8/14/2019 Equity & Participation Hansen Plenary Session Presentation International Conference On

1/2

Equity & Participation

Hansen

Plenary Session Presentation

International Conference on Youth Policy and Research: From Theory to Practice

Evidence Based Youth Policy

Vienna - Austria Europe, (22) 23 - 25 September 2009

Equity and ParticipationDavid M. Hansen, Ph.D.,

University of Kansas

The United States struggles, as do most nations, with how to meet its responsibility to

fully prepare its youth for participation in adult collective society. This struggle in the US has

been summarized in different reports and initiatives highlighting the challenges facing youth and

nation: e.g., the Ready by 21 Challenge (2008), the Secretaries Commission on NecessarySkills (SCANS, 1991), Poverty and Potential (Berliner, 2009). Despite recognition of the

challenges facing youths preparation for adult life, there is little direct youth policy to address

these issues (the No Child Left Behind act is one exception). Instead the United States relies on

the education system and on non-governmental organizations and advocacy groups to findsolutions. The US approach is primarily a bottom-up approach and stands in contrast to nations

that address societal-wide youth issues from the top-down by creating youth targeted policies.The aim of this presentation is (1) to present existing evidence on how this bottom-up approach

affects issues of equity and participation and (2) to suggest ways in which this information can

be applied to youth policy.

Research Synopsis

There are three primary points that will be made:

First, there is a developmental readiness for youth (pubescent) to become activelyengaged in society and societal issues. There is substantial evidence suggesting the period of

adolescence (puberty to roughly mid 20s) is a second critical period of development duringwhich the brain undergoes significant neural alterations that lead to new reasoning abilities(Spear, 2000). A hallmark feature of this newfound ability is reasoning about the self in

relation to the larger community and society. These changes occur simultaneously with a

heightened cognitive-affective arousal that appears to encourage development (Keating, 2004).Practically, neuropsychological evidence points adolescence as a period where youth are primed

to develop civic and social awareness and responsibility. Real-world experience (defined and

discussed in presentation) is an essential tool through which these developments occur,

particularly for disadvantaged youth (Kirshner, 2009). Youths developmental readiness,however, can be squandered by society if there are insufficient systems to promote this

development.

Second, both governmental and non-governmental systems1 affect youths preparation for

future and present active citizenship in United States. As I will document, there are considerablesupports within the US, some of which are more effective that others, designed promote youths

1The non-governmental systems will necessarily be disparate as they have emerged in citizens response toperceived needs. Thus I will attempt to present typical systems instead of concentrating on any one particular

system.

1

8/14/2019 Equity & Participation Hansen Plenary Session Presentation International Conference On

2/2

Equity & Participation

Hansen

engagement in society and preparation for adult life. These supports, however, are not distributed

equally across society, communities, or ethnicities.

Third, there are systemicsocio-structuralfactors that create inequitable participation

among certain groups of US youth. After highlighting the potential negative impact of these

systemic factors, I will provide emerging evidence on how disadvantaged youths participationin out-of-school, structured youth activities can help these youth engage with civic and political

processes (Berliner, 2009; Kirshner, 2009).

Implications

The evidence, I suggest, indicates all youth need experiences beyond the classroom that

leverage their readiness to become engaged with local and broader society. Non-classroom

experiences for youth lead to real and essential cognitive development; development that is thehallmark of adult-thinking.Recognition of this type of developmentis needed at the

governmental level. In addition to directly addressing structural inequalities, there is need forincreased access to these types of opportunities for youth most affected by inequity. For the

United States, I suggest this includes consistent federal and state funding for outside-of-schoolsupports for youth who are most affected by inequity. Lastly, I argue there needs to shift in the

US government funding from its current output-focus (test-outcomes accountability)to an input-

output focus (improving social inputs and outcomes).

2