Speaking at the Ontario People for Education Conference in November 2010, Tara Moore, the Provincial Coordinator of Nova Scotia’s SchoolsPlus, described the new initiative as a “collaborative inter-agency approach to supporting the whole child and family” where “schools become centers of service delivery enabling enhanced collaboration by bringing professionals and programs together to help children, youth and families in a welcoming place.”
The larger vision of SchoolsPlus was to become, in Moore’s words, “the hub of the community and (a place where) services are co-located.” (Moore, P4E, 2010) That proved to be a very tall order for a Nova Scotia program still in its infancy running, at that time, in four school boards with 24 different school sites.
The Nova Scotia SchoolsPlus model was initiated in October 2008 with a lofty but rather nebulous vision. Judging from Moore’s choice of words, it was abundantly clear that SchoolsPlus had been adopted and adapted from an earlier venture in Saskatchewan known as SchoolPLUS TM (Saskatchewan, DOE, 2001; Working Together Handbook, 2002). Furthermore, earlier that year, in May 2010, the champion of the Saskatchewan project, Dr. Michael Tymchak, an Education professor at the University of Regina, had lent his support in a May 2010 speech to the Association of Nova Scotia Educational Administrators (ANSEA).
Although the Nova Scotia model was patterned after Saskatchewan’s, it was also remarkably similar to the Ontario version termed “Integrated Service Delivery”(ISD) (Ontario, MOET, 2010). It actually fell somewhere in-between as a peculiar, chameleon-like hybrid of the two approaches.
The Nova Scotia initiative was primarily sparked by a key recommendation of Nova Scotia Justice Merlin Nunn’s landmark 2006 report, Spiralling Out of Control, focusing on a troubled 16-year old youth, Archie Billard, which then found its way into Our Kid’s Are Worth It, the much heralded 2007 strategy to close the gaps in front-line support services.
Social service providers tend to focus their energies on rescuing and supporting children and youth described as “falling through the cracks.” Justice Nunn surprised many by reaching the opposite conclusion: “From a young age,” Nunn wrote,” AB and his family had substantial involvement with government social service agencies and personnel, education supports, and health facilities. Whether that was enough is another question.”
My latest AIMS research report, Reclaiming At-Risk Children and Youth (June 2013) demonstrates that, while SchoolsPlus (SP) is a worthwhile provincial integrated services delivery (ISD) initiative, it is in need of a ‘mid-term correction’ to ensure its ultimate success and reach its target population, the 5 to 10 per cent of children and youth at risk of going off-the rails.
Champions of SP are hard to find in the school system, outside of the Chignecto-Central and South Shore school boards, and provincial education authorities are very protective of information about the whole venture. Much of the focus is clearly on better coordinating existing public social services rather than the expected core mission–building “communities of care,” fostering resilience from an early age, and reclaiming “at risk” children, youth and families.
Over the past three years, inter-departmental service cooperation has increased, particularly in established SchoolsPlus hub sites. Mental health services are now being introduced, largely as a result of the herculean and inspired efforts of Dalhousie psychiatrist Dr. Stan Kutcher.
Making a wider range of services and supports available is a laudable achievement, but limiting public access to regular school hours, and enforcing restrictive Community Use of Schools regulations, (i.e.,$2 million in liability insurance), only serves to maintain the entrenched “boundaries” that stand in the way of genuine two-way community interaction in the schools.
Engaging with new, less familiar community development partners, like Pathways to Education, would produce far better results, as evidenced by the amazing success of Pathways Spryfield. With a more flexible, adaptable approach, SchoolsPlus could well become a far more effective presence in Dartmouth North and other inner city high dropout zones.
The true vision of “wraparound” services and supports will not be realized until SchoolsPlus is re-engineered and begins to draw far more on the strengths and talents of local communities, working with parents and families, and tapping into services closest to where people live and work.
The SchoolsPlus initiative has achieved the goal of provincial coverage – with eight boards and 95 current sites. Yet expanding the number of sites and supports is only half the battle. It’s far more important to keep your sights on the core mission — improving the quality and intensity of frontline services to struggling children and youth — and their families. Without a “mid-term correction,” this promising initiative may run aground much like its predecessor in Saskatchewan.
What is the real purpose of Integrated Service Delivery (ISD) models being introduced into the school system? Why do ISD initiatives like SchoolsPlus and SchoolPLUS face such systemic resistance? What does it take to successfully transform schools into “communities of care” for struggling children and youth? And how do we get there?
Educhatter 
I’m reminded of Pedro Noguera’s talk (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxRL-aOoevE, worth the hour) on the Community School model that he witnessed in NYC, and the reaction of Ralph Klein when he learned of the model – he completely missed the point of the model.
The issue was that his focus and understanding of school did not see how integrated services were useful, as he was too focused on accountability and control.
I don’t know what the problem is in Nova Scotia, but I’d be willing to bet that the resistance stems from a myopic focus on different problems that occurring, and not an objection to the idea itself.
I think one idea would be to be very specific and explicit and start with one target…and have an accountability factor that is reviewed annually.
We continue to have meetings,deliver large amounts of communication but the action is missing,as is the accountability.
I`ve been on this blog often enough that those who read it know my perspective,I feel early intervention can do a great deal to reduce the number of kids falling through the cracks.
Sadly,all the research points to that but “where`s the beef”?
Politicians and bureaucrats tend to look at integrated anything as opportunities for cost savings not service improvements.
Nova Scotia’s Education Minister Ramona Jennex announced a further expansion of Schools Plus implementation on JUne 19, 2013, one day after the rel;ease of my AIMS research report questioning its effectiveness in providing frontline services to at-risk children and youth:
http://novascotia.ca/news/release/?id=20130619005
That announcement, in turn, prompted me to produce a commentary for the Halifax daily paper, THe Chronicle Herald, Weekend Edition, June 22, 2013, entitled “SchoolsPlus has lost its way, but it’s expanding anyway.”
http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1136967-schoolsplus-has-lost-its-way-but-it-s-expanding-anyway
Once the HMCS Education has left the dock, it is next-to-impossible to reset its mission or to bring about a “mid-voyage correction.”
As Doug or Bob MacKenzie might say – new topic.
New topic? You must be slipping, Doug. The NSTU’s faithful spinner, Grant Frost @frosteded , is just getting warmed-up.
Yesterday, Grant Frost @frosteded, a favourite of the Nova Scotia Teachers Union, posted a response to my AIMS research study on his personal blog, Frosted Education. In the post, he offers a rather strange critique of my persona as well as my research report.
He claims that I gave Schools Plus an “F” and that suggests somehow that I would be a less than desirable teacher for your child. Here is the full post, unedited, so that you can fully appreciate his spelling of my surname:
“Schools Plus gets an “F”? I’m glad Paul Bennet isn’t teaching my kid.”
By Grant Frost (Frosted Education, 27 June 2013)
“In his latest series of rantings, which have included blog posts, AIMS reports, newspaper articles and radio interviews, self-proclaimed researcher Paul Bennet has seen fit to attack the SchoolsPlus initiative with his usual misguided fervor. For those of you who have not been following, SchoolsPlus is a relatively new initiative from the DOE which is starting to make inroads into helping struggling kids and their families access the services they need from a variety of agencies. The theory is that the various schools boards around the province have chosen a group of schools to start as the SchoolsPlus development model. These schools get a SchoolsPlus facilitator and SchoolsPlus outreach workers who set up programming that is tailor-made to each community. Together, they work with community agencies in an attempt to better connect resources with those in need, particularly in the area of mental health. In early June, Bennet penned what he referred to as a “comprehensive” and “fair” report about the progress of the program for The Atlantic Institute of Market Studies, and then proceeded by any and all means to promote it.
His report was, it turns out, neither comprehensive nor fair. It was, in fact and on many points, downright wrong.
Let’s begin with the piece he wrote for The Chronicle Herald on June 21 which relied heavily on his own report. In it, he criticized the SchoolsPlus program for “… limiting public access (to public school facilities) to regular school hours.” Accepting that access to buildings is not even in their control, a quick look over the SchoolsPlus web site shows numerous activities that actually are taking place in schools across the province, both during school hours and after.
So strike one for Paul.
In the same piece he suggested that SchoolsPlus should engage “… with new, less familiar community development partners, like Pathways to Education.” Had he bothered to check, he would have discovered that there is already a partnership there. In fact the Chebucto Pathways to Education partnered up with Schools Plus just this past May to host a two-day workshop on mentoring boys and young men.
Strike two.
Finally, he concludes that expanding the program without assessing its success “does not bode well for the entire venture.” Wrong again. The Schools Plus Program has been evaluated for success every year since its inception, using input from a wide variety of sources including parents, students, a steering committee, and three independent external evaluators.
Strike three.
There are other errors, in his article, in his report and in some of his on-air commentary. Most notable of these is his continuing reference to what he calls ”a failing grade” given by the external review team to the larger “transformative” goals of SchoolsPlus. Those goals are not actually even supposed to be anywhere near achieved until at least five years from now, and the program, to its credit, has made positive inroads in one of those areas already. But what gets me the most is not the poor content. It is the target of his attack that is so irksome.
The SchoolsPlus program has received rave reviews from many sectors, and the “common consent form” that they have developed is actually being considered for adoption by other jurisdictions. In the past, those seeking services would need consent from a wide variety of service providers, such as mental health, probation, community services etc. This was exceedingly difficult for those most in need of service, and there have been attempts in the past to get this goal accomplished. None has succeeded before SchoolsPlus.
As one can imagine, seemingly ”small from the outside” achievements such as these have made a tremendous difference in individual lives, and even within the short-term of its existence the individual stories of success are many. Bennet, in his report, scoffs at this individualized approach. Citing what he calls “private mutterings” he writes:
“Giving hungry children lunch money, paying for their summer camps or driving parents to the local food bank do meet those immediate crying needs, but they also do little to help break the cycle of poverty and social service dependency.” Bennet, 2013
SchoolsPlus is also, by its very nature, a program that helps those most at risk, and those most likely to be turned off a hopeful program by negative press that sounds knowledgeable, but is, for the most part, tripe. It would not be quite as bad if Bennet were not constantly using the tragedy of Rehtaeh Parson’s suicide as a means of pushing his views. In an interview with a local radio station on June 26th, Bennet managed to allude to her death as evidence that the program was not working. Again, if he had bothered to check, he would have realized that the program was actually not in place in any of the schools Rahtaeh attended. Indeed, one of the main points of the program is to try to prevent such senseless loss from happening again.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter to me what kind of researcher Paul Bennet is, or that he seems to be wrong about some basic facts, or even that he apparently can’t read a report card. I’m not signing his paycheque, nor is he teaching my child. However, the SchoolsPlus program is working. I just hope that in his latest grasp for glory, Bennet hasn’t caused some of those in need to turn away from a very promising helping hand”
Comment
Would anyone care to reply to Grant’s rather provocative little diatribe? It begs for a point-by-point refutation.
The strategy responds to Commissioner Nunn’s recommendation to improve co‑ordination and collaboration in our delivery of programs and services for children, youth, and families.
Here is a “Correction Sheet” for Grant Frost’s rather outlandish, inaccurate post attempting to dissect my AIMS research report and its findings. Take the time to read my assessment and then try to decide what the little essay might warrant as a grade in any regular high school:
Title: “Schools Plus gets an “F”? I’m glad Paul Bennet isn’t teaching my kid.”
My AIMS report on SchoolsPlus assesses the initiative (in 35 pages of detailed analysis) without awarding a grade of any kind. The surname is spelled “Bennett” with two t’s
“In his latest series of rantings, which have included blog posts, AIMS reports, newspaper articles and radio interviews, self-proclaimed researcher Paul Bennet (sp) has seen fit to attack the SchoolsPlus initiative with his usual misguided fervor.”
Facts: Presumably he’s referring to the Op Ed and two lengthy radio interviews (CBC Mainstreet and Maritime Morning) where most commenters and all callers supported my key points and the findings.
“For those of you who have not been following, SchoolsPlus is a relatively new initiative from the DOE which is starting to make inroads into helping struggling kids and their families access the services they need from a variety of agencies.”
Fact: SchoolsPlus is not new: It was initiated in 2008 and is now entering its fifth year with 8 school boards and 95 sites. One of my findings is that it is little known because of the lack of leadership at the centre and confusion about its core objectives.
“The theory is that the various schools boards around the province have chosen a group of schools to start as the SchoolsPlus development model. These schools get a SchoolsPlus facilitator and SchoolsPlus outreach workers who set up programming that is tailor-made to each community.”
Fact: Almost correct:. It is a province-wide initiative, piloted initially in three, then four boards, and funded by the province. THere was little uptake until the Minister announced $2,5 million over three years in April 2012.
“Together, they work with community agencies in an attempt to better connect resources with those in need, particularly in the area of mental health.”
Fact: Only partially correct. My SchoolsPlus report credits the initiative with integrating up to 100 mostly public sector services, but points out that SP does not actively support community-based services and not-for-profit agencies.
“In early June, Bennet (sp) penned what he referred to as a “comprehensive” and “fair” report about the progress of the program for The Atlantic Institute of (for) Market Studies, and then proceeded by any and all means to promote it.”
Fact: It was published on June 18 by AIMS and they did the promotion of the report. It was the news media that invited me to connect it with the Rehteah Parsons case. The case is not mentioned in the 35 page report.
“His report was, it turns out, neither comprehensive nor fair. It was, in fact and on many points, downright wrong.”
Fact: Read the report and judge for yourself. It’s certainly more balanced than this post.
“Let’s begin with the piece he wrote for The Chronicle Herald on June 21 which relied heavily on his own report. In it, he criticized the SchoolsPlus program for “… limiting public access (to public school facilities) to regular school hours.”
Fact: SchoolsPlus sites like Harbour View School in HRSB operate on limited hours and are locked for much of the day. THis was docimented in Kay Crinean’s Annual Reports and validated by on site parent reports. Education Minister Ramona Jennex addressed this in her June 19 statement announcing that operational hours were being extended.
“Accepting that access to buildings is not even in their control, a quick look over the SchoolsPlus web site shows numerous activities that actually are taking place in schools across the province, both during school hours and after. So strike one for Paul.”
Fact: My AIMS report demonstrates that many principals have resisted SchoolsPlus and succcessfully limited community access before and after school. Community service agencies and groups have had to learn to work around SchoolsPlus administrators.
“In the same piece he suggested that SchoolsPlus should engage “… with new, less familiar community development partners, like Pathways to Education.” Had he bothered to check, he would have discovered that there is already a partnership there. In fact the Chebucto Pathways to Education partnered up with Schools Plus just this past May to host a two-day workshop on mentoring boys and young men. Strike two, .”
Fact: The HRSB SchoolsPlus Coordinator has been very resistant to efforts to establish a Pathways to Education site in North Dartmouth. Meetings are held right across the street from the SP Hub site and parents confirm that she has been more of an obstacle than a help. Over atr Pathways Spryfield, the HRSB spent 3 years competing with Pathways and only in 2012-13 has there been a change in positioning. When it succeeded, the HRSB climbed on board. Hardly an example of collaboration or leadership.
“Finally, he concludes that expanding the program without assessing its success “does not bode well for the entire venture.” Wrong again. The Schools Plus Program has been evaluated for success every year since its inception, using input from a wide variety of sources including parents, students, a steering committee, and three independent external evaluators.
Strike three.”
Fact: The Annual Reports conducted by Kay Crinean from 2009 to 2012 were fairly critical of Schools Plus implementation and I support her findings. Many of my findings mirror hers and several of my 9 recommendations repeat proposals from her internal reports.
“There are other errors, in his article, in his report and in some of his on-air commentary. Most notable of these is his continuing reference to what he calls ”a failing grade” given by the external review team to the larger “transformative” goals of SchoolsPlus. Those goals are not actually even supposed to be anywhere near achieved until at least five years from now, and the program, to its credit, has made positive inroads in one of those areas already. But what gets me the most is not the poor content. It is the target of his attack that is so irksome.”
Fact: You will find that Kay Crinean was critical of “the glacial pace” of systemic change and the lack of system-wide champions. In her final 2012 report, she gave Schools Plus very low marks for transformative change. She gave the program “E” grades for everything but establishing a Sharing of Information Protocol! I called for a “mid-term correction” to address her concerns before going full steam ahead.
“The SchoolsPlus program has received rave reviews from many sectors, and the “common consent form” that they have developed is actually being considered for adoption by other jurisdictions.”
Fact: After four years of implementation, SchoosPlus remains an enigma to mpost people inside and outside the system. Most of the praise has come in DoE media releases and from services receiving funding. over six months of research, I found very few articles that were not planted by the Department or written by SP staff. Many perhaps most teachers have no idea what it is and don’t know that it is to serve the 5-10 per cent of kids at highest risk of going off the rails. Aside from Kay Crinean’s reports, there are no independent assessments at all,
“In the past, those seeking services would need consent from a wide variety of service providers, such as mental health, probation, community services etc. This was exceedingly difficult for those most in need of service, and there have been attempts in the past to get this goal accomplished. None has succeeded before SchoolsPlus.”
Fact: This is TRUE, as pointed out in my report..
“As one can imagine, seemingly ”small from the outside” achievements such as these have made a tremendous difference in individual lives, and even within the short-term of its existence the individual stories of success are many. Bennet (sp) in his report, scoffs at this individualized approach.”
Fact Hard to fathom. This I acknowledge in the report. My AIMS paper is supportive of SchoolsPlus and its core mission —and seeks to get it back on track.
“Citing what he calls “private mutterings” he writes:
“Giving hungry children lunch money, paying for their summer camps or driving parents to the local food bank do meet those immediate crying needs, but they also do little to help break the cycle of poverty and social service dependency.” Bennet,(sp) 2013
Fact: Such concerns are real and were voiced by parents fearful of reprisals if they went public with these concerns. SchoolsPlus is (in some cases) actually promoting welfare dependency. Rather than taking the time t engage in community development SP administrators are providing handouts. These same people have no idea why Pathways is working.
“SchoolsPlus is also, by its very nature, a program that helps those most at risk, and those most likely to be turned off a hopeful program by negative press that sounds knowledgeable, but is, for the most part, tripe.”
Fact: This is absurd. I chose to write about SchoolsPlus because I think it is worth saving!
“It would not be quite as bad if Bennet (sp) were not constantly using the tragedy of Rehtaeh Parson’s suicide as a means of pushing his views. In an interview with a local radio station on June 26th, Bennet (sp) managed to allude to her death as evidence that the program was not working.”
Fact Sadly, Rehteah Parsons became one of the 5 to 10 per cent of teens at serious risk over an 18 month period. She came to fit the profile of a client for SchoolsPlus but it was not available to her. Again, it was the local media who made that connection.
“Again, if he had bothered to check, he would have realized that the program was actually not in place in any of the schools Rahtaeh attended. Indeed, one of the main points of the program is to try to prevent such senseless loss from happening again.”
Fact: The HRSB chose to put the Schools Plus hub site in a strange place. In Amherst NS and on the South Shore, the hub is in a high school. I was dumbfounded when I discovered no site at Sir Robert Borden JHS where Archie Billard went off the rails. Someone has to answer the question of why there was no site at Cole Harbour HS or Dartmouth HS — and why the Board was trying to shut down its alternative school while all of this was unfolding. No more excuses, Grant!
“At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter to me what kind of researcher Paul Bennet (sp) is, or that he seems to be wrong about some basic facts, or even that he apparently can’t read a report card. I’m not signing his paycheque, nor is he teaching my child. However, the SchoolsPlus program is working. I just hope that in his latest grasp for glory, Bennet (sp) hasn’t caused some of those in need to turn away from a very promising helping hand”
Fact: Sheer rubbish! My AIMS report is a call to fix Schools Plus so that it actually helps more at risk kids and teens. Read the report and you will see 9 recommendations to strengthen the program and get it working properly for the 5,000 to 6,000 Nova Scotians currently at risk in and around our schools. It is too important to screw up!
Our friend Grant Frost at FrostedEd has a strange way of responding to a complete refutation of his commentary. Instead of printing my response, he posted a Letter from Kay Crinean, on July 1, 2013, that was not printed by The Chronicle Herald. Read it and you will see why.
To: The Editor
The Chronicle Herald
23 June, 2013
Re. Mr Paul Bennett’s opinion piece on SchoolsPlus in Saturday’s Chronicle Herald
As the principal evaluator of SchoolsPlus over its first three years of existence (2009-2012), I was interested to read Mr Bennett’s opinions about it. I am pleased to see that he acknowledges that it is “a worthwhile provincial initiative” and that “over the past three years, inter-departmental service co-operation has increased, particularly in established SchoolsPlus hub sites.” We concur with that conclusion. Our findings also included the following:
• Access to services and programs has increased and more youth are being reached
• Families feel better supported— SchoolsPlus provides a bridge between schools and families
• Increased emphasis on preventative and supportive programming is changing school cultures
• Schools welcome improved links with services and increased supports for students
• Service-providers state that SchoolsPlus has helped them a lot in their ability to serve the needs of children, youth and families, and that it helps to provide access to schools and youth, provides support for youth and families “falling through the cracks”, and increases preventative interventions.
• School administrators report that students participating in programs or services coordinated and organized by SchoolsPlus are doing better, and students report that school has become more important in their lives.
These findings were based upon large amounts of data gathered each year. For example in the third year alone we surveyed 63 school administrators, 83 service providers (public and community-based) and 1200 students; we interviewed 35 individuals (including students, parents, school administrators, and senior level government officials); conducted 9 focus groups with community partners and local service-providers, and three focus groups with students. We visited each SchoolsPlus site twice and attended many regional and province-wide progress meetings and reviewed monthly reports from all SchoolsPlus sites, and samples of case notes from all sites. We gathered data about student progress from a variety of reports. Parents and caregivers made many positive comments, such as these examples taken from our final report (Mr Bennett was provided with all three of our reports).
“SchoolsPlus is providing programming for my girl and also helping me to find a job so that I can be more independent and can take care of my kids better.”(Parent, 2012)
“Without SchoolsPlus we would not have gotten through this school year. Last year SchoolsPlus was not available and it was a hard year for us. There was no extra help. This year is above and beyond—much better” (Parent, 2012).
“Before I was doing everything alone and now I have a team. It has changed everything and I feel a lot of relief” (Caregiver, 2011).
Mr Bennett expressed concern that SchoolsPlus was not involving community-based and grass-roots organizations. This is not the case: SchoolsPlus, whose purpose is to coordinate and facilitate the provision of integrated services and programming to all children and youth (not only the 5-10-% who are at serious risk) works with a wide variety of local community organizations including Big Brothers/ Big Sisters and Pathways to Education. The community partners involved vary from site to site, as one would expect from an approach designed to respond to local conditions.
Mr Bennett also expressed concern about “limiting public access to regular school hours”. While this is the case in some schools, it is not the case in many others across the province, and our findings show that extended hours and summer programming have increased considerably in many sites across the province as a result of Schools Plus.
We state in our report that SchoolsPlus, while it has accomplished a great deal, still has a way to go before true integration of services, schools and communities is achieved: this is a long term goal requiring a culture change for everyone from families to schools to community organizations, services and government, and progress is being made towards it. We do not agree with Mr Bennett’s suggestion that expansion of SchoolsPlus should be halted or delayed. We have seen evidence that the change in culture among schools and service-providers towards a more truly “wrap-around” approach to children, youth and families is accelerated as it is expanded. By making this the norm across whole regions, school boards and the province, instead of only being available in selected areas, the pace of change will quicken.
Kay Crinean
Comment:
My report makes it clear that I found Kay Crinean’s assessment reports valuable, but disagreed with some of her conclusions. That’s why independent observers have a critical role to play in public policy debates.
It’s quite obvious that reading Grant Frost’s blog, she would not have the advantage of having read that point-by-point refutation of his outlandish claims. Another clue is that she refers to me as “Mr. Bennett” when I have held an Ed.D. since 1991 and am identified as Dr. Bennett in the AIMS paper. Most of Grant’s objections are pure rubbish and it surprises me that Kay Crinean would be party to such a venture.