Community Schools Effective REPORT

Community Schools as an Effective
School Improvement Strategy:

A Review of the Evidence
Anna Maier, Julia Daniel, Jeannie Oakes, and Livia Lam
DECEMBER 2017
Community Schools
as an Effective School
Improvement Strategy
A Review of the Evidence
Anna Maier, Julia Daniel, Jeannie Oakes, and Livia Lam

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank David Kirp for his thoughtful contributions to this report, along
with Reuben Jacobson, John Rogers, Russell Rumberger, Michelle Renee Valladares, and Kevin
Welner for their feedback on earlier drafts. In addition, thanks to Naomi Spinrad, Bulletproof
Services, Gretchen Wright, and Aaron Reeves for their editing and design contributions to this
project, and Lisa Gonzales for overseeing the editorial and production processes. Without their
generosity of time and spirit, this work would not have been possible.
This research review was made possible in part by funding to the National Education Policy Center
from the Ford Foundation. Core operating support for the Learning Policy Institute is provided by
the Sandler Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the Ford Foundation. This
work does not necessarily represent the views of these funders.
External Reviewers
This report benefited from the insights and expertise of two external reviewers: Jon Snyder,
Executive Director of Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education; and Tina Trujillo,
Associate Professor at the University of California at Berkeley’s Graduate School of Education and
Faculty Director of the Principal Leadership Institute. We thank them for the care and attention
they gave the report; any shortcomings remain our own.
The appropriate citation for this report is: Maier, A., Daniel, J., Oakes, J., & Lam, L. (2017).
Community schools as an effective school improvement strategy: A review of the evidence. Palo Alto, CA:
Learning Policy Institute.
This report can be found online at https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/

community-schools-effective-school-improvement-report.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY

Table of Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................. v
1. Why Community Schools?...................................................................................................................1

Unequal Access to High-Quality Schools........................................................................................3
Out-of-School Barriers to Learning..................................................................................................3
Community Schools as a Response to Poverty and Inequality.......................................................4
The Federal Commitment to Educational Equity.............................................................................6
ESSA Offers New Opportunities to Support Community Schools ..................................................6
Our Approach to Assessing the Evidence Base........................................................................... 10
2. Community Schools: Creating Schools Where Students Learn and Thrive............................... 12

A Diverse Approach With Common Pillars.................................................................................... 12
Community School Pillars Support Effective Conditions and Practices...................................... 13
3. Evidence About Pillar 1: Integrated Student Supports................................................................. 19

What Are Integrated Student Supports?...................................................................................... 19
Integrated Student Supports as a Core Feature of Community Schools..................................... 21
The General Impact of Integrated Student Supports Outside of Education Settings.................. 23
The Impact of Integrated Student Supports in Community Schools............................................ 26
Effectively Implementing Integrated Student Supports............................................................... 35
4. Evidence About Pillar 2: Expanded Learning Time and Opportunities....................................... 36

Expanded Learning Time and Opportunities as a Core Feature of Community Schools............. 38
The General Impact of Expanded Learning Time and Opportunities.......................................... 40
The Impact of Expanded Learning Time and Opportunities in Community Schools................... 47
Effectively Implementing Expanded Learning Time and Opportunities....................................... 49
5. Evidence About Pillar 3: Family and Community Engagement.................................................. 52

Family and Community Engagement as a Core Feature of Community Schools......................... 54
The General Impact of Family and Community Engagement....................................................... 55
The Impact of Various Forms of Family and Community Engagement........................................ 56
The Impact of Family and Community Engagement in Community Schools ............................... 62
Effectively Implementing Family and Community Engagement Strategies.................................. 63
6. Evidence About Pillar 4: Collaborative Leadership and Practice................................................ 65

Collaborative Leadership and Practice as a Core Feature of Community Schools .................... 67
The General Impact of Collaborative Leadership and Practice................................................... 70
The Impact of Collaboratie Leadership and Practice on Conditions Thought to
Produce Positive Student Outcomes....................................................................................... 73
The Impact of Collaborative Leadership and Practice in Community Schools............................ 74
Effectively Implementing Collaborative Leadership and Practice Strategies.............................. 76
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY

7. Pulling It All Together: Research on Comprehensive Community Schools............................... 78
Community Schools Research Focuses on Multiple Student Outcomes..................................... 79
Evaluation Research on Local Community School Initiatives...................................................... 81
Effectively Implementing Comprehensive Community Schools................................................... 93
Addressing Out-of-School Barriers and Reducing Opportunity and Achievement Gaps.............. 97
Cost-Benefit Findings................................................................................................................... 99
8. Findings and Lessons for Policy and Implementation...............................................................104

Findings......................................................................................................................................104
Research-Based Lessons for Policy Development and Implementation...................................110
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................113
Appendix: Assessing the Evidence Base...........................................................................................114

Literature Search Procedures....................................................................................................114
Inclusion Criteria........................................................................................................................117
Review Procedure......................................................................................................................118
Endnotes................................................................................................................................................121
About the Authors................................................................................................................................149
Tables and Figure

Table 1: ESSA’s Definition of “Evidence-Based Interventions”......................................................9
Table 2: Overview of Student and School Outcome Studies Reviewed....................................... 11
Table 3: The Community School Pillars Correspond With Characteristics of
High-Quality Schools...................................................................................................... 16
Table 4: Summary of Cost-Benefit Studies for Community School Initiatives...........................102
Table 5: Summary of Comprehensive Results...........................................................................109
Table A1: Literature Resources...................................................................................................115
Table A2: Key Search Terms........................................................................................................116
Table A3 Overview of Student and School Outcome Studies Reviewed.....................................118
Table A4: ESSA’s Definition of “Evidence-Based Interventions”.................................................119
Figure 1: What the Four Pillars of Community Schools Look Like in Action.................................. 17
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY iv

Executive Summary
Increasing economic inequality and residential segregation have triggered a resurgence of

interest in community schools—a century-old approach to making schools places where children
can learn and thrive, even in under-resourced and underserved neighborhoods. This report
synthesizes the research evidence about the impact of community schools on student and school
outcomes. Its aim is to support and inform school, community, district, and state leaders as they
consider, propose, or implement community schools as a strategy for providing equitable, high-
quality education to all young people.
Community schools represent a place-based strategy in which schools partner with community
agencies and allocate resources to provide an “integrated focus on academics, health and social
services, youth and community development, and community engagement.”1 Many operate on an
all-day and year-round schedules, and serve both children and adults. Although this strategy is
appropriate for students of all backgrounds, many community schools arise in neighborhoods where
structural forces linked to racism and poverty shape the experiences of young people and erect
barriers to learning and school success. These are communities where families have few resources to
supplement what typical schools provide.
Community schools vary in the programs they offer and the ways they operate, depending on their
local context. However, four features—or pillars—appear in most community schools and support
the conditions for teaching and learning found in high-quality schools.
1. Integrated student supports

2. Expanded learning time and opportunities
3. Family and community engagement
4. Collaborative leadership and practice
This report examines 143 research studies on each of the four community school pillars, along
with evaluation studies of community schools as a comprehensive strategy. In each area, the
report synthesizes high-quality studies that use a range of research methods, drawing conclusions
about the findings that warrant confidence while also pointing to areas in which the research is
inconclusive. In addition, we assess whether the research base justifies the use of well-designed
community schools as an “evidence-based” intervention under the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) in schools targeted for comprehensive support.
Findings
We conclude that well-implemented community schools lead to improvement in student and school
outcomes and contribute to meeting the educational needs of low-achieving students in high-
poverty schools. Strong research reinforces the efficacy of integrated student supports, expanded
learning time and opportunities, and family and community engagement as intervention strategies.
Promising evidence supports the positive impact of the type of collaborative leadership and practice
found in community schools, although little of this research has been done in community schools.
The research base examining the “full service” community schools model that includes most or
all of the four pillars is newer, more limited in size, and consists primarily of evaluation studies
of particular sites. But here, too, the evidence from well-designed studies is promising. Ample
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY v

evidence is available to inform and guide policymakers, educators, and advocates interested in
advancing community schools, and sufficient research exists to meet the ESSA standard for an
evidence-based intervention.
Specifically, our analyses produced 12 findings:
Finding 1. The evidence base on community schools and their pillars justifies the use of community
schools as a school improvement strategy that helps children succeed academically and prepare for
full and productive lives.
Finding 2. Sufficient evidence exists to qualify the community schools approach as an evidence-
based intervention under ESSA (i.e., a program or intervention must have at least one well-designed
study that fits into its four-tier definition of evidence).
Finding 3. The evidence base provides a strong warrant for using community schools to meet
the needs of low-achieving students in high-poverty schools and to help close opportunity and
achievement gaps for students from low-income families, students of color, English learners, and
students with disabilities.
Finding 4. The four key pillars of community schools promote conditions and practices found in
high-quality schools and address out-of-school barriers to learning.
Finding 5. The integrated student supports provided by community schools are associated with
positive student outcomes. Young people receiving such supports, including counseling, medical
care, dental services, and transportation assistance, often show significant improvements in
attendance, behavior, social functioning, and academic achievement.
Finding 6. Thoughtfully designed expanded learning time and opportunities provided by

community schools—such as longer school days and academically rich and engaging after-school,
weekend, and summer programs—are associated with positive academic and nonacademic
outcomes, including improvements in student attendance, behavior, and academic achievement.
Notably, the best-designed studies show the strongest positive effects.
Finding 7. The meaningful family and community engagement found in community schools is
associated with positive student outcomes, such as reduced absenteeism, improved academic
outcomes, and student reports of more positive school climates. Additionally, this engagement can
increase trust among students, parents, and staff, which has positive effects on student outcomes.
Finding 8. The collaborative leadership, practice, and relationships found in community schools
can create the conditions necessary to improve student learning and well-being, as well as improve
relationships within and beyond the school walls. The development of social capital and teacher-
peer learning appear to be the factors that explain the link between collaboration and better
student achievement.
Finding 9. Comprehensive community school interventions have a positive impact, with

programs in many different locations showing improvements in student outcomes, including
attendance, academic achievement, high school graduation rates, and reduced racial and economic
achievement gaps.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY vi

Finding 10. Effective implementation and sufficient exposure to services increase the success of a
community schools approach, with research showing that longer operating and better implemented
programs yield more positive results for students and schools.
Finding 11. Existing cost-benefit research suggests an excellent return on investment of up to $15
in social value and economic benefits for every dollar spent on school-based wraparound services.
Finding 12. The evidence base on comprehensive community schools can be strengthened
by well-designed evaluations that pay close attention to the nature of the services and their
implementation.
Research-Based Lessons for Policy Development and Implementation

Community school strategies hold considerable promise for creating good schools for all students,
but especially for those living in poverty. This is of particular relevance in the face of growing
achievement and opportunity gaps at a moment in which the nation faces a decentralization
of decision making about the use of federal dollars. State and local policymakers can specify
community schools as part of ESSA Title I set-aside school improvement plans and in proposals for
grants under Title IV. If a state or district lacks the resources to implement community schools at
scale, it can productively begin in neighborhoods where community schools are most needed and,
therefore, students are most likely to benefit.
Based on our analysis of this evidence, we identify 10 research-based lessons for guiding policy
development and implementation.
Lesson 1. Integrated student supports, expanded learning time and opportunities, family and
community engagement, and collaborative leadership practices appear to reinforce each other.
A comprehensive approach that brings all of these factors together requires changes to existing
structures, practices, and partnerships at school sites.
Lesson 2. In cases where a strong program model exists for one or more of the pillars,
implementation fidelity matters. Evidence suggests that results are much stronger when programs
with clearly defined elements and structures are implemented consistently across different sites.
Lesson 3. For expanded learning time and opportunities, student access to services and the way
time is used make a difference. Students who participate for longer hours or a more extended period
receive the most benefit, as do those attending programs that offer activities that are engaging, well
aligned with the instructional day (i.e., not just homework help, but content to enrich classroom
learning), and that address whole-child interests and needs (i.e., not just academics).
Lesson 4. Students can benefit when schools offer a spectrum of engagement opportunities for
families, ranging from providing information on how to support student learning at home and
volunteer at school, to welcoming parents involved with community organizations that seek to
influence local education policy. Such engagement can help establish trusting relationships that
build upon community-based competencies and support culturally relevant learning opportunities.
Lesson 5. Collaboration and shared decision making matter in the community schools approach.
That is, community schools are stronger when they develop a variety of structures and practices
(e.g., leadership and planning committees, professional learning communities) that bring educators,
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY vii
partner organizations, parents, and students together as decision makers in development,
governance, and improvement of school programs.
Lesson 6. Strong implementation requires attention to all pillars of the community schools
approach and to their placement at the center of the school. Community schools benefit from
maintaining a strong academic improvement focus, and students benefit from schools that offer
more intense or sustained services. Implementation is most effective when data are used in an
ongoing process of continuous program evaluation and improvement and when sufficient time is
allowed for the strategy to fully mature.
Lesson 7. Educators and policymakers embarking on a community schools approach can benefit from
a framework that focuses both on creating school conditions and practices characteristic of high-
performing schools and on ameliorating out-of-school barriers to teaching and learning. Doing so will
position them to improve outcomes in neighborhoods facing poverty and isolation.
Lesson 8. Successful community schools do not all look alike. Therefore, effective plans for
comprehensive place-based initiatives leverage the four pillars in ways that target local assets and
needs. These plans also recognize that programming may need to modified over time in response to
changes in the school and community.
Lesson 9. Strong community school evaluation studies provide information about progress
toward hoped-for outcomes, the quality of implementation, and students’ exposure to services
and opportunities. Quantitative evaluations would benefit from including carefully designed
comparison groups and statistical controls, and evaluation reports would benefit from including
detailed descriptions of their methodology and the designs of the programs. Policymakers and
educators could also benefit from evaluation studies that supplement findings about the impact of
community schools on student outcomes with findings about their impact on neighborhoods.
Lesson 10. The field would benefit from additional academic research that uses rigorous
quantitative and qualitative methods to study both comprehensive community schools and the
four pillars. Research could focus on the impact of community schools on student, school, and
community outcomes, as well as seek to guide implementation and refinement, particularly in
low-income, racially isolated communities.
Although we call for additional research and stronger evaluation, evidence in the current empirical
literature shows what is working now. The research on the four pillars of community schools and
the evaluations of comprehensive interventions, for example, shine a light on how these strategies
can improve educational practices and conditions and support student academic success and social,
emotional, and physical health.
As states, districts, and schools consider improvement strategies, they can be confident that the
best available evidence demonstrates that the community school approach offers a promising
foundation for progress.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY viii
Chapter 1. Why Community Schools?
Americans want, need, and deserve schools for all children that make meaningful learning and well-
rounded development their first priority; that provide the resources, opportunities, and support
that make such learning and development a reality for every student; that are staffed by educators
who have the knowledge and skills to teach all children well; that build trusting relationships
between teachers and students; and that create strong ties among parents, students, schools and
communities.
Study after study confirms what we all know: Such schools make a difference in the lives of children
and in the health of our society. Although there is no doubt that every student would be better off
attending a school with the attributes described above, children from low-income families see the
biggest benefit. Unfortunately, these are the very families who are most often denied this kind of
education.2 Citing research, the United States Department of Education (ED) declared in a 2014
letter to states and districts, “high-quality schools can make a dramatic difference in children’s
lives, closing achievement gaps and providing students with the opportunity to learn and succeed in
college and their chosen careers.”3
Community schools bring educators and community partners together to create high-quality
schools with an integrated approach to academics, health and social services, youth and community
development, and community engagement. They employ a more than century-old strategy for
strengthening struggling communities and helping young people thrive. Today’s increasing
economic inequality and residential segregation have triggered a resurgence of interest in
community schools.
In this report, we assess the evidence base regarding the efficacy of the community schools
approach as a lever for creating good schools and advancing educational equity for children living
in underserved neighborhoods. In what follows we:
• summarize the inequalities in and out of school that constrain teaching and learning in
communities facing concentrated poverty and racial isolation (Chapter 1);
• explain the new opportunities that the current policy context (including increased interest
at the state and local levels and in the federal ESSA legislation) provides to support
community schools (Chapter 1);
• describe the community schools approach, emphasizing how its core features support
educators and community partners to develop school conditions and practices proven to be
effective for helping children develop and learn (Chapter 2);
• review the research about community schools and their core features, or pillars, to assess
the effectiveness of the community schools strategy, using the ESSA definition of evidence-
based interventions as one lens for analysis (Chapters 3–7); and
• summarize findings across the research, and provide research-based recommendations to
guide the implementation of community schools in ways that will maximize their positive
impact (Chapter 8).
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY 1

Oakland International High School: A Community School in Action
At Oakland International High School, approximately 29% of students—virtually all of whom are recent
immigrants—arrived in the United States as unaccompanied minors. Some have lost family members to
violence; some come to school hungry; some face risks simply getting to and from school. All are English
learners, and most live in poverty. Across the country, most students like them experience limited learning
opportunities and barriers to success at school. But Oakland International students thrive at surprisingly high
rates. Two thirds of those surveyed in 2015–16 said they are “happy at school,” compared to just over half of
other Oakland high school students.
Why the difference? Oakland International High School is a community school. As such, it has an integrated
focus on academics, health and social services, youth development, and family/community engagement.
For example, the school directly addresses the out-of-school barriers to learning faced by recently arrived
immigrant students. These young people are adjusting to a new life in the United States and, in many cases,
processing the traumatic circumstances that caused them to flee their home countries. Available supports
include free legal representation to students facing deportation, after-school tutoring, English as a second
language (ESL) classes for parents (provided by the nonprofit Refugee Transitions), mental health and
mentoring services at the school wellness center, medical services at a nearby high school health clinic, and an
after-school and weekend sports program run by Soccer Without Borders.
As students’ physical and mental well-being is supported, so is their learning. As a core part of Oakland
International High School’s academic studies, students work all year developing a portfolio around topics
relevant to them. They develop artifacts to share their academic findings with audiences of peers, teachers,
family members, and community members. The portfolio project enables students to develop advanced
academic skills and demonstrate what they have learned in more meaningful ways than on a single test. When
presenting, they practice their English skills, showcase and reflect on what they have learned, and answer
audience questions. Their work is graded with rubrics, and students have multiple opportunities for revision.
To engage families as partners, Oakland International teachers and community school staff conduct at
least two home visits each year to develop relationships with families, and they encourage and support
parent participation on school teams that develop programs and determine budgets. Staff also participate
in immersive “community walks” designed by parents, students, and community leaders in which they visit
important landmarks and meet with community leaders and families.
Community members are part of the Community School Advisory Committee (the site leadership team) and
the Coordination of Services Team (the primary link between students and community partners), which help
determine the best supports for students and families. Team members review student attendance and other
data sources each week to determine which students would benefit from case management, home visits, or
other interventions. Valuing the knowledge and engagement of families and community members infuses the
school climate with trusting relationships that support student learning and well-being.
Careful internal tracking of the 5-year graduation rate for the class of 2015 shows a 72% success rate—high
for this extremely vulnerable population (the figure includes nontraditional paths, such as completing credits
at adult school or proceeding directly to community college and earning an associate degree). The school also
does a remarkable job of preparing and sending students to college. More than half of Oakland International’s
2014–15 graduating students (51%) took and passed the rigorous A–G courses required for admission
to California state universities, compared to 24% of their English learner peers districtwide and 46% of all
Oakland Unified School District students. In addition, college enrollment rates for Oakland International
students reached 68% by 2014, outperforming the 2009 state average of 52% for English learners (the most
recent statewide data available. These are internal data drawn from the Western Association of Schools and
Colleges, or WASC, accreditation review process. Oakland International is a WASC-accredited institution.
In short, Oakland International High School addresses learning barriers outside of school, and it provides
challenging and engaging learning opportunities through a collaborative process involving students, teachers,
families, and community members. It has become a place where students learn and thrive. Oakland
International is just one of many community schools across the United States that has found a way to become
a true hub for the community it serves and to provide students, parents, and staff with the support they need
to be successful.
Source: Coalition for Community Schools. (2017) School Award Profiles, online at http://www.communityschools.org/2017_
Awardees/; Maier, A. & Levin-Guracar, E. (n.d.) Performance assessment profile: Oakland International High School. Palo
Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute; Unpublished contextual information supplied by the school.

Unequal Access to High-Quality Schools
Over the past decades a growing body of research has identified the characteristics of schools
where all children learn and thrive. Such schools are valued in all communities.4 Nevertheless,
children living in predominantly middle class, White neighborhoods are far more likely than other
children to have access to them. Advantaged neighborhoods have higher local tax bases with which
to finance high-quality schools.5 They also benefit more from community-based and private out-
of-school learning opportunities—activities that supplement what schools provide. They are more
likely to have the resources and support systems to help children grapple with out-of-school factors
that may otherwise impede their learning. Although few schools in any community provide the full
range of social-emotional learning and nurturing/high expectations environments that children
need, middle-class parents and communities can supplement what schools provide with resources
and supports outside of school.
Today, more than half of the nation’s school

children—approximately 25 million—live in low- More than half of the nation’s
income households, the highest proportion since school children—approximately
this statistic became available in the 1960s.6
Increasingly, they are living in neighborhoods of 25 million—live in low-income
concentrated disadvantage, racial isolation, and households and are often locked
uneven education spending. Bearing the brunt out of schools with high-quality
of long-term disinvestment, these children are
often locked out of schools with high-quality curriculum, instruction, supports,
curriculum, instruction, supports, and facilities.7
and facilities.
Recent decades of state budget cuts to education
and other policy choices have exacerbated
such shortfalls.8 Without adequately resourced
neighborhood programs, youth from low-income families miss valuable learning experiences that
middle-class youth access with relative ease. Fewer family resources mean fewer opportunities for
early education, limited after-school and summer learning programs,9 and constrained capacity to
support college ambitions.10
Out-of-School Barriers to Learning

Children growing up in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty face society’s neglect of their
most basic needs. Many suffer adverse experiences and persistent hardship. Food insecurity is
commonplace.11 Families who are unable to pay the rent move repeatedly—as often as three or
four times a year—and homelessness is widespread,12 increasing the likelihood of changing schools
and absenteeism. Toxic waste and hazardous air quality coupled with inadequate access to health
care cause untreated asthma, undetected vision and dental problems, and other health concerns.13
Structural factors, such as decades of disinvestment, have driven people to informal economies
and illegal activities. These, in turn, increase violence in communities, including violent police
responses, to which many young people have lost a family member or close friend. We typically
think of post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, as a problem faced by soldiers returning from war,
but psychologists report that many children growing up in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty
are living with this often-debilitating condition.14

Chronic stress from these and other harms
of poverty diminishes learning readiness and Chronic stress from the harms
academic success15 and contributes to the of poverty diminishes learning
persistent inequities in schooling outcomes
between wealthy and poor students and between
readiness and academic success
White students and students of color, such and contributes to the persistent
as disparities in academic achievement, high inequities in schooling outcomes
school graduation, college attendance, and
adult occupational and economic attainment.16 between wealthy and poor
Unsurprisingly, students from poor families are students and between White
five times more likely to drop out of school than
students and students of color.
their better-off peers.17
Family investment in children’s education

has changed dramatically from the 1970s to 2000s, but these changes differ between high- and
low-income families. What was a modest difference in parental investment between the poorest
and richest families more than doubled in this period—even as the poorest families dramatically
increased their investment in children’s education as a proportion of their income. In this
way, growing economic inequality has profoundly shaped out-of-school gaps in opportunities.
Cumulatively, these differences create and perpetuate inequalities in life chances that conflict
with Americans’ commitment to basic fairness, and contradict the belief that education is
society’s great equalizer.18
Community Schools as a Response to Poverty and Inequality

Educators, community leaders, and advocates have long viewed community schools as a powerful,
comprehensive response to the needs of neighborhoods experiencing poverty and racial isolation.
The approach can be traced back to early 20th century efforts to make urban schools “social
centers” serving multiple social and civic needs.19 With increasing industrialization, immigration,
and urbanization, the socioeconomic shifts of the late 19th century created new roles for public
institutions to address the needs of the urban poor. Social reformers looked to schools to be social
centers that could help address these needs, teach what the reformers deemed “wholesome”
community values and proper hygiene, and act as sites for open discussion with people from various
class backgrounds and political orientations.
The next wave of support for community schooling came in the 1930s as social reconstructionists
sought to give schools a critical role in addressing the social upheaval of the Great Depression.
They believed the crisis called for new economic and political structures and large programs to
relieve poverty. Drawing on the ideas of John Dewey, America’s foremost education philosopher,
community schooling proponents sought to create a strong social fabric, preserve American
democracy, and strengthen struggling communities through democratic, community-oriented
approaches to education.20 Schools, such as Franklin High in East Harlem, NY, acted as centers
for community life that could support the well-being of the entire community while practicing
democratic community-based inquiry that would help shape local ideas and politics.21 For example,
students at Franklin conducted neighborhood surveys to assist the neighborhood’s campaign for
more public housing. However, growing conservatism in the following decades largely undermined
such progressive approaches.

Community schooling also has its roots in
African American struggles for quality education Under both de jure and de facto
and local control that sought to create more segregation, schools for African
positive school-community relations.22 Under
both de jure and de facto segregation, schools
American children functioned as
for African American children functioned important social hubs controlled
as important social hubs controlled by and by and serving the Black
serving the Black community with broad-based
participation, collaborative relations, and shared community with broad-based
experiences and attempts to mitigate economic participation, collaborative
hardships and violence from White supremacists.
relations, and shared experiences
The James Adams Community School is one
example of a school rooted in this history. and attempts to mitigate
Between 1943 and 1956, this segregated school economic hardships and violence
located in Pennsylvania served Black students in
from White supremacists.
grades k-9 by day and operated as a community
center by night, offering free activities and
classes for students, families, and community
members. Its existence challenged the belief that Black students were inferior as the school and
community worked together to create activities, curriculum, and community-based learning
opportunities that were both challenging to and supportive of the students.23
The 1960s and 1970s brought a resurgence of community schooling. Advocacy groups saw these
institutions as a way to build power by improving learning and addressing social issues,24 including
largely segregated and underfunded schools in urban centers were not providing quality education
to students.25 Interest in community schooling also increased as a response to desegregation, as
students of color bore the brunt of desegregation efforts and faced discrimination in their new
schools. Community control of the schools represented a chance to remedy the downward spiral
of urban education, make schools accountable to low-income Black parents the way they were to
parents in suburban schools,26 promote democracy through wide-scale participation, and challenge
discriminatory practices.27 These initiatives struggled from lack of political support, insufficient
funding, and opposition from some teachers who worried that community control threatened their
professional responsibilities and standing.28
Like their predecessors, today’s community schools build partnerships between the school
and other local entities—higher education institutions, government health and social service
agencies, community-based nonprofits, and faith-based organizations. These partnerships
intentionally create structures, strategies, and relationships to provide the learning conditions and
opportunities—both in school and out—that are enjoyed by students in better resourced schools,
where the schools’ work is supplemented by high-capacity communities and families. Like much
of American education, today’s community schools focus more on meeting the individual needs of
students and families (in terms of health, social welfare, and academics) than the earlier emphasis
on strengthening communities or civil society more generally. However, the most comprehensive
community schools today also seek to be social centers where neighbors come together to work for
the common good.29

Community schools cannot overcome all
problems facing poor neighborhoods—that Community schools have a long
would require substantial investments in history of connecting children
job training, housing and social safety net
infrastructures, and other poverty alleviation
and families to resources,
measures. However, they have a long history of opportunities, and supports that
connecting children and families to resources, foster healthy development and
opportunities, and supports that foster healthy
development and help offset the harms of help offset the harms of poverty.
poverty. A health clinic can deliver medical and
psychological treatment, as well as glasses to
myopic children, dental care to those who need it, and inhalers for asthma sufferers. Extending the
school day and remaining open during the summer enable the school to offer additional academic
help and activities, such as sports and music, which can entice youngsters who might otherwise
drop out. Community schools can engage parents as learners as well as partners, offering them
the opportunity to develop a skill, such as learning English or cooking, or preparing for a GED or
citizenship exam, and it can support their efforts to improve the neighborhood—for example, by
securing a stop sign or getting rid of hazardous waste.30
The Federal Commitment to Educational Equity

The goals of community schools are aligned with those of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), passed by Congress as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on
Poverty.” For more than 50 years, as ESEA has funded programs to improve the educational
opportunities and outcomes for disadvantaged young Americans, equity has been the justification
for federal involvement in k-12 education.31 Federal and state courts have reinforced this goal by
upholding the rights of all young people (including children of undocumented immigrants) to go to
school and to receive equitable, high-quality schooling.32
Although cuts to these programs during the Reagan administration have never been fully restored,
policymakers have continued to experiment with new approaches; making education a tool for
combating poverty while fostering equity remains a goal. Among the various recent approaches,
the federal government provided support for community schools, including dedicated funding for
21st Century Community Learning Centers, Promise Neighborhoods, and Full-Service Community
Schools. Localities have adopted and are implementing community school projects, including New
York City, Philadelphia, Newark, Austin, Salt Lake City, Oakland, Portland, Oregon, San Francisco,
Los Angeles, Chicago, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, and Tulsa; there are also state-level initiatives, as
in New York. Many districts have turned to community schools as part of larger communitywide
investment initiatives. In some districts, constituents have demanded community schools as
alternatives to closing struggling schools or turning them into charters.33 These initiatives have
moved the community schools strategy from the margins into the mainstream of school reform.
ESSA Offers New Opportunities to Support Community Schools

Consistent with the growing attention to community schools across the country, the 2015
reauthorization of ESSA provides new opportunities to develop them.34 Many state and local
policymakers and advocates would also like to incorporate community schools into their ESSA

plans as a strategy for improving low-performing
schools. However, using federal funding under ESSA shifts the balance of power
ESSA must be justified with positive findings from Washington, DC, to states
about the impact of the proposed strategy from
rigorous, well-designed studies. Accordingly,
and communities such that
community school advocates must demonstrate states and local districts have
that the approach satisfies the criteria for the flexibility to build community
evidence-based interventions. We describe these
elements of ESSA in what follows. schools into their plans to use
federal funding to carry out the
ESSA shifts the balance of power from the
federal government to states and communities provisions of the law.
such that states and local districts have the
flexibility to build community schools into their
plans to use federal funding to carry out the provisions of the law. “[Building] upon the critical
work” of state education agencies (SEAs) and local school districts, (also known as local education
agencies, or LEAs) over the years, the Department of Education writes that the new law allows
states, districts, schools, and communities
the opportunity to broaden definitions of educational excellence, while maintaining civil

rights for all students. Additionally, the ESSA includes provisions designed to enable
SEAs and LEAs to focus on providing students the diverse, integrated curriculum and
learning experiences necessary for a well-rounded education.35
The law charges states with specifying in their ESSA plans how they will use the federal legislation
and its considerable funding to ensure access to the resources, supports, and relationships that
are critical for students’ academic, social, and physical development. It establishes the expectation
under Title I that states will design standards and assessments that develop and measure higher
order thinking skills for what the law terms “college and career readiness.” As such, ESSA allows
states to turn attention to critical thinking and problem solving, in place of the rote-oriented
education that disadvantaged students regularly received under No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
Title II provides resources for professional learning that can be used toward these ends. The new
law moves toward a more holistic approach by encouraging multiple measures for accountability.
This means that states can now select indicators beyond those the federal government requires,
including alternative measures of student outcomes, school functioning, and student learning
opportunities.
Title I of ESSA also departs from NCLB, the prior version of the law that maintained a federally
mandated, test-based accountability approach to improving schools that are performing poorly on
standardized tests. ESSA empowers states and school districts to make pivotal decisions on behalf
of children in the lowest 5% of schools. Although ESSA still contains room for counterproductive
and short-term school “turnaround” strategies, it also allows educators, leaders, and community
stakeholders to use other evidence-based approaches in schools identified as needing targeted
support and improvement.
Title IV of ESSA acknowledges the need to attend to the whole child emotionally, socially,
physically, and academically and provides formula grants for this purpose. Title IV also establishes
incentives for local districts to target funding strategies based on student needs through two new

programs: The Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Pilot and the Student Support and Academic
Enrichment Grants. The latter is a grant program to help school districts boost community
engagement, and it incorporates community school practices. Title IV requires the engagement of
community partners.
ESSA also shifts responsibility from federal

to state governments to ensure that issues Under ESSA, educators and
of educational equity receive attention. leaders have the challenging
Under ESSA, educators and leaders have the
challenging responsibility of not only building
responsibility of not only building
new accountability systems but also designing a new accountability systems but
framework that addresses enduring inequalities also designing a framework that
in student learning opportunities and outcomes
within a model of continuous improvement. addresses enduring inequalities
LEA improvement plans must identify resource in student learning opportunities
inequities. Certainly, ESSA risks rolling back
and outcomes within a model of
some equity safeguards, particularly as a lack
of federal oversight would lead to considerable continuous improvement.
state variation. Nevertheless, the law’s additional
freedom and responsibility for states presents
an opportunity for policymakers and educators to choose strategies that restructure and drive each
level of the system toward the equitable conditions and practices described above.
The new law holds the potential to advance the community schools strategy to improve struggling
schools and presents a promising alternative to NCLB’s top-down turnaround strategies. Its
requirements for stakeholder engagement can be used to prioritize and create the conditions
for states and districts to bolster school-community relationships. Thus, although ESSA doesn’t
guarantee that federal funds will be spent on community schools, it does permit states to make them
part of their plans. Those states choosing the community schools route to achieve these goals will be
investing in the long haul, taking a more laborious but, in the long term, more constructive path.
One of the key questions that states and localities must answer, however, is whether community
schools meet the evidence-based standard for interventions that are appropriate to support schools
in need of assistance. That is, state and local plans must establish that the positive impact of
their chosen interventions is supported by well-designed research that backs the claims made by
advocates describing a broad range of benefits for students, families, and communities. Such claims
include:
• Children are ready to enter school.

• Students attend school consistently.
• Students are actively involved in learning and their communities.
• Families are increasingly involved with their children’s education.
• Schools are engaged with families and communities.
• Students succeed academically.
• Students are healthy physically, socially, and emotionally.
• Students live and learn in a safe, supportive, and stable environment.
• Communities are desirable places to live.

ESSA defines state, LEA, and school activities, strategies, or interventions as “evidence based” if
they “demonstrate a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant
outcomes” through “at least one well-designed and well-implemented” study or if they demonstrate
a research-based rationale and include ongoing evaluation efforts (see Table 1).
Table 1
ESSA’s Definition of “Evidence-Based Interventions”
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Strong Evidence Moderate Evidence Promising Evidence Emerging Evidence
At least one well-designed and well-implemented study demonstrates a Demonstrates a
statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes using a(n) rationale that the
intervention is likely
Experimental Quasi-experimental Correlational to improve student
methodology methodology methodology with outcomes, based on
statistical controls for high-quality research
selection bias
Includes ongoing
evaluation efforts
ESSA requires that Title I, Part A interventions for low-performing schools, as well as competitive
grant programs, employ evidence-based strategies that fall into Tiers 1–3.37 It is up to states and local
education agencies to develop a plan for how to spend the Title I, Part A set-aside in support of low-
performing schools, which includes selecting among a variety of strategies that meet the definition for
an evidence-based intervention. Other formula grant programs, such as Title II teacher supports and
Title IV, Part A student supports, encourage (but do not require) the evidence-based standard. See the
Research Compendium for the ESSA classification of each study we reviewed.
Our Approach to Assessing the Evidence Base

The findings presented in this report are based on a comprehensive, systematic review of existing
literature. Our goals were to summarize the available evidence to inform and guide policymakers,
educators, and advocates interested in advancing community schools. We also sought to determine
whether sufficient research exists to meet the ESSA standard establishing community schools as an
evidence-based intervention.
We began by specifying a research-based definition of community schools. By reading a wide range

of descriptive accounts of community schools, the research team identified four pillars as common
features of this diverse approach to school improvement:

The team reviewed empirical studies and research syntheses examining the impact of each pillar
individually, as well as research and evaluations of comprehensive community school programs
that pull together most or all community school pillars. This process involved an examination of

the impact of these interventions on a range of student academic, behavioral, and social-emotional
outcomes in the short and long term. (See the appendix for a list of databases, websites, and
academic journals used in this research; a more detailed explanation of the search process used,
the results of the search, and list of search terms; and a more detailed discussion of the inclusion
criteria.)
The review process began with a broad literature search to identify relevant published studies,
evaluations, and research syntheses, as well as conversations with community school experts to
learn about additional evaluation efforts that were not identified through the initial search.
The research team conducted a broad sweep of the evidence base to identify an initial set of
community school studies. After reading and discussing this initial set of studies, the researchers
identified and then searched for literature on the four community school pillars. This search yielded
academic research, community school program evaluations, and research syntheses on all four pillars
and on comprehensive community school programs that include most or all of the four pillars.
All studies that met a set of the preliminary criteria identified below were reviewed by at least one
of the authors.
• The studies examined programs that included one or more of the community school pillars
we identified.
• The majority of studies were released within the past 15 years. This decision took into
account two major community school research reviews that came out around the beginning
of that period (one in 2000 and the other in 2003).38
• The studies either explained the research methods they used and reported statistical output
when relevant, or the authors supplied this information upon request.
The inclusion criteria intentionally captured studies using a broad range of research methods,
including randomized control trials, quasi-experimental studies, well-designed case studies with no
comparison group, and published research syntheses with clearly outlined methodologies for the
selection and analysis of studies. Considering multiple research approaches adds depth and breadth
to our understanding of the effectiveness of potential interventions. This selection approach
yielded 143 studies that met the criteria for inclusion.
Table 2
Overview of Student and School Outcome Studies Reviewed
Category Number of Studies
Comprehensive community school evaluations 24, including 3 research syntheses
Pillar 1: Integrated student supports 27, including 6 research syntheses
Pillar 2: Expanded learning time and opportunities 24, including 14 research syntheses
Pillar 3: Family and community engagement 29, including 13 research syntheses
Pillar 4: Collaborative leadership and practice 35, including 13 research syntheses
Cost-benefit analyses 4 studies
TOTAL 143, including 49 research syntheses

We grouped studies according to their primary focus (see Table 2) and screened them using the
inclusion criteria. Some of the distinctions between areas of focus can be rather artificial, as any
given community schools reform is likely to include multiple strategies. However, most initiatives
identify areas of focus. Studies in each group were summarized (see the Research Compendium for
a full summary of the studies we reviewed). We then coded all original community school research
studies with student and school outcome data (excluding syntheses and meta-analyses) by outcome
category using an inductive process. The categories that emerged were:
• Academic Outcomes
• Behavioral Outcomes
• Social-Emotional Outcomes
Finally, we classified the methodologies that each of the studies employed according to the ESSA
statutory definition of an “evidence-based intervention.”39 (See the Appendix for a more detailed
explanation of the categories and inductive process as well as an account of the ESSA analysis
process employed by the research team.) We turn in the next chapter to the community schools
approach itself and why it appears to be a promising strategy for providing high-quality, equitable
schools.

2. Community Schools: Creating Schools Where Students Learn
and Thrive
The Coalition for Community Schools defines community schools as “both a place and a set of
partnerships between the school and other community resources, [with an] integrated focus
on academics, health and social services, youth and community development, and community
engagement.”40 These partnerships enable many community schools to be open year round, from
dawn to dusk, six days a week, becoming neighborhood hubs where community members have
access to resources that meet family needs and are able to engage with educators. This contrasts
sharply with a “no excuses” approach in which schools that deliver high-quality instruction in a
high-expectation culture are expected to surmount barriers imposed by poverty. Rather, community
schools focus simultaneously on providing high-quality instruction and addressing out-of-school
barriers to students’ engagement and learning.
A Diverse Approach With Common Pillars

The community schools approach is not a
program, in the sense of specific structures and Community schools are grounded
practices that are replicated across multiple in the principle that all students,
contexts. Rather, it is grounded in the principle
that all students, families, and communities families, and communities benefit
benefit from strong connections between from strong connections between
educators and local resources, supports, and
educators and local resources,
people. These strong connections support
learning and healthy development both in and supports, and people.
out of school and help young people become
more confident in their relations with the larger
world. In distressed communities, this general principle takes on heightened urgency, as educators
and the public recognize that conditions outside of school must be improved for educational
outcomes to improve and that, reciprocally, high-quality schools are unlikely to be sustained unless
they are embedded in thriving communities.41
In any locality, educators developing community schools operationalize these principles in ways
that fit their context, linking schools to like-minded community-based organizations, social service
agencies, health clinics, libraries, and more. They take full advantage of local assets and talent,
whether it is a nearby university, the parent who coaches the soccer team, the mechanic who shows
students how to take apart an engine, the chef who inspires a generation of bakers, or the artist who
helps students learn how to paint. Not only do student needs and community assets differ across
contexts, so does the capacity of the local school system. Not surprisingly, then, community schools
vary considerably from place to place in their operation, their programmatic features, and in some
cases, their theories of school improvement.
Some schools coordinate with health, social, or other educational entities to provide services on
a case-by-case basis in response to the needs of students and their families.42 Others work with
service providers to integrate a full range of academic, health, and social services into the work of
the school and make them available to all students, a strategy often called “wraparound” services.43

Some schools complement their provision of services for students, families, and communities with
practices that bring community and family voices into governance, treating families as partners
rather than as clients.44 Still others engage with partners in economic development, community
organizing, and leadership development of community members, as well as offering learning
opportunities and social supports to parents and students.45 This diversity is evident in the array of
names that various community school initiatives use to identify their work, including school-linked
services, school-based services, full-service community schools, school-community partnerships,
and the Strive Together initiatives, among others.46
Notably, however, our comprehensive review of community schools research identified common
features that are found in different types of community schools. These four features, or
community school “pillars,” include (1) integrated student supports; (2) expanded learning
time and opportunities; (3) family and community engagement; and (4) collaborative
leadership and practice.
Integrated student supports, or wraparound services, such as dental care or counseling for children
and families, are often considered foundational. Expanded learning time and family engagement are
also common programmatic elements. Collaborative leadership can be viewed as both a programmatic
element and an implementation strategy. The synergy among these pillars is what makes community
schools an identifiable approach to school improvement: The pillars support educators and
communities to create good schools, even in places where poverty and isolation make that especially
difficult.
Community School Pillars Support Effective Conditions and Practices

The four pillars are fundamental to the success of
community schools. Individually and collectively, The four pillars increase the
they serve as scaffolds (or structures, practices, odds that young people in low-
or processes) that support schools to instantiate
the conditions and practices that enhance income and under-resourced
their effectiveness and help them surmount communities will be in educational
the barriers to providing high-quality learning
environments with meaningful
opportunities in low-income communities. This
section makes the case that the four pillars learning opportunities, high-quality
increase the odds that young people in low- teaching, well-used resources,
income and under-resourced communities will
additional supports, and a culture
be in educational environments with meaningful
learning opportunities, high-quality teaching, of high expectations, trust, and
well-used resources, additional supports, and a shared responsibility.
culture of high expectations, trust, and shared
responsibility. These features are associated
with high-quality schools in more affluent and
well-connected communities where local institutions, family resources, and the social capital of
community members complement what the local schools can provide.
The conditions that these pillars enable are those that decades of research have identified as school
characteristics that foster students’ intellectual, social, emotional, and physical development.
A skillful teacher, a challenging curriculum, and supports for both students and teachers form

the starting point. Join these elements and others described below, and evidence shows, real
learning—academic, physical, and social-emotional—will take place.47 We summarize some of these
evidence-based characteristics of highly effective schools in what follows and then show how the
pillars of community schools correspond to and provide scaffolding for them, particularly in high-
poverty communities.
In good schools, creating meaningful

learning and well-rounded development is Instead of training students to
everybody’s top priority.48 Instead of training regurgitate facts, the curriculum
students to regurgitate facts, the curriculum
encourages deeper learning, thinking through encourages deeper learning,
complex problems, and collaborating to figure thinking through complex
out solutions.49 Notably, growth and achievement
problems, and collaborating to
mindsets lead educators and students to view
such learning as expected from and normal for figure out solutions.
everybody. Educators understand that children
learn to be smart.50 They reject the view that
some, often poor and minority youth, lack the ability to succeed.
Learning is facilitated by well-trained, experienced, efficacious teachers,51 who share a culture

of collaboration and learning. Traditionally, teachers worked in isolation, behind closed classroom
doors, but they are more effective when they have ample time to work together, collaborating on
pedagogy and devising strategies to overcome the difficulties students are having.52 Mentoring from
fellow teachers is also crucial, particularly for those new to the classroom. All teachers can improve
through coaching and other professional development opportunities.53 This contributes to teachers’
efficacy, or their confidence that they can teach their students well, and a culture where adults take
collective responsibility for all children’s learning.54
Assessment plays a valuable role in the life of the good school, but instead of using test scores as
the means of identifying “good” and “bad” teachers, assessment is used as a tool for professional
learning and the improvement of practice. Assessment results pinpoint where students and
teachers are struggling—in mathematics word problems, for instance—and indicate where help is
needed to make them stronger learners and educators.55
Moreover, the principal sets the tone.56 While attentive to accountability, a good leader relies
on multiple ways to measure teachers’ and students’ performance, and to use those data in
collaborative improvement processes.57
Funding and resources are sufficient to meet the needs of the school community and are
used well. The curriculum, teaching, and assessment practieces previously described require
sufficient resources. If children are to go beyond superficial learning, classrooms must be well
equipped; schools also need libraries, laboratories, art and music facilities, sports and play
equipment, and well-maintained outdoor space. There must be enough time for teachers to teach
and children to learn deeply.58 Good schools also ensure that students get the additional support
they need to be ready and able to learn. Such support addresses students’ academic, social, and
health-related needs.59

Intangibles also matter. If students are to become committed to the demanding business of
learning, teachers and students must trust and respect one another.60 Students thrive
in relationships with caring and stable adults.61 Teachers can generate trust by setting high
expectations and encouraging all their students to realize those expectations. The willingness of
teachers to relate to their students on a personal, not simply an academic, level also helps students
connect to school. Every student is known well and feels cared about.62 As students often say about
a teacher they trust, “s/he has my back.”63
However well cemented their relationships may be, teachers and students do not live in a bubble.
The way they relate to one another must be supported by a positive school climate. Do students
feel safe from violence and bullying? Do they view discipline as fair and respectful? Does their
school embrace diversity of all kinds, making welcome students of different races and classes,
different abilities and disabilities, different sexual orientations, and different levels of fluency
in English? Are their families made to feel welcome? Do their teachers inspire them to become
enthusiastic about ideas?64
Effective schools also foster strong ties among families, community members, and the school.65
Families and community members are vital resources for helping the school reach long-term goals
and solve day-to-day problems. To build a school premised on mutual respect, school leaders
share authority with teachers, students, and parents.66 Such ties enhance students’ motivation and
participation. They also provide students with a rich array of resources and relationships. These
relationships enable both young people and their families to build social and cultural capital and
prepare them to be engaged community members and citizens.
Schools with these characteristics don’t come

cheap, but those dollars are well spent. States in Schools with these characteristics
which many such schools (and districts) are to don’t come cheap, but the lifetime
be found, such as Massachusetts and New Jersey,
outperform states with a similar demographic
gains, both for the individual
profile that are lacking such schools. States and the larger society, from
with community schools have also dramatically being educated in good schools,
shrunk the achievement gap.67 The lifetime
gains, both for the individual and the larger as measured by economists’
society, from being educated in good schools, as cost-benefit metrics, substantially
measured by economists’ cost-benefit metrics,
outweigh the costs.
substantially outweigh the costs. Measured in
terms of better lives and more engaged citizens,
the benefits are incalculable.68

Table 3 and Figure 1 show the high-quality school conditions and practices that the four community
school pillars scaffold.
Figure 1
The Community School Pillars Correspond With Characteristics of
High-Quality Schools
Pillars of Community Schools Characteristics of High-Quality Schools
Integrated student supports address out-of- • Attention to all aspects of child development:
school barriers to learning through partnerships academic, social, emotional, physical,
with social and health service agencies and psychological, and moral
providers, ideally coordinated by a dedicated • Extra academic, social, and health and
professional staff member. Some employ wellness support for students, as needed
social-emotional learning, conflict resolution • Climate of safety and trusting relationships
training, trauma-informed care, and restorative
justice practices to support mental health and
lessen conflict, bullying, and punitive disciplinary
actions, such as suspensions.
Expanded learning time and opportunities, • Learning is the top priority
including after-school, weekend, and summer • High expectations and strong instruction for all
programs, provide additional academic students
instruction, individualized academic support, • Sufficient resources and opportunities for
enrichment activities, and learning opportunities meaningful learning
that emphasize real-world learning and
community problem solving.
Family and community engagement brings • Strong school, family, and community ties,
parents and other community members into the including opportunities for shared leadership
school as partners with shared decision-making • Climate of safety and trusting relationships
power in children’s education. Such engagement
also makes the school a neighborhood hub
providing adults with educational opportunities,
such as ESL classes, green card or citizenship
preparation, computer skills, art, STEM, etc.
Collaborative leadership and practice build a • Culture of teacher collaboration and
culture of professional learning, collective trust, professional learning
and shared responsibility using such strategies • Assessment as a tool for improvement and
as site-based leadership/governance teams, shared accountability
teacher learning communities, and a community
school coordinator who manages the complex
joint work of multiple school and community
organizations.

Figure 1
What the Four Pillars of Community Schools Look Like in Action
Parents, students, teachers, principals, and community
Enrichment activities emphasize partners build a culture of professional learning, collective trust,
real-world learning and and shared responsibility using strategies such as site-based
community problem solving. leadership teams and teacher learning communities
After-school, weekend, and

summer programs provide
academic instruction and
individualized support.
r ship
L e ade
r ative ctice
ol labo d Pra
e C an
g Tim
rnin ies
Promoting interaction
among families,
L e a
administration, and
n d ed rtunit A dedicated staff
a o
Exp d Opp
teachers helps families member coordinates
support programs to
to be more involved in
the decisions about their an address out-of-school
children’s education. learning barriers for
students and families.
ilia
i fam ly
M mi
fa
My
u dent
t
Schools function as Mental and
t e dS
gra rts
neighborhood hubs. There physical health
are educational opportuni-
l
d
y an ent
services support Inte Suppo
ties for adults, and family i
Fam gagem
student success.
members can share their
i ve
stories and serve as equal
Act nity En
partners in promoting
u
student success.
C omm

In sum, community school pillars are the mediating factors through which schools achieve good
outcomes for students. The extent to which a community school is likely to create these conditions
will depend, of course, on the emphasis it places on particular pillars and the quality of their
implementation.
The remainder of this report reviews the research on community schools to understand whether
the evidence supports advocates’ claims. We do this primarily to provide guidance and support
to policymakers, educators, and community members considering community schools as both an
approach to school improvement and as a means to creating high-quality and equitable schools in
neighborhoods where they are lacking. However, we also demonstrate that the community schools
approach meets the evidence standard that is required for states and localities to incorporate
interventions into their ESSA plans for the use of Title I funding, as well as for funding under the
Title IV grants programs.

3. Evidence About Pillar 1: Integrated Student Supports
Chapters 3–8 consider the community schools evidence base from the perspective of individual
features—or pillars—that constitute the overall approach and from the perspective of
comprehensive programs that include most or all of the pillars. The current chapter and chapters
4–6 review studies of the four community school pillars, beginning with a definition and illustration
of each pillar and a summary of the findings. These chapters provide evidence supporting each
pillar’s status as a core feature of community schools. Next presented are the research evidence
about the pillar’s impact, both as an independent intervention and in the context of community
schools, and information about the implementation of each pillar. Following this consideration of
research about the four pillars, Chapter 7 then turns to evaluation studies of community schools as
a comprehensive strategy.
What Are Integrated Student Supports?

Integrated student supports represent a
school-based approach to promoting students’ Given the compounded
well-being by providing and coordinating inequalities disadvantaged
services for students and families that
target academic and nonacademic barriers children face outside of schools,
to educational and life success. Given the integrated student support
compounded inequalities disadvantaged
processes entail “wrapping”
children face outside of schools, integrated
student support processes entail “wrapping” a a comprehensive array of
comprehensive array of individualized services individualized services and
and support networks “around” young people in
support networks “around” young
the community.69 These services may include:
people in the community.
• health and human services, such as
physical, dental, and mental health
programs, as well as student and family
counseling;
• on-site child care and early childhood development programs;
• job training and placement, transportation, and housing assistance; and
• child nutrition (breakfast, lunch, supper, snack) and food assistance programs.70
The terms “integrated student supports,”71 “community/school partnerships,”72 “school-linked

services,”73 and “wraparound services”74 are used interchangeably to describe the principles,
practice, and provision of human and health support services designed to address the social and
economic challenges facing disadvantaged youth. Integrated student supports and wraparound
services provide a tool for building constructive relationships and addressing gaps in care for youth
in need of support.75 When well designed, these services are collaborative (including opportunities
for family input), community based, culturally competent, individualized, strengths based, and
outcomes oriented. These shared principles of care provide the basis for understanding the
integrated student supports delivery model in schools.76

What Do Integrated Student Supports Look Like in Action?
Communities in Schools (CIS) is a national dropout prevention program overseeing 2,300 schools and serving
1.5 million students in 25 states. For nearly 40 years, CIS has advocated bringing local businesses, social
service agencies, health care providers, parent and volunteer organizations, and other community resources
inside the school to help address the underlying reasons why young people drop out.
From health screenings to tutoring, food, clothing, shelter, and other needs, CIS provides integrated student
supports by leveraging community-based resources in schools, where young people spend most of their
day. CIS places a full-time site coordinator at each school; the site coordinator is typically a paid employee
of the local CIS affiliate (a nonprofit entity governed by a board of directors and overseen by an executive
director). Working with the CIS national office, state CIS offices provide training and technical assistance to
local affiliates, procure funding through numerous sources, and offer additional supports that enable capacity
building for site coordinators at the local level.
CIS site coordinators spearhead and cultivate the community relationships needed to support the development
and implementation of efficient integrated service delivery. Collaboration is a key lever. The site coordinator
conducts a needs assessment for students and their families at the beginning of the school year and then
meets with the school support team to develop individually tailored support plans that the school and
community-based partners implement throughout the academic year. Some integrated student supports
benefit the entire school community, such as clothing or school supply drives, career fairs, and health services,
while more intensive supports are reserved for students who need them most.
Source: Communities in Schools. (n.d.). About us. https://www.communitiesinschools.org/about/ (accessed 3/8/17);
Bronstein, L. R., & Mason, S. E. (2016). School-linked services: Promoting equity for children, families and communities.
New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Wraparound processes were first developed and implemented in the mental health field for
children and adolescents with serious emotional and behavioral disorders, but other child-serving
agencies have also begun to integrate the wraparound process into their systems. Whereas the
implementation of traditional treatment approaches is determined by the availability of placements
in health clinics, special education programs, and other conventional formats, wraparound
processes are driven by student and family need, with service provision planned accordingly. Across
many settings, improved mental health, reduced juvenile recidivism rates, and more successful
permanency outcomes in child welfare have been achieved through wraparound processes.77
The basic concept of coordinating support services to remove barriers to learning in wraparound
fashion in education systems is not new. Beginning with initiatives, such as Schools of the
21st Century in New Haven, CT, the Children’s Aid Society in New York City, and the West
Philadelphia Improvement Corps, the strategy of linking social services within schools through
community partnerships has been employed for over 30 years.78 For students with comprehensive
needs in and out of school, wraparound has been found to be an important factor associated with
improved school achievement and attendance and with retention in home- or community-based
settings with less restrictive disciplinary procedures.79
High-quality schools ensure that all students have the supports they need to be successful,
whatever those needs may be. In middle- and upper-income communities, adequate school
resources, strong parent support, and student readiness upon entering school all contribute to a
positive learning environment. Integrated student support strategies recognize that disadvantaged
children benefit from the same types of opportunities that are available to their wealthier peers.80
The growing interest in bringing integrated student supports into schools stems largely from an
acknowledgement that children whose families are struggling with poverty—and the housing,

health, safety, and other concerns that often
go with it—cannot focus on academics unless The growing interest in bringing
their other needs are addressed.81 Integrated integrated student supports into
student support strategies can not only improve
learning conditions within a school but also
schools stems largely from an
create institutional structures and supports acknowledgement that children
within communities, countering inequalities in whose families are struggling with
opportunities that impede learning for children
living in poverty. poverty—and the housing, health,
safety, and other concerns that
In a review of nine different integrated student
support programs, Moore and colleagues often go with it—cannot focus
found schools adopting this approach offered on academics unless their other
similar supports and services, focusing on
needs are addressed.
physical and mental health interventions and
in-school academic and expanded learning
time opportunities at the student-level, while
providing social services, parent education, and counseling for families in need.82 Integrated student
support strategies also share similar structures. The review found needs assessments, coordinated
student supports, community partnerships, integration within schools, and data tracking to be
common features across these models.83 Among the schools incorporating wraparound services,
a central focus was tailoring the integrated student supports to meet the needs of students and
families using resources available in the school and community. Although these models share
common components and services, what is distinct among them is the variation in implementation.
This section presents integrated student supports as a core feature of community schools. It then
reviews the evidence base for integrated student supports, both as an independent intervention and
in the context of schools. Finally, it presents information about the implementation of this pillar.
The substantial evidence base on integrated student supports in schools, as well as in community-
based and juvenile justice settings, is largely positive. The evidence also clearly shows that careful
program implementation improves student outcomes. Notably, however, a handful of randomized
control trials examining integrated students supports, some of which only provided a partial test of
the program under review, have not shown the positive impact seen in the evidence base as a whole.
Integrated Student Supports as a Core Feature of Community Schools

Proponents of community schools assert that an “integrated focus on academic, health and social
services, youth and community development, and community engagement leads to improved
student learning, stronger families, and healthier communities.”84 Of the integrated student support
programs that serve more than 1.5 million students in nearly 3,000 elementary and high schools
across the country, the bulk are community school organizations (2,200).85
Integrated student supports offer a method of incorporating a broad range of individually tailored
services to systemically address the comprehensive needs of students and families. Bronstein
and Mason emphasize the range of integrated student supports delivered in different models and
manifestations of community schools.86 They describe a continuum that goes from individual
schools partnering with a single community agency for a service, such as after-school recreation,

mental health counseling or health care, and focusing these supports on a single population, such
as immigrant or elementary school students, to full-service community schools that integrate a
range of services at and/or near schools for all community members, not only students, and based
on community needs.87
Another element of integrated student supports

that can be found in many community schools An extensive research base
is trauma-informed care. This approach is documents the harmful impact
particularly prevalent in schools serving students
from low-income families, refugees, homeless
of exposure to adverse childhood
families, and other populations that have likely experiences, which can
experienced trauma. An extensive research
88
negatively impact children’s brain
base documents the harmful impact of exposure
to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), such development and cognitive skills,
as witnessing or being a victim of violence, and reducing attention, memory, or
food or housing insecurity. These ACEs, and
89
creativity, and making it difficult to
the chronic or “toxic” stress associated with
them, can negatively impact children’s brain succeed in school.
development and cognitive skills, reducing
attention, memory, or creativity and making it
difficult for them to succeed in school. Traumatic childhood experiences are also associated with
behavioral problems, such as aggression, hyper-reactivity, impulsivity, or withdrawal, as well as
longer term health problems, such as alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, cancer, and heart disease.90
Strategies to address these issues in school have been dubbed “trauma-informed care” and may
include an assessment of school culture and evaluation of discipline policies led by a school
social worker; identification of social-emotional learning curriculum; staff education on the link
between trauma, behavior, and academic performance; ongoing support for school staff who are
working with traumatized students; and targeted interventions for students experiencing trauma.91
This approach is intended to result in fewer office disciplinary referrals, more adult support, and
increased self-awareness and resiliency.
The importance of promoting stable and nurturing adult relationships cannot be overstated,
particularly in terms of preventing long-term damage from traumatic experiences.92 Parents are the
first and most important adults in a child’s life and are most in control over the ACEs a child may
experience. Therefore, campaigns to raise awareness of the damaging impacts of ACEs can help,
as can increased provision of social services for at-risk families. These services can include home
visiting programs for infants and toddlers, parenting classes, and domestic violence prevention.
It may also be helpful to screen parents for their own adverse childhood experiences and to offer
mental health services to help break the cycle of trauma.93

How Is Trauma-Informed Care Implemented in a Community School?
The Island School in New York City, a recent recipient of the Coalition for Community Schools Award for
Excellence, implements a trauma-informed approach to schooling. All students may attend the combined
elementary and middle school from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. throughout the week. Parents have access to a
computer lab, health center, and on-site clinical social workers. Students, nearly all of whom live in public
housing or the adjacent shelter for homeless families, receive mentoring from the New York City Police
Department, attend educational field trips, and are exposed to STEM and arts activities. The Island School
staff has been trained in the Sanctuary Model, which focuses on addressing the effects of exposure to trauma
through scientifically grounded knowledge about trauma, adversity, and attachment, and implementation of
a values-based, interactive system with a shared language and a toolkit of practical instructions. Teachers
and community-based partners have also been trained in the RULER program to support social-emotional
learning in classrooms and after-school groups, with an emphasis on emotional intelligence and feeling words.
Acknowledging, understanding, and providing trauma-sensitive supports has become an important part of the
school culture.
Source: Coalition for Community Schools. (2017). New York City school blends high expectations with trauma-informed
practices. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
The General Impact of Integrated Student Supports Outside of

Education Settings
The practice of integrating student supports in wraparound fashion continues to grow, as does the
accompanying evidence of its effects on student outcomes. Research over the past two decades
suggests that integrated student supports and wraparound models are aligned with empirical
research on the varied factors that promote educational success94 and can contribute to student
academic progress.95 It is also well understood in the research community that academic success,
especially for disadvantaged students, is likely enhanced by a more comprehensive set of supports.
The Research Compendium that accompanies this report provides more detail about each of the
reviews and studies included in the discussion.
Beyond the field of education, work related to wraparound processes is extensive. This approach has
been used in more than 100 federal systems of care grants in child mental health since 1992 and
is the subject of more than 100 publications. This evidence-based best-practice model meets the
needs of high-risk youth populations who experience some of the same obstacles, such as poverty
and exposure to trauma, as students in many community schools. In a systematic, peer-reviewed
evaluation of wraparound research between 1986 and 2014, Coldiron, Bruns, and Quick looked
at more than 200 related studies and publications.96 They found that 60% of the studies involved
empirical research on youth and family outcomes, as well as on implementation issues, such as
necessary system conditions and the importance of implementation fidelity. The review included
20 controlled effectiveness studies, seven of which employed experimental methods, such as
random assignment to wraparound services with a control group receiving traditional intervention
services (ESSA Tier 1 evidence), and 13 of which employed a quasi-experimental design featuring
some sort of comparison group of similar youth (ESSA Tier 2 evidence).
The 20 controlled effectiveness studies found positive evidence for wraparound services,
particularly in the short term, and some nonsignificant results as well. Of the seven experimental
studies, one compared youth receiving wraparound plus enhanced feedback to wraparound plus
routine feedback,and found that the wraparound approach significantly improved functioning
and decreased problematic behaviors for participating youth, regardless of whether support teams

received enhanced feedback throughout the
process. Four studies demonstrated significantly The short-term positive effects
positive short-term effects of wraparound from wraparound services
services as compared to traditional forms
of intervention, such as counseling or other
included decreased problematic
services delivered in a non-coordinated manner. behaviors, greater use of
The short-term effects included decreased community services, not running
problematic behaviors, greater use of community
services, not running away as frequently, and away as frequently, and placement
placement in a residential setting with less in a residential setting with less
restrictive security measures for youth not
restrictive security measures for
residing at home. However, longer term effects,
such as decreased arrests or incarcerations were youth not residing at home.
mixed or did not show significant differences.
The other two experimental studies found no
significant differences between wraparound and other forms of traditional intervention, suggesting
that the two approaches are comparable, although implementation of wraparound services was
found to be poor in one of the studies.
Of the 13 quasi-experimental effectiveness studies, five found that wraparound produced

consistent, significantly more positive results for youth in all major areas assessed, including
criminal recidivism, living situation, hospitalizations, and clinical functioning. Six studies found
more positive outcomes for the wraparound group on some, but not all, outcomes being assessed,
with no outcomes in favor of the comparison group receiving a range of traditional intervention
services. One study found no significant differences between families participating in wraparound
and those receiving conventional support, although it is important to note that the comparison
group either rejected the wraparound option or did not meet the eligibility criteria, suggesting
that the two groups may not have been directly comparable. Another study that added wraparound
services to pre-existing behavioral health services found that the addition of wraparound services
did not further improve outcomes.
This review suggests a promising basis for the effectiveness of wraparound services compared
to traditional forms of intervention, particularly when examining functional and residential
outcomes, such as being suspended less often, using more community services, not running
away as frequently, and for those not living at home, placement in a residential setting with
less restrictive security measures. In 15 of the 19 studies that compared a wraparound group to
a non-wraparound control group, the wraparound group did better in regard to this category
of functional and residential outcomes. The evidence for more distal outcomes, such as rate of
arrests or incarcerations is weaker, with five of the 19 studies finding universally positive effects of
wraparounds.97 These outcomes are affected by many variables in addition to wraparound services,
such as criminal justice and policing policies, which adds an additional layer of complexity to
interpreting the results. There is a clear need for more empirical research and increased attention to
issues of implementation.98
Suter and Bruns conducted a meta-analysis of seven studies between 1986 and 2008 that
documented the effects on youth and families of participating in a team-based, collaborative
wraparound process for developing and implementing individualized care plans to address

social-emotional and behavioral disorders.99 The
study examined outcomes for mental health, Wraparound services can yield
functioning, assets/resiliency, and stability/ better outcomes for youth with
level of security measures in place for youth
not residing in their family homes. Specifically,
social-emotional problems than
the researchers compared differences in these conventional services.
outcomes for wraparound groups and control
groups receiving conventional services, wait-
listed for services, or not receiving treatment. The results of the meta-analysis support the view
that wraparound services can yield better outcomes than conventional services for youth with
social-emotional problems. The overall mean effect size across these studies was moderate and
significant at 0.33.100 Other significant effects included mental health improvements (effect size of
0.31) and overall youth functioning (effect size of 0.25). The remaining effects were positive but not
statistically significant.
Research on youth-related outcomes in the juvenile justice system addresses early, comprehensive,
and consistent interventions critical to preventing future delinquent behavior,101 with wraparound
services offering the most comprehensive and cost-effective standard method of care for troubled
youth.102 Several program evaluations have examined the provision of wraparound services for
youth involved in the juvenile justice system, who receive a variety of individually tailored supports
through a collaborative planning process involving the child, family, a rehabilitation counselor, and
community-based support agencies.103
An example comes from one study included in the peer-reviewed evaluation of wraparound research
from 1986 and 2014, discussed earlier. The study focused on the Juvenile Delinquency Task Force
Implementation Committee, a 3-year demonstration project created to address the programmatic
needs of over 500 delinquent youth in Columbus, Ohio.104 Carney and Butell employed a random
sample (ESSA Tier 1) of 141 youth served by the program and, over an 18-month time period,
compared those receiving wraparound services (52%) with those receiving conventional services
of the juvenile court system (48%). Using follow-up parent/guardian interviews and juvenile court
rearrest data, Carney and Butell predicted whether a youth would reoffend.105 The study found that
youth who received wraparound supports were significantly less likely to miss school, be suspended,
run away from home, commit assaults, or be picked up by the police, although this type of service
intervention had little effect on reducing recidivism.
Another example included in the evaluation of wraparound research focuses on The Connections
Project, an individualized, coordinated mental health service in a juvenile department in
Washington State. In a quasi-experimental program evaluation (ESSA Tier 2), Pullmann and
colleagues employed a form of regression analysis and found lower recidivism for youth in the
wraparound group, compared to young people receiving traditional mental health and juvenile
justice services.106 Youth in Connections had one more offense than youth in the comparison group
at the outset of the intervention. After spending an average of about 11.2 months in the program,
youth in Connections were less likely to recidivate on any type of offense (effect size of 0.25) and
specific felony offenses (effect size of 0.26), and were less likely to serve in detention (effect size
of 0.85). Among those who did serve in detention, youth in Connections served fewer episodes of
detention (effect size of 0.76) and spent fewer total days in detention (effect size of 0.66).

In sum, the evidence base for integrated student
supports in community-based and juvenile An integrated focus on academic,
justice settings is largely positive. In terms health and social services, youth
of evaluations employing a treatment and
comparison group, short-term positive effects,
and community development and
such as decreased problematic behaviors community engagement leads
and living in a stable situation with fewer to improved student learning,
security measures in place are more strongly
associated with wraparound services than stronger families, and healthier
longer term effects, such as decreased arrests communities.
or incarcerations. However, there are some
nonsignificant findings across these different
studies and programs, suggesting that the positive effects of wraparound services were sometimes
comparable to those of other interventions studied, such as counseling and other services not
coordinated with a team-based approach. Descriptive program evaluations also show positive
trends for program participants pre- and post-intervention.107 There continues to be a need for
rigorous empirical research that compares participant outcomes with a control group.
The Impact of Integrated Student Supports in Schools

A number of studies have examined outcomes for integrated student support programs that are
typically implemented in community schools or are considered to be part of the “community
schools family” (although not all of these initiatives employ that terminology).
In their seminal peer-reviewed study of integrated student supports in schools, Moore and colleagues
synthesized existing research, conducted empirical analyses of high school graduation and
postsecondary attendance rates, and examined implementation evaluations.108 They found that the
influence of individual, parent and family, peer, school, neighborhood, and public policy factors have
relatively small individual effects, but collectively, these factors lead to educational success and shape
students’ futures.
This study also assessed whether integrated student supports improved academic and nonacademic
outcomes. The authors identified 11 evaluations that met rigorous standards for ESSA Tiers 1
and 2, including four intent-to-treat randomized control trials and seven quasi-experimental
cross-sectional studies.109 They found significant positive effects for student school progress (three
quasi-experimental studies110), attendance (three quasi-experimental studies and one randomized
control trial111), mathematics achievement (four quasi-experimental studies and one randomized
control trial112), reading achievement (four quasi-experimental studies113), and overall grade point
average (two quasi-experimental studies114). More specifically, the researchers found significant
decreases in grade retention, dropout rates, and chronic absenteeism, along with significant
increases in attendance rates and mathematics scores.115 Significant positive effects also emerged
for improving school attachment (one quasi-experimental study116) and school behavioral problems
(two quasi-experimental studies117), both considered nonacademic outcomes.
Several of the evaluations discussed in this study deserve a more detailed examination, due to
methodological rigor and the important role that they play in the community schools evidence base.
The following sections review the evidence for these programs, including City Connects, Comer’s
School Development Program, and Communities in Schools.

City Connects
One integrated student support program with a substantial research base is City Connects, affiliated
with the Lynch School of Education at Boston College and Boston and Springfield Public Schools
in Massachusetts. City Connects was designed to address the out-of-school factors that impact
learning for children living in poverty and is currently implemented in 17 public elementary and
k-8 schools and one public high school.118 City Connects partners with a wide variety of community-
based service agencies, including 286 in Boston alone. They are the primary providers of prevention
and enrichment, early intervention, intensive intervention, and other tailored supports that are
delivered within the school, at home, in the community, or a combination of the three. In addition, a
coordinator is placed at each participating school site to promote collaboration among stakeholders,
develop individualized support plans for students, and provide direct services, such as after-school
programming or intensive mental health/crisis management interventions. More recently, City
Connects has established a partnership with Children’s Aid Society community schools in New
York City to provide a systematic way to use data in connecting school and community resources to
“the right child at the right time, over time.”119 City Connects helps to coordinate existing resources
in Children’s Aid schools, as well as identifying and developing new community resources. This
promising partnership model is currently undergoing evaluation.
Evaluation research released by City Connects

in 2016 builds upon a substantial existing City Connects students
evidence base of biannual program evaluations in elementary school had
dating back to 2010, which is corroborated by
several publications in peer-reviewed academic
significantly lower reading
journals.120 The 2016 evaluation compares and mathematics grades than
elementary report card trends over time pre- and comparison students at the
post-intervention.121 Although this evaluation
was conducted by researchers affiliated with start of the intervention, but
the program, it merits consideration because it by 5th grade had caught up to
employs a number of rigorous quasi-experimental
their peers in reading and were
methodologies that satisfy ESSA Tier 2 evidence
standards and documents the extensive history of significantly outperforming their
evaluation efforts for the program. According to peers in mathematics.
the evaluation report, City Connects students in
elementary school had significantly lower reading
and mathematics grades than comparison students at the start of the intervention, but by 4th grade
had caught up to their peers in mathematics, and by 5th grade had caught up to their peers in reading
and were significantly outperforming their peers in mathematics.
The report also examined middle school standardized test outcomes for City Connects students and
a comparison group carefully matched based on student demographic and academic characteristics.
Middle school students in City Connects significantly outperformed students at non-City Connects
schools on standardized mathematics and language arts tests and GPA, with small to moderate
practical effects. This analysis builds upon the findings from a 2014 study in a peer-reviewed
academic journal. Walsh and colleagues conducted a quasi-experimental evaluation (ESSA Tier 2) of
school- and student-level academic achievement outcomes for a sample of 7,948 k-5 students from
1999 to 2009 and found that City Connects students demonstrated better report card grades and
scored higher on middle school English language arts and mathematics tests than similar students

at non-City Connects schools.122 Overall, the evidence base for City Connects provides extensive
documentation of the program’s positive impacts on participating students and schools.
Massachusetts Wraparound Zones

The American Institutes for Research (AIR) recently released a series of five evaluations on
the Wraparound Zones (WAZ) program in Massachusetts.123 The Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education’s WAZ Initiative is another integrated student supports
approach that encourages schools to take on the nonacademic needs of students by systematically
addressing climate and culture, implementing needs assessments in key academic and nonacademic
areas, integrating tailored resources to address individual students, and developing districtwide
support systems to ensure communication, collaboration, evaluation, and continuous improvement.
Implementation of this approach varies by locality. In Holyoke, MA, a full-time district administrator
supports wraparound services in school sites. Schools have received supports, including site
coordinators, health clinics, family liaisons, and service provision, from community partners, although
these services have not been expanded districtwide due to funding and staffing limitations.124 Fall
River Public Schools also has a district coordinator supporting wraparound services who convenes a
districtwide task force to advance implementation. Each school assigns administrators, counselors,
and community partners to support wraparound services at the site level.125
Taking a mixed-methods formative and

summative evaluation approach, AIR collected The Wraparound Zones program
data from interviews of WAZ district and school in Massachusetts, which uses an
coordinators, school principals, and a sample of
external partners in each WAZ district. AIR also
integrated supports approach,
conducted focus groups with teachers in a small has been successful in promoting
sample of schools, administered surveys to all achievement, with students
students and staff, and collected district- and
school-level documents related to WAZ planning performing significantly better
and implementation. The evaluation employed on English language arts and
a comparative interrupted time series approach
mathematics assessments, as
(ESSA Tier 2) to compare student outcomes in
WAZ schools to those in matched comparative compared with students in similar
non-WAZ schools. The findings show that WAZ non-program schools.
has been successful in supporting student
achievement. Analyses of the quantitative extant
data conclude that students in the program performed significantly better on the Massachusetts
Comprehensive Assessment System English language arts and mathematics assessments, as
compared with students in similar non-WAZ schools.126
Comer’s School Development Program

The School Development Program, developed by James Comer in 1968, provides children and their
families with extra supports in schools using wraparound services. Created nearly four decades ago
at the Yale Child Study Center and well known in the research community, the Comer model targets
youth from low-income families and students of color and is the first intervention recognizing
that the likelihood of academic success is enhanced by a more comprehensive set of supports.127
Now implemented in more than 1,000 schools in 26 states, the District of Columbia, Trinidad

and Tobago, South Africa, England, and Ireland, the Comer model emphasizes the importance of
children’s health and safety, social-emotional development, behavior, and relationships to their
educational success, along with school-based services that are well coordinated among a team of
support staff.128 Although the primary focus of this model is the provision of integrated student
supports, it also incorporates elements of family engagement and collaborative school leadership.
With a substantial history of research and

evaluation by its own staff and external A series of in-depth case studies
evaluators, the Comer School Development showed school successes for
Program is the first reported school intervention
program in which the attendance, achievement,
children of diverse backgrounds,
and behavior of poor and/or socially including income, geography,
marginalized students improved dramatically language, ethnicity, and culture,
in the majority of studies.129 A peer-reviewed
synthesis examining studies of schools suggesting that all students can
implementing the Comer model in New Haven, gain the social and academic
CT, Benton Harbor, MI, and Norfolk, VA, revealed
skills necessary for school
significant gains in student achievement,
behavior, and overall adjustment compared to success when extra supports are
students in matched control schools.130 A series provided to address their needs.
of in-depth case studies (ESSA Tier 4) of five
urban Comer schools (three elementary schools,
a middle school and a high school) showed school successes for children of diverse backgrounds
(including income, geography, language, ethnicity, and culture), suggesting that all students can
gain the social and academic skills necessary for school success when extra supports are provided to
address their needs.131
Cook and colleagues conducted a randomized control trial evaluation (ESSA Tier 1) of the full
Comer School Development model in Prince George’s County.132 The evaluation took place in
23 Maryland middle schools (some of which were randomly assigned to implement the Comer
model) and involved more than 12,000 students, 2,000 staff, and 1,000 parents. Outcomes for Comer
schools were comparable to those for non-Comer schools on a variety of measures, including grade
point average, absenteeism, and school attachment. Although no significant differences emerged
when comparing these measures at the individual or school level, in some instances—for example,
absenteeism rates—both Comer and non-Comer schools improved over time. This improvement
could reflect additional reforms occurring in Prince George’s County at the time of this study.
The comparable outcomes for Comer and non-Comer schools may have been due to uneven
program implementation, as the Comer schools did not consistently implement the program’s
central features. For many programmatic elements, the Comer schools did not appear to engage in
substantially different practices from the control schools. Cook and colleagues assessed the quality
of program implementation using the Comer implementation index, which measures the perception
of school staff relative to the functioning of various teams that are expected to work collaboratively
in implementing the Comer model.133 They then conducted quasi-experimental analyses of the
relationship between implementation quality and student outcomes within the sample. The
researchers found that higher implementation quality was associated with improvements in
absenteeism, psychological well-being, endorsement of conventional beliefs, and involvement with

petty misbehaviors. However, higher implementation quality was also associated with slightly lower
standardized mathematics scores.134
The Comer model theorizes that a strong

academic focus cannot be achieved in a school Schools that maintained a more
unless students and teachers have positive explicit academic focus did
relationships and, thus, that school social
climate mediates achievement effects. The
improve test scores. However,
quasi-experimental analyses of implementation they did not improve personal and
quality and student outcomes did not support social outcomes, suggesting that
this proposed interaction between school climate
and academic achievement. The program theory
educational improvement efforts
did correctly predict changes in psychological should focus on enhancing both
and social outcomes, such that schools with a school climate and academics
good social climate improved students’ personal
and social outcomes. These schools did not, simultaneously.
however, show improved achievement effects on
average. Schools that maintained a more explicit
academic focus, as defined by teacher expectations for the academic performance of students, the
amount of homework done by the average student, and the percentage of students in advanced
mathematics classes, did improve test scores. However, these schools did not improve personal and
social outcomes. This suggests that educational improvement efforts should focus on enhancing
both school climate and academics simultaneously, as the proposed mediation effect of school
climate did not seem to occur.
A subsequent evaluation of the Comer School Development Program model in Chicago created a
demographically similar sample of schools serving 5th- through 8th-grade students and then used
a coin toss to designate nine of those schools as Comer schools.135 The Comer schools demonstrated
a number of significant positive effects, including a three-percentile-point gain in both reading and
mathematics, relative to the control schools. Comer students also reported less acting out on a scale
whose items are correlated with more serious criminal involvement later in life, endorsed more
conventional behavior norms, and reported greater ability to control their anger. By the last 2 years
of the study, both the Comer students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the schools’ academic climates
had also improved relative to the control schools. However, the Comer program did not benefit
students’ mental health or their participation in activities deemed “wholesome” by adults.
In the Chicago evaluation, implementation was also measured using the Comer implementation
index and was found to be strongly associated with students’ positive perceptions of their schools’
social and academic climates.136 There was not a significant difference in reading and mathematics
scores for higher implementing Comer schools. This is not surprising, since the Comer model
primarily focuses on changing social and psychological outcomes and does not have a specific
curricular or pedagogical focus.
The positive results from the numerous studies of the Comer model, including the Chicago evaluation,
suggest the potential benefits of the approach, while the evaluation of the Prince George’s County
effort highlights the importance of strong implementation in order for the benefits to emerge.

Communities In Schools
Communities In Schools (CIS) is another program offering integrated student supports that
is closely tied with the community schools movement. CIS is primarily designed for dropout
prevention, and thus academic impacts are not the main focus. The CIS intervention operates on a
vast scale, with 164 partner organizations serving students in 363 districts and 2,400 k–12 sites.137
CIS provides school sitecoordination to bring local businesses, social service agencies, health care
providers, parent and volunteer organizations, and other community resources inside the school
to help address the underlying reasons why young people drop out (see vignette titled “What Do
Integrated Student Supports Look Like in Action?” for more detail).
Evaluation is also incorporated into the CIS model, offering data on attendance, behavior, course
performance, dropouts, and graduation rates across the network. CIS has conducted third-party
evaluations of its model both schoolwide and at the individual student level, satisfying the
requirements for ESSA Tiers 1 and 2. Some studies examined the model as a whole, while others
focused on specific aspects of the model.
In order to examine the effects of the whole-school CIS approach, ICF International and
MDRC have both employed quasi-experimental designs to compare carefully matched CIS and
traditional schools, thus attempting to fully test the CIS model. In 2008, ICF International
evaluated 602 CIS schools and 602 demographically similar non-CIS schools across seven states
and found statistically significant improvements for student attendance at the CIS schools over
the course of 3 years.138 The 2008 evaluation also found small but consistent net gains on state-
mandated mathematics assessments for CIS schools during this time period. Only the net gain
for 4th-grade mathematics was statistically significant across the entire sample. No significant
differences were found in reading.
The extent of implementation had a

significant effect on outcomes. Although the In schools fully implementing
ICF comparison of CIS schools to non-CIS the CIS model, graduation rates
schools did not show a statistically significant
difference in graduation139 or dropout rates,140 increased by 8.6% over 3 years.
schools fully implementing the CIS model High implementers were also
produced better results. For those schools,
3.6% more likely to keep students
graduation rates increased by 8.6% over 3 years,
significantly better than the 3.8% improvement in school than non-CIS schools.
in the comparison group.141 High implementers
were also 3.6% more likely to keep students in
school than non-CIS schools.142 Both cases demonstrated substantively important effect sizes of
0.31 for graduation rates (the 8.6% increase) and 0.36 for dropout rates (the 3.6% increase).143
These results compare favorably with other, more expensive dropout prevention programs
included in the What Works Clearinghouse index.144 For schools fully implementing the CIS
model, students made net gains on mathematics and reading at all levels except 10th grade,
although not all of these gains were statistically significant. There were small but statistically
and practically significant positive effects for 8th-grade reading and mathematics.145 Schools
serving primarily Hispanic/Latino students were consistently the fullest implementers of the CIS
model, and Hispanic/Latino students significantly outperformed other racial/ethnic subgroups on
mathematics and reading achievement.146

In 2017, MDRC released a similarly constructed evaluation comparing 53 CIS schools with
78 demographically similar non-CIS schools across two states.147 CIS high schools significantly
increased their graduation rates (by 15.58%) and significantly decreased their dropout rates (by
3.8%) over the course of the study. However, the comparison schools also improved on these
metrics, yielding a nonsignificant difference between the two groups. CIS elementary schools
significantly improved their attendance rates in comparison to the non-CIS schools (effect size of
0.41). No significant differences in test scores emerged between the two groups.
Experimental studies that focused only on some aspects of the model had less positive results.
In 2010, ICF International released findings from randomized control trials in Jacksonville, FL;
Austin, TX; and Wichita, KS, over the course of 2 years.148 These evaluations compared students
receiving intensive case management services (individualized attention from a staff member tasked
with coordinating services for the student) to their peers receiving general schoolwide support
services, thus representing a partial test of the whole-school intervention model that CIS offers.
The randomized control evaluations, as a whole, yielded largely nonsignificant results for academic
progress, achievement, and attendance and for nonacademic outcomes, such as behavior or health
and safety. There were some small positive effects on dropout rates: In Austin, 4.8% fewer case-
managed students dropped out during their 9th-grade year, while in Jacksonville 4% fewer
6th graders dropped out when receiving case management services, but these results were not
tested for statistical significance. In Wichita, 10th-grade students receiving case management
services had worse attendance than non-case-managed students, but by 11th grade the trend
reversed, with case-managed students having significantly fewer absences.149
A follow-up randomized control evaluation released by MDRC in 2017 (and structured in the
same way as the ICF studies) also found that, after 2 years, case management services alone did
not significantly improve students’ school progress, achievement, attendance, educational goals,
participation in extracurricular activities, or behavior, relative to students not receiving case
management services.150 However, the study did find that case management had a statistically
significant positive effect on several nonacademic outcomes, including the rate at which students
reported having a caring adult at home, at school, and outside of home and school, and on the
quality of their peer relationships (effect sizes ranging from 0.14 to 0.15). Case management
also had positive and statistically significant effects on students’ engagement with school, their
educational attitudes, and their belief that education has value for their lives (effect sizes ranging
from 0.09 to 0.15).
Although these results do not provide strong support for the added value of case management
services alone, they offer only a partial test of the whole-school intervention model promoted by
CIS. The CIS evidence overall presents some positive findings, especially when the entire model
is examined. Quasi-experimental whole-school evaluations found positive effects for attendance,
although comparison schools also showed attendance increases. Test score differences were less
apparent. Analyses of schools judged to be implementing the full CIS model with fidelity show
stronger and more positive outcomes.
CIS recently partnered with Johns Hopkins University’s Talent Development Secondary school
reform model and City Year to implement a comprehensive dropout prevention strategy called
“Diplomas Now.” Diplomas Now teams offer a data-driven, tiered approach to intervention in
secondary schools across the United States. The model attempts to transform the academic
experience of all students while providing targeted interventions for students exhibiting “early

warning indicators” related to attendance,
behavior, and course grades. By identifying Diplomas Now offers a data-
students at risk of dropping out and providing driven, tiered approach to
them with individualized supports, the Diplomas
Now partners seek to stabilize the trajectory of
intervention in secondary
struggling students and keep them in school. schools across the United States
Each partner agency contributes a different and attempts to transform
strength to the intervention effort. Talent
Development Secondary focuses on improving the academic experience of
academic instruction and performance, City all students while providing
Year provides AmeriCorps members to support
targeted interventions for
students, and CIS offers in-school trained case
managers for the neediest students.151 students exhibiting “early warning
indicators” related to attendance,
MDRC and ICF International are conducting an
experimental evaluation (ESSA Tier 1) of the behavior, and course grades.
impact and implementation of Diplomas Now.
In order to evaluate interim impact findings
from the first 2 years of implementing the program, 62 secondary schools in 11 school districts
agreed to participate in a random assignment process between 2011 and 2013. 152 Of those schools,
32 were assigned to implement Diplomas Now, and the other 30 schools continued their existing
school programs or implemented other reform strategies of their choice. The interim impact study
found that Diplomas Now produced a significant 3.6 percentage point increase in the number of
students with no early warning indicators.153 Helping students to stay above or move above the
early warning threshold is an explicit goal for school teams implementing the program. Average
attendance, discipline, and course passing rates in 6th and 9th grades improved for all schools in
the sample. Significant differences did not emerge between Diplomas Now and non-Diplomas Now
schools, suggesting that Diplomas Now was comparable to other intervention approaches in regard
to these outcomes. Students at Diplomas Now schools reported participating in more academically
focused after-school activities and were more likely to report having a positive relationship with an
adult at school who is not a teacher than their peers at comparison schools. Students in both groups
reported similar perceptions of school climate and safety, and students’ self-perceptions and school
behaviors did not differ significantly.
Diplomas Now represents a comprehensive dropout prevention approach that complements

the core CIS model with a strong academic focus and more in-school staff resources to support
intervention activities. The interim evaluation results suggest a promising increase in the number
of students avoiding early warning indicators for schools implementing Diplomas Now, which was a
key area of focus for initial program implementation. It will be interesting to see whether Diplomas
Now schools outpace the comparison schools in improving attendance, discipline, and course
passing rates as the intervention advances. It can take time for interventions to mature, especially
when multiple partners are involved. Ongoing evaluation efforts will contribute to a better
understanding of how this comprehensive approach impacts participating students and schools.

Kent School Services Network
The Kent School Services Network (KSSN), based in Grand Rapids, MI, operates in 29 schools. The
initiative seeks to reduce chronic absenteeism in participating schools by placing a community
school coordinator and on-site behavioral health services at each site, and also at some sites placing
a Department of Health and Human Services staff member and a nurse. The hope is that by offering
additional services, the school becomes a community hub where parents and students are engaged in
learning and their needs can be more easily met to allow students to succeed.
From 2008 to 2012, an initial group of 18 KSSN schools included in the initial evaluation achieved
significantly better attendance outcomes than non-KSSN schools in the same districts, according
to a descriptive evaluation that employed a mixed-method approach (ESSA Tier 4).154 Although the
practical effect of this gain was quite small (equivalent to 0.3 more days attended in KSSN schools,
a 0.2% increase), non-KSSN schools experienced a decline in attendance during this time period
(an average of 2 fewer days attended, a 1.2% decrease). Gains were concentrated in the 12 schools
supported by the local Department of Health and Human Services; these schools experienced
an average increase in attendance of 5 days over 2 years, compared to an average decrease of 2.5
days for non-Department of Health and Human Services and non-KSSN schools. A subsequent
evaluation found that satisfactory attendance continued to increase, with a significant 7% jump
at KSSN schools the following year.155 Furthermore, students who had satisfactory attendance
reported talking to adults significantly more than students with lower attendance rates and were
significantly more likely to feel that their teachers were good at teaching. This suggests, not
surprisingly, that it is more common for students who attend school regularly to have positive adult
relationships and a positive view of school. However, it is unclear whether student attendance is the
cause or the result of engagement with school.
Overall, the evidence base for integrated student supports is largely positive in community-based
and juvenile justice settings as well as in school-based settings. Young people receiving wraparound
services and integrated student supports often show significant improvements in behavior, social
functioning, academic achievement (particularly in mathematics), and attendance, to name just a
few relevant outcomes. As with any broad survey of research literature, there is some inconsistency
with nonsignificant findings emergent in certain studies. Differences in program implementation
help to explain this, with some of the nonsignificant findings apparently accounted for by lack
of fidelity to the program model. Although a handful of randomized control trials examining
integrated student supports (some of which only provided a partial test of the program under
review) have not shown the positive impact seen in the evidence base as a whole, fully implemented
integrated student support programs are supported by extensive and rigorous research.

Effectively Implementing Integrated Student Supports
Across various programmatic models, integrated student support strategies emphasize the
importance of coordination and strong relationships between organizations, including shared
governance and the blending of resources as a cost-effective means to address student and family
needs.156 But Adelman and Taylor caution that true integration “will not be easy to attain” because
building consensus around sharing resources among stakeholders, each with its own special
interest, will likely require commitments to systems changes that take a considerable amount of
time.157 The authors differentiate key dimensions of school-community collaboration:
• Focus is either on collaborative efforts between specific programs and services or major
systemic reform.
• Scope of collaboration varies (e.g., number of programs and services involved)
• Collaboration takes place either horizontally within and among schools and agencies or
vertically within a catchment area including different levels of jurisdiction.
• Ownership of programs and services can reside in the school, community, or public-private
partnerships or can be shared.
• Location of programs and services can be either school linked or school based.
• Degree of cohesiveness among multiple interventions serving the same student/family
can vary (i.e., service providers are either unconnected, communicating, cooperating,
coordinated, or integrated).
The most fully developed integrated student support strategies seek total integration, where steps
are taken to counter the fragmented approaches that characterize most school and community
efforts. Such approaches deal effectively with multiple governing bodies and use blended resources
so that programs and services operate within a sound infrastructure to support changes in student
learning.158 In schools, this could include restructuring to combine parallel or complementary
efforts supported by general funds, special education entitlements, grants, and philanthropic
funding. The importance of implementation in school settings is borne out by the research on
Comer’s School Development Program and CIS discussed earlier in this chapter, which showed
much stronger improvements in student outcomes for schools that were identified as implementing
the program model with fidelity.

4. Evidence About Pillar 2:
Expanded Learning Time and Opportunities
Expanded learning time and opportunities

(ELT/O) take place before and after the typical Expanded learning time and
school day, and over summer vacation and opportunities provide students
other breaks, and augment the learning
opportunities offered during the traditional
with more time for learning
school day and year. ELT/O provide students and opportunities to develop
with more time for learning and opportunities academically, socially, emotionally,
to develop academically, socially, emotionally,
and physically in ways that complement, and physically. They are intended
but do not replicate, activities in the regular to expand students’ academic
school day/year. They are intended to expand
interests and increase their
students’ academic interests and increase their
success, as well as contribute to positive youth success, as well as contribute to
development. In some cases, expanded time is positive youth development.
used to extend instruction in the regular school
day. In most cases, however, the time is used to
engage students in community-based learning opportunities with partners. In such situations, the
activities often take the form of informal, out-of-school learning experiences rather than traditional
classroom instruction.
Such time is especially precious in lower achieving schools in communities of poverty, where
educators often feel compelled to spend the “regular” school time focused on teaching a narrow
range of knowledge and skills preparing students for the high-stakes standardized tests in English
language arts and mathematics that drive state accountability systems. In many of these schools,
the pressures have reduced or eliminated students’ access to other opportunities, such as social
studies, science, art, music, and physical education. They have also limited the time to pursue
deeper learning pedagogies, such as project-based and experiential learning, focusing instead on
instruction that matches the type of questions students will be expected to answer on tests.159
ELT/O can enable such schools to teach beyond tested subjects, topics, and test-taking skills.
Because ELT/O aim to complement, rather than duplicate, the regular school day, they can be focused
on enrichment activities, including those that take students beyond the school campus, allow students
to pursue their own interests, and provide one-on-one mentoring and tutoring. ELT/O often resemble
informal learning settings and, as such, provide opportunities for deeper learning through projects,
apprenticeships, and problem-based learning connected to the real world. Because of the resources
higher income youth enjoy and their parents’ ability to arrange and pay for academic support and
enrichment, they are more likely than lower income youth to have access to aopportunities, such as
sports, music, and art.160 In many lower income communities, schools are the only places where young
people have such opportunities.

ELT/O can also expand the number of knowledgeable adults from whom students can learn. These
additional adults not only increase students’ access to expertise and learning experiences, they also
provide more opportunities to develop the trusting relationships upon which meaningful learning
and development depend, and make it far more possible to respond to individual students’ needs
with additional support.
What Do Expanded Learning Time and Opportunities Look Like in Action?

In the ExpandED Schools national demonstration, 11 elementary and middle schools in New York, NY,
Baltimore, MD, and New Orleans, LA, partner with experienced community organizations to expand the
learning day. They create or expand time for subjects, such as science, and they offer arts, movement, small
group support, and project-based learning activities that require creative and critical thinking. The result is
that students get about 35% more learning time than their peers in traditional public schools. Together with
their community partners, ExpandED School leaders re-engineer schools to align their time and resources to
meet shared goals for students. Community organizations add to faculty by bringing in teaching artists and
AmeriCorps members, among others. In some schools, community educators help teachers deliver small group
instruction before 3 p.m. Teachers have the flexibility to work beside community educators as students explore
enrichment and leadership opportunities that would otherwise be squeezed out of the school day.
Source: ExpandED Schools. (n.d.). Three ways to expand learning. New York, NY: ExpandED Schools. http://www.
expandedschools.org/sites/default/files/expanded_scheduling_brief_0.pdf.
ELT/O have received increased attention as an education reform strategy over the past 15–20 years,
particularly for schools in communities of concentrated poverty. Since 1994, the federal government’s
21st Century Community Learning Centers program has sought to increase “academic enrichment
opportunities during non-school hours for children.” Its funding, $1.14 billion per year, supports after-
school and summer learning opportunities, as well as extended school-day strategies.161 Some states
(for example, Massachusetts and California) provide additional funding to support ELT/O programs.162
Policy and program development work has been widely supported by national and local philanthropy,
including the Mott Foundation, the Wallace Foundation, and the Ford Foundation. ELT/O have been
actively supported by national and state advocacy organizations, including the National Center for
Time and Learning (NCTL), the Afterschool Alliance, and the National Summer Learning Association.
The NCTL has provided technical assistance to many states and schools seeking to lengthen the
school day. It uses the brand “Expanded Learning Time Schools” (ELT) to identify schools that provide
additional learning time for all enrolled students, operate with a school day of at least 7 hours, and
have a substantially longer day or year when compared with surrounding public schools. At last count,
NCTL had identified 40 state laws relating to the expansion of the school day and year, including
several that developed grant programs to provide support for districts and schools and others that
allow for innovation schools and zones wherein districts and schools can employ ELT strategies.163
The Afterschool Alliance focuses primarily on developing voluntary after-school programs
that connect schools and community partners and offer a wide variety of hands-on, engaging
learning opportunities that typically runs until 5 or 6 p.m. most days of the week.164 The National
Summer Learning Association works to close the achievement gap by increasing summer learning
opportunities for all youth.165

Although ELT/O are provided through a variety of structures and practices, as we describe below,
they all share common elements. Many emphasize student-centered, hands-on, engaging learning
experiences and include community partners.166
Expanded Learning Time and Opportunities as a Core Feature of

Community Schools
The Coalition for Community Schools
emphasizes the centrality of expanded learning Using public schools as hubs,
time and opportunities to community schools,
community schools bring together
which “become centers of the community
and are open to everyone—all day, every day, many partners to offer children,
evenings and weekends. Using public schools families, and communities a
as hubs, community schools bring together
range of resources and supports,
many partners to offer children, families,
and communities a range of supports and including expanded learning
opportunities, including expanded learning opportunities.
opportunities.”167 The Coalition offers the
following definition of ELT/O in the context of
community schools:
Expanded learning opportunities are activities that provide more time for academics
and enrichment beyond the conventional school day (e.g., extended day, summer, and
after school) and include efforts to provide learning and development experiences that
enhance the school curriculum during the conventional school day (e.g., community-
based learning, problem solving, linked learning). School staff, contracted providers,
and/or community partners are responsible for providing more time and more
opportunities.168
Examples from community schools in Boston, MA, and Oakland, CA, illustrate how some
community schools include ELT/O. These may include expanding time, and/or the spaces in which
students learn, as well as increasing the number of adults with whom they are learning and the
content of what is being learned. Boston’s academically based, community-focused approach takes
students into the neighborhood to examine environmental justice topics with a broad range of
community partners. Oakland’s approach expands learning opportunities by organizing academic
learning around career themes, and by extending learning beyond the school in partnership with
local businesses for internships, job shadowing, and volunteer opportunities. Note that like other
comprehensive community school initiatives, Oakland’s community schools also provide integrated
student supports and family engagement strategies (see box below).

What Do Expanded Learning Time and Opportunities Look Like in
Community Schools?
Creating learning experiences that are relevant and meaningful to students is a core part of one Boston
community school. Young Achievers Math and Science Pilot School (YA) is dedicated to creating a learning
environment where students are empowered to address social justice issues in their community. YA’s leaders
have recently focused on environmental themes through field- and community-based learning projects.
Partnerships with community organizations are essential to YA’s learning approach. These partnerships
assist YA in providing students with environmental curricula, investigations of the local community, and
multidisciplinary study units, including yearlong retreats, field trips, and research projects. These learning
partnerships involve over 50 local organizations, including Outward Bound, Boston Harbor National Park,
Boston Nature Center, and the University of Massachusetts-Boston. At YA, students at each grade level can
participate in a wide array of community-building activities and field-based learning experiences.
Across the country in California, the Oakland Unified School District is a full-service community school district
that leverages assets of local business and community organizations to integrate college prep academics,
technical education, and work-based learning opportunities for students. Through Linked Learning, a
districtwide initiative to equip students with the knowledge and skills necessary for postsecondary success,
students can choose to enroll in one of Oakland’s 24 career pathways, where they engage in a rigorous
curriculum of academics and hands-on work experiences. Community partners play a central role in making
career pathways and Linked Learning possible by connecting students to opportunities, tools, and networks
for their desired careers. Students participate in internships, job shadowing, and volunteer opportunities run
by local business and community organizations. Community partners may also mentor Pathway Teachers, who
lead the curriculum inside the classroom.
Source: Jacobson, R., & Blank, M.J. (2015). A framework for more and better learning through community school
partnerships. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools.
Other organizations, including the National Center for Community Schools, also include ELT/O
as a core part of the community schools strategy, as do researchers.169 Child Trends’ review of the
research on ELT/O identifies community schools as one way to accomplish the goal of expanded
learning opportunities because of the focus on partnering with community organizations and
extending the hours of operation to offer academic and other services and supports for students
and their families.170
Evidence that ELT/O has been implemented in community schools comes from a Coalition for
Community Schools 2013 survey of local networks that measured the extent to which community
schools incorporate ELT/O and in what forms.171 Responses were collected from 31 of the 45 high-
implementing community school initiatives in the Coalition’s Community Schools Leadership
Network, representing 706 community schools in urban, suburban, and rural communities.
School-level data were also collected from 394 schools in 34 districts participating in the
Network. Notably, almost 90% of community school initiatives reported including ELT/O activities
as part of their strategies, and about a third reported that this work accounted for approximately
half of their programming.
Responses to the survey of community school networks conducted by the Coalition for Community
Schools provide examples of many types of ELT/O and of schools incorporating more than one type.
After-school offerings were the most common (90% of responding schools), followed by summer
programming (65% of responding schools). More than a quarter offered both extended school day
and expanded learning opportunities during the conventional school day. Nearly all (90%) reported
that community partners supported educators during this expanded time, and 85% were part of
larger ELT/O collaborations in their communities.172

Advocates at the Coalition of Community Schools emphasize the positive impact of community-
based education on students’ learning and development:
[M]ultiple theoretical frameworks and supporting research … suggest that young people
are more likely to be engaged in learning—to invest attention and expend energy—when
the content has personal meaning and builds on what they already know. Moreover,
students are more likely to retain and transfer knowledge when given opportunities to
apply what they are learning to real world issues and to assess their performance in ways
that suit their personal learning styles.
As an intentional dimension of the curriculum, community-based learning helps

students acquire, practice, and apply subject matter knowledge and skills. At the same
time, students develop the knowledge, skills, and attributes of effective citizenship by
identifying and acting on issues and concerns that affect their own communities. When
implemented thoughtfully, these strategies create a pedagogy of engagement. Students
invest time and attention and expend real effort because their learning has meaning and
purpose. Community-based learning helps students build a sense of connection to their
communities. At the same time, it challenges them to develop a range of intellectual
and academic skills in order to understand and take action on the issues they encounter
in everyday life. By intentionally linking academic standards to the real world of their
communities, community schools are narrowing the gap between knowledge and action
and between what students must learn and what they can contribute.173
This rationale reflects the conclusions of groups of leading researchers, including three panels
commissioned by the National Research Council, who have reviewed the evidence from the learning
sciences about how people learn and the effect of informal learning environments on student academic
and developmental outcomes. 174 It is also consistent with the conclusions reached by the National
Research Council’s comprehensive 2003 review of the evidence about making high school education
more engaging and meaningful to young people in urban schools. That review concluded the following:
Evidence on teaching indicates that instruction that draws on students’ preexisting

understandings, interests, culture, and real-world experiences can make the curriculum
more meaningful to them. Students are also more motivated when they are actively
engaged in problem solving and applying new knowledge to real-world problems.175
The General Impact of Expanded Learning Time and Opportunities

Over the past few decades, program evaluators and researchers have studied the impact of ELT/O.
This work has led advocates and practitioners to conclude that the research provides substantial
evidence that high-quality ELT/O programs have a positive impact on student engagement and
achievement and that such programs support the needs of the whole child in ways that are
consistent with both academic and social-emotional learning objectives.176
Our analysis examined 14 scholarly reviews of this research, each scrutinizing the quality of the
studies, summarizing the most trustworthy findings, and drawing conclusions about what the
body of evidence supports. These studies differ from one another in important ways. Some focus
primarily on the impact of lengthening the school day and year; others examine the impact of
additional learning opportunities—voluntary after-school and summer programs. One considers

both added time itself and the expanded opportunities that take place during that time. Most
are narrative syntheses, but some include quantitative meta-analyses of effects across the most
rigorous studies. Most of the reviews focus on the impact of ELT/O on academic achievement; a few
include social and emotional learning, as well as youth development outcomes. These reviews have
themselves been reviewed by peers, with many published in leading research journals.
Taken together, the scholarly reviews provide a strong evidence base for policymakers and
practitioners considering ELT/O. However, additional time will not, in itself, have a positive impact
on students’ achievement and social-emotional development. Rather, additional time that is spent in
particular ways and under particular conditions contributes to positive outcomes. Effective programs
do not simply warehouse kids before and after school, which sometimes happens under the banner
of “enrichment.” Moreover, they are not merely academic in focus. The complex relationship among
time, learning opportunities, and student outcomes is presented in more detail below.
Reviewers also note limitations in the research base for making strong causal claims or
understanding fully the conditions under which additional time and opportunities lead to positive
outcomes. Although there are hundreds of studies, most are either descriptive case studies and/
or rely on correlational data. Far fewer are quasi-experimental or controlled studies, employing an
experimental design, that directly measure the impact of greater time or specific opportunities.
Moreover, most reviewers observe that it is very difficult to tease out the independent effects of
additional time and the activities occurring during that time. Nevertheless, sufficient evidence
exists to consider expanded learning time coupled with additional learning opportunities an
evidence-based practice, particularly since in many cases the strongest positive effects are found in
studies with high-quality designs and analyses.
The discussion that follows presents evidence about two facets of expanded learning time and
opportunities: additional time in itself and the additional learning opportunities beyond those in
the regular school day or year. It also reviews studies of ELT/O in the context of community schools.
The Research Compendium that accompanies this report provides more detail about each of the
reviews and studies included in the discussion.
Evidence about the impact of adding time to the school day and year
The best research on longer school days and
years suggests that more time in itself is unlikely Additional time spent in particular
to have an impact on student outcomes. At the ways and under the right
same time, additional time spent in particular
ways and under the right conditions does
conditions does increase positive
increase positive student outcomes, and the student outcomes, and the effects
effects seem strongest for those placed most at seem strongest for those placed
risk—i.e., students of color, students from low-
income families, and those who are struggling most at risk—i.e., students of
academically. color, students from low-income
With that caveat in mind, two recent reviews are families, and those who are
particularly helpful in laying out the evidence struggling academically.
base about the relationship between expanded
time and outcomes. In 2010, Patall, Cooper, and

Allan analyzed 15 well-designed empirical studies conducted since 1985 that examined the impact
of extended days and/or years, seeking to determine whether students performed better in schools
employing these strategies.177 The studies reviewed included one employing an experimental design
with random assignment of students to conditions (ESSA Tier 1). Other studies used cohort designs
in which a cohort of students from one school year who experienced a lengthened school day or
year were compared to a cohort of students from another school year who experienced a shorter
school day or year (ESSA Tier 2). Seven studies were quasi-experimental (ESSA Tier 2), five of which
employed matching of extended time and traditional school time students. Other studies used
correlational designs examining naturally occurring differences in the length of the school day or
year (ESSA Tier 3). One study was a qualitative account of the effects of school time at particular
schools (ESSA Tier 4)
Of the 15 studies included in the review, 14 found a positive relationship for at least one
achievement outcome or for at least one subsample of students. The most rigorous quantitative
research designs (quasi-experiments and true experiments) produced more consistent and more
positive results. Patall, Cooper, and Allan conclude:
We would argue that the cumulative evidence, although imperfect, would suggest that
there is some positive effect of extending school time on academic achievement. This
is likely the case particularly because the strongest research designs (those in which
individual differences in students were accounted for) produced the most consistent
evidence for a positive effect of extended school time.178
Patall and her colleagues also concluded that adding time appears to be particularly effective with
students of color, low-income students, or low-achieving students. However, they caution that
more research is necessary to guide policymakers and educators to make the most effective use of
expanded learning time.179
Child Trends undertook a rigorous review in 2012 investigating the relationship of longer school
days and years.180 This review synthesized findings of studies in which districts or schools
either expanded the length of the day or the number of days in the school year. It also analyzed
studies of out-of-school-time programs; we will return to this second dimension below. Child
Trends examined 27 studies of expanded day programs, 17 of which also had an extended year.
The programs included four charter school models, two magnet school models, a statewide
model, a districtwide model, and a few independent school models. The studies employed quasi-
experimental designs (ESSA Tier 2) or nonexperimental, pre-post study designs, including studies
examining the effects of extending the school day using national or statewide data about charter
schools, as well as ESSA Tier 3 studies examining the relationship between the length of the school
day and academic outcomes using other national, state, or local datasets.
Most studies found that expanded day programs were positively related to improved student
outcomes. Specifically, of 20 quasi-experimental studies, 16 reported at least one positive academic
outcome. These studies focused mostly on charter school models that bundle an extended school
day with other reforms; therefore, it is impossible to attribute the results to extended time alone.
With respect to nonexperimental analyses and pre-post studies of expanded day programs, five of
six reported positive correlations between expanded day programs and academic achievement, and
one demonstrated mostly nonsignificant or mixed findings.

In addition, Child Trends examined 28 studies focusing on the relationship between expanded
school year program models and student outcomes (including 17 that also expanded the school
day). Here, the findings showed considerable variation among programs. Most models (18 out of
28) had a positive effect on attendance, as well as on achievement test scores. Among the quasi-
experimental studies reviewed, about half found favorable achievement outcomes of the models
they examined. These findings are consistent with the overall conclusion in the Patall review
that, although expanded time can have positive effects, not all program models are effective. Both
reviews emphasize that the way longer days or years are used is likely key to whether the additional
time is effective, a point we return to in a later section on implementation.
Also like the Patall review, Child Trends found

that expanded learning time programs were most Expanded learning time programs
beneficial to students of color, students who were most beneficial to students
are eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch,
and students who have performed poorly on
of color, students who are eligible
standardized tests. This is not unexpected since for a free or reduced-price lunch,
these are also the students who have had fewer and students who performed
educational opportunities. Although few studies
addressed this issue specifically, Child Trends poorly on standardized tests.
noted that “to the extent that these programs
benefit students academically, targeting ESD
[expanded school day] programs in communities serving high concentrations of disadvantaged
students could be an effective means to narrow the achievement gap.”181
Evidence about the impact of out-of-school-time learning opportunities (after-school and

summer programs)
Several recent reviews have examined the evidence base concerning the impact on student
outcomes of voluntary school- or community-based activities during out-of-school time. These
reviews focus on summer and after-school programs, extracurricular activities, and youth
development programs. Research in these domains helps address the question of how additional
time can best be used. These studies focus on student outcomes beyond academic achievement.
Because they all employ somewhat different measures, their findings cannot be aggregated with
precision. However, they do provide insights into a range of outcomes. They also help illuminate
the role that community partners play in increasing students’ access to positive relationships with
adults and to learning spaces beyond school. As such, they are particularly useful for understanding
expanding learning time and opportunities in the context of community schools.
These reviews, taken together, attest to an evidence base showing modest but significant positive
effects of summer and after-school programs and participation in extracurricular activities on a
range of academic and other outcomes, including student engagement, educational attainment,
and behaviors. In many (but not all) cases, the strongest effects were found in studies with the most
rigorous designs. However, as with the studies of additional time, mixed evidence cautions against
concluding that all such programs are effective. The level of program intensity (e.g., length), the
extent of student participation, and the matching of programs with students’ needs appear to matter.

Summer programs
It is well documented that the long summer vacation contributes to “learning loss,” with children,
on average, losing one month on achievement test scores. September to June progress is similar
across socioeconomic status, so summer loss accounts for the growing achievement gap. Although
these losses are greater in mathematics than reading, the summer losses in reading also increase
disparities between middle-class and disadvantaged students.182
A seminal synthesis published in 2000 by

Cooper and colleagues includes both a narrative Evidence showed a positive
review and meta-analysis of 93 evaluations of impact on students’ knowledge
the effects of summer learning programs. The
authors included studies comparing the effects of
and skills from summer
summer learning using a pre-post comparison or school programs focused on
comparing outcomes between students attending remediating achievement deficits
versus not attending (ESSA Tiers 2 and 3).
Ten studies used experimental designs (ESSA and accelerating learning or
Tier 1).183 The researchers concluded that the enrichment.
evidence showed a positive impact on students’
knowledge and skills from summer school
programs focused on remediating achievement deficits and accelerating learning or enrichment.
They found these positive academic effects for students from both middle-income and low-income
families. The strongest effects were found for programs run for smaller numbers of students and
those that provided more individualized and small-group instruction. However, even the largest
programs showed positive effects. Four studies that used a random assignment of students found a
somewhat smaller, although still significant, benefit (average effect size 0.14) than that across all
studies (average effect size 0.25), which exceeded the estimated average summer loss. This is an
important finding.
A later review by RAND focused on 13 experimental or quasi-experimental research studies (ESSA

Tiers 1 and 2) of summer programs conducted after 2000. The researchers found evidence of
benefits in those studies similar to those identified in the Cooper review.184
After-school programs
After-school programs and extracurricular activities have also been the subject of recent reviews. In
2002, Eccles and Templeton published a comprehensive synthesis of studies and previous reviews
of extracurricular activities, nonexperimental studies of after- and during-school programs, and
experimental studies of intervention and positive youth development programs (ESSA Tiers 1–4).185
Notably, none of the programs studied had academic instruction as its primary mission; some were
located at schools and others in community settings. The reviewers concluded that evidence exists
for a significant positive impact of programs on a range of student outcomes, and that effective
programs can occur as extracurricular activities in schools, as nonacademic programs during and
after school in the school building, or as positive youth development programs in communities.
Some of these nonacademic programs yielded significant increases in students’ academic
achievement, school engagement, and high school graduation rates, as well as decreases in problem
behaviors, particularly those related to violence and bullying as well as to dropping out of school.
The reviewers posit that the positive effects found across the array of programs were a function of

the strong social support, caring relationships
with adults, leadership opportunities, and the The positive effects found across
generic “learning to learn” atmosphere, and other the array of programs were a
nonacademic features that were observed across
many diverse programs. They emphasized the
function of the strong social
consistency of the findings across studies, and support, caring relationships with
noted the strength of this convergence, given the adults, leadership opportunities,
variety of research strategies employed.
and the generic “learning to
In a review looking across summer and other
learn” atmosphere, and other
out-of-school-time programs, Lauer and
colleagues in 2006 conducted a meta-analysis nonacademic features that were
of 35 experimental (ESSA Tier 1) and quasi- observed across many diverse
experimental (ESSA Tier 2) studies that
programs.
employed control or comparison groups and
met other inclusion criteria to assess the impact
on reading and mathematics achievement of
out-of-school-time programs for students placed at risk, including formal after-school, tutoring,
and summer school programs. Included were 21 studies focused on programs that emphasized
academics, and nine focused both on academics and social skills. Among the nine were programs
that included recreational, cultural, or vocational components in addition to their emphasis on
academics and social skills. The researchers found small but statistically significant positive effects
on both reading and mathematics achievement and larger positive effect sizes for programs with
specific characteristics, such as tutoring in reading (effect size 0.50).186 Programs with both social
and academic foci had greater impact than those that were solely academic. And the largest effect
sizes came from programs lasting approximately 45 or more hours, with an effect size of 0.23 for
mathematics programs and 0.28 for reading programs of that duration.
A 2005 review by Feldman and Matjasko looked at quantitative studies of the impact of
participation in school-based extracurricular activities on adolescents’ academic achievement,
substance use, sexual activity, psychological adjustment, delinquency, and young adult outcomes.187
The research—which included correlational (ESSA Tier 3) studies, many using large, longitudinal
data sets and employing controlled comparison groups—found mostly positive associations
between participation and outcomes. Studies examining participation in sports activities accounted
for many of these positive effects, whereas fewer studies of other types of activities found positive
effects. These mixed findings across the studies led the reviewers to caution against concluding that
all extracurricular activities produce strong outcomes in these areas.

A 2010 meta-analysis by Durlak and colleagues
reviewed 68 studies, most of which were Although not all individual
published after 2000, of after-school programs programs were equally effective,
seeking to enhance the personal and social
skills of children and adolescents.188 A third
researchers found evidence of
of these used randomized designs (ESSA Tier a positive impact of after-school
1). Included were studies of 21st Century programs seeking to enhance
Community Learning Centers, programs
conducted by Boys and Girls and 4-H clubs, personal and social skills on
and a variety of local initiatives developed by self-perception, bonding to school,
various community and civic organizations.
positive social behaviors, school
Although not all individual programs were
equally effective, researchers found evidence grades, and levels of academic
of a positive impact of participation on self- achievement, as well as signiﬁcant
perception, bonding to school, positive social
reductions in problem behaviors.
behaviors, school grades and levels of academic
achievement, as well as signiﬁcant reductions in
problem behaviors, compared with students in
control groups. Here as well, studies employing randomized designs were associated with higher
levels of positive social behaviors.
The 2012 Child Trends review, discussed earlier, also examined research on the effects of social
intervention programs that expand learning opportunities outside of the school day and which
incorporate at least one academic component. The studies included in the review were random
assignment evaluations, quasi-experimental studies, or nonexperimental designs (ESSA Tiers 1–3).
Child Trends examined 36 studies of the impact of 31 ELT/O programs on a variety of outcomes,
including scholastic behaviors and skills, academic achievement and attainment, and psychological
indicators of adjustment. The key findings were that impacts varied considerably across the
programs. Among 31 programs evaluated with experimental and quasi-experimental methods, 17
found mostly positive results, 10 found mostly nonsignificant results, and 4 found a mix of positive
and nonsignificant findings. None found negative effects.
Child Trends concluded that these programs have the potential to positively impact a range of
educational outcomes. For each outcome included in their review, the researchers identified at least
one ELT/O program with a positive impact. More than half of programs reviewed were effective in
improving scholastic behaviors, such as academic skills, homework completion, and study habits.
In a 2014 meta-analysis of studies examining the impact of increased learning time, Kidron and
Lindsay reported that only 30 of the 7,000 studies published within the previous 5 years were
quasi-experimental design (ESSA Tier 2) studies that established the baseline equivalence of the
intervention and comparison groups.189 Their analysis found positive effects across all student
subgroups on students’ academic motivation and positive effects on literacy and mathematics
achievement when the instruction during increased learning time programs focused on those
subject areas, with the effects greatest in programs employing traditional instruction. They
also found that expanded learning time programs using an experiential learning instruction
style had positive effects on students’ social-emotional skills (for example, self-confidence and
self-management).

Kidron and Lindsay also found that increased learning time was most effective when it addressed
students’ specific needs. For example, literacy-focused programs improved the literacy achievement
of low-performing students, and programs focused on increasing the social-emotional skills
benefitted students with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. These findings led the authors to
conclude that no single program is likely to fit the needs of all students.
The Impact of Expanded Learning Time and Opportunities in

Community Schools
Although the studies that have looked
specifically at the impact of ELT/O in the context Taken together, studies that have
of community schools tend to be correlational looked at the impact of ELT/O
rather than experimental, taken together they
show consistently positive effects of community
in community schools show
schools that offer these opportunities on leading consistently positive effects on
indicators of student succes, such as attendance, leading indicators of student
course completion, and behavior, as well as
some impact on student achievement. They also success, such as attendance,
suggest positive effects on school climate that course completion, and behavior,
likely contribute to these positive outcomes.
as well as some impact on student
Biag and Castrechini’s 2016 correlational, achievement.
multilevel modeling of longitudinal data (ESSA
Tier 3) from six low-income primarily Latino
community schools in Redwood City, CA, found that youth who participated in the extended
learning programs or who had families that were engaged in the schools exhibited higher
attendance and achievement in mathematics and English language arts than their peers.190
An analysis using propensity score matching of data about Baltimore, MD, community school
students participating in extended learning time activities found that participants new to the
program had significantly higher average daily attendance rates and significantly lower chronic
absenteeism rates than a group of carefully matched nonparticipants.191 In middle school,
participants averaged 3.2 more days attended and were 77% less likely to be chronically absent by
the end of the school year, while in elementary school participants averaged 0.8 more days attended
and were 32% less likely to be chronically absent than nonparticipants.
In Chicago, IL, an evaluation using multilevel statistical models (ESSA Tier 3) compared participants
and non-participants attending out-of-school time programs as part of the Chicago Public Schools
Community Schools Initiative. Participants showed better attendance during the regular school day,
with 11% fewer absences than non-participants attending the same schools.192 Changes in student
perceptions of teacher support appeared to be a significant mediator between extended learning
time participation and student changes in increased school-day attendance. Students participating
in extended learning time programs through Chicago Public Schools Community Schools Initiative
were suspended for an average of 0.98 days in 2007–08, compared to 1.14 days for non-participants,
an 11% lower suspension rate.193 Participants also achieved higher scores on state-mandated
standardized exams, gaining the equivalent of an additional 0.7 months of regular-school-day
instruction in both reading and mathematics.194

In 2002, Furrer and colleagues used a quasi-
experimental design (ESSA Tier 2) to study After-school programs at six
high school students in the Schools Uniting Children’s Aid Society community
Neighborhoods (SUN) initiative, a community
schools model with an extended learning time
middle schools in New York City
program operating in Multnomah County, OR.195 found that participating students
They found improvements in course completion reported significant increases
rates and attendance, with the 441 students
participating in extended learning time programs in their self-esteem, school
earning an average of 6.5 credits, 1.2 more engagement, and career and life
credits than 499 carefully selected comparison
aspirations over the course of
students.196 Not only does this represent a
substantial positive effect (effect size of 0.57), 3 years.
it also indicates that participating students are
on track to graduate, whereas the comparison
students were not.197 Participating students also had 4.2% higher attendance rates than a carefully
selected group of comparison students.198 Comparisons of the achievement of SUN students with
nonparticipants, however, did not find a significant advantage for SUN students in terms of 10th-grade
mathematics and reading scores on the state-mandated standardized exam. The authors observe
that, although one third of SUN programming is academically focused at the high school level,
common activities, such as homework assistance may not be sufficient to impact standardized
test achievement.
A 2008 evaluation of after-school programs at six Children’s Aid Society (CAS) community middle
schools in New York City found that participating students reported significant increases in their
self-esteem, school engagement, and career and life aspirations over the course of 3 years. This
longitudinal evaluation was “theory-based” (ESSA Tier 4), in that it was designed to test whether
expected results did in fact occur. It examined academic and development outcomes for youth that
could be expected to be influenced by after-school programs, such as engagement in academic
enrichment activities. It used correlational analyses to compare CAS after-school participants to
non-participants. The study found that 45% of the students who were in CAS after-school programs
from 2004 to 2007 demonstrated a steady increase in their performance levels in mathematics
compared to 37% of those students who did not attend—a statistically significant difference. No
differences were found in reading achievement. CAS after-school participants developed more
positive behaviors and attitudes; school attendance was better among CAS participants than among
those who did not participate. A dosage effect also emerged in that teachers reported that students
with high levels of extended learning time participation were more motivated and involved with
school than students with low levels of participation. Students had greater school attendance with
more years of participation in CAS programs.199
Other correlational (ESSA Tier 3) evaluations in Maryland and Washington, DC, provide additional
insight regarding the relationship between community school initiatives focused on expanded
learning time and student outcomes. At J.C. Nalle Community School in Washington, DC, a
package of reforms including increased use of technology and extended learning time built
upon a variety of existing behavioral and academic supports to significantly improve student
mathematics test scores, although there was no demonstrable effect on reading scores. This
study employed propensity score matching and differences-in-differences regression analysis to

create a carefully selected comparison group.200 In Maryland, evaluations employing demographic
controls in statistical analyses found that middle school students who participated in extended day
programming supported by the Eisenhower Foundation received significantly higher mathematics
grades than students who did not.201
Effectively Implementing Expanded Learning Time and Opportunities

The quality of ELT/O implementation is crucial. The impact of these interventions varies as a
consequence of “dosage”—i.e., the intensity of students’ participation and how time is used. Moreover,
implementation is also affected by how policymakers and educators translate the intent of policies
meant to provide more learning time and opportunities into programs.
Dosage
Nearly all reviews of research on expanded
learning time and opportunities note that Levels of students’ exposure
levels of students’ exposure to the programs are to expanded learning time and
likely to affect the impact of programs. In 2010,
Roth, Malone, and Brooks-Gunn synthesized
opportunities programs are likely
the findings of 35 studies that used quasi- to affect the impact of programs.
experimental designs (ESSA Tier 2) to examine
the impact of various levels of participation
in formal, group-focused, after-school school programs (excluding extracurricular activities and
individual activities, such as mentoring) seeking to provide youth with regular access to a safe and
enriching environment during non-school hours. The researchers concluded that participation was
linked to improved academic performance and fewer problem behaviors, but only when youth with
high levels of participation were compared to youth not attending the after-school program.202
The importance of the extent of students’ participation is also shown in several studies of
community schools. In Chicago, for example, the more students participated in extended learning
time activities at Community Schools Initiative schools, the more their perceptions of school
climate improved over the course of a year. For example, a typical student attending 73 days of
programming had somewhat more positive perceptions of teacher support and expectations than
non-participants, although no relationship was found between extended learning time participation
and perceptions of school safety.203
Dosage was also an important factor in Redwood City community schools. Although researchers
found no gains in student attendance after 1 year of participation in community school
programming, students who accessed a combination of extended learning time and social support
services for at least 2 out of the 3 years studied gained approximately two days of attendance per
year compared to similar students who had never received this combination of services.204
Similarly, students who participated in all 3 years of middle school after-school programming at
Children’s Aid Society community schools experienced greater academic gains on mathematics
and reading test scores than their peers who did not participate in the after-school program.
Participating students also reported increases in their self-esteem, school engagement, and
career and life aspirations over the course of 3 years. Those who participated more frequently

and over a longer period had greater test score gains than their peers who participated less, and
teachers reported that students with high levels of extended learning time participation were more
motivated and involved with school than students with low levels of participation.205
The importance of adequate exposure to out-of-

school-time services is also shown in studies of Students participating in the
community schools in Paterson, NJ, and Elev8 after-school program at the most
Out-of-School-Time programs in Baltimore,
Chicago, and Oakland. A three-school descriptive mature community school, which
evaluation based on a carefully constructed had been operating for 3 years,
logic model found that students participating
attended school for an average of
in the after-school program at the most mature
community school, which had been operating 20 more days than students not in
for 3 years, attended school for an average of 20 the after-school program.
more days than students not in the after-school
program.206 In the two community schools
that started their programs a year later, after-school participation was associated with an average
of 12–17 more days of attendance.207 Students with higher participation levels in Elev8 had, on
average, higher GPAs in reading, mathematics, science, and social science.208
How time is used

The studies of ELT/O consistently make clear that positive outcomes—whether from formal
expansion of the day or year or from less formal activities—follow not just from the additional
time, but also from how that time is used. Child Trends, for example, concluded that expanded
day programs may work better when they promote greater academic engagement, since studies
examining school climate effects of longer school days consistently found that effective programs
fostered more pupil-teacher interaction and that students in these programs exhibited a strong
sense of academic engagement and high rates of attendance.209
Studies of summer and after-school programs also note that the substance of the programs matters
for student outcomes. For example, the Cooper review concluded that summer school programs
were most effective when they focused on remediating achievement deficits or accelerating learning
or enrichment and that the most positive effects were found for programs serving smaller numbers
of students and those that provided more individualized and small-group instruction.210
Lauer and colleagues found after-school programs that included tutoring were more effective
than others, but that those with both social and academic foci had a greater impact on
achievement than those that were solely academic.211 There is also evidence that the types of
outcomes impacted by programs differ as a consequence of their content and approach, with
those emphasizing academics effecting academic outcomes and those emphasizing enrichment
in nonacademic areas yielding noncognitive benefits. Some nonacademic programs also have a
positive effect on academic outcomes.
Fidelity to expanded learning time and opportunity goals

Finally, the implementation of ELT/O programs (and, consequently, their impact) can be shaped by
prevailing ideas about school improvement in the larger policy arena. Using data from Colorado,

DiGiacomo and colleagues illuminate how divergent forces can weaken expanded learning time
reforms in ways that compromise their potential benefits to students who have less access to
learning opportunities in and out of school. In a state policy context dominated by fiscal scarcity
and a view that accountability policies were the key to school improvement, policymakers favored
reforms seen as effective at increasing test scores and doing so at little or no cost. Accordingly,
advocates of digital and blended learning were successful in convincing Colorado’s policymakers
that these were the most efficient way to realize ELT/O in the state. The result was a focus
on developing and piloting digital learning technologies that largely replicated or intensified
traditional instructional approaches, “pushing aside efforts … directly aimed at providing students
in disadvantaged communities with the sort of enrichment that wealthier families often obtain for
their children through available community resources.”212

Family and Community Engagement
Family and community engagement encompasses a broad array of interactions among parents,
students, educators, and community members that fall along a spectrum in which families and
community members exercise varying degrees of power within schools. At one end of the spectrum,
parents take a more active role in supporting their children academically and volunteering in the
school, while at the other end, families and community members have meaningful roles and power
in shaping change at the school and district levels.
Most common are the school-related supports that families provide their children at home (i.e.,
creating a safe and stable environment, helping with homework); ongoing interactions between
home and school to check in about programs and children’s progress; and parents and community
members volunteering at school (helping out in classrooms or on the school grounds, as well as
supporting events, such as field trips, talent shows and fundraisers).213 Family and community
engagement also includes parents or community members coming to the school to access services
related to their own or their family’s well-being. Finally, engagement encompasses community
organizing outside the school focused on school improvement, led and conducted by parents, youth,
and/or community members.214 In this practice, families and communities arguably exercise the
most power in relation to schools. Community organizing builds power among members of the
community, including students and parents, through relationships, leadership development, and
campaigning to change school and district policies and to promote school reform.215
Schools often initiate programs designed to

require or encourage parental participation.216 Because family and community
These family and community engagement engagement tends to have its
strategies seek to improve student outcomes
most direct effects on creating
and strengthen families and communities by
involving families and community members conditions for learning, such as
in children’s education, both at home and increased trust, the impact on
at school, and forging strong bonds between
families and schools.
student outcomes is often indirect.
Therefore, much of the research
Traditionally known as “parent involvement,”
the term “family and community engagement”
seeks to understand the mediating
is now used more frequently to recognize effect of family and community
increasingly diverse family arrangements and to engagement on school conditions,
highlight the active or participatory nature of
effective parent and community involvement. as well as on student outcomes.
For example, researchers Henderson and Mapp
use the term “family” rather than “parents,”
recognizing that many family members—siblings, grandparents, and “fictive kin” such as close
family friends—often contribute to children’s education and development.217 “Community” refers to
the people and organizations that are in the neighborhood(s) near the school that include, but are
not limited to, families of students.

What Does Family and Community Engagement Look Like in Action?
Redwood City 2020 has transformed six of 16 schools in the Redwood City, CA, school district into community
schools. Each school has a Family Resource Center, and one third of the families participate in the program.
Parents not only receive services; they are offered a range of educational opportunities, become involved,
and are empowered to teach other parents, creating a strong community. Many of the parents are immigrants
facing language barriers. But at the Family Resource Centers, they find a community of other immigrant
parents who speak their languages playing a leadership role in the schools. By becoming involved, they are
better able to support their children and ignite a love of learning.
Family Success Story: Maria Guerra de Ortiz and Agnes Ortiz

Maria was shy when she first brought her daughter Agnes to kindergarten. She didn’t speak to other parents,
and she didn’t speak to the teacher. Though Maria had gone to school and been a nurse in Guatemala, she
didn’t speak English very well, and she felt disconnected. All that changed as she got involved in the Family
Resource Center.
“In other countries, you leave your children at the door of the school, and their education is up to the teachers,”
said Maria. “But through the Family Resource Center, we are getting involved and showing our kids that school
is important.”
Over the 3 years that Agnes has been in school, Maria has become a leader in the Parent Mobilization Group
organized by the Family Resource Center. The group volunteers to work in the classrooms, help with the
after-school program, and perform outreach to other parents to get them involved, too. Since Maria has been
involved, parent participation has risen from 25% to 50%. “This program isn’t just about getting; it’s about
giving,” said Maria. “I am not just motivated to reach my goals, I am motivating other parents in a thread of
friendship to create a strong community.”
That feeling of community is important, especially for the largely immigrant population at the school. However,
for Maria, the bottom line is ensuring that her daughter gets a good education. “My dream is for Agnes to go to
college and be a professional so she can be successful in life,” said Maria. “That starts now, and because of
this program, I am planting a seed in her mind so that she has a love of learning.”
Redwood City community schools work with their partners to engage communities and families to promote
school readiness among children. By creating community mobilization teams made up of family members,
educators, and other community members who have participated in professional development programs, they
enhance family-to-family education and outreach, preparing the community for success. Such efforts have led
to 70% of students in Redwood City schools having families who are actively engaged with school campuses
through adult education, leadership opportunities, and school meetings. Students whose families participate
consistently have shown positive gains in attendance and in English language proficiency for English learners.
Source: United Way Bay Area. (n.d.). Community Schools: Redwood City 2020. San Francisco, CA: United Way Bay Area.
As we describe in what follows, strong family and community engagement is associated not
only with improved academic outcomes, but also with students reporting more positive school
climates, reduced absenteeism, and longer term academic success. However, because family and
community engagement tends to have its most direct effects on creating conditions for learning,
such as increased trust, the impact on student outcomes is often indirect.218 For this reason, the
evidence base on family and community engagement differs from that regarding integrated student
services and ELT/O. It includes considerably more research seeking to understand the mediating
effect of family and community engagement on school conditions, as well as on student outcomes.
This includes numerous qualitative studies, which differs from the emphasis on experimental and
quasi-experimental studies in Pillars 1 and 2.

Family and Community Engagement as a Core Feature of Community Schools
As part of a community school strategy, schools, families, and community institutions and
agencies work together to help children develop in a myriad of ways. Community schools are well
positioned to engage families and communities because the other three pillars together can support
strategies for engagement. When integrated student supports, expanded learning opportunities,
and collaborative practice (as described in the following section) are strong, they can make schools
more welcoming for families and community members and can bring students into the surrounding
community for learning opportunities. They create partnerships with community agencies that can
enable many community schools to stay open for extended hours, on weekends, and in the summers
to welcome families and community members into the building for various services and activities.219
The Coalition for Community Schools defines family and community engagement as an integral
part of a community school:
Using public schools as a hub, community schools bring together a wide variety of
partners to offer a comprehensive range of services and opportunities to children, youth,
families and communities. Its integrated focus on academics, health and social services,
youth and community development, early learning and care, expanded learning, along
with family and community engagement leads to improved student learning, stronger
families and healthier communities.220
The Coalition argues that such connections are essential to having strong collective impact on student
success. Family and community involvement in learning and development matters because it expands
the resources and supports available to children and their families both inside and outside of schools,
builds and deepens trust,221 and increases students’ motivation and engagement in learning.222
And, in fact, considerable evidence shows that family and community engagement is central to
many community schools. For example, Dryfoos’ 2000 review of 49 studies of community schools
found that a typical community school had partnerships with both support centers to assist families
with accessing services and with community organizations and volunteers engaged at the school.223
Family and community engagement in community

schools can take many forms, including all those Many community schools also
described above. Many community schools work to have two-way culturally
also work to have two-way culturally and
linguistically relevant communication between and linguistically relevant
schools and families, and to build trusting communication between schools
relationships between all members of the school
and families, and to build trusting
community. Such schools also demonstrate a
deep commitment to family and community relationships between all members
ownership of the school strategy. Community of the school community, thereby
schools can have site-based leadership teams
demonstrating a deep commitment
that include family and community members who
guide collaborative planning, implementation, to family and community
and oversight, providing leadership development ownership of the strategy.
opportunities to strengthen stakeholders’
capacities to work together.224 (The collaborative
structures and practices in which parents
participate will be discussed in the next chapter.)

In what follows, we have organized our review of research about the impact of family and
community engagement into three sections: (1) what is known about the impact of family and
community engagement overall, (2) what is known about the impact of various types of family
and community engagement, and (3) what is known about the impact of family and community
engagement specifically in the context of community schools.
The General Impact of Family and Community Engagement

Researchers began examining the impact of parent involvement on learning in response to
the decades-old finding that out-of-school factors have an overwhelming influence on student
outcomes.225 This research has established that community and family engagement in its
multiple forms plays an important role in academic success and is beneficial in multiple other
ways for children, youth, schools, parents, and communities.226 Based, in part, on this large body
of research, ecological models of schooling have been developed that intentionally emphasize
family-school collaborations to promote children’s development and learning.227 Schools using such
collaborations have also been the subject of considerable research. Many of the studies we reviewed
used measures, such as grade point averages, standardized test scores, attendance, grade promotion,
improved behavior, and healthy development. The Research Compendium that accompanies this
report provides more detail about each of the reviews and studies included in the discussion.
Several high-quality reviews of the research on parent engagement conclude that parent
participation in schools does improve student outcomes, and that programs to promote parent
participation are often effective at developing such participation. The research also clearly
demonstrates the importance of school programs to support family and community engagement
in its myriad of forms. For this reason, it is important to consider school-level effects as well as
student outcomes.
Dryfoos’ review of research prior to 2000

found most studies reported that family and Family and community
community engagement led to positive changes engagement led to positive
in academic achievement, social behavior,
and healthy youth development, reductions in
changes on academic
substance abuse and student mobility, increases achievement, social behavior
in families addressing housing, food, and and healthy youth development,
financial issues, and lower incidences of violence
and street crime in communities.228 For example, reductions in substance abuse
six of the programs in Dryfoos’ review reported and student mobility, increases in
lower violence rates and safer streets in their
families addressing housing, food,
communities. In terms of academic gains related
to implementation, at PS 5 in New York City, the and financial issues, and lower
percentage of children reading at grade level rose incidences of violence and street
from 28% to 42% as they moved from grades 4 to
crime in communities.
6. Such quantitative research helps to measure
program effects. However, much of the research
in this area is qualitative and provides rich
analysis of how community schools can effectively engage families and community members.

Henderson and Mapp’s 2002 review looked at 51 high-quality studies on parent and community
engagement—including reports, case studies, experimental designs, quasi-experimental studies,
pre-experimental research, and literature reviews (ESSA Tiers 1–4).229 They included research on
the effects of a broad range of engagement strategies on a variety of student outcomes, including
students’ enrollment in programs, achievement, attendance, social skills, grade promotion and
retention, and postsecondary enrollment. They also included research focused on school facility
improvements, school leadership and staffing, program quality, programs to improve teaching
and curriculum, and school resources and funding.230 The authors concluded that the research as a
whole demonstrates
a positive and convincing relationship between family involvement and benefits for
students, including improved academic achievement. This relationship holds across
families of all economic, racial/ethnic, and educational backgrounds and for students at
all ages. Although there is less research on the effects of community involvement, it also
suggests benefits for schools, families, and students, including improved achievement
and behavior.231
Similarly, the series of meta-analyses of statistical studies conducted by Jeynes in 2003, 2005,
2007, 2012, and 2017 found significant relationships between parental involvement and improved
educational outcomes for students across racial backgrounds.232 Jeynes’ 2017 meta-analysis,
examining the association between parental involvement and the academic achievement of Latino
students, found that analyses that used statistical controls had a statistically significant effect size
of 0.22, a result warranting confidence that parental involvement is related to positive outcomes
among Latino youth.233
The Impact of Various Forms of Family and Community Engagement

The impact of family and community engagement varies across programs that differ in the way
parents participate and that use different mechanisms to encourage participation. To understand
the impact of these various dimensions, we divide our analysis of the literature on parent, family,
and community engagement into three parts: (1) parent support of student learning, (2) family and
community participation in school, and (3) family and community organizing.
Impact of parental support for learning

In Mattingly and colleagues’ 2002 analysis of
41 parent involvement evaluations, researchers The most common type of family
examined the quality of evidence about the involvement interventions are
effects of parent engagement programs in the
United States and considered relationships
ones that seek to increase parent
between program and evaluation characteristics support for student learning at
and reported intervention outcomes. The home. Many school-initiated
researchers found that the most common type
of family involvement interventions are ones efforts focus on increasing parent
that seek to increase parent support for student involvement for youth who aren’t
learning at home.234 Such parent involvement
performing strongly.
consists primarily of activities, such as parents
reading with children, school and family

communicating with one another about learning challenges and progress, and parents checking
homework.235 Many school-initiated engagement efforts focus on increasing these types of parent
involvement for youth who aren’t performing strongly.236
McCarthey’s 2000 narrative literature review examined studies of the impact of family literacy
activities in home settings and within school settings that have shown promise for connecting
schools and homes. These studies show that for children from different racial and economic
backgrounds, the type and amount of literacy materials they’re exposed to, the amount of time
that parents and children engage in literacy-related activities, and the nature of those activities are
important to their academic success.237
Henderson & Mapp’s 2002 review came to a similar conclusion about parent support for learning.
Studies evaluating programs serving students of different ages, populations, and geographies and
that used different methods found that family involvement tended to have a protective effect such
that the more parents supported student learning, the more students tended to succeed in school
and continue their education.238 Mapp and Henderson highlighted a longitudinal study conducted
in 71 Title I elementary schools that used quasi-experimental statistical modeling (ESSA Tier 2)
to examine the relationship between student test scores and various school and district factors.239
These factors included teacher outreach to parents through face-to-face meetings, sending
materials home, and phone calls home on a routine basis as well as when children were having
issues. The authors found that teacher outreach to parents of low-performing students was related
to higher reading and mathematics achievement.240
A quasi-experimental study (ESSA Tier 2) of

253 middle school students in the Teachers When parents were highly involved
Involving Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) program in the workshops, attending
reached the same conclusion. Students in
TIPS science classrooms earned significantly sessions designed to their
higher grades than did their peers in the interests and getting training in
control group.241 Another quasi-experimental
how to use learning materials,
study (ESSA Tier 2) looked at the impact of
school-based parent workshops on 335 Title their children were more likely to
I students’ academic achievement. Across all gain in reading and mathematics
income and education levels, when parents were
than their peers with less involved
highly involved in the workshops, attending
sessions designed to their interests and getting parents.
training in how to use learning materials, their
children were more likely to gain in reading and
mathematics than their peers with less involved parents.242
Similarly, a 2012 meta-analysis of 51 studies (ESSA Tiers 1–3) examined different types of parental
involvement programs, finding that programs that emphasized teacher-parent partnerships had a
significant positive relationship to student achievement for students of all ages with an effect size
of 0.35.243 In these programs, parents and teachers worked together to develop common strategies,
rules, guidelines, and expectations to support the student.
Hill and Taylor’s synthesis of different primary qualitative studies (ESSA Tier 4) found that, as
parents gain more skills and information through relationships with school personnel, their social

capital increases their ability to better support their children. Similarly, as parents and school
personnel develop common understandings of appropriate student behavior, they are better able to
communicate these at home and in school.244
Mapp and Henderson’s review also concludes that there is a lasting effect when students feel
supported both at home and in school. Correlational studies (ESSA Tier 3) they reviewed suggest
that students with involved parents tend to have more self-confidence, feel school is more
important, be less disruptive, earn higher grades, and attend college.245 For example, Trusty’s quasi-
experimental analysis (ESSA Tier 2) of National Educational Longitudinal Study data from 1988 to
1994 of nearly 10,000 8th-grade students demonstrated that students who felt that their parents
communicated with them and supported their learning were more likely to have high aspirations for
postsecondary education 6 years later, showing the importance of families as long-term resources.
This parental involvement effect held across family income and background.246
Fan and Chen’s 1999 meta-analysis of 25 studies that were based on data of parent involvement
and student achievement and employed either regression or path analysis (ESSA Tier 3) reached
similar conclusions. This study found a small to moderate relationship between parental
involvement and academic achievement, with variance between different dimensions of parental
involvement. Specifically, they found that parent’s aspirations and expectations were strongly
related to achievement (correlation of 0.4) and parent involvement more generally also had a
close relationship with achievement (correlation of 0.3).247
Impact of family and community participation at school

A second important form of family and community engagement is the participation of parents,
family members, and community members in a variety of activities to support students and schools.
Research on this form of engagement also considers the impact of families participating in schools
to access services provided to them.
This section reviews research on how and why parents and community members engage in their
schools, what schools do to support such engagement, and the impact of such engagement. Here,
the focus is on family or community engagement that includes connections that come from
attending school meetings, talking with teachers, and volunteering at the school.248 Longitudinal
research by Bryk and colleagues on 100 Chicago schools that substantially improved over 7 years of
reform found such involvement to be one key factor. They assessed the impact of a variety of school
characteristics on learning, as measured by student test scores and school attendance. Data from
principal, student, and teacher surveys identified five essential supports necessary for successful
school improvement: leadership, parent-community ties, professional capacity, a student-centered
learning climate, and ambitious instruction. Schools with robust ties to parents and the community
benefitted from such involvement by creating supportive environments for students, which helped
improve teaching and learning:
Learning gains were more prevalent in schools where professionals were committed
to that community and oriented toward innovation. Schools with substantial parent
involvement were four times more likely to improve in reading and ten times more likely
to improve in math than schools with poor parent involvement.249
Intentional efforts by teachers and administrators can be effective in increasing parental

participation at school. Mapp’s 2002 ethnographic study (ESSA Tier 4) of an urban elementary

school serving racially and socioeconomically diverse students found that school staff created a
culture of family at the school and that power was shared between school staff and family members,
helping to foster relationships that support active involvement. Recognizing families as partners in
the education of their children, welcoming them into the school, honoring their participation, and
connecting with them through a focus on learning helped families to become loyal participants in
the school community.250
The development of trusting relationships that

support such engagement ideally happens at Schools that foster positive
many levels of the school and district. As families relations with families and local
and community members engage in schools
and support student learning outside of school, communities can help repair long-
relationships among school professionals, standing distrust. This increased
families, and community members can improve
trust and engagement, in turn,
and trust can deepen. As Bryk and colleague’s
extensive research (ESSA Tier 2) in Chicago helps produce an improved
demonstrates, schools that foster positive learning environment for student
relations with families and local communities
success.
can help repair long-standing distrust.251 This
increased trust and engagement, in turn, helps
produce an improved learning environment for
student success. For example, a school’s capacity to partner effectively with community groups
directly increases the effectiveness of supplemental services to support students and promote
learning.252 Additionally, as teachers understand the communities in which their students live, they
are better able to provide relevant instruction and support.
Similarly, a 2016 qualitative study (ESSA Tier 4) examined an ecological approach to Collective
Parent Engagement (CPE) that considered the social networks and interactions among all school
and community stakeholders.253 Guided by an empowerment-based philosophy, CPE develops
interventions to engage more socially isolated parents, builds collaborations to support parents
in accessing resources, and creates new institutional practices and policies to support low-income
parents. CPE conducts outreach to parents, collaborative needs assessments, leadership training
with parents, development of parent collectives to design and implement programs to meet the
needs of other parents and families, and systems development that helps school and neighborhood
service providers better respond to the strengths, needs, and challenges of the community.
The researchers found that CPE provided transformative experiences for parents, as the initial
outreach, assessment, training, and development activities engaged individuals successfully and
led to collectively developed programs. When school-community collaboratives were powerful
and engaged all relevant stakeholders in the school community, schoolwide academic outcomes
improved.254 As one example of this broader trend, a parent from a CPE program shared the
following with the researchers:
I saw many positive things … that I knew would help the community because this
community is a community that is very poor and no one had ever done anything to help
the community. Through the program, we saw that we could help the school … but we
needed first to help the community … and its families … to help ourselves because we are
part of the community.255

Such research demonstrates the strength of multilevel ecological interventions to engage parents
and communities in improving the conditions for learning.
Similarly, a 2009 case study (ESSA Tier 4) by Warren and colleagues of three community-based
organizations (CBO) and school partnerships found that when CBOs have existing trust-based
relationships in a community, they can build bridges between educators and parents. Such bridges
help schools develop a better understanding of the culture and assets of families and, as a result,
bring more of those assets into schools.256 The study concludes that if educators collaborate with
community partners and develop parent leadership, they can “meet the interests, values and
capacities of any particular school community.”257 Such collaborations can be powerful forms of
parent engagement in schools that can help shift the educational culture and bring them more into
alignment with the families they serve.
Impact of community organizing

Organized family and community engagement pushes schools and districts from the outside, in an
effort to enable families to help improve schools. It is led and conducted by families, youth, and/or
community members who collectively campaign to transform low-performing schools by building
power, social capital, and leadership skills.258 Building social capital means that these stakeholders
are developing relationships that benefit community members, as they learn that they can rely
on each other.259 As organizing groups recruit members, build their leadership, and win strategic
victories that improve schools, they increase the leadership capacity of community members.
What Does Community Organizing Look Like in Action?

Padres and Jovenes Unidos (PJU) has been organizing parents and students in schools in the Denver area
since 1992, with a focus since the early 2000s on ending what it terms the School to Jail Track. PJU research
found that Black, Latino, and Native American students were more likely to be suspended, expelled, and
referred to law enforcement than White students, and it began a campaign to hold schools and the police
accountable for disciplining and criminalizing students. By raising awareness in the community and holding
rallies and public forums, PJU leaders were able to win an agreement that students would not be criminalized
for behaviors that school administrators could resolve and that restorative justice would be implemented. As
this agreement was implemented, PJU worked to organize and lead meetings with school officials to support
restorative justice and continued to monitor implementation of the program to hold the district accountable.
The accountability work continues today, and this policy shift demonstrates the power of community members
working together to demand school reforms.
Source: Fernandez, J. S., Kirshner, B., & Lewis, D. G. (2016). Strategies for systemic change: Youth community organizing to
disrupt the school-to-prison nexus. In J. Conner & S. Rosen (Eds.), Contemporary youth activism: Advancing social justice in
the United States. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
A 2002 nationwide survey of 200 community organizing groups found they shared the following
characteristics:
• They all work to make public schools more equitable and effective.
• They build a membership base that will take collective action.
• They build relationships and collective responsibility through alliances and coalitions.
• They develop leadership among the members and determine agendas with a democratic
governance structure.
• They build power in low- and moderate-income communities through leadership
development, civic participation, and public action.260

As described below, the research evidence suggests that organizing as a form of parent engagement
can have profound impacts on schools and communities. By pushing decision makers to improve
policies and practices and holding them accountable for results, such groups aim to increase equity,
improve the quality of education, and expand the resources available to schools serving low-income
communities and communities of color.261 These effects, in turn, create conditions conducive to
improved student outcomes. Although the evidence base about organizing is quite different from
studies that examine the direct effects of practices on student outcomes, it is nevertheless relevant
and important in understanding the overall impact of community schools.
For example, Henderson and Mapp’s review of literature on community organizing for school
improvement found that community organizing efforts contributed to changes in policy, resources,
personnel, school culture, and educational programs.262 One study included 66 organizing efforts
in eight cities, many of which had significant success training new leaders, building skills and
knowledge needed to demand accountability, and winning concrete changes, such as upgraded
facilities, improved school leadership, higher quality learning programs for students, new
resources and programs to improve teaching and curriculum, and increased funding for after-
school programs and supports.263
A 6-year national mixed-methods study (ESSA Tier 4) by Mediratta, Shah & McAlister in 2009 examined
both qualitative and quantitative data related to school reform organizing by eight national groups.
Collecting interviews and surveys of organizers, members, educators, parents, and youth, and using
publicly available administrative data, the authors sought to understand perceptions of the impact
of organizing among different stakeholders, as well as student educational outcomes in relation to
organizing efforts. They found that efforts led by parents and youth to build the political and social
capital of neighborhoods and improve educational outcomes for students
increased the responsiveness of district leaders to the concerns of low-income parents

and community members; secured substantial new resources and ensured their equitable
distribution; and introduced new policy to improve curriculum, school organization,
teacher recruitment and preparation, and parent engagement.264
Through such work, members also deepened relationships and skills for navigating the political
system, built new aspirations for themselves and their families, and developed a deep sense of their
capacities to create change through collective
community action.
By activating broad participation
Warren and Mapp in 2011 conducted six case and offering people a chance
studies (ESSA Tier 4) of the impact on school
improvement of community organizing efforts,
to become leaders while
showing they were strong enough to make working collectively and building
a difference in the educational context in relationships, community
which they were working and that community
organizing brings a “powerful bottom-up thrust organizing can grow the social
to education reform efforts.”265 By activating capital of families, educators, and
broad participation and offering people a chance
communities to improve school
to become leaders in a change process while
working collectively and building relationships, conditions.
community organizing can grow the social

capital of families, educators, and communities to improve school conditions. Because the
community organizations in this study approach parents and other members with dignity, Warren
and Mapp argue, the approach “can foster widespread and powerful forms of parent participation
in schools.”266 For example, parent leaders from the Logan Square Neighborhood Association in
Chicago were trained through a parent mentor program called Grow Your Own Teacher that helped
develop parents to become bilingual teachers in the schools.267
The Impact of Family and Community Engagement in Community Schools

Community schools are particularly well positioned to have strong family and community
engagement programs that can be bolstered by their collaborative practices, expanded learning
opportunities, and integrated student supports. In addition, the meaningful collaboration of
families and communities in school engagement can help to align and integrate other components
of their strategy in ways that are most responsive to community needs.268 We turn now to examine
the research on the impact of family and community engagement in community schools. Results are
largely positive, although this is an emerging area of research within the community schools field.
Researchers at Stanford University have studied family and community engagement at local
community schools in Redwood City, CA, using correlational research methods (ESSA Tier 3).
These community schools demonstrated significant mathematics gains on state-mandated tests
for students whose parents accessed family engagement programs, as well as those who used both
social support services and extended learning time programs for 2 to 3 years.269 Children of family
participants started out scoring three points behind demographically similar non-participants, but
they gained almost two points more per year than non-participants; 3 years later, they outscored
students whose families did not participate by nearly three points.270
A more recent exploratory study of student growth in Redwood City community schools found that
students who participated in extended learning time programs or whose families participated in
support services improved their attendance by 40%.271 Additionally, community school participants
reported higher levels of feeling cared for at school than non-participants—
47% of students whose parents participated in family engagement programs and who themselves
participated in extended learning time programs reported a high sense of care, compared to
27% of non-participants. This holds true even after accounting for student demographic differences
and the extent to which they felt cared for the previous year.272 Program participants also reported
a higher sense of care, on average, than they had the prior year. Students with family engagement
in elementary school entered middle school more likely to report that their schools provided
a supportive environment than students whose families didn’t participate. Importantly, the
researchers also found strong links between family engagement and gains in English language
development scores for English learners.273
By making services available to families and communities, community schools can be important
resources that are welcoming and help address social, physical, cognitive, and economic needs by
providing, among many options, classes for parents, health and legal services, housing support, and
even access to laundry. Another study of community schools in Redwood City (ESSA Tier 3) found
that such supplemental programs reached more than 70% of the families of enrolled students and
generally served the most socioeconomically disadvantaged students.274 Students whose families
were engaged in these schools were more likely to show gains in English language development and
mathematics scores and to demonstrate positive attitudes about their schools.275

Similarly, a descriptive study (ESSA Tier 4) of parent perceptions of connectedness in a full-service
community school in Providence, RI, examined the effect of school-community collaboration on
parent-teacher relationships. Using a parent-teacher involvement questionnaire that was developed
as part of an intervention program, researchers analyzed measures of parent-school connections
over the 4 years of the model’s implementation.276 Results initially were mixed, as three of the four
measures (parent comfort, parent activity, and parent-teacher communication) decreased in the
first year. However, all four indicators improved from the 2nd to the 3rd or 4th years of the study,
suggesting that the community schools were improving parent-school connections over time.277
Warren’s 2005 case study (ESSA Tier 4) of community and school collaboration highlights Quitman
Community School in Newark, NJ, as an example of a community school that builds the social
capital of a community by providing services and classes for students and families, thereby
becoming a center for the community’s social life. The school achieved this by building trust
between teachers and parents and by helping parents develop their skills and leadership: Parents
began to take more initiative in the school, including challenging the school to change some of its
practices and advocating changes, such as class size reduction.278 As one parent said,
It is the first school to make me feel welcome as a parent. This school is a good
community school. Everyone takes a hand in caring for children. The attitude here is that
all kids are our kids. The kids are my babies. Any child or parent that comes in the door
feels welcome.279
Such sentiments demonstrate the potential that

community schools have for creating meaningful Leadership development and
engagement of parents and community collaborative relationships
members.
between parents, communities,
These studies also demonstrate that leadership and schools, which can happen
development and collaborative relationships
via schools or organizing groups,
among families, communities, and schools,
which can happen via schools or organizing can increase the internal capacity
groups, can increase the internal capacity and and change the culture of the
change the culture of the school to address
school to address issues that
issues that are rooted in local conditions,
interests, and values, while families and are rooted in local conditions,
community members can increase their interests, and values.
relational power in the schools.280
Effectively Implementing Family and Community Engagement Strategies

As with the other community school pillars, the quality of the implementation of family and
community engagement programs determines their effectiveness. As we considered the spectrum
of family engagement, we have seen that different forms involve different degrees to which
parents, families, and community members participate of their own volition rather than being
encouraged and/or supported by schools to participate. There is also variation in the levels of
power that families exercise within the school, whether as recipients of services, as volunteers, or
as school leaders.281

The research demonstrates the importance of structures and practices in schools to support all
forms of family and community engagement practices. Henderson & Mapp in 2002 found that
schools that successfully engaged parents focused on building trusting, collaborative relationships
among teachers and families; recognized and respected families’ class and cultural backgrounds as
well as their needs; and shared power and responsibility.282
These studies and others also found that the way programs were implemented made a difference in
their effectiveness. Teachers’ perceptions of families as lacking resources or abilities to contribute
created barriers to home-school connections. Mismatches between student and teacher views of
their respective roles and their use of different languages created barriers as well.283 When teachers
value and learn from the experiences of parents and communities, seeing them as “funds of
knowledge,” they can build stronger relationships with parents and expressly value the students’
home lives by incorporating their newfound knowledge into the classroom.284
Although there is little research on the role of school districts in collaborating with community
schools, promising research on district support for programs that involve parents and communities
demonstrates the possibilities of such collaboration. Epstein and colleagues’ 2011 study used
quantitative survey data from a “nested” sample of 24 districts and 407 schools to measure district
assistance to schools and shared work on partnership program development. Using statistical
modeling (ESSA Tier 3) to understand this model, they found that consistent district leadership
and facilitation contributes to the quality of the school programs as measured by basic program
implementation and advanced program outreach.285 Schools in districts that provided assistance
on partnerships and conducted evaluations for 3 years had more basic and advanced partnerships
than those in districts without consistent attention to partnerships and program development. This
research finds that district assistance contributed significantly to basic program implementation as
well as to advanced outreach to involved families.286
Engaging with partner organizations that

are trusted in the community can help to When schools engage families
build strong relationships that are both key and communities in meaningful
to the strategy and important for its effective
ways, they demonstrate a
implementation.287 At least one researcher has
concluded that these relationships may be best long-term commitment to the
coordinated by a full-time community school relationship and thus can help
director/coordinator who works closely with
a principal who values community and family
increase the depth and breadth of
engagement.288 Another researcher suggests that their engagement.
when schools engage families and communities
in meaningful ways (for example, in discussions
of the school budget or improvement strategies), they demonstrate a long-term commitment to the
relationship and thus can help increase the depth and breadth of their engagement.289

Collaborative Leadership and Practice
Collaborative leadership and practice engage

stakeholders with different types of experience Collaborative leadership
and expertise, including parents, students, “emphasizes governance
teachers, principals, and community partners
in working together and sharing decisions and
structures and processes that
responsibilities toward a commonly held vision foster shared commitment to
or outcome for the school. Such practices
290
achieving school improvement
rely upon leadership that skillfully manages
relationships by creating structures and activities goals, broad participation and
to support and sustain these interactions collaboration in decision making,
over time. Leading researchers in the field
291
and shared accountability for
Heck and Hallinger note that collaborative
leadership “emphasizes governance structures student learning outcomes.”
and processes that foster shared commitment
to achieving school improvement goals, broad
participation and collaboration in decision making, and shared accountability for student learning
outcomes.”292 Spillane also specifies that such collaboration includes spaces for frequent and open
communication between players, allowing time for trusting relationships to be developed.293
In most schools, collaborative leadership and practice involve collaboration among professionals—
teachers, administrators, and union leaders. This includes professional learning communities and
school teams making decisions and planning to improve school policy and classroom teaching and
learning, as well as teacher development strategies, such as peer assistance and review. In community
schools, collaboration extends to include community school directors, local government agencies,
families, community members, and leaders of community-based organizations. These expanded
collaborations focus on school governance and program planning, the coordination of services
associated with the other three community school pillars, and the maintenance of constructive
relationships among professional staff, families, and community partners.
This fourth pillar of community schools differs from the other three. As discussed previously,
integrated student services, ELT/O, and family and community engagement are strategies intended
to have a direct impact on student outcomes, as well as on schools and communities. In contrast,
collaborative leadership and practice may be more accurately characterized as a mediating factor—
the key to making these other three pillars effective. As stakeholders work together to assess issues,
make plans, and improve practices, they can more effectively build the important partnerships
that support the implementation of programs, instructional practices, and supports for successful
implementation of the approach.
However, like the other three pillars, collaborative leadership and practice consist of organizational
structures and practices, in this case, for school governance, decision making, accountability, and
ownership. These go far beyond members of an organization being respectful and cooperative with
one another as they implement the other pillars.

What Does Collaborative Leadership and Practice Look Like in Action?
In one urban school district in the eastern United States, full-service community schools partner with a
coordinating agency from the community and offer extended learning opportunities; health, mental health,
and social services; family engagement strategies; and community-centered activities to support improved
educational outcomes. One of the schools in this district is an elementary school serving approximately
200 students, the majority of whom are from low-income families and first-generation Latino American. The
principal at this community school, according to a case study by Sanders, was well connected to district and
city leaders and particularly able to build and nurture relationships with colleagues, district officials, and
community partners. This helped position the school to partner with organizations to address the needs of the
students and also to draw attention to the need for continued funding for the community school program in the
district.
Working with the community school coordinator, the principal built expansive community partnerships that
provided enriched extended learning activities, including a summer learning program and an after-school
program with tutoring, homework help, and enrichment activities. The partnerships also offered site-based
dental screenings, education, and referrals; mental health and counseling services; a music program;
and Spanish and English classes. The community school coordinator was also able to help nearly 100
families secure supplemental nutritional assistance, eyeglasses, and clothing, and was able to address
food and other needs within the community. The principal encouraged teachers at the school to engage in
partnerships with community groups that supported student academic and social engagement. The “close-
knit” faculty valued the community schools approach, working together to create various partnerships to
address the needs of families and students, ultimately promoting student success. With its highly developed
partnerships and organizational programming linked to academic benefits, this school was able to garner
positive attention to sustain the partnerships and to benefit the students and families. The school’s
attendance rate and performance on state assessments were well above the district averages, with high
levels of family engagement.
Source: 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.
There is promising evidence supporting the positive impact of the type of collaborative leadership
and practices found in community schools, although little of this research has been done in
community school settings. The large-scale research base for community schools is newer and less
extensive than in other areas. Many studies are descriptive in nature (rather than the meta-analyses
and quasi-experimental evaluations reviewed in other sections of this report). Nevertheless, they
add important and useful findings to the community schools evidence base.
The research examining collaborative leadership

and practice shows that this approach to The research examining
school governance and decision making fosters collaborative leadership and
conditions necessary to improve student
practice shows that this approach
outcomes, as well as to improve relationships
within and beyond the school walls. When well to school governance and decision
done, such collaboration leads to several positive making fosters conditions
outcomes for students, most likely because it
increases the commitment and trust among
necessary to improve student
stakeholders—social capital, that is—and it outcomes, as well as to improve
increases teacher capacity. relationships within and beyond
the school walls.

Collaborative Leadership and Practice as a Core Feature of Community
Schools
The Coalition for Community Schools identifies collaboration among school staff, community
partners, and families as a central component in its comprehensive community schools
framework.294 It argues that collaboration is necessary for creating conditions in community
schools that enable all students to learn.295 The Coalition explains that in community schools,
[l]ocal citizens and local leaders decide what happens in their schools, and schools return
to their historic role as centers of community where everyone belongs, everyone works
together, and our young people succeed.296
Community schools typically seek to involve community partners and families deeply in the
functioning of the school, as well as in supporting students. To facilitate this, community
schools create structures that allow multiple stakeholders to exercise leadership, work toward
a common vision, and align programs, while contributing different areas of expertise. Inclusive
leadership teams facilitate collective responsibility for governance and decision making.297
Stakeholders share responsibility for continuous improvement and are held accountable. Teachers
work together in professional learning communities, and they meet regularly with nonprofit
partners to improve instruction both in classrooms and in ELT/O. For example, Tulsa’s Center for
Community School Strategies highlights the importance of inclusive and expanded leadership for
community school success, describing it as an:
Inclusive and expanded school leadership structure focused on building a culture of

collective trust, founded on a well-trained principal linked with a strong community
school coordinator, effective teacher peer supports and open communication with a
broad array of constituencies.298
Community school partners can incorporate a wide range of local organizations that are concerned
with education, including non-profit organizations and universities, private agencies serving youth
and families, faith-based institutions, neighborhood groups, and civic organizations. Although the
nature of partnerships varies by community, all seem to agree that the active engagement of local
partners is essential to the successful implementation of a community school strategy.
In its research, the Coalition found that many

community schools rely on collaboration to draw Collaborative leadership and
on local knowledge as they create community- practice among schools,
led, active learning experiences for students both
inside and outside of the classroom. Educators
agencies, and community-based
work together with outside partners to ensure organizations can support families
that the additional services they provide families and communities to develop
and students are relevant and responsive to
community needs and cultural practices. Such safe and supportive school and
collaboration provides an infrastructure that neighborhood environments,
supports young people and their families to drawing on the different knowledge
access tutoring, enrichment, mentoring, health
services, nutritious meals, and more. Finally, and skills of stakeholders.
collaborative leadership and practice among
schools, agencies, and community-based

organizations can support families and communities to develop safe and supportive school and
neighborhood environments, drawing on the different knowledge and skills of stakeholders.299 Next,
we discuss some of the diverse collaboration practices used by community schools.
Sharing decision making among professional staff

Community schools, like other types of schools, develop shared leadership and decision-making
teams in which principals, teachers, and other school staff together assess issues, make plans,
set goals, implement new programs, and ensure cohesion and integration of curriculum and
instructional practices. In community schools, such teams often include community school
directors (also called coordinators). Such teams can coordinate efforts to align resources and
programs and to develop strategies for the important work of linking students and families to
additional services and supports that can help address issues that challenge learning.300 They can
also develop ways to incorporate knowledge of the community into the curriculum.301 In addition,
such teams can enable community school directors to play integral roles in shaping the school
vision, planning, coordination, and managing services and programs. Often, school principals and
community school directors together create and lead these structures for collaborative work.302
Including families and community members in decision making

Community schools often recruit families and community members to join leadership and decision-
making teams at the school as a strategy for mobilizing assets and building trusting relationships
that can strengthen and enrich school governance and planning. Some principals routinely
meet with parents to discuss the school budget and make decisions about priorities together.303
This practice reflects the value that community schools place on the experience of families and
community members from diverse backgrounds.304
Partnering with community organizations

As discussed in Pillars 1 and 2, integrated student Partnerships provide a structure
supports and expanded learning opportunities
in which these outside groups
are often delivered through partnerships with
outside organizations and agencies, making it collaborate with each other as well
important that collaborative practices that create as with school staff, families, and
and maintain good working relationships be in
communities, identifying issues
place. Accordingly, community schools often
develop formal partnerships with a variety of and developing joint plans to
organizations, including hospitals, local colleges address the out-of-school factors
and universities, churches, and community-based
organizations that provide services, such as
that can be barriers to learning and
legal services, pre-k and after-school programs, to make the best use of expanded
and housing subsidies.305 These partnerships learning time.
vary among community schools as they are
based on the particular needs and priorities of
a school and its surrounding communities.306
The partnerships provide a structure in which these outside groups collaborate with each other as
well as with school staff, families, and communities, identifying issues and developing joint plans
to address the out-of-school factors that can be barriers to learning and to make the best use of
expanded learning time.307

Universities can collaborate with community schools by expanding access to support services
and specialized learning opportunities. For example, as discussed in Pillar 1, the Diplomas
Now partnership among Communities in Schools, Johns Hopkins University, and City Year is
an integrated strategy can help support students in graduating. Universitites can also support
teachers to develop new content knowledge and pedagogical approaches and provide other types
of training.308 Such collaborations can benefit the university as well as the school community.
For example, pre-service teachers can get experience working in traditional and nontraditional
classroom settings, while community schools benefit from having more instructional staff
supported by the teacher preparation program of the university.
What Do University Partnerships Look Like in Action?

The partnership between a university and a community school in New York City takes a unique approach
that uses graduate students to design and implement a variety of extended learning time programming.
Because many of the graduate students have been in teaching, they have the extra support of the professional
development offered by the university as they implement these programs. The community school benefits from
both the range of professional supports and the people carrying out the extended learning time programs. The
university also benefits, as its students are getting a practicum experience and additional experience in an
after-school program that is not a traditional classroom. The projects the graduate students are implementing
are diverse, including a study of media and social justice with high school students and a project-based
learning activity concerning substance abuse among high school students, identified by the students as a topic
important to them. Such projects provide opportunities for enriched learning for students as well as important
experience for future teachers.
Source: Personal communication with anonymous staff and students at Teachers College, Columbia University.
Collaborating with teachers unions

Increasingly, teachers unions are advocating for and supporting the implementation of the
community school strategy. In McDowell County, WV, for example, the American Federation of
Teachers has played a key role in bringing together 40 partners to develop a community school
effort and related strategy to lift schools, students, and their families. The partners from businesses,
foundations, nonprofits, and the labor sector have committed to address complex problems through
providing services, money, products, and/or expertise to improve the schools.309 The other major
teachers union, the National Education Association (NEA), also has done considerable organizing
to build member support for community schools; for example, the Milwaukee Teachers’ Education
Association’s Community Schools Institute, which trains members, administrators, and community
members in community school principles and organizing skills. The NEA website includes a
108-page community schools “toolkit” and suggests that the union can “serve as the first mover in
getting a community to survey its needs and commit to moving forward with the community school
strategy. We can lead community conversations; serve on planning teams; raise public awareness
about student needs and how community schools can meet them; and we can make sure our
members understand their roles at the site level.”310

The General Impact of Collaborative Leadership and Practice
As we describe in what follows, research has found that collaborative leadership and practice have
a positive effect on student outcomes.311 It has also found that collaborative leadership and practice
help create school conditions that, in turn, promote positive student outcomes. The Research
Compendium that accompanies this report provides more detail about each of the reviews and
studies included in the discussion.
Impact on student outcomes

Several empirical studies and research syntheses
provide evidence that collaborative leadership Collaborative leadership and
and practice positively impact student outcomes. practice have a positive impact
Some find that these positive effects accrue
because of changes in the school climate
on student outcomes because
that increase the social capital of students they increase the capacity of a
and families. Others find that collaborative school to improve academically
leadership and practice have a positive impact
on student outcomes because they increase the through such mechanisms as peer
capacity of a school to improve academically learning among teachers.
through such mechanisms as peer learning
among teachers.
For example, a series of empirical studies by Heck & Hallinger (ESSA Tier 3) found that
collaborative leadership indirectly affected student learning by building the school’s capacity for
academic improvement.312 One of these studies used a randomly selected sample of 198 elementary
schools to examine schools’ capacities for improvement and collaborative leadership based on
teacher surveys over 4 years, controlling for student backgrounds.313 This study found that changes
in collaborative leadership were positively related to changes in school capacity. Specifically, they
found that schools can improve learning outcomes, as changes in collaborative leadership over time
are associated with changes in school improvement capacity and growth in student achievement.314
Similarly, in 2006, Leithwood and colleagues examined peer-reviewed empirical studies of school
leadership (ESSA Tiers 3 and 4). Among their findings, they determined that robust evidence exists
that demonstrates the relationship between redesigning the school organization (i.e., initiating
collaborative cultures, restructuring, relationships with families and communities, connecting
schools to wider environments) and student achievement, with moderate effect sizes. They
also found that the research “unambiguously supports the importance of collaborative cultures
in schools as being central to school improvement, the development of professional learning
communities and the improvement of student learning.”315
In 2013, Anrig published a research synthesis that included detailed descriptions and analyses of
well-designed studies (ESSA Tiers 2–4) of schools characterized by collaborative leadership and
practice.316 Many of the studies employed mixed methods, including careful quantitative analyses
of existing and original data and qualitative analysis of data from observations, interviews, review
of documents, etc. Anrig also presented detailed case studies of two districts—Cincinnati, OH,
and Springfield, MA—that made extensive efforts to create collaborative cultures in existing
schools, arguing that the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that high-performing

schools, even in poor socioeconomic settings, are characterized by cultures in which teachers and
administrators engage in more collaboration, communication, coordinated responses to testing
data, and structured problem solving than is the norm. He also found that schools striving to
create collaborative systems realize gains in student achievement outcomes. The development
of social capital and teacher peer learning appear to be the factors that explain the link between
collaboration and positive student outcomes. Notably, although the direction of causation cannot
be firmly established in several of the studies reviewed, others looked at outcomes over time and
showed a sequence of social capital development or peer learning preceding outcome gains.
One of the studies included in the Anrig

synthesis is Bryk and colleagues’ research Partnerships among teachers,
on 200 Chicago schools using multiple parents, and community members
methodologies over a period of 7 years (ESSA
Tier 3). Collaborative structures and activities were important in providing
were key to nurturing relational trust among the social resources needed to
teachers as well as between educators, parents,
improve school conditions that
and community members.317 As a part of this
research, Sebring and colleagues’ rigorous directly affect student learning,
research (ESSA Tier 3) on school transformations the learning climate, and
in Chicago found that partnerships among
ambitious instruction.
teachers, parents, and community members
were important in providing the social resources
needed to improve school conditions that
directly affect student learning, the learning climate, and ambitious instruction. They found that
when these adult actors were most effective at supporting students academically and personally,
they created a climate where students felt motivated and challenged to work hard.318
Equally as important as the skills of individual teachers, though, is the presence of a

school-based professional community focused on developing instructional capacity
across the school. Partnership and cooperation among teachers, parents, and community
members provide the social resources needed for broad-based work on conditions in the
school and the challenges involved in improving student learning. The work of adult
actors, in turn, results in the conditions that directly affect student learning—learning
climate and ambitious instruction. The most basic requirement is a safe and orderly
environment that is conducive to academic work. Schools that are most effective will
further create a climate where students feel motivated and pressed to work hard while
knowing that adults will provide extensive academic and personal support.319
Additionally, Chicago schools that were strong in these essential supports were at least 10 times
more likely than schools weak in such supports to show substantial gains in both reading
and mathematics.320
Research also links positive effects on student outcomes to the teacher learning that occurs in
collaborative practice. Specifically, teachers benefit from being part of a positive school community
in which they can participate in shared decision making and learning. Sebring and colleagues’
Chicago study (previously discussed) found that schools with collaborative teacher efforts and
inclusive school leadership that focuses on instruction improved teachers’ instructional practice
and tended to show the largest improvements in student learning over time.321

Robinson and colleagues conducted a 2008
meta-analysis (ESSA Tiers 2 and 3) of the Well-developed professional
effect of different dimensions of leadership on learning communities have
student outcomes, as measured by achievement
on tests as well as other measures. They found
a positive impact on both
that principals’ participation in and promotion teaching practice and student
of learning communities with teachers achievement.
produced the largest effect size (0.84 standard
deviations) of any of the examined dimensions
of leadership.322 They also found that “the more
that teachers report their school leaders (usually the principal) to be active participants in teacher
learning and development, the higher the student outcomes.”323 Similar results were obtained
by Vescio and colleagues in a 2008 research synthesis of 11 quasi-experimental, correlational,
and descriptive studies (ESSA Tiers 2–4) examining the impact of teachers’ participation in
professional learning communities. The authors concluded that well-developed professional
learning communities have a positive impact on both teaching practice and student achievement.
Specifically, teachers became more collaborative and student centered. Studies reporting student
learning outcomes indicated that an intense focus on student learning and achievement in the
professional learning communities positively impacted student learning.324
More recently, Kraft and Papay’s 2014 quasi-experimental study (ESSA Tier 2), which employed
regression analysis and a large database, showed greater teacher effectiveness and stronger
outcomes in schools with collaborative teams and learning opportunities.325 Darling-Hammond,
Hyler, and Gardner’s 2017 review of 35 methodologically rigorous studies demonstrating a positive
link between teacher professional development, teaching practices, and student outcomes found
that high-quality professional development creates space for teachers to share ideas and collaborate
in their learning, often in job-embedded contexts. By working collaboratively, teachers can
create communities that positively change the culture and instruction of their entire grade level,
department, school, and/or district.326
Another 2017 study by Ingersoll and colleagues on school leadership used regression analysis
of national survey data (ESSA Tier 3) to examine the relationship between eight measures of
teacher leadership in schools and student achievement, as measured by the percentile ranking
of a school’s student proficiency levels and controlling for school-level characteristics. The
researchers found that all eight measures of teacher leadership were positively and significantly
associated with student achievement. These findings were robust: “regardless of the type of
school, increases in the role of teachers in leadership are strongly associated with improvements
in student achievement.”327
Finally, promising research on union-management partnerships suggests benefits for students.

Using a combination of surveys, interviews, observations, and student performance data from 27
schools, Rubinstein & McCarthy used regressions that controlled for poverty and student baseline
test scores (ESSA Tier 3). They found that the strength of teacher union-management partnerships
is a strong predictor of student performance over time and is mediated by stronger educator
collaboration at the school.328 This research confirmed their earlier 2012 case study research
finding that collaboration between teacher unions, management, and districts is both possible and
necessary for district reform.329

The Impact of Collaborative Leadership and Practice on Conditions Thought to
Produce Positive Student Outcomes
A substantial number of studies have found
that collaboration in schools facilitates the A substantial number of studies
development of relational trust, teacher feelings have found that collaboration
of efficacy, and strong ties between parents,
communities, and educators. Although these in schools facilitates the
conditions are associated with positive student development of relational trust,
outcomes in the research previously noted,
teacher feelings of efficacy, and
the studies discussed here did not examine
the impact on student outcomes. For example, strong ties between parents,
Sergiovanni’s 2000 narrative review of research communities, and educators.
(ESSA Tier 4) on leadership in schools found
that school climates that are supportive,
focus on shared decision making, and have a common sense of purpose can lead to cooperative
relationships and increased teacher motivation, efficacy, and accountability, all important factors
in student achievement.330
Similarly, Spillane and Diamond found that when teachers, parents, and community members work
together intentionally, they have the time, space, and support to address issues collaboratively,
analyzing the challenges they face and developing collective solutions (ESSA Tier 4).331 Bryk and
colleagues (discussed above) found that the relational trust fostered by collaborative relationships
enhanced the capacity of stakeholders and the school to develop a common vision and strategy
for improving the culture and learning environment.332 Building on Bryk’s prior research, Mapp
conducted qualitative case study research (ESSA Tier 4) on family-school partnerships. Those cases
show that as schools built the capacities of staff, families, and communities to work together under
the conditions identified as essential by Bryk—effective leadership, the professional capacity of
staff, a student-centered learning climate, and instructional support and guidance—dramatic shifts
took place in the culture and climate.333 Studies by Richardson, Sanders, and Warren (ESSA Tier 4)
all found that such relationships also make it easier for schools to identify families’ and students’
particular needs and provide appropriate supports.334
Leithwood and colleagues’ 2006 review of research (ESSA Tiers 3 and 4) found that extending
leadership beyond the principal is an important lever for building effective professional learning
communities in schools.335 A growing body of research also finds evidence that strong professional
communities characterized by close collaborative relationships among teachers who are focused
on student learning foster teachers’ sharing of expertise and learning. Sebring concluded from the
Chicago studies discussed earlier, “By engaging in reflective dialogue about teaching and learning,
teachers deepen their understanding and expand their instructional repertoire.”336
Kraft and Papay’s recent study of the effects of professional environments in schools on teacher
development found that teachers who reported working in more supportive environments tended
to improve their effectiveness over time more than teachers in less supportive environments. Using
data from teachers and schools in an urban district in North Carolina that employs over 9,000
teachers, the researchers used teacher responses to a state working conditions survey to understand
the professional environment based on five elements: order and discipline, peer collaboration,
principal leadership, professional development, school culture, and teacher evaluation. Using

statistical analyses with controls, they found that on average, “after 10 years, teachers at a school
with a more supportive professional environment move upwards in the distribution of overall
teacher effectiveness by approximately one-fifth of a standard deviation more than teachers who
work in less supportive professional environments.”337
Darling-Hammond and Richardson’s

2009 review of research on teacher learning Evidence supports positive
found that effective professional development outcomes on teacher learning
occurs in such communities of practice and
that collaborative and collegial learning
from professional development
environments promote school improvement that is collaborative and collegial,
beyond individual classrooms. Such practices
338
intensive, and sustained
can improve school climate and student
engagement as well.339 Darling-Hammond and over time. Specifically, such
Richardson describe the focus and outcomes professional development
of studies related to teacher learning in
enables teachers to acquire new
peer-reviewed academic journals, professional
handbooks, and policy-relevant publications. knowledge, apply it to practice,
They also provide two in-depth examples and reflect on the results with
of professional development at individual
colleagues.
schools.340 They concluded that the evidence
supports positive outcomes on teacher
learning from professional development that
is collaborative and collegial, intensive, and sustained over time. Specifically, such professional
development enables teachers to acquire new knowledge, apply it to practice, and reflect on the
results with colleagues.
Additionally, other research supports the proposition that when teachers have a role in school
decision making, they tend to feel more motivated and efficacious.341 For example, Ross and
colleagues’ 2003 study of 2,170 teachers in 141 elementary schools found that teacher ownership
in school processes (school goals, schoolwide collaboration, fit of plans with school needs, and
empowering school leadership) exerted a strong influence on collective teacher efficacy, or the
teachers’ expectations of their own effectiveness.342 Other studies found that when teachers see
themselves as part of a collaborative team that is working to improve their schools, feel supported
by school leadership, and feel they have influence over their work environments, they are more
likely to stay at a school.343
The Impact of Collaborative Leadership and Practice in Community Schools

Although there is not a large base of research on collaborative leadership and practice in
community schools specifically, several studies provide useful insight and promising evidence that
the positive impact of school collaboration described above also occurs in community schools.
Case studies and quantitative research suggest that collaborative relationships in community
schools can have benefits for students, families, and communities.344 Sanders’ 2016 study and
Richardson’s 2009 studies (ESSA Tier 4) highlight how, in community schools, school leaders
influence organizational processes and structures that in turn influence student outcomes.

As Richardson explains, the relationships
“between leadership, collaborative partners, and The school that had the
organizational development build on each other highest capacity also had more
over time, producing, in a best-case scenario, a
sustainable successful institution.”345
expansive school partnerships
with community groups, and the
Blank, Jacobson, and Melaville’s 2012 qualitative
study (ESSA Tier 4) of partnerships in seven principal had exercised greater
communities helps inform our understanding relational and political leadership.
of how collaboration in community schools
works. They conducted interviews and reviewed
documents to better understand what they deemed to be robust networks with schools, districts,
unions, local government agencies, and other organizations. They found that the ability of
community schools to deliver positive results is strengthened when school and community leaders
partner around a common vision, develop collaborative structures, continue to dialogue about
challenges and solutions, share data, are supported by central offices, and can leverage community
resources and funding streams.346
Case studies (ESSA Tier 4) of community schools in Oakland found that as adults collaborated to
address barriers to learning and improve instruction, the school climate improved.347 In addition, a
qualitative dissertation study (ESSA Tier 4) conducted by a director of the Beacon school support
program in San Francisco sheds light on the mechanisms underlying these impacts. It found
that when principals, Beacon directors, community school directors, and lead agency partners
shared decision-making power in schools, the relationships became elevated to more committed
partnerships.348 In particular, when school teams, which had school leadership and/or a community
school or a Beacon director participating, developed a common agenda or mutually agreed upon
goals, they were more cohesive than school teams that didn’t share decision-making power. In
this scenario, partners could come together to make decisions feeling valued and respected.349
Collaborative efforts with community school directors and other school and community stakeholders
make it possible for the resources to be better leveraged and aligned to meet student needs.350
Sanders’ 2016 case study examined effectiveness in three community schools as measured by
the school’s capacity to improve academic and behavioral outcomes of students, attendance,
and student mobility and suspension rates as well as parent engagement. This study found that
community school directors played critical roles in developing community partnerships by assisting
principals with establishing and maintaining partnerships. One community school director in this
study explained his relationship with the principal in the following way: “Basically, in terms of
my understanding of the agreement with the principal, he is the principal in the school, and I am
the principal vis-a-vis the community.”351 The school that had the highest capacity also had more
expansive school partnerships with community groups, and the principal had exercised greater
relational and political leadership. Similarly, Richardson’s 2009 case study of community schools
found that principals and community school directors can be more effective when both are actively
engaged in developing and maintaining community partnerships.352
Community partnerships
Although the nature of partnerships varies by community, the active engagement of local partners
is essential to the successful implementation of a community school strategy. Partnerships

can be with different kinds of organizations
that are based in the local community and Community schools are best able
concerned with education, including nonprofit to show positive results when
organizations, private agencies serving
youth and families, faith-based institutions,
school and community leaders
neighborhood groups, and civic organizations. work collaboratively toward a
Although there is not a large base of quantitative common vision with continuous
research on community partnerships in
community schools, Blank, Jacobson, and dialogue about challenges and
Melaville’s 2012 qualitative study (ESSA Tier 4) solutions, receive support from
of such partnerships in seven communities helps
central offices, and can leverage
inform our understanding of how they work.
They found that community schools are best community resources and funding
able to show positive results when school and streams.
community leaders work collaboratively toward
a common vision with continuous dialogue
about challenges and solutions, receive support from central offices, and can leverage community
resources and funding streams.353
Effectively Implementing Collaborative Leadership and Practice Strategies

The planning and implementation of collaborative leadership and practice are essential to success.
In a 2001 study (ESSA Tier 3) of schools with comprehensive school, family, and community
partnership programs, Sanders found that schools that had widespread support for collaboration
were more likely to be successful. Some schools faced barriers to such partnerships, including
difficulties identifying community partners, time constraints, and a lack of leaders to facilitate and
coordinate activities.354 We conclude this section by examining the implementation of collaborative
practices.
As we describe in more detail below, research suggests that the following conditions can facilitate
effective collaborative practices:
• Collaborative goal setting: Stakeholders benefit from having time to assess issues, set goals,
and make plans together.
• Capacity building: Collective leadership development, supports, and models help build
capacity.
• Process: Designated times and processes for collaboration among stakeholders increase
success by allowing for time to reflect and make improvements in structured ways.
• Relationships and structure: Formal relationships and structures help sustain participation
and leadership.355
Collaborative goal setting

Collaborative forms of goal setting are important at both the school and district levels.
Superintendents’ collaborative goal setting involves relevant stakeholders (including central
office staff, building-level administrators, and board members) and is associated with improved
student outcomes.356 In 2008, Robinson and colleagues’ conducted a meta-analysis of 22 peer-
reviewed studies (ESSA Tiers 2 and 3) that looked at the impact of leadership on a variety of

student outcomes. They found that goal setting has indirect effects on students by focusing and
coordinating the work of teachers and parents.357 Many of the studies reviewed demonstrated that
relationships were key to successful communication of goals and expectations358 and that staff
consensus about goals significantly differentiated between high- and low-performing schools.359
Capacity development
Capacity for improvement, as defined by Heck and Hallinger, is a “set of conditions that support
teaching and learning, enable the professional learning of the staff, and provide a means for
implementing strategic action aimed at continuous improvement.”360 Support from leadership
and direct participation in learning are important for successful capacity building. Leithwood and
colleagues’ 2006 review of qualitative and quantitative research found that practices designed to
develop school stakeholders’ capacities, such as offering intellectual stimulation and providing
support and appropriate models of best practice and beliefs that are considered fundamental
to the organization, have made substantial contributions to school improvement.361 Bryk and
colleagues found that leadership can function as a catalytic agent for systemic improvement
and enhance the faculty’s professional capabilities, supporting effective school improvement.362
Hallinger’s 2011 review of empirical research found that principals can only achieve success by
enlisting the cooperation of others and that leadership should be aimed at building the school’s
capacity for improvement.363
Process
Designated times in which stakeholders can work together to honestly and constructively solve
problems are essential to collaborative processes.364 School leadership is key to opening such
processes with school and community stakeholders.365 In a 2016 study (ESSA Tier 4) of community
schools in Oakland, Fehrer and Leos-Urbel found that while principals with collaborative
approaches were a guiding force, partner agencies, community school managers, and families
played integral roles in shaping a school’s vision, coordination, and management.366
Relationships and structures

Formal relationships and collaborative structures, including regular meetings, assigned roles,
and consistent practices, can support collaboration among stakeholders.367 Leadership that is
both supportive and challenging can help change attitudes, beliefs, and practices for effective
implementation.368 Sanders’ forthcoming study on leadership in community schools found that
principals who were able to actively engage with diverse stakeholders, facilitate stakeholder
interaction, and purposefully select faculty and staff to maintain collaborative school cultures could
attract partnerships that were beneficial to the school community and garner continued political
and financial support to sustain the community school strategy.369
In sum, looking across all four pillars, there is strong research supporting integrated student
supports, expanded learning time and opportunities, and family and community engagement. There
is promising evidence supporting the positive impact of the type of collaborative leadership and
practices found in community schools.

7. Pulling It All Together:
Research on Comprehensive Community Schools
This report defines comprehensive community school initiatives as those that seek to implement
most or all of the four community school pillars: (1) integrated student supports, (2) expanded
learning time and opportunities, (3) family and community engagement, and (4) collaborative
leadership and practice. The complexity of this approach cannot be overstated: Pulling these
pillars together into a coherent intervention requires coordination of many moving parts. These
initiatives can be carried out at an individual school level or as a systemwide reform within a school
district, city, or county. In the latter case, a subset of schools is often selected to participate because
of specific concerns about low test scores and a high rate of students struggling with challenges,
such as poverty and exposure to trauma. While the community schools approach can be applied in
schools that do not operate under these adverse conditions, it is most often used as a “turnaround”
strategy with a focus on improving students’ outcomes.
What Does a Comprehensive Community School Look Like in Action?

The class assignment: Design an iPad video game. For the player to win, a cow must cross a two-lane highway,
dodging constant traffic. If she makes it, the sound of clapping is heard; if she’s hit by a car, the game says, “Aw.”
“Let me show you my notebook where I wrote the algorithm. An algorithm is like a recipe,” Leila, one of the
students in the class, explained to the school official who described the scene to me.
You might assume these were gifted students at an elite school. Instead they were 7-year-olds, second graders
in the Union Public Schools district in the eastern part of Tulsa, OK, where more than a third of the students are
Latino, many of them English learners, and 70% receive free or reduced-price lunch. From kindergarten through
high school, they get a state-of-the-art education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
The school district realized, as Cathy Burden, who retired in 2013 after 19 years as superintendent, put it,
that “focusing entirely on academics wasn’t enough, especially for poor kids.” Beginning in 2004, Union
started revamping its schools into what are generally known as community schools. These schools open early,
so parents can drop off their kids on their way to work, and stay open late and during summers. They offer
students the cornucopia of activities—art, music, science, sports, tutoring—that middle-class families routinely
provide. They operate as neighborhood hubs, providing families with access to a health care clinic in the school
or nearby; connecting parents to job-training opportunities; delivering clothing, food, furniture and bikes; and
enabling teenage mothers to graduate by offering day care for their infants.
Two fifth graders guided me around one of these community schools, Christa McAuliffe Elementary, a sprawling
brick building surrounded by acres of athletic fields. It was more than an hour after the school day ended,
but the building buzzed, with choir practice, art classes, a soccer club, a student newspaper (the editors
interviewed me), and a garden where students were growing corn and radishes. Tony, one of my young guides,
performed in a folk dance troupe. The walls were festooned with family photos under a banner that said, “We
Are All Family.”
This environment reaps big dividends—attendance and test scores have soared in the community schools,
while suspensions have plummeted. “None of this happened overnight,” Ms. Burden recalled. “We were very
intentional—we started with a prototype program, like community schools, tested it out and gradually expanded
it. The model was organic—it grew because it was the right thing to do.”
Source: Kirp, D. (2017, April 1). Who needs charters when you have public schools like these? The New York Times. https://
www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/opinion/sunday/who-needs-charters-when-you-have-public-schools-like-these.html?_r=0.

This section explores the efficacy of comprehensive community school initiatives implemented
across multiple school sites. Although the evidence base is still developing—both in terms of the
number of peer-reviewed studies and the rigor of those studies—promising results emerge for short-
term student outcomes, and there is some evidence of longer term positive outcomes. This chapter
first identifies the academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes that have been the focus of
community school evaluations. It then tells of places that have implemented the community school
pillars with a comprehensive approach, including a review of the evidence associated with each
initiative. It also reviews the evidence about how implementation impacts outcomes for community
schools. It concludes by discussing community schools’ potential to address out-of-school barriers,
reduce achievement gaps, and yield cost-benefit savings.
Community Schools Research Focuses on Multiple Student Outcomes

Community schools have historically focused on strengthening neighborhoods and civil society, as
discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, and some initiatives maintain this emphasis today. However,
these broad social outcomes are rarely examined in the contemporary evidence base. Instead, current
research on community schools emphasizes three main outcome categories, or themes, which will
guide the discussion of evidence presented in this chapter: (1) academics, (2) behavior, and
(3) social-emotional learning. The bulk of this evidence is evaluation research, conducted to assess the
implementation and impact of particular programs, often in a specific location, and to inform decision
makers. As we note in what follows, many of these studies employ careful designs and rigorous
methods. Therefore, we also categorize them using the ESSA evidence tiers.
Most evaluation research emphasizes academic outcomes, using statistical methods to analyze
student achievement measures, such as test scores and grades. Dropout, graduation, and course
completion rates (including credit attainment, grade promotion, and high school graduation) have
also received attention in the literature.
Behavioral outcomes are another important measure of community school success, as they
indicate whether these reforms are impacting the “whole child.” Attendance is a frequently studied
behavioral outcome, as defined by average daily attendance and chronic absenteeism. Student
discipline and other behavioral outcomes, such as nutrition and teen pregnancy, are also addressed
in the community schools literature. The evaluation research examining these outcomes primarily
involves statistical analyses of administrative
records and some self-reported survey data for Social-emotional learning is a
longer term measures.
bedrock of the community schools
Social-emotional learning has received a great approach. To target the whole
deal of attention in recent years and is a bedrock
of the community schools approach. To target
child, community schools focus
the whole child, community schools focus on improving mental health,
on improving mental health, strengthening strengthening relationships, and
relationships, and creating positive school
climate in addition to raising academic
creating positive school climate
achievement. However, the community schools in addition to raising academic
literature considers these aims less frequently achievement.
than it does academic and behavioral outcomes.
Evaluations that do address this topic tend to

focus on changes in student attitudes and dispositions, peer and teacher relationships, and overall
school climate. Another social-emotional indicator is collective trust, or trust among students,
parents, and teachers in a school. This indicator is only included in one evaluation, although it is
closely tied to the concept that community school practices help to create the conditions found in
any high-quality school. Much of the literature on social-emotional outcomes employs statistical
analyses of self-reported survey data from students, parents, and teachers.
According to a results-based logic model developed by the Coalition for Community Schools, some
of these outcomes are expected to manifest before others.370 In particular, attendance is often
viewed as a leading indicator of success for community school initiatives. Students need to be
present before they can experience any other benefits from the community schools approach. The
Coalition’s results-based framework also identifies student involvement with learning as well as
family and community engagement with the school as additional leading indicators of success. If
students are present, engaged, and supported by their families and communities, then longer term
impacts, such as improving test scores and reducing the achievement gap become possible. The
Coalition’s framework identifies student health, social-emotional competence, school climate, and
community safety, in addition to academic success, as long-term indicators of success.
From the perspective of this framework, it is reasonable to assume that these long-term results
would only look substantially different for students or institutions with sustained exposure to the
community schools approach. When evaluating comprehensive community school initiatives, it is
important to understand that attendance gains are expected to come first and that changes in longer
term results require time and patience to manifest. Daniel, Welner, and Valladares confirm this
perspective by finding that full implementation of complex change efforts can take 5 to 10 years, with
schools generally achieving partial implementation in the first 3 to 4 years of these efforts.371 School
improvement is a process that begins with challenges to the status quo followed by the reshaping of
roles, rules, and responsibilities. Therefore, evaluations of school reform success should use multiple
and interim measures.
Several prior reports on comprehensive community

school evaluations have synthesized findings for Attendance is often viewed as a
these outcome areas. In a 2000 study, Dryfoos leading indicator of success for
reviewed evaluations of 49 community school
community school initiatives. If
initiatives and found that 36 of the programs
reported academic gains.372 In addition, students are present, engaged,
11 programs reported reductions in suspension and supported, then longer term
rates and other behavioral issues, while at least
impacts like improving test scores
12 programs reported increases in parental
involvement. In a 2003 study, Blank, Melaville, and become possible.
Shah found evidence of notable improvements
in student learning, family engagement, school
effectiveness (including strength of parent-teacher relationships, teacher satisfaction, and school
environment), and community vitality (including effective use of school buildings, neighborhood
pride, and safety) for 20 community school initiatives.373 More recently, a 2016 report from Heers and
colleagues drew upon 57 academic studies to empirically examine the link between major community
school activities and their associated outcomes.374 This portion of their analysis did not include direct
evaluations of community school initiatives (as presented in this chapter) but, rather, examined

studies empirically linking the specified activity (such as cooperation between the school and external
partner organizations) with the outcome of interest (such as academic achievement).375 The authors
found that both cooperation with external institutions and parental involvement are associated with
improved academic achievement and reduced dropout and risky behavior rates. They also found that
extracurricular activities are associated with reduced dropout and risky behavior rates (but not with
improved academic performance).
These syntheses provide a helpful starting point to understand outcomes for comprehensive
community school initiatives; the current report builds upon the existing evidence by reviewing
a number of direct program evaluations that were released after the publication of the 2000
and 2003 studies. Since these studies were released, there has been an increasing investment in
community school initiatives and thus growth in evaluation research, particularly for systems-
level initiatives implemented at multiple sites. Furthermore, this report considers evaluation
research findings that were not included in the 2016 study. The sections that follow provide
evidence of academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes associated with a variety of
local community school initiatives.
Evaluation Research on Local Community School Initiatives

This section provides evidence from quasi-experimental (ESSA Tier 2) evaluation research on
community school initiatives in different parts of the United States. In addition, it reviews several
descriptive evaluations (ESSA Tier 4) that employ a rigorous, mixed-methods approach to assessing
student outcomes. See the Research Compendium for a review of additional studies that are not
described at length here. Although the number of sites and students included in each study varies,
these are all examinations of systems-level initiatives that involve multiple community schools.
While all of the outcome categories addressed in the previous section are considered in this review,
not every study addresses all three categories.
Community schools in Tulsa

Some public schools in Tulsa, OK, offer a holistic community schools model representing the full
range of pillars we identified earlier in this paper. Core components of the program at the time of
the evaluation included
• cross-boundary leadership shared by school and community members (aligns with the
collaborative leadership and practice pillar in this report);
• holistic programs, services, and opportunities attending to the academic, emotional,
physical, cognitive, and social needs of the whole child (aligns with the integrated student
supports pillar in this report);
• community and family engagement grounded in reciprocity and trust (aligns with the
family and community engagement pillar in this report); and
• community-based learning in real-world contexts (aligns with the expanded learning time
and opportunities pillar in this report).376

Evaluation research in Tulsa adds to our understanding of the impact of community schools on
academic outcomes, finding that well-implemented community schools had significantly higher
test scores after several years of implementation, compared to other schools in the area. It also
shows that collective trust among students, teachers, and parents is a strong predictor of these
achievement gains. Adams obtained these finding in 2010 by using a quasi-experimental approach
(ESSA Tier 2) to compare outcomes for 18 Tulsa Area Community Schools Initiative (TACSI) schools
to outcomes for 18 carefully selected non-community comparison schools.377
Specifically, by the 3rd and 4th years of

the reform, students at fully implemented By the 3rd and 4th years of
community schools were scoring approximately the reform, students at fully
30 points above the average score of 747 in
mathematics and approximately 19 points above
implemented community schools
the average score of 731 in reading. These well- were scoring approximately 30
implemented schools stood out, in that across points above the average score
all schools there were no significant differences
between 5th-grade standardized mathematics of 747 in mathematics and
and reading test scores when controlling for approximately 19 points above the
prior test score performance. However, after
average score of 731 in reading.
accounting for the implementation status of
community schools through a rating scale
based on teacher survey data, a reading and
mathematics achievement effect emerged with particularly strong results for mathematics.378
Although the pre-reform data showed that students at fully implemented community schools
scored slightly higher initially on mathematics and reading than students at other schools, the
post-reform differences were significantly greater than the earlier ones.379
The analysis of survey data from TACSI sites also found that collective trust among students,
teachers, and parents was a strong school-level predictor of mathematics and reading
achievement.380 Student trust in teachers and faculty trust in students and parents were also
significantly higher in schools more fully implementing the TACSI model. This evaluation
underscores the importance of carefully implementing a comprehensive community schools
approach and suggests that positive relationships facilitate productive teaching and learning,
leading to increased student achievement.
Harlem Children’s Zone in New York City

The Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ) provides a variety of social services to children and families
living within a 97-block area of New York City and also operates several charter elementary and
middle schools within the area. Although the HCZ schools are not usually called community
schools, we include them in our analysis because they incorporate community school elements,
including an extended school day and year (aligned with the ELT/O pillar); free medical, dental,
and mental health services; and high-quality, nutritious meals (aligned with the integrated student
supports pillar). In addition, families receive food baskets, meals, and bus fare (aligned with the
family and community engagement pillar), and early education is available at the elementary
school starting at age 3. The outside-school elements include more than 20 programs representing
broad investments in community development within the Harlem area, such as parent education

programs, after-school programs available at public schools, a college success office, community
health programs, foster care prevention services, and tax assistance. These programs are available
to anyone living in or near the HCZ.
Research on the impact of attending a school

that is part of the HCZ provides insight about In the short term, Harlem
academic and behavioral outcomes. In the Children’s Zone students had
short term, HCZ students had significantly
higher test scores and lower absence rates significantly higher test scores and
than students attending other schools, and lower absence rates than students
in the long term, former HCZ students were
attending other schools, and in the
significantly more likely to succeed in high
school, enroll in college, and avoid pregnancy long term, former HCZ students
and incarceration as teenagers. Dobbie and Fryer were significantly more likely to
obtained these results in 2010 and 2013 using a
succeed in high school, enroll in
quasi-experimental approach (ESSA Tier 2) that
compared students who were offered admission college, and avoid pregnancy and
to an HCZ school through a randomized lottery incarceration as teenagers.
to those who did not receive a lottery offer and
therefore attended another school.381
Specifically, in 2010 they found that HCZ elementary and middle school students scored
significantly higher on mathematics and reading tests than students who attended schools that
did not offer the within-school community school elements, and the HCZ students were absent for
2 to 4 fewer days in the first year of school.382 However, there was no additional effect attributable
to the outside-school services alone, and there was no significant difference in middle school
matriculation rates for HCZ students compared to other students.383
A 2013 follow-up study found additional evidence of academic gains. Six years after a random
admissions lottery, students offered admission to the HCZ middle school scored significantly
higher on a nationally normed mathematics exam than their peers who were not offered admission,
although reading scores did not differ significantly.384 Lottery winners also passed more statewide
subject exams for high school graduation, achieved higher scores on these exams, and were
14.1% more likely to enroll in college.385 Some long-term behavioral outcomes were also improved.
Female HCZ lottery winners were 12.1% less likely to become pregnant as teenagers, compared
to applicants who were not admitted, and male lottery winners were 4.3% less likely to be
incarcerated.386 Self-reported outcomes for drug and alcohol use, criminal behavior, and mental/
physical health did not differ significantly between the two groups (except that lottery winners
were significantly more likely to report healthy eating habits). The authors point out that there is
always a danger that participants will underreport risky behavior to avoid social judgment. Dobbie
and Fryer found no additional effect attributable to the outside-school services alone. Overall, there
is clear evidence that HCZ students who had access to comprehensive in-school supports thrived
academically in both the short term and the long term. Neighborhood services alone did not seem
to contribute added value.

Eisenhower community schools
Starting in 2000, the Eisenhower Foundation established the Full-Service Community Schools
replication initiative among a cohort of schools in four states: Iowa, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Washington. The initiative is designed to apply best practices derived from successfully operating
community schools to help participating schools make the change from a traditional model to a
comprehensive services model. In this initiative, full-service community schools are schools with
academic, enrichment, behavioral health, wellness, and social service components (aligned with
the integrated student supports pillar), which stay open past the regular school day (aligned with
the ELT/O pillar), and which include parents, families, and community members in their “target
markets” for programs and services (aligned with the family and community engagement pillar).
Evaluation research for the Eisenhower initiative adds to our understanding of the impact of
community schools on academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes, with varied results
found across eight school sites. Students participating in academically oriented community school
programming significantly improved their grades, particularly for mathematics. Attendance and
behavioral gains were significant in some instances and nonsignificant in others. Students also
reported significantly increased positive responses to a variety of social-emotional survey measures.
LaFrance Associates obtained these results from a series of studies using experimental (ESSA Tier
1) and quasi-experimental (ESSA Tier 2) techniques.387 Specifically, the researchers used logic
models to identify expected outcomes for participating students and families. They then compared
outcomes for students who participated in community school services with those who did not,
accounting for demographic differences between the two groups of students through statistical
controls.388 At two school sites in Pennsylvania and Washington, students were randomly assigned
to participate in after-school programs at their full-service community schools.
In terms of academic outcomes, Iowa, Maryland, and Washington middle school students who
participated in academically oriented community school programming showed significantly greater
improvements in their mathematics grades over the course of the school year than students who
did not participate, with an average improvement of more than half a course grade. In Pennsylvania,
students at one middle school who received tutoring and homework assistance achieved
significantly greater improvements in their English language arts grades than students who did
not, gaining the equivalent of a half-grade boost for every 10 additional days of participation.
However, Pennsylvania students at another Eisenhower-funded middle school showed significantly
less progress on their English language arts grades, relative to students who did not participate
in full-service community school activities. The researchers note, however, that community
school participants had higher English grades at the beginning of the school year, which may have
contributed to their slower rate of growth over the course of the year.
In terms of behavioral outcomes, students at one Iowa middle school who participated in
community school activities showed significantly greater improvements in attendance compared
to nonparticipants, although the practical effect of 1.5 fewer days missed per year was small. In
Washington, students who participated in community school services had significantly fewer
disciplinary offenses than students who did not participate, although again, the practical effect of
one fewer offense over the course of the year was small. Attendance and disciplinary outcomes were
either nonsignificant or lacking data in the other three states.

In terms of social-emotional outcomes, Iowa middle school students who participated in
community school services were more than three times as likely as non-participants to report an
increase in the extent to which they respect other people’s feelings, and were 13.5 times more
likely to have increased their belief that an adult other than a parent/guardian expects them to
follow the rules. In Pennsylvania, participating students were 4.8 times more likely to report new
friendships, and 6.8 times more likely to report an improved sense of safety at school, compared
to non-participants. In Washington, participating students were 5.3 times more likely to report
an improved sense that they learn a lot at school, 7.5 times more likely to report an increase in
homework completion, and 5.2 times more likely to report an increase in having friends who
want them to stay out of trouble.389 In Maryland, results for participating students were mostly
nonsignificant, although students, parents, and teachers reported positive experiences stemming
from their participation in community school programming.
Looking across the many academic and social-emotional outcomes measured in these evaluations,
we find greater growth in both domains for students participating in Eisenhower-funded full-
service community school programming. Comparisons of some outcomes included in the logic
models yield nonsignificant differences at each school site, underscoring the complexity of
implementing and evaluating a comprehensive community school approach. Participants did
not demonstrate the same rate of improvement for behavioral outcomes, although in many cases
incomplete data precluded a full comparison. In addition to the quantitative data presented here,
the researchers collected qualitative data from focus groups, interviews, and observations, which
showed that participating students, parents, and teachers valued the full-service community school
programming and felt that it was positively impacting their schools.
Baltimore community schools

In 2012, Baltimore City Public Schools partnered with the Family League of Baltimore to open 26
community schools, in addition to the 11 community schools that the Family League was already
operating independently. The initiative continued to expand in the following years, so that by 2015–
16, a total of 51 community schools had been established as part of the Family League initiative.
Each school provides after-school programming (aligned with the ELT/O pillar), and employs
a full-time coordinator to facilitate communication between school leadership, families, and
community-based organizations (aligned with the integrated student supports pillar). Additional
services and supports are tailored to the needs of each school community (potentially aligned with
the family and community engagement and collaborative leadership and practice pillars). Baltimore
community schools serve a significantly higher proportion of students from low-income families
and English learner students than other district schools.
Although measures of academic outcomes were not investigated in preliminary evaluations,

research on these Baltimore schools provides insight about the positive impact of community
schools on behavioral and social-emotional outcomes, finding significantly higher attendance rates
for community schools operating for 5 or more years, compared to non-community schools in the
district. At the same time, however, suspension rates and staff perceptions of school climate did not
differ significantly for community schools. The Baltimore Education Research Consortium obtained
these results from two quasi-experimental (ESSA Tier 2) evaluations, using statistical controls to
account for demographic differences between community and non-community schools. 390

An initial evaluation found that community
schools operating for 5 or more years An initial evaluation found
increased average daily attendance and that Baltimore community
reduced chronic absence rates significantly
more than non-community schools.391 While
schools operating for 5 or more
all schools experienced an overall decline in years increased average daily
suspension rates, community schools did not attendance and reduced chronic
differ significantly from comparison schools
in disciplinary or attendance rates.392 Staff absence rates significantly more
perceptions of school climate at community than non-community schools.
schools did not differ significantly from non-
community schools, although this may have been
partially due to high rates of principal turnover
that decreased school climate scores across the board.393
Two years later, attendance rates were significantly higher for elementary and middle school
students in community schools operating for at least 3 to 5 years, compared to those in non-
community schools.394 Transfers out of community schools were also 3.7% less common for older
students, relative to those not attending community schools.395 This may indicate that community
schools are a place where students want to be. As with the earlier study, no significant differences
emerged between community and non-community schools in measures of organizational health
and school climate. Principal turnover continued to be a challenge. Parents of community school
students more often reported that school staff connected them with community resources,
compared to parents at other schools. They were also more likely to report that school staff cared
about their children and that the school was working closely with them to help their children learn.
The Baltimore results underscore the importance of allowing sufficient time for community school
programs to mature, showing that patience is key when evaluating these initiatives.
Chicago Public Schools Community Schools Initiative

The Chicago Public Schools Community Schools Initiative (CSI) started in 2003 and focuses
on Chicago’s highest need schools. It builds upon the framework established by the federal
21st Century Community Learning Centers after-school program, as well as local and national
community school designs. Participating schools forge connections with lead partner agencies to
stay open longer (aligned with the ELT/O pillar), offer resources, such as gyms and computer rooms
for after-school and community use (aligned with the integrated student supports pillar), fully
engage parents (aligned with the family and community engagement pillar), and deepen social
and family support services. A combination of quantitative and qualitative evaluation data, while
descriptive in nature, paints a rich picture of the overall status of the districtwide initiative, as well
as the reality of implementation at individual schools.
Evaluation research in Chicago adds to our understanding of the impact of community schools
on academic outcomes, as well as the school and community contexts that can influence the
implementation of this multifaceted approach. CSI schools as a whole started out with lower
test scores than the district average and narrowed this gap over 5 years. Whalen obtained these
results using a mixed-methods approach, including analysis of administrative data, site visits,
and interviews (ESSA Tier 4).396 While the schools themselves were able to offer more enrichment

activities and better engage members of the school community in decision making, they still
experienced the challenges of operating within low-income neighborhoods.
Whalen’s 2007 evaluation found that after 3 years of CSI implementation, the number of CSI
students meeting or exceeding Illinois state test standards in reading, mathematics, and science
was comparable to district averages.397 Because CSI schools started out with lower test scores, these
gains suggest that they were able to close the achievement gap when compared to Chicago Public
School (CPS) district averages. For example, Chicago schools overall gained 37.6% in mathematics
performance from 2001 to 2006, while CSI schools gained 46.3%. Similar patterns were observed
with reading scores. In addition, community schools with the most experience implementing 21st
Century Community Learning Center programming had significantly better test score gains than
newer schools.398 The two groups of schools performed at similar levels for the first few years of the
initiative, but the more experienced did considerably better in later years.
This study did not control for factors other than the CSI initiative that might have impacted
school outcomes during the analysis period. Although CSI schools may have experienced other
districtwide reforms during this time, it is reasonable to assume that systematic changes applying
just to CSI schools were most likely related to community school programming. For example, during
this period, CSI schools increased the total number of hours of school-related activity by roughly
50%, offered an average of 12 out-of-school-time enrichment activities per year, and established
committees with an average of 10 members, including school staff, parents, students, business
representatives, funders, and other community partners.
Case studies released the following year, in 2008, also found a variety of promising student
outcomes at CSI schools.399 Burnham/Anthony Mathematics and Science Academy made substantial
progress from 2002 to 2007 in increasing the percentage of students meeting or exceeding state
proficiency goals on academic tests. The school outperformed the CPS average in the final 2 years
of the study. The percentage of Burnham/Anthony graduates on track to graduate high school as
incoming 9th graders also steadily increased, exceeding 60% and outperforming the CPS average
in 2 out of the 3 final years of the study. For Chavez Multicultural Academic Center, the number of
students meeting Illinois grade-level standards improved by 96%. The school began to match or
exceed CPS averages in the final 3 years of the study. In 2003–07, the attendance rate at Chavez was
3.74% higher than that of the district.
At Burroughs Elementary, where one third of students qualified for bilingual support, more than
70% met or exceeded state reading standards, and over 80% met or exceeded state mathematics
standards, outperforming CPS averages. Notably, this study also investigated changes in
neighborhood conditions. Crime statistics indicated that Burroughs’ immediate neighborhood was
consistently safer than those of any other school in Brighton Park. Teachers and parents reported
that principal leadership has played a role in improving safety near the school. The principal
frequently attended community events and visited students’ homes, building a sense of trust with
local residents. After gang-related violence occurred near the school one summer, the principal
opened the cafeteria, provided food, and helped to facilitate a community meeting addressing the
issue. No one would claim that the principal, or the Burroughs community as a whole, is solely
responsible for lowering crime rates in the vicinity, but this example shows how a community
school can function as a hub for bringing people together to address neighborhood issues.

Other schools in the study made less consistent progress, underscoring the uneven implementation
that tends to characterize any large-scale school reform effort. Henson and Hertzl Elementary
schools both exhibited test score improvements after several years of community school
implementation, but overall student proficiency levels still lagged behind district averages by the
end of the study. Because the CSI initiative is focused on Chicago’s highest need schools, external
circumstances can pose a challenge to implementation. For example, after meeting federally
established test score improvement benchmarks in 2006, Henson experienced a setback the
following year after it absorbed half the population from a neighboring school that closed. At Hertzl,
most families experienced financial, housing, safety, and health-related stress on a daily basis.
While Hertzl offered a variety of support services, the reality of life outside the walls of the school
building still intruded. After many years of strong leadership from a veteran principal on the verge
of retirement, the school community faced uncertainty about how to maintain positive momentum
under new leadership. These challenges are common to many low-income, urban schools, where
test scores are closely related to the demographics of the student body, and the presence (or
absence) of strong principal leadership can make (or break) a school.
As a whole, the Chicago evaluation results

suggest that a comprehensive community Even schools with strong
schools approach can help to turn around leadership and student supports
academic performance in low-performing
schools, especially over multiple years of
are subject to the instability and
implementation. Yet even schools with strong stresses brought about by poverty
leadership and student supports are subject and violence, which can result in
to the instability and stresses brought about
by poverty and violence, which can result in uneven progress.
uneven progress.
Hartford Community Schools

Hartford Community Schools (HCS) in Connecticut began in 2009 with a broad array of services for
students and families, including after-school programming and school day enrichments (aligned
with the ELT/O pillar), community partnerships (aligned with the integrated student supports
pillar), and family engagement efforts (aligned with the family and community engagement pillar).
Community school directors play a key leadership role, as does the lead agency at each school
site (aligned with the collaborative leadership and practice pillar). Recent areas of focus include
aligning after-school and daytime instruction, building a stronger academic element into after-
school programming, and developing targeted supports for students struggling with academics,
attendance, or behavior.
The Hartford evaluation research found positive academic results for community schools. Students
participating in academically oriented after-school programming, and those receiving targeted
supports due to academic or behavioral challenges, made gains in test scores. Results regarding
attendance and disciplinary rates were mixed, with some schools reporting increases in these
categories and other schools reporting decreases. School climate survey outcomes were also
mixed, with students reporting more favorable perceptions in some instances and less favorable
perceptions in others, compared to prior years. Researchers obtained these results from a series
of program evaluation studies guided by a theory of change (ESSA Tier 4), which was developed

in partnership with HCS stakeholders and ActKnowledge.400 The theory of change lays out a
clearly articulated long-term goal, the conditions needed to achieve that goal, and data indicators
associated with the conditions. The approach, while descriptive in nature, provides rich qualitative
and quantitative data to track changes over time, and also contributes information on how the
initiative has been implemented.
From 2009 to 2011, there was a slight increase in the number of students scoring proficient on
mathematics tests (59% to 62%) and a more substantial increase in the number of students scoring
proficient on reading tests (44% to 52%), while writing scores held steady.401 Improvements
were strongest for after-school program participants. A 2015 evaluation found mixed results.402
Mathematics and reading test scores decreased for students in most community schools, with the
exception of after-school program participants, who experienced a significant increase over the
course of 3 years in comparison to nonparticipants.403 The percentage of students who improved
one or more levels in both reading and mathematics from 2014 to 2015 also increased, although
this was not enough to offset the general test score declines that occurred. Students who received
targeted English learner or special education supports also demonstrated substantial test score
improvements. During this time, the average number of student absences also increased, while the
number of suspensions decreased in some schools and increased in others.
A 2017 follow-up study found that after-school program participants made more substantial
improvements on test scores than non-participants.404 Amount of time spent in the after-school
program appeared to play an important role, with a significantly higher increase in test scores for
students who participated in the after-school program for 3 or 4 consecutive years, compared to
those who participated for less than 2 years. Students receiving specially targeted English learner,
special education, academically “at risk,” and mental health services had substantial test score
and attendance gains. For example, test score improvements for English learner students receiving
targeted services improved by an average of 8.4 points for reading and 13.3 points for mathematics
across four sites. Rates of chronic absenteeism
fell in comparison to the prior year in the Students with the longest after-
five schools with targeted efforts to improve
school participation derived the
attendance. Students targeted for behavioral
interventions, however, showed increases in the greatest academic benefits, a
rate of mandatory suspensions for disciplinary result that is well aligned with
infractions at all sites except one, which provided
the emphasis on increasing the
mental health supports. School climate survey
results were mixed, with some (but not all) academic focus of the after-school
sites reporting increases in students’ favorable program.
perceptions of peer climate and sense of safety,
and other sites reporting decreases.
The Hartford evaluation research clearly shows that the amount of exposure students have
to targeted services matters. Students with the longest after-school participation derived the
greatest academic benefits, a result that is well aligned with the emphasis on increasing the
academic focus of the after-school program. The mixed results for behavioral and social-emotional
outcomes underscore the complexity of implementing a comprehensive community schools
approach. Qualitative data collected from site visits, focus groups, and interviews highlights the
importance of involving multisectoral partners at each level of the system to systematically address

implementation challenges, such as the seven-month vacancy in the position of HCS coordinator
during the 2015–16 academic year. These data also showed that HCS practitioners are consistently
drawing upon the theory of change to inform their planning efforts and identify best practices.
The Providence Full-Service Community School Initiative

The Providence Full-Service Community School Initiative is operated by the Dorcas Place Adult
and Family Learning Center in Providence, RI, with support from the United States Department of
Education Full-Service Community Schools Grant Award program. This initiative strives to improve
the learning of k–6 students by forging relationships between community agencies and the district’s
lowest income and highest need elementary schools. Providence was one of the first 10 community
school initiatives, funded by the federal government in 2008. Goals include improved child well-
being (aligned with the integrated student supports pillar), parent involvement (aligned with
the family and community engagement pillar), and school outcomes (aligned with the expanded
learning time and opportunities pillar).
Evaluation research in Providence adds to our understanding of positive health and wellness
outcomes associated with a comprehensive community schools approach, finding increases in
healthy eating and exercise habits for both children and adults. These data were obtained by
researchers at the Indiana University Center for Research on Learning and Technology, who
conducted an external evaluation over the course of 5 years that included stakeholder interviews,
student and parent questionnaires, and analysis of administrative data from participating schools
(ESSA Tier 4).405 This evaluation also sheds light on the successes and challenges of initiating and
sustaining comprehensive community schools.
The initiative identified physical health as a target outcome, and provided relevant services, such
as healthy eating or exercise classes and school-based produce markets. Researchers used survey
data to track nutrition and exercise behaviors of students and parents at three schools over the
course of 4 years. Adults reported that both they and their children exercised significantly more over
time, both in school and at home. For example, according to parents, the percentage of children
participating in daily physical activity at school increased from 16% to 36%, while the percentage
of families exercising together increased from 9% to 24%. Parents also reported that the number of
daily family dinners at home significantly increased from 30% to 41% during this period. The child
version of the survey reached the same conclusions.
This evaluation broadens the conversation beyond traditional outcomes, such as attendance and
achievement to show that community schools can help to address other whole-child outcomes. It
also documents the lessons learned by key stakeholders at the conclusion of the 5-year federal grant
period, including the need to build adequate buy-in from school leaders (a particular challenge
given persistent principal turnover) and to make collaborative efforts responsive to school needs
while maintaining accountability and systematic implementation across sites. The site director was
identified as a key staff member at participating school sites, and as someone who needed a unique
skill set to effectively manage relationships, mediate challenges, and serve as a true thought partner
to the principal. Finally, the strength of evaluation efforts depended on clearly identifying key
outcomes in the early stages of implementing the model and having systems in place for sharing
and tracking data.

Cincinnati Public Schools Community Learning Centers
The nationally recognized Cincinnati Public Schools Community Learning Centers (CLC) initiative
in Ohio was launched in 2001 to address the growing need for neighborhood-based support services
for students, their families, and the general community. Each CLC neighborhood-based “hub”
offers targeted support to students and families through a Resource Coordinator who establishes
partnerships with community-based organizations. These services include tutoring, college access
activities, mentoring, after-school programming, youth leadership initiatives, family engagement
opportunities, and health and wellness services (aligned with the integrated student supports,
expanded learning time and opportunities, and family and community engagement pillars).
Evaluation research on the impact of CLC provides insight about academic and behavioral
outcomes, finding that students receiving CLC services had better attendance and showed
significant improvements on state graduation tests. This evidence comes from an internal
report compiled by Cincinnati Public Schools in 2012–13 that includes statistical analyses of
administrative data for this systems-level initiative (ESSA Tier 4).406 At the time of the evaluation,
34 school sites had resource coordinators, over 400 community partners were engaged in offering
services, and nearly 18,000 students were served at CLC schools.
Participating high school students showed significant improvements on a state-administered

standardized graduation test for reading (47% improvement in performance rank associated with
tutoring and other intensive interventions) and mathematics (36% improvement in performance
rank associated with tutoring). Students receiving CLC classroom enrichment services averaged
2.5 fewer tardies from 2011–12 to 2012–13, while students placed “at risk” who received targeted
support benefited even more from classroom enrichment, with 3.33 fewer tardies during that
period. Students receiving classroom enrichment services also received an average of 0.39 fewer
disciplinary referrals over the course of 1 year. However, improvements on standardized reading and
mathematics tests administered in grades 3 through 8 were largely nonsignificant.
This progress report documents the impressive scale at which the CLC initiative is operating, and
shows some evidence of positive gains for participating students. To better understand program
impact, it would be helpful to see how these student outcomes compare with outcomes from non-
participating students or schools.
Summary of student and school outcomes

The local evaluation research described above
shows evidence of positive academic, behavioral, Local evaluation research shows
and social-emotional gains for students receiving evidence of positive academic,
comprehensive community school services.
This includes rigorous quasi-experimental
behavioral, and social-emotional
evaluations (ESSA Tier 2), along with descriptive gains for students receiving
evidence (ESSA Tier 4) that elucidates the comprehensive community school
complex nature of implementing these systems-
level initiatives (see the Research Compendium services.
for a summary of additional descriptive evidence
not reviewed in this section). The strength of the
evidence base rests not on any one evaluation in particular, but on the similarity of effects observed
in different contexts.

For academic outcomes, the bulk of community schools research shows that participating students
achieve higher test scores and grades, particularly for mathematics. This finding of greater gains
in mathematics is common in education research, since literacy development is more dependent
on experiences outside of school, while mathematics instruction takes place mostly in school.407
Although the evidence does not prove that community school programming caused these gains,
a substantial number of academic studies and program evaluations find small but consistent
improvements. The evidence base is limited with regard to other academic outcomes, although it
does show that the targeting of programs and services (such as intentionally aligning after-school
programming with the instructional day, or matching particular students with services that address
their needs) is most effective.
Behavioral outcomes have also received substantial attention, with mostly positive or
nonsignificant attendance results. Implementation clearly makes a difference, with more positive
results for community schools that have operated longer. Although attendance has been identified
as a leading indicator for evaluating the success of comprehensive community school initiatives, it
is still important to provide time for implementation efforts to mature before judging this outcome.
Fewer evaluations address student disciplinary outcomes, with mixed results. This makes it difficult
to draw any solid conclusions about the potential impact of community school programming on
problematic behavior. Evidence regarding behavioral health outcomes is limited, although the
evaluations that address this topic raise an interesting possibility that community schools help
cultivate healthy student behaviors in the short term and the long term.
Although the evidence suggests that students at community schools are more engaged with their
education and view school positively, it is not possible to conclude that this approach directly
impacts student attitudes, given the uncertain nature of self-reported survey data and the relatively
small amount of research on this topic. Only a handful of evaluations address the topic of school
climate, perhaps because it is difficult to study. Some results from the existing evidence are positive,
while others are nonsignificant.
In sum, the evidence examining the full-service

community schools approach of implementing When effectively implemented,
multiple pillars includes several rigorous the community school pillars
quasi-experimental evaluations, along with
descriptive supporting evidence. The studies all work together to produce positive
point in the same direction: When effectively outcomes for young people.
implemented, the community school pillars
This is not easy to do, and good
work together to produce positive outcomes for
young people. These studies also suggest that implementation requires strong
this is not easy to do, and good implementation school and district leadership.
requires strong school and district leadership.
The evaluation research presented here is
newer and more limited in size than evidence
supporting the community school pillars (for example, there are no meta-analyses on the topic).
Some of the descriptive evaluations (ESSA Tier 4) are lacking methodological strength, in that
they do not have a comparison group and do not employ rigorous statistical tests. However, the
overall effects show a promising consistency, particularly for well-implemented programs that
have had sufficient time to mature.

Effectively Implementing Comprehensive Community Schools
Implementation research has demonstrated the importance of systemic supports, structures, and
processes in yielding positive results for program participants.408 This certainly holds true for
community school programs. The better implemented and more comprehensive the community
school program, the more likely it is to yield positive results for students and families. This
conclusion has emerged repeatedly in our review of the research. The current section discusses
these implementation effects in more detail and presents evidence from studies that are of interest
primarily due to their implementation-related findings.
One reason that effective implementation matters is that community school supports mutually
reinforce each other, and offering fully integrated supports is a complicated endeavor.409 For
example, Bryk and colleagues point out the importance of relational trust in any improvement
initiative, drawing upon research that does not specifically focus on (but is highly relevant to)
community schools:
Improvement initiatives must be grounded in continuing efforts to build trusting

relationships across the school community. Quite simply, the technical activities of
school improvement rest on a social base. Effecting constructive change in teaching and
learning makes demands on the social resources of a school community. In the absence
of these resources, individual reform initiatives are less likely to be engaged deeply,
build on one another over time and culminate in significant improvements in a school’s
capacity to educate all its children. So, building relational trust remains a central concern
for leadership as well.410
Because community school initiatives are

constantly evolving in response to the changing Because community school
context of the surroundings in which they initiatives are constantly evolving
operate, effective implementation requires
an ability to adapt systemic structures and in response to the changing
supports accordingly. For example, a case study context of the surroundings in
of the Elev8 community schools initiative (led which they operate, effective
by the Atlantic Philanthropies) that focused
on implementation issues found two types implementation requires an ability
of systemic adaptation: (1) foundation level to adapt systemic structures and
adjustments (to increase impact and address
supports accordingly.
challenges), and (2) lead agency adjustments
(to improve mission alignment, address specific
school needs, align Elev8 with the culture of its
participants, make Elev8 more sustainable, and
expand Elev8’s impact).411
Indeed, Elev8 research underscores the importance of implementation for improving student
outcomes. Atlantic Philanthropies established the Elev8 full-service community school model in
2008. It centers around four key areas of activity: (1) extending learning opportunities for students
beyond the classroom and traditional school year; (2) providing high-quality school-based health
services to children and their families; (3) encouraging parents to be actively involved in their
children’s education; and (4) offering family supports and resources designed to promote economic

stability, good health, and continuing education. This work has taken place in middle schools
across the country, spanning rural and urban settings in Baltimore, Chicago, and Oakland, as well
as Native American pueblo settings in New Mexico. Community-based partner organizations with
deep local roots served as regional leads to develop and implement full-service community school
models in up to five schools per partner. While Elev8 community schools offer services in response
to local needs, all schools employ a team of out-of-school-time staff, family advocates, medical
professionals, and a site director. Research for Action and McClanahan Associates have served as
external evaluators for the initiative.
One study, notable for its implementation findings, explored the relationship between attending
an Elev8 school and academic outcomes.412 It showed significantly higher odds of positive
academic outcomes in some years of Elev8’s implementation. This same study also showed
that students who attended Elev8 schools for longer periods of time experienced more positive
academic outcomes than those who attended for fewer years. In another Elev8 study, 8th-grade
students who attended more days of extended learning time programming participated in a wider
range of high school planning activities and were more likely to plan to apply for a competitive
college preparatory high school.413
Similarly, at several community schools included in the Eisenhower Foundation research discussed
in the previous section, students who spent a lot of time in community school programming were
more likely than infrequent participants to report increases in attachment to school and interest in
nonacademic subjects.414
Other research, including the studies of Baltimore

and Chicago schools discussed in the previous Research reveals more positive
section, reveals more positive outcomes for outcomes for community schools
community schools that have been implementing
that have been implementing
their activities longer, or are doing a better a
job implementing their activities, compared to their activities longer, or are doing
newer or less experienced community schools. a better job implementing their
For example, in San Mateo, CA, nearly all students
participating in youth leadership programs and/
activities, compared to newer
or counseling at “maturing” community schools or less experienced community
planned to graduate from high school and earn schools.
a college degree.415 In English language arts, the
percentage of students scoring at proficient or
above rose at all four of the maturing community
schools. In the 2005–06 school year, 18–25% of students were at proficient or above. One year later,
26–38% of students at these four maturing community schools were at proficient or above. Student
participation in extended day activities, student and/or parent participation in mental health services,
and parent participation in school programs and activities were all significantly associated with
greater rates of student improvement on English language arts and mathematics standardized test
scores, compared to students who did not participate.
Overall, these implementation results drawn from schools across the country speak to the
importance of longer experience in the practice of community schooling, as well as greater access to
services for students.

Additionally, new research on New York City Community Schools (NYC-CS) helps to shed light on
the early stages of implementing a large-scale community schools initiative. NYC-CS launched
in 2014 as a districtwide reform in New York City, designed to help schools organize resources
and share leadership so that academics, health and wellness, youth development, and family
engagement are fully integrated into daily operations. Core structures include partnerships between
schools and community-based organizations and real-time use of data. Core services include
attendance improvement strategies, expanded learning time, supports for health and wellness, and
family engagement efforts. The NYC-CS theory of change identifies four key capacities related to
implementation: (1) continuous improvement through ongoing data collection and analysis to assess
needs and guide decisions; (2) coordination across programs and agencies to ensure equitable delivery
of the right service to the right students at the right time; (3) connectedness among adults and
students that fosters a sense of community among all stakeholders and encourages resilient academic
and personal behaviors by students; and (4) collaboration that strengthens school and community-
based organization partnerships and supports families’ voices in student learning.
The RAND Corporation is documenting this effort as it evolves, and a recently released study
examines 118 NYC-CS community schools in the 2016–17 academic year, after 2 years of
implementation.417 Of the 118 schools, 94 are also designated as Renewal Schools due to low test
score performance. These schools receive additional supports with an academic focus, including an
extra hour of instructional time each day and coaching for teachers and administrators. Because the
NYC-CS initiative is in its early stages, the first phase of research focuses on understanding schools’
experiences with the implementation of NYC-CS, while the second phase of research (slated for
release in 2019) will include an impact study with a quasi-experimental analysis of student- and
school-level outcomes after 3 years of program implementation. In this first study, an analysis of
administrative data, surveys, and interviews shows substantial programmatic changes in alignment
with the core structures and services. For example, over 90% of schools reported offering after-
school programming since NYC-CS began, an increase from 59% in the year before the initiative
started. In addition, 81% of schools indicated that families were more present as a result of NYC-CS
engagement efforts.
In terms of the theory of change, the RAND team generated composite implementation index scores,
which showed that schools were more developed in implementing activities related to coordination
and connectedness, as compared to continuous improvement and collaboration. However, across
all four core capacities, the largest share of schools indicated that they were in the maturing stage,
suggesting schools are progressing toward implementing the full community school model. Trusting
relationships and strong leadership were statistically significant predictors of a school’s ability to
coordinate services, promote awareness of the programming available in the school, and, to a lesser
degree, collaborate with various partners to implement program components.
A common challenge that schools reported facing was figuring out how to balance many competing
priorities that all required an investment of time and effort. In addition, a number of schools
experienced a steep learning curve as they implemented new data systems associated with the
initiative. It is also apparent that some NYC-CS structures or services take longer to implement
than others. For example, almost all schools planned to implement programs or services in all three
mental health tiers in SY 2015–16. However, only about half achieved this goal.

Overall, the RAND evaluation shows impressive
progress in the first 2 years of NYC-CS Trusting relationships and strong
implementation. The 2019 impact evaluation leadership were statistically
will provide important information on whether
the programmatic changes that are occurring in
significant predictors of a school’s
alignment with the theory of change will result ability to coordinate services,
in improved outcomes for students and schools. promote awareness of available
This evaluation makes a substantial contribution
to the community schools literature by providing programming, and, to a lesser
detailed documentation of the implementation degree, collaborate with various
phase of a large-scale initiative. Over time, the
partners to implement program
evaluation efforts will likely produce much-
needed insight into the relationship between components.
implementation and student and school impacts.
Research for Action (RFA) is conducting another

ongoing implementation evaluation of Philadelphia’s community schools initiative.418 Launched in
2016, this initiative places a full-time coordinator at nine public school sites to identify the most
pressing needs of students, families, and community members, and to coordinate service providers
and city agencies to meet those needs. The Mayor’s Office of Education works closely with the
school district of Philadelphia in coordinating this effort. In order to closely track implementation
over time, RFA identified three levels of metrics: (1) elements (broad categories of work to be
completed during the initial phase of the initiative), (2) benchmarks (used to track progress on each
element), and (3) indicators (used to gauge whether benchmarks are achieved).
Drawing on publicly available city and school-level documents, information provided in writing
by staff in the Mayor’s Office of Education, and needs assessment questionnaires and interviews
completed by community school coordinators, RFA found that the Mayor’s Office of Education is
largely “on track” with establishing best practices for a citywide coordinating entity in the first
year of a community schools initiative. For example, the Mayor’s Office developed a Community
School Committee, gathered public input from the community, shared leadership with other city
agencies and community groups (with the exception of establishing a citywide advisory team of
stakeholders), developed selection criteria and application review processes for the first cohort of
community schools, provided school and community data collection support, and provided soda tax
funding to sustain the community school initiative. RFA judged the process of developing short- and
long-term outcomes, measures, and data collection processes to monitor the progress and impact of
the initiative to be “emerging.”
Site-level progress was largely “on track” and “emerging.” Areas of strength include developing
community school committees that are representative of the school and community, collecting data
on needs and school/community resources, determining a shared goal and vision, and establishing
new service partnerships. Areas for growth include ensuring that community school committee
meetings are ongoing and transparent, developing community school plans that outline activities
and strategies, and identifying outcomes and measures to monitor progress.
This RFA evaluation demonstrates the complexity of implementing community schools at both the
initiative and site level. The careful and ongoing attention to implementation quality can guide
future efforts to improve and expand Philadelphia’s community schools initiative. As with the

RAND evaluation in New York City, the next stage of evaluation efforts should address student- and
school-level outcomes, which will help to shed light on how implementation impacts the benefits
derived from comprehensive community school reforms.
Addressing Out-of-School Barriers and Reducing Opportunity and

Achievement Gaps
The community school approach is often used
as a turnaround strategy in struggling schools The community school approach
that primarily serve students from low-income is often used as a turnaround
families and students of color. These populations
strategy in struggling schools that
are likely to face out-of-school barriers, such
as neighborhood violence and poverty, that primarily serve students from low-
contribute to both the opportunity gap—the income families and students of
extent to which students have or do not have
access to the resources they need to succeed—
color. These populations are likely
and the achievement gap—the extent to which to face out-of-school barriers,
students perform to the level of more advantaged such as neighborhood violence
peers on test scores, grades, and other observable
school outcomes.419
and poverty, that contribute to
opportunity and achievement
Much of the evaluation research documents
the extent to which students access community gaps.
school services, such as on-campus health
centers, mental health care, or extended learning
time programs, in addition to tracking student and school outcomes. This evidence suggests that
community schools can help mitigate out-of-school barriers and reduce opportunity gaps.
For example, in Sandy, UT, four Title I elementary schools have participated in the Canyon School
District’s Community Schools Initiative. A 3-year evaluation study using statistical analysis of
pre-post tests, interviews, and focus groups (ESSA Tier 4) tracked student participation in newly
available preschool, after-school, and mental health programs, along with changes in parent/family
volunteer hours and increases in grant-funded community partnerships.420 During this time, marked
improvements were noted in teacher and staff perceptions of the schools, especially in relation to
increased supports available for their students, and reduced stressors among students and teachers.
Parent and caregiver perceptions of school and community supports also improved. The elementary
schools experienced a 39% drop in absenteeism, and saw an average 22.5% decrease in office
disciplinary referrals over 2 years. These numbers, while impressive, should be considered in context
with smaller attendance and disciplinary gains seen in community school initiatives operating
at scale. The drop in office referrals was largely driven by narrowing of the special education gap.
Stakeholders noted that this reform effort was initially championed by the Utah State Office of
Education Special Education Department, and that students receiving special education services
were a focus of attention throughout implementation of the initiative.
Community schools may help to close racial and economic achievement gaps, since these programs
are typically serving students from low-income families and students of color. In addition, some
community school evaluations specifically assess the extent to which this strategy reduces

achievement gaps. City Connects narrowed the achievement gap between English learner and
English proficient immigrant students by 75% in mathematics and 50% in reading.421 The impact
of receiving a Massachusetts Wraparound Zone grant on academic achievement was greatest for
students with limited English proficiency.422 Students attending a Harlem Children’s Zone charter
school gained approximately 0.2 standard deviations in both mathematics and English language arts
per year, relative to a control group. This rate of progress, if sustained, would be enough to close racial
achievement gaps between African American and White students by 3rd grade.423 The Tulsa Area
Community Schools Initiative reduced the gap for students from low-income families.424 In Tulsa,
collective trust was a potential mediator of achievement gains, as achievement of students from
low-income families was significantly higher in schools with entrenched cultures of collective trust.
As noted in our discussion in the previous

chapter on collaborative leadership and Schools serving low-income
practice, social capital, or “the features of social areas can help foster increased
organization, such as networks, norms, and
social capital when individuals
social trust, that facilitate coordination and
cooperation for mutual benefit,” might also in the school and those in the
play an important role in the effectiveness of community have formed genuine
community schools, including their ability to
close achievement gaps.425 Social capital can
partnerships and a shared sense
be defined as the resources created through of responsibility.
relationships between people. Although social
capital doesn’t directly alleviate poverty, when
people form strong relationships with others, they are more able to get resources they need and can
leverage more resources for their community.426 Schools serving low-income areas can help foster
increased social capital when individuals in the school and those in the community have formed
genuine partnerships and a shared sense of responsibility.427
The extensive research conducted by Sebring and colleagues in Chicago shows that social
capital—which the authors measured through religious participation, levels of collective efficacy,
and connections to outside neighborhoods—is related to the strength of the essential supports
in a school.428 These results suggest that “positive school community conditions facilitate the
development of the supports,”429 but that in neighborhoods with low levels of social capital, the
essential supports in school must be highly robust in order to result in improvements for students.
When community schools are able to build and deepen relationships between community members,
as well as between people from the school and from the surrounding neighborhood, they can
increase social capital by bringing in additional supports and resources. Mark Warren’s 2005 case
study of three different community schools found that across different models, community schools
can build social capital among educators, families, and community members through programs
that involve families and community members and facilitate personal relationship building. This
increases school capacity by strengthening the support parents give to students, bringing more
resources into classrooms and school programs, improving teaching by making teachers more aware
of community strengths and issues, and coordinating action by teachers, parents, and community
activists for holistic child development.430

Cost-Benefit Findings
A cost-benefit analysis of an educational initiative is a research technique wherein the costs
associated with a particular intervention are tallied up and compared with the economic value of
the benefits accrued from the intervention. This allows for a net benefit calculation that is often
expressed in terms of the value derived from every dollar spent on the intervention.
In the case of community schools, this technique requires researchers to identify relevant
costs, such as the direct cost of a community school coordinator or the in-kind value of donated
materials. Some evaluations tally up all identifiable costs, including the value of services provided
by community partner organizations, even if the partner costs are not paid by the school and the
services would have been provided in a different setting if delivered outside of the community
school partnership. Other evaluations choose to include as costs only those services that would not
have been provided without the community school intervention. These approaches are both valid,
but the model accounting for all identifiable costs yields a more conservative (and therefore lower)
cost-benefit saving than the model that accounts just for costs unique to the community school
initiative.
Benefits are considered in the short and long term. Short-term benefits may include a fairly direct
calculation, such as the value derived from increased state funding when student attendance is
improved through a reduced suspension rate. In the long term, calculations may become more
abstract. For example, researchers may calculate the economic value of graduating a better prepared
workforce, as defined by GPA increases among high school students.
Though research on the economic returns from

community schools is limited, the existing Research on the economic
research suggests an excellent return in social returns from community schools
value on investments into schools providing
wraparound services and other community suggests an excellent return in
school supports, ranging from $3 (excluding social value on investments into
economic benefits) to $15 in savings for schools providing wraparound
every dollar invested. Estimating the effect
of community school interventions on future services and other community
income, and assessing the economic value of school supports, ranging from $3
preventing crime, smoking, participating in
(excluding economic benefits) to
the job market, and other adult behaviors, is a
complex business, and the numbers here should $15 in savings for every dollar
be considered general estimates rather than invested.
exact values.

CIS conducted a 5-year study of their high school affiliates, finding that every $1 invested created
$11.60 in economic benefits.431 Benefits were calculated based on higher earnings for students who
graduate and taxpayer savings created by this increased academic achievement. Costs included
direct CIS investments in staffing, infrastructure, local operations, and the opportunity cost of
students remaining in school rather than joining the labor market. The cost of supports provided
to students by community-based partners was not included, which helps to explain the high return
on investment for every dollar invested. The study estimates that students collectively served by
the programs will have expected increases in their family incomes by $63 million annually, and that
social savings due to reductions in smoking, alcoholism, crime, welfare, and unemployment costs
will total $154.5 million.
An analysis of Children’s Aid Society comprehensive programs in two elementary schools that
provide expanded learning opportunities, health and mental health services, parent education
and engagement, and other family support services found a return on investment of $10.30 at
one school and $14.80 at the other school.432 The benefit, or social value, was calculated based on
the additional revenues generated and costs avoided from improved student outcomes in areas,
such as preparation to enter school, academic success (not repeating grades, school attendance),
mental and physical well-being, and positive relationships with adults in the school and broader
community. Costs included direct program costs, such as staffing and materials, administrative
overhead and operational costs (including the actual cost of operating the schools as recorded by
the New York City Department of Education), and in-kind costs, such as the value of free space,
donated food, and volunteer hours. After accounting for the benefits that would likely have accrued
even if Children’s Aid Society programs were not available to students, the researchers found
justification to claim that 73% of the benefit at one school and 67% of the benefit at the other
school was associated directly with the community school intervention.
Similarly, a study of the City Connects program in Boston included two elementary schools that had
long been providing a range of community-based services to students and families with support
from a school site coordinator. It found a return on investment of $3 for every $1 invested using the
preferred estimation method, with an upper bound estimate of $11.80 in benefit for every
$1 invested.433 Benefits were calculated by estimating the social value of positive educational
outcomes for students, including educational attainment, dropout rates, and test score performance
for grades 6–8. In all versions of the model, economic benefits, such as labor productivity spillovers,
the deadweight loss of distortionary taxes, and other consequences (such as intra-family effects)
that cannot be monetized were excluded, potentially resulting in an underestimation of the
actual benefits of City Connects. Costs included direct costs, such as coordinator and teacher
staff time, materials, and facilities, as well as indirect program costs, such as parent volunteer
time and support from the City Connects central office. The cost of supports provided to students
by community-based partners were included in the more conservative estimate preferred by the
authors, and excluded in the less conservative estimate. Bowden and colleagues found that with
City Connects, the schools themselves were responsible for only about 10% of core program costs.
The total cost of City Connects for grades k–5 was found to be $4,570 per student, with social
benefits accrued equivalent to $8,280 per student.
Finally, an analysis of the Atlantic Philanthropies-
supported Elev8 full-service community school An analysis of the Elev8 full-service
program in Oakland, which provides extended community school program in
learning time, family supports, and health care
to students and families through a coordinated
Oakland, which provides extended
services model, found a return on investment learning time, family supports,
of $2.27 in leveraged partnerships for every and health care to students and
$1 invested, and $4.39 in economic benefits
(including the value of preventing long-term families through a coordinated
hardship and avoiding reliance on publicly funded services model, found a total value
social support systems).434 Together, this yielded a
of $9.96 in long-term societal
total value of $9.96 in long-term societal impacts
for every $1 invested. The benefits of leveraged impacts for every $1 invested.
partnerships were calculated using the value of
services and goods contributed by Elev8 partners,
under the assumption that without the coordinating infrastructure provided by Elev8, many of these
dollars would be unavailable or far less effective in reaching students and families. Economic benefits
were calculated using research-based lifetime projections of social benefits accrued from short-term
improvements in health care access, high school transition, peer and adult relationships, and risk
of criminal involvement, and long-term improvements in income, incarceration and high school
graduation rates, and health issues. Atlantic Philanthropies and community partner costs included
extended learning, academic support, health care, family engagement services, project coordination,
facility costs, and organizational supports. The Atlantic Philanthropies’ annual direct school site
investment of approximately $2.6 million enabled the sites to attract additional resources and services
valued at over $3.2 million, resulting in an estimated $25.7 million in long-term societal savings over
the projected lifetimes of the students and families served. (See Table 4 for a summary of each of
these analyses.)
Although further research would strengthen the understanding of how community school
investments function, this review suggests that addressing barriers to learning faced by students
from low-income families and communities yields long-term economic benefits for society as a
whole. When schools provide wraparound services, enriching and challenging curriculum taught
by highly qualified and culturally sensitive teachers, and meaningful mechanisms for parents to
engage and participate at all levels of the school, students do better and society benefits.
Table 4
Summary of Cost-Benefit Studies for Community School Initiatives
Communities in Children’s Aid Society City Connects Elev8 Oakland
Schools
Program The nationwide Children’s Aid Society City Connects partners Elev8 Oakland is a
Features Communities in Schools established its first with a wide variety community school
model is implemented community school more of community-based model funded by the
throughout the school than 25 years ago and service agencies to Atlantic Philanthropies
year by a site team led currently operates 22 provide prevention to support students and
by a CIS coordinator. community schools and enrichment, early families. The Oakland-
The site coordinator throughout New York intervention, intensive based nonprofit Safe
works closely with City. It works with each intervention, and other Passages operates the
school administrators, school’s leadership and tailored supports for program, which folds
staff, and teachers to: staff to offer academic students and families extended learning,
(1) conduct an annual enrichment programs, at school, at home, summer school, family
needs assessment; health services, parent or in the community. supports and services,
(2) develop a engagement strategies, School site coordinators and health care into an
comprehensive and much more to are the link between integrated school-based
operations plan to give students the schools and community system of supportive
address the identified best opportunities to agencies. City services.
and prioritized needs; succeed. Five critical Connects is currently
(3) deliver evidence- elements must be implemented in 17
based services present to ensure public elementary and
(including whole-school success: (1) a strong k–8 schools and one
services and intensive, instructional program; public high school.
targeted, case-managed (2) solid professional
services); (4) regularly capacity; (3) close
monitor and adjust parent-community
plans; and (5) evaluate school ties; (4) a
effectiveness in student-centered
achieving school and learning climate; and (5)
student goals. leadership that drives
change.
Study 113 CIS-affiliated high Two Children’s Aid Two large public Five Oakland middle
Sites schools in 2009–10 Society community elementary schools in school campuses
schools, P.S. 5/Ellen Boston in the 2013–14
Lurie Elementary school year, both of
School (pre-k through which were long-term
5th grade) and Salomé implementers of the City
Ureña de Henriquez Connects program
Campus (grades 6–12)
Table 4 (continued)
Summary of Cost-Benefit Studies for Community School Initiatives
Communities In Children’s Aid Society City Connects Elev8 Oakland
Schools
Cost Direct CIS investments Program costs for School site Direct and community
Estimates in staffing, items, such as coordinators; the time partner costs include
infrastructure, and staffing, materials, and devoted to the program the following services:
local operations, and supplies; overhead and by teachers, principals, extended day learning,
the opportunity cost administrative costs for guidance counselors, academic mentoring
of students remaining payroll and benefits; and other school staff; and tutoring, school-
in school rather than program oversight, materials and facilities based health care,
joining the labor market. policy development, utilized in implementing mental health/clinical
The cost of supports and school operations; the program; parental case management,
provided to students and in-kind/donated time; training time family engagement and
by community-based costs, such as the value contributed by City support, and project
partners was NOT of free space, donated Connects central coordination. Additional
included. food, and volunteer program staff; and costs include start-up
staff. community partner monies to construct
costs. school-based health
centers, refurbish
buildings, and
establish protocols
and organizational
structures.
Benefit Benefits were Benefits include Benefits include Benefits include health
Estimates calculated based on academic success educational attainment, care access, high
higher earnings for (not repeating grades, reduced dropout school transition, peer
students who graduate school attendance), rates, and improved and adult relationships,
and taxpayer savings mental and physical performance on and risk of involvement
created by increased well-being, preparation mathematics and in crime in the short
academic achievement. to enter school, English language arts term. In the long term,
positive community test scores for grades benefits include income,
relationships, and 6–8. incarceration rate, high
adult relationships with school graduation, and
students. teen pregnancy and
health issues.
Benefit- $11.60 in benefit to P.S. 5/Ellen Lurie $3 in benefit to each $9.96 in benefit to each
Cost Ratio each $1 invested Elementary School: $1 invested, with an $1 invested
$10.30 in benefit to upper bound of $11.80
Includes the value of
each $1 invested in benefit to each $1
leveraged partnerships
invested
Salomé Ureña de and economic benefits.
Henriquez Campus: The more conservative
$14.80 in benefit to model includes the cost
each $1 invested of supports provided to
students by community-
based partners, and
both models exclude
economic benefits.
8. Findings and Lessons for Policy and Implementation
The previous chapters analyzed research to

understand whether and how community Ample evidence is available to
schools lead to improvement in student and inform and guide policymakers,
school outcomes and contribute to meeting the
educational needs of low-achieving students educators, and advocates
in high-poverty schools. In this chapter, we interested in advancing
summarize the results of our analyses in 12
community schools, and sufficient
key findings. We conclude that ample evidence
is available to inform and guide policymakers, research exists that meets the
educators, and advocates interested in advancing ESSA standard for evidence-based
community schools, and sufficient research
interventions.
exists that meets the ESSA standard for
evidence-based interventions. We also conclude
that the positive outcomes of community schools
are most likely to occur when policies, programs, and structures are implemented to address local
needs, are sustained over time, and include all four pillars. Accordingly, we offer a set of research-
based lessons to guide policy development and implementation of community schools toward their
positive impact.
Findings
We conclude that well-implemented community schools lead to improvement in student and school
outcomes and contribute to meeting the educational needs of low-achieving students in high-
poverty schools. Strong research reinforces the efficacy of integrated student supports, expanded
learning time and opportunities, and family and community engagement as intervention strategies.
Promising evidence supports the positive impact of the type of collaborative leadership and practice
found in community schools, although little of this research has been done in community schools.
The research base examining the full-service community schools model that includes most or
all of the four pillars is newer, more limited in size, and consists primarily of evaluation studies
of particular sites. But here, too, the evidence from well-designed studies is promising. In sum,
ample evidence is available to inform and guide policymakers, educators, and advocates interested
in advancing community schools, and sufficient research exists to meet the ESSA standard for an
evidence-based intervention. Specifically, our analyses produced 12 findings.
Finding 1. The evidence base on community schools and their pillars justifies the use of this
approach as a school improvement strategy that helps children succeed academically and
prepare for full and productive lives.
There is strong research, using a wide variety of methodologies, that supports the positive impact
of the community school pillars on students’ academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes.
High-quality studies examining full-service community schools that include all four pillars show
promising results on short-term student outcomes, and some evidence of longer term positive
outcomes. However, this research base is more limited than evidence supporting the pillars—both
in terms of the number of independent studies and the rigor of the methodologies used in some
studies. Taken together, the research on each pillar and the comprehensive evaluations support the
use of community schools for continuous improvement efforts.
Finding 2. Sufficient evidence exists to qualify the community schools approach as meeting
ESSA’s criteria for evidence-based interventions.
Sufficient evidence exists to support the

inclusion of community schools in state Sufficient evidence exists
and local ESSA plans for comprehensive to support the inclusion of
and targeted interventions in high-poverty
schools supported with federal funds, as well
community schools in state
as to qualify community schools for specially and local ESSA plans for
designated federal grants. ESSA requires that, comprehensive and targeted
to be considered evidence-based, a program
or intervention must have at least one interventions in high-poverty
well-designed study that fits into its four-tier schools supported with federal
definition of evidence :(1) strong, (2) moderate,
funds, as well as to qualify
(3) promising, or (4) demonstrating a rationale.
ESSA provides states with the flexibility to community schools for specially
use any level of evidence in developing school designated federal grants.
improvement plans. However, recipients of the
Title I set-aside for school improvement must
use evidence-based interventions that meet only the top three tiers of evidence. The research on
community schools and their four pillars meets this evidentiary threshold.
Finding 3. The evidence base provides a strong warrant for using community schools to meet
the needs of low-achieving students in high-poverty schools and to help close opportunity
and achievement gaps for students from low-income families, students of color, English
learners, and students with disabilities.
The positive results from research on community schools and their component parts suggest that
the community schools approach may also help to close well-documented racial and economic
achievement gaps, in that these programs typically serve students from low-income families,
students of color, and other populations that underperform compared to wealthy White students.
There is also some direct, albeit limited, evidence that comprehensive community schools,
and in particular community schools offering expanded learning time and opportunities, have
stronger positive effects on students of color from low-income families than on more advantaged
White students. This is not surprising, given that these students typically have fewer learning
opportunities, resources, and supports both in and out of school.
Finding 4. Four key pillars of community schools—integrated student supports, expanded

learning time and opportunities, family and community engagement, and collaborative
leadership and practice—promote conditions and practices found in high-quality schools
and address out-of-school barriers to learning.
We found a high level of alignment between the four pillars that emerged from our review of the
evidence about community schools and findings of more general research identifying the features
of high-quality schools. These features include extra academic and emotional support, a positive
school climate and trusting relationships, meaningful learning opportunities, sufficient money and
resources, strong family and community ties, a collaborative learning environment for teachers, and
assessment used as a tool for improvement. We found that the community school pillars can help
educators to establish these high-quality learning conditions. For example, a community school
coordinator can help to forge partnerships with community-based organizations, thereby making
integrated student supports available at a school site and providing extra academic and emotional
support for students who need it. Because the community schools strategy enables educators and
community partners to instantiate the conditions and practices found in effective, high-quality
schools, it is not surprising that community schools have positive effects on student outcomes.
Notably, our understanding of this alignment is advanced, in part, by high-quality mixed-methods
and qualitative research that extends beyond the narrower definition of research in ESSA.
Finding 5. The types of integrated student supports provided by community schools,

including counseling, medical care, dental services, and transportation assistance, are
associated with positive student outcomes. Young people receiving such supports often
show significant improvements in attendance, behavior, social functioning, and academic
achievement.
Integrated student supports, or wraparound services, link schools to a range of academic, health,
and social programs. This pillar has received substantial research attention, including several large-
scale randomized control trials accompanied by rigorous quasi-experimental evaluations in schools,
as well as in community-based and juvenile justice settings. Quasi-experimental research shows
mostly positive student and school outcomes associated with the provision of integrated student
supports, particularly in the short term. However, a handful of randomized control trials examining
integrated students supports have not shown the positive impact seen in the evidence base as a
whole. Some of these randomized control trials only provided a partial test of the program under
review or tested an intervention that was compromised by poor implementation. The evidence also
shows that careful implementation improves student outcomes, particularly regarding fidelity to a
well-defined program model.
Finding 6. The types of expanded learning time and opportunities provided by community
schools include longer school days and academically rich and engaging after-school,
weekend, and summer programs. When thoughtfully designed, these interventions are
associated with positive academic and nonacademic outcomes, including improvements in
student attendance, behavior, and academic achievement. Notably, the best designed studies
show the strongest positive effects.
Expanded learning time and opportunities (ELT/O) take place before and after the typical school
day and during the summer to augment traditional learning opportunities during the school day
and year. An extensive body of evidence examines the relationship between expanded learning
time and student outcomes, including rigorous research reviews, randomized control trials, and
well-designed quasi-experimental evaluations. Although some mixed findings emerge, the evidence
is overwhelmingly positive, particularly for expanded learning time programs that use the extra
hours to provide students with carefully structured learning and enrichment opportunities. Well-
implemented ELT/O have a positive impact on both academic and nonacademic outcomes. Programs
with positive academic impacts tend to have greater academic engagement and more pupil-teacher
interaction. However, programs that combine academic and social dimensions may be the most
effective on a broader range of outcomes. Moreover, the effects tend to be greatest for those placed
most at risk—i.e., students of color, students from low-income families, and those who are struggling
academically. The intensity of exposure and length of time during which students participate in
programs also matter.
Finding 7. The type of meaningful family and community engagement characteristic

of community schools is associated with positive student outcomes, such as reduced
absenteeism, improved academic outcomes, and student reports of more positive school
climates. Additionally, family and community engagement can improve school conditions
for learning, such as increased trust among students, parents, and staff, which, in turn, have
positive effects on student outcomes.
Family engagement strategies fall along a

spectrum in which families and community Community schools are well
members exercise varying degrees of power positioned to engage families
within schools, ranging from parental support
for learning to actively participating in school
and communities meaningfully
activities to assuming a powerful role in shaping because the other three pillars
change at the school and district level. Activities (integrated student supports,
along this spectrum include helping with student
learning at home, frequent communication expanded learning opportunities,
between home and school, volunteering, and and collaborative leadership)
community organizing for school and district
provide significant opportunities
reform. Research over many decades, including
rigorous literature reviews, examines the role for participation.
that family and community engagement plays in
student success. Strong family and community
engagement is associated with reduced
absenteeism, improved academic outcomes, longer term academic success, and student reports of
more positive school climates. School staff who are able to develop successful engagement efforts
have the ability to build trusting, respectful, and culturally competent relationships with family and
community members. Community schools are well positioned to engage families and communities
meaningfully because the other three pillars provide significant opportunities for participation.
When integrated student supports, expanded learning opportunities, and collaborative practices
are strong, they can make schools more welcoming for families and community members, and bring
students into the surrounding community for educational purposes.
Finding 8. The type of collaborative leadership and practice used in community schools
can create the conditions necessary to improve student learning and well-being, as well
as improve relationships within and beyond the school walls. Collaborative relationships
among teachers, family members, students, and community members also increase the
commitment from and trust between stakeholders. The development of social capital and
teacher-peer learning appear to be the factors that explain the link between collaboration
and better student achievement.
Collaborative leadership entails parents, students, teachers, and principals with different areas
of expertise working together, sharing decisions and responsibilities to reach a common vision or
outcome. Although research specific to community schools is sparser for this topic compared to
some of the other pillars, there is a substantial body of evidence showing the association between
collaborative leadership and professional learning opportunities, teacher satisfaction, and positive
student outcomes in schools. Schools that
effectively implement collaborative leadership There is a substantial body
practices or shared decision-making processes of evidence showing the
can create the conditions necessary to improve
student learning and well-being, as well as
association between collaborative
improve relationships. This is particularly leadership and professional
important in a comprehensive community learning opportunities, teacher
schools approach, which requires substantial
collaboration between school staff, community satisfaction, and positive student
partners, students, and parents, adding to the outcomes in schools.
implementation challenges. Collaborative
relationships among teachers, family members,
students, and community members can increase
the commitment and trust among stakeholders—social capital—which can, in turn, support the
implementation of effective integrated student supports, expanded learning time, and meaningful
family and community engagement and positively impact student achievement.
Finding 9. The impact of comprehensive community school interventions is positive,

with programs in many different locations showing improvements in a variety of student
outcomes, including attendance, academic achievement, high school graduation rates, and
reduced racial and economic achievement gaps.
Comprehensive community schools implement all or most of the four pillars we identified as core to
the approach. These initiatives vary in focus and design depending on local context, underscoring
that this is a strategy or approach to school improvement rather than a consistent program model.
Despite this variation, results from quasi-experimental studies and program evaluation research
show promising evidence of positive short-term and longer term student outcomes, including
attendance gains and improved academic achievement (particularly for mathematics). Targeting
of programs and services (such as intentionally aligning after-school programming with the
instructional day) is particularly effective. Implementation matters, and it can take several years
to see positive results. The consistency of these findings across different contexts and approaches
warrants considerable confidence. However, compared to the evidence base about the four
pillars, the research base on comprehensive community schools is newer (particularly for studies
examining multiple sites), is more limited in size, and the impacts across the full range of outcomes
examined are inconsistent. Additionally, the difficulty of conducting experimental research on
complex, long-term, naturally occurring, schoolwide interventions means that the existing evidence
cannot prove that community schools programming actually caused these gains. Consequently, it is
important to consider the strength of the evidence presented for each of the core pillars of typical
community school approaches, as well as the comprehensive evaluations themselves.
Table 5 summarizes the findings of the place-based evaluation studies that were discussed in the
summary of community schools research for each pillar, as well as those in the section reviewing
comprehensive place-based evaluations.
Table 5
Summary of Comprehensive Results
Outcome Category Finding
Academic Outcomes
Student Achievement Of 37 studies addressing this topic, 29 found positive effects. Overall,
the community schools strategy is associated with improved academic
performance, especially for mathematics, and for programs identified
as having been well implemented. There is also some evidence that this
strategy helped close the achievement gap for students from low-income
families, students of color, and English learners.
Course Completion and Of 12 studies addressing this topic, seven found positive effects. These
Dropout/Graduation studies showed that the community schools strategy is associated with
Rates reduced dropout and increased high school graduation rates.
Behavioral Outcomes
Attendance Of 29 studies addressing this topic, 21 found positive effects. Together
they show a generally positive association between the community schools
strategy and improved attendance, particularly for longer running and
well-implemented community school programs. Participation in extended
learning time programs, as well as engagement with school, appear to be
positive mediating factors for attendance.
Discipline The 20 studies addressing this topic focused on office referral and
suspension rates. Of these, nine studies found that the community
schools strategy is associated with reduced disciplinary incidents and
suspensions, while others showed no effect. More positive results were
evident for well-implemented community school programs.
Behavioral Health Of three studies addressing this topic, two found evidence of
improvements in nutrition/exercise habits (self-reported), incarceration
rates, and teen pregnancy rates for community school participants, but
there was little evidence in support of mental health improvements.
Social-Emotional Outcomes
Student Attitudes Of 14 studies addressing this topic, results were positive in 12, with
evidence of improvements in students’ self-reported sense of safety
and attitudes toward and engagement with school for community school
participants. However, many studies found significant differences in some
but not all attitude measures, so more information about this outcome
category is needed.
Peer and Adult Of nine studies addressing this topic, eight showed a positive association
Relationships between community school participation and student relationships with
peers and adults at their schools, particularly for well-implemented
programs and those offering students more access to services.
School Climate The 10 studies addressing this topic examined school climate surveys
administered to students, staff, and parents. Of these, eight studies
yielded positive results, particularly in regard to student, teacher, and
parent perceptions of the level of support available at the school.
Furthermore, relational trust may be a mediating factor for academic
achievement.
Finding 10. Effective implementation and sufficient exposure to services increase the success
of the community schools approach. Research on integrated student supports, expanded
learning time, and comprehensive community school initiatives shows that longer operating
and better implemented programs yield more positive results for students and schools.
Many evaluations and studies indicated positive results for schools that were implementing the
different program elements most fully, and for longer periods of time. As with any schoolwide
reform, it takes a while to see real benefits.435 Students who participated in a broader range of
programs or who received a higher dosage of services (e.g., more hours of programming) also
showed better outcomes.
Finding 11. Existing cost-benefit research suggests an excellent return of up to $15 in social
value and economic benefits for every dollar invested in school-based wraparound services.
Addressing barriers to learning faced by students from low-income families and communities
yields long-term fiscal benefits for society as a whole. When schools provide wraparound services,
enriching and challenging curricula taught by highly qualified and culturally sensitive teachers, and
meaningful mechanisms for parents to engage and participate at all levels of the school, students
do better and we all benefit.
Finding 12. The evidence base on comprehensive community schools can be strengthened
by well-designed evaluations that pay close attention to the nature of the services and their
implementation.
Because the community schools approach is frequently adopted as a turnaround strategy in

underperforming schools, the current evidence on this approach as a whole-school intervention
consists largely of program evaluations that assess student- and school-level progress. Studies that
use rigorous quantitative methods contribute to a stronger causal understanding of community
schools’ effectiveness. Well-designed qualitative research yields greater understanding of the
conditions under which community schools work well. Additionally, important and useful knowledge
can come from well-designed and well-documented program evaluations, especially if they are guided
by a strong theory of change about community schools and use a mixed-methods analytic approach.
Research-Based Lessons for Policy Development and Implementation

Community school strategies hold considerable
relevance to education reform and promise for The positive outcomes of
creating good schools for all students, especially community schools are most likely
children living in poverty. This is very positive
news in the face of growing achievement and
to occur when policies, programs,
opportunity gaps, and, particularly, at a moment and structures are implemented to
when the nation faces a decentralization of address local needs, are sustained
decision making about the use of federal dollars.
State and local policymakers can leverage over time, and include all four
community schools as an evidence-based pillars.
strategy for improving school and student
outcomes, and specify them as part of ESSA
Title I set-aside school improvement plans, as
well as in proposals for grants under Title IV. If a state or district lacks the resources to implement
community schools at scale, it can productively begin in neighborhoods where community schools
are most needed and, therefore, students are most likely to benefit.
However, the evidence also shows that high-quality implementation is the key to achieving positive
outcomes. Based on our analysis of this evidence, we identify the following 10 research-based
lessons for guiding policy development and implementation:
Lesson 1. Integrated student supports, expanded learning time and opportunities, family and
community engagement, and collaborative leadership and practice all matter; moreover, they
appear to reinforce each other. Taking a comprehensive approach that brings all of these factors
together requires changes to existing structures, practices, and partnerships at school sites.
Lesson 2. In cases where a strong program model exists, such as for many of the interventions
addressing integrated student supports, implementation fidelity matters. Evidence suggests
that results are much stronger when programs with clearly defined elements and structures are
implemented consistently across different sites.
Lesson 3. For expanded learning time and opportunities, student access to services and the way
time is used make a difference. Students who participate for longer hours or a more extended period
receive the most benefit, as do those attending programs that offer activities that are engaging,
are well aligned with the instructional day (i.e., not just homework help, but content to enrich
classroom learning), and that address whole-child interests and needs (i.e., not just academics).
Lesson 4. Students can benefit when schools offer a spectrum of engagement opportunities for
families, ranging from providing information on how to support student learning at home and
volunteer at school, to welcoming parents involved with grassroots community organizations
seeking to influence school and district changes. Doing so can help to establish trusting
relationships that build upon community-based competencies and support culturally relevant
learning opportunities.
Lesson 5. Collaboration and shared decision

making matter. Community schools are Students can benefit when schools
stronger when they develop a variety of offer a spectrum of engagement
structures and practices (e.g., leadership and
planning committees; professional learning
opportunities for families, ranging
communities) that bring educators, partner from providing information on
organizations, parents, and students together how to support student learning
to make key decisions about how to develop
and govern a community school and to engage at home and volunteer at school,
around its continuous improvement. Also to welcoming parents involved
beneficial is involving these stakeholders
with grassroots community
from the beginning in the community school
needs assessment, design, planning, and organizations seeking to influence
implementation processes. Sufficient planning school and district changes.
time that fosters trust among school staff,
service providers, parents, and community
members enhances effective collaboration.
Lesson 6. Strong implementation requires attention to all pillars of the community schools model
and to the full integration of those components into the core life of the school (as opposed to
viewing community school services as add-on features). In particular, community schools would
benefit from maintaining a strong academic improvement focus to support students’ educational
outcomes. Students would also benefit from attending community schools that offer more intense
or sustained services, and that have been allowed sufficient time to mature in terms of program
implementation. Implementation strategies would benefit from using data in an ongoing process of
continuous program evaluation and improvement, while allowing sufficient time for the strategy to
fully mature.
Lesson 7. Educators and policymakers embarking

on a community schools approach can benefit Educators and policymakers
from beginning with a framework that keeps embarking on a community
their focus on the overarching goals of creating
schools approach would benefit
school conditions and practices characteristic of
high-performing schools, as well as ameliorating from beginning with a framework
out-of-school barriers to teaching and learning. that keeps their focus on the
This will help ensure that the adoption
and implementation of various community
overarching goals of creating
school elements will improve outcomes in school conditions and practices
neighborhoods facing poverty and isolation. characteristic of high-performing
Lesson 8. Successful community schools do schools, as well as ameliorating
not all look alike. Therefore, effective plans for
out-of-school barriers to teaching
comprehensive place-based initiatives leverage
the four pillars in ways that target local assets and learning.
and needs. These plans also recognize that
programming may need to modified over time in
response to changes in the school and community.
Lesson 9. Strong community school evaluation studies provide information about progress
toward hoped-for outcomes, the quality of implementation, and students’ exposure to services
and opportunities. Quantitative evaluations would benefit from including carefully designed
comparison groups and statistical controls, and evaluation reports would benefit from including
detailed descriptions of their methodology and the designs of the programs. Policymakers and
educators could also benefit from evaluation studies that supplement findings about the impact of
community schools on student outcomes with findings about their impact on neighborhoods.
Lesson 10. The field would benefit from additional academic research, using rigorous quantitative
and qualitative methods to study both comprehensive community schools and the four pillars.
This research could focus on the impact of community schools on student outcomes, on school
outcomes, and on community outcomes. Additional research could seek to guide implementation
and refinement in such schools, particularly in the low-income, racially isolated communities where
they are disproportionately located.
Conclusion
Although we call for additional research and stronger evaluation, evidence in the current empirical
literature shows what is working now. The research on the four pillars of community schools and
the evaluations of comprehensive interventions, for example, shine a light on how these strategies
can improve educational practices and conditions and support student academic success and social,
emotional, and physical health.
As states, districts, and schools consider improvement strategies, they can be confident that
the best available evidence demonstrates that the various community school approaches offer a
promising foundation for progress.
Appendix: Assessing the Evidence Base
The findings presented in this report are based on a systematic review of existing literature. By
reading a wide range of descriptive accounts of community schools, the research team identified
four pillars as common features of this diverse approach to school improvement:

The team also reviewed empirical studies and research syntheses of programs implementing each
of the four pillars individually, as well as research and evaluations of comprehensive community
school programs that include most or all of the community school pillars. This process involved an
examination of the impact of these interventions on a range of student academic, behavioral, and
social-emotional outcomes in the short and long term.
Literature Search Procedures

The review process began with a broad literature search to identify relevant published studies,
evaluations, and research syntheses, using the resources listed in Table A1. This was supplemented
by conversations with community school experts to learn about additional evaluation efforts that
were not identified through the initial search.
Table A1
Literature Resources
Type of Resource Name of Resource
Electronic Databases EBSCO
JSTOR
ProQuest
Google/Google Scholar
Organizational Websites Coalition for Community Schools
National Center for Community Schools
Individual program websites
Academic Journals American Economic Journal: Applied Economics
American Educational Research Journal
American Journal of Community Psychology
Child Development
Children & Youth Services Review
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
Crime and Delinquency
Education and Urban Society
Educational Administration Quarterly
Harvard Educational Review
Journal of Child and Family Studies
Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR)
Journal of Educational Administration
Journal of Educational Change
Journal of Educational Research
Journal of Human Resources
Journal of Political Economy
Marriage & Family Review
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development
National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin
National Forum of Multicultural Issues Journal
Research on Social Work Practice
Review of Educational Research
Review of Research in Education
School Effectiveness and School Improvement
School Leadership and Management
Teachers College Record
Teaching and Teacher Education
The Elementary School Journal
Urban Education
Key search terms included combinations and variations of the phrases listed in Table A2. There were
two phases in the literature search. During the first phase, the research team discussed search terms
and literature resources, and then conducted a broad sweep of the evidence base to identify an
initial set of community school studies. After reading and discussing this initial set of studies, the
researchers identified the four community school pillars, which served as a framework for the more
extensive second phase of the literature search. During this second phase, each researcher assumed
primary responsibility for a different portion of the evidence base, as outlined in Table A2, yielding
additional evidence for consideration.
Table A2
Key Search Terms
Pillar 1. School-linked services, school-based services, extended schools,

Integrated student integrated student supports, wraparound services
supports
Pillar 2. Expanded learning time, extended learning time, summer programs,

Expanded learning time after-school programs, out-of-school programs, longer school years,
and opportunities longer school days
Pillar 3. Parent engagement, parent support, parent involvement, family

Family and community engagement programs, family support, family involvement, student
engagement engagement, community engagement, community organizing
Pillar 4. Community participation, shared leadership, collaborative leadership,

Collaborative leadership distributed leadership, collective trust, professional learning
and practice communities
Comprehensive Community schools, comprehensive community schools, full-service

community schools community schools, school-community partnerships
This search yielded academic research, community school program evaluations, and research
syntheses on all four pillars and on comprehensive community school programs that include most
or all of the four pillars. The comprehensive community schools evidence base consists largely of
program evaluations posted on organizational websites. Typically, an external evaluator conducts
these, although a community school initiative will occasionally release an internal program
evaluation. Researchers have also investigated community schools in academic studies published in
peer-reviewed journals. In addition, university or independent researchers have conducted program
evaluations in response to a grant requirement or program improvement initiative.
Program evaluations are quite varied in the extent to which they employ a rigorous methodology.
Some evaluations capture and report outcomes for students in the community school program
with simple descriptive statistics, such as the percentage of students who achieve a proficient
score on state-mandated standardized tests. Other evaluations employ a research-based logic
model, or theory of change, to test whether community school activities affect student outcomes
in expected ways. These approaches are helpful for tracking program improvement over time.
Evaluations may also employ quasi-experimental or randomized techniques, which help to assess
student or school progress in relation to a non-community school comparison group. Finally,
evaluations conducted internally and those conducted by external organizations also vary in
methodological rigor and extent of peer review. External evaluations may be considered more
objective in nature, although a carefully constructed and thoroughly reviewed internal evaluation
can also provide trustworthy evidence.
Inclusion Criteria
All studies that met a set of preliminary criteria were reviewed by at least one of the authors. These
are the criteria:
• The studies examined programs that included one or more of the community school
pillars we identified: (1) integrated student supports, (2) expanded learning time and
opportunities, (3) family and community engagement, and (4) collaborative leadership and
practice. Because our definition of a community school relies upon these four pillars, this
review considers evidence of the impact associated with each of these pillars individually,
as well as together.
• The majority of studies were released within the past 15 years. This decision on the research
period took into account two major community school research reviews that came out
around the beginning of that period (one in 2000, and the other in 2003).436 This report is
intended to build upon these prior reviews by considering more recent evidence. There are
two exceptions to this rule. The first is a small number of original evaluations that qualify
as seminal studies because they are referenced frequently in more recent community
schools research, and/or because they address a shortcoming in the existing evidence
base. For example, this review includes two randomized evaluations of Comer’s School
Development Program published in 1999 and 2000, because there are very few randomized
evaluations in the evidence base, and these particular studies have often been cited in
subsequent research.437 The second exception is a small number of rigorously constructed
research syntheses relevant to each of the individual community school pillars, which were
included to provide a historical perspective to the evidence considered for each pillar. For
each study older than 15 years, there is a note in the Research Compendium explaining why
it was included.
• The studies either explained the research methods they used and reported statistical
output when relevant, or the authors supplied this information upon request. This was
particularly important in the case of program evaluations, which were sometimes written
for a practitioner audience and therefore left out methodological details.
The inclusion criteria intentionally captured studies using a broad range of research methods,
including randomized control trials, quasi-experimental studies, well-designed case studies with
no comparison group, and published research syntheses with clearly outlined methodologies
for the selection and analysis of studies. This report includes a variety of program evaluations,
some of which are peer-reviewed and published in academic journals and some of which are not.
However, those not peer reviewed were included only if they were well designed, carefully executed,
and reported with sufficient detail. Further evidence comes from research syntheses published in
peer-reviewed academic journals or released by research organizations that employ peer review.
In addition to studies employing quantitative methods, we also included rigorous qualitative case
studies and those using a mixed-methods approach. These studies shed light on questions of
implementation and the nature of student outcomes using data from interviews, focus groups, site
visits, surveys, and analysis of administrative records.
Considering multiple research approaches adds depth and breadth to our understanding of the
effectiveness of potential interventions. This selection approach yielded 143 studies that met the
criteria for inclusion (see Table A3 for an overview of the studies we reviewed and the Research
Compendium for a full summary of the studies we reviewed).
Review Procedure
We began our review by grouping together studies according to their primary focus and screening
them using the inclusion criteria. Research on community school reforms that emphasize integrated
student services, for example, was grouped with other studies of integrated student supports and
separated from research on community school reforms that focus on extended learning time. These
distinctions can be somewhat artificial, given that any specific community schools reform is likely
to contain multiple areas of focus. However, most initiatives identify areas of focus to emphasize in
their programming.
Table A3
Overview of Student and School Outcome Studies Reviewed
Category Number of Studies
Comprehensive community school evaluations 24, including 3 research syntheses
Pillar 1: Integrated student supports 27, including 6 research syntheses
Pillar 2: Expanded learning time and opportunities 24, including 14 research syntheses
Pillar 3: Family and community engagement 29, including 13 research syntheses
Pillar 4: Collaborative leadership and practice 35, including 13 research syntheses
Cost-benefit analyses 4 studies
TOTAL 143, including 49 research syntheses
Studies in each group were summarized (see the Research Compendium). We then coded all original
community school research studies with student and school outcome data (excluding syntheses and
meta-analyses) by outcome category using an inductive process. The categories that emerged were:
• Academic Outcomes
-- Achievement (including test scores and grades)
-- Progress (including dropout rates, retention rates, graduation rates, college enrollment
rates, course credit attainment rates, and course failure rates)
• Behavioral Outcomes
-- Attendance (including absenteeism, chronic absenteeism, attendance, and school
mobility rates)
-- Discipline (including disciplinary referrals, suspensions, and behavioral offenses)
-- Healthy behavior (including teen pregnancy rates, juvenile incarceration rates, self-
reported risky behaviors like substance use or criminal acts, nutrition and exercise
habits, and aspects of mental and physical health)
• Social-Emotional Outcomes
-- Student attitudes (including sense of safety, self-esteem, attitudes toward school, belief
in the value of education, self-efficacy, orientation toward learning, and engagement
with school)
-- Relationships (including peer relationships, student-adult relationships, and parent
relationships with teachers/schools)
-- School climate (broad measures of organizational health, educational climate, and
collective trust)
The two most frequently studied outcomes are student achievement and attendance rates.
Researchers have examined other outcomes ranging from changes in student attitudes and
relationships to graduation and teen pregnancy rates.
As a final step, key findings were summarized across relevant studies, based upon themes or patterns
that emerged from the convergence of evidence across multiple studies. This analysis took into
account the methodology used in each study. The research team also classified the methodologies that
each of the studies employed according to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) statutory definition
of an “evidence-based intervention”438 and resolved any uncertainty regarding how to classify a
study through discussion. ESSA defines state and local education agency, and school activities,
strategies, or interventions as evidence-based if they “demonstrate a statistically significant effect
on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes” through “at least one well-designed and
well-implemented” study, or demonstrate a research-based rationale and include ongoing evaluation
efforts (see Table A4). This classification process allowed the research team to determine whether
community schools meet the definition of an evidence-based ESSA intervention.
Table A4
ESSA’s Definition of “Evidence-Based Interventions”
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Strong Evidence Moderate Evidence Promising Evidence Emerging Evidence
At least one well-designed and well-implemented study demonstrates a Demonstrates a
statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes using a(n) rationale that the
intervention is likely
to improve student
Experimental Quasi-experimental Correlational outcomes, based on
methodology methodology methodology with high-quality research
statistical controls for
selection bias Includes ongoing
evaluation efforts
ESSA requires that Title I, Part A interventions for low-performing schools, as well as competitive
grant programs, employ evidence-based strategies that fall into Tiers 1–3.439 It is up to states and
local education agencies to develop a plan for how to spend the Title I, Part A set-aside in support
of low-performing schools, which includes selecting among a variety of strategies that meet the
definition for an evidence-based intervention. Other formula grant programs, such as Title II teacher
supports and Title IV, Part A student supports, encourage (but do not require) the evidence-based
standard. See the Research Compendium for the ESSA classification of each study we reviewed.
While the ESSA evidence tiers rank experimental and quasi-experimental evidence above other
research methodologies, it is important to keep in mind that there are benefits and drawbacks
to each approach. Experimental studies, where some students are randomly assigned to receive
services and others are randomly assigned to a comparison group, are intended to allow for a solid
inference that any differences which emerge between the two groups are caused by the program
itself. However, the community schools approach is, by definition, a whole-school intervention
strategy that does not lend itself to random assignment. For this reason, there are very few
randomized control trials in the community schools evidence base, and those that exist often
provide a partial test of the model (for example, randomly assigning some students to receive extra
services within a school).
Endnotes
1. Coalition for Community Schools. (n.d.). What is a community school? http://www.communityschools.org/
aboutschools/what_is_a_community_school.aspx (accessed 04/08/17).
2. See, e.g., Duncan, G., & Murnane, R. (2014). Restoring opportunity: The crisis of inequality and the challenge
for American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press; Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The Flat
World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future. New York: Teachers
College Press.
3. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2014). Dear colleague letter: Resource comparability.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/
colleague-resourcecomp-201410.pdf (accessed 09/19/17).
4. For example, the 2017 Phi Delta Kappa poll of public attitudes toward education found that families
from all socioeconomics and racial groups want schools that attend to a comprehensive set of students
needs, including academics, interpersonal skills, and preparation for careers. Most also say schools should
provide wraparound services for students and seek additional public money to pay for them. Only very
small proportions of these groups saw the current emphasis on standardized test scores as an appropriate
way to measure of school quality. Phi Delta Kappa. (2017). The 49th annual PDK poll of the public’s
attitudes toward the public schools. Arlington, VA: Phi Delta Kappa.
5. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The Right to Learn: A Blueprint for Creating Schools That Work. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
6. Southern Education Foundation. (2015). A new majority research bulletin: Low income students now a
majority in the nation’s public schools, 2015 update. Atlanta, GA: Southern Education Foundation. http://
www.southerneducation.org/Our-Strategies/Research-and-Publications/New-Majority-Diverse-Majority-
Report-Series/A-New-Majority-2015-Update-Low-Income-Students-Now (accessed 04/08/17).
7. See, e.g., Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on
opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.).
(1998). The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; Duncan, G. J., &
Murnane, R. J. (2011). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances. New York,
NY: Russell Sage Foundation; Carter, P. L., & Welner, K. G. (2013). Closing the Opportunity Gap: What
America Must Do to Give Every Child an Even Chance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
8. The Leadership Conference Education Fund, & The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
(2015). Cheating our future: How decades of disinvestment by states jeopardizes equal education opportunity.
Washington, DC: The Leadership Conference Education Fund.
9. Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S. (2000) Summer learning and home environment. In R. D.
Kahlenberg (Ed.), A Notion at Risk: Preserving Public Education as an Engine for Social Mobility (pp. 9–30). New
York, NY: Century Foundation Press; Neuman, S. B., & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and
middle-income communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1),
8–26.
10. Johnson, R.C. (2011). The impact of parental wealth on college enrollment and degree attainment: Evidence
from the housing boom and bust. (Working paper). Berkeley, CA: Goldman School of Public Policy,
University of California, Berkeley.
11. Pascoe, J. M., Wood, D. L., & Duffee, J. H. AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family
Health, Council on Community Pediatrics. (2016). Mediators and adverse effects of child poverty in the
United States. Pediatrics, 137(4).
12. Mehana, M., & Reynolds, A. J. (2004). School mobility and achievement: A meta-analysis. Children
and Youth Services Review, 26(1), 93–19; Raudenbush, S. W., Jean, M., & Art, E. (2001) Year-by-year
and cumulative impacts of attending a high-mobility elementary school on children’s mathematics
achievement in Chicago, 1995–2005. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.). (2001). Whither opportunity:
Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 359–376). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
13. Aysola, J., Orav, E. J., & Ayanian, J. Z. (2011). Neighborhood characteristics associated with access to
patient-centered medical homes for children. Health Affairs, 30(11), 2080–2089; Brooks-Gunn, J., &
Markman, L. B. (2005). The contribution of parenting to ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. The
Future of Children, 15(1), 139–168.
14. See, e.g., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of
Children, 7(2), 55–71; Gammon, C. (2012, June 20). Pollution, poverty and people of color: Asthma and
the inner city. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pollution-poverty-people-
color-asthma-inner-city/; Oishi, S., & Schimmack, U. (2010). Residential mobility, well-being, and
mortality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 980–994; Mazza, J., & Reynolds, W. (1999).
Exposure to violence in young inner city adolescents: Relations with suicidal ideation, depression and
PTSD symptomology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27(3), 203–213.
15. See, e.g., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of
Children, 7(2), 55–71; Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards,
V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many
of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258; De Bellis, M. D. (2001). Developmental traumatology: The
psychobiological development of maltreated children and its implications for research, treatment, and
policy. Development and Psychopathology, 13(03), 539–564; Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools. New
York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University; Massey, D. S., & Tannen, J. (2016). Segregation, race,
and the social worlds of rich and poor. The dynamics of opportunity in America. Berlin, Germany: Springer
International Publishing.
16. See Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., McFarland, J., KewalRamani, A., Zhang, A., & Wilkinson-Flicker, S.
(2016). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2016 (NCES 2016-007). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
17. Rumberger, R. W. (2013, May). Poverty and high school dropouts: The impact of poverty on high school
dropouts. The SES Indicator. http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/indicator/2013/05/poverty-dropouts.
aspx (accessed 10/2/17).
18. Putnam, R. D. (2016). Our kids: The American Dream in Crisis. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
19. Rogers, J. S. (1998). Community schools: Lessons from the past and present. Los Angeles, CA: University of
California, Los Angeles’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access; Kirp, D. L. (2011). Kids First: Five
Big Ideas for Transforming Children’s Lives and America’s Future. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
20. Rogers, J. S. (1998). Community schools: Lessons from the past and present. Los Angeles, CA: University
of California, Los Angeles’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access; Richardson, J. (2009). The
fFull-Service Community School Movement: Lessons From the James Adams Community School. New York,
NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
California, Los Angeles’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access.
22. Lewis, H. (2013). New York City Public Schools from Brownsville to Bloomberg: Community Control and Its
Legacy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; Richardson, J. (2009). The Full-Service Community School
Movement: Lessons From the James Adams Community School. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; Warren,
M. R. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 75(2), 133–173; Rogers, J. S. (1998). Community schools: Lessons from the past and present. Los
Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access.
23. Richardson, J. (2009). The Full-Service Community School Movement: Lessons From the James Adams
Community School. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
California, Los Angeles’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access.
25. Podair, J. E. (2002). The Strike That Changed New York: Blacks, Whites, and the Ocean Hill-Brownsville Crisis.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26. Bell, D. A. (1973). Integration—is it a no win policy for Blacks? Civil Rights Digest, 5(4), 19–20.
27. Podair, J. E. (2002). The Strike That Changed New York: Blacks, Whites, and the Ocean Hill-Brownsville Crisis.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
of California, Los Angeles’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access; Podair, J. E. (2002). The
Strike That Changed New York: Blacks, Whites, and the Ocean Hill-Brownsville Crisis. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press..
29. Jacobson, R. (2016). Community schools: A place-based approach to education and neighborhood change.
Discussion Paper. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
of California, Los Angeles’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access; Kirp, D. L. (2011) Kids First:
Five Big Ideas for Transforming Children’s Lives. New York: Public Affairs. Note that while this kind of help
is especially beneficial to children from low-income families, who otherwise do without, middle class
families would also benefit from the after-school and summer activities; what’s more, having a clinic on
the premises means that a parent doesn’t have to leave work for their child’s doctor’s appointment.
31. LBJ Presidential Library. (1965, April 11). Johnson’s remarks on signing the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. http://www.lbjlibrary.org/lyndon-baines-johnson/timeline/johnsons-remarks-on-signing-
the-elementary-and-secondary-education-act (accessed 9/19/2017).
32. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982); Campaign for Fiscal Equity et al. v. State of New York et al. 719 N.Y.S.2d
475 (2001).
33. Serrette, K., & McGuire, K. (2016). Community schools: Transforming struggling schools into thriving schools.
Washington, DC: Center for Popular Democracy, 1–60; Dryfoos, J. G. (2000). Evaluation of community
schools: Findings to date. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Carnegie Corporation; Blank, M. J., Melaville, A., &
Shah, B. P. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in community schools. Washington, DC:
Coalition for Community Schools.
34. ESSA (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015–2016).
35. U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Non-regulatory guidance: Supporting school reform by leveraging
federal funds in a schoolwide program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.
ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essaswpguidance9192016.pdf (accessed 9/22/17).
37. Results for America. (2015). Evidence-based policy provisions in the conference report for S. 1177, the Every
Student Succeeds Act. Washington, DC: Results for America. http://results4america.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/11/2015-12-11-Policy-Provisions-in-ESSA.pdf (accessed 9/22/17).
38. Dryfoos, J. G. (2000). Evaluation of community schools: Findings to date. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Carnegie
Corporation; Blank, M. J., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. P. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in
community schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools.
39. Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. (2015–2016).
41. Noguera, P. (2003). City Schools and the American Dream: Reclaiming the Promise of Public Education. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press; Warren, M. R., Hong, S., Rubin, C., & Uy, P. (2009). Beyond the bake sale:
A community-based relational approach to parent engagement in schools. The Teachers College Record,
111(9), 2209–2254.
42. Some schools in the network supported by the Children’s Aid Society’s (CAS) and those employing a
Community in Schools (CIS) model fit here.
43. Examples in this category include the Comer School Development Project, the Chicago Public Schools
Community School Initiative (CSI), and Boston’s City Connects project.
44. Examples include the Tulsa Area Community School Initiative (TACSI);,Chicago’s Full-Service Schools
Initiative (FSSI);,and Redwood City’s Community Schools approach.
45. Melaville, A. (1998). Learning together: The developing field of school-community initiatives. Flint,
MI: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/assetmanager/
melaville_learning_together.pdf (accessed 9/19/17).
46. Bronstein, L. R., & Mason, S. E. (2016). School-Linked Services: Promoting Equity for Children, Families, and
Communities. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
47. See, e.g., Cohen, D., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142; Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800
meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abingdon, UK: Routledge; Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth,
E., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press; Duncan, G. J. & Murnane, R. J. (2014). Restoring Opportunity: The Crisis of
Inequality and the Challenge for American Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
48. Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., LePage, P., Hammerness, K., & Duffy, H. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing
Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do. San Francisco, CA: John
Wiley & Sons; Langer, J. A. (2004). Getting to Excellent: How to Create Better Schools. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press; Newmann, F. M. & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring Schools
for Intellectual Quality. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Oakes, J., Lipton, M., Anderson, L., & Stillman, J.
(2012). Teaching to Change the World. (4th ed.). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
49. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience,
and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; Martinez, M., & McGrath, D. (2014). Deeper
Learning: How Eight Innovative Public Schools Are Transforming Education in the Twenty-First Century. New
York, NY: New Press.
50. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York, NY: Random House; Ladd, H. F., &
Sorensen, L. C. (2015). Returns to teacher experience: Student achievement and motivation in middle school.
(Working paper). Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education; Boaler,
J. (2015). Mathematical Mindsets: Unleashing Students’ Potential Through Creative Math, Inspiring Messages
and Innovative Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
51. Papay, J. P., & Kraft, M. A. (2015). Productivity returns to experience in the teacher labor market:
Methodological challenges and new evidence on long-term career improvement. Journal of Public
Economics, 130: 105–119.
52. Conley, S. & Cooper, B. (2013). Moving From Teacher Isolation to Collaboration: Enhancing Professionalism
and School Quality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
53. Marzano, R. J., Frontier, T., Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision: Supporting the art and science of
teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
54. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and
impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2): 479–507.
55. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will
Determine Our Future. New York: Teachers College Press; Kirp, D. L. (2013). Improbable Scholars: The
Rebirth of a Great American School and a Strategy for American Education. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
56. Farina, C., & Kotch, L. (2014). A School Leader’s Guide to Excellence, updated edition: Collaborating our Way
to Better Schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
57. Harris, A., Day, C., Hopkins, D., Hadfield, M., Hargreaves, A., & Chapman, C. (2003). Effective Leadership for
School Improvement. London, UK: Routledge.
58. National Education Commission on Time and Learning. (1994). Prisoners of time: Schools and programs
making time work for students and teachers. Washington, DC: National Education Commission on Time and
Learning.
59. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact
of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal
interventions. Child Development, 82(1): 405–432; Dobbie, W., & Fryer Jr., R. G. (2013). Getting beneath
the veil of effective schools: Evidence from New York City. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics,
5(4): 28–60.
60. Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, W. K. (2001). A multilevel examination of the distribution and
effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. Elementary School Journal,
102(1), 3–17; Kirp, D. L. (2013). Improbable Scholars: The Rebirth of a Great AmericanSchool and a Strategy
for American Education. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
61. Kirp, D. L. (2011). Kids First: Five Big Ideas for Transforming Children’s Lives. New York: Public Affairs.
62. Noddings, N. (2015). The Challenge to Care in Schools (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
63. Kirp, D. L. (2013). Improbable Scholars: The Rebirth of a Great American School and a Strategy for American
Education. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
64. Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Higgins-D’Alessandro, A., & Guffey, S. (2012). School climate research summary:
August 2012. New York, NY: National School Climate Center; Gendron, B. P., Williams, K. R., & Guerra,
N. G. (2011). An analysis of bullying among students within schools: Estimating the effects of individual
normative beliefs, self-esteem, and school climate. Journal of School Violence, 10(2), 150–164; Voight, A.,
& Hanson, T. (2017). How Are Middle School Climate and Academic Performance Related across Schools
and over Time? REL 2017–212. Regional Educational Laboratory West.
65. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing Schools for
Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
66. Marzano, R., & Waters, T. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Lanham, MD:
ASCD.
67. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will
Determine Our Future. New York: Teachers College Press,
68. Levin, H., Belfield, C., Muennig, P., & Rouse, C. (2007). The Costs and Benefits of an Excellent Education for
All of America’s Children. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
69. VanDenBerg, J., Bruns, E., & Burchard, J. (2003). History of the wraparound process. Focal Point Bulletin.
Portland, OR: National Wraparound Initiative, Research and Training Center on Family Support and
Children’s Mental Health.
70. Connecticut State Department of Education. (n.d.). Wraparound services and closing the achievement gap. Hartford,
CT: Connecticut State Department of Education; Jones, C. A. (2014). Uplifting the whole child: Using wraparound
services to overcome social barriers to learning. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center.
71. Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA. (2014). Integrated student supports and equity: What’s
not being discussed? Center Policy Notes. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Mental Health in Schools at the
University of California, Los Angeles.
72. Sanders, M. G. (2001). The role of “community” in comprehensive school, family, and community
partnership programs. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1): 19–34.
73. Bronstein, L. R. & Mason, S. E. (2016). School-Linked Services: Promoting Equity for Children, Families and
Communities. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
74. National Wraparound Initiative. (n.d.). What is wraparound? https://nwi.pdx.edu/ (accessed 3/8/17).
75. Copp, H. L., Bordnick, P. S., Traylor, A. C., & Thyer, B. A. (2007). Evaluating wraparound services for
seriously emotionally disturbed youth. Adolescence, 42(168), 723–732.
76. Bruns, E. J., & Walker, J. (2004). Ten principles of the wraparound process. In E.J. Bruns & J. S. Walker
(Eds.), The Resource Guide to Wraparound. Portland, OR: The National Wraparound Initiative, National
Wraparound Initiative, Research and Training Center on Family Support and Children’s Mental Health.
77. Nettles, S. M. (1991). Community involvement and disadvantaged students: A review. Review of
Educational Research, 61(3), 379–406; Suter, J., & Bruns, E. J. (2008). A narrative review of wraparound
outcome studies. In E. J. Bruns & J. S. Walker (Eds.), The resource guide to wraparound. Portland, OR:
National Wraparound Initiative, Research and Training Center for Family Support and Children’s Mental
Health; Suter, J. & Bruns, E. (2009). Effectiveness of the wraparound process for children with emotional
and behavioral disorders: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 12: 336–351.
78. Jones, C. A. (2014). Uplifting the whole child: Using wraparound services to overcome social barriers to
learning. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center.
79. Suter, J., & Bruns, E. J. (2008). A narrative review of wraparound outcome studies. In E. J. Bruns & J. S.
Walker (Eds.), The resource guide to wraparound. Portland, OR: National Wraparound Initiative, Research
and Training Center for Family Support and Children’s Mental Health.
80. Turner, M. A. & Berube, A. (2009). Vibrant neighborhoods, successful schools: What the federal
government can do to foster both. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
81. DiAngelo, A. V., Rich, L. & Kwiatt, J. (2013). Integrating family support services into schools: Lessons from
the Elev8 Initiative. Chapin Hall Issue Brief. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.
82. Child Trends. (2014). Making the grade: Assessing the evidence for integrated student supports. Webinar
presentation retrieved from https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2014-
17ISSPresentation.pdf (accessed 9/9/17).
83. Moore, K. A., & Emig, C. (2014). Integrated student supports: A summary of the evidence base for
policymakers. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
84. Coalition for Community Schools. (n.d.). What is a community school? http://www.communityschools.
org/aboutschools/what_is_a_community_school.aspx (accessed 3/8/17).
85. Moore, K. A., & Emig, C. (2014). Integrated student supports: A summary of the evidence base for
policymakers. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
86. Bronstein, L. R., & Mason, S. E. (2016). School-Linked Services: Promoting Equity for Children, Families,
and Communities. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
87. Bronstein, L. R., & Mason, S. E. (2016). School-Linked Services: Promoting Equity for Children, Families,
and Communities. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
88. Coalition for Community Schools. (n.d.). Trauma-informed care resources. http://www.
communityschools.org/multimedia/traumainformed_care_resources.aspx (accessed 9/8/17).
89. Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P.,
& Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the
leading causes of death in adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258; Lanius, R.
A., Vermetten, E., & Pain, C. (Eds.). (2010). The Impact of Early Life Trauma on Health and Disease: The
Hidden Epidemic. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
90. Kain, L. (2015, October 2). Part I: The Implications of trauma and student misbehavior in trauma
informed schools—an essential for student & staff success. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.
com/lara-kain/trauma-informed-schoolsan_b_8234038.html; Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D.,
Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood
abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258
91. Kain, L. (2015, October 2). Part I: The Implications of trauma and student misbehavior in
trauma informed schools—an essential for student & staff success. Huffington Post. http://www.
huffingtonpost.com/lara-kain/trauma-informed-schoolsan_b_8234038.html; Plumb, J. L., Bush, K. A.,
& Kersevich, S. E. (2016). Trauma-sensitive schools: An evidence-based approach. School Social Work
Journal, 40(2), 37–60.
92. Khan, A. & Williams, J. (2002). Addressing trauma in our schools. Arlington, VA: Communities In
Schools.
93. Hilt, R. J. (2015). Adverse childhood experiences: What can we do? Pediatric Annals, 44(5), 174–175.
94. Moore, K. A., Caal, S., Carney, R. Lippman, L., Li, W., Muenks, K., Murphey, D., Princiotta, D., Ramirez,
A., Rojas, A., Ryberg, R., Schmitz, H., Stratford, B., & Terzian, M. (2014). Integrated student supports:
Assessing the evidence. Bethesda, MD: Child Trends.
95. Nettles, S.M. (1991). Community involvement and disadvantaged students: A review. Review of
Educational Research, 61, 379–406; Heers, M., Van Klaveren, C., Groot, W., & Maassen van den Brink, H.
(2016). Community schools: What we know and what we need to know. Review of Educational Research,
86(4), 1016–1051; Harris, D. M. & Marquez Kiyama, J. (2013). The role of school and community-based
programs in aiding Latina/o high school persistence. Education and Urban Society, 47(2), 182–206.
96. Coldiron, J. S., Bruns, E., & Quick, H. (2017). A comprehensive review of wraparound care coordination
research, 1986–2014. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(5), 1245–1265.
97. In addition, 10 of the 19 studies found mixed effects for the impact of wraparound on distal outcomes,
or found that there was no difference between the wraparound and comparison groups.
98. Suter and Bruns found similarly promising, but mixed, results in a 2008 review of 36 outcome studies
examining wraparound initiatives in mental health, education, child welfare, juvenile justice, and
interagency initiatives, including 23 pretest-posttest single group studies, six quasi-experimental studies,
four randomized control trials, and three single case studies. Three of the four randomized control trials
reported primarily positive significant results, with one reporting largely nonsignificant results. Three
out of six quasi-experimental studies reported at least one significant positive result, while the other
three reported nonsignificant results. Suter, J. C. & Bruns, E. J. (2008). A narrative review of wraparound
outcomes studies. In E. J. Bruns and J. S. Walker (Eds.), The resource guide to wraparound. Portland, OR:
National Wraparound Initiative Research and Training Center for Family Support and Children’s Mental
Health.
99. Suter, J. C., & Bruns, E. J. (2009). Effectiveness of the wraparound process for children with emotional and
behavioral disorders: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 12(4), 336–351.
100. While not all studies in our review included effect size statistics, they are included in our discussion of
when they were provided.
101. Lipsey, M. W. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with
juvenile delinquents? In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending, guidelines from research and
practice (pp. 63–78). Chichester, UK: Wiley; Lipsey, M. W, Wilson, D. B. & Cothern, L. (2000). Effective
intervention for serious juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Murphy, R. A. (2002). Mental health,
juvenile justice, and law enforcement responses to youth psychopathology. In D. T. Marsh & M. A. Fristad
(Eds.), Handbook of serious emotional disturbance in children and adolescents (pp. 351–374). New York, NY:
John Wiley.
102. Wilson, K. J. (2008). Literature review: Wraparound services for juvenile and adult offender populations.
Center for Public Policy Research. Davis, CA: University of California, Davis.
103. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. (n.d.). Wraparound program. http://www.cjcj.org/Direct-services/
Wraparound-Program.html (accessed 9/10/17).
104. Carney, M. M. & Buttell, F. (2003). Reducing juvenile recidivism: Evaluating the wraparound services
model. Research on Social Work Practice, 13(5), 551–568.
105. The authors employed a logistic regression analysis model, which predicts the outcome of a dependent
binary (yes/no) variable, using one or more independent variables.
106. Pullmann, M. D., Kerbs, J. Koroloff, N., Veach-White, E., Gaylor R., & Sieler, D. (2006). Juvenile offenders
with mental health needs: Reducing recidivism using wraparound. Crime & Delinquency, 52(3), 375–397.
The authors used a Cox regression time-to-event analysis to predict the probability of reoffending, which
is a method for investigating the effect of several variables upon the time a specified event takes to
happen.
107. Kamradt, B. (2000). Wraparound Milwaukee: Aiding youth with mental health needs. Juvenile Justice, 7(1),
14–23; Kamradt, B. & Meyers, M. J. (1999). Curving violence in juvenile offenders with serious emotional
and mental health needs: The effective utilization of wraparound approaches in an American urban
setting. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 11(3–4), 381–399; Anderson, J. A., Wright,
E. R., Kooreman, H. E., Mohr, W. K. & Russell, L. A. (2003). The Dawn Project: A model for responding to
the needs of children with emotional and behavioral challenges and their families. Community Mental
Health Journal, 39(1), 63–74.
108. Moore, K. A., Caal, S., Carney, R. Lippman, L., Li, W., Muenks, K., Murphey, D., Princiotta, D., Ramirez, A.,
Rojas, A., Ryberg, R., Schmitz, H., Stratford, B., & Terzian, M. (2014). Integrated student supports: Assessing
the evidence. Bethesda, MD: Child Trends. Child Trends released an updated version of this analysis
just prior to the publication of our report. See Moore, K.A., Lantos, H., Jones, R., Schindler, A., Belford,
J., & Sacks, V. (2017). Making the grade: A progress report and next steps for integrated student supports.
Bethesda, MD: Child Trends.
109. Intent-to-treat is an approach to analyzing randomized control trials in which all randomized
participants are analyzed in their randomized group. See, Gravel, J., Opatrny, L., & and Shapiro, S. (2007).
The intention-to-treat approach in randomized controlled trials: Are authors saying what they do and
doing what they say? Clinical Trials, 4(4), 350–356.
110. Three out of four quasi-experimental studies and zero out of two randomized control trials found at
least one significant positive effect for measures of student progress, such as credit completion, grade
retention, dropout, and promoting power.
111. Three out of three quasi-experimental studies and one out of four randomized control trials found
at least one significant positive effect for measures of attendancs, such as chronic absenteeism and
overall attendance rates.
112. Three out of four quasi-experimental studies found at least one significant positive effect for
mathematics report card scores. Four out of six quasi-experimental studies and one out of four
randomized control trials found at least one significant positive effect for mathematics test scores.
113. Three out of four quasi-experimental studies found at least one significant positive effect for English
language arts report card scores. Four out of six quasi-experimental studies and zero out of three
randomized control trials found at least one significant positive effect for English language arts test
scores.
114. Two out of two quasi-experimental studies and zero out of four randomized control trials had at least
one significant positive effect for this measure.
115. Cardinali, D. (2014, February 24). The experts have spoken: Integrated student supports improve
educational outcomes. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-cardinali/the-experts-
have-spoken-i_b_4842549.html
116. One out of one quasi-experimental study and zero out of four randomized control trials found a
significant positive effect for this measure.
117. Two out of four quasi-experimental studies and zero out of four randomized control trials found a
significant positive effect for this measure.
118. Walsh, M. E., Madaus, G. F., Raczek, A. E., Dearing, E., Foley, C., An, C., Lee-St. John, T. J., & Beaton,
A. (2014). A new model for student support in high-poverty urban elementary schools: Effects on
elementary and middle school academic outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 51(4),
704–737.
119. Haywoode, A. (2017, June 22). City Connects inside community schools. City Connects Blog. https://
cityconnectsblog.org/2017/06/22/city-connects-inside-community-schools/
120. City Connects. (n.d.). City Connects progress reports. http://www.bc.edu/bc-web/schools/lsoe/sites/
cityconnects/results/reports.html (accessed 9/30/17); City Connects. (n.d.). Publications about City
Connects. http://www.bc.edu/bc-web/schools/lsoe/sites/cityconnects/results/publications.html
(accessed 9/30/17).
121. City Connects. (2016). The impact of City Connects: Student outcomes progress report 2016. Boston, MA:
City Connects. This study employed difference-in-difference regression analysis and hierarchical linear
modeling with propensity score matching.
122. Walsh, M. E., Madaus, G. F., Raczek, A. E., Dearing, E., Foley, C., An, C., Lee-St. John, T. J., & Beaton,
A. (2014). A new model for student support in high-poverty urban elementary schools: Effects on
elementary and middle school academic outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 51(4),
704–737.
123. Gandhi, A., Slama, R., Park, S., Russo, P., Bzura, R., & Williamson, S. (2015). Focusing on the whole
student: Final report on the Massachusetts Wraparound Zones. Waltham, MA: American Institutes for
Research.
126. Gandhi, A., Slama, R., Park, S., Russo, P., Bzura, R., & Williamson, S. (2015). Focusing on the whole
student: Final report on the Massachusetts Wraparound Zones. Waltham, MA: American Institutes for
Research.
127. Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). The Comer School Development Program: Improving education for low-income
students. National Forum of Multicultural Issues Journal, 8(1), 1–14.
128. Comer School Development Program. (n.d.). About us. https://medicine.yale.edu/childstudy/comer/about/
index.aspx (accessed 3/8/17).
131. Noblit, G. W., Malloy, W., & Malloy, C. E. (2001). The Kids Get Smarter: Case Studies of Successful Comer
Schools. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.; Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). The Comer School Development Program:
Improving education for low-income students. National Forum of Multicultural Issues Journal, 8(1), 1–14.
132. Cook, D. T., Habib, F., Phillips, M., Settersten, R. A., Shagle, S. C., & Degirmencioglu, S. M. (1999). Comer’s
School Development Program in Prince George’s County, Maryland: A theory-based evaluation. American
Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 543–597.
133. The index consists of ten items that assess the effectiveness of or agreement with the following: 1) The
School Planning and Management Team, 2) The Social Service Team, 3) The Parent Teacher Association,
4) The school improvement plan, 5) Communication between teams, 6) The use of child development
knowledge throughout the school, 7) Whether decisions are made by consensus, 8) The commitment level
of team members to improving the school, 9) The degree to which all members of the school community
were included in decisions, and 10) The extent to which various cultural and racial groups receive
particular attention.
134. The analysis depends on individual level results, and yet within the 4-year sample no student participated
for more than 2 years because the middle schools in the study included 7th and 8th grades only, and
follow-up data were not available for students after they entered high school.
135. Cook, T. D., Murphy, R. F., & Hunt, H. D. (2000). Comer’s Schools Development Program in Chicago: A
theory-based evaluation. American Education Research Journal, 37(2), 535–597.Our team classified this
evaluation as an experimental study according the ESSA evidence guidelines, because participating
schools were randomly assigned to implement the intervention. In the Child Trends research synthesis,
this study was classified as a “quasi-experimental design” rather than a “randomized control trial.”
136. Cook, T. D., Murphy, R. F., & Hunt, H. D. (2000). Comer’s Schools Development Program in Chicago: A
theory-based evaluation. American Education Research Journal, 37(2), 535–597. Several non-Comer schools
also received high scores on the implementation index, casting doubt on the extent to which participation
in the Comer model was directly responsible for these scores.
137. Communities in Schools. (n.d.). Our model. https://www.communitiesinschools.org/our-model/ (Accessed
9/30/17).
138. ICF International. (2008). Communities In Schools national evaluation volume 1: School level report.
Arlington, VA: Communities in Schools. Attendance was measured as the ratio of students attending
school to annual student membership. Attendance at CiS elementary schools improved by 0.3% over 3
years, CIS middle schools improved by 0.3% over 3 years , and CIS high schools improved by 0.7%. This
evaluation employed propensity score matching to create the comparison group.
139. ICF International. (2008). Communities In Schools national evaluation volume 1: School level report.
Arlington, VA: Communities in Schools. On-time graduation rates were measured using the Cumulative
Promotion Index to capture the proportion of a cohort that graduates with a high school diploma within
4 years. Overall, CiS schools showed a 0.2% increase in on-time graduation after 3 years of implementing
the program, compared to 1.6% decrease for non-CIS schools. This difference is not statistically
significant.
140. The evaluators calculated promoting power rates—the number of 12th graders enrolled in a high school
compared to the number of 9th graders enrolled there 3 years earlier—as a proxy for dropout rates. In the
overall sample, CiS schools increased their promoting power rates by 2.4% over 3 years, while non-CiS
schools improved by 0.7% during the same time period. This difference is not statistically significant.
141. Schools partially implementing the CIS model also outperformed comparison schools, with a 2.7%
increase in on-time graduation over 3 years, compared to a 0.2% increase in non-CIS schools. However,
this difference is not statistically significant.
142. Promoting power increased by 2.8% over 3 years for high implementers, compared to a 0.8% for non-CIS
schools. Schools partially implementing the CIS model underperformed the non-CIS comparison schools
by 4.3%, with a decrease in promoting power over 3 years. This difference was not statistically significant.
143. ICF International. (2010). Communities In Schools national evaluation: Five-year summary report. Arlington,
VA: Communities In Schools.
VA: Communities In Schools.
VA: Communities In Schools. Effect size of 0.25.
146. ICF International. (2008). Communities in Schools national evaluation volume 1: School level report.
Arlington, VA: Communities in Schools.
147. Somers, M., & Haider, Z. (2017). Using integrated student supports to keep kids in school: A quasi-
experimental evaluation of Communities in Schools. New York, NY: MDRC. This evaluation employed a
quasi-experimental comparative interrupted time series approach to estimate the effect of the whole-
school model.
148. ICF International. (2010). Communities in Schools national evaluation volume 4: Randomized controlled trial
study Jacksonville, Florida. Arlington, VA: Communities in Schools; ICF International. (2010). Communities
in Schools national evaluation volume 5: Randomized controlled trial study Austin, Texas. Arlington, VA:
Communities in Schools; ICF International. (2010). Communities in Schools national evaluation volume 6:
Randomized controlled trial study Wichita, Kansas. Arlington, VA: Communities in Schools.
149. Attendance rates for case managed students averaged 94.2% at baseline, 89.3% after 1 year, and 88.6%
after 2 years. Attendance rates for non-case managed students averaged 94.78% at baseline, 93.3%
after 1 year, and 86.4% after 2 years. The net change of 0.08% between groups in the second year of
implementation substantively important (effect size of 0.72).
150. Parise, L. M., Corrin, W., Granito, K., Haider, Z., Somers, M., & Cerna, O. (2017). Two years of case management:
Final findings from the Communities in Schools random assignment evaluation. New York, NY: MDRC.
151. Diplomas Now. (n.d.). One-pager on Diplomas Now. http://diplomasnow.org/about/ (accessed 11/12/17).
152. Corrin, W., Sepanik, S., Rosen, R., & Shane, A. (2016). Addressing early warning indicators: Interim impact
findings from the Investing in Innovation (i3) evaluation of Diplomas Now. New York, New York: MDRC.
153. Corrin, W., Sepanik, S., Rosen, R., & Shane, A. (2016). Students without early warning indicators maintain
better than 85% attendance, have less than 3 days suspended or expelled, and receive passing grades in
both English language arts and mathematics. Diplomas Now did not have a significant impact on the
percentage of students meeting a more stringent threshold suggestive of a stable educational trajectory:
better than 90% attendance, no suspensions or expulsions, and passing all four core subject areas of
English language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science. Furthermore, Diplomas Now did not
produce a significant impact on the percentage of students above either the stability or early warning
thresholds for any of the separate attendance, behavior, or academic outcome measures.
154. Peterson, J., & Koester, N. (2013). Kent School Services Network: Comparison of KSSN and non-KSSN schools.
Grand Rapids, MI: Kent School Services Network; and Community Research Institute at Johnson Center
at Grand Valley State University. (2013). The evaluation employs statistical testing to detail the general
comparisons between KSSN and non-KSSN schools, but does not control for potential demographic
differences between the two groups of schools.
155. Johnson Center at Grand Valley State University. (2013). The link between school environment and
attendance: Kent School Services Network. Grand Rapids, MI: Kent School Services Network. A subsequent
evaluation corroborated the significant increase in satisfactory attendance rates for KSSN schools,
although satisfactory attendance rates in the 2013–14 and 2014–15 academic years do not appear to
show additional growth. See Johnson Center at Grand Valley State University. (2014). An assessment of the
community school strategy and the impacts on attendance and school environment. Grand Rapids, MI: Kent
School Services Network.
156. Bunger, A. C. (2010). Defining service coordination: A social work perspective. Journal of Social Services
Review, 36(5), 385–401.
157. Adelman, H. S. & Taylor, L. (1997). Addressing barriers to learning: Beyond school-linked services and
full-service schools. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 6(3), 408–421.
158. University of California, Los Angeles School Mental Health Project. (2000). Addressing barriers to
learning: New ways to think … Better ways to link. Mental Health in Schools Training and Technical
Assistance Center Newsletter, 5(1), 1–7.
159. Jennifer McMurrer, NCLB Year 5: Choices, Changes, and Challenges: Curriculum and Instruction in the NCLB
Era, Center for Education Policy, 2007. http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=312
160. Putnam, R. D. (2016). Our kids: The American Dream in Crisis. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster;
Pamela R. Bennett, Amy C. Lutz, and Lakshmi Jayaram (2012). Beyond the schoolyard: The role of
parenting logics, financial resources, and social institutions in the social class gap in structured activity
participation. Sociology of Education 85(2) 131–157, 2012.
161. U.S. Department of Education. (2017 July 11). 21st Century Community Learning Centers: Funding status.
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/funding.html. (accessed 9/26/17). Note, however, that President
Trump’s budget proposal for the 2018 fiscal year eliminates support for the 21st Century Community
Learning Center Program.
162. Davis, J. (2014). California After-school Network: State of the State of Expanded Learning in California
2013–14. Davis, CA: California After-school Network.
163. Faberman, D., Davis, J., Goldberg, D., & Rowland, J. (2015). Learning time in America: Trends to reform the
American school calendar system. Boston, MA: National Center on Time and Learning.
164. After-school Alliance. (2012). Principles of effective expanded learning programs: A vision built on the
after-school approach. Washington, DC: Author.
165. National Summer Learning Association. (n.d.). http://www.summerlearning.org/ (accessed 9/26/17).
166. See, e.g., definitions offered by The After School Division, California Department of Education, working
definition July 2014; After-school Alliance. (2012). Principles of effective expanded learning programs: A
vision built on the after-school approach. Washington, DC: After-school Alliance; Redd, Z., Boccanfuso, C.,
Walker, K., Princiotta, D., Knewstub, D., and Moore, K. (2012). Expanding time for learning both inside and
outside the classroom: A review of the evidence base. Bethesda, MD: Child Trends.
167. Jacobson, R., Jamal, S. S., Jacobson, L., Blank, M. J. (2013). The growing convergence of community schools
and expanded learning opportunities. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools.
169. National Center for Community Schools. (2013). Building Community Schools: A Guide for Action. New York,
NY: National Center for Community Schools.
170. Redd, Z., Boccanfuso, C., Walker, K., Princiotta, D., Knewstub, D., and Moore, K. (2012). Expanding time for
learning both inside and outside the classroom: A review of the evidence base. Bethesda, MD: Child Trends.
173. Melaville, A., Berg, A. C., & Blank, M. J. (2006) Community-based learning: Engaging students for success
and citizenship. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools.
174. National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Mind, Brain, Experience and School, expanded edition.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press; Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (2001). Literacy and learning out of
school: A review of theory and research. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 575–611; Vadeboncoeur,
J. A. (2006). Engaging young people: Learning in informal contexts. Review of Research in Education,
30(Special Issue on Rethinking Learning: What Counts as Learning and What Learning Counts), 239–278;
National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and
skills in the 21st century. Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills, J. W. Pellegrino
& M. L. Hilton, (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science Education, Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
175. National Research Council. (2003). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
176. Farbman, D. A. (2015). The case for improving and expanding time in school: A review of key research and
practice. Boston, MA: National Center for Time and Learning; Peterson, T. K. (Ed.). (2013). Expanding
minds and opportunities: Leveraging the power of after-school and summer learning for student success.
http://www.expandinglearning.org/expandingminds (accessed 9/27/17). A groundbreaking compendium
of studies assembled by the Mott Foundation in 2013 includes reports and commentaries by more than
100 thought leaders including community leaders, elected officials, educators, researchers, advocates and
other prominent authors.
177. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Allen, A. B. (2010). Extending the school day or school year: A systematic
review of research (1985–2009). Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 401–436.
review of research (1985–2009). Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 430.
review of research (1985–2009). Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 431.
learning both inside and outside the classroom: A review of the evidence base. Bethesda, MD: Child Trends,
p.24.
182. Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on
achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66(3),
227–268.
183. Cooper, H., Charlton, K., Valentine, J. C., Muhlenbruck, L., & Borman, G. D. (2000). Making the most
of summer school: A meta-analytic and narrative review. Monographs of the society for research in child
development, 65(1), i–127.
184. McCombs, J. S., Augustine, C. H., Schwartz, H. L., Bodilly, S. J., McInnis, B. I., Lichter, D. S., & Cross, A.
B. (2011). Making summer count: How summer programs can boost children’s learning. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation.
185. Eccles, J. S., & Templeton, J. (2002). Extracurricular and other after-school activities for youth. Review of
Research in Education, 26(1), 113–180.
186. Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. L. (2006). Out-of-
school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research,
76(2), 275–313.
187. Feldman, A. F., & Matjasko, J. L. (2005). The role of school-based extracurricular activities in adolescent
development: A comprehensive review and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 75(2),
159–210.
188. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to
promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology,
45(3–4), 294–309.
189. Kidron, Y., & Lindsay, J. (2014). The effects of increased learning time on student academic and nonacademic
outcomes: Findings from a meta-analytic review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute
of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional
Educational Laboratory Appalachia.
190. Biag, M., & Castrechini, S. (2016). Coordinated strategies to help the whole child: Examining the
contributions of full-service community schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 21(3),
157–173.
191. Durham, R. E., & Connolly, F. (2016). Baltimore Community Schools: Promise & Progress. Baltimore, MD:
Baltimore Education Research Consortium.
192. Students participating in the typical number of days of extended learning time programming (72.8) had a
higher adjusted attendance rate (93.6%) than non-participants (92.9%) during the rest of the school year
(p<.0001). This evaluation employed hierarchical linear modeling with demographic controls. Chicago
Public Schools Office of Extended Learning Opportunities. (2009). Evaluation Brief: The 2007–2008 Chicago
Public Schools’ Community Schools Initiative: The impact of out-of-school-time participation on students.
Chicago, IL: Chicago Public Schools Office of Extended Learning Opportunities.
193. Researchers adjusted this analysis for days of suspension prior to the start of the extended learning
time intervention, and only included students who had participated in the typical number of days of
programming (72.8) or more. The result is statistically significant at the .01 level, but the effect size is not
substantive (d=.04). The evaluation employed hierarchical linear modeling with demographic controls.
Chicago Public Schools Office of Extended Learning Opportunities. (2009). Evaluation Brief: The 2007–
2008 Chicago Public Schools’ Community Schools Initiative: The impact of out-of-school-time participation on
students. Chicago, IL: Chicago Public Schools Office of Extended Learning Opportunities.
194. For reading, the average CSI participant gained 0.9 scale points more (14.1) on the Illinois Standards
Achievement Test (ISAT) than nonparticipants (13.2) (d = .06, p<.0001). For mathematics, the average CSI
participant gained .8 scale points more (12.5) on the ISAT than non-participants (11.7) (d = .05, p<.0001).
This evaluation employed demographic controls for hierarchical linear modeling analysis,
195. Furrer, C. J., Magnuson, L., & Suggs, J. W. (2012). Getting them there, keeping them there: Benefits of an
extended school day program for high school students. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,
17(3), 149–164.
196. Students participating in the SUN after-school program (n=432) earned an average of 6.5 credits during
the 2008—09 school year, compared to an average of 5.3 credits for the comparison group (n=471). The
authors employed propensity score matching and included demographic and prior test score controls.
197. Students in the study needed a total of 24 credits to graduate high school, so they are expected to earn 6
credits per year.
198. Attendance for SUN participants (n=419) averaged 89.8% in 2008—09, compared to 85.6% for
nonparticipants (n=482), a statistically significant difference of 4.2%.
199. Krenichyn, K., Clark, H., & Benitez, L. (2008). Children’s Aid Society 21st Century Community Learning
Centers after-school programs at six middle schools: Final report of a 3-year evaluation, 2004–2007. New
York, NY: ActKnowledge. Available online at http://www.childrensaidsociety.org/files/upload-docs/
Community%20Schools%20-%20After%20School%20Programs.pdf
200. Redd, Z., Princiotta. D., Stratford, B., Caal, S., Li, W., Murphy, K., Coffey, A., Carrington, N., Carney, R.,
Oster, M., & Horton, S. (2015). J.C. Nalle Community School: A study of a school turnaround effort. Bethesda,
MD: Child Trends.
201. LaFrance Associates. (2005), Comprehensive evaluation of the full-service community schools model in
Maryland: General Smallwood Middle School. San Francisco, CA: Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation.
202. Roth, J. L., Malone, L. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Does the amount of participation in after-school
programs relate to developmental outcomes? A review of the literature. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 45(3–4), 310–324.
203. Extended learning time participants reported increases relative to nonparticipants in both teacher
support (d=.09, p<.001) and teacher expectations (d=.05, p<.001).
204. Castrechini, S. (2011). Examining student outcomes across programs in Redwood City Community Schools.
Stanford, CA: John Gardner Center for Schools and their Communities. This finding is statistically
significant, although students who participated in community school programs in 2009—10, the 4th year
of the program evaluation, had higher baseline school attendance than non-participants, suggesting that
there may be underlying factors influencing both community school participation and attendance that are
not accounted for in this analysis.
205. Krenichyn, K., Clark, H., & Benitez, L. (2008). Children’s Aid Society 21st Century Community Learning
Centers after-school programs at six middle schools. New York, NY: Children’s Aid Society.
206. After-school students averaged 168 days of attendance in 2012–13, while non-after-school students
averaged 147 days of attendance (p<.001). While this evaluation does include statistical analyses, it lacks
appropriate demographic controls to account for observable differences between students and schools.
Rasic, M., Collins, E., & Clark, H. (2014). Results of the first three years of full service community schools in
Paterson. New York, NY: ActKnowledge.
207. After-school students at one school averaged 167 days of attendance in 2012–13 compared to 155 for
non-after-school students (p<.01). At the other school, after-school students averaged 163 days of
attendance in 2012–13 compared to 146 days for non-after-school students (p<.01).
208. The evaluation employed statistical analyses with demographic controls.
210. Cooper, H., Charlton, K., Valentine, J. C., Muhlenbruck, L., & Borman, G. D. (2000). Making the most
of summer school: A meta-analytic and narrative review. Monographs of the society for research in child
development, 65(1), i–127.
211. Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. L. (2006). Out-of-
school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research,
76(2), 275–313.
212. DiGiacomo, D., Prudhomme, J. J., Jones, H. R., Welner, K. G., & Kirshner, B. (2016). Why theory matters: An
examination of contemporary learning time reforms. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 24(44). http://
dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2334 (accessed 9/7/17).
213. Sociologist Joyce Epstein has helped define the field of family and community engagement by developing
a commonly used framework that defines six types of parent involvement, including parenting,
communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making (participating in governance), and
collaborating with the community (coordination the provision of community services). For purposes of
our analysis of community schools, Epstein’s final two categories—decision making and coordinating
with community providers—are incorporated into community schools pillars 4 (collaboration) and 1
(integrated community support) and discussed in other sections of this paper. Epstein, J. (2001). School,
Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators and Improving Schools. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
214. Warren, M. R., Hong, S., Rubin, C. H., & Uy, P. S. (2009). Beyond the bake sale: A community-based
relational approach to parent engagement in schools. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2209–2254.
215. Lopez, M. E. (2003). Transforming schools through community organizing: A research review. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Family Research Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education; Mediratta, K., & Fruchter,
N. (2003). From governance to accountability: Building relationships that make schools work. New York, NY:
New York University Institute for Education and Social Policy; Warren, M. R., Hong, S., Rubin, C., & Uy, P.
(2009). Beyond the bake sale: A community-based relational approach to parent engagement in schools.
The Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2209–2254.
216. Jeynes, W. H. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs
for urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706–742.
217. Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community
connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: National Center for Family and Community Connections
with Schools.
218. Bryk , A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing Schools for
Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
219. Dryfoos J. G. (2010). Centers of hope. Full-service community schools can improve the lives of children
in poverty. In M. Scherer (Ed.), Keeping the Whole Child Healthy and Safe: Reflections on Best Practices in
Learning, Teaching and Leadership. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
220. Coalition for Community Schools (n.d.). School-community partnerships essential in a reauthorized ESEA.
Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools.
221. Blank, M., Jacobson, R., & Melaville, A. (2012). Achieving results through community school partnerships:
How district and community leaders are building effective, sustainable relationships. Washington, DC: Center
for American Progress.
223. Dryfoos, J. G. (2000). Evaluations of community schools: Findings to date. Washington, DC: Coalition for
Community Schools.
224. Warren, M. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 75(2), 133–173. Castrechini, S., & London, R. A. (2012). Positive student outcomes in community
schools. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Fehrer, K., & Leos-Urbel, J. (2016). “We’re one
team”: Examining community school implementation strategies in Oakland. Education Sciences, 6(3), 26.
225. Much of this research was triggered by the Coleman report in 1966 of the federally funded study
examining the sources of education inequality. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland,
J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
with Schools.
227. Comer, J. P. (1980). School Power: Implications of an Intervention Project. New York, NY: Free Press.
228. Dryfoos, J.G. ((2000). Evaluation of community schools: Findings to date. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Carnegie
Corporation.
with Schools. Among these, five studies meet the ESSA methodological criteria for Tier 1, employing
experimental designs using random assignment to treatment and control groups, three are quasi-
experimental designs with well-matched comparison groups (ESSA Tier 2), 24 use correlational methods
or pre-experimental approaches with controls (ESSA Tier 3), and 19 are qualitative studies using sound
theory and objective observation (ESSA Tier 4).
230. The studies they reviewed included five experimental studies, three quasi-experimental studies, 20
correlational studies, four pre-experimental studies, nine descriptive case studies, five reports based on
interviews and site visits, and five literature reviews.
with Schools.
232. Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s
academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202–218; Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis
of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement.
Urban Education, 40(3), 237–269; Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement
and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1),
82–110.; Jeynes, W. H. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement
programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706–742; Jeynes, W. H. (2017). A meta-analysis: The
relationship between parental involvement and Latino student outcomes. Education and Urban Society,
49(1), 4–28.
233. Jeynes, W.H. (2017). A meta-analysis: The relationship between parental involvement and Latino student
outcomes. Education and Urban Society, 49(1), 4–28.
234. Mattingly, D. J., Prislin, R., McKenzie, T. L., Rodriguez, J. L., & Kayzar, B. (2002). Evaluating evaluations:
The case of parent involvement programs. Review of Educational Research, 72(4), 549–576.
235. Epstein, J. (2001). School, Family, and Community: Preparing Educators and Improving Schools. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
with Schools; Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., Strickland, C. S., & Meza, C. (2008). High school family centers:
Transformative spaces linking schools and families in support of student learning. Marriage & Family
Review, 43(3–4), 338–368.
237. McCarthey, S. J. (2000). Home–school connections: A review of the literature. The Journal of Educational
Research, 93(3), 145–153.
with Schools
with Schools
240. Westat and Policy Studies Associates (2001) The Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance
in Title I Schools, Volume I: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office
of the Deputy Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/esed/
lescp_highlights.html or read the summary in Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of
evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX:
National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools. 195.
241. Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). Interactive science homework: An experiment in home and school connection.
National Association of Secondary School Principals’ Bulletin, 85(627), 20–32.
242. Shaver, A. V., & Walls, R. T. (1998). Effect of Title I parent involvement on student reading and
mathematics achievement. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31(2), 90–97.
243. Jeynes, W. H. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs
for urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706–742.
244. Hill, N. E., & Taylor, N. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children’s academic achievement:
Pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 161–164.
245. Gutman, L. M., & Midgley, C. (2000). The role of protective factors in supporting the academic
achievement of poor African American students during the middle school transition. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 29(2), 223–248; Sanders, M. G., & Herting, J. R. Gender and the effects of school, family, and
church support on the academic achievement of African-American urban adolescents. In M. G. Sanders
(Ed.). (2000). Schooling Students Placed at Risk: Research, Policy, and Practice in the Education of Poor and
Minority Adolescents. 141–161. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Shumow, L., & Lomax, R.
(2001). Parental efficacy: Predictor of parenting behavior and adolescent outcomes. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA; Trusty, J. (1999). Effects
of eighth-grade parental involvement on late adolescents’ educational experiences. Journal of Research
and Development in Education, 32(4), 224–233.
246. Trusty, J. (1999). Effects of eighth-grade parental involvement on late adolescents’ educational
experiences. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32(4), 224–233.
247. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (1999). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis.
Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, National Center for Education Statistics. ED430048
248. Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E.A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents’
involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77(3),
373–410.
249. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for
improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
250. Mapp, K. L. (2002, April). Having their say: Parents describe how and why they are involved in their children’s
education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA.
251. Bryk , A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for
252. Bryk , A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for
253. This understanding of ecology considers parents engagement in schools as including their particular
strengths, assets and worldviews in the context of the surrounding social and institutional environments.
For more information on the concept, see Alameda-Lawson, T., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Ecologies
of collective parent engagement in urban education. Urban Education, May 2004, 3–12. http://doi.
org/10.1177/0042085916636654. See also: Barton, A. C., Drake, C., Perez, J. G., St. Louis, K., & George, M.
(2004). Ecologies of parental engagement in urban education. Educational Researcher, 33(4), 3–12.
254. Alameda-Lawson, T., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Ecologies of collective parent engagement in urban
education. Urban Education, 3–12. http://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916636654.
255. Alameda-Lawson, T., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Ecologies of collective parent engagement in urban
education. Urban Education, 19. http://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916636654.
with Schools; Oakes, J., & Rogers, J. Learning Power: Organizing for Education and Justice. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press; Warren, M. R., & Mapp, K. L. (2011). A Match on Dry Grass: Community
Organizing as a Catalyst for School Reform. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Mediratta, K., Shah, S.,
& McAlister, S. (2009). Community Organizing for Strong Schools: Strategies and Successes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
259. Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the
sociology of education. New York, NY: Greenwood.
260. Gold, E., Simon, E., & Brown, C. (2002). Strong neighborhoods, strong schools: Successful community
organizing for school reform. Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
261. Mediratta, K., Shah, S., & McAlister, S. (2009). Community Organizing for Strong Schools: Strategies and
successes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
with Schools
263. Mediratta, K., & Fruchter, N. (2001). Mapping the field of organizing for school improvement: A report on
education organizing in Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, the Mississippi Delta, New York City, Philadelphia,
San Francisco, and Washington, DC. New York, NY: The Institute for Education and Social Policy, New York
University.
264. Mediratta, K., Shah, S., & McAlister, S. (2009). Community Organizing for Strong Schools: Strategies and
successes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
265. Warren, M. R., & Mapp, K. L. (2011). A Match on Dry Grass: Community Organizing as a Catalyst for School
Reform. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
268. Fehrer, K., & Leos-Urbel, J. (2016). “We’re one team”: Examining community school implementation
strategies in Oakland. Education Sciences, 6(3), 26.
269. Castrechini, S. (2011). Youth Data Archive Issue Brief: Examining student outcomes across programs in
Redwood City community schools. Stanford, CA: John Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities.
270. Scaled test scores have been converted to percentiles to make them comparable across grades and
academic years.
271. n=5,003. For extended learning time participation, y=0.4, p<.001, d=.10. For family engagement, y=0.37,
p<.001, d=.09. This peer-reviewed case study employed multilevel longitudinal growth modeling, but did
not have a traditional comparison group. Therefore, it meets the level of methodological rigor established
by ESSA Tier 4. Biag, M., & Castrechini, S. (2016). Coordinated strategies to help the whole child:
Examining the contributions of full-service community schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 21(3),157–173.
272. While more participants felt highly cared for than nonparticipants across all program categories, this
finding was only statistically significant for students whose parents participated in family engagement
(42% participants reported a high level of care vs. 27% of nonparticipants) and family engagement plus
extended learning time participation (noted above). This analysis employed demographic controls on
par with the ESSA Tier 3 methodological standard. Castrechini, S. (2011). Youth Data Archive Issue Brief:
Examining student outcomes across programs in Redwood City community schools. Stanford, CA: John
Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities.
273. Castrechini, S., & London, R. A. (2012). Positive student outcomes in community schools. Washington, DC:
Center for American Progress.
Center for American Progress.
Center for American Progress; Biag, M., & Castrechini, S. (2016). Coordinated strategies to help the whole
child: Examining the contributions of full-service community schools. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 21(3), 157–173.
276. This study used a series of one-way Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) to examine parent comfort over time,
parent activity over time, reputation over time, and parent-teacher communication over time, at both the
initiative-wide level and the school level.
277. Chen, M. E., Anderson, J. A., & Watkins, L. (2016). Parent perceptions of connectedness in a full service
community school project. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(7), 2268–2278.
Review, 75(2), 133–173
Review, 75(2), 133–173.
Review, 75(2), 133–174.
with Schools. Warren, M. R., Hong, S., Rubin, C. H., & Uy, P. S. (2009). Beyond the bake sale: A community-
based relational approach to parent engagement in schools. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2209–2254.
with Schools.
283. McCarthey, S. J. (2000). Home-school connections: A review of the literature. The Journal of Educational
Research, 93(3), 145–153. For more on the different understandings teachers and parents have of each
other’s roles, see Paratore, J., Homza, A., Krol-Sinclair, B., Lewis-Barrow, T., Melzi, G., Stergis, R., & Haynes,
H. (1995). Shifting boundaries in home and school responsibilities: The construction of home-based literacy
portfolios by immigrant parents and their children. Research in the Teaching of English, 29(4), 367–389.
Also see Valdes, G. (1996). Con Respeto: Bridging the Gap Between Culturally Diverse Families and Schools.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press. For more on different discourse patterns existing between homes,
communities and schools, see Au, K. (1993). Literacy Instruction in Multicultural Settings. Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace; and Paratore, J., Melzi, G., & Krol-Sinclair, B. (1999). What should we expect of family literacy?
Newark, DE: International Reading Association and The National Reading Conference.
284. Moll, L., & Gonzalez, N. (1994). Lessons from research with language-minority children. Journal of
Reading Behavior: A Journal of Literacy, 26(4), 439–456; Gonzalez, N. (1995). The funds of knowledge for
teaching project. Practicing Anthropology, 17(3), 3–6.
285. Epstein, J. L., Galindo, C. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2011). Levels of leadership: Effects of district and school
leaders on the quality of school programs of family and community involvement. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 47(3), 462–495. This evaluation used the hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) technique to analyze
the data. Quality of basic program implementation was measured based on a 13-item scale (α=.92) that were
scored from 1, did not do, to 4, did very well. Advanced program outreach was measured on a nine-item
scale (α=.86) of how well a school implemented activities to solve challenges to reach families who are hard
to reach and to improve the implementation of activities for six types of involvement. These were scored
from 1 (not yet working on this challenge) to 4(solved this challenge).
286. Epstein, J. L., Galindo, C. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2011). Levels of leadership: Effects of district and school
leaders on the quality of school programs of family and community involvement. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 47(3), 462–495.
Review, 75(2), 133–173; Richardson, J. (2009). The Full-Service Community School Movement: Lessons From
the James Adams Community School. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; Sanders, M. (2015). Leadership,
partnerships, and organizational development: exploring components of effectiveness in three full-
service community schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(2), 157–177.
288. Sanders, M. (2015). Leadership, partnerships, and organizational development: Exploring components of
effectiveness in three full-service community schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(2),
157–177.
290. Rubin, H. (2002). Collaborative Leadership: Developing Effective Partnerships in Communities and Schools.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
291. Rubin, H. (2002). Collaborative Leadership: Developing Effective Partnerships in Communities and Schools.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school
improvement: understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership &
Management: Formerly School Organisation , 30(2), 95–110.
292. Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2010). Collaborative leadership effects on school improvement: Integrating
unidirectional- and reciprocal-effects models. The Elementary School Journal, 11(2), 226–52.
293. Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B. (Eds.). (2007). Distributed Leadership in Practice. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press; Adams, C. M., & Jean-Marie, G. (2011). A diffusion approach to study leadership reform.
Journal of Education Administration, 49(4), 354–377.
294. Jacobson, R., & Blank, M. (2015). A framework for more and better learning through community school
partnerships. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
295. Blank, M., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in community
schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools.
296. Coalition for Community Schools (n.d.). School-community partnerships essential in a reauthorized ESEA.
Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools.
for American Progress; Fehrer, K., & Leos-Urbel, J. (2016). “We’re one team”: Examining community
school implementation strategies in Oakland. Education Sciences, 6(3), 26; Richardson, J. (2009). The
Full-Service Community School Movement: Lessons From the James Adams Community School. New York,
NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 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; Sanders, M. G., & Lewis, K. C. (2005). Building bridges toward
excellence: Community involvement in high schools. The High School Journal, 88(3), 1–9; Castrechini,
S., & London, R. A. (2012). Positive student outcomes in community schools. Washington, DC: Center for
American Progress; Warren, M. R., Hong, S., Rubin, C. H., & Uy, P. S. (2009). Beyond the bake sale: A
community-based relational approach to parent engagement in schools. Teachers College Record, 111(9),
2209–2254.
298. Tulsa’s Center for Community School Strategies highlight inclusive and expanded school leadership
as key to a six-part strategic approach to community school success, as demonstrated by recent
research. Outline of the strategic approach available at http://www.csstrategies.org/index.php/
six-strategies-for-success/.
299. Jacobson, R., & Blank, M. (2015). A framework for more and better learning through community school
partnerships. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership; Jacobson, R., Jacobson, L., & Blank,
M. (2012). Jacobson, R., Jacobson, Linda, & Blank, Martin. (2012). Building blocks: An examination of the
collaborative approach community schools are using to bolster early childhood development. Washington, DC:
Institute for Educational Leadership.
300. Blank, M., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in community
schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools; Melaville, A. (1998). Learning together: The
developing field of school-community initiatives. Flint, MI: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. http://www.
communityschools.org/assets/1/assetmanager/melaville_learning_together.pdf (accessed 9/19/17);
Castrechini, S., & London, R. A. (2012). Positive student outcomes in community schools. Washington,
DC: Center for American Progress; Fehrer, K., & Leos-Urbel, J. (2016). “We’re one team”: Examining
community school implementation strategies in Oakland. Education Sciences, 6(3), 26; Richardson, J.
(2009). The Full-Service Community School Movement: Lessons From the James Adams Community School.
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; Tagle, 2005; Warren, M. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view
of urban education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 75(2), 133–173.
301. Daniel, J. (2017). Strong collaborative relationships for strong community schools. Boulder, CO: National
Education Policy Center.
strategies in Oakland. Education Sciences, 6(3), 26; Richardson, J. (2009). TThe Full-Service Community
School Movement: Lessons From the James Adams Community School. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan;
Hill, C. R. (2016). Putting the Community in Community Schools. A Dissertation submitted to the faculty of
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from DIVA at San Francisco State University.
304. The Community School Standards were created through a collaborative process with community school
practitioners across the United States to engage and support community schools as a standards-driven,
evidence-based strategy for equitable schools for all children. They are available on the website: http://
www.communityschools.org/assets/1/Page/Community-School%20Standards-Updatesd2017.pdf.
305. Biag, M., & Castrechini, S. (2016). Coordinated strategies to help the whole child: Examining the
contributions of full-service community schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 21(3),
157–173.
306. Sanders, M. (2016). Leadership, partnerships, and organizational development: Exploring components of
157–177.
307. Richardson, J. W. (2009). The Full-Service Community School Movement: Lessons From the James Adams
Community School. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; Warren, M. R., Hong, S., Rubin, C. H., & Uy, P. S.
(2009). Beyond the bake sale: A community-based relational approach to parent engagement in schools.
Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2209–2254.
308. Officer, S. D. H., Grim, J., Medina, M. A., Bringle, R. G., & Foreman, A. (2013). Strengthening community
schools through university partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(5), 564–577.
309. For more information on the McDowell County collaboration, see http://mcdowell.connections.aft.org/
about-us.
310. National Education Association, The Six Pillars of Community Schools Toolkit: NEA Resource Guide for
Educators, Families & Communities, online at http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/Comm%20Schools%20
ToolKit-final%20digi-web-72617.pdf.
311. Anrig, G. (2013) Beyond the education wars: Evidence that collaboration builds effective schools. New York,
NY: The Century Foundation.
312. Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of
Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142; Hallinger, P., & Heck, R.H. (2010), Collaborative leadership
and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School
Leadership and Management, 30(2), 95–110; Heck, R.H., & Hallinger, P. (2010). Collaborative leadership
effects on school improvement: Integrating unidirectional- and reciprocal-effects models. The Elementary
School Journal, 111(2), 226–52; Heck, R.H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed
leadership to school improvement and growth in mathematics achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 46(3), 626–58.
313. Collaborative leadership was measured by nine items on the teacher survey to capture three dimensions
of the school’s leadership that examined how schools made collaborative decisions, encourage
commitment, broad participation and shared accountability for student learning, and emphasize broad
participation in efforts to evaluate the school’s academic development.
314. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R.H. (2010), Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the
impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management, 30(2), 95–110
315. Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful School Leadership
school leadership: What It Is and How It Influences Pupil Learning. Leadership, 132. Nottingham, UK:
Department for Education and Skills.
316. Anrig, G. (2013) Beyond the education wars: Evidence that collaboration builds effective schools. New York,
NY: The Century Foundation.
317. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2010). Organizing Schools for
Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press;
318. Sebring, P. B., Bryk, A. S., & Easton, J. Q. (2006). The Essential Supports for School Improvement. Human
Development, (September).
319. Sebring, P. B., Bryk, A. S., & Easton, J. Q. (2006). The Essential Supports for School Improvement. Human
Development, (September), p. 2.
320. Sebring, P. B., Bryk, A. S., & Easton, J. Q. (2006)
Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; also see Gruenert, S. (2016).
Correlations of collaborative school cultures with student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(645), 43–55.
322. Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: an analysis of
the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–74.
323. Andrews, R., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal leadership and student achievement. Educational Leadership,
44(6), 9–11; Bamburg, J. D., & Andrews, R. L. (1991). School goals, principals, and achievement. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(3), 175–191.
324. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning
communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91. See
also for similar findings Futernick, K. (2007). A possible dream: Retaining California teachers so all students
learn. Sacramento, CA: California State University.
325. Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2014). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher
development? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching experience. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 36(4), 476–500.
326. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo
Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
327. Ingersoll, R., Dougherty, P, & Sirinides, P. (2017) School Leadership Counts. Philadelphia: Consortium for
Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania and The New Teacher Center
328. Rubinstein, S. A., & McCarthy, J. E. (2016). Union–Management Partnerships, Teacher Collaboration, and
Student Performance. ILR Review, 69(5), 1114–1132.
329. Rubinstein, S. A., & McCarthy, J. E. (2012). Public school reform through union-management
collaboration. In Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations (pp. 1–50). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
330. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). The Lifeworld of Leadership: Creating Culture, Community and Personal Meaning in
Our Schools. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
331. Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J. B. (Eds.). (2007). Distributed Leadership in Practice. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
332. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. New York, NY: Russell
Sage Foundation Press; Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2010).
Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
333. Mapp, K. L., (2014) Partners in education: A dual capacity-building framework for family-school partnerships.
Washington, DC: SEDL.
Community School. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 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 Warren, M. R. (2005). Communities
and schools: A new view of urban education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 75(2), 133–173.
335. Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school leadership: What
It Is and how It influences pupil learning. Nottingham, UK: Department for Education and Skills.
336. Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Bryk, A. S., Easton, J. Q., Luppescu, S. (2006). The Essential Supports for
School Improvement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
337. Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2014). Can Professional Environments in Schools Promote Teacher
Development? Explaining Heterogeneity in Returns to Teaching Experience. Educational evaluation and
policy analysis, 36(4), 476–500. P. 20
338. Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/Teacher learning: What matters?
Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46–53.
339. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research 1996–2005.
Leadership & Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177–199.
340. Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/Teacher learning: What matters?
Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46–53.
341. Copland, M. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: building and sustaining capacity for school improvement.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 375–395; Ross, J. A., & Gary, P. (2006). School leadership
and student achievement: The mediating effects of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(3),
798–822.
342. Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Gray, P. (2003, April). The contribution of prior student achievement and
school processes to collective teacher efficacy in elementary schools. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association.
343. Allensworth, E., Ponisciak, S., & Masseo, C. (2009). The schools teachers leave: Teacher mobility in Chicago
public schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research, University of Chicago Urban
Education Institute; Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2006). Teacher-student matching and the
assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of human Resources, 41(4), 778–820
344. For some examples of case studies of collaboration in community schools, see Fehrer, K., & Leos-Urbel, J.
(2016). “We’re one team”: Examining community school implementation strategies in Oakland. Education
Sciences, 6(3), 26; 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; Richardson, J. (2009). The Full-Service Community School Movement:
Lessons From the James Adams Community School. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
348. Hill, C. R. (2016). Putting the Community in Community Schools. A Dissertation submitted to the faculty of
349. Hill, C. R. (2016). Putting the Community in Community Schools. A Dissertation submitted to the faculty of
351. Sanders, M. (2016). Leadership, partnerships, and organizational development: exploring components of
157–177.
352. Richardson, J. W. (2009). Full-Service Community School Movement: Lessons From the James Adams
354. Sanders, M. G. (2001). The role of “Community” in comprehensive school, family, and community
partnership programs. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 19.
356. Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of superintendent
leadership on student achievement. (Working paper). Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education
and Learning.
357. Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., &, & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: an analysis
of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–74.
358. Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). Instructional leadership and school achievement:
Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(2), 94–125; Heck, R. H.,
Marcoulides, G. A., & Lang, P. (1991). Principal instructional leadership and school achievement: The
application of discriminant techniques. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(2), 115–135.
359. Goldring, E. B., & Pasternak, R. (1994). Principals’ coordinating strategies and school effectiveness. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 237–251.
360. Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2010). Collaborative leadership effects on school improvement: Integrating
unidirectional- and reciprocal-effects models. The Elementary School Journal, 11(2), 228.
361. Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school leadership: What
it is and how it influences pupil learning. Leadership, 132influences pupil learning. Nottingham, UK:
Department for Education and Skills.
363. Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons for 40 years of empirical research. Journal of
Educational Administration, 49(2) 125–142; For more on increasing capacity through professional learning
of teachers see Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes:
an analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5),
635–74.
strategies in Oakland. Education Sciences, 6(3), 26; Lambert, L. (2006). Lasting leadership: A study of high
leadership capacity schools. The Educational Forum, 70(3), 238–254.
368. McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from Experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(22), 171–8178; Klar, H. W., Huggins, K. S., Hammonds, H. L., & Buskey,
F.C. (2015, April). Fostering the capacity for distributed leadership: A post-heroic approach to leading
school improvement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3124, 1–2719(2), 111–137.
369. Sanders, M. G. (2018). Crossing boundaries: A qualitative exploration of relational leadership in three
full-service community schools. Teachers College Record Volume, 120 Number (4). (Forthcoming).
370. Melaville, A., Jacobson, R., & Blank, M. J. (2011). Scaling up school and community partnerships: The
community schools strategy. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools, Institute for Educational
Leadership.
371. Daniel, J., Welner, K. G., & Valladares, M. R. (2016). Time for improvement: Research-based expectations
for implementation of the Community Schools Initiative in New York City. Boulder, CO: National Education
Policy Center.
372. Dryfoos, J. (2000). Evaluation of community schools: Findings to date. Washington, DC: Coalition for
Community Schools.
373. Blank, M. J., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. P. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in community
schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools.
374. Heers, M., Van Klaveren, C., Groot, W., & Maassen van den Brink, H. (2016). Community schools: What we
know and what we need to know. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1016–1051.
375. The authors also examined one direct community school evaluation in a separate stage of their analysis,
which they identified as an “exemplary quasi-experimental study.”
376. Adams, C. (2010). The community school effect: Evidence from an evaluation of the Tulsa Area Community
School Initiative. Tulsa, OK: University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Center for Education Policy. The Tulsa
Area Community Schools Initiative no longer exists in the form described in this study. Tulsa Public
Schools, serving most of the city, has moved away from a comprehensive community schools approach in
favor of a dropout prevention strategy focused on raising graduation rates. Union Public Schools, serving
Southeast Tulsa, is still committed to implementing comprehensive community schools.
School Initiative. Tulsa, OK: University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Center for Education Policy. The author
compared pre-intervention student and school demographics and controlled for student- and school-level
poverty and prior test score performance in his hierarchical linear modeling regression analyses.
378. The author previously developed and validated a Community School Development Scale that classifies
schools as Inquiring, Emerging, Developing, and Sustaining based on aggregated teacher survey data. By the
time of publication, six of 18 TACSI schools had reached Mentoring and Sustaining levels, representing
approximately one fourth of students in the sample.
379. Students at fully implemented community schools scored 8.2 points above the sample average of 745 for
mathematics, and 6 points above the sample average of 730 for reading.
380. Student trust in teachers significantly predicted school achievement, as did faculty trust in students and
parents. The author compared pre-intervention student and school demographics and controlled for
student- and school-level poverty and prior test score performance using hierarchical linear modeling
regression analyses.
381. Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R. G. (2011). Are high-quality schools enough to increase achievement among
the poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children’s Zone. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics,
3(3), 158–87. The authors employ a post-hoc random admissions lottery analysis with demographic
controls and an instrumental variable analysis utilizing the interaction between student cohort year and
residential address.
382. Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R.G. (2011). Are high-quality schools enough to increase achievement among the
poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children’s Zone. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(3),
158–87. By 8th grade, middle school students gained more than four fifths of a standard deviation
in mathematics and one quarter to one third of a standard deviation in language arts. By 3rd grade,
elementary school students gained approximately four fifths to one and a half a standard deviation in
both mathematics and language arts. Days absent in first 180 days of school averaged 2.851 for 6th grade,
2.310 for 7th grade, and 3.905 for 8th grade.
383. The authors separated the effects of school versus neighborhood services by comparing charter students
living inside the geographic zone, who had access to both school and neighborhood services, to the
students’ neighbors and siblings who did not attend the school, but lived within the zone and had access
to neighborhood services. They also compared the achievement of charter students living inside the zone
who had access to both school and neighborhood services, to their peers living outside the zone who had
access to school services, but did not have access to neighborhood services.
384. Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R. G. (2015). The medium-term impacts of high-achieving charter schools. Journal
of Political Economy, 123(5), 985–1037. The authors employ a post-hoc lottery analysis with demographic
controls. Due to the longitudinal nature of the study, the authors limited in-depth follow up to one
school site. HCZ lottery winners scored 0.283 of a standard deviation higher on the Woodcock Johnson
mathematics exam. Lotter winners who chose to attend the HCZ charter scored 0.439 of a standard
deviation higher in math.
385. HCZ lottery winners passed 1.115 more New York State Regent exams, a 31% increase over the mean
of 3.571 exams. On the three core exams that over 70% of lottery winners and losers took—Living
Environment, Global History, and Integrated Algebra—lottery winners scored .027 of a standard deviation
higher than lottery losers. Six years after the random admissions lottery, students who attended the
school upon admission were 24.2% more likely to enroll in college.
386. Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R. G. (2015). The medium-term impacts of high-achieving charter schools. Journal of
Political Economy, 123(5), 985–1037.
387. See LaFrance Associates. (2005). Comprehensive evaluation of the full-service community schools model
in Iowa: Harding Middle School and Moulton Extended Learning Center. San Francisco, CA: Milton S.
Eisenhower Foundation; LaFrance Associates. (2005). Comprehensive evaluation of the full-service
community schools model in Maryland: General Smallwood Middle School. San Francisco, CA: Milton
S. Eisenhower Foundation; LaFrance Associates. (2005). Comprehensive evaluation of the full-service
community schools model in Pennsylvania: Lincoln and East Allegheny Middle Schools. San Francisco, CA:
Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation; and LaFrance Associates. (2005). Comprehensive evaluation of the
full-service community schools model in Washington: Showalter Middle School. San Francisco, CA: Milton S.
Eisenhower Foundation.
388. The quasi-experimental pre-post comparison cohort design controlled for differences in gender, ethnicity,
and grade. Data sources included school records, site visit observations, teacher interviews, student focus
group input, and student and parent surveys.
389. In both Pennsylvania and Washington, some of these results were marginally statistically significant at
the p=0.10 level.
390. Olson, L. (2014). A first look at community schools in Baltimore. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Education
Research Consortium. Analyses employed ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models that controlled
on characteristics from the baseline year, such as the schools’ background characteristics (% African
American, % Hispanic, % Free/Reduced Price Lunch, % ELL, % Special Education, % Male) and whether or
not the school had a new principal in 2013–14; Dunham, R. E., & Connolly, F. (2016). Baltimore community
schools: Promise and progress. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Education Research Consortium. Analyses
employed regression model comparisons between community and non-community schools and students
including controls for race/ethnicity, gender, free or reduced price lunch status, English learner status,
and special education status.
391. From 2009–10 to 2013–14, community schools operating for 5 years or longer experienced a 1.6% gain
in average daily attendance and a 4.1% drop in chronic absenteeism, while non-community schools
experienced a 1.8% drop in average daily attendance and a 3.6% increase in chronic absenteeism.
392. Olson, L. (2014). A first look at community schools in Baltimore. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Education
Research Consortium. The average suspension rate decreased from 11.6 to 9.5 for community schools,
while the rate for non-community schools decreased from 14.0 to 8.4. For the average number of students
suspended multiple times in 1 year, the rate for community schools decreased from 2.5 to 1.8, while the
rate for non-community schools decreased from 2.9 to 1.6.
393. If a school had a new leader in 2013—14, they were significantly less likely to show positive change in
all school climate domains except for staff relationships. Almost half (40.5%) of community schools
experienced a leadership change during this period.
394. Dunham, R. E., & Connolly, F. (2016). Baltimore community schools: Promise and progress. Baltimore,
MD: Baltimore Education Research Consortium.Community schools operating for at least 3 years had
significantly higher average daily attendance (ADA) rates at the middle school (1.4% higher ADA) and
high school (3.9% higher ADA) level. Community schools operating for 5 or more years had significantly
higher ADA rates at the elementary school (1.4% higher ADA) and middle school (2.3% higher ADA) level.
The odds of being present more than 90% of days (i.e., NOT chronically absent) were significantly higher
for students at community schools operating for at least 3 years at the high school level (18%), and for
students at community schools operating for 5 or more years at the elementary school (41%) and middle
school (48) level. However, at the high school level, students in community schools operating for 5 or
more years were significantly less likely to be present in school (-40%).
395. 22.5% of students at non-community schools changed schools at least once between 2012—13 and
2014—15 in 6th, 9th, and 10th grades, compared to 18.8% of students at community schools.
396. Whalen, S. (2007). Three years into Chicago’s Community Schools Initiative (CSI): Progress, challenges, and
lessons learned. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago College of Education; Whalen, S. (2008).
Pulling the pieces together: Profiles in community schooling. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago
Community Schools Evaluation Project.
397. Whalen, S. (2007). Three years into Chicago’s Community Schools Initiative (CSI): Progress, challenges, and
lessons learned. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago College of Education. The report draws upon
a wide range of data sources, including individual student participation records, detailed surveys of school
programs and partnerships, analyses of school improvement plans, school-level summary statistics
(e.g., overall standardized test performance), and interviews with program planners, managers, and
participants. The author employs correlational analyses to examine patterns in school-level performance,
but does not control for factors other than the CSI initiative that might have impacted school outcomes
during this time period.
398. Chicago Public Schools Community Schools Initiative (2009). The 2007–2008 Chicago Public Schools’
Community Schools Initiative: The Impact of Out-of-School-Time Participation on Students. Chicago, IL:
Chicago Public Schools.
399. Whalen, S. (2008). Pulling the pieces together: Profiles in community schooling. Chicago, IL: University of
Illinois at Chicago Community Schools Evaluation Project.
400. OMG Center for Collaborative Learning. (2011). Hartford Community Schools evaluation: Final report
2009–2011. Hartford, CT: Hartford Community Schools; ActKnowledge. (2015). Hartford Community
Schools final evaluation report. New York, NY: Author; Collins, E., Rasic, M., & Taplin, D. (2017). Progress
through partnership: Hartford Community Schools evaluation report 2015–16. New York, NY: ActKnowledge.
401. OMG Center for Collaborative Learning. (2011). Hartford Community Schools evaluation: Final report
2009–2011. Hartford, CT: Hartford Community Schools.
402. ActKnowledge. (2015). Hartford Community Schools final evaluation report. New York, NY: Author.
403. For example, after-school students improved their reading scores by an average of 13.7 points over 3
years, while non-after-school students decreased their reading scores by an average of 1 point.
404. Collins, E., Rasic, M., & Taplin, D. (2017). Progress through partnership: Hartford Community Schools
evaluation report 2015–16. New York, NY: ActKnowledge.
405. Anderson, J., Watkins, L., Chen, M., & Howland, A. (2014). Providence full service community schools final
aggregate report: Data years 2009/10–2012/13. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University School of Education.
406. Cincinnati Public Schools. (2013). Cincinnati Public Schools Community Learning Centers evaluation report
2012–2013. Cincinnati, OH: Author.
407. Murnane, R. (1975). The impact of school resources on the learning of inner city children. Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger; Bryk, A. , & Raudenbush, S. (1988). Toward a more appropriate conceptualization of research
on school effects: A three-level hierarchical linear model. American Journal of Education, 79(1), 65–107;
Allinder, R. M., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1992). Effects of summer break on mathematics
and spelling performance as a function of grade level. The Elementary School Journal, 92,(4), 451–460;
Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2009). What makes for a good teacher and who can tell? (Working Paper 30).
Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
408. Elmore, R. F. (1980). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science
Quarterly, 94(4), 601–616; Coburn, C. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and
lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.
409. Jacobson, R., Hodges, R., & Blank, M. (2011). The Community Schools Strategy. Principal Leadership,
(October), 18–22; Lubell, E. (2011). Building community schools: A guide for action. New York, NY:
Children’s Aid Society. http://www.theoryofchange.org/wp-content/uploads/toco_library/pdf/
NCCS_BuildingCommunitySchools.pdf.
411. McClanahan, W. S., & Greenfield, S. (2016). Maximizing opportunities and diminishing obstacles: Adaptation
in Elev8’s full service community schools. Philadelphia: McClanahan and Associates.
412. McClanahan, W. S., & Piccinino, K. (2016). Elev8 final report. Philadelphia, PA: McClanahan Associates,
Inc.
413. McClanahan, W. S., Gao, J., & Sanders, F. (2013). Out-of-school time in Elev8 community schools: A first look
at participation and its unique contribution to students’ experiences in school. Philadelphia, PA: McClanahan
Associates, Inc. Elev8 extended learning time participants averaged 2.0 types of planning activities in 8th
grade and 31% planned to apply to a competitive college preparatory high school, compared to 1.7 types
of planning activities for nonparticipants with 17% planning to apply to a competitive high school.
414. LaFrance Associates. (2005). Comprehensive evaluation of the full-service community schools model in
Maryland: General Smallwood Middle School. San Francisco, CA: Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation;
LaFrance Associates. (2005). Comprehensive evaluation of the full-service community schools model in
Pennsylvania: Lincoln and East Allegheny Middle Schools. San Francisco, CA: Milton S. Eisenhower
Foundation. In Maryland, frequent program participants were almost three times as likely as infrequent
participants to increase their agreement that teachers are available to help them. In Pennsylvania,
frequent participants were slightly more likely to report an increased interest in after-school reading,
while students participating in enrichment activities were substantially more likely to report an increased
interest in after-school reading.
415. LaFrance Associates. (2008). First report of findings: Multi-site evaluation of San Mateo County community
schools. Mountain View, CA: Silicon Valley Community Foundation. “Maturing” community schools had
a site coordinator in place for 3 to 4 years, among other features. By the end of the 2006—07 school year
at these sites, 98% of participating students planned to graduate from high school, and 97% planned to
graduate from college.
416. Johnston, W. R., Gomez, C. J., Sontag-Padilla, L., Xenakis, L., & Anderson, B. (2017). Developing community
schools at scale: Implementation of the New York City Community Schools Initiative. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation.
417. The four stages of NYC-CS development were defined as: 1) Exploring, 2) Emerging, 3) Maturing, and 4)
Excelling.
418. Research for Action. (2017). Community schools progress report: Indicators of engagement, planning and
early progress for Philadelphia’s community schools during the 2016–17 school year. Philadelphia, PA:
Author.
419. Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist, 59(2), 77–92;
Thompson, T., & Massat, C. R. (2005). Experiences of violence, post-traumatic stress, academic
achievement and behavior problems of urban African-American children. Child and Adolescent Social Work
Journal, 22(5–6), 367–393; Reardon, S. F., Robinson, J. P., & Weathers, E. S. (2015). Patterns and trends in
racial/ethnic and socioeconomic academic achievement gaps. In H. A. Ladd, & E. B. Fiske (Eds.) Handbook of
Research in Education Finance and Policy (Second ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
420. Anderson-Butcher, D., & Palut, L. (2013). Evaluation of the Canyons Community Schools Initiative: Findings
after two-year post-adoption and implementation. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Community
and Youth Collaborative Institute. Total office disciplinary referrals decreased from 1580 to 1229 during
this period.
421. Dearing, E., Walsh, M., Sibley, E., Lee-St. John, T., Foley, C., & Raczek, A. (2016). Can community and
school-based supports improve the achievement of first-generation immigrant children attending high-
poverty schools? Child Development, 87(3), 883–897. Differences between the two groups were no longer
statistically significant after City Connects was introduced.
422. Gandhi, A., Slama, R., Park, S-J., Russo, P. S., Bzura, R., & Williamson, S. Focusing on the whole student:
Final report on the Massachusetts Wraparound Zones. Waltham, MA: American Institutes for Research.
423. Fryer, R. & Dobbie, W. (2011). Are high-quality schools enough to increase achievement among the poor?
Evidence from the Harlem Children’s Zone. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(3), 158–87.
School Initiative. Tulsa, OK: University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Center for Education Policy.
425. Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(January1):
65–78.
426. Warren, M., Thompson, J. P., & Saegert, S. (2001). The role of social capital in combating poverty. In
Saegert, S., Thompson, P., & Warren, M. (Eds.). Social Capital and Poor Communities. New York, NY: Russell
Sage.
427. Noguera, P. A. (2001). Transforming urban schools through investment in the social capital of parents.
In Saegert, S., Thompson, J. P., & Warren, M. (Eds.). Social Capital and Poor Communities. New York, NY:
Russell Sage.
428. Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Bryk, A. S., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2006). The essential supports for
school improvement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
429. Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Bryk, A. S., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2006). The essential supports for
school improvement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
430. Warren, M. R. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 75 (Summer 2), 133–173.
431. Economic Modeling Specialists Inc. (2012). The economic impact of communities in schools. Arlington, VA:
Communities In Schools.
432. Martinez, L., & Hayes, C. (2013). Measuring social return on investment for community schools: A case study.
New York, NY: The Children’s Aid Society.
433. Bowden, A. B., Belfield, C. R., Levin, H. M., Shand, R., Wang, A., & Morales, M. (2015). A benefit-cost
analysis of City Connects. New York, NY: Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education.
434. DeNike, M., & Ohlson, B. (2013). Elev8 Oakland community school costs and benefits: Making dollars and
cents of the research. Oakland, CA: Brightstar Research Group.
435. Daniel, J., Welner, K. G., & Valladares, M. R. (2016). Research-based expectations for implementation of the
community schools initiative in New York City. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
436. Dryfoos, J. G. (2000). Evaluation of community schools: Findings to date. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Carnegie
Corporation; Blank, M. J., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. P. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in
community schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools.
437. Cook, D. T., Habib, F., Phillips, M., Settersten, R. A., Shagle, S. C., & Degirmencioglu, S. M. (1999). Comer’s
School Development Program in Prince George’s County, Maryland: A theory-based evaluation. American
Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 543–597; Cook, T. D., Murphy, R. F., & Hunt, H. D. (2000). Comer’s
School Development Program in Chicago: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(2), 535–597.
438. Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. (2015–2016).
439. Results for America. (2015). Evidence-based policy provisions in the conference report for S. 1177, the Every
Student Succeeds Act. Washington, DC: Results for America. http://results4america.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/11/2015-12-11-Policy-Provisions-in-ESSA.pdf (accessed 09/22/17).
About the Authors
Anna Maier is a Research and Policy Associate at the Learning Policy Institute. She is a member
of the Early Childhood Learning and Deeper Learning teams, plays a leadership role on LPI’s
community schools work, and coordinates the California Performance Assessment Collaborative.
Maier began her more than 10 years of experience in k-12 education managing an afterschool
program for elementary school students in Oakland. She went on to teach 2nd and 3rd grade in the
Oakland Unified School District and Aspire Public Schools. As a graduate student fellow with the
Center for Cities & Schools at the University of California at Berkeley, she worked with West Contra
Costa Unified School District on implementing social services in schools. Maier is a co-author of
The road to high-quality early learning: Lessons from the states and Community schools: An evidence-
based strategy for equitable school improvement.
Julia Daniel is a Ph.D. candidate in Educational Foundations, Policy & Practice at the University
of Colorado Boulder. With over a decade of community and labor organizing experience, her
research seeks to support organizing efforts and build capacity for deeper community engagement
in education reform. She is the co-author of several publications concerning community schools,
including Community schools as an effective strategy for reform and Community schools: An evidence-
based strategy for equitable school improvement.
Jeannie Oakes is a Senior Fellow in Residence for the Learning Policy Institute and the Presidential
Professor Emeritus in Educational Equity at UCLA. She focuses her time with LPI on projects
related to resource equity, deeper learning, and teacher preparation. She plays a leadership role
on resource equity and LPI’s deeper learning work with the Partnership for the Future of Learning.
Oakes founded UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access; the University of California’s
All Campus Consortium on Research for Diversity; and Center X, UCLA’s urban teacher preparation
program. Oakes’ books include Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality, Becoming Good
American Schools: The Struggle for Civic Virtue in Education Reform, and Learning Power. She is past
president of the American Educational Research Association.
Livia Lam is the Legislative Director for U.S. Senator Patty Murray. She previously served as
a Senior Policy Advisor for the Learning Policy Institute; a Senior Labor Policy Advisor on the
Committee on Education and The Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives; and Deputy Director
for Intergovernmental Affairs for the U.S. Department of Labor. She is the co-author of several
publications, including Equity and ESSA: Leveraging educational opportunity through the Every Student
Succeeds Act and Pathways to new accountability through the Every Student Succeeds Act.
1530 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94304
p: 650.332.9797
1301 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20036
p: 202.830.0079
@LPI_Learning | learningpolicyinstitute.org
The Learning Policy Institute conducts and communicates independent, high-quality research to improve education
policy and practice. Working with policymakers, researchers, educators, community groups, and others, the Institute
seeks to advance evidence-based policies that support empowering and equitable learning for each and every child.
Nonprofit and nonpartisan, the Institute connects policymakers and stakeholders at the local, state, and federal
levels with the evidence, ideas, and actions needed to strengthen the education system from preschool through
college and career readiness.

Community Schools Effective REPORT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Community Schools Effective REPORT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Community Schools Effective REPORT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Community Schools as an Effective

School Improvement Strategy:

Anna Maier, Julia Daniel, Jeannie Oakes, and Livia Lam

This report can be found online at https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY

1. Why Community Schools?...................................................................................................................1

2. Community Schools: Creating Schools Where Students Learn and Thrive............................... 12

3. Evidence About Pillar 1: Integrated Student Supports................................................................. 19

4. Evidence About Pillar 2: Expanded Learning Time and Opportunities....................................... 36

5. Evidence About Pillar 3: Family and Community Engagement.................................................. 52

6. Evidence About Pillar 4: Collaborative Leadership and Practice................................................ 65

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY

8. Findings and Lessons for Policy and Implementation...............................................................104

Appendix: Assessing the Evidence Base...........................................................................................114

About the Authors................................................................................................................................149

Tables and Figure

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY iv

Increasing economic inequality and residential segregation have triggered a resurgence of

1. Integrated student supports

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY v

Specifically, our analyses produced 12 findings:

Finding 6. Thoughtfully designed expanded learning time and opportunities provided by

Finding 9. Comprehensive community school interventions have a positive impact, with

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY vi

Research-Based Lessons for Policy Development and Implementation

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY 1

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY 2

Today, more than half of the nation’s school

Out-of-School Barriers to Learning

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY 3

Family investment in children’s education

Community Schools as a Response to Poverty and Inequality

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY 4

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY 5

The Federal Commitment to Educational Equity

ESSA Offers New Opportunities to Support Community Schools

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY 6

the opportunity to broaden definitions of educational excellence, while maintaining civil

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY 7

ESSA also shifts responsibility from federal

• Children are ready to enter school.

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY 8

Our Approach to Assessing the Evidence Base

We began by specifying a research-based definition of community schools. By reading a wide range

1. Integrated student supports

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY 9

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY 10

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY 11

A Diverse Approach With Common Pillars

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY 12

Community School Pillars Support Effective Conditions and Practices

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY 13

In good schools, creating meaningful

Learning is facilitated by well-trained, experienced, efficacious teachers,51 who share a culture

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY 14

Schools with these characteristics don’t come

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY 15

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | COMMUNIT Y SCHOOLS AS AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY 16