Although the three programs highlighted here are certainly thought-ful and intentional in their work, they are provided as illustrationsonly and do not reflect a thorough scan of existing programs. Thereare other well-known examples (Steppingstone, LA’s BEST, Voy-ager, Inc., and Gallery 37) that could also illustrate these points.

Building Educated Leaders for Life: An explicit approachto academics

In the words of Karen Walker, from Public/Private Ventures, “Ifyou want academic effects, you probably have to have academiccontent.” BELL (Building Educated Leaders for Life) is an aca-demic enrichment program that takes such words seriously.


Designed for elementary-school-aged children who live in low-income, under-resourced communities, BELL was created in 1992by Harvard law students. BELL serves over 1,500 students in itsschool-year program, in BASICs (BELL After-School InstructionalCurriculum), and in BALSP (BELL Accelerated Learning Sum-mer Program)—a summer program with sites in Boston, NewYork, and Washington, D.C.

Awarded the 1997 President’s Service Award and boasting a 100percent college attendance rate for former participants, BELL isintentionally academic in focus. The program recognizes its explicitrole in bolstering young people’s success at the high school and col-lege levels and embraces a share of the responsibility for helpingunderserved urban children prepare to master the skills needed forpostsecondary education. Key to BELL’s approach is the selectionof a committed, knowledgeable, and diverse tutoring staff (olderyouth and adults), reflecting (1) the demographic of participants,(2) the implementation of results-oriented academic curriculadesigned specifically for underachieving students and linked tonational and state learning standards, and (3) a collaborative part-nership with parents to increase their involvement in students’learning and their capacity to advocate on their children’s behalf.

The typical student enters the BELL program 1.2 years behindtheir grade level in math, reading, and composition skills. Morethan 50 percent enroll in the program believing that college grad-uation is not an attainable goal. By the end of the 2002 programyear, 86 percent of participants were performing at proficient andadvanced levels in literacy, compared to 30 percent at the begin-ning of the year. In math, 100 percent of students performing at afailing level earlier in the year had advanced beyond that categoryby the end of the program year. Over the summer months, BELLparticipants on average gained four months of reading, writing, andmath skills, thus stemming and reversing the average three monthsof summer learning loss for demographically similar students.9

On the content side, the elements that make up the core BELLapproach are certainly explicit, with a focus on consistent partici-pation in basic skills development, specifically math and literacy.


When it comes to delivery, the innovative aspects include the use ofportfolios and assessments for each participant and the creationof intentional partnerships between parents and staff. In BELL’sexplicit model, delivering “high-quality content” involves a pur-poseful interplay between providing a consistent and relevant cur-ricula, investing in a staff reflective of community demographics,having a clear orientation toward improving math and literacyskills, and adapting content based on individual student assessmentand support while supplementing the academic core with enrich-ment “extras” in the arts and community service activities.

California Living Histories: An embedded approach

Although its academic content is not immediately visible on the sur-face, California Living Histories is an example of a program in whichcore academic skill building and knowledge development is not justhappenstance. It does so by careful design. California Living Histo-ries provides innovative cultural enrichment programs in the out-of-school hours that emphasize the exploration of cultural identity andheritage. Working alongside artists, children participate in a range offine arts activities and research efforts designed to help them uncoverinformation about their cultural heritage. Building on themes relatedto knowledge of self, family, community, and world cultures, studentsparticipate in project-based learning and are exposed to a variety ofmethods used in the visual arts, writing, video production, and oralpresentation. Exhibitions account for a significant part of Living His-tories programs, providing opportunities for young people to havetheir work displayed in public venues, as well as exposure for com-munities whose cultures are not always well represented.

Living Histories programs, currently operating in six elemen-tary schools as part of the 21st Century-funded Pasadena LEARNs(Leading Educational Achievement: Revitalizing Neighborhoods)initiative, are based on a time-tested curriculum that has beenendorsed by the University of Irvine’s Collaborative AfterschoolProject and by California Tomorrow during their recent nationalscan of after-school programs. The curriculum was developed witha high level of intentionality, and careful efforts have been made to


align program content with state and national academic standards.Recently, Living Histories was recognized by the Academy forEducational Development for its promising practice in the area ofcultural awareness.

In a sample lesson from the Living Histories curriculum called“Cultural Tapestry: Faces,” students examine and create self-portraits. First, they explore the self-portrait work of a diverse setof artists—Diego Rivera, Frida Kahlo, Gordon Parks—developingan understanding of how the self-portrait has been used to expresspersonal, cultural, and social identity. Children then learn the tech-niques of creating self-portraits, applying the concepts of mea-surement, symmetry, and proportion to their projects. Over thecourse of their participation in “Faces,” students cover CaliforniaBoard of Education standards in visual arts and mathematics,including geometry concepts like bilateral and rotational symmetry.

In the Living Histories model, young people come for the oppor-tunity to explore culture in a fun and engaging way and, perhaps,to have their work recognized through public exhibitions. But thesestudents gain a lot more than that through the embedded learningthat covers content in history, geometry, geography, writing, andlanguage development. Lesson plans are written against specificstate standards so staff can track how the content connects to aca-demic objectives. Elizabeth Converse, director of Living Histories,notes, “Increasingly, programs like ours are being tossed out withthe incredible pressures on test scores. Funding for enrichment pro-gramming has been slashed. I feel fortunate to be able to offer thisin a high-quality way.”

Youth Owned Records: An enrichment approach

There are numerous cases of programs that provide authenticlearning opportunities in innovative ways. The best of these pro-grams prime children and youth for, and frequently reconnect themto, formal academic learning, even when they do not explicitly alignwith specific academic objectives. Programs like Youth OwnedRecords (YOR) in Ann Arbor, Michigan, can provide unique oppor-tunities for developing the habits and behaviors of school success;


they often facilitate the development and application of skills thatgo beyond the 3-Rs to help students prepare for the twenty-firstcentury. These programs are a critical component of the out-of-school landscape and may hold the key to needed in-school reforms.

The Neutral Zone, a teen center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, offersa range of youth-advised programs, from one-on-one tutoring ses-sions to poetry slam teams, and is home to YOR. The goal of YOR,which started in 2001, is to involve young people in the manage-ment and operation of a music production company. YOR andits spin-off company, Rebel Girls Music (created specifically toencourage girls to explore an often male-dominated industry), offera professional-quality recording studio, a youth musicians’ network,and space to connect with adult musicians. Young people can getinvolved in any one of the six elements of the program: promotions,studio engineering, live sound, finance, administration, and Webdesign, as well as have a place to perform and record music andmake connections with other youth and adult musicians.

In order to operate YOR effectively, young people must masterall of the knowledge and skills involved in running a music-relatedbusiness. Depending on which aspect of the company they areinvolved in, young people learn about music production andundergo training in booking, promotions, and management; learnhow to create business plans and manage finances, or developgrant-writing skills in order to support YOR. The timing, shape,and pace of the “curriculum” depends on “who is part of the com-pany at the time,” Antonia Alvarez, associate director at the Neu-tral Zone and director of music and events, explained. There is astructured, underlying framework, however, as the core team in thecompany spends several weeks at the beginning of each semesteranalyzing the goals they have set, budgeting against those goals,and figuring out what it will take to accomplish them, whichincludes mapping out key points when outside training, support,or skill development will be needed. YOR has invited bookingmanagers, legal aides, adult musicians, and business school studentsto provide workshops in networking, contracts, copywriting, andfinancial management.


Young people’s learning at YOR always results in tangible prod-ucts. YOR sponsors numerous concerts and events and produces afew CDs over the course of a year. YOR collaborates closely withthe Volume Poetry Project—the center’s most popular program—to record spoken word selections on CDs, featuring works frommembers of Neutral Zone’s nationally recognized poetry slam team.

System and scale

One thing that I love about the current attention toafter-school is the implicit attention to the sector—to the range of players and resources for kids that’sneeded. How do we make this happen at scale and ina way that’s sustainable? At its core, it’s about devel-oping the financial, organizational, and humanresources that are needed to build an infrastructureof sufficient, high-quality out-of-school-time oppor-tunities.

Joan Wynn, Chapin Hall Center for Children

Whether explicit, embedded, or enrichment-focused, curriculumdevelopment, innovative program design, and professional devel-opment have become front-burner issues for programs operatingin the out-of-school hours, especially since the advent of the 21st

Century Learning Communities funding stream. The U.S. Depart-ment of Education and the Mott Foundation, among others, havehelped to sharpen the focus on improving front-line supportsdesigned to ensure that the educational bottom line is met, empha-sizing the use of high-quality curriculum as well as professionaldevelopment. In recent years, there has been a proliferation of cur-ricula developed for use in after-school contexts, ranging fromhighly academic tools that are aligned with state or national aca-demic standards to a collection of activity-based projects linked toa broader set of skills and designed to promote leadership or team-work. Many organizations, from National 4-H10 to Foundations,Inc.11 to the Program in Afterschool Education and Research at


Harvard, are stepping up with ratings systems, guidebooks, andclassification tools to help practitioners sort through the myriad ofresources.

On the professional development front, the importance of ensur-ing that after-school workers have the skills necessary to do theirjobs is increasing. Promising efforts are emerging around the coun-try at both the program and city levels to boost the quality andquantity of professional development opportunities. For example,the Achieve Boston initiative, created in 2001 with the goal ofbuilding a professional development infrastructure for youth work-ers across the city, serves as a clearinghouse, registry, and referralnetwork for opportunities sponsored by organizations across thecity on a range of topics. In Michigan, the High/Scope EducationalResearch Foundation is building a network of certified youth-worktrainers using a common training framework that is based on activelearning pedagogy and youth development principles. The Build-ing Exemplary Systems for Training Youth Workers (BEST) ini-tiative, coordinated by the National Training Institute forCommunity and Youth Work, is another example of a train-the-trainer approach that is being implemented through intermediaryorganizations across the country.

Although these and similar efforts are critical, they are not suffi-cient to create and strengthen out-of-school supports in ways thatwill achieve the broad goal of ensuring that all students are equippedwith the skills and knowledge they need to contribute in the twenty-first century. In addition to the essentials of high-quality staff devel-opment and clear and effective curricula at the programmatic level,we must also consider systemic changes that substantially improvethe capacity of families, schools, and communities to support learn-ing. Here we explore three systemic strategies for blurring the lines:(1) content alignment, (2) bridging, and (3) community schools.

Content alignment

Around the country, after-school programs are beginning to developintentional strategies for aligning the content of what they do in col-laboration with schools. In some places, this means orchestrating


staff exchanges between schools and programs; in other places, itmeans incorporating specific benchmarks from state standards intoafter-school program design. Seattle Public Schools’ CommunityAlignment Initiative is one intentional effort to reinforce the rela-tionships between schools and after-school providers to maximizeyoung people’s learning and success. Alignment is defined as schools,after-school providers, and communities working collectively toensure that children and youth meet or exceed learning standardsand that schools and out-of-school-time activities reflect the devel-opmental needs of young people.

Seattle’s alignment model is an attempt to blur the linesbetween school and after-school contexts. It does not call on out-of-school-time providers to duplicate what occurs during theschool day but to provide an array of activities that can serve asvenues for learning—an approach that is described as “tight onstandards but loose on strategies.” Teams made up of out-of-school-time providers and school representatives work together tocomplete an alignment plan that specifies how they intend to worktogether to support children’s learning in and out of school. Align-ment plans address areas such as use of resources, communication,and curriculum.

Programs that participate in the alignment process and whoseplans are approved gain rent-free access to facilities in exchange foralignment with Seattle Public Schools’ learning standards, but pro-grams must also have a plan for reinvesting the rent savings to main-tain or enhance the quality of programming. Programs areaccountable to principals for reaching objectives, and these programsreceive both evaluation and technical assistance support. School’s OutWashington, a key partner in this state-based initiative, has developedan Alignment Tool Kit containing practical resources for programsin the areas of staff development, programming, and curriculum, aswell as strategies for infusing literacy, math, and more.12

Bridging

The community school model brings multiple elements togetherunder one roof. There are other models, sometimes more appro-priate for working with middle and high school students, that cre-


ate bridges between multiple learning opportunities that exist inthe community. Communities and Schools for Career Success(CS2) is a bridging strategy designed to galvanize communities toincrease the capacity of school districts to meet the needs of theirstudents. In every CS2 community (there are now seven in Mas-sachusetts and five in California), a skilled team of change agentscalled “school/community entrepreneurs” work on the ground tobuild relationships and broker opportunities, bringing insight,experience, and resources to the table to help districts meet thechallenges they face. Entrepreneurs are innovators, problemsolvers, and communicators who work with schools, families, andcommunity organizations to transform the educational experiencefor all students, especially the most disadvantaged. The entrepre-neur teams are charged with carrying out innovative strategies andactivities that are identified in partnership with local actors—schooladministrators, community partners, and business leaders.

When the CS2 collaboration was initiated in 1993, this partner-ship agreed to focus on four goals:

1. Establishing new initiatives and leveraging funding for far-reaching school reform efforts and programs for at-risk youth

2. Developing and implementing a comprehensive career explo-ration and development system, including internships, careerpathways, and summer work-based learning

3. Creating strong, reform-minded partnerships betweencommunity-based agencies, employers, and public schools

4. Promoting curriculum and teacher training aimed at achievinghigher academic standards through hands-on, community-based experiences

Although CS2 partnerships are designed to support all students,the power of the approach may lie in its ability to reach and recon-nect students who are disenfranchised from the educationalprocess. According to Janet Daisley, senior program manager at theCommonwealth Corporation, “They are connecting kids whomight otherwise fall through the cracks into community and work-based learning placements, at the same time that they support them


academically. This parallel approach is a great way to catch kids andreengage them in their education.”

Community schools

Community schools are one of the most concrete examples of howthe concept of community partnership can be used to transform aschool into a community institution for expanded learning. Strongcommunity schools models like the New York City Beacons rep-resent a level of integration that may seem unattainable, however,to the average after-school program struggling to forge a connec-tion to a school in its district. The Coalition of CommunitySchools has recently issued Making a Difference,13 a report summa-rizing the evidence that community schools have an impact on fam-ily involvement, student achievement, school functioning, andcommunity vitality. Here are excerpts from their findings on stu-dent achievement:

• Fifteen out of the twenty evaluations reviewed reported improve-ment in academic achievement, as measured by improved gradesin school courses and scores in proficiency testing.

• More than half of the evaluations looked for and found evidenceof positive development in other areas, including attendance,reduced discipline problems, greater contact with supportiveadults, improvements in personal and family situations, andincreased access to physical and mental health services.

ConclusionWe believe that blurring the lines between the kinds of learningopportunities young people have, the kinds of content embeddedin those learning opportunities, and the settings, in-school and out,where that learning occurs can ultimately benefit young people andsociety by increasing the relevance and continuity of their experi-ences. It follows that we feel that out-of-school-time programs can,with access to adequate resources and capacity, address the broad-


ened definition of academic content explored early in this chapter,including both traditional and twenty-first-century academic skilldevelopment. This call to blur lines, however, presents particularchallenges from an accountability perspective. We close this chap-ter by addressing these challenges and proposing what we think isa fairly simple bottom line: hold programs accountable for what theycan realistically offer.

What is possible and what is realistic are two different questions.If the main driver behind a program’s existence is “safety” (still thenumber-one reason the public points to when polled about the pur-pose of after-school programs14) and that program has cut cornerson teachers and programming, then it is not appropriate for it tocommit to raising student test scores or grades. It may not even beappropriate for this program to claim that it will enhance students’interest in learning.

The accountability environment, coupled with specific policies(for example, “No Child Left Behind”) and the need for schools tosecure additional supports, has put enormous pressure on all partiesto “play the academics card.” But the tide may be shifting. And thereis recognition that after-school programs cannot be held account-able for what schools cannot achieve. As Karen Walker puts it,

In terms of what the Department of Education is doing, I think they facesomething of a dilemma. When you look at how little time these kids areactually spending in programs, the expectation of increases in grades andtest scores is really expecting a lot. That’s even true if you’re looking atfour or five days a week of participation.

A new meta-analysis of after-school evaluations reinforces thisdilemma by underscoring low participation rates across programs,suggesting a new metric for setting academic achievement expec-tations that includes a comparative analysis of time spent on rele-vant subject matter during the school day and after-schoolprograms.15

However, there is growing recognition that after-school pro-grams are an important variable in the outcomes equation. BobStonehill underscores this point:


We believe that there are many dimensions of kids’ development that pro-grams can impact. We don’t talk very much any more about after-schoolprograms by themselves getting you any of these. We look at the cumu-lative impact of the school, the program, the family, and other services,and ask whether the full package creates the desired outcomes.

After-school programs, whether they strive to enhance academiclearning through explicit or embedded approaches or whether theirgoal is to create a safe, enriching environment, have both expandedopportunities for public funding and increased obligations todemonstrate impact. The challenge is to create the space in whichthese programs can accurately describe the content of what theyoffer and the context in which they offer it, and then determine theextent to which they can and should be held accountable for aca-demic and nonacademic outcomes.

Notes1. Pittman, K., Yohalem, N., & Wilson-Ahlstrom, A. (2002). Policy com-

mentary #1: Out-of-school research meets after-school policy [On-line]. Washing-ton, DC: The Forum for Youth Investment. Available: www.forumforyouthinvestment.org/comment/ostpc1.pdf.

2. Irby, M., Pittman, K., & Tolman, J. (2003, Spring). Blurring the lines:Expanding learning opportunities for children and youth. In Pittman, K. J.,Yohalem, N., & Tolman, J. (Eds.), When, where, what, and how youth learn:Blurring school and community boundaries. New Directions for Youth Develop-ment, no. 97, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 13–27. For information, visitwww.forumforyouthinvestment.org/respapers.htm#when.

3. Miller, B. (2003). Critical hours: Afterschool programs and educational suc-cess. Quincy, MA: Nellie Mae Foundation. Retrieved September 22, 2003,from www.nmefdn.org/CriticalHours.htm.

4. Blum, R. W., McNeely, C. A., & Rinehart, P. M. (2002). Improving theodds: The untapped power of schools to improve the health of teens. Center for Ado-lescent Health and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

5. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2003). Learning for the 21st century:A report and mile guide for 21st century skills. Washington, DC: Author.Retrieved September 22, 2003, from www.21stcenturyskills.org.

6. Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1991, June).What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000 [On-line].Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Available: http://wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/whatwork.

7. Murnane, R. J., & Levy, F. (1996). Teaching the new basic skills: Principlesfor educating children to thrive in a changing economy. New York: Free Press.


8. Lake, Snell, Perry & Associates and Market Strategies. (2003, June). 21stcentury literacy: A vital component in learning. A report sponsored by the TimeWarner Foundation. Survey summary retrieved September 22, 2003, fromhttp://timewarnerfoundation.org/pdf/keyfindingssummary.pdf. Presentationof survey retrieved September 22, 2003, from http://timewarnerfoundation.org/media/survey.ppt.

9. Better Educated Leaders for Life. (2002). BELL 2002 Annual Report.Boston: Author.

10. National 4-H. (n.d.). The Nationally Juried 4-H Experiential LearningYouth Development Curriculum Collection. Washington, DC: National 4-H.Available: www.national4-hheadquarters.gov/4h_curric.htm.

11. Weisburd, C., & Adorno, S. (in press). Academic content after-school style.Moorestown, NJ: Foundations, Inc.

12. School’s Out Washington. (2003). Building strong partnerships betweenafterschool programs and schools: A toolkit. Seattle: Author. Request by e-mail:[email protected].

13. Blank, M., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. (2003). Making a difference: Researchand practice in community schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for CommunitySchools, Institute for Educational Leadership.

14. Afterschool Alliance. (2003, October). Summary of findings from the 2003National Voters Poll [On-line]. Washington, DC: Author. Available: www.afterschoolalliance.org/poll_2003_oct.cfm.

15. Kane, T. J. (in press). The impact of after-school programs: Interpreting the resultsfrom four recent evaluations. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.

KAREN J. PITTMAN is executive director of the Forum for Youth Invest-ment and president of Impact Strategies, both in Washington, D.C.

MERITA IRBY is managing director of the Forum for Youth Investmentand vice president of Impact Strategies, both in Washington, D.C.

NICOLE YOHALEM is manager of learning and research at the Forum forYouth Investment, Washington, D.C.

ALICIA WILSON-AHLSTROM is a senior program associate at the Forumfor Youth Investment, Washington, D.C.

blurring the lines for learning: the role of out-of-school programs as complements to formal...

Documents