support services. Through very deliberate partnerships, a community school strives to be a full-spectrum resource for families and children, reflecting the needs and assets of the community and becoming a center of community life. Across the country, the community
schools approach is gaining renewed con- sideration as key to addressing the com- plexity of the achievement gap. In a com- munity schools approach, school districts and local government agencies join forces to align their resources and expertise to make sure every student has the academic, health and social supports necessary to succeed in school. Partner agencies recognize that for stu-
dents to be successful, the needs of the whole child must be met. The partners work to- gether to identify and understand the needs of children and their families, and coordi- nate and leverage the necessary resources to address those needs. Much can be learned from what these
schools have achieved, specifically in the areas of governance, prioritization based on data, the role of summer learning, and scaling up. The theory of action is that child well-being (i.e. the absence of hunger, fear, illness, pain, neglect or abuse) is necessary for quality education to truly be absorbed.
Where we were Child well-being seemed to be a higher
education priority in earlier decades. In the years immediately following the former So- viet Union’s launch of Sputnik, the space- craft that beat America into orbit, there was an unprecedented race to bring state-of- the-art science and mathematics into every classroom. The Presidential Physical Fitness Tests were mandatory and served as an im- petus for more rigor in recess and physical education. Programs stemming from the “war on
poverty” and the “great society” ensured food, income and housing security for America’s most vulnerable families. Head Start sites opened up across the country. The operation of the U.S. Department of Educa- tion as a branch of Health, Education and Welfare provided for social workers, school nurses, school psychologists, and later bi-
The theory of action behind community schools is that child well-being (including the absence of hunger, fear, illness, pain, neglect or abuse) is necessary for quality education to be truly absorbed by students.
lingual and instructional aides for our most disadvantaged students. And economists noted that America’s
gaps in income, taxation, employment, hous- ing and education were the narrowest our country has ever seen (Heckman & Kruger, 2005). It is no coincidence that from 1960- 1978, American schools were rated among the best in the world, and California schools were the national envy. They were packed with safety-nets and wrap-around supports; these services and opportunities are bundled today in the term “community schools.” Unfortunately, by the time Proposition
13 passed in 1978, the majority of these community school strategies had been de- funded in favor of tax breaks, and the gaps they began to close are now the widest in nearly 80 years. California has a long history of com-
munity school development through the Healthy Start program, established in 1991 through the Healthy Start Support Services for Children Act (SB 620). The Healthy
Start initiative gave grants as seed funding for school districts to provide comprehen- sive, collaborative, school-linked supports and services to improve the health and aca- demic performance of children, youth and their families. Between 1992 and 2006, the California
Department of Education awarded more than 1,400 planning and operational grants to districts and their collaborative partners, reaching more than 3,100 schools sites and one million students (CDE Healthy Start Fact Sheet, 2010).
Sustaining the services While Healthy Start funding has since
languished, the strategy has shown great po- tential. An early evaluation of Healthy Start showed improved math and reading test scores as well as decreased student mobil- ity (Wagner & Golan, 1996). Many Healthy Start sites sustained their services after the end of their state grant funding (Halfon et. al., 2001).
March/April 2012 29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40