Character Day is September 22, 2016

By Sam Piha

Sam Piha

The idea that we should help young people build strong character traits is not new. It dates back to the origins of youth programs in America in the late 1800s. The importance of character building has seen a resurgence due to the research and literature on non-cognitive/social emotional skills, grit, growth mindsets, and the success of charter schools such as those managed by Kipp and the Harlem Children’s Zone. 

We believe that afterschool and summer programs are uniquely positioned to focus on the character building of their youth. All youth programs can celebrate character building by participation in Character Day on September 22, 2016. 

Let It Ripple has developed short films for young people and lesson plans for program leaders to support the offering of character building activities on Character Day. They have made participation very easy. You can click here to review their materials, which are suitable for children of all ages. 

They have created a “periodic chart” of character traits which includes: 

Wisdom 

• Creativity
• Curiosity
• Love of Learning
• Perspective

Courage

• Bravery
• Perseverance
• Honesty
• Enthusiasm

Humanity 

• Love
• Kindness
• Social Intelligence

Justice

• Social Responsibility
• Teamwork
• Fairness
• Leadership

Temperance

• Forgiveness
• Humility
• Prudence
• Self-Control

Transcendence

• Appreciation of Beauty
• Gratitude
• Optimism
• Humor
• Spirituality 

The Learning in Afterschool & Summer (LIAS) project is working to enlist the commitment of youth programs to participate in this important day. LIAS staff will review available materials and assist programs in selecting those that are most appropriate. You can contact LIAS by going to www.learninginafterschool.org. 

SEL Practice and Research: An Interview with Charles Smith

By Sam Piha

Sam Piha

“Social and emotional learning (SEL) must be accounted for if we want our youth to succeed. Empathy is just as important as English. The David P. Weikart Center for Youth Program Quality, a division of the Forum, is working hard to shed new light on ways to equip youth with the valuable social and emotional skills they need.” - Forum for Youth Investment

The How Kids Learn Foundation sponsored a Speaker's Forum with Charles Smith, Founder and Executive Director of the David P. Weikart Center for Youth Program Quality on May 6th in Oakland, CA and on May 10th in Los Angeles, CA. The Speaker's Forum topic focused on Social Emotional Learning in Afterschool – Research, Measurement, and Best Practices. The Weikart Center identifies six important domains of SEL: emotion management, empathy, teamwork, responsibility, initiative, and problem solving. 

Below is an interview with Charles Smith. 

Charles Smith at the HKL Speaker's Forum, Oakland, CA

Q: Can you briefly describe the origins of the Youth Program Quality Assessment (YPQA)? Why were you interested in the development of this?

A: The Youth PQA was developed to address a number of problems that were occurring for teachers and youth workers, and their organizations, in out-of-school time field. First and foremost, in the era of “education accountability” and No Child Left Behind (circa 2000) people who were focused on Positive Youth Development practice had few tools to demonstrate that they were doing work at a high standard. The PQA was designed to help people demonstrate their good work and that they were being accountable to a standard. A second reason for development of the PQA was to get the discussion of practice to the right level of granularity so that when the measure was used, practice could actually be discussed. 

Finally, we were frustrated that training in curriculum for teachers and youth workers wasn’t resulting in lasting changes in the organizations, i.e., participation in training didn’t result in changed practice. The PQA was built for a continuous improvement model that required system leaders and funders to send clear signals that (1) the quality of adult-youth interaction at the point of service was the most important part of the work and (2) that front line teachers and youth workers were going to be empowered to make decisions about how to create high quality.

Q: You have been involved in helping programs conduct data driven program improvement. What do you believe are the greatest challenges to this work?  

A: This is hard work so there are many challenges – and rewards. One of the greatest challenges is getting people to trust the process, which is why we advocate for “lower stakes” approaches. A majority of individuals in a continuous improvement system have to feel that the standard for quality is fair, that it’s possible to improve to meet that standard, and that supports are available to help them get there. When we achieve these criteria, many OST professionals and their organizations have been willing to do the work year after year and have reported very high levels of satisfaction with the process.

Q: We have found that one of the inhibiting factors for program improvement within afterschool programs is the fact that this work takes time and due to budget restrictions, organizations are less inclined to grant the needed time for reflection and planning to complete this work. What are your thoughts regarding this issue?

A: Time is always a challenge and some circumstances make it difficult to do the continuous improvement (CI) work. The challenge with time is almost always a system issue – if leaders are committed to doing the CI work then they focus on all of the things that can be done to integrate continuous improvement into everyday operations: Recognizing that CI time is also professional development time; moving org cultures and resources from “monitoring inputs” to “coaching on performance data” so that leaders become part of the CI resource; and there are many other ways that we’ve learned over the years. A PQA driven CI process is currently happening in over 4,000 OST sites each year so we know it can be done in lots of circumstances but it takes time to experiment and “fit” the CI process to how an organization does its everyday business.

Q: Can you briefly describe the Weikart Center? What was the link between the YPQA and the development of the Weikart Center, if any? 

A: The Weikart Center was started to take the PQA and CI work to scale. In many ways, the most important role of the Weikart Center is to help clients adapt the CI methods and measures to the circumstances that are unique to their OST systems. In our view, one size does not fit all when it comes to working with young people and communities – one size typically fits one. Every use of the PQA has to adapt to produce value for each specific community of users and that has been the primary role of the Weikart Center.

Q: Can you briefly describe why you are now focusing on SEL? 

A: In a very general sense, quality (i.e., PQA) is framework for understanding the OST settings where children and youth spend time. The other side of that framework needs to describe the skills that individual young people build as they engage with high quality OST settings. Social and emotional learning can have many different specific definitions but, in general, SEL skills are how we understand those individual youth skills. SEL skills are the skills that grow in high quality OST settings.

Q: You put a lot of work in the Preparing Youth to Thrive field guide. Why did you develop this, what is the focus? Who does the guide target (what age group, etc.)? 

Photos by Max Piha, Temescal Associates

A: Preparing Youth to Thrive was a unique opportunity to work with expert practitioners to define best practices that have emerged from their many years of experience and their many types of clinical and professional expertise. Our primary goal in the guide was to get the descriptions of practice to a “granular” level of actual behaviors and conditions in OST settings. 

Most SEL research is focused on what changes inside of individual youth while the conditions and practices that support that change are either too abstract or too sketchy for use. Our goal in the guide was to both name the key practices (none of which are new to most OST professionals) and then produce descriptions of the practices that users could recognize their own work in. 

---

Charles Smith is the founder and Executive Director of the David P. Weikart Center for Youth Program Quality, a division of the Forum for Youth Investment, and Senior Vice President at the Forum. The Weikart Center currently provides technical supports to a portfolio of over 115 quality improvement systems service a total of 4,250 sites, including several thousand direct service organizations that provide out-of-school time learning opportunities for children and youth. Dr. Smith leads the measures and analytics team at the Weikart Center and guides the Center’s efforts to design and implement lower stakes accountability policies.

A Crosswalk Between the LIAS Learning Principles and the CA Quality Standards

By Sam Piha

Sam Piha

In 2010, the Learning in Afterschool & Summer (LIAS) project was launched to offer five research based principles that serves as a guide for programs wishing to increase the engagement, motivation, and learning of their young participants. 

Four years later, the California Department of Education (CDE)/After School Division released the California Quality Standards for Expanded Learning Programs (CA Quality Standards). LIAS staff served on all three phases of the development of these standards to ensure that the LIAS principles were embedded. These standards focused on points of direct service with youth (#1-6) and standards that are intended to guide program managers (#7-12). 

Many afterschool and summer leaders asked how the LIAS learning principles correspond to the CA Quality Standards. To address this question, we issued a “crosswalk” paper, which correlated the LIAS learning principles with the CA Quality Standards for points of service with young people. This “crosswalk” paper can be found on the LIAS website here.

Below we offer a summary of this crosswalk. 

Learning that is Active: 
Learning and memory recall of new knowledge is strengthened through different exposures – seeing, hearing, touching, and doing. Afterschool and summer learning should be the result of activities that involve young people in “doing” – activities that allow them to be physically active, stimulate their innate curiosity, and that are hands-on and project-based. 

Learning that is Collaborative: 
Afterschool and summer programs should help young people build team skills that include listening to others, supporting group-learning goals, and resolving differences and conflicts. Collaborative learning happens when learners engage in a common task where each individual depends on and is accountable to each other.

Learning that is Meaningful: 
Learning is meaningful when youth have some ownership over the learning topic, the means to assess their own progress, and when the learning is relevant to their own interests, experiences, and the real world in which they live. Community and cultural relevance is important to all youth. 

Learning that Supports Mastery: 
If young people are to learn the importance and joy of mastery, they need the opportunity to learn and practice a full sequence of skills that will allow them to become “really good at something.” Afterschool and summer activities should be explicitly sequenced and designed to promote the layering of new skills. 

Learning that Expands Horizons: 
Afterschool and summer programs should provide learning opportunities that take youth beyond their current experience and expand their horizons. They should go beyond the walls of their facilities to increase young people’s knowledge of their surrounding neighborhood and the larger global community. 

•••

You can read other blogs by the LIAS project by going to: 

• Expanded Learning 360°/365 Project website 
• Learning in Afterschool & Summer blog

Understanding Gender Identity: An Interview with a Child Development Specialist, Part 1

By Sam Piha

Sam Piha

There is a growing awareness in our society that gender is more than the sex that is assigned at birth. Gender identity is no longer an esoteric concept for child development experts. The importance of understanding gender identity is increasingly important for educators and leaders of youth programs. 

We have produced a briefing/background paper on gender identity. We invite you to download this paper by clicking here.

In a previous post, Understanding Gender Identity in Young People, we reviewed the terminology surrounding this topic. 

Dr. Diane Ehrensaft

In this post, we interview Dr. Diane Ehrensaft to shed more light on this topic. She specializes in research, clinical work, and consultation related to gender-nonconforming children. Diane is an associate professor of Pediatrics at the University of California San Francisco and a developmental and clinical psychologist in the San Francisco Bay Area.  
 
Q: Is gender inborn or learned? 

A: As implied in the title of my book, Gender Born, Gender Made, the answer is neither—it’s both. Each one of our genders includes a combination of nature, nurture, and culture. To really answer this question, of inborn or learned, we have to differentiate gender identity from gender expressions: gender identity is our inner sense of self as male, female, or other; gender expressions are the ways we show our gender to the world—our appearance, our activities, our words, our ways of relating to the world.  


Present research indicates that our gender identities have a strong constitutional loading, while our gender expressions have a stronger social, cultural loading, but that both gender identity and gender expressions can have elements of all three influences—nature, nurture, and culture.  


Regarding nature, the most important concept to mark is that gender does not lie between our legs; it lays in our brains and our minds, and the messages those brains and minds send to you inside about what your gender is are paramount.



Q: Developmentally, when does this happen? 

A: Our old developmental theories said one thing, newer developmental theories say another. I’m going to answer according to the new. By the second year of life a toddler can exhibit both understanding of the gender label given to the child by the outside world (i.e., They call me boy; they call me girl) and their own internal sense of their core gender which will either match that label (the cisgender child) or show the incipient signs of being opposed to that label, as when a toddler, upon developing language, says, Me not boy, me girl. From age two to six, we all learn what it means to be a boy or girl or other, in other words, how to “do” our gender. We learn this through observation, direct teaching or coaching, even gender policing, and through our close relationships with those around us.  

By age six, most children will have a fairly stable sense of their gender identity, but not all children do, and some children may go through several iterations throughout their childhood until they land on “the gender that is me.”  The most important element in this developmental process is that the adults around the child allow children the freedom to establish their own gender selves, rather than have it dictated by others. 

Notable is that in traditional gender theories it was expected that for a child to have successfully reached their developmental markers regarding gender identity, they must have a clear and stable sense of themselves as boy or girl by age 6, and that sense should match the sex assigned to them at birth. But if a child says, “Hey, you all have it wrong, I’m not the gender you think I am” that child is not acknowledged as capable of having a stable gender identity by age six. That child is told, “You are too young to know.” That child is a member of our youngest cohort of transgender people, and we have to ask the defenders of the traditional developmental theories—How come a cisgender child can know who they are by age six, but a transgender child cannot?

Q: What is gender fluidity? 

A: Gender fluidity is living outside binary gender boxes—male/female; boy/girl. It also indicates a flexibility and creativity in composing for oneself a gender mosaic, if you will, based on a potpourri of the social expressions of gender within one’s culture and also on an internal sense of self as neither male, female, but somewhere in between or all and any rather than either/or. A child can be gender fluid at any moment in time (think pink boys) or over time (ballerina for awhile, then Darth Vader, then a “gender hybrid”).

---------------------------------------------

Diane Ehrensaft, Ph.D. is an associate professor of Pediatrics at the University of California San Francisco and a developmental and clinical psychologist in the San Francisco Bay Area, with a private practice in Oakland, California.  She is Director of Mental Health of the Child and Adolescent Gender Center and chief psychologist at the Child and Adolescent Gender Center Clinic at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital. She specializes in research, clinical work, and consultation related to gender-nonconforming children, lecturing, publishing, and serving as an expert witness on both topics nationally and internationally.

Dr. Ehrensaft is author of Gender Born, Gender Made; Mommies, Daddies, Donors, Surrogates; Building a Home Within (co-edited with Toni Heineman); Spoiling Childhood; Parenting Together; and the new release, The Gender Creative Child.  Dr. Ehrensaft serves on the Board of Directors of Gender Spectrum, a national organization addressing the needs of gender-expansive children and their families. 

---------------------------------------------

You can read other blogs by the LIAS project by going to: 

• Expanded Learning 360°/365 Project website 
• Learning in Afterschool & Summer (LIAS) Blog

The LIAS Principles Impact Both Students and Staff Alike

By Guest Blogger, Frank Escobar

Frank Escobar,

Manager of After School Programs

Visalia USD

Running after school programs is no easy task.  Ask anyone in the field and they’ll show you there battle wounds. However, insert 11-14 year olds and the difficult meter goes through the roof.  Sometimes its just better to not know what you don’t know. Perhaps that’s why I’m still here.  Leaning a bit but still standing.  

In the early years it was the kids, the parents, the politics. I was new to the field and trying to identify the secret sauce for recruiting and retaining enough students to keep the grant. At the same time, keeping the ratio low enough to prevent our college-age staff from getting completely run over by the middle school mack truck. Not sure we ever completely figured it out but we’ve certainly made improvements.  

Great advice from experienced veterans, thoughtful tools from the field, some amazing trainings from some amazing trainers and even a few out-of-town tours.  And as we got better on attendance we began to focus on impact.  One of the tools that helped us in that area was, at the time, the newly released Learning in After School and Summer Principles.  

The principles gave us tangible targets to shoot towards. They were clear, relatable, and reasonably identifiable in everyday program. As we improved in our understanding of these principles, we naturally improved in the facilitating of these principles.  We saw active learning in our programs, increased student collaboration, learning that was thoughtful and meaningful, mastery-building and horizons being expanded. It was enlightening, exciting and honestly, still is. 

As we became better versed in offering these types of experiences and outcomes in our program, I began to notice something interesting.  I noticed that not only were our students benefitting from the affect of these important principles but so were our college-age workers. You see, unintentionally, while we were building the capacities of our staff members to implement the principles in their programming with students, we were also implementing them with our staff. 

Our training and professional development was becoming more active, our instruction (and play) in the training room more meaningful. Our learning environments were becoming more collaborative and our training focuses narrowed in on building mastery skill-sets, particularly around behavior management (if you know what I mean). And at the end of the day, we began to see our staff expanding their own horizons. They were learning about things they never had interest in. Seeing things they never bothered looking for. Doing things they never believed important. The LIAS Principles were becoming an integral part of our program cultural for both students and staff. 

PULSE Staff Holiday Dinner

Today, with the significant workforce challenges we face in after school and expanded learning, we attempt to do our best in sustaining the best and brightest. Unfortunately, that’s rarely possible. The best and brightest normally move on (and up) and take their talents to better paying playgrounds. However, it is in most cases that what contributed to their best and bright was what they learned and practiced right here in the expanded learning field. With so many tangible, transferrable skill-sets acquired in this work many of our best and brightest are shining even brighter right now in their warm and cozy classrooms. Particularly those who were fortunate enough to work in programs that asked them to integrate those 5 LIAS Principles. It’s called the bi-product affect. A secondary or incidental result, often unforeseen or unintended.  

Although, I find it pretty hard to believe that the engineer behind these principles would do anything unintended. All to say, I sincerely believe that the introduction, acceptance, and application of the LIAS Principles have meant more to our field than what might have been expected. These principles, while aimed at our young ones, have also impacted our other young ones teaching our young ones. That they say, is a double-whammy. Or, maybe in this case, a double-Sammy!

--------------
Frank is currently the Manager of After School Programs at Visalia Unified School District in Visalia, CA as well as speaker, trainer and consultant for the after school and youth development fields. A popular speaker and trainer at school assemblies, youth and after school conferences, Frank has spoken to thousands of middle and high school youth and trained hundreds of educators and youth program workers across the country.  

A former collegiate and professional football player, Frank realized his passion for working with youth during his high school years mentoring younger athletes. Knowing one day he'd be hanging up his football cleats for a more practical profession, Frank obtained his degree in education from Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, TN.

Learning Communities: From Theory to Practice

By Sam Piha

Sam Piha

In a recent blog post, we focused on a new study by Public Profit on learning communities (LC). We interviewed the Public Profit staff and featured their answers on the post. It is one thing to learn about a critical feature of a youth program. It is another to work with peers to translate this knowledge into practice. 

We wanted to hear directly from people who have actually participated in a learning community. Thanks to Katie Brackenridge from the Partnership for Children and Youth, who brings the perspective of a practitioner/participant, as well as an active capacity builder of afterschool and summer programs. We also asked Carol Lewis, Afterschool Coordinator, Vallejo City Unified, who brings the perspective of someone working to build the quality of programs across a district. We offer their responses below. 

Q: Can you describe how your participation in an ongoing learning community was different than a one-time, “fly-by”, training?

Katie Brackenridge,
Partnership for Children and Youth

Katie: Thinking back many years, being part of the first Youth Development Learning Networks was transformational. We were all trying to implement similar practices without being able to name them. The Learning Community created a common language between participants, gave us the opportunity to shift our practices to be more intentional about youth development, and created a space for us to learn about each other’s challenges and successes. 

This approach has longevity. Twenty years later, the Jamestown Community Center remains deeply rooted in youth development theory and practice. As a trainer and advocate, I run into my peers from those first learning communities and continue to feel a strong sense of camaraderie with them.

Carol: In my own experience and in my observations of my staff, participation in an on-going LC leads to greater levels of implementation and higher quality implementation. The site coordinators that participated in Stacey Daraio’s LIAS LC are more articulate about the 5 LIAS Principles and I believe better equipped to support their staff in designing programming.

Q: Can you explain why you chose this more intensive, multi-session, approach?  

Katie: We were excited about being part of a new, forward-thinking and intentional effort to improve our programs. We wanted to learn what the experts were saying about youth programming, apply those best practices, and connect with other youth program leaders across our community.

Carol: I chose it because I believe this style of professional learning is a best practice and I want to ensure my program staff are prepared to meet the high level of expectations I set for programming quality.

Photo Credit: http://education.umkc.edu

Q: Can you describe the benefits of participating in an ongoing learning community? 

Katie: We found it was most helpful to learn new theories and practices, try them out back at our programs, and debrief that experience with the facilitators and peers back in the learning community. The key piece of coaching connected to the learning community gave us tailored help with obstacles and challenges. The structure provided an effectively supported implementation.

Carol: As stated above, greater levels of implementation. Also, it provided my staff an opportunity to learn with and from others that are doing the work they do which I cannot provide for them – since I’ve never been a site coordinator.

Q: Would you recommend it to others, and if so, under what conditions or circumstances? 

Katie: Our experience was transformational. To be impactful, program staff have to be genuinely interested in changing practice, willing to look honestly at what currently works and doesn’t work, and share openly with the learning community.

Carol: I would absolutely recommend this type of training to others. The circumstances in which this type of training is better than online or one time lecture-based training is when the implementation of the learning is complex and requires opportunities to ‘try it out’ then return to the group with questions/comments and insights.

In our recent study of the effectiveness of the LIAS project, we heard from a number of Regional Leads on the subject of learning communities. These comments are listed below. 

• “It would be a good idea to roll out additional learning communities in Regions that have not had one yet since it fits nicely with both Quality Standards & Common Core.”

• “We do a lot of training for people giving an introduction to the LIAS principles. We do very little in terms of learning communities or someone who's assigned to work with the site as a coach. That would be more effective in the long term.” 

• “I know that the learning community sessions that we did with Stacey Daraio the year before was very well received. It provided the participants great in-depth conversation and it really was an opportunity for sharing. We know that learning communities really have a successful message for improving quality because it makes the concepts real to the participants. That's why I would rate it as a very good strategy.”  

______________________

Temescal Associates/LIAS offers the facilitation of LIAS learning communities for afterschool and summer practitioners. Alternatively, we have prepared CalSAC trainers to lead learning communities as well. 

Professional Learning Communities in the Expanded Learning Field

By Sam Piha

Sam Piha

Our Co-Director, Stacey Daraio, pioneered the use of learning communities to improve the practice of youth program practitioners in the 1990’s. Learning from her, I led a number of learning communities with the first California Afterschool Regional Learning Centers, the first cohort of high school afterschool programs (ASSETs) and the San Francisco Beacons. 

Temescal Associates &
LIAS Co-Director, Stacey Daraio

Currently, we are very involved with leading learning communities on the Learning in Afterschool & Summer (LIAS) learning principles. 

More recently, we have conducted training of trainer (ToT) sessions with the California School-Age Consortium (CalSAC) to lead LIAS learning communities. This allows us to extend the reach of the LIAS project. This is a very effective and necessary approach if we are going to show success in actually changing practice. 

Thus, we were very pleased to see the release of a study of the effectiveness of professional learning communities (PLCs) by Public Profit entitled, Professional Learning Communities in the Expanded Learning Field. 

Below is an interview with the research staff at Public Profit regarding this study. In a subsequent blog post, we will interview practitioners who have been part of a learning community. 

Q: Can you help us with a brief definition of “professional learning communities”? 

A: PLCs are collaborative cohorts of professionals with a shared interest in improving their practice in order to better serve youth. They meet regularly to reflect, to review data, and to share and develop strategies to improve their professional practice. 

In the expanded learning setting, PLCs tend to follow one of two models: one, for front line staff, emphasizes improving the quality of content-specific activities through trainings on delivering curricula and facilitating group activities and on-site coaching. They can be broad, open to staff from multiple organizations, or narrow, open to staff from one organization. 

PLCs for managers in expanded learning programs focus more on innovative approaches to organizational and systemic improvement via discussion-based meetings and support for continued collaboration. These PLCs tend to be broadly open to mid-level and senior managers from multiple organizations. 

Q: What inspired you to explore this concept? Is this particularly relevant, given recent events in the ELP field? 

A: As interest in promoting quality expands throughout the field, more and more of our clients found traditional approaches to PD – like workshops and user’s guides – weren’t enough to really support sustained practice improvements.

Our clients in Oakland supported several Professional Learning Communities for expanded learning time staff at all levels, and asked us to evaluate several of them. We found that some really strong benefits for staff who participate (see below), and we wanted to share their successes more broadly.

Q: What are the benefits of participating in a PLC?

A: PLCs benefit participating staff in a number of key ways. Participating in a PLC can give staff increased knowledge in a specific content area, and in process-, role-specific knowledge. For example, a staff member participating in a PLC about wellness will build her knowledge in delivering wellness curriculum specifically, and in planning and delivering high quality activities more broadly. 

This happens because PLC facilitators model effective facilitation skills and engage youth workers in practical, hands-on approaches to learning that they can replicate in their programs. Giving staff the opportunity to network with peers and participate in ongoing professional development may even improve retention. 

Q: Can you describe some of the best practices of PLCs? 

A: Many of the best practices of PLCs are related to the pre-work needed before implementation. Assess organizational readiness by asking key questions about logistics and staff capacity. Budget for extra staff time so that participating staff can not only attend PLC meetings, but also can participate in coaching and practice-sharing with colleagues, and spend additional time planning. Create a process by which participating staff can document and share what they’ll learn in the PLC. 

Once the PLC is off the ground, best practices include developing the goals and structure of the PLC based on participants’ needs and ideas, implementing on-site observations and coaching, and leveraging partnerships to give participants access to experts and other resources. 

Q: Are there particular settings or situations that are well-suited to PLCs? 

A: There are some organizational conditions that can make a PLC more effective. To ensure that an organization’s PLC learning is planted in fertile soil where it can thrive, consider making the PLC a long-term professional development strategy complete with a multi-year commitment. Organizations thinking of taking on a PLC should also consider the implementation environment: will the program schedule accommodate new activities? Is there a sufficient budget for materials? Are staff consistently using positive youth development practices in the program? These factors all contribute to the success of the PLC. 

At the staff level, PLCs can be more effective if organizations choose participating staff carefully, making sure that any participants are equipped with strong facilitation skills and eager to grow in their practice. 

Q: How do you know if a PLC is working?

A: We use a five-step framework from Thomas Guskey to think about PLCs, and have found it helpful in tracking the benefits of PLCs. The framework’s steps are:

• Reactions – did participants find the PLC useful?
• Learning – did participants gain new knowledge?
• Organizational support and change – how did the host organization support staff in implementing new practices?
• Behavior change – did participants effectively apply new knowledge?
• Youth learning outcomes – what was the impact on youth?

Many existing evaluation tools can help address these questions, including session feedback forms, observations, and surveys of youth and staff.