How the Community Schools Concept Was Implemented in Holyoke, Mass- A Critique. Guest Post by Gus Morales
Gus Morales
Prior to state receivership, the Holyoke Public Schools (HPS) implemented a large number of programs and worked with an assortment of contracted consultants and organizations on school turnaround efforts. Commissioner Chester provided the most recent brief summary in December of 2014, listing America’s Choice and the District Management Council as the most recent partners, each with particular focus and approach (http://www.doe.mass.edu/boe/docs/2015-03/item7-Timeline.pdf). We agree with the assessment that these programs and partners did not produce the intended results, even if these results were narrowly defined as improved standardized scores. Significantly, teachers have been overwhelmed by the quick switches from one program and one partner to the next. Teachers have not been meaningfully consulted about the various approaches based on our expertise and knowledge of our students. These new initiatives have garnered additional resources, often without a public accounting, and a general lack of rigorous outside evaluation. It is in this context that we approach the topic of family and community engagement today, focusing on the Full Service Community School model (FSCS), the District strategy for family and community involvement being implemented at four of our schools so far.
Full Service Community Schools (FSCSs) developed as a strategy of service coordination intended to break down silos and allow for collaboration between agencies serving children at their schools, thus facilitating providing all of the support services children need in one location. Inspired by the success of the Harlem Children’s Zone, championed by the Coalition of Community Schools, and embraced by federal and state education leaders seeking to meet the needs of low-income children, the approach was an attractive one for reform-minded school administrators and their community partners in Holyoke, Massachusetts.
The Harlem Children’s Zone approach has been difficult to replicate in other locations around the country because it was an intensive one that involved working with children before they entered school. The approach began by engaging the parents or caretakers in the home and obtaining support services for families very early in the children’s lives, and most distinctly, by delineating a specific concentrated geographic area for concentrated delivery of coordinated services. Children 0-3 and their parents participated in Baby College; children from 3 to 5 years of age in the Path to Promise program, and only children winning With A Brooklyn Accent: How the Community Schools Concept Was Implemented in Holyoke, Mass- A Critique. Guest Post by Gus Morales:
