The Problem with Community Schools

Awhile back, I shared that I attended a meeting where the two guests were community organizers in Chicago, Illinois. Specifically, those two were focused on rehabilitating broken neighborhood schools, specifically Dyett High School, a campus located in the Bronzeville section of the Windy City. Their remedy to revitalize one of the worst high schools in Chicago 15 years ago was to create a community school.

Community schools is an evidence-based school improvement model that offers whole-child education strategies and engages the school community in the process of designing and implementing six key pillars to school success: curriculum, teacher supports, wrap-around services, student centered school climate, parent and community engagement, and inclusive school leadership.

Let’s take a closer look at each of the community school pillars, according to a handout distributed by the two Chicago community organizers:

“Curriculum – Students must have equitable selection of course offering in the arts, world languages, mathematics, literacy, culturally relevant and responsive curricula and practices, honors and advanced placement (A) courses. Central are services for English Language Learners (ELL), special education students and educational needs of parents of community members. The school community is engaged in the visioning and appropriate methods for implementing curricula; such as peer-to-peer and project-based learning. Curricula must be informed and enhanced by community resources.

High Quality Teaching, Not High Stakes Testing – Resources are invested into evidence-based teacher supports such as: 1) educators having a voice in professional development that is high quality, relevant and consistent, 2) veteran educators available to mentor newer teachers, 3) equity in the racial demographics of the teaching cadre and 4) trained teacher aides in every class. Tests are used to assess student needs as opposed to punishment.

Wrap-Around Supports for Every Child – Health care, eye care, trauma counseling, speech therapists and other social and emotional services that remove obstacles to student success. Wrap-around supports include “opportunities for inspiration” such as drama clubs, debate teams, science clubs, culture clubs; supports must be culturally relevant and responsive.

Student-Centered School Climate – Rooted in positive discipline practices such as restorative justice. Social and emotional learning supports are stressed so students grow while being held accountable for their actions. Suspensions and harsh punishment are eliminated or greatly reduced. Student leadership development programs are encouraged so students can learn how to effectively problem solve and address issues in their community that impact their ability to be educated.

Authentic Parent and Community Engagement – Schools are community institutions. Authentic parent and community engagement requires a belief system where community is viewed as partners and assets, not aggravations and tools to be manipulated. This approach is rooted in the belief that community wisdom in harmony with academic expertise lead to sustainable school improvement.

Inclusive School Leadership – As the instructional leader, the principal of a sustainable community school must not operate the institution as a kingdom but a space for collaborative leadership….”

When I was a region superintendent, I was responsible for around 60 schools and 54,000 students. One of those schools, Lee High, wanted to create a community school for their students, families, and neighborhood.

At first, the school found a lot of momentum around the mission to take care of the whole child – academically, socially, and emotionally. Lee High had over 100 community partners – health professionals, housing experts, after school programs, and child care providers, to name a few. We saw kids flourishing, both with their grades and their well-being. Adults were encouraged. Even the local teacher’s union was on board.

And then all of that came to a halt.

Why?

Because our own school district became jealous of the fact that the community providers were getting all of the credit and not the central office. You see every community school pillar described above had a department inside our traditional school district charged with the same work and responsible for the same outcomes. In the end, it was the school district’s inability to embrace “outsourcing” that spelled the end to our community school enterprise.

Most traditional K-12 leaders do not play well with others in the proverbial sandbox. In the end, the school district feels it necessary to make all of the decisions, at the expense of community partnerships.

I hope I’m wrong, but my experience tells me that the “community future” for Chicago’s Dyett High School will be short-lived.

Friday News Roundup tomorrow. Til then. SVB