Reviewing the Success of Full-Service Community Schools in the US

Challenges and Opportunities for Students, Teachers, and Communities

Mavis G. Sanders, Claudia Galindo, Mavis G. Sanders, Claudia Galindo

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9780367445614
• eBook ISBN: 9781000043679
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Didattica
• Subtopic: Didattica generale

Originally published as a special issue of the Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, this expanded text provides new insights into the successful, sustained implementation of Full-Service Community Schools (FSCSs) in the United States.

Reviewing the Success of Full-Service Community Schools in the US documents the experiences of students, teachers, and communities involved in the establishment and growth of FSCSs. By considering how successful this reform strategy has been in meeting the needs of underserved communities, the text illustrates the potential these schools have to transform students' learning and outcomes. In particular, the studies illustrate the value these schools have in supporting low-income students and students of color. At the same time, by interrogating the defining pillars of FSCSs – expanded learning opportunities, integrated services, family and community engagement, and collaborative leadership – chapters identify challenges that if left unattended, could limit the transformative potential of this reform strategy.

This groundbreaking text will be of great interest to graduate and postgraduate students, researchers, academics, professionals, and policy makers in the fields of Educational Change and School Reform, Multicultural Education, Sociology of Education, Education Policy, and School Management and Administration.

1 A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of a Full-Service Community School on Student Achievement

Stephen J. Caldas, Diane W. Gómez, and JoAnne Ferrara

As achievement gaps persist, educators, politicians, parents, and community members search for means to reduce the disparity between advantaged and disadvantaged groups of students, particularly those who are culturally and linguistically diverse (Ferguson, Phillips, Rowley, & Friedlander, 2015; National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c; Reardon, 2011). Research indicates that among factors contributing to existing disparities in achievement are the differing family and community backgrounds and experiences students bring with them to the classroom (Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson, 2014; Caldas & Bankston, 2014; García, 2015), as well as differences in the schools that historically underserved students attend (Bankston & Caldas, 2002; Orfield, Kucsera, & Siegel-Hawley, 2012).

Areas of inequality are generally reflective of socioeconomic status (SES). In comparison to their middle-class peers, students from low SES backgrounds often exhibit limited language development (García, 2015) and lack access to healthy food (Hemmingsson, 2018), safe housing (United States Government Accountability Office, 2014), and physical and mental health services (Evans & Kim, 2007; Oakes, Maier, & Daniel, 2017; Rea & Zinskie, 2017; Vobtruba-Drzal, Miller, & Coley, 2016; Zimmerman, Woolf, & Haley, 2015). The inequities associated with poverty continue in the classroom. Being in poverty often means living in school districts that have limited resources and cannot attract and retain highly qualified teachers and administrators or provide rich, rigorous content and curricula (Dryfoos, 2003; Gandara, 2017; Santiago, Ferrara, & Quinn, 2012; Schmidt, Burroughs, Zoido, & Houang, 2015).

The National Educational Association (NEA, 2002–2015) offered important recommendations to improve learning opportunities and ameliorate achievement gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Its recommendations included providing classroom settings that give underserved students access to quality education, giving professional development and instructional materials to educators, and establishing accountability measures for teachers and school administrators.

The full-service community school (FSCS) model provides a framework to implement the NEA’s (2002–2015) recommendations, and “improve educational outcomes, further healthy youth development, and help disadvantaged families” (Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002, p. 13). FSCSs fulfill the needs of educators, students, and families through mental and physical health services, extended learning opportunities, parent engagement, positive school environments, and quality instruction (Blank & Shah, 2004; Sanders & Hembrick—Roberts, 2013). Integrated services provided on-site help FSCSs create a community and culture where all members collaborate to promote student success (Dryfoos, 2003; Galindo & Sanders, 2019). Academic achievement is an anticipated result of this collaborative community of school personnel, community agencies, parents, and students (Blank & Villarreal, 2015).

This comparative study sought to deepen understanding of the relationship between attendance at an FSCS and student achievement. Specifically, it compared the high school academic outcomes of students who attended Key Elementary FSCS in the late 1990s and early 2000s to the outcomes of students who attended a traditional elementary school in the same district during the same years. The academic indicators compared were: cumulative grade point average (GPA), SAT I tests, composite ACT scores, NYS Regents Examination Scores, NYS Regents Diplomas with Advanced Designation, Advance Placement (AP) exams, and aspirations to attend a four-year college or university. Two theories, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory and Santiago and Ferrara‘s Whole Child Education, informed the interpretation of the study’s findings.

Theoretical Frameworks

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory explains that student learning is not merely an outcome of what happens in school but is also influenced by what can be described as an “educational ecosystem” (Santiago et al., 2012). The ecological systems theory represents a framework for viewing children’s development as occurring within systems of relationships that shape their environment (Martin, Fergus, & Noguera, 2010). In particular, micro-systems (families, peers, schools, neighborhoods) and macro-systems (cultural and political contexts) function interdependently to affect children’s growth and learning. Schools that recognize and respond to the confluence of factors impacting learning are more successful in facilitating the achievement of all students, regardless of their social and economic backgrounds (Epstein, 2018). They are also well positioned to adopt a broader perspective about the role of schools in society.

Whole Child Education, as defined by Ferrara and Santiago (2007), also promotes a broader conceptualization of what schools should do and how they should function to improve learning experiences and outcomes for all students. This theoretical approach views learning through five developmental domains of the child: physical, social, emotional, ethical, and intellectual. In order to increase student achievement, multiple factors and ecologies within these domains should be considered when crafting instructional practices and creating educational environments. Whole Child Education also requires a paradigm shift from the traditional two-component model of school leadership that concentrates on instruction and management, to a three-component model that adds “enabling.” The enabling component includes the integration of psychosocial factors to mitigate “barriers to development, learning, and teaching” (Adelman & Taylor, 2002, p. 263). There are six areas of the enabling component: building teachers’ capacity to address students’ social, emotional, intellectual, and behavioral development; facilitating students’ and families’ transitions; preventing crises; fostering home engagement; creating community collaborations; and offering special assistance to students and their families. The inclusion of the enabling component encourages all members of the school, including community partners, to take an active role in addressing challenges to student success. The Whole Child Education philosophy is thus fundamental to the FSCS strategy.

Full-Service Community Schools

FSCSs serve as the hub of their neighborhood to provide health, mental health, and social services, enrichment activities, and rigorous, responsive learning opportunities (Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2012; Blank & Shah, 2004; Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002, Galindo & Sanders, 2019; Guajardo, Guajardo, Janson, & Militello, 2016; Institute for Educational Leadership, 2017). According to Blank, Melaville, and Shah (2003):

A community school is both a place and a set of partnerships between the school and other community resources. Its integrated focus on academics, services, supports and opportunities leads to improved student learning, stronger families, and healthier communities. Schools become the center of the community and are open to everyone - all day, every day, evenings and weekends.

(p. 2)

Although no two FSCSs look exactly the same, most incorporate four pillars: “integrated student supports, expanded learning time and opportunities, family and community engagement, and collaborative leadership and practices” (Oakes et al., 2017, p. 5). These four pillars are the foundation of FSCSs and underscore the importance of relationships and partnerships for their successful implementation. Through these relationships and partnerships, FSCSs build the social capital empirically linked to students’ school success and aspirations to continue their education (Adger, 2001; Biag & Castrechini, 2016; Bryan, 20...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction: Expanding Knowledge for a New Era of Full-Service Community Schools
• 1 A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of a Full-Service Community School on Student Achievement
• 2 Student Attendance: A Persistent Challenge and Leading Indicator for Baltimore’s Community School Strategy
• 3 A Question of Necessity or of Equity? Full-Service Community Schools and the (mis)Education of Black Youth
• 4 The Role of Teachers in Transforming an Urban Full-Service Community High School: Exploring Processes of Change
• 5 Community Engagement through Partnerships: Lessons Learned from a Decade of Full-Service Community School Implementation
• 6 Sustaining Full-Service Community Schools: Lessons from the Tulsa Area Community Schools Initiative
• Conclusion: Working Toward Educational Equity and the Sustainability of Full-Service Community Schools
• Index