integrating school reform and neighborhood revitalization · abt associates inc. integrating school...

Integrating School Reform and Neighborhood Revitalization: Opportunities and Challenges February 18, 2004 Jennifer Turnham and Jill Khadduri Abt Associates Inc.

Abt Associates Inc. Integrating School Reform and Neighborhood Revitalization 2

1. Introduction

In many ways, the fortunes of neighborhoods and schools in urban America are intertwined. Public schools in low-income neighborhoods face numerous challenges, including erosion of the tax base supporting school budgets, buildings that lack the infrastructure to support modern teaching methods, a parent population struggling with employment, housing, and health issues, reduced enrollment, and a high proportion of students with special needs. At the same time as they are challenged by neighborhood conditions, poorly performing public schools may also contribute to neighborhood decline by hindering the preservation, creation, or re-creation of mixed-income communities. Perhaps more important, poor quality schools do not offer the educational opportunities needed to help children overcome intergenerational poverty. Coordinated investment in neighborhood revitalization and school reform has great potential to reverse this downward trend. In particular, a neighborhood revitalization strategy that includes a school improvement component will be more successful and more sustainable than a strategy that focuses only on the neighborhood. Good schools make neighborhoods more attractive to both existing residents and potential homebuyers. Good schools also create better life opportunities for children, leading to higher rates of employment and earnings, greater residential and social stability, and a host of other important outcomes. Despite the obvious synergies between school improvement and neighborhood revitalization, too often educators and community development practitioners work in complete isolation from one another. Community development practitioners tend to see schools as the purview of the school district and beyond their control, while many educators are skeptical of involving community-based organizations and neighborhood residents in the operations of the school. The result is neighborhood revitalization strategies that fail to address what is a central concern to all families – the education and well being of their children.

Without good schools that deliver a sound instructional program to students, neighborhoods go from revitalized to demoralized. It would not matter how magnificent the dwellings, over time, residents would stop sending their most valued possessions – their children – to schools that do not function. The next step would then be a mass exodus of residents to areas with better performing schools, which would shrink the tax base and keep those schools in disenfranchised areas in a downward spiral.

– Testimony of Dr. Beverly Hall, Superintendent of Atlanta Public Schools, before the Millennial Housing Commission, March 2001.


Although efforts to coordinate investment in neighborhoods and schools are in their infancy, experimentation with integrated school and neighborhood strategies is likely to increase. At the start of the 21st century, new opportunities for school reform exist, including, among others, the movement toward site-based public school management, the increased authority to reconstitute failing schools, the spread of the charter school movement, and experimentation with school vouchers. At the same time, emphasis on neighborhood revitalization strategies that go beyond housing has encouraged funders and practitioners to consider how school reform might contribute to the success and sustainability of their efforts. In particular, community-based organizations and neighborhood associations have begun to take on the improvement of public schools as part of their agenda, including sponsoring the creation of neighborhood-based charter schools. This paper draws on the experiences of eight neighborhoods in six cities to explore how communities are attempting to link school reform and neighborhood reinvestment.1 In selecting neighborhoods to study, we tried to identify places where the intervention was mature enough to yield results. Despite these efforts, we found that in most cases the school reform was too new to have had a measurable effect on the neighborhood. This is not surprising given that these are neighborhoods in large urban school districts, with poverty rates two and three times the national average and very low performing schools. In addition, most of the reforms have been in place for less than five years. The lack of neighborhood outcomes means that we are not able at this stage to identify models or best practices. However, the experiences of these communities offer an excellent starting point for thinking about how communities can integrate school reform into a neighborhood revitalization strategy. In particular, these early efforts highlight the factors that communities need to consider in planning a coordinated school and neighborhood improvement effort and the range of strategies that are available. Although a great many questions remain unanswered, we hope that the paper will help to frame future research on this topic and encourage communities and funders to take advantage of the tremendous opportunity that coordinated investment in schools and neighborhoods presents to improve outcomes for families and communities.

1 The paper was funded by a grant from the Ford Foundation and builds on earlier research conducted by Abt

Associates for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Public Housing Investments. The paper is based primarily on research conducted on school and neighborhood initiatives in Atlanta (GA), St. Louis (MO), Philadelphia (PA), Baltimore (MD), Washington, DC, and North Richmond (CA). The research was conducted through site visits to each of the cities and in-depth interviews with educators, community development practitioners, neighborhood residents, and other local stakeholders. Where possible, we also collected school district and census data to measure school and neighborhood improvement over time.


2. The Relationship between Schools and Neighborhoods: What the Research Tells Us

The concept of integrating school reform and neighborhood revitalization strategies is a relatively new one. Thus far, there have been no studies that demonstrate empirically that a coordinated approach to school and neighborhood revitalization yields better outcomes than investment in either schools or neighborhoods alone, or that compare the outcomes of different school and neighborhood intervention strategies in a systematic way. However, there is research that suggests that schools are an important component of neighborhood quality and that school characteristics influence housing choices, particularly for families with children. While it is clear that households consider school quality when making decisions about where to live and purchase homes, the research is less clear about the importance of school quality compared with other neighborhood attributes, as well as how households evaluate school quality. That the research literature is not more definitive about the nexus between school and neighborhood health is surprising given the widely held belief that the poor quality of urban public schools is an important, if not the most important, barrier preventing middle-income households with children from moving into urban neighborhoods. Public schools have long been considered to be a component of neighborhood quality that is capitalized into housing values. Over the past 10 years, there have been several empirical studies linking different measures of school quality to housing values. For example, in a study of home sales in suburban Boston, Black (1999) found that buyers were willing to pay 2.5 percent more for a 5 percent increase in standardized test scores. A recent analysis of residential sales in Philadelphia also found that households were willing to pay more for housing in neighborhoods where schools have higher test scores (Cummings et al. 2001). In this study, a 10 percent increase in the percentage of eight graders scoring above the state median in math resulted in a 12.5 percent increase in house prices. In addition, increasing class sizes by one student decreased housing prices by 2.4 percent. These studies and others offer compelling evidence that school quality is valued by housing markets.2 However, how homebuyers weigh good schools against other neighborhood characteristics is less clear. In neighborhoods where crime and blight is a problem, for example, these factors may be more important than poor school quality in shaping negative perceptions of the neighborhood (Greenberg 1999). In addition, it seems obvious that issues of school quality will be most important for households with preschool or school-aged children and less important for other types of households. A recent survey of homebuyers in the Wilmington and Cincinnati metropolitan areas found that the quality of public schools was less important to the purchase decision than the

2 Other studies of this type include Brasington (1999) and Weimer and Wolcoff (2001).


appearance of the neighborhood, house prices, neighborhood safety, and the type of houses (Varady and Raffel 1997). Overall, about half of the survey respondents reported that school quality was important to their purchase decision, including 28 percent who considered it to be “very important” and 24 percent who considered it to be “somewhat important.” These percentages were higher for households with one or more preschool or school-aged children and lower for households with one or more children in parochial schools. However, school quality was not more important for households of higher socioeconomic status (as measured by college education, income, and high-status white collar work) than other households. Some scholars have suggested that survey research may underestimate the importance of school issues in residential choices because respondents are unwilling to admit that their housing choices are based on the racial or class composition of local public schools (Varady and Raffel 1997). There is strong evidence that race and class are important components of perceived school quality, particularly for white families. For example, in a recent study of applications to magnet schools in Philadelphia, Saporito (2003) found that while all families tend to avoid schools with lower test scores, for white families the racial composition of the school appears to be important in itself. In addition, Ingrid Ellen’s analysis of American Housing Survey and census data found that white households with children in public schools are more likely to be concerned about the quality of the schools in neighborhoods where the share of African-American households is growing (Ellen 2000). Although white households with children are most sensitive to racial change in the neighborhood, Ellen finds some evidence that African-American households with children also are more likely to move out of neighborhoods where the African-American population is increasing. More research is needed on how households evaluate school quality and use it to make decisions about where to live. However, despite the gaps in the research, it seems clear that public school improvement should be an integral component of any neighborhood revitalization strategy, both for attracting families with choices to the neighborhood and for improving the life chances of existing residents. The next three chapters use case studies to discuss the local factors that affect the choice of school and neighborhood strategy in different communities – the neighborhood context, the school reform context, and the availability of human and financial resources to support the effort. The paper ends by summarizing the lessons learned from the school and neighborhood revitalization initiatives to date and proposing additional steps to advance our understanding of which strategies will be most effective in addressing the many challenges facing urban schools and neighborhoods. Before turning to the case studies, it is important to note that this paper focuses on reform efforts in elementary schools rather than middle- or high schools. We chose to focus on elementary schools because they are more likely to be neighborhood-based. In addition, parents are most likely to factor school quality into their residential decisions when their children are young. For the most part, we also focus on single schools serving single neighborhoods, rather than system-wide reforms. As a result, the paper does not address the


multiple factors affecting suburbanization, the relationship between school reform and smart growth, or the effects of system-wide school reforms. An important theme of this paper is that school and neighborhood interventions can take different forms depending on the characteristics of the neighborhood, the opportunities for reform within the school system, and resources available to bring to the effort. As a result, we include a range of approaches under the terms “school reform” and “neighborhood revitalization.” We also use school “reform” and “improvement” interchangeably and assume that reform can take place both within and outside the traditional public school system.


3. The Neighborhood Context

There are a variety of ways in which a school improvement or reform effort can enhance a neighborhood revitalization strategy. Choosing an appropriate school and neighborhood intervention requires careful examination of three key factors: the neighborhood context, the local school reform environment, and the availability of human and financial resources to support the effort. This chapter focuses on the first factor, drawing on examples from ongoing school and neighborhood improvement efforts across the country. The school reform context and availability of resources are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. There are many types of urban neighborhoods. Characteristics that distinguish among urban neighborhoods include the poverty rate, the prevalence of rental versus owner-occupied housing, the racial and ethnic makeup of the population, and how the neighborhood has changed over time. In addition, neighborhoods differ by the extent to which they have assets valued by the housing market – such as a high quality housing stock, green spaces, or the proximity to downtown – and the extent to which revitalization activities are already ongoing in the neighborhood. A rigorous assessment of the neighborhood’s assets, as well as its problems, is needed to determine whether the vision for the school and neighborhood is realistic and what the timeframe might be for realizing change. For example, if crime is perceived to be a major problem in the neighborhood, even a new school with a state of the art curriculum is unlikely to induce families with choices to move there in the short term. The school and neighborhood initiatives researched for this study illustrate how neighborhood characteristics influence the goals for the revitalization and the choice for neighborhood and school improvement strategies. Our research covered several different types of urban neighborhoods, including public housing neighborhoods undergoing redevelopment, high poverty neighborhoods experiencing reinvestment, mixed income neighborhoods experiencing decline, and neighborhoods experiencing rising incomes and property values. Examples of school and neighborhood improvement efforts in each type of neighborhood are discussed below. 3.1. Public Housing Neighborhoods Undergoing Redevelopment

Murphy Park and Centennial Place are former public housing neighborhoods that have undergone large-scale redevelopment over the past 10 years. The Murphy Park neighborhood in St. Louis is part of a larger area north of downtown that for the past 50 years has been dominated by public housing. Murphy Park is a 300-unit mixed income rental community that was developed in the late 1990s on the site of what was once the Vaughn Homes public housing development. Bordering Murphy Park is an older rental development for low- and moderate-income families and a distressed, partially vacant public housing development. The Centennial Place neighborhood is located in downtown Atlanta on the site of two of the oldest public housing developments in the country. The Techwood and Clark Howell public housing developments were demolished in the mid-1990s through the HOPE


VI program and replaced with Centennial Place, a 750-unit mixed-income rental community with a 100-unit homeownership component planned. Most residents of Murphy Park and Centennial Place are low- and moderate-income renters. Half of the units in the Murphy Park development are traditional public housing, 10 percent are funded through tax credits and designated for families with incomes at or below 60 percent of the area median, and 40 percent have market-determined rents. In Centennial Place, 40 percent of the units are public housing, 20 percent are funded through tax credits, and 40 percent have market-determined rents. In both neighborhoods, the poverty rate exceeds 40 percent, although it has decreased since 1990 (see Exhibit 1). The median household income is less than $15,000 per year. Both neighborhoods have historically been predominantly African-American, although Centennial Place has a growing white population. Exhibit 1: Neighborhood Characteristics of Murphy Park and Centennial Place

Murphy Park (St. Louis, MO)

Centennial Place (Atlanta, GA)

2000 Change since

1990 2000 Change since 1990

Population 3,041 -1% 3,694 -19% Percent Minority 97% -2% 76% -11% Poverty Rate 46% -9% 44% -28% Median Household Income $14,636 n/a $13,623 n/a Homeownership Rate 7% +5% 9% +4%

Source: U.S. Census 2000 and 1990.

Although the characteristics of the two neighborhoods are similar, the revitalization goals and school reform strategies are quite different. In Murphy Park, the goal is to build a healthy African-American community with strong institutions and moderate- to middle-income families. New and strongly managed housing and a good school are intended to retain and attract stable working families and help create a culture that supports the upward mobility of those families who still have incomes at the public housing level. The vision does not include attracting higher-income families or achieving greater racial diversity. Such goals are not realistic for the neighborhood, given its proximity to highly distressed public housing, the generally weak economic base and housing market within the city of St. Louis, and the absence of any nearby neighborhood that already has middle- or higher-income residents or is beginning to attract urban pioneers. Creating a revitalized elementary school was believed to be essential for community building centered on the new Murphy Park development. A high-performing school would be important both as a platform for improving the lives of the public housing residents and to attract families to the tax credit and market-rate units in the development. As a result, in the late 1990s the developer of Murphy Park, with the support of several local businesses and


foundations, led an effort to reconstitute the existing failing school (Jefferson Elementary School). A new principal assumed leadership at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year and a new instructional program began. Since then, the reform program has focused on parental involvement, small class sizes, teacher continuity, and year-round schooling (see Exhibit 2). The expectation is that greater family and neighborhood stability, as well as continued improvement of the instructional program, will help the school’s academic performance and foster a positive cycle of school and neighborhood improvement. The effort to revitalize Jefferson School began as a single school effort linked to the redevelopment of Murphy Park. However, the reform at Jefferson School is now part of an effort to transform all of the schools within a larger neighborhood in North St. Louis, defined by the enrollment area of the Vashon High School. The transformation of Jefferson School has become a template for what should happen to the elementary and middle schools that “feed into” Vashon High School. The “Vashon Compact,” as the effort to reform these schools is known, is highly ambitious. It covers 10 schools, including a high school and several very troubled middle schools. Approximately 4,000 students attend these schools, and 90 percent of them qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. As of November 2002, the Vashon Compact had raised approximately $10 million in corporate and foundation funding. Plans for the schools include funding technology and curriculum enhancements, recruiting effective principals and teachers, and providing top quality professional development. The Compact also plans to assess school performance in a more thorough way than would be done by the school district or state of Missouri.


Exhibit 2: School Reform in Murphy Park and Centennial Place

Murphy Park (St. Louis, MO)

Centennial Place (Atlanta, GA)

School Name Jefferson Elementary School

Centennial Place School

Type of Reform Partial reconstitution of existing public school. Neighborhood enrollment.

Formal reconstitution of existing public school. Citywide enrollment with priority given to neighborhood residents.

Year Reform Initiated 1998-99

1998-99

Key Components of Reform

− Physical renovation of school − New principal − Some new teachers − Technology upgrades − Research-based reading

curriculum − Parent liaisons

− New school building and name − Science and technology

curriculum − Open classroom − Enhanced language and music − Extended school day − Year round school − Professional development and

curriculum support by Georgia Tech

The goal of the Centennial Place redevelopment is to create a rental and homeownership community with a broader range of incomes than is likely to be seen at Murphy Park. The proximity of Centennial Place to downtown Atlanta and the growth the city has experienced in the past decade suggest that the neighborhood may be attractive to middle-income households. In the past, the neighborhood contained little housing besides the two public housing developments, so the redevelopment of Centennial Place provided an opportunity to create a new neighborhood without the presence of older public housing. Centennial Place has a larger tier of tax credit units than Murphy Park and a smaller public housing tier. A survey conducted in 2000 found that there were substantial differences in income among the residents of the public housing, tax credit, and market rate tiers. There is also some racial diversity within the development. According to the 2000 survey, households in the public housing tier are almost all African American, but 11 percent of households in the tax credit tier are white, as are 55 percent of households in the market-rate tier (Locke and Winkel 2001). New private development in the neighborhood – including loft apartments and townhouse condominiums – suggests that Centennial Place has a good chance of eventually becoming a strong market-rate neighborhood. An excellent elementary school was an integral part of the vision of creating a sustainable mixed-income community in Centennial Place. In particular, the school was seen as a way to attract families to the development’s tax credit and market-rate units, as well as putting the children of public housing families on a path to greater academic achievement. The fact that the original elementary school serving the neighborhood fed into some of the most sought after middle and high schools in the city made this a realistic vision.


The original elementary school (Fowler School) was demolished, and a new K-5 school was built. Centennial Place School is a science and technology themed school, with a state of the art building and curriculum developed with support from the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), whose campus borders the Centennial Place neighborhood. The school gives enrollment preference to children from the neighborhood but is open to students citywide on a lottery basis. The school is physically connected to a new YMCA and has arts and language programs. The school day is 30 minutes longer than other public schools in the city, and the school operates year-round. As of November 2002, four years after the school opened, the school principal estimated that approximately 30 percent of the students at Centennial Place School came from the Centennial Place development. It is unlikely that many children from the market-rate tier attended the school, as most households in the market-rate units had no children (based on the 2000 survey). However, school officials believed that some Georgia Tech graduate students living in the market-rate units were sending their children to the school, as well as some of the tax credit families. In addition, Centennial Place School has attracted students from families with a range of income levels from the city as a whole.3 The developers of Centennial Place hope that the school will attract families to the new homeownership units under development in the neighborhood. However, as with the other reform efforts discussed in this paper, it is too early to tell what the effects on the neighborhood will be. 3.2. High Poverty Neighborhoods Experiencing Reinvestment

Sandtown-Winchester in Baltimore and North Richmond in California, are highly disadvantaged neighborhoods that in recent years have improved somewhat. Neither neighborhood is dominated by public housing, and incomes are somewhat higher than in Murphy Park or Centennial Place. These neighborhoods also have a much larger base of homeowners (see Exhibit 3). Both neighborhoods are historically African-American, although a large number of Hispanic households have moved to North Richmond in recent years, resulting in a population that is almost evenly split between African Americans and Hispanics. Although the neighborhoods share many characteristics, Sandtown-Winchester is a much bigger area, with almost four times the population.

3 Sixty percent of Centennial students qualify for free- or reduced-price meals, compared to 87 percent of

students in Atlanta public schools as a whole.


Exhibit 3: Neighborhood Characteristics of Sandtown-Winchester and North Richmond

Sandtown-Winchester (Baltimore)

North Richmond (Richmond, CA)

2000 Change since


Population 17,495 -23% 4,076 +35% Percent Minority 98% -1% 81% -12% Poverty Rate 37% -4% 39% -11% Median Household Income $25,430 n/a $22,650 n/a Homeownership Rate 33% +8% 31% 0%


Sandtown-Winchester has been the focus of a comprehensive neighborhood revitalization effort since 1994. The effort, known as the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, is being led by the Enterprise Foundation, with support from the city of Baltimore, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and numerous private partners. The vision for the neighborhood includes improving opportunities for existing residents and attracting new households to the community. Thus far, the initiative has focused on the first objective, recognizing that the neighborhood’s potential to attract new households may be limited in the short term. Alongside the development of affordable housing, capacity building for community-based organizations, and job training for neighborhood residents, a major component of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative is neighborhood-wide school improvement. Through a special compact with the Baltimore City Public School System, a common set of reforms have been implemented in two elementary schools that serve the neighborhood (George G. Kelson Elementary and William Pinderhughes Elementary).4 These reforms include a direct instruction curriculum, local control over hiring decisions, school-based health services, and summer programs (see Exhibit 4). The direct instruction curriculum, which is highly scripted and involves continuous assessment, was chosen to achieve basic skills improvements in a short period of time and to mitigate the effects of the high rates of student mobility5 and teacher turnover, which have been major problems in this community.

4 Initially, the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative focused on three elementary schools, but one of the

schools (Gilmor Elementary School) was reconstituted by the state and placed under private management. Because the school is being run by a for-profit company, the Enterprise Foundation is not able to continue funding activities at the school.

5 Student mobility refers to the movement of students in and out of an individual school or school district during the course of the school year. For example, in 2002-2003 school year, 96 students (32 percent of the student body) enrolled at Pinderhughes School after the start of the school year. In addition, 74 students (25 percent of the student body) withdrew prior to the end of the school year. A high rate of student mobility means that it is difficult for teachers to maintain a consistent learning environment and that test scores do not accurately reflect the instructional program at the school.


In 1999, the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative expanded its efforts to the middle school serving Sandtown-Winchester. The goal was to connect the ongoing reforms in the elementary schools to the middle school in order to improve long-term educational outcomes for neighborhood children. Initiative staff attempted to implement similar reforms in the middle school, including the introduction of the direct instruction curriculum, but was unable to do so successfully, because of the size of the school (1,000 students) and its seriously troubled status. As an alternative, Pinderhughes School is being expanded to include grades six through eight, and children from both Pinderhughes and Kelson will attend middle school there. Exhibit 4: School Reform in Sandtown-Winchester and North Richmond

Sandtown-Winchester (Baltimore)

North Richmond (Richmond, CA)

School Name Kelson Elementary School and Pinderhughes Elementary School

Verde Elementary School

Type of Reform Reform of existing public schools through compact with school district. Neighborhood enrollment.

Reform of existing public school. Neighborhood enrollment.

Year Reform Initiated 1994-95

2000-01


− Physical renovation of schools − Direct instruction curriculum − Extra funding for professional

development for teachers − Health clinics on campus − Computer labs

− Physical renovation of school − New principal and some new

teachers − Use of parent mentors to

improve student attendance and discipline

− Modest foundation support for sports programs, community garden, and computer lab

The revitalization effort in North Richmond focuses on improving the lives of current neighborhood residents through workforce development programs, supportive services, and the development and rehabilitation of affordable housing. North Richmond has a relatively healthy housing market because of its location in the San Francisco Bay Area. There is substantial private development on the outskirts of the neighborhood, and gentrification is a major concern. As a result, there is little interest in attracting households with higher incomes to the neighborhood. The school improvement strategy in North Richmond focuses on improving student achievement at the elementary school that serves most of the neighborhood (Verde Elementary School). There has been no formal reconstitution of the school or special compact with the school district, but a new principal has been working closely with the main social service provider in the neighborhood to increase student attendance and improve discipline by encouraging greater parental involvement in the school. The principal has also


sought out modest grant funding to enhance the instructional program and school facilities in order to raise student achievement. Finally, the principal and social service provider are trying to make parental involvement in Verde School a vehicle for family strengthening and community building between African American and Hispanic residents. 3.3. Mixed Income Neighborhoods Experiencing Decline

Patterson Park, Baltimore, and University City, Philadelphia, are racially and economically mixed neighborhoods located close to the downtown areas of their cities. Similar in size, these neighborhoods both include areas that are moderate-income, with longtime homeowners, and areas with high poverty rates and a more transient population. University City has a very high share of renters, resulting from the neighborhood’s proximity to the University of Pennsylvania. Over the past ten years, both neighborhoods have experienced racial transition, as white households have left the neighborhood, and an increase in the overall poverty rate (see Exhibit 5). In each case, the revitalization effort was driven by a desire to stabilize the neighborhood by reducing the out-migration of middle-income households and increasing the homeownership rate. Exhibit 5: Neighborhood Characteristics of Patterson Park and University City

Patterson Park (Baltimore)

University City (Philadelphia)

2000 Change since


Population 19,595 -3% 17,671 -17% Percent Minority 52% +32% 49% +14% Poverty Rate 26% +8% 40% +7% Median Household Income $27,923 n/a $20,477 n/a Homeownership Rate 55% -9% 13% 0%


The revitalization effort in Patterson Park has been led by the Patterson Park Community Development Corporation (PPCDC), which was formed in 1996 to address the disinvestment in the neighborhood that had been taking place over several decades and had resulted in a high vacancy rates and ongoing turnover of homeownership properties to rental. PPCDC’s main strategy has been to purchase and rehabilitate housing in the neighborhood primarily for homeownership use. In addition to improving the housing stock for existing residents, an explicit goal of this strategy is to attract new homebuyers to the neighborhood. PPCDC’s vision for the neighborhood is one of a stable community with a high rate of homeownership,


well-maintained rental housing, and a population that is economically and, to a lesser extent, racially diverse.6 When PPCDC first began rehabilitating and selling housing it experimented with a school-based strategy to attract buyers to the neighborhood. PPCDC partnered with a Catholic school in the neighborhood and a Baltimore-based foundation to provide tuition subsidies to families who bought homes through its program. The arrangement was attractive to the Catholic school, because it was losing enrollment and in danger of closing. For PPCDC, the tuition subsidy provided an added incentive for families to buy into the neighborhood at a time when little noticeable change had taken place. Approximately 40 families attended the open house that PPCDC held to announce the tuition program. However, because of the limited number of houses that PPCDC had available at that time, only 10 families were able to take advantage of the program. Through the people who attended the open house, PPCDC learned that, although the tuition subsidy was attractive, there were many reasons other than schools that families were reluctant to move to the neighborhood. Most important was the persistent crime in the neighborhood and Patterson Park’s poor reputation within the city. Despite the limited participation in the program (which was discontinued when the foundation funding ran out), PPCDC’s Executive Director believes that it was very important for generating a “buzz” about the neighborhood that brought in the critical first buyers. Since then, PPCDC has sold 125 houses, and property values in the neighborhood have risen appreciably. Neighborhood residents – many of whom purchased through PPCDC – are currently planning a neighborhood-based charter school to provide a high-quality educational alternative to neighborhood children. The intent is to create an economically and racially diverse student body by using enrollment boundaries and possibly quotas, thus further contributing to the revitalization and integration of the neighborhood (see Exhibit 6).

6 Although preserving the mixed-race character of Patterson Park is an important goal, it is secondary to

stabilizing the neighborhood and preventing further flight by middle-income households. Some parts of the neighborhood are almost exclusively African American, and PPCDC’s focus in those areas is on retaining financially stable African American households, not necessarily attracting households of other races.


Exhibit 6: School Reform in Patterson Park and University City

Patterson Park (Baltimore)

University City (Philadelphia)

School Name N/A

Penn Alexander School

Type of Reform Tuition subsidy for local Catholic school (no longer in operation) and plans for neighborhood-based public charter school.

New public school with operating support from University of Pennsylvania. Neighborhood enrollment.

Year Reform Initiated N/A

2001-02


− Charter school plans to have a community-based curriculum and develop partnerships with community organizations

− Planned enrollment boundaries for charter school aim to achieve racial and economic diversity

− New school building − Research-based, technology rich

curriculum − Shared decision making between

principal and Penn staff and faculty

− Professional development and curriculum support by Penn

− Small class sizes − Extra art and music programs

The revitalization effort in University City has been led by the University of Pennsylvania, whose campus is adjacent to the neighborhood. The University has not traditionally been actively involved in neighborhood issues, but in the mid-1990s parents of Penn undergraduates and neighborhood residents became increasingly insistent that something be done to address the crime and physical decay. There were a series of violent attacks on undergraduate students in the neighborhood. The administration realized that the reputation of the neighborhood was affecting the University’s ability to attract top quality faculty, staff, and students. In response to the crisis, the University invested in a multi-faceted revitalization strategy for the neighborhood. The goal of the strategy was to stabilize the neighborhood within five years and make it a safer and more appealing place for University faculty, staff, and students to live and work. Attracting homebuyers was identified as a primary means of neighborhood stabilization, and two elements of the strategy—homeownership and improving public education—related directly to that mission. The University negotiated with the Philadelphia school district and teachers union to create a new neighborhood-based public elementary school (the Sadie Mossell Tanner Alexander University of Pennsylvania Partnership School). The Penn Alexander School, as it is known, is in a new, state of the art building and has a research-based curriculum, a focus on technology and the liberal arts, arts and music programs, and strong instructional leadership. The University provides a per pupil subsidy, to keep class sizes small, and professional development support to teachers through the Graduate School to Education. The goal was to create a school that could compete with the best public and private schools in the city and


would attract University faculty and staff to the neighborhood. However, improving opportunities for existing neighborhood residents was also important. As a result, the enrollment area for the school was drawn to include highly disadvantaged as well as more stable parts of the neighborhood. To complement the school strategy, the University also offers financial incentives for its faculty and staff to purchase in the neighborhood – including low interest mortgages and home improvement loans. Improving the affordable rental stock in the neighborhood is also part of the revitalization plan, but is at an earlier stage of implementation. 3.4. Neighborhoods Experiencing Rising Incomes And Property

Values

The last type of neighborhood researched for this study is formerly distressed neighborhoods that are experiencing rising incomes and property values. In such neighborhoods, the purpose of a school improvement effort is to make the neighborhood more attractive to families with children (as opposed to singles and empty nesters) and to improve social integration among households of different income levels. Coupled with an affordable housing preservation strategy, low-income families may remain in the neighborhood and benefit alongside higher-income newcomers from the higher quality school. Columbia Heights in Washington, DC and Bolton Hill in Baltimore are mixed-income, mixed-race neighborhoods that have experienced population growth and a reduction in poverty over the past ten years. In both neighborhoods, the share of African American households decreased, and the share of white households increased. Columbia Heights also saw tremendous growth in the Hispanic population, while Bolton Hill’s modest Asian population more than tripled. Both neighborhoods continue to be dominated by rental housing although homeownership increased somewhat between 1990 and 2000 (see Exhibit 7). Exhibit 7: Neighborhood Characteristics of Columbia Heights and Bolton Hill

Columbia Heights (Washington DC)

Bolton Hill (Baltimore)

2000 2000 2000 Change since

1990 Population 30,505 +2% 5,648 +16% Percent Minority 86% -4% 44% -6% Poverty Rate 29% +3% 25% -1% Median Household Income $25,842 n/a $22,271 n/a Homeownership Rate 22% +2% 22% +2%


Of all the neighborhoods researched for this paper, Columbia Heights has the least coordinated neighborhood and school improvement strategy. In this neighborhood, the


school reform approach was not part of a place-based strategy, although enrollment in the school is such that it might have neighborhood effects. The intervention in Columbia Heights was to create a small charter school (see Exhibit 8). Capital City Charter School was founded by a group of parents and teachers to provide an alternative to a public school system perceived to be in decline. The founders were not from Columbia Heights, but chose the neighborhood as a site for the school because it offered an affordable space for rent and had experienced enough revitalization to not be threatening to middle-income parents. Capital City Charter School was not designed to attract households to move to Capital Heights. Had this been a goal, creating a charter school would not have been an appropriate strategy, as Washington, DC’s charter school legislation does not allow charter schools to provide an enrollment priority for neighborhood children. Instead, enrollment in Washington, DC’s charter schools is determined by a citywide lottery. However, because neighborhood children were a natural market – or perhaps because of a desire for a racially and economically diverse student body – the school’s founders reached out to neighborhood childcare centers and community organizations to recruit families for the school. At the same time, flyers about the school were placed in libraries across the city. The result is a school that is 50 percent African American, 25 percent white, and 25 percent Hispanic, with 48 percent of the children eligible for free or reduced lunch. About half of the children come from the neighborhood. The school’s connection to the Columbia Heights neighborhood remains to be seen. With enrollment determined by a citywide lottery, there is no incentive for households with children to move to the neighborhood simply in order to access the school. However, the school could contribute to neighborhood revitalization by providing better opportunities for existing neighborhood residents, many of whom come from low-income families. Because the school started with half the children from the neighborhood, it is likely to maintain a connection to the neighborhood for a long time, as current students move through the school. Exhibit 8: School Reform in Bolton Hill and Columbia Heights

Columbia Heights (Washington DC)

Bolton Hill (Baltimore)

School Name Capital City Public Charter School Midtown Academy

Type of Reform New public charter school. Citywide enrollment.

New charter-like public school. Enrollment from two adjacent neighborhoods.

Year Reform Initiated 2000-01 1997-98


− Project-based learning − Small school and class size

− Parent-teacher run school − Mandatory parent involvement − Small school and class size − Focus on art, music, and

languages


In Bolton Hill, neighborhood residents and teachers partnered to create an independent elementary public school (Midtown Academy) through Baltimore’s New Schools Initiative, a precursor to the state’s charter school legislation. The primary impetus behind Midtown Academy was to provide Bolton Hill residents with an alternative to the local public school, which was high performing by Baltimore City standards but was very large (800 students) and had an increasingly low-income and African American student body. The founders of Midtown Academy, who were mainly white and middle-class, were committed to public education in a diverse setting but did not want their children to be “pioneers” in an all-African American school. Nor did they want to send their children to such a large school. Midtown Academy’s enrollment zone was drawn to include the Bolton Hill neighborhood and an adjoining neighborhood, Reservoir Hill, that is predominantly African American and has a higher poverty rate (34 percent in 2000). Fifty percent of the school’s slots are reserved for children from Bolton Hill and 50 percent are reserved for children from Reservoir Hill, with an option to draw from other city neighborhoods if the slots do not fill. In part, this system was designed to ensure that the school would have an economically and racially mixed student body. However, the schools’ founders also realized that Bolton Hill could not support a school on its own, given that the neighborhood is small and many residents would continue to send their children to private school. The 50/50 split was important to prevent Midtown Academy from becoming all low-income and was feasible because of the school’s small size (180 students). Midtown Academy is not directly linked to neighborhood revitalization activities in Bolton Hill, but the school is used to market the neighborhood to prospective homebuyers. This strategy may have its limits as the school gains in reputation. In 2003, there were slightly more applicants from Bolton Hill than there were openings. If this trend continues, households moving to the neighborhood will no longer be assured of a spot in the school when their children reach school age.


4. The School Reform Context

In addition to the neighborhood context, a second critical factor influencing the type of school intervention is the local environment for school reform. School reform can take a number of different forms, including: reform of existing public schools, creation of new public schools, creation of a charter or pilot public schools, creation of magnet schools, and provision of tuition subsidies for a parochial school. How the school intervention is accomplished depends in large part on the goals of the initiative, the type of reform, and the local opportunities for innovation within the school system. Following are some examples of how the local reform climate can shape the school intervention strategy: Jefferson Elementary School, Murphy Park, St. Louis

An important part of the context for the transformation of Jefferson School was the end of the court ordered desegregation of St. Louis Public Schools. Under the desegregation order, only 20 percent of the children enrolled in the old Jefferson School were from the neighborhood, and 80 percent were bused in from other areas of the city, the reverse of the current enrollment pattern. The school nonetheless was close to 100 percent African American, as no white families chose to send their children to Jefferson. The end of the desegregation-busing program will take many years, as families that currently have children in schools outside their neighborhoods have the option to enroll siblings in the same school until the last of the siblings graduates. However, St. Louis is gradually returning to neighborhood schools. This made possible the reconstitution of Jefferson as a neighborhood school with a preference for children living in its enrollment area. The sponsors of the Murphy Park revitalization effort would not have invested in the school had it not had a neighborhood preference, because they saw the school as supporting and enhancing the mixed-income community that they were trying to create, and there needed to be a clear link between the Murphy Park neighborhood and the school. Without a neighborhood preference for enrollment, there would be less incentive for families to move to the neighborhood to use the school. In addition, planners wanted to be sure that the benefits of the improved school would be targeted to children in Murphy Park and the surrounding neighborhood. A gradually increasing climate of reform in the St. Louis Public School System, in which principals have authority to recruit their own teachers, may have helped set the stage for school board approval of the reconstitution of Jefferson School and for the school system’s willingness to accept resources for an individual school from outside the school system. The reform climate may in part have been spurred by Missouri’s charter school legislation and the creation of several charter schools in St. Louis that compete with the public schools. The process for reconstituting St. Louis public schools existed on paper, but Jefferson was the first (and as of November 2002 was the only) reconstituted St. Louis public school. The impetus for changing Jefferson School came from developer Richard Baron of McCormack Baron, who is outside both the school system and the broader world of education reform.


Centennial Place School, Centennial Place, Atlanta

At the time that the Atlanta Housing Authority was planning the Centennial Place redevelopment and considering replacing Fowler School, it was not possible to create a new charter school in Atlanta. Nor was there any legislation allowing the reconstitution of low-performing public schools. This meant that Fowler School would have to be reformed within the Atlanta public school system, which presented a significant challenge. However, there were some aspects of the school system that made the creation of Centennial Place School easier. Instead of a desegregation-busing program, Atlanta continued to have neighborhood schools, subject to a school choice option in which families have the right to choose a school outside of their neighborhood. The school choice option facilitated the creation of Centennial Place School because it provided a pool of potential students at a time when there were not enough children living in the neighborhood enrollment area to justify the school. At the same time, the school choice option did not prohibit the school from instituting a preference for children from the neighborhood. Also facilitating the creation of a new school with a completely new staff was the fact that Georgia is a Right to Work state, which means that teachers cannot be required to belong to local affiliates of the American Federation of Teachers or the National Education Association. In fact, most public school teachers in Atlanta do not belong to these unions. This meant that the teachers at Fowler School did not have an organization that could insist on their right to be employed at the new school on the basis of a collective bargaining agreement. Even with these conditions, the creation of Centennial Place School required a long and hard battle, in part because the Centennial Place development was not yet completed at the time the school was being discussed and there were fears that the school would not be accessible to the most disadvantaged children in the neighborhood. Penn Alexander School, University City, Philadelphia

When planning the school and neighborhood revitalization effort for University City, University of Pennsylvania administrators began with the premise that in order for an improved school to bring homebuyers to the neighborhood, it needed to be a neighborhood-based school and to be competitive academically with the best public and private schools in the city. Creating a charter school was not seen as a viable option for two reasons. First, there is no neighborhood preference for Pennsylvania charter schools; rather, students are selected by lottery in the case of over-enrollment. Without a neighborhood preference for enrollment in the school, the school’s ability to attract homeowners to the neighborhood would be greatly diminished. Second, the Philadelphia School District would not have subsidized the construction of a new school building for a charter school. The planners believed that having a new building—particularly a modern, well-designed building that could support a wide range of technology—was important for generating interest in the school, particularly among middle-class parents with choices.


However, the planners also believed having some independence from the school district in terms of staffing and curriculum decisions would be critical to creating a top-quality school. The quality of the school’s academic program—or the perception of its quality—was very important to planners, because they felt that a key measure of its success would be the extent to which University faculty were willing to send their children there. Furthermore, the planners believed that this quality could only be achieved if decisions about the school curriculum, the hiring and firing of teachers, and the organization of the school day were made locally—by the principal, teachers, and University faculty—rather than by the School District, as is the case for regular public schools. For this reason, the University negotiated with the School District and the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers for some of the flexibilities that are granted to charter schools, while keeping the Penn Alexander School within the regular public school system. The Importance of a Strong Principal and Local Control

There is considerable debate in the field of education as to which types of school reforms are most effective in improving student achievement. However, among the educators interviewed for this study, there was consensus that in order to be successful, the school must have a principal who is a strong instructional leader and who can exercise local control over the selection of staff, the development of a curriculum and assessment methods, and the school budget. Selecting a principal early so that he or she can guide the development of the curriculum and selection of teachers is essential. Most important is that the principal be a strong educational leader who understands and shares the vision for the school and neighborhood. The principal does not have to come from outside the school district or public school system to be an effective change agent. Indeed, most of the schools studied have principals recruited from within the city school system, which may be more or less important depending on the individual school district. Once a principal has been selected, it is essential that he or she enjoy some degree of local control over staffing and the curriculum. The school reform initiatives researched for this paper suggest that local control can be obtained in several ways, including: creating a charter school; reconstituting an existing school and negotiating for site-based management; and creating a new school as a special partnership or pilot program within the public school system. It may also be possible for a highly successful principal to gain some level of control over staffing within the regular school system, but most of the people we interviewed were emphatic about the need to obtain these privileges up front as part of the school creation or reconstitution. Once these privileges are in place, the school may also need a champion or watchdog to ensure that the centralizing tendencies of the public school system do not impede the principal’s ability to make the best decisions for the school. Creating an alternatively managed school such as a charter or pilot school may be one of the easier ways to obtain local control in key areas such as staffing and curriculum development,


if the local legislation and resources make that possible.7 Alternatively managed schools such as charters and pilots may also be able to address the administrative barriers that discourage economically mobile families from remaining in urban public school districts. For example, these schools can attempt to reduce the bureaucracy of enrolling students and provide preferences to siblings in order to reduce the possibility of children in the same family going to different schools. The perception of simplified operational policies and site-based control can serve as an important factor in attracting and retaining families at urban public schools. In some localities, charter schools may not be able to establish a preference for the enrollment of neighborhood children. Not having a neighborhood preference may limit the school’s ability to attract families to live in the neighborhood. However, neighborhood children are a natural market for any elementary school and, if a school starts with a substantial number of neighborhood children, it is likely to maintain a connection to the neighborhood as siblings move through the school.

7 Charter schools are public schools that operate independently under a charter from the state. Charter

schools typically receive the same per student operating subsidies as local public schools, but have flexibility in curriculum and personnel issues. Charter recipients may be a local community or affinity group, a for-profit charter school operator, a local cultural or educational institution, or a developer.


5. The Availability of Funding

In addition to the neighborhood and school contexts, a third factor that is important to consider in planning a neighborhood and school intervention is the level of financial and human resources available to support the effort. Each of the school reform efforts researched for this paper has required some amount of private funding for capital costs or to supplement the operating budget (summarized in Exhibit 9). Equally important, reform efforts need human resources in the form of a local “champion” who can raise funds and negotiate freedoms for the school within the public school system. This champion may be an influential individual or an institution, such as a university or foundation. Examples of the kinds of financial and human resources needed for a successful reform effort are described below. Exhibit 9: Sources of Financial Support for Local School Reform Efforts

School Type of Reform Financial and Human Resources Jefferson Elementary School (St. Louis)

Partial reconstitution of existing public school.

− Approximately $3.5 million from corporate donors, used primarily for physical renovations to the school

− Fundraising helped by state tax credit for investment in public schools

Centennial Place School (Atlanta)

Formal reconstitution of existing public school.

− New school construction cost $10 million, funded by Atlanta Public Schools through sales tax for school construction

− Georgia Tech provides human resources for curriculum development and tutoring

Kelson and Pinderhughes Elementary Schools (Baltimore)

Reform of existing public schools through compact with school district.

− Enterprise Foundation provides leadership and technical assistance to the effort

− Annenberg Foundation has provided $2 million in grants for the implementation of direct instruction curriculum and teacher training

− Streuver Brothers, Eccles and Rouse (private developer) has provided approximately $750,000 for physical improvements

Verde Elementary School (North Richmond, CA)

Reform of existing public school.

− County has contributed $90,000 per year toward parent mentoring program, matched by local foundations

− Local foundations have also supported sports program, computer lab and community garden

− Federal Task Force and County Supervisor have provided political support to the effort

− Physical renovation funded by school district Patterson Park (Baltimore)

Tuition subsidy for local Catholic school

− Approximately $20,000 per year in tuition subsidies provided by Abell Foundation


School Type of Reform Financial and Human Resources Penn Alexander School (Philadelphia)

New public school operated in partnership with University of Pennsylvania.

− Majority of construction costs of new building ($19 of $21 million) came from school district

− Balance of capital funds raised by Penn staff from banks, corporations, individuals, state grant programs, and foundations

− Penn pays an operating subsidy of $1,000 per pupil per year (up to $700,000 per year) to maintain small class sizes

Capitol City Charter School (Wash. DC)

New public charter school.

− School receives capital funds from school district − City government approved a below-market loan

for school construction, financed by tax-exempt bonds and secured by the school’s capital funds

Midtown Academy (Baltimore)

New charter-like public school.

− School receives approximately $550,000 per year (40% of its annual budget) from five to six local foundations

− Funds are used to cover rent and maintenance of the facility

5.1. Financial Resources

Most of the school reform efforts researched for this study have involved building a new school or making substantial improvements to the existing school facilities. In disadvantaged neighborhoods, reconstruction or renovation of school buildings sends a powerful signal to parents that their children are a priority.8 As such, some community development practitioners interviewed for this study suggest that physical improvements to schools may be more important than physical improvements elsewhere in the community. In some cases, the renovation or new construction can be funded by the local school district, particularly if the reform effort coincides with a pre-existing capital plan for district schools. For example, the Verde Elementary School in North Richmond is in the midst of a major physical renovation funded by a local bond measure. Plans for the renovation pre-dated the school reform effort, but improvements in the school’s performance kept the renovation of Verde a priority within the school district. The construction of Centennial Place School in Atlanta was also funded by the school district. However, given that there was no housing in the neighborhood at the time the school was being planned (the old Techwood and Clark Howell public housing developments had been demolished but not yet rebuilt), convincing School Board members that there would be enough demand for a new school was a major challenge. Some School Board members were reluctant to spend $10 million in capital funds on a new school for Centennial Place before the public housing redevelopment was complete and the neighborhood was reoccupied. The 8 A name change may also be important if the school has had a longstanding reputation for failure, but of the

four examples in this study of reform of pre-existing schools, only one (Centennial Place School) changed the name of the school.


$104 million investment in the neighborhood through the HOPE VI program and leveraged funds was a crucial factor mitigating these concerns. Georgia Tech also agreed to bring its own resources to the table, which gave the school district confidence that the vision for the school and neighborhood would be followed through. Although it is possible to fund capital costs through the public school system, there is often a substantial need for private fundraising. For example, the reform effort in Jefferson School in St. Louis entailed major physical improvements to the existing school. In addition to new paint, landscaping, interior flooring, and classroom furniture, the building received new wiring, fiber optic cable for Internet access, two computer labs, an elevator, and air conditioning. The school district provided $400,000 for the elevator and other accessibility features, but the remaining improvements were funded by $3.5 million in donations from St. Louis-based corporations and foundations. One of the disadvantages of charter schools as a vehicle for school improvement is that charter schools often do not receive the same level of capital funding as regular public schools. A significant factor, for example, in the University of Pennsylvania’s decision not to create a charter school in University City was the fact that the School District of Philadelphia would not have subsidized the construction of a new school building. Midtown Academy in Baltimore, which is not strictly a charter school but is similar to one, relies on grants from local foundations to make up the $550,000 shortfall between its annual budget and what it receives from the Baltimore Public School System. The foundation funds are used mainly to cover rent and maintenance costs. In Washington, DC, the charter school legislation is more liberal. In addition to providing operating funds to a charter school on a pro rata enrollment basis, the public school system must provide the same amount of capital funds that a public school of equal size would receive. It was therefore possible to create the Capital City Charter School with essentially public school funds. Even if capital costs are covered mainly by school funds, additional funding is generally needed for curriculum and program development and ongoing operations. For example, the University of Pennsylvania provides an operating subsidy of $1,000 per student per year to the Penn Alexander School, represents a 17 percent increase over the per pupil allowance paid by the school district. The subsidy is primarily used to maintain small class sizes. The school district will only pay for a certain number of teachers, based on minimum class sizes that are higher than what the University thinks is acceptable for the Penn Alexander School. As a result, the operating subsidy currently is used to hire and retain teachers who would not be supported by the regular public school budget. The school reform effort in Sandtown-Winchester is led by the Enterprise Foundation, which has contributed both funding and in-kind technical assistance to the effort. In addition, the Annenberg Foundation has provided a total of $2 million in grants to support the implementation of the direct instruction curriculum and other school programming at Kelson and Pinderhughes Schools. Enterprise also raised $300,000 for the two schools through the


Enterprise Women’s Network, a committee of influential community leaders dedicated to assisting low-income women and families. Verde Elementary School in North Richmond has received more modest funding to support programming related to the school and neighborhood improvement effort. The county’s Department of Employment and Human Services contributes approximately $90,000 per year toward the salaries of the parent partners that run the school’s attendance and discipline program. County funds are typically matched or slightly exceeded by grants from local foundations. For example, the S.H. Cowell Foundation recently provided a $170,000 grant to launch a set of school improvement projects. Finally, in 2003 the school district agreed to contribute approximately $125,000 to the school’s attendance and discipline program, at least in part because the improvement in average daily attendance since the program’s inception at Verde has generated almost $190,000 in additional revenue for the district. Whether for capital costs, program development, or school operations, raising funds from corporations and foundations seems to be quite possible, once the vision for the school has been established and the coalition of supporters has begun to form. Corporate funds, however, are not usually the “first money in,” so having a preexisting financial commitment is extremely advantageous if not indispensable. Some communities have also found that investing in a new model of integrated school and neighborhood revitalization model is more appealing to potential donors than supporting public education alone. This is especially true when a prestigious institution such as the University of Pennsylvania or the Enterprise Foundation has made a long-term commitment to the initiative. In addition to building off a solid foundation of investment in the neighborhood, corporations and many foundations seem to favor making donations for specific purposes within the school, such as technology or arts programs. The danger is that the activities that donors want to fund may not be consistent with a strategy for school improvement that is tailored to neighborhood characteristics and to the goals for the neighborhood shared by other stakeholders. For example, funds may be available for a new computer lab, but for a school struggling with attendance, discipline, and extreme family dysfunction this may not be the highest priority. In order to avoid this problem, schools and communities should develop the capacity to evaluate funding proposals carefully and negotiate with potential donors to develop an investment approach that makes sense for the school and neighborhood. Also, several people interviewed for this study made the point that foundations are well positioned to promote community-school collaboration by balancing grants that go directly to the school with investments that go to outside entities (such as community-based organizations). Structuring funding in this way provides an incentive for entities with shared or complementary goals to work in an integrated fashion.


5.2. Human Resources

In addition to outside funding, communities also need human capital resources to support the school reform effort. In particular, school and neighborhood reform efforts need strong leadership and, in some cases, specialized expertise to support the school reform approach. A variety of individuals and institutions can potentially lead an effort to create or reform a school as part of a neighborhood revitalization strategy. Among the initiatives studied for this paper, leadership has come from local universities, community-based organizations, neighborhood associations, foundations, and real estate developers. Leadership has two dimensions. One dimension is the vision for the neighborhood and the school and the tenacity to see it through. The other dimension is the political skill needed to build coalitions and overcome opposition. In the cases we studied, the same person usually played both roles, but this does not have to be the case. What is essential is that the entity leading the effort engages neighborhood residents and community-based organizations in creating a positive vision for the school and the role that they can play in community building in the neighborhood. Engaging community support is important because the legacy of segregation and injustice can give rise to suspicions about development and school reform plans. Given their locations, for example, there were fears that Centennial Place School and Penn Alexander School were being planned for white children. This was even the case with Jefferson School in St. Louis, despite its location in a neighborhood unlikely to attract middle-income white families quickly. Where there is conflict over the mixed-income character of a public housing redevelopment, this spills over into controversy about the mixed-income and mixed-race character of a school. In addition to building community support for the initiative, it is almost always necessary to obtain the support of the school district and teachers’ union. This is particularly true if the reform is taking place within the public school system. It is less true if a charter or independent school is being created. Negotiating with the school district and teachers’ union for special flexibility in curriculum, teaching methods, and staffing can be extremely challenging and may require the support of someone with significant political clout to be successful. At the same time, the school reform efforts studied for this paper suggests that school systems are not monoliths and that allies as well as opponents can be found within the school administration and on the School Board. As is the case for the whole process, it takes time and work to identify the key people and to nurture relationships. Just as the school district and teachers’ union may be difficult hurdles, the reform effort is not always welcomed by the principal and teachers at the school. In general, there is considerable debate among educators as to the as to the extent to which community-school linkages are desirable and what the nature of those linkages should be. Challenges for community organizations and other “outsiders” breaking into school reform efforts include gaining access to school data and school staff, being seen as legitimate by teachers and


administrators, and developing broadly acceptable measures of success (Fruchter 2001). Schools can resist partnerships with public and for-profit entities in the community because such partnerships tend to be time consuming, rife with conflict, and, perhaps most important, require administrators to give up some control. A recent study of community organizing for school improvement finds that there are at least 200 community groups currently engaged in school reform efforts (Mediratta et al. 2002). These efforts are mainly taking place in low-income neighborhoods with failing schools and are being led by community-based organizations that are independent of the school system and usually have a broader focus than school reform. The study finds that community groups tend to be most successful in leading reform efforts that focus on physical improvements to the school or policy changes that are beyond the school’s control. If the focus is on making curriculum or instructional change, including replacing administrators and staff, community-based organizations tend to need the support of people with influence within the public school system. In addition to strong leadership, the school and neighborhood reform effort may require specialized expertise. For example, leaders of the reform efforts in Atlanta and Philadelphia believed that designing an innovative, state-of-the art school building was important to create a school with potential appeal to middle-income parents. Educational expertise beyond the experience of the principal can be important as well. The sponsors of the schools we studied found it in a variety of ways: Centennial Place School within the Atlanta school administration and from Georgia Tech; Penn Alexander School from the Graduate School of Education at Penn; and Kelson and Pinderhughes Schools in Sandtown-Winchester from private consultants. Yet another type of expertise that may be sought is community-based planning for a combined housing and school strategy. Not all school and neighborhood improvement efforts need the support of a major sponsor such as the University of Pennsylvania or the Enterprise Foundation. The extent to which such support is needed depends on the nature of the school and neighborhood intervention and the scope of the problems being addressed. However, the initiatives researched for this paper suggest that outside funding is important and that the more resources (both financial and human) that are available, the more ambitious the strategy can be.


6. Conclusion

This paper has discussed a range of approaches to school and neighborhood revitalization that vary based on the characteristics of the neighborhood, the local school reform environment, and the availability of human and financial resources to support the effort. The challenge for communities and funders planning a school and neighborhood effort is fitting the pieces together to arrive at a strategy that is consistent with the opportunities presented by the local environment and that supports the vision for school and neighborhood change. Exhibit 10 offers a schematic of the goals and strategies for school improvement that may be appropriate for different types of neighborhoods based on the initiatives researched thus far. The exhibit over-simplifies the range of neighborhood types and intervention strategies but nonetheless offers a starting point for understanding how school improvement and neighborhood revitalization may be linked in different contexts. At this time, the concept of integrating school reform and neighborhood revitalization strategies is still at an early stage of development. We know that coordinated investment in neighborhood and schools can produce better outcomes in low-income neighborhoods than investment in either schools or neighborhoods alone. The research literature suggests that schools are an important component of neighborhood quality and that people make decisions about where to buy a home at least in part on the basis of perceptions of school quality. We also know that neighborhood quality affects educational achievement and that more schooling leads to better long-term outcomes for children and their families. For most of the school and neighborhood improvement efforts researched for this paper, however, it is too early to quantify the incremental benefits of a coordinated school and neighborhood strategy and to have a full understanding of what works.


Exhibit 10: School Improvement Strategies by Neighborhood Type Neighborhood Type

Concentrated poverty and few family resources; school quality complicated by crime, residential instability, large fraction of children with special needs

Some income diversity and resources but fragile; school quality a threat to stability and a barrier to improvement

Rising incomes because of private market or large-scale redevelopment but school quality makes neighborhood less attractive to families with children and creates barriers to social cohesion

Goals for School and Neighborhood

Better opportunities for existing residents Better opportunities for existing residents and attract middle-income families with children

Better opportunities for existing residents and attract middle-income families with children and improve social integration across income groups

Neighborhood Strategies

• Crime reduction • Workforce development • Family strengthening and capacity-

building • Housing rehab/new construction for

low-income residents • Neighborhood associations

• Housing rehab/new construction for low- and moderate-income residents

• Neighborhood marketing • Incentives for middle-income

households to buy/rehab homes • Attention to crime and blight

• Preservation of units affordable to low-and moderate-income households

• Neighborhood marketing and incentives for middle-income households to buy/rehab homes

• Community organizations to increase social interaction and neighborhood access to resources

School Strategies

• Linkages between housing managers and school staff to provide support for families

• Involvement of neighborhood associations in school

• Mentoring to support student achievement

• Use of school facilities for job training and supportive services for families

• Look for opportunities to create a neighborhood-based school

• Draw enrollment boundaries to encompass higher- and lower-income areas

• Create opportunities for community involvement in school governance and curriculum

• Create first-rate school through whatever means available: high profile public school using model teaching methods; neighborhood-based charter school; public school with special focus (e.g. languages)

• May consider enrollment criteria to preserve income and racial diversity

Outcome Measures

• Decrease in crime and blight • Decrease in welfare receipt • Increase in homeownership • Greater employment and family stability• Greater parental involvement • Increase in school attendance,

decrease in suspensions, increase in academic achievement

• Decrease in crime and blight • Increase in homeownership by families

with children • Increase in school enrollment by

children of middle-income families • Increase in academic achievement • Increase in property values

• Increase in homeownership by families with children

• School enrollment shows a mix of incomes and races

• Increase in social interaction between middle- and low-income parents

• Stable property values and preservation of affordable units


All of the efforts have led to positive outcomes in the schools in a relatively short period of time. In some places, improvements can already be seen in standardized test scores that are higher than before the reform or, in the case of entirely new schools, higher than comparable schools in the city. Other schools have shown early indications of school change through such measures as increased student and teacher attendance, fewer disciplinary problems, and greater parental involvement. In addition, a variety of school improvement strategies appear to be working in different neighborhood and school reform contexts. However, efforts to improve failing schools are highly vulnerable to setbacks resulting from leadership change at the school and district level and a failure to follow through on the reform program. In addition, schools serving impoverished areas are likely to continue to suffer from high rates of teacher turnover and student mobility for several years beyond the introduction of the reform. Finally, it takes a long time for perceptions of formerly failing schools to change to the point at which the school is actually a selling point for the neighborhood. For example, Midtown Academy opened its doors in the fall of 1997 but it was not until the fall of 2003 that all of the slots allocated to residents of Bolton Hill (the more affluent of the two neighborhoods in the school’s enrollment zone) were filled. In the past, there were not enough Bolton Hill parents willing to send their children to the new school even though test scores were among the best in the city. Although we can point to significant positive outcomes at most of the schools studied for this paper, the neighborhood effects of the school reforms are generally more modest. In places where the school reform effort has been accompanied by large-scale, comprehensive investment in the neighborhood, there are indications of neighborhood impact. For example, in University City, there has been a substantial increase in house prices since the introduction of the neighborhood revitalization strategy in 1998. The anti-crime measures that the University of Pennsylvania helped put in place and the homeownership incentives offered to University staff and faculty undoubtedly increased confidence in the neighborhood. However, it is significant that house prices have risen more quickly in the enrollment area of the Penn Alexander School than in other parts of the neighborhood covered by the University’s anti-crime and homeownership incentive programs. In Atlanta, the fact that families who do not live in the neighborhood are willing to send their children to Centennial Place School suggests that the school has overcome the stigma attached to the former Fowler Elementary School and may now be a platform for attracting families looking for a neighborhood school. In North Richmond, where the investment in both the neighborhood and school is of a much smaller scale, Verde School is not yet a selling point for the neighborhood. However, the increase in parental involvement in the school has led to a broader engagement by parents in the community. For example, Verde parents now regularly attend meetings of the North Richmond Municipal Advisory Council, the representative body for the community. Our findings thus far suggest that it is likely to take longer than three or four years to be able to measure neighborhood change and attribute neighborhood outcomes to the school reform


effort. Indeed, one of the clear lessons learned from the major foundation-led neighborhood revitalization initiatives that have taken place over the past 10 years is that, even with a very large investment of resources, quantifiable neighborhood change can take a long time to occur. Nevertheless, the school and neighborhood improvement efforts currently underway provide an important platform for tracking medium- and long-term outcomes. Although the experiments are not perfect, in the sense that the school and neighborhood strategies are not always well coordinated or consistent with the characteristics of the neighborhood, much can be learned about how community development practitioners can work most effectively with local schools. Continued study of a subset of these ongoing initiatives can also inform the development of outcome measures by which to assess future school and neighborhood improvement efforts. Given the newness of the field, appropriate outcome measures for this type of intervention have not yet been developed. The school and neighborhood improvement efforts reviewed in this paper provide a starting point for understanding the range of strategies that have been tried in different local contexts and what the timeframe is for realizing change. However, several important questions remain unanswered. First, how does the scale of the neighborhood make a difference to the school and neighborhood revitalization approach? Four of the eight neighborhoods in this paper are very small, with between 3,000 and 5,000 residents and only one or two elementary schools. Among the other four, which range in population from 17,000 to 30,0000, only Sandtown-Winchester and University City have comprehensive school/neighborhood revitalization efforts, and these two neighborhoods are very different. For larger neighborhoods, an important unanswered question is whether a strategy that focuses on improving a single school can be effective in a neighborhood that is served by multiple schools. A second question is to what extent it is appropriate to focus reform efforts on elementary schools compared with trying to make improvements at all grade levels. The assumption underlying this paper is that elementary schools are an appropriate focus for community-based strategies because they are more likely than middle or high schools to be neighborhood-based and because parents are most likely to factor school quality into their housing decisions when their children are young. However, a number of the educators interviewed emphasized the importance of later schooling. Middle school is often a time when strong students can go astray if the middle school does not have as rigorous a curriculum or enforcement of discipline as the elementary school. Teachers we spoke with talked about students “dropping off a cliff” after elementary school if there are no good options for the next stage of their education. Among the initiatives studied for this paper, Sandtown-Winchester and Murphy Park have attempted to reach beyond the elementary school level, but we do not know enough about outcomes at any of the sites to determine whether an approach that encompasses all grade levels is necessary for a school and neighborhood reform effort to be effective. Finally, although we have some understanding of how households in general make neighborhood and housing decisions, less is known about which households choose to live in


mixed income urban communities and why. There is general consensus among community development practitioners that the poor quality of urban public schools is an important, if not the most important, barrier preventing middle-income households with children from moving into urban neighborhoods. However, we still do not know enough about how such households evaluate the quality of public schools and how important school quality is for them relative to other neighborhood characteristics such as the location of the neighborhood and the quality of the housing stock. Perhaps most challenging, we do not have a good understanding of how racial and economic diversity in schools affects the school and housing decisions of households with educational choices. For example, what does it take for moderate- and middle-income households to be willing to send their children to a school that serves large numbers of low-income students? What is the impact of the racial composition of the school on these decisions? At what point do households with choices begin avoiding schools perceived as having a high concentration of minority students? These questions are difficult to answer but are very important if one of the goals of investing in public schools as part of a neighborhood revitalization strategy is to help create and sustain mixed-income or mixed-race neighborhoods. There are several ways to go about filling these gaps in our knowledge. First, developing additional case studies on school and neighborhood improvement initiatives is a good way to document models of school and neighborhood change in all their richness and complexity. Case studies on attempts to introduce reforms at all grade levels as part of a neighborhood revitalization strategy would be especially worthwhile. There may also be value in conducting more systematic survey research across a range of neighborhoods to understand how parents evaluate school quality and how they factor school quality into their housing decisions. Such research would offer important and actionable insight into what urban schools and neighborhoods must do to attract economically stable households with children, if that is indeed a goal of the revitalization strategy. Finally, once we know more about which school and neighborhood revitalization models work in which types of neighborhoods, a funded demonstration of these models in a range of communities would be highly valuable for generating best practices that could be replicated across the country. Although the state of knowledge is still at an early stage, the lessons learned thus far suggest that coordinated investment in schools and neighborhoods has tremendous potential for transforming urban neighborhoods and the lives of the people who live in them.


References

Bingler, Steven. “What If?” Report prepared for the Metropolitan Forum Project, 1999. Black, S. “Do Better Schools Matter? Parental Valuation of Education.” Quarterly Journal

of Economics, Vol. 114, No. 2, 1999. Brasington, David M. “Which Measures of School Quality Does the Housing Market

Value?” Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1999. Chung, Connie. “Using Public Schools as Community-Development Tools: Strategies for

Community-Based Developers.” Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University and Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, October 2002.

Cowan, Spencer M. “Bringing the Middle Class Back to Central Cities: Is it Feasible?” The

Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, March 2003.

Cummings, Jean L., Denise DiPasquale, and Matthew E. Kahn. “Affordable

Homeownership: Measuring Net Benefits of Homeownership for Low- and Moderate-Income Households in the City of Philadelphia.” City Research, June 2001.

“Community Schools: Partnerships for Excellence.” Coalition for Community Schools, no date. Donnelly, Steve. “A Toolkit for Tomorrow’s Schools.” Planning, October 2003. Ellen, Ingrid Gould. “Race-Based Neighborhood Projection: A Proposed Framework for

Understanding New Data on Racial Integration.” Urban Studies, Vol. 37, No. 9, 2000. Ellen, Ingrid Gould and Margery Turner. “Does Neighborhood Matter? Assessing Recent

Evidence.” Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1997. Fruchter, Norm. “Challenging Failing Schools.” Shelterforce Online. July/August 2001. Greenberg, Michael. “Improving Neighborhood Quality: A Hierarchy of Needs.” Housing

Policy Debate, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1999. Hall, Beverly. “The Role Education and Schools Play in the Long-Term Viability of

Community Revitalization Efforts.” Testimony before the Millennial Housing Commission, March 12, 2001.


Hamman, Marjory, with assistance from Diana Hall, “Schools Uniting Neighborhoods: Successful Collaboration in an Environment of Constant Change.” Report prepared for the Annie E. Casey Foundation, July 2003.

Jehl, Jeanne, Martin Blank, and Barbara McCloud. “Education and Community Building:

Connecting Two Worlds.” Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc., Washington, DC, 2001.

Khadduri, Jill, Jennifer Turnham, Anne Chase, and Heather Schwartz. “Case Studies

Exploring the Potential Relationship Between Schools and Neighborhood Revitalization.” Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public Housing Investments, January 2003.

Locke, Gretchen and Kristin Winkel. “Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program: Case

Study of Techwood Homes and Clark Howell Homes in Atlanta, Georgia.” Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, March 2001.

Mayer, Susan E. and Paul E. Peterson, editors. Earning and Learning: How Schools Matter.

Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1999. Mediratta, Kavitha, Norm Fruchter, and Anne C. Lewis. “Organizing for School Reform:

How Communities are Finding their Voices and Reclaiming their Public Schools.” Institute for Education and Social Policy, New York University, October 2002.

Salvesen, David, and Philip Hervey. “Good Schools – Good Neighborhoods: The Impacts of

State and Local School Board Policies on the Design and Location of Schools in North Carolina.” Center for Urban and Regional Studies, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, June 2003.

Saporito, Salvatore. “Private Choices, Public Consequences: Magnet School Choice and

Segregation by Race and Poverty.” Social Problems, Vol. 50, No. 2, 2003. Varady, David P. and Jeffrey A. Raffel. Selling Cities: Attracting Homebuyers Through

Schools and Housing Programs. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1995. Weimer, David L. and Michael J. Wolkoff. “School Performance and Housing Values:

Using Non-Contiguous District and Incorporation Boundaries to Identify School Effects.” National Tax Journal, June 2001.

integrating school reform and neighborhood revitalization · abt associates inc. integrating school...

Documents