Full Service Schools: Linking Schools and Communities

Dev Mukherjee

Research Officer

Australian Centre for Equity through Education

Introduction

The Australian Centre for Equity through Education (ACEE) is an initiative of the Australian Youth Foundation and was established though a consortium of organisations - the Australian Council of Social Service, the Australian Education Union, the Australian Council of State School Organisations and Eduquate. The ACEE works towards the achievement of equal educational outcomes through action on the causes and prevention of educational inequalities. Towards better schools where access and equity are guaranteed for all young people.

Since its establishment in 1994 the ACEE has addressed the relationship between schools and other agencies, and the ways in which action within and between schools and community services can improve educational outcomes. Through our discussions with teachers, health professionals, and community workers, our consideration of activities within Australia and overseas, and our investigations into student homelessness we have pursued the idea of bringing together a range of school reform and school linked services aimed at improving educational outcomes of children and young people who have been failed by our system of education. After a great deal of discussion and argument the term 'Full Service Schools' was borrowed from Dryfoos (1994) to provide a focus for the idea of schools and other agencies working with students, their parents and their community to act on the causes of educational disadvantage.

Educational, social and economic inequality

Our education systems currently privilege certain groups over others. Students from low socio-economic backgrounds and Indigenous young people, in particular, are likely to have lower literacy levels in the primary school years, lower rates of retention in the post-compulsory school years, lower school completion rates, and lower entry to and participation in higher education (Masters and Foster 1997, Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs 1997, and Williams et al 1993). The evidence for these differences in educational attainment is extensive and compelling (see Mukherjee 1995, 1996).

Education is seen as a key to the achievement of economic and social advancement and to entry into high status occupations and high incomes. Lack of education limits opportunities and leads to lower status and low income occupations or long periods unemployment. Education can thus be viewed as a positional goodÕ that is 'seen to provide students with relative advantage in the social competition for income and social-occupational status' (Marginson 1997: xiv).

Our educational systems reinforce economic and social inequality since the children of the already advantaged are gaining more from it. Connell et al (1991) have presented a simple schema that illustrates the role of education in the reproduction of poverty but it could equally apply to more generally to social and economic inequality.

Feedback on education on poverty

(From Connell.et al 1991: p26)

Unless students from low socio-economic backgrounds can be shown to be less able than their more economically advantaged colleagues the reasons for the inequality in educational outcomes lies within the institution of education, at least in part. As Connell and White (1989: p110) put it:

'The mainstream education system's academic curriculum, its system of competitive assessment, and the way schools and colleges stream, select and narrow their offerings, all work to produce social inequalities and disadvantage the children of the poor.'

Educational advantage and disadvantage should be seen as a relationship that embraces the whole education system (Connell 1995). The factors that disadvantage one group, advantage another.

While the focus on educational inequality has been on in-school factors, teachers can cite numerous causes located outside the school that impact upon learning. For example, differences in economic circumstances are a significant factor. A survey of five hundred Smith Family clients aged 13 to 16 years highlighted that the educational experience of children of poor parents is qualitatively different to the children of more affluent parents even within the same school. The survey found that around twenty-five percent of these children had missed out on school excursions and special events and twelve percent were forced to take cheaper subject options (Orr 1994).

Teachers, particularly those in schools serving low socio-economic communities, are confronted every day with the effects of poverty and family disruption. Schools do not have the resources and teachers do not have the training to deal with the complex social and health problems that students bring to school. Sue Doran (1995: p8), a primary school principal, related a typical incident in her school at the opening symposium of the ACEE:

'In a two bedroom flat in inner western Sydney there is a stove that rests on an upturned Department of Education garbage bin named Do the Right ThingÕ. Sharing space with this endlessly active stove are 12 human beings: Mum, Dad and ten children, the eldest of whom is 12; the three youngest (triplets) are 6 months old. 7 of the 10 kids are playing around school til dark. Mum came down to see me one morning distressed that she had beaten the eldest child upon whom she relies. When she further indicated that she had no money, had been beaten herself, was concerned for her own health but forbidden from visiting the doctor by her husband and had received notice of eviction from the flat, we both cried and went home together to try to sooth and support the family. Then I began the all too frequent search amongst the bureaucratic tangle of potential but understaffed support services. Later that same week one of the teachers found the 6 year old collecting food scraps from the school bins after school.'

This incident reflects the general finding that low income groups tend to have poorer health and a higher incidence of common diseases (Boss, Edwards & Pitman 1995: p98). These things impact on the ability to learn.

While the Connell et al schema is inadequate in many ways, the authors themselves suggest, it does indicate several points at which the cycle may be broken. In order to do so we need to change the role of education within the cycle, to take actions that reduce poverty and disadvantage, and develop processes for social empowerment. At a national conference on Full Service Schools hosted by the ACEE Pat Thomson (1997) asked 'What is the problem for which this program [Full Service Schools] might be an answer?' The answer is that Full Service Schools seek to break the break the relationship between social and economic background and educational achievement. Full Service Schools seek to do this by changing the nature of schools and combining with external support agencies through a process of community development and empowerment.

Changing education and school reform

While education can play a role in reproducing inequality it can be used to contest it. Education can be a tool for empowerment. As Richardson (1995, p55) put it:

'Education provides a means to command over oneself, by virtue of developing the powers of reason and intellect which are important instruments of self-discipline. It provides a way of knowing, understanding and interpreting the world which extends beyond one's own limited experience. It develops a general capacity to apply reason to solve problems, to communicate, to be self-disciplined in application to the task, and to work cooperatively, which are valuable in all walks of life.'

As this implies the potential for empowerment depends not only on the quantity of education but also on its quality. That is, on the nature of education, the curriculum, teaching methods and institutional structures. Many reform efforts such as the Disadvantaged Schools Program (recently abolished by the Commonwealth), the Country Areas Program, and the work of the National Schools Network (recently stripped of Commonwealth funding) have focused on these factors to improve educational outcomes.

Many of the efforts that seek to change conditions in schools so as to enhance the education of socio-economically disadvantaged children and young people have recognised the importance and value of the knowledge, culture and resources which students bring with them to school. It must be acknowledged that '... all families irrespective of their economic wellbeing have powerful knowledge and resources inside them' and this knowledge when brought to school should be used as '...launching pads for future learning' (Heckman 1997: p4).

The type of learning should develop student's ability to produce, what is to them, new knowledge rather than memorising facts, definitions and formulas. Students should be encouraged to strive for an in-depth understanding of relevant knowledge and to express their conclusions by various means. The knowledge produced should have meaning or value external to the school in addition to merely certifying the competence of the student. This type of learning is sometimes called authentic pedagogy or authentic achievement (see, for example, Gunn and King 1996).

The recently completed National Project on Middle Schooling, managed by the Australian Curriculum Studies Association, identified principles of middle schooling which show how these ideas can be implemented.

Principles of Middle Schooling

The following principles are the result of wide consultations through ten Australian Middle Schooling Forums and constitute essential components of middle schooling.

Learner centred Coherent curriculum is focused on the identified needs, interests and concerns of students, and with an emphasis on self directed and co-constructed learning.

Collaboratively organised Powerful pedagogy is employed by teams of teachers who know and understand their students very well, and who challenge and extend them in supportive environments.

Outcome-based Progress and achievement are recorded continuously in relation to explicit statements of what each student is expected to know and be able to do.

Flexibly constructed Arrangements are responsive to local needs and circumstances, and reflect creative uses of time, space and other resources.

Ethically aware Justice, care, respect and a concern for the needs of others are reflected in everyday practice of students, teachers and administrators.

Community oriented Parents, together with representatives from a diverse range of groups, institutions and organisations beyond the school are involved in productive partnerships.

Adequately resourced Experienced teachers and support staff, supported by high quality facilities, technology, equipment and materials, constitute essential requirements.

Strategically linked A discrete phase of schooling is implemented as a stage within a K-12 continuum and connected to the early and later years.

Barratt, R. (1997) p9.

In a community characterised by poverty, low socio-economic standing, with few economic resources, children's and young people's learning should focus on the needs of the community in addition to the elements of authentic achievement. The idea is not new. The socially critical school is one which seeks to improve society through collective action that confronts injustices and the social structures that support them (Beckett 1997). In this way the opportunities are provided for students to develop the skills and understandings of active citizens.

School linked services

The idea of linking agencies providing services to children and young people is not new but is regaining support amongst service providers and policy makers alike, in Australia and overseas. In particular, the idea of collaboration, rather than cooperation or coordination, between schools and agencies is gaining hold. Linking services or collaboration amongst services has been driven by the desire for improved services. For policy makers it brings the prospect of more efficient and effective services. For practitioners it brings the possibility of improving the health and wellbeing of children and young people and hence improving educational outcomes. For children, young people and their families it brings some hope of having to deal with fewer agencies and having their needs met more appropriately. Linking services with schools provides a point of access to children and young people.

The desire to improve services to children and young people often arises in response to a particular issue gaining public attention, such as early school leaving, student homelessness, drug abuse, youth suicide, youth unemployment, or teenage pregnancy (Stokes and Tyler 1997). Alternatively, collaboration between agencies arise because one agency is seen to undo the work of another (Mukherjee et al forthcoming). This is especially true when a number of different agencies are providing services to a child and his or her family. Gardiner (cited in Muirhead 1997) gives the example of Ricardo and his family who are cared for by up to nine different agencies with no single agency taking responsibility for the whole person or the whole family. Hence, collaboration between agencies has the potential to reduce duplication and overlap of service provision. The likelihood of future cost savings may sometimes drive the process for collaboration. This has been referred to as the economic rationalist approach (Stokes and Tyler 1997).

Whatever the motivation for linking services or collaborative action, schools are seen as critical institutions. Attendance at school is compulsory for children and young people aged between six and sixteen years. With the increase in retention in the post compulsory years, the vast majority of children and young people attend school between the ages of five and eighteen. Thus schools provide a captive audienceÕ of children and young people as well as their teachers and parents.

Perhaps more significantly schools provide a site for early intervention. The youth homelessness literature consistently makes the point that young people leave school after they become homeless (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 1989, Chamberlain and MacKenzie 1997, and House of Representatives 1995). The school is one of the few institutions with which young people are in contact before they move into chronic homelessness. Health professionals also identify this early intervention role for schools and teachers (Oberklaid 1997).

Many early intervention interagency approaches focus on the agencies and the professional people who work in them. The following example illustrates this (cited in Muirhead forthcoming):

'Caboolture Interagency Team

To foster interagency partnerships supporting students at risk through: Identifying possible, appropriate services provided by each agency; Identifying points of commonality and overlap, and shared and separate endeavour; Developing a shared philosophy and approach such as the Wraparound Services model, or a local variant of that; Linking and coordinating activities of the various agencies, as much as is useful and practical; Heightening awareness of available support and/or funding from other agencies; Conducting a planned program to educate the client based (schools and community) to participate in the use of a Wraparound Services approach; and Facilitating the sharing of information via case conferencing between workers from various agencies.'

Often children and young people are seen as the subject of treatment or at worst the problem for resolution. In contrast, Stokes and Tyler (1997) have highlighted the need for a clear and consistent social justice agenda in the development of interagency collaborative practices. Such an agenda emphasises equity issues, a concern for the holistic needs of young people, and the empowerment of the participants. In particular, children and young people should be seen as active participants in the decision-making in the establishment and operation of interagency collaborative practices.

The involvement of parents and other members of the community, as well as students, teachers and community workers, in a community development strategy may enhance the process. This idea needs to be taken a step further and links made between linking services and learning activities in the school.

Community Development

State, Territory and Commonwealth governments have, over a number of years, provided resources to communities for various activities. Throughout the seventies and early eighties, in response to community demands, strategies for empowerment were put in place. These strategies were '...about bottom up processes of change and action, about the rights of people to have a say in decisions that affected their lives, about participation, mutual support, collective action, and the demand for resources' (Onyx 1995: p1). While these efforts had their successes, devolving decision making to the community without adequate support is more likely to exacerbate the position of the least well off.

These bottom up strategies were replaced by market driven approaches which first appeared in public policy during the mid to late eighties. Efforts to counter the worst of this dry economic agenda and to promote equity were introduced in the form of social justice strategies. These were more top down approaches to social and educational policy.

While community development strategies are not exactly making a resurgence there is increasing recognition that without building connections with the community top down approaches are ineffectual. In addition, bottom up processes work best when facilitated by central or legislative support (Onyx 1995).

There are many examples of central authorities and communities working together in a new bottom up - top down approach. The New South Wales Department of Housing, through its Neighbourhood Improvement Program, is actively seeking to empower its tenants. This Program established Neighbourhood Advisory Boards which brought together tenants and service providers to:

¥ Provide tenants with a forum to raise wide ranging problems with a number of agencies, not just the Department of Housing;

¥ provide a forum for community decision making on priorities for change and improvement strategies;

¥ provide a vehicle for disseminating information;

¥ provide an opportunity for skilling tenants for active participation; and

¥ establish collaborative problem solving.

(Westacott 1997)

The empowerment of tenants has led to a significant change in priorities for the Department; however, this has not actually increased costs substantially. In fact the Department's suggestion of replacing high rise buildings with medium density housing at an estimated cost of $250 million was rejected by tenants. Their priorities were simple repairs and better assistance to those who needed it - a far more cost effective suggestion.

Many community development projects have not involved schools. Given that education should be about developing the skills and knowledge of citizens and hence an empowering process, the omission of schools is significant. Of course many schools need to change the curriculum, the teaching and learning strategies in the manner described above if they are to become active institutions in the community.

The full service school itself can be considered a community development strategy as it seeks to empower students, their parents, and other community members to take action to improve their lives and communities. Parental participation in schools is essential. This, in turn, can provide an opportunity for school curricula to focus on community concerns and other issues that affect the student's real world.

The following example, from Heckman and Peacock (1995: p50), of elementary school students from Arizona who became involved in developing an after-school program, is illustrative:

'A group of interested students became program planner's, as they figured out how to create an after-school program that met the interests of all the students.

These students decided to conduct a survey to gain input from all students about the types of activities they would want in an after-school program. As social scientist's, the students struggled with questions of how to gather information that truly represents the public opinion. They thought about how they would gather information from children who did not read. They debated the pros and cons of different styles of questions. They discussed the type of information they wanted to gather. They wrote, read, and edited a variety of questions, translating them into Spanish and English. The survey form went through several revisions.

The final survey form included questions about the responding student's age, sex, how the child gets to school, hobbies, whether parents work outside the home, preference for when the program should end each day, and whether the child would attend the program. The survey also included a list of forty-seven possible after-school activities that students had brainstormed. Each respondent was asked to select his or her ten favourite activities.

Teams of student surveyors went to every classroom in the school to gather their data, administering the survey orally to children who could not read. After they collected all their information, they returned to the classroom and faced the next question: How do we analyze the data?

The teacher worked with the students in developing a computer database for the survey information. The children learned how to input the data. As mathematician's and statistician's, they looked at frequencies, averages, and percentages. They discussed what the statistics meant. They wrote up a report of their findings.

The students then revised their survey form and administered is to parents. They were interested in seeing if parents and children had similar views about the types of activities that should be provided in an after-school program. They compared results and found many similarities. They discovered that the program should include music, drama, sports, science, computers and art.

Several of the students presented their findings at a meeting of the coalition. They answered the questions of teachers, parents, and community leaders. The parents, who were writing a grant proposal for a summer school and after-school program, incorporated the student findings in the proposal. The children knew that they had made an important contribution to the design of the program and felt great ownership when the program was finally funded and implemented the following summer and school year. In addition, they further benefited by participation in the activities that they themselves had planned for the extended-day program and summer school.'

In this example, educational benefits derived from the identification of a common issue which brought people together to take action. Teaching and learning practices were changed to facilitate this action. The parents and children saw themselves as making a difference in their community, reinforcing the belief that an education can have positive consequences. These consequences were more than future social and economic advancement of the students but included the community's empowerment that led to the enhancement of that community.

Making it Work

The idea of full service schools promoted by the ACEE encompasses three significant reform movements - school reform, school linked services and community development. While each part can occur separately, as at present, we believe that by bringing them together the total becomes greater than the sum of the parts. Working collaboratively with students, parents, teachers and a range of service providers around issues important to the community has the potential to yield benefits greater than current service provision delineated along traditional lines.

There are many constraints, some of which can be overcome by goodwill but others require flexibility from government authorities. One of the biggest relates to the lack of funding of many schools, health and community agencies. Where funding is tight or short-term, schools and agencies often retreat into their core busines's. Competitive pressures amongst schools, curriculum pressures, bureaucratic arrangements between government departments, and policy and program requirements are all constraining.

Surmounting these constraints may seem overwhelming for schools and their communities. Progress may be gradual. It is important to take steps and to reflect on where these are heading in a continuous cycle of improvement.

It is just this approach that the ACEE has adopted for working with five school and communities in four states. In a project funded by the Australian Youth Foundation, the ACEE is working with schools and communities to develop five different pilot projects, in urban and rural areas that will create opportunities for young people to have access to a greater range of resources at school. These pilot projects aim to:

¥ Impact upon the organisation and curriculum of the schools involved.

¥ Consult extensively with young people in each of the schools. Each Pilot will attempt to incorporate needs of young people who will participate in the project.

¥ Liaise with community representatives and utilise community facilities to forge a link between schools and their broader community.

Each pilot project will continuously evaluate and reflect on the project as it proceeds with the assistance of an external evaluation consultant and the ACEE. A reporting and evaluation framework is being developed to enable the participants to maintain an ongoing record of the development of their project as well as providing for an evaluation of the whole project.

In undertaking these projects we hope to be able to engage with students, parents, teachers, principals, health professionals, community workers and policy makers to take some initial steps towards full service schools. In taking these steps we will gather information about the key features of each project particularly those that will underpin the transfer of the approach to other sites. The information gathered will be used to influence policies at a state and national level as well as to assist schools and communities to develop their own strategies leading towards full service schools.

References

Barratt, R. (1997) 'Principles of Middle Schooling' mimeo, Australian Curriculum Studies Association.

Beckett, L. (forthcoming) in Making it Work: The next steps, Australian Centre for Equity through Education, Sydney.

Boss, P., Edwards, S. & Pitman, S. (Eds) (1995) Profile of Young Australians, Churchill Livingstone, Melbourne.

House of Representatives (1995) Report on Aspects of Youth Homelessness, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1989) Our Homeless Children: Report of the National Inquiry into Homeless Children, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Chamberlain, C. & MacKenzie, D. (1997) 'School Students at Risk' in School and Community Action for Full Service Schools: Making It Work, Australian Centre for Equity through Education, Sydney.

Connell, R.W. (1995) 'Equity through Education' in Equity through Education: Directions for Action, Australian Centre for Equity through Education, Sydney.

Connell, R.W., Johnston, K.M. & White, V.M. (1991) 'Rethinking the relationship between poverty and education' in Connell, R.W., White, V.M. & Johnston, K.M.(Eds) Running Twice as Hard: The Disadvantaged Schools Program in Australia, Deakin University Press, Geelong.

Connell, R.W. and White V.M.(1989) 'Child Poverty and Educational Action' in Edgar, D., Keane, D. & McDonald (eds) Child Poverty, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Doran, S. (1995) 'Role Play: The script for educational equity has a part for everyone' in Equity through Education: Directions for Action, Australian Centre for Equity through Education, Sydney.

Dryfoos, J. G. (1994) Full-Service Schools: A Revolution in Health and Social Services for Children, Youth and Families, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Gunn J. & King, B. (1996) 'Authentic pedagogy and achievement in school restructuring' in Reform Agendas Conference: Making Education Work, National Schools Network, Sydney.

Heckman, P. (1997) 'Connecting Schools and Communities through Educational Reinvention' in School and Community Action for Full Service Schools: Making It Work, Australian Centre for Equity through Education, Sydney.

Heckman, P.E. & Peacock, J.M. (1995) 'Joining Schools and Families in Community Change: A Context for Student Learning and Development' in New Schools, New Communities, Vol.12 No. 1, pp. 46-51.

Marginson, S. (1997) Educating Australia: Government, Economy and Citizen Since 1960, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.

Masters, G.N. & Forster, M. (1997) Mapping Literacy Achievement: Results of the 1996 National School English Literacy Survey, Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (1997) National Report on Schooling in Australia, 1995, Curriculum Corporation, Carlton.

Muirhead, B. (1997) 'Frameworks, collaboration and Ricardo: improving support for students through interagency links' in School and Community Action for Full Service Schools: Making It Work, Australian Centre for Equity through Education, Sydney.

Muirhead, B. (forthcoming) in Making it Work: The next steps, Australian Centre for Equity through Education, Sydney.

Mukherjee, D. (1995) The Relationship between Socio-economic Background and Participation in Education: Abstracts of Studies, Australian Centre for Equity through Education, Sydney.

Mukherjee, D. (1996) Regional Inequalities - Income, Occupation and Education: Mapping the geographic locations of high income, high status occupation and outcomes from education, Australian Centre for Equity through Education, Sydney.

Mukherjee, D., Stokes, H. & Holdsworth, R. (forthcoming) The Nature of Health Service-School Links in Australia, Australian Health Promoting Schools Association.

Oberklaid, F. (1997) 'A Health Perspective' in School and Community Action for Full Service Schools: Making It Work, Australian Centre for Equity through Education, Sydney.

Onyx, J. (1995) Community Development: New Futures, Paper presented to Australian Council of Social Service Congress, Sydney.

Orr, E. (1994) Australia's Literacy Challenge, The Smith Family, Sydney

Stokes, H. and Tyler, D. (1997) Rethinking Inter-Agency Collaboration and Young People, Language Australia and Youth Research Centre, Victoria.

Thomson, P. (forthcoming) in Making it Work: The next steps, Australian Centre for Equity through Education, Sydney.

Richardson, S. (1995) 'Education and Social Justice' in Efficiency and Equity in Education Policy, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Westacott, J. (1997) 'Creating Viable Harmonious Communities through Improved Regional and Local Planning' in School and Community Action for Full Service Schools: Making It Work, Australian Centre for Equity through Education, Sydney.

Williams, T., Long, M., Carpenter, P. & Hayden, M. (1993) Entering Higher Education in the 1980s, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.