The quality, quantity and visibility of out-of-school-time (OST) programs and systems to support and strengthen them have grown persistently over the past two decades as parents and educators have come to view universal access to opportunities for interest-driven enrichment, skills development and exploration as not just nice but necessary for success in school and in life. It is these programs’ grounding in positive youth development, as originally outlined in the 2002 National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine report, “Community Programs to Promote Youth Development,” that has led to their position as a solution to a myriad of youth needs — from safety, learning loss and gang diversion to civic engagement and career exploration.
Earlier this month, the National Academies released a new report, “The Future of Youth development: Building Systems and Strengthening Programs,” that “serves to update the 2002 Blue Book: to recognize the growth, robustness and complexity of the youth development field and consider ways in which OST programs can better serve the needs of all children and youth.” The Blue Book is the nickname given to the first major report on the field, “Community Programs to Promote Youth Development.”
It is this very complexity of the youth development field that I believe we must consider deeply to chart the path forward for the next two decades. The report states:
“Out-of-school time (OST) programs are a part of the broader field of youth development. Situated at the intersection of child and youth development, education, workforce, human services and community development, the youth development field serves as a bridge between school, community and home, whether before or after school, on weekends, in the summer, or during school breaks. As a field, it encompasses the broad range of programs and settings where young people spend their time outside of school and the actors and systems that support them. The terms OST and youth development programs are sometimes used interchangeably; however, OST speaks to the time programs can happen and youthdevelopment speaks to the approach.” (p.1)
OST speaks to the time. Youth development speaks to the approach. I cannot overemphasize this distinction. As the report notes, the Blue Book’s recognition of positive youth development as a “philosophy asserting that ‘problem-free is not fully prepared,’ that remediation and prevention services alone are not enough, and that schools have to be supported and complemented by broader options in the community” contributed to the official adoption of this approach by the federal government’s Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, a coordinating group that brings 23 federal agencies together to find effective ways to address youth problems. This working group developed a mantra — positive experiences + positive relationships + positive environments = positive youth development — and a definition:
“Positive youth development is an intentional, pro-social approach that engages youth within their communities, schools, organizations, peer groups and families in a manner that is productive and constructive; recognizes, utilizes and enhances young people’s strengths; and promotes positive outcomes for young people by providing opportunities, fostering positive relationships and furnishing the support they need to build on their leadership strengths.”
The future of youth development and our ability to build strong learning ecosystems that support and give credit for anywhere, anytime learning depends on OST professionals’ willingness to not only emphasize this distinction but be evangelists for the PYD approach beyond just OST programs.
The positive youth development approach should be the north star for all youth-serving systems including education, workforce and health and human services. This “intentional, prosocial approach” (as defined in the official federal government’s Interagency Working Group definition of positive youth development adopted in 2008) is the most effective way to engage young people, regardless of the purpose of engagement (e.g., problem prevention, preparation, civic or workforce participation).
The youth development field, therefore, should be defined primarily by its members — professionals who are trained to implement positive youth development (PYD) principles and practices — not by systems and organizations that employ them. The concentration of employees with PYD experience and credentials and the centrality of these principles and practices to the organizational mission varies widely across systems. This concentration is greatest in OST programs. But it does not reach zero anywhere. Conflating PYD with OST can have the unintended effect of isolating youth development champions in other systems — e.g., student success coaches in schools, youth advocates in juvenile justice — rather than creating a unifying and consistent approach that encourages collaboration across settings.
OST systems, precisely because they support staff and programs that operate in the broader ecosystem beyond the classroom, should be involved in emerging efforts to design a “new education architecture.” The science of learning and development and the science of adolescent development is shifting the definition of when, where and how learning should happen to be closely aligned with youth development principles.The tenets of the PYD approach align completely with many of the progressive ideas promoted by education innovation networks that challenge the traditional grammar of schooling. The common denominators between the new designs evidenced in features such as student advisories, learner-driven studies, project-based learning and competency-based credits are commitments to increased learner agency and real-world learning experiences that immerse youth in their communities. These “future features” are widely present in OST programs. But the connection to OST systems won’t happen unless we push for it.
The uptake on transforming public education systems to support learning ecosystems is driving school leaders to look for learning partners outside of school as part of bolder shifts to center learner agency, developmental relationships and broad competency development through real-world learning experiences. New system criteria, such those from Education Reimagined, clearly reflect the opportunities for advancing the PYD approach, the youth development field and OST programs.These new criteria call for the generous use of community partners, but this commitment does not automatically lead school leaders to seek out the intermediaries or coordinating bodies that are building OST systems or the opportunity youth systems designed for older youth disconnected from education that are equally committed to PYD principles and practices.
I see three reasons for this lack of engagement. The most obvious is the push to reimagine learning is being played out during the school day and school year for currently enrolled students. The second is the pressure and opportunities for change are strongest in the secondary school years, particularly high school, where OST enrollment drops off sharply. The third is the fact that OST programs, because of an understandable concern about being held accountable for narrowly defined academic progress, are more frequently associated with outcomes that support social and emotional development and have not yet aligned to a competency-based approach in which they can demonstrate their impact on real-world outcomes.
It is in overcoming these challenges that the collaborative potential of learning ECOsystems lies. The best way to secure the future of OST programs is to broaden the aperture. To ask all actors in the learning ECOsystem to make explicit commitments to making sure Every Connection is Optimized, co-designing a new public system to support pathways for youth and young adults that allow them to secure full credit for competency building, contribution and connections with people they trust in places throughout their schools and community that operate throughout the year.
OST systems have put in the sweat equity to create the kind of complex, adaptable infrastructure needed to help families navigate a sea of independent but interdependent learning experiences across the community. Families trust these programs. The public believes in their importance. These systems deserve sustained public investments to make them stronger. But they also need to be bolder. It’s time to erase the lines between school and out of school, between learning and development.
In learning ECOsystems OST must be a champion of positive youth development
The quality, quantity and visibility of out-of-school-time (OST) programs and systems to support and strengthen them have grown persistently over the past two decades as parents and educators have come to view universal access to opportunities for interest-driven enrichment, skills development and exploration as not just nice but necessary for success in school and in life. It is these programs’ grounding in positive youth development, as originally outlined in the 2002 National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine report, “Community Programs to Promote Youth Development,” that has led to their position as a solution to a myriad of youth needs — from safety, learning loss and gang diversion to civic engagement and career exploration.
Earlier this month, the National Academies released a new report, “
The Future of Youth development: Building Systems and Strengthening Programs,” that “serves to update the 2002 Blue Book: to recognize the growth, robustness and complexity of the youth development field and consider ways in which OST programs can better serve the needs of all children and youth.” The Blue Book is the nickname given to the first major report on the field, “Community Programs to Promote Youth Development.”
It is this very complexity of the youth development field that I believe we must consider deeply to chart the path forward for the next two decades. The report states:
“Out-of-school time (OST) programs are a part of the broader field of youth development. Situated at the intersection of child and youth development, education, workforce, human services and community development, the youth development field serves as a bridge between school, community and home, whether before or after school, on weekends, in the summer, or during school breaks. As a field, it encompasses the broad range of programs and settings where young people spend their time outside of school and the actors and systems that support them. The terms OST and youth development programs are sometimes used interchangeably; however, OST speaks to the time programs can happen and youth development speaks to the approach.” (p.1)
[Related: Trust, time and training: Unlocking the potential of learning ECOsystems]
OST speaks to the time. Youth development speaks to the approach. I cannot overemphasize this distinction. As the report notes, the Blue Book’s recognition of positive youth development as a “philosophy asserting that ‘problem-free is not fully prepared,’ that remediation and prevention services alone are not enough, and that schools have to be supported and complemented by broader options in the community” contributed to the official adoption of this approach by the federal government’s Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, a coordinating group that brings 23 federal agencies together to find effective ways to address youth problems. This working group developed a mantra — positive experiences + positive relationships + positive environments = positive youth development — and a definition:
“Positive youth development is an intentional, pro-social approach that engages youth within their communities, schools, organizations, peer groups and families in a manner that is productive and constructive; recognizes, utilizes and enhances young people’s strengths; and promotes positive outcomes for young people by providing opportunities, fostering positive relationships and furnishing the support they need to build on their leadership strengths.”
The future of youth development and our ability to build strong learning ecosystems that support and give credit for anywhere, anytime learning depends on OST professionals’ willingness to not only emphasize this distinction but be evangelists for the PYD approach beyond just OST programs.
The uptake on transforming public education systems to support learning ecosystems is driving school leaders to look for learning partners outside of school as part of bolder shifts to center learner agency, developmental relationships and broad competency development through real-world learning experiences. New system criteria, such those from Education Reimagined, clearly reflect the opportunities for advancing the PYD approach, the youth development field and OST programs.
These new criteria call for the generous use of community partners, but this commitment does not automatically lead school leaders to seek out the intermediaries or coordinating bodies that are building OST systems or the opportunity youth systems designed for older youth disconnected from education that are equally committed to PYD principles and practices.
I see three reasons for this lack of engagement. The most obvious is the push to reimagine learning is being played out during the school day and school year for currently enrolled students. The second is the pressure and opportunities for change are strongest in the secondary school years, particularly high school, where OST enrollment drops off sharply. The third is the fact that OST programs, because of an understandable concern about being held accountable for narrowly defined academic progress, are more frequently associated with outcomes that support social and emotional development and have not yet aligned to a competency-based approach in which they can demonstrate their impact on real-world outcomes.
[Related: Trust-based changemaking may change the world, but can it change institutions?]
It is in overcoming these challenges that the collaborative potential of learning ECOsystems lies. The best way to secure the future of OST programs is to broaden the aperture. To ask all actors in the learning ECOsystem to make explicit commitments to making sure Every Connection is Optimized, co-designing a new public system to support pathways for youth and young adults that allow them to secure full credit for competency building, contribution and connections with people they trust in places throughout their schools and community that operate throughout the year.
OST systems have put in the sweat equity to create the kind of complex, adaptable infrastructure needed to help families navigate a sea of independent but interdependent learning experiences across the community. Families trust these programs. The public believes in their importance. These systems deserve sustained public investments to make them stronger. But they also need to be bolder. It’s time to erase the lines between school and out of school, between learning and development.
[Related Grant Opportunity: Emerging city youth leader fellowship grants]
***
In her columns, Karen Pittman is exploring the research behind the statement, “When Youth Thrive, We All Thrive.”
The post In learning ECOsystems OST must be a champion of positive youth development appeared first on Youth Today.
Archives
Recent Posts
Shifting mindsets: Acting differently requires us to think, talk and see differently first
May 23, 2025In learning ECOsystems OST must be a champion of positive youth development
May 16, 2025Trust, time and training: Unlocking the potential of learning ECOsystems
May 8, 2025Categories
Meta
Categories