In the midst of debates about whether school is the best place to combat the effects of poverty, several educational institutions have taken it upon themselves to integrate non-academic poverty-relief supports into their academic programs. According to a new report from the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation, these schools offer unique on-the-ground efforts to support high-need students above and beyond the traditional academic model. They include KIPP, SEED schools, the Harlem Children's Zone, and community-based schools like those found in Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS).
Each organization offers its own take on anti-poverty programming. KIPP focuses on extended school days and years, character education, and initiatives like KIPP Through College, which includes step-by-step assistance in the college admission process as well as after-school tutoring and counseling. These are services that other high-poverty schools struggle to offer. KIPP is also extending its services in specific locations; KIPP Houston, for instance, features a school-based health clinic called KIPP Care. The SEED schools, meanwhile, take efforts even further with a one-of-a-kind public boarding school model: Those enrolled live on campus five days a week, then head home for the weekend. Students, many of whom come from disadvantaged communities, benefit from a character education program, mental health and counseling services, off-campus and summer enrichment opportunities, and college transition advising. Both SEED and KIPP boast impressive academic achievement numbers. (For a look at a potential SEED school in Ohio, see here).
The Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ), meanwhile, is a nonprofit serving a ninety-seven block area of its namesake neighborhood. Its umbrella of assistance includes parenting workshops, preschool programs, charter schools, after-school programs, a college success office supporting HCZ college students, and free legal and financial services for families.
The report also looks at community schools, which centralize a range of services inside one building by partnering with local service providers. (To be clear, this term doesn’t refer specifically to charter schools, which Ohio law refers to as “community schools.”) Cincinnati Public Schools is currently transitioning fifty-five of its schools into Community Learning Centers (CLCs), which join with a variety of outside organizations to offer recreational, educational, social, healthy, civic, and cultural opportunities to students, families, and the broader community. Its ethos mirrors that of Communities in Schools (CIS), the nation’s largest wrap-around services organization. Both organizations operate through the use of on-site coordinators, who assess student needs and recommend services.
The report’s authors are careful to note that there are concerns around non-academic poverty supports, mainly as they relate to cost and scalability. Outsourcing services the way CLCs do (an approach they call “modular”) may seem more efficient and less expensive, but it is actually impractical in the long run because outsourcing services leads to a loss of control for schools. This loss of control means that educators on the ground—those who are most knowledgeable about what services are needed—can’t oversee the balance of services offered to each student. On the other hand, the interdependent, integrated models offered by SEED, KIPP, and HCZ allow educators to determine the exact mix of supports that students need, make them available, and then permit researchers to measure success. Only once this mix is identified can schools transition to the affordable, scalable model necessary to ensure that all students receive the help they need.
SOURCE: Michael B. Horn and Julia Freeland, “The Educator's Dilemma: When and how schools should embrace poverty relief,” Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation (June 2015).
