Reviewing the Success of Full-Service Community Schools in the US: Challenges and Opportunities for Students, Teachers, and Communities 9780367445614, 9781003010388

Citation preview

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

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. Mavis G. Sanders is Professor of Education and Affiliate Professor for the doctoral program in Language, Literacy, and Culture at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), US. Claudia L. Galindo is Associate Professor in the Education Policy and Leadership program at the University of Maryland, College Park, US.

Routledge Research in Educational Equality and Diversity

Books in the series include: Gender in Learning and Teaching Feminist Dialogues Across International Boundaries Edited by Carol A. Taylor, Chantal Amade-Escot and Andrea Abbas Nationality and Ethnicity in an Israeli School A Case Study of Jewish-Arab Students Dalya Yafa Markovich Intersectional Pedagogy Creative Education Practices for Gender and Peace Work Gal Harmat Schools as Queer Transformative Spaces Global Narratives on Sexualities and Genders Jón Ingvar Kjaran and Helen Sauntson Promoting Academic Readiness for African American Males with Dyslexia Implications for Preschool to Elementary School Teaching Edited by Shawn Anthony Robinson & Corey Thompson High Achieving African American Students and the College Choice Process Applying Critical Race Theory Thandeka K. Chapman, Frances Contreras, Eddie Comeaux, Eligio Martinez Jr. and Gloria M. Rodriguez For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge. com/Routledge-Research-in-Educational-Equality-and-Diversity/bookseries/RREED

Reviewing the Success of Full-Service Community Schools in the US Challenges and Opportunities for Students, Teachers, and Communities Edited by Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo

First published 2020 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Taylor & Francis The right of Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this title has been requested ISBN: 978-0-367-44561-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-01038-8 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by codeMantra

Contents

Acknowledgments vii Introduction: Expanding Knowledge for a New Era of Full-Service Community Schools

1

M AV I S G . S A N D E R S A N D C L AU D I A L . G A L I N D O

1

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

7

S T E P H E N J . C A L DA S , D I A N E W. G Ó M E Z , A N D  J OA N N E F E R R A R A

2

Student Attendance: A Persistent Challenge and Leading Indicator for Baltimore’s Community School Strategy

31

R AC H E L E . D U R H A M , J E S S I C A S H I L L E R , A N D FA I T H  C O N N O L LY

3

A Question of Necessity or of Equity? Full-Service  Community Schools and the (mis)Education  of Black Youth

63

M A X I N E M c K I N N E Y D E ROY S T O N A N D T I A  C . M A D K I N S

4

The Role of Teachers in Transforming an Urban Full-Service Community High School: Exploring Processes of Change

98

M AV I S G . S A N D E R S A N D C L AU D I A L . G A L I N D O

5

Community Engagement through Partnerships: Lessons Learned from a Decade of Full-Service Community School Implementation M O N I C A A . M E D I N A , G AY L E C O S BY, A N D J I M G R I M

128

vi Contents 6

Sustaining Full-Service Community Schools: Lessons from the Tulsa Area Community Schools Initiative

147

C U RT M . A DA M S



Index

187

Acknowledgments

This book emerged from the editors’ sincere desire to disseminate new knowledge on the current iteration of full-service community schools (FSCSs). Having engaged in research on FSCSs for nearly a decade, we learned early of the transformative potential of this reform for poor students and students of color. We also realized that the FSCSs strategy was gaining momentum in education circles but too often without the benefit of well-designed, conceptually rich research studies. We sought to bridge the gap between practice, research, and theory through the publication of several cutting-edge research articles in a special issue of the Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk. We were very gratified when Routledge editor, Elsbeth Wright, approached us about expanding the special issue into a book. She is the first of many that we want to acknowledge and thank for bringing this book to fruition. Additionally, we would like to thank the authors whose work is featured in the special issue of JESPAR and in this book. It was a pleasure working with these exceptionally committed scholars. We consider them critical leaders and thinkers in the field of education reform. We also want to thank the editor of JESPAR, Jerome D’Agostino, for saying “yes” to the proposal for a special issue. His belief in and support of the project from its conception allowed us to bring these important studies to a broad audience in less than a year, an increasingly rare occurrence in the arena of academic publishing. We also extend our appreciation to Taylor & Francis, the publishers of JESPAR, for the reuse of several articles from the special issue in this book. Copy editors, indexers, cover designers, and so many others that make books possible and inviting to broad audiences are unsung heroes. We found these silent dream weavers especially efficient, accommodating, and cooperative at Routledge, and want to acknowledge and thank them for all their hard work. We are indebted to the Spencer Foundation for its generous support of our research on FSCSs, including the study we authored for this book. We also want to thank our study participants – teachers, principals, students, and community coordinators and partners – who openly shared their experiences with us in order to inform and refine the implementation

viii Acknowledgments of FSCSs. We would also like to express our appreciation to readers for their interest in this book and in creating socially just schools and transformative learning environments for underserved students. Finally, we would like to thank our families. Specifically, the first editor would like to thank her loving husband, Jeffrey Sims, for his unwavering support for her work and research, and her son, Jeffrey Ojia, and daughter, Shori, for teaching her so much about the importance of school, family, and community partnerships. Likewise, the second editor would like to thank Stefano Porcile, su hijo, por estar siempre conmigo, en las buenas y en las malas.

Introduction Expanding Knowledge for a New Era of Full-Service Community Schools Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo

Full-service community schools (FSCSs) aim to improve the educational and life experiences and outcomes of historically underserved students. A holistic, multifaceted reform strategy, FSCSs build relationships with families to enhance students’ development; provide services, resources, and supports to students and other key stakeholders through community partnerships; and extend learning opportunities through culturally and community responsive instructional practices and out-of-school time programming (Blank, Melaville, & Shah, 2003; Galindo & Sanders, 2019). Designed to meet the needs of the students, families, and communities they serve, FSCSs share the common features previously described but are distinct in their structures and processes, as well as the resources they offer (Sanders & Hembrick-Roberts, 2013). In other words, the FSCS strategy seeks to achieve more equitable and socially just schools through services and partnerships that are grounded in and responsive to the needs and assets of their communities. The first iteration of FSCSs in the United States can be traced back to the late 1800s and includes Jane Addams’s Hull House in Chicago. Later iterations occurred in the 1930s (e.g., Benjamin Franklin High School in East Harlem) and 1960s (e.g., Flint community schools) (Benson, Harkavy, Johanek, & Puckett, 2009). Building on insights provided by these earlier iterations, researchers such as Joy Dryfoos (1994, 1998) and non-profit advocacy organizations such as the Coalition for Community Schools and the Children’s Aid Society (National Center for Community Schools, https://www.nccs.org/history) initiated the current resurgence of FSCSs in the mid-1990s. Since then, implementation of this reform strategy has steadily expanded. An estimated 5,000 FSCSs now serve over two million students in 150 communities (Blank & Villarreal, 2015). This expansion is supported by provisions in the latest reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Every Student Succeeds (Frankl, 2016), and new state-level funding for FSCS implementation (Jacobson, 2019). Thus, it is likely that the number of FSCSs will significantly increase over the next several years. Research on FSCSs has also increased, resulting in a growing consensus that they constitute a promising “evidence-based strategy for equitable school improvement” (Oakes, Maier, & Daniel, 2017).

2  Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo Yet, FSCSs are not without skeptics. This skepticism stems, in part, from studies that fail to show a definitive academic advantage for poor students and students of color attending FSCSs, despite the extensive time and resources required for their implementation. For example, Whitehurst and Croft (2010) found that a large-scale FSC charter school in New York City, the Harlem Children’s Zone, did not produce higher academic gains than some other charter schools not identified as FSCSs. Similarly, while Cummings, Dyson, and Todd (2011) found evidence that FSCSs improved academic outcomes for the most economically disadvantaged students and narrowed the achievement gap between these students and their more affluent peers, the authors were unable to demonstrate an overall improvement in achievement for the majority of students attending FSCSs. While these studies stand in contrast to a growing body of research showing positive effects of FSCSs on a variety of student and family outcomes (Arimura & Corter, 2010; Heers, Van Klaveren, Groot, & Van den Brink, 2016; Moore & Emig, 2014), they nonetheless raise doubts about the efficacy of the FSCS strategy and its benefits relative to costs. Skepticism also stems from the failure of previous iterations of FSCSs to reach scale, casting doubt about current possibilities for wide spread implementation and sustainability. It is incumbent upon scholars committed to educational equity to address such skepticism through thoughtful, rigorous documentation of factors and conditions associated with the successful, sustained implementation of FSCSs. Reviewing the Success of Full-Service Community Schools in the US: Challenges and Opportunities for Students, Teachers, and Communities aims to advance this goal. To date, most books on FSCSs have been implementation guides (see Dryfoos, 1994, 1998) or in-depth case studies of a single school (see for example, R ichardson, 2009). Current edited books (e.g., Ferrara & Jacobson, 2019), while providing valuable practitioner insights, are not grounded in systematic empirical research. This book, which includes a broad range of studies on FSCSs in the United States at different stages of development, complements these existing works. It adds a missing dimension that integrates research, policy, and practice, and provides a breadth and depth of empirically based insights on the implementation and outcomes of FSCSs. The result is a reference we believe will aid practitioners, policy makers, and researchers to better understand the promise and challenges of FSCSs, make better informed decisions regarding their execution, and identify new directions for research. This book originated as a special issue of the Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR). Through a review of the existing literature on FSCSs and recommendations from leaders in the field, we invited authors from across the United States to share their latest research in a special volume. Our focus was on ensuring that the articles were available to readers in the shortest timeframe possible given

Introduction  3 the growing significance of FSCSs as a reform strategy. As co-editors, we were gratified by the success of the special issue and the publisher’s interest in expanding its reach as a book in the Routledge Research in Educational Equality and Diversity series. The book also provided us the opportunity to extend the original content with our own work on the role of teachers in FSCSs – an area of increasing interest in the field (Daniel, Quartz, & Oakes, 2019). The six chapters included in the book explore FSCSs from a variety of theoretical frameworks, methodologies, and guiding questions. The first chapter, “A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of a Full-Service Community School on Student Achievement,” compares the high school performance of a sample of 128 students who attended a FSCS, Key Elementary, with a demographically similar sample of 187 students who attended President Magnet School, a traditional school located in the same New York City suburban district. The study is unique in the diverse outcomes it measures: SAT I scores, scores on the New York State high school Regents Examinations, whether students graduated with a Regents Diploma with Advanced Designation, cumulative grade point average (GPA), propensity to take one or more Advanced Placement (AP) examinations, and intention to enroll in a four-year college. It is also unique in its focus on the longitudinal effects of FSCSs on student outcomes. The second chapter, “Student Attendance: A Persistent Challenge and Leading Indicator for Baltimore’s Community School Strategy,” uses mixed methods to examine the association between FSCSs and chronic absenteeism – a persistent and consequential problem in many urban school systems. Drawing on publicly available school data from Baltimore, Maryland, student data collected from FSCSs in the district from 2012 through 2017, and interview data collected from a purposefully selected sample of FSCS coordinators and local advocates, the chapter expands and deepens our understanding of how FSCSs impact students and families. Importantly, the authors investigate if and how length of time implementing the FSCS strategy (sustainability) moderates its effects on chronic absenteeism and the home-school relationships central to the strategy’s success. The importance of relationships between and among district, school, and community actors is a central theme in the third chapter, “A Question of Necessity or of Equity? Full-Service Community Schools and the (mis)Education of Black Youth.” This qualitative case study of a Northern California school district’s FSCS initiative as implemented at a predominantly African American middle school and a racially heterogeneous high school asks and answers the following questions: What are the characteristics (i.e., structural, pedagogical, relational, and discursive) of FSCSs that seek to support Black students’ well-being and academic success? How do Black parents and students experience these

4  Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo FSCSs? The study’s findings underscore the critical need for strategies that target specific populations of students as well as students’ holistic needs if FSCSs are to achieve their transformative potential. The fourth chapter, “The Role of Teachers in Transforming an Urban Full-Service Community High School: Exploring Processes of Change,” presents findings from a mixed methods case study of an award winning FSC high school in its sixth year of reform implementation. Through survey, interview, and observation data, the chapter details how teachers have created conditions to transform students’ learning in the case school. It also describes limits to the school’s transformation. Specifically, it identifies family outreach and teacher engagement in reform implementation as areas for further attention if the school is to promote equitable educational opportunities for all students. The fifth and sixth chapters, “Community Engagement through Partnerships: Lessons Learned from a Decade of Full-Service Community School Implementation,” and “Sustaining Full-Service Community Schools: Lessons from the Tulsa Area Community Schools Initiative,” describe factors and conditions influencing FSCS implementation over time in three mid-western school districts. Two of these districts have sustained reform implementation for more than five years, but not without challenges. Providing thoughtful analyses of these challenges, the chapters are both instructive and cautionary. Specifically, through an analysis of planning and implementation documents, teacher surveys and focus groups, and principal interviews, the fifth chapter presents findings and lessons about funding, collaborative structures and processes, and organizational responses to change learned over a ten-year period. The sixth chapter compares student outcomes for two districts that began implementing the FSCS strategy at the same time but took dramatically different approaches to its development. One district embraced community schools as an overall philosophy, whereas the other gradually abandoned the strategy in favor of other external programs and initiatives. Drawing on a mixture of longitudinal survey data collected from teachers and students, district-wide school and student-level achievement data, and qualitative data from local leaders involved in and witness to the design and development of the FSCS strategy, the study documents differences in student outcomes and the role of district context in supporting or thwarting meaningful community school reform. In the book’s conclusion, we highlight key findings from the chapters and their implications for practice in the field. We also discuss gaps that remain in the literature and directions for future research to address the concerns of skeptics and facilitate widespread, successful implementation of FSCSs. We hope that this book is broadly used because we believe the FSCS strategy has great promise for creating more equitable and socially just learning environments for underserved students. While we are

Introduction  5 optimistic about the strategy, we understand the importance of ongoing research to ensure its continued and improved implementation. Thus, we look forward to more such books in the future.

References Arimura, T., & Corter, C. (2010). School-based integrated early childhood programs: Impact on the well-being of children and parents. Interaction, 20, 23–32. Benson, L., Harkavy, I., Johanek, M. C., & Puckett, J. (2009). The enduring appeal of community schools. American Educator, 33, 22–47. Blank, M. J., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. P. (2003). Making a difference: Research and practice in community schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools. Retrieved from http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/ Page/CCSFullReport.pdf Blank, M. J., & Villarreal, L. (2015). Where it all comes together: How partnerships connect communities and schools. American Educator, 39, 4–9. Cummings, C., Dyson, A., & Todd, L. (2011). Beyond the school gates: Can full-service and extended schools overcome disadvantage? New York, NY: Routledge. Daniel, J., Quartz, K. H., & Oakes, J. (2019). Teaching in community schools: Creating conditions for deeper learning. Review of Research in Education, 43, 453–480. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821126 Dryfoos, J. (1994). Full-service schools: A revolution in health and social services for children, youth and families. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dryfoos, J. G. (1998). Safe passage: Making it through adolescence in a risky society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ferrara, J., & Jacobson, R. (Eds.) (2019). Community schools: People and places transforming education and communities. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Frankl, E. (2016). Community schools: Transforming struggling schools into thriving schools. Washington, DC: The Center for Popular Democracy. Retrieved from https://populardemocracy.org/sites/default/files/CommunitySchools-021116.pdf Galindo, C., & Sanders, M. (2019). Achieving equity in education through fullservice community schools. In S. Sheldon & T. Taylor-Vorbeck (Eds.), Handbook of family, school, community partnerships in education (pp. 511–530). Malden, MA: Wiley. Heers, M., Van Klaveren, C., Groot, W., & Maassen van den Brink, H. (2016). Community schools: What we know and what we need to know. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1016–1051. doi: 10.3102/0034654315627365 Jacobson, R. (2019). States lead the way on community school innovation. Brown Center Chalkboard. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ brown-center-chalkboard/2019/08/01/states-lead-the-way-on-communityschool-innovation/ Moore, K. A., & Emig, C. (2014). Integrated student supports: A summary of the evidence base for policymakers (White Paper #2014–05). Bethesda, MD: Child Trends. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/ up-loads/2014/02/2014-05ISSWhitePaper3.pdf

6  Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo Oakes, J., Maier, A., & Daniel, J. (2017). Community schools: An evidence-based strategy for equitable school improvement. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED574713.pdf Richardson, J. (2009). The full-service community school movement: Lessons from the James Adams community school. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Sanders, M., & Hembrick-Roberts, J. (2013). Leadership for service integration in schools. In L. Tillman & J. Scheurich (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational leadership for diversity and equity (pp. 476–493). London, UK: Routledge/Taylor and Francis. Whitehurst, G. J., & Croft, M. (2010). The Harlem children’s zone, promise neighborhoods, and the broader, bolder approach to education. Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-harlem-childrens-zone-promiseneighborhoods-and-the-broader-bolder-approach-to-education/

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

8  Stephen J. Caldas et al. “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,

Student Achievement  9 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

10  Stephen J. Caldas et al. their education (Adger, 2001; Biag & Castrechini, 2016; Bryan, 2005; Galindo, Sanders, & Abel, 2017; Gilroy, 2011; Goldschmidt, Huang, & Chinen, 2007; Houser, 2016; Little, Wimer, & Weiss, 2008). Full-Service Community Schools and Student Achievement Achievement data from FSCSs across the nation have reported positive academic gains for students. Houser (2016), for example, studied academic achievement and participation in school and community extracurricular programs at an urban FSCS serving students in grades 7–12. Hierarchical linear modeling and descriptive analyses indicated that participation in out-of-school time (OST) enrichment programs positively influenced student achievement. The effects were especially significant for linguistically and culturally diverse students. The academic benefits of participating in OST enrichment programs may be both direct as well as indirect by reducing school absenteeism and therefore supporting students’ success in school (Blank & Villarreal, 2015; Chang & Lawyer, 2012; Sanders, Watkins-Lewis, & Cochrane, 2017). Biag and Castrechini (2016) also found a positive relationship between participation in OST enrichment programs at FSCSs and student achievement. Their longitudinal descriptive case study compared six community schools with ten non-community schools in the same district. The six FSCSs – two K-5, three K-8, and one 6–8 – provided programs in the areas of family engagement, OST learning, and social support services in low-income, mostly Latinx communities. A review of student records found positive gains in attendance and math achievement. They also found that participation in multiple programs led to greater positive outcomes than participating in just one. Similarly, participation in Tulsa FSCSs’ OST programs yielded higher student scores on state assessments in reading (+32 points) and math (+19 points) compared to scores at non-FSCSs (Adams, 2010). Improvements in reading and math test scores and grades for students in FSCSs compared to their counterparts in non-FSCSs were also reported by City Connects in Boston (Walsh et al., 2014), the Carnegie Foundation in Chicago (Bryk, Sebring Bender, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010), LA BEST (Goldschmidt et al., 2007), and The After School Corporation (TASC) in New York City (Little et al., 2008). However, much of the evidence to date is correlational, prompting Heers, Van Klaveren, Groot, and van de Brink (2016) to call for more “causal evidence” on the effectiveness of community schools. Furthermore, Min, Anderson, and Chen (2017) and Houser (2016) have recommended more studies with comparison groups, with Houser (2016) specifically calling for more comparisons between FSCSs and traditional schools. Responding to such calls, this comparative study examines the high school academic outcomes of four cohorts of students who attended

Student Achievement  11 Key Elementary FSCS with a group of four cohorts of students who attended a matched traditional public elementary school, President Magnet, in the same district at the same time.

District Context Key Elementary FSCS and President Magnet are located in the same school district in a sprawling suburban area in the southeastern part of NYS. Suburban American schools have undergone major demographic changes over the last 40 years (Sanders & Galindo, 2014). As a result, many suburban schools have taken on characteristics of inner-city schools, enrolling large percentages of poor and minority students, English learners, students struggling academically, students living in multi-family rental units, and transient students (Bankston & Caldas, 2017; Caldas & Bankston, 2014). According to the American Community Survey, between 1970 and 2014, the percentage of Black students in suburban public schools in the United States increased from 8% to 13% (Ruggles, Genadek, Goeken, Grover, & Sobek, 2015). Over the same period, the percentage of Latinx students in suburban schools increased much more dramatically, from just under 8%–to 23%. Moreover, suburban Black and Latinx students tend to come from households that make only slightly more than half the income of suburban White students. In the 34 years from 1980 to 2014, the percentage of suburban public school students at or below the poverty level increased by 40% (Ruggles et al., 2015). As we describe below, the suburban New York community where Key Elementary FSCS and President Magnet are located is in some ways more like an urban community, with high poverty rates and large percentages of students of color and English learners. Key Elementary FSCS and President Magnet School are situated in mostly segregated, majority Latinx suburban communities, within a larger school district where a majority of the population in 2014 spoke a language other than English at home. The average household income of the community is less than half the income of the neighboring, affluent and largely White community. Based in part on eligibility for the federally funded free and reduced meals (FARMs) program, more than twothirds of the school district’s students were classified by the New York State Education Department (NYSED) as economically disadvantaged in 2014, although the district itself is funded at roughly the state average of $19,863 per student in 2014 adjusted dollars (NYSED, 2016). The school district has four elementary schools (grades K-5), one middle school (grades 6–8), and one high school (grades 9–12). Both the community and the school district are largely segregated along class and race/ethnic lines. The school district’s average household income is roughly three-quarters the county’s average ($89,968 in 2017 dollars) and less than half the income of the neighboring, largely White district.

12  Stephen J. Caldas et al. Although racial/ethnic achievement gaps existed at both levels, elementary education outcomes in the district were much lower than outcomes for NYS in general. On the 2015 Grade 3–8 English Language Arts (ELA) state assessment, for instance, only about one-fifth of the district’s students scored at the “Proficient” level, compared with almost a third of students at the state-level. While 13% of Black, 15% of Latinx, and 34% of White students in the district scored “Proficient” on the ELA assessment, the state average for these groups was 18%, 21%, and 40%, respectively (NYSED, 2016). Results were similarly low on the grades 3–8 Math assessment, with only 20% of the district’s students scoring at the “Proficient” level in this subject, compared with 38% at the statelevel. Eleven percent of Black, 18% of Latinx, and 33% of White students in the district scored at the proficient level in math compared to 21% of Black, 25% of Latinx, and 50% of White students at the state level. Unlike elementary school-level achievement, high school-level academic achievement in the district compared favorably or even surpassed overall statewide averages. Of the 2011 cohort of general education students (who were scheduled to graduate in 2015), 88% scored at the proficient level on the state’s high school ELA exam, compared to a statewide average of 84%. There was still a racial achievement gap, though it was smaller, with 91% of White (90% at state-level), 88% of Latinx (75% at state-level), and 88% of Black (75% at state-level) general education students in the district achieving proficiency on the high school ELA exam. Likewise, the district’s 2011 cohort of secondary general education students outperformed the state on the mathematics assessment, with 91% attaining proficiency on the state secondary mathematics exam compared to a statewide average of 86%. By race/ethnicity, the comparable district proficiency rates were 93% for White, 91% for Latinx, and 88% for Black students. The graduation rate for the district’s students in 2015 was 80% (79% for Latinx students), which was similar to the New York (NY) state average of 79% for all students, and much higher than the 65% graduation rate for all New York Latinx students (NYSED, 2016). As for students graduating with a “Regents Diploma” having an “advanced” designation, only 19% of the district’s graduates attained this status, compared to 31% of graduates statewide. No district-level data for advanceddiplomas by race/ethnicity were available.

Partnerships at Key Elementary FSCS Key Elementary’s journey to becoming an FSCS began when a new principal was appointed in 1996. Her personal schooling experience as a student and teacher in an urban, Title I school, provided her with a fresh vision as she sought to lead her new suburban school to success. To transform from a traditional school to an FSCS where the organization

Student Achievement  13 and curriculum were exclusively controlled by school personnel, the new principal used conceptions of civic capacity (Noguera, 2003; Stone, Henig, Jones, & Pierannunzi, 2001) to complement the Whole Child Education approach (Santiago et al., 2012). The principal adopted the philosophy of “building community from the inside out, and the outside in” to create a school infrastructure and culture that valued the contributions of all stakeholders. In fact, this philosophy of building community capacity became part of the school’s mission statement and was used consistently during the early implementation years to craft visioning activities. Over time, the visioning and brainstorming activities led stakeholders to take personal ownership for the school’s decisions and take action to strengthen the school, and, in turn, the community. FSCSs are grown based on community needs, goals, and assets. Given the uniqueness of each school setting, partnerships are developed accordingly. There is no magic template to address all school concerns but rather a gradual process of problem-solving that fits individual communities. As such, impetus for the first partnership at Key Elementary FSCS emerged through conversations with students’ families. Through these conversations, the principal became aware of the need for after-school programing. In 1998, a local affiliate of a national organization, Service, Employment, Redevelopment (SER), assisted the school in addressing this need (Santiago et al., 2012). From the initial partnership with SER, Key Elementary FSCS grew to have five major partnerships: SER, Open Door Health Services, Manhattanville College Professional Development School (PDS), The Guidance Center Mental Health, and Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) Adult Education Programs. Each partnership was determined by examining the needs of Key Elementary FSCS’s students, families, teachers, and community and is briefly described below. SER: Afterschool Enrichment and Support SER’s mission was to support Latinx students through educational and employment opportunities. As a way of responding to parents’ need for OST, SER offered afterschool programing. Initial OST offerings were homework help and remedial instruction to approximately 30 students in grades 3–5. Through the years, the partnership expanded to serve over 150 students in grades K-5. Several types of programs were offered including martial arts, chess, computers, One World Global Education Club, ethnic dance, drama club, and creative arts programs (Gómez, Ferrara, Santiago, Fanelli, & Taylor, 2012; Santiago et al., 2012). Over time, classroom teachers, college students and professors, and community members served as instructors for the programs and aligned the tutoring curriculum with Key Elementary FSCS’s instructional goals. By 2001, the after-school program was funded through grants and offered five days per week.

14  Stephen J. Caldas et al. Open Door: School-Based Health Center Open Door is a local partner with a mission to provide quality health care and outreach to underserved communities. It continues to support the health and wellness of Key Elementary FSCS’s students along with providing ancillary health benefits for parents and staff on-site. Prior to its implementation in 2004, only 23% of Key Elementary FSCS students had medical insurance and access to health care. In 2005, as a result of this robust partnership, 88% of the students were covered by medical insurance with on-going access to health care at the school. By 2010, the percentage of students covered by medical insurance rose to 99%. A nurse practitioner and a school nurse worked in concert to provide access to medical care and immediate medical attention. The two health professionals dispensed medications, wrote prescriptions, administered flu shots, and diagnosed illnesses. During the school day, Open Door had sponsored programs such as Fit Kids to target childhood obesity and Open Airways for students with asthma. Open Door had also rolled out the Smoke Free Home Pledge to combat the negative health effects of secondary smoke in families with smokers. Additionally, Open Door partnered with SER to offer a peer-to-peer health education series. The series covered topics such as preparing healthy meals, learning about body mass index (BMI), and making exercise fun (Gómez et al., 2012; Santiago et al., 2012). Manhattanville College: Professional Development School Manhattanville College is a small liberal arts college located only a few miles from the district studied. Since its inception in 1841, Manhattanville’s mission has been to transform lives through education, and service to the community, and in doing so, create ethically and socially responsible leaders for a global world. With this mission in mind, the college’s school of education sought to expand its reach beyond the campus and partner with a school in the local community. The partnership between Key Elementary FSCS and Manhattanville College’s graduate school of education is unique. Unlike university-assisted FSCSs, where the university takes a lead agency role for implementation and oversight of the community schools strategy, a PDS serves as an educational partner focused on innovative ways to enhance teacher preparation, professional development, educational research, and student achievement. With these four goals in mind, the PDS sought to address many of the needs expressed by Key Elementary FSCS and PDS stakeholders. Since its inception in 2001, the PDS has focused on increasing student success and building teacher and family capacity. To achieve these broadly defined goals, college resources have been aligned to school needs. A combination of on-site and campus-based initiatives have strengthened the school community. The school of education has supplied a professor in residence to work two days a week at the school. The professor along

Student Achievement  15 with the school’s leadership committee have developed professional development and family engagement activities and programs as well as coordinated on-site undergraduate and graduate-level methods courses to support student learning and enhance teachers’ practice. Undergraduate special education, literacy, science, and social studies methods courses held in Key Elementary FSCS classrooms have provided additional assistance for students and teachers alike; while graduate courses have been geared to in-service teachers pursuing advanced certification requirements. Regardless of the type of courses hosted at Key Elementary FSCS, each responds to a school-identified need for assistance. In this way, the college’s teacher candidates and student teachers have provided remediation and enrichment activities for students, and community outreach programs have helped to increase family engagement. During the early stages of the partnership, approximately 25% of Key Elementary FSCS’s students and teachers were served by the college offerings. In 2018, all students and teachers participated in one or more programs or activities. Guidance Center: Mental Health To complement the general medical health partnership, Key Elementary FSCS widened the scope of health services to include a social and mental health agency called the Guidance Center. The mission of the Guidance Center is to improve the well-being of people of all ages through innovative and effective programs that enable everyone to learn, work, and thrive. As early as 1999, a case manager and a bilingual social worker teamed up to provide a safety net for students and their families when in crisis or at risk. Their therapeutic counseling functioned to problem-solve and troubleshoot. The pair provided individual and group counseling for students that extended to families when necessary. A portion of these professionals’ time was also spent presenting workshops and training interns to empower families. Some topics included “navigating the American school system,” “the rights of your child with special needs,” and nutrition (Gómez et al., 2012; Santiago et al., 2012). Approximately 350 of Key Elementary FSCS’s families per year benefited from collaboration with the Guidance Center. Two serendipitous programs that were an outgrowth of the Guidance Center’s work were A Second Cup of Coffee, a parent support group, and Key’s Closet, a resource for gently used clothing and shoes. Each was formed as a response to the needs of the Key Elementary FSCS community. BOCES: Adult Education Programs NYS’s Board or Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) was created by the state’s legislature “to provide shared educational programs and services to school districts within the state … to help meet students’

16  Stephen J. Caldas et al. evolving educational needs through cost-effective and relevant programs” (Capital Region BOCES, 2017, n.p.). Given its mission, it was the perfect partnership for family engagement. BOCES holds a variety of classes for the parents and adults of the community at Key Elementary FSCS during and after school hours. Initially, the program served a small cohort of parents. After the first year of success, the family and community members’ participation increased and course offerings rose from two to ten per year. Popular classes focus on American citizenship, English as a second language, high school equivalency diploma preparation, and basic computer skills. Flexible hours have allowed for wide participation from the adults in the community, who can attend classes while their children are in school as well as after work (Santiago et al., 2012). Of the original five partnerships created at Key Elementary FSCS between 1997 and 2006, three remain. Two of the five partners were replaced with new agencies. SER, the after-school program provider, was replaced by a local nonprofit, the Carver Center. Since 2016, the Carver Center has provided afterschool programing for all schools in the district. The mental health provider, the Guidance Center, was replaced in 2012 by Family Services of Westchester. Thus, despite a few changes, Key Elementary FSCS has been able to offer comprehensive, integrative programs to students and families for over 20 years. This study examines the effects of attendance at Key Elementary FSCS on students’ high school outcomes.

Research Methods and Data Sources Using administrative data from the school district, we took a quantitative approach to compare high school educational outcomes (e.g., test scores, cumulative GPA, aspirations, graduation with advanced diploma) between students who attended Key Elementary (the only FSCS in the district) and President Magnet School (a comparison school). The Comparison School The school district where research was conducted has four elementary schools that feed into one middle school (grades 6–8) and one high school. Of the four elementary schools, one served a mostly White, higher socioeconomic part of the district. Of the other two elementary schools with which we could compare Key Elementary FSCS, President Magnet School was most similar in terms of the racial/ethnic mix and socioeconomic status of its student body. President Magnet School had a traditional structure (it was not a community school), and its sole partnership was with a health and medical agency. As noted above, the partnerships with Key Elementary FSCS included health and medical, social services/ counseling, extended learning opportunities, adult education, family engagement, and a school-university collaboration (Ferrara & Gómez, 2014; Ferrara, Santiago, & Siry, 2008).

Student Achievement  17 Participating Students Our analysis compared 128 Key Elementary FSCS students and 187 President Magnet School students. We studied four cohorts of students who matriculated through both elementary schools during the same time period, beginning with the first cohort of students who entered kindergarten in the fall of 1998, and the last cohort who entered kindergarten in the fall of 2001. The first cohort graduated from the district high school in June of 2011, and the last cohort graduated in June of 2014. Sociodemographic and achievement information was pulled from students’ high school files. A district administrative assistant compiled the achievement data for all of the approximately 32–46 graduates from each of the two schools for each of the four years. Only students who graduated from high school were included in this study. The two samples of students were matched in terms of demographics (see Table 1.1). Regarding socioeconomic status, 70.3% of the Key Elementary FSCS students qualified for the FARMs program, compared to 73.8% of President Magnet’s former students. English learners constituted 9.4% of former students at Key Elementary FSCS and 9.6% at President Magnet School. Students classified with a disability constituted 5.5% of the Key Elementary FSCS sample and 9.6% of the President Magnet School sample. The two samples were statistically similar in terms of racial/ethnic composition and other student characteristics that are important correlates of academic achievement.

Table 1.1 Descriptive statistics for student samples from Kindergarten Cohorts in Fall 1998 to Fall 2001: by elementary school attended and total Variable

Key School N (%)

President School N (%)

Total N (%)

White (Latinx and non-Latinx) Black or African American (non-Latinx) Low socioeconomic status (% FARMs) Special education EL status Gender Males Females Total students

114 (89.1) 14 (10.9)

164 (87.7) 23 (12.3)

278 (88.3) 37 (11.7)

90 (70.3)

138 (73.8)

228 (72.4)

7 (5.5) 12 (9.4)

18 (9.6) 18 (9.6)

25 (7.9) 30 (9.5)

61 (47.7) 67 (52.3) 128

104 (55.6) 83 (44.4) 187

165 (52.4) 150 (47.6) 315

Note: There were no statistically significant differences between the two schools.

18  Stephen J. Caldas et al. Student samples were also matched in terms of the overall demographic composition of the elementary schools they attended during the 2003–2004 school year (the common year when all of the cohorts would have still been in elementary school). Results indicated that there was no statistically significant disproportionality in the distribution of White and Black students, or males and females, between the two school samples in 2003–2004. Measures and Analytical Strategies We examined differences in the following student outcomes for the two samples: 9th–12th grade cumulative GPA, SAT I (Reading, Writing, Math and a composite of all three), ACT (composite score), NYS Regents examination (scores are reported as the percentage correct and can range from 0 to 100), graduation with an NYS Regents diploma with Advanced Designation (1 = yes), AP exam completion (1 = yes), and college aspirations (1 = to attend a four-year college or university). We also examined the following student demographic characteristics: race (White or Black), special education status, English learner (EL) status, gender, and FARMs eligibility. Latinx ethnicity is not categorized as a race, as any student could be classified as Latinx. In practice, no Blacks were classified as Latinx, 260 Latinxs were classified as White, and 18 Whites were classified as non-Latinx. Unadjusted differences in demographic characteristics between schools were conducted using independent-samples t-test means comparisons, chi-square tests of proportionality and logistic regression. To create an overall SAT 1 score, we used maximum likelihood factor analysis. Adjusted differences (adjusted for correlates) in student outcome measures were examined conducting analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), when the dependent variable was continuous and logistic regression when the dependent variable was dichotomous. The alpha level for statistical significance was established as p < .05, and unless otherwise indicated, all tests of significance were two-tailed. Findings from these analyses are described below. Table 1.2 presents a correlation matrix of all variables for the whole sample of students (from both schools combined). As can be seen, the largest significant correlations are among the academic achievement variables: SAT I factor scores (combination of the Reading, Writing and Math scores), cumulative GPA, whether the students took an AP exam, students’ aspirations to attend a four-year college or university, and whether the student received an NYS Regents Diploma with Advanced Designation.1 In other words, students who performed high on one measure of academic achievement tended to also perform high on the other measures as well.

−.051 (315)

−.017 (315) .176** (315)

3 −.131* (315) −.006 (315) .063 (315)

4

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Significant values bolded for ease of interpretation.

8. Took AP Exam (0 = no, 1 = yes) 9. Aspire to 4 Year College (0 = no, 1 = yes) 10. Advanced Designation Diploma (0 = no, 1 = yes) 11. School Attended (0 = President Magnet, 1 = Key FSCS)

1. Race (0 = White, 1 = Non-White) 2. EL Status (0 = no, 1 = yes) 3. Socioeconomic Status (0 = no FARM, 1 = FARM lunch) 4. Gender (0 = male, 1 = female) 5. Special Ed. Status (0 = no, 1 = yes 6. SAT I Factor Score (combined Read, Write, Math) 7. Cumulative GPA

2 −.121 (227) −.217** (227) −.093 (227) −.045 (227) .145* (227)

−.045 (315)

6

.148** (315) .065 (315) .076 (315)

5

.175** (315) .131* (315) .585*** (227)

−200*** (315) .112* (315) .104 (315)

7

.041 (303) .106* (303) .317*** (220) .414*** (303) .236*** (303)

.476*** (315)

−.073 (303) −.150** (303) −.012 (303)

9

.169** (315) −.203*** (315) .368*** (227)

−.147 (315) .030 (315) .033 (315)

8

Table 1.2 Paired-wise Bivariate Pearson correlations between central variables in study (with n in parentheses)

.567*** (315) .364*** (315) .307*** (303)

−.054 (315) −.167** (315) .533*** (227)

−.070 (315) −.008 (315) .004 (315)

10

.089 (315) .071 (315) .120* (303) .086 (315)

.078 (315) −.076 (315) .103 (227)

.021 (315) −.004 (315) −.038 (315)

11

Student Achievement 19

20  Stephen J. Caldas et al. ANCOVA was the statistical technique used to compare mean cumulative GPA averages, mean SAT I scores, mean Regents Examination Scores, the percentage of students receiving a Regents Diploma with Advanced Designation, the percentage of students attempting an AP exam, and the percentage of students planning to attend a fouryear college or university. These means and percentages were compared adjusting for important covariates (possible extraneous factors related to academic achievement). These five covariates included student race (White or Black), special education status, EL status, gender and disadvantaged socioeconomic status (whether the student qualified for the FARMs program). Adjusted mean scores between schools were compared using ANCOVA to determine whether there were statistically significant differences after the influence of these covariates was removed.

Results: Academic Comparison of Key Elementary FSCS to President Magnet Following are the statistical results reported for each outcome, all of which are displayed in Table 1.3 along with effect sizes (partial eta squared). Table 1.3 Comparison of academic outcomes between key elementary FSCS and President Magnet School sample cohorts Key Elementary President Magnet Adjusted Partial FSCS Cohorts School Cohorts eta squared Unadjusted Means Unadjusted Means (effect size) (ηp2) SAT I Combined SAT 1 Factor Scorea Reading Math Writing New York State Regents Diploma: advanced Designation Cumulative GPA: Took AP exam Intent to enroll in 4-year college a

.114*

−.082

.015

451.2** 479.3 444.0 29%

432.3 476.2 430.5 21.4%

.021 .002 .010 .007

81.5 37% 57.5%***

80.2 30% 43.5%

.006 .002 .017

Factor score created using Maximum Likelihood, unrotated factor analysis. *Marginally significantly different means based on ANCOVA (F = [1, 220]3.258, p = .072). **Statistically significant mean differences based on ANCOVA (F[1, 223] = 4.746, p = .030). ***Statistically significant mean differences based on ANCOVA (F[1, 297] = 5.062, p = .025).

Student Achievement  21 NYS Regents Examinations The large majority of students in the total sample took one or more of the state administered Regents Examinations (310 of 315 students), which are typically administered beginning in the eighth grade, and may be taken through the twelfth grade. Passing scores on these tests are required for graduation from high school in NYS. Scores are reported as a percentage correct and can range from 0 to 100. Based on students’ scores, there are two levels of high school diplomas awarded: a “Regents Diploma” and a “Regents with Advanced Designation” diploma. To be awarded the latter, as noted earlier, students must score 65% correct or better on the Regents Examinations administered in Comprehensive English, three areas of Math, Global History, United States History, Science, and a language other than English. A larger percentage of the Key Elementary FSCS sample (29%) were awarded Diplomas with Advanced Designation than was the sample of former President Magnet School students (21.4%). While seemingly large, once covariates were controlled for, this difference was not statistically significant (F[1, 308] = 2.015, p = .157), and the effect size was small (ηp2 = .007). Additionally, logistic regression controlling for the covariates was conducted to determine whether the school attended predicted whether or not the students were awarded an advanced diploma. The results were not significant. The mean scores of all Regents Examinations for both samples of students were compared using ANCOVA, controlling for the five sociodemographic covariates. The Key Elementary FSCS sample had higher average scores than the President Magnet School sample on each of the following Regents Examinations: Algebra 2/Trigonometry, English Language Arts, Geometry, Global History, Integrated Algebra, Living Environment, Physical Earth Science, Chemistry, Physics, United States History, and Italian. The President Magnet School sample scored slightly better on the Regents Math A and B Examinations, the Spanish Examination, and the French Examination. Thus, students attending the Key Elementary FSCS, on average, scored higher on 11 (out of 15) examinations while students attending President Magnet School had higher average scores on only four examinations. However, there were no significant mean score differences between the two samples of students on any of the 15 Regents Examinations. Cumulative GPA High school cumulative GPA scores were available for all students in both samples from the school district administrative data.2 The Key Elementary FSCS sample had an average cumulative score of 81.5 compared to the President Magnet School sample’s adjusted average of 80.2. There was no significant difference between the adjusted means for the

22  Stephen J. Caldas et al. two schools controlling for the covariates. Thus, while the Key Elementary FSCS sample had higher average cumulative GPAs than the President Magnet School sample, these differences were not statistically significant. SAT I Using Maximum Likelihood factor analysis in the SPSS statistical software program, we computed a total SAT I score combining the Reading, Writing, and Math results on this college placement exam.3 Only one factor had an Eigen value greater than one, which explained 77.3% of the total variance, suggesting that in reality the three separate parts of the SAT I actually constitute an underlying SAT I academic achievement factor. Since there was only one factor, SPSS cannot generate a rotated solution, as the unrotated factor solution is the optimal solution. The three factor loadings were excellent, ranging from .704 (for Math) to .887 (for Writing). Comparing the two schools on this combined SAT 1 factor score revealed that the Key Elementary FSCS sample had a marginally significantly higher unadjusted overall mean score (.194) compared to the President Magnet School sample −.082 using a two-tailed test of significance (F[1, 220] = 3.258, p = .072). If we assume directionality, hypothesizing that students in a community school should outperform a matched noncommunity school, then a one-tailed test of significance would be justified, and we can assume that the Key Elementary FSCS had a significantly higher SAT 1 factor score than did President Magnet School (p = .036). The effect size for this difference in adjusted SAT I academic achievement factor scores, though, was small (ηp2 = .015). When comparisons were made between the individual adjusted means of the Reading, Writing, and Math sub-scores, it was determined that there was only one statistically significant difference (two-tailed test), which was between the adjusted mean Reading scores of the two samples (unadjusted Key Elementary FSCS = 451.8, President Magnet School = 432.2; F [1, 223] = 4.746, p = .030). However, the effect size for this difference was small (ηp2 = .021). In sum, the Key Elementary FSCS sample scored marginally but significantly higher on the overall SAT 1 academic achievement factor score than did the President Magnet School sample, scoring higher on each of the three SAT 1 subcomponents. Only one difference (reading scores) reached statistical significance, although with a small effect size. Advanced Placement (AP) Examinations The series of AP exams were available for all students in the district to take during high school. The students collectively took 16 different AP exams. Among the Key Elementary FSCS sample, 36.7% of students

Student Achievement  23 took at least one AP exam, while 29.9% of the President Magnet School sample took at least one exam. This difference in the percentage of test takers is not statistically significant when controlling for covariates (F[1, 308] = .676, p = .411). Additionally, logistic regression controlling for the covariates was conducted to determine whether the school attended predicted taking an AP exam or not. The results were not significant (Exp[B] = 1.261, p = .361). Post-Secondary Aspirations During their senior year in high school, students were asked by their guidance counselors to indicate where they would spend the forthcoming year after graduation. Possible student responses included naming the institution of higher education that they aspired to attend (whether a technical or trade school, community college, or four-year college), listing the military, indicating they were going to work, or taking a year off. Well over half (57.5%) of the Key Elementary FSCS sample indicated that they intended to attend a four-year college or university, compared to only 43.5% of the President Magnet School sample. Even when adjusting for the covariates, this difference was statistically significant (F[1, 297] = 5.062, p = .025). Thus, all things considered, former Key Elementary FSCS students were significantly more likely to indicate their intention to attend a four-year college or university than were students who had attended the President Magnet School. However, the effect size for this specific difference was relatively small (ηp2 = .017).

Discussion This study compared the outcomes on several high school measures of academic achievement and educational aspirations between a sample of students who attended a K-5 FSCS and a sample of students in the same NY district who attended a regular public K-5 elementary school. We looked at these outcomes approximately ten years after the four cohorts of students attended their respective elementary schools. Students in the two schools were closely matched in terms of racial/ ethnic composition, FARMs eligibility, EL status, and special education status. Both elementary schools were also closely matched in terms of these same criteria, the primary difference being that one of the two schools was an FSCS over the entire period that the sample of students attended it. Several academic outcomes were measured. Researchers agree that many of these measures, such as desire to attend a four-year college or university, capture potentially life-changing aspirations (Bryk et al., 2010; Dryfoos, Quinn, & Barkin, 2005). This is one of the two measures where the sample of students who attended Key Elementary FSCS

24  Stephen J. Caldas et al. achieved significantly higher results than their counterparts in the more traditional elementary school, even when controlling for important covariates. The other measure was the SAT I Reading test. That is, on average, students attending Key Elementary reported higher educational aspirations and higher reading scores than their counterparts attending President Magnet School. These findings provide longitudinal evidence of some of the potentially long-term effects of attending an FSCS with many fruitful partnerships and a Whole Child Education philosophy (Santiago, Ferrara, & Blank, 2008). The sample of students who attended the Key Elementary FSCS also outperformed the comparison group of students on many other measures, though the differences between the two samples did not reach statistical significance. The former Key Elementary FSCS students scored higher on more Regents Examinations, were awarded more New York Regents Diplomas with Advanced Designation, completed more Advanced Placement exams, and had higher cumulative GPAs and ACT composite scores. Since obtaining statistical significance is a direct function of sample size, and since the sample size in this study was relatively small, our non-significant findings by no means  suggest unimportant findings. The American Statistical Association has issued a statement cautioning against putting too much emphasis on p values (statistical significance) alone, noting that p  values do not indicate the importance of a result (Wasserstein & Lazar, 2016). Importantly, we only looked at academic outcomes. It is possible that the sample of students who attended Key Elementary FSCS are also healthier, happier, and better-adjusted adults as a consequence of the additional care and attention they received as elementary school students, compared to the students who attended the traditional elementary school. Also, the parents of these FSCS students may have been more involved in their children’s education as a consequence of the many partnerships between their children’s school and outside agencies, including the local college. This “parent-school” social capital has been singled out as a very important determinant of a child’s success in school (Caldas & Cornigans, 2015; Horvat, Weininger, & Lareau, 2003). Moreover, the Key Elementary FSCS parents often attended events at the local college that provided resources and supports in their native languages. These parents may have been better equipped to help their own children as a consequence of participating in these collaborative relationships. They may have also been provided services that enhanced the quality of their own lives (see Galindo & Sanders, 2019). Much research has linked parental health and success with the health and success of their children (see Marmot & Wilkinson, 1999). This study thus highlights the importance of future research examining the effects of FSCSs on nonacademic outcomes for students and families.

Student Achievement  25

Limitations and Conclusion Our study has some important limitations. There is no guarantee that every student who graduated began their educational journey in the kindergarten of the two elementary schools. They may have entered their cohorts in any grade from kindergarten through fifth. Thus, some students may have had impactful elementary school experiences outside of the two schools in our study. Another limitation is that the study did not include data related to school attendance or participation in Key Elementary FSCS partnerships. Therefore, it is unclear which component or components of the reform strategy at Key Elementary FSCS affected the measured student outcomes. As Biag and Castrechini (2016) suggested, perhaps the contrast in academic achievement between Key Elementary FSCS and President Magnet School was a result of the multiple strategies approach of the FSCS. Students and families at Key Elementary FSCS had the opportunity to participate in several wrap-around supportive services, not just one. There may be a synergistic effect of participation in multiple partnerships by both students and parents that creates an overall positive effect greater than the sum of the individual parts. The systematic differences in the performance between the two schools so closely matched on student background characteristics is unlikely to be a chance finding. However, more research is necessary to explain the differences in outcomes between these two schools. Potential questions to be answered are: Do the teachers and administrators at Key Elementary FSCS feel more empowered, better prepared, and more effective than their peers at President Magnet School? Are the teachers and administrators at Key Elementary FSCS more student-centered and/or more in tune to the social and emotional health of students than their peers at President Magnet School? Are some of the partnerships at Key Elementary FSCS more impactful in regard to student achievement than others? If there are important educator differences between the two schools, is the professional development provided by the local partnering college an important reason for this difference? It is important to drill down and quantify more specifically, what it is about an FSCS that differentiates it from other schools serving similar students and families within the same district. We have aimed to contribute to this effort to document the effects of FSCSs with greater specificity. Yet, we realize that there are many questions that remain unanswered and join others (Heers et al., 2016; Houser, 2016; Min et al., 2017) in calling for more such studies.

Notes 1 Regents Diploma with Advanced Designation requires a score of 65 out of 100 or better on Comprehensive English, all three Mathematics, Global History, U.S. History, one physical and one life science, and Language other than English Regents examinations.

26  Stephen J. Caldas et al.

References Adams, C. M. (2010). The community school effect: Evidence from an evaluation of the Tulsa area community school initiative. Tulsa, OK: Oklahoma Center for Educational Policy. Retrieved from http://www.csctulsa.org/files/file/Achievement%20Evidence%20from%20an%20Evaluation%20of%20TACSI.pdf Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2002). Building comprehensive, multifaceted, and integrated approaches to address barriers to student learning. Childhood Education, 78, 263–268. doi:10.1080/00094056.2002.10522738 Adger, C. T. (2001). School-community-based organization partnerships for language minority students’ school success. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 6(1–2), 7–25. doi:10.1207/S15327671ESPR0601-2_2 Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., & Olson, L. (2014). The long shadow: Family background disadvantaged urban youth, and the transition to adulthood. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2012). Making the case for educating the whole child. Retrieved from http://www.wholechildeducation. org/assets/content/mx-resources/WholeChild-MakingTheCase.pdf Bankston, C. L., & Caldas, S. J. (2002). A troubled dream: The promise and failure of school desegregation in Louisiana. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Bankston, C. L., & Caldas, S. J. (2017). Race, ethnicity and social capital in the changing suburbs. In S. B. Wepner & D. W. Gómez (Eds.), Challenges facing suburban schools: Promising responses to changing student populations (pp. 15–29). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Biag, M., & Castrechini, S. (2016). Coordinated strategies to help the whole child: Examining the contributions of full-service community school. Journal of Education of Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 21(3), 157–173. doi:10.1 080/10824669.2016.1172231 Blank, M. J., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. P. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in community schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools, Institute for Educational Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/Page/CCSFullReport.pdf Blank, M. J., & Shah, B. P. (2004). Educators and community sharing responsibility for student learning. Community Schools. Info Brief Number 36. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved from http://sparkaction.org/node/26370 Blank, M. J., & Villarreal, L. (2015). Where it all comes together: How partnerships connect communities and schools. American Educator, 34, 4–9. Bronfenbrenner, W. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bryan, J. (2005). Fostering educational resilience and achievement in urban schools through school-family-community partnerships. Professional School Counseling, 8, 219–227.

Student Achievement  27 Bryk, A. S., Sebring Bender, P., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing for school improvement: Lesson from Chicago. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Caldas, S. J., & Bankston, C. L. (2014). Still failing: The continuing paradox of school desegregation (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Caldas, S. J., & Cornigans, L. (2015). Race, ethnicity and social capital among middle and upper- middle class elementary school families: A structural equation model. School Community Journal, 25(1), 137–156. Capital Region BOCES. (2017). About BOCES. Albany, NY: Capital Region BOCES Communications Services. Retrieved from https://www.boces.org/ about-boces/ Chang, T., & Lawyer, C. (2012). Lightening the load: A look at four ways that community schools can support effective teaching. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://cdn.americanprogress.org/ wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/01/pdf/chang_wraparound.pdf Dryfoos, J. G. (2003). A community school in action. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 11(4), 203–205. Dryfoos, J., & Maguire, S. (2002). Inside full-service community schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Dryfoos, J., Quinn, J., & Barkin, C. (2005). Community schools in action: Lessons from a decade of practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Epstein, J. L. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. New York, NY: Routledge. Evans, G. W., & Kim, P. (2007). Childhood poverty and health: Cumulative risk exposure and stress deregulation. Psychological Science, 18(11), 953–957. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02008.x Ferguson, R. F., Phillips, S. F., Rowley, J. F. S., & Friedlander, J. W. (2015). The influence of teaching: Beyond standardized test scores: Engagement, mindsets, and agency. Cambridge, MA: The Achievement Gap Initiative at Harvard University, Raikes Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.agi.harvard.edu/ projects/TeachingandAgency.pdf Ferrara, J., & Gómez, D. W. (2014). Broadening the scope of PDS liaisons’ roles in community schools. School-University Partnerships, 7(1), 101–117. Ferrara, J., & Santiago, E. (2007). Crossroads: Where community meets character in the pursuit of academic excellence. The Journal of Research in Character Education, 5(1), 95–101. Ferrara, J., Santiago, E., & Siry, C. (2008). Preparing teachers to serve diverse learners: A PDS/ full-service community school model. In I. Guadarrama, J.  Ramsey, & J. Nath (Eds.), Professional development schools research (Vol. 3, pp. 151–161). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Galindo, C., & Sanders, M. (2019). Achieving equity in education through full-service community schools. In S. B. Sheldon & T. A. Turner-Vorbeck (Eds.), Handbook of family, school, community partnerships in education (pp. 511–530). Malden, MA: Wiley. Galindo, C., Sanders, M., & Abel, Y. (2017). Transforming educational experiences in low income communities: A qualitative case study of social capital in a full-service community School. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1_suppl), 140S–163S. doi:10.1002/9781119083054.ch24

28  Stephen J. Caldas et al. Gandara, P. (2017). The potential and promise of Latino students. American Educator, 4–11, 42–42. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/ae/spring2017/ gandara García, E. (2015). Inequalities at the starting gate: Cognitive and non-cognitive skill gaps between 2010–2011 kindergarten classmates. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Gilroy, M. (2011). Community schools seek to improve high school achievement; college readiness. Educational Digest, 77(1), 49–52. Goldschmidt, P., Huang, D., & Chinen, M. (2007). The long-term effects of after-school programming on educational adjustment and juvenile crime: A study of the LA’s BEST after-school programs. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA/ CRESST. Retrieved from http://lasbest.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/ 05/ CRESST-2007-LASBEST_DOJ_Final-Report.pdf Gómez, D. W., Ferrara, J., Santiago, E., Fanelli, F., & Taylor, R. (2012). Full-service community schools: A district’s commitment to educating the whole child. In A. Honigsfeld & A. Cohan (Eds.), Breaking the mold of education for culturally and linguistically diverse students: Innovative and successful practices for the 21st century (pp. 65–73). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Guajardo, M., Guajardo, F., Janson, C., & Militello, M. (2016). Reframing community partnerships in education: Uniting the power of place and wisdom of people. New York, NY: Routledge. Heers, M., Van Klaveren, C., Groot, W., & van de Brink, H. M. (2016). Community schools: What we know and what we need to know. Review of Educational Research, 86, 1016–1051. doi:10.3102/0034654315627365 Hemmingsson, E. (2018). Early childhood obesity risk factors: Socioeconomic adversity, family dysfunction, offspring distress, and junk food self-mediation. Current Obesity Reports, 7(2), 204–209. Retrieved from https://link. springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13679-018-0310-2 doi:10.1007/s13679018-0310-2 Horvat, E. M., Weininger, E. B., & Lareau, A. (2003). From social ties to social capital: Class differences in the relations between schools and parent networks. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 319–351. doi:10.3102/00028312040002319 Houser, J. H. W. (2016). Community- and school-sponsored program participation and academic achievement in a full-service community school. Education and Urban Society, 48(4), 324–345. doi:10.1177/0013124514533792 Institute for Educational Leadership. (2017). Community school standards. Retrieved from http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/Page/CommunitySchool%20Standards-Updatesd2017.pdf Little, P., Wimer, C., & Weiss, H. B. (2008). After school programs in the 21st century: Their potential and what it takes to achieve it. Issues and opportunities in out-of-school time evaluation Brief No. 10. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Marmot, M., & Wilkinson, R. G. (1999). Social determinants of health. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Martin, M., Fergus, E., & Noguera, P. (2010). Responding to the needs of the whole child: A case study of a high-performing elementary school for immigrant children. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26(3), 195–222. doi:10.1080/ 10573561003769582

Student Achievement  29 Min, M., Anderson, J. A., & Chen, M. (2017). What do we know about fullservice community schools? Integrative research review with NVivo. School Community Journal, 27(1), 29–54. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2015a). Average reading score for fourth-grade students not significantly different in comparison to 2013; Eighth-grade students score lower than 2013. Retrieved from http://www. nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#reading?grade=8 National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2015b). Lower mathematics scores for White, Black, and Hispanic eighth-grade students compared to 2013. Retrieved from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/ #mathematics?grade=4 National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2015c). No significant changes in racial/ethnic score gaps in mathematics at grade 8 compared to 2013. Retrieved from http://www.nationsreport-card.gov/reading_math_2015/#mathematics/ gaps?grade=8 National Educational Association (NEA). (2002–2015). Effective practiced in closing achievement gaps. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/20609.htm New York State Education Department (NYSED). (2016). School report cards. Retrieved from http://www.data.nysed.org. Noguera, P. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Oakes, J., Maier, A., & Daniel, J. (2017). Community schools: An evidencebased strategy for equitable school improvement. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://lear- ningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/ default/files/product-files/Community_Schools_Evidence_Based_Strategy_ BRIEF.pdf Orfield, G., Kucsera, J., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2012). E pluribus … separation: Deepening double segregation for more students. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project. Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Retrieved from https://civilrightsproject. ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diver-sity/mlk-national/ e-pluribus%E2%80%A6separation- deepening-double-segregation-formore-students Rea, D. W., & Zinskie, C. D. (2017). Educating students in poverty: Building equity and capacity with a holistic framework and community school model. National Youth-At-Risk Journal, 2(2). doi:10.20429/nyarj.2017.020201Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https:// www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1067&context=nyar Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In R. Murnane & G. Duncan (Eds.) Whither opportunity? Rising inequality and the uncertain life chances of low-income children (pp. 91–116). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation Press. Ruggles, S., Genadek, K., Goeken, R., Grover, J., & Sobek, M. (2015). Integrated public use microdata series: Version 6.0 [machine-readable database] (includes American Community Survey data). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Sanders, M., & Galindo, C. (2014). Communities, schools, and teachers. In K. Bauserman, L. Martin, S. Kragler, & D. Quatroche (Eds.), Handbook of professional development in education: Successful models and practices, prek-12 (pp. 103–124). New York, NY: Guilford Publishing.

30  Stephen J. Caldas et al. Sanders, M., & Hembrick-Roberts, J. (2013). Leadership for service integration in schools. In L. Tillman & J. Scheurich (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational leadership for diversity and equity (pp. 476–493). London, UK: Routledge/Taylor and Francis. Sanders, M., Watkins-Lewis, K., & Cochrane, K. (2017). The role of out-ofschool time programs in bridging the diversity gap and improving educational opportunities for African American students. In H. Malone & T. Donohue (Eds.), The growing out-of-school time field: Past, present, and future (pp. 71–86). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Santiago, E., Ferrara, J., & Blank, M. (2008). A full-service school fulfills its promise. Educational Leadership, 65(7), 44–47. Santiago, E., Ferrara, J., & Quinn, J. (2012). Whole child, whole school: Applying theory to practice in a community school. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield. Schmidt, W. H., Burroughs, N. A., Zoido, P., & Houang, R. T. (2015). The role of schooling in perpetuating educational equality: An international perspective. Educational Researcher, 44(7), 371–386. doi:10.3102/0013189X15603982 Stone, C. N., Henig, J. R., Jones, B. D., & Pierannunzi, C. (2001). Building civic capacity: The politics of reforming urban schools. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press. United States Government Accountability Office. (2014). Education of homeless students: Improved program oversight needed. (GAO-14–465). Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665185.pdf Vobtruba-Drzal, E., Miller, P., & Coley, R. L. (2016). Poverty, urbanicity, and children’s development of early academic skills. Child Development Perspectives, 10, 3–9. doi:10.1111/cdep.12152 Walsh, M. E., Madaus, G. F., Raczek, A. E., Dearing, E., Foley, C., An, C., … Beaton, A. (2014). A new model for student support in high-poverty urban elementary schools: Effects on elementary and middle school outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 51(4), 704–773. doi:10.3102/ 0002831214541669 Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA’s statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133. Zimmerman, E. B., Woolf, S. H., & Haley, A. (2015). Understanding the relationship between education and health: A review of the evidence and an examination of community perspectives. In R. Kaplan, M. Spittel, & D.  David (Eds.), Population health: Behavioral and social science insights (pp. 347–384). AHRQ Publication No. 15-0002. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, National Institutes of Health.

2

Student Attendance A Persistent Challenge and Leading Indicator for Baltimore’s Community School Strategy Rachel E. Durham, Jessica Shiller, and Faith Connolly

Introduction The full-service community school (FSCS) strategy is inherently diverse, and by design, its structures and implementation vary enormously across districts and schools. However, part of FSCS efforts, regardless of context, is maintaining or improving student attendance because it is a fundamental indicator of school engagement and driver of academic success. The best instruction and programing are irrelevant if students are absent and become impossible to implement well if large shares of a school’s students are regularly missing school. The research literature on attendance unequivocally demonstrates the deleterious consequences of missing school (Balfanz, Herzog,  & Mac Iver, 2007; Ehrlich, Gwynne, Pareja, & Allensworth, 2013; Gershenson, Jacknowitz, & Brannegan, 2017; Gottfried, 2009, 2010). Moreover, research has shown that particular subgroups of students are especially likely to miss school, and for many children from lowincome families (Chang & Romero, 2008; Ready, 2010) and students with disabilities (Gee, 2018), absences have a greater negative effect than for more affluent and typically developing peers, respectively. Since the FSCS strategy aims to connect students to services and supports and is typically implemented in schools that serve underrepresented populations (Benson, Harkavy, Johanek, & Puckett, 2009; Sanders & Hembrick-Roberts, 2013), the strategy is especially well suited to improving attendance among students with different needs or other challenges that commonly deter students from going to school regularly. Conceptually, research has operationalized absence from school in a number of ways. In earlier studies, the focus was on truancy, or unlawful unexcused absence (Baker, Sigmon, & Nugent, 2001; Bell, Rosen, & Dynlacht, 1994; McNeal, 1999). However, over time advocates and researchers have begun emphasizing how all absences matter for student achievement, both excused and unexcused, and have

32  Rachel E. Durham et al. marshaled a more comprehensive consideration of all reasons that students miss school (Chang & Romero, 2008; Gottfried, 2009). From a policy perspective, most state accountability systems include reports of average daily attendance (ADA) or the percent of student-present-days divided by the total possible number of student-days per school year (c.f., Hutt, 2018). However, as the research base expanded and demonstrated the negative impact of absence on student achievement, more recently the focus has shifted towards “chronic absence,” which is a measure of severe, repeated absence. While there is no single technical definition of chronic absence to date, a number of states under the new Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) accountability guidelines define chronic absence as a student missing 15 or 20 days (Attendance Works, 2017; Jordan, Fothergill, & Rosende, 2018). This roughly equates to a student missing 10% of a school year. Between 2004 and 2017, Maryland reported the percentage of students missing 20 or more days per year, which approximates chronic absence in a school year of 180 days (Maryland State Department of Education, 2017). As a result, we employ the 20-day definition of chronic absence in the proceeding analyses. Attendance has been a focus of the FSCS strategy in Baltimore since its inception in the early 2000s (Drummond, personal communication, May 11, 2018). As reported by local experts, from the start advocates recognized that student attendance would be a leading indicator of whether the FSCS strategy was achieving its goals, since the strategy aims to coordinate services targeted to students’ and families’ needs, and successful targeting can only be achieved with parent and community school engagement. At the same time, Baltimore as a district has struggled with chronic student absenteeism since at least the early 1970s (Karweit, 1973), and it remains endemic, as featured in recent popular media (Baltimore Sun, June 6; Bowie & Richman, 2018). The goal of the current study is to describe how the FSCS movement emerged and evolved in the Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS), along with the city’s ongoing attendance challenge, which was one of the key motivations for the FSCS strategy’s initial adoption. We rely on the theoretical framework of overlapping spheres of influence (Epstein, 1987, 1990, 2011) to discuss how systematic efforts in FSCSs to build connectivity between schools and families should support student attendance, and, in turn, reduce chronic absence. Results from interviews with FSCS coordinators elucidate specific strategies used by staff in FSCSs to build partnerships with families and maintain strong student attendance. Finally, a quantitative analysis employs publicly available school data from 2004 to 2017 to examine whether years of FSCS strategy implementation relates to student attendance over time. We conclude with a discussion of the challenges that remain for FSCS staff working in high-poverty

Student Attendance  33 contexts, and the need for additional research that can support their goals around attendance.

Attendance and its Relevance to Academic Success Attendance is recognized as a key indicator of school engagement and is significantly related to academic performance. Absent students are missing critical learning opportunities regardless of its cause, or its status as “excused” or “unexcused.” In the early grades, absences are related to lower achievement in literacy and math (Chang & Romero, 2008; Gershenson et al., 2017; Lamdin, 1996), lower executive function (Fuhs, Nesbitt, & Jackson, 2018), and are an important predictor of whether students will read on grade level by third grade (Connolly & Olson, 2012; Ehrlich et al., 2013, Nauer, Mader, Robinson, & Jacobs, 2014). Among middle and high school students, absences are an early warning indicator of disengagement and place students at risk of not earning sufficient credits to graduate (Allensworth, 2013; Balfanz & Byrnes, 2012; Balfanz et al., 2007; Baltimore Education Research Consortium, 2011; Gottfried, 2010). Chronic absence (or when students miss 20 days or 10% of all possible days) is a primary driver of course failure in the secondary grades – a root cause of high school dropout (Mac Iver & Messell, 2012). Particular groups of students are at a higher risk for absenteeism, especially children living in poverty (Romero & Lee, 2007), racial and ethnic minorities (Musu-Gillette et al., 2016), students with disabilities (Kearney, 2008), and those with adverse child experiences such as neglect, experiencing or witnessing physical violence, or other emotional trauma (Stempel, Cox-Martin, Bronsert, Dickinson, & Allison, 2017). Chronic absenteeism also disproportionately affects students in large, urban, inner-city school districts (National Center for Education Statistics, 1996, as cited in Teasley, 2004). Overall, chronic absenteeism is confounded with many factors associated with poverty, making it an especially important metric for FSCS practitioners, who often work in high-poverty contexts, to address. Because FSCSs aim to remove barriers to student engagement and learning, attendance not only serves as a warning flag that resources may be needed but also can be utilized as a leading indicator that FSCS efforts to better serve and engage families are yielding positive results. Indeed, absence from school is often a signal that something is amiss in a student’s life, and children with problematic attendance may have needs that can be addressed with the community-based services and supports that FSCSs harness. In Baltimore, FSCSs connect students and families to health services, mental health professionals, nutritional support, housing stability assistance, and in general, the services for which a chronically absent student signals a need.

34  Rachel E. Durham et al.

Theoretical Framework: Overlapping Spheres of Influence To establish the mechanisms by which student attendance could improve as a result of the work of FSCSs, we rely on the theory of overlapping spheres of influence developed by Joyce Epstein (1987, 1990, 2011), which built upon the ecological framework of proximate zones of child development proposed by Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979). According to the theory of overlapping spheres, child development is enhanced when the responsibilities of schools and families are shared. Traditionally, the responsibility of child development was articulated separately for families and schools.1 Families provided for children’s most basic needs, including shelter, sustenance, and protection, while schools developed children’s cognitive capacity for literacy, numeracy, and citizenship (Epstein, 1987). Yet, a stark division of labor is impractical, because for one, school staff and parents are mutually dependent on one another to accomplish the work of education (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Crosnoe, 2015). For instance, teachers need cooperative students who come to school regularly, and parents need high-quality instruction and caring teachers for their children. Second, resources can be enhanced and amplified when they are combined, particularly if schools and families reinforce each other’s messaging (Epstein, 2011). The theory of overlapping spheres emphasizes three forces that determine the extent to which children are simultaneously influenced by family, school, and the community, and the ways these processes work in tandem (Epstein, 2011). The first force is time, which captures children’s growth and development, and the historical and policy contexts in which they occur. The second and third forces focus on the processes and communication pathways within families and schools, respectively. These “forces determine how much and what kinds of ‘overlap’ occur at any given time, and affect the interactions” of children, parents/ guardians, and school staff (Epstein, 1990, p. 103; 2011, see Figure 2.1). Empirical research has shown the benefits that accrue to children when positive overlap between home and school occurs. For example, school organizational health (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Easton, & Luppescu, 2010) and academic achievement are positively affected when schools have comprehensive programs to engage families in students’ learning (Epstein et al., 2018; Park & Holloway, 2017). FSCSs strengthen ties with students’ families via several mechanisms, which generally include integrated student supports, school, family, and community partnerships that create welcoming school environments, two way channels of home-school communication, and shared decision-making (Blank, Melaville, & Shah, 2003; Dryfoos, Quinn, & Barkin, 2005; Epstein et al., 2018; Valli, Stefanski, & Jacobson, 2013). Indeed, partnerships and shared decision-making are key distinguishing

Student Attendance  35

Figure 2.1 T heoretical model of overlapping spheres of influence of family, school, and community on children’s learning (from Epstein, 2011, p. 32).

features of FSCS strategies, where partners’ different priorities and perspectives determine how resources are used and distributed (Dryfoos et al., 2005; Galindo, Sanders & Abel, 2017; Valli et al., 2013). Thus, FSCSs are different from traditional schools in that the strategy requires a fundamental redistribution of power (Sanders & Hembrick-Roberts, 2013). Shared decision-making and distributed leadership are critical aspects of how the strategy alters connections between school staff and students’ families (FitzGerald & Quiñones, 2018; Sanders, 2016). Moreover, FSCS coordinators actively seek to build trusting relationships with family members so that any external challenges affecting students can be addressed – especially those affecting students’ ability to come to, and benefit from, school every day. Information bearing on a student’s needs (e.g., lack of adequate nutrition or stable housing) is likely only to be shared by a parent within the context of a trusting relationship formed through strong interpersonal ties. Open communication is further facilitated by more egalitarian school-family relationships achieved through sharing leadership with families and community partners. In a practical test of how family-school partnerships relate to attendance specifically, Epstein and Sheldon (2002; see also Sheldon & Epstein, 2004) examined how attendance changed over time in schools that implemented school, family, and community partnership programs, and how different practices of the partnerships impacted attendance. They found that regular communication with families, and in particular providing a school contact with whom families could get in touch when needed, was especially beneficial for both ADA rates and reductions in chronic absence. Schools that conducted home visits also had declining rates of chronic absence, as did those that involved families in official recognitions of improved attendance. Together, these findings suggest that multiple modes and pathways of communication

36  Rachel E. Durham et al. enhance connections (or “overlap”) between families and schools, and that these connections help improve student attendance (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002).

Baltimore’s Attendance Challenge Due in part to the national spotlight on advocacy efforts to change policy and practitioners’ understanding of student absenteeism (c.f., Attendance Works, 2018; U.S. Department of Justice, et al., 2015), BCPSS practitioners have continually sought strategies to support student attendance. The issue has lately become more pressing as Maryland, implementing regulatory changes under ESSA, has included the share of chronically absent students in its accountability measure of school quality (Attendance Works, 2017). Challenges with absenteeism in Baltimore are hardly new, however, and several factors contribute to their persistence. In 1973, Nancy Karweit authored a report detailing research on experiments in a handful of Baltimore public schools designed to compel students to miss less school. In presenting the findings, Karweit shared data on daily student absence rates for the months of April, May, and June of the 1972–1973 school year. She found that on any given day, approximately 10%–20% of middle school students were absent, and among high school students, the range was 15%–35% (Karweit, 1973, pp. 24–25). Five decades later, BCPSS still faces challenges with student attendance. Local journalism recently highlighted the scope and severity of chronic absence in the district for 2016–2017 (Bowie & Richman, 2018). Baltimore was reported to have the highest rate of chronic absenteeism in the state, at 37%, which was twice as high as the chronic absenteeism rate for Maryland public school students altogether (18%). A number of persistent social problems that city families face are relevant for understanding the pervasive nature of chronic absenteeism in Baltimore. Poverty in Baltimore, in particular, is deep and extremely concentrated (Maryland Alliance for the Poor, 2016). Generations of families have struggled to amass wealth and achieve upward mobility in a city plagued by historical patterns of residential segregation (Chetty, Hendren, Kline,  & Saez, 2014) and discriminatory practices in policing (Walsh, 2010), housing (Garboden, 2016), banking (Powell, 2009; Shlay, 1987), and education (Baum, 2010). Gainful employment for many working-age adults in Baltimore is irregular (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017), as Baltimore’s working opportunities have disappeared or moved to locations that the city’s aging transportation infrastructure does not easily reach (Buckner, 2009). Homelessness, hunger, substance abuse, and mental illness often follow such sources of stress, as do daily struggles to get children to school on time.

Student Attendance  37 The pervasive problem of chronic absence in the city is not due to lack of attention. A substantial number of studies have highlighted the district’s severe levels of absence (for relatively recent examples, see Balfanz, Durham, & Plank, 2008; Baltimore Education Research Consortium, 2011; Mac Iver & Messell, 2012). Moreover, the district and state have implemented a number of policy initiatives that, among other goals, were intended to improve attendance, including accountability sanctions (Westat, 2001), student support team referrals for retention-in-grade (Baltimore City Public Schools, 2003), and principals’ attendance and climate dashboards (Nolan, personal communication, June 1, 2018). Yet, attendance problems have persisted in the district. This persistence may be due to the nature of the initiatives, punitive sanctions and incentivizing rewards, which represent and even magnify the power imbalance that exists between schools and families (Adams, Forsyth, & Mitchell, 2009). “Carrot and stick” strategies, for better or worse, mirror a hierarchy where individuals are beholden to the expectations of an institution or its actors in positions of authority. Theoretically, the FSCS strategy can alter this power imbalance because it is rooted in an asset-based rather than a deficit perspective, which enhances the institutional and interpersonal connections between families and schools. For instance, instead of using punishment or threat of sanction as primary strategies to compel attendance, an FSCS coordinator asks families, “How can we get you back?,” thus emphasizing the value the child brings to school and relying on their relationship with families to improve attendance. FSCSs do not assume that families and students are problems to be fixed, or that they suffer from a series of limitations, but rather that they have assets, or cultural wealth that can be maximized to promote student success. Consequently, the job of FSCS coordinators is to draw upon what Luis Moll and his coauthors (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992) call “funds of knowledge,” which refer to the knowledge and skills individuals develop that give them the competence to navigate their own social contexts. Showing respect for this often under-appreciated local knowledge, which Yosso (2005, p. 75) calls “community cultural wealth,” FSCS coordinators build strong, interpersonal relationships with families, students, and communities. The following analyses accomplish three goals. First, we present information gathered from local experts on the history of FSCSs in Baltimore, and motivations and challenges of implementation. Second, we examine qualitative data collected from interviews with a purposefully selected set of FSCS coordinators who described their approaches to improving or maintaining student attendance in their schools. Third, we present trends in student attendance in BCPSS from 2004 through 2017. In particular, we explore whether the FSCS strategy has a statistically significant association with student attendance, and if the number of years the strategy was operative influences this association.

38  Rachel E. Durham et al.

Data Sources Qualitative Data Sources To gain insights into the history of FSCSs in Baltimore, and to ensure we created an accurate chronology of when specific schools began implementing the FSCS strategy, we invited two locally known experts to sit for two-hour, semi-structured interviews. When the FSCS strategy was emerging in Baltimore in the early 2000s, the first expert was working locally for Communities in Schools (CIS), a national coordinating and advocacy organization that has supported many districts across the United States with FSCS efforts. This individual reported providing technical assistance and leadership at CIS’s affiliate office in Baltimore. The second expert was working as a consultant for Children’s Aid Society’s National Center for Community Schools and served together with the first expert to provide trainings and technical assistance to schools as the FSCS strategy was getting off the ground in the city. Questions we posed to these two experts pertained to the initial impetus for the strategy, the implementation timeline, critical players, roles played, and challenges the strategy confronted. The experts also provided a number of relevant unpublished documents that they had written or collected between 2001 and 2010. Below, we refer to the interviewees as Expert 1 and Expert 2 to protect confidentiality. In addition to gathering information from local experts, we also reviewed documents provided by the Family League of Baltimore (Family League) detailing which schools were in the “planning” and “full-implementation” stages of the FSCS strategy between 2011–2012 and 2016–2017. 2 These documents, as well as the interviews conducted with the two local experts, were used to generate a timeline of FSCS strategy adoption for all BCPSS schools. Notably, 11 schools were documented by Family League to be “early implementers,” having adopted the strategy prior to Family League’s involvement with systemic implementation in 2010. During interviews with the local experts, the investigator presented them with the list of early-implementing FSCSs provided by the Family League. While both respondents confirmed that 6 of the 11 schools on the list were indeed involved in the early-2000s, they named one additional school as an early implementer and rejected five others on the list. In addition, the respondents both confirmed that school year 2006–2007 was the first that any Baltimore school, to their knowledge, formally adopted the FSCS strategy in its present form. Both accounts were considered in developing the final list of early implementing schools. Additionally, in February and March of 2017, interview data were collected from seven FSCS coordinators in schools that were deemed attendance or school climate “outliers” (Durham & Connolly, 2017). School outliers were identified by separately regressing attendance and

Student Attendance  39 school climate outcomes for 2015–2016 on a host of school-level characteristics and then capturing cases that fell one standard deviation above or below predicted attendance, school climate index estimates, or both. Seven schools were identified in this way, with five “high outliers” and two “low outliers.” We then contacted and obtained agreement from the coordinators at these seven schools for participation in one-hour, semi-structured, face-to-face interviews to elicit information about ways they systemically worked on attendance, school climate, or both. For the high outliers, interview questions focused on how they leveraged community-based partnerships, and what specific strategies or resources they believed had impacted their schools’ respective attendance and school climate outcomes (for more detail on measures and analysis, see Durham & Connolly, 2017). For the current study, findings were drawn only from the analysis of the five high-outlier FSCS coordinator interviews. All five of their FSCSs implemented the strategy in 2011–2012. Although two of the five were high outliers on school climate and not attendance specifically, these two coordinators also discussed their approaches to attendance work as part of their focus on climate. Since BCPSS deems attendance as an indicator of school climate,3 school staff members’ perspectives on both topics are interrelated. Quantitative Data Sources The quantitative data for the present study included annual schoollevel records for students enrolled in 210 Baltimore City Public Schools between 2004–2005 and 2016–2017. The data included: enrollment size by grade-level and grade-span-specific student service characteristics (i.e., percentages receiving English language learner (ELL) services, special education services, and the percentage eligible for free and reduced price meals4 (FARMs)) as well as grade-span-specific ADA rates and the percentage who missed 20 or more days during the school year – Maryland’s proxy for chronic absence. The data files for enrollment and student services include all students enrolled at a school on September 30 of the respective year. School-level attendance files include students enrolled at a school for 90 or more days.5 As a result, the data may not capture attendance among highly mobile students (i.e., student who attended a school for fewer than 90 days and then transferred to another school). Annual principal leadership data were obtained from historical school directory information, archived from BCPSS’s public-facing website by the authors’ organization over time. These data indicate whether a school experienced a change in leadership from one year to the next. Annual data files were matched by school ID and then compiled to create a “stacked” analytical file where values for enrollment size, student characteristics, and attendance are specific to grade span and  school.

40  Rachel E. Durham et al. Principal data do not vary over grade span, however, but apply to the entire school. Reflecting Maryland State Department of Education’s (MSDE) schema, grade level was categorized into three groups: kindergarten through 5th grade, 6th through 8th grade, and 9th through 12th grade. In the final analytical file, for example, a school serving kindergarten through 8th grade for 13 years could have 26 records, with a separate record for each grade span and year. From the 234 public schools in Baltimore that existed between 2004–2005 and 2016–2017, nine were excluded from the analysis immediately. Of these, eight served students with severe mental or physical disabilities, and one was a catch-all identifier for students served in the home and hospital program. Of the remaining 225 schools, Family League documents and information provided by the local experts were used to determine schools’ FSCS implementation status. First, 166 were categorized as never having a record of involvement in the FSCS strategy, while 59 were documented as having adopted the FSCS strategy at some point between 2006 and 2017. Seven of these 59 were identified both by Family League and the local experts as early FSCS implementers, adopting the strategy in 2006–2007. Of the remaining 52, 30 schools began implementing the strategy during a second large wave of FSCS adoption that was coordinated by the Family League in 2011–2012, while 22 adopted the strategy in 2013–2014 or later. In reviewing documents, we found that two of these 52 schools had initiated “planning years” but never implemented the strategy. Another 11 schools appeared to reverse course after “fully implementing” the FSCS strategy, either moving back to a “planning year” or “non-FSCS” status. These 13 schools were excluded from the analysis, as it is unclear when they began fully implementing the FSCS strategy. Moreover, a changing or “close-out” status suggests challenges with stable school leadership, staff buy-in, funding, or consequential partner changes or losses, which suggests that these schools never fully emerged as FSCSs during the timeframe under examination. Finally, of the 39 schools that adopted the FSCS strategy in 2011–2012 or later and were consistently implementing the strategy through 2016–2017, we excluded two that would have had only one year in our period of analysis to see a change in attendance. One year is arguably too little time to expect a significant improvement, given the time schools need to build and leverage partnerships. The remaining 37 schools were coded as adopting the FSCS strategy in one of the school years between 2011–2012 and 2015–2016. As shown in Table 2.1, seven schools were categorized as early- and continuously implementing FSCSs, having adopted the strategy in 2006–2007. Next, 22 schools implemented during a second large wave of adoption in 2011–2012, 15 implemented between 2012–2013 and 2015–2016, and all 37 retained the strategy through 2016–2017. Finally, 166 schools were categorized as having never implemented the strategy. To our knowledge, no schools implemented the FSCS strategy between

Student Attendance  41 Table 2.1 Number of schools by year of FSCS strategy implementation and grade spans served Year of FSCS Implementation

Elem Only

Elem/ Middle High Middle

2006–2007 2007–2008 to 2010–2011 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015 2015–2016 Never implemented strategy

1 – 9 – 1 2 1 37

4 – 11 – 2 4 1 54

– – 1 – 1 – – 26

2 – 1 – 1 2 – 49

Total Row N 7 – 22 – 5 8 2 166

Note: Grade configurations at some schools changed over time. Grade span information reflects the highest grade a school ever served. Middle grades in City Schools are 6th, 7th, and 8th. “–” Dashes indicate no schools recognized as adopting FSCS strategy.

2007–2008 and 2010–2011. In addition, no new schools adopted the strategy in 2012–2013 as the Family League used that school year to focus on strengthening and supporting the sizable cohort of schools that began implementation in 2011–2012. The sample thus includes 210 schools from 2004–2005 through 2016–2017 (for additional information on these schools, see Table 2.1).

Methods The quantitative analysis exploited the opportunity to examine student attendance before and after schools implemented the FSCS strategy. The outcome variables are school-level ADA, or the ratio of student-days present to total student-days enrolled annually, as well as the percentage of students absent 20 or more days per school year. The primary modeling technique used was mixed linear modeling, which allows for the efficient estimation of the average relationship between FSCS years since implementation and school-level attendance, controlling for school characteristics (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002; STATACorp, 2013). The yearly “time” variable was specified as a linear spline, where for  the seven early implementing schools, time was centered at 2006– 2007. The centering year for the remaining 37 FSCSs was determined by the year of initial implementation, as detailed in Table 2.1. For schools categorized as “never-FSCS,” time was coded 0 for all years. Further testing suggested that a linear specification of time was appropriate (i.e., a quadratic term did not improve the fit of the model). The clustering variable was created as a school and grade-span-specific ID. This method treats years as nested within school-specific grade spans

42  Rachel E. Durham et al. (e.g., a school serving grades kindergarten through eight was modeled as two “cases” over time or a high school as one “case” over time). This approach allows the school-level variance term to also represent gradespan variation, which is more parsimonious than modeling three intercepts and more efficient than simply including covariates for grade span. Fixed effect dummy variables for each school year were also included in all models to account for unobserved heterogeneity in any given year, as well as a fixed effect, lagged dummy variable (=1) for FSCS status after each school’s respective year of implementation, which for schools that never implemented the FSCS strategy always took a value of 0. All models also included year-mean-centered controls for enrollment size, percent of students receiving ELL services, special education, and FARMs, and finally, models included dummy indicators of continuation (=0) or change (=1) in school leadership each year. Next, we first briefly summarize how the launch of the FSCS strategy in Baltimore in the mid-2000s was described by the local experts. Second, we present results of interviews with FSCS coordinators who described their approaches to attendance work. Third, we provide the results from the mixed linear models, which estimated the relationship between student attendance (ADA or chronic absence) and years since FSCS strategy implementation, controlling for school characteristics.

Results History of FSCS Development in Baltimore According to the FSCS experts interviewed in the course of this research, the movement to adopt the community school strategy in Baltimore began around the year 2000. At that time, the central district office had just established a new Office of Family and Community Engagement to be led by a Director of Partnerships. There was reportedly considerable local political support and a recognition among school leaders and education advocates that community-school partnerships were a promising approach to addressing the challenges that persistent, often concentrated poverty in Baltimore posed to schools (see also Appleton, 2010). School principals were already developing partnerships with local community-based organizations to provide needed services to students and families, and to recruit volunteers for their schools. In October of 2000, a delegation of 20 stakeholders in Baltimore attended the first National Forum of Community Schools, with the trip funded by BCPSS, A nnie E. Casey Foundation, and the Baltimore Teachers Union. Shortly thereafter, a small group of these stakeholders including Experts 1 and 2 formed the Baltimore Coalition for Community Schools, which in 2003 evolved into Baltimore Community School Connections. For the next few years, a dedicated group that included school principals of

Student Attendance  43 a handful of FSCSs, many of their out-of-school-time (OST) providers, local foundation officers, city politicians, parents, and community leaders met on a semiannual basis to talk about promising partnerships and practices, identify funding sources, and build further political support for FSCSs. According to documents provided by one of the local experts, by 2003, three focus areas had emerged for the burgeoning FSCS effort. The first was a need to better coordinate and target community-based resources, which needed to be harnessed more systematically. Second, schools and their surrounding communities simply needed more resources, particularly those that met physical and mental health, adult education, and economic development needs. Third, schools and communities needed technical assistance to learn best practices about how to harness resources in the community and target them in a coordinated fashion (Confidential report authored by Expert 2, n.d.). Between 2000 and 2005, these grassroots efforts were ongoing, with district, community, and political leaders making visits to other FSCS sites in places such as Chicago, Kansas City, New York City, and Portland, Oregon. During this early stage of FSCS adoption, one overarching concern was how and when to scale the strategy. According to the local experts, there was an active debate among the stakeholders over whether to continue focusing the FSCS strategy in a small number of schools or to work to implement it in all Baltimore schools. One of our experts explained that the former choice was undesirable, as the strategy might then have been perceived as yet one more program or one-off project that would suffer the same short-term excitement and vicissitudes that many educational initiatives had experienced in the past. On the other hand, a comprehensive and systemic effort to scale up the strategy required structural reform, and for that, permanent funding would be required. Both of the experts we interviewed reported that an intense, sometimes personal battle ensued over resources between providers of existing school-based programs and advocates of the new FSCS initiative, if not because of a true contest for funding then because of keenly perceived competition for scarce resources. In early 2005, the deputy for the Mayor of Baltimore contacted Expert 2, who was still heavily involved in local FSCS efforts. He reportedly asked about scaling the FSCS strategy to all Baltimore public schools, “What would it look like, what would be the structure, what would be the budget?” (Confidential report authored by Expert 2, n.d.). In response, the expert drafted a brief three-page plan, including how to marshal local governmental and private funding. However, without further discussion with the local advocates who had invested years of planning and collaboration in the FSCS strategy, the mayor, who had recently announced his intention to run for governor of Maryland, publicly announced his office’s intention to make all Baltimore schools

44  Rachel E. Durham et al. FSCSs. In the opinion of our historical experts, the mayor used the FSCS initiative as a local political accomplishment to enhance his campaign for state office. While this development might initially appear to have been a windfall for local FSCS advocates, the announcement was not accompanied by adequate funding, a comprehensive plan (or formal planning period), or appropriate participation by community members. The point person for the effort in the mayor’s office was described by our experts as uninterested in what had already been learned about FSCSs in Baltimore over time or in further collaboration with the local FSCS stakeholders but instead was intent on scaling the strategy by the start of the next school year, 2005–2006. That first year, schools with OST programs were immediately deemed FSCSs, under an initiative named After School to Community School, so that funding for OST, which had recently increased, could simultaneously be used for FSCS strategy components. A strategy working group was also formed that included many of the early effort’s stakeholders. The following year, in 2006–2007 coordinator positions were funded as well, although according to our experts, at a trivial level. Yet, the FSCS effort continued, with ongoing technical assistance from Experts  1 and 2, as well as others. Also in 2006–2007, additional schools were identified for FSCS strategy adoption, specifically those that had been designated as “take-over” schools by the state department of education (Confidential report authored by Expert 2, n.d.). That year, a “results framework” was developed by the FSCS working group that identified three outcomes for which improvement would be expected within the first three years: school safety, family engagement, and student attendance. However, even after dozens of the city’s public schools attempted to build a coordinated and sustainable FSCS strategy under both city and district leadership between 2005 and 2007, a lack of ownership by city leaders, inadequate funding, and competition for attention within the BCPSS central office compromised the strategy’s implementation and impact. For instance, in 2006 BCPSS’s newly appointed Director of Community Schools was soon re-designated the Director of Charter and School Initiatives. A number of the schools that initially adopted the FSCS strategy fell out of the collaborative after the first or second year due to principal reassignments or competing interests. According to the local experts, at the time it appeared that the FSCS strategy would not continue, at least as a city-wide initiative. However, around 2010, the Family League re-invigorated the FSCS effort and began serving as an intermediary for funding, coordinating the FSCS application process, and providing FSCS coordinators with professional development. Our local experts did not offer precise information regarding the impetus for the Family League’s renewed engagement; however, they speculated that

Student Attendance  45 one or two individuals at the Family League spearheaded the new drive based on personal belief in the strategy, as well as strong relationships with political leaders in the city. Soon thereafter, in 2011–2012, a large wave of Baltimore public schools newly adopted the FSCS strategy, joining a handful that had retained it since 2006. Several years later in October 2016, a formal policy and administrative regulations for FSCSs were finally adopted by Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners (Baltimore City Public Schools, 2016). To date, the Family League remains the central coordinating agency for FSCSs. In 2017–2018, 49 of Baltimore’s 172 preK-12 public schools were fully implementing the FSCS strategy. Attendance and FSCSs in Baltimore To illustrate the scope of chronic absence in the district, Figure 2.2 panels A and B chart the percentage of students who were chronically absent for grades kindergarten to 8 and grades 9–12, respectively, from 2004–2005 through 2016–2017. The four lines represent four groups: the early implementers in 2006–2007 (N = 7), the second-wave implementers in 2011–2012 (N = 22), schools that adopted the strategy after 2012 (N = 15), and schools that never implemented the FSCS strategy (N = 166). This chart makes clear that the challenge of improving attendance looks quite different depending on whether the school serves students in elementary/ middle, or high school. Panel A of Figure 2.2 showing chronic absence among kindergarten through grade eight indicates shows a relatively conservative pattern (limited fluctuation), particularly compared to the pattern for high school students in Panel B. Both panels of Figure 2.2 make evident the recent uptick in chronic absence the city has experienced in the aftershocks of the Freddie Gray uprising of spring 2015. Further, there is no immediate impact on attendance as schools begin implementing the FSCS strategy. In fact, and particularly for high school students, chronic absence rates among students in FSCSs appear quite high, often rising above 50%. Part of this pattern can be explained by the fact that the FSCS strategy is typically adopted in schools with the highest levels of economic or educational needs. Such schools are also likely to struggle with student attendance for associated reasons. Panel A, however, shows some evidence of potential FSCS impact. Whereas K-8 schools categorized as “never FSCS” had rates of chronic absence around 20% by the end of the time period, increasing from a low of 12% in 2008–2009, the rates for early-implementing FSCSs are half as high in 2016–2017, at 11%. Further, these schools’ chronic absence rates appear to diverge from others more appreciably after 2011–2012, or five years after beginning to implement the FSCS strategy. The chronic absence trends among later implementers, either those adopting in 2011–2012 or those adopting in

46  Rachel E. Durham et al. a  later year, appear on the whole similar to schools that never implemented the strategy. A conclusion that can be drawn from Panel B of Figure 2.2 is that chronic absence in many of Baltimore’s high schools is normative.

Figure 2.2 Panel A. Percentage of students chronically absent 2004 through 2017, kindergarten through 8th grade (Baltimore City Public Schools). Panel B. Percentage of students chronically absent 2004 through 2017, 9th through 12th grade (Baltimore City Public Schools).

Student Attendance  47 Chronic absenteeism at schools that never implemented the FSCS strategy ranges between 38% and 48%. However, the percentages shown for the three groups of FSCS implementers vary much more dramatically. This is largely due to the small number of high schools in these groups (refer to Table 2.1), which leads to more trend volatility. As a result, there are no clear patterns of difference between high schools with and without the FSCS strategy. The forthcoming quantitative analysis investigates whether attendance changes systematically by years of FSCS implementation. Quantitative Results In Table 2.2, descriptive statistics for the study population are provided by FSCS implementation years, with students of all grade spans combined. On average, by 2016–2017, ADA was lower and chronic absence was higher in schools that never adopted the FSCS strategy, as well as in schools that adopted the strategy after 2012. Both earlier and later implementing FSCSs served populations of students with higher levels of economic need, where 85.1%, 86.4%, and 85.1% of students at 2006– 2007, 2011–2012, and post-2012 implementing schools, respectively, were eligible for FARMs, compared to 76.1% at never-implementing schools. Across FSCS implementation groups, there were no substantive differences in the percent of students who received special education, Table 2.2 Descriptive characteristics of the school sample by FSCS implementation years, Baltimore City Public Schools (N = 210) Attendance Outcomes

Adopted FSCS Strategy in 2006–2007

Adopted FSCS Strategy in 2011–2012

Adopted FSCS Strategy After 2011–2012

Never FSCS

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

ADA, 2004–2005 90.4 ADA, 2016–2017 91.2 Percent chronically 15.4 absent, 2004–2005 Percent chronically 20.2 absent, 2016–2017 Student characteristics (average, 2004–2017) Enrollment size 351.6 Percent 85.1 FARMs-eligible Percent special 14.5 education Percent English 9.9 language learner Number of schools 7

S.D.

S.D.

S.D.

S.D.

10.7 10.2 14.8

93.3 91.1 15.2

3.1 6.0 9.5

92.1 87.8 20.3

3.5 11.2 12.2

90.6 89.6 22.3

8.6 11.0 20.1

22.0

24.3

12.4

31.0

24.4

24.8

18.0

357.8 12.2

252.5 86.4

121.2 10.9

295.3 85.1

161.2 11.5

317.2 76.1

244.5 17.6

5.2

15.5

5.2

16.5

6.0

15.4

11.3

16.2

3.8

6.9

8.8

14.3

1.5

4.9

22

15

166

48  Rachel E. Durham et al. although the average size of the student bodies at the 2006–2007 implementing FSCSs were somewhat larger than the other groups. Finally, whereas 1.5% of students at never-implementing schools received ELL services, 9.9%, 3.8%, and 8.8% of students at 2006–2007, 2011–2012, and post-2012 FSCSs, respectively, received ELL services. Results from the mixed linear regressions of ADA on school characteristics are provided in Table 2.3. Model 1 includes fixed effects for each year (fixed effect estimates not shown), as well as school-level characteristics. The percent of students who receive special education and the percent FARMs-eligible are negatively associated with ADA, as is change in principal leadership. Model 2 includes the fixed effect for the FSCS strategy overall, as well as the linear time spline associated with year of FSCS implementation. With school characteristics held constant, each year of FSCS implementation is associated with a .16 increase in ADA. In terms of days present at school, this change amounts to approximately one-quarter of a day increase per year of implementation. Model 3 adds an interaction term for the time spline and the percent of FARMs-eligible students, which is statistically significant and negative. In practical terms, although years of FSCS strategy implementation is associated with higher attendance, the share of FARMs-eligible students negates this positive relationship to some extent. Table 2.3 Mixed linear regression of average daily attendance rates on school factors and full-service community school strategy implementation, Baltimore City Public Schools Model 1

Intercept School characteristics Enrollment size Pct special education Pct English language learner Pct FARMs-eligible Change in principal leadership Community school factors FSCS fixed effect FSCS time spline FSCS time spline* Pct FARMs-eligible

Model 2

Model 3

Coef

S.E.

Coef

S.E.

Coef

S.E.

90.80

0.56

91.15

0.57

91.12

0.57

−0.01 −0.53** 0.34

0.01 0.15 0.18

−0.01 −0.51** 0.20

0.01 0.15 0.19

−0.01 −0.48** 0.11

0.01 0.15 0.19

−0.53** −0.90**

0.11 0.21

−0.53** −0.90**

0.11 0.20

−0.54** −0.89**

0.11 0.20

−0.52 0.16**

0.39 0.05

−0.46 0.20** −0.08**

0.39 0.06 0.03

Note: All continuous variables are year-mean centered. All models also include fixed effect indicators for each year, 2004–2005 through 2016–2017. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Student Attendance  49 Table 2.4 Mixed linear regression of the percentage of students chronically absent on school factors and full-service community school implementation time, Baltimore City Public Schools Model 1 Coef Intercept 20.92 School characteristics Enrollment size 0.03 Pct Special education 2.15** Pct English language −1.76** learner Pct FARMs-eligible −0.68** Change in principal 1.40** leadership Community school factors FSCS fixed effect FSCS time spline FSCS time spline* Pct FARMs-eligible

Model 2

Model 3

S.E.

Coef

S.E.

>Coef

>S.E.

1.17

20.45

1.20

20.42

1.20

0.02 0.35 0.42

0.03 0.02 2.14** 0.35 −1.65** 0.43

0.03 0.02 2.05** 0.35 −1.37** 0.44

0.26 0.48

0.68** 0.26 1.42** 0.48

0.72** 0.26 1.39** 0.48

2.09* −0.26*

0.90 0.12

1.90* 0.90 −0.40** 0.13 0.28** 0.07

Note: Models also include fixed effect indicators for each year, 2004–2005 through 2016–2017. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Results of the mixed linear regressions for chronic school absence are shown in Table 2.4. Estimates for school characteristics in Model 1 are similar to those for ADA, except that the relationships are inverted, since increasing chronic absence is essentially the converse of increasing ADA. The percentages of students receiving special education and FARMs, and principal turnover are positively associated with chronic absence rates. Furthermore, in Model 2, the fixed effect estimate of using the FSCS strategy is associated with higher levels of chronic absence, yet the estimate for time since FSCS implementation is negative and significant. Each year of FSCS implementation is associated with a .26% reduction in chronic absence. Model 3 additionally includes an interaction term for the proportion of students eligible for FARMs and the time spline. The interaction is statistically significant, but negative, so as with the results for ADA, the association between years of implementation and chronic absenteeism varies as a function of FARMs-eligible shares of students in FSCSs. In other words, although years of FSCS implementation are related to lower chronic absence, more highly concentrated poverty attenuates this relationship. Figure 2.3 presents the marginal plots of predicted ADA and percent chronically absent by years of FSCS strategy implementation at

50  Rachel E. Durham et al.

Figure 2.3 Margins plot of predicted average daily attendance and percent chronically absent by years of FSCS strategy implementation and percent eligible for free/reduced-price meals.

different levels of school FARMs-eligibility. Specifically, the right-hand panel of Figure 2.3 shows that for the lowest poverty schools, the FSCS strategy is associated with declining chronic absence over time; however, in the BCPSS schools with the highest levels of poverty in, chronic absence increases slightly. FSCS Coordinators’ Strategies for Student Attendance Each FSCSs in Baltimore has a full-time coordinator, and while their responsibilities vary across schools, the coordinators reported that improving attendance was a core focus of their role. All FSCS coordinators reported that the most useful lever for improving attendance was outreach to students’ families. Some conducted outreach through home visits and others through school-based efforts. But in all cases, respondents prioritized connecting with students and families and fostering a welcoming environment so that services and programs could be targeted appropriately. By building trusting interpersonal relationships, they hoped that parents would share with them challenges that prevented optimal student attendance. They also wanted families to feel like the school was a warm, friendly place. While describing how the FSCS strategy had changed his school, one coordinator stated, A community school [meant] really connecting with those families, making the space welcoming… . We learned to be a lot more caring… . We really built on the whole community and family piece over the years… . You can see our plan in the data, how it [attendance] went up. … We really took the thing, with ‘It takes a Village,’ and made it real, with partnerships and services for the community. To help parents feel comfortable, coordinators developed relationships with parents by providing a consistent presence in the school. Casual

Student Attendance  51 interactions with parents (e.g., while bringing children to school in the morning, during pick-ups or throughout the day), reportedly relayed a sense that they and their children were known and valued. Coordinators expressed the desire that parents would, over time, trust them and see them as a source of support if problems arose. Referring to how she built relationships with families to address barriers to attendance, another coordinator shared: We know people, we talk to them, we do home visits, we know them from when they’re here [at the school]. We have multicultural night, Black history showcase, we see parents on a regular basis, they volunteer…When you know people, you’re breaking down barriers. The comfort level is a lot higher when you know a person. For example, they might say, ‘I’m struggling with my rent this month,’ so I’m going to do what I can to help them. Maybe we can’t do everything, but at least we have communication. Another coordinator explained how her approach to relationship building with parents was to show compassion and concern, not just for a student’s attendance per se, but for the underlying challenges parents were facing: If we see that they’re in distress, beyond the attendance thing, we sit ‘em down and let ‘em know we’re mothers, too. We talk from that perspective and play with who it is, the situation, let’s see what works. It’s not cookie-cutter. I may spend the whole day some days finding someone a place to stay. Another FSCS coordinator explained how she had integrated a regular line of communication with parents into her everyday routine to build rapport and trust: My days start at seven a.m., and I’m at the door saying ‘Hi, how’re you doing, I like his boots, how’s he doing?’ Once they know that you care about them, they know your face. When children register new, they see my face. [I] tell them what I do so if they need me, they’ll come to me. We let them know that their concerns are our concerns too. Implicit in these practices is an assumption that parents’ positive perceptions of the school would translate into children having a strong connection to the FSCS, as well. Cultivating a sense of belonging meant that parents became part of the school community. In this way, coordinators’ relationships with parents served as mechanisms to promote student attendance. In addition to establishing personal connections with families, FSCS coordinators also reported creating opportunities for greater schoolbased engagement. An FSCS coordinator described coming up with

52  Rachel E. Durham et al. opportunities for parents to volunteer at the school, believing that parents’ both short- and long-term commitments of time and effort helped instill connectivity across the school community – for parents and for students. He also said that greater ownership led to higher levels of parent advocacy, too, and so opportunities to build those relationships were crucial for more meaningful collaboration. He shared why this approach had been a high priority for him: I think through the support I see, with the entire school, it’s not just like they’re saying, ‘I’m here because I want to be in my child’s class.’ They’re here and they want to support what we’re doing, whether it’s three lunch shifts, doing the fruit and vegetables [at the farmer’s market], they’re engaged with others, others’ children and go through the [volunteer enrollment] process - the background check, fingerprinting. And at the same time, if it’s not things they’re comfortable with, they’ll advocate on behalf of what they think needs to happen to change… . Last year, we [coordinator and parents] took a field trip to a school board meeting. I wanted them to see the process. Coordinators also said that to improve attendance, interpersonal connections with other adults in the school were important. For instance, one FSCS coordinator stated, “Teachers are our first line of defense. … [E]ven at the first day absent, they find out, do you have a uniform? Transportation?” Another added that effective teachers were “passionate” about the work. He stated: Are you the kind of teacher who shuts their door or leaves at 3 o’clock? Then you probably shouldn’t be here… . It’s a very team-driven environment, lots of structures put into place, vertical and horizontal team alignment. If you’re a new teacher, you’re not overwhelmed because you’re on a team with a veteran. Coordinators teamed up with other school personnel, as well, such as: [O]ur school social worker, our AP [assistant principal], our attendance monitor, and our school nurse… We need the strategies for like if the parent says their child has asthma we get them a CHIP [Children’s Health Insurance Program] form. We [include] the homeless liaison too and try to have as much info as possible so we can get to the root [of the challenge]… A final theme arising in our conversations with coordinators was how they thought attendance improved as a result of enrichment opportunities provided through community partnerships. According to one coordinator, “Having those [OST] experiences, … you‘re allowing for kids

Student Attendance  53 to say this is a great school.” Such opportunities were seen as a way to instill school pride and build stronger school attachments that would translate into better attendance. A coordinator shared, “That’s a big part - making sure kids have outlets. OST is big for us. We use our partnerships a lot, having sports, academic experiences, debate club, national academic league, Girl Scouts, an anime club…” Another coordinator said, “I think you want to create opportunities for children you don’t normally get. Volunteers creating programs for children - chess, Spanish, board games club, to make this a place kids would enjoy being.”

Summary and Discussion The FSCS strategy seeks to make schools hubs of their communities, coordinating services and resources, not only for families of students, but for the community as a whole (Benson et al., 2009; Dryfoos, 2002; Sanders, 2016); however, FSCSs are as diverse as their contexts in how they respond to the specific needs of the populations they serve. In Baltimore, FSCSs have a range of approaches and have achieved different levels of success. Regardless of differences in implementation, this study demonstrates that on the whole, the strategy is positively associated with student attendance – a hoped-for leading indicator of school improvement and community change. Furthermore, when the strategy is sustained (as measured by years of implementation), it holds promise for continued improvement. This seems especially true for FSCSs that have had consistent leadership. Potential reasons for the success with attendance experienced by some of Baltimore’s FSCSs can be understood through Epstein’s theory of overlapping spheres of influence (Epstein, 1987, 1990, 2011). When schools build partnerships with local community-based organizations to harness services, and when school staff are connected with parents, student and family engagement with school increases, as measured via attendance. In the early grades, these connections between staff and parents are even more crucial, as research suggests family-based obstacles are more likely to impede attendance in the early grades (Ehrlich et al., 2013; Nauer et al., 2014). In older grades, when students gain more independence, attendance can be enhanced by partnerships that leverage unique OST opportunities that make school more engaging, fun, and relevant. In our interviews with coordinators, many of the practices advocated in the school-family partnership literature are evident, including forming trusting relationships with parents, increasing regular communication with families, creating opportunities for family engagement and advocacy in the school, and partnering with community-based stakeholders (Epstein et al., 2018). According to coordinators, finding ways to make their school environments friendly and welcoming and coordinating local resources for the benefit of children and families are foundational

54  Rachel E. Durham et al. to the rest of their work. Through these efforts, opportunities to build personal relationships between school staff and families proliferate, which then become a form of currency when challenges to attendance emerged in students’ lives. In addition, the forces that the theory explicates – time and school and family partnership processes and communication pathways – work in tandem. Indeed, our analysis shows that time for the FSCS strategy to develop and strengthen is necessary for interpersonal relationships to grow. FSCSs that had sustained implementation had higher attendance rates than those in more nascent stages of strategy development, controlling for other student and school characteristics. It is an inevitable fact that each school year, a new cohort of students arrive at school to replace an older one. Thus, institutionalizing practices that facilitate trusting relationships among families, schools, and community-based partners is essential for the success of FSCSs. Our study also finds that changes in school leadership have a detrimental association with student attendance. This finding underscores the role that principals play in maintaining the personal and organizational connections necessary for successful student, family, and community engagement (Sanders, 2018). Our analysis also finds that concentrated poverty in some Baltimore communities has the expected relationship with attendance, and even within FSCSs, poverty-related challenges appear resistant to even the most promising partnership-based practices. How to best serve students in high-poverty contexts remains perhaps one of the least understood but most researched topics in education. At the time of writing, in Maryland a legislatively mandated commission is wrestling with new regulations that will determine the funding formula for all students in the state (General Assembly of Maryland, 2016). At least one Baltimore-based legislator has publicly editorialized the need for this commission to consider localized, concentrated poverty as requiring additional resources, over and above the typical weighted amount for a single low-income student (Ferguson, 2016, The Baltimore Sun, September 6). As a result, research to investigate just how much additional funding might be adequate in such contexts is now underway (Rose, Mushonga,  & Henneberger, 2018). It is clear that compensatory resources are needed to alleviate the effects of poverty on education, and the FSCS strategy reflects a philosophy that schools – which oftentimes are the only public institution serving a community – can coordinate such. In other places around the world, comprehensive social and health services are provided to the populace as a matter of course (c.f., Gentilini & Omamo, 2009). In the United States, however, where social safety nets are nonexistent or inadequate, schools must often undertake this role because of the profound effects of poverty on a student’s ability to benefit from the education that is provided without sufficient supports (Blank et al., 2003). According to the local FSCS experts we interviewed, this recognition was a key motivator for their work to adopt the strategy in Baltimore.

Student Attendance  55 The city’s wealth is unevenly distributed, with many communities served by BCPSS in dire economic and social need. Stakeholders’ hope was to harness and coordinate educationally beneficial resources for lowincome children and youth. Thus far, their efforts have been met with success in some schools, but in others, success will take longer. With respect to student attendance, concentrated poverty remains a challenge. Future research is needed to identify FSCSs that have been able to overcome this challenge. Questions to answer include: How do FSCSs identify and target child and family needs (i.e., examining needs assessment processes)? What obstacles prevent families in need from accessing the resources provided? How are resources and services coordinated and integrated throughout the school and larger community? And, what are the limits of FSCS strategies in the context of larger systemic problems such as unemployment, substandard wages, discriminatory policing, mass incarceration, and concentrated community-level trauma? These questions are relevant not only for the FSCS movement in Baltimore but also for FSCS strategies generally.

Limitations and Conclusion This study is not without limitations. We acknowledge that we have little information about schools categorized as “never-implementers,” some of which may be using strategies similar to those used by FSCSs. It may be that the city’s school leaders talk and learn from one another about promising approaches and implement them without identifying as FSCSs, per se. Given the levels of poverty in Baltimore, it is likely that many schools coordinate partners or services for their students and families in a number of systematic and improvised ways, such as making available food pantries, clothing or school supply banks. However, the never-implementing schools do not benefit from the coordinated technical assistance and designated funding available to schools who have formally adopted the strategy, nor is decision-making necessarily shared with community members in the manner of typical FSCSs (Fitzgerald & Quiñones, 2018; Sanders, 2016; Valli et al., 2013). Thus, “never implementers” differ from FSCSs in consequential ways. Further, our categorization of FSCSs (i.e., by implementation chronology) is necessarily simplistic, and we lack detail on the processes that most of Baltimore’s FSCSs employed over time (e.g., to identify needs, share governance and decision-making, identify partners, and to engage families). Researchers continually struggle with the best way to evaluate FSCSs, which by definition tailor themselves to their own particular communities. Each school has its own set of assets, needs, stakeholders, and priorities. Data collection that gathers details about all the services and partnerships centered at a school, and how (and how often) schools engage families, is extremely time and labor intensive. When we seek to examine FSCSs across an entire city, the scope of the

56  Rachel E. Durham et al. research quickly becomes enormous. As a result, the current study takes a 30,000 foot view, and there is a tradeoff between clarity of process and generalizability. While the data we gathered from coordinators are not generalizable to the full time span examined in the study, or even to all FSCSs, their insights help elucidate how the FSCS strategy in more seasoned FSCSs led to positive attendance outcomes. The early implementers are also the schools that likely had the longest sustained community partnerships and most consistent leadership. Taken together with the quantitative findings, and despite variations in strategy approaches, our study further confirms results from others showing that school-community partnerships are a promising way to support student attendance (Sheldon & Epstein, 2004). Our findings also indicate that a good deal of time was required before the Baltimore strategy’s results were evident in student attendance data, at least as aggregated to the school level. We found that a discernible impact became evident after at least five years of implementation. Furthermore, our conversations with local experts about the FSCS movement in Baltimore imply that additional time was necessary to build political momentum and lay a foundation for scaling the strategy to more than a handful of schools. In an educational policy environment that often expects initiatives to change fundamental culture and practices at schools in as few as three years (Hitt & Meyers, 2017), stakeholders in other cities considering the FSCS strategy should be mindful of the committed timeframe that may be necessary to scale up implementation, and see the strategy’s effects on attendance or other student outcomes.

Notes

Student Attendance  57

References Adams, C. M., Forsyth, P. B., & Mitchell, R. M. (2009). The formation of parent-school trust. A multilevel analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(1), 4–33. doi:10.1177/0013161X08327550 Allensworth, E. (2013). The use of ninth-grade early warning indicators to improve Chicago schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 18(1), 68–83. doi:10.1080/10824669.2013.745181 Appleton, A. (2010, November 3). The rise and fall – and rise? – of Baltimore’s community school movement. Baltimore City Paper. Attendance Works. (2017). Inclusion of chronic absence in state ESSA plans. Retrieved from https://www.attendanceworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Chronic-Absence-Chart-13.pdf Attendance Works. (2018). Advancing student success by reducing chronic absence. Retrieved from http://www.attendanceworks.org Baker, M. L., Sigmon, J. N., & Nugent, M. E. (2001). Truancy reduction: Keeping students in school. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Retrieved from https://www. ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/188947.pdf Balfanz, R., & Byrnes, V. (2012). Chronic absenteeism: Summarizing what we know from nationally available data. Retrieved from Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University website: http://new.every1graduates.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FINALChronicAbsenteeismReport_May16.pdf Balfanz, R., Durham, R. E., & Plank, S. B. (2008). Lost days: Patterns and levels of chronic absenteeism among Baltimore City Public School students 1999–00 to 2005–06. Retrieved from Baltimore Education Research Consortium website: http://baltimore-berc.org/pdfs/Attendance_issue_brief_05-13-08.pdf Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the graduation path in urban middle-grades schools: Early identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 223–235. doi:10.1080/00461520701621079 Baltimore City Public Schools. (2003). Student attendance patterns: A research study conducted for the Board of School Commissioners. Unpublished technical report.

58  Rachel E. Durham et al. Baltimore City Public Schools. (2016). Administrative regulation: Community school strategy. Retrieved from https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/ bcpss/Board.nsf/files/AHBLMF52E7C7/$file/ADH-%20Community%20 School%20Strategy.pdf Baltimore Education Research Consortium. (2011). Destination graduation: Sixth grade early warning indicators for Baltimore City Schools: Their prevalence and impact. Retrieved from http://baltimore-berc.org/pdfs/SixthGradeEWIFullReport.pdf Baum, H. S. (2010). Brown in Baltimore: School desegregation and the limits of liberalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Bell, A. J., Rosen, L. A., & Dynlacht, D. (1994). Truancy intervention. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 27, 203–211. Benson, L., Harkavy, I., Johanek, M. C., & Puckett, J. (2009). The enduring appeal of community schools. American Educator, 33(2), 22–47. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/20 Blank, M. J., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. P. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in community schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools, Institute for Educational Leadership. Bowie, L., & Richman, T. (2018, June 6). Nearly 1 in 5 Maryland students is chronically absent: At some schools, the rate is more than 75 percent. The Baltimore Sun. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Buckner, B. A. (2009). Informal transportation use in urban communities: Hacking in Baltimore, Maryland. Unpublished master’s thesis, Morgan State University. Chang, H. N., & Romero, M. (2008). Present, engaged, and accounted for: The critical importance of addressing chronic absence in the early grades. Retrieved from Columbia University, National Center for Children in Poverty website: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED522725.pdf Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (2014). Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4), 1553–1623. doi:10.1093/qje/qju022 Connolly, F., & Olson, L. S. (2012). Early elementary performance and attendance in Baltimore city schools’ pre-kindergarten and kindergarten. Retrieved from Baltimore Education Research Consortium website: http:// baltimore-berc.org/pdfs/PreKKAttendanceFullReport.pdf Crosnoe, R. (2015). Continuities and consistencies across home and school systems. In S. M. Sheridan & E. M. Kim (Eds.), Processes and pathways of family-school partnerships across development (pp. 61–80). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16931-6_4 Dryfoos, J. (2002). Partnering full-service community schools: Creating new institutions. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5), 393–399. doi:10.1177/003172170208300515 Dryfoos, J. G., Quinn, J., & Barkin, C. (2005). Community schools in action: Lessons from a decade of practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Student Attendance  59 Durham, R. E., & Connolly, F. (2016). Baltimore community schools: Promise and progress. Retrieved from Baltimore Education Research Consortium website: http://baltimore-berc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CommunitySchoolsPromiseProgressJune2016.pdf Durham, R. E., & Connolly, F. (2017). Strategies for student attendance and school climate in Baltimore’s community schools. Retrieved from Baltimore Education Research Consortium website: https://baltimore-berc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/10/StrategiesAttendanceClimateCommunitySchools October2017.pdf Ehrlich, S. B., Gwynne, J. A., Pareja, A. S., & Allensworth, E. M. (2013). Preschool attendance in Chicago Public Schools: Relationship with learning outcomes and reasons for absences. (Research Summary). Retrieved from The University of Chicago, Consortium of Chicago School Research website: https://consortium.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Pre-K%20 Attendance%20Research%20Summary.pdf Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F. Kaufmann, & F. Losel (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints (pp. 121–136). New York, NY: DeGruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110850963.121 Epstein, J. L. (1990). School and family connections: Theory, research, and implications for integrating sociologies of education and family. In D. G. Unger & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Families in community settings: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 99–126). New York, NY: Haworth Press. Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494673 Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S. B., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., … Williams, K. J. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through family and community involvement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(5), 308–318. doi:10.1080/ 00220670209596604 Ferguson, B. (2016, September 6). An opportunity for meaningful school reform in Maryland. The Baltimore Sun. FitzGerald, A. M., & Quiñones, S. (2018). Working in and with community: Leading for partnerships in a community school. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1–22. doi:10.1080/15700763.2018.1453938 Fuhs, M. W., Nesbitt, K. T., & Jackson, H. (2018). Chronic absenteeism and preschool children’s executive functioning skills development. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 23(1–2), 39–52. doi:10.1080/ 10824669.2018.1438201 Galindo, C., Sanders, M., & Abel, Y. (2017). Transforming educational experiences in low-income communities: A qualitative case study of social capital in a full-service community school. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1_suppl), 140S–163S. doi:10.3102/0002831216676571 Garboden, P. M. (2016). The double crisis: A statistical report on rental housing costs and affordability in Baltimore City, 2000–2013 (Vol. 29). Retrieved from the Abell Foundation website: https://www.abell.org/sites/default/files/ files/cd-doublecrisis516.pdf

60  Rachel E. Durham et al. Gee, K. A. (2018). Minding the gaps in absenteeism: Disparities in absenteeism by race/ethnicity, poverty and disability. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 23(1–2), 204–208. doi:10.1080/10824669.2018.1428610 General Assembly of Maryland. (2016). Charge of the commission on innovation and excellence in education. Retrieved from http://dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/ NoPblTabMtg/CmsnInnovEduc/09-29-2016_Charge_of_Commission.pdf Gentilini, U., & Omamo, S. W. (2009). Unveiling social safety nets. Occasional Paper No. 20. Rome, Italy: World Food Programme. Gershenson, S., Jacknowitz, A., & Brannegan, A. (2017). Are student absences worth the worry in U.S. primary schools? Education Finance and Policy, 12(2), 137–165. doi:10.1162/EDFP_a_00207 Gottfried, M. A. (2009). Excused versus unexcused: How student absences in elementary school affect academic achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 392–415. doi:10.3102/0162373709342467 Gottfried, M. A. (2010). Evaluating the relationship between student attendance and achievement in urban elementary and middle schools: An instrumental variables approach. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 434–465. doi:10.3102/0002831209350494 Hitt, D. H., & Meyers, C. V. (2017). School turnarounds and the test of time. In C.V. Myers & M. J. Darwin (Eds.), Enduring myths that inhibit school turnaround (pp. 319–338). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Hutt, E. L. (2018). Measuring missed school: The historical precedents for the measurement and use of attendance records to evaluate schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 23(1–2), 5–8. doi:10.1080 /10824669.2018.1438899 Jordan, P. W., Fothergill, S., & Rosende, M. (2018). Writing the rules: Ensuring chronic absenteeism data works for schools and students, FutureEd & Attendance Works, Georgetown University. Retrieved from: https://www.future-ed. org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/REPORT_writingtherules.pdf Karweit, N. L. (1973). Rainy days and Mondays: An analysis of factors related to absence from school. (Report No. 162). Baltimore, MD: Center for the Study of the Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED086927). https://doi.org/10.1037/ e410672004-001 Kearney, C. A. (2008). School absenteeism and school refusal behavior in youth: A contemporary review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(3), 451–471. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.07.012 Lamdin, D. J. (1996). Evidence of student attendance as an independent variable in education production functions. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(3), 155–162. doi:10.1080/00220671.1996.9941321 Mac Iver, M. A., & Messell, M. (2012). Predicting high school outcomes in the Baltimore City Public Schools. The Senior Urban Education Research Fellowship Series (Vol. VII). Washington, DC: The Council of the Great City Schools. Maryland Alliance for the Poor. (2016). Maryland poverty profiles. Retrieved from Family League of Baltimore website: http://familyleague.org/wp- content/ uploads/2016/01/Maryland-Povery-Profiles-2016.pdf Maryland State Department of Education. (2017). Maryland State report card: Baltimore City: Attendance rates. Retrieved from http://reportcard.msde. maryland.gov/Entity.aspx?K=30AAAA

Student Attendance  61 McNeal, R. B. Jr (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78(1), 117–144. doi:10.1093/sf/ 78.1.117 Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching. Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. doi:10.1080/00405849209543534 Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., McFarland, J., Kewal Ramani, A., Zhang, A., & Wilkinson-Flicker, S. (2016). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic Groups 2016 (NCES 2016007). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Condition of education-1996. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs96/96304.pdf Nauer, K., Mader, N., Robinson, G., & Jacobs, T. (2014). A better picture of poverty: What chronic absenteeism and risk load reveal about NYC’s lowest income elementary schools. New York, NY: Center for New York City Affairs. Park, S., & Holloway, S. D. (2017). The effects of school-based parental involvement on academic achievement at the child and elementary school level: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Research, 110(1), 1–16. doi:10. 1080/00220671.2015.1016600 Powell, J. A. (2009). Reflections on the past, looking to the future: The Fair Housing Act at 40. Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law, 18, 145–168. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ready, D. D. (2010). Socioeconomic disadvantage, school attendance, and early cognitive development: The differential effects of school exposure. Sociology of Education, 83(4), 271–286. doi:10.1177/0038040710383520 Romero, M., & Lee, Y. S. (2007). A national portrait of chronic absenteeism in the early grades. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University. Rose, B., Mushonga, D. R., & Henneberger, A. (2018). Poverty and student outcomes: Disentangling the effects of student and school poverty. Presented at the Maryland Longitudinal Data Center’s Research Colloquia Series, Baltimore, MD. Retrieved from School of Social Work, University of Maryland: https:// mldscenter.maryland.gov/egov/Publications/ ResearchSeries/2018/Poverty_ ResearchSeries_05032018.pdf. Sanders, M. (2016). Leadership, partnerships, and organizational development: Exploring components of effectiveness in three full-service community schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(2), 1–21. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2015.1030432 Sanders, M. G. (2018). Crossing boundaries: A qualitative exploration of relational leadership in three full-service community schools. Teachers College Record, 120(4), 1–36. Sanders, M., & Hembrick-Roberts, J. (2013). Leadership for service integration in schools. In L. Tillman & J. Scheurich (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational leadership for diversity and equity (pp. 476–493). London, UK: Routledge/Taylor and Francis. Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2004). Getting students to school: Using family and community involvement to reduce chronic absenteeism. School Community Journal, 14(2), 39–56.

62  Rachel E. Durham et al. Shlay, A. B. (1987). Maintaining the divided city: Residential lending patterns in the Baltimore SMSA. Baltimore: Maryland Alliance for Responsible Investment. STATACorp LP (2013). Stata multilevel mixed-effects reference manual. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP. Stempel, H., Cox-Martin, M., Bronsert, M., Dickinson, L. M., & Allison, M. A. (2017). Chronic school absenteeism and the role of adverse childhood experiences. Academic Pediatrics, 17(8), 837–843. doi:10.1016/j.acap.2017.09.013 Teasley, M. L. (2004). Absenteeism and truancy: Risk, protection, and best practice implications for school social workers. Children & Schools, 26(2), 117–128. doi:10.1093/cs/26.2.117 U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). 2011–2015 American community survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, & U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Every student, every day: A community toolkit to address and eliminate chronic absenteeism. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/ about/inits/ed/chronicabsenteeism/toolkit.pdf Valli, L., Stefanski, A., & Jacobson, R. (2013). Community support of schools: What kind and with what success? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 658–666. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.075 Walsh, N. (2010). Baltimore behind bars: How to reduce the jail population, save money and improve public safety. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract. aspx?ID=252877. Westat. (2001). Report on the Final Evaluation of the City-State Partnership. Westat, December 3, 2001. Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006

3

A Question of Necessity or of Equity? Full-Service Community Schools and the (mis)Education of Black Youth Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins

Introduction Over the last few decades, income and resource inequality have dramatically increased in the United States and far surpass levels of inequality within similarly wealthy countries (Carter & Reardon, 2014). These broad societal trends have reversed advances made toward racial equity in the 1970s and 1980s and compounded racial inequalities across the domains of health, labor, housing, education, and their intersections. Within education, racial and economic inequalities are evident in the patterns of academic performance and the quality of schooling afforded to racially minoritized students and students living in poverty—inequalities that are linked to contemporary patterns of residential resegregation that nearly rival those of the pre-Brown v. Board of Education (Brown) era (Orfield, Ee, Frankenberg & Siegel-Hawley, 2016). Interestingly, white, middle and upper class students are the most likely to attend racially and economically homogeneous schools, yet Black and Latinx students bear the brunt of this resegregation, as the schools they are most likely to attend are often under-resourced and located within high-poverty areas (Orfield et al., 2016). Research reveals that Black youth, in particular, are most likely to underperform and demonstrate lower levels of proficiency relative to their peers, as well as be disproportionately overrepresented in documented disciplinary actions (Gregory, Skiba & Noguera, 2010). Despite such studies, it is often presumed that these disparities are the result of the individual failings of Black children, families, or communities. Even studies that focus on racialized or other social processes in schools frequently do not make direct connections between their findings and broader societal or discursive mechanisms of inequality to consider how disparities and inequalities in educational opportunities, experiences, and outcomes are socially constructed (Carter & Reardon, 2014). This lack of scholarship relative to social inequalities and schooling has dire consequences, especially for youth and communities who have been historically disenfranchised in the United States yet continue to look to

64  Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins schools—particularly public schools—as a key social institution that can support social and economic mobility. This expectation highlights the tensions between the supposed democratic ideals and roles of education and compulsory K-12 schooling in the United States, and the history of miseducation of racially minoritized youth in schools. Schools have long debated if their mandate is knowledge transmission, social and cultural assimilation, or indoctrination, and/or if they are meant to support whole child development and well-being. Schools likely function in all of these ways, as learning settings are simultaneously critical sites of human development across diverse domains (e.g., cultural, intellectual, linguistic) and institutional spaces of knowledge acquisition and socialization (Eccles & Roeser, 2011). However, the racialized and classed nature of toxic inequalities (Shapiro, 2017) of access and opportunity has meant that many children’s basic needs are not being met in schools. Racially minoritized youth and youth living in poverty are the most likely to attend publicly funded and administered schools, relying upon them for academic access, services, and other supports (Milner, 2012). Recognizing these persistent systemic inequalities within and outside of schools, many districts have sought to reinvent themselves through full-service community schools (FSCSs; Cummings, Todd, & Dyson, 2011). We examine how a Northern California school district’s FSCS initiative was implemented at a predominantly Black middle school and a racially heterogeneous high school. We ask: What are the structural, pedagogical, relational, and discursive characteristics of FSCSs that seek to support Black students’ well-being and academic success? How do Black parents and students experience these FSCSs? Through this comparative case study (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2018), we argue that while FSCSs have the potential to address systemic and symbolic inequalities, generally, and the miseducation of Black youth, specifically, this potential hinges upon (1) teachers’ and administrators’ sociopolitical clarity in thoughts, words, and actions; and (2) the alignment of this clarity from the classroom to the district. Across our focal FSCSs, we see how the alignment and/or fractures in sociopolitical clarity, and its enactment across layers of context and activity, affect Black parents’ and students’ perceptions of the FSCSs, and relatedly, whether the FSCSs address or reproduce inequalities. Our findings suggest that FSCSs must consider their charge as one not only of equity (not equality) but of necessity if they are to counter the systemic and symbolic miseducation of Black youth within public schools.

Literature Review As evidenced by the patterns of educational inequality in the United States and compulsory school laws, there has always been a tension about the role of schools in educating and supporting the development

The (mis)Education of Black Youth  65 and well-being of youth, particularly Black youth (Anderson, 1988). Since the late 19th century, schools have periodically toyed with being supportive sites for development and the administration of critical resources, given that such resources may be unavailable to many youth outside of schools (Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002). Of note, despite being underfunded and undervalued, during segregation many Black schools operated as key social and political institutions in communities and offered a myriad of (in)tangible human development resources and supports (Walker, 2018). In a post-Brown era, such institutions have been dismantled, and the tensions of human development, education, and schooling for Black youth and communities persist and are exacerbated by on-going patterns of resegregation and structural inequality that span within and beyond schools (Orfield et al., 2016; Shapiro, 2017). FSCSs are one effort to recapture schools, particularly those in “urban” areas (Milner, 2012), as key sites for the positive development and culturally relevant education of youth. FSCSs base their approach on the assumption that as youth grow, they navigate across and make sense of multiple social, cultural, political, and physical contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Cole, 1996; McKinney de Royston & Nasir, 2017). This approach appreciates that schools are situated within neighborhoods and communities that have specific geographies of (in)access and (in)opportunity that influence what they are able and expected to do. It also appreciates that processes of learning and development are not restricted to schools or other institutional spaces but occur consequentially as youth navigate across settings and grapple with various social messages and practice-based activities they encounter along the way (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; McKinney de Royston & Nasir, 2017). FSCSs seek to address the intellectual, social, emotional, and physical developmental needs of children and reduce inequalities by serving as safety nets and clearinghouses for the administration of comprehensive and integrated resources and services for students, their families, and community members. The premise here is that academic learning and success require attention to the whole child and includes attending to the ecologies of access and opportunity surrounding the child that influence their well-being. Indeed, research shows a positive relationship between family involvement and student outcomes across all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Jeynes, 2005). It further suggests that achievement, credit completion, attendance, and graduation rates increase and discipline issues decrease when students feel connected, and have personal interest, agency, and their basic needs met (Biag & Castrechini, 2016; Catsambis & Beveridge, 2001). Embracing an FSCS model requires shifting from an individualist, assimilationist framework of student success to a whole child, child-incontext perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Epstein, 2018). It requires debunking racial and economic

66  Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins inequalities as normal, solely the result of a child’s or family’s actions, or of innate group differences—and instead as a result of systemic inequalities (Carter & Reardon, 2014). The FCSC model marks a shift in assumptions about schooling, teaching, and learning, from a model where schools implicitly or explicitly aim to assimilate children into existing systems to changing systems to support the positive development of children. For example, family-school relationships, particularly for minoritized parents, are often one-dimensional, provider-client exchanges where schools presume to serve students’ needs with less regard for families and communities (Milner, 2012). By contrast, FSCSs reframe family and community partnerships and involvement as based upon accessibility, reciprocity, and equity where the school, families, and communities are each leaders and critical contributors (Ishimaru, 2019). Table 3.1, from Ishimaru (2019, p. 6), captures this ideological shift from what characterizes traditional partnerships between families and schools to that which characterizes equitable collaborations between these two groups. This figure explicitly reflects the changing nature of the goals and relationships between families and schools in district and community-based initiatives. These shifts speak to the ideological underpinnings of schooling that are often challenged and rearticulated in FSCSs. Ishimaru’s (2019) figure demonstrates how equitable collaborations are not only about shifting assumptions about what schools can/ should do but also about shifting the goals, strategies, roles, and cultural and political contexts within which schools operate and to which they need to be responsive.

Table 3.1 Contrasting principles of engagement between traditional partnerships and equitable collaborations

Goals Strategies

Traditional Partnerships

Equitable Collaborations

Material resources and discrete aims within a culture of denial or implicit blame Inside, technical change

Systemic change within a culture of shared responsibility Adaptive change to build capacity and relationships of a broad range of stakeholders Nondominant parents as educational leaders who contribute and help shape the agenda Reform as a political process that addresses broader issues in community

Parent role

Nondominant parents as clients and beneficiaries (educators/ professionals set the agenda)

Context

Apolitical approach focused on schools in isolation

Source: Ishimaru (2019). From family engagement to equitable collaboration, p. 6.

The (mis)Education of Black Youth  67 In shifting the ideological and structural terrain of schools in this and other ways, FSCSs hold great promise for addressing racialized and classed inequalities by divesting in deficit-oriented and assimilationist schooling to instead advocate for developmentally appropriate, asset-based, and race and class conscious educational practices that meet the specific needs of the children, families, and communities with whom they collaborate. Yet, we know too little about what FSCSs are actually doing to support youth in navigating inequalities and how the students, families, and communities they are supposed to be in partnership with feel about them. Thus far, research on FSCSs has explored (1)  broad goals and characteristics (Oakes, Maier, & Daniel, 2017; Sanders, 2016), (2)  program design and implementation (Biag & Castrechini, 2016; Cummings et al., 2011; Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002; Galindo, Sanders, & Abel, 2017), and (3) educators’ preparation and capacity to engage in policies and practices (Dryfoos, Quinn, & Barkin, 2005; FitzGerald & Quiñones, 2018; Sanders, 2018; Sanders, Galindo,  & McIntosh Allen, 2018). Few empirical studies examine how FSCSs operate within broader contexts that include individuals, cultural practices and communities, institutions, and social discourses at the school and district levels. Moreover, there is a need for studies that examine the necessity and impact of FSCSs from the perspective of those individuals and communities that work within and are affected most acutely by FSCSs, such as Black educators, students, and families. In focusing our research explicitly on understanding the structural, pedagogical, relational, and discursive characteristics of FSCSs that aim to support Black students and families, we fill significant gaps in the literature around FSCSs, schooling and equity, and around interventions aiming to disrupt the systemic and symbolic miseducation of Black youth.

Theoretical Framework In studying the characteristics of FSCSs and their impact on Black youth and families, we make the assumption that human development and learning are not isolated to specific spaces, places, and interactions but occur at all times within and across contexts (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Epstein, 2018). Scholarship on development and learning suggests that the broader ecological system in which an individual is situated influences individual human development, as well as what is learned, how it is learned, and how individuals and communities think about themselves and others. In studying schools and what is possible through them, it is therefore important to understand how schools, along with neighborhoods, homes, and families, operate as critical sites of human development and learning. Cultural-ecological and sociocultural perspectives are particularly useful for capturing this dynamic because they offer

68  Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins conceptual insights into how learning and development are influenced by and occur within an overlapping web of social, cultural, and political contexts (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Cole, 1996; Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003). These perspectives argue for understanding and studying the intertwined processes of learning and development as facilitated or mediated by culturally and socially determined goals, practices, and activities with artifacts and tools (Nasir & Hand, 2006). Forwarding the view that learning and development are intertwined and fundamentally social and cultural, ecological perspectives such as Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1994) conceptualize the developing child as nested within multiple layers of context that they negotiate daily and that dynamically shift over their life course. Bronfenbrenner (1979) characterizes these layers as (1) the micro-context of institutions and groups— such as families, classrooms, schools—with immediate and direct access and impact on the child; (2) the meso-context or the interconnections between the micro-contexts (e.g., relationship between a child’s family and school); (3) the social, political, and economic exo-contexts or systems (e.g., capitalism, education) that the child is not directly involved in but nevertheless impacts him/her; (4) the macro-context that reflects the culture and ideologies of the society, state, and country in which a child lives; and, finally, (5) the chronosystem or aspect of time as it occurs across the life course. This model captures how individuals negotiate messages, practices, and values, across social, cultural, and political contexts, in immediate moment-by-moment interactions, and over time. While Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) model appropriately conceptualizes learning and development within and across spaces, places, and time, it does not represent the co-constitutive and overlapping nature of contexts (Cole, 1996; Vossoughi & Gutierrez, 2014). For example, the macro-context can affect how the meso-context of family-school relationships is set up and perceived just as changes at the meso-level between families and schools can ultimately reconstitute some aspects of the macro-context. Conceptually, existing ecological perspectives do not account for how power dynamics influence access and opportunity in ways that impact human development and learning (McKinney de Royston & Nasir, 2017). Bronfenbrenner (1994), for example, recognizes culture but does not account for race, even though race is a key determinant for social positioning, experience, and other outcomes in the United States (Nasir & Bang, 2012). Taking into account these limitations, McKinney de Royston and Nasir (2017) offer a framework that recognizes how power dynamics, like race, act as organizing frames or discourses that get enacted through macro- and micro-scales of context and activity (e.g., through interpersonal and institutional interactions and practices). This framework considers how multiple layers of context and activity (and their overlap or dissonance) effectively construct racialized learning environments and systems within which children learn and develop, and within which

The (mis)Education of Black Youth  69

SOCIAL e.g. Racial, cultural narratives and histories; notions of stratification

INSTITUTIONAL

Ideologies or Discourses

Settings

e.g. Districts, schools, policies or reforms, classrooms

CULTURAL e.g. Disciplinary (math, science, etc.),classroom, communities

INDIVIDUAL

Practices

Roles and Identities

e.g. Racial and ethnic, class, academic or domain-specific

Figure 3.1 Multilevel framework for children’s learning and development (McKinney de Royston and Nasir (2017), p. 262).

schools try to establish themselves. While Figure 3.1 depicts each level separately to show its distinct characteristics, the levels are mutually constituting and interactive. The “social” level represents the racialized, dominant meanings and values of a context, be it the district, school, or society, and the related ways of being that predominate the popular social imagination within that context. These meanings and values are transmitted through the social construction and organization of our institutions and reproduction of ideas, policies, practices that, in turn, influence the individual identities and roles people are offered and take up across contexts. This framework makes visible that seemingly local, idiosyncratic microinteractions between individuals or within specific contexts are, in fact, moment-by-moment reflections of larger social discourses or dynamics of power, and how dominant social narratives and practices are reproductive and constrain individual development and learning. Distinct from prior frameworks, McKinney de Royston and Nasir (2017) account for the co-constructive, bi-directionality of learning and development as they are situated in dynamics of power. It captures dominant forces that shape human development and learning and reproduce the status quo, as well as the resistant and disruptive forces that can emerge from the bottom to challenge the status quo and instigate personal and social change. We utilize this framework to analyze how FSCSs through their discourses, structures, and practices (relational

70  Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins and pedagogical) can disrupt ecologies of inequality via what happens through the district and local interactions and relationships among individuals. Specifically, this framework allows us to analyze how FSCSs are articulated and instantiated within and across the structural, discursive, relational, and pedagogical characteristics of FSCSs and to show that these characteristics simultaneously operate at the social, institutional, cultural, and individual levels.

Methods This study came out of a broader case study of schools experiencing success in improving their climates and academic achievement for Black students. For years, Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) has grappled with disparities in school experiences and outcomes for students from racially, economically, and linguistically minoritized communities. Also, due to budgetary shortfalls, OUSD spent six years under state receivership, during which time public school enrollment declined, charter school enrollment soared, and the budget deficit—the initial impetus for the takeover—more than doubled (Trujillo, Hernandez, Jarrell, & Kissell, 2014). OUSD regained local control in 2009 and began reenvisioning itself while dealing with the realities of a national recession that caused increasing levels of poverty and gentrification across the city. Hence, in 2011, OUSD released a five-year strategic plan with multiple initiatives targeted at reducing inequalities. The strategic plan marked a shift in the district’s discourse towards conceptualizing inequalities as a systemic issue of unevenly distributed and racialized opportunities for success. This shift was reflected via targeted efforts for particular populations of students, such as African American male students or English Language Learners. It was also reflected through comprehensive efforts that required overhauling fundamental structures of schooling such as implementing restorative justice (principles and practices to build community and respond to harm and conflict rather than to punish) district-wide or becoming a full-service community district (FCSD). For example, OUSD’s stated mission was to become “a Full Service Community District that serves the whole child, eliminates inequity, and provides each child with excellent teachers for every day” (OUSD, 2011, p. 1). Figure 3.2 shows how the district delineated its responsibilities as an FCSD and those of individual FSCSs. The mission statement and Figure 3.2 indicate the district’s recognition of its responsibility to work alongside other civic and community stakeholders to develop a caring, holistic environment in which the learning and success of students are supported, and health, social, and educational inequities are reduced. To this end, OUSD entered into formal partnerships with community-based organizations and local jurisdictions that advocate for children and families across the city and county. OUSD made promises  to  fully support the full-service community district and school

tailor the specific approach and mix of services to each community through a process of understanding and addressing inequities

build the capacity of adults and students to share responsibility for leadership and decision-making

foster trusting, intentional relationships and partnerships

become a safe and healthy center of the community

Figure 3.2 Graphic definition of a full-service community school and district (OUSD, 2011).

Schools use data to regularly assess outcomes of academic and support services for diverse communities and develops specific interventions to address the identified inequities in an linguistically and culturally responsive way as identified by the local community and the school.

Adults at the school and in the community create a common vision for the school and community, supported by strong school leadership that meets the needs of the whole child.

Relationships and partnerships between school staff, students, families, parents, and community resources based upon the school and community needs, assets and local context.

Schools become centers of communities and are open, fun and attractive spaces for the community to use before and after the school day.

offer a coordinated and integrated system of academic and support services

The District creates the conditions for schools to:

Full Service Community Schools:

Equitably allocating resources to achieve equal outcomes. Facilitate the sharing of relevant data among partners to inform decision-making.

Ongoing support for all types of school leaders to create, implement, and sustain Full Service Community Schools.

The District develops, supports and sustains partnerships with key public and private entities, such as, philanthropy, city, county, community based organizations, higher education, business, and community and family representatives.

Ensuring that facilities are clean, safe, functional and inviting spaces that are open to the community and integrated into community life.

The District’s organizational design, systems, policies, operations, and professional development support the devlopment and continuous improvement of responsive, high quality, integrated systems of support.

A Full Service Community School District in Oakland provides and implements the infrastructure and systems to support full service community schools including policies, practices, and funding.

A Full Service Community School in Oakland serves the whole child: it invites the community in and extends its boundaries into the community in order to accelerate academic achievement; it shares responsibility for student, family and community success.

The four essential areas of focus are: academic achievement and skill development; health, safety and social services; youth and community development; as well as parent and community engagement.

DISTRICT

SCHOOL

What would a Full Service Community School and District do for you?

The (mis)Education of Black Youth  71

72  Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins (FSCD/S) model and to hold itself accountable for developing and sustaining high-quality schools. Part of this accountability measure involved encouraging external researchers to examine how the district’s reforms were being implemented and how they were understood by community stakeholders (e.g., The Gardner Center). In 2011, our team of researchers was invited to examine how initiatives, particularly those relevant for Black students, were beginning to be understood and taken up within schools. Study Design We draw upon data from a set of case studies of OUSD schools that were experiencing some success with Black students based on normative academic measures (e.g., California Academic Performance Indicator scores) and/or a positive, inclusive school climate for Black students as determined by students, families, and school and/or district officials. For the original set of case studies, we focused on recruiting schools with significant populations of Black students that were highly recommended via community nominations1 (Foster, 1991; Ladson-Billings, 1995) by district officials, parents, community organizations, and university-school partners. After determining each school’s willingness to participate, seven sites were selected: two elementary schools, three middle schools, and two high schools. Two sites, a middle school and a high school, were FSCSs (see Table 3.2 for demographic information). Table 3.2 FSCS demographics 2013–2014 academic year School Site

Grade Levels

Number of Students

Ethnoracial Demographics

North Pineville Middle School* (NPMS)

6th–8th

~220

Bay Prep High School (Bay Prep)*

9th–12th ~1850

96% of students 81% African American 10% Latino 8% Asian/Asian American 1% Two or more races 46% of students 37% African American 23% white 18% Latino 15% Asian/Asian American 5% Pacific Islander 2% Two or more races

*Pseudonym.

Eligible for Free & Reduced Meals (FARMs)

The (mis)Education of Black Youth  73 Given this sample size, a robust analysis of OUSD’s FSCD/S initiative is beyond the scope of this paper (see Fehrer & Leos-Urbel, 2016). Instead, we use a comparative case study approach to look within and across these FSCSs in order to trace the characteristics that students, families, and educators viewed as supporting Black student success (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2018). Given our past work on racialized learning environments in Oakland, we are interested in understanding the structural, pedagogical, relational, and discursive characteristics of these two schools and making Black parents and students’ perspectives visible. Data Collection Process Data collection occurred at the two focal sites during the 2013–2014 academic year and into the early summer by the coauthors and four graduate students, who each had prior experience teaching in K-12 settings. Table 3.3 outlines the data sources, including the observational data. Fieldnotes were taken in classrooms and common areas (e.g., cafeteria, main office, hallways) in order to describe the participants, setting, and context, and, in the case of classrooms, the organization, instructional strategies, and course content. Semi-structured interviews lasting 45–60 minutes were conducted with parents, students, and educators at the focal schools as participants granted consent across the academic year and early summer. While parent and student interviews proved difficult because of timing and families’ availability, their voices are also included in the observational fieldnotes and informal conversations at the focal sites. The recruitment of students across grades (6–8 at North Pineville Middle School (NPMS) and 9–12 at Bay Prep) occurred in classes that granted access, through educator and parent recommendations, and via snowball sampling. Students chose either a one-on-one interview format or focus groups of three to five students in order to increase student comfort and discussion.

Table 3.3 Data sources for FSCS case study Data Source Semi-structured Interviews (approximately 45–60 minutes each) School Site

Sets of Student Focus Fieldnotes Group

Individual Parent Student

Teacher Administrator

North Pineville Middle School Bay Prep High School

N = 22

N=1

N=4

N=5

N=2

N=9

N=1

N=8

N=7

N = 24

N=1 (3 students) N=1 (5 students)

74

Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins

Given the context of our study, we were often directed by members of the school community towards individuals they felt supported the school’s success. These individuals included teachers, administrators, counselors, coaches, and afterschool coordinators. We also recruited educators during staff meetings, community events, or other formal and informal gatherings at the school sites. Individual interviews were conducted at a time and location that were convenient for the participant— such as in their offices, classrooms, or a cafe. Analysis Process Interviews and fieldnotes were reviewed and coded through an iterative process of identifying emerging themes and documenting how those themes were visible across participants, schools, and data sources. This process began with each researcher independently reading through a set of fieldnotes or an interview transcript and engaging in open coding (Saldana & Omasta, 2018). During weekly meetings with the team of ten researchers, the open coding of fieldnotes and interviews were discussed in relation to each school site, then across school sites. We then identified points of convergence within and across schools and the unique characteristics of each school. These points of convergence helped to coalesce a set of broad thematic categories (e.g., relationships), as well as specific codes (e.g., relationships: teacher-student) and subcodes (e.g., relationships: teacher- student: potential affirming) within those categories. These categories and (sub)codes were triangulated across fieldnotes and interviews to iteratively refine the coding scheme and better capture emerging patterns across the data. While the coauthors engaged in school-specific discussions about the data during open coding, these discussions were shared with the broader research team and compared with data from the other schools. Thus, the broader research team became familiar with the data corpus, which was also facilitated by using Dedoose software. Validity measures included debriefing our analysis processes at meetings, conducting member checks (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018), and engaging with sites (e.g., volunteering, hosting fieldtrips to the university campus).

Findings Below, we share our findings related to the discursive, structural, relational, and pedagogical characteristics of FSCSs that seek to reduce inequalities and support Black students’ well-being and academic success. Consistent with the whole child, child-in-context approach of FSCSs and our own findings, we argue that FSCSs’ ability to create and sustain their aims hinges upon a (1) race and class consciousness: a shared understanding and solidarity around the racialized and classed experiences

The (mis)Education of Black Youth  75 and realities of students and families; (2) commitment to equity not equality: equality presumes to give all students the same resources, access, learning opportunities and supports whereas equity promotes giving students what they need to succeed without deficit notions or value judgments, which can look different across individual students, student populations, and learning environments (Espinoza, 2007); (3) concern for developing a positive school climate to support student well-being beyond simply improving academic outcomes; and (4) commitment to providing access to what families need, with an understanding of families’ responsibilities to participate in and provide feedback about the resources offered. Our data further suggest that these four aspects, and their alignment across the discourses and practices at the district, school, community, family, and student levels, are essential for the creation and maintenance of FSCSs that support Black families and students. These aspects reflect educators’ sociopolitical clarity (Bartolome, 1994; Beauboeuf-Lafontant, 1999) that attends to the sociohistorical and politicized realities and vulnerabilities of youth and families. We begin by discussing the discursive and structural characteristics of the FSCSs that district and school officials designed to support students’ development and learning and reduce inequalities. Next, we highlight how Black students and their families experienced the schools by sharing the pedagogical and relational characteristics of the focal FSCSs. Our findings suggest that for FSCSs to be effective (i.e., address deficit notions and toxic inequalities), the FSCSs’ sociopolitical clarity must be aligned across goals and values of the district, site administration, teachers, and families. In turn, this sociopolitical clarity must be embedded within the discourse and structures of schooling and the relational and pedagogical practices within schools. Discursive Characteristics Decisions were made to implement FSCSs as part of the district’s strategic plan to provide equitable learning opportunities for students from nondominant communities. For example, within the strategic plan, the superintendent states: We have not met the needs of all children and we do not have high quality schools in every neighborhood. African American, Latino, and English Language Learning students, as well as our students who live in poverty, do not have access to opportunities that other children in Oakland have. Our city remains divided by predictable patterns of low performance, high incidence of violence, and lack of connection. In our current system some individuals have easy access to opportunity while others in Oakland have limited access

76  Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins to opportunity due to where they live. This is not acceptable and not healthy for our community as a whole. We must engage in new ways … with the understanding that our fates in Oakland are linked. If parts of Oakland are suffering, all of Oakland is suffering… OUSD sees a city where children are thriving and innovating. (OUSD, 2011, pp. 2–3) Here, we see at the level of discourse the superintendent publicly acknowledging the racialized and classed patterns of inequality, and its impact on students’ educational access and opportunities. He notes that these inequalities are a problem for the entire city, not just those directly affected, and argues schools need to provide for students’ and families’ holistic needs. Also in the strategic plan (p. 55), the district presents Seven Standards of Practice for quality schools that are consistent with the FSCSs approach: (1) ensuring thriving students and healthy communities; (2) quality learning experiences for all students; (3) safe, supportive, and healthy learning environments; (4) learning communities focused on continuous improvement; (5) meaningful student, family & community engagement/ partnerships; (6) effective school leadership & resource management; and (7) a high-quality central office that is in service of quality schools (OUSD, 2011). These standards include a strong focus on creating positive school climates and student well-being, both as mechanisms to facilitate academic learning and ways of “ensuring thriving students and healthy communities.” Likewise, through these standards, the district takes up the responsibility of providing access to the resources and services that families need and commits to being accountable to the effective administration and management of such resources. Finally, the district articulates that these standards should be understood through the “lens of equity,” which they describe as (1): comparably high academic achievement and other student outcomes; (2) equitable access and inclusion; (3) equitable treatment; (4) equitable opportunities to learn; and (5) equitable resources and accountability. Throughout the district’s strategic plan, equity is conceptualized as differentiation based on need and as a response to inequities in access, inclusion, opportunities, treatment, resources, and accountability mechanisms. The plan has a discursive commitment to race and class consciousness, supporting positive learning environments for success and child well-being, and acceptance of responsibility to ameliorate inequities. These discursive commitments led to the creation of district-wide initiatives such as OUSD becoming an FSCD and establishing community and nonprofit partnerships to develop, implement, and sustain this approach. Educators at the two focal sites also articulated the four aspects of sociopolitical clarity in their discourse about the need for FSCSs. This

The (mis)Education of Black Youth  77 discursive characteristic was grounded in a desire to provide a schooling environment that not only addressed parents’ and students’ fears about students’ safety outside of school (e.g., going to and from school) but also their physical and psychic safety at school. In practice, this meant the FSCSs sought to develop positive school environments that were responsive to the trauma students may have experienced and to students’ individual and collective needs beyond that presumed to be necessary for their academic achievement. For example, at Bay Prep, administrators and teachers noticed that many students waited for their rides home immediately outside the school in order to stay safe. In response, the school supported the Academic Resource Center in offering tutoring in classrooms near the waiting area so students could receive tutoring while awaiting their safe rides home—rather than waiting outside where they might feel unsafe. This move is representative of the kinds of targeted strategies that were implemented in order to meet the needs of particular student populations, as expressed discursively by educators and school staff. Another targeted strategy to support students’ feelings of psychic safety within the school occurred at NPMS when students who identified as Muslim requested, with support from teachers, a space for prayer during the school day (NPMS Teacher Interview, June 13, 2014). The students had felt ostracized and were praying in the bathroom. In response, a classroom was designated where these students could keep their prayer rugs and pray during the school day. The focal schools’ responses demonstrate their ideological commitment to offering targeted needsbased services and supports rather than a neo-liberal ideal of equality that would limit their ability to differentially support students. Bay Prep’s and NPMS’ responses reveal a degree of dedication to supporting positive school climates beyond promoting academic achievement by supporting students’ sense of belonging, identities, and physical and psychic safety. The discourses among educators at Bay Prep and NPMS also signal their shock, concern, and interest in honoring and responding to the trauma their students experienced outside of school that was beyond their control and purview. Table 3.4 is a compilation of some of the quotes from interviews with educators at NPMS and Bay Prep that reflect their concerns. We see various instances of educators’ racial and class consciousness relative to students’ lives and needs across these quotes. These educators acknowledge, to varying degrees, the role and responsibility of schools and educators to keep children safe and support their well-being. Consider the last quote by the Bay Prep administrator who emphasizes the urgency and gravity of education for their students and speculates what more the school could have done to protect that child beyond the school walls. Finally, the discourse among these educators, like that of the

78  Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins Table 3.4 Teachers’ quotes related to student trauma … Working [here], I think I had a specific understanding about urban education and the traumas that students bring to classrooms, but until, you have a student actually come up to you and tell you like that they’re in a sorta situation, or that they’ve been exposed to these kinds of things, it doesn’t really hit you, and how impactful that is into their everyday life. (NPMS Educator) It’s this cycle that happens. It’s hard to deal with. Cause I want to teach you and give you what you need, but you’re dealing with your dad being locked up, and your mom is gone, and it’s hard. If someone is not prepared to deal with that and have empathy for students who have to deal with that, you can’t teach in this kind of environment. So the kids—my kids—come with so much trauma. … I was mentally drained. I would cry a lot, just having to call home and hear what students had to deal with at home, and then figuring out why they are short-tempered or acting this way, you never know what these kids are coming with. (NPMS Educator) [Our kids] see violence, which is why they go to yelling. It works in their community and I try to get teachers to understand, they’re yelling because it works. (Bay Prep Educator) … But I know for Black kids, growing up in Oakland, Black and Brown kids, education sometimes is a matter of life and death. You know, it’s not anything that we have time to play with. You know we’re losing too many of our kids, and you know, it should be preventable—at least. And this year I’m just sitting here thinking about a student who was buried last week. His mother buried his brother when he was 13… and I’ll never forget how elated she was at his graduation because we had done it. You know we got that boy graduated and two years outside of graduation—he’s dead. You know in front of his house. And it’s like schools can’t prevent that—but maybe if he was able to go away to college, and stay away he wouldn’t have even been at home. (Bay Prep Administrator; emphasis added)

district, emphasizes the need for school and classroom environments to be culturally relevant, flexible, and responsive to students’ emotional, developmental, and academic needs. Structural Characteristics Educators and staff members identified the needs of their students and families that could be mitigated through structural supports instituted at the respective FSCSs in our study. There were similar and unique structures across the two focal FSCSs. Resulting from identified needs based on student demographics and school neighborhoods, the varying structures illustrate the OUSD’s desire to implement FSCSs with “services [that] meet different needs at different levels” (OUSD Strategic Plan, 2011, p. 19). Table 3.5 outlines the structural supports in place for students at NPMS and Table 3.6 lists the structural supports instituted at Bay Prep High School.

The (mis)Education of Black Youth  79 Table 3.5 North Pineville Middle School structural supports Type of Structural Support Description Academic and after-school District-initiatives and resources were allocated to offer programs tutoring in the community rooms of local housing projects, offering more than academic supports and opportunities for “extended learning.” They also included free snacks and a district- sponsored safe aftercare site for lower-income families who may otherwise not have been able to benefit from afterschool programing. Computer lab access Parents/guardians had free access to computers and Internet, depending on staff availability, in addition to students’ access to technology through coursework or after-school programs. Family resource center Parents and siblings had access to a community space at (most parent education the school with computers and a small library, which is workshops occur here) attended to by a Parent Ambassador who can recommend resources to families. Fitness classes Parents/guardians could take free yoga or other fitness classes that were offered by the Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA). Free breakfast program All students received a free, hot breakfast or bagged breakfast option every morning before school started. Health center Students and their immediate family members could receive free health education classes, counseling, and medical services from a local health care practice focused on providing linguistically and culturally responsive care. Infant play group Counselors facilitated a play group for parents/guardians and their young children (ages 0–5 years) once a week. NPMS food and clothing Families could pick up groceries or clothing from the school bank site’s pantry before or after school, two times per month. Parent education Parents/guardians could enroll in parenting classes for a seven workshops to nine-week period; classes are available Saturdays (e.g., 9 am–1 pm) and include topics like parenting skills, housing and tenant rights, cooking, or workforce skills. Professional development Teachers engaged in professional development led to support students by trained professionals to learn instructional and experiencing trauma classroom management strategies to respond sensitively to and support students who have experienced or are experiencing forms of trauma. Restorative justice (RJ) Students could participate in restorative justice circles program within or outside of the classroom in order to build relationships with peers and adults at the school site. RJ is guided by Indigenous principles and seeks to address discipline issues in a restorative—rather than punitive—manner. School is in a Sanctuary Prevented officers from Immigration and Customs district and state for Enforcement from entering schools to arrest and/or undocumented students deport students. School uniforms Students are required to wear uniforms, including black or khaki skirts, shorts, or pants and a t-shirt in the color specified for each grade level (e.g., orange for 7th-graders).

80  Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins Table 3.6 Bay Prep High School structural supports Type of Structural Support Academic and afterschool programs

Description

District initiatives, including a focus on improving the academic outcomes for Black boys during the school day, as well as locally or federally funded after-school programs provided students with opportunities for “extended learning.” Bay Prep County food Students who sign up received a backpack filled with a twobank backpack program week supply of nonperishable food items. Bay Prep County Food Families picked up groceries or clothing from the school and Clothing Bank site’s pantry before or after-school, two times per month. College preparatory Students participated in a range of programs to support programs their post-secondary learning goals, including assistance with college applications, ACT/SAT preparation, and college campus visits. Programmatic activities are sponsored and managed by local universities, federally funded programs, or local entities. Free breakfast program All students could receive a free, hot breakfast or bagged breakfast option every morning before school starts. Health center Up to 700 students per academic year could receive free health education classes, counseling, and medical services from a local health care practice focused on providing linguistically and culturally responsive care. Mental health services Students could receive free mental health services provided by a local mental health care provider upon referral by a teacher or staff member, or self-referral through a teacher. Parent education A trained professional offered classes twice per week workshops focused on parenting advice, communication skills, or problem-solving with teenagers or within families. Restorative justice (RJ) Students participated in restorative justice circles within or program outside of the classroom in order to build relationships with peers and adults at the school site. RJ is guided by Indigenous principles and seeks to address discipline issues in a restorative, rather than punitive manner. High school students can train to be peer mediators to facilitate RJ circles and resolve peer-peer conflicts. School is in a Sanctuary Prevented officers from Immigration and Customs District and state for Enforcement from entering schools to arrest and/or undocumented students deport students. Substance abuse Students could receive free counseling services to support them counseling in stopping substance abuse (alcohol, tobacco, or drugs). Technology access All students had free access to computers, Internet, and printers in the school’s library. Translation services Parents could receive language translation services at the school site in Cambodian, Cantonese, Spanish, or Vietnamese. Vision services Students could receive free eye exams and eyeglasses from a mobile clinic focused on vision care; parent consent form required

The (mis)Education of Black Youth  81 Tables 3.5 and 3.6 illustrate the programs, resources, and policies at NMPS and Bay Prep that were part of the community schools reform. Below we unpack how educators at the two sites discussed and understood these structures relative to the four characteristics of sociopolitical clarity: (1) race and class consciousness; (2) commitment to equity not equality; (3) concern for the development of a positive school climate to support student well-being; and (4) commitment to providing access to what families need. In interviews and informal conversations with educators, neighborhood racial and class gentrification was repeatedly mentioned in response to questions about shifts in student demographics. An NPMS administrator demonstrated race and class consciousness in an interview when he shared, “most of the students who live here … are really struggling financially” and described how rising costs of living in the area had pushed out at least 10–11 mainly Black families from the school neighborhood. These families relocated to suburban areas with significantly less expensive rent prices but with fewer social services, transportation options, and community supports (Tepperman, 2013). In response to these rising costs and families’ needs, NPMS decided to require school uniforms. When asked about this choice, the principal pointed to the cost effectiveness of uniforms for families and stated, “… [With] the differences of income levels, having consistent policies will help everyone feel like they’re equal—that’s important.” He added that school uniforms help students build “identity and connection” with the school and reduce bullying and status evaluations that occur based on clothing: “With uniforms, if we can get rid of as many barriers [like] kids worrying about clothes being dirty and what not… it’s far cheaper.” Here, he argued that school uniforms were less expensive than buying clothing and decreased students’ embarrassment about wearing clothing repeatedly, wearing dirty clothing to school, and the status that came (or didn’t come) with wearing certain clothes over others. The school was also equipped with a washer and dryer that families could access to do their laundry. Educators and staff members at NPMS and Bay Prep also sought to increase families’ access to affordable food (see Tables 3.5 and 3.6). This was an important issue at NPMS due to rising costs of living in the area, the relocation of extended family members who had provided meals for some families, and the school’s location in a neighborhood without access to a full-service grocery store in almost 40 years (Wood, 2018). One NPMS teacher expressed her concern about students’ access to food in an interview: … Access to health were the biggest things [students needed]—and that encompasses food, clothing, and shelter. Cause I can’t teach in a class where half the kids are hungry, so you need to deal with that. And thank goodness we have the Family Resource Center!

82  Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins These concerns were echoed in educator interviews at both sites, and educators shared how they encouraged students and families to utilize structural supports (e.g., backpack programs), and in some cases, connected students directly with nonprofits. For instance, the Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA) at NPMS raffled prizes (e.g., grocery store gift cards) at meetings and encouraged parents to support local food justice efforts. Importantly, these examples indicate how educators at both FSCSs expressed their concerns that all of the structural supports recognized and addressed families’ and students’ needs, a key factor for successful FSCD/S implementation (Ishimaru, 2019). These educators worked to structurally attend to the racialized and classed ecologies of opportunity that influenced their Black students’ and families’ lives. Relational Characteristics We now turn to the relational characteristics at the two FSCSs and how Black students and families experienced them. While discursive and structural characteristics are critical, research suggests that students (individually and collectively) are more engaged and learn better when they have relationships with the adults in their lives and know that they care about their well-being (Winn, 2018). Consistent with this literature, three relational characteristics of FSCSs emerged during our analyses that relate back to the alignment of sociopolitical clarity across the district and schools: (1) interactions with students and families that emphasized understanding and advocacy rather than deficit views; (2) creating spaces for students to have conversations with adults to solve problems (e.g., discuss race and racism); and (3) preparation for life beyond the school site. At Bay Prep, educators, parents, and students struggled with developing and aligning their sociopolitical clarity, specifically in terms of understanding how neighborhood and school shifts affected the relational work at the school, how to disrupt deficit views of Black students, and how to address difficult issues, like racism. An administrator captured these tensions: I’ve seen the dynamic and community change at Bay Prep…. people say white kids are coming in from private schools, but there is also a big shift in [the neighborhood]…. the communities are changing… . but you know it’s either you’re gonna make things happen or you’re not, and there is support here… .you have to engage as a student… into the curriculum… in the activities, and what is being offered here… there are services being dedicated… we’re trying to close that gap by putting more services, more money, more programs geared toward African American students here at Bay Prep… you know we are targeting African American male students for achievement and providing them with support and mentorship, but we are also doing

The (mis)Education of Black Youth  83 it across the board… . we’re holding that bar up for everybody… . now with restorative justice and making sure that you know there are other avenues to choose from instead of you know suspension… expulsion. There are different things now that you can do to make them accountable… We have some staff members that are great role models and great leaders that are able to reach some of the African American students and have been here for a long time as well… It’s about the relationships you build and there is a lot of relationship building here at Bay Prep happening, which is creating a positive environment for kids to have an opportunity to learn and… gives ‘em some real good life skills, so they can move on into college. Here the administrator made connections between the changing racial and economic demographics in the neighborhood and school—more white and economically well-resourced people coming into Oakland and Bay Prep and poorer families moving out—and the types of relational and other resources the school has and who it serves. The administrator spoke to the various resources the school offers and the “committed staff” that create strong relationships with Black students and “reach” them with the goal of supporting the kinds of skills that will help them “move on into college.” However, these words suggest a lack of racial and class consciousness about what such shifts mean for the lives of students and the differentiated kinds of relational resources that may be necessary given contemporary and historic inequalities. Instead, the words voice a tension between advocating for equality or equity—between offering supports and holding the achievement “bar up” for everybody versus offering targeted supports for Black students. These negotiations were present across the data at Bay Prep and are visible in this quote where rather than disrupting deficit notions about Black students, the administrator reproduces them in putting it back on the students to “make things happen,” “engage,” and be “accountable.” Unlike the expansive aims of FSCSs, some of the data from Bay Prep also suggest a narrow focus on academic achievement and college preparation, uneven relational resources, and limited concern for students’ and families’ holistic wellbeing and reducing inequalities within and beyond the school. In addition, the interview data suggest that Bay Prep’s relational characteristics were more “service-model” oriented than collaborative (see Table 3.1). Later in the interview, the same administrator talks about relationships with parents at the school in two ways that implicitly fall along racial and economic lines, either through “outreach” to parents to “provide learning strategies for parents and parenting skills” or through having the “strongest PTSA in the entire city… they’re huge on networking, they’re huge in the community… .they raise a lot of money.” In this statement, the two sets of parents, outreach or Black parents, fundraising or non-Black parents, operate on the two different sides of a

84  Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins service model system with one receiving and one contributing. As with the material and relational resources, this administrator shared relative to Black students, the framing of relationships with parents essentializes Black parents as “in need,” deficient in parenting skills, and recipients of services rather than as collaborative partners. Black parents at Bay Prep also noted the tensions in sociopolitical clarity at the school and how these tensions played out in terms of the relational resources there: … You just don’t see the care for students…. Normally, a teacher who wants to see a child succeed will do whatever it takes to see that child succeed, but it seems like it’s easy for them to get an F- or an F+, not my daughter, but other students who come to me…. Teachers are not trying to help them succeed. They automatically want to give them a low grade…. they want to see them fail more than succeed and that’s um, that’s really uh, it saddens me… So I feel like the vision for students to succeed is there but it’s not consistent across the board. I don’t think all teachers have bought into the vision, but I think the principal and counselor are very supportive… .I’m a very active parent, but I think about kids who don’t have active parents, how do they get the support that they need?… I get the info that I need, but some students don’t have that. And I’m dealing with a student like that right now, African American male, his mother just passed this summer. So I talk to him, I encourage him, but he doesn’t have an advocate… .how do those students who don’t have advocates get the support that they need? In speaking about the relational resources at the FSCSs, this parent notes the inconsistencies or unevenness across educators’—the principal and the counselor as opposed to the various teachers—sociopolitical clarity and the relational supports provided. The parent emphasizes how they have had to fight for their child and worries about other children at the school who do not have such an advocate. This parent’s comments echo some of the concerns expressed by Black students, with one student at Bay Prep saying that I feel like sometimes the effort to kind of, not necessarily assimilate, but to encourage the Black students who aren’t really into academics and stuff, to you know get into it, can kind of be, just like a token thing… .So, you know when you train a dog you’re like, ‘Oh, I’ll give you this treat and I’ll make you do this trick, you know what I mean? I mean, to a degree, I think that if you come into Bay Prep like, strong convictions or whatever as a Black person, then you will be able to succeed. I mean, the demographics are so different than they used to be, there is majority white people here… .If you are a Black person who is convicted to do those things no matter how they are viewed or whatever, then I feel like you could succeed here.

The (mis)Education of Black Youth  85 Like the Bay Prep parent, this student hinted at some confusion about the nature of sociopolitical clarity at Bay Prep, is it to support students’ growth or is it an effort to “assimilate” Black students? At the same time, like the Bay Prep administrator, despite pointing out structural or discursive constraints, this student fell back into language that places most of the responsibility for success on the individual student when they refer to the importance of a student’s convictions. This placing of the burden of responsibility and success on the individual student rather than the student in partnership with the school is in direct contradiction to the FSCS model and OUSD’s own vision for FSCSs that seeks to engage, advocate, and be in partnership with students and families. At Bay Prep, these relational characteristics often were internally inconsistent, that is, out of line with the sociopolitical vision of the school and district. NPMS, a smaller school with less racial and economic diversity, also negotiated its sociopolitical clarity and relational characteristics. Distinct from the uneven experiences at Bay Prep, NPMS demonstrates that children indeed benefit—in terms of learning, engagement, well-being— when they consistently have positive relationships with others, routinely feel socially connected within a learning environment (Dryfoos et al., 2005), and when the sociopolitical clarity of educators within a learning environment is in close alignment. One NPMS parent spoke to the relational characteristics of the school by talking about its communication structures and the continued attempts by educators to be in partnership with families to support students’ well-being and success, What I like is I’m never not going to know about what’s going on at the school. If my daughter, you know, you might have the kid that don’t tell you [what is happening], if my daughter doesn’t tell me, Mr. Coles is gonna call and Mr. Simpson is going to leave a message on your phone. It’s automated, every week. This is going down this week, this is what’s happening at the school this week. Parents please turn in your slips for this or your child won’t be able to go. Everything is informative here… I feel like I’m family here. They care; they go over and beyond. I been called with things my daughter has done that was out of line, totally out of line, but it wasn’t like, “Hey, your daughter is like this. And she’s raised like this, and this is your fault.” It was, “Hey, what can we do?” Yeah, it’s a problem because she did it. But she’s not the problem.” When you can still have some compassion in your heart for the kid that’s acting a fool, that shows you really care. This parent pointed to the familial climate at the school and the asset based orientation toward students and their behaviors, even when they are less than ideal. While her sentiments highlighted the unique benefits of a small school, they also reflected the positive relational characteristics of FSCSs. Likewise, an NPMS student offers: “I like this  kinda

86  Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins family relationship that we have. We all know each other [and] somewhat get along [and] know about each other… you feel safe. You  don’t have to worry about fighting. It’s different from my last school.” This student describes the power of positive relationships as helping her and other students feel “safe” and not “have to worry about fighting.” The alignment of sociopolitical clarity and its influence on a school’s relational resources again became apparent through the NPMS science fair, one of the school’s hallmark events. The entire student body was required to participate in this fair. Fieldnotes indicate that prior to the fair, the science and engineering teachers spent a good deal of instructional time supporting students in developing their projects and working with them on their presentation skills. During science and/or engineering class periods leading up to the science fair, students shared their ideas, rehearsed their science fair presentations in small groups, and participated in mock question and answer sessions. These rehearsals and pre-fair activities provided students with targeted verbal and written feedback from their instructors and peers. One instructor even invited 8th-grade students into a class of 6th- and 7th-graders the day before the science fair to provide specific pointers on how students could strengthen their presentations, such as adding videos and pictures, and making eye contact with the audience. By allowing students to engage in mock science fair presentations with targeted feedback in varied formats, teachers at NPMS provided students with structures for improving their presentations, facilitated students’ academic identity development, and modeled how scientists share findings (Gomez, 2007). The science fair was held in the evening, began with a free dinner, and included judges from local STEM-focused nonprofit organizations, community members, and a member of our research team—almost all of whom identified as Black. Students were also required to have at least one adult in their lives judge their projects, which factored into students’ final grades. The night included performances from the school band, children’s science activities, and a step show where students from the feeder elementary school, NPMS’ step team, and members of local chapters of traditionally Black Greek fraternities and sororities performed. Additionally, representatives from the school’s Family Resource Center, medical and mental health services providers, and other community members offered information about free local services. This is atypical of science fairs at most schools, not only because of the involvement of local community members but because of the family, medical, and food resources available to parents and the requirement of family involvement in grading students’ projects. However, the science fair at NPMS was not just about developing students’ content knowledge; it was also centered on facilitating positive relationships and interactions with students and families and making clear that every student was held

The (mis)Education of Black Youth  87 to high learning expectations. In addition, the fair operated with a race and class consciousness that guided how the educators connected families with key resources and ensured students practiced presentation and project development skills that would serve them well beyond middle school. Finally, as these projects were developed in the science and engineering classes weeks prior to the fair, opportunities were created for students to engage in problem-solving with teachers’ support and for teachers to continually affirm students’ capacities and debunk racial and gender stereotypes about their abilities. Pedagogical Characteristics The relational characteristics identified above supported and were the foundation for the pedagogical approaches educators used in classrooms. While many pedagogical characteristics supported Black students in these FSCSs, we highlight three characteristics evident at NPMS and Bay Prep: (1) attention to students’ classed realities that could influence their access to resources for learning; (2) explicit and implicit acknowledgment and debunking of deficit narratives about Black students; and (3) culturally relevant teaching practices (Ladson-Billings, 1995). One NPMS parent, Michelle, spoke to these pedagogical characteristics relative to the school’s disciplinary practices. During her interview, she was asked to compare her current experiences as a parent to when her older daughter attended the school (prior to becoming an FSCS). She responded: I did like the old principal, she did seem to care and make changes, and I know what kind of students and parents she had to deal with, but the dynamic of the school totally changed when they got Mr. Simpson and those guys up in here. They [teachers] started caring more for children, and when I say caring, I think the other principal cared, but she did not have the staff to help her care. They were interested in suspending them and getting the bad person out of here, instead of seeing what’s going on with this kid, I think that Mr. Coles and Mr. Simpson look more into the person and figure out if they have a program they can help a child succeed. They want everyone to succeed. Michelle describes the distinct “dynamic” and disciplinary practices implemented by the newer administration at NPMS, and how it and teachers invested time in trying to work with students through the challenges they may have been experiencing that led to disruptive behavior. As with the previous NPMS parent, Michelle felt that her child was never viewed as “the problem” or “as less than”; instead, NPMS was keen to understand the needs of each student, what might be affecting

88  Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins them, and consider the programs or supports that might be beneficial. Michelle views both administrations as “caring” for students, but clarifies that the current administration has a team of educators and a structural and pedagogical design that evidences this care for students. This included NPMS developing an alternative disciplinary culture that put the students’ needs first and maintained a priority of student support, well-being, and success. Even though the relational and pedagogical characteristics at Bay Prep were uneven, at Bay Prep and at NPMS parents and students spoke of several educators who were warm demanders (Irvine & Fraser, 1998) that maintained a high level of expectation for students’ work without negating the very real issues that may be impacting their behavior, academic performance, and emotions. We see this in the approach of Ms. Johnson, a teacher at Bay Prep, who shares: When a student gets in trouble, it’s a different type of conversation, it’s not ‘We’re so disappointed, I hate that I have to suspend you but,’ it’s like, ‘What are you thinking? This hurts me when I have to do this. It hurt me to see what you did’… and for them to hear someone say because that’s kind of a positive-negative, ‘I’m affected by what you did, even though it was negative.’ … It still screams, ‘I believe in you.’ It makes a difference. These encounters demonstrated educators’ pedagogical efforts at the interpersonal and personal levels to protect students from punitive disciplinary measures as well as a deep investment in students’ identities and realities. Ms. Johnson also expresses a need to protect her students from the realities of the world and shares that the way a teacher talks about students reflects how they think about them: I call them my sweeties… .I think, if you start using other terms, then you’re gonna start thinking of them in those other maybe negative terms, and that’s not who they are. … [My] thing to them is always, heads up. Heads up. I’m not saying to them, “Have a nice weekend!” That might come out as a second, but my first one is heads up… because when they go out there, you know there’s no protection and I would tell them, ‘I’m a teacher, I’m gonna always protect you,’ to be able to endure some of the adversities you’ll face outside of this classroom [emphasis added]. Here, Ms. Johnson spoke about the need to call her high school students by terms of endearment, terms that are arguably often reserved for younger students. She did so to undo the damage of negative stereotypes about her Black students, ones they face daily at school and in their experiences outside of school.

The (mis)Education of Black Youth  89 These pedagogical characteristics were also present at NPMS. Ms.  Bryant’s English Language Arts classroom was based on positive relationships and sociopolitical clarity about her students and their academic and socioemotional needs. Below is an excerpt from fieldnotes in her class that shows how she cared for each student, recognized and combated deficit narratives about Black students by positively positioning and explicitly referring to them as “scholars,” acknowledged their “wisdom” and offered them opportunities to share it with younger scholars. The field notes below also demonstrate how she engaged in culturally relevant teaching practices that brought students and their knowledge into the curricular activities as well as employed pedagogical and interactional strategies that support students’ academic success and push them to be critical and self-reflective about what they know and how that could be useful to someone younger than them. Ms. Bryant greets each student as they enter her classroom. She’s checking in with a group of boys, and says to one, “You gon’ be cool today?” They have a brief exchange about a missing assignment, and she promises to email it to him after school… When I enter the classroom, I notice a female student working on the computer at Ms.  Bryant’s desk; she yells out, “Act like y’all got some home training.” These interactions between teacher-student and student-student are interesting to me because to some degree, I am intrigued by the way that students themselves attempt to correct other students’ behaviors… The fact that Ms. Bryant stands in the hall during the passing period to say hello and check in with each student strikes me as her way of showing care for/to students  … Ms.  Bryant says to a group of disruptive students, “I just spoke to y’all [in the hallway]—pick a seat where you’ll be productive.” Students get started on the Do Now “Identify three new things that you learned this year that you feel will help you with high school.” This seems to be her way of finding out students’ ideas about what they feel they will need next year as 9th graders… By 11:20, students are sharing out their responses to the Do Now, and Ms. Bryant refers to students as “scholars.” … A few moments later, students are engaged in the next task—“Write a Letter to a 6th Grade Scholar.” Ms. Bryant explains that she is asking them to write a letter to a 6th grader,” in which you give them your wisdom. What words of advice would you say to them for them to be successful as you move onto high school? What is something that you learned that would be helpful for a 6th grader to understand?” Likewise, a science and engineering teacher at NPMS, Mr. Coles, used his complementary tools of seriousness and humor to position students as capable of academic success. In addition, he specifically positioned

90  Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins them and their realities as consonant with knowing and doing science and being engineers as evidenced in the field notes below: Mr. Coles teaches in a standard issue school science laboratory marked by student work stations with built-in sinks. Students are crammed around the stations, others have chairs pulled up to the countertops and office tables that line the perimeter of the classroom. Mr. Coles is seated in the front of the class at the demonstration table where more students are seated… He comments that students expect “credit for stuff you’re supposed to do” and says he doesn’t want to see papers that “have been through some things” or—as he fakes rummaging through a backpack—come out of the “depths of backpacks.” Rather than being ashamed, students giggle in response. He remarks sarcastically, “God forbid if you’re not 100% stereotypical” and “take pride in your work.” He makes the analogy that if somebody had a dirty car, the students would say “you nasty,” yet they are not concerned about the condition of the work they submit. Mr. Coles warns students that, “you [because you’re Black] will be judged on anything you do” because “everyone doesn’t see everybody the same.” Mr. Coles states that he will not accept anything “raggedy” and mimics a student formally and carefully handing in work to a teacher because they realize that their schoolwork should be treated like “important business documents.” He models how he would open his notebook and create this document by stating aloud his name, the date, the class title, and class period on separate lines. He marks taking pride in your work and its presentation as a skill they will “need for the rest of your life.” Visible in this vignette is how Mr. Coles communicated high expectations for his students’ academic success, and how aspects of his discourse were explicitly or implicitly tied to culture, race, and/or social class and rooted in his sociopolitical clarity. He understood the negative stereotypes his students, as Black youth, may experience. We see this in how he deepened his initial criticism of student work to include a racial dimension—for example, “God forbid if you’re not 100% stereotypical” and “you [as African Americans] will be judged on anything you do”— that mocks “stereotypical” deficit-thinking perspectives about Black students. This discursive move supported students’ critical consciousness by presenting an opportunity for them to recognize existing power dynamics and stereotypes as social constructs that they can disrupt. This clarity was also evident in how he created an analogy between raggedy schoolwork and a dirty car that pulls upon his cultural competency in the Black community in referencing cleanliness, especially as it relates to one’s possessions or external appearance. This reference links to a sociohistoric stereotype of Black people as “dirty” or “uncivilized” and their

The (mis)Education of Black Youth  91 attempts to demonstrate their humanity and morality through fastidious attention to cleanliness despite inhumane social and material conditions (Higginbotham, 1993). His reference in this instance did not serve to dehumanize students or belittle their lived experiences but reflects his membership within students’ racial and cultural community and to mark practices students may have already had regarding self-presentation as also having relevance to school, science, and career.

Summary and Discussion In this chapter we used two cases – NPMS and Bay Prep – to examine the discursive, structural, relational, and pedagogical characteristics of FSCSs that seek to support Black students’ well-being and academic success and to determine how Black parents and students experience these schools. In looking across two FSCSs, we exposed how the alignment and/or fractures in sociopolitical clarity and its enactment across layers of context and activity affected Black parents’ and students’ perceptions of the FSCSs. We also revealed if and how the FSCSs addressed or reproduced stereotypes and inequalities. Distinct from past empirical studies that examine FSCSs, we demonstrated how FSCSs operate as unique learning environments as well as within broader layers of context that include individuals, cultural practices and communities, institutions, and social discourses. Our findings indicate that FSCSs must consider their charge not only as one of equity (not equality) but of necessity, given the systemic and symbolic miseducation of Black youth. In comparing and contrasting Bay Prep and NPMS, we show how FSCSs—as an innovative model of schooling—may be able to address some systemic and symbolic inequalities in schooling, but their success relies upon: (1) the sociopolitical clarity of teachers and administrators; and (2) the alignment of this clarity across levels of context, from the district to the classroom. That is, it is not enough for the district to articulate anti-deficit notions of students and take on the responsibility of creating FSCSs and providing services for students. This discourse needs to be instantiated into structures, relationships, and pedagogical practices that are enacted in schools and classrooms consistently and systematically. In short, FSCSs must consider their work not as a feel good measure but a necessary endeavor to combat the recurrent miseducation and mistreatment of Black youth in schools and society. In examining the structural, pedagogical, relational, and discursive characteristics of NPMS and Bay Prep, we also discussed Black parents’ and students’ perceptions of the FSCSs’ efforts to support Black students and families, disrupt inequality, and alter the systemic and symbolic miseducation of Black youth. At the heart of our findings was the importance of sociopolitical clarity and alignment among educators across layers of

92  Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins context—as evidenced in the discourses present in district documents, and from district officials, school administrators, and teachers—and Black students and parents as savvy interpreters of the presence, consistency, and continuity of this clarity. We examined educators’ sociopolitical clarity as centered around four characteristics: (1) race and class consciousness or a shared understanding and solidarity around the racialized and classed experiences and realities of students and families; (2) commitment to equity not equality where equality presumes that each student needs and benefits from the same resources, access, learning opportunities, and supports, while equity reflects an understanding that students have differentiated needs to support their success and well-being; (3) recognition of the critical nature of a positive school climate that encourages wellbeing beyond academic success alone; and (4) acknowledgment by the district and schools of the importance of attending to students’ and families’ needs rather than presuming that families’ have resources at their disposal or can access them. Findings also documented how educators discussed the needs of their students and families and the key interventions at the focal FSCSs, including the utility of those services and activities that are comprehensive (e.g., Health Care Centers, NPMS science fair), serve all students, and target specific student populations, like Muslim students or students who may have to wait a long period of time after school for an adult to pick them up. While our focus here was to present the potential of FSCSs as an alternative to traditional ideologies and structures of schooling and their promise for reducing racial and social inequalities, FSCSs also have their limitations. Some limitations are internal to the work of FSCSs and some are external. We have pointed out some internal limitations of FSCSs in examining the need for the alignment of discourses, structures, relational, and pedagogical interactions and practices across institutions, settings, and educators. There are also external constraints. No school can solve all the nation’s problems or those of an individual student or family. Poverty, gentrification, resegregation, violence, and rampant racism and bigotry in American society cannot be resolved through schools alone—no matter how safe or well-resourced schools are, or how well-meaning and well-equipped educators are. Those broader societal problems require ideological and systemic changes that exist beyond the purview of educators, schools, and school districts but are connected to and influenced by schooling (Carter & Reardon, 2014). Nonetheless, schools can play a critical role in reducing how students and families experience and are affected by these inequalities by providing access, opportunity, and equitable resources based on respect, reciprocity, and fostering students’ sociopolitical consciousness around systemic inequalities (Galindo et al., 2017; McKinney de Royston et al., 2017; Sanders et al., 2018). The provision of health services, food and job resources, and before- and after-school supports offer real-time relief

The (mis)Education of Black Youth  93 to students and families and fundamentally debunks the notion that they are the problem and need to be changed, but recognizes the brunt of structural inequalities on the lives of minoritized youth and families, and the need for social change (Biag & Castrechini, 2016; Sanders, 2013). There are also limitations in what can be understood from the analyses presented here. Our data sources are confined to those of two schools within one district and are therefore not representative of all of the possible instantiations and nuances of FSCSs as might exist across different communities and cities or of the inequalities that might exist in those locales. In addition, within the two schools and the district that we focused upon, we narrowed our analysis to that of Black students and families and cannot speak to the myriad of other communities and issues that are also relevant to FSCSs and to schooling more broadly. Finally, our data are not longitudinal nor based upon quantitative measures of student or school performance and thus cannot speak to determinations of academic success as conceptualized and analyzed over time or through standardized tests scores. What our analyses do afford are a rich description and insight into the discursive, structural, relational, and pedagogical characteristics and nuances of FSCSs as enacted by dedicated, equity-intentioned practitioners seeking to reduce inequalities and improve the schooling and academic experiences of Black students and their families. This orientation towards seeing what is being done and what students and families attend to as useful and productive for them is no less important (Bartolome, 1994; Saldaña & Omasta, 2018), particularly if FSCSs aim to disrupt inequalities, intervene in the systemic and symbolic miseducation of Black youth, and support their holistic development and educational success.

Conclusion A main implication of this work is not to offer FSCSs as a panacea for resolving social inequalities but to demonstrate the need for district officials, administrators, teachers, and other educational stakeholders and power brokers to move beyond well-intended reforms to consider the ideological and structural nature of reforms, and how they are articulated and reverberate through the social, institutional, cultural, and individual levels of context and activity. Far too often reforms get lost in translation, the necessary elements get distorted, or the inequality being targeted fails to get adequately conceptualized or enacted in structural and practice-oriented ways. Yet, confusion remains when anticipated outcomes do not emerge. Unfortunately, the stagnation or failure of reforms and interventions continues to be placed on students, families, communities, and individual teachers or administrators. This narrow focus of blame serves to confirm suspicions of ineducability or of problems too big to solve rather than expose the uneven or poorly articulated goals, structures, and implementation of these efforts.

94  Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins In fact, this is precisely what happened in OUSD in the years after the study was completed. While we report on the power and potential of the FSCS model here, the story of OUSD is a cautionary tale. As we have argued, the alignment of sociopolitical clarity across contexts of the learning ecology—district, school, and teachers—and across the discursive, structural, relational, and pedagogical aspects of the focal schools is critical. This alignment was off to a powerful start at NPMS and, to a lesser extent, Bay Prep. However, shortly after our study, many of the district officials, including the superintendent, and school administrators shifted out of and around the district to other schools that had “greater need.” These shifts changed the discursive, structural, relational, and pedagogical alignments at both schools and the district. Such changes are more often than not the kiss of death to any innovation or intervention as they inherently rely upon the goals, sociopolitical clarity, and political will and commitments of individual people (especially those in places of leadership). FSCSs, like prior reforms, are susceptible to the erratic nature of schooling in the United States where stable funding and leadership are elusive, and naïve presumptions about quick fixes and high returns continue to be seductive and sustained, and powerful ideological and structural changes undervalued. Unfortunately, these issues are more rather than less prevalent in school districts where the majority of students live in poverty and/or come from traditionally minoritized communities. Instead of the FSCS model instigating a long-term shift to a whole child, child-in-context perspective that debunks racial and class stereotypes and radically alters how we think about schools, such reforms may continue to get undermined, and districts and schools return to looking for the next “hot ticket” intervention or innovation model. The work of FSCSs is thus not simply one of equity but of necessity if they imagine the role of public schools is to counter the systemic and symbolic miseducation of Black youth.

Note 1 A sampling method where the researcher obtains names of potential participants through direct contact with community members, such as organizations, individuals, churches, or periodicals. This method was coined by Foster (1991) and has been taken up in educational research, most notably by Ladson-Billings (1995).

References Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of Blacks in the South, 1860–1935. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. doi:10.1086/ahr/95.3.915 Bartlett, L., & varus, F. (2018). Research Note: What’s wrong with case studies? Pitfalls and promises. Teachers College Record. http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 22234.

The (mis)Education of Black Youth  95 Bartolome, L. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 64, 173–194. doi:10.17763/haer.64.2.58 q5m5744t325730 Beauboeuf-Lafontant, T. (1999). A movement against and beyond boundaries. Teachers College Record, 100(4), 702–723. doi:10.1111/0161–4681.00013 Biag, M., & Castrechini, S. (2016). Coordinated strategies to help the whole child: Examining the contributions of full-service community schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 21(3), 157–173. doi: 10.1080/10824669.2016.1172231 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American Psychologist, 34(10), 844–850. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.844 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. International Encyclopedia of Education, 3(2), 37–43. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Carter, P. L., & Reardon, S. (2014). Inequality matters. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation. http://wtgrantfoundation.org/library/uploads/2015/09/ Inequality-Matters.pdf Catsambis, S., & Beveridge, A. A. (2001). Does neighborhood matter? Family, neighborhood, and school influences on eighth-grade mathematics achievement. Sociological Focus, 34(4), 435–457. doi:10.1080/00380237.2001.105 71212 Cole, M. (1996). Culture in mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cummings, C., Todd, L., & Dyson, A. (2011). Beyond the school gates: Can full service and extended schools overcome disadvantage? London, UK: Routledge. Dryfoos, J. G., & Maguire, S. (2002). Inside full-service community schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Dryfoos, J. G., Quinn, J., & Barkin, C. (2005). Community schools in action: Lessons from a decade of practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 225–241. doi:10.1111/j.1532–7795.2010.00725.x Epstein, J. L. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. New York, NY: Routledge. Espinoza, O. (2007). Solving the equity-equality conceptual dilemma: A new model for analysis of the educational process. Educational Research, 49(4), 343–363. doi:10.1080/00131880701717198 Fehrer, K., & Leos-Urbel, J. (2016). “We’re one team”: Examining community school implementation strategies in Oakland. Education Sciences, 6(3), 1–24. doi:10.3390/educsci6030026 FitzGerald, A. M., & Quiñones, S. (2018). Working in and with community: Leading for partnerships in a community school. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1–22. doi:10.1080/15700763.2018.1453938 Foster, M. (1991). Constancy, connectedness, and constraints in the lives of African-American teachers. National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 3, 233–261.

96  Maxine McKinney de Royston and Tia C. Madkins Galindo, C., Sanders, M., & Abel, Y. (2017). Transforming educational experiences in low income communities: A qualitative case study of social capital in a full-service community school. American Educational Research Journal, Centennial Edition, 54(1S), 140–163. doi:10.3102/0002831216676571 Gomez, K. (2007). Negotiating discourses: Sixth-grade students’ use of multiple science discourses during a science fair presentation. Linguistics and Education, 18(1), 41–64. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2007.03.002 Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59–68. doi:10.3102/0013189X09357621 Gutierrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X032005019 Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Annual Synthesis, 2002. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. Higginbotham, E. B. (1993). Righteous discontent: The women’s Movement in the Black Baptist church, 1880–1920. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.1086/ahr/99.3.981 Irvine, J. J., & Fraser, J. W. (1998). Warm demanders. Education Week, 17(35), 56–57. Ishimaru, A. M. (2019). From family engagement to equitable collaboration. Educational Policy, 33(2), 350–385. doi:10.1177/0895904817691841 Jeynes, W. H. (2005). The effects of parental involvement on the academic achievement of African American youth. The Journal of Negro Education, 74, 260–274. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. doi:10.3102/ 00028312032003465 McKinney de Royston, M., & Nasir, N. S. (2017). Racialized learning ecologies: Understanding race as a key feature of learning and developmental processes in schools. In N. Budwig, E. Turiel, & P.D. Zelazo (Eds.), New Perspectives on Human Development (pp. 258–286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. McKinney de Royston, M., Vakil, S., Nasir, N. S., Ross, K. M., Givens, J. R., & Holman, A. (2017). “He’s more like a ‘brother’ than a teacher”: Politicized caring in a program for African American males. Teachers College Record, 119(4), 1–40. Milner, H. R. (2012). Understanding urban education from the outside in and inside out. Urban Education, 47(6), 1019–1024. doi:10.1177/0042085912463858 Nasir, N. S., & Bang, M. (2012). Conceptualizing cultural and racialized process in learning. Human Development, 55(5–6), 247–249. doi:10.1159/000345311 Nasir, N. S., & Hand, V. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 449–475. doi:10.3102/00346543076004449 Oakes, J., Maier, A., & Daniel, J. (2017). Community schools: An evidence-based strategy for equitable school improvement. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.

The (mis)Education of Black Youth  97 Orfield, G., Ee, J., Frankenberg, E., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2016). “Brown” at 62: School segregation by race, poverty and state. Civil Rights Project-Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565900.pdf OUSD. (2011). Community schools, thriving students: A five year strategic plan. Oakland Unified School District. Saldaña, J., & Omasta, M. (2018). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sanders, M. (2013). Poverty, Families, and Schools. In C. Yeakey, V. Thompson, & A. Wells (Eds.), Urban ills: Confronting twenty first century dilemmas of urban living in global contexts (pp. 329–350). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Sanders, M. (2016). Leadership, partnerships, and organizational development: Exploring components of effectiveness in three full-service community schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(2), 1–21. doi:10.1 080/09243453.2015.1030432 Sanders, M. (2018). Crossing boundaries: A qualitative exploration of relational leadership in three full-service community schools. Teachers College Record, 120(4), 1–36. Sanders, M., Galindo, C., & McIntosh Allen, K. (2018). Professional capital and responses to student diversity: A qualitative exploration of the role of teachers in full-service community schools. Urban Education. doi:10.1177/ 0042085918770719 Shapiro, T. M. (2017). Toxic inequality: How America’s wealth gap destroys mobility, deepens the racial divide, and threatens our future. New York, NY: Basic Books. Tepperman, J. (2013, October). Who’s jacking up housing prices in West Oakland? East Bay Express Online. Retrieved from https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/whos-jacking-up-housing-prices-in-west-oakland/ Content?oid=3726518&showFullText=true Trujillo, T. M., Hernandez, L. E., Jarrell, T., & Kissell, R. (2014). Community schools as urban district reform: Analyzing Oakland’s policy landscape through oral histories. Urban Education, 49(8), 895–929. doi:10.1177/0042085914557644 Vossoughi, S., & Gutierrez, K. D. (2014). Studying movement, hybridity, and change: Toward a multi-sited sensibility for research on learning across contexts and borders. National Society for the Study of Education, 113, 603–632. Walker, V. S. (2018). The lost education of Horace Tate: Uncovering the hidden heroes who fought for justice in schools. New York, NY: The New Press. Winn, M. T. (2018). Justice on both sides: Transforming education through restorative justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Wood, C. (2018, May). After 40 years without a full-scale grocery store, neighborhoods in West Oakland will welcome Community Foods Market. Berkeleyside Online. Retrieved from https://www.berkeleyside.com/2018/05/01/ after- 40 -years-without-a-full-scale-grocery-store-west-oak-land-towelcome-community-foods-market

4

The Role of Teachers in Transforming an Urban Full-Service Community High School Exploring Processes of Change Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo

Education reforms have yet to transform learning experiences and outcomes in the vast majority of schools serving low-income urban students (Payne, 2008). Often singularly focused on curriculum (Slavin & Madden, 2004) or student behavior (Horner & Sugai, 2015), such reforms have failed to address low academic expectations and conditions of poverty, or build stakeholders’ capacities as agents of change (Nicholl, 2014). Holistic in design, full-service community schools (FSCSs) promise to address these limitations (Blank, Melaville, & Shah, 2003; Dryfoos, 2005; Galindo & Sanders, 2019; Oakes, Maier, & Daniel, 2017). That is, the defining pillars of FSCSs – expanded learning opportunities, integrated services and supports for students and families, family and community engagement, and collaborative leadership (Oakes et al., 2017) – address school, community, and systemic factors influencing the education of historically underserved students. As such, FSCSs have the potential to dramatically change these students’ educational experiences and outcomes (Blank, 2000; Dryfoos, 2002; Galindo, Sanders, & Abel, 2017; Sanders, 2013). Administrators, teachers, students, families, and community partners all play essential roles in realizing the transformative potential of FSCSs. However, teachers are particularly salient actors given the role they play in creating the conditions for learning (i.e., challenging curricula, student-centered instruction, supportive classroom environment, and parent and community engagement) that characterize highly effective FSCSs (Berg, Melaville, & Blank, 2006; Daniel, Quartz, & Oakes, 2019; Sanders, Galindo, & Allen, 2018). Drawing on data from a mixed-methods case study of an award-winning, urban FSC high school, this paper describes progress and challenges in the process of educational transformation, with a particular focus on the role of teachers.

Review of the Literature The Transformative Potential of FSCSs FSCSs have the potential to transform educational spaces for poor students and students of color through their emphasis on:

The Role of Teachers  99 • • • •

providing community and culturally responsive in and out-of-school time learning opportunities for students; identifying and meeting the health, mental health, and social welfare needs of students and families; facilitating school, family and community partnerships focused on students’ learning and development; and broadening the role of key stakeholders in school decision-making (Blank et al., 2003).

Through these defining pillars, FSCSs offer a paradigm of educational practice that is different from the dominant paradigm described by Nicholl (2014), which views students’ success as the result of a linear process only involving students and teachers inside classrooms during regular school hours. Rather, FSCSs conceptualize learning and the stakeholders critical for its success within a broader framework that acknowledges inequities in the educational opportunities provided to poor students and students of color, and the complex socio-economic factors influencing the well-being and engagement of their families and communities. Through their focus on “healthy and motivated students, freedom from poverty, solid parental and community support, a caring and supportive school environment, … and engaging educational activities” (Levitt, 2008, p. 56), FSCSs have the potential to be truly transformative for underserved students, families, and communities. While a growing body of research shows promising outcomes for FSCSs (Galindo & Sanders, 2019; Oakes et al., 2017), the literature also describes the challenges these schools face in realizing their transformative potential (Cummings, Dyson, & Todd, 2011; McMahon, Ward, Pruett, Davidson, & Griffith, 2000; Sanders & HembrickRoberts, 2013). In  addition to identifying appropriate community partners,  space,  and funding to sustain service provision (Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002; McMahon et al., 2000), FSCSs must restructure the school environment to become more collaborative and less insular and hierarchical (Medina, Cosby, & Grim, 2019; Smrekar & Mawhinney, 1999). Without creating new cultures, structures, roles, and processes that allow multiple stakeholders to meaningfully engage in school planning and decision-making, FSCSs will not achieve an education for low-income students and families that is transformative in practice and outcomes (McKinney de Royston & Madkins, 2019). Transformative Education McWhinney & Markos (2003) contend that an education that is transformative “redirects and reenergizes” individuals to reflect on what has

100  Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo been and “take on new purposes and perspectives” (p. 16). Similarly, Warren and Mapp (2011) contrast transactional change that focuses on achieving “specific goals or objectives,” with transformational change, which “involves an internal change in how people or institutions act” (p. 228). Transformative education, then, is grounded in critical analysis and reflection, and is also progressive, propelling school personnel, students, and families into unchartered spaces and new patterns of practice that challenge the dominant paradigm (Brown, 2004; Freire, 1968/2000). Thus, education reforms with the potential to be transformative must be comprehensive – addressing instruction, school and classroom climate, students’ physical and socio-emotional health, and family and community engagement and relationships (McWhinney & Markos, 2003; Nicholl, 2014). As such, these reforms require and must accommodate processes of relearning that include schools but extend beyond their bricks and mortar to visualize and embrace new roles for school leaders, students, families, community partners, and teachers (Brown, 2004). Transforming schools, therefore, are not static but engaged in a dynamic and inclusive process of continuous learning and improvement. Principals are pivotal in creating conditions for role redefinition and collaboration in FSCSs (Brown, 2004; Dryfoos, 2002; Sanders, 2016). That is, case study research suggests that by establishing collaborative decision-making structures and expectations; developing and maintaining opportunities for home, school, and community communication and interaction; and providing professional development to support broad understanding and adoption of reform principles, principals can ensure that FSCSs achieve their goals for transforming the educational experiences of underserved students (Richardson, 2009; Sanders, 2018). Research further suggests that without such leadership, FSCS reform diffusion will be limited; traditional school practices will prevail; and significantly, teacher innovation, leadership, and family and community outreach will be constrained (Adams, 2019; Medina et al., 2019). The Role of Teachers in Transformative Education As observed by Giroux (1985) over three decades ago, education reforms have a record of ignoring the role of teachers, sending the message that they “do not count when it comes to critically examining the nature and process” of educational change (p. 376). However, several studies have shown that teachers’ sense making of educational reform influences if and how these reforms are implemented in classrooms and scaled up in schools and districts (Coburn, 2001; Datnow & Castellano, 2000; Schmidt & Datnow, 2005). The role of teachers is likely more pronounced in reforms that aim to transform rather than “innovate,”

The Role of Teachers  101 aspects of the dominant education paradigm (Baker-Doyle, 2017; Freire, 2005; Payne, 2008). In particular, Giroux (1985) describes transformative teachers as intellectuals that focus on students and classrooms not in isolation but within a larger social context. Further, he contends that transformative teachers require a critical understanding of race, class, gender, and other dimensions of identity, power, and discrimination, as well as the agency and “funds of knowledge” (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992) that reside within culturally diverse communities. Similarly, King (1991) argued: “Critical, transformative teachers must develop a pedagogy of social action and advocacy that really celebrates diversity, not just random holidays, isolated cultural artifacts, or ‘festivals and food’” (p. 134). Teachers, as conceptualized in these writings, have voice and are leaders of change not passive consumers or uncritical resisters. They are also relational in their approach to educational change. They reject the “culture of poverty” framework (i.e., the belief that poor people “share a consistent and observable culture” that eschews mainstream values such as hard work and educational attainment – Gorksi, 2008, p. 1) and authentically collaborate with students’ families and communities to create more equitable and socially just schools and societies (Ladson-Billings, 1999). As such, transformative teachers show high levels of academic optimism. That is, they maintain high standards for students’ achievement (academic emphasis), believe in their capacity to make a difference in students’ learning and school success (self-efficacy), and trust students and parents as partners in the educational process (Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2006; Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, & Kurz, 2008). However, as Kose and Lim (2011) found in their study of urban elementary school teachers, transformative practices require new knowledge about pedagogy and content for diverse learners as well as changes in teachers’ belief systems about students and their families and communities. Regarding the latter, Ishimaru (2019) and McKinney de Royston and Madkins (2019) describe the need to reframe traditional family and community partnerships from a service provider-client model to one based upon “accessibility, reciprocity, and equity where the school, families, and communities are each leaders and critical contributors” (McKinney de Royston & Madkins, 2019, p.  247). Such changes do not occur instantaneously, underscoring transformative education as a process requiring leadership, professional development, and time (Brown, 2004). Drawing on the literature on FSCSs, transformative education, and the role of teachers in education reform, and data collected from a mixed methods case study, this paper explores transformation in an award-winning urban FSC high school in the northeastern United States.

102  Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo Specifically, the paper examines the extent to which the case school has fundamentally changed the education of the largely poor and racially and ethnically diverse students it serves. In our exploration, we focus specifically on school climate, instruction, family engagement, and the role of teachers in the transformation process.

Methods Research Design This study utilized a mixed-methods case study design. Using a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods provides a breadth and depth of insights into a given phenomenon that is more difficult to achieve when relying on a single approach (Johnson, & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Similarly, case study research, a multi-vocal, triangulated inquiry strategy, facilitates a holistic understanding of a complex “system of action” (Tellis, 1997, p. 1). An effective FSCS was selected as the case for this study to increase opportunities to observe areas of transformation, better isolate the potential influences of teachers, and avoid confounding findings that are beyond teacher influence and control. Setting and Population The study took place in an FSC high school (Promise High, pseudonym) in a low-income community in the northeastern United States. It serves nearly 460 low-income, racially/ethnically diverse students (44% African American, 32% Hispanic/Latinx, 23% White, and 1% Asian). Approximately 40 teachers are employed at the school. At the time of the study, half of these teachers had advanced professional certification, 33% had standard certification; and approximately 17% were provisionally certified. About one-third had ten or more years of overall teaching experience and one-fifth were novice teachers with three or fewer years of experience. About 75% of teachers had a master’s degree or higher. Sixty-five percent had been at the case school for fewer than three years. Teachers were also ethnically diverse (52.5% White, 32.5% African American, 15% Latinx, Asian, or multiracial). Formerly a “failing” junior high school, the case school was converted to an FSC high school in 2010. The 2012 school year was the first year in which the school was fully populated, serving students in grades 9–12. When comparing 2012–2014 data, the school’s attendance increased from 74% to 80%; student mobility declined from 60% to 40%; and state high school assessment pass rates in English/Language Arts increased from 59% to 67%, while pass rates on the Algebra high school assessments increased to 71%. Additionally, since becoming a

The Role of Teachers  103 full-service community school, the case high school and its 60 reported partners have provided a variety of services to students, families, teachers, and community members. Because of its accomplishments, in 2015, the school was selected for national recognition. Data Collection Data were collected by the authors over a nine-month period (November 2016–August 2017). Using an instrument that was designed and validated for the study, teachers at Promise High were surveyed to collect data on their attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors. Specifically, the teacher survey, with structured and open-ended questions, gathered information on teachers’ demographic characteristics, preparation and experience; perceptions of school climate and principal leadership; attitudes and behaviors (i.e., academic optimism); beliefs about FSCSs; and instructional as well as family outreach practices. Key measures were adapted from existing instruments as indicated in Appendix A. Forty teachers (97.6%) completed the survey during a one-day professional development meeting at the school. Teachers received honorariums of $40 for their participation. To supplement the teacher survey data, the authors conducted observations of and interviews with 12 teachers purposively selected to represent diverse content areas (i.e., English, mathematics, science, social studies, English as a Second Language (ESL), and special education); years of experience; and demographic backgrounds (i.e., sex, age, race, and ethnicity). Observations were conducted using a modified version of the Protocol for Classroom Observations developed by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform (Annenberg Institute, 2004). Protocol scores could range from 0, classrooms characterized by noncompliant and disengaged students, to 4, classrooms characterized by student-directed inquiry and academic rigor. After the observations, semi-structured interviews with the teachers were conducted. Interview questions focused on teachers’ perceptions of the school, students, administrative team, FSCS strategy, and their own effectiveness (see interview protocol in Appendix B). The 12 teachers participating in this phase of the study received honorariums of $70.00. Additional data collection included open-ended surveys administered to school administrators, and FSCS Center staff (e.g., community school coordinator, counselors, and social workers) responsible for coordinating Promise High’s integrated services (10 respondents). The survey was designed to capture how administrators and staff define FSCSs and the role of teachers in their implementation (see Appendix C). Participants completing the open-ended survey received honorariums of $40. We also conducted four focus groups (one in Spanish) with graduating seniors, aged 18 and older, to understand their perceptions of and experiences

104  Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo Table 4.1 Focus group participants by race/ethnicity and gender African African Asian Asian Latino Latino White White American American Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl Focus Group 1 Focus Group 2 Focus Group 3 Focus Group 4 Total – 31

1

–

1

–

1

–

1

–

5

3

–

–

2

–

1

1

4

3

1

–

2

–

1

0

–

–

–

–

–

4

–

–

10

6

2

–

5

4

3

1

at Promise High (see focus group questions in Appendix D). These 31 ethnically and racially diverse students (see Table 4.1) were recruited and interviewed after a senior class meeting at the school. Students received honorariums of $20.00 for their participation. Finally, at the close of the study, an individual, semi-structured interview was conducted with the school principal. The three interview questions focused on his evolution as an FSCS principal – specifically changes in his approach to leadership and teacher selection and professional development, and future plans for Promise High. After the final interview, the principal and administrative team completed an evaluation instrument with items corresponding to the observation protocol previously described for each teacher participating in the study. Data Analysis Teacher survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including Spearman’s Rho correlations to examine bivariate associations. Observation, open-ended survey, and interview data were transcribed as Word documents, and imported into Ethnograph 6.0, a qualitative data analysis software package, for coding and thematic analysis. Through deductive and inductive strategies, the researchers identified codes for initial data categorization. This process generated 10 primary and 38 secondary codes (see Table 4.2). Coded data were reviewed again to identify broader themes of transformation and associated teacher attributes across participant groups. Through a series of data analysis meetings, the authors refined these overarching themes, looking for confirming and disconfirming patterns and supporting evidence. Findings generated through this process are reported in the following section.

The Role of Teachers  105 Table 4.2 Primary and secondary codes Primary Codes 1. Academic Optimism 2. Community 3. Families/Parents 4. Full-Service Community Schools

5. Principal 6. Relationships 7. School Characteristics

8. Students 9. Teachers

10. Transformation

Secondary Codes Teacher Self-Efficacy Teacher Trust in Students/Parents Teacher Academic Focus Community Outreach Community Partners Neighborhood Family Outreach Deficit Framing Definition Services Effectiveness Leadership District Support Leadership Support Accessibility Communication Respect Care Class Size Climate Effectiveness Rigor Student Advice Student Learning English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Teacher Awareness of CS Principles Teacher Barriers Teachers as Bridges to CS Services Teacher Effectiveness Teacher Preparation Teacher Engagement in CS Activities Teacher Professional Experience Teacher Professional Needs Teacher Professional Development Teacher Role in CSs Progress Challenges

Key Findings The award-winning FSC case high school exhibited aspects of transformative education as well as the dominant education paradigm described by Nicholl (2014). Transformation was most visible in the school’s climate and students’ learning. However, while these changes were visible, widespread, and meaningful for students and faculty, traditional “service provider-client” relationships with families, and limited teacher

106  Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo engagement in reform implementation were also visible, reducing the school’s impact for all stakeholders. Promise High’s progress toward and challenges to transformation are described in greater detail below. Progress toward Transformation School Climate Prior to becoming an FSC high school, the case school was a “failing” junior high school slated for district takeover. Since adopting the FSCS reform, the school’s climate has noticeably improved – observed by the researchers and described by a variety of stakeholders as “supportive,” “student-centered,” and “relational.” The school’s positive climate was manifested in relations among and between students, teachers, administrators, and staff. As such, it has been transformative and restorative for the school population as voiced by both teachers and students. For example, Lori, a teacher at the school, used family as a simile to describe the warm relationships characterizing Promise High. She stated: It’s like a big family. I had the opportunity to teach at another school, and then I came here, and I was like, ‘Oh, this is weird. Somebody’s giving me a hug.’ …I was trying to figure out a comparable high school in the city to this school, and my kids [students] were like, ‘There isn’t one.’ And, I was like, ‘There really isn’t.’ It’s just not the same anywhere else accept for here. There’s just genuine caring and lovingness. Students were equally enthusiastic and favorable when discussing the school’s climate of support and care. It is very difficult to find a school where teachers are so attentive to students, that they take care of students, always asking about how you are doing. They are supportive when you have problems. It is difficult to find relationships like this. This may also be the case because the school is not so large, we know each other, with almost everybody. I hope that the school never changes its approach to students. (Female Student, Focus Group 4) Catalysts for Transformed School Climate The FSCS was able to achieve this transformation in school climate through its integrated services, principal leadership, and teacher professional development. Integrated services. A key catalyst for the transformed school climate was the diverse services offered through the school’s FSCS Center. The FSCS Center offers counseling services and food, housing, and job

The Role of Teachers  107 assistance for students and families; GED classes for adults in the community; on-site infant and toddler childcare for parenting students and teachers; and community development and leadership opportunities for students. One teacher, while describing the relevance of the FSCS Center, observed: There are a lot of people in this building here to support the kids, and the [FSCS] Center is certainly one of the main heartbeats because of the population of students that we have, and the many, many needs that they have, and their families have. The [FSCS] Center is certainly a source of hope and resources for a lot of our kids and their families. Certainly. I think it’s pretty critical (Ava, Teacher). Teachers also recognized and appreciated how the FSCS Center’s integrated services facilitated their work by addressing non-academic barriers to students’ learning. I love that [Promise High] has resources like the [FSCS] Center, the wrap around services. I am so relieved and I do not know what I would do for my students who are struggling with severe, severe emotional problems. We have a lot of social workers, people that they can talk to in addition to myself, because there are some things that I’m just not qualified to take care of, or to handle, or to advise on. And to have that in the same building, and kids can receive those services throughout the day, is absolutely… I love it, and the kids rely on it. (Mary, Teacher) Students also recognized the impact of these services on the overall school climate. For example, one student shared: If you go to the school here and your child goes into day care; it’s a free day care program. They help you out. They give away baskets with stuff in there for the kids, Pampers, wipes, all that kind of stuff. This school helps you out. They work with you while you got things going on. If you’ve got problems going on at home, school, at jobs, they work with you. (Female Student, Focus Group 3) Overall, services provided by the FSCS Center embodied the school’s ethic of care, directly and indirectly benefiting students, families, teachers, and the broader community. Principal leadership. Teachers also identified principal leadership as a critical catalyst for the school’s transformed climate. They described him as “responsive,” “supportive,” and “such a nice person.” They also valued his accessibility and open communication style. For example,

108  Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo when describing the principal’s role in facilitating a caring and supportive school climate, Anisha, a teacher new to the school, shared: He is great. He is very responsive to teachers’ needs…. I think that he does a lot in terms of getting support for the school. I know that he procures a lot of funding; his door is always open for students to come and talk to him, and for staff. He says that and he really does follow through on it [his open door policy]. He’s always been responsive to emails. He is very easy to find. If I’m looking for him, literally … he’s right in his office. We can have a conversation and everything is good. He hears the needs of the staff to the best of his ability. Karen, who had been at the school almost since its inception as an FSCS, also attributed much of the school’s transformed climate to the principal. She especially noted his commitment to hiring “relational” faculty and staff. She observed: Well, the school has changed a lot in the six years I’ve been here. But I can say … even though we’ve changed a lot, it’s the most collegial, and the most committed, and the most plugged-in to ‘the issues of education’ staff that I‘ve ever worked on… We’re very, very much like family. And part of that is due to the principal. He’s very good at hiring people who want to make positive, healthy, meaningful relationships with the kids. And of course it turns out that those same people want to make relationships with each other and the staff. These assessments of the principal’s supportive leadership style were not limited to the teachers interviewed. Teacher survey data showed that the majority of teachers in the school rated the principal’s leadership and engagement very highly. Indeed, from the different organizational climate measures that we examined in the teacher survey (i.e., supportive principal, engaged teachers, close relationships among teachers, directive/ controlling principal, and frustrated teachers; see Appendix A), the majority of teachers recognized the principal’s supportive leadership style and his tendency to facilitate teachers’ autonomy. About 80% of survey respondents (32 teachers) agreed or strongly agreed (a score of 4.5 or higher) that the principal was supportive (M = 4.97 out of 6) and comparatively few respondents described his leadership style as directive and controlling (M = 2.40 out of 6). Teacher professional development. The school climate was further enhanced by and nurtured through an intensive, multi-day professional development conference the principal required teachers and staff to attend. Because he viewed relationships as the fulcrum for effective educational practice, generally, and teaching and learning, specifically, he committed time and resources to building teacher and staff capacity in

The Role of Teachers  109 this area. The relationships teachers and staff intentionally developed with students were viewed as fueling improvements in students’ educational experiences as well as outcomes. In her post-observation interview, Mary explained: He has us do specific training specifically about building relationships. We’ve gone through something called [program name]. It was a conference and it’s basically this idea that the way you manage a classroom always has to be rooted in understanding the whole child, not just regimented…. It’s all about the relationships, and how you leverage those real relationships to ensure that kids are learning. (Mary, Teacher) Other teachers also recognized the importance of the professional development on relationship building for the school’s success in transforming its climate. When asked what advice he would give to other teachers interested in teaching at a school like Promise High, Curt, an experienced teacher, stated: …[T]he relationship piece is really the starting point. It’s the foundation to anything that we do here. So, we use this curriculum, this process called [program name]…. And so, the whole idea is that relational capacity is something that should be valued above ability to teach content. Like, yeah, that’s important. I need to be able to teach math. I need to know what I’m talking about. But, at the same time, I need to be able to build relationships with students so that they are then held accountable for both their behavior and also their educational outcomes. Lori, who has also taught at the school for several years, added, “For three straight summers, we’ve attended [program name] training, which is all about relationship building with adults and with kids. It’s just kind of carried over, and I think the kids can really feel it.” Student Learning and Transformed School Climate During its first year as a fully populated (grades 9–12) and operational FSC high school, Promise High had one of the lowest student achievement rates in the district. Currently, it is a nationally award-winning high school with improved student outcomes and enhanced instruction for its growing student body. For example, the school has been able to develop and inspire students to take Advanced Placement (AP) courses, when initially, students struggled to pass basic courses. Teachers linked this transformation in students’ learning directly to the improved school climate and close relationships among students and teachers. Karen, one

110  Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo of the school’s most effective teachers as observed by the researchers and rated by the principal and administrative team, explained: One of the reasons I think my AP cohort has been so successful throughout the years is this really friendly and supportive competition they [students] have with each other. They really do hold each other up and push each other forward. …And this is something we’ve really worked on as a faculty since the beginning. The impact of the school’s climate on learning was not limited to students in the school’s advanced classes but was also observed for students with special needs. Gwen, a special needs educator, explained: We have excellent behavior. It’s way less likely that a student with an IEP is going to get harassed or made fun of for a disability that’s either invisible or clearly visible… I’ve heard of schools where the entire special needs department is in the basement of the school, and you never see the children. That’s not the case here, the students are integrated with the general population for the most part. Even if they have self-contained classes, they’re going to have some classes with a lot of general education kids. Students also linked the school’s transformed learning environment to its overall change in climate. They commented specifically on the support and caring expressed by teachers and staff, and the academic rigor and competence teachers brought to the classroom. In a focus group discussion, one student observed: Basically, in each classroom there is an excellent teacher in there to help you out. And if you don’t really get something they will talk to you one on one. Or like, if you’re having any problems or anything, they just make you step out and they talk to you and stuff like that. They will help you, always help you out no matter what (Male Student, Focus Group 3). In a separate focus group, another student explained: In this school, teachers are not only teachers, they are our friends, our coaches, who push us to be better, to jump all hurdles…they really motivate us. Teachers are passionate and committed to their work, and the administrators are the same. … I got pregnant in my sophomore year, and thank God that all the teachers helped me a lot. They do not make me feel like I am alone, like I don’t have people supporting me. On the contrary, they helped me, they are always attentive: “How is your daughter? How are you doing in your classes?” (Female Student, Focus Group 4)

The Role of Teachers  111 The type of student-centered teaching described across the four focus groups was more the norm than the exception at Promise High. Through surveys, the majority of teachers reported student-centered instructional strategies (M = 3.91 out of 5). They reported using teaching materials (90%) and methods (80%) that aligned to students’ needs and interests often or always. A majority of teachers also reported building on students’ existing knowledge and expertise (98%) and cultural knowledge (73%) with the same frequency. Student centered instruction was observed by the researchers as well. Of the 12 teachers we observed using the 4-point scale previously described, nine scored 2.5 or higher and half scored 3 or higher. For those scoring 2.5, we observed teachers who competently kept students on task with clear learning objectives. For those scoring 3 and 4, we observed teachers conducting authentic, student-directed lessons and high levels of student participation. For example, summary notes from the observation of a science class that received a 4 rating read: This was a very engaging and well-planned lesson. Students were asked to read, write, come to the whiteboard, share information with each other in pairs and small groups, summarize their knowledge using their own words, and complete fill-in the blank responses. The lesson demonstrated the teacher’s effort to differentiate instruction to support students’ learning. This was also displayed in his questioning technique. That is, he questioned higher performing students at a higher level, and asked them to share and repeat responses for others. Real world applications were also visible. The teacher, for example, asked, “Why do you think chemical bonds occur?” “Why is this important for us?” Later he explains that “Everything that exists – like salt – are compounds, not single elements.” The teacher was also very patient. For instance, one student was pulled out of class and brought back by [FSCS] Center personnel with about 15 minutes left in class. While others completed the worksheet, the teacher worked with this student one-on-one with no complaints or visible frustration. Thus, as an FSCS, Promise High has created an inspiring and hopeful learning environment that has been transformative for many students. Nevertheless, aspects of the dominant paradigm were also evident, presenting challenges that the school still needs to address. We describe these below. Challenges to Transformation Widespread efforts to engage families and communities in students’ learning and teachers in reform implementation were not present at the time of the study. The absence of these key pillars of FSCSs prevented

112  Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo Promise High from fully realizing its transformative potential for all stakeholders. Family Engagement and Outreach Teacher outreach to families was prevalent among only a few teachers at Promise High. For example, Anisha, who had been involved in community organizing before becoming a teacher, reported regular communication with families about students’ school performance. She stated: I think family involvement isn’t as big as it could be [at Promise High]. I can speak to my personal communication with parents…. 95% of the students that I teach, I have their parents’ phone numbers and text them regularly. I’m texting their parents literally right there in the class because if I don’t I may forget about it, or I’m calling the parents updating them on their kids…. I try to make sure that I have this balance of when your child is doing really well… or when I am concerned because so and so has fallen behind. While acknowledging Anisha’s effectiveness at family outreach, Barbara, another new albeit less effective teacher (based on researchers’ observations and administrators’ evaluations), saw Anisha’s success as a result of her students’ grade level (9th) rather than her intentional efforts. While Anisha implemented best practices to overcome challenges to family engagement including immediate feedback to families, using convenient and accessible forms of communication, and regularly sharing positive news with families about students’ behavior and academic progress (Epstein et al., 2018), Barbara seemed unaware of such strategies. She commented: My interaction with parents is not that great. It’s interesting. [Anisha’s] really great at communicating with parents, and I’ve been wondering because we carpool together if it’s because they’re freshmen, and so parents haven’t released yet or what. I’m lucky if I can get the right contact information for a parent, and then get them to call me back. Survey data indicate that Barbara’s interactions with families were more representative of school norms than Anisha’s. Overall, teachers reported limited family outreach (M = 2.56 out of 5). Their most frequently reported outreach efforts (i.e., often or always) focused on communication with parents when students were struggling (53%), and to inform them about expectations for academic success (58%). However, a smaller number reported communicating often or always with parents to share

The Role of Teachers  113 information about students’ accomplishments and successes (35%) or to request information to enhance instruction (28%). Rather than viewing families as allies and partners in the learning process, many teachers viewed parents from a deficit lens and as a source of students’ “trauma” as illustrated in the following excerpt. A lot of students come from single-parent households, so they don’t have that sort of continuity. They’re missing, a lot of the times, that relationship piece. When you think about a kid who comes from a single-parent house, that mom is probably working extra to make sure they can afford to put food on the table, pay for electricity, and pay their rent. So, the student may not have a relationship with them in the same way that I would have a relationship with my parents. (Curt, Teacher) Moreover, while sympathetic to the factors limiting families’ educational attainment, teachers routinely described their limited education as rendering them incapable of contributing to their children’s learning. Appreciation of the “funds of knowledge” and assets possessed by students’ families was not present. Rather, teachers were more likely to use the language of cultural deprivation and the culture of poverty framework to describe families. For example, Ava commented: The extreme majority of our children’s parents were kids that lived in this area also. They made it maybe up to 8th grade because at the time there was no high school, so they weren’t going to go to [adjacent neighborhood] or those schools there. …[S]o there hasn’t always been this culture of going to school and completing, especially at a high school level. The families, I’m sure, love their kids very much. They probably are working as hard as they can. But, there are a lot of things that are lacking. However, some teacher interviews suggested a counter-narrative in which students were being held accountable for learning by parents who, despite their own educational limitations, were invested in their children’s school success. For example, Gwen shared: I have students, about 20%, who will say like, ‘You need to call my mom and tell her that I don’t have homework, because she’s not going to believe me.’ I also have a student who, every time she gets higher than a 70 percent on her multiple choice, she’s like, “You need to text my mom,” because she’s serious about that stuff.

114  Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo Thus, even as the climate had been transformed for students, teachers’ attitudes toward and engagement with parents, and parents’ roles within the school had not. This duality is perhaps best expressed by Barbara, who stated: Relationship building is my strong point. That’s my point of entrance into getting them motivated to learn, and so I depend very heavily on my relationship with the students. I don’t as much depend on my relationship with their families because I don’t have relationships with most of their families. Teachers’ roles in reform implementation at Promise High were similarly untransformed. Teacher Engagement in Reform Implementation While broadening the role of key stakeholders in school decision-making is a foundational principle of FSCSs, teachers at Promise High had limited involvement in school-wide planning, generally, and integrated service identification and coordination, specifically. For example, at the time of the study, the case school had been implementing the FSCS reform for six years. Most teachers were aware of the reform, but the awareness focused almost exclusively on the service dimension of FSCSs. For example, Curt commented: I think the thing that I appreciate most about the school is the “community schools” aspect of it. And I know that’s sort of cheating because that’s what you all are trying to find out more about. But I am a huge advocate of community schools. I think being able to offer student services that go beyond the 8:00 to 2:45 bell system is a huge advantage that we have and it is also great for the community as a whole. When discussing the reform, Anisha similarly focused on the services associated with FSCSs and the normalization of service provision and use in the case school: There’s tons of counseling, tons of like parent-family support. Probably two-thirds of all my kids are receiving some type of outside counseling or other support. At other schools, it may be stigmatized like, ‘Oh counselors are taking you out, something is wrong with you?’ Counselors come and take kids out of my classroom and literally the other kids are like, ‘Are you going to take me, too?’ It’s not viewed as a stigma because so many students receive services.

The Role of Teachers  115 Some teachers described their involvement in the planning and provision of these services. For example, Maria was heavily involved in providing support and resources to immigrant families at the school. She explained: So [the FSCS Center] has given me the opportunity to work on various committees, like, for example, human trafficking. I’m one of the people that has been designated by the school. I do lots of parent home engagement, I’m the lead person that does that. I bring parents and I give them workshops. Similarly, Karen found her involvement in the school’s child care center especially rewarding. She shared: The other really big new thing that’s been really gratifying for me and that I’ve been somewhat involved in is the daycare center. We have this center that serves the children of our children [i.e.,  students]. The folks who work there … the women who actually care for the children are phenomenal. They’re trained in a nurturing, parenting philosophy and our trained caregiver philosophy…. Last year, I co-taught a parenting class with the social worker who runs the center…. That was probably the most gratifying thing I’ve ever done at this school. Despite these exceptions, most teachers reported limited involvement in the school’s service provision. David, an experienced teacher new to the school, shared: I do know we have a [FSCS Center] in here and I do know it’s to help students with issues so probably I should use it more. What happens with me is I try to help myself not give the problem to someone else. I try to do all I can; then after that, I keep trying. My last, last resort is just to send it to the [FSCS] Center. As expressed in the excerpt below, several teachers felt as though the service provision was separate from “the real work of teachers,” that is, the instruction of students. I think that the [FSCS Center] is a place for students to go because [Promise High] is definitely a building that is not just a school, it’s much more. They definitely subscribe to the whole child philosophy. So on our end of the building, we handle the academic side and the [FSCS] Center, I kind of see them as handling that social, emotional side…. So I just see that end of the hallway as taking care of that other side of the whole child model. (Vanessa, Teacher)

116  Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo This message was passed to teachers by the administration as Vanessa explained: When I first came to interview, one of the things the principal said is, ‘This is not like many schools where you have to wear a lot of hats. We have wrap-around services; you can just send them down or you can refer them.’ So from the beginning, I always felt like, well this is a resource, go right along. However, while valuing the services provided by the FSCS Center, some teachers thought the school’s balance between instruction and service was skewed too much toward service, compromising the instructional program. For example, Karen stated: We had kind of a rocky start last year, to be honest. One of the things that happens is, we have service providers come in and they’re really excited to work with the kids, and they pull kids out of classes, and it becomes … To be perfectly frank, there’s conflict between teachers and service providers because the kids are getting pulled out of class, and then our kids are really, really bad at being accountable for making up missed work, and they feel like since a service provider’s pulling them out class they don’t have to make up the work. Lori also shared this concern, explaining that the FSCS Center: Works with a lot of our very challenging students. I don’t really know what they do when they’re with them. I know that they talk through a lot of stuff. I know, from a teacher’s standpoint, it’s frustrating, because they’ll just show up and say, ‘Hey, can I have so and so.’ And, laid back teacher, wanting the best for the kid, I think, ‘Oh, yeah, sure, that person needs it. That student needs it.’ But, then that student just gets behind in class, and doesn’t make up the work. And, it’s like, ‘Well, what now?’ Ava concluded, “At times, FSCS support adds additional obstacles to learning, like pulling students from classes. The two parts of the school need to communicate more frequently and effectively.” Karen agreed and further expressed the need for a larger role in school decision-making for teachers at Promise High more generally. She stated: There’s not a lot of communication … because the administration plans the year over the summer.… [T]hey plan what the school’s goals are going to be for the year. Then they use one day of our planning period a week and structure what we’re going to be doing during that time to support the school goals. But, they never ask us what that should be.

The Role of Teachers  117 Some Promise High administrators and FSCS Center staff recognized the important role teachers played in ensuring the success of the FSCS approach, as well as the implications of their limited engagement in reform implementation for the school’s continued growth. These leaders and staff wanted to see more communication and collaborative planning among teachers, administrators and staff, and community partners to realize the school’s goals for students’ learning and success. Their perspectives are illustrated in the qualitative survey responses shared below. If there was additional time built in for teachers to work with the resources that stakeholders provide during or prior to the school year, it could help them identify key partnerships while recognizing that it would change year by year due to their student populations. (Administrator/FSCS Center Staff Survey Respondent #1) With so many different adults working with particular students and families, communication can be an issue. Unless teachers and community school staff keep in close communication, teachers may believe that students are with community school staff when they are not and vice versa. This undermines the model and teachers’ confidence in it. If teachers are not confident in the model, they are less likely to utilize the resources. (Administrator/FSCS Center Staff Survey Respondent #5) I think the integration of the mental health supports is something we have to constantly work on to be sure they don’t negatively impact student achievement by pulling them from class too frequently. We also need to do more advance planning around the whole school schedule. (Administrator/FSCS Center Staff Survey Respondent #7) Despite this broad recognition of the need for greater communication and collaboration among key school stakeholders and the inclusion of more diverse voices in reform planning and implementation, there was no evidence of an intentional effort to address either. Thus, the absence of “accessible, equitable, reciprocal” (McKinney de Royston & Madkins, 2019) partnerships with families, and teachers’ general lack of engagement in service identification, processes of service provision, and community partnership development, limited the integration of the four pillars of the FSCS reform strategy, compromising the school’s transformative promise.

Discussion Transformative education requires changes in many areas of schooling (Brown, 2004; Freire, 2005; Giroux, 1985; McWhinney & Markos, 2003). In particular, FSCSs require fundamental changes in teaching and learning, service provision, family and community engagement, and school leadership and decision-making (Galindo & Sanders, 2019;

118  Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo Oakes et al., 2017; Sanders & Hembrick-Roberts, 2013). Fully implementing each of these pillars of reform will undoubtedly take time and likely occur in stages. This study of an urban, award-winning FSC high school in its sixth year of reform implementation provides insights into areas that have been transformed as well as those that have not – insights that have implications for future research and practice. First, the study highlights the importance of creating a caring school climate that nurtures and undergirds transformation. Indeed, this may be the first step in achieving the transformative potential of FSCSs, which are dependent on a network of relationships among key stakeholders (Galindo et al., 2017; Medina et al., 2019; Richardson, 2009). Through principal support and leadership, restorative service provision and practices, and professional development to build teachers’ relational capacities, Promise High has successfully transformed its climate. The school’s transformed climate, in turn, has created the conditions for improved student learning. While the school has not yet fully achieved its goals for students’ learning, student-centered instruction is clearly visible across disciplines, grade levels, and student abilities; attendance, achievement, and graduation rates are steadily improving; and perhaps most importantly, students graduating from the school consistently described it as “life changing.” However, as the literature on FSCSs, transformative education, and the role of teachers in education reform indicates, to achieve full transformation, schools must promote cross boundary relationships and decision-making across stakeholders and role groups (Berg et al., 2006). That is, teachers, families, and community partners must work collaboratively to change the conditions that influence students’ learning both inside and outside the school walls. If parents are viewed as outsiders or simply as service recipients with little to contribute to students’ learning, rather than as allies in transforming the education of underserved youth, schools will perpetuate divisions between the home, school, and community (Gorksi, 2008; King; 1991; Kose & Lim, 2011; Moll et al., 1992). These divisions, in turn, will diminish the social capital available to stakeholders in each context and allow more students to fall through the resulting cracks (Galindo et al., 2017; McKinney de Royston & Madkins, 2019). Teachers at the case school generally had limited engagement with and described families from decidedly deficit perspectives. Families’ funds of knowledge were rarely mentioned nor were parents described as partners in the learning process. On the other hand, teachers generally formed positive relationships with students, described them from a strengths-based perspective, and conducted student-centered instruction. This study thus suggests that transforming teachers’ relationships with students may be more readily achieved than transforming their relationships with families. Consequently, authentic family engagement (Ishimaru, 2019; McKinney de Royston & Madkins, 2019;

The Role of Teachers  119 Montoya-Ávila, Ghebreab, & Galindo, 2018), a key pillar of the FSCS strategy, must be an explicit commitment and goal, and will require principals to create ongoing opportunities for teacher professional development on school, family, and community partnerships. To be transformative, the professional development must facilitate teachers’ reflection and relearning (Brown, 2004), and address issues of race and class bias (Giroux, 1985; King, 1991; McKinney de Royston & Madkins, 2019). At Promise High, such professional development has been successfully implemented to build stronger relationships between teachers and students. Its extension to families is a critical next step. Moreover, if teachers’ voices in the school are limited to classroom instruction, as in many education reforms (Giroux, 1985), then their understanding of reform principles and buy-in will be equally limited (Coburn, 2001). Teacher buy-in, however, has been shown to be essential for the diffusion and sustainability of reform principles (Datnow & Castellano, 2000). In other words, teachers are key to fully realizing the objectives of school reform (Payne, 2008). Thus, to continue to make progress as an FSCS, Promise High should seek to increase teachers’ understanding of the pillars of FSCSs and create spaces for communication and engagement with school, family, and community leaders to design, implement, and evaluate authentic partnerships to enhance students’ learning. Through such efforts, teachers at Promise High can become the transformative educators (see Giroux, 1985; King, 1991) that successful FSCSs demand (Daniel et al., 2019). If/as teachers’ voices are amplified and integrated in the planning, implementation, and assessment of FSCSs, these schools are more likely to achieve and sustain essential reform goals for underserved students and families. Limitations This mixed methods case study was designed and conducted to generate findings that are transferable, although not generalizable, to other FSCS settings. While we believe this objective has been met, the study, nonetheless, has limitations. First, although all but one teacher in the school were surveyed, less than a third (approximately 30%) were observed and interviewed. Thus, it is possible (although triangulation across different types of instruments show consistent findings) that some teacher perspectives and insights are not represented in the study. Additionally, while the study presents data from a broad group of stakeholders, due to time and resource constraints, it does not include families’ perspectives on the FSCS reform strategy. Finally, by including only graduating seniors, the viewpoints of students categorized as freshmen, sophomores, and juniors, as well as non-graduating seniors who might have had different experiences at and beliefs about Promise High are not represented. The study’s findings should be interpreted within the context of these limitations.

120  Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo

Conclusion This study describes how one FSC high school has begun to transform the learning environment, experiences, and opportunities of historically underserved students, and the role of teachers in the process. Through principal leadership, integrated services, and teacher professional development, the school has created a positive, relational, academically nurturing climate. As a result, student attendance, achievement, and behavior at Promise High have markedly improved. The study also describes areas in which the school’s transformation is incomplete, specifically home-school collaboration to support students’ learning and the role of teachers in reform implementation. As such, the study highlights the need for longitudinal research on FSCSs to identify stages of, challenges to, and strategies for achieving their transformative goals. The study also points to the need for more research on key actors within these schools. In particular, survey and qualitative studies examining how FSCSs build authentic relationships with students’ families and students’ perspectives on the impact of the FSCS strategy on their learning experiences and outcomes are needed. Such studies will inform the effective implementation of FSCSs and increase the likelihood that they fully transform educational opportunities for underserved students as intended.

Appendix A: Constructs and Measures Academic Optimism (Teacher Academic Optimism Scale developed by Fahy, Wu, and Hoy (2010).1) Self-efficacy

1 I can motivate my students who show low interest in school work. 2 I can get students to believe they will do well in school. 3 I can get students to follow classroom rules. Trust 4 Most of my students are honest. 5 My students’ parents are reliable. 6 I trust my students. Academic Emphasis 7 I press my students to achieve academically. 8 I give my students challenging work. 9 I set high but attainable goals for my students. Features of Effective Full-service community schools Teacher Beliefs about FSCS (developed and validated by the authors) 1 Full-service community schools help students to succeed. 2 Families need the support provided by full-service community schools. 3 Full-service community schools provide families and students with too many resources. 4 Full-service community schools create more positive learning environments for students.

The Role of Teachers  121 5 Full-service community schools divert attention away from the primary function of schools. 6 Community school coordinators play a vital role in helping these schools realize student learning goals. Family and Community Outreach (adapted from High School Teacher Survey, Epstein, Connors, & Salinas2) 1 Communicate with parent/guardian of each of my students. 2 Contact parents when their teen has problems or failures. 3 Inform parents when their teen does something well or improves. 4 Involve parents as volunteers including guest speakers. 5 Inform parents how students can be successful in my class. 6 Provide ideas to help parents talk with their teen about what they learn in my class. 7 Provide specific activities that parents can do to help students improve their grades. 8 Assign homework that requires students to talk with someone at home. 9 Work with other teachers to develop parent involvement activities and materials. 10 Work on school policy committees with parents. 11 Request information from parents about their teens to facilitate effective instruction. Student-centered instruction (adapted from the Instructional Practices Survey, Middle Level Leadership Center/University of Missouri3) 1 Select content that meets the district’s curriculum, competencies, and/or performance standards. 2 Select instructional materials based on my knowledge of my students’ academic needs. 3 Select methods and strategies that accommodate individual interests of specific students. 4 Prepare lessons with high expectations designed to challenge/stimulate all students. 5 Consider how to create cooperative learning experiences for my students. 6 Design lessons that require integration of content from more than one content area. 7 Consider how to create active learning experiences for my students. 8 Consider how to build on my students’ existing knowledge and experiences. 9 Consider how to draw on students’ cultural knowledge, competencies, and skills. 10 Consider how to integrate family and community assets. 11 Consider student assessment data. (Continued)

122  Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo Organizational Climate (adapted from The Organizational Climate Description for Secondary Schools Survey; Hoy, 2010 4) Supportive principal 1 The principal sets an example by working hard. 2 The principal compliments teachers. 3 The principal is open to discussing school-related issues and concerns. 4 The principal explains his/her reason for teacher evaluation outcomes 5 The principal is available after school to help teachers when assistance is needed 6 The principal uses constructive criticism. 7 The principal looks out for the personal welfare of the faculty. 1 Teachers know other faculty members well. Close relations 2 Teachers help and support each other. among teachers 3 The morale of teachers is high. 4 Teachers are proud of this school. 5 Teachers enjoy working here. 6 Teachers trust students to work together without supervision. 7 Teachers respect the competence of their colleagues. Directive principal 1 The principal dominates teacher-principal conferences. 2 The principal monitors everything teachers do too much 3 The principal is autocratic (overbearing). 4 The principal talks more than listens. Frustrated Teacher 1 Teachers have too many committee/meeting requirements. 2 Paperwork is burdensome. 3 Assigned non-teaching duties are excessive.

Appendix B: Teacher Interview Protocol 1 2 3 4 5 6

How long have you been teaching and why did you choose the profession? When did you begin teaching here? How would you describe this school, the principal, faculty, your students and their families? What attracted you to this school? What do you like most and least about teaching here? How would you describe your teaching approach? Has it changed since coming to this school? How would you describe your effectiveness as a teacher? What factors impact your effectiveness most? How would you describe the FSCS Center? Do you utilize any of the resources provided by the Center in your teaching or engagement with students?

The Role of Teachers  123 7 8

What factor(s) do you think have the greatest impact on students’ learning? What are your goals for students at this school? Is there anything else you’d like to share about teaching in a fullservice community school like this?

Appendix C: School Leader/Staff Survey We are conducting a study on the role of teachers in realizing the goals of full-service community schools. We want to hear your voice and incorporate your perspectives. Please answer the following questions as best as you can. There are no right or wrong answers and no required or expected length. The survey is confidential, and no one at the school will see individual responses. Thank you for your help! 1

2 3 4 5 6 7

A. How long have you been at this school? (Please round to the nearest year.) _______________ B. How long have you been involved with full-service community schools? (Please round to the nearest year.) ______________ In general, how do you define a full-service community school? What are the key factors that distinguish a full-service community school from a traditional school? What role (if any) do you think teachers play in ensuring the success of full-service community schools? As a full-service community school, what factors (if any) do you believe facilitate teachers’ effectiveness at this school? As a full-service community school, what factors (if any) do you believe inhibit teachers’ effectiveness at this school? In your opinion, how can teacher effectiveness be enhanced at this school?

Appendix D: Student Focus Group Questions 1 2 3 4 5

Think of the most effective teachers at this school. What was it about them that made them effective? Now, think of the least effective teachers at this school. What was it about them that made them ineffective? Do you believe that you had good learning experiences while at this school? Explain. Do you think all students at this school are getting a good education? Explain. Do you think race or poverty play a role in how teachers treat students or the type of education students get here? What about gender?

124  Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo 6 7 8

What could have made your learning experiences at this school better? What advice would you give to teachers at this school to make sure that all students have the opportunity to learn as much as possible? Is there anything else you would like to share about teaching and learning at this school?

Great – thank you!

Notes 1 Fahy, P. F., Wu, H-C., & Hoy, W. K. (2010). Individual academic optimism of secondary teachers: A new concept and its measure. In W. K. Hoy & M. F. DiPaola (Eds.), Analyzing school contexts: Influences of principals and teachers in the service of students (pp. 209–227). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. 2 Epstein, J., Connors, L., & Salinas, K. (1993). High School and Family Partnerships: Questionnaires for Teachers, Parents and Students. Baltimore, MD: Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children’s Learning. 3 Middle Level Leadership Center (1986). Instructional Practices Survey. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri-Columbia. Retrieved from https:// mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/3567/Instructional Practices.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y 4 Hoy, W. K. (2010). The organizational climate description for secondary schools (OCDQ-RS). Retrieved from https://www.waynekhoy.com/ocdq-rs/

References Adams, C. (2019). Sustaining full-service community schools: Lessons from the Tulsa Area Community Schools Initiative. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 24, 288–313. doi:10.1080/10824669.2019.1615924 Annenberg Institute for School Reform (2004). Protocol for Classroom Observations. Retrieved from https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/16900545/ protocol-for-classroom-observations-annenberg-institute-forBaker-Doyle, K. J. (2017). Transformative teachers: Teacher leadership and learning in a connected world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Berg, A. C., Melaville, A., & Blank, M. J. (2006). Community & family engagement. Principals share what works. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools. Retrieved from https://www.americaspromise.org/resource/ community-family-engagement-principals-share-what-works Blank, M. J. (2000). Coalition for community schools: A call to all. The Education Digest, 65(6), 16–18. Blank, M. J., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. P. (2003). Making a difference: Research and practice in community schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools. Retrieved from http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/ Page/CCSFullReport.pdf Brown, K. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 77–108.

The Role of Teachers  125 Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sense making about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170. Cummings, C., Dyson, A., & Todd, L. (2011). Beyond the school gates: Can full-service and extended schools overcome disadvantage? New York, NY: Routledge. Daniel, J., Quartz, K. H., & Oakes, J. (2019). Teaching in community schools: Creating conditions for deeper learning. Review of Research in Education, 43, 453–480. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821126 Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to Success for All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 775–799. Dryfoos, J. G. (2002). Partnering full-service community schools: Creating new institutions. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 393–399. Dryfoos, J. G. (2005). Introduction. In J. G. Dryfoos, J. Quinn, & C. Barkin (Eds.), Community schools in action: Lessons from a decade of practice (pp. 3–6). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Dryfoos, J., & Maguire, S. (2002). Inside full-service community schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Epstein, J., & Associates (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Freire, P. (1968/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic. Freire, P. (2005). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Galindo, C., & Sanders, M. (2019). Searching for equal educational opportunities: Full-service community schools. In T. A. Turner-Vorbeck & S. Sheldon (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of family, school, community partnerships in education (pp. 511–530). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Galindo, C., Sanders, M., & Abel, Y. (2017). Transforming educational experiences in low income communities: A qualitative case study of social capital in a fullservice community school. American Educational Research Journal, Centennial Edition, 54(1S), 140–163. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216676571 Giroux, H. A. (1985). Critical pedagogy, cultural politics and the discourse of experience. Journal of Education, 167(2), 22–41. doi:10.1177/002205748516 700204 Gorksi, P. (2008). The myth of the “culture of poverty.” Educational Leadership, 65(7), 32–36. Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2015). School-wide PBIS: An example of applied behavior analysis implemented at a scale of social importance. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8(1), 80–85. Hoy, W. K. (2010). The organizational climate description for secondary schools (OCDQ-RS). Retrieved from https://www.waynekhoy.com/ocdq-rs/ Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 425–446. Ishimaru, A. M. (2019). From family engagement to equitable collaboration. Educational Policy, 33, 350–385. doi:10.1177/0895904817691841

126  Mavis G. Sanders and Claudia L. Galindo Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. King, J. (1991). Dysconscious racism: Ideology, identity, and the miseducation of teachers. The Journal of Negro Education, 60(2), 133–146. Kose, B., & Lim, E. (2011). Transformative professional learning within schools: Relationship to teachers’ beliefs, expertise and teaching. The Urban Review, 43, 196–216. Ladson-Billings, G. J. (1999). Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical race theory perspective. Review of Research in Education, 24, 211–247. Levitt, R. (2008). Freedom and empowerment: A transformative pedagogy of educational reform. Educational Studies, 44, 47–61. McKinney de Royston, M., & Madkins, T. (2019). A question of necessity or of equity? Full-service community schools and the (mis)education of Black youth. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 24, 244–271. doi:10.1080/10824669.2019.1625920 McMahon, T., Ward, N., Pruett, M. K., Davidson, L., & Griffith, E. (2000). Building full-service schools: Lessons learned in the development of interagency collaboratives. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11, 65–92. McWhinney, W., & Markos, L. (2003). Transformative education: Across the threshold. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 16–37. Medina, M., Cosby, G., & Grim, J. (2019). Community engagement through partnerships: Lessons learned from a decade of full-service community school implementation. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 24, 272–287. doi:10.1080/10824669.2019.1615923 Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. Montoya-Ávila, A., Ghebreab, N., & Galindo, C. (2018). Towards improving the educational opportunities of Black and Latinx Students: Strengthening partnerships between families and schools. In S. Sonnenschein & B. E. Sawyer (Eds.), Academic socialization of young Black and Latino children: Building on family strengths (pp. 209–231). New York, NY: Springer Publishers. Nicholl, W. (2014). Developing transformative schools: A resilience-focused paradigm for education. The International Journal of Emotional Education, 6(1), 47–65. Oakes, J., Maier, A., & Daniel, J. (2017). Community schools: An evidence-based strategy for equitable school improvement. Palo Alto, CA: National Education Policy Center and Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Community_Schools_Evidence_ Based_ Strategy_BRIEF.pdf Payne, C. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Richardson, J. (2009). The full-service community school movement: Lessons from the James Adams community school. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Sanders, M. (2013). Poverty, families, and schools. In C. Yeakey, V. Thompson, & A. Wells (Eds.), Urban Ills: Confronting Twenty First Century Dilemmas of

The Role of Teachers  127 Urban Living in Global Contexts (pp. 329–350). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Sanders, M. (2016). Leadership, partnerships, and organizational development: Exploring components of effectiveness in three full-service community schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(2), 157–177. Sanders, M. G. (2018). Crossing boundaries: A qualitative exploration of relational leadership in three full-service community schools. Teachers College Record, 120(4), 1–36. Sanders, M., Galindo, C., & Allen, K. M. (2018). Professional capital and responses to student diversity: A qualitative exploration of the role of teachers in full-service community schools. Urban Education. doi:10.1177/0042085918770719. Sanders, M., & Hembrick-Roberts, J. (2013). Leadership for service integration in schools. In L. Tillman & J. Scheurich (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational leadership for diversity and equity (pp. 476–493). London, UK: Routledge/Taylor and Francis. Schmidt, M., & Datnow, A. (2005). Teachers’ sense-making about comprehensive school reform: The influence of emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 949–965. Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2004). Scaling up Success for All: Lessons for policy and practice. In T. K. Glennan, Jr., S. J. Bodilly, J. R. Galegher, & K. A. Kerr (Eds.), Expanding the reach of education reforms: Perspectives from leaders in the scale-up of educational interventions (pp. 135–171). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Smrekar, C. E., & Mawhinney, H. B. (1999). Integrated services: Challenges in linking schools, families, and communities. Handbook of Research on Educational Administration, 2, 443–461. Tellis, W. M. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3(3), 1–19. Warren, M. R., & Mapp, K. L. (2011). A match on dry grass: Community organizing as a catalyst for school reform. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W. K., & Kurz, N. M. (2008). Teacher’s academic optimism: The development and test of a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 821–835.

5

Community Engagement through Partnerships Lessons Learned from a Decade of Full-Service Community School Implementation Monica A. Medina, Gayle Cosby, and Jim Grim

Introduction Challenges facing urban schools and their communities include the seemingly permanent disparities of poverty (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997), inadequate school resources (Warren, 2002), lack of highly qualified teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2006), and contemptibly low rates of academic achievement and high school graduation (Wirt et al., 2004). Many school reforms fail to consider the systemic issues affecting students and families, and the complex problems plaguing the urban communities where they live. However, models of school-community collaboration have recently reemerged to address the broader issues faced by struggling urban schools. Full-service community school (FSCS) strategies encourage schools and communities to work together to discuss common problems; increase access to and provision of services; and build social capital among students, families, and communities (e.g., Galindo, Sanders, & Abel, 2017). Using Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton’s (2010) model for effective and improving schools as the main theoretical framework, this case study discusses the challenges and significant achievements experienced in over a decade of planning and implementing a comprehensive community school strategy. The study draws on data from two communities in Indianapolis, Indiana, Near-Westside, and Martindale-Brightwood. Both neighborhoods are within the Indianapolis Public School (IPS) district and face increasing economic inequity. Twenty to 40% of residents make 200% or less of the federal poverty level, are situated in food deserts, and have high academic and social needs (Riggs et al., 2017). One can quickly create a deficit opinion of these communities, yet they both have a legacy of bringing people together to address social and economic issues. Both communities have also received funding from the U.S. Department of Education to develop and sustain FSCSs.

Community Engagement through Partnerships  129

Full-service Community Schools and the Indianapolis Initiative The Coalition for Community Schools defines an FSCS as the hub of its neighborhood, uniting families, educators and community partners to provide all students with top-quality academics, enrichment, health and social services, and opportunities to succeed in school and life (Blank, Melaville, & Shah, 2003). The U.S. Department of Education describes them as “public elementary or secondary schools that collaborate with local educational agencies and community-based organizations, non-profits, and other public or private entities” (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA), 2018) to improve students’ socio-emotional, physical, and academic outcomes. Recent research confirms the FSCS model as a risk-reduction strategy that promotes resilience among children and adolescents (Lubell, 2011; Oakes, Maier, & Daniel, 2017). For over a decade, Indianapolis has sustained one of the nation’s most comprehensive FSCS reform initiatives (Grim, Medina, & Officer, 2011). FSCSs in the IPS district provide support services including tutoring and mentoring, extended-day learning activities, college preparation, parent engagement, mental health services, academic enrichment, community-based service learning, health and wellness, basic assistance, and youth development. The goals of these schools are to improve graduation rates, academic achievement, performance on state and national assessments, attendance rates, the overall well-being of students and families, family engagement, and the percentage of families that receive services from nearby community centers (Grim et al., 2011). Neighborhood Sites for Full-Service Community Schools in Indianapolis Two neighborhoods in Indianapolis have been awarded FSCS grants – Near-Westside and Martindale-Brightwood. Near-Westside has received two separate grants from the U.S. Department of Education, one in 2008 and another in 2015. Additionally, Martindale-Brightwood received an FSCS grant from the U.S. Department of Education in 2010. Both communities also have long histories of working with the school system and anchor organizations in addressing the needs of students and developing the core foundations of FSCSs, educational success, health and wellbeing, and strong instructional programs (Lubell, 2011). Near-Westside With support from a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)

130  Monica A. Medina et al. developed a partnership with the Westside Cooperative Organization in October 1998. Together, they organized a Community Education Forum to discuss with local residents the potential impact of a court action to overturn the district’s longstanding desegregation order, and the closing of Jefferson High School (Jefferson High; names of participating schools are pseudonyms) in 1995. This forum resulted in the establishment of the Westside Education Task Force to respond to the court order to reverse mandatory bussing and to advocate for the reopening of Jefferson High as an FSCS. Since reopening, Jefferson High has been recognized by the National Association of Secondary School Principals, MetLife Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, KnowledgeWorks Foundation, and Coalition for Community Schools as an exemplary model. Since receiving a second U.S. Department of Education award of $2.3 million in 2015, Mary Rigg Neighborhood Center, the lead partner in Near-Westside, has expanded the FSCS model to include four nearby feeder elementary schools serving grades K-8; Cesar Chavez (CC) Elementary, Junipero Serra (JS) Elementary, Zora Neale Hurston (ZNH) Elementary, and Mahatma Gandhi (MG) Elementary (see Table 5.1). The new grant is being used to assess the overall impact of the FSCSs on diverse student outcomes (e.g., attendance, achievement, graduation, suspensions). As the community school reform is taken to scale in Near-Westside, its multiple partnerships are the engine fostering continued improvements for students, families, and community members.

Table 5.1 Demographics and academic achievement for participating FSCSs in Near-Westside

Total Enrollment (numbers) % White % Black % Latinx % Other Race % Free/Red Lunch % Passing 17–18 ISTEP*

Jefferson Community High School (JCHS)

Cesar Chavez Zora Neale Elementary Hurston (CC) Elementary (ZNH)

Junipero Serra Elementary (JS)

612

658

693

412

25 31 38 1 74

34 13 49 4 77

15 26 54 6 78

46 13 31 9 83

NA

24

11

22

Source: Indiana Department of Education. Data not available for Mahatma Gandhi (MG) Elementary as this is a charter restart. *ISTEP, Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress.

Community Engagement through Partnerships  131 Martindale-Brightwood The Martindale-Brightwood neighborhoods of Indianapolis were initially founded near the hub of two railroads. In the latter part of the 19th century, the railroad industry was a source of employment in the flourishing area. The neighborhood remained a working-class suburb until the railroad station, which brought so much prosperity to the area, relocated to an outer-ring suburb, leaving people jobless. The area fell into economic depression, which it is still experiencing today (Davila, Nowlin, & Andres, 2018). The Martindale-Brightwood Alliance for Educational Success (MBAES) was born of a partnership between IUPUI and IPS. In 2010, the Community Learning Network of IUPUI was awarded 2.5 million dollars in federal funding to initiate a university-assisted community schools model in three ethnically diverse elementary schools in Martindale-Brightwood (see Table 5.2). A comprehensive implementation plan was developed in partnership with IPS, the Edna Martin Christian Center, Bright House Network, 37 Place, Art With a Heart, and other partners based on vital information gathered from principals and school staff, parents, and students. The broad plan was aligned with the Coalition for Community Schools’ Logic Model Framework (Coalition for Community Schools, 2007). This framework is centered on achieving results in FSCSs through a logical set of inputs and outputs based on desired short- and long-term results. The comprehensive partnership plan centered on addressing the needs of students and families at the three schools in MartindaleBrightwood, Fannie Lou Hamer (FLH), Victoria Woodhull (VW), and Alice Paul (AP), which combined serve approximately 1,300 students. In contrast to the process in Near-Westside led by the Mary Rigg Neighborhood Center, MBAES used a fluid, open FSCS implementation process. Its vision focused on long-term goals and outcomes and sustained Table 5.2 Demographics and academic achievement for participating FSCSs in Martindale Brightwood Victoria Woodhull  Elementary (VW) Total Enrollment (numbers) 166 % White 3 % Black 84 % Latinx 10 % Other Race 2 % Free/Red Lunch 83 % Passing 2017–2018 ISTEP* NA

Fannie Lou Alice Paul Hamer Elementary (FLH) (AP) 414 6 59 32 3 73 13

Source: Indiana Department of Education. *ISTEP, Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress.

693 15 25 54 6 78 19

132  Monica A. Medina et al. commitments from community leaders who envisioned the project long before its inauguration. MBAES has connected multiple agencies and community partners to provide a range of services both on and off the FSCS sites. The services include early childhood education, remedial education, and academic enrichment, parent engagement and family literacy, mentoring and youth development programs, community service and service learning opportunities, nutrition services, primary health and dental services, mental health services, job training and career counseling services, social service programs and programs that promote family financial stability, and adult education and ESL instruction. The funding from the grant also allowed for professional development for school leaders and teachers at the three community schools. The mission of MBAES is to advance the continuous development of a community-wide partnership between the schools, families, health and human service agencies, faith- based organizations, businesses, and colleges/universities, maximizing the education and life potential of every child, young person and adult -from cradle to career. Its primary objective is to help remedy service gaps for students and families by addressing the challenges of alignment, integration, and sustainability of resources. MBAES has maintained consistent leadership since its inception in 2010, which has contributed to the stability and sustainability of the FSCS strategy. Despite school and district personnel and policy changes, MBAES has provided a strong backbone and aided in creating a shared sense of purpose in serving students, families, and community members. Communication, relationship building, and opportunities for authentic engagement among the collective body of partners have helped to maintain the initiative, and will help to ensure the long-term success of FSCSs in Martindale-Brightwood.

Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework for this case study centers on Bryk et al.’s (2010) model for organizing schools. According to Bryk et al. (2010), effective and improving schools have five essential supports: 1 2

Coherent instructional guidance systems. Schools in which student learning improves have coherent instructional guidance systems that articulate the what and how of instruction. Professional capacity. Schooling is a human resource-intensive enterprise. Schools are only as good as the quality of faculty, the professional development that supports their learning, and the faculty’s capacity to work together to improve instruction.

Community Engagement through Partnerships  133 3 4

5

Strong parent-community-school ties. The quality of these ties links directly to students’ motivation and school participation and can provide a critical resource for classrooms. Student-centered learning climate. All adults in a school community forge a climate that enables students to think of themselves as learners. At a minimum, improving schools establish a safe and orderly environment – the most basic prerequisite for learning. Leadership drives change. Principals in improving schools engage in a dynamic interplay of instructional and inclusive-facilitative leadership (pp. 24–25).

Our interest in using Bryk et al.’s (2010) model for this case study is based on extensive analysis of the qualitative data including in-depth interviews with school principals and teachers, community partners, observations of local community school council meetings, and literature written about the community school initiative. Bryk et al.’s (2010) theoretical ideas helped to elucidate how the community school reform efforts developed over time. We deliberately decided to include two neighborhoods, not to compare their efforts of development but instead to focus on the structures and principles that framed their work, understanding that Bryk et al.’s (2010) five essential supports in K-12 schools may vary among the different types of school and community contexts. To frame our study, we also focused on the four pillars that correspond to the characteristics of high-quality FSCSs: (1) integrated support services in the school, (2) expanded learning time and opportunities, (3) family and community engagement, and (4) collaborative leadership and practice (Oakes et al., 2017). These four pillars, supported by decades of research, identify school characteristics that foster students’ intellectual, social, emotional, and physical development and align with evidence-based features that define good schools. In fact, their focus on climate, leadership, and partnerships overlap with Bryk et al.’s essential supports for effective and improving schools (Bryk et al., 2010). It is through these complementary frameworks that we analyzed data derived from ten years of FSCS implementation in the Near-Westside and Martindale-Brightwood communities in Indianapolis.

Research Methods Our research team consisted of a university professor, a doctoral graduate assistant, and the Director of University/Community School Partnerships. Different from a traditional method of inquiry, we obtained our data using a participatory action research approach (Fals-Borda & Rahman, 1991; Stringer, 2007). This type of research aims to facilitate understanding of essential community problems and the actions necessary to solve them. It involves community participation and fosters

134  Monica A. Medina et al. community ownership throughout the entire research project, particularly from those directly impacted by the problem. Along with the participant researcher, community leaders develop the capacity to take action aimed at changing community conditions and systems so that a supportive environment in schools and communities exists to sustain behaviorial changes over time (Stringer, 2007). This approach to research can be used to pursue research objectives (knowledge and understanding) with the meaningful involvement of community members and an ultimate focus on activities leading to improvements in social conditions (Auspos & Kubisch, 2004). Data Collection Data were collected during three different grant periods – 2008–2013, 2010–2015, 2015-present – from the eight focal schools in NearWestside and Martindale-Brightwood. Much of the data for this research was gathered from participants attending monthly Community Advisory Council (Council) meetings at each of the FSCSs. The Council is a representative group of essential partners that collaborate to achieve community school goals and ensure genuine and active community engagement. The Council can include representatives from community groups and organizations such as health care providers, public health agencies, social service agencies, community leaders, business leaders, the faith community, advocacy groups, teachers, parents, and students. Anyone who attends the monthly meetings receives professional development on community schools and is invited to help address specific community school needs. As participant researchers, we presented evaluation data at the Council meetings and gathered responses to prompts that allowed us to more thoroughly examine challenges and successes at the FSCSs. When analyzing these data, we reviewed summaries of small group discussions and read meeting minutes and agendas. Over the course of the grant periods, additional data were gathered from semi-structured interviews with FSCS principals. Further, teachers were invited to an annual Teacher Appreciation Luncheon where we conducted small focus groups using nonstructured questions to learn about their concerns with the community school process, service access, and program gaps. Teachers also described what they thought were successes and challenges related to community school programs at their schools. Every semester, the teachers also completed an open-ended ten-question survey to measure their knowledge of, beliefs about, and engagement in community school activities. Across the eight FSCSs in Near-Westside and Martindale-Brightwood, we learned about the effectiveness of the community schools model. We focused specifically on governance, program infrastructure, and community partnerships, which are necessary to realize essential benefits

Community Engagement through Partnerships

135

for the schools, students, and families involved in the FSCS initiative. Additional data sources for the study were grant performance reports and school-level statistics (e.g., overall standardized test performance). Data Analysis In analyzing and synthesizing all the data, we used an iterative and inductive team approach (Olesen, Droes, Hatton, Chico, & Schatzman, 1994). Through regular research meetings, we discussed our perceptions of the data as we looked for common recurring concepts and themes. As we reviewed the emergent themes and our theoretical frameworks, we identified examples of what were characterized as good practices, significant program achievements, and factors facilitating and inhibiting collaboration and sense of community within the schools and partnerships. The results were then discussed with key community members who were involved in the study. Through these discussions, consensus was built around the key findings and lessons learned. In the next section, we discuss these findings. In particular, we discuss the challenges and achievements experienced in over a decade of planning and implementing a comprehensive community school strategy in two communities in Indianapolis.

Findings: Challenges and Significant Achievements Evidence from a range of community perspectives, voices, and performance data show that the systems and policies affecting urban community schools are continually changing. Despite such changes, the two focal neighborhoods have implemented community school models to strengthen teaching and learning by building on community assets and collaborative opportunities. In doing so, they have experienced challenges as well as significant achievements and benefits. Challenges Perhaps like other community schools in the nation, the community schools initiatives in IPS experienced significant challenges, primarily related to budget constraints and personnel turnover, and the effects of student poverty and trauma. While these challenges were commonly experienced, the intensity and response differed by school and community as described below. Budget Constraints and Personnel Turnover Over the years, IPS has been closing schools because of a shrinking student body. Facing a $45 million deficit, the district plans to close an additional three high schools. While the full impact of the closures is not yet known, media have reported that 26 teachers will lose positions and

136  Monica A. Medina et al. elementary schools across the district must reconfigure their grade levels by adding middle school grades to their buildings (McCoy, 2018). This change will require IPS FSCSs to identify and deliver additional services for preadolescent students including tutoring and mentoring. Principal and teacher turnover have also affected multiple schools serving poor students and students of color, including the FSCSs in IPS. The negative consequences of personnel turnover were recognized by one principal, who commented: One challenge has been the constant turnover. You know, teachers could get really involved, but then that’s taking away from them learning how to teach. A lot of the staff that I’ve had are struggling with just learning how to do their basic job duty. Rather than trying to stem the tide of attrition from the neediest schools, the IPS approach has been to replace administrators and teachers in these often lower performing schools. In Martindale-Brightwood, for example, during the five-year FSCS grant period, VW Elementary had a new principal every year, and 60% of the teaching staff turned over every year as well. At FLH Elementary, there was a consistent principal during the five-year period, but about half of the teachers were new every year. In Near-Westside, a new principal at ZNH Elementary began her tenure during the 2017–2018 school year. A new principal took the helm of Jefferson High for the 2018–2019 school year, and many of the preexisting staff relocated or retired as he selected new staff. Meanwhile, a new principal was designated for JS Elementary, and the previous leadership team moved to a technical high school on the city’s Near- Eastside. After much debate by the IPS board and community, the school district determined that MG Elementary would convert to an “innovation network” or charter school due to multiple years of underperformance. The school opened in August 2018 under contracted management, and with a new principal and nearly all new teachers.1 The churn in school personnel has had an impact that is deep and wide. It has generated fractured relationships with students, contributing to trauma that they may experience in other areas of their lives. The loss has also diminished organizational memory, which is important to the school community. We also found that the turnover has negatively affected the development of trust between school leaders and the community, limiting the number of partners allowed in schools. At one school, the lack of trust extended to a community partner working on the FSCS grant. The partner was never invited to be a part of the school leadership team, thus causing a rift that stymied development of a trusting relationship between the partners, school personnel, and parents. Despite the turnover, the FSCS initiatives in Near-Westside and Martindale-Brightwood have continued to provide services and supports to meet students’ academic, social, and emotional needs.

Community Engagement through Partnerships  137 Student Poverty and Trauma For many years, poverty has affected students and families in the school district. Many students who attend IPS live in struggling communities where disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds make academic success highly elusive. According to the 2017 “Public Good Index” published by the Sagamore Institute, an Indianapolis think tank, the portion of Indianapolis residents living in poverty increased from 11.8% in 2000 to 21.3% in 2015. This increase of 85,063 individuals brings the total impoverished population in Indianapolis to 175,623 (Riggs et al., 2017). Recent studies indicate that many children living in poverty experience continuous trauma in their lives, including exposure to violent crimes (Kiser & Black, 2005; Kiser, Nurse, Lucksted, & Collins, 2008; Kiser, Medoff, & Black, 2010). The research also suggests that exposure to violence on the streets and in schools serves as a distraction to learning (Sitler, 2009). Thus, despite existing programs, the need for additional social and mental health services continues to be imperative in both of the focal neighborhoods. As one teacher noted, “This school benefits from the partnerships but we need more to meet the needs that we have in this school. Poverty is a big factor.” A principal concurred, emphasizing the overlap between poverty, trauma, and student behavior, Our number one [challenge] is trauma… how to address the needs of our children and families given the incredible amount of trauma that they have been through. Of course, a side effect of that trauma being the mental health issues that we see. Several schools have adopted trauma-responsive care resources and professional development for teachers and staff so that they gain a deeper understanding of how trauma affects child development and what interventions are necessary to help children heal. A newly developed health coalition born out of the Near-Westside FSCS initiative has been instrumental in advocating for changes in school and service system policies and protocols to support trauma-affected children. Significant Benefits and Achievements While challenges exist, there is no doubt that the community school initiative has created a higher value for education that continues to permeate in Near-Westside and Martindale-Brightwood. When describing the initiative’s impact, one principal observed: As the instructional leader, I have found that I must think about all tenets of students, families, and the community. The FSCS model has forced me to do this. Our school team is learning how to become

138  Monica A. Medina et al. more and more aware of the varying needs of our students. This includes trauma, mental health, academic support, and social support. When the Quality of Life Plans2 were developed by community residents in conjunction with the Local Initiatives Support Coalition of Indianapolis (LISC), both neighborhoods identified education as a top priority and the call for quality schooling is at the top of their agenda (Local Initiative Support Council (LISC), 2019). Thus, we know the strategy has made an impact. We discuss additional benefits of the community schools model below. Outcomes at Jefferson High At Jefferson High, student attendance increased from 88% in 2006 to 94% in 2009. This increase was in part due to the efforts of an interdisciplinary case management team, consisting of a social worker, a school nurse, an athletic coach, and teachers, who worked at addressing chronic absenteeism. The director of the afterschool program stated that students’ desire to participate in the afterschool activities made available through the FSCS grant – called the Hub – also helped increase student attendance. The Hub provided an extended day with enrichment activities such as swimming and other athletics, recreation, college prep activities, and a hot meal every evening. Sixty percent of the entire student body enrolled in the Hub and attended regularly. Also, at Jefferson High, the percentage of students graduating within four years increased from 42% in 2007 to 77% in 2011. In 2009, 100% of the high school’s graduates were accepted into post-secondary educational programs. The increase in high school graduation rates resulted in more students graduating from college, a community-wide goal. The FSCS model also benefitted the broader school community. For example, 422 area adults participated in Jefferson High’s evening personal fitness program, managed by IUPUI physical education majors. Of particular significance to this school is the fact that the operation of all FSCS programing continued for three years beyond the end of the grant cycle (2011–2015), demonstrating how committed partnerships can serve as the linchpin to sustainability, despite the lack of government funding and sizable administrative churn. Outcomes in Martindale-Brightwood With MBAES, the Siemer Student Stability Project, housed by project partner, Edna Martin Christian Center, was designed to support families at high risk of mobility. This program helps to prevent absenteeism and promote consistency in learning. Edna Martin Christian Center is one of 30 total partners supporting grant initiatives, such as mental health; adult career development; job training; mentoring and youth

Community Engagement through Partnerships  139 development; and health, nutrition, and wellness in MartindaleBrightwood. IUPUI Adult Learning Centers, another active partner in the MBAES program, offers courses and workshops for parents and students in Martindale-Brightwood churches and community centers – drawing in over 95 students. Several Spanish-speaking parents have enrolled in English classes, enabling them to take on school leadership roles. The Center also initiated a program titled “Girl Talk” that gave 6th-grade girls a safe space to express themselves and learn about issues relevant to their lives. The program forged multiple one-on-one relationships between girls and mentors as the girls developed personal and social skills and critical ways to communicate effectively and feel validated. IUPUI-community School Partnerships We must also highlight the transformative relationship established between IUPUI, the schools, and community residents. IUPUI and school representatives have routinely participated in neighborhood improvement efforts. IUPUI also has supported the schools by sending students and staff members from several departments across the campus to participate in education support services including tutoring, mentoring, afterschool activities, and management of the wellness center at the high school, which provides personal trainers and individual health assessments. In 2015, the IUPUI Office of Community Engagement made a firm commitment to this work and hired Jim Grim of the Near-Westside FSCS project to be Director of University/Community School Partnerships in their Office of Family, School and Neighborhood Engagement. Community and Family Engagement Community partner, Mary Rigg Neighborhood Center, has continued full engagement as a lead partner along with more than 70 community partners in Near-Westside that have collaborated to provide up to 98% of all the students who attend an FSCS with at least one supportive service. When describing the broad support provided by one school partner, a principal shared: We have Kroger’s support with scholarships. Our kids in grades 1–8 are able to get $500 scholarships each semester that they have good attendance and grades. That’s called our Kroger Super Scholars. They also provide shoes and socks for all our kids around the holidays. They give us a big feast around Thanksgiving. And each classroom has a relationship with a specific store. While funding from the U.S. Department of Education offers support to families and community members in Near-Westside and Martindale-

140  Monica A. Medina et al. Brightwood, anchor-partner community centers – Christamore House, Hawthorne Community Center, Mary Rigg Neighborhood Center, and Edna Martin Christian Center – collectively provide employment, social services, preschool/childcare, afterschool activities, adult learning, and related supports for more than 14,000 families in both communities. Community partners have thus played a central and sustaining role in community school initiatives in Indianapolis. Bringing about a system of change in the focal neighborhoods was complicated but not overwhelming as the partners and school leaders began to understand the significance of adhering to the community school model. In monthly Council meetings, partners aligned resources with students’ academic and social developmental needs. Key to the process at Jefferson High was the work of the community school coordinator (CSC), who helped to manage community outreach. When describing the importance of the CSC, the principal observed, “They are a part of our team. It’s great. They join our team meetings, and they allow us to touch students in a much more thorough way than we would be able to otherwise.” Another key factor explaining the successful implementation of the community school model was the increase in participation from parents and families, despite what one teacher described as their previously “negative experiences with schools.” In 2011, parent engagement increased 100% over the previous year as nearly 1,012 family members participated in FSCS activities that were not sports related. In other words, parents who participated in family nights, recognition programs, student-driven activities, family literacy, and Parent in Touch events helped create a school climate that was welcoming, and conducive to student learning and authentic community engagement. FSCSs continue to work with their community partners to increase parent participation and address barriers to families’ engagement. As one principal described: We still struggle with getting our parents in. It’s so dependent on time of year, time of day, because I know a lot of our parents are working, so shifts are a challenge, first shift, second shift, third shift. Child care, transportation, those are all issues. So we’ve been trying to make connections with our community partners to provide transportation to get parents here if they want that. We’ve since seen some increases in our parental involvement throughout the last couple years on events. Sometimes we’ll get 10 to 15 parents, others we’ll get 30, 40, 50, um, up to 200, it just depends on what we’re trying to do. Partnerships and adherence to the principles of the community school model deepened as the inclusiveness of the Councils grew. Council members learned more about the school needs and their capacity to individually and collectively approach issues that influenced the infrastructure

Community Engagement through Partnerships  141 of the school and community. Council members also publicly made their ideas known as they addressed the policies and actions of the school board in regard to school closings, school leadership changes, school funding, and shifts in student enrollment.

Discussion: Key Lessons Learned Over a ten-year period of achievements, trials, and attempts at coordinating and aligning the moving pieces of multiple community schools, several lessons have emerged. We discuss these lessons, which we titled, “The Seven C’s,” within the context of existing research and theory on FSCSs and school reform. These lessons are not mutually exclusive but, rather, are complementary and reinforcing. Lesson One – Change is the only constant. Throughout our decade of work within the district, we have learned that the need to be flexible and responsive to change is paramount. We have experienced significant transformation in the face of extensive “churn” of administrators and teachers that directly affected relationships and trust (Finnigan & Daly, 2017), the district’s modifications of practices and policies with little to no notice, and student mobility due to various economic factors (Columbus Foundation, 2003). While change is a constant and potentially disruptive, it also provides the opportunity to remain flexible and open to feedback regarding processes and approaches. Collectively, we sought stability and searched for predictability in maintaining the initiative. The achievements and benefits came with hard work and commitment to uphold the fundamental pillars of FSCSs (Oakes et al., 2017) despite the changing leadership and district messages that challenged us. Lesson Two – Collaboration is necessary for collective impact. Bryk et al. (2010) emphasize the importance of strong parent and community ties for improving schools. Our work supports this claim. We found that FSCSs do not work without the community. The community must be involved to make possible the two-way collaboration that is an essential feature of FSCSs. The successful operation of FSCSs depends on the quality and integration of many moving parts. School and community leaders must abandon their personal agendas in favor of a collective approach to improving student achievement. No single influential, innovative, or resourceful organization could advance the critical needs of a community alone. Therefore, the contributions from community partnerships must be meticulously considered using a structured process that unvaryingly measures clear goals (Kania & Kramer, 2011). FSCSs in the local communities have been sustained by a network of multiple partners, including three local community centers, a nearby university, community-based organizations, and members of the private sector, who work together to improve student achievement through “collective impact.” Kania and Kramer (2011) define collective impact as a long-term

142  Monica A. Medina et al. commitment by a cooperative of people who come from different sectors, with a common agenda, to solve a specific social problem. Lesson Three – Consistency and stability between organizers and partners help to sustain integrated services. Integrated services, responsive to the needs of students and families, is a defining feature of FSCSs (Oakes et al., 2017). Educational change in our district demonstrates the need to counterbalance the churn by offering students stability and consistency in these services. For example, if a food pantry or afterschool program or service is open to families in year one, we work to ensure access to those resources for families in the following years through partner commitments. The long-term sustainability of programs is achieved through a strategic focus on the benefits to students and families, and “blending” and “braiding” funds to support the total cost of services (Flynn & Hayes, 2003). Services and expenses are tracked by a categorical funding source so that each is charged its fair amount and the program data reflect both duplicated and unduplicated services provided by each program partner. The goal of this funding strategy is to develop a program infrastructure that will continue to function after the grant funding cycle ends. Although the school may see changes in administrators, the partners essentially remain constant. Lesson Four – Communication is the foundation of a robust FSCS. Effective communication is essential to maintaining strong community school partnerships. Keeping multiple partners engaged and knowledgeable about schools’ efforts and successes requires constant, precise, and robust communication at various levels. Organizing events, integrating services, and communicating the availability of services to parents and the broader community also require a great deal of effort. Thus, communication among school leaders and staff (i.e., the principal, CSC, and parent liaison) is vital to effective communication with students, teachers, parents, and partners, and the development of schools as learning communities (Schussler, 2003). We recognize that several barriers hinder good communication at various levels including the cultural and language incongruence among schools, parents, and community members (Nieto & Bode, 2008; Sanders, 2009). We learned from our bilingual parent liaisons that timely and effective communication with parents and students who are English learners is indispensable in creating strong school-home-community partnerships. We also learned from our CSCs that in some cases, communication on paper is strongly preferred to that of technology. Both strategies have become priorities in our FSCSs. Lesson Five – Climate and culture are significant to learning. The terms “school culture” and “school climate” both describe the interactive aspects of the school environments that affect students, teachers, and the community. School culture is the shared values, beliefs, and behaviors that characterize the school and the classroom (Marshall, State University Center for School Safety, 2004). School climate is defined as,

Community Engagement through Partnerships  143 “[The] quality and character of school life... and reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices, and organizational structures” (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009, p. 182). Highly interdependent, school culture and climate can influence school/parent relationships, school attendance, academic achievement, and high school graduation rates (Freiberg, 1998). Bryk et al. (2010) also describe the importance of a student-centered climate for effective and improving schools. We acknowledge that we must consider both school climates and cultures to continue our community school planning, evaluation, and active program development. We have learned about the range of ways that we can improve both the school climate and culture by listening, planning, and taking action at the school level. Lesson Six – CSCs are necessary to align the school’s academic achievement goals and the needs of students and their families. Full-time CSCs are essential to the effective implementation of FSCSs and need support and continuous professional development to be able to orchestrate the services and programs that are a central pillar of these schools (FitzGerald & Quiñones, 2018; Sanders, 2016; Sanders, Galindo, & DeTablan, 2019). Meaningful professional development would assist CSCs to collaborate effectively with multiple stakeholders, participate in school decision-making, and develop trust with the principal and key partners, which is a hallmark of effective and improving schools (Bryk et al., 2010). Beyond family engagement, community engagement, and youth development, we depend on CSCs to help with data collection and assessment. The challenge in this school district has been the constant change in CSCs or elimination of the position, thus creating a gap in communication and authentically aligned program development. Lesson Seven – Without principals’ consent and fidelity to the model, FSCSs will not succeed. Our work, like Bryk et al.’s (2010) and others (Adams & Jean-Marie, 2011; Sanders, 2018; Valli, Stefanski, & Jacobson, 2018), confirms the critical role of principal leadership for reform coherence, building professional capacity, and managing change. The three principals involved at the onset of the FSCS effort embraced the model and recognized its value to families and students. The challenge emerged when new principals assumed they knew the mechanics of community schools but in reality did not fully comprehend the foundational tenants. This created gaps in the provision of services and programs when the principal decided too many “outsiders” were involved in school decisions and limited the number of providers in the building.

Conclusion The community leaders who envisioned FSCSs long before the inauguration of the 2000 reopening of Jefferson High shared their hope and a sense of urgency when they committed to this promising school

144  Monica A. Medina et al. reform  movement. Through collective partnerships and distributive leadership among the school district, university, and community-based organizations, they embraced the standards for quality education, championed authentic community engagement, and intentionally integrated teachers and public/private partnerships as the foundation for academic success. While the initial FSCS grants provided essential funding and strengthened the capacity of the school and community, maintaining the resources and assets for over ten years was due to the steadfast efforts of IUPUI and community organizations such as Mary Rigg Neighborhood Center and MBAES. They worked to sustain program funding beyond the contracted grant periods through continuous technical assistance and capacity building, and captured the data to document the evidence needed to renew programs. This vibrant example of scholars working alongside practitioners in assessing program standards, questioning vexing contradictions, and addressing the pestilence of bias in public schools in poor communities is what makes this project unique and a model for other urban districts.

Notes

References Adams, C. M., & Jean-Marie, G. (2011). A diffusion approach to study leadership reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(4), 354–377. doi:10.1108/09578231111146452 Auspos, P., & Kubisch, A. C. (2004). Building knowledge about community change: Moving beyond evaluations. New York, NY: Aspen Institute. doi:10.4087/FOUNDATIONREVIEW-D-11-00010 Blank, M. J., Melville, A., & Shah, B. P. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in community schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools. Retrieved from www.communityschools.org/CCSFullReport.pdf. Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children, 7, 55–71. doi:10.2307/1602387 Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). (2018). Applications for new awards; Full-Service community schools program, 27564–27570. Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2018-12701. Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111, 180–213.

Community Engagement through Partnerships  145 Columbus Foundation. (2003). Columbus public schools student mobility project report. Columbus, OH: The Columbus Foundation Community Research Partners. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-Century Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314. doi:10.1177/0022487105285962 Davila, K., Nowlin, M., & Andres, M. A. (2018). Where schools are changing: Regional and neighborhood dynamics from 2010 to 2016. Retrieved from The Polis Center Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis website: http:// polis.iupui.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Where-Are-Schools-Changing.pdf Fals-Borda, O., & Rahman, M. A. (Eds.) (1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research. New York, NY: Apex Press. Finnigan, K. S., & Daly, A. J. (2017). The trust gap: Understanding the effects of leadership churn in school districts. American Educator, 41(2), 24–43. FitzGerald, A. M., & Quiñones, S. (2018). The community school coordinator: Leader and professional capital builder. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 3(4), 272–286. doi:10.1108/JPCC-02-2018-0008 Flynn, M., & Hayes, C. D. (2003). Blending and braiding funds to support early care and childhood initiatives. Washington, DC: The Finance Project. Freiberg, H. J. (1998). Measuring school climate: Let me count the ways. Educational Leadership, 56(1), 22–26. Galindo, C., Sanders, M., & Abel, Y. (2017). Transforming educational experiences in low-income communities: A qualitative case study of social capital in a full-service community school. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1_suppl), 140S–163S. doi:10.3102/0002831216676571 Grim, J., Medina, M. A., & Officer, S. D. H. (2011). A decade of lessons: Community engagement perspectives from a university-assisted school community. Midwest Center for University-Assisted Community Schools, Center for Service and Learning, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis. Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(1), 36–41. Kiser, L. J., & Black, M. A. (2005). Family processes in the midst of urban poverty. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(6), 715–750. doi:10.1016/j. avb.2005.02.003 Kiser, L. J., Medoff, D. R., & Black, M. M. (2010). The role of family processes in childhood traumatic stress reactions for youths living in urban poverty. Traumatology, 16(2), 33–42. doi:10.1177/1534765609358466 Kiser, L. J., Nurse, W., Lucksted, A., & Collins, K. S. (2008). Understanding the impact of trauma on family life from the viewpoint of female caregivers living in urban poverty. Traumatology, 14(3), 77–90. doi:10.1177/ 1534765608320329 Local Initiative Support Council. (2019). Six quality-of-life plans for Indianapolis neighborhoods. Retrieved from http://archive.instituteccd.org/-How-To-Do-It-/ Planning/Six-Quality-of-Life-Plans-for-Indianapolis-Neighborhoods0.html Lubell, E. (2011). Building community schools: A guide for action; Children’s aid society. New York, NY. Marshall, M. L., & State University Center for School Safety. (2004). Examining school climate: Defining factors and educational influences [white paper, electronic version]. Retrieved from Georgia, School Climate, and Classroom Management website: http://education.gsu.edu/ schoolsafety/

146  Monica A. Medina et al. McCoy, D. (2018). Indianapolis Public Schools cancels contracts for 26 educators, 46 other staffers amid financial problems Chalkbeat. Retrieved from https://chalkbeat.org/posts/in/2018/06/29/indianapolis-public-schools-cancelscontracts-for-26-educators-46-other-staffers-amid-financial-problems/ Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2008). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Oakes, J., Maier, A., & Daniel, J. (2017). Community schools: An evidencebased strategy for equitable school improvement. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Olesen, V., Droes, N., Hatton, D., Chico, N., & Schatzman, L. (1994). Analyzing together: Recollections of a team approach. In D. A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 111–128). London, UK: Routledge. Riggs, T., Batson, C., Curry, K., Dewes, E., Heikens, N., Clark, K., & Nepomuceno, B. (2017). Public good index at Sagamore Institute: A study of Indiana’s major cities. Retrieved from http://www.avongov.org/egov/ documents/1515770622_51989.pdf. Sanders, M. G. (2009). Teachers and parents. In L. Saha & A. Dworkin (Eds.), The new international handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 331–343). New York, NY: Springer. Sanders, M. G. (2016). Leadership, partnerships, and organizational development: Exploring components of effectiveness in three full-service community schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(2), 157–177. doi:10.1080/09243453.2015.1030432 Sanders, M. G. (2018). Crossing boundaries: A qualitative exploration of relational leadership in three full-service community schools. Teachers College Record, 120(4), 1–36. Sanders, M., Galindo, C., & DeTablan, D. (2019). Leadership for collaboration: Exploring how community school coordinators advance the goals of full-service community schools. Children and Schools, 41(2), cdz006. doi:10.1093/cs/cdz006. Schussler, D. L. (2003). Schools as learning communities: Unpacking the concept. Journal of School Leadership, 13(5), 498–528. Sitler, H. C. (2009). Teaching with awareness: The hidden effects of trauma on learning. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 82(3), 119–124. doi:10.3200/TCHS.82.3.119-124 Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Valli, L., Stefanski, A., & Jacobson, R. (2018). School-community partnership models: Implications for leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(1), 31–49. Warren, S. R. (2002). Stories from the classroom: How expectations and efficacy of diverse teachers affect the academic performance of children in poor urban schools. Educational Horizons, 80(3), 109–116. Wirt, J., Rooney, P., Choy, S., Provasnik, S., Sen, A., & Tobin, R. (2004). The condition of education 2004 (NCES 2004–077). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid 2004077.

6

Sustaining Full-Service Community Schools Lessons from the Tulsa Area Community Schools Initiative Curt M. Adams

This study begins from an evaluation of the Tulsa Area Community Schools Initiative (TACSI) in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The evaluation was carried out during the 2008/2009 school year and found, among other results, that economically disadvantaged students in TACSI’s full-service community schools (FSCSs) had higher math and reading achievement than comparable peers in non-TACSI schools.1 Further, economically disadvantaged students in TACSI FSCSs outperformed low-income peers who attended non-TACSI schools ranked as the highest performing elementary schools in the district (Adams, 2010). Several years have passed since this initial study, raising interesting questions about what has happened in TACSI FSCSs over time. Specifically, this study seeks answers to the following questions: How has TACSI changed over the last nine years? Have the six TACSI FSCSs in Tulsa and Union maintained strong conditions for learning compared to non-TACSI schools? Have the six TACSI FSCSs in Tulsa and Union maintained better achievement outcomes compared to non-TACSI schools? Before turning to the research questions, the unique characteristics of FSCSs are explained, and the theory of action behind development of FSCSs in Tulsa is described.

Full-Service Community Schools FSCSs are different than predesigned comprehensive school reforms like America’s Choice, Success for All, Core Knowledge, or Direct Instruction in that fidelity to standardized structures and practices does not define the end state of the reform process (Vernez, Karem, Mariano, & DeMartini, 2006). Schools evolve and transition into FSCSs when new structures and processes enhance learning opportunities available to children, strengthen social ties with families and communities, and expose children to experiences that prepare them for a purposeful life (Dryfoos, 2005). Harkavy and Blank (2002) note, A community school is not just another program being imposed on a school. It is a way of thinking and acting that recognizes the historic central role of schools in our communities—and the power of working together for a common good. (p. 50)

148  Curt M. Adams Specific strategies and practices used to carry out the vision of FSCSs reflect the unique characteristics of the local context (Dryfoos, 2005; Sanders, 2016). To illustrate, some FSCSs house health clinics and social services, and others address the out-of-school time needs of students and families. Stated simply, FSCSs are grown and nurtured locally. Strong external control would be antithetical to the reform’s core propositions of local control, partnerships, community empowerment, and social democracy (Blank, Melaville, & Shah, 2003). Additionally, mandating prescribed practices constricts processes like sense making, co- construction, and mutual adaptation that individuals rely on to transform organizations (Datnow & Stringfield, 2000; McLaughlin, 1987). The absence of centralized, external control should not be mistaken for a loosely coupled reform network. Rather than centralized control, FSCSs leverage professional authority through what Lee, Dedrick, and Smith (1991) describe as a “consensual set of organizational goals, creating a social consensus about the academic mission of the school” (p. 193). Social control achieved internally through leadership, partnerships, and organizational development, more so than formal controls from outside, function as organizing principles and practices (Richardson, 2009). In this sense, FSCSs represent what Firestone (2010) describes as a student learning culture. Student learning cultures organize and coordinate school operations with a set of norms and expectations that enable school members to work collectively toward an aspiring future vision (Firestone, 2010). Such cultures depend on setting clear expectations and strategies yet remaining agile and adaptable to changing needs (Honig & Hatch, 2004). To this end, the Coalition for Community Schools has established a common theoretical framework at the national level that has been defined locally by TACSI and is reflected in its theory of action. Figure 6.1 displays TACSI’s community school model. The core organizational components of cross-boundary leadership; holistic programs, services, and opportunities; family and community engagement; and community-based learning function interactively to form ideal conditions for student learning and development. Conditions for learning and development account for social and psychological factors behind the desired outcomes of school and student success; healthy and socially competent children; adult preparation; and safe and supportive, families, schools, and neighborhoods. Components of the TACSI Community School Model TACSI’s mission of engaging local communities in developing and sustaining FSCSs was advanced through the design, development, and spread of its theory of action. The theory of action established the conceptual and operational grounding for school members to transform traditionally organized public schools into high functioning FSCSs. TACSI used

Sustaining FSCSs  149 Core Components - Cross Boundary Leadership - Holistic Programs, Services, Opportunities - Community and Family Engagement

Conditions for Learning

Outcomes

Instructional Capacity - Instructional Leadership - Collective Efficacy - Collective Trust

- Community Based Learning

-Success in School -Healthy and Socially Competent Children -Preparation for Adulthood -Safe, Supportive Families, Schools, and Neighborhoods

Figure 6.1 Theory of action, Tulsa Area Community School Initiative (TACSI).

its model to establish an aspirational direction for what schools could become if they engaged in a process of redefining relationships between schools and their larger communities. The process of becoming an FSCS involved changing leadership structures, cultivating normative routines and conditions consistent with community school principles, and extending learning opportunities beyond traditional classroom space. The core components of cross-boundary leadership, holistic programs and services, family and community engagement, and community-based learning were envisioned to drive school transformation (see Figure 6.1: TACSI Theory of Action). Cross-Boundary Leadership Cross-boundary leadership seeks to strengthen ties between and among different school role groups (e.g., teachers, parents, administrators, community members). The assumption underlying this leadership approach is that weak connections within and between these role groups partly explain the low organizational performance of high poverty schools (Adams & Forsyth, 2013). Social network and social capital evidence supports this assumption. Daly, Moolenaar, Bolivar, and Burke (2010) found that densely connected grade-level teacher teams diffused instructional and curricular reforms more effectively than loosely connected teams. Similarly, Pil and Leana (2009) found that dense horizontal ties within teacher teams led to better classroom instruction. Leana and Pil (2006) found that internal and external social capital, defined as relationships among teachers in a school and between principals and external stakeholders, respectively, predicted student achievement in Pittsburgh public schools. Likewise, Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton (2010) found that strong ties with students’ families and communities

150  Curt M. Adams were essential supports for improvement in high poverty schools in Chicago. As the above evidence suggests, cross-boundary leadership is needed to build strong social bonds within role groups and social bridges between role groups. Cross-boundary leadership relies on shared responsibility and governance. Effective organization and coordination emerge through the harmonious interactions of school principals, a community school site team, and a community school coordinator (CSC). Such distribution of leadership does not diminish formal and informal principal authority. Rather, it allows school principals to work with civic and business leaders, the local neighborhood, and different school role groups (i.e., teachers, support staff, parents, students, administrators) to set a direction, align resources and processes, and mobilize the community (Adams & Jean-Marie, 2011; Blank, Berg, & Melaville, 2006; Sanders, 2018). School principals working in tandem with the CSC and site team strive to build functional relationships within schools, as well as between schools and the external community (Adams & Jean-Marie, 2011). CSCs are responsible for outreach to the community and internal coordination of added services, resources, and opportunities (Ruffin, 2013). They construct social bridges that enable information about school needs to travel into the community, and resources and opportunities from the community to enter the school in an organized and purposeful manner (Sanders, Galindo, & DeTablan, 2019). Site teams operate as a democratic and representative governance structure that allows schools’ issues, performance needs, expectations, and decisions to be raised and addressed in an open and collaborative space. The intent of site teams is to create bonds within role groups so that individuals are informed, knowledgeable, and engaged in making schools work for all children (Adams & Jean-Marie, 2011). Holistic Programs Holistic programs, services, and opportunities emphasize the development of the whole child, not just their academic achievement. FSCSs integrate services, programs, and opportunities that address the emotional, physical, cognitive, and social needs of students and families with traditional school services and programs (Blank & Berg, 2006). Family support, out-of-school time, and early childhood development make up three core categories of programs, services, and opportunities found within FSCSs (Coalition for Community Schools, 2017). Effective alignment and coherence among services and programs, not quantity of programs offered, determine the added value of providing additional services and experiences to children and families. A lack of coherence diminishes predictability and can have an adverse effect on performance (Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, & Bryk, 2001).

Sustaining FSCSs  151 Wilson’s (1987) study of the truly disadvantaged in Chicago provides compelling evidence as to why holistic programs, services, and opportunities are needed in high poverty communities. Social and economic structures limit the capacity of communities to address the psychological and social needs of children. Diminished support from families and neighborhoods leaves many children incapable of leveraging educational and life opportunities that schools can provide (Bryk et al., 2010; Wilson, 1987). Increasing and embedding more services in schools can be an effective strategy as long as the services lead to a relational environment that supports efficacy formation and motivation (Anderson-Butcher, Paluta, Sterling, & Anderson, 2017; Coleman, 1987; Cummings, Dyson, & Todd, 2011; Sanders, 2001). Family and Community Engagement Family and community engagement is based on the belief that relationships defined by mutual trust and reciprocity can be a resource for individuals and groups (Coleman, 1990). As previously discussed, relationships and social context are strong determinants of student and school performance (Daly et al., 2010; Leana & Pil, 2006; Pil & Leana, 2009). Bryk et al. (2010) found that the level of social capital in Chicago communities, as partly measured by relational ties, contributed to achievement improvements of schools in truly disadvantaged communities. Conversely, the lack of social capital in school communities was a reason for low performance. By emphasizing family engagement and neighborhood development, FSCSs strive to connect families within the school community, teachers with families, and the school with the neighborhood. Community and family engagement is TACSI’s means to develop a strong social network where shared responsibility for student learning is the norm (Blank & Berg, 2006; Blank et al., 2003). A strong and inclusive relational network is more capable of accessing untapped human and social resources in communities. Community-based Learning Community-based learning is an instructional model that emerged from multiple theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence on how students learn best (e.g., social learning theory and social cognitive theory). The combined evidence suggests that young people are more likely to engage in learning when the content has personal meaning, builds on what students already know, and is situated within their social environment (see, e.g., Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Moreover, students are more likely to retain and transfer knowledge when given opportunities to apply their learning to real-world issues and problems. Meaningful content, voice and choice, personal and public purpose, and assessment and

152  Curt M. Adams feedback make up the interdependent properties of community-based learning (Blank et al., 2006). These practices are effective instructional strategies because they promote a classroom environment that supports autonomous learning in students (Reeve, Ryan, Deci, & Jang, 2008). FSCSs are defined as much by their conditions for learning as by their core components. Schools do not become social centers of communities nor are they capable of delivering quality student learning without a culture that is responsive to the needs of all members (Etzioni, 1996). Structural mechanisms without convergent normative conditions are incapable of bringing the community school philosophy to scale. To use an analogy, just as plants wither without water and sunlight, FSCSs cannot grow nor achieve their intended outcomes without nurturing environments. Normative conditions targeted by FSCSs function as nutrients that give life to the school’s theory of action. TACSI conceptualized conditions for learning as a rigorous and responsive core instructional program, motivated and engaged students, holistic supports to meet the needs of students and families, family-school collaboration, and a safe school environment. Factors associated with these conditions for learning include instructional leadership, collective responsibility, collective efficacy, and collective trust. Instructional leadership and collective responsibility capture behavioral patterns that are associated with academic performance (Lee & Smith, 1996). Collective efficacy accounts for past experiences and performance of the faculty that shape their shared beliefs about future performance. A culture of collective efficacy is associated with higher student achievement (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000). Collective trust is an affective condition that lubricates cooperative interactions within and between school groups (i.e., teachers, administrators, community members, students, and families), and enhances school effectiveness (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Forsyth, Adams, & Barnes, 2006; Forsyth, Adams, & Hoy, 2011; Goddard, Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2001). Conditions for learning represent cognitive, behavioral, and affective norms that are found within highly effective organizations and schools. The focus on these conditions is more helpful for school improvement than solely focusing on indicators of achievement (Forsyth et al., 2011). Achievement indicators are incapable of detecting sources of performance problems and explaining reasons for achievement outcomes (Adams, 2010). In effect, a focus on conditions for learning directs attention to the determinants of quality performance that are controllable by school leaders. To summarize, TACSI’s theory of action conceptualizes an organizational structure conducive to supporting schools in high poverty communities. A scarcity of resources (Louis, Dretzke, & Whalstrom, 2010), competing policy goals (Honig & Hatch, 2004), limited instructional capacity (Corcoran & Goertz, 1995), and diminished social capital (Bryk et al., 2010) in high poverty communities render traditional

Sustaining FSCSs  153 governance structures and processes inadequate for achieving student learning objectives. TACSI’s core components of cross-boundary leadership, holistic programs and services, family and community engagement, and community-based learning make up an integrated system designed to nurture the optimal development of children and youth. When fully developed, TACSI intends to construct a dynamic and interactive social network of FSCSs capable of adapting to the changing needs of students, families, and neighborhoods.

TACSI Evaluation Evidence A systematic study of TACSI’s development and outcomes was conducted during the 2008/2009 school year, the third year of its implementation. The evaluation resulted in two primary reports: a journal article on the diffusion of the cross-boundary leadership framework (Adams  & Jean-Marie, 2011) and an outcome evaluation on achievement differences between TACSI and comparable non-TACSI schools (Adams, 2010). Two findings captured and explained in these reports have implications for this current study. First, schools did not become FSCSs by only formally associating with the TACSI network or adopting structural features of the core components. Core components took time to diffuse within schools, and the majority of TACSI schools at the time of the research were still very new to community school concepts and processes (Adams & Jean-Marie, 2011). Second, TACSI schools reaching FSCS status had stronger conditions for learning and better achievement outcomes than comparable non-TACSI schools (Adams, 2010). The development of TACSI’s community school model was measured across four stages: inquiring, emerging, mentoring, and sustaining. Schools at the inquiring stage are those learning about the TACSI model; emerging schools are at the basic level of implementing some but not all components of the model; mentoring schools are those implementing the four core components of the model; and sustaining schools are those that have effectively implemented the four components of the model over time. Mentoring and sustaining stages were used as indicators of achieving FSCS status. TACSI schools reaching this status carefully navigated numerous political, organizational, and relational dynamics to evolve structures, processes, and routines in-line with community school principles and standards, and TACSI’s theory of change, as previously described (Adams & Jean-Marie, 2011). Schools made progress toward the goals of FSCSs as they adopted new organizational structures that provided access to the learning and developmental opportunities that many traditional public schools serving high-poverty communities struggle to establish (Cummings et al., 2011). For TACSI, it became clear early in the evaluation that schools were at different developmental stages and varied considerably in their capacity

154  Curt M. Adams to change structures and routines to align with the FSCS theory of action (Adams, 2010; Adams & Jean-Marie, 2010). In 2008/2009, six of 18 TACSI schools were measured at the mentoring and sustaining stages, thus reaching FSCS status (Adams, 2010). These schools established a functional cross-boundary leadership structure with a site team and CSC; they added health and social services (e.g., health clinics, early learning, nutritional assistance, family support); they facilitated open and cooperative family and community engagement; and they were forming their community-based learning model. The remaining 12 schools were at the inquiring or emerging stages of development, beginning to adopt a few core components of the TACSI theory of action, or achieving limited functionality with the new structures (Adams, 2010; Adams & Jean-Marie, 2011). The evaluation of achievement outcomes was conducted with the development of TACSI’s core components in mind. Evaluation results found no achievement advantages associated with being enrolled in a TACSI school. In fact, students in non-TACSI schools averaged 12 scale points higher on the state math assessment and 14 points higher on the state reading assessment than students in TACSI schools. These advantages washed out when the economic status of the students was controlled for, leaving no differences in average reading and math achievement between students enrolled in TACSI schools and those in non-TACSI schools (Adams, 2010). The lack of an overall achievement effect was not surprising when considering that two-thirds of the 18 TACSI schools had not reached FSCS status. Achievement outcomes were different when accounting for the schools’ developmental stages and functionality of TACSI’s core components. Students in the six TACSI FSCSs had higher average reading and math achievement than their peers in non-TACSI schools and students in TACSI schools at inquiring or emerging developmental stages. Average math achievement was 32 scale points higher for students in the FSCSs and average reading achievement was 19 scale points higher. A post-hoc analysis also found that students in the TACSI FSCSs outperformed comparable peers in the highest academically performing elementary schools. Beyond achievement differences, the six TACSI FSCSs enjoyed teaching and learning environments with higher trust, confidence in the capability of teaching faculty to produce quality learning, and instructional leadership supportive of teacher growth and development (Adams, 2010). In short, the evaluation found that the six TACSI FSCSs cultivated better conditions for learning and had stronger achievement outcomes, suggesting that structural conditions and norms associated with the core components have functional value when integrated into the operations and routines of the school. Becoming an FSCS, however, is not a simple transformation. With only six out of 18 TACSI schools normalizing core components, it is fair to conclude, as others have also found

Sustaining FSCSs  155 (see Cummings et al., 2011; Richardson, 2009; Sanders, 2016), that the FSCS reform requires a considerable investment in leadership, time, and other resources. Given opportunity costs associated with turning a traditional school into an FSCS, it is worth knowing if differences in conditions for learning and achievement outcomes found in the TACSI FSCSs were maintained over time. This leads to the questions at the heart of the current study: RQ1: How has TACSI changed over the last nine years? RQ2: Have the six TACSI FSCSs maintained strong conditions for learning compared to non-TACSI schools? RQ3: Have the six TACSI FSCSs maintained better achievement outcomes compared to non-TACSI schools?

Methods This study used a longitudinal, retrospective design to address the research questions (Johnson, 2001; Mann, 2003). As a retrospective study, historical data from existing reports were used to track conditions for learning and school achievement for the six TACSI FSCSs2 identified in the 2008/2009 evaluation and for the original comparison non-TACSI schools. Longitudinal data present descriptive evidence on either the attrition or sustainability of normative conditions and achievement outcomes over multiple years. In addition to trend data, qualitative evidence was gathered and analyzed to describe changes to the TACSI network during this time period. Data Sources Quantitative data were collected from two existing sources. Achievement data came from the Oklahoma Office of Educational Quality and Accountability (see schoolreport-cards.org). The Office of Educational Quality and Accountability publishes annual report cards on community characteristics of schools and student performance on state curricular assessments. Achievement data were collected from these reports for school years 2008/2009, 2010/2011, 2011/2012, 2012/2013, 2013/2014, 2014/2015, and 2015/2016. Data on conditions for learning came from two sources. First, data reported for the 2008/2009 school year came from the original evaluation of TACSI (Adams, 2010). Second, School Capacity Reports produced by the Oklahoma Center for Education Policy were used to track changes in conditions for learning from 2012/2013 through 2017/2018. The center has measured annually, beginning in the 2012/2013 school year, social and psychological conditions spanning four dimensions of school capacity: Home and Community Capacity, Organizational Capacity,

156  Curt M. Adams Instructional Capacity, and Learning Capacity (see OCEP, 2018 for the definition and operationalization of these dimensions). All data included in the capacity reports were de-identified, school-level aggregates of teacher, student, parent, and administrator responses to survey questions. Qualitative data included TACSI documents, personal observations by the researcher and semi-structured interviews with past TACSI leaders. Informal interviews were conducted with six TACSI leaders from school sites, the district office, and the network. A semi-structured interview protocol was developed from Fink’s (2000) framework on the lifespan of innovative schools. Personal observations derived from experiences working with network, district, and school leaders over the last ten years. Documents came from the TACSI network and included descriptive information about the network, performance and progress reports, and planning materials. Qualitative data served to contextualize the longitudinal analysis by describing changes in the TACSI network over the last nine years. Quantitative Indicators This study presents a limited account of conditions for learning, focusing on collective trust within teacher-student, teacher-parent, and teacher-principal role relationships. Trust signals a functional relational context in which the primary role-relationships (e.g., teacher-student, parent-teacher, teacher-parent) are open and cooperative (Forsyth et al., 2011). Trust measures used for the capacity reports included the Omnibus Trust Scale and the Parent Trust Scale. Extant research using each scale has established a solid body of evidence on the psychometric properties of these measures (see Forsyth et al., 2011; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). School achievement indicators report changes in math and reading proficiency rates on state curricular tests for successive clusters of 5th-grade students. Test scores reflect the results of students classified as “regular education” and enrolled in the school for the full academic year. State curricular tests from 2010 to 2011 through 2015–2016 were scaled from 400 to 990 with the proficiency threshold set at 700 (Oklahoma State Department of Education, 2016). Analysis Thematic coding was used for the first research question. The coding process was iterative and cyclical throughout data collection, transcription, and analysis (Saldana, 2016). No coding software was used. Primary codes were derived from Fink’s (2000) framework on the lifespan of innovative schools.3 The purpose was to capture events and circumstances leading to changes in the TACSI network. When examined from a historical perspective, innovative reforms tend to undergo temporal periods of creativity and experimentation where excitement inspires the

Sustaining FSCSs  157 generation of new ideas and fuels a desire to change; a phase of overreach and entropy where external forces pull schools back to conventional practices; and a state of survival and continuity where schools settle into hybrid routines that look like aspects of the innovation and characteristics of conventional processes (Fink, 2000). Life cycle phases from Fink’s framework served as primary themes to organize evidence from historical documents, personal observations, and interview data. An iterative coding process was used. First evidence was sorted by the primary codes of creativity and experimentation, overreach and entropy, and survival and continuity. Within these primary codes, inductive coding was used to organize factors and events contributing to TACSI’s evolution through the lifespan of innovative schools (Fink, 2000). The inductive stage of data analysis allowed patterns to emerge from the evidence instead of filtering the evidence through an established framework (Saldana, 2016). Quantitative data on school achievement and conditions for learning (i.e., collective trust) were collected and entered into IBM SPSS and Microsoft Excel then reported as descriptive trends for the six TACSI FSCSs from 2008/2009 and the comparison sample of non-TACSI schools. Trend data were also separated by the two FSCSs in Union School District and the four FSCSs in the Tulsa District. Values for trust reflect the school average item-response for the respective measures. Teacher and parent trust perceptions range from one (low) to six (high). Achievement values are the percent of students in the fifth grade who scored proficient (700) or above on state reading and math tests. Achievement trends are unadjusted, no control variables were included in the estimations. Limitations Design limitations should be considered when discerning the meaning and implications of evidence in this study. The intent was to draw lessons about sustainability from TACSI FSCSs. That stated, the qualitative data and longitudinal indicators are only able to present an incomplete picture of sustainability, one that is focused primarily on social context and achievement outcomes. Although these conditions are arguably central to FSCSs, many structural and normative features (e.g., leadership models and roles, holistic services available to students and families, and instructional design) were left unaddressed. It is also the case that descriptive data from six FSCSs within one reform network should not be used to support causal assertions about sustainability.

Findings The findings start with an account of TACSI’s and the focal school districts’ progression through Fink’s periods of innovation – creativity and experimentation, overreach and entropy, and survival and continuity.

158  Curt M. Adams Next, longitudinal evidence, situated within TACSI’s evolution, describes how well TACSI FSCSs were able to sustain trusting relationships (as a measure of conditions for learning) and achievement outcomes compared to non-TACSI schools. Progression through Periods of Innovation: TACSI and the Focal School Districts TACSI’s Progression Evidence related to the first research question describes how TACSI experienced periods of creativity and experimentation, overreach and entropy, and survival and continuity. At the time of the initial year-long evaluation study (2008/2009), TACSI was well ensconced in a period of creativity and experimentation. School, district, and community leaders regularly attended and presented at national community school conferences where they shared practices and innovations with colleagues across the country, formed lasting local and national relationships, and gained insights into new ideas and initiatives. Early experimentation happened around the role of the CSC, the function and composition of site teams, school-based health clinics, out-of-school time activities, and early childhood services. TACSI, operated out of the Community Service Council4 of Tulsa, built an impressive reform network in a relatively short time period. The network included two school districts (Tulsa Public Schools and Union Public Schools), local universities, the Mayor’s office, the Tulsa Metropolitan Human Services Commission, and local business and philanthropic organizations. TACSI formed an infrastructure that brought these previously separated and disconnected entities together to work collectively toward a common desire of strengthening families, communities, and schools. Early within the creativity and experimentation period, TACSI established cooperative partnerships with over 20 community based-organizations and 45 faith-based groups working in different ways to strengthen access to mental health and healthcare services, to make sure students had enriching after-school experiences, to provide early learning and development opportunities, and to re-connect schools with neighborhoods. By 2012/2013, four years after the outcome evaluation, TACSI directly supported 27 FSCSs in economically depressed neighborhoods. Support consisted of a community school academy, procurement of private donations to fund CSCs, the establishment of funding opportunities for out-of-school time activities, professional development for CSCs and school leaders, and informational meetings for individuals and groups intrigued by FSCSs. TACSI received considerable national and local attention for its leadership and progress in bringing much needed resources and opportunities to high poverty children, families, and communities.

Sustaining FSCSs  159 Much of the creativity and experimentation phase of TACSI’s growth was driven by leaders at the top of the network and leaders in the schools, specifically leaders of the six FSCSs. The network steering committee, formed and led by the Community Service Council, designed a clear growth strategy for how it planned to fund existing schools and to spread the vision into key sectors of the city. Leaders of the network also worked tirelessly to create a type of “scholarly commons” for FSCSs to connect local leaders with national leaders in ongoing conversations about issues involving early learning, chronic absenteeism, enrichment experiences, and experiential learning. Leaders in the schools were largely principals of the six TACSI FSCSs. These were seasoned and accomplished educators who will tell you they were tinkering with elements of FSCSs out of necessity long before TACSI was formed. One school leader noted, “the community school philosophy appealed to my personal and professional values and beliefs; it also provided guidance for how to approach serving children and families in poverty.” With TACSI, these school leaders gained a collective voice, a more visible platform, and the opportunity to change the educational system, not just their school. Another leader indicated, “TACSI emboldened me to think and act differently in how we structure learning and opportunity.” They also appreciated the value of distributed leadership in accomplishing the work of FSCSs. One former principal stated, “We could not do the things we do as a community school without our coordinator and site team. They make FSCSs possible.” An added benefit was that these principals were essentially untouchable in their districts, having earned enormous respect for their leadership by top administrators and colleagues. They skillfully navigated the turbulent political waters of urban districts. The TACSI network started to splinter during the 2012/2013 school year with signs of overreach and entropy appearing. As TACSI expanded, network leaders from the Community Service Council adapted its reform model to accommodate growing interest and needs within the city and beyond. With a growing number of schools to serve, direct financial support for CSCs, administering grants for enrichment activities, and providing additional resources to schools were not financially sustainable. A persistent challenge during this time was limited capacity to develop cross-boundary leadership in more schools. Capacity was affected by two issues: (1) later arrivals were not involved in the social construction process, limiting knowledge and understanding of core components, and (2) finite resources restricted CSCs to certain schools. TACSI’s sustainability plan, development stages, and community school academy were designed as capacity building mechanisms. But even with these structures in place, many TACSI schools were unable to move away from their traditional leadership structures.

160  Curt M. Adams Currently, TACSI is settling into survival and continuity. As of 2016, it was renamed the Center for Community Schools Strategies (Center) and is an affiliated partner with the Children’s Aid Society. Leaders of the Center draw on what they learned through TACSI to help schools and communities across Oklahoma and the surrounding region design and execute community school action plans that include elements of the original core components – whole child supports, family and community engagement, expanded learning opportunities, early childhood development, and leadership designs and practices. However, before this, when TACSI was still in a period of overreach and entropy, its relationship with the focal districts diverged. Each district followed a different innovation lifespan as described below. Tulsa’s Progression Tulsa’s FSCSs enjoyed considerable autonomy as creativity and experimentation was reaching its peak in the TACSI network. Local control, guided by commitment to a shared framework, enabled school leaders to work alongside TACSI leaders in defining and refining core components of the community school model. This was a period of continuous learning, professional control, and social construction that eventually unraveled as the district reset how it conceptualized and approached school improvement. The first blow occurred in the 2012/2013 school year as the district tightened centralized control over schools. Implementation of district-led initiatives had large opportunity costs for the development of TACSI’s theory of action. Considerable time and resources were spent on understanding new teaching and learning standards, learning a new teacher observation tool and evaluation form, identifying and exiting ineffective teachers, and supporting teacher development. As a district, tighter coupling of schools was sensible, but for TACSI FSCSs, it meant a dramatic shift in direction that unintentionally changed the improvement language and affected relational dynamics in schools. Initially, principals in the FSCSs had the political acumen to protect TACSI’s theory of action from vision drift in the face of such change. However, over time, these founding leaders left for either retirement or other positions, leaving the FSCSs exposed and vulnerable to external reform pressures. With its new strategic direction, the district decided to eliminate the CSC position and hire social workers and/or parent liaisons who had different professional experiences, expectations, and responsibilities. The effects of this decision were profound. It minimized, if not outright undermined, cross-boundary leadership by removing the nexus of the model. CSCs function as network connectors and weavers by uniting internal school actors to the community school vision while building relational bridges to the community. In many ways, CSCs were keepers of the vision and worked closely with school principals, community

Sustaining FSCSs  161 leaders, and other coordinators in the network to ensure expanded opportunities and resources were available to children and families. As one school leader explained, CSCs live the community school philosophy; they speak the language and in doing so keep everyone focused on meeting the holistic needs of children, whether this is in how we talk to students and families or the expanded day activities we provide. Components of TACSI’s theory of action, like out-of-school time activities, family and community engagement, and the learning model could continue without a CSC, but effective CSCs made these features functional by integrating them with the larger purpose and vision. Based on TACSI’s experience, it is hard to believe that FSCSs can be sustained without this role, which complements but is separate from the roles of traditional social workers and parent coordinators. Tulsa’s implementation of FSCSs thus followed Fink’s first two periods of innovation but not the third period of survival and continuity. Its transition from creativity and experimentation to overreach and eventual entropy directly resulted from changes in leadership alignment within the district. With leadership synchronized across the network, district, and FSCSs, school communities were supported in the difficult and messy struggle of bringing community school principles and practices into existence. It is not likely FSCSs could have achieved the changes they made, and in the timeframe in which new structures and routines were developed, without alignment between network and district leaders. Breakdown in leadership alignment was eventually felt in Tulsa’s FSCSs as district leaders shifted improvement priorities and re-directed resources to other initiatives, effectively diminishing their capacity to sustain cross-boundary leadership and by extension the vision of FSCSs. Union’s Progression At the time of overreach and entropy in Tulsa schools, Union remained committed to TACSI’s theory of action both within its FSCSs and across the district. In fact, executive administrators and the school board made FSCSs one of four pillars of its district-wide strategy. Union’s embrace and commitment to FSCSs is evident in the following comment by an executive leader, “The community school philosophy has been an integral part of our districtwide strategic plan. Today, it’s not something we do; it’s become who we are as a district.” As a district strategy, Union continued to invest in structural features of TACSI’s theory of action and used the philosophy behind FSCSs to build a collective mindset for how the district would serve all students and families. Community school language become integrated into the culture of the district.

162  Curt M. Adams In committing to FSCSs, Union established an effective leadership alignment within schools, between schools and the central office, and with TACSI leaders. Union and TACSI leaders worked closely in defining and improving features of the theory of action, most notably in the areas of early learning, chronic absenteeism, and access to healthcare and mental health. These leaders also negotiated the functions of CSCs and recognized them as the lynchpin of sustainability efforts. TACSI and Union collectively invested resources, time, and training into developing CSCs who learned how to skillfully work across boundaries to invite families and community organizations into schools and open schools to the community. Like Tulsa, Union also engaged in a number of other strategic initiatives during this time. The difference was that Union viewed initiatives like teacher and leadership effectiveness and STEM education as integrated with the community school model, not separate from or in competition with TACSI. By making FSCSs central to the strategic plan, Union set a direction that allowed it to align resources and mobilize people to make schools central places of learning and development. Union’s community school evolution did not follow Fink’s (2000) lifespan of innovative schools. That is, rather than entering a period of overreach and entropy, Union moved from creativity and experimentation to survival and continuity. It experienced increased capacity in part by maintaining leadership synchrony across interdependent stakeholders and role groups. District leaders viewed FSCSs as representative of their core values and beliefs and were committed to becoming a community school district. Principals of FSCSs enjoyed continued protection to experiment with new ideas and practices; the district invested in cross-boundary leadership by keeping principals in their schools and developing the CSC role; new structures and processes were developed to spread community school principles to other schools in the district; and the district integrated TACSI’s core components into its strategic plan. Sustainability of Trust Relationships The second research question addresses sustainability of conditions for learning in the six TACSI FSCSs. Only evidence on collective trust is reported here. Collective trust was selected as the indicator of interest because it signals a social context in which school members work collectively and cooperatively toward shared goals (Forsyth et al., 2010). Data are organized by teacher-student, teacher-parent, teacher-leadership role-relationships. Graphs report average trust scores for FSCSs in the Tulsa district, FSCSs in the Union district, and comparable non-TACSI schools. Sustainability of trust relationships between teachers and students can be examined in Figure 6.2. In 2008/2009, FSCSs in Tulsa and Union had

Sustaining FSCSs  163 comparable levels of faculty trust in students. Levels changed considerably in 2012/2013 as conditions in Union’s FSCSs remained stable and conditions in Tulsa’s FSCSs declined. Teacher trust in students remained stable in Union’s FSCSs through 2017/2018 and low in Tulsa schools. Sustainability of trust between teachers and parents appears in Figures 6.3 and 6.4. Parent trust was similar in 2008/2009 between FSCSs in Tulsa and Union. Parent trust in Union schools had a slight increase in 2012/2013 and remained relatively stable through 2017/2018. Parent trust declined in Tulsa schools in 2012/2013 and remained lower than in Union schools through 2017/2018. Teacher trust in parents followed a similar trend with Union schools sustaining trust conditions from 2008/2009 onwards and Tulsa schools experiencing a decline in 2012/2013 that persisted through 2017/2018. Faculty trust in principal provides a glimpse into teacher-principal role-relationships. As seen in Figure 6.5, principal trust levels follow a similar pattern as other role-relationships. Teachers in FSCSs in Tulsa and Union reported comparable principal trust levels in 2008/2009. Principal trust dropped for Tulsa schools in 2012/2013 and remained considerably lower through 2017/2018. In summary, trust patterns over time were remarkably similar for each role-relationship: teacher-student, teacher-parent, and teacher-principal. FSCSs in Tulsa and Union had comparable trust levels that were considerably greater than non-TACSI schools in 2008/2009. FSCSs in Union

NonTACSI Average

UPS

TPS

6 5 4

4.4

4.3

4.5

4.6

4.5

4.6

3.9

4.0

4.7

4.7 3.6

3

3.8

3.6

3.6

2 1

2008-09

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

Note. UPS – FSCSs in Union Public Schools; TPS – Tulsa Public Schools; y-axis values ranges from 1-6; x-axis reports the school year.

Figure 6.2 Trends in faculty trust in students from 2008/2009 through 2017/2018.

164  Curt M. Adams NonTACSI Average

UPS

TPS

6 5 4

4.3

4.4 4.0

4.5

3

3.0

3.0

2012-13

2013-14

3.8

3.9

3.0

3.2

4.2

4.1

3.5 2.9

2 1

2008-09

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

Note. UPS – FSCSs in Union Public Schools; TPS – Tulsa Public Schools; y-axis values ranges from 1-6; x-axis reports the school year.

Figure 6.3 Trends in faculty trust in parents from 2008/2009 through 2017/2018.

NonTACSI Average 6 5.15

5.5

UPS

5.3

5.3

4.5

4.5

TPS

5.2

5.3

4.7

4.7

5.3

5 4

4.6

4.4

4.7

3 2 1

2008-2009

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

Note. UPS – FSCSs in Union Public Schools; TPS – Tulsa Public Schools; y-axis values ranges from 1-6; x-axis reports the school year.

Figure 6.4 Trends in parent trust in schools from 2009/2009 through 2017/2018.

sustained trust conditions through 2017/2018, whereas Tulsa FSCSs experienced declines in 2012/2013 that never returned to 2008/2009 levels. Trust in Tulsa FSCSs regressed to the non-TACSI school average from 2012/2013 through 2017/2018, the time period in which connections and commitment to TACSI eroded.

Sustaining FSCSs  165 NonTACSI Average

6 5

5.15

5.4

5.3

UPS

5.5

TPS

5.4

5.5

4.7

4.7

5.5

5.16

4

4.4

4.3

4.3

4.1

3 2 1

2008-09

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

Note. UPS – FSCSs in Union Public Schools; TPS – Tulsa Public Schools; y-axis values ranges from 1-6; x-axis reports the school year.

Figure 6.5 Trends in faculty trust in principal from 2009/2009 through 2017/2018.

Sustainability of Student Achievement The third research question focuses on achievement sustainability in the six TACSI FSCSs. School achievement was measured by the percentage of 5th-grade students scoring proficient on the state reading and math exams. Figure 6.6 displays changes in reading proficiency rates over 7 time periods. The graph starts in 2009, the year in which the evaluation of TACSI occurred, then reports rates from 2011–2016. Consistent with the reporting of collective trust, proficiency rates are reported for three groups: TACSI FSCSs in Tulsa, TACSI FSCSs in Union, and non-TACSI schools. In 2008/2009, students in Tulsa and Union FSCSs had higher reading proficiency rates than comparable non-TACSI schools (Figure 6.7). Tulsa FSCSs had the highest average proficiency rate at 84%. The average proficiency rate for Union FSCSs was 61%. By 2011, reading proficiency rates for Tulsa and Union FSCSs were comparable at 56%. From 2012 through 2016, Union FSCSs outperformed Tulsa FSCSs in reading achievement. Proficiency rates for Union FSCSs over this time period were 69%, 65%, 64%, 67%, and 75% compared to 45%, 54%, 50%, 58%, and 56% for Tulsa FSCSs. Reading proficiency rates for Tulsa FSCSs were similar to the sample non-TACSI schools during this time period. Differences in achievement between the TACSI FSCSs appear in math proficiency rates as well (Figure 6.7). FSCSs in Tulsa had the highest math proficiency rates of 81% in 2008/2009. FSCSs in Union had an average proficiency rate of 45%, comparable to non-TACSI schools. From 2010–2016, FSCSs in Tulsa had average math proficiency rates of 74%, 55%, 70%, 60%, 46%, and 54%, compared to 75%, 75%, 68%, 65%, 66%, and 57% for Union’s FSCSs.

166  Curt M. Adams NonTACSI 90

UPS

TPS

84 75

80 69

70

61

65

67

64

56

60

56

50

58

54

50

56

40 45

30 20

2009

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Note. UPS – FSCSs in Union Public Schools; TPS – Tulsa Public Schools; y-axis values ranges from 1-6; x-axis reports the school year.

Figure 6.6 Trends in percentage of 5th-grade students scoring proficient in reading from 2009 to 2016. NonTACSI 90

TPS

81

80

75

70

74

75 68

45

65

66

70

60 50

UPS

57 60

55

54 46

40 30 20

2009

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Note. UPS – FSCSs in Union Public Schools; TPS – Tulsa Public Schools; y-axis values ranges from 1-6; x-axis reports the school year.

Figure 6.7 Trends in percentage of 5th-grade students scoring proficient in math from 2009–2016.

Discussion FSCSs offer an educational vision that reflects the historical role of schools as centers of social and democratic advancement (Benson, Harkavy, & Puckett, 2007). Transitioning into an FSCS, however, is not simple, and it requires considerably more energy and attention than

Sustaining FSCSs  167 just adding programs to an existing school structure or forming new partnerships with community entities (Abrams & Gibbs, 2000). Schools that successfully transition do so by cultivating a relational context that enhances crucial educational outcomes like school readiness, academic achievement, high school graduation, and academic persistence (Cummings et al., 2011; Kronick, 2005), making sustainability of FSCSs an important phenomenon to investigate. This discussion focuses on the role of external organizations like TACSI as well as district context in promoting the effective implementation of FSCSs. TACSI and FSCS Implementation The TACSI network followed Fink’s (2000) lifespan of innovative schools in its 12-year evolution. It grew from an aspirational vision into a network of 27 schools during a dynamic experimentation period, and it also experienced growing pains and difficulties during expansion and transition that are common to education reforms (Fink & Stoll, 2005). Several factors emerged as facilitating and inhibiting TACSI’s growth and adaptation. As detailed in the accounts of Tulsa and Union districts, leadership alignment functioned as a facilitator. When network, district, and school leaders were in sync, FSCSs grew and expanded in part because the network organized TACSI schools to learn with and from each other. In several aspects, TACSI developed organically what Bryk, Gomez, Grunow, and LeMahieu (2014) define as a network improvement community in which community school ideals and practices were the object of design, testing, studying, and refinement. A decision and strategic action that galvanized network agents was TACSI’s work to collectively conceptualize its community school model. Leaders of the six FSCSs in this study, district leaders, and network leaders socially constructed the theory of action on which the community school principles were based. It did so by defining general structural and normative organizing features (core components) for schools to work toward operationalizing; identifying social and psychological conditions needed for optimal student learning and development; and setting aspirational outcomes for schools and the network. No one group – network, district, or school leaders – controlled the design and development process or forced an externally imposed model on schools. Consistent with democratic ideals and organic organization from which community school principles emerged (Benson et al., 2007; Blank & Berg, 2006), TACSI engaged its whole community in the design of a model that fit within its context. The decision, and subsequent action, to socially construct TACSI’s theory of action was instrumental in igniting and spreading excitement for FSCSs. Beyond enthusiasm and intrigue, the co-construction process formed clear mental models that school leaders used in direction setting and organizing their own schools. One example was the

168  Curt M. Adams conceptualization of cross-boundary leadership. The FSCSs in this study were the first schools to form functional cross-boundary leadership models that included CSCs and site teams (Adams, 2010). Network, district, and school leaders recognized cross-boundary leadership as instrumental to becoming an FSCS. Consistent with patterns Fink (2000) observed in studying school innovation, disruptive events in TACSI occurred as leadership alignment across the network and Tulsa district started to fray. A tenuous connection between network leaders and Tulsa district leaders created space for direction shifts at the district level to erode community school momentum. TACSI expansion in Tulsa stopped, and as this happened, transformative work in many Tulsa FSCSs got lost in new, centrally controlled district initiatives. Leadership change and priority shifts have consequences for reforms (Giles & Hargreaves, 2006), and such circumstances factored into TACSI’s entropy. However, these events also stimulated sensemaking and action by which survival and continuity emerged. TACSI leaders leveraged experiences with Tulsa and Union districts to reorganize as a resource center and connect school and community leaders to resources useful for infusing community school principles and practices into more schools. District Context and FSCS Implementation The findings also depict sustainability as partly dependent on the larger district context in which FSCSs are embedded. This finding aligns with claims about relational connections between district and community leaders as an essential strategy for high functioning community schools (Blank, Jacobson, & Melaville, 2012). In TACSI’s case, social conditions and outcomes in FSCSs moved in opposite directions as network alignment began to erode in the Tulsa district. Limitations in the research design make it hard to know what changes would have occurred in Tulsa’s FSCSs if the district remained committed to TACSI, but we can look to the stable trust and achievement patterns in Union to make a case for district-school alignment as requisite for sustainability. Union’s FSCSs sustained relatively strong trust relationships from 2008/2009 through 2018. These schools also experienced an increase in reading and math proficiency rates in 2011 that remained relatively stable through 2016. Tulsa FSCSs experienced notable declines in trust relationships by 2012/2013 that remained relatively low through 2018. Tulsa FSCSs regressed to the average trust levels in non-TACSI schools. Similarly, Tulsa’s FSCSs experienced a sizable drop in reading proficiency rates in 2011 that remained low and comparable with non-TACSI schools through 2016. Math proficiency rates also dropped in 2011 and continued a downward trend through 2016.

Sustaining FSCSs  169 It is worth speculating on why and how district alignment with FSCSs may have affected trust relationships and achievement. District leaders are remote to the proximate sources of trust formation (Forsyth et al., 2011). Executive-level decisions and actions will not make teachers more trustworthy in the eyes of students or students more trustworthy in the minds of teachers (Adams & Miskell, 2016). The same argument applies to other school relationships as well, suggesting that trust within school role groups might be protected from district-level decisions as long as these decisions do not disrupt the ways of thinking and acting that contributed to trust formation in the first place (Adams & Miskell, 2016). In speculating on the attrition of trust in Tulsa’s FSCSs, it seems reasonable to conjecture that a shift in alignment between district priorities and community school supports may have unintentionally disrupted interaction patterns within schools. Teacher and leadership effectiveness as conceived in Tulsa operated from a substantively different set of assumptions about school purpose and improvement than what mobilized support for FSCSs in the first place. Early in the reform, TACSI schools experienced considerable local control and support. Professional autonomy empowered schools to engage in the TACSI network and to get involved in the larger coalition of FSCSs. As a network, TACSI established a clear direction, supportive structures, and connections to likeminded colleagues, all of which energized and motivated schools to continuously learn and improve their work. FSCSs thrived in this context, as did other TACSI schools that were coming into the network and beginning to develop the theory of action. When district leaders in Tulsa prioritized a system-wide teacher and leader effectiveness strategy, they did not abandon all elements of community school components, but they took actions to change the larger district context in which FSCSs operated. The absence of explicit support at the executive level opened the door for increased centralization of teaching and learning processes. Centralized control over the instructional core clashed with principles, structures, and practices of FSCSs. For instance, FSCSs see transformation as a collective enterprise in which multiple stakeholders work purposefully to address the social and psychological factors underlining optimal student learning (Blank et al., 2006; Sanders, 2016). Teacher and leader effectiveness in the district paralleled growth happening nationally in regulatory instruments like performance-based teacher evaluation, scripted instruction, and assessment data (Stern, 2013). In many respects, new policies and instruments become the guiding engine for improvement, a mindset that often finds itself in direct opposition to the people and purpose-driven nature of community schools. As the district centralized structures and processes, conversations in FSCSs changed, resources were re-directed, and power structures shifted.

170  Curt M. Adams Tighter formal control for Tulsa’s FSCSs happened as these schools lost critical institutional knowledge about the community school journey. With founding principals having left their schools, and CSCs replaced, schools could not mount the effort required to buffer the instructional core from threats to community school values. The result was a gradual erosion of norms and routines established through the transition into FSCSs. Disruption inserts uncertainty and suspicion into trust beliefs and affects how school leaders, teachers, students, and parents interact in the learning process (Forsyth et al., 2011). Stability of trust relationships and achievement outcomes in Union’s FSCSs adds additional evidence to the alignment argument. Union built a district context on community school principles that transformed nearly every aspect of district operations through a community school prism. Anchored by a strategy of FSCSs, Union reinforced its alignment with TACSI, and by doing so, responded to external demands within community school values and beliefs as drivers of structural and procedural changes. For FSCSs in Union, alignment with TACSI may have protected the instructional core from harmful state mandates that could easily clash with the ideology of FSCSs if not carefully integrated with core beliefs. Problems stemming from an imbalance between district context and community school needs would likely extend beyond trust relationships and into interactions affecting academic performance. In support of this claim, district effectiveness research argues that system-wide achievement progress depends on coherent, coordinated, and adaptable organizational structures and processes (Firestone, 2010; Leithwood, 2010; Murphy & Hallinger, 1988). Similar features characterized TACSI’s alignment during the creative and experimental phase of its growth. The extent to which misalignment contributed to declining reading and math proficiency rates in Tulsa’s FSCSs is certainly not clear from the evidence, but it is reasonable to believe that a dramatic organizational shift would disrupt learning processes by introducing inconsistency and uncertainty into the instructional core (Bryk et al., 2010).

Implications for Sustaining FSCSs A few useful lessons for sustaining FSCSs can be found in TACSI’s progression from a young and aspiring reform network to a mature organization committed to spreading the community school model. Before discussing implications, it is important to recognize that claims derived from the evidence are tentative and propositional. Therefore, the points should not be taken as definitive, generalized accounts. Rather, implications serve as markers for additional research and potential levers for sustaining FSCSs.

Sustaining FSCSs  171 The first implication addresses network alignment. Most FSCSs operate within larger district contexts (Blank et al., 2012), and as observed in TACSI, synchronous relationships between districts and FSCSs are better than asynchronous ones. TACSI experienced the beneficial side of district, network, and school alignment, and it felt the tension and pain when alignment unraveled. Alignment enabled schools to transition into FSCSs, whereas misalignment left the instructional core exposed to constraints and uncertainty from the external environment. Declines in trust and achievement occurred as the Tulsa district pulled back from TACSI to pursue a different reform approach, raising legitimate questions as to the effect that district context has on the development and sustainability of FSCSs. It is reasonable to speculate that certain district contexts may place undue tension and constraints on school leaders as they work to transition and sustain structures, processes, and norms in service of FSCSs. Union’s FSCSs enjoyed strong alignment with its district leaders, community leaders, and TACSI leaders. The district avoided overreach and entropy by renewing its commitment to FSCSs, and its FSCSs sustained healthy relational conditions and maintained better achievement outcomes. The second implication addresses leadership investment. School leaders have rightfully received attention and acclaim for their work in transforming traditional schools into FSCSs (Richardson, 2009; Sanders, 2016, 2018). TACSI’s experience parallels findings from these other studies. School principals were the engines behind TACSI FSCSs. Not only did these leaders re-organize their schools, their leadership fueled network excitement, growth, and improvement. Alongside school leaders, and of equal importance for development within schools and the larger network, were CSCs (Adams & Jean-Marie, 2011; Sanders et al., 2019). CSCs worked tirelessly to build relationships with families and community organizations, to form partnerships that made health care and social services available through schools, to establish enrichment opportunities for students, and to spread the community school vision within and beyond the school. In many respects, CSCs brought the community to the school and the school to the community. Union invested in their school leaders and CSCs when TACSI’s financial commitment ended. This investment sustained cross-boundary leadership and it spurred development in other elementary schools. By formalizing the CSC role, Union established a mechanism to keep the language, practices, and norms of FSCSs alive in the schools and across the district. The Tulsa district did not make a comparable investment and saw the social and human capacity needed to protect the community school culture from external changes diminish. Thus, support for both principals and CSCs, as cross-boundary leaders, is critical for reform sustainability (Adams & Jean-Marie, 2011; Sanders, 2016, 2018).

172  Curt M. Adams

Conclusion Evidence from TACSI’s experience has value for individual schools engaging with community school principles and practices, as well as for districts and local agencies partnering to grow community schools. The longitudinal historical design captured a unique look at events and circumstances behind TACSI’s efforts to support schools in moving away from traditional organization features to structures and processes aligned with community school ideals. TACSI’s lessons suggest that FSCSs cannot be separated from the larger district context in which many schools are embedded. Early investments in establishing strong relational connections across the network allowed for creativity and experimentation within and across schools to generate new organizational structures and norms aligned with FSCSs. As the reform spread, relational tensions surfaced, district priorities shifted, and leadership changed, forcing FCSCs in Tulsa to retreat from core structures and processes that carried out community school principles. The story, however, is not that reform networks like TACSI are predestined to regress toward traditional organizing features as Fink (2000) has argued, but that strong alignment and commitment to foundational principles and beliefs can keep community school reform vibrant and adaptive. Community schools in the Union district exemplify this reality.

Notes 1 Non-TACSI schools are public schools in the Tulsa school district that were not affiliated with TACSI in the 2008/2009 school year. 2 Note that these schools did not include TACSI schools at the inquiring and emerging stages of community school development. 3 While Fink’s lifespan framework was initially developed for schools, it has implications for other educational reform organizations. Here, it is applied to analysis of the evolution of the TACSI network. 4 The Community Service Council is a non-profit planning organization for community improvement in Oklahoma.

References Abrams, L. S., & Gibbs, J. T. (2000). Planning for school change: School-community collaboration in a FSCS elementary school. Urban Education, 35(1), 79–103. doi:10.1177/0042085900351005. Adams, C. M. (2010). The community school effect: Achievement evidence from the Tulsa area community schools initiative. Tulsa, OK, Prepared for the Tulsa Area Community Schools Initiative. Adams, C. M., & Forsyth, P. B. (2013). Revisiting the collective trust effect in urban elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1086/670736.

Sustaining FSCSs  173 Adams, C. M., & Jean-Marie, G. (2011). A diffusion approach to study leadership reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(4), 354–377. https:// doi.org/10.1108/09578231111146452. Adams, C. M., & Miskell, R. C. (2016). Trust in district administration: A promising line of inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(4), 665–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16652202. Anderson-Butcher, D., Paluta, L., Sterling, K., & Anderson, C. (2017). Ensuring healthy youth development through FSCSs: A case study. Children & Schools, 40(1), 7–16. Benson, L., Harkavy, I., & Puckett, J. (2007). Dewey’s dream: Universities and democracies in an age of education reform, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Blank, M., & Berg, A. (2006). All together now: Sharing responsibility for the whole child. Washington, DC: Coalition for FSCSs, Institute for Educational Leadership. Blank, M., Berg, A., & Melaville, A. (2006). Community-based learning. Washington, DC: Coalition for FSCSs. Blank, M. J., Jacobson, R., & Melaville, A. (2012). Achieving results through community school partnerships: How district and community leaders are building effective, sustainable relationships. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Blank, M. J., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. P. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in FSCSs. Washington, DC: Coalition for FSCSs, Institute for Educational Leadership. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & DuGuid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0013189X018001032. Bryk, A. A., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2014). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Bryk, A. A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Coalition for Community Schools (2017): Community School Standards. Washington DC: Institute for Educational Leadership. Retrieved from: http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/Page/Community-School%20 Standards-Updatesd2017.pdf Coleman, J. S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 16(6), 32–38. doi:10.3102/0013189X016006032 Coleman, J. S. (1990). The foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap. Corcoran, T., & Goertz, M. (1995). Instructional capacity and high performing schools. Educational Researcher, 24(9), 27–31. Cummings, C., Dyson, A., & Todd, L. (2011). Beyond the school gates: Can FSCS and extended schools overcome disadvantage? New York, NY: Routledge.

174  Curt M. Adams Daly, A. J., Moolenaar, N. M., Bolivar, J. M., & Burke, P. (2010). Relationships in reform: The role of teachers’ social networks. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(3), 359–391. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231011041062. Datnow, A., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5(1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327671espr0501&2_11. Dryfoos, J. (2005). FSCSs: A strategy for integrating youth development and school reform. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2005(107), 7–14. doi:10.1002/yd.123 Etzioni, A. E. (1996). The responsive community: A communitarian perspective. American Sociological Review, 6(1), 1–11. doi:10.2307/2096403 Fink, D. (2000). Good schools/real schools: Why reform doesn’t last. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Fink, K., & Stoll, L. (2005). Educational change: Easier said than done. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Extending educational change (pp. 17–41), Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Firestone, W. A. (2010). Culture and process in effective school districts. In W. Hoy & M. DiPaola (Eds.), Studies in school improvement (pp. 177–204). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Forsyth, P. B., Adams, C. M., & Barnes, L. (2006). Trust-effectiveness patterns in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(2), 121–141. Forsyth, P. B., Adams, C. M., & Hoy, W. K. (2011). Collective trust: Why schools can’t improve without it. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124–156. doi:10.1177/0013161X05278189 Goddard, R., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and effect on student achievement. American Education Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507. doi:10.3102/00028312037002479 Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Teacher trust in students and parents: A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in urban elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 3–17. doi:10.1086/499690 Harkavy, I., & Blank, M. (2002). FSCSs: A vision of learning that goes beyond testing. Education Week, 52. Retrieved from www.edweek.org. Honig, M., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008016 Johnson, B. (2001). Toward a new classification of nonexperimental quantitative research. Educational Researcher, 30(2), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0013189X030002003. Kronick, R. F. (2005). FSCSs: Prevention of delinquency in students with mental illness and/or poverty. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2006). Social capital and organization performance: Evidence from urban public schools. Organization Science, 17(3), 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc. 1060.0191. Lee, V. E., Dedrick, R. F., & Smith, J. B. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schools on teachers’ efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 4(3), 190–208. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112851

Sustaining FSCSs  175 Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains in achievement for early secondary school students. American Journal of Education, 104(2), 103–147. doi:10.1086/444122 Leithwood, K. (2010). Characteristics of school districts that are exceptionally effective in closing the achievement gap. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(3), 245–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700761003731500. Louis, K. S., Dretzke, B., & Whalstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 315–336. Mann, C. J. (2003). Observational research methods. Research design II: Cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies. Emergency Medicine Journal, 20(1), 54–60. https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.20.1.54. McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178. doi:10.3102/01623737009002171 Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective school districts. The Journal of Educational Research, 81(3), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1988.10885819. Newmann, F., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A, (2001). Improving Chicago’s schools. School instructional program coherence: Benefits and challenges (Consortium on Chicago School Research). Chicago, IL: Chicago Annenberg Research Project. OCEP. (2018). School capacity reports. Tulsa: Oklahoma Center for Education Policy. Oklahoma State Department of Education. (2016). Oklahoma core curriculum tests: 2015–2016 technical report. Retrieved from http://sde.ok.gov. January 8, 2018. Pil, F., & Leana, C. (2009). Applying organization research to public school reform. Academy of Management Journal, 17(3), 353–366. Reeve, J. M., Ryan, R., Deci, E. L., & Jang, H. (2008). Understanding and promoting autonomous self-regulation: A self-determination theory perspective. In D. H. Schuk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 223–245). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum. Richardson, J. W. (2009). The FSCS community school movement: Lessons from the James Adams Community School. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillian. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230101562. Ruffin, V. (2013). Exploratory case studies of the role of the community school coordinator: Developing the community school coordinator in urban elementary schools. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Oklahoma. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/eb8439807f19bc13b4dsix8c219539d2fb/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Sanders, M. G. (2001). The role of “community” in comprehensive school, family, and community partnership programs. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10. 1086/499691. Sanders, M. G. (2016). Leadership, partnerships, and organizational development: Exploring components of effectiveness in FSCSs. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(2), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1086/499691.

176  Curt M. Adams Sanders, M. G. (2018). Crossing boundaries: A qualitative exploration of relational leadership in three FSCSs. Teachers College Record, 120(4), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2015. 1030432. Sanders, M., Galindo, C., & DeTablan, D. (2019). Leadership for collaboration: Exploring how community school coordinators advance the goals of full-service community schools. Children and Schools, 41(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/ cs/cdz006. Stern, M. (2013). Bad teacher: What race to the top learned from the “race to the bottom.” Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 11(3), 194–229. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Vernez, G., Karem, R., Mariano, L. T., & DeMartini, C. (2006). Evaluating comprehensive school reform models: Focus on implementation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, underclass, and public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Conclusion Working Toward Educational Equity and the Sustainability of Full-Service Community Schools Claudia L. Galindo and Mavis G. Sanders Considering the interactions of complex systems, including families, schools, and communities, in which development and learning are embedded is important for improving educational opportunities and outcomes for underserved students (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Comer, Haynes, Joyner, & Ben-Avie, 1996; Epstein, 2010). The full-service community school (FSCS) strategy embraces this postulate by addressing students’ basic needs (Crowson & Boyd, 1993) and creating shared spaces where families, schools, and communities can come together to support students’ educational success (Sanders, 2013). The chapters included in this book illustrate the promise of FSCSs to transform educational experiences and outcomes for low-income students and students of color. At the same time, these chapters identify challenges that if left unattended could limit the transformative potential of this reform strategy. In this chapter, we highlight six key findings that emerged from the empirical studies. These include the positive effects of FSCSs on a range of student outcomes, the relevance of cross-boundary leadership, the importance of shared responsibility across educational and community-based organizations, the significance of trusting relationships among key stakeholders, the role of teachers as key agents of change, and the necessity of an intentional focus on equity. These findings have implications for the effective, sustained implementation of FSCSs. We also discuss directions for future research on FSCSs to deepen and extend the knowledge base on this critical reform strategy. Future research should broaden the focus on student outcomes, identify best practices for establishing authentic partnerships with families and communities, and examine the role of different school personnel in realizing the goals of FSCSs.

Main Findings and Implications for More Effective Practice The main findings of the six chapters featured in this book center on student outcomes and reform implementation. Collectively, they demonstrate the benefits of FSCSs for a variety of student outcomes, including school attendance and college aspirations. For example, Caldas, Gomez, and Ferrara found that students who attended an elementary FSCS showed

178  Claudia L. Galindo and Mavis G. Sanders better high school education outcomes years later when compared to similar students in a traditional elementary school. Students attending the elementary FSCS obtained higher scores on New York State (NYS) Regents examinations and SAT tests, were more likely to graduate from high school with advanced designation, took more AP exams, and reported more positive dispositions to attend a four-year college than their counterparts in the traditional school. Also encouraging, Durham, Shiller, and Connolly found that the FSCS strategy was positively associated with school-level student attendance over time when examining administrative data from 210 Baltimore City Public Schools between 2004 and 2017. These studies allow us to identify longitudinal patterns of change, providing evidence of the potential for and benefits of reform sustainability. Furthermore, the positive outcomes associated with the FSCS strategy are consistent with findings observed in several cross-sectional studies (e.g., Adams, 2010; Moore & Emig, 2014; Galindo & Sanders, 2019) and strengthen the empirical evidence demonstrating the benefits of FSCSs on key educational outcomes. The replicability of the positive findings associated with the FSCS strategy in studies with racially/ethnically diverse samples, across grade-levels, with different units of analysis (i.e., students or schools) is also encouraging. These studies, thus, add to the growing view of FSCSs as an “evidence-based strategy for equitable school improvement” (Oakes, Maier, & Daniel, 2017). Related to reform implementation, a key finding that emerged from the chapters in this book is the critical leadership role that principals and community school coordinators (CSCs) play in effective FSCSs. The multifaceted, overlapping, and mutually reinforcing nature of their practices is broadly recognized in the present studies. At the same time, the studies highlight unique ways in which principals and CSCs advance the transformative mission of FSCSs. CSCs, for example, are responsible for aligning academic achievement goals with the needs of students and families (Medina, Cosby, & Grim), forming trusting relationships with parents (Durham et al.), and bringing the community to the school and the school to the community (Adams). Principals’ roles are conceptualized as setting the direction, aligning resources and processes, and mobilizing the community (Adams). Principals are also described as responsible for reform coherence, building professional capacity, and managing change (Medina et al.), establishing community from the inside out and the outside in (Caldas et al.), and creating the conditions for a transformative school climate – a key indicator of the strategy’s successful implementation and precondition for improved student learning (Sanders & Galindo). Through such practices, principals and CSCs serve as cross-boundary leaders, developing trusting relationships and fostering authentic collaborations with key stakeholders (Blank, Berg, & Melaville, 2006; FitzGerald & Quiñones, 2018; Sanders, 2018; Sanders, Galindo, & DeTablan, 2019).

Conclusion  179 These stakeholders include educators at the school and district levels as well as leaders in the broader community. Adams, for example, argues that the success of the FSCS strategy is highly related to the commitment and context of the school district. Comparing data from the Tulsa and Union school systems, he points out that differences in district stability and support for cross-sector collaboration largely explain why the FSCS strategy experienced overreach and entropy in Tulsa and survival and continuity in Union. Similarly, McKinney de Royston and Madkins argue that without sociopolitical clarity and alignment among key district, school, and community stakeholders, FSCSs will fail to achieve equitable outcomes for African American youth. Medina and colleagues also emphasize the importance of community leaders and partners’ alignment with FSCS principles and goals. In addition to providing important resources and programs to address the needs of students and families, they can serve as advocates and stewards for the FSCS strategy in the face of budget shortfalls and district and school personnel turnover, helping to promote reform sustainability (see also Sanders, 2009a). These findings add to the literature highlighting the importance of collaboration among the diverse actors responsible for reform implementation (Epstein, Galindo, & Sheldon, 2011). Another common finding across the studies is the importance of trusting relationships and a sense of community among all agents involved in reform planning and implementation. As we describe in our own chapter, trusting relationships help to foster a positive school climate where school personnel work collaboratively toward a common goal for students’ learning and well-being (Sanders & Galindo). Moreover, building authentic partnerships with families and communities is imperative for the success of FSCSs (Durham et al.; Medina et al.). Authentic partnerships refer to those collaborations that acknowledge families and community members as critical contributors and leaders (Medina et al.), and that foster bi-directional and power-balanced relationships with families and communities (McKinney de Royston & Madkins). As previously discussed, principals and CSCs play central roles in creating such partnerships; teachers are also critical actors. In addition to providing high-quality instruction, high expectations, and supportive learning environments for students (see also Daniel, Quartz, & Oakes, 2019; Ferrara & Jacobson, 2019; Ladson-Billings, 1995), teachers are well-positioned to place families’ needs and contributions at the center of the FSCS strategy (McKinney de Royston & Madkins; Sanders & Galindo). As key change agents in FSCSs, teachers play an important role in bringing family and community knowledge into the classroom, which not only facilitates student learning but also helps to diminish the cultural discontinuity often found between schools and students from underserved communities (Baquedano-López, Alexander, & Hernandez, 2013).

180  Claudia L. Galindo and Mavis G. Sanders Finally, several of the articles suggest that without an intentional focus on equity, FSCSs may fail to reduce persistent racial and socioeconomic inequalities in students’ educational opportunities and outcomes. Durham and colleagues, for example, found that the FSCS strategy was more successful in improving attendance as the socioeconomic status of students increased. These results may indicate that services and programs are not reaching those who are in greatest need either due to an inadequate understanding of the structural barriers facing families in poverty (especially those of color) or a lack of sustained effort and resources. In this light, McKinney de Royston and Madkins observe, “Far too often reforms get lost in translation, the necessary elements get distorted, or the inequality being targeted fails to get adequately conceptualized or enacted through structural and practice-oriented changes.” Our earlier work has affirmed this observation. In a case study of a diverse FSCS, we found that its impact was not equally experienced by Latinx, African American, and Native American families (Galindo, Sanders, & Abel, 2017). Despite the school’s general success in providing services and building trusting relationships with families, some African American and Native American families felt less valued and that they had more limited access to school supports than Latinx parents. These problems reduced the school’s capacity to be an agent of change and to create more equitable educational experiences and outcomes for all its students.

Directions for Future Research Ongoing research on FSCSs, using a variety of research designs and methods, is critical to keep up the momentum of this re-emerging reform strategy. In particular, the chapters in this book demonstrate the value of longitudinal studies on FSCSs to understand their effects, which may not be immediately evident given the ambition and scope of the reform strategy. The studies also demonstrate the value of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods designs to answer the “how and why” as well as the “what and which” questions that are necessary to move research on FSCSs forward and promote sustainability and scale. Areas for future research revealed through this diverse collection of studies include broadening the focus on student outcomes, establishing authentic partnerships with families and communities, and examining the role of different school personnel in realizing the goals of FSCSs.

Expanding the Focus on Student Outcomes Most of the research on FSCSs to date has examined achievement and related outcomes, as these factors are key dimensions of student academic success and future well-being. Research on FSCSs has also demonstrated the benefits of this strategy for families (e.g., greater access to coordinated services, lower stress, and increased family engagement;

Conclusion  181 Galindo & Sanders, 2019). However, as noted by Caldas and colleagues, other key indicators of students’ success are also important to consider. For instance, a key group of student outcomes missing in the literature on FSCSs relates to social competence indicators (which include the behavioral, affective, and cognitive resources needed to positively interact in a social context; Dodge, Pettit, McClaskey, Brown, & Gottman, 1986). One example is academic self-efficacy (Peguero & Shaffer, 2015), conceptualized as students’ confidence in their abilities to be effective in academic tasks and to control their learning outcomes (Bandura, 1986). Little is known about the extent to which FSCSs, through their integrated services and engagement with families and communities, foster academic self-efficacy and other important social competencies for students. This is an area ripe for future research.

Establishing Authentic Partnerships with Families and Communities Ample evidence supports the benefits of family engagement for improving students’ experiences and outcomes (Christenson, 2004; Galindo & Sheldon, 2012; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Jeynes, 2003). Unfortunately, many schools and teachers, especially those working with underserved communities, struggle to build authentic partnerships (Harry, 2008; Montoya-Ávila, Ghebreab, & Galindo, 2018; Olivos, 2006). In some cases, there is a disconnect between schools and families, so two-way communication and trusting relations do not characterize their interactions (Auerbach, 2009; Baquedano-López et al., 2013). In other schools, teachers and staff hold deficit perspectives of Black and Brown families, often contending that “these families” do not care about or lack the competencies or resources to support their children’s education (McKinney de Royston and Madkins; Sanders & Galindo). And still in other cases, families of color may not trust schools because they feel disrespected, ignored, or discriminated against (Cooper, 2009; Sanders, 2009b). While strategies exist to facilitate family and school partnerships (Epstein et al., 2018), more research is needed on how FSCSs can apply or extend such strategies to build stakeholders’ capacity for more equitable collaborations. In this emerging research, it is important to consider the socio-political and historical contexts in which families and schools are embedded, and also specific strategies that could facilitate open communication, mutual respect, and shared learning across boundaries of race, class, and gender.

Understanding the Role of Principals, CSCs, and Teachers in FSCSs Chapters in this book and other recent research (e.g., FitzGerald & Quinones, 2018; Gomez, 2019) have begun to document the roles of principals and CSCs in ensuring that FSCSs realize their full potential.

182  Claudia L. Galindo and Mavis G. Sanders However, little is known about the professional development and other supports that are needed to build the capacity of principals and CSCs to carry out these roles. Clearly, more research in this area is needed. Several of the articles also underscore that teachers are central to the work of FSCSs (Caldas et al.; McKinney de Royston & Madkins; Medina et al.; Sanders & Galindo) Yet, research on teachers’ roles and perspectives is not well represented in the broader literature on FSCSs. This is surprising given the theory of change for FSCSs requires teachers to not only deliver rigorous, culturally and community responsive content but also to implement other professional practices such as collaborating with community organizations and families to ensure students’ success in and out of school (Sanders, Galindo, & Allen, 2018). In addition, teachers and CSCs need to work in conjunction to identify the most needed services for students and families (FitzGerald & Quinones, 2018). Future research can examine a variety of topics in this area, including but not limited to how teachers perceive their professional roles in FSCSs and strategies and challenges to meeting reform responsibilities and expectations.

Conclusion The current interest in FSCSs reflects a renewed commitment to education reforms that take a holistic approach to students’ learning and development. The FSCS strategy is as compelling now as it was in previous iterations (Benson, Harkavy, Johanek, & Puckett, 2009). Yet, one aspect that is different from earlier iterations is the level of research being conducted to document effects, explore components of effective and equitable implementation, and examine factors that contribute to sustainability. It is this distinction that may ensure FSCSs in the 21st century realize their transformative and sustainable potential for historically underserved students, families, and communities. We are excited to contribute to this growing body of work.

References Adams, C. M. (2010). The community school effect: Evidence from an evaluation of the Tulsa Area Community School Initiative. Tulsa, OK: University of Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Center for Educational Policy. Retrieved from http://www.csctulsa.org/files/file/Achievement%20Evidence%20from%20 an%20Evaluation%20of%20TACSI.pdf Auerbach, S. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban schools. The School Community Journal, 19(1), 9–31. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(Special Issue), 359–373. doi:10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359

Conclusion  183 Baquedano-López, P., Alexander, R. A., & Hernandez, S. J. (2013). Equity issues in parental and community involvement in schools: What teacher educators need to know. Review of Research in Education, 37, 149–182. doi:10.3102/0091732X12459718 Benson, L., Harkavy, I., Johanek, M. C., & Puckett, J. (2009). The Enduring appeal of community schools. American Educator, 22–47. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/209 Blank, M. J., Berg, A. C., & Melaville, A. (2006). Growing community schools: The role of cross-boundary leadership. Washington DC: Coalition for Community Schools. Retrieved from http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/ AssetManager/Growing_COMM_Schools.pdf Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1643–1647). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Christenson, S. L. (2004). The family-school partnership: An opportunity to promote the learning competence of all students. School Psychology Review, 33, 83–104. doi:10.1521/scpq.18.4.454.26995 Comer, J. P., Haynes, N. M., Joyner, E. T., & Ben-Avie, M. (Eds.). (1996). Rallying the whole village: The Comer process for reforming education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Cooper, C. W. (2009). Parent involvement, African American mothers, and the politics of educational care. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42, 379–394. doi:10.1080/10665680903228389 Crowson, R. L., & Boyd, W. (1993). Coordinated services for children: Designing arks for storms and seas unknown. American Journal of Education, 101(2), 140–179. Daniel, J., Quartz, K. H., & Oakes, J. (2019). Teaching in community schools: Creating conditions for deeper learning. Review of Research in Education, 43, 453–480. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821126 Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., McClaskey, C. L., Brown, M. M., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Social competence in children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 51(2), 1–85. Epstein, J. L. (2010). School and family partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Epstein, J., Galindo, C., & Sheldon S. (2011). Levels of leadership: Effects of district and school leaders on the quality of school programs of family and community involvement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 462–495. doi:10.1177/0013161X10396929 Epstein, J. L., Sanders, G. M., Sheldon, S. B., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., … Williams, K. J. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ferrara, J. & Jacobson, R. (2019). Community schools: People and places transforming education and communities. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. FitzGerald, A. M., & Quiñones, S. (2018). Working in and with community: Leading for partnerships in a community school. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1–22. doi:10.1108/JPCC-02-2018-0008

184  Claudia L. Galindo and Mavis G. Sanders Galindo, C., & Sanders, M. (2019). Achieving equity in education through full-service community schools. In S. B. Sheldon & T. A. Turner-Vorbeck (Eds.), Handbook of family, school, community partnerships in education (pp. 511–530.). Malden, MA: Wiley. Galindo, C., Sanders, M., & Abel, Y. (2017). Transforming educational experiences in low-income communities: A qualitative case study of social capital in a full-service community school. American Educational Research Journal, 54(Suppl. 1), 140S–163S. doi:10.3102/0002831216676571 Galindo, C., & Sheldon, S. (2012). School and home connections and children’s kindergarten achievement gains: The mediating role of family involvement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47, 90–103. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.05.004 Gomez, L. (2019). The community school coordinator: Connecting hearts and mission. In J. Ferrara & R. Jacobson (Eds.). Community schools: People and places transforming education and communities (pp. 71–88). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families: Ideal versus reality. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 372–388. Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Annual Synthesis. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/catalog/items/fam33.html Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban society, 35(2), 202–218. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465–491. doi:10.3102/000 28312032003465 Montoya-Ávila, A., Ghebreab, N., & Galindo, C. (2018). Towards improving the educational opportunities of Black and Latinx students: Strengthening partnerships between families and schools. In S. Sonnenschein & B. E. Sawyer (Eds.), Academic socialization of young Black and Latino children: Building on family strengths (pp. 209–231). New York, NY: Springer Publishers. Moore, K. A., & Emig, C. (2014). Integrated student supports: A summary of the evidence base for policymakers. Washington DC: Child Trends. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/up-loads/2014/02/201405ISSWhitePaper3.pdf Oakes, J., Maier, A., & Daniel, J. (2017). Community schools: An evidence-based strategy for equitable school improvement. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED574713.pdf Olivos, E. M. (2006). The power of parents: A critical perspective of bicultural parent involvement in public schools. Washington, DC: Peter Lang. Peguero, A. A., & Shaffer, K. A. (2015). Academic self-efficacy, dropping out, and the significance of inequality. Sociological Spectrum, 35(1), 46–64. doi:10.1080/02732173.2014.978428 Sanders, M. (2013). Poverty, families, and schools. In C. Yeakey, V. Thompson, & A. Wells (Eds.). Urban ills: Confronting twenty first century dilemmas of urban living in global contexts (pp. 329–350). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Sanders, M. G. (2018). Crossing boundaries: A qualitative exploration of relational leadership in three full-service community schools. Teachers College Record, 120(4), 1–36.

Conclusion  185 Sanders, M. G. (2009a). Collaborating for change: How an urban school district and community-based organization supports and sustains school, family, and community partnerships. Teachers College Record, 111, 1693–1712. Sanders, M. G. (2009b). Teachers and parents. In L. Saha & A. Dworkin (Eds.), The new international handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 331–343). New York, NY: Springer. Sanders, M., Galindo, C., & Allen, K. M. (2018). Professional capital and responses to student diversity: A qualitative exploration of the role of teachers in full-service community schools. Urban Education. doi:10.1177/0042085918770719 Sanders, M., Galindo, C., & DeTablan, D. (2019). Bridging the community and school: Exploring the role(s) of the full-service community school coordinator. Children and Schools, 41, 89–100. doi:10.1093/cs/cdz006

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group

http://taylorandfrancis.com

Index

Note: Bold page numbers refer to tables; italic page numbers refer to figures and page numbers followed by “n” denote endnotes. absenteeism 138; chronic 3, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 45–47, 49, 50, 138; school 10; student 36 academic achievement 8, 12, 18, 23, 34, 70, 77, 83, 130, 131, 150; see also student achievement academic learning 65, 76 academic optimism 101, 120 ADA see average daily attendance (ADA) adult education programs 15–16 Advanced Placement (AP) examinations 3, 22–24 after-school programs 13, 16; see also out-of-school time (OST) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) 18, 20, 21 average daily attendance (ADA) 32, 48, 50; see also student attendance Baltimore: attendance challenge 36–37; FSCS development in 42–47 Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) 32, 36–39, 42–45, 50, 55 Black Youth, (mis)education of see (mis)Education of Black Youth Bronfenbrenner, U. 8, 34, 68; see also ecological systems theory Bryk, A. S. 128, 132, 133, 141, 143, 149, 151 Coalition for Community Schools 1, 42, 129–131, 148 collective trust 152, 156, 162 communication(s) 32, 34–36, 51, 53, 54, 85, 100, 107, 112, 116, 117, 119, 132, 142, 143, 181

community-based: learning 148, 151–154; organizations 42, 53, 70, 129, 158 community engagement 54, 76, 98, 100, 117, 128–144, 149, 151, 153, 154, 160, 161 community partnerships 1, 34, 35, 52, 56, 66, 99, 101, 117, 119, 134, 141; see also school-community partnerships community school: coordinator (CSC) 140, 150, 154, 158, 160–162, 171, 178; model 134, 135, 138, 140, 160, 162, 167, 170; reform 4, 81, 130, 133, 172; strategy 14, 42, 128, 135; see also full-service community school (FSCS) cross-boundary leadership 148–150, 153, 159–162, 171, 177; functional 154, 168; see also leadership CSC see community school coordinator (CSC) “culture of poverty” framework 101, 113 cumulative GPA 18, 21–22, 24 decision-making 55, 99, 100, 117, 118; school 114, 116, 143; shared 34, 35; see also school decisionmaking; shared decision-making distributed leadership 35, 159; see also leadership Dryfoos, J. 1, 2, 7–9, 23, 34, 35, 53, 65, 67, 85, 98–100, 147, 148 ecological systems theory 8 (mis)Education of Black Youth: discursive characteristics 75–78

188 Index pedagogical characteristics 87–91; relational characteristics 82–87; structural characteristics 78–82; theoretical framework 67–70 education reforms 98, 100, 101, 119, 167, 182 elementary schools 11, 16–18, 23, 25, 130, 131, 136, 154, 171 Epstein, J. 34, 35, 53 family: engagement 10, 15, 16, 44, 53, 102, 112–114, 118–119, 129, 139–141, 143, 151, 181; partnerships 35, 53, 54; school relationships 3, 35, 66, 68 FARMs program see free and reduced meals (FARMs) program Fink, D. 156, 162, 167, 168, 172 fixed effect dummy variables 42 focus groups 4, 73, 103, 104, 110, 111, 134 free and reduced meals (FARMs) program 11, 17, 39, 57n4 full-service community school (FSCS) 9–11, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72–78, 82–85, 87, 91–93, 98–103, 103, 104, 106, 108, 111, 114, 116–121, 123, 128–136, 139–144, 147–155, 157–167, 170–172, 177–182; effectiveness 120–121; implementation 1, 3, 4, 38, 40, 41, 47, 49, 50, 131, 133, 143, 167–170; model 7–8, 65, 85, 94, 137, 138; strategy 1–4, 9, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38, 40–45, 47, 48, 49, 50–56, 56n2, 103, 119, 128, 132, 177–180, 182 “funds of knowledge” 37, 101, 113, 118 hierarchical linear modeling 10 independent-samples t-test 18 inequality 7, 63–67, 70, 74–76, 83, 91–93, 180 instructional leadership 152, 154; see also leadership integrated services 8, 106–107, 142, 181 interview/s 3, 32, 37–39, 42, 43, 53, 54, 73, 74, 77, 81–83, 87, 103, 104, 109, 113, 116, 133, 157; informal 156; semi-structured 73, 103, 134; teacher protocol 122–123; see also semi-structured interviews Ishimaru, A. M. 66, 101

leadership: cross-boundary 148–150, 153, 159–162, 171, 177; distributed 35, 159; instructional 152, 154; principal 48, 103, 107–108, 143; school (see school leadership) learning: academic 65, 76; community-based 148, 151–154; school climate on 110; student 109–111, 118, 119; studentcentered learning climate 133 low-income: students 54, 98, 99, 102, 177; families 31 Martindale-Brightwood, IN 129, 131–132, 137–139 mixed linear: modeling 41; regression 48 Near-Westside, IN 129–130, 130, 131, 134, 136, 137, 139 New York State (NYS) Regents Examinations 21 Oakland, CA 73, 75–76, 83 Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) 70, 72, 73, 76, 85, 94 out-of-school time (OST) 43, 44 paired-wise Bivariate Pearson correlations 18, 19 Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA) 82, 83 participatory action research 133 post-secondary aspirations 23 principal leadership 48, 103, 107–108, 143; see also leadership Professional Development Schools 14–15 PTSA see Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA) qualitative data 4, 37–39, 104, 133, 156, 157 quantitative data 39–41, 155, 157 school climate 38–39, 72, 75–77, 81, 92, 102, 103, 106, 108, 109, 118, 140, 142–143, 179; transformed 106–107, 109–111 school-community partnerships 56 school culture 142, 143, 171 school decision-making 114, 116, 143 school leadership 9, 54, 136; committee 15; effective 76; roles 139

Index  189 semi-structured interviews 73, 103, 134; protocol 156 service provision 99, 114, 115, 117, 118 shared decision-making 34, 35 social capital 9–10, 24, 118, 128, 149, 151, 152 student achievement: district context 11–12; full-service community schools 9–11; Key Elementary FSCS 12–16, 20–23; research methods and data sources 16–20; socioeconomic status 7 student attendance: Baltimore’s attendance challenge 36–37; FSCS coordinators’ strategies for 50–53; FSCS development in Baltimore 42–47; and its relevance to academic success 33; methods 41–42; qualitative data source 38–39; quantitative data source 39–41; quantitative results 47–50 student-centered: instruction 98, 106, 111, 118; climate 133, 143 student learning 109–111, 118, 119; cultures 148; families and communities in 111; families

in 34; holistic approach to 182; non-academic barriers to 107; school’s climate and 105; and school success 101; transformation in 4, 109; and well-being 179 TACSI see Tulsa Area Community Schools Initiative (TACSI) teacher: engagement, in reform implementation 114–117; interview protocol 122–123; professional development 108–109 thematic coding 156 transformative: education 99–100, 117; teachers in 100–102 trust 51, 120, 141, 143, 151, 152, 154, 168, 171; parent 53, 101, 156, 157, 163, 164; principal 156, 163, 165; relationships 35, 50, 53, 54, 136, 158, 162–165, 168–170, 177–181; in schools 136, 157, 164, 169, 181; teacher 122, 156, 157, 163 Tulsa Area Community Schools Initiative (TACSI) 147, 158, 160 Whole Child Education 8, 9, 13, 24