Communities In Schools

The Communities In Schools (CIS) is a national organization working inside public and charter schools full-time building relationships that empower at-risk students to stay in school and achieve in life. Working in 2,300 schools and community-based sites, in the most challenged communities in 25 states and the District of Columbia, Communities In Schools serves 1.5 million young people and their families every year.   

History

Education in the United States
Education portal
United States portal

Founded in 1977, Communities in Schools is a dropout prevention program, with some 160 independent affiliates serving more than 1.5 million children in 2,300 schools. The essence of its approach, rooted in the Christian principles than inspired founder Bill Milliken—go where the kids are, build trusting relationships with them, and treat the whole person—has remained remarkably consistent over 40 years even as the organization has continued to evolve and adapt. It is a fascinating story that speaks to CIS’s essential identity as a pioneer, innovator, and leader in the movement to help at-risk kids stay in school and achieve in life.

That story began with a crucial lesson from Milliken’s own experience with the street and postal academies: that having impact on a problem of this scale and complexity, especially in inherently conservative public school systems, meant building a sustainable enterprise and running it according to sound management principles.

Over the next 25 years, CIS learned other important lessons: that working in partnership with others was both necessary and preferable; that private sector funding was vital not just to the financial health of the organization but also to its credibility with the schools and communities that CIS sought to engage; and that a nonpartisan approach was critical to their success in an increasingly polarized climate for educational reform. The last 15 years, meanwhile, have witnessed a profound transformation at CIS: from a visionary, mission-driven enterprise led by a charismatic founder-entrepreneur to a mature, professionally managed, data-driven enterprise that uses research and evaluation to influence and innovate.

Dropout Epidemic

Dropout Statistics

  • One million American students drop out of school each year
  • Nearly half of all dropouts ages 16-24 are unemployed
  • An estimated 67% of prison inmates are high school dropouts
  • Graduation rate nationally is around 70%, declining to 50% in some urban areas[1]
  • Every 29 seconds another student gives up on school
  • dropouts earn $9,200 less per year than high school graduates and more than $1 million less over a lifetime than college graduates
  • the government would gain $45 billion in extra tax revenues and reduced costs in public health, crime, and welfare payments if the number of high school dropouts among 20-year-olds in the US today were cut in half[2]

Mission

The mission of Communities In Schools is to surround students with a community of support, empowering them to stay in school and achieve in life.

Communities in Schools Values

To unlock the potential of the Communities In Schools network, CIS believes it must:

The Network

The Communities In Schools network comprises a national office located in Arlington, Va., 13 state offices and nearly 160 local affiliates. Each CIS office is an independent 501(c) (3) organization, and, at the local level, brokers or provides services that are tailored to the specific needs of the community

National Office

The Communities In Schools national office increases public outreach and visibility for the organization; seeks legislative support and procures funding for national, state and local efforts to benefit students and families; support state offices in capacity-building efforts; leads network evaluation activities to identify and promote best practices; and ensures the continuation of the Communities In Schools "movement."

State Office

Working closely with the national office staff, Communities In Schools state office leaders spearhead CIS "movement" in their states, providing training, technical assistance and capacity building. State offices support and help procure funding for local affiliates who work directly with kids.

Local Affiliates

At the local or "grassroots" level, Communities In Schools affiliates always work at the invitation of the school superintendent, and in partnership with public schools. CIS local affiliates collaborate with volunteers and community partners to work directly with students, providing programs and services which address the unique needs of a school district or student population.[3]

The Model

Communities In Schools seeks to understand and address the underlying reasons why young people drop out. Whether kids need eyeglasses, tutoring, nutritious food or just a safe place to be, CIS works to find the resources and deliver them to young people right inside schools where kids spend their days. The need could be something as simple as getting kids vaccinated to meet school attendance requirements. Or the need could be something more complex. Like helping young people find positive alternatives to joining gangs.[4]

CIS implements a community-based integrated student services strategy, leveraging community resources where they are most needed—in schools. Community-based integrated student services are interventions that improve student achievement by connecting community resources with both the academic and social-service needs of students. Such interventions focus programmatic energy, resources and time on shared school and student goals. Through the efforts of a single point of contact, individual student needs are assessed and research-based connections made between students and targeted community resources.[5] Asset building resources such as health screenings, food and clothing, and assemblies on various topics are made available to all students. Targeted and sustained intervention services are provided to the subset of students most in need, forming the basis of outcome-driven individual student plans. These students benefit from tutors, mentors, after-school programs, academic support and other evidence-based interventions designed to achieve specific outcomes.

Communities In Schools becomes involved at the invitation of the school or school district. The CIS model is adaptable to all communities— whether urban, rural or suburban— and is tailored to meet the needs of the individual school and its students. The National Evaluation of Communities In Schools is being conducted to measure the impact and the effectiveness of the Communities In Schools model. The core elements of the CIS model identified within the study and being measured are the following:

Provided Services

Communities In Schools identifies and delivers two levels of service to students. These services are designed to address the underlying risk factors for dropping out of school.

Level One - Widely Accessible Services

These are resources and services that are widely accessible to any students at a CIS school site. They are short-term interventions with durations of a few hours or days that build assets in the "Five Basics." They are provided or brokered on an as-needed or as-available basis. Students do not need to be enrolled in a specific CIS initiative to benefit from such resources and services, but simply need to be members of the school population at large. Some examples of Level One resources or services include providing clothing or school supplies, assemblies, events, career fairs, field trips, health screenings and grief counseling.

Level Two - Targeted and Sustained Services

Unlike Level one, from which virtually any student in a school may benefit, Level Two resources and services are provided through well-defined CIS initiatives targeted at students and/or families with specific needs. These initiatives typically include some type of enrollment or assignment procedure. They are sustained interventions with durations of several weeks, months or an entire school year. Level Two services are usually designed to achieve one or more tracked outcomes such as improved academic performance, attendance or behavior. These outcomes are chosen based on a variety of assessments and teacher recommendations. Examples of such interventions include tutoring, mentoring, literary skills, case management, individual counseling, before- and after-school programs, community service and enrollment in an "academy" environment.[7]

Why is School Climate important?

Research shows that a schools climate can affect many areas and people within a school setting. A positive school climate has been associated with fewer behavior problems, emotional problems, less absenteeism, and fewer health problems. (CFK School Climate Project) Student’s who attend a school with a positive climate are more apt to want to come to school each day and create relationships with staff and peers. Parents are more comfortable coming into the school to ask questions, participate in activities and participate in their child’s learning. School climate can play a significant role in providing a healthy and positive school atmosphere. Freiberg (1998) notes, "the interaction of various school and classroom climate factors can create a fabric of support that enables all members of the school community to teach and learn at optimum levels" (p. 22).

The research is clear and it is basic common sense that climate promotes or complicates students ability to learn and achieve success. If students feel safe and cared for in their school environment then their academic achievement should increase. Many studies from the United States and around the world have shown that a positive school climate is directly related to academic achievement.

National Evaluation

Overview

In 2005 Communities In Schools was awarded a multiyear contract to conduct an evaluation of its national network and programming.[8] ICF International, a global consulting and research firm, was contracted to conduct the five-year longitudinal study titled the National Evaluation of Communities In Schools. The study was designed to determine the effectiveness of the Communities In Schools model. It is based on an in-depth analysis of 1,776 schools served by CIS, a comparative analysis of outcomes from more than 1,200 CIS served and non-CIS served comparison schools, and comparative analysis of CIS served students and non-CIS served students alongside in-depth case studies of students. The study is being conducted in three phases:

Phase One: Implementation Study

The first year of the National Evaluation focused on collecting detailed information on the work of Communities In Schools in schools, providing a comprehensive picture of how the CIS model is implemented in thousands of schools across the country.

Phase Two: School-Level Results Studies

The second and third years of the National Evaluation have focused on determining the difference Communities In Schools makes at the school-level allowing for conclusions to be formed with respect to the correlation between effective implementation of the CIS model and school level results.

Phase Three: Student-Level Results Studies

The fourth and fifth years of the National Evaluation consist of randomized control trials, comparing CIS served students and non-CIS served students in the same schools.[6] ICF will conduct experimental studies involving the random assignment of students to a treatment group or a control group. Through random assignment, researches are able to make the two groups as similar in composition as possible. By minimizing differences between the two groups, any difference in outcomes can be attributed to participation in the CIS program.

Phase One: Implementation Results

The first phase involved a survey of more than 1,500 schools served by Communities In Schools to determine the level of CIS implementation taking place at each school. Based on the survey results, the schools were given a score from 1-100, based on their degree of fidelity to core components of the CIS model. When scores were correlated with school-level outcomes, the cohort of sites scoring 70 or higher showed the most positive outcomes. This established the relationship between outcomes and the level of implementation of the CIS model. The group, referred to as "high implementing schools," represents 47 percent (710) of total sample sites. The remaining 808 sites, referred to as "partial implementing schools," implemented the CIS model to a lesser degree.

Phase Two: School-Level Studies Results

In the second phase, ICF sought to determine the extent to which positive student outcomes could be attributed to implementation of the Communities In Schools model. ICF conducted a quasi-experimental evaluation, matching 602 schools served by CIS against 602 comparison schools. Each school served by CIS was matched with a school not served by CIS based on eight characteristics of the schools: student attendance rates; percent of students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch; percent of students with special needs; school size; percentage of students designated as proficient in math; percentage of students designated as proficient in English/language arts; the racial and ethnic composition of the schools; and the "promoting power" of the schools ( a proxy for "dropout rate"). In 2008, ICF along with Communities In Schools released the initial results from Phase Two. The three key findings were:

  1. Among dropout prevention programs using scientifically based evidence, the CIS model is one of a very few in the United States proven to keep students in school and is the only dropout prevention program in the nation with scientifically based evidence to prove that it increases graduation rates.
  1. When implemented with high fidelity, the CIS model results in a higher percentage of students reaching proficiency in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math.
  2. Effective implementation of the CIS model correlates more strongly with positive school-level outcomes (i.e., dropout and graduation rates, achievement, etc.) than does the uncoordinated provision of service alone, resulting in notable improvements of school level outcomes in the context of the CIS model.[6]

Phase Three: Student-Level Studies Results

As of 2007, randomized controlled trials are being conducted in CIS of Central Texas in Austin, Texas and in CIS of Jacksonville, Florida. Initial results from these studies are expected in 2009, with final results expected at the completion of the three-year period in 2010.[9]

References

  1. ↑ Jay Mathews, "Dropout-Prevention Program Sees to the Basics of Life," Washington Post, Dec. 10, 2007; page B01.
  2. ↑ "Statistics and Facts About High School Dropout Rates," Ending the Silent Epidemic, http://www.silentepidemic.org/epidemic/statistics-facts.htm
  3. ↑ "Communities In Schools Marketing Brochure," Communities In Schools National Office, p.6, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2006-10-04. Retrieved 2008-06-09.
  4. ↑ Greg Schaler, "Empowering Students for a Lifetime of Success: Performance Learning Centers," Communities in Schools National Office,2007: p.4
  5. ↑ "A National Educational Imperative: Support for Community-Based, Integrated Student Services in the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act," Communities In Schools national Office, 2007: p.1
  6. 1 2 3 "Communities In Schools and the Model of Integrated Student Services: A Proven Solution to America's Dropout Epidemic," Communities In Schools National Office, 2008, p.3-7,http://www.cisnet.org/about/NationalEvaluation/Normal.asp?Segment=5.0%5B%5D
  7. ↑ "2006-2007 Network Results," Communities In Schools National Office, p.16, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2006-10-04. Retrieved 2008-06-09.
  8. ↑ "Program Development, Management, and Evaluation Services to Foundations and Non-Profits," ICF International, p.2, "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-06-13. Retrieved 2008-10-03.
  9. ↑ "National Evaluation: Student-Level Studies," Communities In Schools National Office, http://www.cisnet.org/about/NationalEvaluation/Normal.asp?Segment=3.0%5B%5D

Further reading

Freiberg, H.J. (1998). Measuring school climate: Let me count the ways. Educational Leadership, 56 (1). 22-26.

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.