Program Leader’s Working GroupClover Kids/Cloverbuds Study Group

Findings from National Survey and Research Review

February 2018

Page 2

INTRODUCTION

4-H Vision: A world in which youth and adults learn, grow, and work together as catalysts for positive change. 4-H Grows: A Promise to America’s Kids In 2025, 4-H will reflect the population demographics, vulnerable populations,

diverse needs and social conditions of the country. This vision has the elements of inclusion, caring adults, serving at minimum one in five youth, and the volunteers and staff reflect the diversity of the population.

4-H Mission: 4-H empowers youth to reach their full potential working and learning in partnership with caring adults.

Dear State Leaders, As 4-H programs across the United States move to meet the 4-H Grows: A Promise to America’s Kids goal of a national 4-H program that “will reflect the population demographics, vulnerable populations, diverse needs, and social conditions of the country,” our K-3 programs present an underdeveloped entry point for youth. More importantly, research is constantly reminding us that it is unlikely that our 4-H youth (especially those from underserved and underrepresented communities) will reach their “full potential” without strong learning supports in early childhood.

The National Association for the Education of Young Children defines developmentally appropriate as “an approach to teaching grounded in the research on how young children develop and learn, and in what is known about effective early education.”

4-H is the youth development program of the land-grant universities’ Cooperative Extension Services and the United States Department of Agriculture. Therefore, 4-H has a need and a responsibility to serve all youth via research-based, age-appropriate, and culturally competent programing. However, 4-H is not reaching all youth in all states.

Culturally competent and developmentally appropriate pedagogy in 4-H involves systems, staff and volunteers that meet young children at the appropriate stage of development and recognizing that the cultures of their families bring great strength to the learning process.

Under 4-H National Headquarters guidance, it is up to each State 4-H Program Leader to determine whether the state 4-H program will include an age and developmentally appropriate program component designed especially for children in grades K-3. However, 31 percent of states responded they did not have a state defined K-3 program, suggesting that our K-3 approach may be fractured and inconsistent.

In May 2017, the Program Leaders Working Group (PLWG) chartered the Clover Kids/Buds Learning Group to review the current state of 4-H K-3 Programs across the United States, with a critical eye to ensuring cogency across the 4-H system. The study group was to provide recommendations to the Program Leaders Working Group for the future research and program/product agenda of the Clover Kids/Buds program. This included reviewing emerging and related early learning research trends, such as brain-based learning, school readiness, trauma-informed youth development, positive youth development approach, and culturally competent pedagogy.

We hope all State 4-H Program Leaders and the Program Leaders Working Group will use the information and recommendations in this report to improve the educational programing for our youngest 4-H youth.

Thank you and stay green! John-Paul Chaisson-Cardenas, Chair, Iowa 4-H Youth Development Program Leader

Page 3

SURVEY

The survey went out via the National Leader list serve. Multiple general and state specific follow-ups were made to encourage survey completion. Response rate among 1862 was relatively high (48 states responded) however participation among 1890’s and 1994’s was minimal. A majority of respondents (66.7%, 30 states) have a defined state K-3 youth development program. 31.3% of respondents stated that the state did not define the K-3 program. 18.8% specifically delegated the definition of K-3 programs to the county or region. One state had no programing for youth below 4th grade. Of the 27 States which have a state-defined and had a name for their K-3 program, 77.8% (21 states called their program Cloverbuds and 14.3% (4 states) called their program Clover Kids. Several states used other names (e.g. 4-H Explorers, Primary Members) to describe their programs. Of those states, 48.15% reported having specific activities and curriculum tied to their K-3 program. Nine states reported that they considered their Clover Kids/ Cloverbuds an age group and not a program. Two states reported that they engage youth via the regular Club setting. Most states reported some link to positive youth development and the “Experiential Model”. Dosage (or frequency of programing) and fidelity to a planned program varied widely across the country. Only five states reported any evaluation efforts specific to K-3 programs.

Page 4

DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORK

Developmentally appropriate practice is an approach that is grounded in research on how young children develop and learn and what is known to be effective in education. Its framework can be used to promote optimal learning and positive youth development. Developmentally appropriate practice calls for 4-H staff and volunteers to meet children where they are at developmentally, both as individuals and also as part of a group. This then allows for children to participate in both challenging and achievable learning events. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (2018) shares that there are three core considerations of this approach. Those considerations are:

• knowing about child development and learning.• knowing what is individually appropriate. • knowing what is culturally appropriate.

As the characteristics and needs of children change as they develop, so does what is considered developmentally appropriate. For example, developmentally appropriate practice encourages those that work with children in grades K-3 to implement cooperative learning activities. Cooperative learning is defined as learning to get along with peers in a cooperative rather than competitive manner. This practice is based on research that highlights how cooperative learning produces higher achievement, competence, reasoning strategies and critical thinking, creativity, social skills, caring, self-esteem, and healthier psychological adjustment than competitive or individualistic learning (Fetsch & Yang, 2002; Johnson, 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981).

As noted in the image below, development should “frame” positive youth development programs. Those programs should also be informed by research pertaining to brain-based learning, cultural competence pedagogy, and adverse childhood experiences. By utilizing this framework, positive youth development programs are able to provide rich experiences and develop strong relationships that encourage children to thrive.

Page 5

POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT APPROACH

The Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, comprised of 20 federal departments and agencies that support youth shares that positive youth development:

• Is an intentional, prosocial approach that engages youth within their communities, schools, organizations, peer groups, and families in a manner that is productive and constructive.

• An approach that recognizes, utilizes, and enhances young people’s strengths; and promotes positive outcomes for young people by providing opportunities, fostering positive relationships, and furnishing the support needed to build on their leadership strengths.

Arnold (2017) shares that “4-H is based on a positive youth development approach that recognizes all youth have interests, abilities, and strengths that can be enhanced by participation in 4-H programs. Research shows that participation in high quality 4-H programs increases thriving in youth, and thriving youth achieve important developmental out-comes, such as academic motivation and achievement.” For youth grades K-3, programs should focus on four things to promote positive youth development:

• Facilitating youth sparks.• Creating an effective program setting.• Forming developmental relationships.• Encouraging youth engagement.

BRAIN-BASED LEARNING

Brain-based learning refers to lesson designs, teaching methods and after school programs that are based on scientific research about how the brain learns. This research examines cognitive development or how children learn differently as they age, grow, and mature socially, emotionally, and cognitively. Brain- based learning includes the active engagement of practical strategies based on learning and behavioral principles derived from neuroscience (Jensen, 2008).

Brain-based learning incorporates engagement, strategies, and principles that are aligned with an understanding of the neuroscience (Connell, 2009; Jensen, 2008; Willis, 2007).

• Each youth is unique, and unique in how they learn. Brain-based learning allows educators to gain a better understanding of how to engage each learner in their own unique learning style.

• It takes a community approach of adults involved in the lives of young people to understand the impact of every day connections being made in the youth’s brain and how educators can make a positive impact in increasing the connections, creating new learning pathways and strengthening others.

• Regulation or homeostasis is required in order for the youth to be fully engaged in the learning. As emotions are connected to their ability to learn it is important that learning environments are a supportive social classroom community.

• Principles of brain-based learning include: movement and exercise, social conditions, skill building and building thinking skills, regulation skills or the ability to help manage chronic stress, celebrate differences in how we learn and our talents and interests, include art and music in learning, help youth to understand their emotions as well as the ability to read others social cues and emotions.

Page 6

SCHOOL READINESS

The Head Start Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center (2017) defines school readiness as children possessing the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary for success in school and for later learning and life. In addition, school readiness is defined as families being ready to support their children’s learning, and schools/institutions being ready for children. School readiness is an important concept that encompasses five core dimensions (Kagen, Moore, Bredekamp, 1998). Those dimensions include:

• Physical well-being and motor development • Social and emotional development• Approaches to learning• Language development (including early literacy)• Cognition and general knowledge

Research pertaining to school readiness has indicated that:

• Achievement gaps during the schooling years can be largely traced back to differences in performance at school-entry (Duncan, Schmitt, Burke & McClelland, 2017).

• Policies and programs that target children without early childhood educational experiences prior to starting kindergarten may be able to improve children’s academic achievement and greatly reduce school readiness gaps (Duncan, Schmitt, Burke & McClelland, 2017).

• The Center for the Developing Child (2010) shares that lifelong health (necessary for school readiness) includes the following aspects: (1) a stable and responsive environment of relationships, (2) safe and supportive physical, chemical and built environments and (3) appropriate nutrition.

• Researchers increasingly recognize that school readiness and early achievement are complex, multi-faceted constructs that require children be exposed to a variety of experiences (Stipek, 2006).

• Focus on executive function and self-regulation skills may be needed to support learning and school readiness (Vitiello & Greenfield, 2017; Duncan, Schmitt, Burke & McClelland, 2017).

CULTURAL COMPETENCE PEDAGOGY

Cultural competence is having the capacity to function effectively as an individual and an organization within the context of the cultural beliefs, behaviors and needs presented by diverse youth, families and their communities (Cross, Bazron, Dennis & Isaacs, 1989). According to the National Education Association (2017), cultural competence includes the following:

• Having an awareness of one’s own cultural identity and views about difference.• The ability to learn and build on the varying cultural and community norms of students and

their families.• The ability to understand the within-group differences that make each child unique, while

celebrating the between-group variations that make our country a tapestry.

Pedagogy is the art of how educators teach. Cultural competence pedagogy then is the use of cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference and performance styles of ethnically diverse children to make learning encounters relevant and effective (Gay, 2000).

Page 7

Research on cultural competence pedagogy:

• Culturally competent pedagogy (referred to as culturally responsive education in article) has repeatedly been shown to have a positive impact on children’s outcomes (Aronson & Laughter, 2016).

• The engagement of culturally responsive practices resulted in positive impacts on affective domains. These affective domains include: motivation, interest, engagement, a child’s perception of ability and confidence (Aronson & Laughter, 2016).

• There is a continued need for active discussion among educators that allows for the examination of this complex topic (Gere et al., 2009).

TRAUMA-INFORMED YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

Positive youth development is the outcome of a trauma-informed system of care. A trauma-informed approach refers to how a program, agency, organization, or community thinks about and responds to those who have experienced or may be at risk for experiencing trauma; it refers to a change in the organizational culture. (National Center for Innovation & Excellence, 2017). A trauma-informed approach incorporates two key elements:

• Recognizing how trauma affects all individuals involved with the program, organization, or system, including its own workforce.

• Responding by putting this knowledge into practice.

Research pertaining to the prevalence of trauma in youth shares that:

• Approximately 25% of children and adolescents experience at least one potentially traumatic event during their lifetime (ACEs 360 Coalition, 2016).

• Youth may be impacted by trauma differently; while some recover quickly, others may have significant disruptions in child or adolescent development with long-term consequences (ACEs 360 Coalition, 2016).

• Data from youth surveyed in 6th, 8th, and 11th grade showed that nearly one in four students had at least three adverse childhood experience risk factors (ACEs 360 Coalition, 2016).

• Adverse childhood experiences may include: (1) socioeconomic hardships, (2) divorce/parental separation, (3) lived with someone who has an alcohol or drug problem, (4) victim or witness of neighborhood violence, (5) lived with someone who was mentally ill or suicidal, (6) domestic violence witness, (7) parent served time in jail, (8) treated or judged unfairly due to race/ethnicitiy and (9) death of a parent (Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative, 2013).

Research suggests there is a need for a systemic approach to address trauma in youth. This systemic approach needs to include child welfare workers, therapists, intervention organizations, schools, educational programming and positive youth development organizations.

Page 8

RECOMMENDATIONS

After review of the survey data and research reports the following recommendations are presented. Recommendations based on survey data analysis:

• Identification and development of age appropriate curriculum for sharing across the system. • Identification of promising practices for sharing across the system. • Identification and development of professional development to assist in the implementation of age

appropriate curriculum and practices. • Development of evaluation systems that would allow for long term monitoring of educational

impact and retention in 4-H programming. • Selection of one descriptor for this age of youth programming.• At a national level, define whether Clover Kids/Cloverbuds is as an age group or a program.

Recommendations based on literature review:

• Creation of self-regulation activities to open and close meetings for this age group.• A checklist or evaluation tool that might assist groups in implementing culturally competent

pedagogy that is specific to this age group.• A review of literacy and math development and how it pertains to practices in the out of school

setting and creation of a best practice document specific to this age group. • Development of national curriculum for this age group that focuses on priority areas while infusing

the reviewed elements (brain-based learning, trauma informed youth development, etc.)• Continued collaborations between researchers and staff/volunteers to add to the research base for

this age group. • Review of 4-H theoretical frameworks to ensure that programs for this age group are aligned with

programming for older youth.

CONCLUSION

This is an exciting time for Clover Kids/Cloverbuds! The above recommendations are shared in the hopes that they might be a starting point for dialogue between stakeholders. Our hope it that the information presented will assist in further refinement of programs that work to support and empower youth to reach their full potential.

Page 9

ReferencesACEs 360 Coalition (2016). Beyond aces: Building hope & resiliency in Iowa. Retrieved from: https://www.iowaaces360.org/Arnold, M. (2017). 4-H and postitive youth development. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University College of Public Health and Human Sciences.Arnold, M. E. (in press). From Context to outcomes: A thriving model for 4-H Youth Development Programs. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension.Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163-206.Center on the Developing Child (2010). The foundations of lifelong health are built in early childhood. Retrieved from: http://www.developingchild.harvard.eduChild and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative (2013). “Overview of Adverse Child and Family Experiences among US Children.” Data Resource Center, supported by Cooperative Agreement 1‐U59‐MC06980‐01 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB). Retrieved from: www.childhealthdata.org. Connell, J. D. (2009). The global aspects of brain-based learning. Educational Horizons, 88(1), 28-39. Cross, T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., & Isaacs, M., (1989). Towards A Culturally Competent System of Care, Volume I. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center.Duncan, R. J., Schmitt, S. A., Burke, M., & McClelland, M. M. (2018). Combining a kindergarten readiness summer program with a self- regulation intervention improves school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 291-300.Fetsch, R. J., & Yang, R. K. (2002). The effect of competitive and cooperative learning preferences on children’s self-perceptions: A comparison of 4-H and non-4-H members. Journal of Extension, 40(3), 1-7. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/a5.phpGay, Geneva. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Gere, A. R., Buehler, J., Dallavis, C., & Haviland, V. S. (2009). A visibility project: Learning to see how preservice teachers take up culturally responsive pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal (46)3, 816-852. Head Start Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center (2017). School readiness. Retrieved from: https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readinessInteragency Working Group on Youth Programs (2017). Positive youth development. Retrieved from: https://youth.gov/youth-topics/positive-youth-development. Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning: The new paradigm of teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Johnson, D. W. (2003). Social interdependence: Interrelationships among theory, research, and practice. American Psychologist, 58, 934-945.Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.Kagan, S. L., Moore, E., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (1998). Reconsidering Children’s Early Development and Learning Toward Common Views and Vocabulary: National Education Goals Panel. DIANE Publishing.Ko, S. J., Ford, J. D., Kassam-Adams, N., Berkowitz, S. J., Wilson, C., Wong, M., Brymer, M. & Layne, C. M. (2008). Creating trauma- informed systems: child welfare, education, first responders, health care, juvenile justice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(4), 396 Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in US schools. Educational researcher, 35(7), 3-12.Ladson-Billings, G. (2008). Yes, but how do we do it?: Practicing culturally relevant pedagogy. In Ayers, Ladson-Billings, Michie & Dee (Eds.), City kids, city schools: More reports from the front row (pp.162-177). New York: The New Press. The National Center for Innovation & Excellence (2017). Trauma informed care and youth development. Retrieved from: http://ncfie.net/our-expertise/system-reform/trauma-informed-care-positive-youth-development/National Education Association (2017). Why cultural competence? Retrieved from: http://www.nea.org/home/39783.htmStipek, D. (2006). No child left behind comes to preschool. The Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 455-466.Vitiello, V. E., & Greenfield, D. B. (2017). Executive functions and approaches to learning in predicting school readiness. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology(53), 1-9.Willis, J. (2007). Review of research: Brain-based teaching strategies for improving students’ memory, learning, and test-taking success. Childhood Education, 83(5), 310-315.

Clover Kids/Cloverbuds Study Group John-Paul Chaisson-Cardenas, Iowa State University Extension and Outreach, Chair

Beth Birnstihl, National 4-H CouncilShannon Horrillo, University of California

Gemma Miner, University of CaliforniaSara Nelson, Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Jodi Schulz, Michigan State University Extension

Supported by:Bonnie Dalager, Iowa State University Extension and OutreachNicole Hanson, Iowa State University Extension and OutreachShelly Ramus, Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

January 2018