COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT CURRICULUM: MAKING THE MOST OF SCHOOLS-WITHIN-SCHOOLS REFORM
What should students know and be able to do by the time they graduate high school? This basic question is at the heart of most education reforms in recent years. Increasingly, the answer lies not just in strong academic skills but also in a sense of self and the individual’s role in supporting and building a vibrant community.
-- Sheldon Berman et al. (2000)
Our public schools are failing. This cry reverberates in the hallways of our schools and in the debates of our government representatives. In 1999, students aged 12 to 18 were victims of 2.5 million crimes at school, with 186,000 of those incidents classified as serious violent crimes (U.S. Department of Education, 2002c). That same year, the overall high school drop out rate of 11.2% was lower than in previous years. Yet, the drop out rate for black students was 12.6%, and for Hispanic students, the rate was a troubling 28.6% (U.S. Department of Education, 2002a). Also, less than 40% of fourth graders achieved reading proficiency in 2000 (U.S. Department of Education, 2002b).
Kids are not learning what they need and are less prepared for adulthood than their counterparts in other countries. In response to this challenge, successful experiments abound, ranging from teacher- and parent-run charter schools to for-profit schools operated by private corporations. In addition to these initiatives to restructure schools, many people endorse a voucher system in which parents apply public per-student funding to the cost of a private school, effectively removing their students from the public system altogether, and most likely leading to its demise. At the heart of these experiments is the question: how can we best use the existing large high school buildings, their staff, and their funding to meet the needs of diverse students?
One idea that is gaining popularity is the initiative to create smaller schools. Joe Nathan, researcher at the Center for School Change at the University of Minnesota is one of the strongest proponents of small schools. In a 2001 report funded by the U. S. Department of Education, he and Karen Febey write, “smaller schools, on average, can provide a safer place for students and a more positive and challenging environment, higher achievement, higher graduation rates, fewer discipline problems, and much greater satisfaction for families, students, and teachers” (p. 17). Nathan also cites the shootings at Columbine High School in 1999 as one example of a growing body of evidence demonstrating that large, public secondary schools are not protecting the well being of each student. However, abandoning the thousands of large high school buildings in our nation’s urban areas is not a viable option. Most school districts lack the funding necessary for daily operations; these districts cannot afford the expense of constructing new, smaller schools to replace existing buildings, which serve as many as 4000 students.
Yet, these behemoth buildings and large student populations do have their advantages. As Superintendent of the Saint Paul Public Schools, Patricia Harvey (2001) explains, “people value the breadth of opportunities available in our large, comprehensive high schools—such as diverse course offerings, extraordinary facilities, and a full menu of extracurricular activities” (p. A6). With these issues in mind, some education reformers have developed a more viable approach to creating small schools. This approach goes by many names, but is often referred to as the schools-within-schools initiative. Tobin McAndrews and Wendell Anderson (2002) describe schools-within-schools as “large public high schools that have been divided into smaller autonomous subunits.” They continue, “designers of schools-within-schools seek the advantages of both large and small schools by placing students into small learning communities while using the resources of the larger existing facilities” (p. 1).
There are several different ways to achieve small-school connections within the framework of larger school buildings. Nathan and Febey (2001) describe how some districts achieve the purest form of schools-within-schools by dividing their comprehensive schools into a set of distinct and autonomous schools that share the existing space but each focus on a different theme. Between 350 and 500 students belong to each school, taking the bulk of their classes within the autonomous program. Other schools allow students to join one of a set of special academic or advisory programs that provide the connections of a smaller school alongside students’ participation in traditional classes. The third and probably most popular approach divides large schools into nearly autonomous academies. Schools adopting this approach design several academies around different themes. Teachers and students join the academy that suits their interests and spend most of their class time with that same group of teachers and students. The academies differ from autonomous schools-within-schools in that students are more likely to cross-enroll in classes offered by other academies.
The various forms of schools-within-schools have been proven to replicate the positive outcomes associated with smaller schools. McAndrews and Anderson (2002) summarize research demonstrating that schools-within-schools foster:
-- happier, safer, smaller learning environments
-- higher standardized test scores
-- increased teacher-student contact
-- a greater sense of belonging for students
-- stronger interpersonal relationships within the school community
-- lower drop out rates
-- fewer discipline problems
-- stronger parental support.
Due to the success stories cited by Nathan and Febey (2001) and the positive outcomes found by other education researchers, the schools-within-schools initiative has gained significant financial support from both the U. S. Department of Education and private foundations. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation alone will contribute over $240 million in the next several years to districts implementing this initiative (Nathan and Febey, 2001).
One of the districts fortunate enough to receive a Gates grant is the Saint Paul Public Schools (SPPS). The district is an excellent candidate for schools-within-schools initiative. More than a third of incoming ninth graders do not earn a diploma, while the achievement gap is growing between middle- and high-income students and those with families near the poverty line (SPPS, 2001). SPPS is a perfect example of a district facing innumerable mitigating social issues that act as roadblocks to providing quality educational experiences. However, the administrators, teachers, and students are motivated to make the changes necessary to insure that two thirds of incoming freshmen will no longer be “lost in the crowd” (Harvey, 2001, p. A6). As a result, SPPS, in partnership with the Center for School Change, will use the Gates grant to divide St. Paul’s seven comprehensive high schools into smaller learning communities.
At this time, SPPS is squarely in the middle of implementing this large-scale reform. As Superintendent Harvey explains, “this school year, each high school will make critical decisions about how to design small learning communities that meet the needs of students’ (p. A6). Due to the size of both the district and the Gates grant it received, many other districts will look to SPPS as an example for future reform initiatives. At this critical juncture, it is important to move beyond discussions of the structure of schools-within-schools in order to explore the curricular changes that best complement the goals of small schools initiatives.
The available literature from proponents of schools-within-schools focuses primarily on structural change and the advantages smaller sizes bring. Yet, curricular change is an important component of this type of reform, and the key to ensuring the continued success of schools-within-schools. The reform guidelines designed by SPPS not only expect their schools-within-schools to provide a comprehensive education for their 275 to 400 students, but they also require each to do so in the context of a “focus or theme that operates as the organizing principle for the school” (Center for School Change [CSC], 2001, p. 1). Individual schools are asked to provide “intellectually challenging activities” and learning “that extends beyond the classroom” (CSC, 2001, p. 1), yet they provide no further instruction as to how the schools should design curricula to achieve these goals.
I believe the schools-within-schools initiative will not flourish without careful attention to the curricular changes small learning communities demand. In this vein, I propose that SPPS and other districts considering schools-within-schools initiatives should create small learning academies focused on different areas of community engagement. Community engagement should operate on three levels: exploration and discussion of social issues, instruction in various forms of community interaction, and participation in service-learning projects and public presentations addressed to the larger community beyond the school. Although each school district must construct its own definition of community and then designate the issues it deems most prevalent, possible themes include the environment, the political process, minority and women’s issues, the economy, and multiculturalism. A curricular emphasis on community engagement will provide student with the skills, the knowledge, and the experience to contribute meaningfully to their communities. At the same time, this curriculum will contribute to the overall goals of schools-within-schools initiatives.
The first question on people’s minds when they encounter a new curriculum reform initiative is often, “what would this curriculum look like and how will it function?” As I envision this approach to curriculum, coursework would continue to cover the traditional subjects of communications, history, literature, math, science, and technology, but educators would present topics in the context of community engagement. To promote discussion and exploration of social issues, educators could create practice problems, select extension readings, and design paper or project assignments that ask students to consider basic subjects in the context of larger social issues. Rather than shying away from classroom discussion of difficult or controversial issues, educators should encourage students to study carefully the problems plaguing communities and then develop and defend their own positions on the issues.
Once students become engaged by social issues, they will need instruction in the types of interaction that unite communities. Such interaction includes public speaking, deliberative discussion, and collective decision-making. Schools-within-schools should decide how best to integrate this type of instruction into the curriculum. For example, a school might choose to provide one specialized class that introduces students to each of these modes of communication and then use public speeches, deliberative discussions, and papers on collective decision-making as means of assessing student achievement rather than relying solely on tests.
At the heart of the curriculum based on community engagement would be an emphasis on service-learning and community involvement. Bruce Boston and Barbara Gomez (2000) cite the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, which defines service-learning as a program that “helps students or participants learn and develop by participating in thoughtfully organized service that is conducted in and meets the needs of a community; is coordinated with an elementary or secondary school, institution of higher education or community service program, and with the community; helps to foster civic responsibility; is integrated into and enhances students’ academic curriculum or the education components of the community service program in which participants are enrolled; provides structured time for students and other participants to reflect on the service experience” (p. 4). In addition, Chairperson of the Compact for Learning and Citizenship, Sheldon Berman and others write, “true CSL [community service-learning] means helping students make the connections between the subject material they are studying and issues in the larger world” (p. 1).
Service-learning can take the form of class or individual projects that allow students to apply the knowledge they learn in the classroom to real-world situations. Entire classes may engage in applied research aimed to provide a particular person or group with the information they need to deal with a problem. For example, Joe Nathan (2002) taught a class at the Open School, an early charter school in St. Paul, in which students investigated consumer claims of mistreatment by businesses. In other cases, students may be asked to participate in service-learning projects of their own choosing, and educators can assess their development through reflection assignments that require students to connect their experiences to classroom learning and the larger social issues addressed by their school or academy.
Not all community involvement needs to be as complex as service-learning projects. Educators can promote this aspect of the curriculum by bringing members of the larger community into the classroom as speakers and mentors; by encouraging students to attend school board meetings and other community forums; or by asking students to participate in regular public presentations of their coursework. The challenge facing each school-within-a-school is to provide time for educators to collaborate on project design and on striking a balance between the three levels of community engagement in their total curriculum. Integrating community engagement into the curriculum will demand a significant amount of creativity and preliminary planning, but once implemented, should quickly become a habit of mind for students and educators. More importantly, these activities will lend the direction and meaning to secondary education that it currently lacks for many students. Once students are competent in basic subjects, informed on prevalent community issues, able to communicate effectively in community forums, and experienced in community service, they will know what it feels like to be successful, contributing members of their local, national, and global communities. There can be no better preparation for students on the brink of adulthood than this.
Despite the obvious positive effects of community engagement, educators are often hesitant to integrate it into traditional curriculum because of the logistical roadblocks to effective program design. However, I believe schools-within-schools initiatives provide the perfect opportunity to launch community engagement programs, since each small learning community needs a theme around which to base their community. Well-designed schools-within-schools initiatives should have curriculum development time built into the reform process, which gives educators to do the initial leg-work necessary to create high-quality lesson plans that integrate community engagement. In this way, community engagement not only provides coherent themes for schools-within-schools, but the positive effects associated with this curricular emphasis also serve to reinforce the overall goals of schools-within-schools initiatives.
Research shows that incorporating service-learning and classroom-based exploration of social issues into school curriculum is linked to many benefits consistent with the goals of schools-within-schools initiatives. Morgan and Streb found that “students who participated in high quality service-learning programs were more likely to develop bonds with more adults” (cited in Billig, 1999, p. 2). According to SPPS, its small learning academies must ensure that “students are well-known by at least one adult […] through an advisor-advisee system, or some other mechanism, that fosters close working relationships with adults” (CSC, 2001, p. 1). Combining the schools-within-schools initiative with a curriculum based on community engagement serves to connect students with mentoring adults both through structural and curricular means. SPPS, like any other district, is undertaking reform in order to raise students’ achievement levels. Research shows that a curriculum that includes service-learning helps students helps students achieve higher scores on basic skills tests and higher grade point averages (Billig, 1999, p.3).
Also, schools implementing schools-within-schools initiatives want to make traditional subject matter more relevant to students’ lives. A change in structure can bring greater achievement through stronger community, increased accountability, and more adult mentorship, but a change in curriculum is necessary to make secondary education more relevant to students. Research once again shows that a curriculum based on community engagement can achieve this relevance. Various studies conclude that students in service-learning programs “feel they can make a difference” and feel that “they had made a positive contribution to the community” (Bannon; Cairn; Melchior; and Billig and Conrad; cited in Billig, 1999, p. 3). The most telling evidence for the greater relevance of this type of curriculum comes from studies like that of Loesch and Griffin who found that students engaged in high quality service-learning programs had higher attendance rates than a control group of peers (cited in Billig, 1999, p. 4). Students vote with their feet; since community issues and service-learning are more relevant to their lives, students tend to attend school more often when they are integrated into the curriculum. In all of these ways, a community engagement-based curriculum can ensure that the overall goals sought through the structural changes initiated by schools-within-schools reform are sustained in the long run.
SPPS’ Choice: Career Cluster Academies
Within the general framework of the SPPS schools-within-schools initiative, each comprehensive high school is free to decide how its academies will design new curriculum to meet the overall goals. Two of the high schools that are farthest along in their reform process have chosen to form academies around various career clusters, such as health services, science and technology, and business. The proposed academy themes in these schools are broad enough that they will most likely avoid becoming a new form of vocational tracking, yet some parents, teachers, and students are worried about the tracking issue (Swenson, 2001; Tosto, 2001). Counselor and educator Jean Swenson (2001) warns that focusing the academies on career clusters is dangerously close to the system of testing found in many European countries, including France and England, where students are tracked into vocational programs according to their scores on government-administered tests. Swenson writes, “the purpose of K-12 education is not to train workers for specific jobs. In this information age, students need a good foundation of knowledge that will provide future options such as attending college or technical training, pursuing a professional career, or raising a family” (p. A14).
Although Swenson exaggerates the extent to which SPPS’ career academies will provide specific career training and thus limit students’ future choices, she does make the excellent point that pursuing career-oriented curriculum is a dangerous path to embark upon. Disregarding these concerns, leaders of the SPPS reform initiative focus primarily on integrating the world of work into the existing curriculum. Director of Strategic Planning Kent Pekel (2001) writes, “students need exposure to careers and the workplace” through “internships, career-oriented coursework, and career counseling” (p. A14). District leaders such as Harvey and Pekel defend career-oriented academies as the best means of meeting the needs of students while furthering the goals of the schools-within-schools initiative. While I agree that career counseling and internship opportunities are important components of secondary education, I take issue with career-oriented curriculum in general, and career cluster academies in particular.
I believe the goal of secondary education should be to prepare students for all facets of adult life, of which the world of work is only one part. Work is obviously an integral part of adult life; therefore career counseling is necessary at the secondary level. Yet, adults also emerge from school as voting members and leaders of the local, national, and global communities. Secondary schools must prepare students to provide for themselves and their family through work, but also to act as responsible members of their diverse communities. Boston and Gomez (2000) support this position, writing, “the purpose of school, after all, is not merely to provide the next generation with the tools they need to make a living, but also to help them discover the personal and collective means—the perspectives, strength of character and values—they will need to sustain our civilization” (p. 2). These authors describe a “deepening sense of civic disconnection” as evidence that our schools must return community engagement to the center of public education (p. 2). As professor of education Rahima Wade (2001) explains, “democracy depends on citizens’ willingness and ability to examine current social problems, evaluate how they have developed over time, and consider new directions in creating a better society” (p. 1). Our democracy cannot be truly legitimate if a large number of our citizens are incapable of informed participation in civic life.
Focusing small learning communities on community engagement fulfills these goals, while supporting the goals of schools-within-schools initiatives. The curricular emphasis I propose will provide the direction and relevance sought by small schools reformers while avoiding the dangerous path toward vocational tracking. At the same time, a community engagement-based curriculum treats students as active citizens rather than cogs waiting to enter the machine of our economy, all the while preparing students to assume roles as leaders and responsible citizens in their communities.
All this attention to community engagement does not mean educators should leave career counseling and the attainment of job skills by the wayside. Research shows that service-learning helps students develop positive work orientation attitudes and skills,” “greater career awareness,” and “career skills, communication skills, and positive increases in career exploration knowledge” (Billig, 1999, p. 4). The studies summarized by Billig (1999) demonstrate that small learning communities need not be focused directly on career clusters to provide students with career awareness and job skills. The service-learning component of a community engagement-based curriculum can provide similar experiences while exposing students to the social issues, the interactions, and the involvement they must master in order to be competent citizens.
Conclusion
In the end, while the SPPS educators are correct in searching for academy themes that lend focus and direction to secondary education, I believe that a curriculum based on community engagement is more consistent with the overall goals of schools-within-schools initiatives and will better serve students’ needs than a curriculum based on career clusters. First of all, small learning communities based on areas of community engagement can avoid comparisons to vocational tracking while capitalizing on the benefits of connecting coursework to the world outside the classroom. Also, encouraging community engagement in schools will fulfill both purposes of education: preparing kids for the workforce and for citizenship. Completing service-learning projects as individuals and also as a class allows students to gain job skills such as organization, responsibility, and goal-directed communication, all the while learning to deal with the issues that face communities.
In addition, I believe the most important argument for focusing small learning communities on community engagement is that this approach can provide a reason for inner city students to stay in school. Restructuring large schools into schools-within-schools goes partway toward helping troubled students feel like an important part of the school community. A curriculum based on community engagement can go the rest of the way by developing in students the skills, the knowledge, and the resources they need to affect noticeable change in their communities. As a result, education is no longer irrelevant to the many, and a way to get up and get out to the few, but instead becomes a way to remain in troubled communities and affect positive change. In this way, education becomes a collective, rather than an individual, pursuit of a better life.
Finally, although the empirical evidence in support of a curriculum based on community engagement is telling, I believe the most basic argument in favor of integrating this curriculum into schools-within-schools initiatives is still the most powerful. It makes intuitive sense to form small learning communities in our schools around the issues, the forms of communication, and the types of collective action that build strong connections in the community at large. The long-term success of schools-within-schools initiatives depends on schools’ ability to create the strong community bonds that foster positive academic and social outcomes.
References
Berman, S. (1999). Integrating Community Service Learning With School Culture. Retrieved February 24, 2002, Education Commission of the States Website: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/14/58/1458.htm.
Berman, S., Bailey, S., Collins, R., Kinsley D., & Hoffman, E. (2000). Service-Learning:
An Administrator’s Tool for Improving Schools and Connecting With
Community. Retrieved February 24, 2002, from Education Commission of the States Website: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/14/33/1433.htm.
Billig, S. H. (1999). The impacts of Service-Learning on Youth, Schools and Communities: Research on K-12 School-Based Service-Learning, 1990-1999.
Retrieved February 24, 2002, from Learning-In-Deed Website: http://www.learningindeed.org/research/slresearch/slrsrchsy.html.
Boston, B. O. & Gomez, B. (2000). Every Student a Citizen: Creating the Democratic Self. Retrieved February 24, 2002, from Education Commission of the States Website: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/16/91/1691.htm.
Center for School Change. (2001). Key Components of Gates Reform in Saint Paul. Retrieved February 27, 2002, from Center for School Change Website: http://www.hhh.umn.edu/enters/school-change/gatestp.htm.
Harvey, P. (2001, August 28). Blueprint to improvement. St. Paul Pioneer Press. p. A6.
Pekel, K. (2001, September 28). Will blueprint improve schools? St. Paul Schools’ plan
is a forward-thinking response to shifts in economy, society. St. Paul Pioneer Press. p. A14.
McAndrews, T. & Anderson, W. (2002). Schools Within Schools. Retrieved February 24, 2002, from Clearinghouse on Educational Management/ERIC Database: http://eric.uorgeon.edu/publications/digests/digest154.html.
Nathan, J. (2002). Class Presentation. Macalester College, February 27.
Nathan, J. (2001, November 18). High school’s academies give students direction. St.
Paul Pioneer Press. p. D2.
Nathan, J. & Febey, K. (2001). Smaller, Safer, Saner, Successful Schools. Retrieved February 24, 2002, from Center for School Change Website: http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/school-change/docs/facility.pdf.
Saint Paul Public Schools. (2001). Saint Paul Public Schools Blueprint for Better High Schools. Saint Paul, MN: Saint Paul Public Schools.
Swenson, J. (2001, September 28). Will blueprint improve schools? ‘Clustering’ will
limit students’ choices and put job training above broad knowledge. St. Paul Pioneer Press. p. A14.
Torres, K. (2001, October 29). St. Paul Public Schools: Gates donates $3 million to small
schools. St. Paul Pioneer Press. p. B1.
Tosto, P. (2001, November 21). Funds to overhaul schools flow in. Teachers and parents concerned about change. St. Paul Pioneer Press. p. B1.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002a). Digest of Education Statistics 2000: Chapter Elementary and Secondary Education, Table 106. Retrieved April 25, 2002, from National Center for Education Statistics Website:
http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/school-change/docs/facility.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002b). The Facts: Reading Achievement. Retrieved April 25, 2002, from No Child Left Behind Website: http://www.nochildleftbehind.gov/start/facts/reading.html.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002c). Indicators of School Crime 2001: Executive Summary. Retrieved April 25, 2002, from National Center for Education Statistics Website: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/crime2001/index.asp.
Wade, R. (2001). And Justice for All: Community Service-Learning for Social Justice. Retrieved February 24, 2002, from Education Commission of the States Website: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/29/13/2913.htm.