Schools as Communitv Centers for Rebuilding Communi6 Pat K Edwards and Duane R. Brown

Of all the resources that I have mentioned for building community, why focus on the schools? There are several reasons. First, there is no more dependable stimulus for community building than a common task - some objective that can be achieved if diverse elements join in shared action. And there is hardly any common task more deeply rooted in the nation’s soul than the future of our children. Second, the schools are dependably present in every American community and represent the one institution through which all must pass. And finally, creating a sense of com- munity must begin virtually at birth - and after the crucial infant and toddler years, school is a vitally important early experi- ence.

As someone said, “Children are our best known source of adults,” so the first step in building community is the nurture and development of children who will grow into community-building adults.

- John Cardner

an schools play a major role in the rebuilding of C American communities? Yes! Should schools play a major role? That decision has yet to be made.

One of the admirable and most productive thrusts of our government in the United States has been, and con- tinues to be, its commitment to an egalitarian, educative society. A society that is knowledgeable, involved and caring remains the heart and soul of our democratic government and our related freedom.

Schools were established soon after the founding of this country for the purpose of preparing people to lead a fulfilling life for themselves, while at the same time

contributing to the “common good” - betterment of society as a whole. Today’s schools have the same fun- damental responsibility, but this responsibility is not always recognized - or recognizable - by the stu- dents attending or by the educators conducting them. This lack of recognition is not necessarily the fault of the people involved. It is more. the result of society’s lack of clarity as to what the fundamental charge of the public school is. The fundamental charge becomes shrouded by the comprehensiveness and complexity of schools as they have rapidly evolved through the years.

This is not to say that comprehensiveness is bad. For with compulsory attendance laws and the diverse popu- lation served in a pluralistic society such as ours, abili- ties and needs are many, and should be met. However, despite this and the complexities that develop because of various laws, regulations, mandates and such, a focus must be established and made known.

The confusion of role and purpose is not confined to just schools. It has counterparts in both the home and community. The American home has evolved into an often confused and drifting role. Security and direction once offered by the home is frequently missing in part or in total. They are repeatedly lost to such factors as economic chaos, work, and home mobility. The result is that a secure “place called home” is seldom estab- lished or, if it is, it becomes unstabilized by the separa- tion of key individuals - such as motherlfather - by work or divorce. What security there is frequently comes in the form of economic security or emotional security, but both too infrequently. Direction for house- hold members (including students) is often minimal. The more people get involved in themselves and their problems, the more difficult in-depth, meaningful involvement with others becomes. Thus when forces such as these are at work, it is difficult for people with

48 WM&R 1996, VOL.~~, No 4

NATIOM Cnic REVEB - little direction themselves to give thought to their responsibility of contributing and giving direction and support to such institutions as schools.

As a result of society’s “inward’ turn, where people search for solutions to their problems, the concept and feeling of community has been diminished. Too often, community is seen demographically, rather than dynam- ically, as a viable place which exists as the result of com- mon interests and needs. Thus instead of perceiving the home as an integral part of community, it is often per- ceived as separate; as a refuge from the community at large. Often the things seen as community in nature are viewed in opposition to the home. Institutions such as city hall, schools, police, social agencies and others become negatives in the eyes of many citizens. Similarly, community improvements, such as sewer and water, transportation, and school additions - instead of being envisioned as complements to the home and the individ- uals living in the home - are often viewed in opposi- tion to the home.

Therefore, with these two major institutions - the school and the home - in various stages of disarray, a need to come together in community is self-evident. But how can this happen? Who takes the lead? We strongly suggest the schools.

Although much has been written about the deplorable state of public education in the United States, what institution is in a better position to serve as a cata- lyst in the redevelopment of community?

As valid - or invalid - as the cry for educational reform is, perhaps it is the wrong cry. Is it not more log- ical to seek the reform of communities in which schools exist and allow all else to follow? In one state, schools are given a state report card based on standardized test- ing. Those schools getting low grades are being threat- ened by a reduction in state aid or even a takeover. Where are those schools located? Usually in low income areas. These are very often the ones in which the edu- cators are faced with daily problems and even danger. They are often the ones where everyone is working the

hardest with the least results - academically speaking. As long as inequities exist in the greater community, inequities will exist in the classroom, and less than sat- isfactory academic and social results will emerge.

We cannot expect good schools to exist in substan- dard communities. Yes, occasionally good results are found in a few schools located in poor communities. Usually, however, these are pilot projects that are special- ly staffed and financed. Even if the projects are replica- ble, they are not financially feasible or the necessary lead- ership and energy is not forthcoming. As one person said, “the road to hell is paved with pilot projects.”

If we are seeking real pervasive reform, it is impera- tive to acknowledge that school reform is inseparably intertwined with community reform. This means that ultimately schools may have no other choice than to take the lead and become community builders.

’ho things are required for this to take place. 1) A vision or concept that sees community-building as a legit- imate role for schools. 2) New leadership, from both inside and outside the schools, that not only allows this to happen, but also promotes and supports such efforts.

VISION The new vision for schools is to see them as the phys-

ical centers of the community. After all, they exist in nearly every community They are owned and governed by the public. They represent the largest public dollar investment. They are a tangible place through which most people pass in their lives. They host vast physical and human resources of great strength and variety.

Schools need to be perceived as places that people of all ages use day and night, year around for purposes determined by community advisory groups that repre- sent each of the many segments of the schools’ commu- nities. They need to be the rallying point for communi- ty building.

And community building efforts should be done in collaboration with other community agencies and insti-

WINTER I996 V O L . ~ ~ , No. 4 rn 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ... .................... ................... .. .. .......

tutions. In short, the schools should be the place where academic, social and recreational needs of community people are met.

If institutionalizing is to be effective however’

and sensitive become

and responsive to needs‘

By transforming this vision into reality, a “sense of community” can be reborn in thousands of places in America.

begin what became as a ,,communi- ty school” - a school that opened its doors and facilities to embrace the com- munity’s wants and needs. From a single community school setting in 1935 in Flint, Michigan and with the help of Mott

LEADERSHIP

’ Foundation community education support, the community school idea has been implemented in tens of thousands of schools throughout North America and in many other parts of the world. Over time, other

Certainly leadership must embrace the visioned con- cept of schools and give true support to its ful6Ument. This means the new goals of the schools must be articu- lated throughout the school and community in an ener- getic, relentless, ongoing manner. Many behaviors must change to accommodate the manifestation of the new vision. Resource priorities may have to be realigned to give the human, physical, and financial support neces- sary for this concept to succeed.

Also the leadership must be facilitative in nature, so that other leaders can develop and emerge as situations dictate. No longer will the one way, top down model suf- fice if true community is to form. Nor can the develop- ment of young leaders (students) be overlooked if this movement is to be sustained.

Part of the leadership role will require the develop- ment of firm policies and procedures that conf~rm the vision of the schools as centers of communities. This w d institutionalize the concept and help perpetuate and sustain these efforts. If this institutionalizing is to be effective however, schools must become and remain sen- sitive and responsive to community needs. This is a role of leadership.

If leadership fully embraces the new school vision and allows thmgs to happen, the desired mutual benefit sought between schools and communities wdl be realized.

SOME RESULTS: COMMUNITY SCHOOS

Sixty years ago in Flint, Michigan, Mr. Charles Stewart Mott and Mr. Frank Manley combined their resources to

funding sources and agencies have become involved and today almost every school in the United States is practic- ing some form of community school partnership.

Birmingham, Alabama Community schools in Birmingham, Alabama repre-

sent the epitome of citizen empowerment involving six key stakeholders - children, parents, and family mem- bers; administrators and board members; community agencies and religious groups; business and government - as partners on mandated representative advisory councils. Their focus is on the coordination of available resources to senice the needs and interests of local citi- zens from pre-school through senior citizens. Peggy Sparks, Birmingham Public Schools Community Education Coordinator, explains, “we plan with people, not for them, and the community shares a genuine sense of program ownership.”

New York City The Rheedlin Centers for Children and Families in

New York City have developed 18 community schools providing programs 12 hours a day, 365 days a year, to children and families in Central Harlem and other dev- astated New York City communities. These schools are pioneering new paths to neighborhood revitalization through a comprehensive school-based youth and fami- ly development program called Beacons. Managed by non-profit community-based organizations, the Beacons provide a full array of social services; recreational, edu- cational, and vocational activities; and venues for com- munity meetings and social activities. “Community empowerment means an organized Community, a com- munity that can determine its priorities and fight for

50 Wmm 1996, Voi.85, No 4

them. The mission of the community school is to build a community that strengthens families, offers personal support to the young, and provides opportunities for them to develop much-needed social, cognitive, and vocational skills,” states Geoffrey Canada, author of Fist, Stick, Kn@, Gun and PresidenVCEO of Rheedlin.

Tucson, Arizona The Educational and Community Change (ECC)

Project started in one elementary school serving a low- income neighborhood in ’hcson, Arizona in 1990 and has spread to several schools. The Project was designed to encourage primarily teachers and the principal to examine and reinvent their underlying beliefs and actions about how students learn - and consequently, how teachers teach. It started in the classroom and quickly reached the community when teachers realized that students were coming to school “rich in knowl- edge” about lots of things they learned from their strong families and community. What happened very quickly, and without specilk vision, was the forming of a “com- munity school” - a seamless education ecology and community environment.

As a result, students and their parents have learned about and exercised their community rights. Parents successfully sought actions from the city council to con- demn and tear down a “crack house” across the street from the school. A city-lot on the tax rolls and piled high with trash, was given to the school after the elementary students appeared at a city council meeting, the students built an environmental park on the lot, and the commu- nity parents group testified at a state government hearing resulting in the closing of several bars in the area. Paul Heckman, director of the ECC project, says, “democrat- ic citizenship is hgde. It requires ongoing attention. Community education has always promoted active citi- zenship. Yet, the institutions that promote this citizen- ship have to further reinvent what it is and what knowl- edge and skills are necessary, especially when so many

people who are poor and of color appear disenfran- chised from many of the existing configurations of edu- cation. Community education has the potential to recre- ate the involvement of citizens, including the children who attend public schools.”

These are but three examples of what can happen when schools open their doors to the community, enabling all community citizens to become involved and to utilize the resources of their schools. When leaders from the com- munity and the educational institutions share a common vision of rebuilding community, there can be astounding results and endless possibilities.

REFERENCES:

Brown, Duane R., 1 9 5 : The Role of the School in the Community and Home”, Unpublished Paper.

Canada, Geoff, 1996: “The Beacons - Building Healthy Communities” The Community Education Journal. Volume 23, Number 3, Spring 1996, p. 17.

Gardner, John W., 1996: “School and Community” The Community Education Journal. Volume 23, Numbers 112, Fall 1995Ninter 1996, p. 8.

Heckman, Paul E., 1996: “The Educational and Community Change Project and Community Education” The Community Education Journal. Volume 23, Number 3, Spring 1996, p. 27.

Sparks, Peggy F., 1996: “Community Schools - The Birmingham Alabama Way” The Community Education Journal. Volume 23, Number 3, Spring 1996, p. 19.

WINTER 19%, VOL.~~, No. 4 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . .