Community Collaboration to ImproveSchools: Introducing a New Model from Ohio

Dawn Anderson-Butcher, Hal A. Lawson, Jerry Bean,Paul flaspohler, Barbara Boone, and Amber Kwiatkowski

Convenrional school improvement models traditionally involve "walled-in" approaches.These models focus primarily on academic learning strategies in response to standards-based accountabiliries. Although positive outcomes have been documented, expanded

school improvement models such as the Ohio Community Collaboration Model for SchoolImprovement (OCCMSI) are needed. Expanded models like this one enable educators to

gain some influence over students' out-of-school time and address nonacadeniic barriers tolearning.This analysis presents OCCMSI's process and content components. Its aim is tofacilitate understanding of the complex improvement strategies incorporated in expandedschool improvement models, including strategic school-family-community parnierships.

These expanded school improvement models ofier new roles, responsibilities, andopportunities for school social workers.

KEY WORDS: collaboration; paUnerships; schoiA improvemaii; youth development

School improvement in the majority of thenation's schools is guided by a conven-tional model. In this model, each school

is the planning unit. Each school has a site-basedimprovement team consisting of representativeteachers, student support professionals, parents,and one or more principals. Teams typicallyfocus on a limited number of improvementpriorities, usually those targeting outcomesin core subject areas that can be addressed inthe current academic year. Although some ofthese priorities are unique to each school, inthe current policy climate, which is framed bythe federal No Cliild Left behind Act (NCLB)(2001), many of these priorities can be traced totop-down mandates emanating from the schooldistrict's central office and, in turn, from statedepartments of education and the U.S. Depart-ment of Education.

For example, since the passage of NCLBin 2001, schools nationwide have focusedon standards-based curricula and instruction,evidence-based teaching and learning strategies,performance-based accountability structured by

standardized achievement testing, school choice,and alignment among schools, districts,and statedepartments of education. These standardizedimprovement priorities are in accordance withfederal NCLB incentives, sanctions, and stan-dards. In all such cases,site-based teams and theirprincipal leaders have been handed improvementagendas in which the majority of priorities areset by top-level education authorities. In brief,this conventional school improvement modelis a "within-system" approach; the educationsystem brackets improvement planning.

This conventional model for school improve-ment exhibits two other important characteris-tics. Both are indicative of needs for expandedschool improvement planning.

First, and consistent with this within-systemapproach, improvement planning, implemen-tation, and evaluation are bounded hy eachschool's walls or boundaries, in other words,improvement planning is building-centered and"walled in."This walled-in improvement plan-ning reflects traditional thinking about schoolsas stand-alone institutions focused exclusively on

CCC Code; 1532-8759/08 (3,00 ©2008 National Association of Sociai Workers 161

young people's learning and academic achieve-ment, and it also reinforces the idea that educa-tors are the school improvement experts.

Of course, when improvement planning iswalled in, external resources, opportunities, andassets are "walled out." In particular, educatorsand their site-based teams lose opportunities togain control over students' out-of-school time,especially time that can facilitate learning andhealthy developnient.Walled-in approaches alsolimit the school and community's influence onother nonacademic factors that are known toimpede academic success.

Second, change-as-improvement follows anindustrial logic. In this approach, linear, one-at-a-time planning and implementation arenormative. This means that site-based teamsfaced with multiple priorities must restricttheir improvement efforts to a few needs. Otherpriorities, which often are essential to improvedoutcomes and conditions in support of theseoutcomes, must be postponed until subsequentyears. In effect, this means that school improve-ment is constrained and even impeded becausethe site-based team lacks the capacity to under-take complex changes mounted simultaneouslyacross several fronts.

Shortcomings notwithstanding, this conven-tional school improvement model has severalstrengths and creates positive academic out-comes for students (Borman, Hewes, Overman,& Brown, 2002).To use intervention language,this walled-in school improvement model isa necessary, but insufficient, intervention. Thechallenge today, most visible in schools withgrowing numbers of vulnerable students, is tobenefit from this walled-in model's strengthswithout being saddled with its limitations.

Toward this end, new expanded schoolimprovement models are being developed na-tionwide.The Ohio Community CollaborationModel for School Improvement (OCCMSI)is one such model (Anderson-Butcher et al..2004). The OCCMSI derives in part from agrowing theoretical and empirical literature.The international movement in support ofcommunity schools—schools that welcomeconmiunity empowerment strategies alongsideco-located health and social services, parent and

family initiatives, and after-school programs—is ia noteworthy example. The evidence suggeststhat community schools help "get the condi- 'tions right for learning" by improving students'academic readiness and addressing barriersto learning (Blank, Melaville, & Shah, 2003).Some schools also make progress in closing theachievement gap.

In the same vein, parent-focused and parent-led school improvement models, grounded incommunity organizing,provide multiple schoolimprovement resources. For example, teachers, ^principals, and culturally diverse parents develop •common purposes stemming from Jiiutual un-derstanding (Delgado-Gaitan, 2001), resultingin new instructional strategies and more parentinvolvement in children's education. •

In addition, school safety and security im-prove, including the neighborhoods surroundingschools, and educators gain help and academicenriclmient resources from parents and othercommunity members (for example. Hatch,1998). Schools and entire feeder patterns ofschools gain the political supports ofFered bylocal communities,supports manifested in build-ing improvements, approval of school levies,and elected officials committed to schools (forexample, Shirley, 1997).At the same time, socialcapital develops among educators, other humanservices professionals, students, and families (forexample, Shirley, 1997).

Examples like these have been instrumentalin the development of the OCCMSI. Thatsaid, the OCCMSI is unique among currentmodels because of its systematic organization,through a formal logic model, of multipleschool improvement components. Moreover,and in contrast to community schools, theOCCMSi does not require massive relocationsof progranw and services at a school. Instead,it places a premium on place-based configu-rations involving the interweaving of schoolowned and operated and community ownedand operated resources (Adelman & Taylor.2005) for learning, healthy development, andsuccess in school.

As such, the OCCMSI is introduced in theensuing analysis, starting indicators ot need andsignificance. Then the Ohio Department of

t62 Children &$ehooU VOI.UMF 30, NUMBER 3 JULY IOOS

Education's (ODE) role in the development ofOCCMSI Is described. Its leadership as the stateeducational association in Ohio has been in-strumental to providing information, resources,and technical assistance on educational mattersto more than 3,500 schools in Ohio. Next, theOCCMSI logic model is featured, including itsimport for coherent and comprehensive plan-ning, targeted implementation, and evaluation-driven, continuous learning and improvement.Implications for school improvement and forschool social workers are idencitied.

OCCMSi INDICATORS OF NEEDAND SIGNIFICANCEOCCMSI responds to twin needs: to gain in-fiuence over students' time and to capitalize onfamily and community resources for learning,healthy development, and success in school. Atthe same time, OCCMSI enables educatorsand others working at schools, especially schoolsocial workers, to develop strategic school—fam-ily-community partnerships focused on barriersto learning. Details follow.

Time NeedsIncreases in academic acliievement hinge onincreases in academically engaged learning time,along with opportunities to benefit from thesubject matter expertise of a qualified teacher.On average, students spend about 30 hoursa week in school during the academic year,and not all of this time is devoted to academiclearning and achievement. Weigh into this pic-ture students' time during the summer monthswhen school is not in session, and the result isa scenario in which educators have access to, atmost. 13 percent of a young person's time. Thisis not a formula for success.

OCCMSI is structured to enable educatorsand other professionals at the school to gainaccess to learning-related resources during thenonschool hours. It emphasizes connections be-tween schools and both family and communityresources for learning, healthy development, andsuccess in school. Strategic partnerships formedto solidify these connections, particularly thosedesigned to increase engaged academic learn-ing time.

Barriers to LearningAlongside educators' limited influence overstudents' out-of-school time is their limitedinfluence over other individual, peer, family,and conununity factors known to constrain andprevent academic learning.These"nonacadeniicbarriers to learning" {for example, Adelnian &Taylor, 2005) are known as developmental riskfactors (Lawson 6¿ Anderson-Üutcher, 2001).Risk factors include emotional and behavioralproblems, unmet basic needs for good nutri-tion, involvement with antisocial peers, unstablehousing, inadequate family supports, and familyconflict and related instabilities (Doll & Lyon,1998; Early & Vonk, 2001 ; Lawson & Anderson-Butcher, 2001). These nonacademic barriersconstrain optimal student success. Togetherthey serve as reminders of the interdependenceamong academic learning and achievement,social development, and positive health andmental health.

Given these complexities, it is clear thatschools simply are not equipped or preparedto address all student nonacademic barriers.Although individual schools and school districtsemploy counselors, school psychologists, schoolsocial workers, and school nurses to addresssome of these nonacademic barriers, the major-ity oí schools' student support services are likewalled-in school improvement models. Theyfocus primarily on direct service responsibilitiesdesigned in response to academic deficiencies.Academic and behavioral interventions andcounseling are the norm, and other factors un-derlying student achievement are only touchedon the surface.These interventions are necessary,but insufficient, in relation to growing studentand family needs and demands (for example,Adelman &Taylor, 2005; Flaspohler,Anderson-Butcher, Paternite,Weist, & Wandersman, 2006).School- and community-based resources mustbe mobilized in support of all students, par-ticularly those experiencing more extensivenonacademic barriers to school success.

As in the case of family and communityresources for learning during the nonschoolhours,OCCMSI also facilitates strategic,school-community partnerships aimed at addressingnonacademic barriers to learning. Partnerships

ANDERSON-BÜTCHBR ET AL, / Community Collaboration to Improve Schools: A New Model 163

OCCMSI facilitates expanded school

improvement planning through strategic

partnerships among schools, families,

and community agencies^ as well as

collaborative processes involving all of the

adults who serve young people.

involving health and social service agencies (forexample, Adelman S¿ Taylor, 2005; Anderson-Butcher, Stetler, & Midle. 2006) are criticalto successful expanded school improvementapproaches.

THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'SLEADERSHIP AND SUPPORTOCCMSI was developed cooperatively bylenders from the Ohio Department of Educa-tion (ODE) and the authors of this article (whorepresent the College of SocialWork at the OhioState University). Given new NCXB mandatesand incentives, key leadership at ODE madepriorities of two key pathways to improvementwithin its departmental strategic plan. First,students would receive high-qualit>' instructionaligned with academic content standard.s. Sec-ond, students would enjoy optimal conditionsfor learning, a pathway expressed colloquially as"getting the conditions right for learning,'"

As O D E ' S leaders became increasingly awareof the hmitations of conventional walled-inschool improvement planning and its focus onthe first pathway, they invited the developmentof OCCMSI.The second pathway,"getting theconditions right for learning," received shortshrift at ODE and, in turn, in districts and in-dividual schools throughout Ohio.

ODE thus set the stage for an expandedschool improvement model, especially one thatwould provide a coherent, comprehensive, andresearch-supported structure that would uniteboth improvement pathways. In other words, thismodel was structured to unite the conventionalacademic learning and instnicdon pathway withthe pathway structured to "get the conditionsright for learning." OCCMSI is the product ofthis developmental process (Anderson-Butcheret al., 2004).

OCCMSI: CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SCHOOLIMPROVEMENT PLANNING PROCESSOCCMSI facilitates expanded school improve-ment planning through strategic partnershipsamong schools, families, and community agen-cies, as well as collaborative processes involvingall of the adults who serve young people. Aspreviewed at the outset, OCCMSI is structuredto benefit from the strengths of conventional,walled-in school improvement planning and tocompensate for this model's inherent constraintsand weaknesses.

The OCCMSI logic model is presented inFigure 1. Like all useful logic models, this oneoffers both process components and content-re-lated priorities. More specifically, the OCCMSI'splanning "process" is a priority and includespartnership building.needs and resources assess-ments.coUaborative infrastructures,initiative andprogram evaluation, and continuous improve-ment planning. It also emphasizes programs andservices in five content domains known to affectstudent achievement and healthy development:academic intervention and enricliment supports,youth development programs, family engage-ment and support strategics, health and socialservices, and community partnerships.

Planning Process PrioritiesResearch on conventional school improvementmodels indicates that planning processes oftenproceed without the benefit of good data, rel-evant research, and rational-logic decision-mak-ing models.This kind of haphazard, variable, andinconsistent planning often yields a "crazy quilt"patchwork of programs, services, and strategiesat schools. It is important to note that theseprograms, services, and strategies are not alwaysmatched to students and family needs becauseno planning process facilitates the requiredintervention logic.

OCCMS! n^sponds to this need. For staners,itis structured to enable educators and their part-ners to move from the far left of the model—theidentification of local needs, gaps, and untappedresources—to the identification of research-sup-ported programs and services chat best respondto both school and student needs.This model'semphasis on local needs is indicative of its process

164 VOLUME 30. NUMBER 3 JULY 2008

cc

È

wan

d

ç

cl <

0

2.1

W) Q

contributions. It requires local planners to getgood data and make solid, local decisions on thebasis of these data. In other words, OCCMSIis not a rigid model that preempts local needsand resources assessments.

In addition, this logic model identifies therelevant components for meeting needs, maxi-mizing resources, and closing gaps. Althougha more complete discussion of these contentcomponents follows later.here it is important toemphasize that OCCMSI provides a frameworkdesigned to promote coherence, comprehensive-ness, and integration.

OCCMSI's process contributions continueas the reader progresses from the middle ofthe logic model to the right-hand side. Here,evaluation-driven learning and improvementprotocols for data-based planning are priori-ties. In due recognition of the time it takes toimplement complex change and, in turn, docu-ment the achievement of wholesale, desirableoutcomes, this OCCMSI logic model structuresprocesses aimed at progress indicators, short-term outcomes, and long-term outcomes. Inother words, like a good theory of change,OCCMSI structures a process whereby localschool planners figure out how to get from"here" (their originating point) to "there" (animproved or ideal state).

When OCCMSI is viewed as a process-oriented theor)' change, planning processes canproceed in another way. Instead of the moreconventional left-to-right planning, educatorsmay also work from right to lett. They maystart with tlie twin aims for the model (successin school and the transition into productiveadult citizenship) and then backward map tolearn about the planning processes and struc-tures needed to achieve these twin aims. Salientdetails follow.

Highlighting OCCMSI's Key ProcessContributions to Improvement PlanningThanks to NCLB, most schools are lcarmng torely on data-driven decision-makmg processesand structures. Decision making in walled-inimprovement models is focused on academiclearning goals and instructional strategies forachieving them. The aim for these planning

processes is to establish data-based improve-ment priorities, especially in core academiccontent areas (for example, reading and math)and involving targeted groups of students, es-pecially underperforming students. The kindsof data collected are determined by the districtleaders, principals, and representative teachers.Significantly, the planning process, the datacollection, and the data-based decision-makingstructures tend to be walled in. Educators andother school-based, internal stakeholders do allof this planning and decision making.

OCCMSI calls for an expanded planningprocess, one that builds from existing schoolimprovement processes. OCCMSI's processesare expanded in four ways.

First, the OCCMSI framework encouragesthe exploration of both academic and nonaca-demic barriers and needs that impede studentachievement and school success. Second, itemphasizes the measurement of both schooland nonacademic barriers and needs.Third, theOCCMSI uses expanded school improvementteams that allow for the buy-in and input from avariety of school and community stakeholders inthe planning process. Fourth, because OCCMSIinvolves family and community stakeholders inimprovement planning, schools gain the capaci-ties to meet multiple needs and solve intercon-nected problems—in short, to effect complexchanges.This problem-solving capacity is in starkcontrast to linear, industrial-age problem-solvingcharacteristics of walled-in school improvementmodels.This complex problem-solving capac-ity, gained through school-family-conununitypartnership processes, is the key, now missing,component for"getting the conditions right forlearning." A few OCCMSI process milestonesare pawided below.

"Building ihe Table." This process involvesexpanding existing site-based teams and estab-lishing, over time, districtwide teams (Adelman& Taylor, 2005).The "table" or expanded site-based team is built by identifying and recruit-ing stakeholders from multiple backgroundswho have a role to play in supporting studentachievement and healthy development—andwho bring liistories of working successfully withothers."Table members"represent school,family.

166 ChiUrtn &Schools VOLUME 30, NUMBER J Jui.v 1008

and community perspective and may includedistrict- and building-level leaders, teachers andsupportive services staff, parents and residents,community-based mental health profession-als, juvenile justice and local law enforcementpersonnel, and other community partners whomight potentially be involved in addressing bar-riers to learning.

Needs/Conditions and Resources Assessment.Together, stakeholders bring and examine keydata on academic achievement as well as otherdata related to priority nonacademic barriersevident within the school community. Thesedata might include individual,schoolwide, peer,family, or community indicators that impedestudent achievement and healthy development.These data also identify current school andcommunity practices, strategies, and resourcesavailable along che prevention, early interven-tion, diagnosis, and intervention continuum(including those that are tapped, underused,and untapped).

Gap Analysis. A gap analysis is conductedonce data about needs/con ditions and resourcesare well understood. This analysis allows forthe exploration oí' resources that are neededbut are currently unavailable and untapped.In addition, this analysis examines availableprograms, services, and resources that lack suf-ficient quality, quantity, and potency to addressthe most pressing barriers to academic andschool succcss.Teams use this process to identifyspecific improvement priorities. These priori-ties, consisting of the most important academicand nonacademic barriers, comprise the initialimprovement agenda.

Resource/Program Development and Imple-mentation. Once top priorities are established,development of new resources, interventions,and partnerships to address identified gaps andconditions is needed. The work often includesthe enhancement of current programs, services,and strategies already aimed at addressing theidentified need.The main focus here is on theintegration of evidence-based practice principlesand programs into classroom and programdesigns, as well as ensuring that programs andservices are culturally responsive and respectfulof diversity.

Partnership, Collaborative Leadership, andInfrastructure Development. To manage themultiple pathways and processes emerging, theOCCMSI requires that multiple tasks, activities,and processes within the school and communityhappen simultaneously in systematic, coherent,and integrative ways. Collaboration and col-laborative leadership structures are fundamentalnecessities in allowing this process to occur.Thiscollaboration starts with new, improved rela-tionships among all the people working at theschool, and it encompasses new and improvedworking relationships with other key people andorganizations in the surrounding community(that is, leaders from youth development orga-nizations, faith-based organizations, businesses,higher education, and so forth). Collaborativeleadership infrastructures that distribute power,authority, and responsibility across the table orgroup also are necessary. Team members col-laborate, and their organizations develop firm,formal partnerships in support of this new wayof doing business. OCCMSI also relies on inter-mediary people and organizations who facilitatethe linkages, interrelationships, and partnershipsamong people, organizations, priorities, strate-gies, and initiatives.

Evaluation-Driven Learning, Improvement, andContinuous Feedback. OCCMSI also sets as apriority the developmeni of evaluation-drivenlearning and improvement capacities that al-low schools and their community partners toexplore process and outcome data about effectsand outcomes. Evaluation occurs at multiplelevels, schoolwide in relation to core achieve-ment data, but also program-specific in relationto an identified strategy's targeted outcome (forexample, social worker-led group on angermanagement measures anger and problem-solving indicators). These data are monitoredregularly and become a centrality to the schooland district continuous improvement planningprocess. New data also may need to be collectedto easure accountabihties are met within theschool and community.

The OCCMSI enables local leaders to de-termine how best to manage the change-as-improvement process. For people preferringlinear approaches to change, OCCMSI makes

ANDERSON-BUTCHER F,T AL. / Commumty Collaboration to Improve Schooh: A New Model 167

this possible. For people preferring nonlinear,yet coherent and integrated change-as-iin-provement, OCCMSI's complex logic modelstructures these processes.

Most schools and districts would manage bothlinear and nonlinear change processes. OCCMSIprovides a congenial structure tor this kind oftailored, complex change approach.

OCCMSI CONTRIBUTIONS THROUGH FIVECONTENT COMPONENTSOCCMSI promotes a data-based, intervention-oriented approach to improvement planning.It anticipates the need for five core contentcomponents, and it aligns and connects them.All five core content components are research-supported; all are known to impact studentachievement, healthy development, and schoolsuccess.The five components include academiclearning, youth development, parent and fam-ily engagement and support, health and socialservices, and community partnerships.

Academic LearningAc.idemic learning is shorthand for several,inseparable components of powerfiil learningand development. It involves traditional schoolimprovement priorities focused on the align-ment of curriculum to instruction, the creationof standards-based accountabilities, and effec-tive leadership. It also includes strategies suchas quality teaching and instruction, studentintervention and assistance, and academic en-richment. Significant improvements occur as aresult of these strategies, as research documentsimportant outcomes such as enhanced grades,proficiency scores, attendance, self-concept andself-esteem, school climate, as well as reduc-tions in problem behaviors such as disruptiveand aggressive behaviors, dropout, and truancy(Borman et al.,2002; Plucker et al.,20()4; Slavm& Madden, 2001).

Youth DevelopmentAfter-school programs, mentoring, peer coun-seling, social recreation, arts, sports, valueseducation, service learning, conmiunity service,volunteerism. leadership development,extracur-ricular activities, conflict resolution, life skills

programs, youth employment, career counsel-ing/job skills training, academic enrichment,and prevention prograniming all fit under theumbrella name of'youth development."Theseprograms address problems and risk factors andsimultaneously build youths' strengths and as-sets (Anderson-Butcher, Stetler, & Midle,2006;Lawson & Anderson-Butcher, 2001). Severaloutcomes have been noted in relation to youthdevelopment strategies, including improvedgrades, attendance, social competence, social iskills, and engagement in school, as well as ,reduced substance use, aggressive behavior andviolence, high-risk sexual behavior, and truancy{for example, Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lon-czak. & Hawkins. 2004; Duilak & Wells, 1997;Greenberg et al., 2003; Roth, Brooks-Gunn, ,Murray, & Foster, 1998). I

Parent and Family Engagementand SupportEmergent research findings propose that parent Iand family engagement and support is critical tostudent achievement and overall healthy devel-opment (for example, Henderson of Berla, 1994;Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Kumpfer, 2003).Strategies involve traditional parent involvementactivities such as parental volunteerism, fund-raising, and engagement in their child's learn-ing. Family engagement and support involvesschools supporting families through referral andassistance,continuing education,parent-to-par-ent support, and other linkages to vital servicesin the school community. Benefits for studentsinclude enhanced student attendance and grades,engagement in school, and social competence.Families also benefit by experiencing enhancedfamily cohesion and attachment, perceptions ofsupport, family management practices, and newknowledge.

Health and Social ServicesHealth,mental health,social,cultural,economic,and family barriers, individually and in variouscombinations, limit some students' learning,academic achievement, and success in school.Furthermore, they complicate the work ofteachers, principals, and student support profes-sionals. Health and social services are designed

Children &Schools VOLUME 30. NUMBER J JULY ZOO8

to address and prevent these nonacademic bar-riers. They include school- and community-based resources such as mental health services,financial and housing assistance, child welfaresupports,and dental and medical servie es.Thesesupport strategies assist in improving academicachievcuient, social competence, and schoolclimate, and in reducing substance use, mentalhealth barriers, and aggressive behaviors (forexample, Hoagwood, & Erwin, 1997; Nabors& Reynolds, 2t)()0: Weist, Paskewitz, Warner, &Flaherty, 1996). In addition, the coordinationof these services is related to enhanced serviceintegration and accessibility, as well as decreasedcosts and service duplication (for example,Greenberg et al., 2003).

Community PartnershipsCommunity partnerships and collaborationinclude formal arrangements schools can makewith individuals, associations, private sectororganizations, or public institutions to providea program, service, or resource that will helpsupport student achievement. These commu-nity partnerships are used to enhance both theprograms and services offered at the school andto increase resources for both the schools andthe community partners. Multiple benefits areknown to result, such as improved academicachievement, improved school climate andsafety, and enhanced opportunities for learning.The development of commutiity partnershipsreduces isolation among individuals and orga-nizations, reduces student transience, and hasbenefits related to reducing class and school size(Chadwick, 2004; Hatch, 1998; Henderson &Mapp, 2002; Keitli, 1996).

IMPLICATIONS OF EXPANDED SCHOOLIMPROVEMENT FOR PRACTICEliy using the five core content components as aguide, OCCMSI was designed to help schoolsand communities take stock of programs,servic-es, strategies, and initiatives currently operatingin their neighborhoods and identify importantneeds, conditions, resources, and gaps throughits planning, implementation, and evaluationprocess. It is structured to build on the strengthsand successes of existing efforts and is driven by

community partnerships are tised to

enhance both the programs and services

offered at the school and to increase

resources for both the schoob and thecommunity partners.

collaborative leadership,sustainability, and ongo-ing continuous improvement. School-faniily-community partnerships developed throughOCCMSI help educators gain hifiuence overmore students'academic learning time and allowschools to address the nonacademic barriers thatstudents often bring with them to school.

New models such as the OCCMSI are neededthat expand the walls of school improvement.OCCMSI pilot work has confirmed that thesetypes of efforts are complex and require attentionto the multiplicity of factors influencing studentachievement. Although niultifaceted, readinessdata among superintendents, school improve-ment specialists, educators, parents/caregivers,and various community partners indicate thatexpanded school improvement approaches de-signed to gain influence of out-of-schooI timeand related nonacademic barriers to studentlearning are critical to school success (Anderson-Butcher, 2004; Flaspohler, Anderson-Butcher,Bean, Burke. &c Paternité. 2008).

In addition, preliminary OCCMSI evalua-tion fmdings support key process and produainnovations resulting from implcmcntiition(Lawson, 2004). Specifically, the OCCMSI hasbeen piloted in 12 schools and districts repre-senting diverse geographical regions and studentpopulations. Several process improvementsacross niultiple sites have been noted, includingenhanceinents in data-driven decision-makingprocesses; the expansion ofschooi-family-com-munity partnership "tables;" the developmentand expansion of new programs, services, andstnitegies;the incorporation ofbest practices andevidence-based strategies into programming; thegeneration of new, blended, and braided fund-ing streams in support of school communitypriorities; and the better coordination of school-and community-based resources and supports(Anderson-Butcher, La wson.Wade-Mdivanian,

ANDKR.soN-BUTCHER ET AL. / Community Collâhomrion to Improve Schools: A New Model 169

&: Bean, 2006). Each of these process improve-ments better prepare schools and their commu-nity partners to gain influence over the factorsthat often are outside the control of the regularschool day, especially as family and communityresources are engaged to address nonacademicbarriers to learning that often impede studentsuccess. In addition, several sites documentedsignificant changes in academic performance,parent or family involvement and engagement,and enhanced behavioral nieutiil health pathways(Anderson-Butcher et al., 2006).

Expanded school improvement initiatives suchas the OCCMSI, however, require significantcoordination among individuals working insideand outside of the school, as priorities focus onthe integration and alignment of school- andcommunity-based resources and supports forlearning. Changes in roles and responsibilitiesamong key school and community stakeholders,particularly social workers working in and withschools, are necessary to support the implemen-tation of these complex change efForts.

More specifically, these models necessitate theappointment of one key leader within a schoolcommunity to serve in the role of coordinator,broker, facilitator, and systenis-crosser {Ander-son-Butcher et al., 2004; Anderson-Butcher& Ashton, 2004; Lawson, 2004). School socialworkers who work in tandem with district andschool leaders are trained perfectly for theseexpanded roles. Examples of key roles are pro-vided next.

In relation to the OCCMSI work in Ohio,many school social workers are serving asintermediaries—people who cross professional,organizational, and community boundariesand create mutually beneficial relationships andsynergies. Called school—family-oommunitycoordinators, resource coordinators, and evenassistant principals, social workers are especiallyinstrumental in facilitating the process com-ponent of the OCCMSI. in this role, they areinstrumental in mobilizing diverse stakeholdersfrom across multiple systems through the con-vening of a table to generate buy-in, commit-ment, vision, and support.

in addition, school social workers lead com-munity planning efForts involving extensive

needs and resource assessments and gap analysesdesigned to identify top school improvementpriorities and pathways. They develop part-nerships, collaborative leadership systems, andinfrastructures that support the complex schoolimprovement model within their schools.

School social workers also develop strategiesin partnership with their school and conununitystakeholders to support the content componentof the OCCMSI. For instance, school socialworkers respond through indirect practice strate-gies where they encourage other school- andcommunity-based providers to address specificneeds identified within the planning process.They design and implement evidence-baseddirect practice strategies where they individu-ally design programs and services in responseto the various targeted priorities.They also areresponsible for assessment and linkage roles asthey coordinate health and social services andthe learning support continuum.

These expanded responsibilities for schoolimprovement planning are not structured at theexpense of clinical practice with students andtheir families. Needs tor clinical practice remain,especially social workers' unique contributionsto the most vulnerable client systems and theirmultiple needs. In brief, in expanded schoolimprovement models, social workers' rolesand responsibilities are restructured, and so arethose for other student support professionals(for example, Adelman & Taylor, 200.^). More-over, community-based social workers' rolesand responsibilities also tend to be restructuredand more fully maximized through OCCMSIpartnership priorities.

In essence, school social workers assume lead-ership from "the inside out," whereas commu-nity-based social workers provide services, sup-ports, and resources from "the outside in." Freshopportunities for the profession's leadershipinhere in these new structural arrangements.

It is important to note that these roles andresponsibilities for social workers are consistentwith their professional education and derive inpart from what practicing school social workersalready plan and do. Expanded school improve-ment models like the OCCMSI formalize andinstitutionalize these new roles, responsibihties,

170 Chiliiren & Schools VOLUME 50. NuMBEB 3 Juuf zoo8

relationships,.ind leadership opportunities. Andthis is another reason for the profession s supportand leadership for these models.

CONCLUSION111 general, the OCCMSI and other expandedschool improvement initiatives allow educators'influence over stiidents'academic learning time.Tbey also assist in the development ofprogramsand ser\'ices,both school hased and school linked(and community-based), which address nonaca-demic harriers to learning, healthy development,and success ill school.

OCCMSI is such an exemplar model. Its fivespecific content areas guide expanded schoolimprovement initiatives. These content areasencompass programs and service strategies re-lated to academic learning, youth development,parent or family engagement and support, healthand social services, and community parmerships.The strengthening and creation of these variousstrategies occurs within the OCCMSI schoolimprovement planning process. For example,needs and resources assessments, gap analysis,strategic planning and implementation, evalu-ation, and continuous improvement are criticalcomponents guiding the work.

With its focus on partnerships, the modelwill serve educators and other professionals atschools hy providing them w ith much-neededassistance, supports, and resources. Notably,educators will no longer have to "do it all" ordo it alone, as superintendents, school hoardmembers, teachers, school social workers, andothers structure essential services, supports, andinfrastructures that eûectively address the mostpressing nonacademic barriers facing studentsand their families. Sharing responsibilities andaccountabilities would make the work of teach-ing and administer ing in schools more effective,especially as these priorities strengthen and ex-pand existing school improvement initiatives.

Social workers have pivotal leadership roles toplay in expanded school improvement models.School social workers serve as intermediar-ies; and, as such, they are instnimental in thedevelopment of school—family—communitypartnerships. School sociai workers' new rolesand responsibilities are made possible by re-

structured student support services and, at thesame time, the development of new roles andresponsibilities for conmiunity-based socialworkers whose work increasingly is connectedto schools. These emergent opportunities forthe profession promise to extend its leadership,offering better structures and processes for serv-ing vuhicrable children,youths, and families andtheir schools. S

REFERENCESAddiiuiii, H . & laylor, L. (2005), The school leader's j¡uide

W stuJctil ¡earning stipporl.':: Nrw direftitans for addrasin^barriers to /raniini;,Thousand Oaks, CA: CorwinPres.s.

Anderson-Butcher, D. (2004).Tran.sfbrming schoolsinto 21st Century Community Learning Centers,Oiildren & Schools, 26. 248-2.S2.

AndtTsoii-Butchcr. D. (2005). 'Ilic Ohio Commiinitydollahoralion Model for School bupTovcmiiil year tifo

final icchiiiot n'tjlnaiion n-port. Coliuiibus: Ohio StateUniversity, College of Social Work,

Anderson-Butcher. D., & Asiitoii, D. (2ttO4). Innovativemodels of collaboration to serve children, youths,families, and comniunities. Children & Schools, 26,39-53.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Lawson. H. A.,Wade-Mdi^^lian,R,.&' Bcan.J, (2')06).2/jff Cfiifury OiHimwiii)')'Lfamin^ CleiUers technical assistance &7}tc OhioCommiinily Collaboraiion Model for School litiproi'etueiU:Final project report &bricfoivn'im'of afatuation findings.Columbus: Ohio State University, College of SocidWork,

Anderson-Butcher. D., Lawson, H, A,, Bean. j , . Boone,B,, Kwiatkowski, A,. Cash, S., Stetler. G,, Rush,M, L., &: Beitzel. M. (2004). ¡mpiaimtiaiiott i^uidc:Tlie Ohio Community Coilaboralioii Modd for SrhoolImproi'cment. Columbus: Ohio Department ofEducation.

Anderson-Butcher. 11. Stetler. E. C. & Midle.T. (2006),A case for expanded school-community p.irtncr-ships in support nf positive youth development,Childra, & Schools, 28. 155-163.

Blank, M., MelavUle. A.. & Shah. B, (2003), Afatrnf ihcdiffcreucc: Research and practice in community schools.Washington. DC: Co.ilition for CommunitySchools and the histitutc for Ediication.ilLeactership.

Borman, G, D,, Hewes. G. M.. Overman, L.T, & Brown,S, (2002), Comprehensii'c school reform and .ttudentachii'Vi'meiii:A Hicíii-.iHjíy.íí.t, Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University and Howard University:Center for Research on the Education of StudentsPlaced AE Risk,

Catalano, R, R. BergUind, M,, Ryan, |,A.M., Lomzak.H, S.,& Hawkins,J, D, (2l)(Í4). Positive youth de-velopment in the United States: Researtrh findingson evaluations of positive youth development pro-grams. ANNALS of the American Academy of Politicaland Social Science,59\i\).9ii-\24 .

Chadwick, K. G. (2004). Improving schools through com-tminily engagenicnt:A practical guide for education.Thousands Oaks, CA; Corwin Press.

Delgado-Gaitan.C, (2001). Tlie pouvr of community:Mobilizing for family and schooHng. Lanham, Mil:

& Litdcfield,

ANDERSON-BUTCHER ET AL, / Communia Coikboration tu hnprovr Schools: A Nrw Model 171

Doll, Ii.,&' Lyon. M. A. (1W8). Ilisk and resilience;Implications for the delivery ot educational andmental health services in schools. School PsychclogyRtriew. 21. 348-363.

Durlak.J.A.,S:Wells.A.M. (1997). Primary preventionmental health programs for children and adoles-cents: A meta-aniilytic review. American Jaimnil ofCommunity Psychology, 25, 115—152.

Early, T.J.. & Vonk. M. E.'(2f)U I). Effectiveness of schoolsocial work from a risk and resilience perspective.ChiUirm & Schools. 2.Í. 9-31.

Flaspohler, \'. D., Anderson-Butcher, D., Bean.J., Burke,R. W,& Paternitc, C. E. (2008). lineadme« andschool improvement: Strategics for enhancingthe dissemination and adoption of innovation inexpanded school-based mental health. ."Itíiadrcí inSchool Mctiiiil Heailh Promotion. / ( I ) , 1 6 - 2 7 .

Flaspohler, P.,Anderson-Butcher, I)., Paternité.C. E.,Weist, M. D., & Wandersman.A. (2006).Community science and expanded school mentalhealth: Bridging the research-to-practice gap topromote child well-being and academic success.Eduoniottiil and Child Piychohgy, 2,ï(l), 27-41.

Greenberg, M.T.,Weissberg. R. P.. O'Brien, M. U ,Zins,J. E.. Fredericks, I.., Resnik, H., & Ellas,M. J. (2(H)3). Enhancing school-based preven-tion and youth development through coordinatedsocial, emotional, and academic learning./imcn'fiJiiPsychologist. 58, 466-474.

Hatch,T. (1998), How community action contributes toachievement. Educational Lciidmhip. J.î(8), 16-19.

Henderson, AT., &. Bería, N. (1994). A new generation ofet'iáencc:The family is critical to studetti achietvment.Washington, DC: National Cominittce for Cidzcas

Henderson, A.T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). ,^ newofei'idcncf: ¡lie impart of school, family, and com-munity connection.': to student achitvement. Austin,TX: National Center for Family & ComiiiuiiityConnections with Schools.

Hoagwood, K.,&' Erwin, H. (1997). Effectiveness ofschool-based mental health services for children: AI O-ycar research review.^/oiinin/ of Child and Famil)'Studies, 6, AiS-45\.

Keith, N. (1996). Can urban school reform and com-munity- development be joined? The potential ofcommunity schools. tldudUiott and Uriutn Society. 28,237-26H.

Kunipfer, K. (2003). Family-strengthening approachesfor the prevention of youth problem behaviors.American Psychologist, 58, 457—465.

Lnwson, H. (2(H)4).Thc logic of collaboration ineducation and die human iierv\ces.Journal of¡nterproffssioual Care. 18, 225—237.

Lawson. H.A., & Anderson-Butcher, I). (2001). hi thebest interests of the child:Youth development as achild welfare support and resource. In A. L. Sallee.H.A. Lawson,&: K. Briar-Lawson (Edi^.), ¡nnoi^tiivpractice with vulnerable children and families (pp.245-265). Des Moines, II): Eddie Bowers.

Nabors. L. A., Ä: Reynolds, M.W. (2000). Program evalu-ation activities: Outcomes related to treatment foradolescents receiving school-based mental healthservices. Children's Seri'icei: Social Policy, Research, and/•^ffiifï,.î(3), 175-189.

No Child Left Behind Act (2001). PL. 107-110, 115 Stat.1425.

I'lucker,J.A., Siinmons.A. B., Um.W., Patterson,A. R,Wooden, O..Jones. M. H,, St.Johns, E. P (2004).Comprfhensii'e school reform: Bffeci on educators andteaching in three states. Retrieved August 23.2004,

from http://www. ncrel.org/csri/resources/ncrei/ic-pc.pdf

RothJ. , Brooks-Gunn,J., Murray, L., & Foster,W.(1998). Promoting healthy adolescents: Synthesis ofyouth development program evaluadons._/(>(inm/o/'Research on Adole.icenci; 8, 423-459.

Shirley, D. {1997). Community organizing for urban schoolrtform. Austin: University of Texas Press.

S!avin,'R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2001). Success for Altand comprehensive school reform: Evidence-based poh-ciesfor urban education. Baltimore: Success for AllFoundation.

Weist, M. D., Paskewitz, D. A . Warner, B. S., & Flaherty,L.T. (1996).Treatment outcomes of school-ba.sed mental health services for urban teenagers.Community Mental Health Journal. 32Q), 149-157.

DaumAnderson-Butcher, PhD, USHÍis associate professoT,

College of Social Work, Ohio Stale Uiiiivrsity. .U5D Siill-

man Hall, 1947 College Road, Columbus. OH 44.UW;

e-niait: Anderson-hutchcT.l@osu.fdu. Hal A. Lawson,PhD, is professor. Social Welfare and Educatioiud Policy,

State University of New York, Alhatiy. Jerry Bean, PhD,!s a consultant. Eifaluatiori Support Group. Columbus. OH.

Paul Fiaspohler, PhD, i> assistant professor. Department

of Psychology. Miiinii Uttiversity. Oxford, OH. BarbaraBoone, PhD, is J consultant. Reynoldshurg, OH. AmberKwaitkowski, AiSH^ is project coordinator, 21st Century

Community Learning Centers, Fort Hbrth, TX.

Accepted May 16. 2007

TRENDS & RESOURCES

Trends & Resources presencs currentpracrice trend information accompaniedby highlights of relevant books, curricula,films, and other practice aids for schoolsocial workers and their colleagues. Thecolumn is co-edited by an academic re-searcher and practitioner to help bridgethe gap between the latest well-researchedtools, current policy and practice issues,and [he field. The journal docs not acceptunsolicited reviews for this column.

172 Children &Schoob VOLUME 30, NtiMBER 3 Juuf zoo8