Inside Full-Service Community Schools

Topics include:

This book combines the day-to-day experience of a committed
worker in the trenches, the principal of an emerging community
school and the observations of a long-time researcher, admittedly
a strong advocate for these models. We started by exploring the need
to change the way schools and community agencies operate and how these
stakeholders could be brought together to envision a full-service
community school. We showed the large number of diverse services and
programs that might be carried out during the school day or during
extended hours, particularly in after-school programs. Consideration
was given to the problems of staffing for these complex models, mixing
school and community-based organization people, and how the
design of the partnerships might influence the staffing patterns.
We have placed a lot of emphasis on the people factor the
importance of committed individuals in these kinds of enterprises.

Parent involvement is another area we explored, trying to broaden
our thinking on roles parents can play in schools. Evaluation research
was cited to show evidence that the changes going on in the Molly
Stark School and many others can positively affect educational, health,
and social outcomes. In the discussion of barriers, we tried to emphasize
that before a well-functioning, sustainable institution can be created,
many issues must be resolved, including turf, space, and transportation.
I hope we have made it clear that none of this is easy.

The financial picture is also complex. Molly Stark is typical of full-service
community schools, relying on an array of federal, state, and local
resources that must be combined to make good things happen under one
roof. We can be somewhat optimistic about the future of community
schools, given the existing resources that can be used and the growing
movement to stimulate further development of community school concepts.
We can temper our enthusiasm with the recognition that this movement
is still largely invisible to the massive school reform action taking
place in this country. The education establishment seems quite bogged
down in an unending and often acrimonious debate over the efficacy
of test scores and, at the same time, is unable to find a way to produce
certified and able teachers and the classrooms to put them in.

This final chapter addresses several important questions about the
outlook in each of the areas we have covered. It concludes with some
ideas about who needs to do what at the national, state, and local
levels to legitimatize community school principles and vastly expand
the network.

Should universality be our goal? My answer is yes and no. Yes, all
schools should be accessible to the community and serve as hubs for
educational, social, and cultural enhancements. The constituents of
the school children, parents, staff should all think of
the school as community owned. And within almost every school, certain
students need individualized attention that can be most effectively
delivered through school-community partnerships. But no, not every
school needs to be full service, not all schools must
have built-in health and social service centers to help families and
children overcome the barriers to learning. These barriers are heavily
influenced by social class. Poor communities obviously face more difficult
barriers than middle-class communities.

Priorities have to be set based on volume and intensity of need. Every
school already has an indicator: the percentage of children eligible
for free or reduced-price lunches. Schools in which more than 50 percent
of the students are eligible are deemed especially needy. It is estimated
that about one in four of the 85,000 public schools in the United
States meets that criterion. Thus nearly 22,000 schools should receive
priority in planning for transformation into full-service community
schools. Although we do not know how many fully realized community
schools currently exist (probably a couple of thousand), the potential
demand is enormous.

No. We don't have to tear apart the public school system to come
up with solutions. All the many programs cited in this book have been
developed within the traditional framework of local boards of education
that are fully responsible for the operation of the schools. Unquestionably,
some charter schools are configured along the lines of the full-service
community schools described here: open for extended hours, based on
partnerships, parent friendly, community oriented, and so on. I would
be delighted to see charter schools adopt these concepts. But it is
important to show that public schools can be transformed into child-
and family-responsive institutions without destroying public education.

Should Public School Systems
Be Encouraged to Lengthen the
School Day and/or the School Year?

In some parts of the country, schools are adding hours to instructional
time to improve test scores. In other places, schools are changing class
schedules to be open all year because of overcrowding. In my view,
neither of these rationales is valid. We know that effective schools
can teach children within traditional school hours, using extended
hours for youth development and enrichment in voluntary programs.
We also know that year-round scheduling is disruptive to family life,
parental work plans, and teachers' contracts. Most important,
it has no positive effect.

On the other hand, I am strongly supportive of having the doors of
the school open all the time, including a rich summer program, though
I have some concerns about laying the whole responsibility on the
school system. The best approach seems to be combining the efforts
of the school system with support from a well-run CBO that can take
over the responsibility for everything else, except excellent
teaching. Work during before- and after-school hours, weekends, and
summers can be assumed through creative partnerships.

One of the more elusive subjects is the quality of programming. We
have seen that some community schools can produce better results than
their traditional peers. What is the quality outcome we are seeking?
Is it just educational achievement, or is it more complex, including
such goals as social competence, good behavior, or even community
development? Most of the evolving financial support mechanisms for
these efforts place a high premium on accountability. Programs will
have to prove that they are meeting their goals, although the goals
of an after-school program and those of a school-based primary health
initiative may be vastly different.

The question of quality may be addressed through research. First,
we must identify community school models that are effective in both
improving educational outcomes and enhancing youth and family development.
This work is already under way; for example, the Coalition for Community
Schools is working on a study called Linkages to Learning (2002).
Now the models have to be examined qualitatively to find out what
aspects of the program influence the outcomes. What are the pieces
that are absolutely necessary, and what are merely "add-ons"
that sound interesting but have little effect?

After looking at this diverse collection of community schools and
school-community partnerships, I am convinced that a major component
of successful implementation is careful attention to planning. Partnership
is critical. Because so many relationships, policies, and regulations
must be jointly addressed and issues about them resolved, the planning
process sets the tone for the work that follows. Inclusiveness from
the start will ensure broader participation in the long run; this
means bringing together school and community agency people, parents,
other interested stakeholders, and students. Careful gathering of
the necessary data (needs, services, unmet needs) and creating an
appropriate design that responds to those data are necessary steps.

If you are interested in pursuing the concepts of full-service community
schools, be prepared to spend at least a year planning the program.
Track down the many resources that can support this work, visit the
various models, and take advantage of one or more of the sources of
technical assistance.

In a school building, you can do almost anything that is required
to promote a healthy and productive educational environment and reduce
barriers to learning. In this book, you can find references to programs
now being brought into schools that address health, mental health,
social service, drug and violence prevention, educational enrichment,
before- and after-school programming, juvenile justice, recreation,
the arts, culture, business practice, and so on. A review of the list
of services attached to the Hoyer bill (see Chapter 10) verifies the
claim that almost any human service can be provided in a school building.

This is not a pitch to simply move every human service into school
buildings. The important point is to find the appropriate intervention
that will help solve the problems in a particular school. The program
has to be needed (or it won't be used), and it has to be effective
(or it won't make any difference). The program must not place
additional burdens on the school system; rather, it should remove
some of the burdens. As Sue has pointed out, flexibility is necessary.
If a program doesn't seem to be working, discontinue it.

Without question, this work is labor intensive. No school principal
or guidance counselor or interested teacher should imagine that he
or she can do it alone. No community agency person or youth worker
or child advocate should think that he or she can just go into a school
and open up shop. I have stated repeatedly that community schools
require the full-time attention of a coordinator or director, who
may work for the school system, the lead community agency, or a consortium
set up just for this purpose.

This is a relatively new category of labor. Although we have found
many such people with various titles currently working in community
schools, few universities have set up courses that might prepare people
for this new profession. In my view, a community school coordinator
is someone who understands both educational systems and human service
systems, with knowledge that may come from combinations of graduate
pursuits, such as education and community psychology or social
work and public administration or even public health.

The same cross-disciplinary approach should be present in schools
of education. Principals and teachers need to be exposed to ideas
about child, youth, and family development as part of their training.
They should learn about community school models and what's required
to start one. At the same time, youth workers have to learn what goes
on in schools and how they can play a role in creating new kinds of
institutions.

Unions can play an important part in furthering the community school
movement. Both major educational unions, the National Education Association
(NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), are already part
of the Coalition for Community Schools and have indicated their support
for these concepts, including keeping school buildings open for extended
hours. As Joan Devlin, associate director of the AFT, stated,
"Full-service schools require knowledge, collaboration,
and the interest of political power brokers to marshal the resources
needed. It takes a collective will and vision to think beyond
traditional funding streams and power bases and focus on a single
set of commonly agreed to goals." (e-mail, August 6, 2001). But
many teachers in school systems around the country and youth workers
employed by community agencies are not covered by union contracts
and work at very low wages. In general, salary scales for youth workers
are way below teachers' levels. And high turnover rates for all
personnel are endemic.

Despite the perceptions of many schools and community organizations
that parents are hard to involve, we have shown numerous examples
of very successful programs. The key here seems to be ensuring that
the services and opportunities made available are ones that parents
really want and need. They do not respond to invitations to attend
professorial lectures in child development, especially if they have
limited English proficiency or are otherwise alienated from the school;
they do respond to small workshops on similar subjects held in parent
resource rooms in which they feel comfortable. Home visiting reaches
parents directly. Parents sign up in droves to volunteer in classrooms,
cafeterias, site-based management teams, and playgrounds, and they
are eager to enter training to become paid teacher's aides and
to participate in adult education of all kinds.

The design of the school-community partnership is basic to the discussion
of full-service community schools. As you have seen, the number and
diversity of the models are daunting. Molly Stark exemplifies the
principal-run approach; Sue Maguire reorganized her school, invited
a number of community agencies to help, and arranged for their funding.
School principals also play a major role in the governance of Missouri's
Caring Communities program, but integrated state grants go to established
community partnerships, school and community collaboratives charged
with achieving specific goals to improve the lives of children, families,
and the community.

Some community schools are initiated not by a school but by a community
organization. The Children's Aid Society partnership at the school
level places a full-time coordinator next to the principal, with formal
written agreements to guide the relationship. The community school
district is also a partner in this collaboration through a Memorandum
of Understanding, and so is the central school district by means of
a formal resolution.

One might conclude that no two community schools have the same governance
structure. All have some combination of school authority with outside
community agency participation. Whether the lead agency should be
the school or the CBO is a debatable issue and will probably not be
resolved in the near future. The important point is that in each case,
the responsibilities and roles have to be clearly established for
such areas as keeping the school open and integrating the support
services with the educational program.

I hope potential community school developers are not turned off by
our discussion of barriers. We have emphasized throughout that establishing
a partnership and implementing a full-service community school is
not an easy assignment. Knowing about the stumbling blocks in advance
should help practitioners deal with problems of money, space, staff,
transportation, turf, equity, and all the other items that appear
in various studies and reports about implementing programs.

These kinds of issues are not found only in community schools; they
are integral to any human endeavor that is built on relationships.
The words that come up repeatedly are communication, negotiation,
patience, and fortitude. Sometimes it helps to have outside
facilitators who assist school and community people in working their
way through these issues. I have noted throughout that technical assistance
is available from a number of sources.

We are learning quite a lot from emerging school-community partnerships.
The people in this work are vitally interested in research and accountability.
Most of the community school initiatives have an evaluation component,
particularly those that are foundation funded. The C. S. Mott Foundation's
effort to support and track the success of the federal 21st Century
Community Learning Centers (CCLC) has stimulated unprecedented evaluation
projects in the after-school arena. As this research is completed,
we will have access to considerable knowledge about how extending
the hours a school is open can influence outcomes for students.

It is my view that after-school programs are a primary entry point
for the development of full-service community schools. It is probable
that some of the almost 7,000 schools that have received CCLC grants
to open their schoolhouse doors and establish partnerships with community
agencies will move on from after-school programs to other aspects
of community schooling (for example, primary health clinics and family
resource centers). An important area of research will be tracking
the further development of these programs.

Evaluation of complex school-community programs is not a simple matter.
The academic testing situation in this country is already in total
chaos, and that covers only one piece of the community school action.
Efforts are already under way to figure out how to capture the other
pieces, such as tracking student and parent use of the various services
and programs offered before, during, and after school. Surveys have
been designed to measure behavioral outcomes and psychosocial attitudes.
Some programs, such as California's Healthy Start, have excellent
management information systems. The situation requires that universities
actively seek partnerships with community school programs. As always,
however this all comes together, it will be costly.

So here we are, back to the bottom line. Our nation cannot embrace
the concept of full-service community schools without a major commitment
to funding them. If my figure of 22,000 schools with very needy populations
has any validity, and if it costs around $100,000 a year to set up
the infrastructure, we're talking about $2.2 billion for starters.
And if it costs around $250,000 for a fully functioning program for
1,000 students ($250 per student per year, a minimum estimate), we're
talking about $5.5 billion a year. Although that sounds like a lot,
it is just about half of the Title I Elementary and Secondary Education
Act appropriation for 2002, which was about $12 billion. And
some of that money could come from existing resources, such as the
CCLC after-school funds and others mentioned in Chapter 10.

Sustainability is the desirable goal. What happens to these community
school programs when the five-year grants run out? Some of the CCLC
after-school programs are already faced with this situation after
three years. Perhaps the concept to pursue is entitlement,
meaning that every child is entitled to go to a school where he or
she can gain access to the supports needed to overcome the barriers
to learning. I do not know how this could be accomplished. But I would
certainly encourage advocates for community schools to pursue this
line of thinking.

States already play a major role in supporting community schools and
after-school programs, as do foundations and local resources. Their
potential roles are discussed later in the chapter.

What Can Be Done at the National
Level to Promote Full-Service
Community Schools?

A simple solution to all of this would be for the federal government
to just write a big check for $5.5 billion, but of course that is
not going to happen. And even if it did, the potential stakeholders
are not quite ready to move forward. It would make a big difference,
however, if there were legislation that moved in the direction of
supporting coordinated school-community partnerships that go beyond
after-school programs.

Two of the major bills introduced in the 2001 Congress, the Hoyer
Full-Service Community Schools Act and the Reed Child Opportunity
Zone Family Center Act (described in the previous chapter), didn't
get very far, but at least the concepts have been introduced. A third
bill, the Younger Americans Act, is still sitting in the appropriate
committees awaiting action as we write. But Congress is so fixated
on testing issues and negotiating the amount of money that will back
up their proposals that it is unlikely they will take up youth development
issues in the near future.

However, I can think of six actions that would be helpful at the national
level, building on some of the ideas in the Hoyer bill.

1. Community School Authority. In the federal government, create a community
school authority, jointly administered by the Department of Education (DOE)
and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The primary function
of the authority would be to award five-year grants to school-community agency
partnerships in high-need areas. Assuming about $100,000 for the first year
to create a plan and $250,000 for each of the next four years to bring in services,
the total grant would be $1.1 million per site for five years. The school-community
group would have to deliver matching funds, such as for space rental,
personnel, or equipment.

The community school authority would be backed up by a congressional
working group on community schools. This group would bring together
members of Congress to learn more about full-service community schools
and would make sure that they visited model sites (in their districts).

2. Technical Assistance and Capacity Building. Technical assistance can be
provided by both the public and the nonprofit sectors to help communities
plan, implement, and sustain programs. The federal government
could support a national center for community schools located in the DOE,
with joint oversight from the DHHS as well as the departments of justice,
labor, agriculture, and HUD, all of which have resources in community
school programs. In the nonprofit sector, the Coalition for Community Schools
could provide technical assistance and/or work with the many federally
supported centers (such as the two Centers for Mental Health in Schools)
and national intermediary organizations (such as Communities-in-Schools)
that already have the capacity to do this work.

3. Community Schools Awards Program. Develop an awards program for
effective school-community partnerships, recognizing the most effective
coalitions. The program would have two components: (a) recognition and
awards for a certain number of schools and (b) efforts to develop standards
or criteria for what a community school is. The intent would be to raise
the visibility of the movement. This could be jointly funded by foundations
and the DOE.

4. Expansion of 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Support the
expansion of 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Make sure
that some of the grants go directly to community-based organizations.
If states administer the program, they should be prepared to offer
technical assistance, adequate funding, and training for coordinators
and other staff. Monitor the process through which after-school programs
are a first step in creating full-service community schools.

5. Support for Research on Community Schools and After-School Programs
Foundations can play a major role in conducting research on and evaluating
community schools. Development of management information and student tracking systems can be furthered. Studies of implementation are important.
Make sure that all federal grant programs include an
appropriation for evaluation.

6. Support for the Coalition for Community Schools. As one of the founders
and steering committee members of the Coalition for Community Schools, I
would like to see it gain significant support for the essential role it plays.
More than 170 national organizations have joined forces to work together
and promote community schools. This is an avenue through which education
and youth development people, administration and union representatives, and
risk-reduction and asset-building experts communicate regularly.
As Joan Devlin sees it, "The coalition provides an opportunity to lay down
the burden of protecting turf long enough to listen to the ideas and dreams of
others. It helps to raise areas of agreement and finds ways to make disagreements
less volatile." (e-mail, August 6, 2001). The coalition can mobilize the voluntary
sector to work with the public sector to see that these models are widely
replicated and that the backup research and evaluation
take place.

Martin Blank, director of the coalition, believes,
The next several years represent a critical juncture for community schools.
If the movement can build on its success and continue to engage people
with its vision, educate policymakers, and make the case with educational
leaders, leaders in other sectors, and the public, there is the potential to secure
federal support for community schools in the next five or six years. Federal
funding will remain a tough challenge, however. In this era of high-stakes
testing and accountability, where the success of students, teachers and principals
often rides on a single test, [the challenge is] getting them to focus on anything other
than academic performance. The community schools movement must continually demonstrate how a community school approach impacts student learning and helps
to create the conditions for learning." (e-mail, August 7, 2001)

Some states have played major roles in initiating full-service community
schools and school-community partnerships for after-school programs.
As state administrations change, it is important to make sure that
those programs continue and expand. In some states, new programs may
be initiated. One approach for state governments might include the
creation of a coordinating agency that draws in resources from education,
health, and social services and awards grants directly to community
coalitions (as in Missouri). States can develop a technical assistance
capacity to work with communities in pulling together local groups,
planning, implementation, and evaluation. State agencies, public and
nonprofit, can sponsor conferences and workshops to spread the word
and make these programs visible.

The movement for community schools originated at the local level.
The first action was truly "bottom up," with the major models
emerging one at a time from the hands of dedicated charismatic individuals
or small groups. The next stage has been the emergence of intermediary
organizations, the parent group for each of the models
(such as the Children's Aid Society, the University of Pennsylvania,
Beacons, the National Center for Community Education, and Schools
of the 21st Century) with the capacity for providing technical assistance
(see Resources). This has resulted in scattershot adaptations all
over the country.

The next stage in the proliferation of community schools is to go
system-wide. Boston may be the first city in the country to achieve
this goal. School and community agency stakeholders are talking together
about creating the Boston Full-Service Schools Roundtable as a vehicle
for helping school and community agencies to jointly develop and expand
Boston's supply of full-service community schools. Other cities
attempting to influence a whole system are Buffalo, New York; Plainfield,
New Jersey; Hartford, Connecticut; Portland, Oregon; Kansas City,
Missouri; and Birmingham, Alabama.

The process for local change begins with planning. Any community agency
can take the leadership role in calling together an inclusive group
from one school or neighborhood, a cluster of schools, or the whole
system. Local chapters of national organizations such as the United
Way, Boys and Girls Clubs, the Public Education Network, and
Communities-in-Schools have developed the capacity to initiate collaborative
planning groups. Indigenous CBOs can do the same. A local school-community
planning group may be brought together spontaneously, or it may be responsive
to a call for proposals from a funding source.

Philip Nobel (2001), writing in the Education Life section of The New York Times,
portrays a massive school-building boom across the country, and in every one,
attention is being paid to community needs.

An idea that first emerged in the late 1960s but didn't
fly until the '90s, the concept is variously known as community
schools, community learning centers, shared facilities or full-service
schools. Where older buildings endeavored to create an icon to represent
"education" within the community--but kept that community
at bay by creating an insular world of learning within--these
new schools are attempting to bring the life of the community into
the building itself. (p.22)

If these ideas interest you, you do not have to wait for the federal
government to act or a state agency to offer you a grant to get started.
The first step is to bring together a group of stakeholders and start
moving toward envisioning what your local school could become if those
concerned put their heads together. In this arena, one person can
make a difference. One person cannot do this alone, but he or she
can serve as a sentinel in a community to indicate that changes are
both necessary and feasible. We dedicate this book to those sentinels
all over the country who we know are out there ready to get to work.

So what's the prognosis for full-service community schools
in our country, in the state of Vermont, in my community, at Molly
Stark? I really can't answer that. When I am talking with my
colleagues at school, with Joy, or with Doug Racine, Vermont's
lieutenant governor, I quickly get into the mode of "We just
have to do this in a bigger way!" But in the day-to-day whirlwind
of running a full-service school, I don't take a lot of time
to think about the bigger picture.

We may not have figured out all the answers or cured all the ills
of our students and their families, but what I can say for certain
is this: We have taken a risk to try to do the right thing. And speaking
only for myself but being sure that it's true for those I work
with each day, I can say that never has there been such a feeling
of triumph, exhaustion, frustration, and pride all at the same time.
We have created a community where kids can feel valued, parents can
feel welcomed, and staff can feel proud. And whether or not it is
the total answer isn't as important as that we have done, small
step by small step, things that will in some way change many lives
for the better.

Before I first presented our full-service school plan to the entire
Molly Stark staff, I kept remembering the novel Dominic, by
William Steig (1972), that I used to read to my fifth graders when
I taught. The message became so clear to me that I printed it on top
of the staff meeting agenda before my presentation of the journey
that was about to begin. I'm sure some thought it was great,
some thought it was corny, and some didn't have a clue what I
was trying to say, but it didn't matter. I just had to
give them this message from the alligator witch:

I hope you don't mind if I tell you this much . . . that road there on
the right goes nowhere. There's not a bit of magic up that road, no
adventure, no surprise, nothing to discover or wonder at. Even the
scenery is humdrum. You'd soon grow much too introspective.
You'd take to daydreaming and tail-twiddling, get absent-minded
and lazy, forget where you are and what you're about, sleep more
than one should, and be wretchedly bored. Furthermore, after a while,
you'd reach a dead end and you'd have to come all that dreary way
back to right here where we're standing now, only it wouldn't be now,
it would be some woefully wasted time later.

Now this road, the one on the left this road keeps
right on going as far as anyone cares to go, and if you take it, believe
me, you'll never find yourself wondering what you might have
missed by not taking the other. Up this road, which looks the same
at the beginning, but is really ever so different, things will happen
that you never could have guessed at--marvelous, unbelievable
things. Up this way is where adventure is. I'm pretty sure I
know which way you'll go. (pp. 7-8)

Ten Reasons Principals Should
Think About Developing Full-
Service Community Schools

1. Full-service community schools are a natural way to
develop collaborations with community partners that will enhance services
for kids and families.

2. Life for children and families is more complex than ever;
the role of schools must shift to meet changing needs.

3. You can-t do it alone. It makes sense to work together
with others interested in helping children and families.

4. Lack of money is an ongoing issue. Working with others toward
common goals maximizes your resources. In addition, taking a less
traditional approach increases your chances of receiving funding.

5. All children need and deserve opportunities; these services
may well be the only opportunity some children get.

6. It's more efficient not to be always in a crisis
mode putting out fires, which is where many of us find ourselves much
of the time. Although not a cure, more preventive services may lessen
the crisis for the next generation.

7. Full-service community schools allow access to children
and families who are already at the school, so providing services
is more effective and efficient.

8. We must continuously look at what our schools are doing
for children and families: Are we successful? Are our services and
programs furthering our short- and long-term goals? If not, it's
important to reflect and possibly use our resources differently.

9. If our commitment is to the success of children, assisting
them in developing to their full potential, why begin our efforts
at age five when we know through research that the years between birth
and five are so <->critical?

Coalition for Community Schools c/o Institute for Educational Leadership * 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW Ste 310 * Washington, DC 20036 *Ph. 1-202-822-8405 X156 *Fax 1-202-872-4050 * For more information, e-mail ccs@iel.org