The School as a hub article V3

The School as a Hub: Best Practice Model for School Based Child and Youth
Work
Reflection
I think that it is appropriate that this paper begin with a personal
reflection. When my career in Child and Youth Work began in the mid 70’s
(at the time I started it was called Child Care Work) focus on treatment was
in its hayday. I particiapted in this era as frontline practioner starting my
work at Whitby Psychiatric Hospital, working in the newly opened crisis unit
for adolescents.
However, while galvanized by the work and not
questioning the need for treatment for these young
people who were in severe distress, there was a sense
that I had that we were only looking through a small
window into these people’s lives. I was also very aware
that this window, which as most crises do, was creating
a window of opportunity, but only one that was half
open. Whatever could be done for these young people,
as expert as the efforts were, could only effect limited
change given the damage that had been inflicted at an
early age and the needs that had been neglected.
As the literature asserts “early intervention in multiple child contexts is of
equal or greater importance than the implementation later in the child’s
development” (Bissonette, Page 3, 1999) Child related behavioral and
emotional issues are less amenable to change or amelioration at a later date.
In addition early intervention also achieves other costs benefits.
From an experiential sense, and as research continues to chronicle its
efficacy, the model of choice for “service delivery” is to use “the whole
village” as the vehicle of prevention and early intervention. Otherwise
stated, this is what is also called comprehensive community development
(Schorr, Page 5-12; Tomison and Wise, Pg. 9, ).
Promise Into Practice, ICYC Conference, Aug 20-23, 2003, Victoria, Canada
Rick Kelly BA.( hon.) C.C.W., CYC (Cert)., Professor, CYW Program, George Brown College
Yvonne Kelly, MSW, Owner/Operator Peasantree

For children and families what is at the core of their development as they
reach the age of 4 and onward is school. Schools, because of their unique
place in the lives of children, have the potential to serve as a powerful force
for supporting child, family and community development, if positioned such.
Schools, as a hub in the community, are an ideal focus point for a holistic and
ecological approach to children.
The Project: “Better Beginnings, Better Futures”; The Highfield Version.
In 1990 the Ontario government announced the launch of a multi-site
initiative which was a “25 year longitudinal prevention policy research
demonstration project to provide information on the effectiveness of
prevention as a policy for children” (Government of Ontario, 1990b). It
became very much participatory research at many of the sites.
This initiative was focussed on preventing emotional and behavioral problems
and promoting the general development in young children, while also
improving family and neighbourhood characteristics, connecting with existing
services, and involving local residents in project development and
implementation. In short the focus was on the whole child (physical,
emotional, social, cognitive) within an ecological context.
There were two different models within the multi-site set up. Five of the
sites focussed on children ages 0-4 and three of the sites focussed on
school age children ages 4-8. Highfield was one of the school aged sites, the
other two were located in Sudbury and Cornwall.
The Highfield Community
I found myself in early 1992 beginning my position, as project manager, at
the Highfield Community Enrichment Project in a community in the north
west corner of Etobicoke (which became part of new the City of Toronto in
1997). I had come quite a distance since my days at Whitby Psychiatric
Hospital.
A few items characterized this community. It was one of the fastest
growing “Inner City” schools in the Metropolitan area for Toronto. This was
a school that reached upwards of 1000 children in 5 years. It had 18
portables on site. It was for children up to Grade 5.

Upwards of 36% of families was single parent lead. 64% of families reported
living below the Canada Low Income Cut Off level, which is widely regarded
as the poverty line. Unemployment was high. The average family income
dropped as the provincial Conservatives began to oversee an era of
prosperity spread throughout most, but obviously, not all of Ontario. This
was also a community that was a magnet for new immigrants. Over 40
different language groups were found in this community. What one saw was
the ongoing ghettoization of poverty with children, single mothers and new
immigrant families becoming the location of economic inequality.
What better location for a “school as a hub model” for the community.
Subtle Design: The Programs
The various research reports describe the Better Beginnings projects by
identifying the number of programs offered. (Nelson, CAP Conference,
2003) They also highlight the intensity and the focus over time that has
lead to the most significant results.
Let me describe the thinking behind the array of programs found at
Highfield that used the school as a hub model.
A)This Child is a Whole Child
Children are physical, emotional, social, intellectual beings. Therefore
programs addressed all aspects of the whole child from basic nutrition
(breakfast, snack and lunch) to physical activity to social development to
academic achievement.
B)This Child is Developing
Children develop over time in the context of nurturing, trusting, continuous
relationships. Enrichment workers were hired (some from the local
community) to work with approximately 120 children, starting in Junior
Kindergarten, for a minimum period of 4 years. This “work” took place within
the classroom, outside of the classroom and in their homes. Imagine
education based on a model of relationship as a foundation for learning.

Also the ability, the skills and an attitude towards learning must be
developed prior to school entry so that there is fertile ground for a
readiness to learn. Therefore many programs were developed to support
children and families in the pre-school years. Teachers regularly cited the
noticeable differnce between children involved in the variety of pre-school
programs and those who were not.
C) This Child Has An Identity (that is not mainstream)
The majority of the children in this very large and constantly growing school
were members of visible minorities groups. Many schools do not present a
“face” that says to the children this is where you belong and fit in. The
majority of the teaching staff was white. The enrichment workers were
South Asian, West Indian and South American as were most of the other
project staff. For schools, which are one of the primary forces of
socialization, there needs to be in the personnel a visible reflection of
diversity and an active sensitivity to other cultures and in the structures
and polices support for the integration of the many cultures into the culture
of the institution.
D) The Secret Lives of Children
Actually, it is no secret that children grow up in a variety of contexts
(school, family, peers, religion). Their life is all of a piece. Some of the more
effective programs are ones that create a seamless day and lessen the silo
nature and isolating effects of programs that segment and fragment
children. (Schorr, pg 5-12) Before and after school programs motivate
children to come to school while providing the necessary safe and nurturing
child care that children require.
While working with the child in other contexts the project also brought the
school into the homes of children and their families (support for learning)
and also brought the culture of the families and the reality of the
community into the school (support for cultural awareness). Festivals,
school/community events, parent involvement at all levels and a general
“openness” to the community in the school supported an infusion of the
respective “cultures”.

E) The Ghost in the Machine
However overseeing these programs was the “hallmark of the Better
beginnings, Better Futures” (Peters, Petrunka, Arnold, 2003, pg 226) which
was significant and meaningful resident involvement. While this is another
story in and of itself , suffice it to say that if the school is a hub it cannot
turn effectively unless there is energy to power the vehicle ; one significant
source of energy was found in parent/resident involvement.
Parents were the leading members of most committees. The steering
committee had a 51% rule for parent/resident representation which also saw
long standing committment from parents who could have been employed
(Lorna Mens) to activists who had a passion for social justice (Pam Prinold,
Janice Etter).
F) The Project’s Little Angels
Effective projects such as the Highfield Project are also only effective if
there is a well trained, competent staff who function as facilitators and
designers of both processes and programs (Schorr, 1997). The Project had
the benefit of a number of individuals who had strong backgrounds in child
development and community development. They forged the links between the
children, family school and community. A Child and Youth Worker lead the
process for 8 years from vision to demonstration and to the development of
an incorporated provincial association.
Summary of Programs and Processes
The Thinking Behind
The programs and events that were designed for children bridged between
contexts (e.g family to school) and created developmental pathways that
supported children making a variety of transitions e.g from pre-school into
the early school years; from their own culture and language to a Western
culture and English language.
The Research Results

The positive effects of the programs and processes of the Highfield project
has been validated in terms of research outcomes. (Peters, Petrunka, Arnold,
2003)
The results include:
 Children’s behavior and health
Significant lower rates of anxiety and depression
Improved social skills
Improved parent ratings of their child’s health
 Quality of Local Neighbourhoods and Schools
Decreased Special Education placements (which increased in control
sites)
Increased satisfaction ratings concerning both their children’s
teacher and school by families
Increased satisfaction with conditions of their dwellings
 Parent Health and well-being
Reduction of smoking by mothers and others in the home from 46% to
26%
 Parent and Family Functioning
Highly significant patterns of improvements on measures of stress,
social support, depression, marital satisfaction and general family
functioning (Peters, Petrunka, Arnold, 2003,pg 224)
Final Summary
Lisbeth Schorr states in her 1989 book that the solutions for the children in
the communities that are most hard pressed is “within our reach”. (Schorr,
1989). It is particularly within our reach as Child and Youth Workers since
we possess the technology, skills, abilities and values that ably equip us to
work in those places where children most need us.
Final Reflection
One of my instructors in college shared with a group of us as students his
vision of CYW’s who could go into any situation involving children and build
from that point on, to create hope, opportunity and a better future for
them, their families, their schools and their communities. (Pipitone, 1974)
AS Delmore Schwartz wrote, “in dreams begin responsibilities” (Schwartz,
1981, title page).

CYW’s carry their responsibility and tools within themselves. These tools
support the children and the surrounding systems and contexts to find their
own strengths and capacities.
However is this enough. Bouchard (1994, p.44) writes
Canadian families and children suffering the consequences of poverty
are growing in number. In this context, the sole use of preventive
psycho-social programs to counter the consequences of poverty
without an equally important global strategy to reduce economic
inequality or poverty itself seems incomplete, inefficient and even
cynical. There is a danger in building a sort of prevention industry
exploiting the very ones that suffer from poor living conditions.
Our responsibility as CYW’s extends to our role as child and political
advocates, especially in a province such as Ontario. This is another chapter
to be written.

Bibliography
Bissonnnette, Margaret, 1998, Optimism, Hardiness and Resiliency: A Review
of the Literature, Prepared for the Child and Family Partnership Project of
Toronto.
Government of Ontario. (1990b) “Better Beginnings, Better Futures”
Project: Policy research demonstration project: Primary Prevention: Request
for Proposals: Research Sites. Toronto, Canada: Queen’s Printer for Ontrio.
Schorr, Lisbeth B., 1997, Common Purpose: Strengthening Families and
Neighbourhoods to Rebuild America, New York, Anchor Books /Doubleday.
Schorr, Lisbeth B., 1989, Within Our Reach, New York, Anchor Books/
Doubleday
Tomason, A.M., & Wise, Adam, 1999, Community Based Approaches in
Preventing Child Maltreatment, Issues in Child Abuse Prevention, Number 11

All children should have first claim on resources and have in their own
regard a set of rights that marks their participation within the community
of persons. (UN Convention on the Rights of Children)
Children are the responsibility of all of us. (It takes a whole village. African
Proverb and a way of life for many third world cultures)
Children’s responses to adults are the litmus test for the quality of
relationships.
Our interactions with “clients” are most effective when situated in the
moment. (Life space interview)
Programs develop around the issues that are real to individuals (Anchor
points)
Children grow and develop in contexts: families, peers and schools. (The
ecology of child development. Bronfenbrenner)
All of us have the same need for relationships: belonging, connectedness, and
acceptance. (Hierarchy of needs. Maslow)
Often times it is just a matter of simply being there for others. (Chanucey
Gardner, Mark Kreuger)
Much of work is not only directed towards another person but is working
with and working through others. (Cooperative Learning, Johnson and
Johnson)
When working in systems, you have do what the Innuit do when traversing
the north……follow the bear. (Arctic Dreams, Barry Lopez)
Article # 2 Version

There are two central ideas and themes that are being presented in this
paper. The first theme is that a particular model of service delivery,
specifically the “school as a hub model” has been shown to be effective for
children, families and communities at risk in
 Preventing negative outcomes for children
 Promoting emotional well-being and social competency
 Facilitating community development
 Reducing systems costs through early intervention
investments
The second theme is that Child and Youth Workers and Counsellors have
within their conceptual and practice repertoire the knowledge and skills
required to implement such a model.
Support for these two ideas is provided from both direct experience and
multiple research findings deriving from the author’s work as the manager of
one particular site from the multi-site “Better Beginnings, Better Futures”
policy research project located in Ontario.
The Project: “Better Beginnings, Better Futures”; The Highfield Version.
In 1990 the Ontario government announced the launch of a multi-site
initiative which was a “25 year longitudinal prevention policy research
demonstration project to provide information on the effectiveness of
prevention as a policy for children” (Government of Ontario, 1990b). It
became very much participatory research at many of the sites.
This initiative was focussed on preventing emotional and behavioural
problems, promoting the general development in young children, improving
family and neighbourhood characteristics, ensuring the connecting and
coordination existing services and involving local residents in project
development and implementation. The intent was also to assess the cost
benefit of using early investments and prevention in order to diminish the
costs of later involvement of children and families in remedial education
programs, child welfare services, mental health services, youth justice
services and health services

The Highfield Community
Eight communities throughout Ontario were selected to participate in this
project. The Highfield community was one of the sites chosen and its focus
was on the school age children ages 4 to 8.
A few items characterized this community. It was one of the fastest
growing “Inner City” schools in the north west part of Toronto. This was a
school that reached upwards of 1000 children in 5 years. It had 18 portables
on site. It was for children up to Grade 5.
Upwards of 36% of families was single parent lead. 64% of families reported
living below the Canada Low Income Cut Off level, which is widely regarded
as the poverty line. Unemployment was high. The average family income
dropped as the provincial Conservatives began to oversee an era of
prosperity spread throughout most, but obviously, not all of Ontario. This
was also a community that was a magnet for new immigrants. Over 40
different language groups were found in this community. What one saw was
the ongoing ghettoization of poverty with children, single mothers and new
immigrant families becoming the location of economic inequality.
What better location for a “school as a hub model” for the community.
There a number of concepts which lead to the power of the school as a hub
model to support a community based approach to prevention.
These concepts include the following:
 Early intervention (The Early Years)
 Comprehensive community development approach (It
takes a whole village)
 The role of schools (15,000 hours, Ontario Child Health
Study

 Compensatory programs to mitigate the effects of
poverty
 A holistic approach to children
 A developmental approach

The School as a hub article V3

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to The School as a hub article V3

Similar to The School as a hub article V3 (20)

The School as a hub article V3