Throughout my early college years, I struggled with wanting to know more about the world and its problems and wanting to make a genuinely positive impact on the world. I often felt paralyzed into inaction by my desire to know more. How could I be sure I was doing something meaningful or impactful, or that what I was doing would be worthwhile? Eventually, I learned that service itself was its own learning experience and that even if my actions weren’t deeply impactful on systemic problems, helping others with a real problem in their lives, participating in collective action, or otherwise serving a community is meaningful. As I left my college community, a question I didn’t consider so much was: how long does it actually take to know a community, so that one is able to be of deeper service?
I’ve discovered that it takes a long time to get to know a community. Many of the programs in the United States designed for young people to ostensibly have positive social impacts on communities are limited by the fact that they are promoted as one or two-year commitments (see: AmeriCorps, Peace Corps, Teach for America, etc). That’s not to say people can’t have positive impacts in a variety of positions and communities over the course of a year or two, but the knowledge gained through sustained engagement in a particular community is incredibly valuable, particularly (in my experience) for teaching where knowledge of community assets, resources, and a generalized sense of the student experience is invaluable as a tool to connect with and engage students.
As I look back on my work experience in my 20s – a year teaching in Tanzania, a year coordinating a community-university partnership as an AmeriCorps VISTA, two years teaching in Somaliland, and most recently the last four years I’ve spent teaching in Chicago, it’s clear that it takes a year to get settled in a place, and another one to begin to use that settled knowledge to extend impact. So why is it so common in entry-level social service-related fields whether it’s nonprofit work or teaching to expect only a year or two of work before moving on to the next thing?
Of course, the obvious answer is that obligating people to work 2-4 years in an organization they realize they don’t like much, or doing work that they don’t end up finding that rewarding isn’t a good idea. If I’d had to serve as an AmeriCorps*VISTA for more than the one year I did it, I probably wouldn’t have taken the position I was offered (in part due to the poverty-level wages). When my year of service was up, the VISTA grant had run out and the program I had coordinated was effectively finished. This was unfortunate because although I didn’t much like the work, and was only just beginning to get to know the community, it was a valuable program, and the parents and families we served benefited from the experience. Someone else, better paid and with a more serious long-term commitment to the program or the community it was based in, could have had a much more significant impact than me.
The more significant answer in my view is that I don’t think our society takes seriously the idea that the provision of social services is a profession to be financially valued and trained in. Indeed, I think our society has an impoverished view about the provision and professionalization of social services, whether we are talking about social work, teaching, or related fields. Unlike becoming a doctor or lawyer, training in these fields is less intensive and there’s more of a general sense that you can drop a college graduate into a spot and have them change lives (or learn on the job) on arrival. There is real value in this sort of experience for the college graduates, who often are in a little over their heads, and learn through an experience that challenges them.
An organization like Teach for America, despite paying teacher wages, is obviously intended to de-professionalize teaching. If their teachers – after a few months of training after college – can be effective teachers for a couple of years in a high-poverty school- why have traditional teacher education at all? Unfortunately, many Teach of America teachers are not only in way over their heads, but also situated to push out expert teachers of color. And on top of that, many do not continue into the teaching profession, so the knowledge they gain in two years doesn’t contribute to long-term impact in the communities they serve.
College graduates aren’t always well prepared to have a positive impact and to deeply consider the perspectives of the folks they are serving (I know I wasn’t). On some level, that’s an inditement of college, but it also reflects the reality that on-the-job training is an important way to learn the unique skills needed to be successful in that job. However, the premise that learning should happen at the expense of the poor and those already struggling, is unfortunate. Everyone should have the opportunity to learn with gradual release of responsibility, and everyone should have the chance to be served by someone competent who is culturally, and linguistically responsive to their needs. Of course, people need a chance to learn on the job, but in my view, that chance to learn should be in an environment where that learning is fully supported, over the course of multiple years, and also fairly paid.