Search Results

This essay examines the International Community School (ICS), a public charter school near Atlanta, Georgia, that brings refugee, immigrant, and local U.S. children together in one educational environment as a microcosmic global civic space in an emerging global civil society. It focuses on the local and particular instantiations of globalization, paying special attention to the role of religions.

This chapter takes a closer look at one of the types of programs featured in this book — the full-service community schools. It turns to school reform programs and to efforts to deal specifically with sex, drugs, and violence. It reviews the various types of school–community partnership programs that are on the horizon at the moment, presents several examples, looks at research, and discusses some of the issues that have come to the fore as these programs have evolved. A full-service community school integrates the delivery of quality education with whatever health and social services are required in that community. These institutions draw on both school resources and outside community agencies that come into schools and join forces to provide seamless programs. Examples of full-service community schools are the Children's Aid Society, Woodrow Wilson Middle School, and Missouri Caring Community Schools.

Reviews on previous literature on young people's bereavement show that the acknowledgement of their social worlds has not been fully explored. This chapter discusses and draws on various theoretical perspectives, empirical research, and practical examples in order to explain the role of the school community in supporting its bereaved school community members. The discussion eventually aims to close this gap in the literature on the subject regarding bereavement in schools.

Public education in the United States is a huge enterprise that touches the lives of most teenagers and their families. According to the Department of Education, rising immigration and the baby boom echo are boosting school enrollment. This chapter highlights full-service community schools. The approach is to transform schools into new kinds of community institutions, operated by partners who can bring in health and mental health services, educational enrichment, parenting education, and whatever else is needed in that situation to improve the odds for academic achievement. University Park Campus School is offered as an example of a school that shows promise; it demonstrates that very high-risk children can achieve at very high levels if they are given intense individual attention by well-qualified and dedicated teachers. This chapter also reviews curricula that address social and emotional development, learning about oneself through the study of history, making responsible choices, contributing to community well-being, and selecting appropriate career paths. These school-based interventions are strongly rooted in an intellectual understanding of youth development.

This chapter examines the importance of the school bereavement programs in relation to hospice care. It highlights the growing needs for school communities to establish bereavement support programs for providing appropriate services to grieving students following the loss of a peer. The chapter suggests that a school community's response to such crises has the potential to positively impact the stepping stones of children's social and emotional growth as they grieve and begin to heal from their loss.

This chapter focuses on the role of the school in redefining the collaboration between school and community. It argues that it is important to explore the purposes and mechanisms of school–community collaboration. The chapter considers why a school should pursue collaboration with the community, and what the mechanisms are by which schools and communities can interact with and mutually support one another. It focuses on three purposes, on the corresponding perspectives on why and how school–community relations can ‘work’, and on appropriate mechanisms for bringing this about. The first strand concerns school–community collaboration for the purpose of enhancing learning. Second, the chapter discusses school–community collaboration for the purpose of developing social capital. Third, it presents the notion of school–community collaboration for the purpose of building and developing the wider Jewish community.

When the CAS community schools first opened in New York City in 1992, they attracted many visitors interested in learning about and adapting our model. In response CAS created its National Technical Assistance Center for Community Schools (NTACCS) in 1994 to handle the increasing number of requests for information, coordinate the large number of visitors to the schools, and provide technical assistance in the process and operations involved in creating a community school. People who wish to adapt our model can now tour the various components of our program and meet with our staff to ask questions and learn about the implementation of our program. This chapter will explore the core components of the CAS model and how adaptation sites in the United States and other countries have been able to incorporate elements that represent their signature style and reflect the needs of their individual communities. An immediate dilemma occurs when program planners seek to learn from the experience of others—should they try to replicate the model precisely or should they try to adapt it to their own local circumstances? Replicators often speak of the importance of “program fidelity,” while adaptors talk about differing needs among various communities and populations. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) astutely assesses the dilemma: “While individual tailoring may account for success at a given location, there is pressing need for theoretically grounded interventions that will be effective in a wide range of communities. Therein lies a challenge. On the one hand, ‘replication’ implies fidelity to the original while, on the other hand, ‘community-based and culturally sensitive’ implies expectation of variation and sensitivity to that variation. The need to vary interventions is widely accepted, but systematically developed and articulated only occasionally.” The NIMH study found two key components that improved the effectiveness of HIV prevention programs as they were implemented in multiple sites around the country. One component was that they were “community-based,” designed with the input and skills of the particular communities in which they were implemented. The second was that the programs were “culturally sensitive”—that is, they reflected the needs and cultures of the individuals expected to participate in the intervention and used media and messages relevant to those individuals and their lives.

This chapter explores four different models of school–community relations: co-optation, management, engagement, and coalition. These models are derived from qualitative case studies of public and private schools, including magnet schools, Catholic schools, workplace schools, and neighbourhood schools, located in urban and suburban contexts in the United States. Each model includes four elements that define the nature, quality, and intensity of association between schools and their communities — its goals, functions, relationships, and outcomes — and are reflected in the organizational practices and priorities of the schools. The chapter examines these models to consider how schools' cultures and organizational priorities coalesce to produce particular models of school–community relations. It also considers how these models are mapped on to different kinds of schools and what the implications might be regarding the types of relationships formed between families and schools for Jewish day school education worldwide.

This chapter presents two different views of the relationship between the Jewish day school and the Jewish community. It focuses on one case — that of the Bet El community in Buenos Aires, Argentina, founded in 1962 by Rabbi Marshall T. Meyer. A study of the Bet El Conservative School sheds light on the emergence of Jewish community schools that has become, since the 1970s, the leading trend in Jewish education in Argentina. Bet El, an institution regarded as the flagship school of the Conservative movement in Argentina, was founded as a kindergarten in 1967, some five years after Rabbi Meyer's establishment of the Bet El community as a nucleus for the development of the Conservative movement in Latin America. The elementary school began operating in 1974, at the same time as an application was made to establish a Conservative high school — an application that was approved by the public authorities but not taken further owing to the need to consolidate and strengthen the elementary school.

abstract

In 1997, after their community school concepts received a cold shoulder at a school reform conference, Joy Dryfoos, C. Warren “Pete” Moses, and Ira Harkavy knew it was time for action. All three had been deeply involved in creating new school-community relationships. Joy Dryfoos had helped call national attention to the overlapping needs that put one of every four children at risk; her 1994 book Full-Service Schools outlined a community school approach to help meet those needs. As chief operating officer of The Children’s Aid Society (CAS), Pete Moses, together with CAS’s chief executive officer, Philip Coltoff, had helped bring the resources of one of New York City’s oldest child welfare agencies directly into neighborhood schools as part of a comprehensive educational approach. Ira Harkavy, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Community Partnerships, was creating opportunities for University of Pennsylvania students and faculty to work with, and learn from, students and residents in Philadelphia schools, using the community as a resource. All three knew from experience that community schools offered an effective strategy for building strong schools, strong families, and strong communities and that these were essential for learning. The group began thinking about how to jump-start a community school movement. After a second meeting a few weeks later, they were convinced that more like-minded people needed to be involved. They decided to hold a Community Schools Forum at Fordham University and invited about 30 people they thought would be interested. When 125 participants showed up, they knew they were on to something. This chapter tells how that experience helped launch the Coalition for Community Schools and its drive to put community schools at the center of a twenty-first-century education-reform agenda. In 1997 a “coalition for community schools” was a new idea, but community schools were not. Part of what drew so many to the Fordham summit was the opportunity to give new voice to time-tested approaches to connecting school and community and, participants hoped, to use them more broadly to address current concerns. John Dewey, whose ideas helped create community schools, observed that “the true starting point of history is always some present situation with its problems.”

This chapter demonstrates the positive aspects of education interventions in Afghanistan. It begins by discussing the adoption of the “peace education” in the Afghan Ministry of Education (MoE) curriculum. Through this initiative, supplemental out-of-school or after school programs were conducted for ethnically diverse groups of young people, requiring them to participate in activities involving intergroup cooperation and support for the authorities, law, or custom. Community-based schools are ideal for this type of education, as these schools are less likely to be targeted by Taliban insurgents. From a broader perspective, this would mean more equitable access to government-affiliated education in Afghanistan. The chapter considers the role of the MoE curriculum in the state of education in Afghanistan under the Taliban rule.

In response to a series of polarizing labor organizing drives sponsored by the United Auto Workers union in the 1930s, which culminated in the Flint sit-down strike of 1936-1937, local industrialist Charles Stewart Mott inaugurated a citywide health, recreation, and education program. Under Mott’s leadership, GM executives forged a partnership with the board of education that brought millions of dollars to Flint’s public schools. On the strength of that partnership, the Flint Public Schools pioneered a system of “community education” that hundreds of cities copied during the postwar period. Mott and his chief lieutenant, Frank Manley, envisioned Flint’s community schools as all-purpose civic centers. Open around the clock, Flint’s schools offered hundreds of adult education courses, recreational programs, and health initiatives for youth and adults of all races. However, the Mott program also institutionalized patterns of racial segregation, educational disadvantage, and economic inequality. Foundation officials and members of the board of education repeatedly manipulated school transfer procedures, built new schools in segregated residential areas, and gerrymandered school district boundaries—all in an attempt to maintain policy-driven segregation in local schools and neighborhoods. Consequently, the city’s schools were often even more segregated than the segregated neighborhoods they served.

Chapter 6 turns to a consideration of BSS practices and their relationship to the state. First, this chapter examines the reclamation of educational authority made by BSSs, and the inter-relationship between this and the campaign demand for state schools to be accountable for their failure to educate black children. Following from this, second, the creation of black pedagogues and pedagogies, as community-based enactments of educational authority, are examined. Here in particular, gender narratives come to the fore through the ways in which men and women practiced their educational authority. Last, this chapter turns to the changing dynamics between the BSS movement and the state, and ways in which BSS teachers traversed the complex dual principles of community-control and government responsibility. As is explored, the slow and piecemeal incorporation of BSSs into local governmental funding mechanisms into the 1980s brought significant change – and challenge – for this community-based schooling movement.

This chapter reviews what is known from earlier efforts at integration and contemplates how such policies might fare in the aftermath of the complex legal decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (PICS 20070 case. The chapter also examines the relative strengths of various approaches intended to achieve or maintain racial diversity in K-12 public schools.

Chapter 5 considers whether there is a virtuous form of patriotism and if so what role it might play in the scheme of civic virtue and civic education. It analyzes civic virtue as having three components: civic intelligence, civic friendship, and civic competence. It affirms a need for civic virtue in all spheres of civic life, from the local to the global, and it holds that the motivational core of civic virtue in all of these spheres is a civic minded responsiveness to the public interest or the value of all that the community in question entails. Virtuous patriotism is identified as a state-level counterpart of the civic mindedness at the heart of civic responsibility in local, regional, or global civic affairs, expressed both in defense of what is valuable in a country, or conducive to its members living well together, and in loyal dissent that protects and advances that value. The chapter outlines the basic elements of education for civic intelligence, civic friendship, civic competence, and virtuous civic motivation, emphasizing features of a just school community; the disciplinary foundations of public reason, understanding, and judgment; discussion; problem-based cooperative and experiential learning; and a global perspective.

The Children’s Aid Society’s concept of community schools came to life in February 1992 with the opening of the Salomé Ureña de Henriquez Middle Academies (Intermediate School [IS] 218) and the opening in March 1993 of the Ellen Lurie School (Primary School [PS] 5). These were the first community schools operated by The Children’s Aid Society (CAS) in partnership with New York City’s Board of Education. PS 5 is an elementary school whose students advance to middle school at IS 218. The model has evolved into a well-integrated, multidimensional community school involving CAS, the Board (now Department) of Education, and the parents and many other partners from the broader community. Before the two schools opened, several years were spent in preparation and planning. Initially, CAS surveyed New York City communities to identify those that would benefit most from CAS’s services. This was part of an ongoing effort on CAS’s part to examine its current programs in order to modify them to meet current social and familial needs. The survey led to the selection of the Washington Heights community, which was characterized by a large influx of recent immigrants, substantial poverty, large families, and a dearth of services. A more intensive study conducted by CAS in 1987 had documented the dramatic needs of families in this community and the shortage of services available to them. The school system ranked 32nd of 32 districts in nearly every category. The type of poverty that characterizes new immigrants was endemic: very low-wage jobs, two and three families sharing one apartment, and a reluctance to accept outside help. Washington Heights was the substance-abuse and drug-trafficking hub for the tri-state area and had the city’s highest homicide rate. Teenage pregnancy rates were also among the city’s highest. This community is not unlike those that CAS has traditionally served throughout its 150-year history. What was to be strikingly different was how CAS would address these problems. In setting out to plan a service model, CAS drew on its long and rich history of operating community centers in low-income neighborhoods.

I first heard of the concept of community schools in 1987 while attending a briefing on a community assessment of the Washington Heights/Inwood neighborhood. The survey had been conducted to help The Children’s Aid Society (CAS) determine what levels of services were needed in the community and whether it made sense for the agency to provide them. At this presentation I was immediately struck by the idea of working in a deep partnership with a public school to improve outcomes for children and their families; this concept of community schools seemed so simple, so fundamental, yet at the same time so powerful that I thought, How could anyone be against this? Armed with this belief, I arrived at Intermediate School (IS) 218 in the summer of 1992 as the community school director of CAS’s first community school. Little did I know that my first full year as director would prove to be the most difficult, overwhelming, and at times downright humbling experience in my career. Having survived those first few years, I now have the luxury of looking back and pinpointing some of the challenges—and there were many. First and foremost, CAS and the school knew that we needed somehow to put into practice the concept of collaboration and partnership, but no one understood what that involved. We all soon realized that we were defining what it meant to be a community school as we went along. Another issue I faced was my relationship with the principal. How was I supposed to interact with him? Was he my boss? Did he have a final say on matters? Who was in charge? And what would happen when we disagreed? Still another challenge was posed by the multiple constituents in the school, from the custodian to the school safety officers, from kitchen personnel to the teachers, students, and their parents. What was my role with respect to them, and what credibility and authority did I have in dealing with all these different groups? In other words, who was I, and why should any of them listen to me? While trying to cope with these questions, I also had to ensure the successful delivery of services to virtually the entire student population (approximately 1,400 students), their families, and neighborhood residents.