Complementary Learning: Recommended and Related Readings
Across the country, a growing chorus of voices is calling for more holistic
approaches to education and youth development—approaches that intentionally
connect the many settings in which children and youth live and learn. Many practitioners,
researchers, and policymakers are talking about the need to break out of their
silos and build deep and meaningful connections between early childhood education,
schools, families, out-of-school time, cultural and community institutions,
and health and wellness services. At Harvard Family Research Project (HFRP),
we call this vision of connected supports complementary learning. Our colleagues
in the field may use different terminology and strategies—supplementary
education, smart education systems, and community schools, to name a few. Regardless
of these differences, however, the vision of connected supports is consistent—and
the national momentum for it is palpable.
This annotated bibliography illustrates the growing momentum for what we call
complementary learning. It compiles publications from the many organizations
and individuals who are working to ensure that children have all the resources
and skills they need to succeed in school and life. Although not all authors
wrote their works with the complementary learning terminology in mind, we at
HFRP see all of these resources as contributing to a related, and essential,
national conversation. The bibliography is designed as a resource for professionals
from many backgrounds to learn about the many promising ideas and approaches
in the field today. As part of our ongoing efforts to inform and facilitate
dialogue, it will be updated on a regular basis as new resources become available.
Complementary Learning Publications From HFRP
Evaluation Exchange on Complementary Learning
Harvard Family Research Project. (2005). The
Evaluation Exchange: Complementary Learning, 11(1).
The first issue of The Evaluation Exchange published in 2005 introduces
HFRP's concept of “complementary learning.” The issue delves into
the evidence base behind complementary learning and examines mechanisms (e.g.,
family involvement, technology, professional development, and diverse funding
streams) that can create effective linkages. The issue includes promising approaches
for evaluating complementary learning practices and programs, in terms of both
outcomes and methodologies.
Complementary Learning in Action
Harvard Family Research Project's Complementary
Learning in Action series profiles complementary learning initiatives
from around the country, highlighting lessons learned about building and sustaining
connected systems of support for children and youth. Profiles describe how and
why the initiatives began, key implementation strategies, challenges, and approaches
to overcoming them. Insights and lessons shared have implications for other
communities, policymakers, practitioners, and stakeholders working to ensure
systemic approaches to promoting learning and development for all children and
youth.
Evaluation Exchange on Out-of-School Time Connections
Harvard Family Research Project. (2006). The
Evaluation Exchange: Building and Evaluating Out-of-School Time Connections,
12(1&2).
This double issue of The Evaluation Exchange focuses on creating and
evaluating connections between out-of-school time (OST) programs and the other
settings in which children and youth live, learn, and play. The issue includes
a research-based case that a network of supports, with out-of-school time programs
as a key component, are critical to positive learning and developmental outcomes
for children and youth, and illustrates the diverse approaches that OST programs
use to link with other institutions, including universities, social and health
services, families, schools, and museums.
Publications From Other Field Leaders
New Directions for Student Support
Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (2007). New
directions for student support: Current state of the art. Los Angeles:
Center for Mental Health in Schools, UCLA.
With the twin aims of enhancing equity of opportunity for students and strengthening
public education, this report summarizes initial findings from a 2006–2007
survey of 300 district and state superintendents and directors of student support,
special education, and federal programs. It concludes that few districts are
developing a system to comprehensively address the many factors interfering
with students having an equal opportunity to succeed at school, and emphasizes
the need for a “unifying intervention framework that encompasses a comprehensive
and multifaceted continuum of interventions.” The report offers recommendations
for future work, and highlights some efforts to move in these new directions.
Adequate Resources for At-Risk Children
Allgood, W.C. (2006, August). The
need for adequate resources for at-risk children. EPI Working Paper
No. 277.
This report provides a model for determining the cost of an adequate education
for at-risk students. Using four state examples, the paper addresses risk factors
and ways to eliminate the achievement gap. The report looks at all factors that
place students at risk of academic failure, how those factors operate in the
lives of children, and how the absence of supports can impede adequate education.
The key question is: What do nonpoor children typically have access to in their
total lives, that poor children lack, that drives the achievement gap and has
implications for adequacy?
Every Child, Every Promise
America's Promise Alliance. (2006). Every
child, every promise: Turning failure into action. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Every Child, Every Promise is an effort to measure the presence of key
resources in the lives of young people—the “Five Promises”—that
correlate with success in both youth and adulthood: 1) caring adults, 2) safe
places and constructive use of time, 3) healthy start and healthy development,
4) effective education for marketable skills and lifelong learning, and 5) opportunities
to make a difference through helping others. Unfortunately, the data show that
more than two thirds of youth are not currently receiving enough of these resources.
The study affirms that “whole child investments”—ensuring that
children experience the sustained and cumulative benefits of at least four of
the Promises at home, in school, and in the community—can significantly
reduce gaps separating low-income and minority youth from other youth.
Learning In and Out of School
Banks, J. A., Au, K. H., Ball, A. F., Bell, P., Gordon, E.W., et al. (2007).
Learning
in and out of school in diverse environments: Life-long, life-wide, and life-deep.
Seattle: The Learning in Informal and Formal Environments (LIFE) Center and
the Center for Multicultural Education, University of Washington.
A major assumption of this consensus report is that if educators make use of
the informal learning that occurs in the homes and communities of students,
the achievement gap between marginalized students and mainstream students can
be reduced. The report explicates “four principles” as a framework
of this learning that is mediated by local cultural practices and perspectives,
takes place not only in school but also in multiple contexts and across the
life span, needs multiple sources of support from a variety of institutions
to promote personal and intellectual development, and is facilitated when learners
are encouraged to use their home and community language resources.
Schools as Centers of Community
Bingler, S., Quinn, L., & Sullivan, K. (2003). Schools
as centers of community: A citizen's guide for planning and design.
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
This publication outlines a planning approach to schools as centers of community,
defined as schools that encourage student learning, school effectiveness, family
engagement, and community vitality. The report primarily focuses on facilities
development and management-how to create spaces that encourage community engagement
and student development.
Success for All Students
Branch-Smith, E., Gray, R., Fruchter, N., Hernandez, M., Joselowsky, F., et
al. (2006). A
framework for success for all students. Washington, DC: Academy for
Educational Development and Collaborative Communications Group.
This report addresses how districts can transform high schools into systems
of support for youth people and provide access to high-quality education. The
pillars of the theory include: schools meeting diverse needs of students; redesigning
districts to support new schools, teachers, and leaders; engage youth; engaging
the community to demand and integrate systems of support; and creating collaborative
partnerships with other organization to enhance capacity and sustainability.
Helping the Whole Child
Blank, M., & Berg, A. (2006). All
together now: Sharing responsibility for the whole child. Washington,
DC: Institute for Educational Leadership, Coalition for Community Schools.
This report provides key strategies for education policymakers to pursue a more
balanced approach to educating children—a focus on the whole child. The
key questions are: What are the conditions that foster the development of the
whole child? Who is responsible for creating these conditions? What does it
take to build and foster these conditions? Communities In Schools believes that
community involvement and support are necessary to set up a framework of the
“Five Basics” required to help youth succeed.
Community Schools
Blank, M. J., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. P. (2003). Making
the difference: Research and practice in community schools. Washington,
DC: Coalition for Community Schools.
This report synthesizes research from the fields of health, mental health, youth
development, family and community engagement and community building, and demonstrates
the connection to student learning. Based on the research, five conditions for
learning need to be in place for children to succeed at high levels. The report
features evaluation data from 20 different community school initiatives and
a synthesis of their combined results. A lengthy bibliography, resource list,
and community school networks contact information are included.
The Learning Compact Redefined
Commission on the Whole Child. (2007). The
learning compact: A call to action. Washington, DC: The Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
This report addresses a need for nonschool supports that are core elements to
ensure that children are healthy, knowledgeable, motivated, and engaged. It
calls for collaboration and coordination of services between schools and communities
to provide access to opportunities that would benefit the whole child. Such
collaboration requires a shift in how both schools and communities look at children's
learning and ways to enhance child development.
Educational Imperatives
Communities in Schools. (2006). A
national educational imperative: Support for community-based, integrated student
services in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Alexandria, VA: Author.
This report argues that addressing the “dropout epidemic” requires
changes that would systematically link school-based efforts with outside health,
safety, and counseling services for at-risk youth, including support for one-on-one
relationships, safe places for students to learn and develop, connections with
health professionals, connections with higher education and workforce opportunities,
and connections with community service. The report calls for more proven, cost-effective
strategies that will help reduce the dropout rate.
Extended Learning Opportunities
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2006). Extended
learning opportunities. Washington DC: Author.
This policy statement argues that, as the nation faces the challenges of closing
the achievement gap, increased student expectations should be met with increased
supports and resources. This paper advocates that high quality expanded learning
opportunities (ELOs) occurring outside the typical school day, such as before
and after school programs, summer and weekend learning and early childhood education
initiatives, can offer essential academic, social and health benefits for students.
This paper provides specific action steps that state education agencies can
take to support or develop ELOs.
Ready by 21
Forum for Youth Investment. (n.d.) Ready
by 21: Taking aim on the big picture. Washington, DC: Author.
The Forum for Youth Investment draws on research to show the importance of coordination
across systems, policies, and programs to achieve positive outcomes for children
and youth. This document provides a snapshot of the underlying research and
a game plan for shaping public policy. The document offers questions and answers
about key concepts and shares opportunities for coordination.
Supplementary Education
Gordon, E. W., Bridglall, B. L., & Meroe, A. S. (2005). Supplementary
education: The hidden curriculum of high academic achievement. New York:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
The concept of supplementary education recognizes the importance of nonschool
learning opportunities and the need to make access to those opportunities more
equitable as a means of increasing the health, human, polity, cultural, and
social capital necessary for schools to succeed at increasing student achievement.
Universal access, cooperative learning, and the implementation of specific interventions
could increase levels of achievement, particularly for students of color.
Engaging Cities
Grady, M., Rothman, R., & Smith, H. (2006). Engaging
cities: How municipal leaders can mobilize communities to improve public schools.
Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Brown University.
This report showcases five examples of mayoral leadership in efforts to engage
multiple stakeholders in improving educational opportunities and services for
children and youth. The cases focus on the different ways mayors have mobilized
diverse groups in their cities to provide supports for their children and youth.
Coordinated School Health
Marx E., Wooley S. F., & Northrop, D. (Eds.) (1998). Health is academic:
A guide to coordinated school health programs. New York: Teachers College
Press.
This book highlights the importance of putting children's health at the center
of school programs and policies as a prerequisite for learning. It discusses
ways schools and communities can link, and thus improve, both health and learning
in young people through coordinated school health programs in local schools.
Chapters cover comprehensive school health education that includes counseling,
psychological, social, and nutrition services; family and community involvement
in school health; physical education; school health services; school-site health
promotion for staff; and both state and national roles in coordinated school
health programs.
Cross-System Collaboration
National League of Cities. (2007). Beyond
city limits: Cross-system collaboration to reengage disconnected youth.
Washington, DC: Author.
This report describes how eight different cities have launched cross-system
initiatives and what they have accomplished through this new collaboration.
The case studies suggest that cities are opening dialogues on ways to close
service gaps for children, youth, and families.
Educational Opportunity and the Role of the Courts
Rebell, M. (2007). Poverty,
“meaningful” educational opportunity, and the necessary role of the
courts. North Carolina Law Review, 85, 1467–1544.
This article argues for the necessity of continued and expanded involvement
of the courts in enforcing constitutional requirements for “meaningful
educational opportunity”: an opportunity for children and youth of all
backgrounds to have access to quality in- and out-of-school services and supports
that can enhance their academic opportunities and their overall development.
The argument is backed by analysis of state cases and federal educational laws
and court decisions that make the case for equitable school opportunities. The
article calls for a collaboration of all three branches of the federal government
to ensure that such opportunities could be attained.
More Time for Students
Rocha, E. (2007). Choosing
more time for students: The what, why and how of expanded learning.
Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
This report outlines various arguments for an expanded approach to learning,
advocating for a comprehensive approach to student achievement in an expanded
day that includes utilizing community support and partners. The report shows
how expanded learning time can enable students to meet academic goals, provide
families with educational options for their children, catalyze innovation within
schools, and unify parents, teachers, and communities in a common effort.
Smart Education Systems
Rothman, R. (Ed.). (2007). City
schools: How districts and communities can create smart education systems.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
The concept of smart education systems, developed by the Annenberg Institute
for School Reform, explores ways in which urban districts around the country
can build comprehensive systems of support for children, youth, and families.
This book addresses individual components of a smart education system as well
as ways such an approach can build sustainable partnerships among diverse community
stakeholders.
Building “Smart Education Systems”
Rothman, R. (2007). Building
“smart education systems.” Education Week, 26(44),
25–27.
In this commentary, Rothman unpacks the term “smart education systems”
and defines the educational goal of such systems: to ensure that all young people
are supported in and out of school in their learning and other areas of development
(health, social skills, cultural competence, character, motivation, self-discipline)
that support academic achievement.
Extending Learning
Rothman, R. (Ed.). (2007). Voices
in Urban Education: Extending Learning, 16.
The articles in this issue of the VUE journal focus exclusively on the need
for high-quality learning opportunities for youth beyond the school day. Articles
discuss various models for extending learning time, as well as the importance
of blending academics with more alternative methods of education.
Class and Schools
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational
reform to close the Black–White achievement gap. New York: Teachers
College, Columbia University.
The book addresses the need to consider a variety of social and economic factors
that contribute to learning and achievement, and demonstrates that children
cannot learn without appropriate nutrition, healthcare, and other supports.
It makes the case that investments in such supports are needed in order to close
achievement gaps and ensure an adequate chance for all children.
Reforms to Help Narrow the Achievement Gap
Rothstein, R. (2006). Reforms
that could help narrow the achievement gap. San Francisco: WestEd Policy
Perspectives.
Building on the arguments from Rothstein's book Class and Schools, this
article makes the case that investments are needed not only in in-school resources,
but also in out-of school supports, such as quality early childhood, health
care, out-of-school time learning, and socio-economic opportunities for development
and growth.
A New Day for Learning
Time, Learning, and Afterschool Task Force, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.
(2007). A
new day for learning. Washington, DC: Collaborative Communications Group.
This report from the Mott Foundation suggests that due to modern changes in
cultural diversity and technology in the U.S., schools and communities should
re-evaluate how time and resources are currently used to educate youth. The
report suggests that access to high-quality educational opportunities throughout
the day and year is critical to helping children, families, and communities
succeed in an increasingly competitive society. Specifically, the report calls
for a redefinition of student success, use of research-based knowledge, integrated
proven strategies for acquiring and reinforcing knowledge, building new collaborative
structures across communities, and creating new opportunities for leadership
and professional training in teaching.
Urban Education Reform
Warren, M. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education
reform. Harvard Educational Review, 75(2), 133–173.
In this article, Warren argues that if urban school reform in the United States
is to be successful, it must be linked to the revitalization of the communities
around our schools. He identifies a growing field of collaboration between public
schools and community-based organizations, and identifies three different approaches:
the service approach (community schools), the development approach (community
sponsorship of new charter schools), and the organizing approach (school-community
organizing). He elaborates a conceptual framework using theories of social capital
and relational power, presenting case studies to illustrate each type. He also
discusses a fourth case to demonstrate the possibilities for linking individual
school change to political strategies that address structures of poverty.
Putting Children Front and Center
Zaff, J. F. (2008). Putting children front and center: Building coherent
social policy for America's children. Washington, DC: First Focus.
This paper presents a framework for considering the development and implementation
of social policy and programs for children and youth in a holistic, child-centered
way. The author argues that the current landscape of policies to support children
and youth are disjointed and therefore have limited effect. To be effective,
he argues, policies and programs should leverage the inherent strengths of young
people by “going long” (investing in young people throughout the first
two decades of life); “going wide” (considering family, community,
and school contexts as well as the multiple domains of development, including
cognitive, socio-emotional, health, and civic); and being “child centered”
(considering the unique needs of children instead of the generic needs of large
groups of children). Coming soon from America's
Promise Alliance.
To receive announcements when new complementary learning resources become
available, please subscribe to our e-news email.
For questions about complementary learning at HFRP, please contact Suzanne
Bouffard, Project Manager.
The development of the complementary learning section of our website was
made possible through a grant from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Please check
the acknowledgements in our publications for the sources of additional support
for our work in specific complementary learning contexts.
|
