Community Schools Certification: An Approach for Implementation

Community schools organize in- and out-of-school resources and supports such as mental health services, meals, health care, tutoring, internships, and other learning and career opportunities that are tailored to the goals and needs of students and families. They also offer community-connected, student-centered instruction and cultivate a culture of safety, belonging, and care. This strategy brings educators, local community members, families, and students together to make collaborative decisions; prioritize student learning, well-being, and engagement; and turn schools into community hubs. A growing number of states are investing in community schools as a strategy to address long-standing social inequities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, greatly expanding the landscape of community schools. As community schools increasingly operate at scale, systems are seeking ways to support quality implementation across multiple school sites. This report describes one such approach: certification.

Research on Community Schools Implementation and the Systemic Conditions That Support It

A growing body of research finds that well-implemented community schools can improve school climate and culture, as well as a range of student outcomes, including academic achievement and attendance. Studies have found that the strength of implementation is related to the magnitude of outcomes. Accordingly, community schools initiatives and school sites are likely to see the greatest impact if they invest in effective implementation by developing structured supports for capacity-building and sustained continuous improvement.

Prior research suggests that system-level (e.g., district, county, state) conditions can help build the capacity of schools in a way that is effective, efficient, and aligned. The conditions—as applied to community schools—include:

• a shared understanding of the strategy with coherent policies, structures, standards, and reporting requirements that balance the tight–loose nature of community schools (i.e., naming what is essential and expected for effective implementation while allowing communities to set priorities and determine “the how” of implementation);

• a framework for indicators and outcomes that establishes milestones for gauging progress, draws on accessible data that can be used to develop strategic plans customized to local assets and needs, and encourages communication among states, districts (including superintendents and school boards), and sites about progress and opportunities;

• intentional staffing to support continuous improvement and implementation, including clear roles and community schools–specific supports (e.g., state and district personnel whose main job is to provide customized, targeted technical assistance, feedback, and coaching to community school sites);

• common tools, resources, and professional learning designed around community schools implementation;

• processes and structures that identify and respond to systemic implementation challenges faced by multiple schools (e.g., aligning state reporting requirements for complementary funding streams and providing district permits for after-hours school building use by community partners); and

• support for sustainable implementation of the strategy, including state and district commitments to the community schools strategy through ongoing funding, adoption of statutes and/or formal policies, and resource and human capital investments.

Certification Systems

In many fields, a strategy used to help guide learning and develop quality implementation around shared features is the process of certification. Certification is a form of external review that attests to the fact that a person or organization has met certain standards or demonstrates certain features determined to be important to the status they are seeking. Certification can be designed to support an organizational learning process and to increase commonalities across a field of endeavor.

This report profiles three organizational certification systems that might inform such a process for community schools. The first two are specific to community schools: the University of Central Florida Center for Community Schools (UCF Center) and the Office of Whole Child Supports at the Georgia Department of Education. Each has set up certification as a route to bring structure, consistency, and capacity-building to the implementation of community schools in their respective states and to offer validation of quality implementation. Additionally, in an approach similar to that for community schools, the Linked Learning Alliance has established a process to aid in the quality implementation of schools designed for a particular educational strategy that combines rigorous academics, career technical education, work-based learning, and comprehensive student support services all tied to the local community.

We studied these systems by interviewing certification specialists, evaluators, and district and site-level practitioners to gain insight into their experiences both designing the process and participating in it. Additionally, we gathered and analyzed certification documents such as standards and rubrics and looked at independent evaluations of the certification systems where they existed. We sought to understand the benefits and challenges of different approaches to certification as some states investing in community schools have begun to seek methods to support quality implementation. We found different strengths and challenges associated with each system described in this report.

The University of Central Florida Center for Community Schools provides an example of a well-established, state-funded certification system designed specifically for community schools and operated by an institute of higher education. The process is based on 12 standards, each with several substandards. Schools apply to enter the certification pathway once they have demonstrated that certain key partnerships and positions are filled. Over the next 3 years, they self-assess against the rubric; gather artifacts; and receive technical assistance, coaching, and peer-to-peer mentoring in preparation for their readiness assessment. From this process, schools receive official feedback on strengths and areas for growth to focus on as they approach their certification assessment year and continue to receive developmental support in those areas. Through this continuous improvement process, schools are well prepared to go through certification, which entails official submission of evidence for the various components on the standards rubric; focus group interviews conducted by UCF staff and peer evaluations; and observations. Achieving certification signifies that community schools have implemented UCF Center’s community schools partnership model with fidelity. The process was perceived by practitioners as one that prizes continuous improvement and offers clear guidelines for implementation. At the same time, some participants felt that the standards were too rigid or difficult to achieve in their particular context and that the data collection process was cumbersome.

From 2021 to 2023, the Georgia Department of Education piloted a certification and recognition process for community schools implementing a whole child education model. Ultimately, the process was designed to recognize and celebrate schools as they progressed from one stage of implementation to the next, characterized by the acronym LEAD (Learning, Emerging, Achieving, Distinguished). Each stage had associated benchmarks that set expectations for structures and processes. Later stages (Achieving and Distinguished) expected evidence of integration with the schoolwide improvement plan, impact, and outcomes. Although the finalized second set of standards—developed in collaboration with the practitioners in the pilot—and accompanying coaching were praised by educators, the pilot faced challenges throughout due to capacity issues within the Department of Education and a rush to begin before certification materials, including consensus-defined standards and a rubric, were completed. Ultimately, the process was shut down for consolidation and reorganization within the Office of Whole Child Supports.

The Linked Learning Alliance (LLA), a nonprofit organization based in California, supports a two-tiered certification process for Linked Learning pathways in secondary schools that is designed to recognize implementation fidelity and excellence. Several hundred schools are supported through this process, which offers multiple opportunities for collaboration among evaluators and pathway staff. It also employs an easily accessible platform for artifact collection and self-study as ways to ensure the process prioritizes learning. Participants receive regular feedback on the materials they submit and even codevelop goals for improvement after the formal certification process concludes. An interviewee noted that this individualized process helps schools build on their strengths and learn from their growth opportunities. This long-standing system has costs, both direct costs for applying and costs at the school and district levels to support required and recommended staffing.

Key Takeaways: What States and Districts Should Consider

As funding and support for community schools continue to increase, interest in strategies to support effective implementation—including certification—will likely grow as well. The examples highlighted in this report offer several key takeaways that can help inform states, districts, and other entities interested in community schools certification:

• Well-designed community schools certification systems can offer schools a set of goals and a structured process that build their local capacity for effective implementation and aid them in assessing and making progress toward their goals. Certification can enhance effective implementation by establishing common indicators, benchmarks, and standards—and an accompanying data system—that allow those within and outside the school to assess the quality of their work and make strategic adjustments related to implementation and programming. Schools pursuing certification can gain access to guidance and professional learning that support implementation. Further, attaining certification can affirm and validate schools’ transformation efforts and signal their impact.

• Collaboratively developed, appropriately focused yet flexible standards are a key element of community schools certification that can help increase buy-in and foster consistency and quality. Standards can be beneficial to community schools implementation, as they establish clear guardrails and guidelines and create a common language around the community schools strategy. Standards also establish and clarify the benchmarks for achieving certification. In the certification systems studied, standards were best received when they were lean and focused—capturing the essential elements of implementation with clearly defined nonnegotiables and sufficient flexibility to allow for different contexts. In these systems, standards were created and/or revised through a collaborative and consensus-building process involving multiple stakeholders, both to model continuous improvement and to increase ease of use and buy-in.

• The certifying entity and participating schools must have sufficient resources and time to create and engage in a well-designed review and feedback process that supports effective implementation. To build capacity for effective implementation, the agency sponsoring the certification process must invest sufficient resources to support onboarding and ongoing coaching of district and school personnel (namely coordinators and principals), staff the evaluation process, expand as more schools apply for certification, and, in some cases, provide technical assistance. The amount of time allotted for schools to attain certification should be long enough for participants to engage meaningfully in the process and deepen implementation year over year.

• Certification processes are viewed as offering the most value when they are organized to focus on continuous improvement rather than compliance and accountability. All three certification systems we examined were designed to center on continuous improvement. Promising strategies included offering general and targeted technical assistance; creating peer and mentor networks for community schools coordinators; having an assigned coach; building in check-ins and feedback sessions, including peer reviewers in the certification process; and maintaining a resource library for participants. By leaving program implementation open to examination and adjustments, certification may be seen as formative—allowing for growth—rather than promoting a compliance-oriented or even punitive system, though this tension remains. One way to accomplish this and provide a useful road map for schools is through establishing phases or tiers with clearly defined thresholds for implementation, as did the certification systems highlighted in this report. This allows schools to achieve baseline implementation, celebrate growth, and strive for excellence. Further, structuring the certification process in this way validates the improvement efforts of each site and reiterates the centrality of learning and development in the process.

• Data can helpfully inform the community schools certification process when focused judiciously on the most essential elements of the community schools strategy. For certification to support and contribute to continuous improvement in community schools, it should be informed by data collection and monitoring of progress toward achieving shared implementation standards. Certification agencies should work to ensure that the data requested for certification are accessible, collectible, and not overly duplicative of other required reporting processes so that the process does not become overwhelming or unduly burdensome. Data and monitoring are most useful when they yield information about both implementation and student experiences, capture a range of “whole child” factors, and reflect realistic expectations based on the maturity of a community school.

• Options for where to house a certifying entity include institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, and state education agencies. Choosing the certifiying entity is a key decision that includes whether a potential certifying entity has a sufficient number of staff members with the right expertise and resources available to develop and run the certification system. Another key consideration is whether the potential certifying entity has a commitment at the highest institutional level to develop and sustain such a complex, multilayered process.

• Couching the certification process within structures and policies that promote alignment, buy-in, and capacity-building will help foster sustainability and can improve the experience and outcomes. Certification will be most successful when it is part of a larger system of structures and policies that promote coherence and sustainability. State and district accountability and reporting mechanisms, for example, may need to be reconsidered or revised to avoid common implementation barriers. In addition, because certification is a multiyear intensive process, ensuring schools have adequate and sustained funding is important. Stable funding allows schools to fully focus on implementation and meeting the needs of students and families.

Community Schools Certification: An Approach for Implementation by Emily Germain, Anna Maier, Daniel Espinoza, and Jeannie Oakes is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This research was supported by the Stuart Foundation. Additional core operating support for LPI is provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Heising-Simons Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Raikes Foundation, Sandler Foundation, Skyline Foundation, and MacKenzie Scott. We are grateful to them for their generous support. The ideas voiced here are those of the authors and not those of funders.