Expanded Learning Requires Expanded Thinking: An Interview with Karen Pittman, Part 2

By Sam Piha 

We have been following the national discussion of "expanded learning". We believe that expanded learning opportunities should be developed by both educators and out-of-school time leaders. Further, we believe that any discussion of expanded learning time has to include clear learning principles that explain how children best learn so we can shape these experiences accordingly. The Learning in Afterschool & Summer project is focused on defining these learning principles.

Karen Pittman

Below is an interview on this topic with Karen Pittman, President and CEO of the Forum for Youth Investment. This interview with the FrameWorks Institute is an excerpt of one that the Forum posted on their website, which can be found here in its entirety. We offer this interview in 2 parts. 

Q: What does a classroom that promotes intrinsic motivation look like? 

A: In an engaging classroom you will see desks pushed together, more team time, students working on group projects where the project on one table may be completely different from the project on the next table. Essentially, this is about effective project-based learning. Young people need opportunities to make meaningful decisions about topics they want to learn about, and then [they need] the supports to do something with that topic.  

Once you show students that they can really learn whatever they want to learn and they experience that sense of mastery, they will learn because they enjoy feeling that sense of mastery. In that kind of environment, young people will trust an adult who says, “You need to learn this because …”  

Q: There seems to be a notion in the education system that fairness is about having clearly defined standards and everyone learning the same thing. Do you see that as a problem?  

A: Standards are good. We use standards in our work for all kinds of things. There is value, however, in broadening what gets included in standards, and providing genuine opportunities for students to get there through different paths. So we need youth to have basic reading and math skills, but we also need them to develop teamwork, communication and problem-solving skills, financial literacy, a solid work ethic. These are competencies that have multiple uses once you develop them and that employers say their incoming workforce often lacks.  

There are examples of schools paying close attention to both content and competence. In the New Tech Network’s high schools, half of a student’s course grade is based on mastery of the content, and the other half is for improvement in different skills like teamwork, communication and initiative. Teachers’ lesson plans address both content and the development of those core competencies.   

Q: What do you think about the separation between the learning that goes on inside vs. outside of school?  

A: When kids are in preschool, we stay true to an expanded definition of learning. Learning in the early years includes all of those things that allow kids to be curious and navigate their environment, and teachers and parents are considered equal partners in learning. When kids become school-aged, the definition gets restrictive. The word “learning” gets captured by school – and then suddenly everything else isn’t thought of as learning. 

When an uncle teaches his nephew how to tune an engine, does that get counted as learning? Maybe. Does it get the same respect as the learning that occurs when a teacher teaches you how to do long division? No. And yet when we do a simple exercise and ask people to reflect on the most powerful learning experiences they had as a young person, their answers are rarely about something they learned in school.  

Q: What kinds of changes do you think need to happen in order to improve the quality of our education system?   

A: Public education is absolutely critical to the American ideal, but there is room for reinvention. Look at other large public systems, like public health. The CDC [Centers for Disease Control] has reinvented itself many times, both in terms of how public health is defined and how the system is designed to address it. We haven’t done the same level of redefinition and reinvention in public education. The system is defined more by buildings and schedules than by student learning needs and desires. 

I would want to step back and think about what really works for kids and families. Research on everything from how kids learn to adolescent sleep patterns demonstrates that the system as currently conceived isn’t working for many kids. But we have difficulty getting outside of the box. I’d like to get to a public education system that has standards, expectations and resources, but a little more flexibility in terms of how and where learning happens. We have the expertise and the technology to make public education a very different system while keeping its core intact.  

___________________________________

Karen Pittman is a co-founder, President and CEO of the Forum for Youth Investment. She started her career at the Urban Institute, conducting numerous studies on social services for children and families. Karen later moved to the Children’s Defense Fund, launching its adolescent pregnancy prevention initiatives and helping to create its adolescent policy agenda. In 1990 she became a vice president at the Academy for Educational Development, where she founded and directed the Center for Youth Development and Policy Research and its spin-off, the National Training Institute for Community Youth Work.

In 1995 Karen joined the Clinton administration as director of the President's Crime Prevention Council, where she worked with 13 cabinet secretaries to create a coordinated prevention agenda. From there she moved to the executive team of the International Youth Foundation (IYF), charged with helping the organization strengthen its program content and develop an evaluation strategy. In 1998 she and Rick Little, head of the foundation, took a leave of absence to work with ret. Gen. Colin Powell to create America’s Promise. Upon her return, she and Irby launched the Forum, which later became an entity separate from IYF.

Expanded Learning Requires Expanded Thinking: An Interview with Karen Pittman, Part 1

By Sam Piha 

We have been following the national discussion of "expanded learning". We believe that expanded learning opportunities should be developed by both educators and out-of-school time leaders. Further, we believe that any discussion of expanded learning time has to include clear learning principles that explain how children best learn so we can shape these experiences accordingly. The Learning in Afterschool & Summer project is focused on defining these learning principles.

Karen Pittman

Below is an interview on this topic with Karen Pittman, President and CEO of the Forum for Youth Investment.  This interview with the FrameWorks Institute is an excerpt of one that the Forum posted on their website, which can be found here in its entirety. We offer this interview in 2 parts. 

Q: In education circles there is a lot of talk about what kids learn and how learning happens. Is the expanded learning agenda getting the where and when questions on the table?  

A: We haven’t asked the how and why questions about learning enough. So the when and where questions either don’t come up or they don’t stick. The conversation about extended learning is still very school-centric and bound within a fairly restrictive definition of how learning happens and why.  

Learning is an intrinsic thing that humans do. If kids are awake – whether they are two or 12 – they’re learning and developing. Learning is intrinsically satisfying. But that can get lost when it is defined only in terms of academic content. When learning becomes too defined by content, the conversation about expanding when and where kids learn becomes a conversation about where to stick the content, and the intrinsic side can get lost.  

School only fills a small piece of that developmental space, but we spend very little time trying to understand, assess, improve and coordinate the learning that’s going on in the rest of that space. As long as our definition of learning is driven by formal education and things like the common core and standardized tests, we’re unlikely to capitalize on the opportunity presented by the rest of that time and space.  

  

Q: What are the first steps to de-compartmentalizing learning?  

A: One way is to put the learning that happens through high-quality programs and opportunities outside of school on par with K-12 learning. Another way is to bring [into schools] more of what these other practitioners have figured out about effective learning opportunities.  

Reed Larson’s research on intrinsic motivation is relevant here. In one study, middle school kids were given beepers so the research team could track what they were doing and how they were feeling. Each time he [Larson] beeped them, they responded to a couple of quick questions about what they were doing and their levels of concentration and motivation. When kids were in class, they weren’t motivated and they weren’t concentrating. When they were with friends, they were motivated but not concentrating. When they were playing sports, they reported relatively high levels of both motivation and concentration. The highest levels of concentration and motivation were reported when youth were in structured informal learning environments where they had made choices about what they were doing and how to do it.  

This doesn’t mean we shut down schools and send everyone to youth programs, but it should make us think about how to bring higher levels of intrinsic motivation and engagement into schools. Schools are not monolithic. Some students certainly experience more engaging, motivating experiences than others. If you beeped kids who were in a magnet science program, they would probably be engaged. They would likely be in a different type of learning environment than kids in, say, a remedial English course. The most gifted and talented kids get more opportunities for this kind of engagement. Far too many others experience the other end of the spectrum.  

I would flip the conversation about learning. The underlying assumption is that the stuff we want kids to learn is like medicine. If left to their own devices, they wouldn’t learn it.  We need to spend more time understanding how we can support intrinsic motivation.   

___________________________________

Karen Pittman is a co-founder, President and CEO of the Forum for Youth Investment. She started her career at the Urban Institute, conducting numerous studies on social services for children and families. Karen later moved to the Children’s Defense Fund, launching its adolescent pregnancy prevention initiatives and helping to create its adolescent policy agenda. In 1990 she became a vice president at the Academy for Educational Development, where she founded and directed the Center for Youth Development and Policy Research and its spin-off, the National Training Institute for Community Youth Work.

In 1995 Karen joined the Clinton administration as director of the President's Crime Prevention Council, where she worked with 13 cabinet secretaries to create a coordinated prevention agenda. From there she moved to the executive team of the International Youth Foundation (IYF), charged with helping the organization strengthen its program content and develop an evaluation strategy. In 1998 she and Rick Little, head of the foundation, took a leave of absence to work with ret. Gen. Colin Powell to create America’s Promise. Upon her return, she and Irby launched the Forum, which later became an entity separate from IYF.

THE COMMON CORE STANDARDS: What Do They Mean For Out-of-School Time? (Part 2)

By Sam Piha

The Common Core Standards have been embraced by educators and government leaders across the country. These common educational standards include standards that cover "habits of mind", which are very compatible with the Learning in Afterschool & Summer principles. Elizabeth Devaney recently worked with Nicole Yohalem and the Forum for Youth Investment in developing a policy brief entitled The Common Core Standards: What Do They Mean For Out-of-School Time? Below we offer part 2 of an interview with Elizabeth Devaney on the Common Core Standards and their relevance to the afterschool/OST field.

Q: What do you see as the primary challenges that the Common Core Standards offer the OST field? 

Elizabeth Devaney

A: The primary risk or challenge for the OST field – which pre-dates the emergence of the Common Core – lies in overpromising. Although some OST programs have successfully focused on academic achievement, others are trying to reinvent themselves to connect more to schools.  Some leaders in the OST field argue that programs have strayed too far from the kinds of things they do best: supporting and nurturing the social and emotional development of young people. Many afterschool and OST programs are not equipped to deliver academic content and, in fact, may be straying from their core mission to do so.  OST programs face the challenge of connecting to this monumental policy initiative in education while not compromising their own core principles.

Q: The Learning in Afterschool & Summer principles provide a framework to guide programs in designing activities that promote children’s learning. Based on your experience, can you comment on the relevance and importance of these principles?

A: These learning principles are absolutely right on.  As you state in your position paper, research clearly supports the five principles.  But my experience in a practical setting corroborates that research and makes it more powerful for me. In Providence, RI where I spent 7 years, we saw tremendous gains for middle school students when the learning they engaged in after school was hands-on, connected them to real-world skills, and was relevant to their lives.  We had young people out in their community advocating for recycling because they learned through their summer program to calculate the average rain fall from a storm and about what happens to animals in the ocean when rain water run-off carries garbage to the bay. That kind of learning sticks.  

Q: Do you see these LIAS principles as complimentary or in conflict with the Common Core standards, particularly the habits of mind?

A: I think the LIAS principles are complimentary, if not completely aligned with the Common Core.  They represent the kind of teaching that will be necessary in order for students to achieve the Common Core.  And as I mentioned earlier, the Common Core is designed to be more about mastery or depth of learning rather than breadth.  “Fewer deeper” is a mantra that my co-author Nicole Yohalem and I heard over and over again during our interviews and research in preparation for writing the brief.  So the principle of mastery is absolutely connected.  The main difference is that the LIAS principles really address the how of teaching and the Common Core is more focused on the what. But absolutely, teachers will need to shift their instruction to more closely match the LIAS principles in order for students to develop habits of mind and master the content standards.  

Q: As you look to the decade ahead, what do you see as most promising and threatening to the OST field? 

A: That’s a tough question. No doubt about it, OST organizations face a huge challenge in the coming years to “prove” their connection to supporting academic achievement and student success and define how they want to be a part of the equation.  There is more and more pressure from the local, state and federal level for schools to improve and they are looking to the community for help. Although the greatest challenge, this is also the most promising opportunity for the OST field. We have a chance to become a part of the school reform agenda in a way that we never have before - the trick is going to be remaining true to our own core principles. The Common Core is emerging just as calls for expanded learning opportunities and expanded learning time are growing. The OST field has a window to assert itself as a necessary part of children’s development and education. In doing so, the goal need not be to replicate the core work of schools but rather to complement, support and expand it.

__________________

Elizabeth is currently an independent consultant working with, among others, the Forum for Youth Investment and the Providence After School Alliance. Prior to starting her consulting practice Elizabeth worked in a variety of educational organizations dedicated to improving the lives and chances of success for young people.  She served as the Deputy Director and Quality Improvement Director of the Providence After School Alliance in Providence, RI.  There she led the development of a statewide quality improvement system for after school and youth development professionals and oversaw the organization’s evaluation and monitoring activities.  She also served as a Project Director at the Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) in Chicago, IL where her work focused on helping schools to implement comprehensive, school-wide social and emotional learning initiatives.  Elizabeth has authored two technical assistance guides for educators and systems builders as well as several published articles and has presented at numerous conferences.  She was the recipient of a Distinguished Fellows award from the W.T. Grant Foundation in 2009 and received her masters degree in nonprofit management from the Heller School of Social Policy at Brandeis University. 

THE COMMON CORE STANDARDS: What Do They Mean For Out-of-School Time? (Part 1)

By Sam Piha

The Common Core Standards has been embraced by educators and government leaders across the country. These common educational standards include standards that cover "habits of mind", which are very compatible with the Learning in Afterschool & Summer principles. Elizabeth Devaney recently worked with Nicole Yohalem and the Forum for Youth Investment in developing a policy brief entitled The Common Core Standards: What Do They Mean For Out-of-School Time? Below we interview Elizabeth Devaney on the Common Core Standards and their relevance to the afterschool/OST field.

Q: For our readers who are not familiar, can you briefly describe what the Common Core standards are? How are they different from previous academic standards?

Elizabeth Devaney

A: The Common Core is the result of a two-year process, facilitated by the National Governor’s Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), to develop a set of common standards for math and English Language Arts (ELA). The Common Core represents what students in grades K-12 should master in order to be college and career ready, and the hope is that the standards will increase the rigor and coherence of curriculum and assessment as well as increase alignment across states. Content standards are broken out by grade, highlighting specific competencies students in each grade level must achieve in the two main subject areas.

The Common Core focuses on fewer standards at a deeper level than do many of the models used in the past. The standards also emphasize higher order thinking skills; that is, they focus more on demonstrating understanding of content and analyzing written materials rather than on memorizing specific content. The math standards put greater emphasis on understanding how to get to the right answer than simply answering a question correctly, and the ELA standards shift toward increasingly complex informational text.

Q: Why are the Common Core standards important to out-of-school (OST) programs?

A: The Common Core is important to OST programs just as state content standards have always been important – because they represent what students should know and what schools are striving to teach.  If OST programs hope to align with schools and make the case for their contribution to student achievement, then they have to understand what it is schools are held accountable for. The Common Core simply represents a new and more focused approach to standards and place an emphasis on some of the higher order thinking skills OST programs have always championed.

Q: In your briefing paper, you describe the "Habits of Mind" standards. What are these and how are they relevant to OST programs?

A: The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) describes habits of mind as “knowledge, skills, and dispositions that operate in tandem with the academic content in the standards … and offer a portrait of students who, upon graduation, are prepared for college, career, and citizenship.” In each of the two standards documents, math and ELA, there is an introductory section, separate from the content standards, which outlines these skills and dispositions that CCSSO references.  In the Common Core math standards, habits of mind are reflected in the “standards of mathematical practice” – 8 specific competencies students need in order to be successful at math, ranging from perseverance to good use of tools. In the ELA area, they are reflected in an introductory discussion of “the capacities of a literate individual” and range from building independence to understanding other cultures and perspectives.

Habits of mind encompass a range of skills that are critical both to academics but also to success in work and life. They include skills that many youth-serving organizations have long focused on.  It is important to note, however, that the developers of the standards see these habits of mind as relevant for how they contribute to a students’ ability to perform in math and ELA.  Although they are certainly transferable skills, they are only included in the Common Core for how they connect to a specific subject area.

Q:How is the OST field presently engaging with the Common Core standards?

A: OST organizations have already begun responding to the Common Core in a variety of ways. Several of the Mott funded state afterschool networks have begun to address the Common Core through professional development for OST staff.  For example Utah and New Jersey have hosted training and institutes designed to inform program providers about the standards and help them think about how to align curriculum and programming to the content standards.  Georgia and Washington have worked to embed references to the Common Core in newly developed quality standards for OST providers – in effect framing understanding of the Common Core as essential for a high quality program.  Several city-wide intermediaries – TASC, PASA and the Partnership for Children and Youth – are experimenting with implementing policy initiatives, offering professional development, and reframing curriculum to connect with the Common Core.  Although still early, these are promising strategies that will inform how the field more directly connects with the Common Core. 

Q: OST programs are being asked to offer programs that promote STEM, reduced childhood obesity, in addition to promoting academic achievement and broader youth development. Do the Common Core standards represent a piling on or do they represent an opportunity?

A: OST programs are being asked to do a lot and must, by necessity, learn to prioritize and not take on too much.  But I do think the Common Core represents an opportunity rather than a burden.  As I mentioned earlier, the Common Core is not all that different from the state content standards that have existed and been a focus of schools for years.  Any OST program that has been interested in connecting to schools or has a mission to contribute to the academic success of young people has had to think about the state content standards and so the Common Core do not represent something all that new and different.  Rather, they represent a new framing – a more intentional and widespread definition of what students need to know.  And because the Common Core is new and a lot of focus will be placed on them in the coming years, it represents an opportunity for OST programs to become better informed than ever.  But I would also caution that because they are new and schools are going to be consumed by adopting and training their teachers to implement them that we as an OST community need to be careful not to jump in too fast.

__________________

Elizabeth is currently an independent consultant working with, among others, the Forum for Youth Investment and the Providence After School Alliance. Prior to starting her consulting practice Elizabeth worked in a variety of educational organizations dedicated to improving the lives and chances of success for young people.  She served as the Deputy Director and Quality Improvement Director of the Providence After School Alliance in Providence, RI.  There she led the development of a statewide quality improvement system for after school and youth development professionals and oversaw the organization’s evaluation and monitoring activities.  She also served as a Project Director at the Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) in Chicago, IL where her work focused on helping schools to implement comprehensive, school-wide social and emotional learning initiatives.  Elizabeth has authored two technical assistance guides for educators and systems builders as well as several published articles and has presented at numerous conferences.  She was the recipient of a Distinguished Fellows award from the W.T. Grant Foundation in 2009 and received her masters degree in nonprofit management from the Heller School of Social Policy at Brandeis University. 

Making the Case for "Deeper Learning"

(For an earlier piece on "Deeper Learning" dated 10/5/10 in Education Week, click here.) 

By Guest Blogger Jen Rinehart, Vice President, Research & Policy, The Afterschool Alliance

Jen Rinehart

Last week the National Research Council released a report highlighting the importance of “deeper learning.”  The report, Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21^st Century, was funded by a number of foundations, including the William and Flora Hewlett, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur and Nellie Mae Education foundations. 

The report validates an educational approach called “deeper learning,” which occurs as students acquire the ability to take the knowledge and skills they learn in one situation and apply it to a new situation.  This process of transferring knowledge from one situation to another develops students’ “21^st century competencies,” or transferable knowledge and skills.  The report highlights three domains of knowledge and skills—cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal—and discusses their influence on positive outcomes in the areas of education, work and health. 

The three domains of knowledge and skills are:

• The cognitive domain, which includes critical thinking, problem solving, reasoning and innovation.
• The intrapersonal domain, which includes skills such as metacognition (the ability to reflect on one’s own learning and make adjustments accordingly), flexibility, self-direction and conscientiousness.
• The interpersonal domain, which includes such skills as communication and collaboration.

It was exciting to see that the report also affirms that afterschool programs are environments conducive to deeper learning.  Many leaders in the afterschool community have long argued that afterschool settings, free from the constraints of the No Child Left Behind law, are ideal for this kind of deeper learning. 

Finally, the report urges states and the federal government to establish policies and programs in support of deeper learning and encourages policy makers to focus their attention on the key areas of assessment, accountability, curriculum and materials, and teacher education. According to the report—and what the education community has observed over the years—assessments will be key given that so much of current education policy and practice is driven by assessment. 

Afterschool has much to offer in providing opportunities for deeper learning—hopefully policy makers will recognize the importance of deeper learning and the integral role afterschool plays in implementing this approach.

_________________

Jen Rinehart joined the Afterschool Alliance in September 2002 and established the Afterschool Alliance's WashingtonD.C. office.  Jen takes a primary role in the Afterschool Alliance's coalition building, policy and research efforts, and serves as a spokesperson for the organization.  Recent projects include America After 3 PM: A Household Survey on Afterschool in America and Kids Deserve Better, a campaign to get voters and candidates thinking and talking about children's issues, particularly afterschool. Jen also served as Interim Executive Director of the Afterschool Alliance from December 2004 through June 2005.  

Save the Date for How Kids Learn II: A One-Day Conference in the Bay Area on January 9, 2013

By Sam Piha

Temescal Associates and the Learning in Afterschool & Summer Project is proud to join with others in sponsoring How Kids Learn II on January 9, 2013 in San Francisco. The purpose of this TED-like, one-day conference is to inform and energize youth program leaders, educators and afterschool stakeholders regarding our current knowledge on how kids learn and to share innovative approaches to promote learning outside of the classroom. In addition to hearing from cutting edge thinkers on how kids learn, participants will have the opportunity to meet innovative practitioners and California colleagues. To date, confirmed speakers include Pedro Noguera, Jane Quinn, Robert Granger, Renate Caine, Nicole Yohalem, and other national leaders. We will also hear from innovative leaders from exemplar programs that operate in California. They include those from Techbridge, Pogo Park, Mindful Impact, and The Los Angeles Service Academy (LASA).

WHY FOCUS ON THE “HOWs” OF LEARNING

Much is discussed and written on what children need to learn.  Less attention is paid to how they learn.  What have we learned in recent brain research that contributes to this question? How can we apply this knowledge to improve our work with young people to increase their motivation and interest in learning? What are effective learning approaches that are currently being used successfully by practitioners, especially those working in out-of-school programs and in informal learning settings, and what makes them successful?

For more details and how to register, visit the conference website: www.howkidslearn.org. Registration will begin on August 20, 2012. Last year was a sold out event so early registration is suggested.

Could NCLB Waivers Mean Waving Good-Bye to Federally Funded Afterschool?

By Guest Blogger Cathie Mostovoy of Mostovoy Strategies

Cathie Mostovoy

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Education announced that Washington and Wisconsin were the latest states to receive No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers, giving them “flexibility from key provisions of No Child Left Behind in exchange for state-developed plans to prepare all students for college and career, focus aid on the neediest students, and support effective teaching and leadership.” This came on the heels of the previous week’s news that waiver applications from five other states had been approved. With these recent seven additions, a total of 26 states have now been granted NCLB waivers.

In the ten years since it was enacted, NCLB has become the education policy that we love to hate so granting waivers to allow more control at the local level should be a welcome shift, right?  Presumably yes, but the devil is in the details, which brings us to the optional 11^th waiver, a waiver that allows 21^st Century Learning Centers (21^stCCLC) funds – money that was originally designated for out-of-school programs -- to be used to lengthen the school day, week, or year. Seventeen states applied for and received this waiver, and that has left supporters of afterschool and summer programs understandably scratching their heads about what this means for the future. Here are a few of the questions that come to mind:

Will the lure of 21^stCCLC dollars shift money away from afterschool and reduce access despite the unmet demand for these programs? 

Earmarking 21^stCCLC funds for out-of-school enrichment has encouraged schools and community-based organizations to form cooperative, constructive relationships to further their mutual interests. The 11^th waiver could turn allies into competitors if they feel they are vying for the same resources. Should that come to pass afterschool programs could lose a lot of funding and a lot of ground.

Is it cost effective to shift 21^stCCLC funds away from afterschool programs? 

There are several factors to consider here. One is the potentially high cost of adding time to school schedules, which among other things, necessitates paying credentialed teachers. Another is that 21^stCCLC grants provide leverage for afterschool providers to raise additional funds, thereby significantly increasing the value of each grant dollar that goes into these programs. Most schools lack the capacity to do significant fundraising, meaning that a dollar spent to add to a school schedule will most likely be worth just that, a dollar.

Is adding time to the school schedule an effective strategy overall? 

A key lesson from the decades the afterschool community has spent honing quality programs is that students are less engaged when they feel a program is merely an extension of the school day. Conversely, providing students with a stimulating environment that they perceive to be different from the school day is an effective way to support in-school learning and student achievement. (In other words, even though afterschool programs may take place at school, the kids who attend don’t want to feel like they are still in school.) With this in mind, one has to wonder if replacing afterschool programs with more time in the same place with the same teachers will have a positive, measurable impact.

If a trade-off has to be made, is the potential loss of afterschool programs worth what is gained from a longer school schedule? Would the 11^th waiver inadvertently undermine the DOE goals?

The three-hour window afterschool programs occupy at the end of the school day provides the time and space to offer valuable experiential and project-based learning activities that will be difficult to replicate within the constraints of even an expanded school day. Afterschool programs have become an integral part of a healthy educational system. As a primary source of physical activity and nutrition education, they are positioned at the forefront of the fight against obesity. The activities they offer reinforce school day lessons by allowing students to apply what they learn to activities that interest them. Afterschool programs offer students opportunities to build knowledge, perfect skills, and develop portfolios can they use when they apply to college -- something that directly supports the DOE mandate to “prepare students for college and career.” Furthermore, in low-income communities afterschool programs are often the only source of enrichment available and the only safe place kids can go to engage in physical activity. Losing programs in these neighborhoods without a substantial replacement would directly contradict the intention to “focus aid on the neediest students.”

To be fair, the Department of Education has issued instructions saying states cannot waive the existing 21^st CCLC requirements that prioritize school-community partnerships and that programming that adds time to school schedule cannot be “more of the same.” But, these broad guidelines offer little clarification and raise additional questions. What, for example, does “more of the same” mean?  Is the addition of a new lesson plan enough to qualify as different?

The future remains to be seen, and all of these questions could turn out to be empty worries. But, why should we wait and see when something is this important? This is worth discussing now. If we work together to examine the questions and come up with answers, we can avoid pitfalls and make sure that we end up with an educational system that offers more rather than less benefits to the children it serves.

__________________________

Cathie Mostovoy is a proven executive leader with more than 25 years’ experience administering youth development and educational programs. Cathie has been a spokesperson to advocate health and education issues for children and youth; she has appeared on national, state and local radio shows, print media and television.  Her expertise is in organizational growth, strategic partnerships, and program and leadership development.

What New Brain Research Tells Us About How Children Learn: An Interview with Dr. Judy Willis, Part 3

By Sam Piha

Dr. Judy Willis

Judy Willis is a leading thinker on how to apply new brain research to better promote children's learning. Below is part 3 of an interview with Dr. Willis. Check out her video on Edutopia, which we aired at the How Kids Learn conference.

Q: There are those who say that when young people are participating in collaborative learning groups, they are less engaged in real learning. How would you respond to this? 

A: Collaborative group activities, unlike whole class discussions or independent work, provide the most opportunities for youth to express their ideas, questions, conclusions, and associations verbally. Jeanne Gibbs, in her book Tribes reported that in traditionally structured classes each student has about 5-10 minutes of individual time to engage in classroom academic discourse. In group work that amount of time increases dramatically. She found that youth experienced a greater level of understanding of concepts and ideas when they talked, explained, and argued about them with their group, instead of just passively listening to a lecture or reading a text. 

This is again supported by the accelerated metabolic brain activity during active constructive thinking, such as planning, gathering data, analyzing, inferring, and strategizing versus passive information acquisition. When the verbal center becomes engaged while information or a task is being learned, more neural activity travels between the left and right brain. Thus when a student describes his/her thinking verbally to the group or works on a group chart, diagram, or project, the new information becomes embedded in multiple brain sites, such as the auditory and visual memory storage areas. Now, with neuroimaging, we know that this multicentered brain communication circuitry enhances comprehension, making new material be more accessible for future use, because it is stored in redundant brain areas. 

Q: Can you give concrete examples of how this might look in a classroom setting?

A: In mathematical collaboration youth learn to test one another’s conjectures and identify valid or invalid solutions. Group members are all engaged as they discover techniques to test one member’s strategy. If it doesn’t work on repeated tries, they invalidate that strategy and try another. Youth who just “don’t get it” via a group leader’s didactic lecture benefit from the different perspective classmates with similar knowledge banks have on the subject. 

In literature and social studies youth have a small, safer place to try out ideas they might not express to the entire class. They learn that there is validity to personal interpretation and they can experiment with critical thinking in a structured small group setting, with scaffolding provided as needed via group leader prompts about what to discuss and how to run the discussion. This process empowers these youth to become more active in not only whole class discussions, but in their homework, and in speaking their opinion outside of the classroom. This is especially critical during adolescence when “fitting in” is such a strong need, that individuality can become stifled. 

Q: One of the LIAS learning principles says that learning should be active and utilize all of the senses. Do you agree with this?

A: Yes, as the neuroimaging evidence has shown, the more a student is engaged in a learning activity, especially one with multiple sensory modalities, the more parts of his/her brain are actively stimulated. When this occurs in a positive emotional setting, without stress and anxiety, the result is greater long-term, relational, and retrievable learning. 

Q: You have talked about cooperative work groups as needing to be well planned. Can you be more specific about what you mean?

A: To qualify as cooperative work, rather than individuals working in parallel in a group, youth should need each other to complete the task. Youth are expected to participate in tasks that are clearly constructed and necessary for the group’s success. The group leader should remain active as a circulating resource and when necessary, an arbitrator, but youth should be capable of carrying out their tasks without constant, direct intrusion by the group leader. Youth and not the group leader are responsible for accomplishing their tasks in the way they think best, with accountability to each other and to the group leader’s standards. Ideally there is a clear rubric for individual and group assessment and the youth and the group leader take part in the assessment process. 

Q: Can you offer us some specific guidelines to follow when developing collaborative working groups?

A: When setting up lessons for successful collaborative learning in groups, consider the following guidelines. I will expand on these and offer specific cooperative group activities (which can be found here) that emphasize each of the following five characteristics:

• All members have opportunities and capabilities, frontloaded if necessary, such that different youth can make their own special contributions. This may require planning ways for youth with different learning/intelligence styles to make special contributions to the group task. 

• Youth learn to respect each other as group members. Often this requires group leader demonstration with role-playing.

• The group negotiates roles with guidance from the group leader. Designated roles can include recorder, participation monitor (someone who keeps track of who is participating such that if one member has already given three suggestions and others have not had a chance, the overly active participant is asked to give others time to present their views), creative director (if a physical product such as a poster or computer presentation is part of the project), materials director (as might be needed for science or art projects).

• There should be more than one answer or more than one way to solve the problem or create the project.

• The activity should be intrinsically interesting, challenging, and rewarding.

_____________________

Dr. Judy Willis, a board-certified neurologist in Santa Barbara, California, has combined her 15 years as a practicing adult and child neurologist with her teacher education training and years of classroom experience. After five years teaching at Santa Barbara Middle School, and ten years of classroom teaching all together, this year Dr. Willis reluctantly left teaching middle school students and dedicated herself full-time to teaching educators. With an adjunct faculty position at the University of California, Santa Barbara graduate school of education, Dr. Willis travels nationally and internationally giving presentations, workshops, and consulting while continuing to write books for parents and educators.