Community Partnership Schools: Developing Innovative Practice Through University-Community Partnerships 3031164032, 9783031164033

Table of contents :
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Praise for Community Partnership Schools
Contents
Notes on Contributors
List of Figures
List of Tables
1 The Community Schools Concept
Background of Community Schools
History of Community Schools in America
The Start of Evans High School as The Flagship
Statewide Developments
UCF Center for Community Schools
UCF Center for Community Schools and Children’s Home Society of Florida as Strategic Partners
Conclusion
References
2 The Role Universities Play in Primary and Secondary Schools: University-Assisted Community Schools and Community Partnership Schools
University-Assisted Community School
Historical Context
Lessons from Penn’s Netter Center for Community Partnerships
Practical Framework
Benefits of the University-Assisted Community School Approach
Benefits to Students
Benefits to the Community
Benefits to Colleges and Universities
University Assistance Through Community Partnership Schools
University Assistance Coordinator
Defining the Center for Community Schools and the University Assistance Coordinator Position at UCF
Conclusion
References
3 The Community Partnership Schools™ Model
Community School Approaches
Community-Managed Community School Approach
University-Assisted Community School Approach
Community-Based Lead Agency Community School Approach
School-As-Lead-Agency Community School Approach
Multiple Core Partners Community School Approach
Community Partnership Schools and the Four Pillars
Studies
Statewide Scale-Up and Certification
Long-Term Commitment and Funding
Summary
References
4 The UCF-Certified Community Partnership Schools™ Standards and Certification Process: An Asset-Based Approach to Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement
History
Purpose
Community Partnership Schools™ Standards and Certification Process 3.0
First-Time Certification Process
Certification Readiness Assessment and Certification Assessment
Affirmation Review and Re-Certification Assessment
UCF-Certified Community Partnership Schools™ Standards
Performance Rating Level
Certification Results
Trends in the Field
Implications and Recommendations
References
5 Evans High School, a UCF-Certified Community Partnership School: A Case Study of the Comprehensive Community School Model
Background
Review of the Literature
University-Assisted Partnership
Evans Impact
Statewide Impact
Conclusion
References
6 Children’s Home Society of Florida’s Lessons Learned
Lessons Learned: Launching a Community Partnership School
From the Beginning: Starting the Conversation
Collaborative Leadership
Applying Lessons: Starting Today
Balancing the Partnerships Within the School and Community
Supporting Operations: Best Practices
Establishing and Promoting the Community Partnership School Brand and Identity
Funding
Funding Is a Shared Responsibility
Secure Funding Prior to Launch
Private Philanthropy: Focus on “Investing in Outcomes”
Making the Introduction to Community Partnership Schools
Asking for Sustainability
Branding Consistency: Another Key to Sustainability Success
Final Thoughts on Funding
Lessons Learned: Evaluation Strategies
Overarching Lessons Learned: Looking Ahead
Looking Back: Key Lessons
Data and Evaluation: Considerations
Certification Standards and Assessment
Additional Considerations
Community Partnership Schools: An Equity Strategy
Advancing Equity: Incorporating the Community Voice
Advancing Equity: Challenges
Advancing Equity: Successes
Advancing Equity: Final Thoughts
References
Conclusion

Citation preview

Community Partnership Schools Developing Innovative Practice Through University-Community Partnerships Edited by Jarrad D. Plante · Amy Ellis

Rethinking University-Community Policy Connections

Series Editors Thomas Andrew Bryer, University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA John Diamond, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK Carolyn Kagan, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK Jolanta Vaiˇci¯uniene, ˙ Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania

Rethinking University-Community Policy Connections will publish works by scholars, practitioners, and ‘prac-ademics’ across a range of countries to explore substantive policy or management issues in the bringing together of higher education institutions and community-based organizations, nongovernmental organizations, governments, and businesses. Such partnerships afford unique opportunities to transform practice, develop innovation, incubate entrepreneurship, strengthen communities, and transform lives. Yet such potential is often not realized due to bureaucratic, cultural, or legal barriers erected between higher education institutions and the wider community. The global experience is common, though the precise mechanisms that prevent university-community collaboration or that enable successful and sustainable partnership vary within and across countries. Books in the series will facilitate dialogue across country experiences, help identify cross-cutting best practices, and to enhance the theory of university-community relations.

Jarrad D. Plante · Amy Ellis Editors

Community Partnership Schools Developing Innovative Practice Through University-Community Partnerships

Editors Jarrad D. Plante AmeriCorps NCCC Washington, DC, USA

Amy Ellis University of Central Florida Orlando, FL, USA

ISSN 2629-2432 ISSN 2629-2440 (electronic) Rethinking University-Community Policy Connections ISBN 978-3-031-16403-3 ISBN 978-3-031-16404-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16404-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: © John Rawsterne/patternhead.com This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

The editors dedicate this book to the students, families, schools, community members, and leaders with whom we have the pleasure of serving alongside to realize potential and strengthen communities.

Acknowledgments

The editors acknowledge Dr. Thomas Bryer and the university–community book series committee for this opportunity to share the story and impact that the Community Partnership Schools™ model has had on students, families, and communities. We thank all participating authors, endorsers, and our reviewer, Judy Creel, for their contributions to the literature on community schools. It is with sincere enthusiasm that we thank our founders: Dr. Michael Frumkin, Dr. Nancy Ellis, and David Bundy, along with the founding agency partners: Children’s Home Society of Florida, Orange County Public Schools, and the University of Central Florida (UCF) for the establishment of the Community Partnership Schools™ model. We truly stand on the shoulders of giants. We also want to recognize Florida’s legislators, the Florida Department of Education, and a long list of community school champions for your instrumental role in driving Florida’s community schools forward, and helping expand the benefits to underserved communities across Florida. Finally, we are grateful to UCF leadership and the College of Community Innovation and Education for providing a home aligned in vision and mission to work together empowering students and families to realize their greatest potential.

vii

Introduction

“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” This African proverb is at the heart and soul of the UCF Center for Community Schools and the Community Partnership Schools™ model, a quote enshrined at the University of Central Florida’s downtown campus for all to read and ponder. The Coalition for Community Schools defines the term community schools as “both a place and set of partnerships between a school and other community resources. It’s integrated focus on academics, services, and supports leads to improved student learning, stronger families, and healthier communities.” The characteristics of a community school differ from traditional school models. Some features include (a) a comprehensive array of services—before/after school options, expanded learning opportunities, parent engagement classes, and health services; (b) coordinating of services—integrating student and family services into core instruction; (c) community and family involvement—meeting the needs of children by working closely with families and community members; and (d) whole school change—creating an environment of wellness, and school-community interventions to promote a culture of good attendance and achievement (Martinez, Hayes, & Silloway, 2013). Although community schools incorporate similar characteristics, they can have varying models, including the Community Partnership Schools™ model. The Community Partnership Schools™ model includes four (or more) core partners that are essential to the success of each CPS. Partners work together to secure resources to address student, family, and community needs. The four core partnerships include: (a) school district, (b) ix

x

INTRODUCTION

nonprofit community-based provider, (c) college or university, and (d) healthcare provider. Partners work together to address student needs and contribute institutional and social resources. Some content was previously disseminated as web-based resources. This anthology, The Community Partnership Schools: An Innovative Model of Practice for Community Schools through University–Community Partnerships, was authored by academics and practitioners alike. The chapters establish Community Partnership Schools as an educational equity solution that lifts the ground floor for students, families, and communities. By showcasing this model of community school from inception through the first full cycle of K-12 students, authors capture the CPS as a prime example of how university–community partnerships work together—illustrating several university–community partnerships throughout the state of Florida. The scope of the project is to (a) introduce and describe the Community Partnership Schools™ (CPS) model in the context of the broader scope of community schools’ framework of wraparound support services for students, families, and larger communities; (b) demonstrate the importance of the university–community connection within the framework; (c) highlight the power of partnership; (d) provide historical context and case studies of the model; (e) illustrate the comprehensive structure and accountability of the CPS model; and (6) show impact through data. Chapter 1, The Community Schools Concepts, defines the term community schools and provides a high-level historical context for the development of community schools. Chapter 2, The Roles Universities Play in K-12 Education: University-Assisted Community Schools and Community Partnership Schools, provides a literature review on the role colleges and universities play in primary and secondary schools, narrowing the focus through the lens of a community school setting; and demonstrates how the Center for Community Schools was developed at the University of Central Florida while highlighting the university-assisted model. Chapter 3, The Community Partnership Schools™ Model, illustrates the comprehensive structure through the lens of the four community school pillars of collaborative leadership, expanded learning, family and community engagement, and comprehensive wellness; describes the memorandum of understanding among the four core partners of the model: school district health care partner, lead nonprofit organization, and college or university; discusses its funding model; and provides a snapshot of the impact of Community Partnership Schools across the state of Florida.

INTRODUCTION

xi

Chapter 4, The UCF-Certified Community Partnership Schools™ Standards and Certification Process: An Asset-based Approach to Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement, invites discussion of the development and implementation of the 12-standard readiness assessment; the results from certification; trends in the field; implications for funding and accountability; and UCF-Certified Community Partnership School recognition. Chapter 5, Evans High School, A UCF-Certified Community Partnership School: A Case Study of the Comprehensive Community School Model, illustrates how the Community Partnership Schools™ model is implemented by using Evans High School as a case study to inform the audience of the process, partnership, and impact the school and the model has had on students, school, families, and community. Finally, in Chapter 6, Lessons Learned, Children’s Home Society of Florida, founding partner and lead nonprofit organizational partner in 21 Community Partnership Schools as of 2022, reflects on its experience of best practices and the evolution of the model. The author describes the strategies for developing, replicating, and sustaining the Community Partnership SchoolsTM model as a strong, evidence-based equity strategy in our educational ecosystems. Partnership is the cornerstone of community schools, augmented in the Community Partnership Schools™ model with its four-core-partner framework. Partnership is the key to Florida’s community school model that transforms the lives of students, families, schools, and communities. It takes time to develop and steward relationships that truly become great partnerships, and collectively we know that aiming not to go fast alone, we can go far…together. In 2017, the UCF Center for Community Schools was named the first International Hub for Community Schools by the International Center for Excellence of Community Schools (ICECS) in Coventry, England. ICECS has strong ties to community school development throughout Europe, Central Asia, Africa, and North America, working on strategic planning to advance community school development through demonstration projects, research, consultation, networking, and conferencing. Jarrad D. Plante Amy Ellis

Praise for Community Partnership Schools

“This anthology skillfully and comprehensively captures the history, conceptual underpinnings, strategies, structures, and outcomes of the Community Partnership Schools™ model. We at the Children’s Aid National Center for Community Schools are grateful to our friends and colleagues at the University of Central Florida for documenting and sharing these valuable lessons with the broader national movement.” —Abe Fernandez, Vice President of Collective Impact & Director of National Center for Community Schools at Children’s Aid “A valuable guide for anyone looking to develop a Community Partnership School™ model. The detailed case study and wider reflections on the lessons learned through the process provide practical information which will be of great use to those wanting to develop their practice. Thank you for sharing your experiences and knowledge; we will be drawing on this as we enhance our own Community Schools model in Wales.” —Dr. Suzanne Sarjeant, Community Schools Advisor, Welsh Government “WOW! Herein, Ellis, Plante, and other authors present an extraordinary overview of the community schools partnering with universities, in particular the Community Partnership Schools™ model, history, and impact. The authors did an excellent job providing a simple recipe for tailoring the implementation of this sustainable model and sharing some

xiii

xiv

PRAISE FOR COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP SCHOOLS

of the many lessons learned throughout the implementation and scale-up of community schools in Florida.” —F. Eloy Hernandez, Associate Dean of Research and Innovation, CCIE, UCF “The Community Partnership Schools: An Innovative Model of Practice for Community Schools through University–Community Partnerships is a must read for school district leaders, university administrators, and community partners seeking a clear pathway to community school implementation. With its four-core partner framework, The Community Partnership School model presented in this book demonstrates how universities and communities come to build capacity among all stakeholders and respond to local needs. The voices of researchers and practitioners showcased in the chapters make a compelling case for community schools and provide the ingredients for success: sound foundational principles, concrete examples, in-depth case studies, and lessons learned.” —Dr. JoAnne Ferrara, Chief Operating Officer, New York State Community Schools Technical Assistance Center, Eastern Region, Rockland 21C, former Associate Dean, Manhattanville College “Wales has a strong commitment to developing Community Focused Schools and to involving a range of partners, including Universities, in this process. This book will be of great value in informing this work.” —Emeritus Professor David Egan FRSA FCCT/Emeritws Yr Athro David Egan FRSA FCCT, School of Education and Social Policy/Ysgol Addysg a Pholisi Cymdeithasol, Cardiff Metropolitan University/Prifysgol Fetropolitan Caerdydd “This new book provides a rich description and analysis of an innovative model of community schools called Community Partnership Schools— an equity solution that builds on and contributes to the best available knowledge about how to organize school and community resources around student success. I have no doubt that this addition to the professional literature will become a valuable tool for leaders and practitioners, especially those with international partners.” —Jane Quinn, Former Director (2000–2018), Children’s Aid National Center for Community Schools

Contents

1

2

The Community Schools Concept Amy Ellis Background of Community Schools History of Community Schools in America The Start of Evans High School as The Flagship Statewide Developments UCF Center for Community Schools UCF Center for Community Schools and Children’s Home Society of Florida as Strategic Partners Conclusion References The Role Universities Play in Primary and Secondary Schools: University-Assisted Community Schools and Community Partnership Schools Donnie Hale and Robert Palmer University-Assisted Community School Benefits of the University-Assisted Community School Approach University Assistance Through Community Partnership Schools Conclusion References

1 2 4 12 14 15 16 16 17

21 22 29 31 37 38

xv

xvi

3

4

CONTENTS

The Community Partnership Schools™ Model Amy Ellis Community School Approaches Community-Managed Community School Approach University-Assisted Community School Approach Community-Based Lead Agency Community School Approach School-As-Lead-Agency Community School Approach Multiple Core Partners Community School Approach Community Partnership Schools and the Four Pillars Studies Statewide Scale-Up and Certification Long-Term Commitment and Funding Summary References The UCF-Certified Community Partnership Schools™ Standards and Certification Process: An Asset-Based Approach to Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement Larry J. Bergeron and Jerry D. Johnson History Purpose Community Partnership Schools™ Standards and Certification Process 3.0 First-Time Certification Process Certification Readiness Assessment and Certification Assessment Affirmation Review and Re-Certification Assessment UCF-Certified Community Partnership Schools™ Standards Performance Rating Level Certification Results Trends in the Field Implications and Recommendations References

39 40 42 43 44 46 47 47 50 50 51 52 52

55 56 58 59 61 61 63 63 66 67 69 70 71

CONTENTS

5

6

Evans High School, a UCF-Certified Community Partnership School: A Case Study of the Comprehensive Community School Model Jarrad D. Plante, Curtesa L. Vanderpool, and Jarvis Wheeler Background Review of the Literature University-Assisted Partnership Evans Impact Statewide Impact Conclusion References Children’s Home Society of Florida’s Lessons Learned Heather A. Morgan Lessons Learned: Launching a Community Partnership School Applying Lessons: Starting Today Balancing the Partnerships Within the School and Community Supporting Operations: Best Practices Establishing and Promoting the Community Partnership School Brand and Identity Funding Lessons Learned: Evaluation Strategies Looking Back: Key Lessons Community Partnership Schools: An Equity Strategy References

Conclusion

xvii

73 74 76 79 85 88 89 90 93

94 97 98 99 99 100 106 108 110 115 117

Notes on Contributors

Bergeron Larry J. is the Lydia E. Skeen Graduate Research Assistant and a Doctoral student in adult learning and leadership at Kansas State University. His research focuses broadly on educational leadership and supporting underrepresented students in transition to postsecondary institutions. Ellis Amy, Ed.D. is the Director of the Center for Community Schools at the University of Central Florida. The center serves as a resource for technical assistance, university-assisted partnership, training, and assessment and evaluation in the development of high-quality community schools. She specializes in the development of partnerships that integrate prevention and intervention programs and services into K-12 schools, as well as the scale-up of initiatives that improve collective outcomes. Ellis has more than two decades of experience in leading the development of frameworks aimed to advance systems of practice; studying and honing needle-moving strategies; and harnessing the power of collectives. Proficient in start-ups and scale-ups, she worked for five years as a Senior Administrator for Orange County Public Schools, where she successfully launched the first community school of its kind in Florida: Evans High School, A Community Partnership School. Ellis has since helped grow Florida’s community school initiative from this single building concept in 2009 to a 29-site statewide model. Considered an expert in the field of

xix

xx

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

community schools, Ellis has presented statewide, nationally and internationally, and she has formed collaborative partnerships with thought leaders focused on advancing the community schools field. Hale Donnie, Ed.D. is the Executive Director of community engagement and strategic partnerships at Florida Memorial University, a Historically Black College/University established in 1879. Hale works with a team to engage communities by creating strategies to support higher education, career pathways, mutual beneficial partnerships, and relationships to encourage the college-going culture. He also co-chairs the nationwide Community School Leadership Network with the Coalition for Community Schools in Washington, DC. Prior to FMU, he was an Assistant Director for the Center for Community Schools at the University of Central Florida and Director for the Education Effect at Florida International University in Miami, working with schools in Overtown, Liberty City, and Little Haiti. Hale’s research focuses on race, equity, educational opportunity, college access, and human development. His teaching experience has been in areas of sociology, education, African American history, and cultural diversity. Originally from Stockton, CA, Hale attended undergraduate school at Willamette University and graduate school at Boise State University. He is a father to Taylor, Chloe, and Donnie III, husband to Heather Hale, proud son to Donnie and Debra Hale and brother to Michael, Michelle, Glen, and Terrence. Johnson Jerry D. is the Lydia E. Skeen Endowed Chair in Education at Kansas State University. A former high school English Teacher and Principal, Johnson also served as Policy Research Director for the Rural School and Community Trust and was the 2017 recipient of the Stanley A. Brzezinski Memorial Rural Education Research Award from the National Rural Education Association. Morgan Heather A. is an accredited, nationally award-winning public relations professional. As senior Vice President of communications, marketing, and engagement at Children’s Home Society of Florida, she leads brand and reputation management, internal and external communication, and community education and outreach. She’s a sought-after expert in communication strategy, reputation management, crisis communication, and executive communication.

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

xxi

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Morgan led her team to successfully position the organization as a leader in addressing key challenges facing families. Additionally, she led the rebrand of Children’s Home Society of Florida in 2017, significantly reshaping the organization’s position in the field of child well-being, and has led the organization’s crisis communication strategies since 2012. She has secured hundreds of earned media placements, and has been published in local, statewide, and national outlets. Morgan has been involved in the Community Partnership SchoolsTM model since its inception, and she was part of the team that led the brand development and identity for the model. She continues to serve on the executive team responsible for model sustainment, strategy, and advancement. Morgan holds national awards for crisis communication and branding, and her team earned the Ragan Communications 2019 National Nonprofit PR Team of the Year. A leader in the public relations profession, Heather currently serves on the Public Relations Society of America National Board of Ethics and Professional Standards. Previously, she served on the Orlando Regional Board of Directors for the Public Relations Society of America for more than a decade, including a term as president, and on the Sunshine District Board of Directors, representing all of Florida, for nearly 10 years, including a term as chair. Palmer Robert joined the UCF Center for Community Schools in January 2020 as the university Assistance Coordinator. In this role, he is responsible for assisting schools as they collaborate with their college and university partners to develop mutually beneficial programs and services to impact students, families, and communities. Prior to joining the center, Palmer worked for Orange County Public Schools, where he held the position of college and career specialist supporting students in developing their post-secondary plans. He also worked for OCPS as a guidance counselor and teacher before becoming a college and career specialist. Born and raised in West Palm Beach, FL, Palmer earned his bachelor’s degree in social science education from Florida State University and his master’s degree in counselor education from the University of Central Florida.

xxii

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Plante Jarrad D., Ed.D., CNP serves as a Unit Leader for AmeriCorps NCCC FEMA Corps. A Realtor and Certified Nonprofit Professional, Plante received his Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership for Higher Education & Policy Studies (HEPS) from the University of Central Florida (UCF). He is an Eagle Scout and an AmeriCorps*NCCC alumnus. His research interests include domestic, international, and the institutionalization of service-learning, community engagement, and national service. His published works include: The Central Florida Service Collective: Connecting National Service to Higher Education to Strengthen Communities; Civic Value of National Service: Ethics to Students; City Year History, Model, and Impact; and Teammates For Life. Plante has won several awards for his scholarship including the Graduate Research Forum as well as the Service-learning Showcase. As a community connector, Plante developed and leads the Central Florida Service Collective—an incubator of service-year programs and partnering organizations for the purpose of collaborating on service-related engagement that positively impacts the community. Vanderpool Curtesa L. Central Florida Area Director for Community Partnership Schools, holds a bachelor’s degree in biology from Oakwood University and a master’s degree in biomedical sciences from Barry University. Although she has always had a love for seeing the world as a better place for all, she gained her passion for children and families as a missionary in college. Vanderpool traveled nationally and internationally with N.A.P.S. (the National Association for the Prevention of Starvation), bringing relief to children and families through housing, feeding, and medical and educational programs. A former educator with Orange County Public Schools, Vanderpool has an extensive background in education and gained additional experience in nonprofit administration by serving as the Assistant Director and then Director at Evans High School, A Community Partnership School. Now in the role of Area Director, she is able to support five of the 21 Children’s Home Society Community Partnership Schools as well as co-lead statewide health care strategies. Vanderpool’s continued mission is to be an Educator and Advocate who inspires individuals to live their best lives. Wheeler Jarvis serves as the Statewide Director of Community Partnership Schools (CPS) at Children’s Home Society of Florida (CHS). Passionate about youth advancement and community development,

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

xxiii

Wheeler has more than a decade of experience in prevention programs and services for under-resourced communities. He holds master’s degrees in both social work and public administration from Florida State University. Prior to his work at CHS, Wheeler served as a high school teacher and led mentor programs throughout Orlando and Tallahassee, FL. Wheeler joined CHS in 2013 serving as the CPS Director of his hometown school, Evans High School, A Community Partnership School, the first of its kind. As Statewide Director, he is responsible for advancing service delivery and coordinating efforts to increase organizational support for CPS with the goal to ultimately improve outcomes for students. Wheeler leads the collective impact strategy at CHS, focused on sustaining and expanding the Community Partnership Schools™ model to create educational equity for students.

List of Figures

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2

Third-year affirmation review Fifth-year re-certification assessment UCF applicants from evans community partnership school Evans applicants to UCF

64 65 84 84

xxv

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3

UCF-certified community partnership schools™ standards Indicator performance rating levels Standard performance rating levels

66 67 67

xxvii

CHAPTER 1

The Community Schools Concept Amy Ellis

Abstract Community schools have a long history dating back to the nineteenth-century settlement houses. Thousands of community schools exist across the globe, with no two exactly alike. Various models and approaches define core partners, scope, context, and purpose differently, but at the core of each is a set of partnerships committed to providing students access to needed services. Evans High School, A Community Partnership School, was the first community school of its kind launched in Florida. A multiple-core-partnership-approach community school, Evans High School was established as a community school in 2010. With statewide interest ignited, the Florida Legislature increased its investment, and in 2014 the University of Central Florida (UCF) Center for Community Schools was established, and Community Partnership School expansion efforts began. As of 2022, Community Partnership Schools have expanded to 29 sites across the state of Florida.

A. Ellis (B) University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. D. Plante and A. Ellis (eds.), Community Partnership Schools, Rethinking University-Community Policy Connections, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16404-0_1

1

2

A. ELLIS

Keywords Community schools · Community partnership schools · Context · Community partnership schools™ model · Social center · Florida legislature · UCF center for community schools

Background of Community Schools Thousands of community schools exist worldwide, with strong community school advancement in Europe, Africa, and North America. In the United States, the Coalition for Community Schools (2017) in Washington, DC, reported that 5000 community schools exist in 44 states and the District of Columbia. Strong community school development can be found in areas such as New York, Nevada, California, Oregon, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida (Dryfoos, 2000; Ellis, 2017; Heers et al., 2016; Oakes et al., 2017). The number of community schools in the United States has increased significantly over the last decade, as shown by the 33 locations reported in 2007 dedicated to the community school strategy compared to the more than 100 communities committed in 2017 (Coalition for Community Schools, 2017). As of 2020, 5000 community schools were reported to the Coalition for Community Schools, with a goal being set by the Coalition of reaching 25,000 community schools by the year 2025 (Community Schools, n.d.). According to the Children’s Aid Society (2011), what community schools share is a mission “to change the role of education in the lives of students, families, and communities, so that underserved youth may be empowered to overcome obstacles and become happy, healthy and productive adults” (p. 6). The definitions of community schools vary widely in the literature and from country to country. Historians, educational theorists, and policy makers have historically defined community schooling in one of two ways, either by their pragmatic components or by the process and philosophy driving the strategy (Crowson & Boyd, 1993; Quinn, 2009; Rogers, 1998). Those defining community schools pragmatically, “point to a set of core elements which a school must enact before it can be considered a community school” (Rogers, 1998, p. 8). For those who define community schools more broadly by the process or philosophy, pragmatic definitions are too narrow. Instead, they use a broader definition to describe community schools not as a program, but as a strategy (Children’s Aid Society, 2011).

1

THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS CONCEPT

3

Though no single global definition exists for community schools, fundamental to most definitions is that community schools engage partners to provide students, families, and communities access to needed resources (Children’s Aid Society, 2011; Coalition for Community Schools, 2017; Dryfoos, 2002; Figlio, 2016; ICECS, 2012; Quinn, 2009). Definitions “replace the understanding of schools as narrow and separate institutions with a more vibrant image of schools as centers of community life” (Rogers, 1998, p. 12). The Coalition for Community Schools, located in the United States, captures the definition of community schools most appropriately and simply for this study as “a place and a set of partnerships connecting a school, family, and community” (Jacobson et al., 2013, p. 5). Varying community school definitions exist in the literature, but central to each definition is that community schools partner to leverage resources and harness their communities to address the unmet needs of students, families, and the community (Coalition for Community Schools, 2017; Figlio, 2016; ICECS, 2012; Oakes et al., 2017; Quinn, 2009). The Coalition for Community Schools has defined community schools as “both a place and a set of partnerships between the school and other community resources, with an integrated focus on academics, health and social services, youth and community development, and community engagement” (Jacobson et al., 2013, p. 5). Low socioeconomic communities in the United States often lack the high-quality education, social, and health resources necessary for children and adolescents to thrive (Children’s Aid Society, 2011). Children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are often exposed to difficulties that create disadvantages in their education (Heers et al., 2016). Schools are then tasked with having to work through barriers that originate outside the context of the school (e.g., trauma from community violence and abuse, student learning limitations, and deprivation). Community schools take a comprehensive and integrated approach to provide services in schools to improve outcomes for these children and their families. They partner with youth organizations, health clinics, social service agencies, food banks, higher education institutions, businesses, and others to meet student academic and nonacademic needs. Community schools provide a comprehensive approach to addressing barriers and concerns, utilizing some variation on an underlying assumption: If schools provide comprehensive services to address nonacademic barriers and concerns faced by students in low-resourced communities, the potential for teaching and

4

A. ELLIS

learning will be more fully realized. Ultimately, teaching and learning will provide opportunities for students to succeed academically, graduate from high school, and have opportunities for positive engagement after high school, and society will comprise adults who meet life situations with resilience (Children’s Aid Society, 2011).

History of Community Schools in America Though often marketed as a new idea, the community school concept has a long history dating back to the late nineteenth century when the first settlement houses were established (Benson et al., 2009; Children’s Aid Society, 2011; Dryfoos, 2002; Prout, 1977; Rogers, 1998). “They are based on two premises: that the purpose of schooling is to educate youth for democratic citizenship, and that schools and communities are inextricably intertwined and interdependent” (Benson et al., 2009, p. 22). The Children’s Aid Society (2011) noted three other significant eras of community schools marked by growth of and investment in the community school strategy: the 1930s, the 1960s, and the late 1980s and early 1990s when numerous national models were developed. In 1988, Rogers wrote, “Community schooling seems to rise and fall in salience every generation. It is an idea which has been continually ‘rediscovered’—by educators, community activists, policy makers, and presidents” (p. 6). The settlement house movement began in Britain when Canon Samuel Barnett and his wife, Henrietta, founded the first East End London settlement house, Toynbee Hall, in 1884 (Benson et al., 2009; Bhavnagri & Krolikowski, 2000). Settlement houses began as neighborhood centers formed in impoverished areas in which Britain’s affluent would settle, learn about the conditions of the poor residents, and assist them by connecting resources to those in need (United Neighborhood Houses, 2018). Joining the settlement house movement, the United States founded University Settlement Society in 1886 (United Neighborhood Houses, 2018). Located in the lower east side of New York City, this first American settlement house served the flood of immigrants living in poverty and struggling to acclimate to the country. The University Settlement Society became a center of living where residents of all ages could access education, resources, and social assistance for their needs (United Neighborhood Houses, 2018). “The educated reformers from the upper class, who were called ‘residents’ or ‘settlement workers’... moved into working-class neighborhoods in the congested cities where they actively

1

THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS CONCEPT

5

promoted community development through regularly visiting homes and businesses” (Bhavnagri & Krolikowski, 2000, p. 12). By 1913, professionals, affluent volunteers, and college-aged upperclass idealists gained exposure and aided the poor in more than 400 settlements throughout the United States (Addams, 1909, 1910; Husock, 1992). Of these 400 settlements, Chicago’s Hull House was one of the most well-known settlement houses (Addams, 1910; Bhavnagri & Krolikowski, 2000; Husock, 1992; Seaman, 2017). Established in 1889 by Jane Addams (the first woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931) and Ellen Gates Starr, Hull House primarily served recently arrived European immigrants, though anyone could access the offerings of the settlement (Addams, 1909, 1910; Benson et al., 2009; Children’s Aid Society, 2011; Husock, 1992). Hull House provided clubs for both adults and children, food, arts and crafts, dancing, library services, and employment assistance (Addams, 1909, 1910; Husock, 1992). “Organized children’s theatre in the United States began in the settlement houses in New York City and Chicago. Social activists like Jane Addams realized that live theatre offered an ideal way to bring diverse groups of uprooted immigrant children together and to teach them communication and social skills as well as literature and language” (Mercogliano, 1988, p. 17). Many early settlement houses were formally or informally connected to universities, others to churches (Addams, 1909; Husock, 1992). Some settlements focused largely on social supports, while others worked to improve the quality of lives through education (Bhavnagri & Krolikowski, 2000; Husock, 1992; Keith, 1999; Moore, 1987). Though service providers were a part of the early delivery model, settlements of this time “focused on treating the poor as citizens, not clients” (Husock, 1992, p. 55). In the early 1900s, changes were significant in American society due to the increasing numbers of immigrants, industrialization, and child labor laws (Fusarelli & Lindle, 2011). Educators and social reformers believed schools were not functioning as they should, so some focused on the relationship between the school and community, campaigning to bring needed social and health resources to the schools and to atrisk children (Children’s Aid Society, 2011; Dryfoos, 1994; Fusarelli & Lindle, 2011; Prout, 1977; Rogers, 1998). American philosopher and educational reformer John Dewey, “whose ideas about education and

6

A. ELLIS

democracy were directly influenced by Addams and Hull House” (Benson et al., 2009, p. 24), wrote in his powerful 1902 essay, The School as Social Centre: The feeling that the school is not doing all that it should do in simply giving instruction during the day to a certain number of children of different ages, the demand that it shall assume a wider scope of activities having an educative effect upon the adult members of the community, has its basis just here: We are feeling everywhere the organic unity of the different modes of social life, and consequently demand that the school shall be related more widely, shall receive from more quarters, and shall give in more directions. (p. 2)

It was noted by Dryfoos (2002) that “John Dewey brought the school into the community and Jane Addams brought the community into the schools” (p. 394). World War I negatively impacted support for community school innovations, and the rise of the professional social worker in the 1920s diminished the settlements’ volunteer approach to providing resources for the poor (Benson et al., 2009; Fusarelli & Lindle, 2011; Husock, 1992). Americans’ concerns that social services imbedded in schools would dilute the academic focus increased, and fears of socialism rose (Fusarelli & Lindle, 2011). The community school approach gained favor again in the 1930s when fears of socialism subsided and a focus returned to the whole child (Benson et al., 2009; Fusarelli & Lindle, 2011; Prout, 1977). This began the second generation of community schools, as defined by Children’s Aid Society (2011). The term, community school, began to be used in the 1930s when referring to schools that used their educational facilities to offer community resource services to members of the community (Prout, 1977). Against the backdrop of the Great Depression, Eleanor Roosevelt, a supporter of John Dewey’s perspective on education, envisioned a school as the center of a community (Parker, 1991). In 1934, Roosevelt appointed Elsie Ripley Clapp as Community School Director to build a community school in Arthurdale, WV (Moyer, 2009; Parker, 1991; Stack, 1999). Clapp was an associate of John Dewey and had made significant contributions to community schooling and progressive childcentered education (Moyer, 2009; Parker, 1991; Stack, 1999). Under Clapp’s direction, Auburndale opened a community school in 1934, but

1

THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS CONCEPT

7

it closed two years later when funds to sustain the effort could not be secured (Parker, 1991). In 1935, a start to a long-term partnership began between Charles Stewart Mott, an engineer and philanthropist, and Frank J. Manley, a Flint, MI, educator and city recreation leader (Campbell, 1972; Decker, 1999; Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002). Mott believed schools should be used by the community when not in use by the school (Benson et al, 2009). After Manley gave a speech about community-driven programming to the Flint Rotary Club, the two men teamed to deliver community education and recreation programs (Campbell, 1972; Decker, 1999). Mott contributed $6000 from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation to Flint public schools to encourage the use of school facilities, and the two men initiated the “lighted schools” community school (Dryfoos, 2002; Prout, 1977). Initially, Manley and Mott’s work focused narrowly on lessening the delinquency of juveniles by offering recreational activities during non-school hours in school facilities. Their shared vision eventually evolved into years of partnering on community school development and advancing the principles of community schools (Campbell, 1972; Decker, 1999; Dryfoos, 2002). The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation has, since its inception, invested steadily and significantly to advance the community school concept nationally and internationally (Children’s Aid Society, 2011; Rogers, 1998). By the 1940s, most cities provided residents with public health services, with many being delivered by the schools (Fusarelli & Lindle, 2011). The 1950s brought desegregation orders for U.S. schools; and during the 1960s, community control efforts drove the decentralization of many school systems (Kane, 2007; McNeal, 2009). The government was involved in the delivery of health services, but questions surfaced about who should pay for and receive these services (Fusarelli & Lindle, 2011). The Children’s Aid Society (2011) noted that the 1960s marked the third generation of major community school investment and growth. In 1964, then-President Lyndon Johnson initiated a national campaign, the “War on Poverty,” which significantly increased school-based social service funding (Fusarelli & Lindle, 2011). Under Johnson’s leadership and as the driver of his War on Poverty, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed in 1965. This legislation dedicated significant federal funding to schools that served low-income, high-needs students, bringing education into the forefront to minimize the effects of poverty

8

A. ELLIS

(Paul, 2016; Seaman, 2017). Title I is a provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which continues at present to distribute federal funds to schools with high percentages of students from low-income families (Paul, 2016). Much of the legislation enacted during the Johnson administration from 1963 to 1969, including Medicaid, Medicare, and Head Start, still shapes the current delivery of social services (Fusarelli & Lindle, 2011), and Title I funding has continued to be used by schools to advance community school efforts across the country in the twenty-first century (Coalition for Community Schools, 2017; Frankl, 2016). President Richard Nixon did not support coordinated school-based services through his presidency in the first half of the 1970s, vetoing the Comprehensive Child Development Act that would have provided funding for universal child care (Fusarelli & Lindle, 2011). In 1975, under President Gerald Ford, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was signed into law, requiring all public schools to provide equal access to education and one free meal to students with disabilities (Fusarelli & Lindle, 2011). In 1983, President Ronald Reagan presented A Nation at Risk, a report that was commissioned to evaluate the state of education in America. In a Study.com (2014) update, A Nation at Risk: Summary & Effects on Education, the report described an education system that was “falling apart,” failing on a wide range of issues including teacher quality, academic achievement, graduation, and literacy. “Concern about prevention of adolescent morbidity (sex, drugs, violence, and stress) led to the establishment by outside public health agencies and hospitals of primary health-care clinics in the schools, mostly in secondary schools” (Dryfoos, 2002, p. 395). Following secondary schools, elementary schools soon added school-based health clinics, mental health counseling, and parent resource centers to support families and their children, a model later known as full-service schools (Dryfoos, 2002). The late 1980s and early 1990s marked the fourth era of significant community school momentum (Children’s Aid Society, 2011). By the mid-1980s, private foundations such as the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Anne E. Casey Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, and the Dewitt Wallace-Reader’s Digest Foundation became active in advancing and broadening community school collaborations and interagency strategies (Fusarelli & Lindle, 2011). The community school concept grew with the development of several national models (Beacons, Bridges to Success, CAS community schools, and university-assisted community schools). All

1

THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS CONCEPT

9

of these initiatives “appear to have been created in direct response to research about the educational struggles of children living in poverty and concerted calls to action by advocacy and philanthropic organizations” (Children’s Aid Society, 2011, p. 5). In 1991, Florida created the concept and enacted the first landmark full-service school legislation integrating comprehensive educational, medical, and social services on a school campus (Dryfoos, 1996, 2002). Florida used state funding to relocate service providers to schools where programs could be delivered to meet the needs of students and families (Dryfoos, 1996, 2002). Other states followed with large-scale initiatives providing health and mental health services in the schools (Dryfoos, 2002). During this fourth generation of community school advancement, two national community school organizations were established. After opening its first two community schools in Washington Heights, NY, in 1992 and 1993, the Children’s Aid Society founded the National Center for Community Schools in 1994 in response to the growing interest in community schools (Children’s Aid Society, 2011). The National Center for Community Schools offers technical assistance and consultation to developing community school initiatives (Children’s Aid Society, 2011). In 1997, after only four people attended a break-out community school session at a school reform conference in Memphis, TN, Joy Dryfoos, Pete Moses from Children’s Aid Society, and Ira Harkavy from University of Pennsylvania made a decision over dinner to form a coalition for community schools to reach the educational community (Children’s Aid Society, 2011; Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002). By 1998, an emerging Coalition for Community Schools was established at the Institute for Educational Leadership in Washington, DC, after hiring Founding Director Martin Blank (Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002), who by 2001 had provided the leadership to partner with more than 170 national organizations in the community school movement (Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002). The Coalition for Community Schools has been described as “an alliance of national, state, and local organizations that helps build awareness and understanding of community schools, advocates for supportive public policies and helps promote research and disseminate knowledge among its members and other organizations” (Children’s Aid Society, 2011, p. 6). The U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Justice Department released a report in 1998, “Safe and Smart: Making the After-School Hours Work for Kids,” which claimed that after-school programming

10

A. ELLIS

was a remedy against juvenile crime and victimization (Simpson, 2012). President Bill Clinton and Mott Foundation President William White announced support for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program in 1998 (Rogers, 1998). By 2001, the program budget increased to $845.6 million. In 2002, President George Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, a law reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (NCLB, 2002). The major focus of NCLB was to close the student achievement gaps by increasing accountability (Blank et al., 2003; Seaman, 2017; Tagle, 2005). According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002), for states to receive federal funding, rigorous academic standards had to be adopted, and students were required to participate in annual assessments (NCLB, 2002; Seaman, 2017). The NCLB Act exposed the growing achievement gap in the United States and, in response, raised the question of how to create environments in which all children, particularly those historically underserved, could succeed (Coalition for Community Schools, 2003; Tagle, 2005). Many educators were realizing they “need[ed] parents and other community leaders to work with them, not just to raise student test scores but, more important[ly], to develop a community vision of successful, positive outcomes for children and youth” (Tagle, 2005, p. 45). The first two decades of the twenty-first century brought increased growth of community school development across the United States (Coalition for Community Schools, 2017; Martinez et al., 2013) as the great recession during the late 2000s and early 2010s increased the strain on families and the need for additional programs and services (Fusarelli & Lindle, 2011). The rising poverty had a tremendous impact on schools, especially those ill-equipped to respond to social service needs (Jacobson et al., 2013). Oakes et al. (2017) commented, “With inequality and child poverty on the rise, community schools have garnered increased attention as a school improvement strategy in high-poverty neighborhoods” (p. 3). In 2007, the Coalition for Community Schools reported 33 places across the nation operating community schools, and in 2017 more than 100 regions were counted (Coalition for Community Schools, 2017). In 2013, 5000 community schools were reported in 44 states and the District of Columbia (Martinez et al., 2013); and in 2017, the Coalition for Community Schools reported the number of community schools to be “7500 and growing” (p. 4).

1

THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS CONCEPT

11

The federal government increased promotion of and investments in the community school strategy beginning in 2000. In 2008, $5 million was allocated to full-service schools through the U.S. Department of Education to provide education, social, and health services to students, families, and communities (Bireda, 2009); in 2017, $10 million was allocated; and in FY2018, $17,500,000 was allocated (Coalition for Community Schools, 2017; U.S. Department of Education, 2018). The 21st Century Community Learning Centers, which fund extended day programming for students in schools, also received increased funding in FY2018 by $20 million by the federal government, up to a total of $1.21 billion (Coalition for Community Schools, 2017). Responding to the economic crisis of 2009 and the need for additional services, President Barack Obama’s administration “prioritized the building and support of community schools by providing monies from the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009, or Stimulus Package” (Fusarelli & Lindle, 2011, pp. 406–407). In 2014, the Full-Service Community Schools Act of 2014 was introduced by Congress (H.R. 5168, 2014), and in 2015, the Supporting Community Schools Act of 2015 was introduced “to provide state educational agencies and local educational agencies with the funding, flexibility, and support necessary to implement a research— and evidence-based community school model” (H.R. 718, 2015). With increased understanding of inequities in under-resourced communities during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020–2021, a significant increase in federal resources became available to support schools and local communities by way of such efforts as the Covid-19 Economic Relief Funds and the Full-Service Schools Grant (Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2021; U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Several states also increasingly promoted and invested in community schools in the first two decades of the twenty-first century (Biag & Castrechini, 2016; Coalition for Community Schools, 2017). Illinois added community schools to its state school code in 2009, writing “Community schools have a powerful positive impact on students, as demonstrated by increased academic success, a positive change in attitudes toward school and learning, and decreased behavioral problems” (Illinois Public Act 096-0746, 2009). In 2015, 12 bills were implemented across nine states for community schools (Coalition for Community Schools, 2017). In 2016, Maryland passed a law that required the Department of Education (a) to provide community school technical assistance and (b) to notify school districts that Title I funds could be used for community school

12

A. ELLIS

activity (Coalition for Community Schools, 2017). In 2017, the Florida Legislature allocated, through the Schools of Hope program, up to $2000 per student for community school strategies as a turn-around solution for persistently low performing schools: A traditional public school that is required to submit a plan for implementation pursuant to s. 1008.33 (4) is eligible to receive up to $2000 per full-time equivalent student from the Schools of Hope program based upon the strength of the school’s plan for implementation and its focus on evidence-based interventions that lead to student success by providing wraparound services that leverage community assets, improve school and community collaboration, and develop family and community partnerships. (H.B. 7069, 2017, p. 213)

In 2019, the Florida Legislature furthered support of community schools by approving policy specific to community schools, to include Community Partnership Schools, and by committing increased recurring funding for community school expansion. This policy, the Community School Grant Program (S.B. 7070, 1003.64), defines in statute community schools, the requirements for initiatives applying for grant funds under the program, the UCF Center for Community Schools, and reporting obligations back to the state (S.B. 7070).

The Start of Evans High School as The Flagship The power of partnership was evident in Florida when the University of Central Florida (UCF) and Children’s Home Society of Florida came together in 2009 with the intent of eliminating institutional silos to make greater impact in schools and communities. Aligning organizational missions and visions for better futures, the CEO of Children’s Home Society of Florida, the dean of UCF’s College of Health and Public Affairs, and the director of UCF’s Center for Community Partnerships explored community schooling as a solution to provide better access to needed resources in Florida’s schools and communities. After visiting the National Center for Community Schools and touring multiple community schools in New York, the partners returned convinced of the concept’s potential and committed to implement a community school in Florida. Following numerous discussions with Central Florida school districts, school principals, hospitals, health-care providers, and funders, Maynard

1

THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS CONCEPT

13

Evans High School in the Pine Hills area of Orlando was identified as the implementation site for the first community school of its kind in Florida. In 2010, following much discussion and planning, UCF, the Children’s Home Society of Florida and Orange County Public Schools signed a long-term memorandum of understanding (MOU) to establish a partnership to lead the development of a community school in Orange County. Two years later, these partners were joined by an additional core partner: Central Florida Family Health Center, a federally qualified health center (FQHC). During the 2010–2011 school year, Evans High School was a Title I high school, serving an estimated 2500 students in grades 9–12 (FDOE, 2018). FDOE data showed that 100% of students were on free or reduced lunch plans. Minority enrollment at the school was 98%, with 85% of students self-reporting as Black. More than 12% of the students were enrolled in an English for other languages (ESOL) program as non-English-speaking students, most of these Creole-speaking Haitian students. Between 1999 and 2010, the school received Florida school performance grades of F four times, and grades of D seven times. In 2006–2007, the school had a graduation rate of less than 50% and was considered a dropout factory (Sparks, 2018). In the 2010–2011 school year, only 18% of the school’s students scored at a level of proficiency or higher in reading. The school began transitioning the high school to a community school (Community Partnership Schools™) in 2010–2011 to improve academic, attendance, graduation, and behavior measures. The planning stage for Evans as a community school began in August 2010 with the first community school coordinator/senior administrator hired by the school district to align Evans’ school operational components (later known as pillars) and to develop processes to implement additional programs and services. The first community school director was hired through the nonprofit partner during the 2011–2012 school year to further implementation efforts, and Evans High School officially announced it had become a community school during a grand opening ceremony in August 2012.

14

A. ELLIS

Statewide Developments Since the long-term strategic partnership between UCF and Children’s Home Society of Florida (CHS) began in 2009, many statewide developments have taken place. Evans High School was established as a community school in 2010. Over the next three years, Evans’ metrics of improved graduation rates and school grades, decreased disciplinary incidents, and improved attendance ignited interest across the state. Working together at a statewide level, UCF and CHS committed resources to sustain and expand the impact of community schools in Florida. With increased interest by legislators in Tallahassee and by communities across the state, the Florida Legislature appropriated funds in 2014–2015 through the University of Central Florida to establish the UCF Center for Community Schools as the technical assistance provider and to provide planning grant funds to Florida communities interested in replicating the Evans High School community school effort. In the fall of 2014, UCF’s Center for Community Schools and Child Welfare Innovation was founded, a name later shortened to UCF Center for Community Schools. For replication purposes, the community school concept that began implementation at Evans High School in 2010 was defined as a model in 2016, renamed as a “Community Partnership School.” Originally housed in the College of Health and Public Affairs, UCF Center for Community Schools was realigned with UCF’s College of Community Innovation and Education in 2017 during the university’s college reorganization. While statewide community interest in developing Community Partnership Schools outgrew legislative funding initially, with greater understanding of the impact, Florida legislators increased funding and defined community school policy to institutionalize and ensure greater expansion of the model throughout Florida. From the 2014–2015 to 2017–2018 school years, a total of $4,085,000 was invested by the Florida Legislature for community school expansion. Another $1.4 million was appropriated in 2018–2019. In 2019, the Florida Legislature defined the Community School Grant Program through policy (S.B. 7070, 1003.64), committing increased funds ($7.1 million) for expansion of community schools in the 2019–2020 fiscal year. Community school grants were provided to 11 new sites in 2019, expanding the initiative from 15 to 26 sites across the state. The same level of funding ($7.1 million) was committed in

1

THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS CONCEPT

15

FY2020–2021 and 2021–2022, further anchoring Community Partnership Schools into the fabric of Florida’s schools and communities. As of 2022, Community Partnership School sites have grown to 29 sites across Florida.

UCF Center for Community Schools Established in 2014, the UCF Center for Community Schools is an integral part of the College of Community Innovation and Education at UCF. Partnering to address complex social issues through innovative engagement of schools and communities, the UCF Center for Community Schools provides technical support and grant administration to schools and communities interested in the Community Partnerships Schools™ model during scale-up, and helps to advance community schools broadly. The UCF Center for Community Schools serves as a comprehensive resource to community schools, providing technical assistance, assessment and evaluation, university assistance, and learning and development opportunities to ensure the highest quality community schools are implemented. Committed to high quality and partnership, and to ensuring that responsibility and continuous improvement are collaboratively shared, the center facilitates statewide networks to encourage cross-institutional alignment and communication, knowledge and practice exchange, and systems-wide advancement. Directors, coordinators, administrators, and partners meet regularly throughout the year to discuss innovations, challenges, and strategies to better implement community schools and to serve students and families. Working committees form to advance critical needs of larger steering groups to most effectively and collectively reflect on celebrations and address common challenges experienced in the field. Practice-based and research-informed decisions are at the core of UCF Center for Community Schools’ functions and processes, intentionally driving innovation and community school advancement.

16

A. ELLIS

UCF Center for Community Schools and Children’s Home Society of Florida as Strategic Partners Since 2009, the advancement of Florida’s Community Partnership School efforts has been propelled by a strategic partnership between UCF and Children’s Home Society of Florida (CHS). After multiple changes in leadership and organizational developments within each organization, UCF’s Center for Community Schools and CHS formalized their partnership through an MOU in 2021. Sharing responsibility for statewide strategy, sustainability, and expansion, UCF Center for Community Schools and CHS continue to work collectively to advance community school efforts and to provide the highest quality coordinated programs and services to students, families, and communities across the state. Together, innovative community school advancements in systems-level and practice-based solutions are blended and forwarded to improve community schooling more broadly.

Conclusion Community schools have a long history dating back to the late nineteenth century. Existing worldwide, community schools have localized functions, but core to all community schools is the harnessing of collective partners to provide access to needed resources for students, families, and communities. With understanding of community schools across the country, support and commitment of resources have ebbed and flowed in the form of grant programs and policy at federal and state levels. The Community Partnership Schools™ (CPS) model community school was piloted at Evans High School in Orlando, FL, in 2010. Positive trends for student outcomes at Evans ignited interest across the state, and over the next several years the initiative had great advancement in support and expansion. As of 2022, 29 Community Partnership Schools were being implemented across the state of Florida, a number that continues to grow with understanding and exposure to the impact of the model.

1

THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS CONCEPT

17

References Addams, J. (1909). The spirit of youth and the city streets. Macmillan. Reissued by the University of Illinois Press in 1972. Addams, J. (1910). Twenty years at Hull-House. Macmillan. Applicant info and eligibility. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2021, April 16). https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-discretionary-grantssupport-services/school-choice-improvement-programs/full-service-commun ity-schools-program-fscs/applicant-info-and-eligibility/ Benson, L., Harkavy, I., Johanek, M., & Puckett, J. (2009). The enduring appeal of community schools: Education has always been a community endeavor. American Educator, 33(2), 22–29. Bhavnagri, H., & Krolikowski, S. (2000). Home-community visits during the era of reform (1870–1920). Early Childhood Research and Practice, 2(1), 2–36. 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, 21(3), 157–173. Bireda, S. (2009). A look at community schools. Center for American Progress. http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/iss ues/2009/10/pdf/community_schools.pdf Blank, M., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in community schools executive summary. Coalition for Community Schools Institute for Educational Leadership. Campbell, C. (1972). Contributions of the mott foundation to the community education movement. The Phi Delta Kappan, 54(3), 195–197. CARES Act Emergency Relief. U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). CARES act emergency relief . https://www.ed.gov/coronavirus/cares-act-emergencyrelief Children’s Aid Society. (2011). Building community schools: A guide for action. The Children’s Aid Society. Coalition for Community Schools. (2017). Community schools: A whole-child framework for school improvement. Institute for Educational Leadership. http://www.communityschools.org/resources/default.aspx Community Schools. (n.d.). 25,000 Community Schools by 2025. https://www. communityschools.org/ Crowson, R. L., & Boyd, W. L. (1993). Structures and strategies: Toward an understanding of alternative models for coordinated children’s services. https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED400349.pdf Decker, L. (1999). The evolution of the community school concept: The leadership of Frank J. Manley. National Community Education Publication Series. National Community Education Association. Dryfoos, J. (1994). Full-service schools: A revolution in health and social services for children, youth, and families. Jossey-Bass.

18

A. ELLIS

Dryfoos, J. G. (1996). Full-service schools. Working constructively with families. Educational Leadership, 53(7), 18–23. http://www.ascd.org/publicati ons/educational_leadership/apr96/vol53/num07/Full-Service_Schools.aspx Dryfoos, J. (2000). Evaluation of community schools: Findings to date. Coalition for Community Schools. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED450204 Dryfoos, J. (2002). Full-service community schools: Creating new institutions. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 393–400. Dryfoos, J., & Maguire, S. (2002). Inside full-service schools. Sage. Ellis, A. (2017). Community partnership schools handbook: A manual for development. University of Central Florida. Figlio, D. (2016). A preliminary evaluation of the Evans community school and the extant literature on community schools. Northwestern University. https://www.cohpa.ucf.edu/communityschools/wp-content/uploads/sites/ 15/2017/04/evans_community_school_evaluation_with_exec_summary_-_ jan_2016.pdf Florida Department of Education [FDOE]. (2018). Historical accountability reports. http://www.fldoe.org/accountability/data-sys/edu-info-acc ountability-services/pk-12-public-school-data-pubs-reports/index.stml Frankl, E. (2016, February 10). Transforming struggling schools into thriving schools. Center for Popular Democracy. https://www.populardemocracy.org/ news/publications/community-schools-transforming-struggling-schools-thr iving-schools Full-Service Community Schools Act of 2014, H.R. 5168, 113th Cong. (2014). https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5168 Fusarelli, B. C., & Lindle, J. C. (2011). The politics, problems, and potential promise of school-linked social services: Insights and new directions from the work of William Lowe Boyd. Peabody Journal of Education, 86(4), 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2011.597270 H.B. 7069. (Fl. 2017). https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/7069/? Tab=BillHistory 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, 1016–1051. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465 4315627365 Husock, H. (1992). Bringing back the settlement house. The Public Interest, 109, 53–72. Illinois Public Act 096–0746. (Il. 2009). https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/pub licacts/fulltext.asp?Name=096-0746 International Centre of Excellence for Community Schools (ICECS). (2012). Community schools. http://www.icecsweb.org/community-schools Jacobson, R., Jacobson, L., & Blank, M. (2013). Building blocks: An examination of the collaborative approach community schools are using to bolster early

1

THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS CONCEPT

19

childhood development. Coalition for Community Schools. http://www.com munityschools.org/about/publications_resources_tools_.aspx Kane, K. (2007). Empowerment schools. Center for Educational Innovation. Keith, N. (1999). Whose community schools? New discourses, old patterns. Theory into Practice, 38(4), 225–234. Martinez, L., Hayes, C., & Silloway, T. (2013). Measuring social return on investment for community schools: A practical guide. The Finance Project. McNeal, L. (2009). The re-segregation of public education now and after the end of Brown v. Board of Education. Education and Urban Society, 4(5), 562–574. https://doi.org/10.11770013124509333578 Mercogliano, C. (1988). Children’s theatre as education. In M. M. Laue (Ed.), Skole: The Journal of the National Coalition of Alternative Community Schools, 1988–1992 (pp. 14–18). National Coalition of Alternative Community Schools. Moore, D. T. (1987, August). Urban resources as educators—Equal opportunity review. National Institute of Education (DHEW). Moyer, D. (2009). The gendered boundaries of child-centered education: Elsie Ripley Clapp and the history of U.S. progressive education. Gender and Education, 21(5), 531–547. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). (2002). https://www2.ed.gov/ nclb/landing.jhtml Oakes, J., Maier, A., & Daniel, J. (2017). Community schools: An evidencebased strategy for equitable school improvement. National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/equitablecommunity-schools Parker, F. (1991). Arthurdale (WV), Its community school, and director Elsie Ripley Clapp (1879–1965); First New Deal subsistence homestead program (1933–1948), 141, 13. Reports—Descriptive. Paul, C. A. (2016). Elementary and secondary education act of 1965: Social Welfare History Project. http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/edu cation/elementary-and-secondary-education-act-of-1965/ Prout, P. (1977). Community schools in Canada. The Canadian Education Association. Quinn, J. (2009). Community schools: A strategy, not a program. Research Brief. National Education Association Visiting Scholars Series, Vol. 2. Rogers, J. S. (1998). Community schools: Lessons from the past and present. Unpublished manuscript. https://www.communityschoolsinstitute.org/upl oads/1/0/1/9/101990890/rogers_onhistoryofcommunitschools.pdf S. B. 7070. (Fl. 2019). https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2019/07070 Seaman, R. (2017). When we all win: A guide for adopting the community schools model: An action report submitted to the faculty of the college of social sciences and public policy. Florida State University.

20

A. ELLIS

Simpson, S. (2012). A brief history of 21st century community learning centers. After School Alliance Website. http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/afterscho olSnack/A-Brief-History-of-21st-Century-Community-Learning-Centers_0625-2012.cfm Sparks, S. D. (2018). Study points to fewer ‘dropout factory’ schools. Education Week Newsletter. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/11/30/ 14grad.h30.html Stack, S. (1999, April). Elsie Ripley Clapp and the Arthurdale Schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Study.com/ A nation at risk: Summary & effects on education. (2014, Aug 25). https://study.com/academy/lesson/a-nation-at-risk-summary-eff ects-on-education.html Supporting Community Schools Act of 2015, H.R. 718, 114th Cong. (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/718 Tagle, R. (2005). Full-service community schools: Cause and outcome of public engagement. New Directions for Youth Development, 107, 45–54. Wiley Periodicals. U.S. Department of Education. (2018) Apply for a grant website. https:// www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html?src=banner-button& queries%5Bsearch%5D=community+school United Neighborhood Houses. (2018). Settlement house history. http://www. unhny.org/about/history

CHAPTER 2

The Role Universities Play in Primary and Secondary Schools: University-Assisted Community Schools and Community Partnership Schools Donnie Hale and Robert Palmer

Abstract The University of Central Florida Center for Community Schools is dedicated to the development and sustainability of impactful community schools. The center serves as a comprehensive resource for Community Partnership School sites in Florida, across the nation, and around the world by offering the following services: technical assistance; grant management; training and development; and assessment and

D. Hale (B) Florida Memorial University, Miami Gardens, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected] R. Palmer University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. D. Plante and A. Ellis (eds.), Community Partnership Schools, Rethinking University-Community Policy Connections, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16404-0_2

21

22

D. HALE AND R. PALMER

evaluation. The UCF Center for Community Schools has taken best practices from various community school approaches and a clearinghouse of other sources to support the implementation of community schools in Florida. It is the fundamental belief of the center that community schools are an approach to respond to educational crisis. As a technical assistance center housed at an institution of higher education, the center recognizes the great benefit of aligning college or university resources to provide assistance that enhances learning and additional supports (i.e., wellness supports, family and community engagement, collaborative leadership) for improved student educational outcomes. Through the involvement of college or university core partners at each Community Partnership School site, an approach grounded in the larger strategy of university-assisted community schools, partnerships can be developed across academic disciplines providing benefits for all parties involved. Keywords University-assisted community schools · College/university partner · University-community partnerships · Netter Center

University-Assisted Community School Historical Context The university-assisted community school approach was developed by the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) with its school and community partners in West Philadelphia in 1985. Since then, the Netter Center for Community Partnerships at Penn has developed partnerships with universities and colleges across the country to advance university-assisted community school partnerships that include support and knowledge exchange on key topics such as college access, nutrition and health, science, technology, engineering, math, arts and culture, education and citizenship, poverty and race, anchor institutions, and perspectives from university and college presidents. The university-assisted community school approach is grounded in John Dewey’s theory that the neighborhood school can function as the core neighborhood institution that provides comprehensive services, galvanizes other community institutions and groups, and helps solve the myriad problems schools and communities confront in a rapidly changing

2

THE ROLE UNIVERSITIES PLAY IN PRIMARY …

23

world. Building on Dewey’s ideas, Harkavy and Hodges (2013) suggest that all colleges and universities should make solving the problem of the American schooling system a very high institutional priority. Their contributions to its solution should count heavily both in assessing their institutional performance (by themselves and others) and be a critical factor when responding to their requests for renewed or increased resources and financial support. Community schools bring together multiple organizations and their resources not only to serve and educate young people, but also to democratically engage all members of the community in which the school is located. Essentially, this idea extends and updates Dewey’s theory. Dewey recognized that if the neighborhood school were to function as a genuine community center, it would require additional human resources and support. But to our knowledge, he never identified universities as a key source of broadly based, sustained, comprehensive support for community schools. “University-assisted” is emphasized because colleges and universities are uniquely well positioned to provide strategic, comprehensive, and sustained support for community schools (e.g., academic and instructional resources, health and human services, college-access programs, and evaluation) that effectively engages students, their parents and guardians—indeed all individuals living in the neighborhood (Benson et al., 2007; Harkavy & Hodges, 2013). Based on their work in West Philadelphia, Harkavy and Hodges (2013) suggest the university-assisted community school strategy assumes that community schools, like colleges and universities, can function as focal points to help create and foster healthy urban environments and democratically engaged communities. The strategy also assumes that universities and colleges function best in urban environments with democratically engaged communities. More specifically, the strategy assumes that public elementary, middle, and high schools can function as environmentchanging institutions and can become strategic centers of broadly based partnerships that engage a wide variety of community organizations and institutions (Harkavy and Hartley, 2009). Because public schools “belong” to all members of the community, they should serve all members of the community. More than any other institution, public schools are particularly well suited to serve as neighborhood “hubs” or “centers” around which local partnerships can be generated and developed. When they play that innovative role, schools function as community institutions par excellence. They then provide a decentralized, democratic,

24

D. HALE AND R. PALMER

community-based response to community problems. In the process, they help young people learn better, and at increasingly higher levels through action-oriented, collaborative, real-world activities (Harkavy & Hodges, 2013). For public schools to function successfully as integrating community institutions, however, local, state, and federal governments, as well as nongovernmental agencies, must be effectively coordinated. The assets of higher educational institutions also must be strategically leveraged to provide the significant resources community schools need to play the greatly expanded roles that we envision them playing in American society (Harkavy & Hodges, 2013). When institutions of higher education give very high priority to actively solving real-world problems in their local communities, a much greater likelihood exists that they will significantly advance research, teaching, learning, and service, as well as interdisciplinary collaboration, and simultaneously reduce what Penn’s founder Benjamin Franklin stigmatized in 1789 as “ancient Customs and Habitudes” that impede the development of mutually beneficial, higher education civic partnerships (Harkavy and Hartley, 2009). More specifically, by focusing on solving universal problems in their local communities (such as poverty, poor schooling, inadequate health care, etc.), institutions of higher education will generate knowledge that is both nationally and globally significant and will be better able to realize what we view as their primary mission of contributing to a healthy democratic society (Harkavy & Hodges, 2013). The UCF Center for Community Schools promotes the development of the Community Partnership School™ model that includes four core partners: a school district, a nonprofit, a health care provider, and a college or university. Broadly, core partners tend to have natural alignments with one of the four pillars for community school success (i.e., health care partners and wellness supports), but due to their positioning as institutions of higher education, college and university partners can be dynamic in their support to sites across multiple pillar areas. There is a long history of methods that bring universities into community schools to create change through partnerships, such as those at the University of Pennsylvania. To understand more about the Community Partnership Schools™ model, one must understand the benefits and intricacies of university-assisted community schools, and why the involvement of a university is so beneficial to students, families, and communities.

2

THE ROLE UNIVERSITIES PLAY IN PRIMARY …

25

In 1985, when Ira Harkavy and the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) began work in West Philadelphia on university-community relationships, local schools and the university were not engaged in a strategic partnership, nor did they envision the structural components of urban development and engagement. Much like today’s rapid urbanization and gentrification, universities, schools, and communities in Philadelphia were experiencing changes and unanticipated consequences as a result of those changes. These included increased blight, crime, poverty, and issues related to drugs, healthy living, and youth development. Given the timing and intersection of major issues, Penn encouraged faculty and students to think critically about the role of a public and/or private university and what it could and should do to remedy its “environmental situation” (Harkavy & Hodges, 2013). Intrigued with the concept, the president of the university, Sheldon Hackney, a former history professor, agreed to join faculty and students in a teaching and learning seminar in the spring semester of 1985. The seminar’s title suggests its general concerns: Urban University-Community Relationships: Penn–West Philadelphia, Past, Present, and Future as a Case Study. When the seminar began, Harkavy and Benson knew nothing about Dewey’s community school ideas. They also knew nothing about the history of community school experiments and had not given any thought to Penn working with public schools in West Philadelphia. During the course of the seminar’s work, they reinvented the community school idea (Harkavy & Hodges, 2013). They developed a strategy based on the following propositions: • Universities can best improve their local environments if they mobilize and integrate their extensive resources, particularly the “human capital” embodied in their students, to help develop and maintain community schools that function as focal points for creating healthy urban environments. • At all levels (K through 20), collaborative, community-based, actionoriented service-learning projects, which by their nature innovatively depart from customary, teacher-dominated school routines, allow and encourage both teachers and students to participate democratically in school and classroom governance and functioning. Such projects create spaces in which school and classroom democracy can grow and flourish.

26

D. HALE AND R. PALMER

Over time, the seminar’s increasingly successful work stimulated a growing number of Academically Based Community Service (ABCS) courses (Penn’s term for service-learning) in a wide range of Penn schools and departments, developed and implemented under the auspices of the university’s Netter Center for Community Partnerships. ABCS courses focus on action-oriented, community problem solving, and the integration of research, teaching, learning, and service, as well as reflection on the service experience and its larger implications (e.g., why poverty, racism, and crime exist). More than 160 such courses working with schools and community organizations to solve strategic community problems have been developed at Penn. Over the past 30 years, an increasing number of faculty members, from a wide range of Penn schools and departments, have revised existing courses or have created new courses, providing innovative curricular opportunities for students to become active learners, creative real-world problem solvers, and active producers (as opposed to passive consumers) of knowledge. Lessons from Penn’s Netter Center for Community Partnerships Colleges and universities in America continue to evolve to meet the demands of new times. Today’s colleges and universities are adapting to technological advancement and challenging economies, while adjusting to enrollment and the cost of higher education. The increased focus on higher education and college completion has called for colleges and universities to address society’s most challenging needs. Furthermore, to thrive in the twenty-first century, higher education is adopting new approaches in order to move community and school engagement from the margin to the mainstream of its research, teaching, and service. These new approaches support an increase in university-assisted community school partnerships that are scholarly; cut across the missions of teaching, research, and service; are reciprocal and mutually beneficial; and embrace the process and values of civil democracy (Bringle & Hatcher, 2011). Evidenced by the foundational work of Penn’s Netter Center, the University-Assisted Community School Network was established with more than 20 members, including: Ball State University, Binghamton University, Columbia University, Drexel University, Florida International University, Goucher College, Higher Education Forum of Oklahoma,

2

THE ROLE UNIVERSITIES PLAY IN PRIMARY …

27

IUPUI, Lafayette College, Montclair State University, Ohio State University, PHENND, Rutgers University—Camden, University of CaliforniaLos Angeles, University of Central Florida, University of ConnecticutStorrs, University of Maryland School of Social Work, University of Massachusetts-Boston, University of New Mexico, University of Pennsylvania, University of Tennessee-Knoxville, University of Toledo, and Widener University. This network meets monthly to discuss strategies for engagement to improve impact while also supporting the expansion of the network. Additionally, the network has established a framework for development, principles for practice, and propositions to guide implementation. Building on the suppositions that university-assisted community schools is a comprehensive strategy, the following principles have successfully guided implementation: • The university-assisted community school strategy assumes that community schools, similar to colleges and universities, can function as focal points to help create and foster healthy environments and democratically engage communities. The strategy also assumes that colleges and universities function best in such environments. • Universities and public schools can function as environmentchanging institutions, serving as strategic centers of broadly based partnerships that genuinely engage a wide variety of community organizations and institutions. • Public schools are particularly well suited to function as neighborhood “hubs” or “centers” around which local partnerships can be generated and developed. When they play that innovative role, schools function as community institutions that provide a decentralized, democratic, community-based response to rapidly changing community problems. In the process, they help young people learn better, at increasingly higher levels, through action-oriented, collaborative, real-world problem solving. • Working to solve complex, real-world problems is the best way to advance knowledge and learning. • University futures and local community histories are intertwined dynamically. • Universities can make a significant contribution to improving the quality of life in targeted areas through the creation of a healthier environment.

28

D. HALE AND R. PALMER

• Universities can advance their missions of creating and disseminating knowledge by helping to improve the quality of life in targeted areas. Practical Framework Critical to the framework and development of a university-assisted community school is the local context for the model (whether a community college, college, or university), which should include needs, strengths, resources, assets, interests, and capacity of local public schools and the selected community. While numerous colleges and universities continue to adapt the university-assisted community school model to fit the local need, it is important to consider the following key elements (Harkavy & Hodges, 2013): • a central office on campus that coordinates university resources. For this work to sustain, it must become integrated into the mission of the higher educational institution and not remain the effort of a few faculty members. There must be a focus on the improvement of the targeted local school as the core institution, as it is the “hub” for community engagement and democratic development. • engagement across the university campus that involves multiple schools and departments in order to meet the needs based on education, social and human service, health and wellness, and economic engagement. • a school principal who welcomes and encourages the partnership and conveys this philosophy to the school faculty and staff. • a coordinator/director at the school site who is the link between the school, the community, and the higher educational institution. The coordinator/director may be an employee of the university or the school, or from the community. • community school staff members who are integrated into the school’s operation, so that planning for and provision of supports for students, their families, and the community are as seamless as possible. • parent and community involvement through advisory boards or other mechanisms to advise on supports needed in the school and delivery of such services.

2

THE ROLE UNIVERSITIES PLAY IN PRIMARY …

29

The partnerships between higher educational institutions and their communities that have adapted this approach demonstrate a range of positive impacts, including improved achievement in K-12 schools; application of undergraduates’ and graduates’ knowledge to local, real-world settings; growth of faculty involvement in engaged scholarship; and genuine, collaborative relationships between universities and their local communities. University-assisted community schools have also enabled schools of education in the university network to assume new leadership roles within their institutions, as their concentration of relevant expertise puts them in a position to help formulate and guide engagement strategies with local schools. Through this role, schools of education can better prepare teachers to understand and implement strategies that support parent and community involvement, as well as a pedagogy that engages students in real-world problem solving. University-assisted community school programs provide the type of service linkage between schools and communities that enhances the quality of life in the community while simultaneously improving the teaching, research, and service at the university, a mutually beneficial partnership. Numerous programs operate throughout the nation, and each has different needs and resources.

Benefits of the University-Assisted Community School Approach As pressures mount on systems to prepare public school students for college and career readiness, talent development, self-sufficiency, and improving a struggling economy are emphasized. The cross-sector collaboration of committed stakeholders through university-assisted community schools bridges the opportunity, resource, and skills gap. Critical to a university-assisted community school are the benefits to students, community, and postsecondary education. Broadening educational opportunity to include preschool through postsecondary completion is vital to student learning because it increases success over time, as opposed to piecemeal programs in which students are treated for impending “failure.” It is the difference between prevention and intervention after the fact.

30

D. HALE AND R. PALMER

Benefits to Students A systematic educational approach of university-assisted community school partnership places all stakeholders on the path for common good, increasing access to higher education through amplified attention to the vast array of opportunities presented through the collaboration of strategic partnerships. University-assisted community school partnerships provide students, teachers, parents, families, guardians, and communities with timely resources and coordinated services during the academic year and summer months. Research shows that participation in college and career readiness programs is linked to increased efforts to complete homework, increased family engagement, increased intrinsic motivation, more effort, less apathy, and increased positive emotions. Additionally, research suggests that university engagement and access programs targeting high school students doubled the odds that students would enroll in postsecondary education. Benefits to the Community Partnerships between public schools and universities offer advantages to the community. For example, these partnerships provide exposure to institutions of higher learning for students who otherwise may not have had access. University-assisted community school partnerships provide a platform to coordinate a wealth of expertise through resources and engagement experiences in arts, sciences, human services, performances, athletic events, and a campus culture for learning and development. Content and pedagogical expertise on campus is a valuable resource that may not always be present in other programs. Postsecondary institutions and community agencies have the potential to foster increased motivation toward preparation for postsecondary education among youth. Because of the expertise on a university campus, it is uniquely situated to serve as a leader within the community on college-access programming that can help other youth- and adult-serving organizations embed college access into existing programming. University-assisted community school partnership is a concrete example of a university serving as a “solution center and thought partner” that positively transforms lives and communities. The partnerships

2

THE ROLE UNIVERSITIES PLAY IN PRIMARY …

31

align institutional values, accountability, resources, deliverables, and stakeholders to participate in experiences that facilitate change and add greater value to the community. Benefits to Colleges and Universities University engagement and access initiatives offer many benefits to postsecondary institutions as well. Partnerships can be used to recruit students and to promote specific majors and programs. With most of the undergraduate population off campus during the summer, partnerships have the potential to serve as an important source of revenue during the summer months. University partnerships and programs focused on college and career readiness are an investment in the community. The research, teaching, and learning demonstrate the importance of postsecondary institutions to students, parents, teachers, and communities.

University Assistance Through Community Partnership Schools The UCF Center for Community Schools promotes the development of the Community Partnership School™ model that includes four core partners: a school district, a nonprofit, a health care provider, and a college or university. As of 2022, 29 schools across Florida were implementing the CPS model. The model includes a strengths-based certification process that provides a pathway for continuous improvement at the site level that also ensures fidelity to the model (Plante & Palmer, 2020). Each CPS site undergoes a certification assessment during year three of implementation of the model, based on the 12 UCF-Certified Community Partnership Schools™ Standards. The assessment also provides alignment to the four pillars to ensure community school success: collaborative leadership, expanded learning opportunities, wellness supports, and family and community engagement. Included in the 12 UCF-Certified Community Partnership Schools™ Standards is university/college assistance, standard 10, which provides a framework for how institutions can initially engage with their CPS sites. College and university partners are able to see a path to engaging CPS broadly through each of the indicators associated with standard 10 (e.g., advancing teacher efficacy/pedagogy, intern or pre-service teacher placement, leveraging institutional expertise, direct services) to activate

32

D. HALE AND R. PALMER

and connect institutional assets that can support and sustain sites. At the crux of a community school is a focus on ensuring that all students receive high-quality classroom instruction. Within the framework of the CPS model, through standard 10, the university partners specifically support sites by assisting with teacher recruitment, retention, and pedagogy. Similar to other core partners, college and university partners can align with the four pillars for success, but due to their positioning as institutions of higher education, they can be dynamic as the CPS model provides another approach to university-assisted community schools. University Assistance Coordinator As the UCF Center for Community Schools increased its capacity to support CPS sites, the center was able to expand its technical assistance to support university assistance. With sites maturing, CPS staff members and their university partners explored opportunities to expand university engagement in a cross-sectional manner. The center created a university assistance coordinator (UAC) position to focus on this issue. The UAC would use research grounded in university-assisted community school approaches and strategies developed by UCF to support its partner CPS sites to inform the statewide CPS network. In Central Florida, five Community Partnership Schools share UCF as a core university partner, with each site having its own UCF point of contact. Reflective of the field, each UCF point of contact is listed as faculty or administrative/professional staff and assigned to a specific academic unit, with CPS not listed as a primary function of their position. Classified as an R1-Doctoral University designated by The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (2021), UCF engages in a very high level of research activity as a four-year institution, which impacts the emphasis of its academic disciplines and the college/department that they are based within. As a result of this, and similar to other institutions of higher education, faculty members place much of their focus in the areas of: • Service (S)—ongoing efforts that extend professional or disciplinerelated contributions to local, state, national, and/or international communities.

2

THE ROLE UNIVERSITIES PLAY IN PRIMARY …

33

• Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (T)—inquiry into student learning that advances pedagogical approaches in higher education (e.g., examining high-impact educational practices on student learning). • Activity (A)—quality, productivity, and recognition of scholarship produced by faculty through publications and/or presentations that highlight the authoritative nature of their work (e.g., books, articles, and papers in refereed journals and refereed papers presented at national meetings of professional societies). • Research (R)—most prestigious, well-cited journals and peerreviewed conference proceedings in the candidate’s area of research, and ability to secure external funding (i.e., local, state, federal agencies, other external organizations). Additionally, UCF’s evaluation and promotion of faculty members align with STAR-related contributions, but the importance of each area varies by academic discipline. This can cause additional barriers for UCF points of contact in facilitating connections beyond their departments to meet CPS needs. The realities of UCF, and higher education in general, reinforce silos because faculty and staff members may not reach out to seek interdisciplinary collaborations. The UAC acts as a facilitator connecting local CPS sites and UCF points of contact with the larger UCF community, strengthening university engagement through a cross-sectional approach with mutually beneficial outcomes. With the position interacting externally with the CPS sites and internally as part of UCF, the UAC knows the needs and assets of both, can operate as a bridge between them, and can identify opportunities for alignment, integration, and collaboration. Defining the Center for Community Schools and the University Assistance Coordinator Position at UCF The UAC position exists within the UCF Center for Community Schools. The center is one of numerous other centers and institutes housed in UCF’s College for Community Innovation and Education (CCIE), which is home to a wide variety of disciplines and established partnerships. The college offers more than 100 degree programs at the bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral levels through its eight academic units that include Departments of Counselor Education and School Psychology, Criminal Justice,

34

D. HALE AND R. PALMER

Educational Leadership (K-12 and Higher Ed.), Learning Sciences and Educational Research, and Legal Studies; and Schools of Global Health Management and Informatics, Public Administration, and Teacher Education. CCIE broadly aims to create innovative solutions to complex social issues that can strengthen communities in Central Florida and beyond while providing its students with numerous opportunities to engage in community-based experiences. While primarily located on UCF’s downtown Orlando campus, the college still offers various disciplines on the main campus, which includes 12 other colleges contributing to more than 230 degree programs available to its 70,406 students (University of Central Florida, n.d.). As a result of CCIE’s leadership team, specifically the 2021 dean and associate dean, the center has become embedded and integrated within the college. Collaborations to further elevate Community Partnership Schools have been assisted by staff members in CCIE’s Departments of Communications, Research Administrative Services, and Community Engagement. The center has received support as part of CCIE structure, and the UAC has leveraged the center’s position in the college to establish relationships with faculty, staff, and students to explore opportunities that align current initiatives and provide integration to and support collaborations with CPS sites. While the UAC position’s ability to be part of the CCIE and the university is vital, so too is its connection to the field. With five CPS sites in Central Florida that share UCF as a core partner, the UAC must deeply understand the needs of the area and the unique needs of each site. This allows the UAC to act as a bridge to resources available within CCIE and across the university by facilitating connections that are driven by the needs in the field, with students and families at the center of all efforts. The position also acts as a cultural broker between the CPS sites (K-12 public schools) and the university (higher education), effectively communicating existing similarities and differences. It is imperative for the UAC to act as an advocate for all involved to overcome the historic distrust that may exist between the parties and lead to fractured relationships and reduced resources available. In order to effectively identify institutional resources that can meet the needs of CPS students, families, and staff, the UAC maintains a regular connection to the field. Building and maintaining rapport with local CPS directors and their UCF points of contact improves alignments between needs and resources that can be mutually beneficial for both CPS sites and

2

THE ROLE UNIVERSITIES PLAY IN PRIMARY …

35

the university. As a result of strengthened relationships in the field and embeddedness of the position within UCF, the UAC can share information about existing institutional efforts (e.g., targeted community events, K-12 outreach initiatives, resources available to the community at large, etc.) that may originate from departments not affiliated with CPS sites. In the Community Partnership School™ model, each CPS site implements a governance structure that consists of a cabinet, an executive cabinet committee, and an operations team that may be augmented by additional committees (e.g., data, grants/sustainability, communications, etc.) that all include stakeholder participation from core partners, students, parents, guardians, and community members as part of decisionmaking processes. Each core partner’s involvement in the governance structure is vital to the success of the CPS, with their participation at the cabinet level laying the foundation for development and growth. The cabinet acts as the leadership arm for the CPS in overseeing the vision and policies that shape the direction for other levels and committees. The strategic plan developed by a site’s cabinet is created as a roadmap toward improving student outcomes based on the four pillars implemented for community school success: collaborative leadership, expanded learning, wellness, and family and community engagement (Oakes et al., 2017). The UAC acts as a secondary UCF point of contact to local sites as a support to each of their cabinets, which provides additional insight into site needs and goals and helps determine which university resources should be leveraged. The UAC also learns about existing assets (e.g., access to K-12 student participation and data, bridge to community members, connection to private organizations, etc.) available through the CPS that could lead to mutually beneficial collaborations that target multiple pillars and create intentional collaborations across core partners. Simultaneously, the UAC increases the awareness and understanding of the UCF Center for Community Schools and Community Partnership Schools inside the university. Using a strategy that is guided by the current needs of CPS sites and the center, connections to UCF faculty, staff, and students are developed and strengthened. Outreach is made to contacts within CCIE and in other departments to increase and strengthen professional connections to CPS sites and institutional understanding through onboarding. As a result, faculty, staff, and students are better able to determine how they may engage with sites with a foundational understanding of the CPS model and four pillars. Specifically, for faculty, the UAC acts not only as a bridge to sites, but also as a thought partner as

36

D. HALE AND R. PALMER

individuals determine opportunities to conduct service and practices to improve the scholarship of teaching and learning, and gather information that can generate activity and research in collaboration with sites that align to needs. With UCF as a core partner for multiple CPS sites, administrative processes have to be navigated both for the purposes of the model and to ensure compliance with policies internal to the institution. Within the model, each site and its partners enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that requires approval from each partner organization. UCF receives legal counsel from its general counsel to minimize the risk of adverse legal and financial consequences to the university (University of Central Florida, n.d.). In order for an MOU to be fully executed to include UCF, the document must undergo processing through the university’s contracting system, only accessible to UCF employees. The UAC connects the CPS sites to the appropriate parties to assist in the full MOU execution and ensures that the UCF point(s) of contact are informed on the process and that information is passed to partners external to the university. The efforts of the UAC to support Central Florida CPS sites and their UCF points of contact provide an opportunity to inform the larger statewide network about effective practices that can be replicated based on specific needs and available resources. Broadly, the UCF Center for Community Schools has multiple systems in place that allow for CPS sites to receive technical assistance, learning and development, and assessment and evaluation through which their university-assisted partnerships can be supported. On a quarterly basis, CPS directors are provided with a Director Learning Exchange (DLE) and network calls where center staff coordinate and deliver resources that align with the four pillars and collaborations with core partners to assist with relevant needs in the field. 2021 DLEs have included learning and development (e.g., presentations, guest presenters, breakout rooms) to highlight university assistance occurring through UCF at local CPS sites that can be replicated and also increase the capacity of directors to effectively leverage their college and/or university core partner(s). To support the continuous improvement of the field, CPS directors are able to request technical assistance through a consultancy request form that provides individualization and includes university assistance as an option. This has led to the UAC engaging with CPS directors to enhance or increase current university

2

THE ROLE UNIVERSITIES PLAY IN PRIMARY …

37

assistance in place at their sites while also creating additional space for collaborative discussions that include university points of contact. The UAC also supports the statewide network of college and university partners through each institution’s designated point of contact who is supporting a CPS site. Similar to the quarterly meetings and calls for site directors, college and university partners participate in quarterly network calls that focus on the needs specific to their role in the CPS model and provide opportunities for collaborations and reflection. The center also conducts a day-long institute for CPS directors and college and university partner points of contact that aims to highlight effective practices that can be replicated throughout the state. By leveraging relationships developed within UCF, the statewide CPS college and university partner network, and the national university-assisted community schools network, content area experts support the development of sites based on specific needs. Individual discussions also are held with college and university points of contact across the various institutions to better understand CPS needs so the center can improve technical assistance, learning, and development provided to the statewide network.

Conclusion Far too many children across America face substantial barriers to educational success. Poverty and lack of access to high-quality learning opportunities and health care mean young people do not receive the support they need to thrive. A solid, high-quality education is a key to successful adulthood. Education continues to be the great equalizer for students and families living in poverty and experiencing challenges with health, housing, transportation, and skills gaps preventing access to better paying occupations. As the global economy rapidly advances, university-assisted community school partnerships have the capacity to bring strategic partners in alignment to create mutually beneficial relations to improve academic, social, and economic success. University-assisted community schools provide an opportunity for strategic partnerships to engage in evidence-based strategies focused on rifts in a changing educational and economic landscape. The mutually beneficial partnerships have the capacity to create new knowledge for students, teachers, parents, and community stakeholders to be empowered and exchange ideas that will help people understand how to facilitate change. Through the framework of the Community Partnership Schools™

38

D. HALE AND R. PALMER

model, institutions of higher education can facilitate access to a myriad of resources (i.e., academic supports, human capital, financial, research expertise) that address barriers to student success. By having college and university assistance integrated into the model and the expertise of core partners as practitioners, Community Partnership Schools create a common space where higher education and community can improve educational ecosystems leading to generational changes.

References Benson, L., Harkavy, I., & Puckett, J. (2007). Dewey’s dream: Universities and democracies in an age of education reform. Temple University Press. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2011). Student engagement trends over time. In H. E. Fitzgerald, C. Burack and S. D. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary landscapes, future directions: Vol. 2. Community-campus partnerships (pp. 411–430). Michigan State University Press. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2021). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education ® . Carnegie Classifications. https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/. Harkavy, I., & Hartley, M. (Eds.). (2009). Universities in partnership: Strategies for education, youth development, and community renewal. In New directions for student leadership (Vol. 122). Wiley Periodicals. Harkavy, I., & Hodges, R.A. (2013, October). Democratic devolution: How America’s colleges and universities can strengthen their communities. Progressive Policy Institute. www.progressivepolicy Oakes, J., Maier, A., & Daniel, J. (2017). Community schools. An evidence-based strategy for equitable school improvement. National Education Policy Center. Plante, J. D., & Palmer, R. (2020). Supporting teachers where they are: The Community Partnership Schools™ model. In R. E. Ferdig, E. Baumgartner, R. Hartshorne, R. Kaplan-Rakowski and C. Mouza (Eds.), Teaching, technology, and teacher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Stories from the field (pp. 203–210). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/216903/ University of Central Florida. (n.d.). Mission statement. Office of the General Counsel. https://generalcounsel.ucf.edu/mission-statement/ University of Central Florida. (n.d.). UCF facts 2020–2021: University of Central Florida—Orlando, FL. University of Central Florida. https://www.ucf.edu/ about-ucf/facts/

CHAPTER 3

The Community Partnership Schools™ Model Amy Ellis

Abstract Community school approaches vary across the globe, but at the center of every approach is partnership. The multiple-core-partnership approach of the Community Partnership Schools™ model includes a core partnership among a school district, a nonprofit community organization, a college or university, and a healthcare provider. To ensure model fidelity when scaling up, the UCF Center for Community Schools developed a certification process that includes 12 standards. Together, the four-core partners commit to the long-term success of the Community Partnership School.

A. Ellis (B) University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. D. Plante and A. Ellis (eds.), Community Partnership Schools, Rethinking University-Community Policy Connections, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16404-0_3

39

40

A. ELLIS

Keywords Pillars of community schools · Comprehensive wellness · Collaborative leadership · Family and community engagement · Expanded learning · Core partners

Community School Approaches Each community school is unique, with no two community schools exactly alike (Children’s Aid Society, 2011; Coalition for Community Schools, 2017; Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002; Dryfoos et al., 2005; Ellis, 2017; Oakes et al., 2017). “Community school is an inclusive term, encompassing a growing number of school-community initiatives that feature both common themes and differing approaches” (Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002, p. 130). Though all community schools share the same focus of improving school outcomes and well-being, they collectively vary in their approaches to organizing resources around the needs of the school. Several models of community schools have developed since the 1980s including Children’s Aid Society (CAS) community schools, Bridges to Success, university-assisted schools, Communities in Schools, Schools of the twenty-first Century, and Community Partnership Schools (Children’s Aid Society, 2011; Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002; Dryfoos et al., 2005; Ellis, 2017). Community schools develop in response to the school context, the needs of the population being served, school staff, capacities of partner agencies, and availability of resources (Dryfoos et al., 2005). Community school features and goals vary; some community schools focus on student achievement, and others focus on health outcomes, behavioral improvement, or family engagement measures (Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002; Dryfoos et al., 2005; Valli et al., 2016). Though community school programming varies, Oakes et al. completed a review of U.S. community schools in 2017 and found four common features, or pillars, in most community schools: (a) integrated student supports, (b) expanded learning time and opportunities, (c) family and community engagement, and (d) collaborative leadership and practices. Oakes et al. (2017) reported that “all four pillars ‘matter;’ moreover, they appear to reinforce each other” (p. 1).

3

THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP SCHOOLS™ MODEL

41

Thousands of community schools exist nationally and internationally (Coalition for Community Schools, 2017; Miller-Grandvaux, 2004). In 2016, a typology of school-community partnerships was used by Valli et al. (2016) to describe four partnership categories connected to community schools, from least to most comprehensive in purpose and design: (a) family and interagency collaborations, (b) full-service schools, (c) fullservice community schools, and (d) community development. In family and interagency collaborations, partners extend the work of the traditional school day of teaching and learning by coordinating delivery of other services that support students and their families. The primary focus of this design is the teaching and learning of students. Services may or may not be delivered on the school site, and students are offered or referred out on a case-by-case basis (Valli et al., 2016). Full-service schools, originating in Florida in 1991, is a term that has been used to describe community schools that not only offer academic services, but also integrate the full range of health and social services within the walls of the school (Dryfoos, 2002; Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002; Valli et al., 2016). Often, these schools are referred to as wraparound schools (Valli et al., 2016). Services are offered primarily to students and families. Extending more broadly, fullservice community schools offer academic, health, and social services to not only students and families, but also community members. Full-service community schools not only seek to democratize schools but open the schools to the community and provide a voice in decision making as a part of the neighborhood. The community development strategy is the most expansive type of the four categories described by Valli et al. Community developments do not merely service students and families; they aim to transform the whole neighborhood and community through economic, social, and capital advancement. Improving schools is a part of community development, but focus is oriented to neighborhood and community transformation (Keith, 1996; Valli et al., 2016). A brief overview of current community school models most referenced in the literature is provided and a community school taxonomy was developed. The purpose of this taxonomy is to help describe variances in organizational approaches. Organizational approach categories of the taxonomy presented reflect community partners involved and/or how the partners organizationally relate within the community school framework. Approaches include (a) community-managed, (b) university-assisted, (c) community-based lead agency, (d) school-as-lead-agency, and (e) multiple core partners. The most referenced current community school models

42

A. ELLIS

are described, serving as examples in each of the organizational-approach taxonomy categories. The models listed are intended to further clarify themes of the approach categories, not to provide an exhaustive list of the innumerable permeations of community schools found in the literature. This taxonomy may not be a perfect fit for all models; some may fall into more than one category.

Community-Managed Community School Approach Parents, community members, or community non-governmental organizations (NGOs) operate schools described as using a communitymanaged community schools approach (Glassman et al., 2007; Miller-Grandvaux, 2004; Muskin, 1999; Parker, 2010). Found in the literature as an approach in countries outside the United States, these community-managed community schools aim to provide access to primary schools and build capacity to improve the quality of education (Glassman et al., 2007; Miller-Grandvaux, 2004; Mwalimu, 2011). As observed by Miller-Grandvaux (2004), varying models of community-managed community schools exist: Different models of bringing a community into its school run the gamut from a situation where the community creates its own school and provides all education inputs from teachers to materials and infrastructure to one where the community takes charge of the management of its government school. (p. 1)

In the late 1980s, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) received funding to help develop the capacity of African countries to provide quality primary education to African children (MillerGrandvaux, 2004). Since that time, USAID has funded thousands of community-managed schools in Africa as a system-wide educational reform (Miller-Grandvaux, 2004). One of the primary NGOs funded in these efforts has been the U.S. program, Save the Children. Students in these schools are provided education structure and needed resources to improve academic attainment (Glassman et al., 2007; Miller-Grandvaux, 2004).

3

THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP SCHOOLS™ MODEL

43

University-Assisted Community School Approach The primary core partnership of a university-assisted community school is between a school and a partnering university. The university is the lead coordinator of the community school partnership and provides support to the school by offering programs and services through mobilization and integration of university resources, particularly students as human capital (Harkavy et al., 2016). University-assisted community schools form a mutually beneficial relationship between the university and school. Among other benefits, the school offers opportunities for applied learning to university students, and the school receives needed educational and social services and expertise provided by the university (Harkavy et al., 2016). University-assisted community schools originated at the University of Pennsylvania in 1985 in response to visibly increasing crime and poverty in a West Philadelphia region (Harkavy, 2006; Harkavy et al., 2016). After seeking to impact the deteriorating environment and to develop a stronger relationship with the community, the university-assisted community school approach was born (Dryfoos, 2002; Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002; Harkavy et al., 2016). Through the Netter Center for Community Partnerships, the University of Pennsylvania has provided after-school, hands-on, program-based learning activities to multiple university-assisted community schools in its region. As of 2016, more than 200 courses linked University of Pennsylvania students to university-assisted community schools that were focused on action-oriented, community problem solving, teaching, learning, and service (Harkavy et al., 2016). Additionally, the University of Pennsylvania has. pioneered and scaled-up important innovations such as academically based community service—where professors teach their courses in local community schools and other community settings—while also demonstrating how higher education institutions and leaders of research universities in particular can become transformational agents for beneficial social change. (Harkavy et al., 2016, p. 303)

In Florida, Florida International University (FIU) partnered with Miami, FL, schools through Education Effect, a university-assisted community school partnership aimed “to increase academic achievement and improve educational outcomes for schools in Liberty City, Overtown

44

A. ELLIS

and Little Haiti” (Education Effect Talking Points, 2017). The partnership connects the schools with university expertise and resources to address academic and social needs of students by providing instructional and professional development for teachers, and assisting students with social and cultural experiences, internships, dual enrollment, ACT/SAT test preparation, family and community engagement, and more (Education Effect Talking Points, 2017). The Education Effect increases dual enrollment classes for students at Northwestern High School, and provides experiences for the high school students who attend classes at FIU to learn about life in a university setting (Harkavy et al., 2016). Many other university-assisted community schools exist nationally. These include Dayton Neighborhood School Centers in partnership with University of Dayton, “Community as Classrooms” initiatives in partnership with University of Buffalo, and those in partnership with Binghamton University-State University of New York, University of California-Los Angeles, Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland-Baltimore, Montclair State University, and University of Tennessee-Knoxville (Harkavy et al., 2016).

Community-Based Lead Agency Community School Approach A community-based agency and a school build the primary core partnership when using a community-based lead agency community school approach. This model relies heavily on the community-based agency to plan, leverage, and secure resources as driven by the needs of the school and students (Dryfoos, 2002; Dryfoos et al., 2005). Other partners are coordinated, aligned, and integrated directly into the school through the community-based agency as service or program providers (Dryfoos, 2002; Dryfoos et al., 2005; Ellis, 2017). Responding to concern about the decline of public education, particularly in the inner- city schools, Children’s Aid Society (CAS), a private child welfare agency in New York City, originated its first two communitybased lead agency community schools in Washington Heights in 1992 and 1993 (Children’s Aid Society, 2011; Dryfoos, 2002; Dryfoos et al., 2005). The CAS model organizes learning and development opportunities for children, families, and communities. A family resource center provides a supportive space at the school for parents to learn and connect. Since the start of CAS community schools in Washington Heights in

3

THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP SCHOOLS™ MODEL

45

1992, CAS community school models have expanded throughout New York City and beyond. The Children’s Aid Society established its CAS National Center for Community Schools in 1994 to assist in developing community schools across the nation (Children’s Aid Society, 2011; Dryfoos, 2002; Dryfoos et al., 2005). Bridges to Success (BTS) is a community school model originated by the United Way and Indianapolis Public Schools when they opened the first six BTS community schools in 1993 (Dryfoos, 2002; Melaville, 2004). The model grew out of United Way’s interest in finding more creative ways to help solve pressing community problems and impact a broader community (Melaville, 2004). BTS is a comprehensive community school model that assesses local needs, marshals resources, programs and services, and aligns resources in the school to achieve academic and social improvements for children and families (Melaville, 2004). Outside agencies provide health care, dental care, mental health services, casemanagement, after-school activities, and tutoring (Dryfoos, 2002). The BTS success in Indianapolis led to BTS becoming United Way of America’s model for school-linked community school efforts, and BTS has been replicated across multiple sites in multiple states (Melaville, 2004). Administered by the Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa (CSC), the Tulsa Area Community Schools Initiative (TACSI) was established through the Tulsa Metropolitan Human Services Commission in 2007. The TACSI staffs a team with leaders from the Union and Tulsa school districts and other key partners to implement community schools in low-income neighborhoods throughout the Tulsa, OK, area (Adams, 2019). The TACSI is a holistic community school model that offers comprehensive services to students, families, and communities including early care and learning, health care, mental health and social services, youth development, and family engagement (Adams, 2019; Blank et al., 2009). In 2016, the CSC evolved the TACSI into the Center for Community School Strategies to help schools across the region build relationships and increase opportunities for students across the region. Communities in Schools (CIS) began in the 1970s in New York (Communities in Schools, 2018). The CIS model focuses on students on track for graduation who are at risk of dropping out of school (Oakes et al., 2017; Somers & Haider, 2017). Using a trained school-based CIS coordinator, CIS identifies partners in the community and coordinates delivery of programs and services that are driven by the needs of families and students (Communities in Schools, 2018). The CIS Model of

46

A. ELLIS

Integrated Student Supports provides preventative and intensive services to students who exhibit risk factors for dropping out, including low academic performance, absenteeism, or behavioral problems (Communities in Schools, 2018; Somers & Haider, 2017). The CIS model has expanded throughout the United States and is currently working with 2300 schools in 25 states and the District of Columbia (Communities in Schools, 2018). Numerous other community-based lead agency approach initiatives exist. These include community schools in Chicago, IL, COMPASS community schools initiative in Greater Lehigh Valley, PA, and SUN Community Schools in Portland, OR (Iverson, 2005; Melaville et al., 2011).

School-As-Lead-Agency Community School Approach The schools or school system take on the primary coordinating role in the school-as-lead-agency approach. Day-to-day management of the community school sites as well as the engagement and leveraging of partnerships is the responsibility of the school district or school. In 1991, the United Way of Southwestern Indiana and others from the community were concerned about risk factors for students and families in Evansville, IN (Melaville et al., 2011). Citing after-school programming as a successful response to minimizing at-risk behaviors, the school system identified four elementary schools to begin community school efforts (Melaville et al., 2011). With successful outcomes at the elementary schools, an expanded vision for community schools was developed in 1994 to include full-service school elements including social and health services (Melaville et al., 2011), and interest in the model of collaboration grew sharply over the years. At the time of the present study, all of Evansville, IN, schools are in some phase of community school development, and a director for community schools has been hired at the school district to assist in expansion of efforts (Coalition for Community Schools, 2018b). Other school-as-lead-agency models include community school efforts in Oakland Unified School District, Newark, Albany, and Cincinnati’s Community Learning Center Initiative (Coalition for Community Schools, 2017; Frankl, 2016; Melaville et al., 2011).

3

THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP SCHOOLS™ MODEL

47

Multiple Core Partners Community School Approach A multiple core partners approach goes beyond the more typical twocore-partner approach of the university-assisted or the community-based lead agency community school approach. More than two core partners commit to the success of the community school, providing leadership and institutional resources. One partner typically employs the community school director or coordinator, but this employee represents the partnership, not a single organization. The Community Partnership Schools™ (CPS) model approach is a multiple-core-partner approach.

Community Partnership Schools and the Four Pillars The Community Partnership Schools™ model is based on a four-corepartnership approach, four dedicated staff members focused on four community school pillars, a shared-governance organizational structure that provides the voice of multiple stakeholders, and a certification process intended to ensure CPS model fidelity (UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2018d). The CPS four-core-partner approach engages a committed partnership among key organizations: a school district, a university or college, a health care provider, and a nonprofit community-based provider (Ellis, 2017; Frankl, 2016; UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018a). The partners commit long term to a shared-governance structure to establish, develop, and sustain the efforts of the Community Partnership School (Ellis, 2017; UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018a, 2018b). The more comprehensive and well-run the community school, the better the outcome (Blank et al., 2009; Frankl, 2016; Oakes et al., 2017). In their 2017 study, Oakes et al. recommended implementing a comprehensive approach to community schooling that includes four pillars of implementation: (a) collaborative leadership and practices, (b) expanded learning time and opportunities, (c) integrated student supports, and (d) active parent and community engagement. In a 2016 profiling of community schools, Frankl reached a similar conclusion that when community schools employ multiple strategies (i.e., engaging curricula, high-quality teaching, wraparound supports, positive discipline, parent engagement, inclusive leadership), “their results can be sustainably

48

A. ELLIS

transformational: increasing school attendance, decreasing suspensions and expulsions, creating healthy and safe communities, and improving academic outcomes” (p. 52). The Community Partnership Schools™ model provides dedicated focus in the four pillar areas that Oaks et al. identified in 2017 (UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018a) as those that align, according to Hattie (2008) “closely with evidence-based features of good schools, derived from decades of research identifying school characteristics that foster students’ intellectual, social, emotional, and physical development” (p. 5). The four pillars identified by Oakes et al. are (a) collaborative leadership and practices, (b) expanded learning time and opportunities, (c) integrated student supports, and (d) active parent and community engagement (Oakes et al., 2017). The dedicated four-core positions of the Community Partnership Schools™ model that focus on the four pillars include a CPS director, an extended day coordinator, a school health coordinator, and a family and community outreach coordinator (Ellis, 2017; UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018c, 2018d). Staff identify, coordinate, and integrate core partner and community provider resources on the school campus that best meet the needs of students and families (Ellis, 2017; UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018d). At Evans High School, the flagship Community Partnership School in Orlando, FL, wraparound services were described by Figlio in 2016 as “very well integrated and coordinated with one another” (p. 8). Along with the school principal, the CPS director is positioned as a collaborative leader, leading shared responsibilities among partners at all levels of the CPS organization (Ellis, 2017; UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018a, 2018d). Though the CPS director is typically employed through the coordinating nonprofit organization in a Community Partnership School, the position represents the CPS core four partners (Ellis, 2017; UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018d). Aligned to the expanded learning time and opportunities pillar by Oakes et al. (2017), a dedicated CPS expanded opportunity coordinator manages academic and enrichment offerings such as tutoring, mentoring, and clubs, before school, during school, after school, and on weekends. Expanded opportunity programming emphasizes high expectations for academic instruction and provides support for students. A Community Partnership School aligns the position of a wellness coordinator to the integrated student support pillar, managing referrals and addressing barriers to learning

3

THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP SCHOOLS™ MODEL

49

with social, emotional, and health programs and services (Ellis, 2017; Oakes et al., 2017; UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018c, 2018d). Aligning to the parent and community engagement pillar, a Community Partnership School family and community outreach coordinator connects parents to the school in meaningful ways (Ellis, 2017; UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018d). Utilizing a family resource room as a dedicated space on a Community Partnership School campus for families, guests may learn about offered resources, empowerment programs, and development opportunities provided by the Community Partnership School (Ellis, 2017; UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018d). The organizational structure of the Community Partnership Schools™ model aligns communication and functions among the various stakeholders of the CPS (Ellis, 2017; UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018c, 2018d). In 2016, Figlio (2016) reported being “particularly impressed with the governance structure” and thought it to be a “model for expansion to other locations” (p. 8). Key teams share responsibility through distributive practices for the success of Community Partnership Schools. The cabinet is composed of decision makers from the core four partners, community, and a student and/or parent representative (Ellis, 2017; Figlio, 2016; UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018d). The cabinet is primarily responsible for the vision, strategic planning, evaluation, and sustainability of the Community Partnership School (Ellis, 2017; UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018c, 2018d). The operations team is a mid-level group of a Community Partnership School’s organizational structure. This team is responsible for solving operational concerns at a staff level, managing data, issuing communications, implementing improvement measures, and securing needed resources from partners and others that align with needs assessments that drive programming (Ellis, 2017; Figlio, 2016; UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018c). A Community Leadership Council (CLC) is composed of local key community stakeholders including faith-based leaders, community residents, business owners, law enforcement, and others from the community (Ellis, 2017; Figlio, 2016; UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018d). The CLC provides a voice of the community and support to the school through fundraising, mentoring, and volunteering. A member of the CLC sits on the Community Partnership School’s cabinet. Providing the voice of the students, a Student Leadership Council (SLC) is a club of

50

A. ELLIS

Community Partnership School student promoters, assistants, and champions (Ellis, 2017; Figlio, 2016; UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018d). The chair of the SLC sits on the cabinet, offering insight into the needs and perceptions of students. Other key teams include the CPS staff, the provider team, and the school intervention team, which is a case-management group of school and CPS staff members who work to assist individual students and provide whole-school support in areas such as attendance and behavior (Ellis, 2017; UCF Center for Community Schools, 2018c, 2018d).

Studies Since the start of Community Partnership Schools in 2010, numerous studies have been conducted by doctoral students who have investigated impacts of the Community Partnership Schools™ model on student learning, behavior, and efficacy. Additionally in 2016, Figlio compared academic results of Evans versus 12 most similar high schools in Florida. Overall, Evans improved over time relative to the 12 comparison schools (Figlio, 2016). In 2012–2013, Evans improved in nine of the 14 academic metrics used to grade Florida high schools versus the 12 similar schools after implementing the Community Partnership School (Figlio, 2016). In 2013–2014, Evans improved in 12 of the 14 academic metrics versus the 12 similar schools after implementing the Community Partnership School (Figlio, 2016). Concluding his visit, interviews, and analysis, Figlio reported that the Evans model was “one that is likely to yield considerable successes in other locations in Florida” (p. 12). In response to recommendations provided by Figlio in his 2016 study, an independent evaluation of Community Partnership Schools began in 2020. The American Institute of Research is scheduled to conclude the CPS study of Florida’s statewide CPS effort in 2022.

Statewide Scale-Up and Certification Replication of the Community Partnership Schools™ model began during the 2014–2015 school year. Scaling intentionally was critical to future development and statewide expansion success. To ensure fidelity of the model and consistency while replicating CPS programming and frameworks, the UCF Center for Community Schools led efforts to develop a certification process based upon passing scores in each of 12 standards:

3

THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP SCHOOLS™ MODEL

51

Partnership; Collaborative Leadership, Governance, and Organizational Structure; Foundational Principles; Staffing; Integrated Community Partnership School Framework; Expanded Day Learning Opportunities; Comprehensive Wellness Supports; Family and Community Engagement; Volunteering; University Assistance; Evaluation; and Sustainability. To institute continuous improvement measures and timely framework development, Community Partnership Schools must meet certification requirements within five years of the first full year of implementation to retain the Community Partnership Schools name and to be qualified for future funding through the UCF Center for Community Schools. In addition to certification readiness assessments that occur during the third and fifth years of implementation, Community Partnership Schools focus on continuous improvement through ongoing progress monitoring sessions at all levels of the organization. Figlio (2016) witnessed and reported evidence at the flagship Community Partnership School that “quantitative and qualitative information feeds back to promote improved decision-making and service delivery” (Figlio, 2016, p. 10).

Long-Term Commitment and Funding Central to a Community Partnership School is the long-term (often 25year) commitment of the core four partners: school district, nonprofit, university, and health care provider. While many initiatives are discontinued at the end of grant cycles, the core partnership of Community Partnership Schools is committed to ensuring a CPS continues. Community Partnership Schools require a diversified funding and resource approach that includes strategies to leverage existing communitybased programs and services, secure local public and private dollars, access continued state-appropriated dollars, redirect existing school-based and/or district funding, and tap community school development and expanded health care dollars. Together, core partners collectively secure needed funds and resources aligned to the needs of the Community Partnership School’s students and families. Together, the core partners are committed to the efforts necessary to realize the vision and long-term sustainability of the Community Partnership School.

52

A. ELLIS

Summary Five primary organizational partnership approaches have been identified in the community school literature: (a) community-managed, (b) university-assisted (c) community-based lead agency, (d) school-as-leadagency, and (e) multiple core partners. The Community Partnership Schools™ model centers on the multiple-core-partnership approach of a school district, a nonprofit community organization, a college or university, and a health care provider. Together, these partners are responsible for the vision and sustainability of the Community Partnership School. To ensure fidelity to model components, the UCF Center for Community Schools requires all sites to become certified within five years of implementation.

References Adams, C. M. (2019). Sustaining full-service community schools: Lessons from the Tulsa area community schools initiative. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 24(3), 288–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/108 24669.2019.1615924 Blank, M., Jacobson, R., & Pearson, S. (2009). A coordinated effort: Wellconducted partnerships meet students’ academic, health, and social service needs. American Educator, 33(2), 30–36. Children’s Aid Society. (2011). Building community schools: A guide for action. The Children’s Aid Society. Coalition for Community Schools. (2017). Community schools: A whole-child framework for school improvement. Institute for Educational Leadership. http://www.communityschools.org/resources/default.aspx Coalition for Community Schools. (2018). http://www.communityschools.org/ default.aspx Communities in Schools. (2018). https://www.communitiesinschools.org/abo ut-us/ Dryfoos, J. (2002). Full-service community schools: Creating new institutions. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 393–400. Dryfoos, J., & Maguire, S. (2002). Inside full-service community schools. Sage. Dryfoos, J., Quinn, J., & Barkin, C. (2005). Community schools in action: Lessons from a decade of practice. Oxford University Press. Education Effect Talking Points. (November, 2017). Email correspondence with Donnie Hale. Ellis, A. (2017). Community Partnership Schools handbook: A manual for development. University of Central Florida.

3

THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP SCHOOLS™ MODEL

53

Figlio, D., (2016). A preliminary evaluation of the Evans community school and the extant literature on community schools. Northwestern University. https://www.cohpa.ucf.edu/communityschools/wp-content/uploads/sites/ 15/2017/04/evans_community_school_evaluation_with_exec_summary_-_ jan_2016.pdf Frankl, E. (2016, February 10). Transforming struggling schools into thriving schools. Center for Popular Democracy. https://www.populardemocracy.org/ news/publications/community-schools-transforming-struggling-schools-thr iving-schools Glassman, D., Naidoo, J., & Wood, F. (2007). Community schools in Africa: Reaching the unreached. Springer. Harkavy, I. (2006). The role of universities in advancing citizenship and social justice in the 21st century. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 1(1), 5–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197906060711 Harkavy, I., Hartley, M., Hodges, R. A., & Weeks, J. (2016). The history and development of a partnership approach to improve schools, communities and universities. In H. A. Lawson and D. van Veen (Eds.), Developing community schools, community learning centers, extended-service schools and multi-service schools. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25664-1_12 Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning. Routledge. Iverson, D. (2005). Schools uniting neighborhoods: The SUN initiative in Portland, Oregon. New Directions for Youth Development, 107 , 81–87. Keith, N. (1996). Can urban school reform and community development be joined? The potential of community schools. Education and Urban Society, 28(2), 237–264. Melaville, A. (2004). Doing what matters: The Bridges to Success strategy for building community schools. Bridges to Success, United Way of Central Indiana. http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/AssetMana ger/Doing_What_Matters.pdf Melaville, A., Jacobson, R., & Blank, M. J. (2011). Scaling up school and community partnerships: The community school strategy. http://www.communitysch ools.org/search.aspx?F_keywords=scaling%20up Miller-Grandvaux, Y. (2004). USAID and community schools in Africa: The vision, the strategy, the reality. USAID Office of Education. https://pdf.usaid. gov/pdf_docs/Pnadb992.pdf Muskin, J. (1999). Including local priorities to assess school quality: The case of Save the Children community schools in Mali. Comparative Education Review, 43(1), 36–63. Mwalimu, M. (2011). Access, quality, and opportunity: A case study of Zambia open community schools (ZOCS). Doctoral dissertation. https://eric.ed.gov/? id=ED529255

54

A. ELLIS

Oakes, J., Maier, A., & Daniel, J. (2017). Community schools. An evidence-based strategy for equitable school improvement. National Education Policy Center. http//nepc.colorado.edu/publication/equitable-community-schools Parker, B. (2010). Community schools in Africa. ICECS. http://www.icecsweb. org/southern-africa-network Somers, M., & Haider, Z. (2017). Using integrated student supports to keep kids in school: A quasi experimental evaluation of communities in schools. MDRC. UCF Center for Community Schools. (2018a). Orlando, FL. Community Partnership Schools TM model. https://www.cohpa.ucf.edu/communityschools/ UCF Center for Community Schools. (2018b). https://www.cohpa.ucf.edu/ communityschools/ UCF Center for Community Schools. (2018c). Community partnership schools: An overview. Power point. Retrieved from email exchange with Melanie Rodriguez, Coordinator, UCF Center for Community Schools. UCF Center for Community Schools. (2018d). UCF-certified community partnership school Standards™, version 3.0. Retrieved from email exchange with Melanie Rodriguez, Coordinator, UCF Center for Community Schools. Valli, L., Stefanski, A., & Jacobson, R. (2016). Typologizing school-community partnerships: A framework for analysis and action. Urban Education, 51(7), 719–747. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859|4549366

CHAPTER 4

The UCF-Certified Community Partnership Schools™ Standards and Certification Process: An Asset-Based Approach to Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement Larry J. Bergeron and Jerry D. Johnson

Abstract This chapter presents an overview of the development and implementation of an evaluation mechanism (the University of Central Florida Center for Community Schools evaluation and accreditation system) that has been an integral mechanism for supporting and enhancing Community Partnership Schools (CPS) in Florida and offers potential as a model for a national accreditation system. The discussion

L. J. Bergeron Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA e-mail: [email protected] J. D. Johnson (B) East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. D. Plante and A. Ellis (eds.), Community Partnership Schools, Rethinking University-Community Policy Connections, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16404-0_4

55

56

L. J. BERGERON AND J. D. JOHNSON

begins with the historical and conceptual grounding for the system, then provides an account of its evolution to the current version. Details of the UCF-Certified Community Partnership Schools™ Standards follow, along with results of the certification process to date—including both organizational outcomes and evidence of impact on individual students and families. A review of trends in the field of community schools in the United States then sets the stage for situating the UCF CCS work in the larger body of work, and provides the basis for implications and recommendations. Keywords UCF certification standards · Readiness assessment · Certification · Affirmation review · Fidelity and quality of the CPS model

History The school reform movement can be traced back at least as far as Horace Mann in the eighteenth century, but the last decades of the twentieth and first decades of the twenty-first century have shown an increasing frequency and intensity of systematic efforts to change and improve public education in the United States (Jennings, 2020). Those efforts have varied in terms of their goals and objectives (most notably, in terms of how they operationalize improvements to public education) and in terms of their origins (e.g., legislative, community-based, business community) and level of policy development and implementation (federal, state, or local). A timeline of major federal and state initiatives in recent decades would include A Nation at Risk (1980s), the widespread adoption of standards-based education models (1990–2000), No Child Left Behind (2001–2015), and the Every Student Succeeds Act (2016–2021). Other more localized or regional initiatives emerged during this same time period—in some cases, representing extensions of and variations on the larger reform initiatives (e.g., leveraging competitive ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act) awards to support educational innovations within a district or group of districts) and in other cases representing grassroots efforts to effect change outside the frameworks of state and federal policy (e.g., place-based learning initiatives supported by community-based groups). Community schooling has been mostly a part of this second category of initiatives with grassroots origins, although

4

THE UCF-CERTIFIED COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP …

57

the community schooling initiative as manifested in the Community Partnership Schools™ model as implemented by the UCF Center for Community Schools (UCF CCS) spans both—with origins in grassroots program development but also a substantive relationship with the Florida Legislature as a basis of support. A central feature of the larger school reform movement has been a focus on establishing standardized expectations for process and/or outcomes and developing mechanisms for measuring both process fidelity/procedural compliance and results—essentially, program evaluation and associated accreditation/certification processes. Community schooling is a notable exception to the emphasis on evaluation and accreditation in school reform. The goals and objectives of community schooling are broader than traditional accountability mechanisms (many of which are narrowly focused on academic performance as measured by standardized tests), and efforts to develop and implement community schools have primarily directed energy and resources toward program development and support for implementation with limited investment in studying implementation processes and measuring outcomes. The UCF Center for Community Schools, recognizing that evaluation and accreditation can—if appropriately designed and utilized—be a vehicle for supporting and sustaining the efforts of partners in the field to implement the CPS model and achieve its objectives, set about designing an evaluation and accreditation system that was both rigorous and responsive. Grounding for the evaluation and accreditation system was derived from a conceptual framework of affordance theory (Gibson, 1975) and a theoretical framework of utilization-focused program evaluation (Patton, 2008). Initially an aesthetic theory of design, affordance theory puts forth the principle that how an object is designed can create perceptions that suggest the opportunity for a specific type of action (e.g., in a simple example, a design in the shape of a doorknob will encourage gripping and turning). The use of affordance theory has since evolved and expanded to applications in varied fields, including education (e.g., Kordt, 2018). In terms of the development of the UCF CCS evaluation and accreditation system, affordance theory provided a framework for conceptualizing standards as ideals that represent opportunities for actions that align with and support the goals and objectives of the CPS model. This approach represents a distinct departure from evaluation systems that are based

58

L. J. BERGERON AND J. D. JOHNSON

upon a fixed, one-size-fits-all set of procedures and a focus on measuring compliance/fidelity with regard to those procedures. Patton’s (2008) utilization-focused evaluation (UFE) is an approach that is based on the idea that the primary criteria for judging an evaluation are its usefulness to the intended users of the results. Building on that idea, UFE encourages planning and conducting evaluations in ways that make it more likely that both the results and the process used to obtain those results will be utilized to inform decision-making and ultimately improve performance. UFE has two essential components: first, the primary intended users must be identified and engaged at the beginning of the evaluation process to ensure that their primary intended uses are clearly understood and described. Second, evaluators must be attentive to those intended uses when developing and implementing the evaluation plan. Instead of focusing on general and abstract users and uses, then, UFE is explicitly attentive to real and specific users and uses. The purpose of an evaluation is not to measure performance and make decisions independently of the intended users, but rather to facilitate decision-making among the people who will use the results obtained from the evaluation.

Purpose In 2010, the University of Central Florida (UCF), the Children’s Home Society of Florida (CHS), and Orange County Public Schools signed a 25-year agreement to establish and implement the Community Partnership Schools™ model at Maynard Evans High School in Pine Hills, a historically economically disadvantaged Orlando community. Over the next four years, the core partners implemented the CPS model focusing on academic programming; a myriad of after-school student and community activities; access to medical, dental, and mental health services; and a strong parent engagement program. During the same time, Figlio (2016) highlighted the considerable improvement in student learning outcomes compared to similar Florida high schools, which sparked statewide interest in the Community Partnership Schools™ model (Ellis, 2019). To that end, the Florida Legislature, in 2014, funded the establishment of UCF’s Center for Community Schools to facilitate the expansion of Community Partnership Schools. Legislative investment demanded a responsibility to intentional replication practices, and any opportunity for further investment to reach a greater number of students, families, and their communities.

4

THE UCF-CERTIFIED COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP …

59

As Community Partnership School expansion began in FY2014–15, the UCF center’s priority became a systems-level replication of the Evans model’s core components. To that end, UCF’s team and partners from across Florida researched multiple frameworks for systems-level replication to explore standardized best practices across sectors including the Coalition for Community Schools’ U.S. community school standards and the International Centre for Community Schools’ standards used in eastern Europe. Subsequently, the UCF team synthesized and expanded upon these practices to develop the UCF-Certified Community Partnership Schools™ Standards and Certification Process model (version 1.0) which further emphasizes the need for continuous improvement. The model describes the cyclical and collaborative process to systematically plan, implement, and certify a UCF-Certified Community Partnership School using 12 CPS standards. Recognizing the need for future innovation, the UCF team considered version 1.0 as a starting point, allowing for subsequent adaptations to reflect the local needs of future CPS sites, changes in focus areas, refinements in terminology, and improvements in processes and practices. As of 2022, the UCF-Certified Community Partnership Schools™ Standards and Certification Process has undergone two advancement revisions that incorporate performance indicators mirroring best practices and lessons learned from the first two CPS cohorts and from the broader field of community schooling. For instance, each revision incorporates refined business rules, expectations of CPS stakeholders, and adaptations to the Community Partnership School™ Standards and Certification Process which highlights the UCF center’s commitment to remaining responsive to local needs while ensuring consistency in quality programming and the model’s fidelity.

Community Partnership Schools™ Standards and Certification Process 3.0 The Community Partnership Schools™ model outlines a rigorous 10year cyclical developmental process for Florida CPS sites. The model prescribes four core community partners—a school district, university or college, nonprofit, and health care provider—that perform core functions and activities essential to the CPS site’s success. During the exploration and planning stage, core partners focus on brokering and managing partnerships; integrating partners in joint planning and assessment; and coordinating and managing the implementation of activities, programs,

60

L. J. BERGERON AND J. D. JOHNSON

and services. The critical first step is identifying people and organizations that will form a collaborative team to facilitate these core functions. The school principal, with support from their district and other school officials, is a primary change agent responsible for leading transformative school change throughout the process. Similarly, the CPS director, employed by the core nonprofit, serves as the coordinating partner responsible for brokering and managing partnerships between partner organizations, the school populations, and the community. John Sherman, the former CPS director at C.A. Weis Elementary School in Pensacola, FL, highlights that “funding schools that have already identified and vetted strong potential core partners and understand the expectations and commitment” is a critical part of the process. Additionally, students, their parents, and community members (e.g., local officials, business owners, faith leaders, and others who have a stake in the success of the school and community) are partners in the collaborative team’s joint planning, community assessment, and the creation of sustainable Community Partnership Schools. The planning period is a critically important time that requires a strong and sustained commitment from all partners and a systematic approach to plan, implement, and sustain the Community Partnership School activities. A community assessment is a key component that supports the creation of a shared community vision and the transition from the planning or exploration period to the implementation or emerging stage of CPS site development. The Community Partnership School and core partners use a mixed methods approach to comprehensively assess school and community assets, review extant data (i.e., school suspension and attendance rates, after-school program utilization rates, and community health statistics), and survey key constituent groups (i.e., parents, teachers, students, and community members) to identify the school’s strengths, weaknesses, and unmet student and family needs. Subsequently, the research team interviews school administrators, faculty, staff, parents, students, and community leaders to gain their interpretation of the data and suggestions to address the unmet needs. After that, the team facilitates stakeholder focus groups to further explore topics of inquiry raised during data collection and review. Data analysis, findings, and recommendations set the stage for the development of an action or implementation

4

THE UCF-CERTIFIED COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP …

61

plan and shared goals focusing on short-term outcomes (e.g., expansion of after-school learning opportunities) and long-term outcomes (e.g., improving the local economy by providing adult education programming to parents and other community members). Certainly, this highlights the critical importance of the shared governance and decision-making required for the effective implementation of Community Partnership Schools. Furthermore, the partners transition from the planning period into the certification track after each partner signs a memorandum of understanding to codify their long-term commitment, often a minimum of 25 years, to support their Community Partnership School.

First-Time Certification Process After entering the certification track, a Community Partnership School becomes a UCF-registered Community Partnership School and has five full schools (fiscal) years to achieve full certification status. John Sherman, describing his experience as a former CPS director, sees the certification process as beneficial because it “helps the CPS leadership focus its efforts on key components. It [the certification process] lays the foundational elements out in a way the sites can use to build a successful implementation” of the model. During the first two years of implementation, the UCF Center for Community Schools hires the remaining core staff positions (i.e., after-school coordinator, health programs coordinator, and parent coordinator), continues to build partner capacity and relationships, and incrementally implements CPS activities, programs, and services. Furthermore, the site generally completes two certification milestones to demonstrate its alignment with the model’s core components and attainment of implementation benchmarks defined by the standards.

Certification Readiness Assessment and Certification Assessment The Certification Readiness Assessment, occurring in year three, is the first certification milestone consisting of an internal review or selfassessment, external review, and the final report. According to Sherman, the internal review is typically a seven-month process that provides the framework for the CPS director, principal, and cabinet to systematically examine the site’s implementation of the standards and evaluate the quality of CPS programs and services. Jennifer Eubanks, a school senior

62

L. J. BERGERON AND J. D. JOHNSON

administrator in one Orange County, FL, high school, recalls “feeling excited that we were on the right track, spending our time, treasure, and talents in the right places…to increase student and community services.” Certainly, the self-assessment provides a consistent framework throughout the certification process and first source of evidence for the Certification Assessment Review team’s three-day external review.1 During the external review process, the review team, consisting of at least two reviewers and one peer reviewer, conducts an in-depth study of the internal review prior to a day-long CPS site visit during which the review team tours the site and conducts stakeholder focus groups/interviews with school personnel, parents, core partners, students, and service providers. The site visit also allows for the direct review and observation of the CPS site’s operations, services, and facilities. At the conclusion of the site visit, the review team provides their preliminary findings (e.g., strengths and growth opportunities) to the CPS cabinet. Subsequently, the review team provides the CPS director, principal, and cabinet chairperson with the final report consisting of strengths, opportunities for growth, assessed performance ratings for each standard, and disclosure of certification eligibility. If found to be eligible for certification, the school may elect to become UCF-certified at that time. If ineligible for certification, the school has two additional years to become a UCF-Certified Community Partnership School. During the subsequent two years, the Community Partnership School continues standards implementation, utilizes the final report’s feedback, and leverages its strengths to overcome identified challenges in preparation for the Certification Assessment, which follows the same process described above. After this, a Community Partnership School and its core partners enter the second five-year period or maturation stage where they continue to cultivate relationships and develop fully expanded learning and wellness programs and services while creating sustainable engagement, governance, and assessment practices.

1 Of note, during the COVID-19 pandemic the certification process utilized a hybrid approach with many of processes described here conducted virtually.

4

THE UCF-CERTIFIED COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP …

63

Affirmation Review and Re-Certification Assessment After initial certification, a Community Partnership School enters the second five-year period of the 10-year cycle where the focal point remains on core instructional programs, expanded learning opportunities, and comprehensive wellness programs and services. A Community Partnership School must complete a year-three mid-cycle abbreviated assessment or Affirmation Review to maintain certification status. The abbreviated assessment is a formative assessment intended to affirm that the framework’s fundamental practices and standards that define a UCF-Certified Community Partnership School are in place. As previously mentioned, the review team gathers and examines evidence from the site’s internal review and conducts stakeholder interviews/focus groups during the site or virtual visit. Following the affirmation review, the CPS site receives a one- to two-page final report summarizing its top strengths, the review team’s recommendations, and disclosure of the site’s certification status. The affirmation review has three possible outcomes (see Fig. 4.1) for a CPS site (i.e., fully affirmed UCF-Certified Community Partnership School, conditionally affirmed with a technical assistance plan, or not fully affirmed). The latter two outcomes require a CPS school to take corrective action to achieve full affirmation status or risk the potential loss of grant funding. A fully affirmed UCF-Certified Community Partnership School prepares for and completes a full-cycle re-certification assessment, identical to the previously mentioned certification assessment, in the fifth year following certification. Re-certification initiates another 10-year cycle of affirmation review and re-certification (Fig. 4.2).

UCF-Certified Community Partnership Schools™ Standards The UCF Community Partnership Schools™ Standards 3.0 defines the 12 standards, prescribes two types of performance indicators, and operationally defines the performance rating levels that underpin all assessments and reviews in the certification process (Table 4.1). Fundamental practices, the first performance indicator, describe effective practices that define the Community Partnership Schools™ model’s core components and provide a road map for a CPS site planning and implementation of the model. Moreover, fundamental practices establish

Fig. 4.1 Third-year affirmation review

64 L. J. BERGERON AND J. D. JOHNSON

Fig. 4.2 Fifth-year re-certification assessment

4 THE UCF-CERTIFIED COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP …

65

66

L. J. BERGERON AND J. D. JOHNSON

Table 4.1 UCF-certified community partnership schools™ standards Standard 1

Partnership

Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard

Collaborative Leadership, Governance, and Organizational Structure Foundational Principles Staffing Integrated Community Partnership School Framework Expanded Day Learning Opportunities Comprehensive Wellness Support Family and Community Engagement Volunteering University Assistance Evaluation Sustainability

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

the foundational basis for gathering evidentiary data that further inform the second performance indicator, the overall assessment, which assesses a CPS site’s comprehensive growth and development in the process. Implementation of all fundamental practices and the overall assessment findings determine a CPS school’s certification eligibility, certification status, full affirmation, and re-certification status.

Performance Rating Level The certification assessment process focuses on continuous improvement and uses a standardized point system to assign performance rating levels to fundamental practices and overall assessment indicators. Performance rating levels use four performance indicators to describe each rating level and assign a numerical value to each indicator (see Table 4.2). To attain certification eligibility, all fundamental practices must receive a rating at Implementing with an assigned value of two points per indicator. Similarly, overall assessment indicators use individual performance rating indicators, and a CPS site must attain a minimum of 50% of the possible implementing points to attain certification eligibility. For instance, standard 1, partnership, has five overall assessment indicators which means there are 10 possible Implementing points. A CPS site must attain five Implementing points to be certification eligible. To inform a standard’s rating (see Table 4.3), each overall assessment indicator

4

THE UCF-CERTIFIED COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP …

67

Table 4.2 Indicator performance rating levels Performance rating level

Description

Not Using (NU) Developing (D)

CPS site not currently using strategy (0 points) CPS site has begun efforts in this strategy, but not fully developed to a satisfactory level (1 point) CPS site is using strategy effectively; evidence indicates solid agreement with indicator statement (2 points) CPS site is implementing strategy beyond average expectations through innovative and/or effective strategies; considered an exemplar for implementation (1 point)

Implementing (IMP) Innovating (INN Bonus )

Table 4.3 Standard performance rating levels Performance rating level

Description

Unacceptable Minimal Acceptable

Does not address indicator Addresses indicator; does not support rating Addresses indicator and provides information to support rating Addresses indicator and provides sufficient detailed information to support rating

Satisfactory

must include a brief narrative statement, supported by evidence gathered during a CPS site’s certification process, to justify the indicator’s rating and summarizes the site’s strengths, areas of improvement, and recommendations.

Certification Results As of January 2022, there are 29 Community Partnership Schools in 19 Florida school districts. These districts are home to 62% of Florida citizens and 64% of youth under 18, and nearly two-thirds of them live in a persistent state of poverty and come from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. Furthermore, nearly 64% of adults in these counties have less than a high school diploma. Although the UCF Community Partnership Schools™ model is a rigorous, resource-intensive process, Community Partnership Schools have a broad impact in the five UCF-Certified Community Partnership Schools and 21 UCF-Registered Community

68

L. J. BERGERON AND J. D. JOHNSON

Partnership Schools that provide expanded learning opportunities, wellness supports, and family and community engagement to more than 22,000 Florida students. Likewise, there are significant academic and social outcomes within the five UCF-Certified Community Partnership Schools. For instance, Ellis (2019) highlights that one “CPS site had an overall graduation rate gain of 18.4% points over the 14 years (65.5% in 2003–2004 to 83.9% in 2016–2017)” (p. 93). Furthermore, Eubanks highlights the critical importance that the expanded learning opportunities and mentoring programs had on students’ social well-being at the same CPS site: “The after-school clubs with transportation home provided the students an opportunity to belong to a group of peers with like interests and begin to know their selfworth for the first time! One student in particular I remember very well became pregnant her senior year. It was a struggle for her to balance academics and a job and still keep her head up amongst her peers. She was a very talented girl, and unfortunately, was kicked out of SGA because she was pregnant. She found hope and acceptance at the Hub [student CPS resource area of school]. Today this student is a very proud mom of a cute little boy, is in the Army Reserve, attends college full time, and is on YouTube where she encourages teen moms to reach for the stars, even against the odds in front of them.” Echoing Eubanks, Sherman describes his team’s collaborative efforts in providing highly effective behavior interventions and counseling support for an elementary student: [the student’s mother] was starting to lose hope until she learned she had many supports as a parent in a Community Partnership School. The behavior coach referred [the student] to the quality afterschool program. Once in the after-school program, the expanded learning coordinator noticed his struggles and suggested that the mom utilize the CHS counseling program. [The student] enrolled in counseling with the CHS counselor onsite at the school. It was the best thing that could have ever happened. Since starting in the after-school program and getting counseling [the student] has had ZERO calls for behavior all year and he is doing so well in school. He just made the A/B honor role. He went from not wanting to read to loving to read. [The student’s mother] shared her gratitude for all the support she received from CHS and her Community Partnership School. These are just a few examples of specific overarching and individual outcomes within a program that continues to gain state legislative support to advance the program’s expansion efforts.

4

THE UCF-CERTIFIED COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP …

69

Trends in the Field The number of P-12 schools designated as community schools has increased in recent years, as has state financial support for implementation and ongoing operation (Camera, 2021). Quinn and Blank (2020) report that between 8000 and 10,000 U.S. schools now self-identify as community schools, representing more than 100 school districts and cities implementing at multiple school sites within their organizations. In a historical treatment of the community schools movement, Rogers (1998) suggests that interest in community schools increases during times of socio-historical turbulence, and describes the current era of community schools (which began in the early 1990s) as the fourth phase, one that builds upon earlier phases (Deweyian progressivism, response to the Great Depression, 1960s social unrest and reform) but addresses some of their limitations by framing community schools in a broader, more comprehensive way and by being more attentive to the importance of political alliances. The field has coalesced around a set of common elements that define what a community school is and what it does (Quinn & Blank, 2020), and those elements are actively taught and coached by leading national organizations and their partners (e.g., the Coalition for Community Schools and the University-Assisted Community Schools Network via regional training centers, the Children’s Aid National Center for Community Schools and the State University of New York at Binghamton via a graduate certificate program). A growing body of research investigates the impact of community schools and identifies salient program aspects, affirming and refining our collective understanding of common elements (Maier et al., 2017). Prior to the certification process developed by the UCF CCS, however, there was no widely accepted mechanism for evaluating community schools and verifying through an objective process that they meet expectations reflected in common elements. Thus, the UCFCertified Community Partnership Schools™ Standards represents the first of its kind to operationalize recognized standards and expectations through a comprehensive review and evaluation process that validates the organization and operation of a designated community school.

70

L. J. BERGERON AND J. D. JOHNSON

Implications and Recommendations As noted, both the evaluation process and the approach to designing and refining that process were grounded in commitments to (a) an assetsbased approach that is intended to enhance and strengthen schools and communities by creating opportunities and facilitating growth and development (cf. affordance theory), and (b) a practical approach to evaluation that offers meaningful feedback that can support continuous growth and development (cf. utilization-focused evaluation). Both commitments are manifested in the purposes of accreditation as operationalized in the UCF CCS evaluation and accreditation system. Collectively, these purposes explain the Why? of the accreditation process. As designed and practiced, the UCF CCS Evaluation and Accreditation System: • Provides a systematic asset-based aspirational approach to community school improvement; • Offers a conceptual and operational framework for community school best practice and implementation fidelity; • Ensures consistency of quality community school programming and rigor in the field of education; • Provides a process to formalize regular self-evaluation and continuous improvement practices; and • Creates a common language, understanding, and opportunity across the field. Schools that engage in the process and the broader community they serve benefit from the evaluation accreditation process both directly (by enhancing their capacity to implement the CPS) and indirectly (by enhancing their capacity for collaboration, for reflection, for datainformed decision-making, and for organizational development). Specific benefits identified to date collectively include: • Joining a network/membership of accredited “best practice” schools that serve as models for other community schools worldwide; • Enhancing opportunities to apply and to advocate for funding as accredited community school(s); • Providing a roadmap for ongoing continuous improvement measures;

4

THE UCF-CERTIFIED COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP …

71

• Building a framework to support research on the effectiveness of community schools; • Helping to elevate the field; and • Developing more quickly into high-quality programming. The experiences of developing, implementing, and refining the UCF CCS Evaluation and Accreditation System offer key insights into the potential for how an authentic, rigorous, appropriate assessment model can contribute to program quality on all levels. Attentive to that observation, a primary recommendation supported by these experiences is to establish a national certification process to take these benefits to scale and to ensure fidelity to the model among the nation’s 8000–10,000 schools (Quinn & Blank, 2020) designated as community schools.

References Camera, L. (2021, August 25). Community schools see revival in time of heightened need. US News and World Report. https://www.usnews.com/ news/education-news/articles/2021-08-25/community-schools-see-revivalin-time-of-heightened-need Ellis, A. (2019). The impact of the community partnership schools model community school on graduation and attendance rates in one Florida high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Central Florida. Figlio, D. (2016). A preliminary evaluation of the Evans community school and the extant literature on community schools. Northwestern University. https://www.cohpa.ucf.edu/communityschools/wp-content/uploads/sites/ 15/2017/04/evans_community_school_evaluation_with_exec_summary_-_ jan_2016.pdf Gibson, J. J. (1975). Affordances and behavior. In E. S. Reed & R. Jones (Eds.), Reasons for realism: Selected essays of James J. Gibson (pp. 401–411). Erlbaum. Jennings, J. (2020). Fatigued by school reform. Rowman & Littlefield. Kordt, B. (2018). Affordance theory and multiple language learning and teaching. International Journal of Multilingualism, 15(2), 135–148. Maier, A., Daniel, J., Oakes, J., & Lam, L. (2017). Community schools as an effective school improvement strategy: A review of the evidence. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/community-sch ools-effective-school-improvement-brief Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Sage.

72

L. J. BERGERON AND J. D. JOHNSON

Quinn, J., & Blank, M. J. (2020). Twenty years, ten lessons: Community schools as an equitable school improvement strategy. Voices in Urban Education, 49(2), 44–53. https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/metrocenter/vue/volume49-issue-2 Rogers, J. S. (1998). Community schools: Lessons from the past and present: A report to the Charles S. Mott Foundation. UCLA.

CHAPTER 5

Evans High School, a UCF-Certified Community Partnership School: A Case Study of the Comprehensive Community School Model Jarrad D. Plante, Curtesa L. Vanderpool, and Jarvis Wheeler

Abstract There is a process by which a pilot becomes a prototype. The same can be said for when a sole community school transforms into a model. This is what happened with Evans High School, and how it transformed from a traditional high school into a community school and, ultimately, became the flagship of the Community Partnership Schools™ model that has been replicated across the Sunshine State. This case study demonstrates the process, partnership, and well-integrated academic and

J. D. Plante (B) AmeriCorps NCCC, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: [email protected] C. L. Vanderpool · J. Wheeler Children’s Home Society of Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. D. Plante and A. Ellis (eds.), Community Partnership Schools, Rethinking University-Community Policy Connections, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16404-0_5

73

74

J. D. PLANTE ET AL.

enrichment programs and services at Evans and the resulting effects on students, school, families, and the larger community. Statewide data will highlight the broader impact the Community Partnership Schools™ model is having across the state of Florida. Keywords Case study · Service-learning · LEADS · The hub · Community Leadership Council · Student Leadership Council

Background At the turn of the twenty-first century, schools were beginning to reimagine how teaching and learning could have a greater impact on society through innovation, partnership, and commitment. In early 2009, the dean of the College of Health and Public Affairs, the dean of the College of Education, and the director of the Center for Community Partnerships from the University of Central Florida (UCF), along with the president of Children’s Home Society of Florida (CHS), visited Children’s Aid Society of New York’s community schools (Ellis, 2019). The four returned to Florida committed to begin implementation of a one-of-its-kind community school in Florida. UCF, Orange County Public Schools, and CHS created the Community Partnership Schools™ model in 2010 at Maynard Evans High School in Orlando, FL. In 2010, following much discussion and planning, the three entities signed a 25year memorandum of understanding to establish a partnership that would lead to the development of a community school in Orange County. Two years later, these partners were joined by an additional core partner, True Health, a federally qualified health center, with the forethought that comprehensive wellness—physical, behavioral, and mental health—would be a catalyst for overall student performance. Between 1999 and 2010, Evans High School, a Title 1 school, received an annual school performance grade of D seven times and grade F four times from the Florida Department of Education. In 2006–2007,

J. Wheeler e-mail: [email protected]

5

EVANS HIGH SCHOOL, A UCF-CERTIFIED COMMUNITY …

75

the school had a graduation rate of less than 50% and was considered a “dropout factory” (Sparks, 2018). According to Florida Department of Education (FDOE), in the 2010–2011 academic year, Evans High School served about 2500 students in grades 9–12 (2018a) with 100% of students on free or reduced lunch (2018b). Minority enrollment at that time was 98%, with the majority of 85% of students self-reporting as Black. About 12% of the students, mostly Creole-speaking Haitian students, were enrolled in an English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program. Only 18% of the students scored at a level of proficiency or higher in reading during that school year. The timing and circumstances afforded the partners the opportunity to work with Evans to begin transitioning the high school to a community school, more specifically the first Community Partnership School (CPS), and improve attendance, behavior, and course performance. The planning stage for Evans as a community school began in August 2010 with the first community school coordinator, who was also a school senior administrator hired by the school district. The coordinator’s job was to align Evans’s school operational components with the community school pillars—expanded learning, wellness, collaborative leadership, and family and community engagement—and develop processes to implement identified services and programs. The first CPS director was hired and financially supported by the nonprofit partner during the 2011–2012 school year to further Evans’s implementation efforts. Two years after its planning phase, Evans High School announced officially as a Community Partnership School during its grand opening ceremony on campus in August 2012 (Ellis, 2019). Several years after implementation of the Community Partnership Schools™ model at Evans, Figlio (2016) completed a preliminary evaluation. Figlio compared academic results of Evans High School to the 12 most similar high schools in Florida. Over time, Evans improved overall relative to the 12 comparison schools. For example, in academic year 2012–2013, Evans improved in nine of the 14 academic metrics used to grade Florida high schools versus the similar schools after implementing the Community Partnership Schools™ model (Figlio, 2016). Only one year later, in 2013–2014, Evans improved in 12 of the 14 identified academic metrics versus the 12 similar schools (Figlio, 2016). At Evans, wraparound services were described by Figlio as “very well-integrated and coordinated with one another” (p. 8). Concluding the visit, qualitative

76

J. D. PLANTE ET AL.

interviews, and quantitative analysis, Figlio reported that the Community Partnership Schools™ model as instituted at Evans was “one that is likely to yield considerable successes in other locations in Florida” (p. 12).

Review of the Literature Unprecedented amounts of money have gone into remodeling or new builds for K-12 schools starting at the beginning of the twenty-first century (Bingler, 2005), and Evans High School was no exception. Evans, however, used an innovative strategy when its new school was being built in 2020—a planning concept where the school became the “hub” of the community. The U.S. Department of Education sponsored a document (2003) with policy affiliates, educators, and architects and developed a six-principle design for a twenty-first-century school that is bold and transformational, and meets the needs of students, creating learning environments that: • enhance teaching and learning; accommodate the needs of all learners • serve as centers of the community • result from a planning and design process that involves all interested citizens • provide for health, safety, and security • make effective use of all available resources • allow for flexibility and adaptability to changing needs. When developing the new school, Evans adopted this concept and created a whole hallway that dedicated Community Partnership School spaces such as core staff office spaces; family resource center; miniconference room and expanded learning space; mental health services; and the Hub to help direct students and families to community school programs and services. On the other end of the campus is the wellness center, where, on one side of the center, students and Evans’ personnel can receive medical, dental, and vision services, which are all mirrored on the other side of the center, which is open to the community. Evans is part of the four-core-partner model and demonstrates why the Community Partnership Schools™ model is comprehensive. “All the partners must be involved in the development of the plan so that they can

5

EVANS HIGH SCHOOL, A UCF-CERTIFIED COMMUNITY …

77

own it, and the development of the vision and philosophy must involve a mutual perspective” (Malve, 2005, pp. 130–131). It is defining an ethos that we are in this together, a shared governance strategy, and culture of “yes.” This has to be present at all levels, from the 50,000-foot cabinet level with core partners, parents, and students to grass roots operations teams, as well as Community Leadership Council and Student Leadership Council, so there is coalition building, trust, and rapport, and so all voices are included in decision-making processes. There is a common phrase in community school vernacular, “If you have seen one community school, you have seen only one community school,” and it was adapted toward Florida’s model by former CPS director and current state director, Jarvis Wheeler, as “If you have seen one Community Partnership School, you have seen only one Community Partnership School.” Each Community Partnership School has alignment of the community school pillars—collaborative leadership, comprehensive wellness, expanded learning, and family and community engagement—in addition to other components such as 25-year MOU commitment among four core partners (school district, health care, college and/or university, and nonprofit organization); wellness services are comprehensive, onsite, linked, or telehealth and offered to students, school personnel, families, and community; and the CPS standards—the assessment and evaluation tool to review, certify, and affirm that each school is adhering to the fidelity of the model while providing quality programs and services. However, each school is different based on the type of school (elementary, middle, high school, or combination therein); location (urban vs. rural); and community need. The same approach was taken when growing from Evans High School to 2022s 29 Community Partnership Schools across the state of Florida. Expanding the model was strategically based on responsiveness, joint planning, resourcing, and assurance on partners’ commitment and ability to maintain high quality and model fidelity (Kim, 2005). A community school is an exciting strategy of improving student outcomes in Florida school districts. In some cases, it may be easier to pilot a community school with seed money from a state or federal agency. It takes dedicated work by partners to sustain a community school. Evans High School, A UCF-Certified Community Partnership School, is the longest-tenured CPS, and thanks to planning from the beginning, the initiative has been able to align to other community schools that

78

J. D. PLANTE ET AL.

“plan for the long-term development, implementation, assessment, and institutionalization of this new line of work” (Quinn, 2005, p. 157). The planning for the long-term sustainability was very intentional and initially led by deeply accessing what the cabinet envisioned for the future of Evans: Evans would be a safe place where students and families could grow, learn, and have access to support for their social, emotional, and health needs. In order to consistently fulfill this vision, it would take many hands, voices, and champions. Community champions were developed through the efforts of the director and the Community Leadership Council. This was key in building a strong reputation in the community and creating a buzz around the innovative model. Concurrently, advocacy took place on a local level as well as at the state capital. Tours were conducted with various stakeholder groups (legislators, international college students, donors, advocates, etc.) to share the full essence of the work that was being done through the CPS. Oftentimes on the tours, relationships blossomed into connections and the connections lead to financial support. Some support came in the form of legislators sponsoring or co-sponsoring bills at the state level to include Community Partnership Schools in particular appropriations. This was very successful as the legislators’ help can be directly linked to the statewide expansion of Community Partnership Schools. In addition to the strong relationship development and advocacy, the cabinet members consistently wrapped their arms around the vision and were willing to bring resources to the table in support. Initially, support came in the form of filling a gap as it pertained to staff. When a position was at stake due to a reduction in funding, a core partner organization would step up to meet the need. For instance, when Children’s Home Society of Florida was unable to financially sustain the family and community engagement coordinator core position at Evans, Orange County Public Schools stepped in to fund the position. Although Evans receives 75% of its annual funding via the Florida Department of Education through UCF’s Center for Community Schools, its cabinet wanted to begin planning to increase the local sustainability. CHS led the efforts by creating an “Adopt A Program” initiative. The main focus of this initiative was to secure multiyear funding packages with reputable companies and organizations. For the first year of the initiative, Synchrony Bank signed on for a two-year, $50,000 unrestricted funding agreement. After this success, the method was replicated

5

EVANS HIGH SCHOOL, A UCF-CERTIFIED COMMUNITY …

79

for other Community Partnership Schools, bringing in multiyear sponsorships at a total of $870,000 to support four different schools. In addition, Evans received grants to support its sustainability over the years from the following organizations: • • • • • • • • •

Gilchrist Enterprises Heart of Florida United Way Jessie Ball DuPont Fund J.P. Morgan Chase Orlando Health Orlando Magic Youth Foundation PNC Bank Swift Foundation Westgate Resorts Foundations.

University-Assisted Partnership Another comprehensive aspect of the Community Partnership Schools™ model is engagement by the college or university partner. This partner could include a community college, a technical college, or a two-year or four-year institution. The post-secondary partner’s purpose is to leverage resources like programs, services, and human capital to advance the mission of the Community Partnership School. These resources include, but are not limited to: • creating an access point for programming and services from the institution • leading data committee • supporting strategic planning • fundraising and doing advancement work through the college or university foundation • assisting with a needs assessment • conducting faculty and student research • developing results-based research and evaluation methodologies • implementing academic support in the form of interns, tutors, teacher assistants, and teacher retention programs • recruiting general student support: counseling interns, mentors, and volunteers

80

J. D. PLANTE ET AL.

• data collecting and performance analysis • assisting in the economic development of surrounding CPS community • teaching ESOL/TSOL for CPS families (Plante, 2018). One example of university-assisted partnership at Evans High School is through the Leadership for Educational Attainment Developed through Service (LEADS) program. LEADS is a service-learning program formed as a result of the Commonwealth Corps, a state-type AmeriCorps program developed by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. This program was an opportunity for nonprofits, higher education institutions, and the like to apply for funding that would support the mission of the Commonwealth Corps—to increase volunteerism in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Matthew Roy, Ph.D., director of the Leduc Center for Civic Engagement, and Deirdre Healy, assistant director at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, developed the LEADS program, which was among the 20 entities that received a three-year grant from the Massachusetts Service Alliance. In the program’s infancy, seven Commonwealth Corps members served in eight different LEADS classes during and after school in six middle schools and one high school spanning the two gateway cities of Fall River and New Bedford, MA. The governor himself gave a special commendation for the students’ food pantry service-learning project (Plante, 2010). The LEADS program was replicated at UCF and piloted at Evans High School as Evans was seeking an opportunity to connect university students from its core partner to the high school by means of mentorship and leadership. In fall 2016, the LEADS program launched at Evans, facilitated by the Student Government Association (SGA) class. Two LEADS coordinators in the UCF Nonprofit Management and Leadership program led the lesson planning and curriculum facilitation. The Evans students chose to focus on the social topic of “respect” to address the need within their campus community. Their end-of-semester project was a Respect Fair, where the LEADS participants set up informational booths and team activities that engaged more than 200 students, faculty, and staff during their lunch periods. The program was duplicated within Evans High School, adding another class with Minority Leadership Scholars. The MLS class focused on career exploration and developed a networking event called Industry

5

EVANS HIGH SCHOOL, A UCF-CERTIFIED COMMUNITY …

81

Inspired, where more than 240 students interacted with 12 professionals from six different industries or businesses to learn about various professions and pathways toward those careers. The LEADS participants engaged six classes, 12 teachers and administrators, and 240 students, all during two class periods. This event was well received as career exploration helps with retention and persistence toward graduation (Plante, 2017). At the end of the year, the LEADS students were invited to participate in the Youth Summit on Community Engagement. For many, this was their first time on a college campus. The day included a tour of campus by way of a team scavenger hunt, with the winning team earning UCF swag. They then had the chance to listen and engage with SGA student leaders, asking burning questions about college life, and participated in a mini service project such as assembling hygiene packets facilitated by Goodwill Industries. Lunchtime was at one of the cafeterias near the residential halls. Finally, the LEADS coordinators facilitated reflection and recognition with the students as an appreciation for participating and bettering their community. The engagement that the LEADS students have on campus, with college students and sitting in a classroom, demonstrated to the Evans students that attending college is not as scary as they may have once thought, and they were able to, as a result, imagine becoming future college students themselves. UCF has also assisted Evans through the Freshman Success Mentor Program. Freshman Success was a course developed by the principal to support incoming freshmen to strengthen their character and develop life skills in the following areas: • • • • • • • • • • •

conflict resolution techniques leadership skills techniques and methods for planning techniques of group dynamics personal development and wellness goal setting time and stress management communication skills and techniques problem-solving skills team-building techniques organizational techniques

82

J. D. PLANTE ET AL.

• motivational strategies • sharpening the saw program of self-renewal • character development. A huge part of the students’ success was the mentoring aspect, and UCF played an integral role. In partnership with UCF, most of the mentors were recruited through internal marketing on the university campus. Once UCF students were recruited, they would register for and attend a mentor training conducted by Evans. This training was essential as it provided a clear overview of the program as well as guidelines for the mentors and ongoing support through the community engagement coordinator. During the training, the mentors created mentor profiles, which provided vital information to effectively pair mentors with mentees. Although the mentors attended training, the students in the Freshman Success (FS) class participated in classroom presentations to learn about the program. The community engagement coordinator scheduled a day with each of the three Freshman Success teachers to present the mentoring program during all six class periods, answer student questions, and register those requesting a mentor. Once the community engagement coordinator possessed both mentor and mentee profiles, the pairing began. To kick off the program, all mentors and mentees were invited to attend a meet and greet event. Moving forward, mentors could choose to meet with their mentees up to two times weekly during the mentee’s Freshman Success class. The community engagement coordinator managed the program and created opportunities for the mentors and mentees to socialize quarterly. The impact of this program was powerful. Data showed that Freshman Success (FS) students with mentors academically outperformed all of the non-FS students as well as those in FS but without mentors.

5

EVANS HIGH SCHOOL, A UCF-CERTIFIED COMMUNITY …

83

UCF Take Over Week is another example of university-assisted partnership programming. This massive event in 2015 brought the college experience as well as vital information about the college to the students at Evans High School. As Michael Frumkin, Ph.D., 2014 Dean of UCF’s College of Health and Public Affairs and one of the original founders of the model, explained, “although UCF is only a 35-minute drive, it might as well be 3000 miles away for the students here [at Evans High School].” Having this awareness really drove the intentional planning and execution of the Take Over event, with the end goal of creating an environment that would immerse Evans students in UCF college life as well as educate them on the opportunities and resources available to them through the university. Over the course of the week-long event, students were exposed to clubs and organizations during the lunch period as well as informative workshops after school on undergraduate admissions, academic resources, and financial aid. Knightro, the UCF mascot, came out along with the UCF cheerleaders and band for Spirit Day to give the students a peek into the college atmosphere. The event was well received by the students and staff at Evans and was requested to be replicated at neighboring Community Partnership Schools. With Evans High School being the flagship Community Partnership School, key stakeholders are able to see impact over a longer period of time in all aspects of the CPS model, including post-secondary outcomes. One example of this is UCF’s Institutional Knowledge Management data (IKM, 2017), which reports the application, attendance, and enrollment rates of students from a particular high school into UCF. Reviewing the data from the 2005–2006 academic year to the 2016– 2017 academic year, Evans High School had low application, acceptance, and enrollment rates for the first seven of those academic years. However,

84

J. D. PLANTE ET AL.

soon after Evans became a Community Partnership School in 2011 with UCF as a core partner, those rates increased in all three categories— correlating the intentionality and presence of the university on the Evans campus and matriculation into UCF, creating a continuum of education, depicted by Figs. 5.1 and 5.2.

Fig. 5.1 UCF applicants from evans community partnership school

Fig. 5.2 Evans applicants to UCF

5

EVANS HIGH SCHOOL, A UCF-CERTIFIED COMMUNITY …

85

Evans Impact The Community Partnership School has had very noticeable impacts on the students, staff, families, and community of Pine Hills in Orlando. As one teacher shared, “The Hub [Evans High School, A Community Partnership School] was my lifeline.” Deeply depressed and suicidal, she was able to receive counseling services through Evans. She regained a sense of self and truly felt that Evans was a home where she was accepted just as she was. Due to the support received, her once agonizing one-hour daily commute became a joyful experience because she was traveling not to a job, but to a place of love and acceptance. The kids don’t have an excuse not to come to school. Whatever the problem is, the Hub will help take care of it. If your water doesn’t work at home, if you need food–it doesn’t matter. Just get to school and we will take care of it. The Hub is a bridge that keeps expanding. There is no end to what can be done to help us succeed. (Children’s Home Society, 2021)

The students’ sense of safety around the neighborhood also improved. According to the Orange County Sheriff’s data (2017), since the inception of the Community Partnership Schools™ model at Evans, crime dropped 19% within a one-mile radius of the school. With this decrease in crime, 48% of students noted feeling safe around the school as well. For students in distressed communities, attendance, behavior, and course performance can often take a back seat to day-to-day survival, based on the 2018 student needs assessment results. Supporting the school to address the early warning indicators that impact student success aids in communicating a clear picture of the value of the CPS model. With the resources brought by the model, the school has additional support to address students’ safety and trauma as well as other social concerns. This added care enables students to focus on learning and planning for a successful life after high school. At Evans, the impact of the CPS model can be seen in the increase in student attendance, the decrease in negative behavior, and the increase in course performance.

86

J. D. PLANTE ET AL.

The introduction of the CPS model at Evans High School also helped to change the school’s image with local businesses in a positive way. For example, the annual Trojan Service Day event is a full community affair. Partners such as Orange County Government, Starbucks, City Year Orlando, United Foundation of Central Florida, and Pizza Hut, just to name a few, have contributed over the years to make the event successful. More than 300 community members, students, and staff come together annually to volunteer at the local Second Harvest Food Bank, and clean and beautify the main streets surrounding the school and the school campus, as well as local churches and businesses. Additionally, students take part in professional development sessions, teaching them interview skills, personal branding, fire safety, CPR, and dressing for success.

5

EVANS HIGH SCHOOL, A UCF-CERTIFIED COMMUNITY …

87

The academic, economic, and social value brought to Evans, including access to health care, enrichment services, and mentoring and volunteer services, translates into additional students graduating every year. According to Evans Return on Investment (2019), the CPS has saved the community close to $65,000,000 since the inception of the partnership in 2011–2012. A recent Evans graduate observed, “Every child should have the same resources, opportunities, and privileges to be what they want to be. Your background, race, economic status, and the neighborhood you grew up in does not make you any greater or less. Every child can succeed despite the barriers in their way.”

88

J. D. PLANTE ET AL.

One of the ultimate academic goals of any Community Partnership School is educational attainment. The pinnacle of educational attainment in high schools is graduation rates. In the early 2000s, Evans was one of the lowest performing schools in the state of Florida, with graduation rates at about 50% in 2006–2007. After implementing the CPS model in the 2010–2011 academic year, graduation rates steadily increased. In 2019–2020, Evans had the highest graduation rate increase over the previous year (from 86.8 to 97.6%) in all of Orange County Public Schools, the eighth largest school district in the country (UCF Center for Community Schools, 2021a, 2021b). Directly or indirectly, in 2020 and 2021 everyone was impacted by COVID-19, with real challenges happening in the classroom with teaching and learning. However, CPS sites like Evans High School were poised to support educators, students, their families, and the larger community. In an article on supporting teachers where they are during the global pandemic (Plante & Palmer, 2020), the most important strategy for Community Partnership Schools is to create systems and processes that address the needs of the whole child, allowing teachers to focus on instruction. CPS sites have become focal points of resources for students and families through physical “hubs.” Social distancing measures led Evans High School CPS staff to increase access to resources by developing a “virtual hub,” which they routinely update and is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8hmg33r (Evans High School, A UCF-Certified Community Partnership School, 2020).

Statewide Impact Starting with Evans High School in Orlando in 2010 through early 2022, Community Partnership Schools have expanded from one urban site to 29 CPS sites in urban, suburban, and rural communities across the Sunshine State. According to the 2021–2022 fact sheet, those 29 schools reside in 19 school districts serving 24,595 students. Broken down by school type, 52% of CPS sites are elementary schools; 10% are preschool-8 or K-8; 14% are middle schools; and 24% are high schools (UCF CCS, 2022). Three of Florida’s 29 CPS sites are in the planning phase and in the assessment and evaluation process of collecting baseline data. Twenty of the Community Partnership Schools are in the implementation phase of their development. The remaining six are fully UCF-Certified Community Partnership Schools.

5

EVANS HIGH SCHOOL, A UCF-CERTIFIED COMMUNITY …

89

In 2020–2021, Florida appropriated $7,180,571 for CPS sites minus 6% holdback or $430,835, which equaled $6,749,736. The legislature reverted the remaining FY2019–20 funds of $1,307,921. Therefore, a total of $8,057,657 was provided by the Florida Legislature to support the Community School Grant Program. There was a required match of 25% or $1,687,435 which included dollars and in-kind donations. The funding match reported was $6,999,224, which was 314% more than the required match (UCF CCS, 2021a, 2021b). Falling within the expanded learning pillar, 6758 students received tutoring and academic support, yielding 99,609 hours of tutoring and academic support to those students. Additionally, 6150 students were engaged in enrichment activities, yielding 110,849 hours. Under the wellness supports pillar, 2745 students received primary health care; 764 students received dental care; 1952 students received vision care; and 1441 students received behavioral health care. Finally, within the family and community engagement pillar, it was reported collectively that there were 16,785 hours of mentoring of the elementary, middle, and high school students and 23,304 hours of volunteering by students, school personnel, families, core partners, college and university students, local businesses, and faith-based and nonprofit organizations to better the schools and larger communities (UCF CCS, 2021a, 2021b).

Conclusion Creating a shared vision is a principle of the Coalition for Community Schools, to which the CPS framework ascribes. Other paralleled core operating principles include (a) foster strong partnerships; (b) share accountability for results (c) embrace diversity; (d) avoid cookie-cutter solutions; (e) set high expectations for all; and (f) build on the community’s strengths. Using public schools as hubs, as demonstrated by Evans High School, core partners will be able to achieve high-quality results like: • Children are ready to learn when they enter school every day. • Students learn and achieve high standards. • Young people are well prepared for adult roles in the workplace, the home place, and in the community. • Families and communities are safe, supportive, and engaged. • Families and community members are involved with the school and their own lifelong learning (Blank, 2005).

90

J. D. PLANTE ET AL.

Having a vehicle to bring these results to a school is strongly attributed to the distributive leadership seen between the partners for Evans High School, a UCF-Certified Community Partnership School. Not only has Evans been transformed academically but culturally as well. When a person enters the campus, the atmosphere is that of a college campus, a far cry from its earlier days where students dropped out of school more frequently. It is also a place where the staff, students, and parents know that they are safe and supported not only by the Orange County Public Schools staff, but also by all of the core partners: Children’s Home Society of Florida, Orange Blossom Family Health, and University of Central Florida. The Community Partnership Schools™ model begins as a proof of concept, and building on the success of Evans High School, the trademarked model has been replicated in 28 additional sites statewide. The vision for Evans High School, “A safe place where students and families could grow, learn, and have access to support their social, emotional and health needs,” is a reality that is growing stronger every year.

References Bingler, S. (2005). Schools as centers of community: Planning and design. In J. G. Dryfoos, J. Quinn, & C. Barkin (Eds.), Community schools in action: Lessons from a decade of practice (pp. 189–218). University Press. Blank, M. J. (2005). Reaching out to create a movement. In J. G. Dryfoos, J. Quinn, & C. Barkin (Eds.), Community schools in action: Lessons from a decade of practice (pp. 189–218). University Press. Children’s Home Society. (2021, May 27). A teacher’s story: Finding hope through the hub. https://chsfl.org/blog/a-teachers-story-finding-hope-thr ough-the-hub/ Ellis, A. B. (2019). The impact of the Community Partnership Schools™ model community school on graduation and attendance rates in one Florida high school (EdD Dissertation). University of Central Florida. Evans High School, A UCF-certified Community Partnership School (2019). Return on investment 2012–2019. Evans CPS Data Team. Evans High School, A UCF-certified Community Partnership School. (2020). The virtual hub:COVID-19 resources and support. https://sites.google.com/ view/evanshub/home Figlio, D. (2016). A preliminary evaluation of the Evans community school and the extant literature on community schools. Northwestern University. https://www.cohpa.ucf.edu/communityschools/wp-content/uploads/sites/ 15/2017/04/evans_community_school_evaluation_with_exec_summary_-_ jan_2016.pdf

5

EVANS HIGH SCHOOL, A UCF-CERTIFIED COMMUNITY …

91

Florida Department of Education [FDOE]. (2018a). Historical accountability reports. http://www.fldoe.org/accountability/data-sys/edu-info-acc ountability-services/pk-12-public-school-data-pubs-reports/index.stml Florida Department of Education [FDOE]. (2018b). 2016–2017 Information guide for the 4-year graduation rate cohort. http://www.fldoe.org/core/fil eparse.php/7584/urlt/1617GradRateInfoGuide.pdf Kim, H. (2005). Managing the growth of community schools. In J. G. Dryfoos, J. Quinn, & C. Barkin (Eds.), Community schools in action: Lessons from a decade of practice (pp. 189–218). University Press. Malve, L. A. (2005). The power of two or more: Partnership from a school administrator’s perspective. In J. G. Dryfoos, J. Quinn, & C. Barkin (Eds.), Community schools in action: Lessons from a decade of practice (pp. 189–218). University Press. Orange County Sheriff’s Office. (2017). Property crimes and robberies in your zone: The 2017 OCSO crime district 13D report. https://www.ocso.com/ en-us/Crime-information Plante, J. (2010). Performance measures project paper: LEADS—leadership for educational attainment developed through service. Unpublished manuscript. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, PST 512. Plante, J. D. (2017). Mentoring through the LEADS service-learning program. In N. Domínguez, B. Berkeley, N. Barka, T. Chrisman, B. Kelley, & E. Westfall (Eds.). (2017). 10th annual mentoring conference proceedings (10th ed.): A decade of cultivating an inclusive mentoring community [Special Issue 10]. The Chronicle of Mentoring and Coaching, 2(10), 610–613. Plante, J. D. (2018, June). University partner: Beyond research. Presented at UCF Center for Community Schools Quarterly Community Partnership School Director Retreat. Plante, J. D., & Palmer, R. (2020). Supporting teachers where they are: The Community Partnership Schools™ model. In R. E. Ferdig, E. Baumgartner, R. Hartshorne, R. Kaplan-Rakowski, & C. Mouza (Eds). (2020). Teaching, technology, and teacher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Stories from the field (pp. 203–210). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved June 15, 2020, from https://www.learntech lib.org/p/216903/ Quinn, J. (2005). Sustaining community schools: Learning from children’s aid society’s experience. In J. G. Dryfoos, J. Quinn, & C. Barkin (Eds.), Community schools in action: Lessons from a decade of practice (pp. 189–218). University Press. Sparks, S. D. (2018). Study points to fewer ‘dropout factory’ schools. Education Week Newsletter. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/11/30/ 14grad.h30.html

92

J. D. PLANTE ET AL.

UCF Center for Community Schools. (2021a). Community Partnership Schools 2020–2021 impact in Florida. 2020–21-StatewideImpact.pdf UCF Center for Community Schools. (2021b). Community Partnership Schools network news: Winter 2021. https://ccie.ucf.edu/wp-content/uploads/ sites/12/2021/02/ccs-newsletter-winter-2021.pdf UCF Center for Community Schools. (2022). Florida Community Partnership Schools 2021–2022 fact sheet. 2021–22-FactSheet.pdf University of Central Florida Institutional Knowledge Management. (2017). Graduation and retention: FTICs from Jones, Evans, and Oak Ridge high schools. UCF IKM: 43917 LDS. U.S. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Schools as centers of community—a citizen’s guide for planning and design. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED5 39486.pdf

CHAPTER 6

Children’s Home Society of Florida’s Lessons Learned Heather A. Morgan

Abstract In 2010, Children’s Home Society of Florida (CHS) and the University of Central Florida (UCF) joined forces to create a movement that would transform the way schools serve students in struggling Florida communities. Together, the two entities developed and implemented the innovative Community Partnership Schools™ model, which began as a pilot in one school and, within a decade, expanded to more than two dozen schools and counting. As a founding and strategic partners of the Community Partnership Schools™ model, CHS and UCF have experienced nearly every scenario that could accompany planning, development, implementation, sustainment, and growth. This chapter dives into specific lessons learned by Children’s Home Society of Florida, as

H. A. Morgan (B) Children’s Home Society of Florida, Orlando, USA e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. D. Plante and A. Ellis (eds.), Community Partnership Schools, Rethinking University-Community Policy Connections, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16404-0_6

93

94

H. A. MORGAN

well as recommendations, as related to launching a Community Partnership School, funding a Community Partnership School, evaluation strategies, and Community Partnership Schools as a strategy for advancing educational equity. Keywords Children’s Home Society · Model implementation · Core partner · Cabinet · Best practices

Lessons Learned: Launching a Community Partnership School Numerous studies have pointed to trends that indicate that the Community Partnership Schools™ model is positively impacting students and families in Florida. As outcomes continue to demonstrate positive change in student success—academically and personally—as well as family engagement and community safety, the interest in Community Partnership Schools is growing. In addition to being a founding and strategic partner of the model, Children’s Home Society of Florida (CHS) has been a leader and core partner in 21 Community Partnership Schools (as of 2022); this leadership has included implementing the model into existing schools, developing a Community Partnership School from the ground up, and taking over the nonprofit leadership of existing community schools, transforming them into Community Partnership Schools. Throughout each implementation, CHS has learned valuable lessons that have helped to guide the organization in future Community Partnership School endeavors, and these lessons also can help other entities as they begin their foray into the Community Partnership Schools model. From the Beginning: Starting the Conversation Community conversations are critical. As word spreads about the success of Community Partnership Schools, more school districts are inquiring about the potential to bring the model into their struggling schools. While school district support is vital—and it is practically impossible to launch the model without it—conversations with the community, especially with potential core partners, are instrumental to implementation success.

6

CHILDREN’S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA’S LESSONS LEARNED

95

As many Community Partnership Schools in Florida strive to receive grant funding for implementation from the University of Central Florida’s (UCF) Center for Community Schools, these conversations become even more important as the grant process increases in competitiveness. And, while the grant selection process takes into account the stability and commitment of core partnerships, these initial discussions offer more than a competitive advantage in securing funding—they provide a solid foundation for model implementation. These early conversations also allow for the lead partner(s) to have thorough discussions about the model and the responsibilities and commitments required of core partners. The turnover of any core partner within a Community Partnership School can cause multiple struggles, including the potential distrust of those served through the model. Establishing the expectations early allows potential core partners to truly evaluate whether or not this is a long-term commitment they can make, or if it is better for another entity to explore the partnership. In addition to dialogue among core partners and potential service providers, conversation and collaboration with the community can provide the necessary commitment not only for a successful launch, but also for a successful implementation, as the community recognizes they are a part of the process. A Community Partnership School cannot succeed without the full integration of community voices and connections, and this needs to start right at the beginning. Collaborative Leadership A central component of the Community Partnership Schools™ model is collaborative leadership. While often thought of as collective decisionmaking (and that is certainly a core aspect of it), collaborative leadership also includes sharing the responsibilities associated with funding and sustainability. As the lead nonprofit partner in 21 Community Partnership Schools (as of 2022), CHS has experienced both the successes that accompany this when it works well and the struggles that accompany the effort when true collaborative leadership is not in play. In addition to financially committing to the model, it is recommended that core partners share the responsibility of providing and/or funding supporting positions within the Community Partnership School, such

96

H. A. MORGAN

as the family and community engagement coordinator or the wellness coordinator. The 25-year commitment that serves as a hallmark of Community Partnership Schools is both attractive and risky; while it demonstrates that partners are dedicated to long-term success, it also requires a significant investment of time, effort, and resources from every partner. Prior to launching a Community Partnership School, it is recommended that oneon-one conversations are held with each potential core partner to ensure complete commitment at multiple levels, helping to drive sustainability and long-term collaboration. These conversations, as well as a discussion at the cabinet level (a cabinet is the primary strategic leadership team at each Community Partnership School, composed of senior leadership from each of the core partners), are also critical to honor the shared governance feature of the model. Initiatives that have launched without the commitment to shared governance have experienced significant setbacks, all of which are not only detrimental to the model but, especially, harmful to community trust. The commitment to collaboration and model integrity must extend throughout the core partner organizations. It is not enough for one or two leaders to be invested; their entire teams, and every aspect of the organization involved in supporting a Community Partnership School, must also be aware of and bought into the importance of the initiative, especially understanding how the partnership helps to align their own entity’s mission or purpose. Beyond the operational implementation, core partners should involve leaders from communications, data, evaluation departments, quality, and other core areas that will have a role within the initiative. Children’s Home Society of Florida experienced the positive results of true collaboration at all levels when multiple teams are invested in the model’s success. However, the organization has also experienced the struggles that can come when departments at any core partner are not fully aware of or invested in their role of advancing the initiative. It is recommended that this is driven from the cabinet level to help drive accountability for greatest success.

6

CHILDREN’S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA’S LESSONS LEARNED

97

Applying Lessons: Starting Today Entities preparing to implement the Community Partnership Schools strategy can benefit from some of the key lessons learned from Children’s Home Society of Florida’s ventures into its first 21 schools. First and foremost, a keen understanding among all core partners of the longterm strategy is critical. Unlike many programs, especially those that are grant-funded, the Community Partnership Schools model is a longterm commitment to the school, its students and families, and the entire community. Planning for this from day one will help pave the path for success and help create a guide that can serve the partnership and the model for years. Moreover, a deep dive into the model, including the work required from all partners, is critical to lay a solid foundation for moving forward. This dive also includes a thorough understanding of the quest for long-term outcomes, and the realization that there is significant support required for the operational level to be effective. Within this process, a word of caution: Move forward with intentionality, and do not rush the process. Unfortunately, some entities may choose to launch into this journey without a true understanding of the heavy lifts required all around, which can lead to the overburdening of one partner or individual and may harm the success of the implementation. One of the first, and most important, steps toward implementation is hiring the CPS director. In addition to operational and interpersonal skills and a passion for excellence, the right director must have savviness to understand and navigate partnerships, both within the school and community, and possess skills (or a desire to learn) in advocacy, leadership, and communications. There are many challenges in integrating a new model into an existing school environment, and the director will be responsible for navigating those waters. During the planning phase of Community Partnership School implementation, it also is critical to do asset mapping within the community. Parallel to the needs assessment (see Section ‘Lessons Learned: Evaluation Strategies’), this process can help identify gaps and opportunities—many of which may align with the results ultimately presented through the needs assessment. While this activity will identify areas of opportunity, it also can identify services and/or providers that can be brought into the school to help meet the needs brought forth through the comprehensive assessment.

98

H. A. MORGAN

It also is important to understand the different challenges and opportunities associated with launching a Community Partnership School in a rural setting versus an urban setting. When determining a potential site, it is necessary to understand available resources as well as any significant gaps; this allows involved entities to start considering how these will be addressed. Additionally, partnering with teachers and faculty from the beginning is crucial to help build relationships and trust with core constituents. Teachers can become a Community Partnership School’s greatest referral source, and it is vital they understand how the model can not only benefit their students but also can help them by alleviating the pressure of serving as counselor, social worker, and teacher. Through the Community Partnership School, teachers can find relief in being able to focus on their passion: teaching.

Balancing the Partnerships Within the School and Community Within the school, the Community Partnership School director and principal must work hand in hand, allowing internal stakeholders to see the relationship as a “dynamic duo” working to support students, families, and teachers. Following this, continuous engagement with teachers can help strengthen internal partnerships. It is imperative that leaders of the Community Partnership School engage, listen to, and extend appreciation to teachers. In helping to meet educators’ needs, the Community Partnership School can better meet students’ needs. It is not enough to “tell” teachers once or twice about the initiative; they must be brought into conversations and, as they see and experience success with their students, they can serve as influencers among their peers to help the initiative continue its momentum. Beyond the partnerships within the school are the partnerships within the community, particularly with parents. A thorough communications plan must be in place to educate the school and district, the school board, parents, general community members, and community organizations such as chambers of commerce, faith communities, and civic groups. Without a comprehensive strategy in place prior to implementation, the model is likely to experience roadblocks that could have been prevented with proper planning.

6

CHILDREN’S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA’S LESSONS LEARNED

99

Supporting Operations: Best Practices In addition to the operational elements and positions within the school, the strongest Community Partnership Schools have strong support systems at all levels. The role of a Community Partnership School director is intense and intensive, and one can only succeed with the right support. It is recommended that Community Partnership Schools have a “blueprint” for successfully moving forward. Without clear strategic direction, it can be easy for a director to be tapped for multiple administrative roles within the school that can take valuable time away from their true responsibilities. Part of this plan includes participating in group and oneon-one learning experiences led by model experts, such as Children’s Home Society of Florida and the University of Central Florida. Additionally, a strong network of leadership support can be the difference between success and failure. CHS’s support system includes a senior director to provide leadership and guidance with navigating both core and community partnerships, including potential funding relationships, as well as to provide expert oversight and guidance with technical implementation of the model, critical for certification. Moreover, Community Partnership School directors must have open communication with others in their role so they can collectively problem-solve similar issues and find a network of peer support. In addition to the operational support of directors, a robust system will include dedicated support in advocacy, communications and branding, data and evaluation, quality, and philanthropy.

Establishing and Promoting the Community Partnership School Brand and Identity While each Community Partnership School is unique, all share the same foundational elements rooted in the model for sustained success. As such, it is critical that a strong, consistent brand is developed and embraced on day one. This is especially important for organizations involved in, or interested in being involved in, more than one Community Partnership School. A strong, consistent brand clearly establishes the identity of the Community Partnership School and makes it easier to establish an internal and external identity—both of which are innate challenges when multiple partners are involved.

100

H. A. MORGAN

Creating a strong brand requires an in-depth look into mission alignment and an understanding among all core partners that the Community Partnership School brand supersedes individual entities’ branding. This includes agreement on core messaging, branding elements such as colors, designs, and collateral, and the inclusion of all core partners in every element of communication. This helps to set the model and school apart and also paves the way for replication. With a strong Community Partnership School brand, it is easier to open conversations in other schools and communities to expand the initiative. In developing the foundational elements of the brand, particularly the messaging, it is recommended to focus on the impact of the Community Partnership School—the benefits it brings to students, families, and the community as a whole. Embracing this brand from within paves the way toward increased external awareness, which is the starting point for funding, partnerships, engagement, expansion, and sustainability.

Funding When Children’s Home Society of Florida, Orange County Public Schools, and the University of Central Florida brought the state’s first Community Partnership School to Evans High School in Orlando, they did so with dedication and determination—and no guarantee of funding. While a risky move, the three entities felt so strongly about the potential of the model that it was a risk worth taking, and one that has demonstrated its value in increased student success, improved family support and stability, increased community collaboration and safety, and dramatically improved life trajectories. While this initial risk paid off, it is not recommended to launch any Community Partnership School initiative without guaranteed funding for launch and a sound strategy for continued funding to assure long-term sustainability. Funding Is a Shared Responsibility Children’s Home Society of Florida historically has been relied upon to be the driver of sustainability, primarily as it relates to securing funding for each Community Partnership School. With core position sustainability costs in 2022 in Florida averaging $350,000 per school per year, it is a

6

CHILDREN’S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA’S LESSONS LEARNED

101

heavy lift to fundraise for one school, let alone 21 or more. Additionally, as CHS delivers hundreds of other programs throughout the state, it could be detrimental to the organization’s other programming if all fundraising efforts focused solely on Community Partnership Schools. Despite these challenges, CHS bore the sole responsibility for bringing in these funds for several schools for many years. As expansion continued, however, it became impossible to singly sustain the initiative throughout all of its Community Partnership Schools. While private philanthropy dollars remain the primary source of funding, grants are also actively pursued to fund specific initiatives and/or positions within the model. It is typical for the nonprofit entity to remain responsible for the majority of private philanthropy, but other partners increasingly are encouraged to contribute human resources to apply for and secure grants, particularly those that may relate to the specific partner’s area of expertise (e.g., health and wellness). Moreover, as expansion continues, more partners do contribute by funding core positions within the model; this strategy is highly recommended as it is also an illustration of distributive leadership, a core component within the model. In some Community Partnership Schools, the health care partner is also a financial contributor to the model as it engages in profit-sharing with the Community Partnership School to help with sustainability. This, too, is a recommended strategy for all Community Partnership Schools. Though the first few Florida Community Partnership Schools were launched without support from the Florida Legislature, CHS led the effort to bring elected officials into the initiative and, through successful advocacy with the University of Central Florida, began securing nonrecurring state dollars to support expansion efforts. After several years of legislative success with non-recurring monies, CHS and UCF partnered with legislators to secure $7.1 million in recurring funding to sustain and expand the model throughout Florida; this funding is distributed to the UCF Center for Community Schools, and then allocated to support its efforts in supporting and growing the model as well as, through a competitive grants process, allocated to individual schools. While CHS and UCF experienced significant legislative success in securing this funding, it is recommended that all core partners involved with Community Partnership Schools actively engage in advocacy efforts at state and local levels to support the Community Partnership Schools™ model.

102

H. A. MORGAN

Secure Funding Prior to Launch As previously noted, though the flagship Community Partnership School was launched without guaranteed funding, it is not recommended for any Community Partnership School to launch without secured funding for at least one year, and a strategy in place to secure ongoing funding. A prime illustration of this strategic sustainability planning lies with Sabal Palm Elementary in Tallahassee. Prior to launching the Community Partnership School at Sabal Palm, CHS not only worked with local core partners and donors to secure funding, but the organization also went to local government entities to request partnerships in bringing the model to the area. With supporting data from other schools that had implemented the model, CHS was able to showcase the impact this initiative potentially could have on students and families living in the poorest zip code in the state. The result: Both the city and county government financially committed to the ongoing support of the Community Partnership School. While many Florida schools begin their journey into model implementation with the support of a UCF Center for Community Schools grant funded by the legislature, CHS has also launched several without any guaranteed legislative funding from this pool. Though certainly more difficult, this kind of launch is possible with the right commitments, partners, and private funding. Strategically identifying and securing initial funding streams, particularly for a nonprofit, is critical. A solid understanding of donor passions and intent can help guide this process, and caution must be taken to ensure funding is not inadvertently redirected from one area of great need to another, which could risk other programs. When electing this path to launch, it is imperative that the strategy for sustainable funding is also in place so, after the initial funding is spent, the initiative can continue to move forward without interruption. Private Philanthropy: Focus on “Investing in Outcomes” Because of the significant cost to implement and sustain a Community Partnership School, multiple private funding streams are necessary. While every dollar is important and appreciated, additional attention must be focused on appealing to and cultivating individuals, foundations, and businesses with the potential to contribute five- and six-figure gifts, especially if there is potential for sustained giving.

6

CHILDREN’S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA’S LESSONS LEARNED

103

These unique prospects, however, also require specialized attention and incredible preparation. Notably, they should be viewed and treated as investors—not donors—and receive regular updates on their return. In approaching investors, it is critical for the organization’s top fundraisers and executives to work hand in hand on strategy development, which must also include in-depth research on the prospective investors’ previous contributions (across the board), passions, and connections. Moreover, the team must be prepared to share the community need for the initiative and to showcase the potential results, based upon impact data from other schools. Many high-level investors seek to advance a multi-year initiative, and understanding the investors’ personal philanthropic goals can allow the team to tailor multi-year options to best support advancement of those goals. Securing the investment, however, is only step one. Investing in a Community Partnership School is an investment in outcomes, and the fundraisers and fundraising organizations that secure those financial investments have a responsibility to provide the investor with ongoing impact reports to clearly articulate the return on investment. It is recommended that this includes quarterly printed reports as well as personal touchpoints, which may include phone calls, emails, and one-on-one meetings. Not only is this proper stewardship, but it also keeps the door open for additional investment asks in the future. On the other hand, if proper stewardship does not occur, there is a tremendous risk that the relationship could be permanently damaged, thus closing the door for any future funding from that individual or entity. Unlike in the business world, where money given is typically exchanged for a resource received, contributors in the social sector are exchanging their investment in return for lives—and communities—experiencing a positive change. Showcasing quantitative impact is vital for bringing in additional philanthropic, governmental, and community support to contribute toward local and statewide sustainability. Outcomes that have been displayed throughout the history of Community Partnership Schools have ranged from increased graduation rates and decreased disciplinary behaviors to increased teacher retention, and law enforcement call-outs to the surrounding community for battery-related offenses even have been affected. As a local educational equity strategy, the Community Partnership Schools model will need to continue its trajectory of progress in advancing both academic and community outcomes.

104

H. A. MORGAN

Making the Introduction to Community Partnership Schools In many cases, potential funding sources may be unfamiliar with Community Partnership Schools, and the nonprofit entity—ideally, along with its core partners—likely will hold the responsibility of introducing prospects to the model and, more specifically, to the local Community Partnership School. While several approaches can be used, the most impactful introduction occurs often by way of a tour of the school. This allows the prospect to have a deeper understanding of the initiative, but it is important to remember that a tour consists of much more than walking the halls. Before one can sell the model, one must illustrate the need. When navigating the tour, it is critical to share the reality of what’s happening in students’ lives, such as the barriers they face, the local statistics that correlate, and the predicted outcomes of what their futures may look like without the Community Partnership School. Throughout the tour, prospects should learn what the Community Partnership School is doing to address these issues at the local level, and what needs remain that the initiative could meet. Part of this also includes sharing outputs and powerful outcomes to illustrate success. And, while data is important to showcase comprehensive impact, just as important is a local student’s testimony, personally demonstrating the life-changing impact of Community Partnership Schools. Prior to beginning any tour, however, the “tour guides” must thoroughly understand who is taking the tour, the goal of the tour, and what the needs and asks will be at the end. Oftentimes, Community Partnership School directors will lead the tours; it is highly recommended, however, that fundraising professionals (and/or government relations professionals, if applicable) also attend the tours to heighten the focus on needs and solutions that will be possible with investments, “letting the donor be the hero.” To achieve sustainability, Community Partnership School leaders must always be aware of current and ongoing needs that require investments; of note, the greatest need likely will be for pure model sustainability— funding the positions.

6

CHILDREN’S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA’S LESSONS LEARNED

105

Asking for Sustainability Brick-and-mortar programs tend to be easier programs to “sell” to donors, as donors can physically see a service. While Community Partnership Schools take place within buildings, there’s much more to the model than what occurs within the walls, or even what a potential donor can see during a tour. Securing significant financial investments requires comfort in selling outcomes, most of which only can be achieved through sustainable funding for core positions within the Community Partnership School. In approaching this ask, the focus should be on what a core position does— the value it brings, the outcomes it helps attain, and the difference it makes in students’ lives—rather than what the position is. For example, it is rarely enough to ask for funding to pay for the salary and benefits of a wellness coordinator. However, one can ask for funding to support the cost of serving a certain number of students who need health, dental, and mental health care and support, and what that looks like. Branding Consistency: Another Key to Sustainability Success As the Community Partnership Schools model is still relatively new, consistent branding and messaging are vital to move forward toward sustainability. While messaging and asks always will need to be tailored to specific audiences, especially when considering legislative versus private funding audiences, the overarching foundation must be consistent. This is never truer than when a single entity, such as Children’s Home Society of Florida, is a core partner involved in leading multiple Community Partnership Schools. Engaging communications professionals from the start and embracing the importance of consistent branding is key to expanding funding sources. There is an art involved in integrating an organization’s mission into the ask for sustainability within Community Partnership Schools, and the internal partnerships among communications, fundraising, and operations can help assure a relatable, powerful, and impactful strategy. Final Thoughts on Funding Sustainability is only possible when all core partners commit to collaborate and participate in targeted strategies and opportunities that include a

106

H. A. MORGAN

mix of legislative and governmental funding, private funding, and grants. Distributive leadership is key. The path toward sustainability requires a traditional fundraising mind shift, embracing the idea that donors are investors, and there are many ways to increase engagement. An engaged investor often will continue to bring more to the table. It is recommended that investors in the model receive multiple opportunities to remain connected, from volunteer and mentor opportunities to seats at the table discussing how to better serve students, and opportunities to include their businesses and employees in the initiative as well. As the lead nonprofit tends to carry the majority of the weight for bringing in the funds, it is crucial that nonprofit board members are engaged, partnering with the Community Partnership School to spread the word about the need, impact, and importance of the initiative, and bringing their connections to the table, too. A word of caution: While a comprehensive sustainability strategy includes multiple funding sources, it is important to evaluate potential funding sources before accepting. Many grants, for example, will come with strings attached; Community Partnership School leaders must thoroughly evaluate these opportunities to determine if each one is in the best interest of that Community Partnership School and its students, families, and neighborhood. A final thought on sustainability: Sustainability is equal to the quality of programs, services, and solutions offered through the Community Partnership School. One cannot sustain something that is not truly meeting a need in the way that best supports positive outcomes. Before true sustainability can occur, positive change must be demonstrated.

Lessons Learned: Evaluation Strategies Overarching Lessons Learned: Looking Ahead The community needs assessment is a critical component of the successful implementation of the Community Partnership Schools model, as the needs assessment sets the stage for the strategy at each school. By taking into account community input, the Community Partnership School is able to uniquely tailor its approach to meet the very specific needs identified by its stakeholders. Yet, while this is embraced as a key aspect of the model, evaluation strategies have not yet evolved to adequately embrace and honor the importance of this aspect of the strategy.

6

CHILDREN’S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA’S LESSONS LEARNED

107

Currently, evaluation strategies are deeply embedded in standardized certification requirements developed by the UCF Center for Community Schools. While this standardized approach is necessary for a well-rounded and consistent assessment of model fidelity, there is room to improve. Given the weight the needs assessment holds on model development, there would be a benefit in adjusting the methodology to take into greater account the very specific needs identified by the community, and how the Community Partnership Schools model is succeeding (or not) in addressing these opportunities. Within this, it is recommended for any initiative to take into account a statewide, comprehensive approach that incorporates student outcomes, operational elements of broader context, and family and community/societal outcomes. Based on CHS’s experience as the original provider to implement the Community Partnership Schools model as well as the current largest Community Partnership School nonprofit provider in the state of Florida, CHS would modify the approach and more dutifully explore and seek to understand the impact of a broader statewide, comprehensive approach, one that incorporates student outcomes, operational elements of broader context, and family and community/societal outcomes as a foundational preparation for the work. Having the agreed-upon data, the use/purpose, and means by which to collect such information as well as clearly defined short-term and longterm goals likely would propel efforts to make a greater impact. It is often said that the best plans are those that take into account prior experiences. Given this, the strategic partners see the value in establishing clear definitions and solid understanding of the standards and indicators required for both the certification and affirmation processes. Initially the value is in the present and having the ability to collectively build for the future so progression is clearly defined for all partners. As an everevolving model with multiple partners and providers, the organizations see the value in providing supplemental material to provide realistic examples and illustrations of what it may look like within a school as it works toward, and eventually meets, the different standards required for certification. Successes and opportunities were identified where core partners, particularly the cabinet/leadership and Community Partnership School director, had a clear and comprehensive understanding of the evaluation standards—and reached a collective agreement to meet or exceed those standards.

108

H. A. MORGAN

Looking Back: Key Lessons When CHS and UCF partnered to bring this innovative model to Florida, they did so with an understanding of the impact the model could have on students, families, and communities, but without a thorough data collection strategy and system in place to comprehensively track outcomes. This has been one of the greatest lessons learned, and it remains a challenge as the two entities attempt to capture the right outcome data that will demonstrate the true impact of the Commnity Partnership Schools model. The need to invest in a comprehensive data system cannot be overstated. As of 2022, CHS and UCF had moved forward with a data-sharing agreement allowing both entities to access collected data through The Learning Circle, a contracted vendor with UCF’s Center for Community Schools. While this is a significant step in the right direction, the Community Partnership Schools initiative (and sites) may have been better served if the data and evaluation strategy was implemented prior to the launch of a Community Partnership School. Data and Evaluation: Considerations When looking at the data and evaluation strategies and system(s), it is important to consider not only annual inputs, outputs, and outcomes, but also long-term impact. As the Community Partnerhsip Schools model is a long-term strategy for powerful societal change, it is critical that any data and evaluation opportunity includes the integration of longterm tracking to easily determine the impact the Community Partnership School has had over time. Moreover, this should include a convenient way to compare site success on a global level, as well as with other similar models. Additionally, a comprehensive data and evaluation solution should take into account the processes implemented, allowing evaluators to determine the effectiveness of individual approaches to meet both standardized assessment outcomes as well as needs identified through the site’s community needs assessment. But the evaluation strategy is much deeper than a data system alone; it must include a process to identify and review trends and opportunities to guide the Community Partnership School leadership team to adapt implementation strategy as needed.

6

CHILDREN’S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA’S LESSONS LEARNED

109

A need for a reliable data and evaluation system and the process cannot be overrated; not only is it critical to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy at each site but, for organizations like CHS that are leading implementation at multiple schools, understanding true quantitative impact is vital for bringing in additional philanthropic, legislative, governmental, and community support to contribute toward local and statewide sustainability. While qualitative testimonies of impact are important to attract and steward supporting entities and individuals, the tangible outcomes represented by data are necessary for ongoing (and significant) financial and legislative support. Additionally, as Community Partnership Schools continue to gain momentum and attention, they are attracting more media attention in multiple markets. To successfully meet the needs of reporters and their audiences, powerful, easily available, and accessible data is practically a requirement; otherwise, there is a significant risk that the media opportunity will be missed. Certification Standards and Assessment Being accredited by multiple agencies, CHS sees the value of and importance in efforts to decrease the stigma often associated with accreditation practices, as the certifying body is designed to help advance the initiative within the school as opposed to some thoughts around being more compliance driven. In unique models such as the Community Partnership Schools initiative, where certification is intended as an asset-based approach, care must be given by all partners to understand and commit to revisiting roles and responsibilities and address stigmas associated with such efforts. When the certifying entity doubles as the technical support arm for the initiative, and funding is attached to the success of certification by year five, decreasing the stigma associated with such efforts becomes a challenge and increasingly critical. However, with shared messaging and aligned activities, it is not insurmountable. In preparing for certification, it is helpful for Community Partnership School directors to have in-depth training to best understand the process and expectations related to certification. This also can positively impact the quality of services provided to students, teachers, families, and the community, which is always the ultimate goal. Moreover, to best prepare for certification, actual participation in the process can be invaluable. Success is best realized when Community Partnership School directors serve as peer reviewers on certification and/or re-certification teams to

110

H. A. MORGAN

gain a thorough understanding of the process and expectations. Serving in this capacity provides directors with an understanding from the perspective of the certifying agency and provides insight into the asset-based approach of the certification process. As an additional strength to support successful certification of the model, which includes the community needs, the founding partners holistically and core partners locally learned that the community needs assessment plays a large role in success and therefore would be valuable as a key measure in the certification process. This positions the certification process to evaluate the progress on site-specific goals, helping to honor the core purpose of the Community Partnership School’s work while also taking into account the input of parents, families, and the community at large to gain a broader understanding of the impact the model is creating. Additional Considerations When developing and implementing a thorough evaluation strategy, “what’s next” must also be considered. How will the information gleaned from the assessment be used to improve the model as a whole and/or the local implementation of the model? How will the certifying/evaluating entity use the information to better support the Community Partnership School moving forward so it can improve the way it serves students, families, teachers, and the community? The ultimate goal of any data and evaluation system and strategy should be a drive to use the data and assessment to strengthen processes and services to make a greater impact on those served through the Community Partnership Schools model.

Community Partnership Schools: An Equity Strategy A primary goal of Community Partnership Schools is to close the achievement gap for students, particularly those living in marginalized communities and/or those dealing with significant life struggles such as poverty, violence, trauma, and health or mental health challenges. A concentrated emphasis on this goal can drive equity throughout schools and communities. While common vernacular for success may be “raising the ceiling,” Community Partnership Schools seek to “raise the floor” for students,

6

CHILDREN’S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA’S LESSONS LEARNED

111

removing and addressing the key barriers to learning so they can simply begin on a level playing field with their peers (who may or may not be at the same school) who are not burdened with such significant life challenges. As an equity strategy, Community Partnership Schools can better prepare students to achieve academic success through a well-rounded model that, using the community needs assessment, intentionally brings in services and supports that can respond to the greatest barriers identified by the community. Collaborative leadership, integrating all core partners into the planning and implementation, is instrumental in developing a well-rounded model that can address the root causes of inequity in learning. Inequity in learning often stems from deeper societal issues, many rooted in the Top 10 Root Causes of Poverty, as identified by the Florida Chamber Foundation (2021), that can be addressed through the successful implementation of the Community Partnership Schools model. A key driver of poverty, according to this list, is a lack of community voice. At its core, Community Partnership Schools begin with the community voice: the needs assessment, driven by community input, sets the stage for all planning within model implementation. This is the beginning of equity. Advancing Equity: Incorporating the Community Voice Incorporating the community voice begins with the needs assessment, including a strategic approach to gather stakeholder input. This assessment, which will serve as the foundation for what’s to come, must be collaborative and asset-oriented; a typical “form approach” no longer suffices. Incorporating collective discussion into the process allows a deeper look into local drivers of inequity, and it also provides stakeholders with an opportunity to share their true desires and aspirations, many of which can be hindered due to lack of current community resources, services, and/or support. Through this process, community voices are elevated and help drive the planning and implementation of the local Community Partnership School. When considering educational equity, a key stakeholder voice is that of the students. In addition to incorporating their voice into the initial needs assessment, students should be engaged in multiple opportunities within the Community Partnership School. Student Leadership Councils

112

H. A. MORGAN

are a prime example of how Community Partnership Schools can engage student voices in advancing educational equity. Student Leadership Councils are comprised of student leaders charged with representing the student voice in the Community Partnership Schools model. As student voices are incorporated into solutions being developed, student leaders are more likely to become strong ambassadors for the Community Partnership School, positively influencing their peers to take advantage of the resources and supports being offered that can help close the achievement gap and provide more students with opportunities to succeed. Likewise, the ongoing engagement of the community, including parents, faith and business leaders, and others, is a critical element of ensuring the community voice remains heard. Community Leadership Councils are a prime example of how to keep a pulse on both community needs and opportunities. The Community Leadership Council provides the Community Partnership School a voice of the community. It is made up of local stakeholders including but not limited to: parent leaders, faithbased leaders, local businesses, nonprofits, law enforcement, local civic leaders, and community residents. The integration of stakeholders—those who can benefit from the Community Partnership School and those who can bring services into the model—is a strategic approach to advancing equity within the school and community. Advancing Equity: Challenges Just as the greatest opportunities in advancing equity begin with the needs assessment, so do some of the greatest challenges. To gather the appropriate data that can best serve the community, community surveys must include the right questions, and individuals analyzing the surveys must have a strong understanding of how to interpret the data and trends revealed through the assessments. It is also recommended that a strong data analysis professional be involved throughout the process to help identify where the greatest needs and opportunities lie to provide a more equitable environment for students and their families. Yet, without ongoing cross-collaboration and dialogue between the Community Partnership School and the community, the information gleaned within the needs assessment can only go so far. To truly advance equity, these continuous conversations will help Community Partnership School leaders determine what services and solutions are working, what

6

CHILDREN’S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA’S LESSONS LEARNED

113

needs to evolve, and what needs to come into the school and community to continue the positive momentum. Environmental factors also influence progress toward the goal of advancing equity. In some cases, it is a challenge to promote equity simply because of the district the school itself may be in, and in other cases, there’s a barrier when it comes to the social perception of diversity versus equity and, especially, what that may mean for the students and families served. Another potential barrier is the political nature and accepted cultural and social norms of the community. Oftentimes, these norms and beliefs can affect individuals’ acceptance of services and supports. In some communities, for instance, it can be seen as a sign of weakness to accept mental health services, which could be a significant hindrance to promoting equity, as untreated mental health challenges can lead to severe educational, developmental, and lifetime consequences. Advancing Equity: Successes When the community comes together to support the greater good—the success and future of its students and families—there’s clear movement in advancing equity. A prime illustration of this collective commitment comes from Florida’s flagship Community Partnership School at Evans High School in Orlando. Driven by the Community Leadership Council supporting Evans, and with support from law enforcement, community members joined together to create a community watch group to support student safety, particularly at locations known for violence before and after school. In promoting student and community safety, this group made it possible for more students to safely and confidently attend and focus on school, providing a solid foundation for them to learn and succeed. Another example is evident within the evolution of culture change at C.A. Weis Elementary, A Community Partnership School in Pensacola. Where out-of-school suspensions and disciplinary rates were once extremely high, the Community Partnership School worked to address the root causes of the behaviors leading to such discipline. In just five years, suspensions and disciplinary rates both dropped by more than 90%, meaning more children were in class, ready to learn, and ready to achieve. It is a steady process, and progress doesn’t happen overnight, but when students and their families are embraced, when parents are respected and

114

H. A. MORGAN

their voices are heard, and when there is a clear leadership commitment to address needs, the progress not only occurs but also sustains. A core component in advancing equity is “raising the ground floor” by meeting basic needs, a classic example of “Maslow trumps Bloom” (ED311, 2021) where learning cannot occur until basic needs are met. Through thorough needs assessments, Community Partnership Schools are implementing strategies and solutions to address the basic needs that interfere with learning and thus—without solutions—would interfere with educational equity. In many areas served through the Community Partnership Schools model, access to nutritional foods is a significant barrier. Through Community Partnership Schools, students and their families have access to locally grown produce, either through community gardens created on or near the school campus, and/or through relationships with farmers who participate in Farm Share programs and accept state-funded benefits as payment. Moreover, as Community Partnership Schools lift up the entire family, the family resource room or center offers parents opportunities to advance educational and professional goals, bringing greater equity throughout the community. A key driver of equity within Community Partnership Schools stems from the trust that develops as the community sees the long-term commitment in action. For example, when tragedy strikes a neighborhood, whether an isolated incident or a global pandemic, the Community Partnership School is often the first to respond and support. When the COVID-19 pandemic shut down businesses, schools, and much of the world, Community Partnership Schools remained actively engaged in meeting the needs of students and families. In addition to continuing to offer food distribution as well as pertinent services through telehealth (such as counseling and health care), many Community Partnership School teams canvassed local neighborhoods to check on families and to distribute flyers that offered valuable connections to local resources, such as internet access and rent assistance. Yet, something as simple as distributing flyers or even developing a promotional brochure so students and parents are aware of the services and supports available must take equity into consideration. When launching the first Community Partnership School, brochures were developed to help stakeholders understand what the model was brought to students, The materials were all developed in English, yet the majority

6

CHILDREN’S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA’S LESSONS LEARNED

115

of parents did not read English, rendering these pieces useless for the majority of key stakeholders. It is critical to take into account audience needs and preferences when creating materials—including developing pieces in both the language and format that resonate best with the audience(s) being served. Without this key consideration, momentum toward equity advancement can easily stall as the promotion itself can become a barrier. Advancing Equity: Final Thoughts To achieve the greatest momentum, Community Partnership Schools must actively seek and steward partnerships with businesses, organizations, and individuals that can help advance equity by providing much-needed resources to advance the model. For example, partnerships that provide supplies for the Community Partnership Schools, including school uniforms, food, hygiene items, clothing, school supplies, and more, can help alleviate the financial pressures of funding these items for students, and thus allow funding to support core staff positions and strategies to advance educational equity. Volunteers, mentors, and tutors can help bridge gaps for students and families, empowering students to dream bigger and create paths to achieve their goals. Community support is critical and, without it, equity simply cannot be achieved. Acknowledgements Special thanks to Jarvis Wheeler and John Sherman with Children’s Home Society of Florida for support and review. Special thanks to the many Children’s Home Society of Florida Community Partnership School operations, support, and leadership team members for sharing lived experiences to contribute to this chapter. And special thanks to members of the UCF Center for Community Schools team for sharing experiences and insight.

References Florida Chamber Foundation. (2021). The Florida prosperity playbook. Retrieved from http://www.flchamber.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ The-Florida-Prosperity-Playbook-.pdf Payne, A. (2021). Maslow trumps Bloom. ED311. Retrieved from https://ed311. com/maslow-trumps-bloom/

Conclusion

Amy Ellis, Jarrad Plante The Community Partnership Schools™ (CPS) model community school began in 2010 when University of Central Florida and Children’s Home Society of Florida joined in partnership to shift how students were served and to determine ways to have a more lasting impact in struggling Florida communities. After considerable research and a visit to the National Center for Community Schools in New York City, Evans High School in Orlando was established as the site for the first community school of its kind in Florida. With a graduation rate hovering at 50%, Evans High School was once considered a dropout factory by the federal government. After significant efforts to lift the school academically and to integrate needed community school programs and services, Evans High School’s graduation rate and other measures improved dramatically. Today, Evans’ graduation rate remains consistently above 95%. Unique to and at the center of every Community Partnership School is a long-term commitment among at least four local core partners: a school district, a university/college partner, a healthcare provider, and a nonprofit organization. Core partners share governance, vision, and sustainability to ensure the Community Partnership School continues intentional efforts to improve and meet the needs of students and families in an ever-changing world. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. D. Plante and A. Ellis (eds.), Community Partnership Schools, Rethinking University-Community Policy Connections, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16404-0

117

118

CONCLUSION

Dating back to the settlement movement in the late 1800s, the community school concept is not new, though no global definition currently exists. Generally, community schools engage surrounding communities to access and deliver needed programs and services to students and their families. Leveraged resources are established on or relocated to the school campus where students and families can more easily access and utilize these necessary supports. Community schools exist on every continent, though each is very different in scope and purpose. American community schools began with a first settlement house in the lower east side of New York City in the early nineteenth century. The American community school movement has been marked historically by significant growth and investment in the 1930s, 1960s, late 1980s, early 1990s, and between 2018 and the early 2020s. Florida’s legislature invested augmented amounts in community schooling between 2012 and the publishing of this book to scale the Community Partnership Schools™ model that began at Evans High School in 2010. As of 2022, 29 Community Partnership Schools exist statewide. The UCF Center for Community Schools was established in 2014 to begin, frame, and provide ongoing support for scale-up efforts of community schools. The center provides technical assistance, assessment and evaluation, reporting and accountability, and Community Partnership School certification—an asset-based approach to remain true to the model while expansion continues. University of Central Florida, along with many other university and college partners across the country, also provides partnership support to local community schools. Assets of higher education institutions significantly expand their university/college role when partnered strategically with local school communities—solving community problems, advancing teaching and learning, and democratizing the school–community experience. By mobilizing and integrating a university/college’s extensive resource base, including human capital such as professor service touch points and action-oriented students, local K-12 schools are better suited to elevate, integrate, and align their surrounding community strengths and resources. The university-assisted community school is only one type of community–school–core partnership approach. Others exist and are chosen in the development stage of community school implementation based upon the needs and resources of a local community: school district lead agency

CONCLUSION

119

approach, community-based lead agency approach, university-assisted approach, or a multiple-core partnership approach. The Community Partnership Schools™ model is based on a multiple-four-core partnership approach that leverages resources and advances school practices by tapping the expertise and strength of the four. In 2017, Oakes et al. recommended the implementation of community schools comprehensively, outlining the need for four pillars: (a) integrated student supports, (b) expanded learning time and opportunities, (c) family and community engagement, and (d) collaborative leadership and practices. Community Partnership Schools align four dedicated staff positions to functions outlined in these four pillars to ensure comprehensive community schooling at every level. The four pillars of comprehensive community schooling are integrated into the framework of the model as well as into the UCF-Certified Community Partnership Schools’ 12 standards. The certification process for Community Partnership Schools is asset-based and has been an anchor to the scaleup and maintenance of high-quality community schooling in Florida. The framework has provided guideposts and best practices to sites across the state, and the external visits and accompanying reflection reports have given sites roadmaps to improve the operational work impacting students and families. Many lessons have been learned both operationally and at a systems level in the implementation and scale-up of community schools in Florida. Statewide implementation can be successful with the proper structures in place while also allowing for great flexibility for local needs. No Community Partnership Schools look alike, and this should be supported in all frameworks and expansion efforts so that programming and services are driven by identified needs of the school’s students, families, and community members. While the sustainability of Community Partnership Schools can be a challenge, long term the four dedicated partners are committed to the shared vision and securing the infrastructure necessary to maintain the high-quality efforts of a Community Partnership School. Additional dollars are needed to implement programs and services, adding to the necessity of blended and braided funding streams. Grants and philanthropic dollars often require impact measures to be clearly defined, so at a systems level, the investment in individualized data for progress monitoring and data impact measures should come early in any district or statewide community school design.

120

CONCLUSION

The CPS framework of community schools is a comprehensive equity approach to serving students and families in under-resourced communities. Anchored by the four-core-partner, long-term commitment—often a 25-year commitment formalized in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Community Partnership Schools are having a lasting impact in communities across the state of Florida. As expansion continues fueled by increased legislative and local partner investment, the CPS initiative will evolve. Lessons learned, fidelity measures, and research-infused community school best practices backbone every effort so that families are better served, and Florida’s students are afforded the opportunity to reach their greatest potential.