Full Service Schools

Full Service schools are pioneering innovative school, home and community connections that support increased achievement for at-risk students. By delivering a mosaic of cross-agency services, they are successfully pushing the boundaries of the conventional school.

Full Service schools are successfully pushing the boundaries of the conventional school by serving as the hub for a variety of cross-agency services.

A Holistic Approach
The most important reasons for exploring the benefits of a stronger relationship between schools and other social and human services are:

• Children of poverty require more social supports than the traditional school offers. As the central institution and single most stabilizing influence in the lives of children and youth, the school is the logical delivery site for added services.
• Support to the family increases children’s capacity to learn. Schools striving to reach demanding achievement targets have strong motivation to meet the needs of families, with positive spin-offs for academic success.
• Collaborative approaches and early interventions are cost-effective. Utilizing school buildings and their rich resources beyond regular hours through integrated services avoids duplication, disjointed programs and stopgap solutions.

A 90’s Idea
The concept originated some 25 years ago but was slow to flower. In 1991 Florida legislated the creation of "full service schools that integrate education, medical, social and /or human services that are beneficial to meeting the needs of children and youth and their families on school grounds." By 1997 the American Association of School Administrators endorsed "collaborative, community-wide programs and the delivery of full service programs to meet the needs of all children."

Canadian models emerged in the same decade. The B.C. School Trustees Association (BCSTA) adopted policy in 1992 in favour of integrated services, recognizing that ‘by default, schools continue to bear the brunt of the costs and responsibility of providing a variety of unfunded but necessary support services to students.’ Saskatchewan introduced a comprehensive policy framework for integrated school-linked services for at-risk children in 1994. Manitoba announced its ChildrenFirst strategy in 1997, including pilot school-based programs for early intervention for children and families at-risk. The Ministers of Education (CMEC) sponsored a conference in Toronto in 1996 to share international research findings and successful school models for Integrated Services for Children and Youth at Risk. Ontario’s 2000-01 budget encourages school boards to expand services and programs for at-risk students.

Making it Work
Although full service schools differ widely in the menu of programs offered, there are some common conditions for success.

Schools must have the authority to enter into the partnerships required to offer the services needed. This includes budget control, the ability to contract for services, hire staff, dedicate building space, flexibility in maintenance and security arrangements to permit the school to operate around the clock. Dispensation from some collective agreement work rules and district policies may be required. If parent volunteers are to be used in a program, for example, there must be assurances the union will not grieve their participation.

Strong leadership is essential. That leader is often the principal, although in other cases it is the project coordinator. The position requires vision, staying power, entrepreneurialship, and the ability to coordinate diverse groups and resources and build a common sense of purpose.

Appropriate governance structures must be in place. The full service school is a highly complex organization, requiring the development of joint action plans and coordination and monitoring of many separate program components. It must allow for overall planning and oversight and implementation committees whose roles and responsibilities are carefully delineated. A non-profit umbrella society is often part of the governance structure.

An emphasis on community involvement ensures the school will be more successful tapping support and resources. Grants are often contingent upon collaboratively developed proposals.

Teacher support is gained by involving them in planning and needs assessment from the beginning, and clarifying what and how materials and spaces will be shared. Programs should be structured to assist teachers rather than add to their load. Establish on-going dialogue between regular and extended program staff, a system for constant assessment, sharing, and quick airing of grievances.

Measuring Success
Selecting valid indicators of success and collecting ample evidence is the key to program quality and maintaining support for full service schools.

Monitoring can include gains in attendance, graduation rates, and test scores. Teachers can report increased levels of student motivation, improved discipline and positive parental involvement. Principals can provide statistics on changes in suspension rates, vandalism, drug-related problems and community support. Parent and student surveys will track satisfaction with safety, academic progress and increased opportunities.

Barriers to Success
Some of the most common obstacles to full service schools include:

Turf Warfare Despite agreement on gaps in service, the powerful politics of agency budgets and authority can mean lost opportunities to collaborate to better serve children. A proposed storefront school project for youth in trouble with the law foundered for years on battles between school, legal, and social agencies while troubled teens fell through the cracks.

Lack of Training Few professionals are trained to work in an integrated service delivery system. Universities, the locus of professional training, have not fostered a multi-disciplinary approach for working with at-risk children and youth.

Lack of Autonomy Most schools lack the authority to manage substantial integrated service programs. More autonomous charter schools, with full control of their budgets, are able to contract with outside agencies for services to support learning. This may account for the fact that many public charter schools are established specifically to serve at-risk populations. OECD research on youth at-risk highlights examples where power is devolved to schools to address needs.

Conclusion

There is little disagreement on the value of full service schools. There is room for public policy development to create the necessary conditions to ensure their success in improving the learning achievement and lives of children.

Condensed from: Full Service Schools. Raham,H. School Business Affairs. June 1998. pp.24-28

Full Service School Programs

Expanding school services to create successful learners and healthy communities: