Following an established REL Northeast & Islands research protocol, we conducted a search for
recent research on community schools, focusing on identifying resources that specifically
addressed the effectiveness of community schools. The sources searched included ERIC and
other federally funded databases and organizations, academic research databases, and general
Internet search engines (For details, please see the methods section at the end of this memo.)
We have not evaluated the quality of references and the resources provided in this response and
we offer them only for your reference. Because our search for references is based on the most
commonly used resources of research, it is not comprehensive and other relevant references and
resources may exist.
Research References
-
Fehrer, K. & Leos-Urbel, J. (2016). “We’re One Team”: Examining Community School
Implementation Strategies in Oakland. Education Sciences 6(26).
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1116797
From the abstract: “The community school model posits that the traditional school model is not
sufficient to overcome the role of poverty in equitable access to learning, and that improving
student achievement requires addressing the needs of the whole child. By leveraging community
partnerships to address student barriers to learning and shift relationships between schools,
families, and community, the community school model represents an expanded vision of what
schools are, who they include, and what they are responsible for. This paper aims to improve our
understanding of community school implementation, based on qualitative research in five
community schools in Oakland, California. We apply the Children's Aid Society's framework of
four community school capacities including: (1) comprehensiveness; (2) collaboration; (3)
coherence; and (4) commitment (Lubell, 2011) in our analysis. We find evidence of a
collaborative culture, in which school and community partner staff worked together across
traditional boundaries to serve students. Schools showed signs of coherence of vision and goals, and alignment of services and supports with the instructional core of the school. Community
school strategies not only provided important school-based services but also represented an
expansion of the traditional school model by leveraging and aligning community partners to
improve student outcomes.”
-
Sanders, M. (2016). Leadership, partnerships, and organizational development: Exploring
components of effectiveness in three full-service community schools. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(2), 157-177.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1099709. Direct link to article:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mavis_Sanders/publication/275242159_Leadership
_partnerships_and_organizational_development_exploring_components_of_effectiveness
_in_three_full-service_community_schools/links/578d26d308ae5c86c9a655d6.pdf
From the abstract: “Full-service community schools are viewed as an approach to improve
educational opportunities and outcomes for underserved student populations. The realization of
these goals, however, is not guaranteed. According to Richardson’s (2009) research-based model
of highly effective community schools (HECS), the effectiveness of full-service community
schools depends on 3 interrelated components: leadership, partnerships, and organizational
development. This qualitative case study uses the HECS model to examine different levels of
effectiveness among 3 full-service community schools in an urban district in the eastern United
States. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of Richardson’s model for
practice and research.”
-
Anderson, J., Houser, J. H. W., & Howland, A. (2010). The Full Purpose Partnership Model for
Promoting Academic and Socio-Emotional Success in Schools. School Community
Journal, 20(1), 31-54.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ891831
From the abstract: “In 2003, a partnership between a local system of care and a large urban
school district led to the creation of a schoolwide educational model called the Full Purpose
Partnership (FPP). This model was implemented in several elementary schools in Indianapolis,
Indiana to integrate the principles of systems of care and wraparound with the techniques of
positive behavioral interventions and supports. The goal of the model is to build school capacity
for simultaneously addressing students' educational, health (including mental health), social, and
psychological needs. The overall objective is to positively impact school functioning for all
students. The application of systems of care to schools and their integration with positive
behavioral interventions and supports is relatively new, and thus, the purpose of the evaluation
reported in this paper was to increase understanding. Data were collected through interviews and
focus groups with members of the various stakeholder groups involved with the FPP. In addition,
one member of the evaluation team acted as a participant observer in the FPP schools. Using an
emergent case study design, this study focused primarily on the operation of the FPP model visa-
vis stakeholder perceptions regarding model implementation. Emerging themes included: (1)
the role of Care Coordinators in FPP schools; (2) adult "buy-in" and other factors impacting FPP
implementation; (3) school climate; and (4) mental health and behavioral impact. Results suggest
that the FPP model is positively influencing not only participating schools but the entire school
district.”
-
Oakes, J., Maier, A., & Daniel, J. (2017). Community Schools: An Evidence-Based Strategy for
Equitable School Improvement. National Education Policy Center.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED574713
From the abstract: “This brief examines the research on community schools, with two primary
emphases. First, it explores whether the 2015 federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) opens
the possibility of investing in well-designed community schools to meet the educational needs of
low-achieving students in high-poverty schools. And second, it provides support to school,
district, and state leaders as they consider, propose, or implement a community school
intervention in schools targeted for comprehensive support. The brief is drawn from a larger
research review, available at https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/comm-schools-equitablebrief.
This review shows that the evidence base on well-implemented community schools and
their component features provides a strong warrant for their potential contribution to school
improvement. Sufficient evidence meeting ESSA's criteria for "evidence-based" approaches
exists to justify including community schools as part of targeted and comprehensive
interventions in high-poverty schools. This evidence also supports community schools as an
approach appropriate for broader use. Policymakers who want to incorporate a community
schools strategy into their ESSA state plans--as well as other plans for state and local school
improvements--can benefit from the research-based lessons presented in this brief. (A list of
notes and references is included.)”
-
Min, M., Anderson, J.A., & Chen, M. (2017). What do we know about full-service community
schools? Integrative Research Review with NVivo. School Community Journal, 27(1),
29-54.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1146450
From the abstract: “The full-service community school (FSCS) model is one of the most popular
and growing types of community school models, which is widely implemented in under-resourced
urban schools. FSCSs offer an alternative to traditional public schools in the U.S. and
are designed to coordinate community assets within a school. Given increased attention to this
approach by both practitioners and policymakers for supporting schools in disadvantaged
communities, the purpose of this study was to examine how scholars are describing FSCSs in the
literature and offer suggestions for future research. In addition, this study provides a detailed
overview of how to use NVivo to conduct qualitative empirical research reviews across
disciplines. Findings indicated that scholarly dialogues about FSCSs converge toward (a) the
nature of FSCSs; (b) academic performance in these models; and (c) partnerships among schools,
communities, and parents. Specific recommendations for future research that will be useful in
advancing work on the FSCSs model are included.”
Methods
Keywords and Search Strings
The following keywords and search strings were used to search the reference databases and other sources:
Community schools
Community school AND effectiveness/impact
Industry school AND effectiveness
Community school AND student achievement
Community school partnerships AND effectiveness
School partnerships AND effectiveness/ impact
Databases and Resources
We searched ERIC for relevant resources. ERIC is a free online library of over 1.6 million
citations of education research sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences. Additionally,
we searched Google Scholar and Ebscohost.
Reference Search and Selection Criteria
When we were searching and reviewing resources, we considered the following criteria:
Date of the publication: References and resources published for last 8 years, from 2009 to
present, were included in the search and review.
Search Priorities of Reference Sources: Search priority is given to study reports, briefs,
and other documents that are published and/or reviewed by IES and other federal or
federally funded organizations, academic databases, including WWC, ERIC, and
NCEE.
Methodology: The following methodological priorities/considerations were given in the
review and selection of the references: (a) study types – randomized control trials,
quasi experiments, surveys, descriptive data analyses, literature reviews, policy briefs,
etc., generally in this order; (b) target population, samples (representativeness of the
target population, sample size, volunteered or randomly selected, etc.), study
duration, etc.; (c) limitations, generalizability of the findings and conclusions, etc.
This memorandum is one in a series of quick-turnaround responses to specific questions posed by educational stakeholders in the Northeast & Islands Region (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, US Virgin Islands, and Vermont), which is served by the Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands at Education Development Center. This memorandum was prepared by REL Northeast & Islands under a contract with the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Contract ED-IES-17-C-0008, administered by Education Development Center. Its content does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.