ERIC ED409696: Connecting the Dots: Progress toward the Integration of School Reform, School-Linked Services, Parent Involvement and Community Schools.

71 Pages·1997·2.7 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
EC 305 745
ED 409 696
Lawson, Hal; Briar-Lawson, Katharine
AUTHOR
Connecting the Dots: Progress toward the Integration of
TITLE
School Reform, School-Linked Services, Parent Involvement
and Community Schools.
Miami Univ., Oxford, Ohio. School of Education.
INSTITUTION
Danforth Foundation, St. Louis, Mo.
SPONS AGENCY
PUB DATE
97
NOTE
69p
Institute for Educational Renewal, McGuffey Hall, Miami
AVAILABLE FROM
University, Oxford, OH 45056; telephone: [phone].
Descriptive (141)
Reports
PUB TYPE
MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Change Strategies; Cooperative Planning; *Delivery Systems;
DESCRIPTORS
*Disabilities; Educational Change; Educational Innovation;
Educational Technology; Elementary Secondary Education;
Family Programs; Family School Relationship; *High Risk
Students; *Integrated Services; Models; Parent
Participation; School Community Relationship
ABSTRACT
This report describes the outcomes of research that
investigated school reform, school-linked services, parent involvement, and
community school programs in schools in 36 states. Results found that
services were often added on to school sites without any intent to integrate
them with school reform; teachers were not directly involved in services;
co-locating service providers did not guarantee better quality of services;
and technical assistance, capacity-building, and time for teachers were in
short-supply. A model comprised of 10 strategies, "The Family-Supportive
Community School," is presented to enhance learning experiences for all
students, including students with disabilities. The strategies include:
(1)
(2) paraprofessional jobs and career
parent empowerment and family support;
(3) school readiness, parent education, and family
ladders for parents;
(4) caring classrooms that improve children's learning while
support;
(5) improved classroom supports
enhancing teachers' and parents' efficacy;
(7) educational
(6) collaborative leadership;
for teachers and children;
(8) neighborhood development and community organization;
communities;
(9)
simultaneous renewal of higher education; and (10) technology enhancement and
use. Appendices include family support premises and principles of
family-centered practice, and examples of knowledge needs and orientations of
teachers, principals, service providers and parents in three kinds of
schools. (Contains approximately 200 references.)
(CR)
********************************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
********************************************************************************
THE DOTS:
CONNECTING
Progress Toward the Integration of
School Reform, School-Linked Services,
Parent Involvement and Community Schools
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
AA- 050A)
131-/Q r -1-evc,)so.1)
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
bY
Hal Lawson, Pb.D.
and
Katbarine Briar-Lawson, Pb.D.
School of Education and Allied Professions
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio
Oxford, OH:
THE DANFORTH FOUNDATION AND THE INSTITUTE FOR
EDUCATIONAL RENEWAL AT MIAMI UNIVERSITY, 1997
BLE
BEST COPY AVM
2
.A-\
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
4
Executive Summary
5
IntroductionOOOOOOOOOOOOO .rnee 7
Children in Crisis, Schools in Crisis
7
From School Reform to Educational Reform
8
Background: A Brief History of Our Work on School-Family-Community Partnerships
8
From Observations to Models for the Future: How We Structured This Monograph
10
Building Blocks for Integration
10
Cautions About Evaluation
12
Striving for Clarity: Defining the Four Change Initiatives
15
IMO
School Reform
15
Parent Involvement
16
School-Linked Services
17
Community Schools
18
Hybrids: Seeking Integration from the Beginning
19
Implications
19
Findingsfrom the Field and New Questions
21
Grounds for Optimism: Emergent Practices as a Basis for Future Integration
21
The Bad News: Barriers and Unmet Needs
22
... 37
Observation and Analysis
23
31
1) Community School Programs for Youth
31
2) Coordinated Services to Fix At-Risk Students
31
3) Co-Location and Linkages to Offer Integrated, Comprehensive Services for
Children, Youth and Families
33
Strengths and Limitations of Add-On Models
33
Toward Integrative Models
......... 41
34
Model4: The Enabling Component.
Model5: Family- Supportive Community Schools
Introducing the Model
42
Ten Strategies to Advance Family-Supportive Community Schools
42
Two Sets of Indices for Planning and Evaluation
52
Policy Change and Family-Supportive Community Schools
56
Discussion
Conclusion
58
59
060.
Appendices
60
References
68
3
3
Connecting the Dots
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are indebted to the hundreds of persons who
Danforth Foundation.
have helped us learn from them, and we are grateful
We share with all of these people whatever credit is due
to the principals and service providers who arranged our
for this monograph. On the other hand, we are still learn-
site visits. Our interactions with so many wonderful, caring
ing. If there are misinterpretations, unfounded inferences,
people has justified the sacrifices associated with our travel.
and errors, we are responsible for them.
Several people deserve special mention, beginning with
Finally, we benefited from Jody Sokolower's editorial
Peter Wilson, our program officer at the Danforth Founda-
suggestions. And we are grateful to Anne Bell for her pro-
tion. Peter has provided support, encouragement and sug-
duction assistance and for the cover design.
gestions. He is indeed a critical friend. We have learned
with him as we have thought through the challenges and
opportunities associated with new conceptions of school
leadership and change strategies.
Additional Copies and Photocopying
We met Howard Adelman during our site visits; it will be
We grant permission for limited photocopying. We re-
apparent that we have learned from him and his close asso-
quest only that copies include the complete citation for the
ciate, Linda Taylor. Valerie Malholmes, representing the
monograph.
School Development Program and Joan Solomon, repre-
Additional copies of the monograph may be ordered
senting Accelerated Schools, both authored reports, which
through the Institute for Educational Renewal, McGuffey
facilitated our learning.
Hall, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056. [phone].
Two Miami University Deans, Jan Kettlewell and Julie
Underwood, have encouraged and supported our research.
Randy Flora, Director of the Institute for Educational Re-
newal at Miami University, also has provided support.
We appreciate the support, encouragement and feed-
back we received from Bruce Anderson and the program
officers at the Danforth Foundation. Janet Levy, now a pro-
gram officer at the Annie E. Casey Foundation, was instru-
mental in launching our work when she was with the
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
velopment; and professionals as well as community
ow do we respond to the needs of the growing
H
leaders will develop family-supportive networks.
number of vulnerable children, youth and families who
are challenged by poverty? How can we unite and integrate
2) Paraprofessional jobs and career ladders for par-
two important national reform movementsschool reform;
ents. Previously unemployed and volunteer parents
systems reform for child and family services? These twin
will be provided job-related supports and career-lad-
questions have framed our work.
der opportunities in schools and social and health
service agencies.
We started with a specific question: How are school
reform and school-linked services being integrated? We
3) School readiness, parent education and family sup-
found that most sites had not integrated them or two other
port. Pre-natal and early childhood education pro-
initiatives: Parent involvement and community schooling.
grams will be redesigned so that they also educate
For example, services are often added on to school sites
parents and support families.
without any intent to integrate them with school reform.
4) Caring classrooms that improve children's learning
This add-on pattern helped us understand what we were
while enhancing teachers' and parents' efficacy.
seeing and hearing. If services are merely added on, mini-
Classroom and school cultures will advance norms
mal academic achievement gains are understandable be-
of caring, high expectations as well as standards, and
cause:
success for all. Culturally-responsive teaching-learn-
"Real school" does not change, in part because teach-
ing strategies facilitate children's learning, enhance
ers are not directly and intimately involved in ser-
teachers' working conditions and improve supports
vices and in part because teaching-learning strate-
for parents' learning and healthy development. So-
gies are unconnected to service and support strategies
cial trust networks among children, educators, par-
ents, community leaders and service providers are
Co-locating service providers does not guarantee bet-
promoted with each new achievement.
ter quality of the services
5) Improted classroom supports and mourcesfor teach-
Many children and families need tailored social sup-
ers and children. Parents and other helpers such as
ports and economic resources, not additional services
university students, elders, business representatives,
that professionals are trained to provide
and community leaders will enter into classrooms to
Technical assistance, capacity-building, and time for
work in partnership with teachers. Teachers and their
teachers are in short-supply.
classroom helpers will identify children's risk factors
and learning barriers, enabling children and their fami-
Where schools are concerned, we began to understand
lies to receive tailored services, supports and re-
needs to talk about and plan for educational reform, not just
sources.
school reform. We learned from Howard Adelman and Linda
Taylor about their approach to educational reform. They
6) Collaborative leadership. Principals and superinten-
call their model "The Enabling Component." We briefly de-
dents will receive new preparation for different roles
scribe this model and its benefits.
and responsibilities, enabling teachers, other educa-
tors, parents, service providers and children to share
We offer a complementary, but different model that we
leadership opportunities and decision-making power.
call The Family-Supportive Community School. It is com-
prised of these ten strategies:
7) Educational communities. Enriched opportunities for
learning, healthy development and well-being will
1) Parent empowerment and family support. Parents,
be provided for children and youth during the non-
educators and service providers will become collabo-
school hours by mentors in neighborhood organiza-
rative designers of children's learning, health and de-
5
Connecting the Dots
tions, religious organizations, community agencies,
This model also includes two sets of indices that facili-
businesses, and voluntary associations such as boys
tate planning and evaluation: (1) Indices of integration; and
and girls dubs, music groups, computer networks,
(2) indices for the quality of treatment and interaction. This
model is based upon a systems design. Ideally, it will not
and sport-exercise groups. Connections will be made
between school learning, community schooling, and
add to the fragmentation problem; it should help integrate,
learning that occurs in educational communities out-
strengthen, and extend good work already underway.
side the school.
During our site visits and interviews, we observed en-
8) Neighborhood development and community organi-
couraging progress indicators. For example, we found stake-
zation. Families will be supported and strengthened
holders who have:
Identified shared, measurable goals
by educational, health, recreational, and occupational-
economic experiences offered in community school
Agreed to share responsibility and accountability for
programs. Neighborhood-communities will become
the progress they make in relation to these goals
safer and stronger as parents are employed and fami-
Agreed to chart progress and results
lies are supported.
Agreed to make ongoing adjustments in their work
9) Simultaneous renewal of higher education. Profes-
based on progress charting especially feedback they
sional development initiatives will prepare university
solicit and receive from children, youth, and families
faculty, school leaders, and helping professionals for
Agreed to share all relevant human and economic
collaborative teaching, research and service respon-
resources
sibilities. University students have more powerful
learning experiences in school-family-community-
Effected permanent policy changes that support new
university partnership settings.
work practices and working relationships.
10) Technology enhancement and use. Cable television
These are important guideposts. When all are in evi-
and computer networking for teaching and learning
dence, integration is occurring and results are most likely to
in schools will be linked to homes, neighborhoods,
improve. Our work is intended to foster this understanding
higher education institutions, businesses and com-
and help others build upon their achievements. We want to
munity agencies. These enhanced networks will
help others "connect the dots," benefiting vulnerable chil-
double as family support and community develop-
dren, youth and families and the professionals who serve
ment facilitators.
them.
0
6
INTRODUCTION
veryone knows that children's learning is not con-
Because no one profession or organization can do this
IL fined to schools. We all know that parents are the first
work alone, diverse stakeholders are ending their fragmen-
and most important teachers and social and health provid-
tation and competition by forming new partnerships. These
ers for their children, and that the surest guarantee for a
innovative school-family-community partnerships encom-
strong, healthy child is a strong, healthy family. Everybody
pass a wide variety of change initiatives in their efforts to
knows children's learning and development outside of
improve our children's public education, health and social
school influences their success in school and that, conversely,
welfare. What are their successes? What are the obstacles
their school experiences influence their activities and feel-
they face? These questions introduce the related issues
we
ings in nonschool hours.
address in this monograph.
Because everybody knows these things, it is unfortu-
nate that we equate education with schooling. It also is
Children In Crisis, Schools In Crisis
unfortunate that when we focus on children, we often blame
Between 14 and 15 million of our children are growing
their parents and ignore the family as partners in the learn-
up in what Garbarino (1995) calls "a socially toxic environ-
ing process.
ment" (Sherman, 1994; Lawson, Briar-Lawson, and Lawson,
While we give schools total responsibility for children's
1997). The lives of these children and their families are rav-
education, we make their health the responsibility of spe-
aged by poverty, racism and violence. Increasing numbers
cific agencies and professions; their social service needs
of children manifest trauma syndromes symptomatic of liv-
belong to still others. When we partition and fragment these
ing in war zones (Garbarino, 1995; Earls, 1994; Kotlowitz,
interdependent aspects of children's well-being, we are not
1991; Kozol, 1995; Monti, 1994).
likely to achieve our goals for their learning and healthy
As a result, a growing number of children and youth in
development. All children, but especially poor children, pay
the nation's schools face challenges and manifest needs and
the price. So do their parents and families. In turn, the fabric
problems.' Many young people come to school hungry,
of local neighborhood-communities is weakened.
sleepy, distressed, depressed, apathetic, abused, hyperac-
What would be different if we integrated our planning
tive, medicated or angry. Older students may be involved
for children's schooling, education and overall healthy de-
with alcohol, drugs and tobacco. An increasing number join
velopment? An increasing number of child and family advo-
gangs.
cates are asking this question and others that stem from it.
There is little relief in sight. For example, the US. De-
In a growing number of cities, suburbs and rural areas, a
partment of Education estimates that 43 percent of all chil-
new conception is developing of the school community.
dren are born with at least one learning or developmental
These school communities comprise all of the stakeholders
barrier (US. Department of Education, 1993). By the time
in a local school, feeder pattern of schools of school district.
these children enter school, the chances are that more than
A new, expanded conception of school leadership includes
one barrier will be evident. Unless meaningful employment
parents, community leaders, social and health service pro-
and family support initiatives accompany welfare reform,
fessionals, policy advocates, governmental officials and uni-
the condition of a growing segment of the nation's children
versity faculty, as well as teachers, principals, superinten-
will get worse: Educators and social and health service pro-
dents and student support professionals. These diverse
viders serving high poverty communities can ill afford to
individuals are joined together by their shared commitment
ignore the welfare reform crisis.
to improving the learning, healthy development and well-
being of children, youth and families. They know these im-
Although family poverty and parental unemployment
provements are most likely to occur when all of the profes-
are two predictors of many of these problems, more and
sionals and community leaders who touch the lives of these
more children and youth from families who are not poor are
families are working toward the same goals and sharing the
also affected. While the effects of socially and physically
same assumptions and principles. They emphasize school
toxic environments are most visible among urban children,
improvement, but know that they must also become en-
it is easy to find children with comparable challenges, needs
gaged in educational reform, family support, and commu-
and problems in suburban and rural schools.
nity development.
7
7
Connecting the Dots
The severity and complexity of students' challenges,
children's learning and performance in schools hinges
upon
needs and problems vary, but the consequences are usually
their health, development and well-being, which, in
turn,
the same. These children do not reach their potential in
hinges on the well-being of their families and communities
school, and they often complicate teachers' and principals'
(e.g., Bruner, 1996; Haveman and Wolfe, 1995; Lerner, 1995).
jobs. Vulnerable children and youth disrupt classrooms, in-
Schools cannot be all things to all people, nor can schools
terfering with others' learning. Labeled as "at risk" and "prob-
remain as stand-alone institutions in which educators
are
lem students,- they are often assigned to special teachers
asked to do it all, alone.
and classes. Too many are repeatedly truant and suspended.
We must continue to talk about school reform. But if
we
Many are later expelled or drop out. School failure is associ-
are serious about improving children's outcomes, we are in
ated with teen pregnancy, violent behavior, crime, substance
fact facing the challenges of what we call educational
re-
abuse and adult unemployment.
form. Educational reform includes a broader definition of
When children and their families confront crises, so do
school leadership, more comprehensive views and
the schools that serve them. Our schools were designed to
prioritization of results, and an expanded perspective on
help children learn, not to substitute for a healthy family
needed change strategies.
and a supportive neighborhood-community. Schools can-
Most schools begin the change process with some kind
not substitute for an appropriate childhood. Educators are
of school reform initiative. When school reform alone does
unprepared for the challenges these children bring into class-
not yield desired results for children or educators, other
rooms.
change initiatives follow, typically within the span of a few
Outside the schoolhouse doors, social and health ser-
years. School-linked services, parent involvement, and com-
vice professionals are also experiencing crises. Like educa-
munity schools are three of these initiatives.
tors, these service providers are unprepared for the unprec-
These initiatives entail new relationships among schools,
edented challenges confronting children and their families.
families, community agencies, government, universities and
There are not enough providers. They carry excessive case
the private sector. Educators are inviting other key stake-
loads and face impossible working conditions. They often
holders in their local neighborhood communities to share
are called to the scene too late to help. Their systems are
responsibilities for planning and decision-making. The no-
crisis-oriented, and most providers lack the resources they
tion of school leadership is redefined to include not just
need to respond effectively. Most have not been prepared
educators, but parents, community advocates and other key
to work closely with educators. Nevertheless, service pro-
stakeholders. Parents and community leaders are among
viders want to prevent problems; they talk about "systems
the most important of these new stakeholders. They are
change" and strategies for early intervention and preven-
joined by university professors, social and health service
tion.
providers, policy leaders, and business and corporate rep-
People experiencing crises often blame others. We can
resentatives. In short, the school community, not just the
see blame cycles in many school communities. Parents, chil-
school, is becoming the key unit of analysis for planning.
dren, educators and service providers often blame, and
At the same time, in a growing number of places, the
sometimes maltreat, each other. Children are caught in the
focus for planning has broadened. Planning has expanded
middle. Why would vulnerable people seek help from
to include the entire feeder pattern of pre-schools, elemen-
schools and social service agencies when they experience
tary schools, middle schools, secondary schools. In cities
maltreatment? How can children and their parents bond with
such as Los Angeles and Philadelphia, these identifiable clus-
educators and schools under these conditions? Absent such
ters of schools are called "families of schools" because they
bonding, what is the likelihood of mutual success?
serve the same children, youth and families and operate in
the same neighborhood-communities. In some places, this
From School Reform
comprehensive planning includes school-to-work programs
and articulations with community colleges, four-year col-
to Educational Reform
leges and universities.
How do we break such destructive cycles? The pivotal
Background. A Brief History of Our
question, we think, is this one: What will it take to improve
children's learning and healthy development? This question
Work on School-Family-Community
requires us to start with the school, but also to include in
Partnerships
our thinking and planning the family and the community.
.
Among reform-minded educators, there is a growing rec-
These new school-family-community relationships have
ognition that school reform, while essential, is just one com-
been the centerpiece of our work with the Danforth Foun-
ponent in an effective strategy for change. Systems think-
dation. Since 1992, we have completed site visits and inter-
ing, social- ecological perspectives, developmental-contex-
views in 36 states. Although we visited high schools, the
tual analyses and daily experiences with children are help-
majority of our visits were to middle and elementary schools.
ing a growing number of educators understand that children's
We also have visited innovative community and neighbor-
academic achievement and overall success at school cannot
hood-based collaborations, some of which focus on child
be divorced from the rest of their lives. In other words,
welfare and family support more than school improvement.
8
Introduction
Some of the sites were involved in university-based partner-
asking some different questions. Because the questions asked
ships.
structure people's learning and determine the available so-
lutions, we offer these new questions as a product of
We observed life in classrooms and social service
our
work. One measure of our learning is the language we
now
facilities. We sat in on case staffing meetings. We gained
use. For reasons that will become apparent, we focus less
some sense of the daily routines and challenges in each
today on buzzwords like interprofessional collaboration and
place.' During site visits and participation at local, regional
service integration. As important as these concepts have
and national conferences, we interviewed superintendents,
been in stimulating new thinking and working relationships,
principals, teachers, social .workers, family advocates,
by themselves they will not yield the results that profession-
substance abuse counselors, school psychologists, school
counselors, juvenile justice specialists, and other
als, parents, children and youth, governmental officials, and
community leaders prioritize.
professionals working at, or with, schools, children and
youth, parents and community leaders. We also interviewed
We began this second phase of our work (1994-96),
parents and children.
with the goal of mapping the conceptual relationships be-
tween two change initiatives: school reform and school-
Not content with the role of tourists, we have been im-
linked services. As our work evolved, we added two other
mersed in local school-family-community partnerships and
change initiatives: parent involvement and community
change initiatives in three states: Washington, Ohio and
school programs. We faced the challenges of integrating
Florida. These direct experiences have provided important
four change initiatives instead of two. We quickly learned
insights. We have always viewed ourselves as learners seek-
that people using the same language had different things in
ing clarity, as joint inventors of new strategies.
mind; in other instances, different words nevertheless con-
In the initial phase of our work with school-family-com-
veyed identical meanings. As a result, our work became
munity partnerships (1992-94), we explored the origins and
more complicated.
development of school-linked services. We were especially
Are these four change initiatives integrated' We visited
interested in new roles and responsibilities for parents and
school communities and interviewed people with the intent
the extent to which schools were becoming family-friendly
of finding and understanding examples of integration. Al-
and -supportive. Our values were dear: We believed that
though we heard the language of integrated services, in
school reform, school-linked services, and what we then
most places we did not find what we were looking for
called "parent involvement and family-support" could be
namely, the pervasive integration of the four change initia-
connected. We hoped to build upon promising research
tives. In fact, there was little agreement on the essential
findings.
elements of "integrated services." We began to ask ques-
We knew that all such changes required new profes-
tions like these. How would you know integrated services if
sional development opportunities for educators, service pro-
you saw them? Who decides? Who delivers? Who evaluates?
viders and parents. Consequently, we also explored changes
Are flexible economic resources, employment opportuni-
in pre-service and professional development programs in
ties, and mutual assistance-social support networks for fami-
colleges and universities. Much to our dismay, during our
lies included in integrated services? Variability in thought,
site visits in 1993 and 1994, we found that many professors
language and practices became all the more evident as we
and academic administrators were unaware of innovative
asked these questions and others.
school-family-community partnerships in their own com-
While we learned a great deal from the people we inter-
munities. Fortunately, in the short span of three years, this
viewed in the course of our visits, their ambivalence, uncer-
situation has changed.
tainties and conflicts left a lasting impression on us. Although
Three years ago, we authored two monographs, each
most people know that crises involving children and their
tailored to a special audience. The first, Serving Children,
schools, families and communities are not separate, they
Youth and Families through Interprojessional Collabora-
are unsure how to define problems that nest in each other.
tion and Service Integration: A Framework for Action, ad-
Many know that business-as-usual today means results-as-
dressed school-family-community partnerships (Hooper-
usual tomorrow. Beyond this recognition, they are unclear
Briar and Lawson, 1994), while the other analyzed important
about essential strategies for problem-setting and effective
responsibilities of colleges and universities (Lawson and
problem solving. Little wonder: The vast majority of the
Hooper-Briar, 1994). Then, as now, we saw relationships
professionals we interviewed have been prepared to look
between the two based on the need fOr simultaneous re-
at their jobs through a specialized, narrow lens provided by
forms.
their respective professional identities and responsibilities.
In this present monograph, we build upon the concep-
Few have received education and training that prepares them
tual frameworks in those earlier pieces, especially the first
to understand and develop their connections with other
half of Serving Children, Youth and Families... Readers fa-
professionals, families and community leaders.
miliar with that monograph know that the second part, which
In the school communities we visited, our questions were
addressed the relationship between school reform and
turned back on us. Pioneering school community leaders
school-linked services, was sketchy. At that time, we could
asked us whether these change initiatives might be inte-
only provide a preliminary overview. In this monograph,
grated and, if so, how. These leaders are struggling to re-
we return to many of the same questions. Today we are also
spond to the crises we have identified, and they are weighed
9
BEST COPY MI
BLE
9
,A
1
-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0---
Connecting the Dots
down by the demands of so many disparate change initia-
tures. For example, we characterize many initiatives as co-
tives. This issue was especially evident in Title 1 school
location experiments in which service providers and com-
communities.
munity leaders are moved from community agencies onto
school sites. Co-location alone will not, in our view, yield
We realized if we wanted examples of integration, we
the needed improvements for children, youth, families and
needed to build them from our observations. So, in this
educators. We find it difficult to imagine that the same ser-
monograph we have made the so-called normative leap:
vices or programs that were not effective in the neighbor-
based on our findings, practice, experiences and achieve-
hoods and community agencies will be more effective when
ments, we have charted future directions. In other words,
they are delivered at the school.
the achievements we observed were like pieces in a puzzle;
our job was to construct a picture of the puzzle for the top
We believe that everyone in the school community will
of the box.
benefit from the integration of school reform, school-linked
services, parent involvement and community schools. Two
From Observations to Models for the
of our four models are designed to accomplish this: the
Future: How We Structured Tbis
Enabling Component, developed by Howard Adelman and
Linda Taylor, and the Family-Supportive Community School,
Monograph
which we describe here for the first time. We concentrate
on the Family-Supportive Community School, especially the
This monograph is both descriptive and prescriptive. It
action strategies associated with it.
responds to requests we received from leaders in school
communities .we visited. They told us they need explana-
Throughout, we try to point to future directions, that is,
tions, analyses and complex, integrated change strategies
to strategies for integrating school reform, school-linked ser-
that conventional scientific studies have not yet provided.
vices, parent involvement and community schools. We iden-
tify key lessons learned, emphasize major challenges and
We start with basic building blocks: definitions and some
likely barriers, and suggest criteria to facilitate planning and
discussion of the four change initiatives. We cast these dis-
evaluation.
cussions (and, in fact, the entire monograph) within two
different frames of reference, one associated with school
reform and the other with the more comprehensive process
Building Blocks for Integration
of educational reform. We use the term educational reform
to refer to efforts to integrate school reform with parent
Readers experienced with collaborative practices and
involvement, school-linked services and community schools.
organizational partnerships will not be surprised by the high
priority we assign to the fundamental building blocks for
We link these efforts to family support and community de-
velopment; and, in turn, to civil society and democratic in-
integration. These include:
stitutions.
shared goals
Each reference frame has its own sensitizing and plan-
appropriate language
ning concepts, including a problem-solving strategy, a con-
high expectations and standards
ception of leadership and the measurable results that lead-
nurturing attitudes and norms
ers have prioritized. When these two frames of reference
serve as the examining lenses, it is easier to detect and un-
ways to enfranchise children, youth and their parents
derstand differences and similarities in language, meaning,
in important decisions and roles that affect their
and practices. For example, parent involvement has one set
present and future lives, facilitating shared responsi-
of meanings and goals in school reform: all activities serve
bility for results
educators and the school. By contrast, when the frame of
respectful, caring interactions among professionals
reference is educational reform, goals are more reciprocal
and the people they serve
and cohesive, and the interests, needs, and aspirations of
indices of integration and progress.
children, parents and families are as important as those of
educators and the school.
Race, ethnicity and social Mast matter. We have learned
that these fundamental building blocks are not likely to be
After discussing the change initiatives, we report back
present if the majority of the professionals and their work
on our observations in the field. We have structured this
organizations lack cultural competence and evidence cul-
section of the monograph around some of the key ques-
turally-responsive practices. The presence or absence of
tions we asked during site visits and interviews. Our plan is
these fundamental building blocks will determine whether
help others experience our journeys, to appreciate how and
elaborate structures for integrated change will, in fact, help
why our questions changed as our understanding devel-
children, youth, parents, families and professionals.
oped.
Place and local contexts also matter. One size fits all
Then we offer five models we have developed to de-
thinking and blind borrowing from other sites are likely to
scribe the kinds of changes we have seen and those we
cause as many problems as they solve.
envision. Key differences among these models stem from
different views of children, parents and families, and differ-
We have learned that the words people use reveal much
ent plans for changing classroom practices and school cul-
about their preferred solutions. For example, many profes-
e
1.0