Community School Reform 1 RUNNING HEAD: Community School Reform Achievement Effects of a Community School Reform Curt M. Adams University of Oklahoma The Oklahoma Center for Educational Policy Curt.Adams-1@ou.edu Curt M. Adams is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Oklahoma and a senior research scientist with the Oklahoma Center for Educational Policy. His research addresses school improvement through the lens of social conditions in school organizations.
Community School Reform 2 Abstract This study used data collected from 18 community schools associated with the Tulsa Area Community Schools Initiative (TACSI) and 18 comparable non community schools to test the achievement effect attributed to the community school model. The primary research questions were: Is there an achievement difference between students in TACSI schools and students in comparable non TACSI schools? Does development of the community school model in TACSI schools make a difference in student achievement? If an achievement effect exists, what social conditions contribute to differences in student achievement? A significant achievement difference attributed to development of TACSI s community school model suggested that depth of reform mattered for school performance. Additionally, collective trust was a social resource that explained higher school level achievement.
Community School Reform 3 Measuring the Achievement Effect of a Community School Reform The theoretical roots of community schools extend back to John Dewey and his idea that schools should function as social hubs of communities (Benson, Harkavy, & Puckett, 2007). Of more recent vintage, is the organic emergence of community schools as a type of whole school reform. The growing popularity of community schools is evidenced by US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan s advocacy of the model. In a speech to the US Chamber of Commerce, Duncan stated, I'm a big believer in community schools keeping school buildings open for 12 hours a day and opening up the computer lab, the library and the gym on weekends for our children and their families (Duncan, 2009, p. 5). There are reasons why policy makers like Arne Duncan are proponents of community schools. Schools in the United States like the Harlem Children s Zone and the community schools in New York City operated by the Children s Aid Society have attracted considerable acclaim by the national media for their educational achievements. By myriad indicators (e.g. test scores, satisfaction with school, and student motivation), these schools are effectively educating children and transforming communities. But, what general understanding about the effectiveness of community schools as a whole school reform can be drawn from their success? As compelling of a case successful community schools make for the effectiveness of the model, it is imprudent to draw general conclusions about the efficacy of a reform without warrants derived from more rigorous research designs. Many internal evaluations of community schools exist (Coalition for Community Schools, 2009), but most evidence consists of descriptive data on achievement outcomes. Few studies use research designs that meet rigorous research standards. Without credible evidence, it is hard to know if the community school model is a viable reform or just another intervention
Community School Reform 4 that falls short of its performance claims. While not without limitations, this study used data collected from 18 community schools associated with the Tulsa Area Community Schools Initiative (TACSI) and 18 comparable non community schools to test the achievement effect attributed to the community school model. The primary research questions were: Is there an achievement difference between students in TACSI schools and students in comparable non TACSI schools? Does development of the community school model in TACSI make a difference in student achievement? If an achievement effect exists, what social conditions contribute to differences in student achievement? Community Schools as Whole School Reform Community schools are different than predesigned comprehensive school reforms (e.g. America s Choice, Success for All, Direct Instruction) in that fidelity to standardized structures and practices does not define the end state of the reform process. Rather, schools become community schools when new structures and processes used to coordinate teaching and learning result in collective action and collective responsibility for continuous school and community improvement. Harkavy and Blank (2002) note, A community school is not just another program being imposed on a school. It is a way of thinking and acting that recognizes the historic central role of schools in our communities and the power of working together for a common good (p.50). Community schools fall within a similar reform genre as the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative (BASRC) and the Comer School Development Program in the United States, IDEAS in Australia, and High Reliability Schools in Great Britain. These reform models seek to improve human and social capacity (Fullan, 2000) by reengineering structures so that school improvement emanates from the purposive actions of school agents (Copeland, 2003; Haynes,
Community School Reform 5 Comer, Hamiliton-Lee, 1988; Harkavy & Blank, 2002). Capacity based models maintain theoretical and practical linkages with concepts like organizational learning (Marks & Louis, 1999), continuous improvement (Smylie, 2010), high reliability organizations (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001), and collective leadership (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). The common focus is on maximizing the human and social enterprise of organizations by increasing the capacity of professionals to study and improve system performance. Many schools and school systems embrace concepts supportive of capacity building but few possess the social infrastructure needed to sustain a culture where the collective study of teaching and learning leads to continuous improvement (Smylie, 2010). Darling Hammond (2005) sheds light on what type of environment is needed. She argues schools need performance cultures that create learning opportunities for school professionals, parents, and community members; allow for widespread engagement in developing improvement strategies; support simultaneous change; and use professional standards to guide shared inquiry. Elmore (2000) speaks to the value of similar conditions when he notes that improvement requires the organization and deployment of knowledge, resources, and instructional skills. Reform models structured to support capacity building encourage individuals within schools to make sense of performance gaps, to co-construct strategies, to collectively refine structures and processes, and to use performance evidence for continuous improvement purposes (Datnow & Stringfield, 2000; Marks & Louis, 1999). Capacity based reform models restructure the coordination of teaching and learning to allow for better social cohesion and cooperative interactions among interdependent role groups. IDEAS and High Reliability Schools situate their models within the technical core of schools to enhance professional capacity through processes and practices that support knowledge creation
Community School Reform 6 by teachers (Crowther, 2011; Muncey & McQuillan, 1993; Stringfield, Reynolds, Schaffer, 2008). IDEAS combines a fluid and adaptive change process, aligned pedagogy and organizational goals, and parallel (teacher and administrator) leadership to guide behaviors of school professionals (Crowther, 2011). High reliability schools use advanced data systems, professional development, peer observations, teacher leadership, reflective practice, and team learning to create environments that generate knowledge and learning about performance (Stringfield, Reynolds, & Schaffer, 2008). Community schools and the Comer Program differ from IDEAS and High Relaibility Schools in that they cast a broader net over the school social system by expanding structures and processes to bridge relational gaps among families, between families and the school, and between the school and community organizations (e.g. health clinics, social service agencies, neighborhood associations, etc.) (Haynes, Comer, & Hamilton-Lee, 1988; Harkavey & Blank, 2002). The objective is to build capacity within communities to support the learning and development of children, not just the capacity of the technical core. To be effective, community schools need to establish and sustain convergence among the external, internal, and task context of schools to keep the instructional system performing at optimal levels. Specific strategies and practices used to carry out the vision of community schools reflect the unique characteristics of different schools and networks of schools. To illustrate, some community schools house health clinics and social services, others address the out-ofschool time needs of students and families, and some like TACSI redesign traditional structures to align with each core component of the community school model (Blank & Harkavy, 2002). Stated simply, community schools are grown and nurtured locally as school and community members translate the core components of the reform model into practice. Strong external
Community School Reform 7 control would be antithetical to the core propositions of local control, partnerships, community empowerment, and social democracy (Blank, Melaville, & Shah, 2003). Additionally, imposing prescribed structures on schools restricts sense making, co-construction, and mutual adaptation that need to occur as school members work to change their social systems (Datnow & Stringfield, 2000; McLaughlin, 1988). The absence of centralized, external control should not be mistaken for a loosely coupled instructional system that separates teaching practices from authority structures (Weick, 1976). Rather, community schools leverage professional authority through what Lee, Dedrick, and Smith (1991) describe as a consensual set of organizational goals, creating a social consensus about the academic mission of the school (p.193). Community schools rely on social control within schools, not formal controls from outside to regulate quality performance. In this sense, community schools represent what Firestone (2010) describes as a student learning culture. As opposed to standardizing instructional practice, student learning cultures fit with the non-standard and non-routine aspects of teaching and learning by creating a professional culture where accountability for continuous improvement is embodied in actions of school agents. For student learning cultures to work, school members need to unite around a common instructional vision and strategies to carryout the vision (Firestone, 2010). To this end, the Coalition for Community Schools has set a common theoretical framework at the national level that has been defined locally by TACSI. Figure 1 displays TACSI s community school model. Cross-boundary leadership; holistic programs, services, and opportunities; family and community engagement; and community based learning are designed to work collectively in shaping conditions supportive of effective learning. Conditions for learning mediate outcomes associated with school and
Community School Reform 8 student success; healthy and socially competent children; adult preparation; and safe and supportive, families, schools, and neighborhoods. [Insert Figure 1 About here] Core Components Research supporting the effectiveness of the core components in TACSI s theory of action has a long history. Studies on effective schools by Edmonds and other scholars (see Block, 1983; Downer, 1991; Edmonds, 1979; Zigarelli, 1996) identified strong leadership, an instructional focus, high expectations, and quality instruction as characteristics of high performing schools. Today, variations of these elements are found in concepts like collective leadership (Leithwood, 2000), parent-school partnerships (Epstein, 2001), and teacher quality (Goe, 2007). From a general perspective, TACSI s core components and the above concepts are quite similar. The primary differences are the nuanced distinctions in structures and norms used by community schools to bring the characteristics of effective schools into existence. Cross-boundary Leadership. Cross boundary leadership assumes that weak connections within school role groups (e.g. teachers, parents, administrators, community members) and between interdependent role groups partly explain performance problems in high poverty schools. Social network and social capital evidence supports this assumption. Daly, Moolenar, Bolivar, and Burke (2010) found that dense interactions within grade level teacher teams diffused instructional and curricular reforms more effectively than in loosely connected grade level teams. Similarly, Pil and Leana (2009) found that dense horizontal ties within teacher teams led to better instructional performance. Leana and Pil (2006) found that external social capital defined as relationships between principals and external stakeholders predicted student achievement in Pittsburgh public schools. Bryk et al (2010) found that connections in high
Community School Reform 9 poverty communities were essential supports for school improvement in Chicago. As the above evidence suggests, relationships function as resources when social bonds within role groups and social bridges between role groups are strong. Cross-boundary leadership brings together community leaders, leaders on the ground, and leaders in the middle to work collaboratively within the educational process. These leaders represent the civic and business community, the local neighborhood, and different school role groups (i.e. teachers, support staff, parents, students, administrators) (Blank, Berg, & Melaville, 2006). An active and diverse community site team and a full-time community school coordinator are structural features of cross-boundary leadership; whereas, a culture of shared influence and responsibility is a normative condition that facilitates effective interactions among individuals and groups. Together, the community school coordinator and site team work to improve network ties. Bonds without bridges limit access to resources and opportunities. Conversely, bridges without bonds hinder the spread and dissimilation of resources, ideas, expectations and other vital information for school performance (Forsyth, Adams, & Hoy, 2011; Lin, 2001; Putnam, 2000). Community school coordinators are responsible for outreach to the community. They erect social bridges that enable information about school needs to travel into the community and resources and opportunities from the community to enter the school. Site teams create bonds within role groups so that individuals are informed and knowledgeable about school issues, performance needs, shared expectations, and school events (Author, 2011). Norms cannot form without a relational structure conducive to the exchange of information and sharing of knowledge (Forysth, Adams, & Hoy, 2011).
Community School Reform 10 Holistic Programs, Services, and Opportunities. Holistic programs, services, and opportunities emphasize the development of the whole child, not just his/her academic achievement. Community schools integrate services, programs, and opportunities that address the emotional, physical, cognitive, and social needs of students and families with traditional school services and programs (Blank & Berg, 2006). Family support, out-of-school time, and early childhood development make up three core categories of programs, services, and opportunities found within community schools. Effective alignment and coherence among services and programs, not quantity of programs offered, determines the added value of providing additional services and experiences to children and families. A lack of coherence diminishes predictability and can have an adverse effect on performance (Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, & Bryk, 2001). Wilson s (1987) study of the truly disadvantaged in Chicago provides compelling evidence as to why holistic programs, services, and opportunities are needed in high poverty communities. Social and economic structures limit the capacity of communities to address the psychological and social needs of children. Diminished support from families and neighborhoods leaves many children incapable of leveraging educational and life opportunities that schools can provide (Bryk, et al, 2010; Wilson, 1987). Increasing and embedding more services in schools can be an effective strategy as long as the services lead to a relational environment that supports efficacy formation and motivation (Coleman, 1987). Family and Community Engagement. Family and community engagement is based on the belief that relationships defined by mutual trust and reciprocity can be a resource for individuals and groups (Coleman, 1990). Relationships and social context are strong determinants of student and school performance. Bryk et al (2010) found that the level of social
Community School Reform 11 capital in Chicago communities, as partly measured by relational ties, contributed to achievement improvements of schools in truly disadvantaged communities. Conversely, the lack of social capital in school communities was a reason for low performance. Community and family engagement is TACSI s means to develop a strong social network where shared responsibility for student learning is the norm (Blank & Berg, 2006; Blank, Melaville, & Shah, 2003). By emphasizing family engagement and neighborhood development, community schools strive to connect families within the school community, teachers with families, and the school with the neighborhood. A strong and inclusive relational network is more capable of accessing untapped human and social resources in communities. Community-Based Learning. Community-based learning is an instructional model that emerged from multiple theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence on how students learn best (e.g. social learning theory and social cognitive theory). The combined evidence suggests that young people are more likely to engage in learning when the content has personal meaning, builds on what students already know, and is situated within their social environment (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Moreover, students are more likely to retain and transfer knowledge when given opportunities to apply their learning to real world issues and problems. Meaningful content, voice and choice, personal and public purpose, and assessment and feedback make up the interdependent properties of community-based learning (Figure 5) (Melaville, Berg, & Blank, 2006). These practices are effective instructional strategies because they promote a classroom environment that supports autonomous learning in students (Reeve, Ryan, Deci, & Jang, 2008). Professional capacity is the normative mechanism that fuels continuous instructional improvement.
Community School Reform 12 Conditions for Learning Community schools are defined as much by their conditions for learning as by their core components. Schools do not become social centers of communities, nor are they capable of delivering quality student learning, without a culture that is responsive to the needs of all members (Etzioni, 1996). Structural mechanisms without convergent normative conditions are incapable of bringing the community school philosophy to scale. To use an analogy, just as plants wither without water and sunlight, community schools cannot grow, nor can they achieve their intended outcomes, without nurturing environments. Normative conditions targeted by community schools function as nutrients that give life to the school s theory of action. Supportive conditions for learning enhance the capacity of the instructional system to meet students holistic needs. Instructional capacity means the maximum performance or productivity of the instructional system (Corcoran & Goertz, 1995). Evidence of peak performance comes from observations about the collective capability of faculty, collaborative and cooperative interactions, and a collective focus on teaching and learning (Corcoran & Goertz, 1995). Instructional leadership, collective trust, and collective efficacy are measures of instructional capacity. Instructional leadership manifests itself in the interactions among teachers and between the principal and teachers about teaching and learning issues in the school (Lee & Smith, 1996; Louis, et. al., 2010). Collective efficacy accounts for past experiences and performance of the faculty that shape their shared beliefs about successful future performance (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000). Collective trust is an affective condition that lubricates cooperative interactions within and between school groups (i.e. teachers, administrators, community members, students, and families), and enhances school effectiveness (Forsyth,
Community School Reform 13 Adams & Barnes, 2006; Forsyth, Adams, & Hoy, 2011; Goddard, Hoy, & Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Bryk & Schneider, 2002). In summary, TACSI s theory of action represents an instructional system aligned with the needs of schools serving high poverty communities. A scarcity of resources (Louis, et. al., 2010), competing policy goals (Honig & Hatch, 2004), diminished instructional capacity (Corcoran & Goertz, 1995), and limited social capital (Bryk, et. al., 2010) in high poverty communities constrain traditional governance structures and processes. The core components of crossboundary leadership, holistic programs and services, family and community engagement, and community-based learning make up an integrated instructional system designed to address the above challenges and to connect the different sources of influence on student learning and development. When fully developed, the instructional system is designed to support instructional capacity. Research Design This research was part of a larger, ongoing investigation on the implementation and effectiveness of the community school model as developed across TACSI schools. The overall design is longitudinal and uses both qualitative and quantitative methods of observation and analysis. For this specific study, a quasi experimental design was used to test the achievement effect attributed to development of the community school model. Attitudinal data were collected on teacher perceptions of the community school model and teacher and student perceptions of social interactions and relationships within schools. Achievement data were collected on successive clusters of 5 th grade students at three time periods: the year preceding the formation of TACSI (2005-06), the third year of reform (2008-09), and the fourth year of reform (2009-10). Achievement data prior to the community school reform was used to
Community School Reform 14 account for any existing achievement differences between TACSI and comparison schools that could confound results. Overview of TACSI In 2006, the former Tulsa mayor, Cathy Taylor met with a diverse group of thirty individuals representing Tulsa s private and public sector to identify and discuss educational issues impacting the city of Tulsa. Subsequently, the mayor invited the group to attend the Coalition for Community Schools conference in Baltimore, Maryland. Following the conference, meetings were held and the group established a mission statement, developed a steering committee to present to the general session, and established the Tulsa Area of Community Schools Initiative (TACSI). TACSI s mission is to provide leadership and influence to engage local communities in developing and sustaining community schools to support academic success and strengthen children, families, and communities. The community school reform was implemented during the 2006/2007 school year in 18 Title I reconstituted elementary schools from two school districts that are part of TACSI -Tulsa Public Schools (TPS) and Union Public Schools (UPS). TPS, the second largest urban school district in Oklahoma, consists of 59 elementary, 17 middle, and 12 high schools. TPS has a free or reduced lunch average of 76 percent, and ethnic minority students make up 66 percent of the population. UPS, an urban-fringe district encompassing southeast Tulsa, has an early childhood center for 3-year-olds; 13 elementary schools (PK-5); and five secondary schools. The demographics of UPS are shifting towards those of TPS, with 49 percent of students belonging to ethnic minority groups and 41 percent eligible for free or reduced lunch.
Community School Reform 15 Data Source School demographics presented in table one suggest that TACSI and non TACSI schools are comparable across indicators of poverty, average teacher experience, average teacher educational attainment, school size, and student ethnicity. Comparable school demographics provide modest support for the homogeneity of contextual factors empirically linked to conditions for learning and student performance. Similar demographic representations among comparison schools and TACSI schools reduce the probability that any achievement difference would be the result of differing social compositions. The demographic data suggest that TACSI schools may be at a slight disadvantage for creating healthy social conditions for their higher average poverty levels and larger average size. [Insert Table 1 About Here] Attitudinal data for this study were collected from 2,130 students and 1,095 faculty members from 36 schools during the 2008-2009 school year. Fifth grade students from 18 TACSI schools and 18 comparable non-tacsi schools were sampled. All faculty members from the 36 schools were surveyed. Researchers administered student surveys during the spring semester to 5 th grade students. Participating students returned surveys directly to researchers. Faculty surveys were distributed and collected at two time points. Teacher surveys administered in the fall measured the development of the community school model and teacher surveys in the spring measured properties of a core instructional program. For both time periods, researchers met with the faculty during a regular scheduled faculty meeting and informed them of the surveys. Surveys were delivered electronically using Survey Monkey to faculty members the day following the information meeting.
Community School Reform 16 Achievement data were gathered from participating school districts and the state department of education. As previously stated, achievement data from the state curriculum tests were collected on fifth grade students from the 2005/2006, 2008/2009, and 2009/2010 school years. These data are limited in that they come from successive fifth grade cohorts. Optimal Design version 2.0 was used to test the power of the sample for detecting significant achievement differences. With an expected small effect size and an estimated average of 50 students per school, results yielded a power estimate of.66 for a sample of 36 schools. Power improves to.95 with an expected medium effect size. Based on these calculations, the sample s probability of finding a significant relationship if one exists in the population was adequate. Measures The Community School Development Scale (Author, 2009a) was used to measure development of the community school model in TACSI schools. The scale operationalizes the observable structural and normative properties of TACSI s community school model. Items were written to reflect development criteria established by the management team of the network. Structural items (12 per core component) captured the within-school spread of practices associated with the core components. Items were based on behaviors and conditions that facilitate the diffusion of reform: establishing a shared understanding of the theory of action; implementing, testing, and evaluating new processes and practices; developing collective expertise; and establishing a strong social network. Item consistency was strong for the measures with alphas ranging from a low of.75 for the family and community engagement subscale,.79 for community based learning,.87 for holistic programs and services and.89 for cross boundary leadership. Sample items are presented for each core component and diffusion level.
Community School Reform 17 Cross boundary Leadership. School administrators, faculty, and staff are engaged in on-going conversations about the leadership role of the community site team. The community site team has appropriate representation from faculty, staff, parents, and community members. The school site team has united the school community around a shared vision and core beliefs for the school. The community school coordinator is building relationships with community members and community organizations to meet the needs of students, families, and the school. Holistic Programs, Services, and Opportunities. The school community agrees on the importance of providing health care services to students and families. The faculty is engaged in on-going conversations about ways to meet the holistic needs of students during out of school time. The school community has developed a behavioral support model to promote positive behavior of all students. The school has formed partnerships to sustain out of school time programs and activities. Community-Based Learning. Teachers in this school collectively inquire into the type of instructional strategies that have personal meaning for students. Teachers in this school regularly connect teaching with students out of school time activities. Teachers use both formative and summative achievement data to inform their instructional activities. Teachers have opportunities to lead professional development activities on community-based learning. Family and Community Engagement. The school community is inquiring into ways to better engage parents in the educational process. The needs of the school are regularly communicated to community organizations/partners. Home visits are conducted by faculty members. There is social cohesion among parents/guardians in the school community.
Community School Reform 18 Normative measures capture the functional capacity of the core components. Crossboundary leadership is not effective unless it fosters a culture of collective responsibility and shared influence. To measure these conditions, Tschannen-Moran s (2001) collaboration scale and Logerfo and Goddard s (2008) collective responsibility scales were used. Holistic Programs, Services, and Opportunities need to be integrated into the overall theory of action for the school. Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, and Bryk s (2001) instructional program coherence scale was used to measure the alignment between supplemental services and instructional designs. Family and community engagement is designed to foster parent responsibility. Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, and Sandler s (2007) role construction and parent efficacy scales were used to measure parent responsibility. Finally, community-based learning is supported by effective professional development and open interactions around instructional issues. Items from the Consortium on Chicago School Research measured the effectiveness of professional development and the prevalence of faculty interactions. The Community School Development Scale was scored to discriminate among four levels of development: inquiring, emerging, mentoring, and sustaining. Individual teacher responses were aggregated to the school level to reflect the shared perception of the faculty regarding processes and practices of the site team, the community school coordinator, and normative conditions. Development stages were determined by cumulative school means across both structural and normative factors. Development stages ranged from: 121 135 sustaining; 108 120 mentoring; 94 108 emerging, and less than 94 inquiring. Six of the 18 TACSI schools had reached mentoring and sustaining levels at the time of the survey. This translated into about one fourth of the students in the overall sample.
Community School Reform 19 Analytical Techniques The purpose of this research was to measure the community school effect on individual student achievement. Because achievement data were multilevel students nested in schools multilevel modeling with HLM 6.04 was used to test the achievement effect attributed to development of the TACSI model. Focus was placed on random intercepts; that is, variation in individual student achievement attributed to school differences. Two types of dummy coding were used: 1) TACSI schools were coded as 1 and non TACSI schools as 0; 2) TACSI schools at the mentoring and sustaining stages were coded as 1 and all other schools (including TACSI schools at the inquiring and emerging stages) in the sample as 0. The latter coding technique provided evidence on the degree to which development of the community school model explained differences in student achievement. Random coefficient regression models were tested for the three clusters of fifth grade achievement data. Qualification for the federal lunch subside was treated as a level one covariate to adjust for the influence of student background characteristics on individual achievement. Because students were not assigned randomly to either a TACSI or comparison school, controlling for individual lunch status allowed for a more precise estimate of school effects (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Using math achievement as an example, level I and level II equations are presented for each model: Random Coefficient Regression Model Level I: Math Achievement = β0 + β1j (F/R Lunch) + r Level II: β0j = γ00 + γ01 (TACSI) + γ02 (Development) + γ03 (SES u0 β1j = γ10 + u1 Random Intercepts and Slopes as Outcomes Level I: Math Achievement = β0 + β1j (F/R Lunch) + r Level II: β0j = γ00 + γ01 (TACSI) + γ02 (Development) + γ03 (SES) + u0j β1j = γ10 + γ11 (TACSI) + γ12 (Development) + γ13 (SES) + γ14 (SIZE) + u1j
Community School Reform 20 β0j = is the school mean for math achievement γ00 = grand mean for math achievement γ01 = TACSI Effect: Difference in math achievement between TACSI schools and non TACSI schools. γ02 = Development Effect: Difference in math achievement between TACSI schools at the mentoring and sustaining level and all other schools in the sample. γ11 = TACSI Effect on the social distribution of achievement: Difference in the social distribution of achievement attributed to TACSI schools. γ12 = Development Effect on the social distribution of achievement: Difference in the social distribution of achievement attributed to mentoring and sustaining TACSI schools. Based on findings from the multilevel models, a post hoc analysis was conducted to better understand the relationship between development of the community school model and the achievement gap attributed to student poverty. An ANCOVA was used to examine achievement differences between students in the mentoring and sustaining TACSI schools and students from the seven most affluent and highest performing schools in the district. The poverty differential was approximately 72 percent between these schools (Table 2). Emphasis was placed on the main effects between the two groups and the interaction effect of qualifying for the lunch subsidy and being in a mentoring and sustaining TACSI school. [Insert Table Two About Here] Results Results of the analyses are specific to the community school model as implemented in TACSI schools. As previously mentioned, community schools look and act differently. TACSI s community school model transforms the whole school, not just out-of-school time activities. Results are organized by the research questions.