®
CAMPAIGN TASK FORCE ON FEDERAL POLICY
THOUGHT PAPER ON POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
MARCH 2007
INTRODUCTION:
Positive youth development arose in response to the prevailing view that adolescents are
“at risk” for academic failure, drug-abuse, and other pathologies and therefore require
surveillance, assessment, prevention, and—when necessary—remediation and discipline.
But adolescents also have assets that they can contribute to their communities: energy,
idealism, creativity, and knowledge. By giving students opportunities to collaborate,
discuss, serve, create cultural products, and address significant issues, we can help them
to succeed. 1
Considerable evidence supports the link between community service and extracurricular
participation, on one hand, and healthy development, on the other. For example:
•
•
•
•
Analysis of a national longitudinal survey found that service projects and
participation in student government substantially increased the odds that students
graduated from high school and college.2
An evaluation of the Quantum Opportunities Program studied randomly selected
students and a control group. For about $2,500/year over four years, QOP was
able to cut the dropout rate to 23 percent, compared to 50 percent for the control
group. QOP’s approach included academic programs that were individually paced
for each student; mandatory community service; enrichment programs; and pay
for each hour of participation.3
In another rigorous experiment with a control group, the Teen Outreach Program
(TOP) significantly reduced teen pregnancy, school suspension, and school
failure. TOP was successful despite focusing “very little attention on the three
target problem behavior outcomes.” In other words, the staff did not directly
address pregnancy or school-related problems. Instead, youth in the program were
enrolled in service projects and asked to discuss their work in classroom settings.
(They also discussed youth development.) The cost per student was a reasonable
$500-$700 for a whole academic year.4
Students who work in community organizations have been observed to develop
longer time horizons, greater cognitive complexity, and more psychological
investment in projects. They develop “initiative,” or self-motivated attention that
is sustained over time. Neither popular leisure activities nor standard school
assignments typically develop “initiative.”5
THE CIVIC PROMISE OF POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT:
The Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools sees special promise in positive youth
development. That is because many of the opportunities that have been found to enhance
students’ healthy psychological development and success in school also develop their
skills, habits, and values as active citizens. Specifically, service-learning, extracurricular
organizations, and school government were identified as “promising practices” for civic
education in the Civic Mission of Schools report.6
Since the publication of that report, additional research has reinforced the civic impact of
opportunities for service and collaboration. For example, in one recent study, students
who were required to conduct service-learning felt that they had contributed to the
organizations they served, they became more likely to help other people, and they
indicated increased interest in voting, service, and activism.7
POLICIES FOR POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT:
The most important educational reform of the current era, the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2002 (NCLB), does not guarantee opportunities for service, extracurricular
participation, membership in community groups, or student voice in schools, nor does it
provide resources for those activities. Perhaps because the authors of NCLB were
skeptical that funds for programs would consistently produce positive results, they
instead chose to hold schools accountable for certain minimum academic outcomes, such
as passing scores on reading and mathematics exams.
Many schools and school systems have put their resources into identifying students who
are at risk of failing those tests and have provided remediation. But the theory of positive
youth development suggests that they would achieve better results if they also ensured
that young people had opportunities to enhance their motivations and skills, contribute
their energies and ideas, and form relationships with adults.
After all, many students who drop out are perfectly capable of completing school
assignments. In a 2006 study of recent dropouts, more than half said they had satisfactory
grades before they left school (“C” or better), but half said that classes were boring.
Further, “only 56 percent said they could go to a staff person for school problems and just
two-fifths (41 percent) had someone in school to talk to about personal problems.”8
Opportunities such as service-learning, extracurricular activities, and participation in
school governance could connect students to adults in their schools and give them
reasons to continue learning.
Furthermore, the outcomes identified in NCLB do not exhaust our goals for education.
Even if every student graduated from high school, having achieved passing scores on
standardized tests, they still might not be prepared for flourishing lives and active
citizenship. As Karen Pittman writes, “Adolescents who are merely problem-free are not
fully prepared for their future.”9
Therefore, it is crucial that federal and state authorities provide adequate support for high
quality opportunities such as service-learning, co-curricular and extracurricular groups,
and voice in school governance. This means increasing federal support for Learn & Serve
America and explicit funding other programs that create more and more effective
opportunities for young people to practice for their roles as citizens while they are
students.
1
Richard M. Lerner, Liberty: Thriving and Civic Engagement Among America’s Youth (Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 2004)
2
Alberto Dávila and Marie T. Mora. “Civic Engagement and High School Academic Progress: An
Analysis Using NELS Data.” CIRCLE working paper 52 (2007)
3
American Youth Policy Forum, SOME Things DO Make a Difference for Youth, summary of Andrew
Hahn, Tom Leavitt, and Paul Aaron, “Evaluation of the Quantum Opportunities Program” (June 1994) and
“Quantum Opportunities Program: A Brief On the Qop Pilot Program” (September 1995) {it would be
better to cite the original summaries}; cf. Jacquelynne Eccles and Jennifer Appleton Gootman, eds.,
Community Programs to Promote Youth Development, a report of the National Research Council and
Institute of Medicine, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Committee on Community-Level Programs
for Youth (National Academies Press, 2002), pp. 184-186.
4
Evaluation by J.P. Allen et al, summarized in Eccles and Gootman, eds., pp. 181-184.
5
Reed W. Larson, “Toward a Psychology of Positive Youth Development,” American Pyschologist, vol.
55, no. 1 (January 2000), pp. 176-8, summarizing work by Heath, McClaughlin, et al. Erik Erikson, “Eight
Ages of Man,” International Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 2, no. (May 1966), p. 286
6
Carnegie Corporation of New York and CIRCLE (The Center for Information & Research on Civic
Learning & Engagement), The Civic Mission of Schools (Washington: DC, 2003)
7
Edward G. Metz and James Youniss. “Longitudinal Gains in Civic Development through School-Based
Required Service.” Political Pyschology, 26, 3 (2005), 413-437
8
John M. Bridgeland, John J. DiIulio, Jr., and Karen Burke Morrison, “The Silent Epidemic: Perspectives
of High School Dropouts” (Washington: Civic Enterprises and Peter D. Hart and Associates for the Bill and
Melinda T. Gates Foundation, March 2006), p. v.
9
Karen J. Pittman, Promoting Youth Development: Strengthening the Role of Youth Serving and
Community Organizations (Academy for Educational Development, Center for Youth Development and
Policy Research, 1991).