![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
[Cross-Site Analysis Part 3]Education Reforms and Students At Risk - October 1996
Schools as Learning Communities
A sense of "community" is concerned with the deep-structure fabric of interpersonal relations.20 Soundly woven, this fabric permits a shared frame of reference and supports mutual expectations. The relations among adults in schools provide models of behavior for students. The ways in which teachers, administrators, and classified staff persons relate to students also define the conditions within which teaching and learning of specific subject matters take place. In addition, these relations determine a school's readiness to undertake and sustain efforts to achieve shared goals (e. g., making a campus a safe haven or raising reading achievement scores), and they define a school's image in its neighborhood -- for parents, other residents, local business-persons and shopkeepers, and community-based service organizations. The quality of these relations is critical to all facets of school operation, yet it is typically taken for granted. In our experience, the quality of these relations in typical schools is much lower than it must be if schools are to be productive.
In previous studies and in this work, we have noted several attributes of the relations in schools that were associated with effective programs or periods of program effectiveness: students felt cared about and respected, teachers shared a vision and a sense of purpose, teachers and students maintained free and open communication, and all parties shared a deep sense of trust. Visits to these and other sites confirmed that the weakening or absence of these attributes often accompanied program failure. Building on studies of community.
in work and school settings,21 we have formalized 10 defining elements that characterize adult, student, and adult-student relations in schools that are communities:
Schools that consciously work at strengthening these elements are, in our view, building the necessary foundation for excellence.
For schools serving many poor students, this work presents special challenges. Personal, monetary, and material resources in these schools are likely to be stretched thin, so that opportunities for investment in community-building are often severely limited. In addition, because of differences in ethnicity, culture, or socioeconomic status, incorporation of diversity in these settings requires special talent and dedication. Our case study sites offer distinctive examples of achievement along selected community dimensions. In addition, study of these sites reveals five strategies for making best use of creative and committed individuals to build community.
Shared vision, purpose, and values have most often resulted in our sites from efforts to define common educational goals and goals for working with students. In some cases, principals with a forward view, who were willing to work persistently to change staff attitudes, or staff persons themselves have succeeded in building emotional and practical supports among staff for student-related outcomes. In one case where the "founding" principal had left, staff members continued to shape their vision for the site in terms of shared values originating in their commitments to their students and to one another.
Strong principals are often those who have succeeded in achieving shared vision and purpose by listening to and working with their staff, students, and parents to reach consensus. A program or problem focus also has been an instrumental force. In one site, program emphasis on cooperative learning gradually spread to the entire faculty and staff, welding the adults at the school into a family. At another site, the infusion of a private school curriculum into all grades at this public school provided the neighborhood with new pride and staff with a shared context for discussions of learning objectives and student progress. At an alternative school site that was created by eight school districts in a rural area to address the needs of students placed at risk, the various principals and staff took on the challenge and fashioned a unified approach together with their students.
Incorporation of diversity is a hallmark characteristic of all the successful sites we visited. Teachers and administrators actively sought out the distinctive talents of their students, and they came to see great value in a diversity of linguistic abilities. In one site, problem solving discussions among students could be heard in Vietnamese and Spanish; at another, aides "talked like the students talk" on the playground to facilitate conversation and a sense of closeness. Cultural celebrations were almost the norm in these sites, and the most successful schools developed strong outreach efforts to involve area families and residents in their programs.
Communication and participation are closely related, and open-door policies and open forums for discussion at staff meetings were featured ingredients at the most successful schools. New teachers quickly found (or were assigned) mentors and endless opportunities to learn about the school setting and instructional approach. Staff teams -- often with parent participants -- recommended modifications in current practices or new strategies. Staff development programs strengthened Cooperative Alternative Programabilities for taking part in leadership activities at the sites. At one school, for example, the principal selected different teachers to attend different workshops and asked them to report back their findings, thus building their knowledge and self-confidence. Students at these sites also were regarded as full participants in site activities, and every effort was made to solicit their views on how well programs were working and what could be done to improve them. At one site, no student's problem was "off the table," and individual and group discussion with students were often held in informal settings to encourage active interchange of comments and ideas.
Caring, trust, and teamwork are in some ways the results of effective communication and active participation by all parties at the school site. Many of the most impressive sites we studied had created family networks within and across grades or classes. Staff worked hard to engender feelings of trust with their students and colleagues. At one site, for example, teachers brought their classes together regularly and had organized a "buddy system" among older and younger students on the campus. At another site, teachers, vocational specialists, and worksite personnel formed teams to bolster students' self-confidence and increase opportunities for learning. At a third site, school staff regularly greeted every student every morning -- with a handshake, a hug, and a review of the previous day's progress or that day's plans. Among staff themselves, caring, trust, and teamwork often arose as a result of sharing the challenges posed by new programs, students with special needs, or neighborhood or district problems.
Respect and recognition were much in evidence in the effective educational programs for students placed at risk that we visited. Even where new programs are being implemented, lack of respect for students? as indicated by harassment and severe punishments? can kill any chance of positive results. Lack of respect and recognition among staff colleagues also weakens the social fabric of the school and lowers morale. Where positive performance is affirmed, both teachers and students strive to do their best. At one model site, a relatively new-to-campus principal chose to demonstrate his respect for the staff and students by letting them orient him to their successful implementation of their Robert Slavin's Success for All program.22
20.Gardner, J. W. (1991). Building community. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.
21.For example, Rossi, R. J. & Royal, M. (1994). Measuring workplace community: Final report to the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Palo Alto: American Institutes for Research.
22.Slavin, R., Madden, N., Karweit, N., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. (1992). Success for All: A relentless approach to prevention and early intervention in elementary schools. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
-###-