From the Spontaneous to the Reflective – The Evolution of City of Limerick V.E.C. Youthreach.
Noel Colleran
Youthreach Programme Co-Ordinator: City of Limerick V.E.C.
This paper is based on a presentation given to the National Conference of Youthreach Co-Ordinator’s held at Barney Park Hotel in February 2002.
The views expressed in this paper are the views of the author and are not necessarily those of the City Of Limerick Vocational Education Committee.
City of Limerick V.E.C. Youthreach
I was appointed by the City of Limerick Vocational Education Committee in February 1989 to establish and co-ordinate the first Youthreach Centre in Ireland. Initially the programme had two groups of twenty-five learners but today has a total of seventy-five. The Committee was in a prime position to take advantage of this emerging sector of adolescent education because it had been engaged for a number of years in the delivery of the Youth Skills programme. The Youth Skills programme targeted early-school leavers, largely similar to the group targeted by today’s Youthreach programme. The programme was funded by AnCO, the precursor of today’s FAS, and the VEC won contracts from AnCO to deliver education and training to this target group.
However, the early years of Youthreach were characterised by lack of direction and informality of structure. I believe there was a number of reasons for this less than structured beginning:
Within this structure- less context the Youthreach Programme Co-Ordinator was obliged to establish, manage and maintain the entire programme. Among the duties the Co-Ordinator was expected to carry out were:
As a result the Youthreach programme was delivered in inappropriate facilities by ill-prepared staff.
Structural Development
In speaking about structural development I am not referring to anything conceptual – I am speaking about the building structure in which the programme was operating. Our programme was operating out of industrial warehouse accommodation from 1989 to 1996. As anyone who worked in this environment (I refer to the tutors as well as the learners) or indeed anyone who visited, would see that this had obvious negative implications for the learning environment/culture. This environment was a cold, damp, dark and inspiration-less with little or no expectations of learning and development. However in 1996 the programme was relocated to the Municipal Technical Institute. I believe that this relocation e had a positive impact on both learners and tutors. All who came into this new structure could see, hear and feel that this was an environment aligned with their expectations of what a learning environment ought to be. We spent much resources on the development of our canteen facility. I believe that there are many social skills learned in a canteen and I am convinced that learners respond positively when they recognise that a lot of work has been done for their benefit. Ultimately, the change in structure heralded a transformation from sterile and inappropriate accommodation to a positive, anticipative, expectant learning environment for learners as well as tutors.
Strategic Development
‘Strategic development’ is a term not much in use in the early years of Youthreach. At its outset Youthreach had no obvious strategy. Co-Ordinators were preoccupied with keeping the ‘show on the road’. The early years of the programme were characterised by short-term, spontaneous, tactical reactions to immediate, and often crisis situations. Our abiding concern in those days was containment and discipline. We didn’t have time to lift our head from the grind stone to see, never mind manage, the direction in which the programme was moving in the medium to long term.
However over the years there has been a shift to a more reflective, strategic vision for the programme. We have worked hard over the past three years to develop a long-term strategic vision, supported by identified tactical activities which help keep this vision in focus. Because of a mathematical bent I like to look at this evolution as a quasi-mathematical representation.
Early years: Learning < Containment Middle years: Learning » Containment/Monitoring Presently: Learning > Monitoring |
In the early years (1989-1995) there was much less learning and quite a deal of containment. In the middle years (1996-1998) there was a balancing out of the amount of learning and containment/monitoring. Presently I believe that there is far more learning and development than monitoring taking place in our programme. This evolution did not happen by accident or by direction from outside. The transformation from short-term tactical reactions to a medium-to-long-term strategic vision was facilitated by a number of catalysts.
The catalysts for change
Generated experiences over ten years
I believe there was no single event which caused a personal enlightenment. However a number of circumstances conspired over a period of time that enabled me to see the management of Youthreach from a different perspective. I have spoken about the Youth Skills programme and as a precursor of that programme there was a programme entitled the ‘Skills Foundation Programme’. Both programmes were funded by AnCO and were addressing needs of a similar target group – the Youthreach target group of today. I had been engaged in the delivery of these programmes. These experiences along with my ‘tooth-cutting’ years as Co-Ordinator of this programme constitute my generated experiences over 7-10 years and constitute the first of the catalysts for change.
Improved accommodation
I have also spoken about the improvement in accommodation in 1996 when the programme was relocated to a more appropriate setting. This I believe provided another catalyst for change.
New management
I was fortunate to avail of a break from Youthreach management in 1996. During the following two years the Youthreach programme was under new management. The new manager brought with him a different perspective and a variety of desirable characteristics which I had not prioritised during my tenure as manager. Martin Cournane came from a ‘traditional’ second level teaching background and at first glance this may not be the kind of character one would have managing an informal, and often loose, education and training environment. However, he brought with him a view that we should not underestimate the capacity of our young people to be successful; to become successful the learning environment needed to be safe for learners as well as staff. He also believed in an orderly, respectful environment and that we should have high expectations for all learners when they come to our programme. On returning to the programme in 1998 the groundwork was completed in establishing safety, order and high expectations as core values of the programme. This newly constructed environment provided a further catalyst for change.
The Trialogue project
Another catalyst for change was the experiences and learning I took with me as a result of the Trialogue project from 1996-1998 (City Of Limerick VEC, 1998). Some of the key lessons from this experience were:
However I concluded that the responsibility for accessing relevant staff development resources was primarily with the programme Co-Ordinator. The enthusiasm and energy which I had accumulated, as a result of this two-year break, gave me the impetus to tackle problems anew.
Senge’s Fifth Discipline
Finally, and I believe the catalyst that provided the contour that connected the previous catalysts was the discovery of Peter Senge’s (1994) The Fifth Discipline, the art and practice of the learning organisation. In the early 1990’s many Institutions and Organisations were talking about the ‘Learning Organisation’. The talk was by and large in the conceptual, abstract domain – a learning organisation was a nice idea but how does one practice a Learning Organisation? Senge’s work sets out in simple terms and ample use of metaphor the process by which one can translate the theory of learning into the practice of learning. He identified five disciplines which an organisations must focus on if it is to be in a position to act and overcome the problems of dynamic complexity faced by today’s organisations. I believe that Youthreach is one such organisation. The five disciplines are:
While all disciplines are important I have found ‘systems thinking’ most helpful with the development work we have carried out in our programme over the past three years. If one wishes to implement change in one’s programme, organisation, etc, systems thinking proposes that one must find the point in the process of change where the minimum alteration will lead to the maximum impact. Senge uses the metaphor of the ‘trim tab’ to illustrate this point. The trim tab is a kite-like device that floats above the rudder of a large ocean liner. Moving the trim tab changes the direction of the ocean liner. This ‘small’, and one would think effortless, alteration has profound impact on the direction of a large ocean liner. However, things are not as simple as that – they never are. To understand the reasoning behind the causal chain of events which leads to the change in direction described above one must have an intimate knowledge of hydrodynamics, sailing and so on. Otherwise it becomes a shot in the dark.
This metaphor carries into contexts such as business, organisations and programmes. In the context of the Youthreach programme, if we are to find the point at which minimum change will have maximum impact we need to have a deep understanding of all the relevant, dynamic elements of our programme. Otherwise, without understanding and knowledge of the particular system one may approach the problem, as with the metaphor above, by going to the front of the ship and pushing the ‘nose’ of the ship in the required direction. A deep understanding of the dynamic system i.e. the Youthreach Programme, will lead to a more effective and less strenuous approach, such as the trim tab.
Finally in relation to this metaphor, when one changes the direction of the trim tab the large ocean liner does not react immediately. The ship will continue on course for quite a while before the change is experienced. In the context of the Youthreach Programme, we needed to be confident and assured that the small changes we make will eventually produce the required results.
Another key issue that must be addressed in the context of organisational change is the dilemma that arises between espoused theory and theory in use. Senge proposes that there is often a divergence between what we say and how we act. We need to bring our actions and our theories into alignment by holding a honest mirror up to our practice.
So then Senge’s Fifth Discipline has a lot of great ideas but what practical measures does his work provide to the art and practice of co-ordinating a Youthreach programme? I believe that his work provides a step-by-step approach to the development of a Programme Mission Statement. The Mission Statement is constituted firstly by a Vision, i.e. What is our shared vision regarding what learners will get from the programme? Secondly, a statement of Purpose i.e. Why are we doing this? And thirdly, constructing a set of strategies which will enable the shared vision to be realised.
The present Situation
As a result of working through the process outlined in the Fifth Discipline the Youthreach Programme in Limerick City has a Vision:
|
This is something that we can see and therefore constitutes a vision or image.
We also have an aim which includes the purpose:
|
Finally we have a set of strategic elements that keep both the vision and the aim in focus and these are:
I feel that most of these elements are self-explanatory excepting No. 2. What I mean in this case is that learners are encouraged to make predictions regarding the progress they envisage for themselves over a period. These deadlines may be conceptual as well as time-connected. For example a learner may decide that they wish to spend one year at Foundation level before they attempt the Junior Cert. This is obviously time-connected. However, another learner may point out that they wish to achieve Foundation level Certification before they consider progressing to another level. Foundation level preparation is outcome-based and the time required is not initially determined – in this case we are dealing with a conceptual deadline.
The Future
I see my role in the future as maintaining and improving a dynamic and relevant programme for all our learners. In this context I see a number of key issues that must be addressed in the immediate and medium future.
We also need to challenge the convenient ‘categorising’ terms and language such as ‘disadvantaged’, ‘at-risk’, ‘second-chance’, ‘marginalised’ and so on. This language helps ‘normal’ society understand the perceived ‘problems’ that Youthreach learners have. However, consider for a moment the notion of lifelong learning and reflect it against the mental model we have for lifelong health. In the context of lifelong health there are patients who need a lot of care, some need specialised care and others need little care. The users of the health system are not categorised as disadvantaged patients if they need specialised or long-term care. And if the health system is not addressing the needs of patients we see a ‘disadvantaged’ system not ‘disadvantaged’ patients. On the other hand, in the context of lifelong learning, if the education system cannot provide appropriate learning opportunities for various learners we see ‘disadvantaged’ learners not a ‘disadvantaged’ education system. This is only the start of an enormous discussion which requires and deserves sustained concentration and reflection over the coming years. However, at this point in time I believe to continue the use of such terms and language, as mentioned above, shifts obligation from the education system and penalises learners. We must always remember that Youthreach learners are not second class, disadvantaged adolescents who will be satisfied with a second-class, disadvantaged future. On occasion we may be required to unsheathe the sword in defense of an area of the education service which is not valued to the extent that it deserves. In summary, because our learners do not ‘fit’ into these orgainsing terms I believe that continued use will penalise them for simply being who they are.
Final Questions
I conclude by posing two questions, which I feel are significant, regarding where we are now and where we are moving to in the future. The first question is:
Can Youthreach successfully educate all its target group?
Historically the Youthreach programme depended on and was sustained at the boundaries of adolescent education provision. The programme was informal and unstructured with little supports regarding certification, progression, professional delivery, strategic planning and so on. However, in recent times I believe that the Programme is moving in from the margins. I believe that there are challenges and opportunities regarding this development. Moving in from the boundaries has resulted in a systematic structuring of the manner in which we deliver and evaluate our programme. Our expectations for learners who participate in Youthreach have increased with each passing phase of the programme’s development. I believe this unintentional ‘trading up’ has constructed barriers for learners who feel they cannot live up to these new expectations. As a result I believe a serious and sustained effort is required to enable access to our programme for these learners who, through nobody’s fault, have decided that our programme may be too challenging for them.
The second question is;
Can I recommend Youthreach as a high quality, positive, developmental learning experience for young people who come to the programme?
As a result of what I have said above my spontaneous reaction would be to answer ‘Yes’. However, when I reflect on what I have said in relation to quality, I believe there are a number of ‘hostages to our legacy’. Because of the unsystematic manner in which the programme was initiated it has been, and continues to be, a struggle to keep ‘high standards’ and ‘quality education’ at the top of the agenda. We need to reinforce these principles on a continuous basis and in the process ‘purge’ the legacy of mediocrity that has hampered our development.
It is true that there are many people employed as tutors on the Youthreach programme, not only in my Limerick but also throughout the country, who started out when ideas such as ‘learning’ ‘development’, ‘high expectations’ were not considered. I believe that many of these people are not in a position, professionally, to create a positive learning environment for our learners. What to do with such employees may not be the responsibility of programme Co-Ordiantor's however, while the situation continues we are doing no favours for these members of staff and we are certainly not providing the stimulating, learning environment for our learners. So to answer the question, I believe that we are nearly there, however when we do arrive I believe the situation will have changed. Our challenge is to respond professionally, on a continuous basis, to a moving target. The implications of this challenge must be addressed in the coming years.
Final observation
When I reflect on the strategic elements above I become convinced and dare I say bold enough to suggest that other areas of education provision can learn form the Youthreach experience! As an example, in recent times many young people who have come to our programme have left secondary schools because of intimidation and bullying. I believe that an environment that is safe, healthy, orderly; and free from intimidation is the basis on which learning can take place. This environment is nurtured and sustained by an atmosphere where mutual respect between all involved is practices. I conclude by reminding you of the strategic elements which are, in my opinion, relevant to other education provisions.
References
Senge, P. M. (1994) The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation. New York: Currency Doubleday.
City of Limerick VEC (1998) Developing Core Skills - The Trialogue Experience. Limerick: City of Limerick VEC.