The growing movement to create full-service community schools: A conversation with Mavis Sanders and Claudia Galindo

How are today’s full-service community schools forming authentic, collaborative partnerships with families, and what’s ahead for the movement?

Claudia Galindo and Mavis Sanders

Claudia Galindo is an associate professor in the education policy program at the University of Maryland, College Park. Her research examines racial/ethnic minority and poor students’ academic outcomes and school experiences, paying particular attention to Latinx and immigrant populations. She also conducts interdisciplinary and mixed-methods research to study the implementation of educational reforms. And she studies full-service community schools, a reemerging strategy that focuses on the holistic needs of students and their families.

Mavis Sanders is a senior research scholar of Black children and families at Child Trends, in Bethesda, Maryland, leading an applied research agenda that advances racial equity and social justice. Previously, she was a professor of education at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and a faculty member at Johns Hopkins University, where she served as a research scientist at the Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk and as assistant director of the National Network of Partnership Schools. She is also a former social studies teacher and Peace Corps Volunteer (in Papua New Guinea).

Sanders and Galindo are the co-editors of Reviewing the Success of Full-Service Community Schools in the U.S.: Challenges and Opportunities for Students, Teachers, and Communities (Routledge, 2020).

Phi Delta Kappan: The other articles in this month’s Kappan discuss the possibilities for public schools in general to build more productive relationships with families and communities. But when it comes to full-service community schools (FSCSs), in particular, such relationships are baked into the model, right? Tell us a bit about the origins of such schools and what makes them distinct.

Claudia Galindo: There’s nothing new about the idea that schools should meet a wide range of needs — not just to focus on children’s academic learning and cognitive development, but also to support their overall well-being and the well-being of their families and neighbors. There have always been schools that provided health care, for instance, or distributed food and clothing, or helped immigrant parents learn English.

But if you’re talking about schools that are intentionally designed to be community hubs, then the most direct precursors of today’s FSCSs are the settlement schools created in the early 20th century (in Chicago, New York, rural Appalachia, and elsewhere), which provided all sorts of services to children and families, from classroom instruction to arts and crafts, job training, after-school programs, elder care, and on and on. When public school systems expanded in the 1920s and ’30s, they displaced most of the settlement schools. But the basic idea that the school can be a real community center — especially in under-resourced areas — never disappeared. And these schools shouldn’t just respond to inequities; they should address the root causes of inequity.

Mavis Sanders: You can see echoes of that idea in, for example, the rise of the school lunch program in the 1940s and ’50s, or efforts in the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s to make schools more responsive to family and community needs and priorities. It’s there in the Black Panther schools in Oakland, California, or the push for community control in the New York City schools, or the Comer School Development program, or the Harlem Children’s Zone. And over the last few decades, we’ve seen a whole network of community schools take shape across the country, as well as organizations that support them and study their impacts. Increasingly, people have described them as “full-service” community schools, both to emphasize their collaboration with a wide range of social service agencies and programs and to distinguish them from neighborhood schools, which are also sometimes referred to as “community” schools.

But over the last five to 10 years, we’ve also seen a concerted effort to bring the community schools movement together around a core set of guiding principles and practices. For instance, lots of schools provide health care and free breakfast and after-school programs and adult education, and these services are critically important. But there’s a growing sense in the field that it’s not enough just to provide integrated services; that’s just one piece of a larger puzzle.

The consensus today is that a full-service community school should have a more comprehensive vision of what it aims to achieve.

The consensus today is that a full-service community school should have a more comprehensive vision of what it aims to achieve: It should value collaborative leadership, making sure community members have meaningful opportunities to weigh in on important decisions; it should create truly authentic partnerships with families, where communication channels go both ways, not just from teachers to parents but also from parents to teachers; it shouldn’t just provide integrated services, but it should do so based on careful and ongoing assessments of student, family, and community needs and assets; and it should be willing to rethink when and where learning happens — for instance, if it makes good sense to provide instruction and social services at night or at a local library, then the school should do that.

Also (and this isn’t a core principle so much as an established best practice), every FSCS should have one or more designated staff members who are responsible for coordinating among all the people who contribute to the school’s work — teachers, parents, local government officials, and so on. If you’re going to create a school that’s truly responsive to the community, then you need somebody in this role.

Kappan: How big of a movement are we talking about? How many schools meet the criteria you’ve described, serving as true community partners and full-service resources?

Sanders: Counting them is tricky, since the field keeps evolving, but according to the Coalition for Community Schools, there are currently around 5,000 in the U.S., and people are optimistic that the movement will expand a lot in the coming years, too. The coalition’s goal is to increase the number to 25,000 community schools by 2025.

Thankfully, the funding outlook has improved in recent years. The federal government has supported community schools for a while, dating back to the Obama administration. But 10 years ago, money was very tight, and people were constantly struggling to braid together various funding sources: a little from the Department of Education, a little from Housing and Urban Development, a little from private foundations, and so on. Today, they still have to weave together resources, but it’s not quite as challenging as it was — more states, like Minnesota and Kentucky, are providing funds to expand community schools, and there’s the promise of increased federal funds specifically for full-service community schools, which helps a lot.

Galindo: Interest in community schooling has grown in every part of the country, too. Some places have been hot spots for a while — for example, New York City has more than 300 community schools, and in Baltimore, nearly every school is now a community school — but the movement is expanding everywhere, including rural and suburban areas. We’ve even seen some state departments of education create advisory boards (as in California) or new leadership positions (as in Maryland) that provide guidance and support to community schools. And we’ve seen community schools become more common in the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa, and elsewhere. It’s not just a U.S. movement.

And, of course the pandemic has also made people more appreciative of community schools. In the early stages of the pandemic, when COVID shut everything down, a lot of educators suddenly had to figure out how to provide kids with breakfast and lunch, how to make sure they had laptops and Wi-Fi, and how to provide all kinds of basic services. It’s no surprise, but community schools really shined in those days, because they already had contacts and relationships and experience delivering resources to families.

Plus, the pandemic has made everybody much more aware that children have all kinds of important social, emotional, psychological, and physical needs. After two years of remote learning, people understand that it’s not enough just to provide kids with academic instruction. You also have to make sure they’re healthy, feel safe, have books and laptops and other resources, have opportunities to build and maintain relationships, have access to mentors and counselors, and on and on.

But, at the same time, American individualism hasn’t suddenly vanished. It’s part of the fabric of this society. There will always be people who insist that family and community resources don’t matter, that anybody can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and that teachers should stop “making excuses” for the low achievement of children growing up in poverty. For now, though, COVID has made a lot more people receptive to the idea that if we want students to succeed, then we can’t just tell teachers to provide more effective instruction. We also have to pay attention to the whole child, the well-being of family members, and the well-being of the community.

Kappan: It’s one thing to support the idea that schools should serve as community hubs and provide all sorts of important services and supports to children and families. But what does the research say about the actual performance of community schools? And how would you respond to critics who’ve questioned whether they’ve been as effective as advertised? (I’m thinking specifically about a report that you discuss in your book: Grover Whitehurst’s 2010 study of the Harlem Children’s Zone [HCZ], in which he concludes, “There is no evidence that the HCZ influences student achievement through neighborhood investments.”)

Sanders: Whitehurst’s study got a lot of attention, and some people seemed to think it scored a blow against the whole movement to invest in neighborhood services (which, at the time, a lot of advocates were calling the “Broader, Bolder Approach to Education”). But it was just one study, and, if anything, it showed what’s wrong with trying to determine the “effectiveness” of such a complex approach by looking solely at test scores. Basically, Whitehurst compared the scores of HCZ students with those of similar students at other New York City charter schools, and he found that HCZ students performed in the middle of the pack. From that, he concluded that all of HCZ’s investments in wraparound services and supports were costly and unnecessary, because they hadn’t resulted in high test scores. He also pointed out that students at a few of the city’s KIPP schools were getting higher scores, as if to say, “See, these schools don’t provide all these family and neighborhood supports; they just focus on academics, and they get better results.”

Actually, though, the KIPP schools were providing some of the same “nonacademic” services as HCZ and many other community schools, such as student advising and counseling services, out-of-school-time learning activities, and family education programs. You can’t assume that these supports had nothing to do with KIPP’s test results. More important, we have to ask whether it’s reasonable to draw any sort of conclusion about the success of differing school models from a single test-score comparison, without looking more carefully to see who attends which schools, what kinds of long-term outcomes they have, and how they do on all sorts of other measures, beyond reading and math tests.

It’s always hard for researchers to tease out all the variables that matter, but it’s especially important to have some humility when you try to make sense of the complex mix of strategies that an organization like HCZ tries to put into practice. I’d argue that this is why qualitative research needs a place at the table. When you amplify the voices of all those involved in a school — talking with students, families, teachers, and others about their experiences — you can get a much deeper, and more valid, understanding of what’s going on, how schools have benefited people, and how they haven’t. And whatever research methods you use, you need to be patient, looking carefully at schools over a long period of time.

Galindo: If Whitehurst had found that investing in neighborhood services immediately results in higher test scores, then every community school supporter would have been really happy. We all want to promote academic achievement. But it’s too narrow to focus on standardized test scores alone, without considering all of the other goals that community schools are trying to achieve. And while it’s true that the research hasn’t shown any simple one-to-one relationship between wraparound services and test scores, the research has shown a range of other important benefits, such as stronger relationships and bonding among students; improvements in measures of school climate and attendance; stronger results on measures of social-emotional learning, mental health, and overall well-being; and higher levels of parent satisfaction with their schools.

Sanders: In our work with schools and districts, we’ve seen just how strongly parents have embraced community schooling. For example, at two Baltimore schools, Benjamin Franklin and Lakeland, enrollments dramatically increased after they adopted a full-service community school approach. When families learn about the schools’ commitment to the neighborhood, their responsiveness, and the kinds of supports they offer, they vote with their feet. That’s the kind of school they want. And that’s a pretty strong indicator that those schools are doing something important and valuable. Yes, we all want to see stronger academic growth. But to get there, we need to make sure that students feel safe and supported, that they’re excited to go to school every day, that their basic needs are being met . . . The point isn’t just to get a quick boost in test scores. The goal is long-term, generational change.

By their very nature, community schools make it a priority to build trust among teachers, students, and families.

Plus, some of the strongest research findings have, in fact, been related to student performance and success in school, especially gains in student attendance, credit accumulation, and graduation rates. Colleagues at Manhattanville College, for example, found that community school students in New York City have significantly improved their passing rates on the state Regents exams, which is a compelling indicator of academic progress.

Kappan: The research shows that parents tend to be highly satisfied with community schools. But it also shows that they tend not to be all that engaged with and involved in those schools, right?

Galindo: That’s true. We’ve seen a lot of community schools struggle with efforts to promote family engagement. Even when they make it a priority to invite parents to visit the campus, participate in activities, contact the teachers, and share their ideas, some parents aren’t responsive in the ways that schools expect. Some get involved but others don’t.

Partly, that’s because many parents just don’t have the time and energy to be involved — if you’re working two jobs, it’s hard to drag yourself to a meeting to talk about the curriculum. Sometimes, it’s also because of long-standing biases. Just like in regular schools, community school teachers often prefer to build relationships with parents they consider to be “easy to reach,” which can create or deepen divisions among families. For instance, in our research, we have seen tensions emerge between Latinx and Black parents over the perception that teachers are giving more resources and opportunities to Latinx students, and that only some parents are truly welcome at the school. Other studies have documented similar findings, highlighting the need for community schools to double down on issues of equity.

Sanders: By their very nature, community schools make it a priority to build trust among teachers, students, and families. But this is a huge challenge for all of public education, so it’s no surprise that a lot of community schools are still working at it, too. And many parents of color, especially, have good reason to be distrustful — schools are not always inclusive, safe, and nurturing spaces for their children, and when those parents reach out to express their concerns, they don’t always feel heard.

That’s another reason why it’s so important for every school to employ community coordinators, people whose job is to meet with family members in their neighborhood, listen to them, ask about their needs, learn about their strengths, and build these relationships over time. Teachers have too much on their plate to do all of this on their own. Somebody else needs to help with the legwork and forge those deeper bonds with parents. Once those bonds are strong, then teachers should think of parents as their partners, and they should stay connected to them. But it can’t be all on them to create those relationships.

Kappan: For community schools, is there a danger in becoming too responsive to parents and other stakeholders? For instance, let’s assume that a school does build those sorts of trusting, reciprocal relationships. And let’s assume that parents do become highly engaged — they attend meetings, weigh in on the curriculum, advocate for specific kinds of social services, and so on. Doesn’t that put enormous pressure on school administrators to do whatever the stakeholders want, even if it’s a bad idea? And what happens when different groups of community members want the school to go in different directions? Too much democracy can lead to paralysis, can’t it?

Sanders: Sure, when everyone has a voice, decision making is more complex. It’s important not to romanticize collaboration; community input can be disruptive. It can take months to reach a consensus on a single topic. But if you’re willing to invest in the process, the end product will be much better for it. There’s an African saying that, while I am not certain of its origins, I always find helpful: “If you want to go quickly, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.”

Galindo: It does take a certain kind of leader to make it work, though. In a community school, the principal can’t act like an authoritarian boss. Ultimately, they’re the one who has to make a decision, and people will hold them accountable for it. But if they’ve made sure that everyone feels heard; if they’ve kept their door open; if they’ve made a good-faith effort to consider everybody’s needs; and if they’ve earned people’s trust, then most parents can live with whatever decision they make, even if it’s not what they wanted.

Kappan: Final question: Looking toward the future of full-service community schools, what makes you worried and what makes you hopeful?

Galindo: I worry about the sustainability of the movement. Given all the current support for creating new community schools, I worry that there’s pressure to grow too fast, which could set schools up to fail. What I hope for is that it won’t just be school systems that take the lead in building new community schools. I’d love to see other organizations — universities, city agencies, civic institutions, and so on — become more involved and invested. The sustainability of the movement depends on true and long-lasting partnerships.

Sanders: My worry is that as the movement grows, a lot of community schools won’t be able to find the technical assistance they need. While we’ve seen some state and local education agencies create offices to provide that kind of support, many of those offices are small and poorly staffed. So, there’s an urgent need to build an infrastructure that can support these schools and help them stay focused on their core principles and practices. What makes me hopeful? I’m happy that researchers have a seat at the table, and that as community schools expand, we’ll be able to study them and learn more about how they can succeed.

This article appears in the April 2022 issue of Kappan, Vol. 103, No. 7, pp. 28-32.