Equity & Participation Hansen Plenary Session Presentation International Conference On

Equity & Participation Hansen Plenary Session Presentation International Conference on Youth Policy and Research: From Theory to Practice – Evidence Based Youth Policy Vienna - Austria – Europe, (22) 23 - 25 September 2009 Equity and Participation David M. Hansen, Ph.D., University of Kansas The United States struggles, as do most nations, with how to meet its responsibility to fully prepare its youth for participation in adult collective society. This struggle in the US has been summarized in different reports and initiatives highlighting the challenges facing youth and nation: e.g., the “Ready by 21 Challenge” (2008), the Secretaries Commission on Necessary Skills (SCANS, 1991), “Poverty and Potential” (Berliner, 2009). Despite recognition of the challenges facing youths’ preparation for adult life, there is little direct “youth policy” to address these issues (the No Child Left Behind act is one exception). Instead the United States relies on the education system and on non-governmental organizations and advocacy groups to find solutions. The US approach is primarily a “bottom-up” approach and stands in contrast to nations that address societal-wide youth issues from the “top-down” by creating youth targeted policies. The aim of this presentation is (1) to present existing evidence on how this bottom-up approach affects issues of equity and participation and (2) to suggest ways in which this information can be applied to youth policy. Research Synopsis There are three primary points that will be made: First, there is a developmental readiness for youth (pubescent) to become actively engaged in society and societal issues. There is substantial evidence suggesting the period of adolescence (puberty to roughly mid 20’s) is a “second critical period of development” during which the brain undergoes significant neural alterations that lead to new reasoning abilities (Spear, 2000). A hallmark feature of this newfound ability is reasoning about the ‘self’ in relation to the larger community and society. These changes occur simultaneously with a heightened cognitive-affective arousal that appears to encourage development (Keating, 2004). Practically, neuropsychological evidence points adolescence as a period where youth are primed to develop civic and social awareness and responsibility. Real-world experience (defined and discussed in presentation) is an essential tool through which these developments occur, particularly for disadvantaged youth (Kirshner, 2009). Youths’ developmental readiness, however, can be squandered by society if there are insufficient systems to promote this development. Second, both governmental and non-governmental systems1 affect youths’ preparation for future and present active citizenship in United States. As I will document, there are considerable supports within the US, some of which are more effective that others, designed promote youths’

1

The non-governmental systems will necessarily be disparate as they have emerged in citizen’s response to perceived needs. Thus I will attempt to present ‘typical’ systems instead of concentrating on any one particular system.

1

Equity & Participation Hansen engagement in society and preparation for adult life. These supports, however, are not distributed equally across society, communities, or ethnicities. Third, there are systemic socio-structural factors that create inequitable participation among certain groups of US youth. After highlighting the potential negative impact of these systemic factors, I will provide emerging evidence on how disadvantaged youths’ participation in out-of-school, structured youth activities can help these youth engage with civic and political processes (Berliner, 2009; Kirshner, 2009). Implications The evidence, I suggest, indicates all youth need experiences beyond the classroom that leverage their readiness to become engaged with local and broader society. Non-classroom experiences for youth lead to real and essential cognitive development; development that is the hallmark of adult-thinking. Recognition of this type of development is needed at the governmental level. In addition to directly addressing structural inequalities, there is need for increased access to these types of opportunities for youth most affected by inequity. For the United States, I suggest this includes consistent federal and state funding for outside-of-school supports for youth who are most affected by inequity. Lastly, I argue there needs to shift in the US government funding from its current output-focus (test-outcomes accountability) to an inputoutput focus (improving social inputs and outcomes).

2