COMMUNITY FOR LEARNING

Evidence of positive effects on student achievement
Year introduced in schools		1990
Number of schools		92
Support developer provides schools
First-year costs      with new staff      with current staff reassigned		$157,000 $82,000
= Strong	= Promising		= Marginal
= Mixed, Weak		? = No Research

OVERVIEW

The goals of Community for Learning are to improve students' academic achievement, behaviors, and attitudes and to promote independent learning habits. Community for Learning encourages the coordination of classroom instruction with community services (e.g., health, libraries, social services, and law enforcement) in an effort to improve individual student learning. The approach is based on research on the influence of school, family, and community on student learning. According to the developer, schools should remain the primary focus of efforts to improve the academic achievement of students; however, learning is affected by a variety of environments in addition to schools (e.g., the workplace, church, home, community organizations, social service agencies, and higher education institutions).

Margaret C. Wang, Professor of Educational Psychology and Director of the Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education, established Community for Learning in 1990. The roots of the approach extend back to the 1960s, however. During the 1970s, the program expanded to provide special education services in an "inclusion" environment and to include all elementary and middle grades. This version of the program became the instructional model known as the Adaptive Learning Environments Model (ALEM). A community involvement component was added in 1990, and the program was renamed the Learning City Program (LCP). In 1995, the program was renamed Com munity for Learning. To date, 92 urban and rural schools have implemented the Community for Learning approach, including 25 middle schools and two high schools. An additional 37 schools are implementing selected components of the approach. Although a variety of students are served, the program is primarily geared towards "students placed at risk."

EVIDENCE OF POSITIVE EFFECTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Strength of the Research Base. There are a substantial number of studies on the student achievement effects of this approach. Of the 13 studies reviewed, five were sufficiently rigorous to be discussed here. Two of these studies, including one that was the culmination of longitudinal research, were conducted by independent researchers.

Unfortunately, few studies included data on comparison groups. Although many studies looked at the learning progress of Community for Learning students, they did not compare this progress with that of similar students receiving either no reform or a different model.

In addition to research on outcomes, 11 studies have investigated the implementation of Community for Learning, and, in particular, ALEM, the approach's instructional component.

Effects on Students.  Evidence of positive effects on student achievement is promising, based on the outcomes from five studies. One study, by the developer of Community for Learning, found that students using the approach had higher reading and mathematics achievement than students who were not using the approach; and that test scores in schools using the approach improved at the same time that scores in similar schools declined. A second study, also by the developer, found that mathematics and reading standardized test gains were significantly higher for students in Community for Learning schools compared to national norms. This study also found that mainstreamed special education students in Community for Learning schools scored significantly higher than similar students not using the approach.

The only two rigorous studies conducted by independent researchers did not find such positive results, however. One study found no differences in student achievement with respect to the amount of time spent in Community for Learning classes, and found no significant differences in achievement across three years of implementation. These findings may be due to the students' high level of initial achievement. The other study investigated differences in students' rates of progress; it found that Title 1 students and special education students in a Community for Learning school progressed at a significantly slower pace than regular education students. Because both of these studies compared different groups of students within Community for Learning schools, they do not show whether the approach as a whole is more or less effective than other approaches.

CENTRAL COMPONENTS

Organizational Change, Staffing, and Administrative Support. Community for Learning encourages a system of shared decision making involving school staff, parents, and the community.

To implement the approach, a small number of additional staff may be required. The developer requires each participating school to have a facilitator. Each district is required to have a staff member work part-time to coordinate among Community for Learning schools in the district and with community social service agencies. The developer assumes that these positions can be filled by reassigning existing staff to new roles.

There are also several site-based teams that must be created. These include a School Council Leadership Team and an instructional team.

Curriculum and Instruction. Community for Learning uses the Adaptive Learning Environments Model (ALEM) for instruction. This model is based on the premise that the key to high achievement is to tailor instruction to the particular needs of individual students, focusing first on literacy. In line with this philosophy, the approach requires an individualized learning plan for every student.

The ALEM model encourages teachers to use a range of grouping strategies, depending on the task, such as working with students individually and in small- and whole-group instruction. Teachers are expected to teach both individually and as a team.

Although a range of teaching strategies are prescribed, Community for Learning does not provide or promote specific curricula or frameworks. Instead, the developer attempts to align school curricula and instruction with district or state standards.

Supplies and Materials. Community for Learning does not provide or require special supplies or materials. Instead, teachers are expected to create and maintain materials in line with the ALEM philosophy. According to the developer, materials should be "student-centered" and suitable for "interactive teaching."

Scheduling and Grouping. Teachers in Community for Learning schools are expected to group students in whole classes, in small groups, and individually, depending on the task and student needs. The developer notes that teachers work in teams and have collective responsibility for students, so students may work with other classes or grades as appropriate. The developer encourages the daily schedule of class periods to be adjusted as needed for the given task.

No specific scheduling changes are required. However, the developer recommends providing a common planning period for teachers.

Monitoring Student Progress and Performance. The instructional model, ALEM, advocates the development of an individualized learning plan for each student; students progress at their own pace and teachers provide regular feedback to students. Instructional staff are expected to keep daily records of performance (e.g., completing tasks). Criterion-referenced assessments (where students' knowledge and skills are measured) are used to assess each student's skill level. If students are performing significantly below or above expectations based on criterion-referenced assessments or ongoing records of performance, the plan for instruction is modified. Modifications may include altering the pace of instruction or adapting the materials students use in class.

Family and Community Involvement. Community for Learning supports the idea that students learn outside as well as inside the classroom. Successful reform, according to the developer, must coordinate education, health care, law enforcement, and other social services to support student learning.

The approach emphasizes open communication and a sense of shared responsibility among the school, parents, and community. In line with this philosophy, schools are encouraged to conduct a variety of activities to inform parents of the approach as it is implemented. Although the specific types of parent or community involvement activities are determined at the school level, schools are required to give formal and informal reports on student progress to parents and are expected to encourage parents to participate in modifying individualized instructional plans and be involved in the child's education at home.

The developer encourages Community for Learning schools to make community services more accessible. For example, schools might establish a health center or coordinate with hospital mobile services to make periodic visits.

SUPPORT THE DEVELOPER PROVIDES SCHOOLS

Professional Development and Technical Assistance. Professional development activities begin before the approach is implemented and continue during the school year. In pre-implementation, Community for Learning staff spend two or more days discussing the approach with school staff and community members, and school staff spend another one to two days assessing the needs of their particular school. Following this preliminary training, the developer spends four days each with principals, facilitators, school staff, and district staff providing more detailed instruction in the approach. Ongoing staff development during the school year consists of eight to ten days of on-site professional development and technical assistance for school staff, additional training for the facilitator, and program evaluation assistance for district staff. According to the developer, professional development is tailored to the needs of the school and instructional staff based on information gathered through regular assessment of implementation. Topics may include standards, instructional strategies, training for the instructional team, mentor training, and facilitator training.

The facilitators are trained by the developer on site and at three to four regional one-day meetings each year. In addition, all facilitators from Community for Learning schools in a district meet monthly to share strategies.

Implementation Requirements and Schools' Experiences. The developer has identified nine steps required to implement Community for Learning (recognizing that some steps may vary somewhat depending on the site). The steps are expected to take three years and are grouped into three phases:

• providing information to the district or school and helping establish a team for implementation;

• assessing district- and school-level needs and planning; and

• putting the plans into action.

During the first phase, providing information to the school district: 1) the district or school contacts the Center for Research in Human Devel

opment and Education (CRHDE) to learn more about the program; 2) district or school representatives meet with a Community for Learning representative to discuss the program and how it can be implemented; and 3) a district leadership team is established to work with CRHDE to develop an implementation plan outlining the support that will be provided to all participating schools. At this point, the district's central office assigns a project director as a liaison between the Community for Learning schools in the district and CRHDE.

The second phase, assessing and planning district- and school-level needs, involves: (1) ensuring that there is staff consensus and commitment for implementing Community for Learning; (2) assessing the district's and school's needs and strengths, through discussions with the district leadership team, parents, school staff, administrators, and community leaders and through 20/20 analysis of student achievement (looking at the top and bottom 20 percent of students); and (3) working with Community for Learning implementation specialists to develop a specific plan for each school.

The third phase, putting the plans into action, includes: (1) pre-implementation training of school staff, administrators, and a full-time, on-site facilitator assigned to each school; (2) monitoring progress toward the objectives set out in the plans (e.g., through meetings among key stakeholders, interviews of staff and students, and degree of implementation assessments); and (3) measuring student achievement against district or state standards on an ongoing basis.

The developer states that it guides implementation closely. At least every quarter, the developer reviews achievement data and shares findings with instructional staff. Twice a year, the developer visits the school to evaluate implementation, using indicators of implementation. Further, facilitators are trained to use these indicators to target professional development to teachers' needs. Although teachers may join throughout the year, by the end of the first year of implementation, the developer expects all teachers to be working with the approach.

An interim implementation report by the developer found, among other things, that: pre-implementation was feasible; the pre-implementation training provided school staff with sufficient knowledge and skills to implement the program; classroom instructional practices did change as a result of the program; and student achievement improved. The report did not discuss the difficulties, if any, faced by schools implementing Community for Learning.

A number of studies by the developer also have investigated implementation using a specific assessment tool. For example, a series of articles investigating implementation of Community for Learning in ten districts found that, by the end of the first year, the average degree of implementation was high, with average scores across 12 dimensions and across sites of 92 percent. All dimensions were implemented at or above 83 percent. In addition, there was a continuous progression of implementation seen across three site visits during the year. These studies also concluded that Community for Learning tended to be related to students' positive perceptions of their school and learning. Students using the approach tended to feel that the instructional environment (including teachers' attitudes and approaches to instruction) was more supportive and tended to have better self-concepts compared to students in classes not using the approach.

COSTS

The first-year cost of adopting Community for Learning is $157,000. This cost covers professional development, including staff release time, and additional staff. This cost can be reduced to $82,000 by reassigning a current school staff member to serve as the school facilitator and a current district staff member to serve as the part-time project coordinator.

According to the developer, the costs of implementing Community for Learning in a school of 500 students vary from school to school depending on the amount of guidance the school needs. The first-year costs of pre-implementation training and technical assistance from the developer are estimated to be $30,000 per school; the second-year costs to be $15,000 per school; and the third-year costs to be $5,000 per school. A more detailed breakdown of the fees paid to the developer is not available. The developer does not account for the costs associated with reassigning existing personnel to the roles of school facilitator and district coordinator. Each school requires a full-time school facilitator, and each district, a part-time coordinator. If additional personnel are hired, these costs must be added. In addition, a school or district may encounter "hidden costs," such as release time for staff, which are not included in the above estimates.

Back to Approaches