Afterschool programs are an important aspect of students’ educational experiences and are recognized as the linchpin in school reform efforts. Through research and practical strategies, this chapter demonstrates the powerful role afterschool programs play in addressing the need for a whole child approach to education.
6 Family, school, and community partnerships: Practical strategies for afterschool programs Matia Finn-Stevenson as an afterschool professional, you have heard about the importance of creating strong and lasting partnerships among families, schools, and communities and may have wondered, How relevant and practical is it to my work? At the moment, the move toward such partnerships is receiving a great deal of positive attention. Growing numbers of schools, many of them with afterschool programs, are dedicating resources to establish and sustain relationships with families and community-based organizations. These schools, some known as community schools or full-service schools, are increasingly recognized by government agencies and the philanthropic sector, and there is widespread agreement that schools— no matter how resourceful—cannot succeed alone in their mission to educate our nation’s children; families and communities must be part of the equation. ©
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, NO. 144, WINTER 2014 2014 WILEY PERIODICALS, INC. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/yd.20115
89
90
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING
And yet, the concept of engaging families and the community has not yet become an integral part of school reform. And afterschool practitioners, whether working in schools or communitybased organizations, often find it difficult to make these partnerships a reality. In this chapter, we draw from lessons learned at the School of the 21st Century (21C) to provide practical strategies for involving families and communities. The School of the 21st Century includes an afterschool component, and is one of several national initiatives that use a community school strategy.
Background To fully appreciate the School of the 21st Century and its implications to your work as an afterschool program professional, it is important to understand the context within which the community school strategy has developed over the years. As will become apparent in the following section, afterschool programs developed at around the same time and within a similar context. The growth of the field Indeed, there is common ground between the community school strategy and afterschool programming as well as a shared vision for linking families, schools, and the community. The tremendous growth in the number of afterschool programs was made possible since the 1990s with federal and state funding from the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21CCLC) grants program. Although there are variations among afterschool programs, many include provisions to improve students’ achievement in reading, math, and other academic subjects and they provide enrichment and recreational activities during times when school is out. Both public and private organizations provide afterschool programs and partnerships between schools and community-based organizations and families is often a requirement, met with varying levels of success. Indeed, irrespective of the location of an afterschool program new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
FAMILY, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
91
or its funding source, quality standards for afterschool programs call for outreach to the community and the family. Perhaps not surprisingly, the implementation of afterschool programs has prompted some schools to expand their outreach and adopt a community school strategy, at the core of which are school– community partnerships. At the same time, as Jacobson and Blank point out, community schools benefit from 21CCLC funding, enabling them to incorporate afterschool services.1 The relationship between afterschool programs and community schools is almost inevitable and clearly symbiotic. Outstanding examples of this relationship at work include the afterschool programs run by the Children’s Aid Society, which leverage their affiliation with community schools and also provide students and families with access to health, social, and other services in the community.2 Historical and research perspective The link between family, school, and community is not new. It dates back to a time when educating children was an informal endeavor, secondary to having children help their families make a living and manage their households. But as society grew increasingly complex, education became more important, and the task of educating children moved away from home and community and into the schoolroom and eventually the school building. In the process, we lost a sense of the interdependence between these three institutions—the family, the community, and the school—all of which profoundly impact a child’s development. So here we are now, looking at how to reestablish a link that once seemed the norm. What triggered the comeback? There are several influencing factors at play, and three primary ones are: 1. The concept of the whole child. Over the years, as education focused more and more on preparing young children for the workforce, schools became increasingly dedicated to academic matters, specifically the child’s cognitive development. The work of psychologist Jean Piaget and others, however, showed that children develop as a new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
92
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING
whole and that all developmental pathways—cognitive, social, emotional, and physical—are essential for optimal growth and maturation. Piaget and others also described the layers of interdependence that link aspects of development, stressing that deficit in one developmental domain often affect the whole. Think about physical health; children who are ill or come to school hungry have a difficult time concentrating on subject matter, let alone benefitting from what is being taught. The same principle applies to children who experience dysfunctional family life or have emotional difficulties. The field of early childhood education was the first to be aligned with the whole child approach, although the implications of this approach are as relevant for older children as they are for preschoolers. Today, substantial body of research exists that shows how health and social and emotional skills form the vital underpinnings for success in school and in life. Increasingly, more schools, especially those that use a community school strategy, put this belief into practice. Further, several states—spurred by mental health concerns and bullying and violence in schools—have mandated that schools focus on character education, which is linked to social and emotional competence. 2. An understanding of the ecology of human development. Developmental psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner graphically portrayed his ecological view of human development, using concentric circles to convey the notion that children develop within—and are influenced by—multiple contexts: the home, the neighborhood, the school, the media, the prevalent culture, to list a few. Other influences include friends, health, family income, and religion. Additionally, Bronfenbrenner used bidirectional arrows to convey the interaction between the child and the environment. In other words, children are influenced not only by those around them; they themselves influence others and thus, in part, form their own experiences. No doubt, you have had difficult students in your program, at some point—students who were disruptive, who refused to new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
FAMILY, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
93
cooperate or listen. Think back to your reactions to difficult students, and you can see how children are influenced by people and the environment, and they also actively shape how you—and others—relate to and interact with them. 3. Demographic and societal changes. The influx of recent immigration has vastly changed the makeup of schools and communities. Immigration, of course, is not new; indeed, it’s fundamental to the very concept of our country. However, recent waves of immigration caught the nation unprepared. In previous years, a network of settlement houses assisted newcomers. Today, the task falls primarily to schools, which presents yet another strong reason for schools as well as afterschool programs to partner with communitybased agencies. As a nation, we were also unprepared for the dramatic increase in the number of working women, which is now the norm for the majority of families. For many children, this means that starting in first few months of life, they are in childcare centers or in other arrangements; and for older children, it means attendance in before and afterschool programs. As a result, childcare, including afterschool programs, has joined the family as one of the primary institutions that impact the child’s development. Another important societal change is the rise in singleparent households, due to divorce and unmarried parents. Equally influential is the change in family mobility, which has in many instances transformed family structure. For many families, frequent moves have meant a lack of social capital, which refers to the dearth of adults in the lives of children and weak ties between families, their neighbors, and kin. In other words, many families can no longer rely on close relatives for help, and in many cases families don’t know or cannot depend on neighbors. The result is increased isolation, with many parents raising children with little help and no social support and many adults feeling alone. Combine these phenomena— immigration, working mothers, single-parent households, and new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
94
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING
dramatic changes in mobility—and you have a clear picture of how children are growing up and why not only schools, but also afterschool programs, are asked to reach out to and work with families in the context of the community.
School of the 21st Century These demographic and societal shifts, combined with issues of poverty—an all too often fact of life among families with children—create stressful conditions with profound developmental and educational consequences. It is against this backdrop and on the basis of research that the School of the 21st Century (21C) was conceptualized in 1987. Developed in response to the need for a national system of child and family services, 21C is one of the earliest models to use school buildings as the setting for providing necessary nonacademic services.3 What is included in 21C? The School of the 21st Century is a school-based childcare and family support program. Its full title is The School of the 21st Century: Linking Communities, Families, and Schools, but it is also known in some states as Family Resource Centers or 6–6 schools, signifying that 21C schools are operational from early morning to early evening, year round. The philosophy supporting 21C includes a continuum of child and family services, from the birth of the child through the elementary school years and beyond. Whereas some programs focus on one age group such as early childhood as a critical developmental period, the notion underlying 21C is continuity of support because all stages of development are significant and at different times during the child’s development, families may need support services. Accordingly, the 21C model includes several basic components: outreach to families and home visitation, beginning with the birth of the child through age 3; all-day, year-round early care and new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
FAMILY, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
95
education for children ages 3, 4, and 5; before- and afterschool programs in elementary and middle school; physical fitness, health, and nutrition; and mental health prevention services, along with social and other services. Schools implement the model on the basis of the needs and resources of their particular communities, so there are inevitable differences among 21C schools. Some 21C schools, for example, provide school-based infant care due to parental demand, and others include school-based dental and health services. Although 21C schools may differ, they share the common goal of ensuring the optimal development of all children, and they are structured around the 21C guiding principles. 21C guiding principles The guiding principles include universal access to services, meaning, making services available to all children; the use of the school to build a system of support services; ensuring that the early care and afterschool components include developmentally appropriate programs; the provision of staff development to ensure good quality experiences for children; a focus on the whole child approach; and parent and community involvement. Although space here precludes a comprehensive discussion of 21C, several points need to be underscored: One, although 21C calls for use of the school, successful 21C schools do not simply use the school building, but actually integrate support services into the school’s educational infrastructure. What does this mean? First, that teachers and the staff of support services such as afterschool work as a team, sharing orientation and professional development meetings. In addition, school principals are actively involved in and lead 21C services, just as they lead the academic elements of their schools. This is a challenge, due in part to principal turnover. However, in many 21C districts, principals are eligible for the job only if they already have experience working within the context of the community so they have a fundamental understanding that afterschool programs and other services are an essential part of the school. new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
96
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING
Implications for afterschool programs We mentioned earlier that 21C schools vary in the services they provide. However, common among all 21C schools is the provision of afterschool programs. This is not surprising, given the sheer need for such programs. We mentioned previously that the growth in the number of working parents and single-parent families has fueled the need for afterschool programs. But there are other dynamics as well, including the fact that for many students, afterschool programs provide what schools cannot: extracurricular activities that serve to engage and support their education. Although middle and upper income families can purchase such activities for their children, many low-income families rely on afterschool programs to fill this critical need. The afterschool programs in 21C have been successful at providing students with various activities as well as establishing connections with the family and community not only at the administrative level, but programmatically as well. What can we learn from their experiences?
First, involving families, while it’s a challenge, is possible We are often told that afterschool programs have more flexibility than schools, and as a consequence can promote family involvement more successfully. In reality, though, fostering family involvement is a challenge for afterschool programs, too, and frequently presents its own set of dilemmas. For example, offering transportation services for students can increase enrollment and attendance in afterschool programs, but doing so may actually distance parents and other family members. Several afterschool programs in 21C schools have nonetheless established a variety of effective practices that engage parents by responding to their interests. For example, inviting families to dinner at school once a week, or arranging for parents to have access to school facilities and services, like workouts at the school gym. In new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
FAMILY, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
97
some 21C schools, afterschool programs spearhead a communitywide project and include not only students, but also their parents. Some schools with high immigrant enrollment invite families to joint sessions with students in afterschool programs for opportunities to learn language. Others ask parents to present to the afterschool students about various cultural programs and events or to teach about ethnic cuisine. This approach accomplishes two complementary goals: It provides English language exposure for parents, and at the same time offers both children and adults a chance to teach others in the community about their culture. Several schools also invite firemen and other emergency personnel who often value opportunities to get to know and communicate with newcomers in their neighborhood.
Second, outreach to the community should include students Effective afterschool programs typically draw on the expertise of the community via club activities like karate or dance classes that are taught by instructors from local businesses or agencies. Art clubs, astronomy clubs, or drama clubs taught by local college educators can also provide a link to the resources of the larger community. In addition to this level of outreach, individual practitioners in 21C afterschool programs also engage their students in community life. An example of such effort incorporates the Mutt-i-grees Curriculum, a PreK–Grade 12 program developed at Yale 21C in collaboration with North Shore Animal League America and dog whisperer Cesar Millan. Launched in 2010, the program teaches social and emotional skills using activities and readings about shelter pets. Currently implemented in 3,000 schools nationwide and in Canada, the Mutt-i-grees Curriculum has proven highly successful in improving student behavior, supporting educational achievement, and enhancing school climate. The curriculum has new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
98
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING
also been adapted for use in afterschool programs in schools, YMCAs, and libraries. The Mutt-i-grees Curriculum—the term “mutt-i-grees” is a new word for shelter pets—is part of the mental health prevention component of 21C. It is based on recent studies supported by the National Institute on Child Health and Development that show health, social, and even academic benefits in the relationships between children and animals.4 Although the presence of a pet is not essential, afterschool programs visit the local animal shelter or invite families to share photos of their pets or bring a pet to visit the program—to the delight of both students and their families. The program is often used for staff professional development to enhance knowledge of ways to promote children’s resiliency and social and emotional competence. For students, it is sheer fun, but in the process, they learn to cooperate and work in teams and they acquire coping skills (see also education.muttigrees.org). Service learning The Mutt-i-grees concept also provides options for service learning by giving students real life and exciting hands-on opportunities to examine and solve problems in their own communities. Service learning experiences have been shown to support academic achievement and foster social and emotional growth. A critical aspect of service learning is reflection: asking students to think about the experience and what it has meant to them. Although we think of service learning as ideal for older students, in the Mutt-i-grees Curriculum it is included as early as preschool and the primary grades. For example, after visits to local animal shelters, children explore ways to assist in adoptions by creating posters or selling artwork of and for homeless pets. In the process, they learn about compassion and empathy for other people, animals, and themselves, and at the same time improve their self-esteem by discovering they can have a positive effect on their world. The value added in the Mutt-i-grees Curriculum is the interaction with animals that has been shown to provide more new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
FAMILY, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
99
positive outcomes than other service learning opportunities.5 However, there are other examples of cause-related initiatives, such as environmental stewardship, that afterschool practitioners may use to provide service learning opportunities.
What are the benefits of having students reach out to the community? First, such activities genuinely engage students, which encourage enrollment and attendance, especially among older students who “vote with their feet” and don’t have to attend supervised programs. Second, our evaluations of afterschool programs in 21C schools that use service learning indicate not only increased attendance rates, but also improved academic achievement when compared with students in the same school who are not participating in afterschool service learning. Students who are working alongside professionals, volunteers, and other students become living investments in their own hometowns and adults in the community get to know them. Their families recognize that their children are part of a social effort that can improve their own relationships, broaden their children’s opportunities for success in the future, and enhance their children’s development as involved individuals with something valuable to offer society.
Summary We provided in this chapter just a glimpse of possible strategies for afterschool programs to employ in order to better engage students, families, and communities. Although brief, you can see from our discussion that engaging parents’ interests and involving students in community service is possible and can be a powerful force in the creation of that often elusive relationship among families, schools, and their communities. new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
100
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING
Notes 1. Jacobson, R., & Blank, M. (2011). The afterschool and community school connection: Expanding learning opportunities and partnerships. In Expanding minds and opportunities: The power of afterschool and summer learning for student success. Retrieved from http://www.exapndingminds/article /afterschool-and-community-school-connection-expanding-learning-opport unities 2. Santiago, E. M., Ferrara, J., & Quinn, J. (2012). Whole child, whole school: Applying theory to practice in community schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 3. Finn-Stevenson, M., & Zigler, E. (1999). The School of the 21st Century: Linking childcare and education. Boulder, CO: Westview. 4. McCardle, P., McCune, S., Griffin, J., Edposito, L., & Freund, L. (2010). Animals in our lives: Human–animal interactions in family, community, and therapeutic settings. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks. 5. Mueller, M. K. (2014). Is human–animal interaction (HAI) linked to positive youth development? Applied Developmental Science, 18(1), 5–16.
matia finn-stevenson is a research scientist at the Child Study Center at Yale University where she is also associate director of the Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social Policy and director of the School of the 21st Century.
new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
FAMILY, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
101
Commentary Jane Quinn this chapter points to several important trends in the afterschool field: (1) the growing number of afterschool programs that are embedded in full-service community schools, (2) the increasing number of higher education institutions that are partnering in meaningful ways with our nation’s public schools, and (3) the deepening research base that undergirds afterschool and community school efforts. Dr. Finn-Stevenson has done a masterful job of analyzing the major influences that have led to renewed attention to school, family, and community partnerships. Recent research has bolstered the argument for such attention—most notably the seven-year study conducted by the Consortium for Chicago School Research, which documented the essential nature of family and community partnerships in school improvement efforts.1 The community schools strategy exemplified by the School of the 21st Century model has taken hold in districts and cities across the country over the past twenty years. According to the Coalition for Community Schools, at least eighty-eight jurisdictions are now implementing this strategy, using a variety of models to organize school and community resources around student success.2 This work represents a resurgence of interest in an approach that was recommended by John Dewey and others during the Progressive Era, and that has experienced at least two other periods of renewal since the turn of the twentieth century, according to historian John S. Rogers.3 Practitioners in this fourth “generation” of community schools have adapted their work to twenty-first century realities, including increasing rates of child poverty and heightened pressures on schools to address Common Core Standards and to be accountable new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
102
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING
for high-stakes results. In this environment, schools increasingly recognize that they need community partners in order to expand learning opportunities and remove barriers to learning and development. The country’s major teachers unions and principal and administrators association are among the 200 institutional partners that have come together over the past seventeen years to form the Coalition for Community Schools, which advocates for this comprehensive, integrated approach to improving outcomes for children and their families. Afterschool programs are considered a core programmatic component of most, if not all, models of community schools, where they are regularly integrated with the work of other partners, such as health providers and family support organizations—making it easy for children and their parents to access other needed supports and services. In addition, the community school strategy calls for partners to be integrated into the schools’ planning and decisionmaking bodies, such as the School Leadership Team, thus ensuring that the afterschool program complements the core instructional program. A recent study of Integrated Student Supports, conducted by Child Trends, highlights the importance of this two-way integration. This study examined nine models, including those represented by this chapter’s author and commentator, and concluded that “integrated student supports represent a promising approach, well-grounded in theory, research and community experience.”4 By drawing on the learning that comes from both research and practice, the Child Trends study models the style of knowledge development recommended by the editors of this issue of New Directions for Youth Development.
Notes 1. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 2. Coalition for Community Schools. (2014). Community school places. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools. new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
FAMILY, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
103
3. Dewey, J. (1902, October). Schools as social centres. The Elementary School Teacher, 3(2), 73–86; Rogers, J. S. (n.d.). Community schools: Lessons from the past and present. A report prepared for the Charles S. Mott Foundation. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles. 4. Moore, K. A., Caal, S., Carney, R., Lippman, L., Li, W., Muenks, K., . . . Terzian, M. (2014, February). Making the grade: Assessing the evidence for integrated student supports. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
jane quinn is the vice president and director of the National Center for Community Schools at the Children’s Aid Society.
new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
6 Family, school, and community partnerships: Practical strategies for afterschool programs Matia Finn-Stevenson as an afterschool professional, you have heard about the importance of creating strong and lasting partnerships among families, schools, and communities and may have wondered, How relevant and practical is it to my work? At the moment, the move toward such partnerships is receiving a great deal of positive attention. Growing numbers of schools, many of them with afterschool programs, are dedicating resources to establish and sustain relationships with families and community-based organizations. These schools, some known as community schools or full-service schools, are increasingly recognized by government agencies and the philanthropic sector, and there is widespread agreement that schools— no matter how resourceful—cannot succeed alone in their mission to educate our nation’s children; families and communities must be part of the equation. ©
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, NO. 144, WINTER 2014 2014 WILEY PERIODICALS, INC. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/yd.20115
89
90
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING
And yet, the concept of engaging families and the community has not yet become an integral part of school reform. And afterschool practitioners, whether working in schools or communitybased organizations, often find it difficult to make these partnerships a reality. In this chapter, we draw from lessons learned at the School of the 21st Century (21C) to provide practical strategies for involving families and communities. The School of the 21st Century includes an afterschool component, and is one of several national initiatives that use a community school strategy.
Background To fully appreciate the School of the 21st Century and its implications to your work as an afterschool program professional, it is important to understand the context within which the community school strategy has developed over the years. As will become apparent in the following section, afterschool programs developed at around the same time and within a similar context. The growth of the field Indeed, there is common ground between the community school strategy and afterschool programming as well as a shared vision for linking families, schools, and the community. The tremendous growth in the number of afterschool programs was made possible since the 1990s with federal and state funding from the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21CCLC) grants program. Although there are variations among afterschool programs, many include provisions to improve students’ achievement in reading, math, and other academic subjects and they provide enrichment and recreational activities during times when school is out. Both public and private organizations provide afterschool programs and partnerships between schools and community-based organizations and families is often a requirement, met with varying levels of success. Indeed, irrespective of the location of an afterschool program new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
FAMILY, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
91
or its funding source, quality standards for afterschool programs call for outreach to the community and the family. Perhaps not surprisingly, the implementation of afterschool programs has prompted some schools to expand their outreach and adopt a community school strategy, at the core of which are school– community partnerships. At the same time, as Jacobson and Blank point out, community schools benefit from 21CCLC funding, enabling them to incorporate afterschool services.1 The relationship between afterschool programs and community schools is almost inevitable and clearly symbiotic. Outstanding examples of this relationship at work include the afterschool programs run by the Children’s Aid Society, which leverage their affiliation with community schools and also provide students and families with access to health, social, and other services in the community.2 Historical and research perspective The link between family, school, and community is not new. It dates back to a time when educating children was an informal endeavor, secondary to having children help their families make a living and manage their households. But as society grew increasingly complex, education became more important, and the task of educating children moved away from home and community and into the schoolroom and eventually the school building. In the process, we lost a sense of the interdependence between these three institutions—the family, the community, and the school—all of which profoundly impact a child’s development. So here we are now, looking at how to reestablish a link that once seemed the norm. What triggered the comeback? There are several influencing factors at play, and three primary ones are: 1. The concept of the whole child. Over the years, as education focused more and more on preparing young children for the workforce, schools became increasingly dedicated to academic matters, specifically the child’s cognitive development. The work of psychologist Jean Piaget and others, however, showed that children develop as a new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
92
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING
whole and that all developmental pathways—cognitive, social, emotional, and physical—are essential for optimal growth and maturation. Piaget and others also described the layers of interdependence that link aspects of development, stressing that deficit in one developmental domain often affect the whole. Think about physical health; children who are ill or come to school hungry have a difficult time concentrating on subject matter, let alone benefitting from what is being taught. The same principle applies to children who experience dysfunctional family life or have emotional difficulties. The field of early childhood education was the first to be aligned with the whole child approach, although the implications of this approach are as relevant for older children as they are for preschoolers. Today, substantial body of research exists that shows how health and social and emotional skills form the vital underpinnings for success in school and in life. Increasingly, more schools, especially those that use a community school strategy, put this belief into practice. Further, several states—spurred by mental health concerns and bullying and violence in schools—have mandated that schools focus on character education, which is linked to social and emotional competence. 2. An understanding of the ecology of human development. Developmental psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner graphically portrayed his ecological view of human development, using concentric circles to convey the notion that children develop within—and are influenced by—multiple contexts: the home, the neighborhood, the school, the media, the prevalent culture, to list a few. Other influences include friends, health, family income, and religion. Additionally, Bronfenbrenner used bidirectional arrows to convey the interaction between the child and the environment. In other words, children are influenced not only by those around them; they themselves influence others and thus, in part, form their own experiences. No doubt, you have had difficult students in your program, at some point—students who were disruptive, who refused to new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
FAMILY, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
93
cooperate or listen. Think back to your reactions to difficult students, and you can see how children are influenced by people and the environment, and they also actively shape how you—and others—relate to and interact with them. 3. Demographic and societal changes. The influx of recent immigration has vastly changed the makeup of schools and communities. Immigration, of course, is not new; indeed, it’s fundamental to the very concept of our country. However, recent waves of immigration caught the nation unprepared. In previous years, a network of settlement houses assisted newcomers. Today, the task falls primarily to schools, which presents yet another strong reason for schools as well as afterschool programs to partner with communitybased agencies. As a nation, we were also unprepared for the dramatic increase in the number of working women, which is now the norm for the majority of families. For many children, this means that starting in first few months of life, they are in childcare centers or in other arrangements; and for older children, it means attendance in before and afterschool programs. As a result, childcare, including afterschool programs, has joined the family as one of the primary institutions that impact the child’s development. Another important societal change is the rise in singleparent households, due to divorce and unmarried parents. Equally influential is the change in family mobility, which has in many instances transformed family structure. For many families, frequent moves have meant a lack of social capital, which refers to the dearth of adults in the lives of children and weak ties between families, their neighbors, and kin. In other words, many families can no longer rely on close relatives for help, and in many cases families don’t know or cannot depend on neighbors. The result is increased isolation, with many parents raising children with little help and no social support and many adults feeling alone. Combine these phenomena— immigration, working mothers, single-parent households, and new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
94
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING
dramatic changes in mobility—and you have a clear picture of how children are growing up and why not only schools, but also afterschool programs, are asked to reach out to and work with families in the context of the community.
School of the 21st Century These demographic and societal shifts, combined with issues of poverty—an all too often fact of life among families with children—create stressful conditions with profound developmental and educational consequences. It is against this backdrop and on the basis of research that the School of the 21st Century (21C) was conceptualized in 1987. Developed in response to the need for a national system of child and family services, 21C is one of the earliest models to use school buildings as the setting for providing necessary nonacademic services.3 What is included in 21C? The School of the 21st Century is a school-based childcare and family support program. Its full title is The School of the 21st Century: Linking Communities, Families, and Schools, but it is also known in some states as Family Resource Centers or 6–6 schools, signifying that 21C schools are operational from early morning to early evening, year round. The philosophy supporting 21C includes a continuum of child and family services, from the birth of the child through the elementary school years and beyond. Whereas some programs focus on one age group such as early childhood as a critical developmental period, the notion underlying 21C is continuity of support because all stages of development are significant and at different times during the child’s development, families may need support services. Accordingly, the 21C model includes several basic components: outreach to families and home visitation, beginning with the birth of the child through age 3; all-day, year-round early care and new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
FAMILY, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
95
education for children ages 3, 4, and 5; before- and afterschool programs in elementary and middle school; physical fitness, health, and nutrition; and mental health prevention services, along with social and other services. Schools implement the model on the basis of the needs and resources of their particular communities, so there are inevitable differences among 21C schools. Some 21C schools, for example, provide school-based infant care due to parental demand, and others include school-based dental and health services. Although 21C schools may differ, they share the common goal of ensuring the optimal development of all children, and they are structured around the 21C guiding principles. 21C guiding principles The guiding principles include universal access to services, meaning, making services available to all children; the use of the school to build a system of support services; ensuring that the early care and afterschool components include developmentally appropriate programs; the provision of staff development to ensure good quality experiences for children; a focus on the whole child approach; and parent and community involvement. Although space here precludes a comprehensive discussion of 21C, several points need to be underscored: One, although 21C calls for use of the school, successful 21C schools do not simply use the school building, but actually integrate support services into the school’s educational infrastructure. What does this mean? First, that teachers and the staff of support services such as afterschool work as a team, sharing orientation and professional development meetings. In addition, school principals are actively involved in and lead 21C services, just as they lead the academic elements of their schools. This is a challenge, due in part to principal turnover. However, in many 21C districts, principals are eligible for the job only if they already have experience working within the context of the community so they have a fundamental understanding that afterschool programs and other services are an essential part of the school. new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
96
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING
Implications for afterschool programs We mentioned earlier that 21C schools vary in the services they provide. However, common among all 21C schools is the provision of afterschool programs. This is not surprising, given the sheer need for such programs. We mentioned previously that the growth in the number of working parents and single-parent families has fueled the need for afterschool programs. But there are other dynamics as well, including the fact that for many students, afterschool programs provide what schools cannot: extracurricular activities that serve to engage and support their education. Although middle and upper income families can purchase such activities for their children, many low-income families rely on afterschool programs to fill this critical need. The afterschool programs in 21C have been successful at providing students with various activities as well as establishing connections with the family and community not only at the administrative level, but programmatically as well. What can we learn from their experiences?
First, involving families, while it’s a challenge, is possible We are often told that afterschool programs have more flexibility than schools, and as a consequence can promote family involvement more successfully. In reality, though, fostering family involvement is a challenge for afterschool programs, too, and frequently presents its own set of dilemmas. For example, offering transportation services for students can increase enrollment and attendance in afterschool programs, but doing so may actually distance parents and other family members. Several afterschool programs in 21C schools have nonetheless established a variety of effective practices that engage parents by responding to their interests. For example, inviting families to dinner at school once a week, or arranging for parents to have access to school facilities and services, like workouts at the school gym. In new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
FAMILY, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
97
some 21C schools, afterschool programs spearhead a communitywide project and include not only students, but also their parents. Some schools with high immigrant enrollment invite families to joint sessions with students in afterschool programs for opportunities to learn language. Others ask parents to present to the afterschool students about various cultural programs and events or to teach about ethnic cuisine. This approach accomplishes two complementary goals: It provides English language exposure for parents, and at the same time offers both children and adults a chance to teach others in the community about their culture. Several schools also invite firemen and other emergency personnel who often value opportunities to get to know and communicate with newcomers in their neighborhood.
Second, outreach to the community should include students Effective afterschool programs typically draw on the expertise of the community via club activities like karate or dance classes that are taught by instructors from local businesses or agencies. Art clubs, astronomy clubs, or drama clubs taught by local college educators can also provide a link to the resources of the larger community. In addition to this level of outreach, individual practitioners in 21C afterschool programs also engage their students in community life. An example of such effort incorporates the Mutt-i-grees Curriculum, a PreK–Grade 12 program developed at Yale 21C in collaboration with North Shore Animal League America and dog whisperer Cesar Millan. Launched in 2010, the program teaches social and emotional skills using activities and readings about shelter pets. Currently implemented in 3,000 schools nationwide and in Canada, the Mutt-i-grees Curriculum has proven highly successful in improving student behavior, supporting educational achievement, and enhancing school climate. The curriculum has new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
98
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING
also been adapted for use in afterschool programs in schools, YMCAs, and libraries. The Mutt-i-grees Curriculum—the term “mutt-i-grees” is a new word for shelter pets—is part of the mental health prevention component of 21C. It is based on recent studies supported by the National Institute on Child Health and Development that show health, social, and even academic benefits in the relationships between children and animals.4 Although the presence of a pet is not essential, afterschool programs visit the local animal shelter or invite families to share photos of their pets or bring a pet to visit the program—to the delight of both students and their families. The program is often used for staff professional development to enhance knowledge of ways to promote children’s resiliency and social and emotional competence. For students, it is sheer fun, but in the process, they learn to cooperate and work in teams and they acquire coping skills (see also education.muttigrees.org). Service learning The Mutt-i-grees concept also provides options for service learning by giving students real life and exciting hands-on opportunities to examine and solve problems in their own communities. Service learning experiences have been shown to support academic achievement and foster social and emotional growth. A critical aspect of service learning is reflection: asking students to think about the experience and what it has meant to them. Although we think of service learning as ideal for older students, in the Mutt-i-grees Curriculum it is included as early as preschool and the primary grades. For example, after visits to local animal shelters, children explore ways to assist in adoptions by creating posters or selling artwork of and for homeless pets. In the process, they learn about compassion and empathy for other people, animals, and themselves, and at the same time improve their self-esteem by discovering they can have a positive effect on their world. The value added in the Mutt-i-grees Curriculum is the interaction with animals that has been shown to provide more new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
FAMILY, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
99
positive outcomes than other service learning opportunities.5 However, there are other examples of cause-related initiatives, such as environmental stewardship, that afterschool practitioners may use to provide service learning opportunities.
What are the benefits of having students reach out to the community? First, such activities genuinely engage students, which encourage enrollment and attendance, especially among older students who “vote with their feet” and don’t have to attend supervised programs. Second, our evaluations of afterschool programs in 21C schools that use service learning indicate not only increased attendance rates, but also improved academic achievement when compared with students in the same school who are not participating in afterschool service learning. Students who are working alongside professionals, volunteers, and other students become living investments in their own hometowns and adults in the community get to know them. Their families recognize that their children are part of a social effort that can improve their own relationships, broaden their children’s opportunities for success in the future, and enhance their children’s development as involved individuals with something valuable to offer society.
Summary We provided in this chapter just a glimpse of possible strategies for afterschool programs to employ in order to better engage students, families, and communities. Although brief, you can see from our discussion that engaging parents’ interests and involving students in community service is possible and can be a powerful force in the creation of that often elusive relationship among families, schools, and their communities. new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
100
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING
Notes 1. Jacobson, R., & Blank, M. (2011). The afterschool and community school connection: Expanding learning opportunities and partnerships. In Expanding minds and opportunities: The power of afterschool and summer learning for student success. Retrieved from http://www.exapndingminds/article /afterschool-and-community-school-connection-expanding-learning-opport unities 2. Santiago, E. M., Ferrara, J., & Quinn, J. (2012). Whole child, whole school: Applying theory to practice in community schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 3. Finn-Stevenson, M., & Zigler, E. (1999). The School of the 21st Century: Linking childcare and education. Boulder, CO: Westview. 4. McCardle, P., McCune, S., Griffin, J., Edposito, L., & Freund, L. (2010). Animals in our lives: Human–animal interactions in family, community, and therapeutic settings. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks. 5. Mueller, M. K. (2014). Is human–animal interaction (HAI) linked to positive youth development? Applied Developmental Science, 18(1), 5–16.
matia finn-stevenson is a research scientist at the Child Study Center at Yale University where she is also associate director of the Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social Policy and director of the School of the 21st Century.
new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
FAMILY, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
101
Commentary Jane Quinn this chapter points to several important trends in the afterschool field: (1) the growing number of afterschool programs that are embedded in full-service community schools, (2) the increasing number of higher education institutions that are partnering in meaningful ways with our nation’s public schools, and (3) the deepening research base that undergirds afterschool and community school efforts. Dr. Finn-Stevenson has done a masterful job of analyzing the major influences that have led to renewed attention to school, family, and community partnerships. Recent research has bolstered the argument for such attention—most notably the seven-year study conducted by the Consortium for Chicago School Research, which documented the essential nature of family and community partnerships in school improvement efforts.1 The community schools strategy exemplified by the School of the 21st Century model has taken hold in districts and cities across the country over the past twenty years. According to the Coalition for Community Schools, at least eighty-eight jurisdictions are now implementing this strategy, using a variety of models to organize school and community resources around student success.2 This work represents a resurgence of interest in an approach that was recommended by John Dewey and others during the Progressive Era, and that has experienced at least two other periods of renewal since the turn of the twentieth century, according to historian John S. Rogers.3 Practitioners in this fourth “generation” of community schools have adapted their work to twenty-first century realities, including increasing rates of child poverty and heightened pressures on schools to address Common Core Standards and to be accountable new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
102
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING
for high-stakes results. In this environment, schools increasingly recognize that they need community partners in order to expand learning opportunities and remove barriers to learning and development. The country’s major teachers unions and principal and administrators association are among the 200 institutional partners that have come together over the past seventeen years to form the Coalition for Community Schools, which advocates for this comprehensive, integrated approach to improving outcomes for children and their families. Afterschool programs are considered a core programmatic component of most, if not all, models of community schools, where they are regularly integrated with the work of other partners, such as health providers and family support organizations—making it easy for children and their parents to access other needed supports and services. In addition, the community school strategy calls for partners to be integrated into the schools’ planning and decisionmaking bodies, such as the School Leadership Team, thus ensuring that the afterschool program complements the core instructional program. A recent study of Integrated Student Supports, conducted by Child Trends, highlights the importance of this two-way integration. This study examined nine models, including those represented by this chapter’s author and commentator, and concluded that “integrated student supports represent a promising approach, well-grounded in theory, research and community experience.”4 By drawing on the learning that comes from both research and practice, the Child Trends study models the style of knowledge development recommended by the editors of this issue of New Directions for Youth Development.
Notes 1. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 2. Coalition for Community Schools. (2014). Community school places. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools. new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
FAMILY, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
103
3. Dewey, J. (1902, October). Schools as social centres. The Elementary School Teacher, 3(2), 73–86; Rogers, J. S. (n.d.). Community schools: Lessons from the past and present. A report prepared for the Charles S. Mott Foundation. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles. 4. Moore, K. A., Caal, S., Carney, R., Lippman, L., Li, W., Muenks, K., . . . Terzian, M. (2014, February). Making the grade: Assessing the evidence for integrated student supports. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
jane quinn is the vice president and director of the National Center for Community Schools at the Children’s Aid Society.
new directions for youth development • doi: 10.1002.yd
