Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Community schools: Investigating two models of community engagement for students at Boston Community… Purewall, Rabeen; Hodson, Jasper Apr 30, 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
42591-Purewall_R_et_al_EDST_553_2015.pdf [ 1.54MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 42591-1.0075876.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0075876-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0075876-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0075876-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0075876-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0075876-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0075876-source.json
Full Text
42591-1.0075876-fulltext.txt
Citation
42591-1.0075876.ris

Full Text

COMMUNITY SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING TWO MODELS OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FOR STUDENTS AT BOSTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL   by  JASPER HODSON  B.Ed, The University of British Columbia, 2008  RABEEN (ROBBIE) PUREWALL  BA, The University of British Columbia, 2007 B.Ed, The University of British Columbia, 2008 Certified Human Resource Professional, 2011    A GRADUATING PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF EDUCATION  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  (Educational Administration and Leadership)          THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 2015     © Jasper Hodson & Robbie Purewall, 2015   Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page ii Abstract  Boston Community School (pseudonym) operated as a traditional Community School from the 1970s to 2003, and then transitioned to the Community School teams framework in 2004. This case study examines how this transition has impacted opportunities for students to engage in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in their community, two aspects of student well-being that have been identified by previous research. Data from the research come from interviews with past and current employees who have worked in some capacity with Boston Community School, documents and reports related to Community Schools from the school, the district, and the provincial government.  The study found Boston Community School had a long history of engaging the wider community to provide opportunities for students. A change in government in 2001 established CommunityLINK to oversee a new funding mechanism for Community School initiatives targeted specifically at supporting vulnerable students. Following this policy shift, the VSB created the Community School Teams model, which provided programs and services for a wider range of students throughout the entire district, and especially to those in particular hubs where student vulnerability rates, based on socio-economic variables were high; however, the shift in Community School models resulted in fewer opportunities for students at Boston Community School to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in the community.   Taking into consideration emerging changes in the Community School framework in the VSB, including a broader definition of vulnerability and a wider range of assessments of vulnerability, the study stresses the importance of looking at alternative approaches that refocus on the need to build strong relationships, utilize programs and services as a preventative measure to vulnerability, consider effective strategies from other districts in British Columbia, and look at alternative uses for CommunityLINK funding within the VSB. Findings have implications for educational leaders and practitioners, policy makers, and government agencies.               Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page iii Preface   The graduating paper is an original, unpublished, intellectual product of the collaborative efforts of Robbie Purewall, and Jasper Hodson, along with UBC Supervisor Dr. Wendy Poole and UBC Principal Investigator Dr. Marilynne Waithman.    The fieldwork in Chapter 4 was approved by the UBC Research Ethics Board under Certificate number H14-02823.  The researchers conducted an investigation into Boston Community School in an effort to better understand how two distinct Community School frameworks helped facilitate opportunities for students to engage in out-of-school activities and connect with adults in their community. The identification and design of research was a collaborative effort between the two researchers, and the UBC Supervisor and Principal Investigator. Interviews were conducted and transcribed by Jasper Hodson, documents and reports were gathered collaboratively, and all data was analyzed by both researchers collaboratively. The written work (Chapters 1-5), findings and conclusions in this paper represent the collaborative efforts of Robbie Purewall and Jasper Hodson, with editing and revision suggestions provided by Dr. Wendy Poole and Dr. Marilynne Waithman.    None of the writing completed by Robbie Purewall or Jasper Hodson for the purpose of this paper has been published.                      Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page iv Table of Contents Abstract .........................................................................................................................................................................ii Preface ......................................................................................................................................................................... iii Chapter I – Background ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................................. 2 The Experiences of Bamfield Community School and Boston Community School ............. 4 Purpose Statement .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Research Questions ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Definitions .............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Significance of the Study................................................................................................................................ 10 Chapter II – Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 12 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................................... 12 What is the Community School Framework? ....................................................................................... 13 A Brief History of Community Schools ............................................................................................... 13 Definition and Framework of Community Schools ....................................................................... 17 The Structure of Community Schools ................................................................................................. 22 Traditional Community School Model & Community School Teams Model ....................... 28 Community Schools in the UK ................................................................................................................ 32 Communities Schools in BC..................................................................................................................... 33 Community Schools and Student Well-Being ....................................................................................... 39 Out-of-School Activities and Physical Fitness ................................................................................. 49 Connections with Adults in the Community .................................................................................... 51 Community Schools and the Benefits to Communities ................................................................ 52 Developing a Community School Framework (Challenges and Opportunities) .................... 54 The Challenges with Community Trust.............................................................................................. 56 The Opportunities with University Participation .......................................................................... 59 Key Findings from the Literature Review .............................................................................................. 62 Chapter III – Approach to Research ................................................................................................................. 65 Research Methods and Design ........................................................................................................................... 65 Setting ................................................................................................................................................................... 66 Participants ......................................................................................................................................................... 67 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................................... 68 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 70 Ethics ..................................................................................................................................................................... 73 Social Position and Reflexivity .................................................................................................................... 75 Delimitations and Limitations..................................................................................................................... 76 Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page v Chapter IV - Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 78 Description of Research Participants ....................................................................................................... 79 Boston Elementary School – Early History ............................................................................................ 79 1970-1994: Traditional Community School Framework (District Funded Era) ................... 80 1994-2003: Traditional Community School (Consistent Provincial Funding Era) ............... 83 2002-2005: The Transition Period ........................................................................................................... 91 2006-2014: Community School Teams (A Period of Provincial Government Funding and District Management) ..................................................................................................................................... 95 Funding, Responsibility, and Mandate ............................................................................................... 95 Community School Team Hubs ............................................................................................................. 98 Vulnerable Students (2006-2012) ....................................................................................................... 99 Vulnerable Students (2012-2015) .................................................................................................... 103 Programs and Services at Boston Community School .............................................................. 106 Comparing Student Vulnerability in the Boston Community School Hub to Other Hubs.......................................................................................................................................................................... 108 Chapter V - Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 111 Importance of Relationships with the Community School Framework ................................. 114 Community School Framework as a Preventative Tool ................................................................ 115 Looking at Other Districts .......................................................................................................................... 117 Alternative Uses of CommunityLINK Funding .................................................................................. 118 References .............................................................................................................................................................. 122 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................. 130 Appendix A: Millfields Community School (UK) ............................................................................... 130 Appendix B: Colne Community School (UK) ...................................................................................... 132 Appendix C: 1900s-1929: Boston Elementary School – Early History .................................... 133 Appendix D: 1930-1945: Boston Elementary School – Depression and War....................... 134 Appendix E: 1946-1972: Boston Elementary School Developmental History ..................... 135 Appendix F: Community School Coordinator’s Report Findings ............................................... 136 Appendix G: Map of Community School Teams Hubs .................................................................... 138 Appendix H: Table 1: Number of Vulnerable Students in VSB Hubs 2010-2011 ................ 139 Appendix I: Grant Money to VSB Hubs in 2010-2011 .................................................................... 140 Appendix J: Comparisons of VSB Community Hubs (Connectedness and Participation in Out-of-School Activities) ............................................................................................................................ 141 Appendix K: Surrey School District Community School Framework ....................................... 143 Appendix L: Burnaby School District Community School Framework ................................... 144 Appendix M: UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board Approval Certificate ....................... 145  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 1 of 146 Chapter I – Background  The importance of having students engage in out of school activities and connect with adults and peers is not something new, but, from our perspectives as educators in elementary schools, it appears that there is less emphasis placed on these aspects on the part of the school and community. A report on children’s psychological and social worlds suggests that social connectedness to adults and peers, which can include regular participation in quality after school activities, are key assets that need to be present in a child's life in order to achieve a sense of well-being (Schonert-Reich, 2011). The traditional Community School model, where the school is the hub is a proven design where students can increase their overall well-being by engaging in out-of-school activities and connecting with adults (ACEbc, 2014). However, the traditional Community School model has become extinct in BC's second largest public school district, the Vancouver School Board (VSB), with no designated traditional Community Schools remaining (ACEbc Directory, 2014). The VSB shifted away from a designated traditional Community School model toward a Community School Teams model more than a decade ago. Traditional Community Schools typically have a coordinator in each school, whereas in the Community School Teams model, one Community School coordinator is responsible for a family of schools, which can include as many as four high schools and twelve elementary schools (Vancouver School Board, n.d.).  Our interest is in investigating what impacts the shift from traditional Community Schools to Community School Teams has had on the opportunities for students to form connections with adults and participate in out of school activities within their community.    Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 2 of 146 Problem Statement  Data pertaining to general student well-being collected through the Human Early Development Project (HELP) demonstrates the significance of opportunities for students to engage in out-of-school activities and make connections with adults. These data provide significant insight into the well-being of children specifically in the VSB in grades four and seven. Data have been collected across the district with over 3000 grade 4 students completing a 100+ question survey in 2010 and then again in 2014 with grade 7 students (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2010). The Middle Years Development Index, or MDI, surveys students about their well-being in relation to four specific assets that HELP has demonstrated are crucial to overall student well-being, which include:  1) Nutrition and sleep  2) Participation in after-school activities  3) Connection to a caring adult in their community  4) Connectedness to their peers.   In this study, we are particularly interested in participation in after-school activities and connections to adults in the community, since we believe that these aspects of student well-being can be enhanced through the Community School framework. The most recent MDI data for the VSB surveyed a sample of 2819 students, with a 78% participation rate (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2013, pg. 8). Within the VSB, the MDI data found that nearly 64% of students reported having a high level of connection with adults in their school, while the number then dropped to only 43% when considering a high level of connection to adults in the neighbourhood (Human Early Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 3 of 146 Learning Partnership, 2013, pg. 9). When considering the VSB, the data also found that 75% of students participated at least two or more times a week in some form of after school activities, while 14% of the students reported that they participated in no after school activities (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2013, pg. 10). When considering how students spent their time after school, nearly 40% reported that they never stayed after school for any activities, while 70% reported that they never stayed for after school programs or day care (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2013, pg. 10). The findings suggest that a significant proportion of students are missing out on these opportunities to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults.  Within the VSB, MDI data demonstrate that students at the elementary level are in need of increased opportunities to connect with caring adults within their communities and increased opportunities to participate in out-of-school activities that enrich their lives (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2013).  Using the data provided by the Middle Years Development Index (MDI), there is evidence that greater connectedness to adults in their community and opportunities to participate in after school activities are connected to student well-being. For some students, such opportunities are rare or non-existent. Using the MDI data as a reference point, we hope to further understand how Community Schools influence the capacity of schools to enhance student well-being. This investigation will allow us to better assess if the Community Schools framework, whether the traditional Community Schools model or the Community Schools Teams model approach, provides students in the VSB with the opportunity to connect to caring adults and participate in out-school-activities, which are both assets that can be increased Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 4 of 146 in a child's life through strong community-engagement initiatives, like those put forth by the Community Schools framework.   The Experiences of Bamfield Community School and Boston Community School  Initially the Ministry of Child and Family Development funded the Community School framework for schools throughout British Columbia to provide additional services for at-risk students living in the community. However, the government made significant cuts to core funding from the Ministry of Child and Family Development and Ministry of Education after the 2001 provincial elections (Makhoul, Myers & Montgomery, 2004). As a result of these cuts by the government, the Community School mandate was significantly challenged (Makhoul, Myers & Montgomery, 2004). The Bamfield Community School’s mission was to “ensure the facility [school] was in use seven days a week, all year long” (Makhoul, Myers & Montgomery, 2004, p. 7). Government funding for the school declined from $75,000/year in the period 1997 - 2001 to zero by 2004 (Makhoul, Myers & Montgomery, 2004).  As the funding deteriorated, so too did the Community School framework at Bamfield. Programs that were once provided for students by the Community School coordinator could no longer be run, and the school could not remain open seven days a week, unless it was to secure funding from the private sector.  This example of the Bamfield Community School establishes a link between government funding and the availability of opportunities for students to engage in out of school activities and make connections to adults in the community. As mentioned in the Bamfield case study, government agencies may value Community Schools, but at times Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 5 of 146 they become the victim of financial cuts. “Bamfield's challenge lies not in communicating its value to the government -  ministers and bureaucrats already acknowledged their support - but in securing the funding that will ensure a smooth community transition to asset based self-sufficiency” (Makhoul, Myers & Montgomery, 2004, p. 7). Loss of funding did not diminish the zest for having a Community School framework in Bamfield, but made it much harder to generate the necessary financial resources for maintaining the traditional Community School model or a Community Schools Teams model. Rather, Bamfield took a hybrid approach by having volunteers come in to provide services and shifting the full-time coordinator position to a part-time position, which was then paid for through connections to the private sector in the community and their donations. The goal was to keep services available for students, but this would no longer be possible in Bamfield without the support of private-business funding.   The cut to core funding in Bamfield meant that the community coordinator salary, previously covered by government funding, needed to be paid out of the donations, which became a positive alternative adopted in Bamfield to keep the programs running for the students and the community (Makhoul, Myers & Montgomery, 2004); however, the added financial pressure left many schools, like Bamfield, lacking the financial resources to sustain a full-time Community School coordinator, which was significantly detrimental to the ability of the schools to maintain the programs, services, and opportunities offered under the Community School framework operational to a similar extent.  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 6 of 146  The scenario that played out at Bamfield Community School was mirrored at Boston Community School (pseudonym) in the VSB. The funding cuts of 2001 meant the inevitable loss of the school’s full-time Community School coordinator by 2006.   Only a very few districts have maintained core funding to Community Schools at the former 10-year level of $75,000.  By 2007 in most cases it had dropped to between $40-50,000.  A few have been reduced to between $25-30,000, some districts have discontinued funding to Community Schools over the past few years, and some districts such as Vancouver and Surrey have created new models of Community Schools. (Reimer, 2010, p. 5)  The loss of government core funding appears to have caused districts like the VSB to reassess how they were to allocate funds supporting community engagement. The district recognized the importance of such programs, and re-designed the model, creating the Community Schools Teams model, to offer similar programs on a larger scale, instead of focusing on individual schools and their needs. For instance, Boston Community School lost its full-time and fully funded Community School coordinator after 2004 as this position was folded into a Community School teams coordinator position (Vancouver School Board, n.d.).  The Community School teams’ coordinator was now responsible for overseeing a team of schools that included four high schools and twelve elementary schools (Vancouver School Board, n.d.).    The impact of the loss of the Community School coordinator at Boston Community School, and elsewhere across the province, cannot be underestimated in relation to the school’s ability to maintain the essential programs and services used to enhance student well-being during and after school based on the Community Schools model:  Core funding provides essential infrastructure, including the Community School coordinator, who is able to develop partnerships, apply for grants, and attract large numbers of volunteers.  In this context, the core money can be justified as an Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 7 of 146 investment with high returns, unlike typical allocations of government funds. (Reimer, 2010 p. 5)  Without the funds to employ a full-time Community School coordinator there was no longer an individual with the responsibility and obligation to ensure high quality community engagement be facilitated based on the individual needs of the students at the school; therefore, the true essence of Boston Community School was lost: The Community School Coordinator is the key player in linking the various agencies, services and organizations to maximize their effectiveness in meeting community needs, particularly for vulnerable children, youth and families.  Government agencies and non-profit organizations often work in ‘silos’ whereas the Community School coordinates and integrates services, resulting in more effective and efficient service. (Reimer, 2010, p. 6)  Hence, in the VSB, Community Schools have had their key resource stripped.  Purpose Statement  The Community School model has evolved over the last 20 years in the Vancouver School Board as there has been a significant shift in the Community School model at the district and school level during this time period. Using the case of Boston Community School (pseudonym), we looked at what impact this transition has had on schools and their capacity to engage with the community. The purpose of this investigation is to better understand the services provided within the traditional Community School model in comparison to those provided within the Community Schools Teams model in relation to community engagement opportunities for students. We investigated the impact of the move from the traditional Community School model to the Community Schools Teams model in the Vancouver School Board on the provision of opportunities for students to participate in out of school activities, and Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 8 of 146 connect with adults in their communities. The authors provide recommendations for the VSB in terms of moving forward. Research Questions   Our research in this area presents relevant information pertaining to the following questions about the Community School framework in the VSB:  What challenges and/or opportunities did Boston Community School encounter under the traditional Community Schools model in relation to enabling students to connect with adults and engage in out-of-school activities within their community?   What challenges and/or opportunities has Boston Community School encountered under the Community Schools Teams model in relation to enabling students to connect with adults and engage in out-of-school activities within their community?   In what ways did Boston Community School respond to challenges and opportunities in order to enable students to connect with adults and engage in out-of-school activities within the community under the traditional Community Schools model?   In what ways has Boston Community School responded to challenges and opportunities in order to enable students to connect with adults and engage in out-of-school activities within the community under the Community Schools Teams model?   Based on the study findings, what recommendations can be made to the VSB regarding ways to foster elementary student engagement with community adults and out of school activities?  Definitions  Before we begin, it is important for us to explain exactly what we mean by the terms “traditional Community School” and “Community School Teams model.” We use Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 9 of 146 the definition of Community Schools put forth by the Association for Community Education in BC: A Community School is the hub of the community.  It is both a place and a set of partnerships between the school and other community resources.  Its integrated focus on academics, child and youth development, family support, and community development leads to improved student learning, stronger families and vibrant, healthy communities. (2014)  Community Schools Teams are defined as follows: Twelve CSTs work in hubs, or families of schools, and offer programs and services to support vulnerable students in four areas: nutrition, academics, social-emotional functioning, and community connectedness.  Each team is comprised of a Community Schools Coordinator, Youth and Family Worker (YFW), and part time Activity Programmer(s).  In addition there are 5 YFWs designated as Elementary Support, who work in conjunction with the teams in designated elementary schools. (Vancouver School Board–Community, n.d.)  The traditional Community School framework functions as a place where students can connect after school with caring adults and form positive relationships that promote health and well-being within developing children and youth.  Out-of-school hours are critical times for a child's development, and "it encompasses over 90% of a child's time in a given year, and gives children the opportunity to learn social skills, develop new interests and competencies, and form meaningful relationships with caring adults," (Miller et. al. as cited in Schonert-Reichl, 2011, p. 8). This considers that students are not in school during holidays, winter break, spring break and the summer holidays, times that are important for their development.  The models, regardless of which approach, aim to provide programs and services for those students and families in need and who may not be able to access such programs and services on their own. The programs can range from having after-school day care programs to health and wellness services. The VSB notes that its Community School Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 10 of 146 Teams Model offers a range of programs and services that are based on the needs of community and “include but are not limited to: sports, literacy, arts and culture, food and nutrition, social emotional skills, environmental stewardship, global citizenship and leadership development” (2014). Significance of the Study  This study raises awareness of the importance of Community Schools, and how different Community School structures impact student access to services and learning opportunities. The discussion emphasizes how the Community School framework can provide students the opportunities to connect positively with adults and to participate in out-of-school activities. Additionally, we highlight how these opportunities must be sustained, by overcoming challenges in order to promote healthy students and healthy communities. The paper will lead to discussion about the importance of students having opportunities to connect with adults in their community and to participate in out of school activities as a means to promote student well-being. This discussion may re-ignite the commitment to the Community School framework, or some acceptable adaption or alternative, which reflects the importance of community connections for students. The discussion has the potential to impact policy decisions made by educational leaders at the school and district level as well as policy makers around BC. Our findings may have implications regarding how Community Schools are funded within the province of British Columbia. Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 11 of 146  Our research, therefore, is beneficial to educational leaders at both the district and provincial levels in order to inform their policy decision making and community program implementation to better suit the holistic needs of the student and the community at large. The benefits of such discussions will be for students in the VSB, and particularly to those students at Boston Community School, where the transition of the Community School model occurred in 2004; therefore we examined the period from 1973-2015 to better understand the impacts of the transition, and how the school provided opportunities for students as a traditional Community School and as a part of the Community School Teams model. Our findings may resonate with other school districts in connection with increasing opportunities for students and adults to participate in out-of-school activities where both can engage in building healthy relationships and community building. As such, the school itself will also benefit by having a stronger relationship with the wider community.  The following chapter examines the literature relevant to Community Schools and provides a theoretical rationale for our research questions.          Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 12 of 146 Chapter II – Overview Literature Review   The Community School framework takes various forms, and to better understand the concept of Community Schools, we reviewed what the Community School framework is by considering its history and then looked at the various definitions and structures discussed in the literature. We then connected these definitions and structures to our research by considering the two frameworks, traditional Community Schools and the Community School Teams framework, that were a part of the VSB.  Due to there being little research in BC and Canada regarding these two frameworks, we extended our review to look at Community Schools in the US and UK to provide a broader understanding of how Community Schools are able to provide programs and services for the benefit of students and the wider community, which might not otherwise be available. The information from the US and the UK is helpful as both countries have a long history of a strong connection between school and community, with plenty of research to support it. This discussion then allowed us to analyze the Community School framework in BC to determine how it has evolved from the early history in the UK and US to where it currently stands. This broader understanding of the Community Schools concepts, along with its different structures and mandates, allowed us to look for connections between the Community School framework and student well-being. The argument for well-being is limited to the two key assets of well-being that we have identified in our research scope, which included the need and ability of Community Schools to provide opportunities for Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 13 of 146 students to participate in out-of-school activities and to make connections to adults in the community. These two variables helped us understand how Community Schools can provide benefits that are bi-directional for students and the wider community. This discussion gives an insight as to how Community Schools can provide opportunities for students and in return the wider community. The challenges and opportunities that come along with implementing such programs and services can then be addressed, allowing for a broader understanding of Community Schools. What is the Community School Framework?   To understand the Community School framework, we first needed to discuss a brief history of Community Schools and how this concept evolved. This discussion then allowed for a better overview of the different definitions, or frameworks, to explain what a Community School is, along with how and why it operates, and how it is structured. A Brief History of Community Schools  The concept of Community Schools is not new, according to Dryfoos. Community School partnerships have existed since the early 20th century with writers John Dewey and Jane Adams connecting the concepts of school and community (Dryfoos, 2002). Flint, Michigan in the United States began a concept called ‘lighted schools’ in 1935, based on democratic values that stressed the need for people to actively participate in the community and to achieve common goals. The programs in Michigan grew to begin providing health and nutrition services, along with community education programs for students and community members (Dryfoos, 2002). The programs were designed to address the needs of the community through the school.  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 14 of 146 The concept of Community Schools in the 1930’s was furthered by Frank Manley, a physical education teacher, who pushed the idea of having youth participate in positive activities at the school during out-of-school hours. Manley furthered his vision, with the help of funding from a wealthy industrialist, Charles Mott, who financed Manley’s philosophy of Community Schools by developing opportunities for students and the community during out-of-school hours (Government of Saskatchewan, 2012). Manley argued that: …the community schools, whatever the differences among them caused by varying economic and social patterns, have a common philosophy. These schools are based upon the democratic ideal of respect for each individual person, and his right to participate in the affairs of the community which concern the common good. The program is planned to achieve the active participation of all in solving the problem that exist in the community. Such a program is characterized by change in response to changing needs, continuous experimentation to seek out satisfactory ways of achieving common goals, and careful evaluation of the results of its activities. (Manley, Reed, & Burns, 1960)  The community school framework highlighted by Manley, Reed, and Burns connects well with our ideas of Community School and their ability to provide community engagement opportunities for students through the Community School framework by addressing the needs of the community and continuously evolving to meet these changing needs. The framework was furthered by the work of Paulo Freire in the 1960s with the connection of education to social issues, such as literacy rates, poverty, health, and political involvement. In his work, Freire pushed to have educators address these issues, along with supporting community development, social empowerment, and self-determination in communities and schools (Government of Saskatchewan, 2012). Freire’s Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 15 of 146 views were adopted by many schools and educators, furthering the Community School concept in North America.  As the push for Community Schools spread, the first Community School in Canada that we are aware of was established in 1966 in North York, Toronto, known as the Flemington Road Community School (The Government of Saskatchewan, 2012). The Flemington Road Community School developed in Lawrence Heights, one of the first low-income public housing projects built in a suburban neighbourhood in Canada, with nearly 5000 residents. With the creation of the low-income housing, came a slew of concerns for the community and the school. To address these issues, the principal adopted the Community School framework to provide services and support for students and the wider community and partnered with citizens of the community, community organizations and the governmental agencies.  The implementation of these services proved to address numerous concerns in the community and the school, resulting in benefit for both (Shuttleworth, 2014). The example of Flemington is important to keep in mind, as it highlights the importance of the Community School framework for both the school and the wider community, and the connection that these two entities have within the framework. The success experienced in North York Toronto allowed for more Community Schools to be established in British Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario in the 1970s, as the push for Community Schools spread and educators and governments placed a greater emphasis on the need to connect community and school (Government of Saskatchewan, 2012). By the 1980s, the full-service Community School framework was operating in thousands of schools in the United States, offering an array of services and programs that Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 16 of 146 catered to the needs of the community where the schools were based. At this point, schools and communities began to place a greater emphasis on providing services and accommodations for mental health services, as communities stressed that these were growing areas of concern that were underserved. As a result, Community Schools in the US began to see an increase in the participation of universities in providing additional resources for the full-service Community School model to address needs that were not being met (Dryfoos, 2002). In the 1990s, the full-service Community School model expanded as community agencies and organizations provided support, in addition to government funding, to offer schools additional resources to address growing demand for wider services from students, parents and the wider community. The need for additional services brought with it a growing demand for a solid financial foundation to provide such services. Services needed to address issues related to poverty, mental and physical health, the need for day care, healthy meals, and opportunities to participate in out-of-school activities. The goal of these new partnerships was the idea that educational services required a solid connection with community agencies in order to provide a holistic approach to education, and the services provided by the Community School framework were characterized as a holistic approach to education (Dryfoos, 2002). In the end these partnerships helped the full-service Community School framework expand, but also these partnerships provided a foundation on which the community and the school could work together for the betterment of students, teachers, parents, families and the wider community.   Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 17 of 146 Definition and Framework of Community Schools  Community Schools take on a unique design in each school as they often evolve based on the needs of the school, students and community. A general definition of the Community School is: A Community School, operating in a public school building, is open to students, families and the community before, during, and after school, seven days a week, all year long. It is jointly operated through a partnership between the school system and one or more community agencies. Families, youth, principals, teachers and neighbourhood residents help design and implement activities that promote high educational achievement and positive youth development. (Dryfoos, 2003, p. 1)  Key aspects within Dryfoos’s definition are the notion of a joint partnership and the active involvement of stakeholders from within the school and from the wider community. The Coalition for Community Schools, an organization that promotes the development of the Community School framework, defines community schools as: …both a place and set of partnerships between the school and other community resources. Its integrated focus on academics, health and social services, youth and community development and community engagement leads to improved student learning, stronger families and healthier communities. Community schools offer a personalized curriculum that emphasizes real-world learning and community problem-solving. Schools become centers of the community and are open to everyone – all day, every day, evenings and weekends. (Coalition for Community Schools, 2014)  The Coalition’s definition once again notes the need for a partnership between the community and the school, but furthers it by noting the possibility of this partnership providing well-needed resources that might not initially be available. Both frameworks touch on how Community Schools create the possibility of better opportunities for students, families and the wider community. As such, the connection and benefit of the Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 18 of 146 Community School framework is once again tied to one another, as benefits become bi-directional.  A similar vision of interdependence put forth by The National Center for Community Schools states that Community Schools are not one type of school, but rather a framework that incorporates strategies to provide enhanced opportunities for students and the wider community in connection with their particular needs (The National Center for Community Schools, 2014). The National Center for Community Schools states the need for the Community School framework to be:   Comprehensive - address the wide scope of needs in the community;  Collaborative - work with educators, administrators, students, parents, community members, policymakers, community organizations, and funders;   Coherent – have management systems and pupils that are integrated and clear of expectations and goals;   Committed – have the various stakeholders buy into the vision of the community school framework and then push for the resources to attain the goals set out by it (The National Center for Community Schools, 2014).  The dimensions of the framework are important aspects to consider as they highlight how interconnected the community and the school need to become in order for the framework to be successful at addressing the needs as determined by the community and the school.  Community Schools in the US, often referred to as full-service schools, provide a range of services that look to address the overall well-being of the student and the community. The full-service Community School model is built on a basic principle, “children cannot learn unless their basic needs are met [and] support services for children Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 19 of 146 and families will have little impact unless cognitive development is taken care of” (Dryfoos, 2002, p. 393). Essentially, Dryfoos is suggesting that both aspects of care are needed if schools and communities are to be successful. We need to address basic needs before we can address higher level needs, a concept that has been well-developed and explained by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.   The full-service framework in the USA is built upon the foundation that the problems of the community, such as poverty or mental health, must be addressed first in order to further opportunities for students, and this can be done by providing support services for students and the wider community as connected to its needs. The key structural requirement concern of Community Schools, or full-service schools as they are known in the US, is how to bring together the two sides of the Community School framework, which requires the restructuring of education to place a greater importance of community and student social, emotional and health wellness and then tying this need into the implementation of services to address these needs (Dryfoos, 1994).  The full-service framework suggests the need to provide “high-quality after-school opportunities, comprehensive early childhood education, real-world learning approaches, and physical and mental health services for adults and young people in the neighbourhood” (Varlas, 2008, p. 1). The full-service Community School framework relates well to our research focus as we look to see how Community Schools can provide opportunities for students to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in the community. The definitions and frameworks illustrated above note the interconnection between the school and the community and how the benefits of the Community School framework is not only for the school and students, but also for Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 20 of 146 parents, community members, and the wider community. Therefore, as the needs of the community and school shift, so to do the goals of the Community School, as it continues to evolve and provide greater opportunities for all stakeholders.  Within the full-service framework in the US are multiple organizations that emphasize various mandates and definitions of Community Schools. The Children’s Aid Society, an organization that promotes Community Schools adds to the framework through the idea of an “integrated focus on academics, services, supports and opportunities [which] leads to improved student learning, stronger families and healthier communities” (Children’s Aid Society, n.d.). Once again, this focus suggests the Community School framework as a part of the school, students and the wider community, providing benefits for both.  The Children’s Aid Society has been an active partner in New York with the New York Department of Education. The organization aims to promote the Community School framework through a developmental triangle approach that “calls for a strong instructional program, expanded learning opportunities through enrichment and service designed to remove barriers to students’ learning and healthy development, so they can strive academically and socially” (Children’s Aid Society, n.d.). This approach adds the importance of enrichment activities for students and the community, which is relatively different than other frameworks that take a deficit approach to the Community School framework. The deficit approach looks at what the Community needs, and then offers solutions to address it. The Children’s Aid Society’s approach, rather, considers that students and the wider community require opportunities for enrichment in their lives, opportunities to do more and learn both through academic and social learning.  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 21 of 146 Communities in Schools is another organization that advocates for the Community School framework through its mission “to surround students with a community of support, empowering them to stay in school and achieve in life” (Communities in Schools, n.d.). What sets Communities in Schools apart, from the other organizations, is the emphasis it places on the importance of relationships for students and community members. The founder, Bill Milliken, built the program in New York by suggesting “a great program simply creates the environment for healthy relationships to form between adults and children. Young people thrive when adults care about them on a one-to-one level, and when they also have a sense of belonging to a caring community” (Communities in Schools, n.d.).  This approach to Community School fits in well with our research scope as we look to see how the Community School framework can provide students the opportunities to make positive connections to adults in the community. The notion of care in the community, as highlighted by Communities in Schools stresses the need for these relationships to exist to provide opportunities for both the students and the wider community. Additional structures in the US, such as School of the 21st Century (School of the 21st Century, 2002), and Schools Uniting Neighbourhoods (SUN) (Multnomah County, 2015) follow suit and promote the need for care, health and the need to create strong relationships through the Community School framework to remove barriers to learning and increase opportunities for students and the wider community. Varlas further suggests that the goal of the full-service Community School framework is to remove “barriers to learning” (2008), which is a key component to consider as you must first understand the barriers that exist in order to implement Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 22 of 146 programs and services to address them. A blanket approach is simply not possible within this understanding of Community Schools, and as such the structure of Community Schools often varies a great deal. The Structure of Community Schools  Considering this overview, the Community School framework emphasizes the need for collaboration between various stakeholders for it to be successful. More importantly, these stakeholders provide a key voice that can help govern the design of programs and services provided for students, whether they are aimed at improving academic goals or overall student well-being. In order to further the overall effectiveness of the program and services provided through the Community School framework “ideally, [there is] a full-time Community School coordinator [who] works in partnership with the principal” (Dryfoos, 2003, p. 2). This partnership allows for the program and services to better cater to the needs of the students and the wider community.   Looking back at his experience as a student and educator in Missouri, Ediger (2004) saw how the Community School framework gave students and adults in the community an opportunity to:  Use the school hallways for exercise walks on Saturdays.   Use the basketball courts, baseball field, and the school library on weekends and evenings, when it was not pre-scheduled for school needs.   Use the school for community events and celebrations.   Use the school cafeteria to cook and supply food for community members (Ediger, 2004).  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 23 of 146 When looking at the range of the experience Ediger highlights, all seem to tie into these experiences creating opportunities for the community and the school to connect. This connection, therefore, aims to strengthen the relationship between the school, the students, and the wider community. The Community School Partnership Initiative in Manitoba, where the government has mandated this framework into law, notes the Community School becomes “a new center of activity in the neighbourhood” and help:  Children start their school day alert and healthy with their basic needs met.   School staff draws on the community’s resources to help students succeed academically and socially.   Health, recreational, cultural, and social services that students need are available in the school.   Parents and community partners provide direction to the school and support its activities.   The school is a resource for the whole community (Manitoba Ministry of Education-Community, n.d).  Additionally, the Community School framework provides students, families and the community with increased opportunities to access health and wellness services. The Community School framework can provide “student and family access to a full continuum of mental health services [but] requires collaboration between community providers or outside agencies and school employed mental health professionals — school psychologists, counselors, social workers, and nurses” (Vaillancourt & Amador, 2014, p. 57). Having these resources work together is crucial in providing health and support services for students, and the Community School framework provides an opportunity for this collaboration to exist. Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 24 of 146 When considering the structure of Community Schools, a key concept is that of the school being a hub for the community. “Using public schools as hubs, community schools bring together many partners to offer a range of supports and opportunities to children, youth, families and communities” (Coalition for Community Schools, 2014). The school develops into a place where these opportunities are made available for the community. The Coalition for Community Schools furthers this structural design by integrating numerous elements and strategies into the Community School framework that include:  Well-prepared and effective teachers who can support diverse learners;  Wraparound academic, social/emotional & health supports to help students stay on track;  Positive discipline policies that keep students in school, safe, and learning;  Engaged parents & communities that are invested in the school’s success and foster partnerships between the school, local businesses, and non-profits;  Universal access to Pre-K so that every child is ready to learn when they enter school and no one starts behind;  Equitable school funding so schools in low-income communities can be equipped with resources & supports;  Expanded learning time, including after-school programs, internships, and community service (Coalition for Community Schools, n.d.).  These strategies lay the foundation of the Community School as much more than a hub for the community; rather, these strategies suggest that multiple stakeholders need to come together to make the framework sustainable. Interestingly, these strategies all Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 25 of 146 highlight how adults can have a positive impact on students and then the wider community, which correlates with our research scope as we seek to determine how the Community School framework can provide opportunities for students to make connections to adults in their communities and participate in out-of-school activities.  When looking at full-service Community Schools the structural framework is strengthened to further opportunities for students and the wider community. The full-service model Community School framework in the US can be characterized by the following:   “A school that views itself as an integral part of the community;   A school that views the whole community, its agencies, organizations, businesses, trades, churches, and so on, as a resource for the school;   A school in which parents are valued as partners in the education of their children; where every effort is made to give them meaningful involvement in establishing the goals of the school and in the design of the educational program;   A school in which the culture of the children and the culture of their community is strongly reflected in the school;   A school in which a sincere effort is made to adapt the educational program to the needs of the children, to give them an optimal opportunity for success;   A school that takes a developmental rather than a deficit approach to children; that begins where the child is and endeavors to take the child as far along the path of learning as possible;   A school in which pupil consultation at all levels, but especially at the middle years and high school levels, is an important consideration in the determination of school policy and practice;   A school that views its facilities as a resource for the community and seeks to find ways to share this resource under appropriate supervisory conditions” (Tymchak, 2001, p. 47 as cited in Dyson, 2011, p. 183).  As with the earlier philosophy of Manley, the full-service Community School framework considers the importance of integrating the community voice. What this adds to the Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 26 of 146 previous structures is the need to adjust educational programs to ensure that they meet the needs of students and the community to achieve a level of success, a sentiment that is strongly characterized by Dryfoos.   Dryfoos & Maguire further analyze the concept of full-service Community Schools in their book, Inside Full-service Community Schools (2002). Within the book, Dryfoos and Maguire “describe Community School models as ‘bringing a package of different services into school buildings and giving children, youth, and families access to the supports they need’” (Dryfoos & Maguire, 2002, p. 20 as cited in Peebles-Wilkins, 2004, p. 132). Going back to the basic principle that the full-service Community School framework is built upon, Dryfoos asserts the need to bring different stakeholders together in order to address the needs of the students and the wider community, similarly to the structural elements noted by Tymchak.  What Tymchak adds to Dryfoos’ view is the requirement of schools to adjust educational programs, make adaptions and build the students’ capacity, and to integrate the various cultures of the community into the school, and the culture of the school into the community, a concept that has previously been largely silent with other authors. The importance of culture cannot be overlooked as it is as important to the community as it is to a school, and the Community School framework must be able to adapt to fit in with this culture and the various stakeholders within it if it is to be successful.  The stakeholders provide a range of perspectives when addressing the needs of the school and community, as different stakeholders would consider their own unique interests. Having, individual interests, however, is difficult to work with; therefore, in order for the full-service Community School framework to operate successfully, Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 27 of 146 “families, young people, principals, teachers, youth workers, neighbourhood residents, college students, and business people all work together to design and implement a plan for transforming the school into a child-centered institution” (Dryfoos, 2002, p. 394).  These different perspectives provide a wider lens to address the needs of the school and the community, thus providing more catered services and programs. As such, “full-service Community Schools are designed differently in each community and reflect goals adapted to the needs of a given locale… [and] services are provided through structured collaboration with community agencies” (Peebles-Wilkins, 2004, p. 131). The uniqueness of each model in each community is necessary, and can only succeed if these different perspectives and stakeholders are present to be active voices. A key component within the full-service Community School framework is that of the role of family/school clinician (or program and services coordinator). The coordinator’s job description is a role of, that of an MSW (Masters of Social Work)-level social worker who makes home visits, provides counselling services, conducts parent support groups, helps plan and monitor individual education plans, consults with school personnel and provides in-service training, and helps connect children and families to community agencies…[conduct] parent outreach, design before and after school program activities, develop expanded community partnerships, and develop collaborative relationships with school personnel. (Peebles-Wilkins, 2004, p. 132)  Stone School in Boston is great example of a full-service Community School that has a full-service Community School coordinator who has partnered with a community services organization, Boston Excels. For over five years, the partnership has grown to address the unique needs of the school and community that is in an urban setting with a large majority of the students who are African American and Hispanic. The full-time site based social worker coordinates with the community agencies to provide services for the Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 28 of 146 school, students, and the community. The programs provided through this partnership “includes prevention services and structured out-of-school time, crisis intervention, family literacy programs, parent outreach and leadership development, and a focus on whole school change” (Peebles-Wilkins, 2004, p. 131). In the situation at Stone School, the social worker is able to carry out a needs analysis in collaboration with the school and community, and the coordinator is then able to establish programs and services to serve these needs.  The full-service Community School framework in the US provides some examples of how and why the Community School framework is required. More importantly, the framework demonstrates how the partnership between the school and community is necessary and how this partnership works to address the needs of each entity.  Traditional Community School Model & Community School Teams Model  Within our research scope we look to examine two specific Community School frameworks that have been employed by the Vancouver School Board. The first framework, as defined earlier, is the traditional Community School model. Within the traditional Community School, there is one on-sight coordinator working specifically with that particular school. This on-sight coordinator assesses the needs of the school and community by working with stakeholders from the school, school board, and from the wider community. The on-sight coordinator then develops programs and services to address these needs by tapping into funding options available. The second framework, as defined earlier, is the Community School Teams model. Within this framework, schools Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 29 of 146 are grouped together based on geographical territories, and one coordinator works with a group of schools within the territory to provide a needs analysis of the territory and develop programs and services to address these needs of the wider community and target a larger population of students and community members. The key difference between the two frameworks is the one-to-one relationship of the coordinator and school within the traditional framework and the one-to-many relationship of the coordinator and the family of schools. A prominent theme celebrated within the traditional Community School framework is the consistent praise of the Community School coordinator working at the various Community Schools. A new parent to the community notes, "I would have been lost without our Community School Coordinator...Our Community School Coordinator helped bridge the gap for our family by spending time with us to provide knowledge about the school and community" (ACEbc-Seeks Stories, 2012, p.6).  This same parent goes on to write about the positive buzz at their school and how they believe it would not have existed without having the Community School coordinator to "organize and coordinate the events, groups and activities at our school"(ACEbc-Seeks Stories, 2012, p.6). From the perspective of the school, a teacher writes of the importance of having a Community School coordinator working on-site as to "having someone at our staff meetings with the community in mind"(ACEbc-Seeks Stories, 2012, p.6). The on-sight coordinator within the traditional Community School framework is part of the school community, and thus works solely with the school and the community. The Community School teams framework also provides opportunities for students and the wider community. The teams framework has been praised by Eamor, a BC Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 30 of 146 teacher, in the Teacher Newsmagazine, where she notes the model's success in coordinating and managing more the 1600 programs for 55,000 students across the VSB (Eamor, 2006). Eamor highlights the positives of the teams framework, and suggests it: Bring[s] school and community members closer together by revamping its Community School model to offer more resources and outreach for the city's vulnerable students, and to maximize the way it utilizes CommunityLINK funding.  The result has been a made-in-Vancouver success story. (2006)  According to one Community School team's coordinator, Dan Marriott, the success of the Community School teams framework is that it focuses not just on one school, but a family of schools, which allows teams members to reach more students. "Vancouver used to have 10 or 11 [traditional] Community Schools but they weren't necessarily situated in locations that served vulnerable children" (Eamor, 2006). Marriott speaks to the Community School teams’ focus on vulnerable children, and the ability of the Community School teams framework to provide all kids access to the programs and services they may need (Eamor, 2006). Marriott highlights how the Community School teams framework is capable of addressing a wide range of students, as opposed to the programs and services being run in one particular school, which may or may not need it, and which may not serve the greatest number of students and community members.  Another successful aspect of the Community School teams model is its ability to spread team members around to multiple elementary schools surrounding a high school, which then acts as the hub of the program. Each Community School team consists of a coordinator, a teacher and a youth-and-family worker, all three serving different needs within the family of schools (Eamor, 2006).  For example, Eamor notes: These team members are mobile,' says Marriott, 'on a Monday morning the teacher could be a with a Grade 5 class writing poetry and then teaching study skills for seventh grader in the afternoon and on Tuesday, it's off to another school Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 31 of 146 where they might work with a small group of kids or the could co-teach.  The youth and family worker might run a 'demons and dragons' group to talk about kids and their problems.  The team coordinator might be meeting with community partners. (2006)  This approach highlights the mobility and accessibility provided by the Community School teams framework, as it works to spread the human resources around to a family of schools rather than concentrating them on one as in the traditional model.     A hybrid model to that of the traditional Community School framework and the Community School Teams framework is the Community Schools Partnership model found in the Surrey School District.  This model is fairly similar to the current Community Schools Teams framework used in Vancouver as it is composed of 5 hubs servicing a total of 3 high schools and 22 elementary schools" (Surrey Schools, 2014). The Surrey model, similar to the current model in Vancouver, has a coordinator, who works with a team of specialists, to assess the needs of the cluster of schools and then implement programs and services required to address these needs. Also, like Vancouver, Surrey funds its Community School Partnership model with funding received from the Ministry of Education's CommunityLINK grant, along with monies from the City of Surrey and the United Way (Surrey Community Schools Partnership, 2009).  The Surrey model has been praised for bringing together various community stakeholders to provide a "wraparound approach for kids and families, being the place where we build community, a place that's safe for kids and a place where families can go for the support when they need it" (Hyslop, 2010). Also, like the teams model in Vancouver, the Surrey model "provides a wide array of programs in neighbourhood schools that encourage all community members to attend educational, recreational, social and health programs that occur during evenings” (Graves, 2011, p.14). Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 32 of 146 This background information from the US and the overview of the frameworks in the VSB are helpful, especially as literature about the Community School framework in the context of British Columbia, and especially to that of the two frameworks within our research scope in the VSB, is largely absent. To further this understanding, two examples of Community Schools in the UK will provide a richer scope of the structural elements of the Community School framework. Community Schools in the UK  In addition to the prevalence of the Community School framework in the US, case studies that examine Community Schools and how they have evolved to become a pillar of the community have been conducted in the United Kingdom. These case studies provide a broader scope of how the school and community come together to offer opportunities for students, the school and the wider community. The two schools, Millfields Community School (Appendix A) and Colne Community School (Appendix B) tend to correlate with the traditional Community School model structure.  The case studies from the UK, along with the full-service Community School framework in the US, provide a foundation to understand how Community Schools are not only designed to help those within the school, but rather are capable of providing opportunities that go well beyond the school walls into the wider community. The two cases, therefore, build on the definition of Community School put forth by Dryfoos, the Coalition for Community Schools, the early work of Manley, and the ideas of Tymchak; all who state the importance of community integration into student and community wellness and how the connection between the two could work to further promote student Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 33 of 146 and community well-being. The two case studies demonstrate how the communities’ unique issues were addressed through a partnership between the school, the community, and community organizations.  Communities Schools in BC  The evolution of the Community School framework across BC has been an ongoing process since the first Community School opened in the 1970s (Talbot, 2004, p.7).  During the 1970s in British Columbia, there was a  Shift to decentralization of government and greater community input and control over programs and services. Community schools were developed and funded by local school districts with the vision of being centrally located, offering safe and welcoming environments and providing share space. (Talbot, 2004, as cited in Phillips, 2008, p. 14)  Initially, Community Schools in BC were funded through monies provided by the local school districts, and supplementary funding was made available through government programs, such as grants for specialized initiatives, and through school based program fees for activities such as sports, music or day care (Talbot, 2004, p.7).   As funding from the government, and in return the school districts, became harder to provide for in the 1980s, as the economy was not doing so well, many Community Schools across BC were forced to close (Phillips, 2008). By the early 1990s it was clear the Community Schools could "not continue to be sustained without some type of stable funding source" (Talbot, 2004, p.7).  This was followed in 1992, when “the British Columbia School Trustees Association (BCSTA) adopted policy in favour of integrated services, recognizing that ‘by default, schools continue to bear the brunt of the costs and Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 34 of 146 responsibility of providing a variety of unfunded but necessary support services to students’” (Phillips, 2008, p. 14).  Moving into 1994, “the Ministry of Education initiated community school grants of $75,000 per school, and a number of related programs such as School Meals, Inner-City Schools, and the Kids At-risk Initiative” (Phillips, 2008, p. 14). Due to the influx in funding grants from the government during this time, there were 71 provincially designated Community Schools in BC by 1996. During the subsequent year, funding for Community Schools in BC shifted between the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Children and Family Development (Phillips, 2008); however, funding to individual Community Schools decreased thereafter, and by 2003 it was as low as $46,000, as opposed to the $75,000 per Community School in the mid-90s (Makhoul, Myres, & Montgomery, 2004, p.7).   In 2004 the Community School provincial and district funding model switched from an individual school basis to a funding model aimed at spreading resources and programs to a wider range of at-risk children and youth (Talbot, 2004, p.7).  The shift at this point appears to be to spread the access to resources across greater geographical locations, and possibly tap into the needs of more students, families and the community, all coupled together with a decrease in funding. To address the shortfall in funding, In 2007, the United Way became an active partner with several large lower mainland school districts, funding comprehensive services in a dozen schools, enabling the provision of support to immigrant families, leadership programs for at-risk youth, and literacy initiatives in multiple languages. (Woodwardm 2007, as cited in Phillips, 2008, p. 14)  From 2004 onward, however, schools existing within the Community School framework, like Boston Community School, still relied on funding from the Ministry of Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 35 of 146 Education under the title of CommunityLINK (Learning Includes Nutrition and Knowledge) (BC Ministry of Education – CommunityLINK, 2014). Interestingly, funding at this point became solely the responsibility of only the Ministry of Education, as opposed to it shifting between multiple ministries. As of 2008, CommunityLINK funding was “$45.8 million to assist schools in 60 districts to provide breakfast and lunch programs, inner-city programs, school-based support workers and counselling for vulnerable students” (Phillips, 2008, p. 14). This shift in funding under the CommunityLINK structure is an important aspect as it represents a shift from providing funding to schools to run programs based on needs developed by the school, to a more targeted funding model to address the needs of students who are identified as “vulnerable students.”  The CommunityLINK funding is aimed at achieving four specific policy guidelines, which stress the mandate of the program as to:  establish effective programs that directly support vulnerable students   target CommunityLINK funds to vulnerable students   support family and community involvement [in school and the community]   promote partnerships and an integrated approach to supporting vulnerable students with families, communities and service providers (BC Ministry of Education – CommunityLINK, 2006).  It is important to note the autonomy of the school board when it comes to making decisions in connection with the funding under the CommunityLINK structure, where,  “[School] Board[s] have the responsibility and flexibility to determine the most effective use of CommunityLINK funding for programs and services to support vulnerable Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 36 of 146 students (BC Ministry of Education - CommunityLINK, 2006). For the purpose of the CommunityLINK model, vulnerable students are defined as:  Those students who may be at risk in terms of academic achievement and social functioning. These students primarily come from less affluent socio-economic backgrounds. In determining which students may be vulnerable, school districts may consider: low income measures; involvements with the provincial social services ministries and related agencies; community socio-economic demographics; information obtained through community mapping; and other relevant information including staff observation and self-identification. (Government of British Columbia, 2015)  The major difference between the Community School funding models present in the mid-1990s to that of the CommunityLINK funding model since 2004 is the emphasis on equitable disbursement of monies, and now the added element of targeting the funding to vulnerable children, which demonstrates a shift in direction and policy. The funding for the Community Schools programs had been maintained at $43 million from 1997 to 2003 across all districts, and then decreased to $35 million in 2003, before being increased in 2004 to $45 million; however, under the CommunityLINK model, and the shifts in funding after the late 90s, funding was no longer provided to individual schools, but rather to school boards to distribute and manage as they determine within the CommunityLINK guidelines, and provided solely through the BC Ministry of Education (Talbot, 2004).  This aspect is important to consider as this shift in policy now allows the School Boards to determine how the funding will be distributed to target vulnerable children, who the School Boards are also able to identify.  To put this all into perspective, the initial funding model in the 70s allowed for individual community schools that received individual grants of up to $75,000 per school. At this point, the school was able to employ an on-sight coordinator to run Community School programs and services, which aligns with the traditional Community School Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 37 of 146 framework as we have defined. The shift in funding during the 80s and 90s subsequently cut funding to programs due to budget constraints. Following this time period, was the shift in the late 90s and early 2000s to the CommunityLINK model where there was a need to provide targeted funding for vulnerable students. At this point, funding was also shifted from the Ministry providing it to individual schools, to it being provided to School Boards, who are now required to account for how the funds are dispersed within a mandate set forth by the CommunityLINK model.  The VSB, beginning in 2004 and in accordance with government policy, discontinued using grant money to fund individual Community Schools and shifted its focus to supporting the Community School Teams framework (Vancouver School Board - CommunityLINK, 2014, p.2).  Within this framework, one coordinator works alongside a family of elementary and secondary schools that are geographically grouped. The one coordinator then aims to develop programs and services to address the needs of all these schools and the wider community. These two frameworks are the two within our research scope. Across the province, however, there have been at least six different Community School frameworks in place since the 70s until the implementation of the current Community School teams framework employed by the VSB, and each framework comes with its own advantages and disadvantages.  These frameworks include:  Non-Profit Association or Society – This model is the most common. Typically, a society, with its own bylaws, budget, Board of Directors, operates the Community School component. In most cases, it has a broad mandate with regard to community development.    Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 38 of 146  Community School Council – This model is also very common. Typically, it functions in conjunction with another society. It is usually advisory in nature and provides a good mechanism to obtain input by community residents and organizations.   Partnership Agreement – Many school districts and Community Schools have arrangements whereby a Municipality or a Parks and Recreation Department enter into a partnership agreement with them. Both parties contribute money to the partnership; agree on common mutually beneficial goals; and  have a clear understanding as to each other’s roles and responsibilities.    Multiple School Arrangement – In a few cases, a cluster of schools operate as a combined unit; sometimes with a single coordinator. This occurs when resources are limited and when there are common or shared goals among the participating schools.   Steering Committee – This model often exists to coordinate children and youth services at the community level to assist in allocating money to the various programs under CommunityLINK.   Contracted Agency – One school district has selected an existing non-profit agency to manage or support the Community Schools within its jurisdiction (Talbot, 2004, p. 11-13).   Hybrid Model – A model where inner-city and community school funding was combined to provide targeted services and opportunities for students (Waithman, 2009).  The Hybrid Model, put forth by Waithman, is a unique approach wherein multiple funding streams were pooled to address integrated issues. In this sense, the circumstances of being an inner-city school created needs for the school and the community, and the funding for inner-city schools and the Community School initiative could work together to address these needs (Waithman, 2009). Within this structure, a full-time Community School coordinator was a position employed by a certified teacher, who could work within the school to evaluate the needs of the students and the community. The role of the coordinator was “focused on building community partnerships, fundraising, pursuing corporate relationships, writing grants, developing academic and extra-curricular programs, organizing field trips, counselling children, comforting parents and advocating Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 39 of 146 for children and families” (Waithman, 2009, p. 150). Within this role, the coordinator, according to Waithman, was someone “who had the ‘heart’ to support children and families at Kenneth Mann Community School (pseudonym)” (Waithman, 2009, p. 149).  The Vancouver School Board, however, seems to currently take the multiple school arrangement approach, which we define as the Community School teams framework, where multiple schools are within the control of one coordinator, who organizes programs and services for students from the cluster of schools that are grouped together geographically. Community Schools and Student Well-Being  The need to provide students opportunities to participate in out-of-school activities and make positive connections to adults builds on the idea of promoting student well-being of children from both a social and emotional standpoint.  The research done by the Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP) emphasizes a need for educators to address student well-being as an important part of student education. Additionally, the framework of Community Schools provides opportunities to promote the well-being of students and the wider community. For these reasons, it is a relevant time to investigate Community School frameworks and their potential influences on promoting student and community well-being, especially through the ability of the Community School to provide increased opportunities for students to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in the community. We can then determine how these opportunities are benefiting students and the wider community.  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 40 of 146 Looking back at the example of Flemington Road Community School, the first Community School in Canada we mentioned earlier, there seems to be a correlation with the services and programs offered within the Community School framework and the overall benefits for both students and the wider community, creating a possible link between community schools and student well-being. Flemington Community School developed as the need for services and programs increased in the Lawrence Heights neighbourhood and the school “extended the school day to serve the educational, recreational, health and social development needs of this impoverished community of 5000” (Shuttleworth, 2014, p. 13). The Community School framework at Flemington was built on the foundation that “school and the educational opportunity which it represented could not be separated from the community it served, [thus] the school endeavored to extend itself as a partner in community development” (Shuttleworth, 2014, p. 14). This foundation considers how the Community School is able to promote not only the well-being of students, but also the well-being of the wider community. Flemington Community School developed programs that addressed the needs of students and community members. Extended day activities included team sports, crafts, music, ballet, science and social clubs. Adult activities included acquaintance sessions, fitness programs, sports programs, craft groups, support groups for weight loss, language development, and the opportunity to build social connections, and the implementation of family nights. To deal with issues of youth alcohol abuse and the population of youth that had dropped out, the Community School developed opportunities for these youth to participate in drop-in activities both with students and adults in sports, music, career development programs and social programs (Shuttleworth, 2014). Interestingly, the Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 41 of 146 programs offered for students, youth and adults gave opportunities for all them to interact as a community, further developing stronger relationships  and promoting well-being in the community. To further promote community well-being, the Community School partnered with local businesses and developed a Jobs Improvement program to provide opportunities for youth who had left the school to build skills for employment and gain experience. A Volunteers Unlimited program through the Community School brought senior secondary students to work with local social service agencies that provided services for the students and single mothers in the community. This was an identifiable group in need of support in Lawrence Heights. The establishment of an Emergency Childcare service was implemented to address the needs of community members who were required to leave the community for various social, medical, or law related appointments. A Legal Counselling Service was implemented with the help of Law School students to provide much needed legal support for families in the community. A Grocery Cooperative program was established to provide affordable access to food through the opening of a non-profit grocery store. Additionally, an interdisciplinary team was established with specialists from a range of fields to continuously evaluate the needs of the students and the wider community in order to target services and programs to address these needs (Shuttleworth, 2014). The range of programs and services implemented at Flemington Community School came through the direct needs of the impoverished community, as the Community School looked to promote well-being of not only the students, but of the entire community which needed the school’s support.   Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 42 of 146  The work done by Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl and the Human Early Learning Project (HELP) helps to further develop our understanding of Community Schools and the connection to student well-being.  HELP has done extensive research around the well-being of children between the ages of 9 and 12 in the VSB and elsewhere in the province of BC.  Specifically, the Middle Years Development Index (MDI), which is survey research done by HELP measures children's well-being in grades 4 and 7 across the VSB.  The significance of the MDI is that it engages students' voices to assess well-being (Human Early Learning Partnership-Fact Sheet 2014).  We stress two key measures that the MDI research presents, namely, student connectedness and constructive use of after school time as part of our research scope and how Community Schools can promote opportunities to improve on these two measures.  Perhaps at this time we should clarify what is meant when we use the term "student or child well-being". HELP notes: Well-being is more than simply not feeling bad.  Whereas in the past not being ill was equated with being well, current psychologists distinguish well-being from being "functional". They define well-being as experiencing the pleasures and joys that "make life worth living. (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 as cited in Human Early Learning Partnership-Tools for Action, 2012)  The five components used to establish a child's sense of well-being, according to the HELP research, are optimism, happiness, self-esteem, general health and sadness (Human Early Learning Partnership-Tools for Action, 2012). In addition to the definition of "well-being" HELP identified four assets that when present in a child's life will increase their overall well-being: The middle years are a transitional time, one of heightened risk but also of heightened opportunity. There are positive everyday influences, however, that are known to protect against vulnerability and promote positive well-being. We call these influences “assets". The Assets Index measures qualities of children’s lives Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 43 of 146 that make a difference: Adult Relationships, Peer Relationships, After-school Activities, and Nutrition and Sleep. (Human Early Partnership-Tools for Action, 2012)  The Community School framework, as noted in the previous example of Flemington, is capable of addressing these assets through the programs and services that it can provide to students and the wider community. This is especially important to keep in mind within our research scope as we look at how Community Schools can further opportunities for students to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in the community to the benefit of all. In Vancouver, like most cities across North America, parents of school aged children face the problem of how to supervise and support their children during the hours when school ends and work ends.  One study found that because students typically end their school day at a much earlier time than their parents are finished working, families “count on organized after-school programs to bridge the gap in supervision and enrichment for their children between the end of the school day and the time parents return home from work” (Christensen and Schneider, 2011, p.74).  The same study also points out that in the United States 26 percent of all children in kindergarten through to grade 8 are left alone after school (Afterschool Alliance as cited in Christensen and Schneider, 2011, p.72) and that on average school-age children spend three hours a day on their own with no parental supervision (Kleiner et al. as cited in Christensen and Schneider, 2011, p.72).   In BC, adults between the ages of 25 and 54 are working an average of 38 hours per week (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2014). Furthermore, in Vancouver 69% of mothers with children over the age of six are in the labour force Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 44 of 146 (Schonert-Reichl, 2011, p.16).  What these statistics signify is that parents are in need of supervision for their school-aged children during after-school hours when most parents are at work.  One report cites that 20% of grade 6/7 students in metro Vancouver are alone during the out of school hours four or more days per week (Schonert-Reichl, 2011, p.51).  Together these statistics demonstrate that many school-aged students are lacking the supervision necessary to promote health and well-being during the critical hours when school ends and their parents return home from work. The Community School framework, therefore, could help in providing opportunities for students to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in the community. Perhaps the best way to determine how significant Community Schools can be in the development of the four key assets significant to a child's well-being, as identified by HELP, is to listen to stories from people who have experienced the benefits of Community Schools.  For instance, in 2012 the Association for Community Education of British Columbia (ACEbc) put together a collection of stories in support of the 'Community School way' of doing things (ACEbc-Seeks Stories, 2012).  The stories collected by ACEbc reflect the opinions of students, parents, teachers and other community members from four BC Community Schools (ACEbc-Seeks Stories, 2012).  All of the stories presented in the compilation support the notion that Community Schools help develop children's well-being through facilitating opportunities for them to connect with adults and participate in out-of-school activities, the two key assets we focus on within our research scope.    Stories from parents at two different Community Schools in BC both reflect gratitude toward Community Schools for providing their children with opportunities to Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 45 of 146 participate in out-of-school activities.  One parent speaks of the great benefit the Community School provided for her daughter to attend Girl Guides from kindergarten to grade 4 (ACEbc-Seeks Stories, 2012, p.4).  Another parent praises the accessibility of out-of-school programs offered at her son's school: The children love the programs; I hear them talk to each other with great excitement about what they have created, learned or experienced in their programs...After school programs help our children stay healthy and active; they challenge their minds and they build self-confidence. (ACEbc-Seeks Stories, 2012, p.4)  The sentiments of these parents are echoed throughout the collection of stories put together by ACEbc, whether from students, parents, teachers or community members, the stories all reflect gratitude toward having a Community School which offers opportunities for children and adults to participate in activities, attend classes and have experiences that enrich their lives.  For example, one parent writes of how they learned "to mountain bike ride" because of lessons offered at their local school (ACEbc-Seeks Stories, 2012, p.6).  Another parent praises their school for offering "seasonal celebrations/event, such as the Santa Breakfast that gets the neighbours out to meet and socialize with each other.  These types of connections with our neighbours make for a stronger, safer and more enjoyable community! (ACEbc-Seeks Stories, 2012, p.4).     One common theme throughout the collection of stories assembled by ACEbc is the theme of accessible and affordable out-of-school activities offered by Community Schools. For instance, one parent writes that they feel if it were not for the Community School offering out-of-school activities then "many of the children in the school would not get to experience all the wonderful activities available to them if it weren't so convenient for families"(ACEbc-Seeks Stories, 2012, p.4).  Another parent/teacher Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 46 of 146 writes, “Yes, I could bring Juila to another program off [school-site] but that would require me to be at Seaview at 3:00, which is impossible for me or my husband to do.  It was also cost prohibitive” (ACEbc-Seeks Stories, 2012, p.5). The next parent writes in praise of the low price associated with attending programs offered at her child's school during out-of-school hours and the convenience of having out-of-school activities located right at her child's school, which results in an easy transition from school to activity (ACEbc-Seeks Stories, 2012, p.5).  Furthermore, the stories collected by ACEbc convey the importance of the Community School framework in connecting students with caring adults and providing engaging activities that boost student self-esteem and confidence.  For instance, one parent writes about the importance of a program at their local school because it offers a "safe place to hang out with their friends and with great adults supervising and being there as role models" (ACEbc-Seeks Stories, 2012, p.3).  A Community School coordinator writes of the supervision issues some parents face and how the Community School framework, through offering out-of-school activities, can both support children with making connections with caring adults and allowing them to participate in activities which to they may not normally have access (ACEbc-Seeks Stories, 2012, p.2). The Community School framework is developed to provide additional opportunities for both students and the wider community to promote student well-being and the overall well-being of the entire community. Research has found the Community School framework has resulted in improvements in academic achievement, attendance, graduation, student suspension rates, social behaviour, healthy youth development, Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 47 of 146 family functioning, parental involvement, school and community climate, and access to support services for students and the community (Dryfoos, 2003). Kenneth Mann Community School (KMCS), a pseudonym for a Community School in Langley, British Columbia, also saw multiple aspects of success for students through the Community School framework. KMCS employed a hybrid model of the Community School structure, which allowed for funding providing by government for inner-city schools and funding providing for the Community School initiative to be combined. This unique approach created an influx of resources and funding available to address issues that were not separate at the core. The approach to address these needs resulted in similar findings to that of schools in the US, with lower absenteeism, and improvements in foundation skills (reading, writing, and numeracy) as assessed through standardized tests (Foundation Skills Assessment) developed and implemented by the Government of British Columbia (Waithman, 2009).  Much of this research connecting Community Schools to student well-being has been conducted in the United States, as the evaluation of the impacts of Community Schools in British Columbia is largely absent. Regardless of the lack of local research, outcomes and results within the Community School framework from the United States can be applicable in the wider sense and provide some guidance for our research scope.  Dryfoos examined 49 schools that implemented some form of the Community School framework and noted the following findings based on the programs and services offered:  36 out of 49 programs reported academic gains, including improvements in test scores for reading and math, especially in the elementary school context for those students who were part of the services and programs offered through the Community School framework. Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 48 of 146  o Charles Drew Elementary, a Community School in Pennsylvania, noted an increase of 420 points in the State’s standardized testing in reading and math, as compared to other schools that did not operate as a Community School.   19 programs saw a significant improvement in student school attendance and lower drop-out rates.  o 70% of students who typically had high absentee rates showed marked improvements in attendance in the schools that operated within the Community School framework.    11 programs saw a reduction in suspension rates.  o Woodrow Wilson Middle School, a Community School in Iowa, saw suspension rates fall to one-sixth of the rate to that of five years earlier, as the Community School framework took shape.   11 programs reported overall improvements in behaviour, with reduced rates of substance abuse, teen pregnancy, and disruptive behaviour in classrooms (2003).   The Coalition for Community Schools, a US based organization that advocates for Community Schools, further found the Community School framework contributed to:   Greater classroom cooperation, completion of course work, following of school rules, and improvements in attitude for students.   Improvements for students in social and public speaking skills.   Greater contact for students with supportive adults in the community.    Increased communication for families with schools and teachers.    An increased sense of personal control for students over their own academic success, and self-direction.   An appreciation on the part of the community and the school staff, as to the importance of on-site services as an important resource for students.   An increase in learning resources for the school and students through increased partnership with the wider community.   Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 49 of 146  An increased emphasis on the part of the school to implement project based learning that is connected to the community.   A seamless integration of programs and services for students into the daily operation of the school (2003).  When examining these results, it is important to consider how the Community School framework encourages students to engage in out-of-school activities, and in return make connections to adults in their communities as the community begins to play a larger role within the school context. What is interesting to note is how the benefits for students seem to be much more positive as opposed to schools that do not operate as Community Schools, and how the Community School is able to highlight the importance of student interests. The benefits to students, therefore, are within the school, within their performance and attitude levels, and within the interactions these students have with the wider community.  As such, something needs to be put in place to provide students further opportunities to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in the community. To better understand how these opportunities can help promote student well-being, we need to examine the connection between well-being and opportunities for students to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in the community. Out-of-School Activities and Physical Fitness  One aspect of our research scope is to consider how Community Schools provide students opportunities to participate in out-of-school activities. According to a recent report on the physical activity levels of children and youth in Canada, kids across the Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 50 of 146 country are not getting enough moderate- to vigorous-intensity (MVPA) activity (Barnes, et al, 2012, p.793).  According to the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines, children between the ages of 5 and 11 should accumulate 60 minutes of moderate- to vigorous-intensity activity each day (CSEP, 2014).  However, across Canada only 7% of children and youth meet the goal of 60 minutes per day of MVPA (Barnes, et al, 2012, p. 793).  Of particular interest to our investigation into Community Schools is that during the after-school period, between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m., Canadian children are only participating in 14 minutes of MVPA (Barnes, et al, 2012, p.796).  The same study also found that Canadian children are spending 107 minutes during the after-school periods doing sedentary activities (Barnes, et al, 2012, p. 796).  What this data suggests is that after-school is an important time for students, as mentioned previously, not only are they significantly unsupervised by adults, they are also not participating in enough healthy activity.  Also, if one considers that, excluding weekends, children in Metro Vancouver are afforded 15 plus hours each week during the after-school period, it becomes clear that perhaps there is a greater need for schools to do more to facilitate activities for students during the after-school hours (Schonert-Reichl, 2011, p. 8).  Research has demonstrated the health benefits of physical activity on child development (Berkley et al, as cited in Barnes et al. 2012, p. 793), and that proximity to facilities and programming is readily available for children across Canada (Barnes et al, 2012, p.795).  Even though the resources and facilities are available, children across Canada, including Metro Vancouver, are not getting access to them during the after-school hours (Barnes et al, 2012, p.795).  Some reported barriers preventing children from participating in after-school activities include conflicting schedules, high costs and Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 51 of 146 not knowing what is available (Schonert-Reichl, 2011, p. 67), all of which could plausibly be diminished with the assistance of a particular Community School model.  For example, one Community School in the US accommodated the fitness needs of their student community by offering free after school programs until 6p.m., and then until 9p.m. the city's recreation department ran athletic programs most nights (Warren, 2005, p.141). As such, the need for students to participate in out-of-school activities is fairly clear. Connections with Adults in the Community  Another aspect of our research scope is to consider how Community Schools provide students opportunities to make connections with adults in their community. Children benefit from having connections with caring adults in their community (Jarett et al, 2005, p.42).  Some of the benefits include increased likelihood to graduate from high school, attend college, and increased self-esteem and life satisfaction (Dubois and Silverthorn as cited in Schonert-Reichl, 2011, p. 44).  However, some research suggests that "Contemporary Western society...provides few opportunities for meaningful interactions between youth and adults in the community” (Darling et al, 2003; Steinberg, 1991; Zeldin et al, 2003 as cited in Jarrett et al, 2005, p.42).  Considering the economic and social pressures on parents today, it is no surprise that many children are not receiving adequate help from a caring adult (Herra, 1999 as cited in Dappen & Isernhagen, 2010, p.21).  However, some research suggests that many communities have sufficient economic and social resources, yet fail to adequately connect youth to them (Benson et al, 1998, p. 138).   Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 52 of 146 A Community School framework could possibly help schools facilitate connections between children and caring adults in their community during and outside of school hours.  The benefits of these connections not only serve the child, but parents who are predominantly working and may be unable to provide the type of mentorship needed to increase child well-being.  Also, a Community School framework may be the most efficient way to help children connect with natural adult mentors, meaning adults not matched with children through an agency, which have been found to be the most effective types of adult mentors and can be coaches, neighbours or friends' parents (Human Early Learning Partnership-MDI Tools For Action, 2014). The need to make positive connections with adults in the community provides great benefits for students and the wider community. Community Schools and the Benefits to Communities  The Community School framework not only provides benefits for students and the school, but it is also capable of providing a multitude of benefits for the wider community. Research into Community Schools found the benefits to wider community included:  12 programs reporting increases in parental involvement.  o Bryant School, a Community School in Missouri, saw parental volunteer hours increase from 43 in 1996 to 2008 hours in 1998.   Improvements in family functioning noted that parents felt they were able to better help their children develop, were less stressed, experienced reduced costs for day care, missed fewer days of work, and found it easier to fulfill basic needs as the programs and services were implemented.  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 53 of 146  Improvements in access to services included better access to health care and dental care, lower hospitalization rates, higher immunization rates, and child care opportunities.   Improvements in community safety, with lower violence rates, safer streets, and lower student mobility rates as a result of students being at school for longer periods of time and engaged in programs (Dryfoos, 2003).  The Coalition for Community Schools further found that Community Schools provided benefits to the wider community and contributed to:  Improvements for students and families in personal or family situations, including the presence of abuse, and/or neglect.    An increased sense of attachment and responsibility on the part of students, the school, and community members to the wider community.   An increased level of connectedness on the part of the students to the school and the school community.   A strong sense of responsibility on the part of the parents for children’s schooling.   An improvement in adult literacy for adults in the community.   An increase in overall community connectedness, with an increase in community use of school buildings, increase in family awareness of community agencies, and greater community access to community support services that were previously unknown or seen as unaffordable to community members (Coalition for Community Schools, 2003).  In addition to increased opportunities for students, families, and community members, researchers found that a Community School framework with university partnership is able to further support the wider community. The partnership was linked to sustained benefits for the wider community by producing: 1. A greater value placed on the attainment of education throughout the community.  2. Transformative relationship established between the university, the Community School, and the community, which all worked together to address ongoing needs.  3. Development of a school climate that was welcoming to parents, families, community members, and extremely effective for student learning.  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 54 of 146 4. Established of the local community being considered one of the greatest places to live and work within the state (Officer et al., 2013).   This research in the US points to the benefits of the Community School framework for various stakeholders throughout the community. The research findings “indicate that school partnership initiatives (Community Schools) produce student gains in academic achievement and non-academic development, increased school involvement by parents, improved school environments and community support, and better use of school facilities and greater community pride” (Peebles-Wilkins, 2004, p. 132). The benefits of such partnerships that embody Community Schools, therefore, spread to facets well beyond the school, and this brings unique challenges and opportunities.   Developing a Community School Framework (Challenges and Opportunities)  Community Schools are often highlighted for the positive outcomes they provide for all stakeholders; however, in order for these partnerships to be successful, key aspects need to be in place.   A leadership team comprised of school and community stakeholders;   Ongoing assets and needs assessments;   A designated service coordinator;   Clear expectations and shared accountability systems for community providers;   Ongoing professional development; and   Regular evaluation of effectiveness (Vaillancourt & Amador, 2014).  Researchers examined the development of Community Schools and found that a leadership group must provide opportunity to include different perspectives in order to Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 55 of 146 examine the bigger picture. Once this is in place, the team can then assess needs in order to target these needs. Far too often, schools and community simply assume needs, thus the programs and services offered are not targeted to the requirement of the students or the community. A designated service coordinator is then essential in bringing together the findings from the needs assessment to the right service and resource providers. As these stakeholders work together to build the Community School framework, there needs to be constant checks for accountability through clearly defined expectations from the leadership group and relevant stakeholders. As needs changes, so too is the possibility of services and programs, and as such the framework needs to provide constant opportunities for professional development and growth. This cycle continues with evaluating the overall effectiveness of the services and programs and development of strategies to improve on what is currently in place (Vaillancourt & Amador, 2014). For the Community School framework to be successful, the following additional aspects are also helpful when considering the possible opportunities for success and the challenges that may exist:  Challenge to build community trust and have open communication amongst the school, the community, and those in charge of running the programs (Preston, 2011).   Opportunity to form a partnership with local colleges and universities and community organizations to provide additional support services and opportunities for students and the wider community (Officer, Grim, Medina, Bringle, & Foreman, 2013).   Challenges and Opportunities with the availability of government funding to increase hours of availability and selection of services provided to students and the wider community (Preston, 2011; Officer, Grim, Medina, Bringle, & Foreman, 2013).   Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 56 of 146 The Challenges with Community Trust  School Community can take on many forms, according to research conducted by Preston around the effectiveness of the school community council in Saskatchewan schools. Preston references the work of Pushor (2007) when considering the notion of Community Schools, and notes that Community Schools can refer to different things for different schools. In one aspect, Community Schools can simply be a place for families or parents to interact (Preston, 2011). More so, Pushor suggests, according to Preston, that the Community School framework can “also include  opening the school building for community events, working with families to build a community-based learning program, or having school personnel help solve community issues” (Preston, 2011, p. 199).  Preston conducted research to determine the impact school community councils were having on schools, soon after the Saskatchewan government passed a law in 2006 stipulating the need for Saskatchewan schools to have school community councils made up of parents and community members. The Saskatoon school board interpreted this mandate to mean “the [school community council] in each school is designed to encourage active involvement of parents and community, thereby supporting student learning and well-being” (Preston, 2011, p. 198 – Saskatoon Public Schools, p. 28). Community connections for students were, therefore, connected to the betterment of student learning and well-being. To do this, however, schools had to do more than simply serve as a place for community to connect; rather, schools had to become a place to provide additional support for community needs, as noted by Pushor and the need for schools to help resolve community issues (Preston, 2011).  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 57 of 146 Preston found in her research that the effectiveness of the school community council was limited in the Saskatoon school board due to the newness of the program and a lack of understanding about roles and responsibilities on the part of teachers, parents, and community members. Other factors included determining the needs of the school and how the Community School could best provide resources required to meet these needs (Preston, 2011). The idea behind the community council and its motives seem positive, but there appears to be a lack of support to actually get the program up and running, as multiple stakeholders are unaware of what to do to make the program effective. In the end, Preston notes that more time needs to be spent by all stakeholders in order to build a notion of trust, which is essential for any Community School framework to be successful (Preston, 2011).  Preston brings to light some interesting aspects of Community Schools. The mandate by the government shows that there is an interest in having the Community School framework further developed and integrated into the school, as it provides further opportunities for students and families; however, Preston notes these programs can simply not be successful if there is very little trust and communication among the stakeholders operating the program, and trust often takes time to build through open communication. The lack of immediate success of the Community School framework in the Saskatoon School Board, notes Preston, came from the frustration of stakeholders not knowing what to do and then the gradual increase of mistrust between stakeholders because nothing was being done (Preston, 2011).  The lack of trust, in the success of the Community School framework is also noted by Vaillancourt and Amador (2014), who suggest the failure of this partnership is Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 58 of 146 often in the lack of trust that exists amongst the stakeholders involved in key aspects of the Community School framework. This mistrust and the possible “tensions are most often caused by lack of understanding of each other’s qualifications, terminology, service delivery models, and normal processes and perspective, all of which can lead to defensiveness” (Vaillancourt & Amador, 2014, p. 61). Stakeholders are typically coming from unique perspectives, and as such it may be difficult for these individuals to truly understand the value and input of others. As a result, what becomes even more important in achieving desired benefits is the need for stakeholders to build trust in order to share information and ensure that services and programs provided through the Community School framework are targeted and geared toward intended outcomes (Vaillancourt & Amador, 2014). As such, it may be beneficial for educational leaders to create these opportunities to build trust and foster open communication between all stakeholders to get these programs off and running for them to be successful in the long term. Additionally, going back to arguments made by Pushor, there is no one model that will fit every single school. Therefore, the individual school needs to be taken into consideration to develop a needs analysis as to what the school, community, and the students truly need. There is no point in utilizing resources to develop an after school soccer program, for example, if there are already countless after school soccer programs in the area that are easily accessible for students and the community.    Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 59 of 146 The Opportunities with University Participation   Furthering the relationship with student family and community engagement in connection to student learning, well-being, and the opportunity for students to make connections with adults in the community, Officer, Grim, Medina, Bringle, and Foreman (2013) note the success of the Community School framework in the United States. Their research references the success of “200 turnaround schools and found that only 10% without solid family and community engagement realized academic gains” (Officer et al., 2013, p. 565). The research suggests a link between student academic achievement and the connections these students formulate with community initiatives.  Officer et al (2013) note that important role universities can potentially play in helping a school build a Community School framework. The study suggests “higher education’s engagement with schools that have a clear community orientation can address the whole child and families in K-12 education by expanding opportunities for students, parents, and community to access range of necessary support services” (Officer et al., p. 565). The university partnership is a great addition for Community Schools, as the university helps to provide services needed for students, and in turn provides an enriching experience for their students and programs.  For example, Robbie Purewall’s independent school has formed a partnership with a local community services organization and a university to provide students with counselling services. The independent school does not have the resources to employ a full-time counsellor, but through this partnership, the school is able to provide those students in need with counselling support, something that would not have been attainable otherwise. Another example highlights how a teacher, Barb Finley, at a school in Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 60 of 146 Vancouver decided to become a chef and then a university instructor in the teacher education program at UBC due to students, families and the school’s lack of understanding to the importance of healthy balanced eating. To better educate students and families about poor nutrition, Finley developed a cooking course, Project Chef, for elementary students and piloted the program at independent schools in BC beginning in 2007 (Hyslop, 2014). These two examples highlight how the university can aide a school to provide services, and how ideas bred from within the needs of a school can help shift the outcomes for the wider community. Project Chef is a great local example of how a teacher looked at the needs of students and worked with the university (UBC) to develop a program to address these needs. The university, therefore, can play a pivotal role in addressing community needs and supporting the Community School framework.  Officer et al. (2013) examined the relationship between Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis and George Washington Community High School in their study. George Washington Community High School (GWCHS) was initially closed in the mid 90’s due to a decrease in enrollment; however, the community, where GWCHS was based, worked tirelessly to have it re-opened in the year 2000 because of the schools importance as a hub and place for students to engage with the community (Officer et al.). During the process to have the high school re-opened, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) worked closely with the community surrounding GWCHS to help get it re-established by having staff and students play a participatory role in advocating for the school to reopen. Staff and students from the university attended council meetings, provided relevant research to back the claim for reopening the Community School, and became a strong voice to have the school reopened to remain a Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 61 of 146 hub for the community. As a result, the partnership, which began as a movement to have the school reopened, evolved into a long term partnership that now provides opportunities for students from GWCHS to participate in out of school activities and make connections to adults in the community to help increase the overall well-being of the community. The university now helps to run out-of-school programs, such as sports and academic support for students at GWCH (Officer et al.). At the outset of the partnership, the Community School framework was based on the notion that “community leaders envisioned a neighbourhood school that would graduate students prepared for post-secondary education and provide a source of pride for the entire community” (Officer et al., 2013, p. 567). The community members based this notion on supporting their students, and this support in return will foster academic success in various forms. The Community School, therefore, would provide increased opportunities for both students to be a part of the community and the community to be a part of the lives of its students. The partnership saw great success, where, by the year 2009 through 2012, 100% of GWCHS graduates were accepted into post-secondary educational institutes (Officer et al.). This particular Community School is not only providing increased opportunities for students to participate in out of school activities and make connections to adults in the community, but in return is also providing support services for these students and bridging their academic careers for possible further success through post-secondary education.  The Federal Government in the US has recognized the success of GWCHS, and the US Department of Education awarded its community partnership a $2.4 million grant for full-service Community School funding in 2009 (Officer et al., 2013, p. 568). Officer Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 62 of 146 et al. highlight how “the GWCHS grant expanded support services for students, families, and residents, including afterschool and weekend hours, and recognize[d] GWCHS as a model for school/community engagement” (Officer et al., p. 570). What remains important to keep in mind is that a solid financial foundation is required to ensure the Community School framework can be successful over a sustained period of time. Dryfoos, an advocate for Community Schools, notes that “a minimum of $100,000 a year is required to create the infrastructure for a Community School that would at least support the coordinator, planning, council meetings, and accountability efforts” (Dryfoos, 2002, p. 399). These aspects are some of the basic elements required to operate a framework that builds and implements programs for students and the community. Interestingly, these figures are from 2002, over 13 years ago, so the figure has surely increased, and unfortunately, the lack of services often declines due to a lack of financial support available in many circumstances. Key Findings from the Literature Review   Relevant literature and stories in regard to Community School frameworks provide a better overview of how Community Schools develop and evolve within a community. The history of Community Schools dates back to some of the early work done by Dewey and Freire as they connected the notion of education and community. The framework evolved in the mid and late 20th century as educators began to understand the benefits of integrating the community into the realm of education. As the Community School framework began to spread throughout Canada in the 70s, the US and UK saw Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 63 of 146 these programs become truly successful at providing support services and programs for those students and citizens in the community who were in need.  As the notion of Community Schools grew, the definitions and variations of Community Schools evolved as well. Community Schools looked to integrate community agencies and resources to provide for a wide range of services, supports, and activities that were otherwise inaccessible for students and the community. What remained relevant within this growth was that Community Schools were built on the notion of care, and that the school was a perfect place to provide these opportunities for care for students and the community. As the programs grew, the onset of the ability of the Community School to build positive relationship amongst students and community members became much more evident as students and adults in the community had increased opportunities to engage with one another. The key to success of such programs, however, is to determine how to best design a Community School framework that is the most beneficial at addressing the needs of students and the wider community. Funding challenges have a long history of halting programs and services for students and the community. Additionally, there are challenges within the community itself with issues of trust, leadership, and community support for such programs; however, with challenges come new opportunities, and university partnerships seem to be a new vision for Community Schools as they look to tap into additional resources to ensure the sustainability of programs and services. Our research looks to examine these themes further by looking at the structure of Community Schools in the VSB, and how this structure has evolved over time by examining the case of one school. This analysis will allow us to better determine how the Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 64 of 146 Community School framework, whether through the traditional Community School framework or the Community School Teams framework, is able to provide opportunities for students to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in the community. As our research looks into a particular school in the VSB, which has employed both frameworks, we will examine current and former community school leaders’ perspectives about what has influenced the change in structures at the VSB, and how these changes have impacted students. The following chapter discusses our approach to the research, including the research methods and design.               Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 65 of 146 Chapter III – Approach to Research Research Methods and Design  Our research was developed through a qualitative case study, which is “inquiry that uses mainly words, images, and other non-numerical symbols as data, and involves little or no quantification” (Bryman, Bell, & Teevan, 2012, p. 371). A qualitative case study was most appropriate to analyze the Community School framework at Boston Community School. Qualitative researchers suggest,  A good qualitative case study is [one] that…presents an in-depth understanding of the case. In order to accomplish this, the researcher collects many forms of qualitative data, ranging from interviews, to observations, to documents, to audiovisual materials. [Therefore], relying on one source of data is typically not enough to develop this in-depth understanding. (Creswell, 2013, p. 98)  A qualitative case study, therefore, provided an opportunity to seek in depth explanations and inform our discussion that investigated the implementation of two different models of the Community School framework at Boston Community School. More importantly, we explored how these two models had perceived effects on the two key assets of student well-being, engagement in out-of-school activities and connecting with adults in their community (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2010), which we are investigating. At the time of the study, the VSB had not examined the effects of the transition of schools from the traditional Community School model to the current Community School Teams model, “the CST [Community School Teams model] has not been reviewed since its inception” (Vancouver School Board - CommunityLINK, 2014, p. 2). Due to the fact that the effects of this transition have not yet been examined, we believed it appropriate and useful to proceed with such an inquiry that would ask those directly involved to share Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 66 of 146 their views on how the shift in Community School models has impacted students’ opportunities to access the two key assets we have identified connected to student well-being (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2010).  Furthermore, Boston Community School experienced this transition first hand, and as such the case study provided valuable input and data. A “case study methodology enables us to understand a phenomenon in context as an integrated whole, allowing researchers to offer a holistic description and explanation” (Merriam, 1998, p.29 as cited in Warren, Hong, Rubin, & Uy, 2009, p. 2214). The case study of Boston Community School allowed us to truly understand the transition of the Community School framework and how this transition impacted opportunities for students to engage in out-of-school activities and connect with adults in their community, thereby giving us a holistic approach.  A qualitative case study provided us the opportunity to investigate in depth how this shift impacted opportunities for students, which simply would not be possible by collecting only numerical data. Often a criticism of case studies is that its findings are not applicable to other unique situations because of the narrow scope of a case study; however, “case study researchers argue strenuously that this is not the purpose of their craft, [rather], a valid picture of one case is more valuable than a potentially less valid picture of many” (Bryman, Bell & Teevan, 2012, p. 39). Setting  Our study took place at an elementary school (K-7), with approximately 300 students, located within a large urban public school district in British Columbia, Canada. The school was given the pseudonym, Boston Community School, as a means for Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 67 of 146 protecting the identity of participants. The district, within which the school resides, is the Vancouver School Board, which has 74 elementary schools, 17 elementary annexes, 18 secondary schools, 110,000 students who speak over 26 languages, and 5650 staff members. The VSB operates with 12 Community School teams, which serve over 100 schools (Vancouver School Board - Facts, 2012). Participants  Participants for the research were adults who have close connections to Boston Community School, and who experienced its current and/or previous structure within the Community School framework. This included former and current principals, teachers, and Community School coordinators. We included five participants, who can speak from direct experience and who worked at or with the school for at least three years under either the traditional Community School model or the Community School Teams model. We looked for a balance of perspectives among principals, teachers, youth and family workers and Community School coordinators, and a balance of those who worked at or with the school under each of the two Community School structures. The inclusion of these participants was based on the need to have relevant information from a variety of sources pertaining to the specific case of study. The participants were selected because of their experience working within the Community School framework, whether the traditional Community School model or the Community School Teams model. As noted by Creswell et al., a holistic approach is necessary in order gather specific insights and information pertaining to Boston Community School: Case study research is a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time through Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 68 of 146 detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and documents and reports) and reports a case description and case-based themes. (Creswell, Hanson, Plano Clark, & Morales, 2007 p. 245)  The selection of participants, therefore, provided the necessary breadth of insight needed to determine the perceived impacts of the shift in Community School models at Boston Community School.  To recruit participants, we sent a letter seeking consent from the Vancouver School Board to conduct the case study and interview current and past VSB employees. Once the VSB approved, we then sent a letter of invitation and a consent form in digital form to the current principal at Boston Community School to further distribute amongst the current employees at Boston Community School, who were relevant to our study. We also reached out, through a letter of invitation and consent form, to former employees who were at one point connected with Boston Community School, and would have further insight for our research. The contact information for these former employees, along with youth and family workers who worked with Boston Community School in some form, was sought through the VSB and current employees at Boston Community School.  Data Collection    Semi-structured interviews: To collect data, we conducted semi-structured interviews, which as noted by Creswell et al., and other researchers, are able to provide the in-depth scope necessary for a qualitative case study (Creswell et al., 2007). Within the “semi-structured interview the researcher has a list of questions or fairly specific topics to be covered, but the interviewee has a great deal of leeway in deciding how to Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 69 of 146 reply” (Bryman, Bell, & Teevan, 2012, p. 166). This opportunity for leeway allowed us to further probe areas of inquiry that need further clarification. Also, the semi-structured interview allowed our participants to expand on their experience in connection with how the previous or current model of Community Schools impacted student opportunities to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections with adults in the community.   Our semi-structured interviews took place at a location of the interviewee’s choice to allow for the greatest amount of flexibility and accessibility for our participants.  We recorded the interviews using a camera, but kept the video cap on to only record the audio and not the video. We then transcribed the audio to allow for the interview responses to be recorded and sent to the interviewee for their personal reference and the opportunity to provide clarification or elaboration if required.    Document collection: As suggested by Creswell et al. (2007), case studies are made further effective with the procurement of additional resources, such as documentation, which allow for a wider scope of understanding. Therefore, we looked to utilize Boston Community Schools’ past annual reports of the community council pertaining to the program and services provided throughout the year under the traditional Community Schools’ model. We also gathered past newspaper articles highlighting community programs of note associated with Boston Community School. To investigate the current Community Schools Teams model, we examined VSB reports, news articles and briefs, meeting minutes from the Community School Teams model, which are public records and discussed programs offered within the current teams’ model. Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 70 of 146 Data Analysis   We began by examining documents and reports in relation to the traditional Community School model and the Community School Teams model to find information relevant to the benefits and challenges of each model in connection to providing opportunities for students to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections with adults in their community. We looked for evidence of possible responses the school made to these challenges within each of the models in order to further community engagement opportunities for students, and looked at alternative approaches that may have been utilized under each model to further opportunities for students. After conducting each of the semi-structured interviews we immediately began the procedure of data analysis.  Therefore, data was continually analyzed throughout the process of collection, adding to the analysis with each succeeding interview.  We then organized the data thematically in order to structure our findings in a concise and systematic manner. This was aimed at simplifying the interpretation process. After setting up interviews and recording and transcribing our interview data, we sat down to read over the transcripts together as a team. This team reading session allowed us to stop at key pieces of information to consider its relevance to our research questions, and to note data that may have been outside the research scope, yet possibly relevant when considering the broader context of Community Schools. At this point, we developed some informal notes throughout the interview transcripts that highlighted key points, ideas, or areas that required further inquiry. Moving ahead, we coded the data in connection to our research questions. We coded the data by breaking it down into interconnected concepts, as predetermined by our research scope, which we then grouped Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 71 of 146 into larger themes that were connected to our research questions. As such, we needed to ensure that the data being considered was in connection with our research focus, and not outside its scope.  Within this approach, we looked to analyze a specific phenomenon, a Community School in the VSB, the changes this Community School had experienced, and how this particular Community School was able to provide student engagement opportunities for students through these changes. This coding development strategy is similar to the substantive theoretical approach, which suggests coding data and developing categories that are specific to the research scope (Bryman et al, 2012). Basit notes that when developing these categories, we need to ensure that the categories “cannot be created in isolation from other categories we want to use in the analysis” (Basit, 2003, p. 144). Therefore, the categories developed, and then the broader themes that these categories will fall within, need to develop in direct correlation to the research questions and what was found through our interviews. Once we collected the data, we utilized the open coding strategy, as noted by Strauss & Corbin (1990), and discussed by Bryman et al., (2012). The open coding strategy breaks down the data into smaller chunks in order to examine, compare, conceptualize and categorize the data to better develop themes that can be later grouped together to answer our research questions (Strauss & Corbin, as cited in Bryman et al., p. 259). The interview data therefore allowed us to develop categories that emerged from the data, in addition to predetermined categories that were developed through our research questions and research scope. The potential outcomes of this process, as outlined Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 72 of 146 by Bryman et al. (2012), is to develop concepts, and categories, which will help us develop an understanding about the Community School framework in the VSB. When considering our research questions and scope, we categorized interview data into themes that are based on our initial research questions and literature review. The major predetermined themes included: 1. Community School Framework a. Relevance and importance of schools providing these services for students during out-of-school hours and making connections to adults in the community.  b. Is this work something schools should be focused on? Why or why not? c. Opportunities for students under the two Community School models to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in their community. 2. Perceived benefits a. Benefits for students, the school, and the wider community. b. What was/is the look, feel, sound of the school under each of the two Community School models? 3. Alternatives to Community School framework a. Could these programs or services occur if there is no Community School framework in place? Why or why not? 4. Personnel/Stakeholders a. Key people involved in organizing and implementing programs and services for students.   Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 73 of 146 5. Challenges a. Challenges for students under the two Community School models to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in their community. b. Possible financial concerns with operating programs and services for students and the community. c. Responses made by stakeholders to address challenges and opportunities for students. 6. Recommendations a. Recommendations stakeholders have for increasing student opportunities to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in their community. b. How Boston Community School should move forward to further promote opportunities for students to engage in out-of-school activities and make connections with adults in the community? As we went through the transcribed interviews we coded the data according to themes and their number sequence (ie. 1a, 4b, 6c…) and looked for patterns and connections within and across themes.  Ethics   To ensure ethics were upheld throughout the duration of our research we complied with the guidelines of the Canadian Panel on Research Ethics and the 2nd edition of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS 2).  In accordance with the expectations of the TCPS 2 and UBC this Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 74 of 146 research proposal was submitted to UBC’s Behavioural Research Ethics Board for ethics review before any invitations to participate were sent and before any data collection began.    In order to ensure consent was provided in an ethical manner, we provided participants letters of invitation outlining the scope of our research and a copy of the consent form that provided detailed steps of the study and its procedures, which include signing and returning the consent form, and scheduling an appointment to conduct the interview with the researchers. To protect the identities of individual participants we used pseudonyms for the school and the interviewees.  Due to the narrow focus of our case study, we cannot guarantee the complete confidentiality of participants or institutions.  However, we did take all steps necessary and required by UBC’s Behavioural Research Ethics Board to protect the identity and privacy of all our research participants.  Participants had the right to withdraw from the study at any time without explanation and without repercussions. They also had the right to remove particular material from their interview transcript if so desired.  Additionally, it is important to note that one of the researchers currently holds a position as a teacher at the school where the case study took place; however, the researcher is not in a position of authority over any of the participants in the study. If participants felt uncomfortable sharing their experiences with this researcher who works for the VSB, the second researcher, who does not work for the VSB, was made available to conduct the interview.   Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 75 of 146 Social Position and Reflexivity   As researchers we are both middle class male educators at the elementary level working in greater Vancouver in both public and private organizations.  Jasper Hodson currently works as a teacher in the VSB and Robbie Purewall works as an administrator in a private school, thereby bringing to the study two different perspectives in regard to the importance of the community and its integration with the school. In the private school, it becomes difficult to transform the school into a community hub because students are typically coming in from a larger demographic area, whereas, in the public elementary school, students are typically living fairly close to their school. A majority of students who attend Boston Community School are those who fall within the geographical catchment area, which means that they live within a relative proximity to the school.  From both of our cultural perspectives, South Asian and Canadian, community engagement and interaction is an important aspect of child development.  Both of us were raised in communities where engaging with adults was important for children to further their overall well-being.  While growing up, it was common practice in our communities for students to gather at a common place with peers and adults in the community to participate in out-of-school activities.  As educators we are concerned that students are not as engaged with the adults in their communities and not participating in out-of-school activities in their communities.  For example, we have noticed the school building, school grounds, neighbourhood streets, and parks around our schools are often absent of children and adults during out-of-school hours as compared to when we were children. The school appears to no longer be a hub of the community, and this a concern as both of us value Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 76 of 146 the interactions we had as children with caring adults in our communities as vital to our well-being and sense of belonging.  Therefore, our values and backgrounds can potentially influence our advocacy for the Community School framework to be central in the conversations surrounding educational leadership and policy development in schools across the province.        Delimitations and Limitations   This study examined the transition of the Community School framework at Boston Community School from 1973 to 2015, with a focus on the years prior to and after 2004 when the transition occurred, to determine what perceived impacts the change had on opportunities for students to participate in out-of-school activities and connect with adults in their community.  Therefore, the scope of the research is focused on the school during the periods 1973-2004 under the traditional Community School model, and 2004-2015 under the Community Schools Teams model at this particular school which is located in the VSB.    There are several known limitations to our study. A key limitation of our study is that there is very little research done that focuses directly on these two models, outlined in our study, of the Community School framework. The way we define the two models, therefore, potentially limited the data gathered and our findings. There is nothing that we came across that explicitly examines the Community School team’s model in any research, and no research exists that compares these two particular models. Therefore, due to a lack of research that compares Community School structures, our research will have to piece together relevant information from a variety of sources. In addition to a lack Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 77 of 146 of past research that connects with our field of study, our interviews were dependent on the ability of participants to recall past experiences accurately.  By focusing on educators, the study ignores the voices and opinions of students pertaining to the availability of opportunities to participate in out-of-school activities and connect with adults in their community.  The findings, however, can be informative when making future decisions in connection with deciding upon a Community School framework.   The decision to conduct a case study in the context of a public school setting will exclude the perspectives of independent schools and their strategies around the Community School framework and how these schools engage students during out-of-school hours and encourage these students to make connections to adults in their community.  The following chapter describes the findings gathered through our research.             Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 78 of 146 Chapter IV - Findings  Our research questions address how the shift in Community School frameworks, from a traditional Community School model to a Community School teams model, at Boston Community School has impacted opportunities for students to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in the community, two aspects of well-being we have identified as central to our research. Our findings are based on evidence gathered from five interviews conducted with former and current employees of the VSB, who have worked with Boston Community School in some form as well as documents and reports related to Boston Community School. We also used evidence from VSB and MDI reports, along with annual reports from the Boston Community School Advisory Council and administration to supplement our interview data and get a broader understanding of the Community School framework. This chapter provides an overview of the research participants, history of Boston Community School and a discussion of the changes the school has experienced in connection to the Community School framework, which we use to examine how these changes have impacted opportunities for students, and their well-being. Within this history we examine the challenges faced within each framework, and how Boston Community School has responded to these challenges to ensure opportunities for community engagement to promote student well-being remained available.     Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 79 of 146 Description of Research Participants  The five participants involved in our interview process had a relationship with Boston Community School between the years of 1978 to 2015. Most of the interviewees had multiple relationships and roles with Boston Community School. Of the five participants, two were teachers at the school, two were principals of the school, two were parents of children at the school, three worked in the school’s daycare, and four were Community School coordinators. The participants were all given pseudonyms (Mr. Gus, Mrs. Lucy, Mr. Sam, Mrs. Sara, and Mr. Steve) to protect their identity.   The interviews help present an historical narrative of Boston Community School from 1978 to the present day; especially, when considering how Boston Community School, within the context of the Community School framework, was able to provide opportunities to promote student well-being.  Boston Elementary School – Early History  The early history of Boston Community School, described in depth in Appendix C (1900s-1929), Appendix D (1930-1945), and Appendix E (1946-1972) highlights how integral the community was within Boston Community School, and how the school and community worked together to further opportunities for the students, school and wider community. This early history led to the development of the traditional Community School framework at Boston Community School in the 1970s.    Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 80 of 146 1970-1994: Traditional Community School Framework (District Funded Era)   From its inception Boston had always been a community oriented school, a place where staff and parents worked together to support students and community members.  Therefore, it’s no surprise that in 1970s Boston was designated a Community School by the VSB and became one of the first traditional Community Schools in BC. As part of this new model, an Advisory Council was formed to represent various community groups and school stakeholders, and respond to the needs of the groups within the Boston community that desired to cooperate with the school and use the school as a gathering place (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.52).   By 1970s many groups were involved with Boston Community School, including the Y.M.C.A., Cubs and Scouts Canada, Family Services, ‘Boston’ Public Library, Immigrant Services Society and Children’s Aid Society (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p. 52-53).  The groups worked with Boston Community School to provide services and programs to the students and wider community. By 1989, over 1500 community members were enrolled in these programs, which offered a wide selection of activities, including ESL, Greek dance, Karate, Pre-natal classes and Computers for senior citizens (Snowdon-Proetsch, p.53).  Engaging senior citizens with the school was always a priority of Boston Community School during this period, and students were encouraged to make connections and friendships, through luncheons and visits through seniors’ homes, with elderly people from the community (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.54).  These programs were designed to serve both the social and emotional needs of students and seniors involved (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.55).   Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 81 of 146  Boston Community School, under the traditional Community School framework, had a very specific mandate that was designed to provide both students and community members with opportunities to learn and form connections with others in their community during and out-of school hours. The goals of Boston Community School during this period were: 1. To strengthen the existing school program through the greater involvement and utilization of available community resources. 2. To more effectively utilize the existing community resources, including schools and other facilities for desired community programs. 3. To expand the range of optional learning, participation and involvement opportunities for children and youth. 4. To provide involvement and participation opportunities for adults. 5. To facilitate school cooperation and coordination with other community agencies. 6. To increase local citizen involvement in both the decision-making and leadership aspects of their local community efforts. (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.55) These goals articulate a vision of providing the Boston school community with more accessibility to the school building and inclusivity in the education of both children and adults. Although worded differently, the goals of the first Advisory Council, under the traditional Community School framework in the 1970s, are very similar in spirit and objective to the goals of Boston Elementary School’s first PTA (see Appendix C 1900 - 1929 Boston Community School – Early History). Whether the school was part of a Community School framework or not, the Boston Community School’s community and staff were always inclined to work together. Boston Community School’s initiation as a traditional Community School in the 1970s coincided with a province-wide push from government to decentralize services and promote community development. At this point, Community Schools were first developed in 1971, and were funded almost exclusively by local school district money, supplemented by funding from government programs (i.e. daycare) and through revenues Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 82 of 146 made from programs fees at the school level (Talbot, 2004, p. 2). Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, no specific government funding was available to traditional Community Schools in any organized way; therefore, by the early 1990s many Community Schools faced losing the traditional Community School model if funding could not be secured (Talbot, 2004, p. 2).  This early period from the 1970s to 1994 was a time when Boston Community School, like others in the province, existed and flourished, not only because of stable government funding, but because the school district, staff and parents worked to keep the model going from year to year. As one of the interviewees, Mr. Steve, suggested, there were many times during this period when the VSB was looking at cutting funding to community schools like Boston Community School, yet through strong advocacy the district decided not to move ahead: They [VSB] learned that when those budget years, lean budget years happened, you know, you had public meetings regularly at various schools, you might have 300 hundred people [at the meeting] and looking at a broad range of cuts that were going to happen and 80 or 90% were all there for community schools.  It was and that's the reason that the model stayed as long as it did because it’s a pretty rich model. (Mr. Steve, 2015, p. 5)  Hence, the traditional Community School model that Boston Community School worked under from the 1970s to 1994 was championed by staff, parents and other community stakeholders. All interviewees spoke in praise of the traditional Community School model's ability to connect students at Boston Community School with out-of-school programs and to adults in their community. For example, Mr. Steve who worked at Boston as a teacher and community school coordinator in the 1980s, spoke highly of how Boston was a place Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 83 of 146 for students to engage in deep and meaningful out-of-school activities and connect with adults from the school and wider community.  When I worked there as a teacher and as a coordinator [Boston] had this outstanding outdoor education program and the community school coordinator [was] as key component in supporting teachers to go outside of the regular learning environment and go into the community. (Mr. Steve, 2015, p. 2)  Mr. Steve further elaborated on the traditional Community School model. There were many examples back then where, you know, based on interest of what teachers thought they were looking for, built up over time in terms of resources that might be available, what kinds of relationships that were established through the community school office, through the coordinator with a whole variety of individuals, some of which were parents, and some of which were just community members. (Mr. Steve, 2015, p.3)  Additionally, Mr. Steve noted how the traditional Community School looked at Boston Community School, and how closely the staff worked with each other. The principal and coordinator [were] side by side, you had [a] school secretary, in the old days [referring to the traditional model] extra clerical or staff assistants is what existed there, then the community school’s secretary.  And that was a hub and that was all together and you had this natural working relationship. (Mr. Steve, 2015, p.6)  Mr. Steve mentioned the role of the coordinator several times and it became clear that he perceived this role to be central to the operation of the Community School.  1994-2003: Traditional Community School (Consistent Provincial Funding Era)   Boston Community School existed under the traditional Community School model for over two decades with funding from the school district. In 1994, the provincial government began to allocate funding to designated Community Schools across the province under the Ministry of Education, with each designated Community School receiving $75,000 in funding (Talbot, 2004, p. 7). During this time, criteria for a school Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 84 of 146 to become designated as Community Schools included creating a plan to provide programs and services for students and the community, demonstrating a commitment by the school and community to the Community School framework, having strong parental involvement in the school, and developing goals to address the needs of the community (Talbot, 2004). Once this was in place, schools would then apply for Community School grants to fund the vision of the Community School framework.  Three of our interviewees worked at Boston Community School, in some capacity, during the period between 1994 and 2003. All three of these interviewees spoke of the many benefits for students at Boston under the traditional Community School model in terms of opportunities for students to participate in out-of-school activities and connect with adults in their community.   For instance, Mrs. Sara, the Community School coordinator at Boston Community School from 1998 to 2003, described her schedule as being completely full organizing and implementing programs and services to benefit both students and adults in the community. "One of the main things always was doing the out-of-school time and evening programs and noon-hour.  So we used to [be developing] programming for not only children and students at the school, but also adults in the neighbourhood" (Mrs. Sara, 2015, p. 1).  During the time Mrs. Sara was the Community School coordinator at Boston Community School, government funding to community schools across the province was stable at $75, 000 per year for each traditional Community School; however, by the end of her tenure in 2003, funding was as low as $46,000 (Makhoul, Myres, & Montgomery, 2004, p. 7).   Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 85 of 146 Mrs. Sara worked diligently as the Community School coordinator to listen to the parents and staff in order to understand their needs and figure out ways to fulfill those needs: I was also involved with, very involved with the parents, so really supported their initiatives and I always sort of worked from the place that I was there to support the community members in developing the community as they saw it needing or seeing, as they saw it needing to fit their needs. (Mrs. Sara, 2015, p. 1)  Mrs. Sara worked to create relationships with parents, students, staff and community members. In order to earn their trust and support, she felt it essential to follow through on initiatives aimed at addressing the needs of stakeholders within the school. "I think the other key thing to it was that you needed to actually respond to what they told you they needed" (Mrs. Sara, 2015, p. 7). This included reaching out to community members who may not have connected with the school on their own accord, but needed some guidance in order to get involved with the school: It's looking for those parents that are feeling a bit isolated or a bit shy or maybe English isn't their first language or they're not brought up in Canada, then reaching out to them and bringing them into the school community and helping them feel a part of things. (Mrs. Sara, 2015, p. 4)  Mrs. Sara spoke of how she was responsible for connecting vulnerable students within the school to programs and services that would help bring them into contact with caring adults and peers: We would be looking for those kids that, and the families that it's not easy for them to engage in things.  So, those are the ones I think that might have been going home after school being on their own watching TV or not having sort of a strong peer group.  So, those were the kids that you really wanted to try and engage in programs. (Mrs. Sara, 2015, p. 5)  Mrs. Sara notes that “Even as a community school coordinator working full-time you never had enough time to do everything you could do” (Mrs. Sara, 2015, p. 4) in terms of Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 86 of 146 the never-ending responsibilities associated with developing opportunities for students and the community.  The annual Community School Coordinator's Report is a useful resource in terms of providing information about Boston Community School’s goals under the traditional Community School model and how these goals came to fruition. Mrs. Sara's Coordinator's Report, from 1999-2000 school year, highlights the core value to “strengthen the existing school program through greater involvement and utilization of available community resources” (Mrs. Sara, 1999-2000 Coordinator's Report) through the Community School framework at Boston Community School. The Coordinator's Report highlights how the coordinator and her staff facilitated these goals, specifically through utilizing 260 volunteers from colleges, universities, senior citizen groups and community groups such as a local church. The report also highlights the extensive involvement of parents in the classrooms and in supporting fundraising and special event initiatives for the school and students (Mrs. Sara, 1999-2000 Coordinator's Report). Further findings from the Coordinator’s Reports of Mrs. Sara and Mrs. Lucy (Appendix F) suggest the richness in programs and services available for students at Boston Community School to engage with the wider community.  Another of our interviewees, Mrs. Lucy, who was involved extensively at Boston Community School as a parent, preschool teacher, day care staff, and temporary Community School coordinator, spoke of the close connection she had as the Community School coordinator with the school staff and parents. “It was really working very closely with the school principal, the school PAC (parent advisory council), to insure that those initiatives that had been planned [during the previous school year] actually went ahead” Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 87 of 146 (Mrs. Lucy, 2015, p. 2). As the coordinator, she attended meetings with the school PAC, staff meetings with teachers, and connected with people involved in the implementation and organization of programs and services for students and adults in the school and the wider community. “Connecting with people, making sure things were still on track, if they weren't trouble shooting” (Mrs. Lucy, p. 2). Mrs. Lucy, as the Community School coordinator, was also responsible and accountable to the school's PAC, teaching and administration staff, and community stakeholders to ensure the progress and management of any programs or services during or after-school hours were addressing specific needs for students and in turn were for the benefit of the community.  Mrs. Lucy's extensive involvement in the organization and implementation of programs at Boston Community School benefited both students and adults during and out-of-school, and this is a testament to the depth of service that a coordinator, under the traditional Community School model, was able to provide to the school. Mrs. Lucy also explained how as an executive in the School’s daycare, and as the coordinator under the traditional model, she worked with school staff to identify students who were at-risk and find ways to support those students by having staff positively engage with them on a regular basis and by providing these students with opportunities to participate in out-of-school activities at their school (Mrs. Lucy, 2015, p. 4).  This example speaks to the holistic approach to servicing students and community members under the traditional Community School model, in an effort to support students overall well-being, not just through their classroom experience, but also during and after school.   Mrs. Lucy explained that without the full-time Community School coordinator position in place programs and services directed toward student well-being can still Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 88 of 146 occur; however, the depth and sustainability of these services is diluted or limited (Mrs. Lucy, 2015, p.  5). When infrastructure is in place its makes the delivery of these programs easier and much more sustainable.  Mrs. Lucy described how she would observe other schools near Boston Community School running programs for students, but noted "they just weren't as in-depth, they didn't have someone overall coordinating, school PACs would often do that instead, so always there would be programs, just not as much and not as in depth" (Mrs. Lucy, 2015, p. 5). An established infrastructure allows the school to deal with issues around uncertainty of funding or the availability of personnel.  Mrs. Lucy mentioned the struggles with volunteers, similar to Mrs. Sara, and ensuring they are readily available to implement programs that are sustainable because it was difficult at times to find volunteers willing to make the level of commitment required (Mrs. Lucy, 2015, p. 5). Mrs. Sara also spoke of how key it was to the success of programs to have a skilled coordinator working full-time at one school, rather than relying on volunteers or other staff to do the work as a side project on top of their main responsibilities: You still need to have that person that person that knows how to do those things and can navigate the system and can actually have set hours every day to put into...they also have to know how to monitor the programs, what makes a good program, staff supervision, dealing with parents or kids when there's issues that come up, it would be challenging to do that sort of parent-to-parent. (Mrs. Sara, p. 34)  No interviewees suggested that schools could not offer programs to students during out-of-school hours without the aid of a Community School coordinator; however, interviewees did agree that these programs would be less sustainable because there is an Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 89 of 146 absence of strong relationships between those running the programs and those who are participating in them.   Boston Community School’s Principal’s Report from 2000-2001, which was an annual report completed by the school principal, adds to our understanding of how the traditional Community School operated programs that were rich in nature. An example of this is the partnerships that existed with the wider community, as “twice each year the Community Coordinator and I [school principal] visit all of the homes within the radius of the school” (Principal’s Report). The report did not specify what the radius of the school was, but this is a daunting task to handle, especially when considering issues around time constraints for a school principal. This type of personal connection and outreach into the community by the school staff is an example of the commitment to relationship building that was encompassed under the traditional Community School model at Boston Community School. Another added component in the report was a school goal to develop meaningful relationships with senior citizens and other community members by allowing these groups the opportunity to learn computers skills at Boston Community School with students as their teachers (Principal’s Report). Programs such as this benefit students by providing unique opportunities for them to develop positive and meaningful with these adults through their role as teachers. Boston Community Council Chairperson's Report expresses the positive impact and achievements at Boston Community School during the 2000-2001 school year (Community Council Chairperson, 2000-2001); however, the 2001-2002 Chairperson's Report focuses more so on the frustration of the Community Council aimed at the provincial government and local school board in relation to the loss of funding and Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 90 of 146 threats of losing the programs and services that operated under the traditional Community model at Boston Community School.   An example of this shift in tone within the Community Council is noted in the Community Council Chairperson’s 2001-2002 report, which begins with: Here we are again at the end of another school year - and, boy what a battle it's been!  It seems almost from the get go, we were up against the wall having to defend our children, our community school and ourselves. With the threat of losing community school funding early in the year, we came together as a group of concerned parents, staff and community working in unison to maintain the wonderful school, staff and community programs that we so dearly treasure and maybe up until this point took for granted that they would always be there for our kids. We managed to maintain funding for now, but come March 2003, we may require the collective endeavours of Boston parents and staff when the future of school-based programs will come under scrutiny once again.  This shift in focus beginning in 2001 coincided with the newly elected Liberal Government in British Columbia, which was looking to make cuts across the board, and especially to social programs to balance the budget, which was in deficit (Caledon Institute for Social Policy, 2002). These cuts included education, and for the Community School framework at Boston Community School, this meant change was imminent to the stable funding that had existed. The period from 1994 to 2003 was described by our interviewees as a vibrant and busy time at Boston Community School under the traditional Community School model.  Students at Boston Community School were offered ample opportunities to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections with adults, which were facilitated by stable funding, the full-time Community School coordinator, and the strong connections in the community.  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 91 of 146 2002-2005: The Transition Period  The three-year period of 2002-2005 was when Boston Community School transitioned from a traditional Community School to be a part of the Community School Teams model. Mr. Steve, the principal at the time, noted in his annual Principal's Report in June of 2004: I can look back at what has been a very challenging, yet productive year. The uncertainty regarding our Community School funding is still present and the time and energy to advocate for this critical program for our school has been a significant drain on both our parents and staff members.  A similar sentiment of uncertainty was echoed in the Community Council Chairperson's Report from that year, as parents and community members continued to advocate to maintain the programs and services they were accustom to:  The 2003-2004 school year has probably been one of our most politically involved years ever, advocating for designated community school funding has been a primary executive initiative.  We are certain there will be changes next year. (2004)  However, despite all the uncertainty and preoccupation with lobbying for continued community school funding, Boston Community School continued to offer students ample opportunities to participate in out-of-school activities and engage with adults during this transition period. For example, as noted in the Community School Coordinator's Report form that year “This fall, winter and spring, we had over 700 registrations for our morning, lunch after-school and evening programs for children and adults (includes programs offered at [a neighbouring elementary school just a few blocks away]” (2004). The school, at this point, was looking to continue the programs and implementing creative ways to get these programs up and running.  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 92 of 146 The dedication of the wider community was crucial to keep these programs and services running. “Creating a successful school is all about people working together and Boston has some of the best students, parents and staff” (Mr. Steve, Principal's Report 2004). The wider community took on the role of the Community School coordinator, which was no longer funded, as the school transitioned, by supporting programs and services and becoming more engaged with the school’s activities.  To accommodate the change and the loss of the full-time Community School coordinator, Boston Community School sought a Special Events coordinator and a Volunteer coordinator to organize and document duties related to the recruitment of volunteers and running special events with the transition money provided by the Vancouver School Board (Community Council Chairperson, 2005). The Community School Council was determined to keep Community School initiatives going, and in order to do this they needed someone to fill the roles vacated by the coordinator. The council advocated for this in 2004: The Executive Counsel has limited resources to document the processes and procedures around Special Events and Volunteer Recruitment due to the loss of the 2 Community Programs Office staff positions [coordinator and secretary].  We would recommend that Boston School use the transition money from the VSB to hire a special event and volunteer coordinator to help the school and counsel with the transition process. (Chairperson's Report 2004 - 2005)   The VSB provided a lump sum of $15,000 to Boston Community School in 2005-06 and budget for use until 2008-09 (Boston Community School 2004-2005 School Based Support Plan).  This money was supplemented by a $6,000 gift from Boston Community School's daycare (School Based Support Plan).  The proposed use of the money was to hire a Volunteer Coordinator who would work four hours a day for a 38 day term position and earn $15 an hour, along with a Special Events Coordinator who would work under Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 93 of 146 the same conditions (School Based Support Plan). Although, Mrs. Sara had noted that there was never enough time to do everything as a full-time coordinator, this move to hire part-time coordinators was an attempt by Boston Community School to hold onto some of the key infrastructure that operated under the traditional Community School model.    Funding from government remained stable at around $43 million until 2003 when it was reduced to $35 million, and then in 2004 the funding was increased to $45 million and transferred back to the Ministry of Education and was placed under the jurisdiction of CommunityLINK, a new entity created to oversee the program and ensure that the funding addressed specified needs, as determined by the government, school board, school and community (Talbot, 2004, p. 7).  The Ministry of Education would continue to fund the Community School framework for all 60 school districts in British Columbia, under the CommunityLINK banner, but the decision of how to distribute funds was now up to individual school boards. The Ministry of Education established the vulnerable student supplement (VSS), which provided additional funds to 25 of the school districts to target the needs of vulnerable students (Government of British Columbia-CommunityLINK, 2015).  With this shift in 2003, the school boards, and specifically, the Vancouver School Board, ultimately became responsible for creating a plan of action to distribute the funds to the various schools within its jurisdiction to address community needs and the needs of vulnerable children. The Ministry of Education created certain restrictions on the use of CommunityLINK funds, and required accountability on the part of the school board in order to ensure they were targeted to meet the needs of vulnerable students. The Vancouver School Board, at this point, decided to develop the Community School Teams Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 94 of 146 framework, which it aimed at addressing the needs of vulnerable students within the district (Vancouver School Board-Community, n.d.).  Therefore, 2003 was essentially the end of nearly 30 years of operation under the traditional Community School model for Boston Community School. As part of the transition in 2004, Boston Community School lost its two full-time Community School staff (the coordinator and secretary), as the Principal's Report form that year notes: This year [2004-2005] was one of transition for Boston as we went from a fully funded Community School to one of nineteen schools supported by a Community School Team.  With the loss of two full time staff members from the administrative operation of our school, the role of parents, volunteers and community agencies has taken on even greater importance. (Mr. Steve, Principal's Report, 2005)  With the loss of direct funding for the traditional Community School, a greater onus was placed on community parents, volunteers and agencies to keep programs intact.  During this shift, Boston Community School’s daycare took on many of the responsibilities that typically fell to the Community School coordinator previously. The changes to the Community Schools programs in 2004 once again challenged us to take on new responsibilities. The recreational programs were likely to be lost and we felt that [Boston's daycare] had both the capacity and the expertise within its staffing to take these on.  With some transitional help we were able to begin a small offering of 6 programs in January of 2005. (Boston Community School’s Daycare Executive Director's Report, 2005)  The Community School Teams Report from this school year highlighted the continuation of the Big Brother's mentoring program and monthly visits to a local senior’s facility by a grade 2/3 class (Boston Community School Teams Report, 2005). The fact that only two programs were highlighted, both continuations of programs from the traditional Community School model, coupled with the six out-of-school programs offered by the Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 95 of 146 daycare, is indicative that opportunities for students to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults significantly diminished during this period. 2006-2014: Community School Teams (A Period of Provincial Government Funding and District Management)    Within this period, the Provincial Government provided block funding to the school districts, and the school districts decided how to distribute the funds to address the needs of the community and provide services for vulnerable students.  Funding, Responsibility, and Mandate  The CommunityLINK mandate requires districts to serve vulnerable students in four distinct areas: nutrition, academics, social and emotional behaviour and community connectedness (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013, p. 29). Under the new Ministry mandate, the VSB could no longer justify funding individual traditional Community Schools through CommunityLINK grants because school districts had to demonstrate how the grants were targeting vulnerable students throughout the district, and providing money to individual Community Schools did not suffice. For Boston Community School this meant that it would no longer receive direct funding from the province or from the VSB, and instead provincial funding would be used in the VSB to support Community School Teams. As a result, Boston Community School would lose its full-time Community School coordinator and Community School secretary, and instead, a single coordinator was to serve fourteen elementary schools and four high schools in the Boston Community School hub. Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 96 of 146  Mr. Steve referred to this as a “dilution of service” for schools like Boston that were attached to "some high schools and many of the feeder schools [where really] very little was happening, it's impossible to divide that person up [referring to community school coordinator]" (Steve, 2015, p.6).  CommunityLINK funding has remained stable since 2004. For the 2014-2015 school year, the Ministry of Education allocated $51.2 million for all 60 school districts through its CommunityLINK mandate, and $11.2 million through the Vulnerable Student Supplement to specified school districts with significantly identified populations of vulnerable students (Government of British Columbia-CommunityLINK, 2015). These funding levels have been fairly similar for this time period, with slight growth over the years. For the 2014-2015 school year, the VSB received $8,761,287 funding through CommunityLINK, all of which the VSB allocated to address the needs of identified vulnerable students (Government of British Columbia-Funding, 2014). The Surrey School District, BC’s largest and fastest growing school district, in comparison received a total of $7,121,204 in funding, which includes $3,825,564 from CommunityLINK and $3,295,640 in Vulnerable Student Supplement (Government of British Columbia-Funding, 2014). Surrey’s funding model actually splits money to target vulnerable students, with the other funds used for programs and services for the Community School framework in Surrey, which provides services for students and adults throughout Surrey. The VSB receives supplemental funding for out-of-school programs through its partnership with United Way and from the Ministry of Community, Culture and Sport through the DASH-BC program to support out-of-school sport and art initiatives (Vancouver School Board-Community, n.d.).  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 97 of 146 To manage the dispersal and management of funds, the VSB instituted a new structure called Community School Teams. The Community School Teams model supports vulnerable students by providing the following services that are dispersed on an as needed basis around the district:   School Meal Program  Community Schools Teams (CST) (12 hub teams: Community Schools Coordinator, Teacher, Youth and Family Worker, and part time Activity Programmers)  Alternative Program Youth and Family Workers  Small grants to Inner City Schools  SACY (School Aged Children and Youth) (1.7 FTE)  Parent Connect facilitator (0.1FTE)  KidSafe (1.0 FTE Community Schools Coordinator/Executive Director) and meals  Reading Recovery Teachers (2.0FTE)  Counsellor (Britannia) (1.0FTE) (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013). Additionally, the VSB established a supervisory position to oversee the deployment of funding and services across the VSB. This position was also responsible for additional fundraising, partnership agreements, accessing and coordinating grants, implementing professional development, and working alongside the district principal and school principals to evaluate the needs of the district (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013). The Community School Teams Coordinator is responsible for overseeing the implementation of out-of-school programs (3:00-6:00pm), student leadership training and placements, developing and maintaining partnerships, and securing funding to support any of the above initiatives in all of the schools designated as part of a designated Team or “hub”(Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013, p. 12). Out-of-school time between 3:00PM and 6:00PM and school breaks (professional days, school closures, Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 98 of 146 holiday breaks) were identified as significant times when children and youth can become more vulnerable if not engaging in supervised activities (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013, p. 12). District wide, the three most popular out-of-school activities or programs in 2012-2013 were a combination of activities that focused on sports, arts and music (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013, p. 12).   Community School Team Hubs  Beginning in September of the 2005 school year, Boston Community School was incorporated into a family of schools under the VSB's new Community School Teams model with twelve hubs, each supported by a team that reports to district administrators. The twelve Community School Teams “work in hubs, or families of schools, and offer programs and services to support vulnerable students in four areas: nutrition, academics, social-emotional functioning, and community connectedness.  Each team is comprised of a Community Schools Coordinator, a Youth and Family Worker (YFW), and a part time Activity Programmer(s). In addition there are five YFWs, called Elementary Support, who work in conjunction with the teams in designated elementary schools” (Vancouver School Board-Community, n.d.). Map 1 (Appendix G) illustrates how the school district is divided into twelve hubs, or families of schools. The names of the hubs appear in large bold letters. According to Map 1, the organization is geographical with most hubs having one high school, which the hub is named after, and multiple elementary schools. This, however, is not the case for the West 1 and West 2 hubs, which each have four high schools and multiple elementary schools that fall within the geographical boundaries. West 1 and West 2 hubs represent a larger geographical region than the other ten hubs. The hubs each have teams who work in Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 99 of 146 connection with the schools within the hub to provide programs and services that specifically target vulnerable students. Students considered not vulnerable, however, are also able to participate in programs and services (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013, p. 8). Part of the collaborative process is Community School Governance meetings which occur at least three times per year, and attendees typically include Community School Teams staff, hub school administrators, district staff, and, in some cases, community partners (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013, p. 7).The goal of these governance meetings is to provide direction for the Community School Teams staff, dialogue about community issues affecting student vulnerability, and to determine support plans (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013, p. 7).  Vulnerable Students (2006-2012)  In order to serve vulnerable students, the VSB had to first define student vulnerability, and to do so the VSB adopted the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s definition of student vulnerability. The definition for vulnerable students reads: For the purpose of the CommunityLINK policy, the term “vulnerable students” means those students who may be at risk in terms of academic achievement and social functioning. These students primarily come from less affluent socio-economic backgrounds. In determining which students may be vulnerable, school districts may consider: low income measures; involvement with the provincial social service ministries and related agencies; community socio-economic demographics; information obtained through community mapping; and other relevant information including staff observation and self-identification. (Government of British Columbia-Policy, 2015)   Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 100 of 146 One of the main responsibilities at the hub level is for Community School Teams staff to work collaboratively with individual school administrators and staff to identify vulnerable students, as such “defining, understanding, and identifying vulnerable students' this is an ongoing part of the work staff under the CommunityLINK mandate" (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013, p. 2). This shows that the definition of vulnerability is flexible, which is important to keep in mind, as it allows CommunityLINK to address multiple needs, and those that may include and go beyond an economic definition of student vulnerability; however, during this period the SSI data was the main reference point in connection with the development of hubs and the allocation of resources for services and programs for students. As a result, Boston Community School received very few programs and services during this period under the Community School Teams model because services were required elsewhere in the district and students at Boston Community School were not seen as vulnerable as per the SSI data (Government of British Columbia-Policy, 2015). SSI is used to assess external factors that may contribute to a child's vulnerability, and mainly these students come from less affluent socio-economic backgrounds who are possibly at risk of low academic achievement and social functioning (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013) Furthermore: The District has relied heavily on the Social Services Index (SSI) - a figure provided by the Ministry of Education identifying numbers of families with children attending the schools who live on Income Assistance, and the numbers of children in the school who are in [Ministry] care. (Vancouver School Board CommunityLINK, 2014, p. 6)  Table 1 (Appendix H) reflects data from 2010-2011, and notes the name of each Community Hub, the number of schools and students in that given hub, the Social Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 101 of 146 Services Index average in each hub, and how that translates to the number of vulnerable students in relation to the number of students in that particular hub. Table 1, (Appendix H), shows, during this period when vulnerability was mainly identified through SSI data, Community School Teams were allocated with the goal of providing the greatest concentration of service, and lowest staff to school/student ratios, in the areas of the city with the highest concentration of vulnerable students. This was in line with the mandates of CommunityLINK and the Vancouver School Board. The West 1 and 2 hubs, (hubs 11 and 12 in Table 1 – Appendix H), where Boston Community School is located, clearly contain the lowest percentage of vulnerable students, but contain a higher number of total schools and elementary school students in relation to the other hubs. Consequently, the lower number of vulnerable students in these hubs meant the less need for programs and services provided through the Community School framework. One of the main reasons SSI data were chosen, during this period, as the key measuring tool of student vulnerability was because the Ministry required accountability for the funds being disbursed to school districts, and the SSI provided hard data to pinpoint where the highest numbers of vulnerable children were and what types of services they would benefit from (Mr. Sam, 2015, p.6). As Mr. Sam pointed out, in reference to why the West 1 and 2 hubs contained so many more schools, "In their [Ministry of Education’s] research and their data, and figuring out where those vulnerable children are, it was determined that the west side [west 1 & 2 hubs] of the city doesn't have that many [vulnerable students]” (Sam, p.6).  Table 2 (Appendix I) shows how outside grant money had been allocated through the hubs for the 2010-2011 school year. Grant money comes in from community agencies Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 102 of 146 that support initiatives within the hub for students, the school, and the wider community. Table 2 (Appendix I) breaks down grant money into per student dollars for each hub, and shows how hubs with higher percentages of vulnerable students (see Table 1 – Appendix H) tend to receive more non-Ministry grant money compared to hubs like West 1 and 2. Even though CommunityLINK funding has remained stable over the last few years, non-Ministry Grants do fluctuate year to year (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013).  What SSI data does very well is identify which students are vulnerable based predominantly on socio-economic factors. Socio-economic status plays a crucial role in the risk factors impacting vulnerability, and poverty is the most significant factor in relation to why students become vulnerable.  Children and youth who live in poverty are less "ready to learn" when they begin school, twice as likely to have their school performance judged as "poor" by their teachers, more likely to miss school, and twice as likely to drop out before graduating. (Hay & Wachtel, n.d., p. 7)  Poverty is an important aspect to address; however, this approach somewhat ignores other critical factors that produce vulnerabilities in children, namely, connections to caring adults within their community and participation in out-of-school activities.  In addition to poverty, there are other factors identified by the Ministry, and reiterated by Mr. Sam, that contribute to a child becoming vulnerable, which include transiency, being of Aboriginal status, having English as a second language and being dependent on social services (Mr. Sam, 2015 p. 6).   In relation to the Community School Teams model during this period, what we find is that the areas of the district that contained the most vulnerable students, as identified by SSI data predominantly, were those areas that were given small Community Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 103 of 146 School staff to student ratios, and those hubs were developed around one high school. The West 1 and 2 hubs, were allocated the same number of staff for their Community School Team, yet this team was required to service, in some cases, three times as many schools, operate in a much larger geographical area, and work to address the needs of a larger population of students (Map 1 – Appendix G & Table 1 – Appendix H). Vulnerable Students (2012-2015)  In 2012-2013, the Vancouver School Board expanded the definition of student vulnerability to incorporate a broader understanding. In addition to social-emotional development, physical health and well-being, school experiences, connectedness, and constructive use of after-school time, the new broader context also considers risk factors that include families on income assistance, children in ministry care, and issues around living in poverty (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013). This broader scope is an important development because it re-emphasizes the importance of physical health, well-being and connectedness. The aspects were not explicitly highlighted to the same degree under the Teams model from 2006-2013, under the previous definition of student vulnerability.  Additionally, the VSB added more risk factors, which include high proportion of newcomers, satellite families, English language learners, high transience rates, high cost of owning or renting housing, increased level of undiagnosed mental illnesses such as anxiety or depression, high proportion of social housing, high proportion of medical care facilities, involvement of high risk activities, and children living in single parent homes. Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 104 of 146 The changes are to be implemented in the fall of 2015 (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013).  In addition to the social services index (SSI), data is also utilized from Early Development Years Index (EDI), Middle Development Years Index (MDI), Census, community mapping, student or family self-identification, observation of teaching and support staff, and data from community partner agencies (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013). This gives the VSB a much more thorough understanding of student vulnerability and recognizes it as something that is dynamic and unique from neighbourhood to neighbourhood. For example, vulnerability in one neighbourhood may be as a result of socio-economic status, which requires programs such as lunch services or extended care hours. While, vulnerability in another neighbourhood may be in relation to a low level of connectedness to the community or caring adults, which would require services that provide such opportunities for students.  The information from the MDI is of particular interest for our research since it gathers data related to student well-being, including participation in after-school activities and connection with adults in the community. As the MDI data reported in Chapters 1 and 2, these latter variables influence student vulnerability in ways that may or may not be tied to socio-economic factors.  Beginning in 2012-2013, each school in the VSB was given a CommunityLINK Student Vulnerability Data Survey to complete, which provided schools the opportunity to thoroughly self-identify vulnerable students based on the definition of vulnerability and the input of school staff. As opposed to relying solely on predefined notions of student vulnerability, schools now had the option to add additional information to suggest Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 105 of 146 issues of concern that may not be as apparent initially. The school district pushed for additional components, such as the MDI reference points: This definition encompasses the Ministry’s definition of vulnerability and interfaces it with information gleaned from the Social Services Index and other similar bodies of research such as the Middle Years Development Instrument (MDI) for a comprehensive description of vulnerability. (Vancouver School Baord-Memorandum, 2013, p. 5)  MDI, refers to the Middle Years Development Index, where students self-identify aspects of well-being, which we have discussed in Chapter 1 and 2. Students in Grade 4 and 7 take the survey to examine how they feel about the possibility to address four aspects of well-being, which includes physical health, connectedness, social and emotional development, school experiences, use of after-school time (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2013). From these, our study focuses on two aspects specifically, connectedness and use of after-school time.   School administrators and staff use the district’s definition of vulnerability to identify “the top five factors influencing vulnerability in their schools, the process used to identify vulnerable students, and the number of students the staff in the school deem vulnerable using those processes” (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013, p. 6). The process of having individual schools fill out a vulnerability survey is essential to provide data for the district’s CommunityLINK report (sent annually to the Ministry of Education) and to provide Community School Teams staff, and school staff the opportunity to assess whether or not vulnerable students are receiving services they may require (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013, p. 6). It also provides an opportunity for schools to identify student needs and vulnerabilities that are specific to the school. Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 106 of 146 Programs and Services at Boston Community School  The Community School Teams model is designed to address issues of vulnerability and serve a large numbers of students. For instance, in 2012-2013, Community School coordinators across the VSB worked with partners and part-time staff to offer programs that serviced 32,938 elementary students, and 10,017 of those students (30%) were identified as vulnerable (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013, p. 13). A high volume of students at the high school level (11,544) were also serviced district wide and this included 3384 (29%) identified vulnerable students (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013, p. 13). For students at Boston Community School, however, the Community School Teams model has offered fewer services and programs over the past decade in comparison to the traditional Community School model. According to Mr. Sam, the Community School Teams coordinator for Boston's hub, Boston Community School receives fewer services because it has been identified as one of the least needy schools within his hub. Mr. Sam notes, “I know which schools need a lot of service and which ones don't...[Boston] would be one of my least demanding schools” (Mr. Sam, 2015, p. 9). In Mr. Sam's opinion, the presence of the school's daycare, which runs after-school and lunch hour programs for students at Boston Community School, has provided adequate out-of-school service for students: Because [the school daycare] is already here [at Boston] and providing in very much similar kind of structures to what we have, on-site, cheap, affordable to families, we don't compete with them.  I have [multiple] elementary schools outside of [Boston] plus four high schools in this area, so if there is a school that's being serviced well by a care provider like [Boston's daycare], I don't tend to go in and help. (Mr. Sam, 2015, p. 3)  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 107 of 146 When Mr. Gus arrived at Boston Community School in 2006, the school had only been part of the Teams model for one year, but there were still some institutionalized programs and services that had continued on from the days when Boston Community School was a traditional Community School; however, Mr. Gus noted “there were a few elements that carried on from the Community Schools model that [the daycare] sponsored” (Mr. Gus, 2015, p. 1). The daycare, which is a non-profit organization, picked up numerous activities during the transition period to ensure programs and services remained intact. Currently, the two west hubs, one of which Boston Community School falls within, has numerous opportunities for students to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults under the Community School Teams model. These programs include Big Brothers, an in-school mentoring program and teen mentoring program, UBC Let's Talk Science after school science programs at multiple schools, iDive BC which provides diving lessons and programs, MoreSports which provides basketball and soccer programs, Football BC flag football programs at multiple schools, Pacific First Aid after-school babysitting programs at multiple schools,  and numerous other programs to connect students with out-of-school learning experiences (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013).  What needs to be understood is that these opportunities are within the entire hub, and what can be a concern is transportation for students from Boston Community School to participate in these activities, which are not within the school setting.  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 108 of 146 Comparing Student Vulnerability in the Boston Community School Hub to Other Hubs  West 1 and 2 hubs seemed to be underserviced compared to the other 10 hubs. The schools that benefited from increased services and programs under the Community School Teams model were the ones located in areas with high percentages of vulnerable students, and, subsequently, schools that were part of the smaller hubs. The two West Hubs represented a larger geographical area and population of students, with 22 and 18 schools in each of the two hubs. Since these West Hubs were much larger, it made it difficult for one coordinator and hub team to service adequately in order for students to have opportunities to participate in out-of-school activities and connect with adults in the community, in comparison to the other hubs, which had fewer students and a smaller geographical area. What MDI data shows, and what those like Mr. Sam reiterates, is that students are actually vulnerable all over the city; although SSI data, which was predominately used as a reference point from 2006-2012, does not identify as many vulnerable students on the west side, there are still plenty of vulnerable children that perhaps went without programs and services during this period because of the immense size of the two west hubs and the dilution of human resources within these hubs in connection to the amount of students and schools.   Looking at the 2012-2013 MDI Grade 7 report that measures VSB students' perceptions regarding their participation in out-of-school activities and connection with adults in their community, it becomes evident that students at Boston Community School were plausibly as needy in terms of these assets as students in other hubs that received smaller Community School staff to student ratios and increased funding. When Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 109 of 146 comparing MDI data from four separate hubs (Appendix J) there are numerous similarities between all hubs in consideration of the need to have opportunities for students to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in the community.   One example of SSI data not necessarily matching student vulnerability can be found when comparing two neighbourhoods with opposite socio-economic status, like Britannia and Kitsilano. According to SSI data Kitsilano students have a much lower concentration of vulnerable students than the Britannia neighbourhood (see Table 1 – Appendix H). Also, according to a Vancouver Costal Health report, based on 2006 Canadian Census information, in the North-East corner of Vancouver, where the Britannia neighbourhood is located 40.5% of adults between the ages of 25-54 do not have post-secondary credentials compared to 15.1% in Kitsilano (Vancouver Coastal Health, 2006, p. 7). These statistics clearly demonstrate the socio-economic discrepancy between the Kitsilano and Britannia neighbourhoods; however, the socio-economic discrepancies between the two neighbourhoods, as MDI data shows (Appendix J), does not always correlate with students' perceptions of connectedness to adults in their community or opportunities to participate in out-of-school activities.  For example, only 2% of students in Britannia reported having no adult that knew them at school, while 9% reported having not adult that knew them at school in Kitsilano (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2013). This demonstrates that students in the Kitsilano neighbourhood may have greater access to socio-economic resources, but this does not necessarily mean they are gaining access to relationships with caring adults within their school. This is important to keep in mind because research shows that in Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 110 of 146 order for a student to feel a sense of belonging at school they need to have connections with peers, but they also need to have a connection with at least one adult in order to feel cared for (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2013). The MDI data comparisons (Appendix J) demonstrate a need for students throughout the VSB to have opportunities to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in the community. With the broader scope of vulnerability implemented in 2012-2013 in the VSB, and set to take shape in the fall of 2015, it will be interesting to see how these aspects of vulnerability play into the development and implementation of services for students at Boston Community School and the West hubs. The following chapter ties these findings into a discussion based on our initial research questions.             Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 111 of 146 Chapter V - Discussion  Our research into the two community school models that have served Boston for the past 30 years has identified two significant points of interest. Number one, students from all over the VSB are in need of opportunities to connect with adults in their school community and participate in out-of-school activities in order to feel a sense of belonging and to increase their well-being. Also, our research has demonstrated that the Community School Teams model was unable to serve Boston Community School with the same level of community engagement as the traditional Community School model. We are left wondering what if anything should be done to remedy this loss of service to Boston Community School. In other words, should citizens of Vancouver be concerned that a west side school, in a neighbourhood with high socio-economic means, is not receiving the type of out-of-school programming or opportunities for students to connect to adults in the community as it once did as a traditional Community School? Some would argue that the provincial government's policy toward community engagement should continue along the same vein as the Community School Teams model, developed by the VSB, because this model is serving some of the District’s most vulnerable students. The easy answer is for the government to provide more funding to school districts like the VSB, so they would not have to choose which students receive community supports and which do not.  However, as school boards across BC plan deep cuts in an effort to balance budgets, with the VSB especially looking at a short fall of $26.6 million for the 2015-2016 school year (Sherlock, 2014), increased funding does not seem to be a viable option.  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 112 of 146 Boston Community School operated as a fully-funded traditional Community School for nearly three decades, with funds coming either directly from the district or from the government. Through this, Boston Community School was able to employ a full-time on-site Community School coordinator who worked with the school, staff, students, and the wider community to implement programs and services. The traditional Community School model was able to provide an abundance of programs and services that were aimed at providing students opportunities to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in the community.  With a change in mandate from the government and the VSB, the goal of the Community School framework became increasingly focused on targeting services to students who were identified as vulnerable. As a result, Boston Community School no longer received direct funding to continue the traditional Community School model, and consequently lost some programs and services along the way. To service a wider range of vulnerable students, the VSB developed the Community School Teams model that divided the district into hubs based on geographical location and student-vulnerability rates. Through this, Boston Community School became a part of one of the West side community hubs that had more students and schools, and a larger geographical area than the other hubs throughout the district. With one coordinator working at each of the hubs, Boston Community School did not receive the service or attention that it was accustomed to under the traditional model.   Additionally, under the Teams model, the school's daycare took on the responsibility of running some out-of-school programs, and members of the Community School Teams staff viewed this as adequate service for students at Boston Community Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 113 of 146 School. The Teams model was set-up in such a way that each of the west hubs included four high schools and as many as eighteen elementary schools; therefore, the teams’ coordinator was simply spread too thin throughout the west hub to service each school equally. As a result, Boston Community School, its students, and the community saw a reduction in opportunities for students to engage in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in the community. One of the main reasons for the reduction in opportunities was the new mandate designed to have the Community School framework target students who were vulnerable. Students at Boston Community School were simply not seen as vulnerable based on the benchmark of Social Service Index (SSI) data, so services were cut or diluted. Socio-economic status does play a large factor in creating risk factors around vulnerability, and as such needs to be addressed through programs provided through the Community School framework. We suggest, however, that vulnerability is not as simple as a measure of socio-economic status through the SSI.  Vulnerability is a much more complex concept that has many variables. MDI data considers student well-being and health through 5 dimensions, which take into account aspects of social and emotional development, physical health and well-being, connectedness to adults & peers, school experiences, and use of after-school time (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2013). We considered two of these aspects of well-being, connections to adults in the community and participation in out-of-school activities, as being as important to target through the Community School framework.  Currently, the VSB has shifted the focus of vulnerability to be more inclusive of a range of risk factors. The broader scope considers socio-economic status, data related to Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 114 of 146 well-being from the MDI, and data collected at the school level to identify vulnerable students. This definition goes beyond targeting vulnerable students strictly through SSI data. The concern is not with the scope of vulnerability the VSB is targeting, but rather the application of the scope in relation to the development of programs and services. In other words, it appears as though the wider scope of vulnerability is not being considered when programs and services are implemented throughout the West hubs, as evident through the greater concentration of resources going toward the other hubs, which have fewer schools and students. Importance of Relationships with the Community School Framework  The Community School framework, regardless of what structure it takes, is dependent upon the ability of those working within it to develop strong relationships amongst its stakeholders. The staff of the Community School Teams model was unable to create these solid relationships at Boston Community School, something those working within the traditional Community School model did so well. Once these relationships are established, the coordinator is then able to work with the school and wider community to understand how student vulnerability is playing out in the community. The connections community school staff builds will allow them to better understand what issues are of concern to the community, and then develop programs and services that address these concerns. The traditional Community School model was structured to foster these relationships, and as such specialized programs and interventions could be directed at those students who are vulnerable in any number of ways. Having the Community School coordinator stationed at Boston Community School under the traditional Community School model was a key asset to the school, and helped Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 115 of 146 the school organize and implement programs and services aimed at the particular needs of this particular school. Both the traditional and Community School Teams model were aimed at benefiting vulnerable students at Boston Community School; however, the traditional Community School model was better suited to foster strong relationships among the various stakeholders in the school’s community, and this allowed the model to target services and programs toward students who had a range of vulnerabilities. Increasing the ratio of coordinators to schools and students in the west hubs may help to better foster these relationships, as the coordinators would have more time, fewer schools, and fewer students to work with. With an increased number of coordinators in the hubs, potentially coordinators can then look to provide students more opportunities to form positive relationships with adults in the school community and participate in out-of-school activities as preventative measures to minimize possible risk factors as these children grow up. Community School Framework as a Preventative Tool  Throughout many of the case studies and examples we looked at, the traditional Community School framework was developed to address the needs of the community by first understanding what these needs were. With this structure, the framework was preventative, meaning many services and programs were implemented to meet the needs of students before problems arose. On the other hand, the Community School Teams model takes a more reactionary approach to helping vulnerable students, meaning that students must first exhibit vulnerabilities before services and programs are implemented to address their social-emotional needs. This is an understandable method considering Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 116 of 146 that the mandate under CommunityLINK is to target vulnerable children once they are identified, rather than target children before they become vulnerable.    One philosophy is built on the belief that preventative interventions are needed to help create healthy children and communities, while the other focuses on addressing issues that have already become significant enough to warrant intervention. Research has often argued for preventative measures to address needs, as opposed to reactionary responses. While all public policies may have some impact on population health, initiatives that make a significant difference to the well-being of a population are by definition more central and more effective. In that sense, primary prevention — reducing risks to well-being in the environment — is more effective in general than trying to remedy the problems once they have occurred. (Daro,1988; BC Council for Families, 1997; Wachtel, 1997 as cited in Hay & Wachtel, 1998, p. 31)  If programs and services are created, and then put in place to support students through their time at school, there is then a system that is aimed at preventing issues resulting from vulnerability and risk, and therefore, positioning students for long term success. The Community School framework can assist when providing opportunities for students to participate in out-of-school activities and make connections to adults in community, working together to promote their well-being before they become vulnerable. Ideally all schools would have the opportunity to become Community Schools, if so desired by the community; however, with constraints on budgets and the need for additional services throughout the district to address a wide array of unique needs, it may not be possible to have a full-time coordinator at each school. As a result, schools, and school boards, need to be creative when considering how to implement the Community School framework to better provide opportunities for students to engage with the Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 117 of 146 community. The Community School Teams approach is an attempt to provide additional services and target a wider range of students throughout the district; however, this model is simply not effective enough for all schools, and some students, like those at Boston Community School, have experienced a reduction in opportunities through this model.  Those implementing the programs and services need to consider possible risk factors for their unique community, and then develop strategies to prevent them from becoming a larger concern in the community. The VSB might look at other districts to see how they work in partnership with multiple agencies and organizations to allow for the Community School framework to address the needs of vulnerable students, and for all people in the community.  Looking at Other Districts  The Surrey School district’s Community School Partnership’s program (Appendix K) highlights how CommunityLINK funding can be separated to address the needs of vulnerable students and to create opportunities for community engagement for students and people in the community who are in need of such services (Surrey’s Community School’s Partnerships, 2009). The Surrey model is similar to that of the Community School Teams approach in the VSB, with schools divided into geographical hubs, but the model appears to take the wider community into greater consideration. The City of Surrey is an active partner in this model, and also helps fund the implementation of the Community School framework in collaboration with the Surrey School District and the Ministry of Education. A key take way from Surrey’s model is the need to implement the Community School framework for the betterment of people of all ages throughout the community. Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 118 of 146 The Burnaby School District (Appendix L) has individual Community Schools, similar to that of the traditional Community School framework (Burnaby School District, 2015). What sets Burnaby apart is the role the City of Burnaby plays in being an active participant in the framework through funding and policy support. Additionally, the Burnaby model targets services and programs to the specific needs of the neighbourhood, as opposed to a blanket approach used in the VSB. Once again, the Burnaby model, similar to Surrey, in understanding the i-directional benefits of the Community School framework, strives to provide opportunities for all community members, not only students within the schools. Alternative Uses of CommunityLINK Funding    CommunityLINK funding provided $8.7 million to the VSB for the 2014-2015 school year, as noted in the previous chapter. The district used the funds to hire personnel and provide programs and services targeted at vulnerable students throughout the VSB.  Currently the VSB is using the CommunityLINK funding to provide infrastructure and programs throughout the Community School Team hubs. The funding, as discussed previously, provides the School Meal Program, Community Schools Teams (consist of 12 hub teams who each have a Community Schools Coordinator, Teacher, Youth and Family Worker, and a part time Activity Programmers), Alternative Program Youth and Family workers, small grants to Inner City Schools, 1.7 FTE SACY position, 0.1 FTE Parent Connect facilitator, 1.0 FTE KidSafe Community Schools Coordinator/Executive Director, 2.0 FTE Reading Recovery Teachers, and a 1.0 FTE Counsellor for Britannia (Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2013). Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 119 of 146 A large portion of this funding has gone to Nutrition Programs ($2.4 million), which typically pays for menu and nutrition development, technology and hardware implementation, and maintenance and repair of equipment. Furthermore, the funding for the Nutrition Programs has predominately been taken up for the use of school meal programs concentrated mostly in Inner City Schools in the east hubs (Vancouver School Board-Inner City, 2009). However, recently the VSB has looked to revamp its lunch programs to target vulnerable children, rather than entire designated Inner City School populations, which should bring some cost savings to the VSB (Gallagher, 2015). This could mean that CommunityLINK funding could be adjusted for the VSB, or additional sources of funding could be brought in to provide savings that could be utilized elsewhere. With an increased ratio of coordinators per hub, there would be the opportunity and responsibility to oversee the recruitment of volunteers to supplement programs, as well as engage community stakeholders who would be willing to invest in additional services. If the VSB is looking at targeting vulnerable students, then CommunityLINK funding could be used to increase the number of coordinators across the district who can work to bring in additional programs, services, and grants to individual schools and the district as a whole. The availability of more coordinators in each hub or at each school would be more beneficial to vulnerable students particularly because it encompasses opportunities to work with families and children, thus addressing specific needs. Coordinators could also then attend to prevention issues by assessing students’ engagement levels before they become problems for them, the school and/or the wider community.  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 120 of 146 Saskatchewan has made a focused effort to promote and expand the Community School model through sustained funding, which focuses on provided an adequate supply of coordinators to run programs and services for students and the wider community (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, 2010). With a minimal cost of a salary for a coordinator, each school could potentially have their own coordinator, and thus their own Community School framework to provide increased opportunities for students and the wider community. Additionally, money could be allocated to increase the ratio of coordinators in each hub to provide additional supports for programs.   Alternatively, the VSB can create a plan within the Community School framework where it provides the opportunity for schools to develop some time for two experienced teachers to take part in the Community School coordinator role. These teachers could be provided a 0.25 position within the school, where they are specifically responsible for overseeing the implementation of programs and services through the Community School framework. In return, the school would need to hire an additional teacher to cover this 0.5 period of class time for the combined two teachers, but this could be supplemented through the acquisition of new teachers, who would work at a lower salary than the full-time experienced teachers who are taking on this new additional role for the school. This approach would also address the need for the coordinators to have strong relationships with the school, students and the community, and this would be possible because these teachers would already be familiar with these stakeholders and their unique circumstances.  The Community School framework has provided additional opportunities for students, the school, and the wider community. The framework needs to ensure that Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 121 of 146 schools continue to be a place to promote well-being. Community Schools were initially developed to be a place for community engagement, and a center for community interaction throughout the day that went well beyond the traditional school hours. There needs to be a consideration of the entire community, and how the framework can benefit both children and families by providing those members opportunities to participate fully in their communities. In relation to the Community School Teams model we discovered that, especially in the West hubs, there were limited opportunities for community members, particularly families, to participate in the creation and implementation of programs designed to increase their children’s well-being, and in turn the well-being of the community as a whole. As such, surveys could also be aimed at integrating the voice of the community to see what needs the community believes should be addressed through such programs and services.  Further research can examine how funding is distributed to individual hubs in the VSB, and how these are addressing the needs of individual communities. In consequence, this research could look at how better funding models can be employed by the VSB to ensure opportunities for community engagement are possible to all students and to all community members in the Vancouver School Board who would benefit from such opportunities. In addition, research can look to determine how universities can take a greater role in the Community School framework in the VSB, has the universities have done in other places.    Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 122 of 146 References  ACEbc (Association for Community Education in British Columbia). (2014). Brochure - Community Schools: Working smarter together. p. 1-2. Retrieved October 10, 2014 from http://media.wix.com/ugd/eebde4_40d4c37a3c374b3babf85d45e2ea9eb5.pdf    ACEbc Directory (2014). Directory of Community Schools. p. 1-11. Retrieved October 10, 2014 from http://media.wix.com/ugd/eebde4_5894d4057612418b80b230197d0ed957.pdf  ACEbc-Seek Stories. (2012). Seek Stories. Retrieved October 12, 2014 from http://media.wix.com/ugd/eebde4_47307d219a8e41edb9c5a84bb5c25932.pdf.   Barnes, J., Colley, R., & Tremblay, M. (2012). Results from the active healthy kids Canada 2011 report card on physical activity for children and youth. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 37(4), p. 793-797.  Basit, T. (2003). Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educational Research, 47(2), p. 143-154. doi: 10.1080/0013188032000133548.   Benson, P., Leffert, N., Scales, P., & Blyth, D. (1998). Beyond the "village" rhetoric: Creating healthy communities for children and adolescents. Applied Development Science. 2(3), p. 138-159.  BC Ministry of Education & Ministry of Children and Family Development. (2004). News release - $10m increase for districts affected by redistribution. Retrieved October 24, 2014 from http://www.achievebc.ca.   BC Ministry of Education – CommunityLINK. (2014). CommunityLINK - Community Partnerships. Retrieved on November 30, 2014 from: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=3511EB1E9DB24CFE93019DCDEBC9C10F  BC Ministry of Education – CommunityLINK. (2006). CommunityLINK - Legislation and Policy.  Retrieved on November 30, 2014 from: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=AD6D3FC4AF4848EEAB7EE69E359D4F4D&title=CommunityLINK  Boston Community School. (2004). Boston Community School: School Based Support Plan 2004-2005. Boston Community School.  Boston Community School-Daycare. (2005). Boston Community School’s Daycare Executive’s Report 2004-2005. Boston Community School.   Boston Community School-Teams. (2005). Boston Community School Teams Report 2004-2005. Boston Community School.  Bryman, A., Bell, E., & Teevan, J. (2012). Social research methods. 3rd Canadian edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Burnaby School District. (2015). Community schools. Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://sd41.bc.ca/schools/community/.  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 123 of 146 Caledon Institute of Social Policy. (2002). A new era in British Columbia: A profile of budget cuts across social programs. Retrieved March 4, 2015 from http://www.caledoninst.org/PDF/553820231.pdf.   Children’s Aid Society. (n.d.). Community Schools. Retrieved February 12, 2015 from http://www.childrensaidsociety.org/community-schools.   Christensen, K., Schneider, B., & Butler, D. (2011).  Families with school-age children: The future of children. Work and Family, 21(2), p.69-90.    Coalition for Community Schools. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice in Community Schools. Coalition for Community Schools. Retrieved October 16, 2014 from http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/Page/CCSFullReport.pdf.   Coalition for Community Schools. (2014). What is a community school. Retrieved November 22, 2014 from http://www.communityschools.org/aboutschools/what_is_a_community_school.aspx  Coalition for Community Schools. (n.d.). What are community schools? Retrieved February 10, 2015 from http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/AssetManager/what_are_community_schools_OTL.pdf.   Community Council Chairperson. (2000-2005). Community Council Chairperson’s Annual Report: 2000-2005. Boston Community School.  Communities in Schools. (n.d.). Our story. Retrieved February 10, 2015 from http://www.communitiesinschools.org/about/.   Creswell, J., Hanson, W., Plano Clark, V., Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counselling Phycologist, 35(2), p. 236-264.  Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.  CSEP (Canadian Society for Exercise and Physiology). (2014). Canadian physical activity guidelines. Retrieved on November 30, 2014 from http://www.csep.ca/english/view.asp?x=949.   Dappen, L. & Iernhagen, J. (2011). Developing a students mentoring program: Building connections for at-risk students. Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 49(3), p. 21-25.  Dryfoos, J. (1994). Full-service schools: A revolution in health and social services for children, youth, and families. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass Publishers.   Dryfoos, J. (2002). Full-service community schools: Creating new institutions. The Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5), p. 393-399.  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 124 of 146 Dryfoos, J. (2003). Evaluation of Community Schools: Findings to date. Coalition for Community Schools. Retrieved on October 16, 2014 from http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/assetmanager/evaluation%20of%20community%20schools_joy_dryfoos.pdf.   Dyson, A. (2011). Full-service and extended schools, disadvantage, and social justice. Journal of Education, 41(2), p. 177-193.  Eamor, Y. (2006). Community School teams: A made in Vancouver success story. Teacher Newsmagazine (Sept 2006), 19(1).Retrieved October 24, 2014 from http://bctf.ca/publications/NewsmagArticle.aspx?id=9164.   Ediger, M. (2004). Evaluation of the Community School concept. College Student Journal, 38(1), p. 3-8.  Employment and Social Development Canada. (2014). Indicators of well-being in Canada work - Weekly hours worked.  Retrieved on November 30, 2014 from http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=19  Gallagher, M. (2015). School lunch programs overhauled in Vancouver to target vulnerable kids. CBC News February 26, 2015. Retrieved March 13, 2015 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/school-lunch-programs-overhauled-in-vancouver-to-target-vulnerable-kids-1.2972826.   Government of British Columbia. (2015). Legislation and policy: Glossary. Retrieved February 13, 2015 from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=75ED503C974346119E02DDC9F3F64491.   Government of British Columbia-CommunityLINK. (2015). CommunityLINK. Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=3511EB1E9DB24CFE93019DCDEBC9C10F.   Government of British Columbia-Funding. (2014). Funding for vulnerable students 2014-2015: Community Link and vulnerable student supplement. Retrieved February 22, 2015 from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/DownloadAsset?assetId=EA2743E13DF24ACDAE376F84C2C3F41C&filename=funding_1415.pdf.   Government of British Columbia-Policy. (2015). Legislation and policy: Glossary. Retrieved February 22, 2015 from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=75ED503C974346119E02DDC9F3F64491.   Government of Saskatchewan. (2012). Community education: History of community schools. Retrieved February 10, 2015 from http://www.education.gov.sk.ca/Community-Education.   Graves, D. (2011). Exploring schools as community hubs: Investigating applications of the community hub model in context of the closure to Athabasca School, Regina, Saskatchewen, Canada and other small schools. Retrieved on October 12, 2014 from http://ourspace.uregina.ca/bitstream/handle/10294/3397/Community%20Hub%20Final%20Report.pdf?sequence=3  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 125 of 146 Hay, D. (2002). A literature review of the effectiveness of school-based services. Victoria Management Services Division, BC Ministry of Children and Family Development.  Hay, D., & Wachtel, A. (1998). The well-being of British Columbia’s children and youth: A framework for understanding and action. Retrieved March 5, 2015 from http://www.firstcallbc.org/pdfs/Communities/4-wellbeingframework.pdf   Herron, N. (2012). Review of the BC Liberals’ 10 years in office reveals an appalling K-12 record. Teacher News Magazine (March 2012), 24(5). Retrieved October 10, 2014 from http://bctf.ca/publications/NewsmagArticle.aspx?id=25461.   Human Early Learning Partnership. (2010). Vancouver (SD39): MDI grade 7 report. Retrieved September 27, 2014 from https://www.vsb.bc.ca/sites/default/files/publications/SD39_MDI_Grade7_Report_2012_2013.pdf.   Human Early Learning Partnership. (2013). Vancouver (SD39): MDI grade 7 report. Retrieved September 27, 2014 from http://earlylearning.ubc.ca/media/mapsets/MDI/2013/sd39/sd39_mdi_grade7_report_2012_2013_12jun2014.pdf.   Human Early Learning Partnership-Fact Sheet. (2014). Fact sheet 2014. Retrieved October 12, 2014 from http://earlylearning.ubc.ca/media/publications/fact_sheet_mdi_2013.pdf.   Human Early Learning Partnership-Tools for Actions. (2012). Interpreting the well-being index. Retrieved October 12, 2014 from http://www,earlylearning.ubc.ca/mdi/tools.  Human Early Learning Partnership-MDI Tools for Actions. (2014). What the MDI measures: Dimension 2: Connectedness. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from http://earlylearning.ubc.ca/media/documents/MDI%20Toolkit%20Documents/tools_measures_2_connectedness_oct2014.pdf.   Hyslop, K. (2010). Training schools into neighbourhood learning hubs. The Tyee (October 14, 2010). Retrieved October 12, 2014 from  http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/10/14/LearningHubs/print.html.  Hyslop, K. (2014). Can cuisine make a better school lunch. The Tyee (October 8, 2014). Retrieved November 30, 2014 from http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/10/08/Cuisine-Better-School-Lunch/.   Jarret, R., Sullivan, P., & Watkins, N. (2005). Developing social capital through participation in organized youth programs: Qualitative insights from three programs. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1), p. 41-55.  Klein, R. (2001). Millfields Community School, Hackney. Improving Schools, 4(3), p. 3-7.  Klein, R. (2000). Colne Community School. Improving Schools, 3(6), p. 6-9.  Mrs. Lucy (2003). Community Cordinator Report 2002-2003. Boston Community School. Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 126 of 146 Makhoul, A., Myres, L., & Montgomery, J. (2004). Bamfield, BC: Wonderful things can happen at the end of the road. Community Stories. Caledon Institute of Social Policy. p. 1-9. Retrieved October 10, 2014 from http://www.caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/553820746.pdf.   Manitoba Ministry of Education-Community. (n.d.). Community schools partnership initiative. Retrieved November 30, 2014 from http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/cspi/.   Manley, F., Reed, B., & Burns, R. (1960). The community school in action: The Flint program. Chicago, Education-Industry Service.   Multnomah County. (2015). The SUN service system. Retrieved February 10, 2015 from https://multco.us/sun.   Officer, S., Grim, J., Medina, M., Bringle, R., & Foreman, A. (2013). Strengthening Community Schools through university partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(5), p. 564-577.   Peebles-Wilkins, W. (2004). The full-service Community School model. Children & Schools, 26(3), p. 131-133.  Phillips, S. (2008). Forging partnerships, opening doors: Community school case studies from Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education. Retrieved February 13, 2015 from http://www.education.gov.sk.ca/forging-partnerships.   Preston, J. (2011). Influencing community involvement in school: A school community council. McGill Journal of Education, 42(2), p. 197-212.  Principal’s Report. (2001). Principal’s Report: 2000-2001. Boston Community School.   Province of Manitoba. (2012). Bill 12 – Community Schools act. Retrieved October 15, 2014 from http://web2.gov.mb.ca/bills/40-2/pdf/b012.pdf.   Pushor, D. (2007). Parent engagement: Creating a shared world. Paper presented at the Ontario Education Research Symposium, Toronto, ON. Retrieved on October 1, 2014 from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/research/pushor.pdf  Reimer, D. (2010). Investing in Community Schools – An economic perspective. The Association of Community Educators in BC. p. 1-13. Retrieved October 10, 2014 from http://media.wix.com/ugd/eebde4_de77054b378743078c5231d670c0a362.pdf.   Sara (Mrs. Sara). (2000). Community School Coordinators Report 1999-2000. Boston Community School.  Saskatchewan Ministry of Education. (2010). School divisions annual community school nutrition reports: Provincial summary of findings 2008-2009. Retrieved March 13, 2015 from http://www.education.gov.sk.ca/nutrition-reports-summary-08-09.     Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 127 of 146 Schonert-Reich, K. A. (2011). Middle childhood inside and out: The psychological and social worlds of Canadian children ages 9-12, Full Report. Report for the United Way of the Lower Mainland. Vancouver, p. 1-80. Retrieved October 10, 2014 from http://earlylearning.ubc.ca/media/publications/uwlm_middle_childhood_full_report_2011.pdf  School of the 21st Century. (2002). School of the 21st century: Linking communities, families and schools. Retrieved February 10, 2015 from http://www.yale.edu/21c/index2.html.   Sherlock, T. (2014). School districts across B.C. planning deep cuts to balance budgets. The Vancouver Sun (April 15, 2014). Retrieved March 13, 2015 from http://www.vancouversun.com/news/School+districts+across+planning+deep+cuts+balance+budgets/9746279/story.html.   Shuttleworth, D. (2014). Flemington road – Ontario’s original ‘hub school.’ Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 8(16), p. 13-17.  Snowdon-Proetsch, M. (1989). ‘Boston’ community school: 1914-1989. The 75th Anniversary Handbook. Debby Funk & Northburn Printers and Stationers Ltd.   Steve (Mr. Steve). (2005). Mr. Steve Principal Report 2004-2005. Boston Community School.  Surrey Community School Partnership. (2009). Surrey’s Community School partnership: The future lives here. Retrieved November 15, 2014 from http://www.civicinfo.bc.ca/practices_innovations/community_schools_partnerships--surrey--2009.pdf  Surrey Schools. (2014). Community Schools partnership. Retrieved November 1, 2014 from https://www.surreyschools.ca/CommunityServices/CommunitySchools/Pages/default.aspx  Talbot, J. & Associates Inc. (2004).  Community School Research Project: Phase One Report.  Retrieved on November 30, 2014 from: http://restructure2013.sd79.bc.ca/files/2013/05/Minutes-of-the-April-10-2013-School-Closure-Consultation-meeting-with-Alexander-PAC.pdf  The National Center for Community Schools. (2014). What is a community school? Retrieved February 10, 2015 from http://nationalcenterforcommunityschools.childrensaidsociety.org/faqs/on-community-schools#_edn1.   Vaillancourt, K. & Amador, A. (2014). School-community alliances enhance mental health services. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(4), p. 57-62.  Vancouver Board of Education. (2009). Inner city schools project review: Report and recommendations May 2009. Retrieved March 5, 2015 from https://www.vsb.bc.ca/sites/default/files/school-files/Resources/ICP_Recommendations_Report_May_2009.pdf.   Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 128 of 146 Vancouver Coastal Health. (2006). An analysis of regions of BC – Part 3. Retrieved March 3, 2015 from http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/Files/80945972-cde7-4267-bd84-d84c78ce7a2e/EducationandHealth-AnAnalysisofRegionsofBCPart3-VancouverCoastalHealth.pdf.   Vancouver School Board. (2014). Community School team programs. Retrieved October 10, 2014 from http://www.vsb.bc.ca/community-school-teams-programs.   Vancouver School Board. (n.d.). Community School team hubs. Retrieved October 10, 2014 from http://www.vsb.bc.ca/community-school-team-hubs.   Vancouver School Board – Community. (n.d.). Community School teams. Retrieved October 12, 2014 from http://www.vsb.bc.ca/communityschoolteams.   Vancouver School Board – CommunityLINK. (2014). Re-visioning inner city and CommunityLINK resources in Vancouver schools January 2014. Retrieved November 8, 2014 from http://www.vsb.bc.ca/sites/default/files/publications/Summary%20Report%20January%202014%20FINAL.pdf.   Vancouver School Board – CommunityLINK2. (2014). Re-visioning inner city and CommunityLINK resources in Vancouver schools February 2014. Retrieved February 8, 2015 from http://www.vsb.bc.ca/sites/default/files/Final%20IC%20Revisioning%20Report%20February%202014%20with%20Appendices.pdf  Vancouver School Board-Facts. (2012). VSB facts, stats, and media contact information. Retrieved November 1, 2014 from http://www.vsb.bc.ca/vsb-facts-stats-media-contact-information.   Vancouver School Board-Inner City. (2009). Inner city schools project review: Report and recommendations. Retrieved March 13, 2015 from https://www.vsb.bc.ca/sites/default/files/school-files/Resources/ICP_Recommendations_Report_May_2009.pdf.   Vancouver School Board-Memorandum. (2011). CommunityLink report 2010-2011. Retrieved March 5, 2015 from http://www.vsb.bc.ca/sites/default/files/11nov09_op_commiii_item1.pdf.   Vancouver School Board-Memorandum. (2013). CommunityLink report 2012-2013. Retrieved February 15, 2015 from http://www.vsb.bc.ca/sites/default/files/13Dec11_commiii_op_item2.pdf.   Vancouver School Board-Teams. (2015). Community school team hubs. Retrieved February 22, 2015 from http://www.vsb.bc.ca/community-school-team-hubs.   Varlas, L. (2008). Full-service community schools. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 54. Retrieved February 10, 2015 from http://www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/policy_priorities/summer08/num54/full/Full-Service_Community_Schools.aspx.   Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 129 of 146 Waithman, M. (2009). The politics of redistribution and recognition: A retrospective case study of one inner city school. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, p. 1-226.  Warren, M. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 75(2), p. 133-173.  Warren, M., Hong, S., Rubin, C., & Uy, P. (2009). Beyond the bake sale: A community-based relational approach to parent engagement in schools. Teacher College Record, 111(9), p. 2209-2254.                                    Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 130 of 146 Appendices Appendix A: Millfields Community School (UK)  Millfields Community School is located in Hackney, part of a ‘neglected neighbourhood.’ The community is home to numerous shootings as a result of drug wars, and neighbourhood is riddled with old run down homes, poverty, and unsafe streets that are home to families of numerous ethnicities with “58% of students on free school meals” (Klien, 2001, p. 3). Previous teachers described it as “the dirtiest school I’d ever been in…a school that had lost its way…[and] when I would ask members of the staff about the National Curriculum, they would answer ‘oh, we don’t do that here’” (Klien, 2001, p. 4). Within this particular case, it seems that the Community School was established to address the needs of this particular neighbourhood to provide the community an opportunity to further themselves from the cycle of poverty. The Community School administrator played a crucial role in the implementation of the Community School framework at Millfields Community School. The administrator began by recruiting staff members who demonstrated a commitment to the school. The staff was then evaluated to determine their skill set and put it in place to best serve the needs of their clients. The school opened itself up to hear what the students wanted, and brought in parents to hear what the school had been doing, what it had not been doing, and what it needs to be doing. New policies were put into place built on the foundation of equality for students, staff and community members. The school worked with the community and developed a new school development plan, and worked together to clean up the school and the school grounds (Klien, 2001). The community further got involved in helping guide the curriculum to help with the diverse needs of the students who came from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds. As a result, the school moved away from passive learning and adopted a proactive approach where students were involved in the learning process (Klien, 2001). The school worked to develop programs for English language learners, students with mental disabilities, such as autism, enacted learning Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 131 of 146 support assistants to help classroom teachers, implemented a breakfast club, created after school activities, which included recorders, piano lessons, choir, dance, judo, homework club, drumming, play center, and adult community classes. Hassan noted “there are so many things happening from 7:00AM until after 6:00PM that sometimes I forget what day it is and where the time has gone” (Klien, 2001, p. 6). The work done at Millfields demonstrates how a Community School evolved by addressing the needs of the community, as opposed to having a pre-developed agenda in mind. The Community School framework at Millfields became so successful that the school routinely received community outreach grants of up to 158,000 pounds to develop more programs for students and the community (Klien, 2001).  What remained central within the development at Millfields was the community was an active member of the Community School framework, and the administration team, school staff, and community organizations and citizens worked together towards a common goal, better opportunities for students and their well-being.           Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 132 of 146 Appendix B: Colne Community School (UK)   Colne Community School in Essex has been recognized as a strong community partner to the rural community. This is evidenced by the school taking an active role to evaluate the impacts of building a community Skateboard Park, and then building it for students in the community. The school administrator noted the school believes education is more than just the curriculum, and that “we want to make our students socially successful, too… [and] that if you care about children as individuals, they will deliver academically (Klein, 2000, p. 6). The school looks to integrate social learning as a key goal for all students. As a result, “the school is acknowledged as one of the top in the country for taking on service learning as a whole school policy, weaving it into an ethos that prioritizes participation and children’s rights” (Klein, 2000, p. 6).  Similar to the case of Millfields and the full-service Community School framework, Colne worked to address the needs of students and the wider community to promote well-being. As such, the cases highlight how the fundamental needs of the students and community need to be addressed before further opportunities for educational advancement can be accomplished.   Colne Community School had community and past student volunteers as a key part of the school’s drive to provide community based learning opportunities. The school had former students come back and develop programs with teachers to teach younger students about sex and health education, community volunteers work with students to provide tutoring and educational support services, development and implementation of courses for students based on rural community needs, and the integration of the student voice into community development initiatives, such as a redevelopment phase of an abandoned ship yard and the assessment of accessibility options at buildings in the community (Klein, 2000).   Community School initiatives at Colne Community School are about “giving young people the self-esteem, the social and emotional intelligence and analytical skills that come with the responsibility and interaction with the outside world” (Klein, 2000, p. 9). Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 133 of 146 Appendix C: 1900s-1929: Boston Elementary School – Early History    Boston Elementary School opened in the early 1900s in Vancouver. During the First World War, children at the school contributed to the war effort by donating time, money and old clothing (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.17).  For example, some of the students fundraised and collected $80 to send to poor children in Belgium (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.18). These early examples of community engagement demonstrate the connection the school began to build with the wider community. Strong community values were also present within the objectives of Boston Elementary School’s original Parent Teacher Association: 1. To promote the welfare of children and youth 2. To raise standards of home life. 3. To secure adequate laws for the care and protection of children and youth 4. To enable parents and teachers to co-operate in the training of the child. 5. To understand and aide the schools and to interpret them to the public. 6. To obtain the best for each child according to his physical, mental, social and spiritual needs. (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.21)                    Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 134 of 146 Appendix D: 1930-1945: Boston Elementary School – Depression and War   The effects of The Great Depression of the 1930s and the Second World War were felt at Boston Elementary School, but the school endured. Budget cuts reduced the entire Vancouver School Board budget from $2,000,000 to $650,000 in 1933 (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.28).  Teachers’ and the principal at Boston Elementary School had their salaries reduced, and many services and programs were cut district wide as a result in the funding reduction (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.28).  The PTA at Boston Elementary School, in cooperation with the school staff, worked to support the school and its initiatives through the depression era. The PTA organized fundraising events to purchase supplies that the school board could not supply, such as, school books and equipment (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.30).  It was noted that during this difficult time the teachers and parents worked together to minimize hardships on students, the school, and the wider community (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.30).   This same level of community connectedness continued throughout the Second World War and together the students, PTA and staff participated in many charitable endeavors aimed at helping the war effort or those in need. “Students at Boston collected old paper and scrap metal for the aluminum drive and blankets which could be sent to the boys on the front” (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.35).  Charitable endeavors included selling poppies and other items to raise money for organizations like the Red Cross, along with students making 150 candy bags to send to injured soldiers to demonstrate their appreciation and support (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.35).  Even through incredibly difficult times, the Boston Elementary School community continued its spirit of togetherness and used school as a place to gather in fellowship and service.        Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 135 of 146 Appendix E: 1946-1972: Boston Elementary School Developmental History   During the late 1940s, significant re-organization of the VSB’s administration and finances occurred, new concepts of education were implemented in order to meet the needs of individual students, and special classes were created to support struggling learners (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.43). Throughout the 1950s and into the early 1960s, Boston Elementary School was the beneficiary of new school rooms, a gymnasium-auditorium, new audio-visual equipment, and a film projector which had been purchased with monies raised by the PTA (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.43).  From 1956 – 1962, the school board put money into renovating older schools, and Boston Elementary School received a new art room, a library, a lunchroom and renovations to the gymnasium included a hardwood floor for the use of students and the community (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.43-44).  Throughout this period of expansion, the PTA continued to be extremely active with initiating fundraising activities and developing a school lunch-service, working to make the school a more holistic experience for students (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.44).  To see this initiative come to fruition, the PTA raised money to construct a kitchen, buy equipment, and hire a cook that served 200 soups and cocoa daily, along with providing each child with a glass of milk (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.43).  In all, from the Post War era through the 1960s, Boston Elementary School continued to be a school that was very much a hub for the community. As one former student fondly remembers: The teaching staff was very creative innovative and fully dedicated to the children.  We were one big community.  We had children from all walks of life.  Everybody in the community was looking forward to “Family fun night” and community dinners.  I still remember the baclavas made by Greek grandmothers and the big pots of bean stews cooked by “hippies” in the community.  Everybody, old and young joined in the games in the basement (Snowdon-Proetsch, 1989, p.49).  The school was not only a place in the community; it was a part of the wider community, and a place for the community to come together. Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 136 of 146 Appendix F: Community School Coordinator’s Report Findings    The Coordinator’s Report stresses the importance of promoting greater opportunities for children and youth to participate in community activities predominantly offered after-school: Boston students have had many opportunities to participate in their community this past year.  These activities include: an after-school open gym program, after school sports teams, visits to Braddon Hospital as part of the Silverthreads program, serving tea and goodies to over 80 Seniors at Boston's Annual Senior's Tea and Christmas charities...choir trip to Victoria...providing child minding parent education sessions...As well, students participated in an expanded number of after-school programs such as: tennis, French, Chess, Baseball Skills, Open Gym and Cirkids" (Mrs. Sara, 1999-2000 Coordinator's Report)   Boston Community School was a place where students felt connected to adults in the community and cared for, and that these connections were facilitated by the school offering students out-of-school programs within the school building.  “It [after-school-programs] also gives them a chance to meet adults and then that brings in that sort of caring adult.  To know that there’s people out there that aren't related to them, but still care” (Mrs. Sara, 2015, p. 2).     A challenge was finding ways to engage and support parents that were reluctant to allow their child to participate in a program, or those students who may not have been able to afford it.  Need to develop relationships with the child and the family and work to provide financial support for such programs and services to ensure “we have subsidy to cover the cost of the program, so that's not a barrier for them” (Mrs. Sara, 2015, p. 5).    Coordinator ensures students with special needs were provided equipment to help them participate in programs, and students who could not get picked up by parents after-school would find a safe way home (Mrs. Sara, 2015, p. 5).  As Mrs. Sara explained, the out-of-school programs, although organized and implemented by her and her team, were predominantly run by adults in the community, who were paid or volunteered to run a program, and “for kids who maybe have limited family in the city that they're living in, it gives them the chance to connect with other adults” (Mrs. Sara, 2015, p. 2).  This allowed for students at Boston Community School to connect with adults during out-of-school hours, and participate in programs and activities, and, although, Mrs. Sara mentioned that although the majority of families in the Boston Community were able to fulfill their child's needs, there were Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 137 of 146 still those who were vulnerable and the opportunities for them to participate in out-of-school activities and connect with adults was beneficial to their overall well-being (Mrs. Sara, 2015, p. 2).   Mrs. Lucy noted the difficulty in dealing with reduced government funding, anxiety over the anticipation of losing funding altogether, and the challenges of keeping programs and services going because staff, parents, and community members were preoccupied with advocacy initiatives aimed at retaining funding and government support (Mrs. Lucy, Coordinator’s Report 2002-2003).   Over 700 children and adults participated in programs and services from 7:30 a.m. until 9:30 p.m. during the week nights over the reporting period (Mrs. Lucy, Coordinator’s Report 2002-2003).       Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 138 of 146 Appendix G: Map of Community School Teams Hubs  Figure 1: Map 1 - Community School Team hubs (Vancouver School Board-Teams, 2015).                  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 139 of 146 Appendix H: Table 1: Number of Vulnerable Students in VSB Hubs 2010-2011  TABLE 1: Number of Vulnerable Students in VSB Hubs in 2010-2011 Name of Hub and Number of Schools (#) Number of Elementary Students 2010/11 2005-2009 - Sum of all Elementary schools' 5-year Social Services Index average within each hub (# of Elementary students vulnerable in the hub).  DOES not include high school students  Average SSI for all Elementary Schools in the hub  2005-2009 (individual schools’ average divided by number of Elementary schools in the hub)   1. Britannia (7) 1480 157.862 (1 in 9 students) 26.310 2. Templeton (7) 1211 95.64 (1 in 13 students) 15.94 3. Van. Tech (8) 1973 99.71 (1 in 20 students) 14.244 4. Tupper (8) 1770 77.92 (1 in 23 students) 11.131 5. King George (4) 920 25.584 (1 in 36 students) 8.528 6. Gladstone (6) 1547 39.012  (1 in 40 students) 7.802 7. Killarney (7) 2180 48.57 (1 in 45 students) 8.095 8. John Oliver (6)  1857 38.938 (1 in 48 students) 7.788 9. Windermere (8) 2580 51.95 (1 in 50 students) 7.421 10. David Thompson (8) 2523 42.078 (1 in 60 students) 6.011 11. West 1 (22) 6256 44.302 (1 in 143 students) 2.461 12. West 2 (18) 5146 27.032 (1 in 190 students) 1.931 (Created through data from Vancouver Board of Education-Inner City, 2009, p. 43 and Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2011, p. 31-62).         Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 140 of 146 Appendix I: Grant Money to VSB Hubs in 2010-2011  Table 2 – Outside Grant Money to Hubs in 2010-2011  VSB Community School Hubs 2010/11 2010/11 Non-Ministry Grants Received in each Hub 2010/11 Total Number Students In Each Hub (includes Secondary and Elementary students) Amount Non-Ministry Grant works out per student in each Hub Britannia Hub $57,490                           2245 $25 per student Templeton Hub $166,324                         2263 $73 per student Van. Tech Hub $18,500                           3608 $5 per student Tupper Hub $100,250                         2740 $36 per student King George Hub $40,429                           1445 $27 per student Gladstone Hub $194,304                         2914 $66 per student Killarney Hub $73,333                           4271 $17 per student John Oliver Hub $185,947                         2997 $62 per student Windermere Hub $38,310                           3885 $9 per student David Thompson Hub  $37,278                           4368 $8 per student West 1 Hub $81,505                        12,636 $6 per student West 2 Hub $19,040                           9617 $2 per student Totals non Ministry Grants $1,012,711   Total Ministry Grant Community LINK $8.723 million 2010/11 (*not specified how much is given to each hub, but 2.4 million is spent on Nutrition services) Total money in Grants $9.7 million   (Created through data from Vancouver School Board-Memorandum, 2011).               Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 141 of 146 Appendix J: Comparisons of VSB Community Hubs (Connectedness and Participation in Out-of-School Activities)  Based on MDI research from 2012-2013 presented earlier in this report and in reference to connectedness, results for grade 7 students in the Kitsilano neighourhood showed:   9% of students reported low levels of connectedness to adults at their school   16% of students reported low levels of connectedness to adults in their community (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2013, p. 36).  When compared to grade 7 students in the Britannia Community neighbourhood:   8% reported low levels of connectedness to adults at their school  21% of students reported low levels of connectedness to adults in their community (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2013, p. 34).  Similar levels are seen in schools from the other West hub and the David Thompson hub, which are two of the other larger hubs in terms of student population in Vancouver (refer to Map 1 – Appendix G). In the area of Marpole:   10% of students reported having low levels of connectedness to adults at their school  26% of students reported having low levels of connectedness to adults in the community (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2013, p. 22). In the David Thompson hub, the MDI data shows, for the area of Victoria-Fraserview:  8% of students reported having low levels of connectedness to adults in their school  29% of students reported having low levels of connectedness to adults in their community (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2013, p. 24).  When considering aspects of well-being as identified by the MDI, what this demonstrates is, according to students, the percentage of students reporting low levels of connectedness to adults in their schools and neighbourhoods is very similar. Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 142 of 146 Based on MDI research from 2012-2013 in reference to participation in out-of-school activities, results for grade 7 students in the Kitsilano neighourhood showed:  15% of students who participated once per week or less in any out-of-school activities  8% of students who participated in no sports activities at all   27% of students who participated in no music or arts out-of-school activities (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2013, p. 36).  When compared to grade 7 students in the Britannia neighbourhood:   32% of students who participated once per week or less in any out-of-school activities  15% of students who participated in no sports activities at all  25% of students who participated in no music or arts out-of-school activities (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2013, p. 34). Similar levels are seen in schools from other West hub and the David Thompson hub (refer to Map 1 – Appendix G). In the area of Marpole:   21% of students who participated once per week or less in any out-of-school activities  11% of students who participated in no sports activities at all   24% who participated in no music or arts out-of-school activities (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2013, p. 22).  In the David Thompson hub, the MDI data shows, for the area of Victoria-Fraserview:   29% of students who participated once per week or less in any out-of-school activities  17% of students who participated in no sports activities at all  29% of students who participated in no music or arts out-of-school activities (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2013, p. 24).  Again, this data shows the similarities from hub to hub in participation level of students in out-of-school activities regardless of socio-economic factors.   Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 143 of 146 Appendix K: Surrey School District Community School Framework  The Surrey Schools developed the Community School Partnerships program in 2007 to address needs of schools and communities (Surrey’s Community School’s Partnerships, 2009).  A few similarities and differences are apparent between Surrey’s model and that of the VSB. In terms of similarities, the Surrey Partnerships model has also developed a hub model that is divided into five hubs, instead of the 12 in the VSB. While the school district funds the hub coordinators in Surrey, the city provides funding for additional youth coordinators. Similar to having partnerships and agreements in the VSB, Surrey has a wealth of partnerships throughout the city and province. To add on the support from community agencies, Surrey has also partnered with the health authorities, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Surrey Food Bank, and Aboriginal Group agencies (Surrey’s Community School’s Partnership, 2009).  When considering differences, the Surrey Partnership model tends to go beyond the parameters of the VSB. For one, the City of Surrey is an active partner in the Community School partnerships program, and this includes the Mayor and Council working together with school trustees (Surrey’s Community School’s Partnerships, 2009). In the VSB model there was no mention of the City of Vancouver being an active participant or financial supporter. Secondly, the Surrey Partnerships model stresses the importance of the wider community, as it advocates that programs and services are for people of all ages. The VSB is designed to support vulnerable students, but does not address the need of stakeholders in the broader community. Another addition to the Surrey model is the presence of numerous other School District programs and agencies that work alongside the Community School hubs and coordinators. Surrey Schools has integrated programs from multicultural workers, school-based child care workers, Aboriginal support workers, safe schools (anti-bullying & anti-violence), and the YES program (counselors who support vulnerable children) to all work within the Community School framework. Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 144 of 146 Appendix L: Burnaby School District Community School Framework  Burnaby has a rich history of the Community School framework that dates back to 1976, which has been built on a strong relationship between the Burnaby School district and the City of Burnaby. Burnaby has eight individual Community Schools, similar to the traditional Community School model at Boston Community School. Similar to Surrey, the City of Burnaby seems like an active partner in this framework. Additionally, similar to the VSB and Surrey, the Burnaby Community School model has developed partnerships at the district level with community agencies and organizations to further support programs and services, which promote academic and overall health well-being. A key difference once again is that the City of Burnaby is an active participant that provides funding within the framework, something that seems to be missing in the VSB Community School Teams model. This active participation of the City incorporates the Mayor and Councilors, who work together with the school board and trustees. Another difference in the Burnaby model is that the programs and services offered through the Community School framework are developed as prevention strategies for students and the wider community, as opposed to reactionary services that are targeted toward specific goals. The philosophical approach to Community Schools in Burnaby is also much different to that of the VSB, as Burnaby’s model stresses the importance of addressing the needs of all members, regardless of age, of the community, not just students in the school.  The philosophical approach sets the stage for a Community School framework that reaches well beyond the borders of the school. This builds well with their focus on particular neighbourhoods and the needs of the neighbourhoods, as opposed to a blanket approach designed to provide programs and services for all in the district. The Burnaby model placed the greatest emphasis on the bi-directional benefits of the Community School framework and the wider community.  Community Schools  2015 April 2015  Page 145 of 146 Appendix M: UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board Approval Certificate       The University of British Columbia Office of Research Services Behavioural Research Ethics Board Suite 102, 6190 Agronomy Road, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z3      CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL - MINIMAL RISK   PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: INSTITUTION / DEPARTMENT: UBC BREB NUMBER: Marilynne L. (Lorna) Waithman  UBC/Education/Educational Studies  H14-02823 INSTITUTION(S) WHERE RESEARCH WILL BE CARRIED OUT:   Institution Site Other locations where the research will be conducted: Vancouver School Board   CO-INVESTIGATOR(S): Rabeen Purewall Jasper Lindal Hodson   SPONSORING AGENCIES: N/A  PROJECT TITLE: The Framework of Community Schools CERTIFICATE EXPIRY DATE:  December 17, 2015  DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS APPROVAL: DATE APPROVED:   December 17, 2014 Document Name Version Date Protocol: Community Schools: Investigating two models of community engagement for students at Boston Community School 2 December 4, 2014 Consent Forms: Participant Consent Form 4 December 16, 2014 Questionnaire, Questionnaire Cover Letter, Tests: Interview Questions 4 November 30, 2014 Letter of Initial Contact: Invitation Letter (Initial Contact) 3 November 30, 2014 Other Documents: District Approval Letter 3 November 30, 2014 Email Invite (Administrator to Participants) 1 November 25, 2014      The application for ethical review and the document(s) listed above have been reviewed and the procedures were found to be acceptable on ethical grounds for research involving human subjects.     This study has been approved either by the full Behavioural REB or by an authorized delegated reviewer      

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.42591.1-0075876/manifest

Comment

Related Items