Nav Center January 2012 Community School Site Visit Report

January 5-18, 2012

and New Cleveland,

Community School Site Visits Cincinnati,

York City

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

2

Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4

II. OVERVIEW

4

III. ITINERARY

5

IV. AREAS OF FOCUS

6

V. SITE VISIT #1: COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS/ COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS INSTITUTE, CINCINNATI, OH

8

BACKGROUND ON CINCINNATI AND COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS BACKGROUND ON ETHEL M. TAYLOR ACADEMY (EMTA) THE COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTER AT ETHEL M. TAYLOR ACADEMY ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE PROGRAMMING LINK WITH ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT PARTNERSHIPS WITH ORGANIZATIONS DATA-TRACKING/ EVALUATION ENGAGING PARENTS, FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES SUSTAINABILITY/ FUNDING OBSERVATIONS OTHER NOTES

8 9 9 9 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 13

VI. SITE VISIT #2: CLEVELAND CENTRAL PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD/ SISTERS OF CHARITY FOUNDATION, CLEVELAND, OH 14 BACKGROUND ON CLEVELAND CENTRAL AND THE PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE PROGRAMMING LINK WITH ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT PARTNERSHIPS WITH ORGANIZATIONS DATA-TRACKING/ EVALUATION ENGAGING PARENTS, FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES SUSTAINABILITY/ FUNDING OBSERVATIONS

15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 17

VII. SITE VISIT #3: NATIONAL CENTER FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOLS/ THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY, NEW YORK, NY 19 BACKGROUND ON THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOLS (NCCS) AND THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY (CAS) BACKGROUND ON THE SALOME UREÑA DE HENRÍQUEZ CAMPUS (SUDH) COMMUNITY SCHOOL BACKGROUND ON P.S. 152 DYCKMAN VALLEY SCHOOL COMMUNITY SCHOOL BACKGROUND ON FANNIE LOU HAMER HIGH SCHOOL (FLHHS) COMMUNITY SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE PROGRAMMING LINK WITH ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT www.navigatorscenter.org

20 21 21 22 22 23 25

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

PARTNERSHIPS WITH ORGANIZATIONS DATA-TRACKING/ EVALUATION ENGAGING PARENTS, FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES SUSTAINABILITY/ FUNDING OBSERVATIONS

3 26 26 27 28 28

VIII. SITE VISIT #4: NEW YORK CITY BEACONS/ YOUTH DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE, NEW YORK, NY 30 BACKGROUND ON THE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE AND BEACONS BACKGROUND ON THE HUDSON GUILD BEACON ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE PROGRAMMING LINK WITH ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT PARTNERSHIPS WITH ORGANIZATIONS DATA-TRACKING/ EVALUATION ENGAGING PARENTS, FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES SUSTAINABILITY/ FUNDING OBSERVATIONS

31 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 34

IX. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NAVIGATORS’ CENTER AT KAMAILE ACADEMY

35

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE PROGRAMMING LINK WITH ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT PARTNERSHIPS WITH ORGANIZATIONS DATA-TRACKING/ EVALUATION ENGAGING PARENTS, FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY/ FUNDING

35 36 36 37 38 39 40

X. APPENDIX 1: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION TO SITES

41

X. APPENDIX 2: DOCUMENTS FROM CINCINNATI COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS

42

X. APPENDIX 3: DOCUMENTS FROM THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY’S NATIONAL CENTER FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOLS IN NEW YORK CITY 46

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

4

I. Executive Summary

The structure of the Navigators’ Center draws most of its inspiration from the community schools model that has spread across the United States and the entire globe. In January of 2011, the Navigators’ Center Director embarked on a study tour of various community school models that have gained national attention. The sites in Cincinnati, Cleveland, and New York City were chosen to represent a broad spectrum of the community schools movement. This great range of models allowed for a wide spectrum of insight into how the community schools model can be shaped to best meet the needs of the students and community that it is aiming to serve.

The following themes were identified as areas of special attention throughout the first six months of the Navigators’ Center’s operations and served as the areas of focus for the site visits: • Organization structure • Programming • Link with academic achievement • Partnerships with organizations • Data‐tracking/ evaluation • Engaging parents and families • Sustainability/ funding Not meant to be an exhaustive listing of everything that goes into a successful community school, the points above merely represent the areas of most pressing concern for the Navigators’ Center, a community school model in its very early stages still taking shape.

The site visits were incredibly powerful on two primary levels. Firstly, each visit affirmed to a certain degree the work being done at our own site. Though very young, the Navigators’ Center seems already to be adopting many best practices and following the path set by well‐established and reputable efforts in the community schools movement. Secondly, the visits provided a long list of ideas for how to improve upon the work already being done.

II. Overview

The Navigators' Center is both a place and a system dedicated to the academic success, social and emotional wellness, and physical health of Kamaile Academy students. While the Center was founded in the summer of 2011, the ideas and programs that make up the Center have been supporting Kamaile Academy's students for years. On campus and throughout our community, many individuals and organizations have made invaluable contributions to our students and school. The Navigators' Center is meant to build upon this work as a location and framework where all of these efforts can come together to ensure Kamaile's haumana (students) receive the aloha (love) they deserve.

The structure of the Navigators’ Center draws most of its inspiration from the community schools model that has spread across the United States and the entire globe. The Coalition for Community Schools, which advocates for community schools across the nation, describes the model as such:

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

5

A community school is both a place and a set of partnerships between school and community.

It has an integrated focus on academics, youth development, family support, health and social services, and community development… The community school is uniquely equipped to develop an educated citizenry, to strengthen family and community, and to nurture democracy in the twenty‐first century. (from www. http://www.communityschools.org) The model is a clear fit for the work that has been occurring at Kamaile Academy for years and for the plans that the Navigators’ Center has to continue this work.

In January of 2011, the Navigators’ Center Director embarked on a study tour of various community school models that have gained national attention. The schools were chosen to represent a broad spectrum of the community schools movement. Some sites have been successfully operating for decades, while others are in their initial planning phases. Some efforts are part of a district‐wide strategy, while others grew out of efforts in individual communities. Some are the product of partnership networks crafted by school staff, while others are entirely led by a single outside agency. This great range of models allowed for a wide spectrum of insight into how the community schools model can be shaped to best meet the needs of the students and community that it is aiming to serve.

Cincinnati’s Community Learning Centers were the focus of the first visits hosted by the Community Learning Center Institute. The next visits, organized by the Sisters of Charity Foundation of Cleveland, were to Cleveland Central’s Promise Neighborhood. The third round of sites were through the Children’s Aid Society and its National Center for Community Schools in New York City.

Spread over two days, these visits were focused in neighborhoods of Washington Heights and the South Bronx. Finally, the Youth Development Institute arranged for visits to its Beacons in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York City.

The report that follows is broken into sections that highlight findings from each of the site visits. Each section is organized by the primary areas of focus that were identified before the trip as areas of attention for the Navigators’ Center. The report concludes with a set of recommendations for the Navigators’ Center that follows from the observations made and materials collected throughout the site visits.

III. Itinerary

1.4.2012 (Wed)‐ Depart HNL 1.5.2012 (Thurs)‐ Arrive in CLE, pick up transportation, travel to Cincinnati 1.6.2012 (Fri)‐ CINCINNATI, OH: Visit Community Learning Centers Institute (Cincinnati Public Schools Community Learning Centers) 1.9.2012 (Mon)‐ PERSONAL DAY (in Youngstown) 1.10.2012 (Tues)‐ CLEVELAND, OH: Visit Sisters of Charity Foundation (Cleveland Central Promise Neighborhood) 1.11.2012 (Wed)‐ Travel to NYC 1.12‐13.2012 (Thurs‐Fri)‐ NEW YORK CITY, NY: Visit Chlidren’s Aid Society (National Center for Community Schools) 1.17.2012 (Tues)‐ NEW YORK CITY, NY: Visit Youth Development Institute (Beacon) 1.18.2012 (Wed)‐ Depart NWK for HNL

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

6

IV. Areas of Focus

The following themes and questions were identified as areas of special attention throughout the first six months of the Navigators’ Center’s operations. Not meant to be an exhaustive listing of everything that goes into a successful community school, the following points merely represent the areas of most pressing concern for a community school model in its very early stages still taking shape. The rest of the report is organized by these same sections. The questions within each section were used as general guides for the site visits, and not every item was answered at each site. On the whole, though, the recommendations that conclude the report are meant to serve as solutions to most of the issues raised here.

Organizational structure ‐Who does what (i.e. program implementation, data, partnerships, school relations, policy, funding, etc.)? How are these parts connected? ‐Thoughts on various models: “community revitalization model” (e.g. HCZ); “school as hub model” (i.e. community school); “tailored interventions model” (i.e. specifically tailored individual student/family plans); “community organizing/leadership model” (i.e. focus on training grassroots agents of change within communities)? ‐Using language of community schools model, what is the function of the “lead agency”/ “community leadership”/ “policy level”? Function of “intermediate organization”? Function of “school site leadership”? Are all of those components necessary? Can some be combined?

Programming ‐What drives the initial selection of goals (e.g. data, research, community input, school input, student voice, etc.)? ‐What drives the initial selection of programs (e.g. data, research, community input, school input, etc.)? ‐Do programs drive partnerships, do partnerships drive programs, or is it a mix? How does that process play out?

Link with academic achievement ‐Are there any specific strategies to align with, reform, or augment classroom learning and instruction in the community schools? ‐What are the links between the community school model and classroom learning (i.e., does the model have specific implications for the classroom, or does the overall support provided by the model simply have a positive impact on student achievement through avenues like physical health, incentives, role models, etc.)? ‐How do the programs coordinate with school, teachers, and staff?

Partnerships with organizations ‐How are organizations selected and targeted for partnership? Is there a strategy (e.g., community choice, specialty areas, political reasons, funding possibilities, etc.)? Is it more of an organic process of building upon work already being done in the schools and community?

Data‐tracking/ evaluation ‐How do you align goals with evaluation/ data‐tracking? ‐How do you measure impact of programs on academic performance of students?

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

‐How do you measure “community” impact? ‐What type of evaluation systems lend themselves best to planning? Funding? Community engagement? ‐What type of reporting is done to schools? Community? Funders? Press?

Engaging parents, families, and community ‐Honestly, what does community support look like? ‐Who is the “community” that is involved (e.g. parents, faculty, funders, etc.)? ‐How is “community” formally involved in planning, evaluation, implementation, etc.?

Sustainability/ funding ‐From where does funding come? ‐Where do funds go? ‐Who determines how funds are allocated? ‐What is the spending process (i.e., what is the “red tape” that needs to be navigated for various spending areas like instructional support, family programs, health initiatives, etc.)? ‐To what degree does funding determine planning/programming, or does it work in reverse (i.e. plans/programs determine what funding is pursued)?

www.navigatorscenter.org

7

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

8

V. Site Visit #1: Community Learning Centers/ Community Learning Centers Institute, Cincinnati, OH

The Community Learning Center Institute leads the ongoing engagement of the Greater Cincinnati community in the development of all schools as community learning centers, each with a set of financially self‐sustaining, co‐located community partnerships responsive to the vision and needs of each school and its neighborhood. [quoted from www.clcinstitute.org]

Contacts Darlene Kamine Executive Director Community Learning Center Institute

Ethel M. Taylor Academy 1930 Fricke Rd. Cincinnati, Ohio 45225

Annie Bogenschutz Community Learning Center Resource Coordinator

Friday, January 6, 2012 ‐9am: Site visit to Ethel M. Taylor Academy elementary school with one of the most successful community learning centers in the citywide district with Annie Bogenschutz, who as Resource Coordinator oversees the center and its partnerships ‐11.30am: Lunch with Darlene Kamine, the Executive Director of the Community Learning Center Institute who played a primary role in launching the CLC initiative at the very start in the city ‐3pm: Meeting at the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati with health organizations from around the city regarding new funding for more School‐Based Health Clinics across the city

Background on Cincinnati and Community Learning Centers In Ohio, due to charter school language, “Community Learning Center” (CLC) is the same as “Community School” (CS).

Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) were among the worst in the nation in terms of facilities.

About 12 years ago, the Ohio Supreme Court declared the public school facilities statewide as unconstitutional. While the state provided some funding for the construction of new buildings based on district tax rates, districts were required to produce funding on their own. CPS received the lowest percentage of funding in the state and were thus responsible for coming up with the largest amount of funds in the state.

CPS serves 54,000 students across the city, but only 19% of city voters have children in the system. The initial levy to fund construction of new schools failed rather drastically, so it was determined that a new marketing direction was necessary. Planners decided to play to the hearts of community members by framing these new school facilities as community centers that would actually be serving the entire community with space and programming. With this as the central

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

9

message in the campaign for the 2nd attempt at the levy (and somewhat to the surprise of planners), the new levy did pass.

Because of this new mandate, a fairly intense process was launched to engage directly neighborhoods in the planning of the new school buildings as what would come to be CLC’s. At the same time, efforts were made at the district level to pull together community resources to form a network of providers (see the “Cross Boundary Leadership Team”). What resulted was a district‐ wide initiative to make all 34 CPS sites CLCs. The CLC model is set up as a private‐public exchange. While the school principals are expected to work alongside the Site Resource Coordinator (SRC), none of the operating costs of the CLC come from the school’s budget. The SRC is funded entirely by the lead agency at the school, which is an organization from the district’s Cross Boundary Leadership Team network. To date, these agencies have put forward the funding for 32 SRC’s across CPS’s 34 schools. The school, in turn, must offer facilities and space for the CLC activities and co‐located agencies.

Background on Ethel M. Taylor Academy (EMTA)

As a 100% free lunch school in the midst of a public housing project, EMTA sees itself as a “basic needs school.” Before the CLC, test scores were very bad and the school received a 60 out of 120 on the state performance scale to put it in “academic emergency.”

The CLC at this site reflects the “basic needs” nature of the school, and there is really no stigma around that. The CLC brought in a limited number of partnerships that were all required to align with the school‐wide goals, many of which address the basic needs of students and the community. This past year, with the support of the CLC, the school earned 78 out of 120 on its measure, escaped “academic emergency,” met AYP, and received the 2011 National Award of Excellence awarded by the Coalition for Community Schools.

The Community Learning Center at Ethel M. Taylor Academy

“The CLC doesn’t take the place of good teaching, but teaching does become easier.”

The CLC at EMTA is aimed at meeting the needs of students in their community. The SRC, Annie, made an interesting point regarding the special dynamics in their community. A community school often finds its purpose in the community bettering its youth so that they can come back and bring more positive change for that community. At EMTA, Annie remarked that since almost all families were coming out of public housing, their real desire was to educate their children so that they did not have to come back to the community. This was a poignant example of how the community school model works at its best when it is tailored to meet the needs of the community it is serving.

Annie, as one of the nine original SRC’s in the district and serving at EMTA since it launched its CLC six years ago, described their implementation as a three‐stage process. First, and perhaps most importantly, is the community engagement process by which critical relationships are built.

Next comes the process of assessing the status of conditions, setting clear goals, and aligning all partners to those goals. Only after all of this is achieved can the final stage begin when real impacts are seen through academics, health, and family engagement.

Organizational structure

CLC’s are supported from above by both CPS and the CLC Institute. CLCs are written into the organizational structure of the CPS. The district supports all CLC’s in various ways including a district‐ wide Learning Partner Dashboard that offers a common system by which all SRCs can input data as www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

10

to how their partners are impacting students at their schools. The CLC Institute offers support to all CLCs across the district. SRCs also coordinate with each other through regular meetings and trainings.

At each site, the CLC operates much in line with the “community school” or “school as hub” models. The SRC works directly alongside the school principal. As Annie puts it, the SRC is to manage all of the “other” things happening in the school and community so that the principal can focus on the academics. As mentioned earlier, the SRC is not an employee of the district but rather of the Lead Agency. This allows for the sometimes necessary freedom and flexibility to work outside of the confines of being a district employee.

Each CLC site also involves a Local School Decision Making Committee (LSDMC). The LSDMC functions as the primary governing body for each school in the district that meets monthly and oversees the operations of each individual school. The body is composed of a minimum of 12 members including the following: three parents, three community representatives, three teachers, three staff members (one to be Principal), one Partner‐in‐Education Representative, and an optional number of students. The LSDMC meetings cover “everything” that is happening at school, but the agenda always includes a significant portion of time dedicated to the CLC. A main function of the LSDMC is to oversee the partnerships at each site, including the initial release of request for proposals (RFPs) for partnerships, selection of what partners are accepted, and, if necessary, the termination of partnerships not meeting expectations. The SRC’s role is to report regularly to the LSDMC on the work of partners in the school.

The LSDMC selects a Lead Agency for their site. This Lead Agency employs the site’s SRC and also serves as the Coordinating Partner for one primary category of CLC services (i.e., Community Engagement, Mental Health, Primary/Dental Health, After School, Tutoring, Mentoring, Parent Engagement, College Access, Arts, and Other). Other organizations apply to become the CLC Coordinating Partner for all other service categories. These lead Coordinating Partners also come together monthly for a meeting facilitated by the SRC. The SRC is responsible for working with the staff of all the various partners to coordinate the services taking place at the school site.

Programming

At the beginning of each year the SRC meets with the school principal to set a school‐wide goal in four areas: academic, family/parent engagement, community engagement, and wellness.

These goals are based on needs at the school identified through data and engagement with the school community. Each partner then sits down individually with the SRC to align their work in the school to at least one of those goals. The goals also serve as accountability as to whether or not partners fulfilled their responsibility to the school. All programming that occurs within the CLC is thus driven by the goals selected and the community’s interpretation of those goals.

At EMTA, it was stressed that the CLC “is not creating services and partners but merely realigning them.” The point is not to displace the work that anyone is doing on the campus, but rather to ensure that everyone on campus is aligning to the goals set by the school. [For the programs offered, see “Community Learning Center Partner List @ Taylor Academy”.]

Link with academic achievement

As mentioned above, one of the primary goals that underlies all of the CLC partnerships is academic, thus academic achievement automatically becomes a primary concern of the work of the CLC. While the CLC as a whole takes a broad approach to servicing the needs of the whole child,

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

11

academic achievement ultimately is measured by the school’s performance on state assessments (i.e., test scores).

Academics also play a major role within the CLC management through the presence of teachers on the LSDMC. Casual observations at the site revealed a strong relationship between the SRC and most of the faculty, as well, so it can be assumed that teachers have a reliable avenue for support with any needs arising in their classroom.

While there is no direct link between the CLC and actual daily instruction, addressing the broader needs of the child does seem to impact academic achievement as illustrated by the dramatic improvements in academic performance within the school highlighted earlier.

Partnerships with organizations

As described earlier, the partnerships present at each CLC site are a result of district‐wide pooling of resources and site‐based decision‐making. At the district level, CPS reached out to providers across the various categories of services to establish a network of various city agencies and organizations willing to partner with schools as a site to deliver their services. At the local site level, the LSDMC puts out RFPs for the partnerships it requires. Providers then submit proposals to be reviewed by the LSDMC. First, the LSDMC chooses a Lead Agency who will fund the SRC who will serve at that school. The LSDMC then selects Coordinating Partners to manage the services in each of the service categories (e.g., After School, Parent Engagement, etc.) that the LSDMC considers a need for their school. The LSDMC must also approve any partner that wishes to become a Co‐ Located Agency, provided that the school is able to offer the facilities (e.g., office space, classrooms, etc.) for them to operate at the school site itself.

Each partner meets individually with the SRC to ensure that its services are aligned to the school’s goals. The LSDMC holds the authority to terminate any partnership that is not living up to expectations.

Data‐tracking/ evaluation

Since all partners’ work is to be aligned to the goals of the school, evaluation of partnerships at the site‐level is largely based on those goals. Partners are to collect data on their programs, and the SRC inputs the data received. As a useful benefit from the district‐wide commitment of CPS, the district created a “Dashboard” database that allows SRCs to align individual student data with their academic data. The district furthermore laid out the framework for a CLC Report Card that is filled out annually by the SRC at each site with quantitative and qualitative data and allows for cross‐site comparisons.

In terms of sharing data among partners, all parents sign a release allowing data from various providers to be pooled. This data stays with the SRC (who is not a CPS employee), but remains confidential in the sense that no partner can access another partner’s data.

Engaging parents, families, and communities

The LSDMC serves as the primary representative of the community in decisions made at the school level. At the site visited, the SRC managed most programs aimed at engaging other family and community members including efforts such as open houses, conferences, and events. The SRC also reaches out for support to community businesses and donors.

Much community ownership was won through the intensive engagement and planning process associated with the establishment of the CLCs. This process took literally years to unfold, and community engagement did not always come easily. At all phases, those involve stress that the www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

12

process was aimed at meeting the community at their level, even if that meant at times deviating from the plans being made at higher levels. The goal was always to bring public schools back to the public. The following “Principles of Community Engagement” were adopted: 1. Involves all sectors of the community – public schools belong to the public.

2. Provides sufficient information and parameters to help inform planning and decisions.

3. Creates ownership, not buy‐in to a decision that is already made.

4. Connects with and influences official decisions—ensures that community engagement does make a difference.

5. Develops infrastructure for sustained involvement in implementation and accountability.

This process allowed CLCs actually to develop out of community engagement, thus allowing the community to be a natural component of the operation of a CLC. With that said, at the site‐level personnel still expressed the constant challenges involved with engaging families and the surrounding community. While community ownership is essential to success, it takes effort and attention to build and maintain.

Sustainability/ funding

Because of the efforts dedicated at the district level to create such a robust network of service providers willing to fund site‐level SRCs, none of the CLCs funding comes from the school budget (aside from the indirect costs of use of facilities). Since all programs come through outside organizations, the district has established a system by which services can be delivered for the most part without the “red tape” typically associated with district‐wide programs. The firm LSDMC structure allows the community to sense a large degree of ownership over the programs happening in the school even though the funding for those programs is often coming from outside of the community. This firm structure also ensures for the most part that programs are funded to meet the needs of the community, rather than programs being created to meet the requirements of the funding.

Observations

The CLC at EMTA was admittedly one of the most established and successful sites in the district, largely due to the extraordinary efforts of the SRC. With that said, the CLC and its work were quite impressive. EMTA itself was a beautiful structure in the heart of a somewhat drab neighborhood of public housing, quiet industrial structures, and few businesses (though literally minutes away from the University of Cincinnati main campus). The CLC main room was physically located just across the hall from the main reception desk and the school’s main office, signifying that it played a central role in the school. A large, open, and colorful space, the CLC played host to students, teachers, staff, and parents during my short time there, illustrating clearly that the center was known and used by people throughout the school community. Annie, the SRC at the school, was on a first name basis with seemingly every student, teacher, and parent we encountered in the hall and around the school, demonstrating that she was a large factor in the success of the CLC as a whole. The Principal made a special stop to welcome me to the school in yet another clear sign that the CLC was a natural and key component within the school as a whole. A school tour revealed children very welcoming to visitors and evidently happy to be in school. While the whole facility was new and well kept, the library received special renovation under a grant from Target and was a bright, wonderful space filled with new books and technology. The offices of the co‐located mental health agency were found within this library space, and children were receiving services while I was

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

13

there in the midst of the school day. Overall, the CLC’s success seemed built on strong relationships across the school community and direct alignment and integration into the school’s normal operations.

Other Notes

The afternoon meeting held at the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati allowed for great access into the realm of School‐Based Health Clinics (SBHC). The meeting was largely to inform medical and educational providers citywide that the Foundation “intends to fund Business and Operational Planning Grants for School‐Based Health Centers in kindergarten through twelfth‐grade school sites located in Cincinnati Public Schools.” Based on information presented, the National Assembly on School‐Based Health Care was able to release $200 million to expand SBHCs across the country. Other national healthcare legislation is to double the Medicaid rates of payment in 2013‐ 2014, serving as further incentive for healthcare providers to enter the SBHC arena. Some issues regarding the establishment of SBHC sites were raised as well. For one, it has been shown that to be sustainable, a SBHC needs to service at least 600 students or more. This could mean that schools partner to share a site, or a site can open up to outside community members as well as students.

Another issue raised was the fate of school nurses; most remarked that the SBHC should be structured to include the district’s school nurses rather than pushing them out of work.

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

14

VI. Site Visit #2: Cleveland Central Promise Neighborhood/ Sisters of Charity Foundation, Cleveland, OH

“Promise Neighborhoods” are vibrant, thriving neighborhoods where children are ready for school, go to good schools, and have strong systems of family and community support that will prepare them to attain an excellent education, graduate from high school and go on to college and a successful career.

While federal funding would have accelerated our progress in creating the Cleveland Central Promise Neighborhood, the Sisters of Charity Foundation, residents of Central, and the host of partners and collaborators are not discouraged by the U.S. Department of Education's decision not to award our initiative the federal grant. Our collective and collaborative efforts already underway in the neighborhood with everyone working together to transform Central into a healthy thriving community. [quoted from http://www.clevelandpromiseneighborhood.org]

Contacts Sisters of Charity Foundation of Cleveland 1228 Euclid Avenue, Suite 330 Cleveland, OH 44115 216.241.9300

Leslie Strishna Senior Program Director Sisters of Charity Foundation of Cleveland

Adriennie Hatten Program Officer, Education Sisters of Charity Foundation of Cleveland

Marion‐Sterling Elementary School 3033 Central Avenue Cleveland, OH 44115‐3044 (216) 621‐0612

Pamela (Pam) Scott Site Coordinator Marion‐Sterling Elementary School

Donnell (Neal) Hodges Site Coordinator Carl & Louis Stokes Academy

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 ‐1pm: Meeting at Sisters of Charity Foundation of Cleveland office with Leslie Strishna and Adriennie Hatten, who oversee the programming end of the Cleveland Central Promise Neighborhood, and Pam Scott and Neal Hodges, who were recently hired as Site Coordinators at two schools in the neighborhood

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

15

‐3.30pm: Site visit with Principal of Marion‐Sterling Elementary School, one of the focus sites in the Cleveland Central Promise Neighborhood plan, at which Pam Scott was recently hired as Site Coordinator

Background on Cleveland Central and the Promise Neighborhood The Sisters of Charity Foundation (SOCF) was established as a “Healthcare Conversion Fund,” which is basically an entity that forms to manage the assets of a nonprofit hospital once it closes. In 2006, SOCF chose to focus on four primary areas for its work: homelessness, Sisters’ ministries, health, and education. With regards to health and education, the foundation decided to concentrate all of their efforts in one neighborhood, that being Central neighborhood with the highest concentration of public housing in northeast Ohio.

To begin their education work, SOCF staff went into the community. It was made clear that the project was not to be in line with a neighborhood transformation strategy as seen with such models as the Harlem Children Zone. The needs were much more basic. Middle schools across the district had been closed, so those students were squeezed into PreK‐8 schools and suffering. The community was seeing more and more drop‐outs and identified middle school students as the key target in reversing the trend. The following were set as the goals of the educational initiative in the neighborhood: (1) academic achievement, (2) high school graduation, and (3) post‐secondary completion. The three PreK‐8 schools in the area were all under “academic emergency,” so the community saw it as key to turn around these schools by exposing youth to community support and successes.

At the same time, the city of Cleveland was in the midst of a number of initiatives, including district‐wide education reforms. One thing that came along was the Promise Neighborhood movement, and the district identified six model community schools nationwide to serve as a basis for their own efforts. SOCF assisted the district in researching these models and creating a framework for the local context that would be piloted at two schools in the Central neighborhood. In 2008, SOCF went into the community to begin planning the effort, and just now they are beginning to enter the implementation phase with the recent hiring of Site Coordinators to launch efforts at the schools themselves.

Organizational structure

Structures within the project are still very much being planned. As was mentioned, the district did select six community school models from across the nation to serve as a foundation upon which to build their two pilot sites within the Central neighborhood. As the planning phase continues, Site Coordinators were very recently hired to begin laying the groundwork for the community school model within the schools themselves. These individuals, funded by SOCF, will become the first employees at the schools focuses fully on developing the community schools model. Both are working closely with the principals of their sites to ensure that all efforts and programs are aligned with the school’s work.

Programming Clearly, the effort in Cleveland Central is still in its planning phases, and actual programming is limited and only indirectly related to the community school efforts at the site‐level.

Much of the work from the SOCF end is still dedicated to engaging community and shaping the model that will be followed, and those efforts will be described later. It has been learned that

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

16

work within the realms of policy and advocacy are also very important, and attention has been extended to those areas recently.

At the school site, most activities seemed to revolve around the afterschool program at this point. Students were engaged in various academic enrichment courses (e.g. computer‐based learning programs, reading) and extracurricular activities (e.g., video games and programming, cosmetology). The principal seemed to be the key organizer behind all of the afterschool activities. It was mentioned that district‐wide budget cuts forced all schools to let go of school nurses and guidance counselors, so at this point the school seemed to be in dire need of the types of services commonly associated with community schools.

In terms of planning future programming, the following were cited as key best practices and focus areas adopted from national models: • Programs are sustainable and will not simply leave after a few years • All efforts are culturally respectful and responsive to the local community • Parent engagement would remain a priority • Efforts will target overall social and emotional wellness • Academic success is the overarching target of all programming

Link with academic achievement

As was stated, the community identified the primary goal of the promise neighborhood initiative to be gains in academic achievement. Based on this, it would seem that academics would serve as a foundation for all future planning. Based on the limited activities witnessed, it seemed as though the school and programs were still focused on the very basic levels of providing students a safe place to be after school hours along with some type of exposure to academic enrichment.

Partnerships with organizations

Because of the early stages of the project, no clear partnerships were yet functioning in the schools. Within the planning process, the role of community‐based organizations was repeatedly stressed as being critical to building the support necessary for the project to succeed. The proximity of the community college campus was also cited as a reliable source of volunteers and possible further partnership opportunities.

Data‐tracking/ evaluation

While data‐tracking was mentioned as an area of much focus in the planning process, no clear details seemed to have been developed as of yet. The conversation did touch upon the harsh reality that the overall target, academic achievement, would unavoidably have to be measured to some degree by performance on state assessments. Staff also discussed efforts being made to determine how best to measure the effectiveness of partnerships.

Engaging parents, families, and communities

Much of the time spent planning the efforts in the neighborhood schools thus far seemed directed at engaging the community. To quote one of the program planners, “Community engagement is huge.” The staff stressed how the community was used to seeing programs come and go, so a primary objective has been to bring various actors in the neighborhood into the planning process. This process was traced back to a School Improvement Grant at one of the sites that brought an extended learning time (ELT) model to the school. The ELT initiative was seen as an www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

17

opportunity to bridge the school’s effort to the surrounding neighborhood, and the effort has continued since then. In planning the current Promise Neighborhood initiative, while much work has been down at the broader district level, a great deal of work has also been done with community‐ based organizations to ensure that the effort is really owned locally. The views gathered to this point have varied widely—some have said that this is yet another in a long line of too much programs, others doubt the new effort’s success because it is a small effort in a place where nothing else is happening. The staff acknowledged that all of these perspectives must be heard and considered in order to “create the model that works for the community.”

One specific program worth mentioning (and that gained attention in the local press) is their Neighborhood Leadership Institute. Part of the Promise Neighborhood funds were directed at this effort which brought in an organization that specialized in training and empowering residents to become advocates for change in their neighborhood. Residents were recruited to undergo this training to become “Promise Neighborhood Ambassadors” who would serve as advocates in the community for the broad effort. Fifty individuals volunteered for the program. Older, long‐time residents were the first to come forward, and efforts were later made to bring in parents and even students (who are now “Youth Ambassador Leaders”). In their three years of planning to date, the staff agreed that this program may have been the “best investment” to date in the overall campaign.

Sustainability/ funding

During the planning phase, organizers looked at past projects in the area and prioritized sustainability. So many programs have come and gone in the community that planners have been very cautious to ensure that this Promise Neighborhood effort can be sustained. School Improvement Grants provided very helpful funds to get programs rolling at the two pilot sites chosen, and some progress resulted. The failure to secure a Promise Neighborhood grant, however, presented a significant setback in terms of funding. SOCF is currently still working to plan alternative funding mechanisms.

Observations

The visit to Cleveland Central was extremely interesting in that it was a chance to learn about an effort in its very early stages. Perhaps the most powerful impression I left with was the commitment to bringing in the community into the effort. While none of the staff were themselves from the Central neighborhood, all were Cleveland natives who seemed very committed to the success of the Promise Neighborhood initiative. Coupled with this commitment in all of them, though, was a firm grounding in the reality of the challenges that lie ahead. The staff seemed to have a very experienced and nuanced knowledge of the school system and community dynamics, which must certainly guide their planning. With regards to the planning, the process did seem quite extensive with not much to show in terms of actual programming as of yet. The dedication to tapping into the grassroots was admirable, but perhaps this focus comes at the price of efforts being directed at actual work and programming.

The site visit was similarly unique in that the newly hired Site Coordinator who was making one of her first visits to the site herself accompanied me. The Principal who led the tour was also newly hired this school year, so everyone was relatively new to the site. With that said, the Principal seemed very well received within the school and also seemed to be making much headway in a notoriously challenging environment. While students seemed happy and engaged in the afterschool programming, the facilities were quite drab and the budget difficulties being faced by the district were noticeably being felt at the school. Despite the somewhat dreary impression I was left with, the

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

SOCF staffers left overjoyed at how much progress had been made since their last visit. The Site Coordinators did not seem to have any clear mandate with their new position outside of assessing their sites and building relationships, but it would be interesting to see the progress they make as the implementation phase of the neighborhood‐wide effort launches.

www.navigatorscenter.org

18

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

19

VII. Site Visit #3: National Center for Community Schools/ The Children’s Aid Society, New York, NY

Over the last 17 years, The Children's Aid Society's National Center for Community Schools has facilitated the development of over 15,000 community schools nationally and internationally. We provide the consultation, advocacy and innovation that enable schools and their community partners to meet the comprehensive needs of children, strengthen families and empower neighborhoods. The Center has provided assistance to nearly all of this country's major community school initiatives, including Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Portland and St. Paul. By providing practical, innovative training, consultation, facilitation, materials and advocacy, The National Center for Community Schools helps develop comprehensive community schools and enhance existing school‐community partnerships that promote academic achievement, youth development, and family and community well‐being. The Center provides technical support to individuals and organizations who wish to learn about, adapt or build on the Children’s Aid Society community school model.

For almost 20 years, The Children’s Aid Society has operated community schools in partnership with the New York City Department of Education. Starting with the remarkable success of IS 218 and PS 5 in Washington Heights, the effort has grown to encompass 20 elementary, middle and high schools located in several of New York City’s neediest neighborhoods. These partnerships—which drew upon a rich tradition of community schooling that can be traced back to social reformers such as John Dewey and Jane Addams—became the CAS model. It’s a powerful model because it draws on a strong body of current research about the supports, services and opportunities needed by young people as they move toward productive adulthood. In 1994, The Children’s Aid Society created the National Center for Community Schools in an effort to respond to the increased demand for information and advice about community schools implementation. The Center facilitates learning opportunities that draw on our community schools practice in New York City, as well as on lessons learned from around the country, including other models. The Center also plays a leading role in local and national advocacy to advance the community schools movement and highlight this approach in the broader education agenda. [quoted from http://nationalcenterforcommunityschools.childrensaidsociety.org/]

Contacts The Children's Aid Society (CAS) National Center for Community Schools (NCCS) 475 Riverside Drive Suite 1220 New York, NY 10115 Tel: 212‐569‐2866 Fax: 212‐663‐1259

Janice Chu‐Zhu Senior Director of National Capacity Building, NCCS

Salomé Ureña de Henríquez Campus Community School (6‐12) (Washington Heights) 4600 Broadway – at 196th Street – Rm. 123 New York, NY 10040 Tel: 212‐569‐2889

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

20

Migdalia Cortes‐Torres Community School Director (Salomé Ureña Campus)

Miguel Balbuena Assistant Community School Director (Salomé Ureña Campus)

P.S. 152 Dyckman Valley School Community School (PreK‐5) (Washington Heights) 93 Nagle Avenue New York, NY 10040 Tel: 212‐544‐0221

Carolyn Chin‐Bow Community School Director (P.S. 152)

Fannie Lou Hammer High School Community School (9‐12) (Bronx) 1001 Jennings Street Bronx, NY 10460 Tel: 718‐861‐7891

Denise Montes Community School Direct (Fannie Lou Hamer)

Thursday, January 12, 2012 ‐11.30am‐ Site visit with Janice Chu‐Zhu, Senior Director of National Capacity Building for NCCS, to the Salomé Ureña Campus (middle and high school) in Washington Heights, hosted by Community School Director Migdalia Cortes‐Torres and Assistant Director Miguel Balbuena ‐1.45pm‐ Site visit with Janice Chu‐Zhu to P.S. 152 (elementary) in Washington Heights, hosted by Community School Director Carolyn Chin‐Bow

Friday, January 13, 2012 ‐11.30am‐ Site visit with Janice Chu‐Zhu to Fannie Low Hamer High School in the Bronx, hosted by Community School Director Denise Montes

Background on the National Center for Community Schools (NCCS) and the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) As the description from their website relays, CAS and it NCCS is one of the most prominent forces in the community schools movements nationally and abroad. CAS was founded in 1853 and for more than 150 years has been serving children in the most needy neighborhoods of New York City.

The charity was at the forefront of the community schools movement when it partnered with schools in the largely Dominican community of Washington Heights in upper Manhattan in 1992 and began offering comprehensive services to students there. As quoted in CAS literature, CAS’ CEO at that time saw this model as a way of “clustering services and education in one place, right where the students and parents are.” The community school concept won the support of the NYC Board (now Department) of Education, and the NYC DOE continues to be CAS’s largest partner in the effort.

Since then, CAS’s reach with community schools has grown to other neighborhoods across the city and, with the establishment of the NCCS, across the globe.

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

21

After decades of leadership under a CEO steeped in the realm of social work, CAS recently brought on a new CEO who is bringing some radical shifts in the focus of the organization. The new leadership has stressed that education is the primary means by which to escape poverty. Thus the entire organization, obviously including NCCS, is adjusting to focus on academic achievement, specifically getting students into college.

The following is a description from CAS literature: “The NYC Deparment of Ecuation/ Children’s Aid Society’s schools are based on a “developmental triangle,” which calls for a strong instructional program, expanded learning opportunities through enrichment and services designed to remove barriers to children’s learning and helath development. Effective educational reform strategies need to address both teaching (excellent instruction, rigorous curriculum, timely assessments aligned with instruction) and learning (student health, wellness, and engagement; plentiful opportunities to apply academic knowledge through challenging enrichment activities; support and encouragement from parents). The schools offer a comprehensive, integrated approach to education that extends the hours, services and partnerships of traditional public schools. Most CAS CS are open all day and well into the evening, six days per week, year‐round.”

Background on the Salome Ureña de Henríquez Campus (SUdH) Community School The Salomé Ureña Campus is the site of CAS’s first full‐service community school that began in 1992 in the largely Dominican community of Washington Heights. Since then, it has become the model for the CAS strategy and thus welcomed visitors from across the globe. The facility was actually built as a hospital and then converted years ago into the school, and the building is very well kept and inviting. The neighborhood was notorious for violence, gang activity, and drug sales, but staff remarks that there has been a noticeable turnaround in the past decade. Spending the day in the area, it seemed like a rather inviting and close‐knit residential community with moderate activity.

CAS literature provides the following description: “The Campus is named after Salomé Ureña de Henríquez, a Domincan feminist, poet and educator, who founded the first school for girls in the Dominican Republic in 1881. The partnership with the Children’s Aid Society started when the school opened in 1992, and ever since it has been the CAS flagship full‐service community school and a prototype for community schools around the country and world. The school is also a hub of the Washington Heights – Inwood community, in Northern Manhattan.”

As part of the citywide push for smaller schools, the campus was actually split into three separate schools. City College Academy of the Arts M293 is a grades 6‐11 (expanding to 12 next year) early college school that has partnered with City College of New York to cater to high‐achieving, college‐bound students. Middle School 332 is a grades 6‐8 school that features a rigorous curriculum and is known to enroll ambitious students who were not accepted at M293. Intermediate School 218 is a grades 6‐8 neighborhood school that is not known to be highly selective. All three schools service a population of students (1,372 total) that is more than 80% free and reduced lunch, around 15% special education students (though I.S. 218 is slightly higher at 22%), and more than 90% Latino. The community school staff openly admits that the fact that the schools fall within an upper, middle, and lower tier of students creates tension among the three principals that share the campus. To successfully operate, the staff constantly needs to nurture these all‐important relationships with the principals in what often becomes a complex balancing act.

Background on P.S. 152 Dyckman Valley School Community School

Located within a few blocks of the Salomé Ureña Campus, P.S. 152 is set within a huge, beautiful old school building that offers an abundance of space for the elementary school’s

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

22

programming. The elementary is a feeder school to the three schools within the Salomé Ureña Campus.

The CAS literature describes the school: “P.S. 152, the Dyckman Valley School, opened in 1927 and is located in the Northern Manhattan community of Washington Heights. Benefiting from our demonstrated commitment to the community and the strengths of our other community school partnerships in Washington Heights (P.S. 5, Salomé Ureña Middle Academies, P.S. 8 and Mirabal Sister Campus), The Children’s Aid Society launched the partnership with P.S. 152 in 1998.”

P.S. 152 offers its own array of services that will be detailed later. The CAS Community School staff seemed to have a very positive and effective relationship with the school’s leadership. The staff was very excited to share the new facilities and programs that were soon to be offered for early childhood education at the site. The 779 students at P.S. 152 are 93.5% free and reduced lunch, 31.5% ELL, 13.2% Special Ed, and 97.3% Latino.

Background on Fannie Lou Hamer High School (FLHHS) Community School

Fannie Lou Hamer High School (FLHHS) and Middle School are located in the South Bronx, a mostly Latino and black community that is home to widespread poverty and some gang activity and violence. The Middle School occupies a large, old school building, while the High School is located next door in a converted factory building. Both facilities are well kept and seem reasonably open to the community. The neighborhood seemed to face noticeable economic hardship. Within a few blocks of the schools was the main business strip that was home to a number of vacant establishments. CAS actually first entered the neighborhood by setting up a series of social services on that very block to try to turn around the community, including a health clinic and family center.

This presence in the area paved the way for the establishment of the community schools.

CAS literatures provides this overview: “The partnership between The Children’s Aid Society and Fannie Lou Hamer Freedom High School and Middle School started in 2006. The schools are located in the South Bronx, the poorest District in the nation. In spite of this FLHS has a 65% graduation rate and one of the highest graduation rates for students who enter high school at level 1 and low level 2 – 70‐80% of students who graduate go on to college. The schools are name after Fannie Lou Hamer (1917‐1977), who was an African‐American civil rights leader during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement.”

FLHS, as a selective high school, has adopted some interesting strategies in the hopes of raising student achievement. The hallways are lined with beautiful works of the students that highlight the school‐wide emphasis on project‐based learning. The school also features a portfolio requirement for its students that emphasizes writing and critical thinking skills. Success is shown by the 65.5% graduation rate, well above the Bronx average of 52% and NYC rate of 55%. Staff acknowledged that the challenge being faced currently is pushing the students further into post‐ secondary programs. Though many programs are being developed to support students to this end, those at the school admitted that it has not been easy getting students all the way to college.

Demographically, the 506 students enrolled are listed as 92.2% qualifying for free and reduced lunch, 11.1% ELL, 26.3% Special Ed, 70.9% Latino, and 28.7% black.

Organizational structure

The National Center for Community Schools (NCCS) serves largely as The Children Aid Society’s (CAS) external arm to the network of community schools around the globe. Within the large framework of the CAS organization is a branch for community schools that provides support to all of the CAS sites across the city.

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

23

For the most part, though, the individual community school sites operate as autonomous units under the leadership of a Community School (CS) Director. This Director works very closely with the school principal who, under the NYC system, wields great authority within the school. Clearly, then, the relationship between the principal and CS Director is vital to the success of the programs at the site. It was stressed that the CS Director must be a capable administrator who can “keep up” with the school principal; if the principal has spend effort in catching a Director up to speed on the workings of the school, that principal is likely to turn to other matters to the detriment of the CS programming. Under the CS Director are individuals who oversee the various programs that are offered at the site. Some of these positions are common across all sites (e.g., Parent Engagement Coordinator), while others are only found at certain sites based on available services (e.g., Medical Clinic Director). Under each of these program leaders are various staff supports and aides. Individual sites can employ more than 50 staff dedicated solely to community school programming.

A key feature of the CAS community schools model is that all staff within the sometimes complex organizational structures at each site are CAS employees. From CS Directors down to Parent Engagement Aides, all workers are working under a common CAS umbrella. This strict lead agency model allows for great coordination among all of the multiple parts working within the community schools structure. At each site, all workers united under the CAS banner. And across sites, CS Directors meet monthly to build a broad support network. Staff members below the director level also meet regularly with their counterparts at other sites to share best practices and align efforts.

Ultimately, though, staff at all three sites stressed the fact that the CAS organizational model “promotes individuality” at the various sites, allowing for the CS Director and staff to build the programming that fits the community.

Programming

The ability of the CAS organizational structure to foster autonomy at each site feeds directly into the community school programming found at each site. A common thread was heard in the discussions with CS Directors at each school regarding the emphasis on designing the CS work to match the neighborhood. While CAS mandates some program components (e.g., homework support during afterschool programs), a site’s staff determines most of the activities of the community school. Migdalia at Salomé Ureña presented this as a “Needs‐Based Perspective.” In truly getting to know a community and understand the context, a legitimate needs assessment is a year‐long process that is continually ongoing, constantly engaging community members, gauging the condition of students, and gathering buy‐in from staff—all key components in building successful programs. She made a simple yet profound observation in remarking, “The world changes, and we need to change with it.” Migdalia stood firmly behind the idea that the development of the community school is not linear, but rather must be organic. Of course there are some core competencies and best practices that can and must be learned from research, but the work itself within the community simply cannot be prescribed. Working within such a large foundation with such extensive reach, it was quite refreshing to hear her state, “Don’t let process impede the progress.”

In terms of actual programming, as mentioned above the Salomé Ureña campus serves as a model to community schools across the globe. (It should come as no surprise then, really, that its CS Director provided such profound insight on the nature of successful programming!) Extensive programming linked to the three schools’ academic instruction along with a litany of ways to involve families and community will both be detailed in later sections. Important to note hear is the unparalleled attention to student wellness at all levels. Just steps away from the campus’s main entrance is the CAS Student Wellness Center, a simply breathtaking facility that houses services to

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

24

meet the full needs of every single student in each of the three campus schools. To avoid any stigma, a brilliant decision was made to house all medical, dental, and mental health services within the same center. Whether a student is summoned for a routine dental check‐up or intensive emotional therapy, to the rest of the school population it is simply a visit to the Wellness Center. Equally impressive is the commitment to avoid any interference with students’ academics. One CAS staff member is dedicated to working with all of the schools’ schedules to ensure that every student in the building receives basic health services annually without ever having to miss a core academic class. A full‐time physician’s assistant and advanced medical equipment such as a nebulizer mean that a situation that in most schools would merit a trip to a hospital taking several hours and costing thousands of dollars becomes a brief, stress‐free visit to the front of the school building. The Center also features a facilitated health insurance enrollment program. Outside of the Student Wellness Center, another noteworthy feature at the Salomé Ureña CS is the work of the Teen Coordinator. After so much support in their middle school years, the staff found that former students now in high school were coming back to their old campus seeking support. The Teen Coordinator position was created to provide structure for these young alumni. Though budget constraints cut the program from 150 to 30 students, the project employs 9th graders to work in the middle school afterschool program and provides them with support in their own studies through individual academic plans that function much like the case management model.

Just a few blocks away in Washington Heights at P.S. 152, the CAS staff has created an array of programs to fit the needs of the elementary population they serve. Prominent among the efforts are Early Head Start and Head Start programs on campus all entirely managed and staffed by CAS. An entire section of the large school facility is currently being renovated to house these comprehensive ECE services, which foster a smooth transition into the elementary years. The CAS staff was also eager to share their afterschool program, which will be described a bit further in the next section.

Interesting to note here is that due to budget cutbacks, the CAS afterschool program was reduced to the point that it could only service a segment of the school population. In a move that revealed the true intentions of the CS model to better the lives of students, CAS invited to the school what some see as a “competitor” afterschool program (BELL) to provide services to those CAS could not reach.

The site visit to Fannie Lou Hamer in the Bronx revealed the impact the community school can have at the other end of the educational spectrum in high school. Multiple initiatives and partnerships have been created to meet the needs of students in this neighborhood. For example, the E.X.C.E.L. (Educational Excellence Creating Empowered Leaders) program was designed to focus attention on a cohort of students in the high school who expressed interest in going to college. A special program coordinator is dedicated to mentoring these students throughout their high school experience to ensure that their goal of college is met. One feature of the program is the E.X.C.E.L. at NYU Summer Residency Program, which sends enrolled students to New York University for six weeks to partake in a philosophy class, college experience course, and community service project.

Another separate program is the Corporate Workplace Program that takes selected students out of their economically troubled home environment to workshops around the city hosted by volunteers from the business community for training in such areas as interviewing skills, dining etiquette, and corporate culture. The school has also taken part in the Germany Exchange Program for years, which sends 16 NYC youth from across the CAS to Europe for a culture exchange experience through the Hope Leadership Academy. Meeting the very real needs of adolescents in the neighborhood, CAS has introduced the Comprehensive Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program, which, among various supports, provides evidence‐based curriculum to every student and even escorts students to family planning services five blocks away. This is a part of the broader access CAS provides all students to comprehensive health, mental health, and family wellness programs in the neighborhood CAS offices. Finally, the CS model provides positive, extracurricular programming in the form of archery—

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

25

yes, archery! A former coach college coach of archery began teaching his sport to 12 schools throughout Bronx and Brooklyn, and over the years it has become a huge (though somewhat surprising!) source of pride for FLHHS students. The staff was very thrilled to report that this year their Bronx school won the “Battle of the Boroughs.”

Though each site featured a unique array of programs, the emphasis on utilizing available resources to meet community needs draws a common thread throughout the CAS community school sites.

Link with academic achievement

Unlike Cincinnati and Cleveland, the Children’s Aid Society began their community schools work grounded in the social work tradition. While education was never ignored, academic achievement was seen as a natural outcome of the work being done to address more basic needs.

With the increasing national attention on academic achievement and aforementioned leadership transition within CAS (that itself may have been brought about by the broader national shift to focus on education), CAS’s work is currently evolving to feature a more direct relationship with academic achievement at the school. As most of the CS Directors themselves came from a background of social work, it was fascinating to see them navigating this transition at their sites.

At Salomé Ureña, the staff pointed out some novel methods of using the CS model to impact academic achievement. For one, the Parent Coordinator is leading efforts to educate parents and families on the state standards and testing systems, thus creating allies at home for promoting student achievement. Moreover, the leaders commented on the benefits of having a fully licensed and credentialed teacher as the Education Coordinator. Rather than relying on teachers at the school, this CAS staffer is able to go directly into the classroom to deliver instruction to students during the actual school day. A final direct connection with academic achievement was made with the afterschool program through which the “day” standards are brought to the evening with more engaging and activity‐based programming. Speaking candidly, the staff cleverly pointed out that, in reality, meeting the academic directives of the school was really a matter of changing language.

From September through December, the CAS programs are aimed at social and emotional wellness among youth. Come January through March, though the activities themselves have not changed at all, the program suddenly becomes standards‐based and test‐focused! All joking aside, the CS team stays true to their mission to “support the whole circle”—academics, social and emotional wellness, health, and family.

P.S. 152 highlighted their afterschool activities as the primary avenue toward promoting academic achievement. CAS purchased comprehensive, research‐based curricula for all of their math and language arts activities that develop true academic skills through methods more engaging and “fun‐based” than typical classroom instruction. Staying true to the community school focus on the whole child, though, these programs are paired with other blocks for more creative and physically active opportunities for afterschool participants. During the visit, students were building model airplanes, singing in a choir, and scampering around a gym in addition to playing math and reading games. While no one was ready to relinquish their emphasis on nurturing the whole child, staff members did comment that CAS needs to development better means of measuring the impact their programs were having on academic achievement.

The CAS‐wide shift toward focusing on education and specifically college entrance was observed most directly at the high school level at Fannie Lou Hamer. Much of the programming mentioned in the previous section occurring at the site, especially the E.X.C.E.L. program, is very clearly aimed at supporting the academic achievement of students by helping them on the path to college. During the visit, a conversation came up regarding a whole new source of funding being

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

26

directed to pilot programs similar to the E.X.C.E.L. effort that would provide individual support to students during key transition periods in their lives, all with the aim of getting those students to college. Outside of this realm of college guidance were other examples of the CS model connecting with the academic instruction at the school. One extremely visible and impressive example of one such effort was a partnership with the Studio Museum in Harlem. Artists from the museum regularly visit the school to support students in creating the products of their project‐based learning curriculum. In addition to adorning the walls of the high school, exemplary standouts of these beautiful pieces have been featured in the museum itself.

Partnerships with organizations

Unlike other community school systems largely based on services provided through partnerships, as has been described the Children’s Aid Society’s model is firmly based upon CAS serving as the lead agency and, thus, driver of most efforts. The benefits of clear organizational structure, staff and program alignment, and ability to focus fully on meeting the needs of individual communities have been detailed above. Obviously, though, this strategy is entirely dependent upon having an organization that offers an array of services wide enough and funds robust enough to cover all of the staffing and operations cost that come with a community school.

With that said, CAS still encourages their CS sites to partner with organizations to support their work within schools and communities. One CS Director explained how the support for community schools themselves from the NYC school district came out of the district’s hopes for schools to partner with more community‐based organizations (CBO); thus a school partner like CAS partnering with other CBOs is only natural. Many of these relationships come out of the “organic” growth of the community schools meeting the needs of a neighborhood described above, or as one CS Director put it, “Many partnerships arise by accident.” Once a good partner is found, though, the relationship is formalized with CAS and the school through official memorandums of understanding.

Ultimately it is up to the school’s principal to approve partnerships at the school, but the CAS staff typically manages the relationship once a partner comes to the school.

The various programs observed during the site visits already described hinted at how partnering organizations are able to augment and expand the services offered by CAS. The presence of BELL as P.S. 152 reveals how a “competing” organization can actually prove to be an asset to a community school. At Fannie Lou Hamer, the support of NYU and the various partners in the business community who comprise the Corporate Advisory Committee demonstrate how partners can bring in unique opportunities to students that a school and even lead agency would have trouble providing on their own. Fannie Lou Hamer’s connection with the Studio Museum in Harlem further illustrates how a partnership can directly enhance the instruction students are receiving at school.

Clearly then, even with the breadth of expertise and resources offered by an organization like CAS, the specialized niches and unique opportunities offered by community partners play a key role in successful community schools.

Data‐tracking/ evaluation

For all of the many successes of the community school model set by the Children’s Aid Society, across all sites staff highlighted data‐tracking and evaluation as areas in need of improvement. It seemed as though these areas of weakness can be traced back in part to the shift within the organization itself and community schools in general toward basing the effectiveness of programs on student academic achievement. As an organization operating out of a social work framework for 150 years, staff described how data to this point typically revolved around access to

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

27

services (e.g., how many students receive health services, how many family members attend programs, etc.). Even in measuring academic programs, most data is currently focused on items like attendance and time‐on‐task.

The push being felt now from CAS leadership is to collect more outcome‐based data, especially in terms of academics (e.g., test scores, grades, graduation rates, etc.). A premise of the community school model is that the focus on all of the “other” needs faced by students will ultimately impact academic achievement. It is understandable, then, that leaders within the community school movement want to demonstrate how their programs live up to these claims directly. In today’s world, as the argument goes, funders and policymakers want to see the direct impact on student learning that efforts in school are having. If community schools want to continue their work, then they must meet the requirements of those providing the funding and resources that allow that work to happen.

While no one dismissed the importance of collecting data, the concern raised widely was the challenge this new emphasis could potentially raise to the “real” work of the community school. The nature of the community school, as has already been repeatedly stressed by CAS staff, is to constantly adapt and respond to the needs of the community. On one hand, stressing too much on data is seen as a threat to the flexibility and responsiveness to which most staff credit the very success of their programming. If workers get too honed in on data and outcomes, they could potentially lose focus on the continuously ongoing work of feeling out what students and the community really need. Moreover, an over‐emphasis on academic gains could take away from the “real work” of the community school, according to staff. Sure all services are ultimately aimed at helping students in school, but what about the direct impact of all the additional services an organization like CAS provides? Academic outcomes are important, but so are the physical, social, and emotional results seen in each child.

As one of the leaders within the community schools movement, this dynamic within CAS— between the “new school” of academic data proponents and “old school” who hold firm to the broader view often associated with social work—is an interesting illustration of the broader discussion being had across the CS movement and within education itself.

Engaging parents, families, and communities

As has been mentioned, family and community engagement is a fundamental component of programming as each CAS site. Each school holds on staff a CAS Parent Coordinator, and that individual determines what types of activities are most appropriate for that site based largely on interactions with families and needs shown in students.

A key strategy in bringing in families and community is simply providing a space for them within the school. The Salomé Ureña Campus features a Family Room just off of the building’s main lobby that is open for extended hours year round and serves as an all‐purpose meeting place for the school community. The room has clearly become a trusted source of support to many in the community.

CAS also offers various types of specific programming to bring in parents and community.

CAS at Salomé Ureña organizes a Parent Leadership Institute that includes three separate tracks based on parent interest: Educational, Vocational, and Advocacy. Just this past year they extended the program into the summer and held a weekly class over a five‐week period that reached 150 parents. CAS staff at sites also support adult education programs such as basic literacy classes, GED, and ESL services. Volunteering and employment opportunities are promoted at the CAS sites, and various workshops are held throughout the year. Staff commented on the effectiveness of educating

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

28

parents on the standards and testing that their children are facing in the classroom, and programming has been designed around this.

A key way to connect with families and community has been through large celebrations. At Fannie Lou Hamer, where is it sometimes difficult to involve the parents of older students, annual events like a Thanksgiving Celebration, Mother’s Day Brunch, and Father’s Day Celebration have all been successful in bringing families to campus. At P.S. 152, large showcases are organized each semester at which students perform and present to share what they worked on during the CAS after‐ school program. The Salomé Ureña community looks forward every year to the huge annual Dominican/African‐American Heritage Celebration, which has become a highlight for everyone in the community.

In addition to all of this specific programming, parents and community have access to various other services provided by CAS. For instance, at Fannie Lou Hamer, the community school connects families with many of the services located at their neighborhood CAS provider sites including emergency assistance, family counseling, and interventions.

Sustainability/ funding

The CS Director at each site prepares an annual budget for the individual community school, but upper‐level managers at the Children’s Aide Society determine the ultimate funding allocations.

While there are many benefits to falling under the same lead agency, at the end of the day sites are vying for resources from the same limited pot. This did not seem to create much tension during my visits, but it was a reality acknowledged by all staff.

With regards to that large pot of funding, the sites all benefit from having the fundraising sources and abilities that come along with a rather high‐profile charitable organization like CAS. The large staffs, oftentimes remarkable facilities, and impressive services at the CS sites reveal that in the 150 years of its existence, CAS has tapped into what must be a vast array of funding sources in a city like New York and beyond. Financial information on the CAS website reveals that $10.17 million were spent on community schools in the past year.

While this is a great sum, the same information reveals that this is more than a $1 million decrease from the previous year. Staff at sites explained that the recent economic turmoil has hit hard, especially as many of CAS’s large funders in the city are those very same who were hit hardest by the financial crisis. Across the board, programs and sites have felt the crunch. Just as one of many examples, one seemingly very successful program that was offering mentoring services to 150 middle school students can now only service 30. This just goes to show that regardless of the success or reputation of the work, the nature of funding streams can drastically impact the sustainability of the program.

Observations

On the whole, the visits to the Children’s Aid Society sites revealed what can be accomplished when given the time, resources, and freedom to create programs that truly attempt to meet the needs of the community being served. Though there was no evidence of any real turmoil in their relationship with the school itself, CAS really seemed to have become its own institution within the school, and a fairly powerful institution at that. The CS Directors were all incredibly capable and personable leaders who were basically leading what amounted to their own individual organizations within each school. Community engagement was real and sincere, but the professional staff of CAS seemed to have no small role in the success of the various programs being offered. Finally, though only anecdotal evidence can support such an assumption, it did seem as though the community

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

29

school and its staff have become trusted partners within what would appear to be some of the toughest neighborhoods that can be imagined. The long‐standing and venerable reputation of CAS, the positive and direct impact of its programs, the seemingly strong relationships with students, and the warm personality of staff all seem to contribute to the fact that these community schools have been embraced in the community.

As has been mentioned, a few of the issues being faced by this organization at the forefront of the community schools movement may be foreshadowing what is to come in the near future for any school following this path. For one, though coordination of diverse groups makes community schools what they are, challenges do arise with the intersection of values and priorities of those coming from social work, education, policy, and business backgrounds (not to mention the medical, mental health, and various other disciplines found within community schools). Somewhat stemming from that broad concern is the specific issue of measurement and evaluation—should community schools ultimately be judged by their impact on straight academic performance; should most weight be given to the broader indicators that represent directly the true work of the community school; or how where is the balance between those two sides of the argument? Finally, the experience of CAS reveals how funding and sustainability can directly impact the services being provided to students and families, so due attention must be given to this realm.

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

VIII. Site Visit #4: New York City Beacons/ Youth Development Institute, New York, NY

Located in public school buildings, Beacons are community centers that offer a range of activities and services to participants of all ages, before and after school, in the evenings, and on weekends. Initiated in 1991 by the City of New York in collaboration with YDI, Beacons now exist in six cities—Denver, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, New York, San Francisco, and West Palm Beach.

Each Beacon is developed locally and operated by community organizations that work with neighborhood residents to create programs that meet local needs and reflect local strengths. YDI provides technical assistance to community organizations, municipal governments, and works with funders and others to develop local Beacon networks. YDI also assists non‐Beacon, out‐of‐school‐time providers through training, program planning, and other supports. [quoted from http://www.ydinstitute.org/initiatives/beacons/index.html]

Contacts Youth Development Institute 121 Avenue of the Americas, 6th Floor New York, NY 10013 (212) 590‐9476

Sarah Zeller‐Berkman Program Director, Beacons National Strategy Youth Development Institute

Hudson Guild Beacon Center 333 W 17th Street New York, NY 10011

Angela Tsikis SchoolBridge Director Children & Youth Services Hudson Guild

Kyle Medeiros SchoolBridge Coordinator Children & Youth Services Hudson Guild Beacon Center

Tuesday, January 17, 2012 ‐1.30pm: Meeting at Youth Development Institute office with Sarah Zeller‐Berkman, the Program Director who oversees the national strategy for the Beacons program ‐4pm: Site visit with Angela and Kyle to Hudson Guild Beacon Center

www.navigatorscenter.org

30

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

31

Background on the Youth Development Institute and Beacons The Youth Development Institute (YDI) is a program funded by the Tides Center, a larger non‐ profit organization that has funded progressive groups since the 1970’s. YDI, based in New York City, focuses on supporting the programs, staff, and policy of organizations that are focused on the growth and development of young people. Beacons and Out‐of‐School Time is one of the five primary initiatives of YDI. As cited above, Beacons were formed in 1991 by YDI with the support of the NYC Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD). The Beacons were meant to transform schools into community centers that provided programming for neighborhood residents of all ages for hours extended well beyond the traditional school day. Initially, 10 sites were chosen across the city as the communities most devastated by the crack cocaine epidemic of the time and most in need of efforts to rebuild the neighborhood. With initial success, the city scaled up to 40 sites and then eventually 80 sites so that Beacons were spread throughout all districts of the city, servicing socioeconomic and ethnic groups from across the spectrum. On a national scale, Beacons have also been adopted in San Francisco, Denver, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and West Palm Beach.

Background on the Hudson Guild Beacon This Beacon is located within the NYC Lab Middle and High School building. As a high performing school, the actual student body is drawn from across the city, and most come from families and areas of higher socioeconomic status. This dynamic, coupled with the fact that most students need to travel a fair distance and thus leave the building directly after the school day, means that the Beacon does not actually primarily serve the student population of the building in which they are located. Though set in the upscale Manhattan neighborhood of Chelsea, the school building is located just a block away from a large public housing site. The students and families the Beacon primarily services, then, are those who reside in the neighborhood rather than attend the school.

Organizational structure

The Youth Development Institute (YDI) serves as the umbrella organization for Beacons across the nation. YDI supports directors and staff within cities and across cities set up learning communities and networks to share best practices and lessons from the field.

Though all working under YDI broadly, the Beacon model varies from city to city. In New York, individual agencies need to apply to the NYC Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD) and YDI and are then put in charge of an individual Beacon site at a neighborhood public school building. Initially, only community‐based organizations with long‐standing experience in a neighborhood applied to manage the Beacon in their community. Over the years, though, some larger organizations have successfully applied to manage Beacons, and across the city there are some groups that oversee two or three different Beacons. The lead agency establishes the site‐level organization of each Beacon.

At each site, a Beacon Director, employed by the agency managing that Beacon, oversees all operations. At some sites this director sits on the school’s leadership panel, but at other sites they serve no direct, official capacity within the school. The director oversees the Beacon staff at each site, all of whom are also employed by the site’s managing agency.

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

32

Programming

In the request for proposals for Beacons, certain necessary programming areas are listed that an agency must provide for, such as homework help, arts, recreation, and a youth council.

Beyond that, agencies are expected to shape their efforts at individual Beacons to fall in line with what is appropriate for that community. Beacons are known for and pride themselves on the deep relationships they create with their communities. Originally all of the work of the Beacon was built off of in depth community needs‐assessments performed by agencies that usually already had a solid understanding of what was needed in the neighborhood.

Staff noted a significant change in this direction, however, when in September 2007 the city took a new direction under Mayor Bloomberg. The city’s Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD) decided that all Beacons would be re‐aligned to focus services on the needs research showed to be prevalent among students in grades 5‐8. This Beacon Middle School Initiative fell in line with broader efforts across the city’s Department of Education to support students in these important transition years. Beacon staff reflected how this top‐down mandate, regardless of good intentions, went against the community‐focused and needs‐based nature of the Beacons, to which much of their success was attributed. Forcing everyone to focus on this one item, they believed, made the work of the Beacons much more difficult and less effective.

Aside from the recent Middle School Initiative, agencies create a varied array of programming to fit the needs of the population they are serving. During the site visit in Chelsea, students were actively engaged with rich afterschool programming. Hudson Guild staff along with a large number of volunteers led fairly small classes in activities ranging from drama and pottery to cooking and model airplane design. The students were able to select from a menu of different activities each day, the only requirement being a set level of homework time and academic enrichment each week. The activities clearly illustrated that the programs were well funded to provide for high‐quality instructors and supplies. While many Beacons have a strong emphasis on family and community engagement, the staff in Chelsea noted the unique dynamic of the site not serving the students of the site’s schools. Thus, this site’s programs were primarily focused on servicing students rather than the broader community.

A hallmark of all Beacon sites is their emphasis on youth development. As one staff member explained it, “The Children’s Aid Society community schools have a heavy focus on health and wellness; at Beacons, our target is youth engagement and empowerment.” As mentioned, every Beacon site must facilitate some form of youth council that is directly engaged in the Beacon’s planning. The launch of the Beacon model in Minneapolis in 2001 illustrated this clearly as 300 youth were brought together for a leadership retreat at which they actually laid out the plans for the Beacons’ first year of work across the city. The San Francisco Beacons also exemplify the focus on youth development with their Ladders to Leadership program that oversees a Youth Leaders Council at every site in the city. The DYCD in New York has adopted the same strategy for its own Beacons and is currently rolling out the program to all of its sites across the city.

Link with academic achievement

All Beacons provide some type of homework support or afterschool programming that is intended to promote academic achievement in youth. However, the Beacon model’s direct link to academics varies from city to city according to YDI staff.

In New York, not much collaboration is seen between the city’s Department of Education and the Department of Youth and Community Development that oversees the Beacons. At the site level, however, all city principals have final authority over which partnerships are allowed in their schools, so they do have some connection with the agency that runs the Beacon at the school. As was

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

33

mentioned, at some sites a close relationship is formed in which the Beacon director actually holds some form of leadership role at the school, while at others the Beacon program is almost entirely separate from what happens during the school day. Ultimately, though, since principals make the decision as to whether to allow a Beacon agency to come into the school and stay on, Beacons do have to demonstrate the value‐added impact of their programs.

Staff remarked that in Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Denver, the collaboration between the Beacons and schools is much close, many operating closer to the true community school framework. For instance, in San Francisco, agencies must co‐apply with the school principal when trying to bring a Beacon to a site. This system‐level integration makes coordination between the schools and Beacons much smoother, and thus the connection to academic achievement is often much clearer.

Partnerships with organizations

As has been mentioned, the Beacon model largely finds its foundation in relying upon community‐based organizations that have a history in the neighborhood to serve as the lead managing agency of each Beacon site. Beacons often find success in communities because they are created out of partnerships that already exist within the neighborhood. The benefits of this familiarity are clear from planning appropriate programs to bringing in large numbers of volunteers to help staff efforts.

On a related note, staff pointed out that facilities presented real challenges at some sites. At the Hudson Guild Beacon, the school did provide rooms and office space for the staff and afterschool program. A Hudson Guild facility for senior citizens located just down the street, however, allowed for additional facilities such as the kitchen being used for the cooking class. This was a prime example of how agencies often tap into their own and the surrounding community’s resources to provide their services.

Data‐tracking/ evaluation

On the whole, Beacons track and evaluate their work based on their community youth development model. The data they look to for the effectiveness of their programs are measures of community impact—gains for youth, adults, and the community as a whole. Staff noted, though, that more specific focuses vary from city to city.

In New York, reports available online through the NYC Department of Youth and Community Development, especially those coming out of the Middle School Initiative, reveal a rich variety of data. In line with the stated emphasis on youth empowerment, much data is available on the exact roles played by youth within the organizational structure of the Beacons, programs’ connectedness to the surrounding community, and student attendance and time spent in Beacon programming.

Given the recent alignment with the city’s Department of Education, some data on direct academic achievement is also available, though noticeably less than that related to youth and community engagement.

New York’s focus was contrasted with the other Beacon locations. Minneapolis Beacons, for example, focus mostly on broader issues like attendance and connectedness to the community, while Denver is known for a much more specific focus on direct academic achievement. San Francisco was cited as having the most varied and inclusive model of tracking and evaluation.

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

34

Engaging parents, families, and communities

Given all that has been said about Beacons, it is clear that engaging families and communities is fundamental to their operation. Deep relationships have formed with communities in which Beacons are found, and this makes sense since the launch of any Beacon is to come out of a needs‐ assessment on how to adapt the Beacon to best fit into the neighborhood. The very effectiveness of the Beacons are even measured by their connectedness to the community, proving that engagement is both a beginning foundation and end goal of a Beacon. The staff even shared stories of how the closing of a Beacon years ago resulted in actual community action and rallies to save their Beacon.

Sustainability/ funding

The funding for the Beacons comes through tax levy dollars collected by the NYC Department of Youth and Community Development. Lead agencies at each Beacon site can then fundraise to augment this set budget.

Funding since their original founding in 1991 has been constant for Beacons and has even allowed for the scaling up to 80 sites from the original 10. Recent cuts, however, are soon to bring about the first scaling back of the Beacons. Sites will soon be limited to 50, and locations will be cut by targeting zones of higher need based on indicators such as poverty, ELL rates, and child care need.

The long‐term stability of Beacons demonstrated the benefits of being funded publicly through a city department as opposed to operations hinging upon private donors or grants that can fluctuate. The recent economic downturn has proven that even such a well‐established public partnership can be relied upon for absolute stability or sustainability.

Observations The flexibility of the Beacon model seemed ideal for meeting the specific needs of a neighborhood. While the broad support of the city for the model substantiates the role of the Beacons in the public schools and communities across the city, the adaptability of the individual sites can be greatly disrupted by top‐down mandates as evidenced by the Middle School Initiative. At the same time, though, broad emphases across the sites do not necessarily have to be a burden. The Youth Development Institute demonstrates this clearly through their focus on youth empowerment across all Beacons. Every Beacon is connected in this common mission, yet what it looks like in terms of actual structure, programming, and evaluation varies from city to city and even site to site.

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

35

IX. Recommendations For The Navigators’ Center At Kamaile Academy

The site visits were incredibly powerful on two primary levels. Firstly, each visit affirmed to a certain degree the work being done at our own site. Though very young, the Navigators’ Center (referred to as “the Center” below) seems already to be adopting many best practices and following the path set by well‐established and reputable efforts in the community schools movement.

Secondly, the visits provided a long list of ideas for how to improve upon the work already being done. The recommendations that follow fall into three categories: (1) ideas for better focusing efforts already underway; (2) ideas for re‐directing or eliminating work being done; and (3) ideas for branching out into areas not yet addressed. Each of those categories of recommendations will be organized into the areas of focus used throughout this report. Recommendations that fall into multiple areas of focus are listed under all that apply, thus some of these points are listed more than once.

Organizational structure Focus efforts already underway • The Center must continue to hold regular meetings with the school’s leadership team.

The Navigators’ Center was launched with a huge advantage as being an actual department of the school itself. Many sites owe their success to the close partnership and positive relationship they have developed with the school’s academic leaders. We must put high priority on maintaining this close partnership with the school • The Local Advisory Panel must play a key role in the Center’s Work.

While all successful community schools exhibited some form of strong family and community engagement and ownership, the exemplary models provided some formal body or program through which these outside groups could involve themselves directly in the work of the school. Kamaile Academy’s charter calls for the establishment of a representative Local Advisory Panel (LAP). This body is in the process of being re‐established, and it is in the Center’s best interest to support the LAP’s work as representative of the broader community.

Redirect work being done • Staff should be aligned to match areas of specialization.

Most community school structures allowed staff to focus on one branch of programming (e.g. Parent Coordinator, Mental Health Manager, etc.). Though it may be too early and too advanced for the Center to adopt a strict specialization model, the roles of Program Coordinator can be shifted to match a more coherent set of programs.

Branch out into new areas • New structures can be created to allow for more regular and more substantive involvement of families and partners.

The formation of the LAP, mentioned above, will provide a primary link for outsiders to the school and the Center. The site visits, however, revealed the special role that can by played by parents and partners in the operation of the community school. While the Center supports the Kamaile Parent Teacher Organization (PTO), more can be done to engage key parents on campus and give them real ownership of the Center’s programming. In much the same vein,

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

36

a new structure focused solely on involving community partners can bring them more directly into the Center’s work.

Programming Focus efforts already underway • Programs should be clearly supported by evidence (e.g., community input, research, experience, case studies, etc.).

The Center can become much more deliberate about the selection of its programs. For every issue faced by students and families, there is a litany of possible programming responses. The Center should make clear why certain program decisions are made, pointing to decisions made within the community itself, research recommendations, prior experience with similar issues, successful case studies, or some other clear evidence.

• The Center can better focus its goals to aim toward specific benchmarks each year.

Since Day 1, all programs of the Center have been aligned to the three overarching goals of (1) academic achievement, (2) social and emotional wellness and support, and (3) physical health. While this is a great start, the visits revealed the benefits of selecting more specific benchmarks in each of those categories. This provides an opportunity for the community to take ownership of programs and also allows for a heightened focus on specific needs each year.

Redirect work being done • Goals and targets of programs should come from the school community itself.

If the Center is to serve the students and families of Kamaile Academy, then those students and families must play a large role in stating how they want to be served. Structures such as the LAP, PTO, student leadership, Grade Level Chairs (GLC), surveys, and others should be utilized more to define what are the aims of the Center’s work.

Branch out into new areas • As the Center matures, many areas for programming remain such as health, college readiness, adult education, mentoring, culture, and the environment.

While the Center must be very careful about trying to do everything, there are some areas of programming which the Center can naturally explore. Deepening the already formed partnerships with the community health center and local community college can drive more formal health and college readiness efforts. In terms of adult education, mentoring, culture, and the environment, the center can easily tap into strong resources for each that already exist within the community.

Link with academic achievement Focus efforts already underway • The Center should continue to build off of work being done with specific grade levels.

Just recently the Center’s staff began working directly with individual grade levels. This coordination has already shown great benefits in terms of shaping programs to meet the specific needs of teachers and students. Continuing in this line should enable the Center’s programs to best service students in the classroom.

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

37

Redirect work being done • The Center’s aims should align directly with school‐wide targets on an annual basis.

Cincinnati especially revealed the power of aligning the community school’s work with the schools general goals. The Center should work with the school’s leadership team to identify clear academic goals that can serve as the foundation for the Center’s programs for the year.

Branch out into new areas • The Center can be more specific about program targets and the impact they have on academic achievement of students.

Though site visits revealed the struggles being faced with the new trend of becoming data‐ driven and focused on academic achievement, the Center can build its programs to ensure that these aims and measures are in place from the start. Especially since the Center is an actual department of the school, clear academic aims and impacts should naturally play a large role in all of the Center’s planning and efforts.

Partnerships with organizations Focus efforts already underway • Programs within the Center should rely on partners even more than presently.

The site visits revealed the true extent to which community partnerships can be utilized within the community school. Oftentimes programs were entirely managed through partnerships, whether that was through one lead agency or a collection of various organizations. For one, this allowed for much greater breadth and reach of programs without too much additional staffing or resources coming from the school itself. Moreover, programs were being planned and managed by staff with true expertise in the effort. The Center should look toward partnerships that allow for this more intense level of involvement.

• On the broad level, the Center can support an effort to form larger networks of service providers.

Cincinnati provided the exemplary model for creating a network of providers citywide that covered all of the various services provided within a community school. Cleveland and New York were more geared toward the lead agency model in which one organization leads most of the services being provided at a site. Either way, all of the areas revealed a concerted effort of finding the resources that already exist within the community. The Center would benefit greatly from this type of surveying of the options that are available in the community in the various service realms. The Ka Pua initiative of Kamehameha Schools and Ke Ala Hanau Moku effort lead by INPEACE both hold promise in this area, and the Center should continue to support these efforts for its own good and for the benefit of the wider community.

Redirect work being done • Partners’ work should be aligned to the goals of the school and approved by the school community.

Rather than inviting in anyone with services to offer, the Center should become much more deliberate about the selection of community partners. On one hand, the programs being proposed should align directly with the school’s specific goals, whether those aims are academic, social, emotion, or physical. Moreover, the school community should have authority over the partners that are invited on campus and in evaluating the effectiveness of partners. The LAP seems like the natural mechanism for this oversight role, but other avenues can also be explored.

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

•

38

The Center’s aims should align directly with school‐wide targets on an annual basis.

Cincinnati especially revealed the power of aligning the community school’s work with the schools general goals. The Center should work with the school’s leadership team to identify clear academic goals that can serve as the foundation for the Center’s programs for the year.

Branch out into new areas • The Center can be more specific about program targets and the impact they have on academic achievement of students.

Though site visits revealed the struggles being faced with the new trend of becoming data‐ driven and focused on academic achievement, the Center can build its programs to ensure that these aims and measures are in place from the start. Especially since the Center is an actual department of the school, clear academic aims and impacts should naturally play a large role in all of the Center’s planning and efforts.

Data‐tracking/ evaluation Focus efforts already underway • Programs should be clearly supported by evidence (e.g., community input, research, experience, case studies, etc.).

The Center can become much more deliberate about the selection of its programs. For every issue faced by students and families, there is a litany of possible programming responses. The Center should make clear why certain program decisions are made, pointing to decisions made within the community itself, research recommendations, prior experience with similar issues, successful case studies, or some other clear evidence.

• The Center can better focus its goals to aim toward specific benchmarks each year.

Since Day 1, all programs of the Center have been aligned to the three overarching goals of (1) academic achievement, (2) social and emotional wellness and support, and (3) physical health. While this is a great start, the visits revealed the benefits of selecting more specific benchmarks in each of those categories. This provides an opportunity for the community to take ownership of programs and also allows for a heightened focus on specific needs each year.

Redirect work being done • Goals and targets of programs should come from the school community itself.

If the Center is to serve the students and families of Kamaile Academy, then those students and families must play a large role in stating how they want to be served. Structures such as the LAP, PTO, student leadership, Grade Level Chairs (GLC), surveys, and others should be utilized more to define what are the aims of the Center’s work.

Branch out into new areas • As the Center matures, many areas for programming remain such as health, college readiness, adult education, mentoring, culture, and the environment.

While the Center must be very careful about trying to do everything, there are some areas of programming which the Center can naturally explore. Deepening the already formed partnerships with the community health center and local community college can drive more formal health and college readiness efforts. In terms of adult education, mentoring, culture, and the environment, the center can easily tap into strong resources for each that already exist within the community.

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

39

Engaging parents, families, and community Focus efforts already underway • Popular events already occurring on campus should be utilized as opportunities to deepen family engagement.

At each site, staff made clear the ongoing struggle of involving parents and families. One of the most powerful lessons was that sometimes efforts just need to meet families where they are in terms of engagement. If large celebrations and student performances are what draw in parents, then build from there. The Center should continue to focus on school‐wide events like May Day, Winter Fest, and Sunset @ Kamaile, and use these as launching points to create more community ownership and engagement.

• The Local Advisory Panel must play a key role in the Center’s Work.

While all successful community schools exhibited some form of strong family and community engagement and ownership, the exemplary models provided some formal body or program through which these outside groups could involve themselves directly in the work of the school. Kamaile Academy’s charter calls for the establishment of a representative Local Advisory Panel (LAP). This body is in the process of being re‐established, and it is in the Center’s best interest to support the LAP’s work as representative of the broader community.

Redirect work being done • The Center should shift its focus from building family and community engagement to creating family and community ownership of programs.

The most successful community schools were those in which families and communities were not merely involved and engaged but really felt true ownership over what was happening.

This is of course a long‐term goal, but that shift in focus to truly handing over the Center to the community can have a powerful impact on the efforts being made toward that goal.

• Goals and targets of programs should come from the school community itself.

If the Center is to serve the students and families of Kamaile Academy, then those students and families must play a large role in stating how they want to be served. Structures such as the LAP, PTO, student leadership, Grade Level Chairs (GLC), surveys, and others should be utilized more to define what are the aims of the Center’s work.

Branch out into new areas • New structures can be created to allow for more regular and more substantive involvement of families and partners.

The formation of the LAP, mentioned above, will provide a primary link for outsiders to the school and the Center. The site visits, however, revealed the special role that can by played by parents and partners in the operation of the community school. While the Center supports the Kamaile Parent Teacher Organization (PTO), more can be done to engage key parents on campus and give them real ownership of the Center’s programming. In much the same vein, a new structure focused solely on involving community partners can bring them more directly into the Center’s work.

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

40

Sustainability/ funding Focus efforts already underway • The Center should stay true to its mission of following needs and assets rather than chasing after funding.

Mostly because funding has yet to become an issue for the Center, all programming to this point has been based upon needs felt or assets that could be built upon within the school community. As funding options are explored, this must remain the focus of the Center rather than manipulating efforts to match the requirements of funding sources.

• The Center should continue its efforts in identifying clear aims of programs and measuring clear impacts of that work.

As evidenced through the successes and struggles of the various sites, one real strength of the Center to this point has been our ability to lay out clear aims and set measurable targets for all of our efforts. By maintaining and improving this practice, the Center should be in a good position when it comes time to seek out funding sources.

Redirect work being done • The Center should explore ways of adding transparency and ownership over the use of funds.

In line with the efforts to create true ownership over programs, the Center can explore ways of opening its finances to the school community. While certain limitations will certainly need to stay in place with regards to the expenditure of funds, especially when they are public school funds, making all usage of funds a transparent and inclusive process can go far in promoting broader community ownership of the Center and its work.

Branch out into new areas • The Center should explore options available for future funding.

If one lesson was learned about the finances of community schools, it is that no single source can ever be taken as completely reliable. Whether publicly financed by a district or privately funded by a long‐standing foundation, all funding streams are subject to volatility. The Center currently enjoys a state of sufficient funding from the school itself, but for the sake of sustainability other options should be explored including funding from the district or charter organizations, resources from community partners, and financing from grants or private foundations.

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

41

X. Appendix 1: Letter of Introduction to Sites

(sent September 2011)

Aloha,

I am the Director of the Navigators’ Center, a new student support services center at Kamaile Academy P‐10 Public Charter School in Wai‘anae, Hawai‘i. As a secondary math teacher in this small, rural community on the leeward coast of O‘ahu, I developed a keen interest in the community schools model. After completing my Master’s research on how the model fit with efforts already happening at our school and in our community, my school’s leadership gave me the opportunity to give structure to these efforts through the Navigators’ Center. Though our real planning only officially began in June of this year, we have worked hard to develop our plans for student activities, family programs, and our school health center. You can follow our work on our website:

https://sites.google.com/a/kamaile.org/the‐navigators‐center/

I am writing to you regarding a visit I would like to make to your program this coming January.

Through my research, I learned of all of the wonderful work that has been done with the community schools model in Cincinnati/Cleveland/New York City. Born and raised in Youngstown, I’ve been quite proud to read about the proven success of your Community Learning Centers in the city. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to visit your sites and speak with some people to hear more about your programs. Our Center is very young and small with humble resources, but I know we would benefit greatly from learning more about your experiences.

Traveling from our island is not easy, so I apologize in advance for my very limited schedule. I will only be in ______ on _______. My days are very flexible at this point, so please let me know if there is any period of the day that would work best from your end. This will be a pretty informal visit. I received support from my school’s administration to explore models for our own Center, so I will be on my own simply trying to learn from the experiences of proven programs in some cities with which I am fairly familiar.

I greatly appreciate any support you can provide, and I really do hope to have the opportunity to see your inspiring work firsthand in January.

Mahalo, Kenny

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

X. Appendix 2: Documents from Cincinnati Community Learning Centers

www.navigatorscenter.org

42

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

www.navigatorscenter.org

43

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

www.navigatorscenter.org

44

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

www.navigatorscenter.org

45

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

46

X. Appendix 3: Documents from the Children’s Aid Society’s National Center for Community Schools in New York City

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

47

www.navigatorscenter.org

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

www.navigatorscenter.org

48

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

www.navigatorscenter.org

49

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

www.navigatorscenter.org

50

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

www.navigatorscenter.org

51

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

www.navigatorscenter.org

52

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

www.navigatorscenter.org

53

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

www.navigatorscenter.org

54

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

www.navigatorscenter.org

55

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

www.navigatorscenter.org

56

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

www.navigatorscenter.org

57

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

www.navigatorscenter.org

58

Community School Site Visits: January 2012

www.navigatorscenter.org

59