全球智库信息集成服务系统

This report contains a correction.

“Making every school a community school has to be our collective vision. This has to be the rule rather than the exception.”¹

— Former U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, New York City, October 22, 2009

If the United States is ever to fulfill its promise of full equality for all citizens, its public schools need to work for all children. In the information age economy, the benefits of postsecondary educational attainment on lifetime earnings are higher than ever before.² However, family poverty status remains the best indicator of educational attainment, and as of 2013, the majority of public school students live in or near poverty.³ U.S. public schools must improve how they serve low-income students and communities.

The community schools strategy rethinks public schools in order to provide children in low-income communities with a high-quality education. It centers public schools as hubs for communities and combines a rigorous, relevant educational program with extended learning opportunities, family and community engagement, and an infusion of social services. There are roughly 5,000 community schools in the United States today, and a social return on investment study indicated that every $1 invested in community schools affiliated with Children’s Aid in New York City delivers an additional $12 to $15 in social value. This value refers to additional revenues generated and costs avoided, as well as qualitative impact such as the value of specific programming.⁴

Many community schools are operated at the individual school level, often with the assistance of intermediary nonprofit organizations but with little school district involvement. However, in order to educate students in low-income communities at high levels, school districts should and can play a larger role in coordinating and supporting community schools. The community schools strategy offers districts serving low-income communities a way to overcome structural obstacles that make it more difficult to give children a high-quality education; these include poor access to physical and mental health services as well as to meaningful enrichment opportunities. District engagement can strengthen individual schools and, perhaps even more importantly, help bring this promising strategy to scale.

Leaders of large school systems are recognizing this opportunity. In 2010, then-Oakland, California, Superintendent Tony Smith announced that Oakland would transition to a full community schools district. It was one of the largest school districts to do so. About four years later, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio followed suit, committing to the creation of 100 community schools across the city.⁵ Overall, there are 215 community schools in New York City today.⁶

Indeed, in order for the community schools strategy to truly be an integral part of the nation’s school system, state governments must drive this work. New York’s 2016-17 enacted budget created a $100 million set-aside within the state’s funding formula for community schools programming in 225 school districts identified as “high-need.”⁷ In order to support a community schools strategy, the statewide commission charged with updating Maryland’s school finance system recommended that the state consider the number of students living in poverty when funding school districts.⁸ But perhaps the growth achieved by students in Kentucky best demonstrates how an aspect of the community schools strategy can be integral to educational progress. The state’s 1990 education reform law required schools serving low-income communities to have family resource and youth services centers (FRYSC), which help remove nonacademic barriers to learning. Today, Kentucky has 820 FRYSCs operating in 1,166 schools and serving 612,741 students. According to an index that combines multiple educational attainment and achievement factors, Kentucky improved its national ranking from 48th in 1990 to 33rd in 2011.⁹

A community schools strategy is both reasonable and feasible for school district leaders to adopt. This report details the evolution of community schools initiatives, which are increasing in number and are being led by school districts. It first explains how concentrated poverty affects the student populations of high-poverty schools in very low-income neighborhoods. The report then describes the community schools strategy, before looking at the examples of three case studies: Union Public Schools in Oklahoma, Oakland Unified School District in California, and Hartford Public Schools in Connecticut. These school districts have built and sustained community schools initiatives from the bottom-up, giving students in low-income communities the high-quality education they need to be successful. The report concludes by discussing policy recommendations that district leaders looking to implement a community schools approach should keep in mind. Ultimately, however, state governments must lead in making the community schools strategy a reality for all schools that serve low-income students. 

Concentrated poverty exerts powerful constraints on access to opportunity and upward mobility. Neighborhoods of concentrated poverty—often defined as areas where at least 40 percent of residents are low income—contend with high rates of unemployment, population turnover, and housing instability.¹⁰ In the aftermath of the recent recession, and amid rising income inequality, more Americans—and more American children—live in areas of concentrated poverty. The number of high-poverty census tracts has increased 50 percent since 2000, and 11 million people live in census tracts where at least 40 percent of their neighbors are low income.¹¹ Concentrated poverty fuels racial inequality in the United States, as blacks and Latinos are more likely to live in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty than white people.¹²

Working in isolation, schools cannot overcome the effects of concentrated poverty. Sociologists studying neighborhood context measured the effects of four neighborhood factors: presence of residents with professional jobs, residential stability, economic deprivation, and community demographics. They found that the presence of middle-class, professional residents in a neighborhood was a stronger predictor of student achievement than students’ effort at school or their family’s choice to enroll them in a private K-12 school.¹³

Another study examined the math test scores of 10 million middle school students by census tract. It found that as poverty levels in a school’s neighborhood increased, student achievement decreased, from an average score of 0.4 in schools with the lowest poverty levels to an average score of negative 0.2 in schools with the highest poverty levels.¹⁴ Living in a high-poverty neighborhood has been shown to reduce black children’s verbal abilities by the equivalent of missing a year of school; this is due to the quality of the school environment and other community factors.¹⁵

And the impact of concentrated poverty on student achievement compounds over time. More recent research has shown that a family’s exposure to neighborhood poverty over two consecutive generations can reduce a child’s cognitive ability by more than half of a standard deviation.¹⁶ Similarly, growing up in a high-poverty neighborhood has been shown to reduce the probability of graduating high school from 96 percent to 76 percent for black children and from 95 percent to 87 percent for nonblack children. Moving to a lower-poverty neighborhood has been shown to increase a child’s future earnings by 4 percent per year.¹⁷

By no means are these effects the fault of people living in low-income neighborhoods; nor are they the fault of educators who staff the neighborhoods’ schools. Other challenges facing these neighborhoods—such as high rates of unemployment, rapid population turnover, and changes in the job market—exacerbate the effects of poverty.¹⁸ When neighborhood disadvantage is concentrated in this way, it weakens community institutions and informal social norms that support conventional behavior—or behavior consistent with expectations that are broadly socially acceptable, like having children in marriage.¹⁹ Historically, policies at all levels of government have helped create neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, and they too often facilitate disinvestment in these communities.²⁰

A 2017 analysis from the Center for American Progress suggests that roughly 10 million children currently attend extremely high-poverty K-12 schools, in which 3 in 4 of their classmates are low income. The analysis was based on eligibility for federal free and reduced-price school lunch programs. The increase in poverty found in other research suggests that even more students attend schools affected by concentrated poverty.²¹

The public generally understands the effects that living in poverty can have on an individual child’s ability to do well in school. Policymakers and education leaders need to look beyond poverty’s effects on the development of individual children and consider how concentrated poverty affects an entire school’s ability to deliver the quality education that students in high-poverty neighborhoods deserve—and need to be successful.

To improve the quality of education for low-income children in consistently low-performing schools, policymakers have raised academic standards, focused on teacher quality, increased instructional hours, and experimented with new models of school governance. While these efforts have brought improvements to some states and school districts, no previous interventions have significantly improved outcomes for low-income children at scale. Overall, American students scored behind 19 other nations in 2015 on the reading section of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). But American students at schools in which less than 25 percent of students were in poverty finished first, while students at schools in which more than 75 percent of students were in poverty finished 33rd.²²

Schools must be reimagined and retooled to help high-poverty communities educate students to high levels. Although the policies mentioned above address core elements of state and local education systems that clearly need to be improved, they alone are not enough for schools in high-poverty neighborhoods. The Obama administration correctly attempted to approach issues of housing and intergenerational poverty by using place-based strategies, which consider how a community’s built environment and social and economic assets affect the people who live there.²³ Between 2010 and 2016, the federal government awarded $340 million to 64 grantees in order to develop the Promise Neighborhoods program.²⁴

While admirable, this approach will not allow all public schools and districts to provide the comprehensive supports that children in high-poverty communities need. Given the challenges that continue to face schools in high-poverty neighborhoods—as well as the latest research on neighborhood effects and social mobility—leaders, policymakers, and lawmakers need to fully embrace a place-based approach, ensure education leaders have the resources to enact it, and remove barriers that hinder their work.

The place-based community schools strategy would allow public schools to comprehensively address the holistic needs of a student population, especially those arising from poverty. The community schools approach is rooted in the belief that strong connections between the school system and local resources benefit all students, families, and communities.²⁵ By developing strategic partnerships to align school and community resources, this strategy combines a strong instructional program with supports for families and youth development, as well as health and social services. The Coalition for Community Schools defines community schools as a “place and a set of partnerships between the school and other community resources.”²⁶ Children’s Aid, a New York City nonprofit organization that serves children and families in low-income neighborhoods, says community schools are a “strategy [that] delivers services tailor made for a particular student population and positions those scholars to overcome the barriers to academic success.”²⁷

A community school is a strategy or an approach—not a specific program that can be replicated—because the particular services or supports it offers are designed to meet the needs of a targeted population of students.²⁸ A given school or district’s theory of school improvement, a community’s assets, and capacity at the school and district levels shape what a community school may look like in a given place.²⁹ In a comprehensive review of the research on community schools to date, the Learning Policy Institute and the National Education Policy Center identified four common “pillars” of a community schools strategy:

• Integrated student supports: Sometimes called wraparound services, integrated student supports (ISS) are resources, programs, or services that schools coordinate with outside organizations to provide services on a case-by-case basis in order to meet students’ and families’ needs as well as to address structural barriers to students’ educational success. Examples of these services range from tutoring, housing or food assistance, medical or dental care, and mental health services to English language or parenting classes.
• Family and community engagement: Family and community engagement practices include students’ family members as partners in their education and involve community members in school governance and decision-making.
• Expanded learning time and opportunities: Also called out-of-school-time (OST) programming or extended learning opportunities (ELOs), this term refers to programming that takes place outside the traditional school day—after school, on weekends, or during the summer. While some extended school day initiatives just lengthen the academic school day through additional instruction time, OST can include additional instruction or individualized tutoring as well as enrichment or other meaningful learning opportunities
• Collaborative leadership and practices: Community schools employ structures that share responsibility and decision-making within school buildings and across relevant sectors that pertain to children’s well-being. This can include the school district, municipal agencies, and local nonprofit and community organizations.³⁰

A community school should have a full-time school-level coordinator, also called a community school director, who brings these four components together by conducting an assessment of a student population’s needs and then working in partnership with the principal to execute a plan to meet the identified needs.³¹

The community schools strategy is not new; it simply reflects what makes sense to educators and the general public. Throughout history, educators have used elements of a community schools strategy to improve outcomes for children in high-poverty communities. In the late 19th century, social workers such as Jane Addams founded settlement houses in poor, urban, immigrant, and black neighborhoods in order to provide children and families with services and programs that helped acclimate them to America or to urban life.³² During the Great Depression, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation launched a model that used school buildings outside of school hours to provide educational and recreational programs for students and families.³³ Since the 1990s, community-based organizations have operated programs outside of school time for low-income children through New York City’s Beacon Community Centers and Children’s Aid community schools.³⁴ Today, the Coalition for Community Schools estimates that there are more than 5,000 community schools nationwide.³⁵ Moreover, there is growing demand for a more comprehensive approach to the education of low-income children. Seventy-seven percent of all Americans think that public schools should provide extended learning opportunities, and 76 percent of all Americans—including 65 percent of “strong conservatives”—think that public schools should provide mental health services to children as well.³⁶

There is also a growing evidence base behind each of the community school components, as well as comprehensive models that bring the four components together. After examining studies of community schools pillars—and synthesizing several studies of eight models that incorporated all of these pillars to some degree—the Learning Policy Institute and the National Education Policy Center concluded that community schools satisfy the evidentiary requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). In short, this means that studies of multiple levels of rigor supported community schools.³⁷

• Integrated student supports are associated with a range of positive student outcomes. An evaluation of one popular ISS model shows that students who received these services scored higher on a standardized test in reading, writing, and math than their peers at other schools who did not receive the services. English language learners who received these services had report card scores similar to their English-proficient peers. They also had higher rates of retention and lower rates of chronic absenteeism than their peers in schools that did not use this ISS model.³⁸ A review of 19 randomized control trial or quasi-experimental evaluations of ISS interventions found positive impacts in all but two studies, which ranged from increases in math or reading test scores to higher attendance and graduation rates.³⁹
• Family and community engagement is associated with reduced absenteeism, improved academic outcomes, and greater levels of trust between schools and families. Researchers found a positive relationship between family involvement and student outcomes across families of all races and socioeconomic and education backgrounds. This included higher GPAs and standardized test scores, enrollment in more challenging courses, better attendance, improved behavior, and better social skills.⁴⁰
• Extended learning time and opportunities have been shown to have a positive impact on student engagement and achievement. An analysis of 14 scholarly reviews found higher rates of attendance and education attainment as well as improved standardized test scores.⁴¹
• Collaborative leadership and practices is a key mediating factor for ensuring that the previous three pillars have the intended impacts on student outcomes. Collaborative school structures improve a school’s capacity to improve academically and help develop teacher feelings of efficacy, relational trust, and strong ties between parents, educators, and community members.⁴²

The community schools pillars address the challenges that concentrated poverty can present for public schools. Moreover, studies of varying degrees of rigor show that these pillars can be effective in overcoming these barriers and promoting positive outcomes for students, families, and school communities. Research also suggests that these pillars are most effective when brought together in coherent, data-informed models or initiatives.⁴³ 

About 100 school districts have taken on the community schools strategy at scale. This section highlights evolving initiatives in three urban schools districts and describes in detail how these districts adopted a community schools strategy. These districts reflect the size, student demographics, and fiscal and enrollment challenges that confront many midsize and large urban school systems. The section looks at the following three case studies: Union Public Schools in southeast Tulsa, Oklahoma; Oakland Community Schools; and Hartford, Connecticut, Community Schools

1. Union Public Schools: 100 percent graduation-, college-, and/or career-ready. Union Public Schools in Oklahoma, which serves 15,847 students in southeast Tulsa and a portion of Broken Arrow considers itself a community schools district.⁴⁴ The district’s eight elementary schools—which all receive federal Title I funding—have a community schools coordinator on staff, and two schools have full-service medical clinics on-site. These are available to the community as well.⁴⁵ In addition, mental health providers see students throughout all district schools, and families have access to districtwide clothing support.⁴⁶ The Tulsa City-County Health Department also offers nutrition programs and health and wellness programs for students, as well as demonstrations for parents. The Oklahoma Caring Foundation offers free immunizations for all students. Additionally, community schools in the district offer a range of early childhood programming and adult education.⁴⁷

Union’s after-school programming has evolved from simply a safe place for students to be in the afternoon to one where students take part in meaningful learning opportunities that their families may not be able to easily provide.⁴⁸ At the elementary school level, community school coordinators have brokered partnerships with a wide range of after-school program providers, with support from the school district. At Union, after-school programs have five main areas of focus: science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM); health and wellness; youth development and service learning; fine arts; and academic enrichment. The local zoo, for example, operates a program that brings small animals to schools for a STEM-based curriculum. Microsoft offers coding programs, and the Woody Guthrie Center provides programming in social justice, local history, and music. Other partners include the Tulsa Glassblowing School, Gilcrease Museum, Tulsa Symphony, and Tulsa Regional STEM Alliance.⁴⁹ There are a total of 211 after-school programs across Union’s eight Title I-eligible schools. Based on standardized test scores, an external evaluation that controlled for individual student poverty and the diffusion of the strategy in a school concluded that Union’s community schools have narrowed the achievement gap between low-income students and their more affluent peers.⁵⁰

2. Oakland Community Schools: A holistic approach to educating children by eliminating educational inequity. In Oakland, a community schools strategy emerged from a substantial public engagement campaign after California released the district from state receivership. Today, all Oakland schools are considered community schools, and five common community school systems are in place across the district. First, all schools have a coordination of services team that responds to students’ behavioral and academic needs; they also have attendance teams and the resources necessary to operate them. Second, the district has established processes to assist schools in developing partnerships with community organizations and to help schools secure security clearances for partners and make sure a partner’s focus is well-aligned with a school’s goals. The district also manages transition programs and initiatives to support students and families as they progress between Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) school buildings.⁵¹

Finally, there are 16 school-based health centers throughout the school district. Lead agencies, most of which are federally qualified health centers, staff and operate the centers, and they provide medical, dental, and mental health services as well as health education classes.⁵² A range of staff members at all schools can refer students for health services.

3. Hartford Community Schools: Partnerships for excellence. Education and civic leaders in Hartford, Connecticut, turned to community schools to build equity in the city’s school system. Today, Hartford has six community schools, comprising roughly 14 percent of the total district schools.⁵³ Hartford Community Schools currently use the lead agency model, in which each school partners with a community-based organization that provides and coordinates other services. The initiative currently w