 |
Integrated service delivery (ISD) is a vision and an action plan to educate and support the well-being of our children, youth, families and communities. Under an ISD model, schools reach out to communities in order to provide education, health and psycho-social services, child care and parenting centres, library and sports services, as well as those public services needed by particular communities. Schools become hubs of community, connecting and serving a variety of local needs. For example, community theatre, seniors programs, athletic groups, and mentoring programs would all have free access to school facilities. ISD schools (also known as community schools or "hubs") provide children, youth, and their families with one accessible centre for necessary services such as health and dental clinics, daycare, nutrition programs, counseling, parenting classes, and welfare and employment information.
This is not a new vision. Since the 1968 Hall-Dennis report to the Ontario Minister of Education, community groups and government task forces have been extensively researching and calling for the implementation of an ISD model for our schools. In some parts of Canada and the United States, it is becoming a reality. Now is the time for Ontario to get on board.
What is new is that in recent years this model has included an integrated funding strategy. No longer should policy makers and financial experts at the Ministry of Education get bogged down in discussions about what programs and services fall within the mandate of public education. This type of program and service delivery calls for merged funding streams and effective and efficient use of our public schools to deliver public services to children where they are for most of their days: in school. Top
ISD: The Best Choice for Children and Youth
Research has repeatedly shown that a coordinated and accessible approach to services is the best way to aid children and youth. In their report to the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Advisory Committee on Children's Services recommended that: "There must be a single major physical centre that operates as a hub of services for children within each community. Where possible, the school should be this centre for service provision" (1990). Their rationale for this recommendation states that "any efforts to promote healthy development must be broad-based and ongoing, must be delivered in an equitable and non-stigmatizing fashion, and must allow ready access for the greatest possible number of children." School-based integrated service is the logical way to provide this for children.
The evidence also clearly proves that students in schools with integrated service delivery have higher academic and developmental outcomes than those in traditional schools. The Coalition for Community Schools, based in Washington D.C., released a report with the results of extensive research on community schools in the United States. They found that: "community school students show significant and widely evident gains in academic achievement and in essential areas of nonacademic development" (2003). For young people, the specific results of 2o studies showed that those in community schools displayed an impressive array of positive outcomes, including:
- improved grades in school courses and/or scores in proficiency testing;
- improvements in personal or family situation, abuse, or neglect;
- reduced dropout rate;
- reduced behavioural or discipline problems;
- decrease in self-destructive behaviours, including irresponsible sexual activity and drug use. Top
Hubs of Community
Isolated schools with doors that lock at four in the afternoon alienate
the community, while ISD schools bring the community in, promoting a shared
sense of pride, ownership, and belonging. Examples of community schools
flourishing in the United States show that the ISD model brings communities
together in schools while ensuring the safety of children. It allows different
levels of government and agencies to partner with schools to deliver and
fund services through one location: the school.
The 2003 Schools as Centers of Community report provides the case study
of the Ellen Lurie School in New York City, an elementary school that partners
with the Children's Aid Society and Mt. Sinai Hospital to provide a full-service
medical, dental, and mental health clinic, early years programming, and
a rich after-school program. The school also has a centrally-located family
room, which not only serves as a meeting place for parents, but also offers
classes in ESL, computer use and "parenting topics such as adolescent sexuality,
behavior management, and how to support learning at home. The family room
also helps parents learn how they can obtain such key support services as
emergency assistance, food, housing, legal aid, employment assistance; and
help with benefits, tenant rights, and immigration questions" (2003).
Similarly, the Tenderloin Community School in San Francisco houses "a family
resource center, a health center, counseling rooms, an adult education center,
a parking garage, and preschool child development center." As with the Ellen
Lurie School, parents and other community members are actively involved
as volunteers, and the school enjoys "widespread community support" (2003).
There are examples of this type of delivery being started in Ontario such
as the Bluewater District School Board, Halton's "Our Kids" network and
the Toronto District School Board's (TDSB) Inner City project. Yet these
excellent attempts to promote learning by supporting students' complex needs
are hampered by the silo-based funding. Mental health and other services
are being integrated into schools only because the schools "donate" unfunded
space. This is a fragile and unsustainable situation as school boards look
to shut this space down to reduce expenditures. Top
Efficient and Effective Service Delivery
The integrated service delivery model not only provides the best for communities,
children and youth, it also provides a ready-made solution for the longstanding
problem of "silo" service delivery. Research and community consultation
from all sectors has repeatedly recommended that government departments
cooperate to deliver integrated human services and that the locus for that
service delivery should be schools. As the Hall-Dennis report put it four
decades ago: "School buildings are expensive resources of major importance,
and the public has the right to enjoy their widest possible use…A
school board can provide services and participate in programs now divided
among such disparate groups as…library boards, service clubs, and
social service agencies" (1968). In 1975 The Select Committee on the Utilization
of Educational Facilities made the same point in its final report to the
Ontario legislature, as did the Royal Commission on Learning in 1994, after
two years of exhaustive community consultation.
In 2001, the government of Saskatchewan took this a step further and developed
a comprehensive plan called SchoolPLUS based on ISD philosophy and research,
as well as extensive community consultation. The SchoolPLUS model, which
thinks of schools "as centres of learning, support and community for the
children and families they serve," is now being implemented across the province
of Saskatchewan (Government of Saskatchewan, 2006). The project has developed
a high level of coordination which has ensured that all government ministries
that deal with children and youth have "signed on." SchoolPLUS includes
a key component of successful community schools: integrated service delivery
complemented by integrated funding.
The latest Provincial budget did include funding from the Ministry of Children
and Youth Services for Parenting Centres in schools. However the funding
is for operations and not for shared facility space and renewal costs. It
is a step forward in shared delivery to children but not in shared costs
that make for an efficient and fully integrated system. Ontario needs an
overarching vision that coordinates programs, services, administration and
facilities. Top
The Problem and the Moment in Time
We can see the logic of this for Ontario: our public services are confusing
for families, our social service agencies have a problem with access, and
our schools have a problem with funding. At the present time, schools in
Toronto are facing the crisis of "excess space" as our enrolment declines.
This phrase is problematic as the space is excess only because it is not
funded for the education uses defined by the education funding formula.
The space is not considered excess by the community. It valuable, usable
space that could be filled with government services and agencies that support
our children, youth and families. It would then be funded from those sources.
Solving the so-called "excess space" problem is an opportunity to break
down silo-based thinking and create a new/old model of delivery that has
been talked about for too long.
There may be a need to close schools but it should not happen until we have
examined the complex needs of our children and youth and fashioned a solution
that includes making the best use of their school buildings. Top
Next Steps for Ontario
Research, practice, and communities have spoken; it is time for Ontario
to respond. In implementing a successful integrated service delivery model,
there is a need for a process and structure that involves different levels
and departments of government working together with local communities. We
can look to the provincial and federal governments for vision and funding,
our school boards, municipalities, and local leaders for coordination, and
our communities for input and monitoring. We can look to SchoolPLUS and
other successful models to guide us. We can begin now to fashion the solution.
Top
Partnering for Change
This is an opportunity to move Toronto and the province of Ontario toward
a workable solution that combines effective delivery of education and services
to children, youth and families with an efficient inter-ministerial funding
model that uses public schools as the site for that delivery. Trustee Dandy
welcomes your input, your participation and your energy in this new model
of serving community. Now is the time to do this. Please join in.
To contact Trustee Dandy and add your name to the Partners for Change group,
please call 416-397-3083 or email her at cathy.dandy@tdsb.on.ca.
Top
Bibliography
Bégin, Monique et al. For the Love of Learning. The Final Report
to the Ontario Minister of Education and Training from the Royal Commission
on Learning. December 1994. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/abcs/rcom/full/
Bingler, Steven, Linda Quinn and Kevin Sullivan. Schools as Centres of Community:
A Citizen's Guide for Planning and Design. The National Clearinghouse for
Educational Facilities: Washington D.C., 2003. http://www.edfacilities.org/
Blank, Martin J., Atelia Melaville and Bela P. Shah. Making the Difference:
Research and Practice in Community Schools. Coalition for Community Schools:
Washington D.C., 2003. http://www.communityschools.org/
Hall, E.M. et al. Living and Learning: The Report of the Provincial Committee
on Aims and Objectives of Education in the Schools of Ontario. The Newton
Publishing Company: Toronto, 1968.
McIlveen, Charles E. et al. What Happens Next Is Up To You. Final Report
to the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario from The Select Committee
on the Utilization of Educational Facilities. February 1975.
Maloney, Colin et al. Children First: Report of the Advisory Committee on
Children's Services. November 1990.
Our Kids Network. http://www.ourkidsnetwork.ca/
Toronto District School Board: Inner
City Model Schools.
Tymchak, M. et al. SchoolPLUS: A Vision for Children and Youth. Final Report
to the Saskatchewan Minister of Education from the Task Force on the Role
of the School. February 2001. http://www.schoolplus.gov.sk.ca/
Top
Other Interesting Reading
Summary: of SchoolPLUS :
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LVZ/is_8_17/ai_84895832
http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/
North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory