Larson, R., Walker, K. and Pearce, Nikki.  2005.  A comparison of Youth-Driven and Adult-Driven Youth Programs: Balancing Inputs From Youth and Adults.  Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 33 (1):57-74.

Camino, L.  2000.  Youth-Adult Partnerships: Entering New Territory in Community Work and Research.  Applied Developmental Science.  Vol 4(1):11-20

Camino, Linda and Zeldin, Shepherd.  2002.  From Periphery to Center: Pathways for Youth Civic Engagement in the Day-To-Day Life of Communities.  Applied Developmental Science, Vol 6 (4): 2013-220.

Concepts in these pieces: Youth participation, youth-adult partnerships, youth and adult driven programs, youth development.

            This week´s articles went deeper into exploring different possibilities in civic engagement by looking at different kinds of youth-development programs.  Some of the questions explored by the articles were: How do adult or young driven approaches in youth development programs look like? What are the advantages and drawbacks in selecting youth or adult driven programs? “Under what conditions might one approach or the other be preferable?” “What is needed to create pathways for youth civic engagement?” This last question, for example, was addressed by analyzing structures, ownership and youth and adult partnerships (Camino 2000).  Another question that seems to have an obvious answer but that I myself needed to explore deeper was: Why the segregation between adults and youth is a problem?

            To begin with this last question I analyzed the benefits that these programs brought to both adults and youth.  I would have to say that it seems more evident the benefits to youth development but the programs are not exactly seen as adult professional development.  The purposes were more into engaging youth into action and not to bring adults into participation and engagement.  They also showed very well what adults would bring into the table[1] and the outcomes of being able to implement and structure a successful program[2] but not so strongly what was being brought by young participants.  I would say that in a way this relation was more explored in terms of the kind of problems that were more common in partnerships and in the way that these projects dealt with them. General advantages of participation were definitely introduced by the piece from Camino in its literature review.  Strong community building is here defined by having and active participation and civic engagement of its members (Camino 2002, page 12). 

One of the main problems founded to be an obstacle to develop these types of programs were a stereotyped youth based on statements related to youth behavior on adults’ behalf.  One of the consequences was the perception of youth as the “other” that shared no moral or ethical values with adults.  This of course has great effects when thinking about designing and implementing a program where projects’ outcomes will depend on the responsibility of young participants: "A frequent concern of adults is that youth do not have sufficient leadership and organizational experience to keep program activities on track and functioning effectively (Zeldin, 2004)" (Larson et al. 2005, page 59).

            About the implementation Camino’s article mentioned other kind of issues like the competition for control of resources, recognition and lack of coordinated action; this was explained by the context of this particular program:  "In a community with limited formal venues for power, individuals who were able to obtain power were not inclined to share it." (Camino 2002, page 18).  Civic engagement as expressed by Camino and others is usually defined as: “…being able to influence choices in collective action, it is the purview of every citizen, not only officials and professionals” (Camino and Shepherd 2002, page 214).  In this sense issues of power do arise even when they come from outside the programs.  In general, I thought Camino’s (2002) article was very interesting because it took external issues to the program into account, and context was earnestly addressed to understand the dynamics of segregation between youth and adults.  This is one of the points I am concerned about when reading these articles.  Sometimes I perceive that generalizations about adults and youth are made; not enough information about the context of programs is provided and connected to the outcomes of processes.  I am not sure if a behavior approach can be combined with a power analysis and maybe I am just being too extreme by thinking they are incompatible.  This was a very important quote that I think should be seriously taken: "Foucault (1970), who theorized that to understand behavior, one must understand not only the relationships between individuals and settings, but, more fundamentally, the relations among structure, process, and power that configure settings." (Camino 2002, page 16).

            This is very important because the new pathways in civic engagement introduced by Camino’s and Shepherd’s article:  Youth participation in policy consultation issues, community coalitions, decision making in organizations that intervene at high levels of governance and in school-service learning, cannot be addressed only from a behaviorist point of view that do not relate it to contextual struggles of power.  In the end, it was these new pathways explanation that allowed me to understand the importance of the impact of the segregation between adults and youth. In a way I am aware of the great inequalities and some of the kinds of oppression that young people suffer in certain contexts because they do not count on the same access to power as adults; also they have their own interests and only some adults would advocate for these but sometimes not even being clear about their desires and needs.  But also the articles express the way in which these generations question current organizations of power, inequalities, etc. come greatly from young participants that have the will to come up with different ideas on how things could be done instead of reinforcing organized orders. 

---

[1] Some example of these elements brought by adults are the design of learning experiences such as exercises that developed self-confidence in Young participants, as well as, those that developed special skills, interpersonal relationships, responsibility and that passed their own knowledge on to young participants.

[2] In this direction was the development of self-confidence, a broader understanding of GLBT and ethnic groups, the development of a stronger commitment to their communities.  

Mirra, N. & Morrell, E.  (2011).  Teachers as Civic Agents: Toward a Critical Democratic Theory of Urban Teacher Development.  Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4): 408-420.

Mitra, D., & Serriere, S. (2012). Student voice in elementary-school reform: Examining youth development in fifth graders. American Educational Research Journal, (49): 743-774.

Serriere, S.C., Kawai, R., Mitra, D. (draft). Contested Spaces of a “Failing” Elementary School.  The Pennsylvania State University.  Manuscript to be submitted to Theory & Research in Social Education.

Serriere, S.C., Mitra, D., & Reed, K. (2011). Student voice in the elementary years: Fostering Youth-Adult Partnerships in Elementary Service-Learning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 39(4): 541-575.

“…the bill (referring to No Child Left Behind Act 2001) has been met with strong political opposition at the state, academic and the grassroots level.” (p.3)

“Everything about what I know about education and children is in direct conflict with these high stakes tests.” (p.7)

            I will start to write my first impressions about the “Contested Spaces” article.  The introduction of the article captures the reader right away. The authors present the problem from a perspective that introduces the voices of opposition to policies like the ones presented in the article.  Organizations like United Opt Out National, the National Center For Fair and Open Testing, Parents and Kids Against Standardized Testing, National League of Democratic Schools paint a different picture from the one where parents, students, teachers, school leaders and entire schools are “yielding to the rhetoric of accountability” (p.4).

            The piece reminded me of Mirra’s and Morrell’s article and their concept of teacher as civic agent and communities of practice.  In this article the concept of civic agent was described as teachers engaged in learning: “Teachers, in this model, do not teach students; instead, teachers and students educate each other in a dialogic relationship…” (p.413).  This attitude towards teaching applies within the climate of a community of practice that in the words of Lave and Wenger as described in the article define this term: “as a group of people mutually engaged in a common enterprise through a shared repertoire of tools and stories.” (p.413). 

Schooling communities manifestly felt pressure where top-down policies are based on the belief that increasing accountability in schools is the best way to improve student performance.  Underneath this belief there is a philosophy of education: What is education for? The idea that education is transmission of knowledge that will end up in improving the competence of students when they enter the market as workers seems to be behind these measures. The activism of the organizations above cited protest against a neoliberal view of citizenship best explained by Mirra and Morrell: “...Within this model [neoliberal model], public schools are charged with providing individual students with the knowledge and skills that they will need to pursue personal gain in college and the workplace” (p. 410).  

Mirra’s and Morrell’s article provide with theoretical frames and guidelines where to move to.  The question remaining though is how to work this out; this is the answer I felt this week’s articles were providing, without avoiding the problems that we can encounter along the process of preparing ourselves as civic agents and building communities of practice. One of the main questions on Contested Spaces, for example, was about the context and conditions that support youth development.  How to create contested spaces, what they are and how can they be supported and how they take place?  Part of the answer is about showing spaces where opposition can be expressed and where disagreement exists.  Contested spaces is defined “…as an educational context where ideas are shared and actin is taken to challenge dominant social, political, or cultural ideologies that implicate learning and teaching in schools.” (p.4) The article reveals the multiple structures created for contested spaces involving the local community: school leaders, teachers, parents and students were involved in different ways.  In the case of the Chicago strike in 2012, the Seattle high schools boycott and “Dewey Elementary” this pushing ended up, at least in the first two cases, in opening a space where their voice would be taken into account and would sit with the government to arrange agreements.  This article also calls on scholars to support and amplify the impact of the risks taken by local actors advocating for an education that does not see in high stakes exams the North Star of education.

From this piece I will also take with me the Interactive Quality Analisis (IQA), which I think is a very powerful methodology because not only the voice of the researcher is manifested but also participant views and understandings of the findings enter the discussion giving a more complete and fair analysis of research. This sounded like based on grounded theory. 

I had doubts on what was meant by discursive spaces but this was clarified in the Student Voice in Elementary School Reform, but I still think it would be useful to clarify in this piece. 

Youth development has been mostly addressed for middle and high school; the second article is concerned with the way in which leader role of the adult would best perform in service-learning programs in elementary schools.  I think it was very useful to see the three case studies to have a better picture of how different leaderships would look like and how these could take place with the very young kids in elementary classrooms.  I also think that just as the article says, sometimes teachers do not know how to do their work differently; more importantly the cases reflected how teachers’ beliefs create a curriculum of programs even if they are meant to have a structure: “Ms. Clark went on to say that that a program like SSGs ‘would work in a city like Brooklyn, Texarkana or in Zimbabwe with at-risk kids’” (p. 559).  Unfortunately it is inevitable to compare oneself with each of the teachers and see where you could fit in as a teacher; well, in my case even though my mind, my ideas, my aspirations look more like “the Synthesizer” to be realistic I think I was more like “the Catalyst” sometimes but mainly like “the Commander” even though I do not identify with her ideas.

Finally, I think the concept of discourse was very interesting in the piece on Student voice in Elementary School Reform: “Principal S. specifically used this term discourse to describe the outcomes of the Salad Girls.”(p. 760), “We defined his concept of discourse as the exchange of diverse ideas and opinions to work toward a common goal.  This asset includes leaning how to engage with a difference of opinions as well as differences in backgrounds, working styles and cultures.” (p. 747).  The concept describes the winnings of scaffolding processes fostering student voice that can mean to students to build on the belief that they can make a change vs. claiming on a contemporary apathy from students.  The outcomes are described through the concepts of agency, belonging, competence, discourse and civic efficacy as part of a personal experience that expands into a broader concept that becomes political in the influence and impact it produces. I would like to ask if the article begins with an argument on developmental growth because it is a topic that has to be addressed. I think the arguments in the article are not behavioristic so I wondered if it is necessary to bring a biological element to dialogue with the discussions in the field. 

Martin, A. (1990). Social Studies in Kindergarten: A Case Study. The Elementary School Journal, 90(3). 305-317.

Serriere, S. (2010). Carpettime democracy: Digital photography and social consciousness in the early childhood classroom. The Social Studies, 102(1), 60-68.

Leach, T. & Lewis, E. (2011). Children’s experiences during circle-time: a call for research-informed debate. Pastoral Care in Education: An International Journal of Personal, Social and Emotional Development, 1-11.

                       

              Some weeks ago we were talking about Laura Lundy’s article “Voice is not enough” suggesting that there were two key elements she identifies in Article 12 of the UNCRC[1]: “the right to express view, and (ii) the right to have the view given due weight” that needed to be effectively applied (p.932).  As a proposal she considers four factors described as space, voice, audience and influence. In a brief and cursory summary a) Space refers to assuring there is a space where children can make effective the right to express their views, where they can express the matters that they consider impact them and how would they like to be involved; b) Voice is a complex concept because according to Article 12 the child’s participation is limited by his/her maturity, capacity and ability to form a view, an opinion; c) Audience speaks to the idea of guaranteeing that the child will have an audience that will listen and is interested in his/her views.  And d) Influence, which refers to “giving due weight to their views” through procedures that ensure that their opinions have an effect on the actions taken (Lundy 2007, p. 939).

I am bringing this article back to conversation because issues like the skepticism about children’s capacity especially in relation to their age and level of maturity; I thought it was very interesting the way in which both Serriere’s and Martin’s articles challenge the idea of kindergarteners as incapable to handle conflict.  To consider that tensions related to power also take place in young children communities is something I had never heard before, but as registered by the examples shown in the articles, dynamics within these groups reflect tensions that occur in the adult world.  One example of this comes with Serriere’s piece about Carpet-Time Democracy.  It is refreshing to ‘listen’ to children’s voices to actually know how the conversations look like, what kind of reflections they are capable of doing, the kind of events they are confronted with within the school.  

The articles are also dialoguing with a big question deriving from our conversations about how democratic practices look like in elementary school; I myself was wondering about how complex problems could be addressed in a young children’s classroom without disrupting their lives and making them feel sad or powerless.  I think the articles do a great job in showing the level of complexity of children’s interactions at school: “As early childhood classrooms are not exceptions to the workings of inequity or privilege, experiences with democracy should begin in students’ first schooling experiences while the foundations of difference, justice, equality, and human rights are being laid.” (Serriere 2010, page 60). To be honest a naïve picture comes to my head when I think of Kindergarten.  I think one of the most interesting points made by Martin’s article was that young children (and I would even include middle school students) are seldom believed to understand issues in a deep level and as a consequence the material used “…tend to belabor the obvious, the cheerful, and the stereotypical” (p. 306), but on the other hand they might have to confront very stark problems in their communities.  Carpet-time democracy look very different from these conventional materials because one main point is that the scenarios used to reflect on social consequences, addressing topics like social justice in their spaces, come from scenes from that make part of their real life.  Martin’s article and Dorrie’s club are great examples of the dynamics taking place in these classrooms and how concepts like inclusion/exclusion can be worked out.  I do not recall the teacher being the one spreading knowledge with these heavy words, but I do recall her allowing the students to find out how these experiences felt like, reflecting on them, taking several alternatives into account and deciding based on their knowledge. 

One of the remaining questions that has been popping up in my head is if behind our ideas of democracy, of democratic practices in classrooms we are actually looking for having more classroom control, more discipline, less chaos.  I wonder what we would do as teachers if what goes on in classrooms, in our democratic spaces, does not suit us, we do not like it, and whether we like it or not we are still vested with the power of the institutions we represent.  This last point connects with Leach’s and Lewis’ article.  Reflecting on Open Circles the authors point out: “The rethoric is often about children having an ‘authentic voice,’ when, in reality, they are being manipulated into accepting and responding in prescribed ways to adult classifications of types of pupil and behavior (Sellman, 2009)” (Leach and Lewis 2012, page 7).

Speaking to Lundy’s “audience” and “influence” I wonder what kind of effects these democratic practices generate in classrooms within a hierarchic organization.  In Martin’s case she made the parents part of an audience that could support the process and it is evident that her way of analyzing the dynamic, her specialized logic and the depth of her reflection was central to the parents’ reaction, as well as, the commitment showed in her letter.   But again I still think there is a structural question that goes beyond the classrooms and at the same time I believe that these levels in school are less restricted and commanded by the requirements of what needs to be learned which usually pushes the teacher to give a great load of information to go with the pace of the curriculum and that leaves outside the processes that ensure a long lasting impression of democratic practices. I think to generate this kind of research really translates theoretical developments into concrete structures that are usually required to speak to present policies and curricula. 

                         

---

[1] United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child

Authenticity.  Only authentic experiences.

            I thought it was very helpful to read the discussion Levinson proposes about the difference between service learning, a community service oriented perspective vs. a guided experiential civic education.  The example about the fund raising activity during Valentine’s day as a central purpose for the student council felt too familiar as a teacher and as a former student in binational school. Unfortunately I think that neither students nor teachers in the environments I have worked or studied at have very clear their role as an institution within a democratic regime.   Levinson says: “…all schools teach experiential lessons about civic identity, expectations, and opportunities- even when they have no intention of doing so.” (p. 174). 

But the reason I thought her reflection was helpful was because even when a curriculum considers at its core to develop practices of citizenship it is important to define what this would mean within the program.  Since in my final paper I plan to analyze the concept of citizen in IB programs and the kind of civic engagement it proposes, I thought it was important to start gathering information about what this citizenship would look like. I was looking for primary sources and I came across the Creativity, Action, Service (CAS) program proposed by the International Baccalaureate Organization:  “(CAS) a framework for experiential learning and reflection about that learning” (IBO 2002, page 7).CAS is part of the core of the diploma programme curriculum in International Baccalaureate; each student has to complete 150 hours of CAS, this means three different possibilities: creative activities that could be included even if they are extracurricular, like dancing, working in the Christmas Show, etc.; action, that could be related to sports; and service, that implies service to others in the community (Austin 2006, page 163-167).  Brunold-Conesa, says that “the IB places great emphasis on both its second language and TOK (theory of knowledge) courses toward the promotion of global citizenship.  On a more practical level, there is a strong service-learning component of the curriculum in all three programs, requiring service at the family, school, or local, national or world community level.” (Brunold-Conesa 2011, p. 269).  So this looks more like the service learning oriented education that Levinson is comparing to the guided experiential civic education.

How are these different? What would experiential civic education mean?  Levinson says about the second: “I suggest that every school must be intentional, transparent, and reflective in how both models and enables students to practice authentically empowering civic relationships, norms and behaviors.” (p.186). But for me the most important word in this definition is related to authenticity for it seems to be the central issue to put together experiential, civic and education. Authenticity seems to put in order the rest of the other values/conditions. And along the book authenticity is related to fighting your own struggles instead of fighting the struggles that adult built for you and allow you to fight.  Moreover, a civic education should go beyond knowing how to use or benefit from the rights that are there already (p. 293).  This means something deeper than charity and a Christian caring for others, or being good and kind.   In her book I understand from Leavinson that she is concerned about democracy and that she feels the gaps of the current democratic system can only be closed if a constant renegotiation occurs that guarantees that diversity is represented in that system; this can only happen if those that are in the margins enrich the struggle and constant change of the institutions.

This means for the schools a different kind of participation from the one described in what I have very superficially read about CAS.  Levinson narrates some scenes that show moments where a process of identification is taking place, where students see they can actually make a difference on matters that are important or interesting to them using the tools and skills necessary to do this and more significantly where students changed their own perception about themselves and their potentialities.  “Guided experiential civic education does not follow one neat path from conception to completion, just as its impact cannot be limited solely to one kind of capacity.  Studies of other, similar programs illuminate these varieties of impacts and outcomes, including significantly higher levels of personal and political efficacy, communication, collaboration, decision making skills, knowledge and interest in politics, expectation of participating in civic and political life and sense of civic obligation” (page 238).  

I sometimes felt that at the same time that the book seemed so well informed and aware of the challenges, difficulty, complexity of the dynamics of a school (particularly about the obstacles that standardized tests suppose for education) there was some naiveté --or is it that we do not hope anymore in the academia-- in her proposal.  But then again I agree with her when she says we should not accept less than this, especially when she talks about her example with Jacquari and how her and his life are different even when they live under the same ‘rule of law’. We should not accept less than a school which is authentic about its intentionality of supporting civic processes taking place within the school.  Transparency, as to allow both parts to openly discuss and listen to what both parts have to say about the activities and processes they go through; this I understand better as  a partnership where members of a group learn and share others readings.  Reflection means to be in constant search for feedback and to be observing oneself.  These are some guidelines that I do not see happening in a school structured by the IB program as I have the opportunity of learning; these schools have a different epistemology and view on citizenship from what I know and have read. 

            I just wanted to mention this at the end of the reading response some of the institutions she talks about because I am curious about them and I wonder if we could talk about them in class: Mikva Challenge, Hyde Square Task, National Action Civics Collaborative, YPAr, Philadelphia Public Schools