August 2018 – PAT Meeting #2

Notes

Objectives:

• Review impressions from the FAB and PAT of the Discover Together: Brownsville proposal
• Continue to develop a deeper understanding of the Discover Together: Brownsville proposal, continue tailoring the proposal to match community priorities and fit the local context
• Identify at least 1 leader from the PAT for each of the 3 Discover Together: Brownsville proposal components

Introductions/Gathering:

• Pre-work:
  • Think about one example of innovation or collaboration that has positively impacted your life or work.
  • What is one personal or professional value that had to be present for that innovation or collaboration to take place?
  • Write the value on an index card.
• Tell us your name, where you work
• Share the value and the example of innovation or collaboration
• UB backbone staff write values on chart paper on the wall. These are the values we hope you’ll bring to this work today and going forward, as they are the values that will be required for it to succeed. These are the values that should guide our decision-making processes.
• Hang onto your value card and bring it with you metaphorically and literally to your group work.
• Results of the introduction, grouped according to themes:

VALUES FOR COLLABORATION

Culturally/socially appropriate terminology

Cultural competence

Inclusion

Validation of multiple perspectives

Belief in validity of community voice

Understanding

Open-mindedness

Openness ++

Vulnerability

Selflessness

Concern

Commitment +

Being invested

Peace

Listening +

Active Listening

Welcome                                                               

• Linked meetings – We aren’t referencing LC meeting today, but meeting with them in September and plan to update them on the first two PAT meetings.
• Shared results of first PAT evaluation in summary form
  • PAT Eval Summary — Results mirror those of the FAB
    • PAT gave highest marks for
      • clarity of UB’s objectives
      • a sense that our approach will advance the UB objectives
      • a sense that the meeting felt worthwhile
    • while PAT told us we had the most room to improve in
      • identifying and assigning next steps
      • clarifying a collective decision-making process
• Updated group on the FAB’s last meeting, briefly
  • Talked about the authentic connections made as a result of the storytelling, genuine sharing and community building that happened.
  • Important to note that WILLINGNESS is the common theme/thread that pulls through.
    • FAB agrees there is a need for this type of work
    • Proposal represents a change in the way providers/families would work together
    • FAB ready and excited to create a plan to implement these ideas
• Shared out a document summarizing FAB/PAT feedback on the proposal thus far, and provided top-level summary

Scholastic Proposal: Refreshers and Intros- Full Group

• Karen Baicker of Scholastic presented on the Family Co-Op model that inspired the Family Co-Op in our Discover Together Brownsville (DTB) proposal. Her presentation can be viewed here.
• Brenna Hassinger-Das of PACE University and presented on Learning Landscapes, which inspired the Language Kits in our DTB proposal. Her presentation can be viewed here.
• Christin Park of Reach Out and Read of Greater New York was scheduled to present but cancelled due to illness. ROR inspired the Providers as Cross-Sector Literacy Coaches section of the DTB proposal. In lieu of CP’s presentation, we showed the first 5 minutes of a ROR video here.          

Scholastic Proposal: Small Group Work     

• The PAT/FAB split into three breakout groups based on their interests in the sections of the DTB proposal:
  • Brenna Hassinger-Das/Language Kits: Stay in the HUB space (NS)
  • Scholastic/Family Co-Op: 4th Floor Conference Room (KB)
  • Reach Out and Read/Providers as cross-sector literacy coaches: 4th Floor desks, large room to the left of the elevator (DH)
• Each breakout group used a worksheet to guide discussion of their proposal section and try to arrive at next steps.

Books for Brownsville Breakout Group

Q&A Notes

• Q&A was not held for this section of the proposal because Christin Park was not present.

WHAT

• What is one major change, if any, that you would you make to the way this section of the proposal is written? Why?
  • Robin Hancock began with concerns, also picked up by others in the group, about the tone and cultural appropriateness of ROR’s model:
    • The evidence base, i.e. the Hart and Risley 30 million word gap study that has been largely debunked (see here) due to its small sample size and deficit-based approach.
    • A tone of paternalism and condemnation that could be received as overly critical of parents, overly negative, and not recognizing the many ways that parents can support literacy and language development.
      • Too much of a message that “What you’re doing is not working.”
      • The group preferred to be inclusive and asset-based and to promote the message, “This is one of many ways to promote literacy at home.
      • The group also wanted to empower rather than disempower parents.
• Overall, the group was interested in keeping the core components of ROR, but they wanted to be clear that it was adapted in ways that providers and families thought important and that fit settings other than hospitals/doctors’ offices.
  • Members of the group like the idea of making books available in many locations throughout the neighborhood. Members also like the idea of making language training available to a diverse set of providers and the concept of cross-sector, mutually reinforcing training and materials.
  • The group was especially in favor of adding to and modifying what already exists that is working well.
    • That includes finding out from families and providers in the community about what has worked well for them in terms of literacy already.

• • In addition to the curriculum and approach being culturally-appropriate for Brownsville, the group wanted to be sure the books featured characters/settings that looked like Brownsville and hopes that Scholastic has them in its library.

WHO

• Which partners would be essential to the success of this proposal? They can be organizations, specific programs, or sectors/types of programs (e.g. SCO’s Nurse Family Partnership, or Power of 2).
  • We did not yet decide exactly which partners should be involved at this point, but we did discuss the importance of making sure there is a community voice in and careful consideration given to:
    • Who would train providers
    • What do the terms best practices and pre-literacy mean and how can we make them inclusive and asset-based?
    • How to make books and training available in other languages as appropriate to Brownsville?
      • How can we be sure we are representing other communities here, not just English and Spanish but other ELL languages like Yemeni or Bengali?

• Who on the PAT should take leadership roles to work on this proposal? What kind of commitment would that entail?
  • Volunteers: Darren (with an asterisk that he would like another colleague to step up too)
  • Others who would like to support: Jerome, Robin, Stephanie, Ignatius, Jasmine

WHERE

• What locations would be best to host this proposal? These can be specific sites or types of sites. Should we start with one location as a pilot or aim for multiple locations? Why?
  • We did not identify particular sites yet but suggested laundries and other storefronts in addition to agencies,

HOW

• How should we proceed? Identify 1-3 next steps you would recommend for this proposal right now. These can happen between meetings or at the next meeting. They can be assigned to UB backbone staff or PAT members.
  • Define pre-literacy. Look into readings that would provide a more appropriate research basis for this type of work than Hart and Risley.
  • For ROR:
    • Ask ROR to provide more details on their complete framework/curriculum for physicians.
    • Ask ROR if some members can get trained.
  • For Scholastic:
    • Ask for details about books in their library that might be a good fit for Brownsville’s urban environment and linguistic and cultural diversity.
  • Define how big a pilot this should be. We will revisit at the next meeting.
  • Create a listserv to continue the conversation.

Learning Landscapes/Language Kits Break-Out Group

Q&A Notes

• How did the Learning Landscapes initiative address possible acts of vandalism?
  • The community, possibly because they were stakeholders from the onset, has taken responsibility for caring for the lot.
  • Adults, have been randomly seen removing debris and other wandering trash from the spot, if they, while waiting for the bus, saw any trash near the lot.
  • The lot is privately-owned, connected to a church and a community worker associated with the project and church cares for the grounds.
  • Current to date, there has been no acts of vandalism.

• What was the timespan for the Philadelphia Urban Thinkscape (refers to Language Landscape) project?
  • The whole project from beginning to end was 2 years.
    • There were lots of stakeholders who were brought to the table and they met frequently over the time period. (Ex: researchers, architects, focus groups, community members)

• Is it easier to use private land over public land?
  • Recently, the use of public spaces has increased since more organizations have attempted designs in public spaces similar to Learning Landscapes
  • Also, having a few officials working on the project proves advantageous when working with public spaces because it takes less time to move things forward.
  • The group felt that private land is easier because it less of a bureaucracy, but, that that is also contingent on a funding stream already being in place.

WHAT

• What is one major change, if any, that you would make to the way this section of the proposal is written? Why?
  • Language Kits (the name)
    • The use of the word ‘kits,’ suggest a small, individual, portable project that seems very different from the grand community project.
      • If we’re attempting to create two different facets of this component of the proposal, we should consider approaching the two parts separately.
        • Language Kits (Prompt-Oriented Pop-Up Spaces)

vs.

• • • • • Learning Landscapes (Environmental Permanent Space)
          • In deciding on which facet we should begin with, it was decided that whichever facet takes less  resources (ie: time and money) should be the one we start with

WHO

• Which partners would be essential to the success of this proposal? They can be organizations, specific programs, or sectors/types of programs (e.g. SCO’s Nurse Family Partnership or Power of 2).
  • Participants felt more information is needed to decide how to move Learning Landscapes forward, but, they felt confident that steps towards Language Kits can begin now.
    • For Language Kits, essential partners can include organizations that UB can collaborate with and build a symbiotic relationship with, especially ones that are already doing similar work.
      • City’s First Readers (funded by the City Council)
        • Immersion based activities offered to children in public and private spaces (ie: daycares, libraries, the child’s home)
      • The initiative Too Small to Fail with their ‘Wash Time is Talk’ program
        • Encourages parents to read to their children during laundering

• Who on the PAT should take leadership roles to work on this proposal? What kind of commitment would that entail?
  • The group did not get to to respond to this question.

WHERE

• What locations would be best to host this proposal? These can be specific sites or types of sites. Should we start with one location as a pilot or aim for multiple locations? Why?
  • If considering public space over private space, consider using a school that has control over the use of its space.
    • According to principal at Riverdale Avenue Community School, her school, though public, she is able to allocate the school’s space for projects.
  • Proof of Content is an option where we begin with public land and then once the concept is established and/or has been proven, seek public sources
    • The data for Philadelphia’s Urban Thinkscape showed:
      • An increase in spatial intelligence
      • An increase in numerical language
      • More Conversation Between People
      • Signage has been added which provided an added dimension to the space and provided new learning elements
    • Language Kits – Starting small with signage in a select location and then, building our way up.
      • Breanna pointed out that one of the 1st kits was done in a supermarket and it cost $60

HOW

• How should we proceed? Identify 1-3 next steps you would recommend for this proposal right now. These can happen between meetings or at the next meeting. They can be assigned to UB backbone staff or PAT members.
  • Because the group almost unanimously felt that this component of the proposal should be two separate components, a few members in the group felt strongly about doing both components concurrently.
    • To accomplish this, a suggestion was made that the community be introduced to the Language Kits as a precursor to the Learning Landscape, so, the idea is: ‘Being able to demonstrate a continuum for the community where we are able to say: ‘This is what we have now,’ referring to the signages and moving on to ‘This is what we are working towards,’ referring to Brownsville’s own urban landscape.
      • More research would need to be done on the Learning Landscape
        • What financial resources are in place now to begin the project?
        • Does UB have connections with contractors, architects, etc who would consider partnering on the proposal? If so, can a meeting be set up to discuss the feasibility of the project?
• Next steps:
  • UB will ask Brenna for sample budgets for Languages Kits and Learning Landscapes.
  • UB will ask Brenna for sample Language Kits that might be quickly deployed in Brownsville locations, e.g. supermarkets.
  • Develop a map, perhaps in consultation with CS’s Inspiring Places team, of Brownsville that will help us discuss potential sites for a permanent Learning Landscape.
  • Create a listserv to continue the conversation. UB will follow up on this.
  • UB will also follow up with details about contractors, architects, etc. who would consider partnering with us on this.
  • Questions to bring to the group and request volunteers:
    • What information on potential partners like City’s First Readers and Too Small to Fail can we present to the group? Are there folks at these potential partners that should be invited to PAT meetings, and who can make the introductions?
    • Does you have connections with contractors, architects, etc who would consider partnering on the proposal? If so, can a meeting be set up to discuss the feasibility of the project?

Family Co-Op Breakout Group

Q&A Notes

• Is there an evidence base that suggests Family Co-Ops improve early childhood development outcomes?
  • Scholastic’s Family Co-Op model currently relies on parent surveys to provide insight on to child-level impact
  • The 1st cohort of (Grundy County, Tn) Family Co-Op children are now entering Kindergarten where they will receive standardized assessments which will create an opportunity to compare early childhood development outcomes against a “control group” (children who have not attended the family co-Op)
• This Family Co-Op model should be integrated into existing programs- childcare sites, libraries etc, which will allow for a smoother implementation since many safety considerations etc will already be in place and facilitate easier recruitment and promotion efforts
• In order to ensure accessibility, since the Grundy County, Tn model typically serves no more than 13 children at a time, the Brownsville Family Co-Op model should operate both during the week and on weekends and offer multiple sessions/day
• Recruitment efforts in Tennessee often work through local elementary schools to connect with younger siblings and through word of mouth via local networks such as churches
• Efforts should be made to ensure the family co-op model reinforces the other literacy programs associated with UB (such as Cross sector Literacy Partners) and tie in to Learning Landscapes
• PAT/FAB members strongly favored the Family Co-Op calendar, which catalogues associated themes and events

WHAT

• What is one major change, if any, that you would you make to the way this section of the proposal is written? Why?
  • Multiple sites for the Family Co-Op should be considered not just to accommodate larger numbers of families served but because there are issues of territoriality and public safety, particularly in public housing developments where residents may feel unsafe in visiting other parts of the community because of gang issues etc. so this approach ensures greater accessibility

WHO

• Which partners would be essential to the success of this proposal? They can be organizations, specific programs, or sectors/types of programs (e.g. SCO’s Nurse Family Partnership, or Power of 2).
  • Who is the Facilitator?
    • In Tennessee, a local resident with a professional mental health background was recruited, underscoring the importance of hiring a local stakeholder who is familiar with the community and its assets and challenges
  • The group agreed that any provider site from a sector in which an infant or toddler is served should be considered for a Family Co-Op
    • Some reservations were expressed about shelters since the population is likely to be transient and potentially not in Brownsville for long
      • This suggests one potential criterion is if the site serves a stable (non-transient) population, but the group agreed this topic needs more discussion
    • The group agreed that the Leadership Council, particular members affiliated with ACS and the DOE should be targeted for support in launching pilot sites, so that they can assist in ensuring we are in compliance with regulations and take advantage of available resources
• Who on the PAT should take leadership roles to work on this proposal? What kind of commitment would that entail?

WHERE

• What locations would be best to host this proposal? These can be specific sites or types of sites. Should we start with one location as a pilot or aim for multiple locations? Why?
  • What parameters/considerations are needed for a family Co-Op site?
    • Scholastic suggests identifying sites that can accommodate 2 separate spaces, so that one can be used for parent-child interaction or childcare and another is dedicated as a parent only space
    • Ideal to also have a space where food can be prepared
    • Scholastic suggests no more than 13 children served at a time
    • Excellence Baby Academy shared that the spacing considerations sound very similar to Excellence Baby Academy so she can assist in thinking through further detail and potentially hosting
  • SCO has 3 potential sites that can host
    • 1st Step, Shirley Chisholm and Morris Koppelman early childhood centers
  • Churches often can be excellent host sites

HOW

• How should we proceed? Identify 1-3 next steps you would recommend for this proposal right now. These can happen between meetings or at the next meeting. They can be assigned to UB backbone staff or PAT members.
  • Present maps at the next meeting that identify buildings, program sites and neutral vs”territory problem” sites (which can be pulled from Cure Violence maps).
  • Identify a political representative that can support the Family Co-Op model in Brownsville, financially or otherwise
  • Identify City agencies that can support the Family Co-Op model in Brownsville, financially or otherwise
  • Provide a Family Co-Op program budget from Scholastic to begin understanding financial needs to support the model
  • Create a listserv to continue the conversation

Scholastic Proposal: Share Out

• We met back in the HUB space as a group and shared out the summaries of our breakout meetings above.