August 3, 2003
To: Comer School Development
Program
From: Maura Larkins
by FAX only to: 203 737 1023
Three years ago I wrote several E-
mails to Beverly Crowther asking
for help. My school had paid
between ten and twenty thousand
dollars to Comer SDP, but the
Comer process was abused at my
school, and a culture of hostility
toward those outside the ruling
clique increased in intensity after
the implementation of the Comer
process. Democracy was
eliminated when voting was
eliminated. “Consensus” meant
that teachers were pressured to
silently accept what the ruling
clique wanted. Many teachers
were fired or forced to leave the
school.
Beverly Crowther failed to give
any help. She said we had to
work things out ourselves. Things
went from bad to worse. After two
years, the teachers voted to
eliminate the Comer Program, but
not before so much damage was
done that there is a serious
lawsuit pending.
The media here has not become
aware of this situation, however, if
Comer SDP is at all interested in
learning about how the misuse of
the Comer program wreaked
enormous harm in one school,
you may call or fax me at 619 660
6955. It occurs to me that you
might want to prevent such
outcomes in the future.
To: Comer School Development
Program
From: Maura Larkins
by FAX only to: 203 737 1023
Three years ago I wrote several E-
mails to Beverly Crowther asking
for help. My school had paid
between ten and twenty thousand
dollars to Comer SDP, but the
Comer process was abused at my
school, and a culture of hostility
toward those outside the ruling
clique increased in intensity after
the implementation of the Comer
process. Democracy was
eliminated when voting was
eliminated. “Consensus” meant
that teachers were pressured to
silently accept what the ruling
clique wanted. Many teachers
were fired or forced to leave the
school.
Beverly Crowther failed to give
any help. She said we had to
work things out ourselves. Things
went from bad to worse. After two
years, the teachers voted to
eliminate the Comer Program, but
not before so much damage was
done that there is a serious
lawsuit pending.
The media here has not become
aware of this situation, however, if
Comer SDP is at all interested in
learning about how the misuse of
the Comer program wreaked
enormous harm in one school,
you may call or fax me at 619 660
6955. It occurs to me that you
might want to prevent such
outcomes in the future.
James P. Comer Program
Child by child?
One child at a time?
Or was it rather no children at any
time were the focus when the
Comer process was adopted at
Castle Park Elementary?
One child at a time?
Or was it rather no children at any
time were the focus when the
Comer process was adopted at
Castle Park Elementary?
At Loma Verde Elementary
in CVESD, union leader Jim
Groth and his sidekick
Donna Padilla took control of
the school using the Comer
program.
Shortly afterward, the
principal was fired by Libia
Gil, perhaps for allowing the
Comer program to slip out of
the control of the top-down
machinery that Libia Gil
constructed at CVESD.
Ironically, Gil's methods
included little communication
with schools. The principal
was simply expected to stay
in control.
in CVESD, union leader Jim
Groth and his sidekick
Donna Padilla took control of
the school using the Comer
program.
Shortly afterward, the
principal was fired by Libia
Gil, perhaps for allowing the
Comer program to slip out of
the control of the top-down
machinery that Libia Gil
constructed at CVESD.
Ironically, Gil's methods
included little communication
with schools. The principal
was simply expected to stay
in control.
The Castle Park Elementary
fiasco was partly a result of
the way the James Comer
Program was implemented.
The Comer process lends itself
readily to those who wish to
abuse it.
fiasco was partly a result of
the way the James Comer
Program was implemented.
The Comer process lends itself
readily to those who wish to
abuse it.
What happened at
Chula Vista Elementary
School District (CVESD)
Chula Vista Elementary
School District (CVESD)
August 13, 2008
Phone call Ann L
Phone call Ann L
BLOGS
August 30, 2003
Dr. Ann L.
Comer School Development
Program
by FAX only to: 203 737 1023
Dear Dr. L.:
I’m writing to thank you for
calling me recently.
As I told you on the phone,
the school about which I
wrote in the summer of 2000
is Castle Park Elementary
School, and the district I am
suing is Chula Vista
Elementary School District.
I’m not asking you to do
anything; I only wanted to
give you a heads up in case
you wanted to investigate the
abuses caused by the
implementation of the Comer
Process at Castle Park. I’ll
leave it up to you to decide
whether you want to take any
action regarding this matter.
Please feel free to write or
call if you need any help from
me.
Yours truly,
Maura Larkins
Phone and fax: 619 660 6955
Dr. Ann L.
Comer School Development
Program
by FAX only to: 203 737 1023
Dear Dr. L.:
I’m writing to thank you for
calling me recently.
As I told you on the phone,
the school about which I
wrote in the summer of 2000
is Castle Park Elementary
School, and the district I am
suing is Chula Vista
Elementary School District.
I’m not asking you to do
anything; I only wanted to
give you a heads up in case
you wanted to investigate the
abuses caused by the
implementation of the Comer
Process at Castle Park. I’ll
leave it up to you to decide
whether you want to take any
action regarding this matter.
Please feel free to write or
call if you need any help from
me.
Yours truly,
Maura Larkins
Phone and fax: 619 660 6955
Home
Why This Website
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park Elem
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff &
Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Why This Website
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park Elem
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff &
Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Problems at schools with
Yale's James Comer Program
Yale's James Comer Program
Curriculum Vitae
9/23/2009
James P. Comer, M.D.
Yale University Child
Study Center
230 South Frontage Road
New Haven, CT 06520-
7900
Date of Birth: September
25, 1934
Place of Birth: East
Chicago, Indiana
Married: June 20, 1959 to
Shirley Ann Arnold
(Deceased, 4/9/94)
July 11, 2004 to Bettye
Fletcher Comer
Children: Son, Brian, July
22, 1960
Daughter, Dawn, March
12, 1964
[Bettye R. Fletcher
remarried Yale professor
Dr. James P. Comer.
Comer founded the
Comer School
Development Program
and Maurice Falk
Professor of Child
Psychiatry at the Yale
Child Study Center. He is
the stepfather of Buddy
Fletcher.]
Academic Background
East Chicago Washington
High School 1952
Indiana University -
Zoology; Social Science
1952-1956
A.B.
Howard University
College of Medicine -
Medicine 1956-1960
M.D.
Fellow in Public Health
and Preventative Medicine
1961-1963
St. Catherine Hospital,
East Chicago, Indiana -
Internship 1960-1961
Public Health Service
Commission Corps,
Washington, D.C. 1961-
1968
University of Michigan
School of Public Health
(Administration and
Mental Health) 1963-1964
M.P.H.
Yale University
School of Medicine -
Department of Psychiatry
1964-1966
Child Study Center -
Fellow in Child Psychiatry
1966-1967
Children's Hospital of
District of Columbia
Hillcrest Children's Center
- Fellow in Child
Psychiatry 1967-1968
Military Service
Service completed July 1,
1968 with rank of Surgeon
(Lt. Colonel) at
separation. Service
in United States Public
Health Service; inactive
duty status after July 1,
1968.
James P. Comer –
Curriculum Vitae Page 2
9/23/2009
Licensure
Maryland 1960
Indiana 1961
California 1965
Connecticut 1965
Appointments
Staff Member, National
Institute of Mental Health,
Washington, D.C. 1967-
1968
Assistant Professor of
Psychiatry, Yale University
Child Study Center 1968-
1970
Co-Director, Baldwin-King
School Program, New
Haven, Connecticut 1968-
1973
Associate Dean for
Student Affairs, Yale
University School of
Medicine 1969--
Associate Professor of
Psychiatry, Yale University
Child Study Center,
Department of Psychiatry
and Institute of Social
Policy Studies 1970-1972
Associate Professor of
Psychiatry with Tenure,
Yale University
Child Study Center,
Department of Psychiatry
and Institute of
Social Policy Studies 1972-
1975
Director, Yale University
Child Study Center School
Development
Program 1973-1997
Professor of Psychiatry,
Yale University Child
Study Center,
Department of Psychiatry
and Institute of Social
Policy Studies 1975-1976
Maurice Falk Professor of
Child Psychiatry 1976--
Founder, School
Development Program
Advisory Board Chair,
Yale University Child
Study Center 1997--]
9/23/2009
James P. Comer, M.D.
Yale University Child
Study Center
230 South Frontage Road
New Haven, CT 06520-
7900
Date of Birth: September
25, 1934
Place of Birth: East
Chicago, Indiana
Married: June 20, 1959 to
Shirley Ann Arnold
(Deceased, 4/9/94)
July 11, 2004 to Bettye
Fletcher Comer
Children: Son, Brian, July
22, 1960
Daughter, Dawn, March
12, 1964
[Bettye R. Fletcher
remarried Yale professor
Dr. James P. Comer.
Comer founded the
Comer School
Development Program
and Maurice Falk
Professor of Child
Psychiatry at the Yale
Child Study Center. He is
the stepfather of Buddy
Fletcher.]
Academic Background
East Chicago Washington
High School 1952
Indiana University -
Zoology; Social Science
1952-1956
A.B.
Howard University
College of Medicine -
Medicine 1956-1960
M.D.
Fellow in Public Health
and Preventative Medicine
1961-1963
St. Catherine Hospital,
East Chicago, Indiana -
Internship 1960-1961
Public Health Service
Commission Corps,
Washington, D.C. 1961-
1968
University of Michigan
School of Public Health
(Administration and
Mental Health) 1963-1964
M.P.H.
Yale University
School of Medicine -
Department of Psychiatry
1964-1966
Child Study Center -
Fellow in Child Psychiatry
1966-1967
Children's Hospital of
District of Columbia
Hillcrest Children's Center
- Fellow in Child
Psychiatry 1967-1968
Military Service
Service completed July 1,
1968 with rank of Surgeon
(Lt. Colonel) at
separation. Service
in United States Public
Health Service; inactive
duty status after July 1,
1968.
James P. Comer –
Curriculum Vitae Page 2
9/23/2009
Licensure
Maryland 1960
Indiana 1961
California 1965
Connecticut 1965
Appointments
Staff Member, National
Institute of Mental Health,
Washington, D.C. 1967-
1968
Assistant Professor of
Psychiatry, Yale University
Child Study Center 1968-
1970
Co-Director, Baldwin-King
School Program, New
Haven, Connecticut 1968-
1973
Associate Dean for
Student Affairs, Yale
University School of
Medicine 1969--
Associate Professor of
Psychiatry, Yale University
Child Study Center,
Department of Psychiatry
and Institute of Social
Policy Studies 1970-1972
Associate Professor of
Psychiatry with Tenure,
Yale University
Child Study Center,
Department of Psychiatry
and Institute of
Social Policy Studies 1972-
1975
Director, Yale University
Child Study Center School
Development
Program 1973-1997
Professor of Psychiatry,
Yale University Child
Study Center,
Department of Psychiatry
and Institute of Social
Policy Studies 1975-1976
Maurice Falk Professor of
Child Psychiatry 1976--
Founder, School
Development Program
Advisory Board Chair,
Yale University Child
Study Center 1997--]
James P. Comer, MD,
MPH
Yale University
downloaded April 21, 2011
Dr. Comer is the Maurice Falk
Professor of Child Psychiatry at
the Yale University School of
Medicine's Child Study Center,
and has been a Yale medical
faculty member since 1968.
During these years, he has
concentrated his career on
promoting a focus on child
development as a way of
improving schools. His efforts in
support of healthy development of
young people are known
internationally.
Dr. Comer, perhaps, is best known
for the founding of the Comer
School Development Program in
1968, which promotes the
collaboration of parents,
educators, and community to
improve social, emotional, and
academic outcomes for children
that, in turn, helps them achieve
greater school success. His
concept of teamwork has
improved the educational
environment in more than 500
schools throughout America.
A prolific writer, Dr. Comer has
authored nine books, including
Beyond Black and White, 1972;
Black Child Care, (with Dr. Alvin F.
Poussaint), 1975; paperback
revision, Raising Black Children,
1992; School Power: Implications
of an Intervention Project, 1980;
the autobiographical Maggie's
American Dream: The Life and
Times of a Black Family, 1988;
Rallying the Whole Village, (edited
with Dr. Michael Ben-Avie, Dr.
Norris M. Haynes, and Dr. Edward
T. Joyner), 1996; Waiting for a
Miracle: Why Schools Can't Solve
Our Problems, And How We Can,
1997; Child by Child, (edited with
Dr. Michael Ben-Avie, Dr. Norris
M. Haynes, and Dr. Edward T.
Joyner) 1999; The Field Guide to
Comer Schools in Action, (edited
with Dr. Edward T. Joyner and Dr.
Michael Ben-Avie), 2004; and
Leave No Child Behind: Preparing
Today's Youth for Tomorrow's
World, 2004. Between 1978 and
1994, Dr. Comer wrote more than
150 articles for Parents Magazine
and more than 300 syndicated
articles on children's health and
development and race relations.
In addition to his writing, teaching
and research activities, Dr. Comer
has served as a consultant to the
Children's Television Workshop,
which produces Sesame Street
and The Electric Company. He
was a consultant to the Public
Committee on Mental Health
chaired by Rosalyn Carter as well
as a member of the National
Board for Professional Teaching
Standards, and Carnegie Forum
on Education and the Economy
(1987-1991). Since 1994, Dr.
Comer has served as a member of
the National Commission on
Teaching and America's Future.
He is a member of the Institute of
Medicine and the American
Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS). He has
provided testimony before state
and congressional legislative
bodies.
He chaired the Roundtable on
Child and Adolescent
Development Research and
Teacher Education, organized by
the National Association for the
Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE) and the
National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development (NICHD).
He also co-chaired the national
expert panel of the NCATE
Initiative on Increasing the
Application of Developmental
Sciences Knowledge in Educator
Preparation. The NCATE report,
"The Road Less Traveled: How
the Developmental Sciences Can
Prepare Educators to Improve
Student Achievement: Policy
Recommendations," is based on
the work of the three-year period
of the second expert panel.
He served on the Association for
Supervision and Curriculum
Development's Commission on the
Whole Child and contributed to
the 2007 report, "The Learning
Compact Redefined: A Call to
Action: A Report of the
Commission on the Whole Child."
Since 1971, Dr. Comer has served
as Director or Trustee of the
following Boards: the Nellie Mae
Education Foundation
(2003-present); Wesleyan
University, Middletown, CT
(1978-1984); Albertus Magnus
College, New Haven, CT
(1989-2000); Teachers College,
Columbia University, New York, NY
(1999-present); the Hazen
Foundation, New Haven, CT
(1974-1978); the Field
Foundation, New York, NY
(1981-1988); the Carnegie
Corporation of New York, New
York, NY (1990-1994);
Connecticut Savings Bank
(1971-1991); the Connecticut
Energy Corporation, Bridgeport,
CT (1976-2000); and the National
Academy Foundation, New York,
NY (1993-1998).
For his work and his scholarship,
Dr. Comer has been awarded 47
honorary degrees and has been
recognized by many organizations.
In 2007 he received the University
of Louisville Grawemeyer Award
for Education. In 2004, he
received the John P. McGovern
Behavioral Science Award from
the Smithsonian. In 2006 he
received the John Hope Franklin
Award, given to those who have
demonstrated the highest
commitment to access and
excellence in American education.
In 1996, he won both the
prestigious Heinz Award in the
Human Condition for his profound
influence on disadvantaged
children, and the Healthtrac
Foundation Prize (renamed the
James F. And Sarah T. Fries
Foundation).
Other honors include the Charles
A. Dana Award for Pioneering
Achievement in Education, 1991;
the James Bryant Conant Award,
presented by the Education
Commission of the States, 1991;
the Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in
Education given by McGraw-Hill,
Inc., 1990; a Special Presidential
Commendation from the American
Psychiatric Association, 1990; the
Rockefeller Public Service Award,
1980; and the John and Mary
Markel Foundation Scholar Award
in Academic Medicine, 1969-1974.
In 1993, Bill Cosby served as the
Master of Ceremonies for the 25th
Anniversary Celebration of the
School Development Program. In
1998, Hillary Rodham Clinton
spoke at the Program's 30th
Anniversary Symposium.
A native of East Chicago, IN, Dr.
Comer received an A.B. degree in
1956 from Indiana University, an
M.D. degree in 1960 from Howard
University College of Medicine,
and an M.P.H. in 1964 from the
University of Michigan School of
Public Health. Between 1964 and
1967, he trained in psychiatry at
the Yale University School of
Medicine and its Child Study
Center. He also completed one
year of residency training at the
Hillcrest Children's Center in
Washington, D.C.
MPH
Yale University
downloaded April 21, 2011
Dr. Comer is the Maurice Falk
Professor of Child Psychiatry at
the Yale University School of
Medicine's Child Study Center,
and has been a Yale medical
faculty member since 1968.
During these years, he has
concentrated his career on
promoting a focus on child
development as a way of
improving schools. His efforts in
support of healthy development of
young people are known
internationally.
Dr. Comer, perhaps, is best known
for the founding of the Comer
School Development Program in
1968, which promotes the
collaboration of parents,
educators, and community to
improve social, emotional, and
academic outcomes for children
that, in turn, helps them achieve
greater school success. His
concept of teamwork has
improved the educational
environment in more than 500
schools throughout America.
A prolific writer, Dr. Comer has
authored nine books, including
Beyond Black and White, 1972;
Black Child Care, (with Dr. Alvin F.
Poussaint), 1975; paperback
revision, Raising Black Children,
1992; School Power: Implications
of an Intervention Project, 1980;
the autobiographical Maggie's
American Dream: The Life and
Times of a Black Family, 1988;
Rallying the Whole Village, (edited
with Dr. Michael Ben-Avie, Dr.
Norris M. Haynes, and Dr. Edward
T. Joyner), 1996; Waiting for a
Miracle: Why Schools Can't Solve
Our Problems, And How We Can,
1997; Child by Child, (edited with
Dr. Michael Ben-Avie, Dr. Norris
M. Haynes, and Dr. Edward T.
Joyner) 1999; The Field Guide to
Comer Schools in Action, (edited
with Dr. Edward T. Joyner and Dr.
Michael Ben-Avie), 2004; and
Leave No Child Behind: Preparing
Today's Youth for Tomorrow's
World, 2004. Between 1978 and
1994, Dr. Comer wrote more than
150 articles for Parents Magazine
and more than 300 syndicated
articles on children's health and
development and race relations.
In addition to his writing, teaching
and research activities, Dr. Comer
has served as a consultant to the
Children's Television Workshop,
which produces Sesame Street
and The Electric Company. He
was a consultant to the Public
Committee on Mental Health
chaired by Rosalyn Carter as well
as a member of the National
Board for Professional Teaching
Standards, and Carnegie Forum
on Education and the Economy
(1987-1991). Since 1994, Dr.
Comer has served as a member of
the National Commission on
Teaching and America's Future.
He is a member of the Institute of
Medicine and the American
Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS). He has
provided testimony before state
and congressional legislative
bodies.
He chaired the Roundtable on
Child and Adolescent
Development Research and
Teacher Education, organized by
the National Association for the
Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE) and the
National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development (NICHD).
He also co-chaired the national
expert panel of the NCATE
Initiative on Increasing the
Application of Developmental
Sciences Knowledge in Educator
Preparation. The NCATE report,
"The Road Less Traveled: How
the Developmental Sciences Can
Prepare Educators to Improve
Student Achievement: Policy
Recommendations," is based on
the work of the three-year period
of the second expert panel.
He served on the Association for
Supervision and Curriculum
Development's Commission on the
Whole Child and contributed to
the 2007 report, "The Learning
Compact Redefined: A Call to
Action: A Report of the
Commission on the Whole Child."
Since 1971, Dr. Comer has served
as Director or Trustee of the
following Boards: the Nellie Mae
Education Foundation
(2003-present); Wesleyan
University, Middletown, CT
(1978-1984); Albertus Magnus
College, New Haven, CT
(1989-2000); Teachers College,
Columbia University, New York, NY
(1999-present); the Hazen
Foundation, New Haven, CT
(1974-1978); the Field
Foundation, New York, NY
(1981-1988); the Carnegie
Corporation of New York, New
York, NY (1990-1994);
Connecticut Savings Bank
(1971-1991); the Connecticut
Energy Corporation, Bridgeport,
CT (1976-2000); and the National
Academy Foundation, New York,
NY (1993-1998).
For his work and his scholarship,
Dr. Comer has been awarded 47
honorary degrees and has been
recognized by many organizations.
In 2007 he received the University
of Louisville Grawemeyer Award
for Education. In 2004, he
received the John P. McGovern
Behavioral Science Award from
the Smithsonian. In 2006 he
received the John Hope Franklin
Award, given to those who have
demonstrated the highest
commitment to access and
excellence in American education.
In 1996, he won both the
prestigious Heinz Award in the
Human Condition for his profound
influence on disadvantaged
children, and the Healthtrac
Foundation Prize (renamed the
James F. And Sarah T. Fries
Foundation).
Other honors include the Charles
A. Dana Award for Pioneering
Achievement in Education, 1991;
the James Bryant Conant Award,
presented by the Education
Commission of the States, 1991;
the Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in
Education given by McGraw-Hill,
Inc., 1990; a Special Presidential
Commendation from the American
Psychiatric Association, 1990; the
Rockefeller Public Service Award,
1980; and the John and Mary
Markel Foundation Scholar Award
in Academic Medicine, 1969-1974.
In 1993, Bill Cosby served as the
Master of Ceremonies for the 25th
Anniversary Celebration of the
School Development Program. In
1998, Hillary Rodham Clinton
spoke at the Program's 30th
Anniversary Symposium.
A native of East Chicago, IN, Dr.
Comer received an A.B. degree in
1956 from Indiana University, an
M.D. degree in 1960 from Howard
University College of Medicine,
and an M.P.H. in 1964 from the
University of Michigan School of
Public Health. Between 1964 and
1967, he trained in psychiatry at
the Yale University School of
Medicine and its Child Study
Center. He also completed one
year of residency training at the
Hillcrest Children's Center in
Washington, D.C.
Recent Publications
* Comer, J.P. (2009).
What I Learned in School:
Reflections on Race, Child
Development and School
Reform. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass
* Comer, J.P. (2009).
From There to Here.
Those Who Dared: Five
Visionaries who Changed
American Education. Carl
Glickman, editor. New
York: Teachers College
Press. 49-80.
* Comer, J.P. (2004).
Leave No Child Behind:
Preparing Today's Youth
for Tomorrow's World.
Connecticut: Yale
University Press.
(Excerpted in Yale
Medicine (Spring 2005):
24-29 and Yale Alumni
Magazine
(September/October
2004): 20-23.)
* Comer, J.P., Joyner,
E.T., and Ben-Avie, M.
(editors), (2004). The
Field Guide to Comer
Schools in Action.
California: Corwin Press.
* Comer, J.P. (1997).
Waiting for a Miracle: Why
Schools Can't Solve Our
Problems and How We
Can. New York: E.P.
Dutton & Co.
* Comer, J.P., Haynes,
N.M., Joyner, E.T. and
Ben-Avie, M. (editors),
(1999). Child by Child:
The Comer Process for
Change in Education. New
York: Teachers College
Press.
* Comer, J.P., Haynes,
N.M., Joyner, E.T. and
Ben-Avie, M. (editors).
(1996). Rallying the
Whole Village: The Comer
Process for Reforming
Education. New York:
Teachers College Press.
* Comer, J.P. (1980,
1993). School Power:
Implications of an
Intervention Project. New
York: The Free Press.
* Comer, J.P. (2009).
What I Learned in School:
Reflections on Race, Child
Development and School
Reform. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass
* Comer, J.P. (2009).
From There to Here.
Those Who Dared: Five
Visionaries who Changed
American Education. Carl
Glickman, editor. New
York: Teachers College
Press. 49-80.
* Comer, J.P. (2004).
Leave No Child Behind:
Preparing Today's Youth
for Tomorrow's World.
Connecticut: Yale
University Press.
(Excerpted in Yale
Medicine (Spring 2005):
24-29 and Yale Alumni
Magazine
(September/October
2004): 20-23.)
* Comer, J.P., Joyner,
E.T., and Ben-Avie, M.
(editors), (2004). The
Field Guide to Comer
Schools in Action.
California: Corwin Press.
* Comer, J.P. (1997).
Waiting for a Miracle: Why
Schools Can't Solve Our
Problems and How We
Can. New York: E.P.
Dutton & Co.
* Comer, J.P., Haynes,
N.M., Joyner, E.T. and
Ben-Avie, M. (editors),
(1999). Child by Child:
The Comer Process for
Change in Education. New
York: Teachers College
Press.
* Comer, J.P., Haynes,
N.M., Joyner, E.T. and
Ben-Avie, M. (editors).
(1996). Rallying the
Whole Village: The Comer
Process for Reforming
Education. New York:
Teachers College Press.
* Comer, J.P. (1980,
1993). School Power:
Implications of an
Intervention Project. New
York: The Free Press.
Dr. James Comer:
'Leave No Child Behind'
November 9, 2004
The Tavis Smiley Show
NPR
Noted child psychiatrist Dr.
James Comer is among those
trying to address the needs of
students who are underachieving
in the U.S. public school system.
He is the creator of the
35-year-old School Development
Program, which uses an
integrated approach to learning
that relies on alliances among
parents, educators, policy
makers and community members
to strengthen the educational
environment. Comer also
teaches at Yale University's Child
Study Center and is associate
dean at the Yale School of
Medicine. He joins NPR's Tavis
Smiley to discuss the state of
public education in America and
his latest book Leave No Child
Behind: Preparing Today's Youth
for Tomorrow's World.
'Leave No Child Behind'
November 9, 2004
The Tavis Smiley Show
NPR
Noted child psychiatrist Dr.
James Comer is among those
trying to address the needs of
students who are underachieving
in the U.S. public school system.
He is the creator of the
35-year-old School Development
Program, which uses an
integrated approach to learning
that relies on alliances among
parents, educators, policy
makers and community members
to strengthen the educational
environment. Comer also
teaches at Yale University's Child
Study Center and is associate
dean at the Yale School of
Medicine. He joins NPR's Tavis
Smiley to discuss the state of
public education in America and
his latest book Leave No Child
Behind: Preparing Today's Youth
for Tomorrow's World.
Ecological Systems Theory... is strikingly similar
to the social networks approach of James Comer who was the
first to put forward a model for school reform, the School
Development Program, and upon which nearly every school
reform model to follow is built or is influenced by.
Comer describes how children are nurtured in nested environments as
depicted by a series of platforms of increasing size[4], the lowest and
largest of which represents supporting institutional policies. The next
level up is the secondary social network of schools, workplaces, and
organizations providing access to recreational activities and needed
health and social services. The second level from the top is the primary
social network which consists of religious centers and clubs, neighbors,
friends and relatives, and the immediate family or primary caregivers. At
the top and center of this system is innermost environment of the child
which ostensibly plays as profound a role in development as anything
external to the body. The inner environment of the child is
conspicuously missing from Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems
Theory and perhaps illustrates the point that Bronfenbrenner's work
focuses not directly on the child but on how aspects of the much
broader macrosystem directly impinge on what Comer calls the
primary social network of the child...
from Wikipedia
to the social networks approach of James Comer who was the
first to put forward a model for school reform, the School
Development Program, and upon which nearly every school
reform model to follow is built or is influenced by.
Comer describes how children are nurtured in nested environments as
depicted by a series of platforms of increasing size[4], the lowest and
largest of which represents supporting institutional policies. The next
level up is the secondary social network of schools, workplaces, and
organizations providing access to recreational activities and needed
health and social services. The second level from the top is the primary
social network which consists of religious centers and clubs, neighbors,
friends and relatives, and the immediate family or primary caregivers. At
the top and center of this system is innermost environment of the child
which ostensibly plays as profound a role in development as anything
external to the body. The inner environment of the child is
conspicuously missing from Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems
Theory and perhaps illustrates the point that Bronfenbrenner's work
focuses not directly on the child but on how aspects of the much
broader macrosystem directly impinge on what Comer calls the
primary social network of the child...
from Wikipedia
Comer School Development Program
University of Washington
downloaded April 21, 2011
Improving the educational experience of low income students by building supportive
bonds among children, parents, and school staff
Dimensions: Empowering School Culture and Social Structure...
Abstract
The Comer School Development Program, also known as the Comer Process or the
Comer Model, was developed to improve the educational experience of poor ethnic
minority youth by improving school climate through a collaborative,
consensus-building, no fault approach to problem solving between parents and
school staff. The nine component process model includes three mechanisms (a
School Planning and Management Team; a Student and Staff Support Team,
formerly known as the mental health team; and a Parents' Team); three operations
(a comprehensive school plan, staff development activities, and ongoing
assessment); and three guiding principles (a no-fault attitude toward solving
problems, decision-making by consensus, and collaborative participation that does
not paralyze the principal). Initially developed by James Comer and the Child Study
Center of Yale University in 1968, the program is now being implemented in over
563 schools in 21 states. Studies of selected SDP schools in three cities (New
Haven, Benton Harbor, and Norfolk) showed significant student gains in
achievement, attendance, behavior, and overall adjustment in SDP schools. Comer
and his colleagues believe that improving school climate is the key to school
improvement.
Program History and Description
Developed in 1968 by James Comer, a child psychiatrist at the Child Study Center of
Yale University, the Comer School Development Program is based on Comer's
belief that "the relationship between school and family is at the heart of a poor child's
success or lack of it" (Goldberg, 1990). In his book School Power (1980), Comer
describes the dissolution of the communal bonds that once united poor
communities and bound them to the educational institutions that served them,
resulting in the loss of adult power to influence children. Through initial empirical
work in the New Haven public schools, Comer and his colleagues developed a
process to reconnect schools and their communities and redistribute power in
decision-making between parents and school staff in order to improve students'
overall development and academic achievement.
The program began in two poor, predominately African American elementary
schools in New Haven, Connecticut, with low standardized test scores and high
teacher and student absenteeism. Comer and his colleagues developed an
organizational and management system based on child development issues that
would encourage teachers, administrators, and parents to collaborate to address
children's needs (Comer, Haynes, Joyner, & Ben-Avie, 1996).
The program was field-tested from 1978 to 1987 in additional schools in New Haven
and in three other school districts: Prince George's County, Maryland, Benton Harbor,
Michigan, and Norfolk, Virginia. Beginning in 1988, the dissemination phase
emphasized partnerships between teacher-training institutions and local school
districts in New Orleans, Cleveland, and San Francisco, as well as the
establishment of Regional Professional Development Centers. From 1990 until
1995 the number of participating schools in the School Development Program grew
from 70 to 563 (including 85 middle schools and 45 high schools).
Rreturn to top of page
Program Components
Primary Goals
The goal of the Comer School Development Program, also known as the Comer
Process or Comer Model, is to improve the educational experience of poor ethnic
minority youth by building supportive bonds among children, parents, and school
staff that promote a positive school climate. As Comer states it, "In every interaction
you are either building community or breaking community. The mechanisms. . . . are
secondary" (Comer et al., 1996, p. 148). To accomplish this, the model advocates a
collaborative, consensus-building, no-fault approach to problem solving
(Ramirez-Smith, 1995).
In each participating school, a planning and management group is formed
consisting of nine components: three mechanisms (a School Planning and
Management Team; a Student and Staff Support Team, formerly known as the
mental health team; and a Parents' Team); three operations (a comprehensive
school plan, staff development activities, and ongoing assessment); and three
guiding principles (a no-fault attitude toward solving problems, decision-making by
consensus, and collaborative participation that does not paralyze the principal)
(Comer et al., 1996).
Instructional Strategies and Materials
The School Development Program is not essentially a program of curriculum or
pedagogy (Payne, 1991). Each participating school determines its own instructional
strategies. The original Comer schools in New Haven, however, stressed the
achievement of basic skills through traditional methods (Ascher, 1993). In addition, a
specific social skills curriculum was developed by the Yale team, in conjunction with
New Haven teachers, to "teach inner-city students how to be effective participants in
society." The curriculum focused on teaching students to relate to others in a
mutually caring way, develop social amenities, and learn the skills necessary to deal
successfully with social institutions such as banking, the political process, and
securing employment (Comer, Haynes, & Hamilton-Lee, 1987/88, p. 196).
Participants
The program was originally developed in poor, urban, largely African American
elementary schools. Replication has included expanding the program to middle
schools and high schools, and some predominately Latino schools as well.
Staff Development
School staff interested in implementing the School Development Program were
originally trained directly by the SDP staff located at the Yale Child Study Center. Now
following a "training the trainers" model, school and district representatives are
trained in two sessions (May and February) at the SDP headquarters and expected
to go back to their home districts and conduct local training sessions with
participating schools.
Staff development activities in each participating school are based on the training
needs that stem from the Comprehensive School Plan. Some examples cited in
Comer et al. (1996) include periodic workshops for teachers and parents based on
program objectives at the building level, workshops to provide teachers with skills
"proven to be most effective in working with underdeveloped student populations,"
and integrating academic, arts, social, and extracurricular activities into a unified
curriculum (p. 14).
Click here to return to top of page
Program Success
Student Achievement
Studies in New Haven, Benton Harbor, and Norfolk in which students in SDP
schools were compared to students in matched non-SDP schools on achievement,
attendance, behavior, self-concept, perceptions of school and classroom climate,
and social competence showed significant student gains in achievement,
attendance, behavior, and overall adjustment in SDP schools (Haynes & Comer,
1990; Haynes, Comer, & Hamilton-Lee, 1989a, 1989b).
A six-year longitudinal plan to monitor the implementation of the School
Development Program in three districts (District #13 in New York City, Washington,
D.C., and New Haven) was begun in 1994.
Program Attributes
Comer and his colleagues believe that improving school climate is the key to school
improvement. The School Development Program's guiding principles of consensus,
collaboration, and no-fault allow local expertise to emerge, encourage local
variations in implementation, and provide school staff and parents with practical
experience in modeling community building.
Qualitative analyses of 130 interviews of parents, students, teachers, and principals
from 10 SDP schools indicate: a) improved parental and community involvement, b)
positive climate, c) increased team work, d) greater focus on child centered issues,
and e) greater top-down and bottom-up management.
Additional Benefits
Although focused on revitalizing schools, Comer's vision includes making poor
communities once again "so cohesive and their fabric, the people, so tightly
interwoven in mutual respect and concern that, even in the face of the potentially
deleterious effects of poverty, their integrity and strength are maintained" (Haynes &
Comer, 1990, p. 108-109). There is some indication that the School Development
Program may also have a positive effect on the surrounding community of some
participating schools. Comer et al. (1996) report that some parents involved in the
school governance team and volunteer activities in certain SDP schools were
motivated to go back to school to obtain their high school equivalency diplomas or
pursue meaningful work. Others went to college and obtained graduate degrees.
Comer reports that teachers in some participating schools also expressed
increased feelings of efficacy and satisfaction with their work.
Return to top of page
Program Replication
In 1990 the Rockefeller Foundation granted a five-year, $15 million grant to aid
national replication (Payne, 1991). Originally, any interested school could implement
the model with technical assistance. In 1996, in response to research evidence,
schools could not implement the full model without school district office support and
the involvement of several schools in the same district (Comer et al., 1996).
The replication model includes the following phases:
1) Pre-orientation Phase: School personnel become acquainted with the model and
decide if it will be implemented and who will be the major participants.
2) Orientation Phase: Initial training of school personnel and parents and the
establishment of a governing board.
3) Transition Phase: Goals and objectives are established by the governance board
with input from all participants. Plans are made for parent involvement and staff
development.
4) Operation Phase: Plans are implemented for parent activities and staff
development.
5) Institutionalization Phase: Outcomes are evaluated in terms of parent participation
and student outcomes. (Ben-Avi, personal communication, 1996).
Return to top of page
References
Ascher, C. (1993). Changing schools for urban students: The School Development
Program, Accelerated Schools, and Success for All. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Urban Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED355313).
Comer, J. P., Haynes, N. M., Joyner, E. T., & Ben-Avie, M. (1996). Rallying the whole
village: The Comer process for reforming education. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Comer, J. P., Haynes, N. M., & Hamilton-Lee, M. (1987/88). School power: A model
for improving black achievement. The Urban League Review, 111&2), 187-200.
Comer, J. P. (1980). School power: Implications of an intervention project. London:
Free Press.
Goldberg, M. F. (September 1990). Portrait of James P. Comer. Educational
Leadership, 48(1), 40-42.
Haynes, N. M., & Comer, J. P. (1990). Helping black children succeed: The
significance of some social factors. In K. Lomotey (Ed.), Going to school: The
African-American experience. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Haynes, N.M., Comer, J. P., & Hamilton-Lee, M. (1989a). The effects of parental
involvement on student performance. Educational and Psychological Research, 8(4),
291-299.
Haynes, N. M., Comer, J. P., & Hamilton-Lee, M. (1989b). School climate
enhancement through parental involvement.
Journal of School Psychology, 27, 87-90.
Payne, C. (1991). The Comer intervention model and school reform in Chicago:
Implications of two models of change. Urban Education, 26(1), 8-24.
Ramirez-Smith, C. (February 1995). Stopping the cycle of failure: The Comer model.
Educational Leadership, 52(5), 14-19.
* * *
Edward T. Joyner, Ed.D.
Executive Director
Comer School Development Program
Yale Child Study Center
New Haven, Connecticut.
Contact Information:
Beverly Crowther
Comer School Development Program
55 College Street
New Haven, CT 06510
Phone: (203) 737-1020
FAX: (203) 737-1023
E-mail: beverly.crowther@yale.edu
The School Development Program has developed a series of how-to videotapes
entitled For Children's Sake: The Comer School Development Program and an
accompanying manual. They also publish a quarterly newsletter, the SDP Newsline.
University of Washington
downloaded April 21, 2011
Improving the educational experience of low income students by building supportive
bonds among children, parents, and school staff
Dimensions: Empowering School Culture and Social Structure...
Abstract
The Comer School Development Program, also known as the Comer Process or the
Comer Model, was developed to improve the educational experience of poor ethnic
minority youth by improving school climate through a collaborative,
consensus-building, no fault approach to problem solving between parents and
school staff. The nine component process model includes three mechanisms (a
School Planning and Management Team; a Student and Staff Support Team,
formerly known as the mental health team; and a Parents' Team); three operations
(a comprehensive school plan, staff development activities, and ongoing
assessment); and three guiding principles (a no-fault attitude toward solving
problems, decision-making by consensus, and collaborative participation that does
not paralyze the principal). Initially developed by James Comer and the Child Study
Center of Yale University in 1968, the program is now being implemented in over
563 schools in 21 states. Studies of selected SDP schools in three cities (New
Haven, Benton Harbor, and Norfolk) showed significant student gains in
achievement, attendance, behavior, and overall adjustment in SDP schools. Comer
and his colleagues believe that improving school climate is the key to school
improvement.
Program History and Description
Developed in 1968 by James Comer, a child psychiatrist at the Child Study Center of
Yale University, the Comer School Development Program is based on Comer's
belief that "the relationship between school and family is at the heart of a poor child's
success or lack of it" (Goldberg, 1990). In his book School Power (1980), Comer
describes the dissolution of the communal bonds that once united poor
communities and bound them to the educational institutions that served them,
resulting in the loss of adult power to influence children. Through initial empirical
work in the New Haven public schools, Comer and his colleagues developed a
process to reconnect schools and their communities and redistribute power in
decision-making between parents and school staff in order to improve students'
overall development and academic achievement.
The program began in two poor, predominately African American elementary
schools in New Haven, Connecticut, with low standardized test scores and high
teacher and student absenteeism. Comer and his colleagues developed an
organizational and management system based on child development issues that
would encourage teachers, administrators, and parents to collaborate to address
children's needs (Comer, Haynes, Joyner, & Ben-Avie, 1996).
The program was field-tested from 1978 to 1987 in additional schools in New Haven
and in three other school districts: Prince George's County, Maryland, Benton Harbor,
Michigan, and Norfolk, Virginia. Beginning in 1988, the dissemination phase
emphasized partnerships between teacher-training institutions and local school
districts in New Orleans, Cleveland, and San Francisco, as well as the
establishment of Regional Professional Development Centers. From 1990 until
1995 the number of participating schools in the School Development Program grew
from 70 to 563 (including 85 middle schools and 45 high schools).
Rreturn to top of page
Program Components
Primary Goals
The goal of the Comer School Development Program, also known as the Comer
Process or Comer Model, is to improve the educational experience of poor ethnic
minority youth by building supportive bonds among children, parents, and school
staff that promote a positive school climate. As Comer states it, "In every interaction
you are either building community or breaking community. The mechanisms. . . . are
secondary" (Comer et al., 1996, p. 148). To accomplish this, the model advocates a
collaborative, consensus-building, no-fault approach to problem solving
(Ramirez-Smith, 1995).
In each participating school, a planning and management group is formed
consisting of nine components: three mechanisms (a School Planning and
Management Team; a Student and Staff Support Team, formerly known as the
mental health team; and a Parents' Team); three operations (a comprehensive
school plan, staff development activities, and ongoing assessment); and three
guiding principles (a no-fault attitude toward solving problems, decision-making by
consensus, and collaborative participation that does not paralyze the principal)
(Comer et al., 1996).
Instructional Strategies and Materials
The School Development Program is not essentially a program of curriculum or
pedagogy (Payne, 1991). Each participating school determines its own instructional
strategies. The original Comer schools in New Haven, however, stressed the
achievement of basic skills through traditional methods (Ascher, 1993). In addition, a
specific social skills curriculum was developed by the Yale team, in conjunction with
New Haven teachers, to "teach inner-city students how to be effective participants in
society." The curriculum focused on teaching students to relate to others in a
mutually caring way, develop social amenities, and learn the skills necessary to deal
successfully with social institutions such as banking, the political process, and
securing employment (Comer, Haynes, & Hamilton-Lee, 1987/88, p. 196).
Participants
The program was originally developed in poor, urban, largely African American
elementary schools. Replication has included expanding the program to middle
schools and high schools, and some predominately Latino schools as well.
Staff Development
School staff interested in implementing the School Development Program were
originally trained directly by the SDP staff located at the Yale Child Study Center. Now
following a "training the trainers" model, school and district representatives are
trained in two sessions (May and February) at the SDP headquarters and expected
to go back to their home districts and conduct local training sessions with
participating schools.
Staff development activities in each participating school are based on the training
needs that stem from the Comprehensive School Plan. Some examples cited in
Comer et al. (1996) include periodic workshops for teachers and parents based on
program objectives at the building level, workshops to provide teachers with skills
"proven to be most effective in working with underdeveloped student populations,"
and integrating academic, arts, social, and extracurricular activities into a unified
curriculum (p. 14).
Click here to return to top of page
Program Success
Student Achievement
Studies in New Haven, Benton Harbor, and Norfolk in which students in SDP
schools were compared to students in matched non-SDP schools on achievement,
attendance, behavior, self-concept, perceptions of school and classroom climate,
and social competence showed significant student gains in achievement,
attendance, behavior, and overall adjustment in SDP schools (Haynes & Comer,
1990; Haynes, Comer, & Hamilton-Lee, 1989a, 1989b).
A six-year longitudinal plan to monitor the implementation of the School
Development Program in three districts (District #13 in New York City, Washington,
D.C., and New Haven) was begun in 1994.
Program Attributes
Comer and his colleagues believe that improving school climate is the key to school
improvement. The School Development Program's guiding principles of consensus,
collaboration, and no-fault allow local expertise to emerge, encourage local
variations in implementation, and provide school staff and parents with practical
experience in modeling community building.
Qualitative analyses of 130 interviews of parents, students, teachers, and principals
from 10 SDP schools indicate: a) improved parental and community involvement, b)
positive climate, c) increased team work, d) greater focus on child centered issues,
and e) greater top-down and bottom-up management.
Additional Benefits
Although focused on revitalizing schools, Comer's vision includes making poor
communities once again "so cohesive and their fabric, the people, so tightly
interwoven in mutual respect and concern that, even in the face of the potentially
deleterious effects of poverty, their integrity and strength are maintained" (Haynes &
Comer, 1990, p. 108-109). There is some indication that the School Development
Program may also have a positive effect on the surrounding community of some
participating schools. Comer et al. (1996) report that some parents involved in the
school governance team and volunteer activities in certain SDP schools were
motivated to go back to school to obtain their high school equivalency diplomas or
pursue meaningful work. Others went to college and obtained graduate degrees.
Comer reports that teachers in some participating schools also expressed
increased feelings of efficacy and satisfaction with their work.
Return to top of page
Program Replication
In 1990 the Rockefeller Foundation granted a five-year, $15 million grant to aid
national replication (Payne, 1991). Originally, any interested school could implement
the model with technical assistance. In 1996, in response to research evidence,
schools could not implement the full model without school district office support and
the involvement of several schools in the same district (Comer et al., 1996).
The replication model includes the following phases:
1) Pre-orientation Phase: School personnel become acquainted with the model and
decide if it will be implemented and who will be the major participants.
2) Orientation Phase: Initial training of school personnel and parents and the
establishment of a governing board.
3) Transition Phase: Goals and objectives are established by the governance board
with input from all participants. Plans are made for parent involvement and staff
development.
4) Operation Phase: Plans are implemented for parent activities and staff
development.
5) Institutionalization Phase: Outcomes are evaluated in terms of parent participation
and student outcomes. (Ben-Avi, personal communication, 1996).
Return to top of page
References
Ascher, C. (1993). Changing schools for urban students: The School Development
Program, Accelerated Schools, and Success for All. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Urban Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED355313).
Comer, J. P., Haynes, N. M., Joyner, E. T., & Ben-Avie, M. (1996). Rallying the whole
village: The Comer process for reforming education. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Comer, J. P., Haynes, N. M., & Hamilton-Lee, M. (1987/88). School power: A model
for improving black achievement. The Urban League Review, 111&2), 187-200.
Comer, J. P. (1980). School power: Implications of an intervention project. London:
Free Press.
Goldberg, M. F. (September 1990). Portrait of James P. Comer. Educational
Leadership, 48(1), 40-42.
Haynes, N. M., & Comer, J. P. (1990). Helping black children succeed: The
significance of some social factors. In K. Lomotey (Ed.), Going to school: The
African-American experience. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Haynes, N.M., Comer, J. P., & Hamilton-Lee, M. (1989a). The effects of parental
involvement on student performance. Educational and Psychological Research, 8(4),
291-299.
Haynes, N. M., Comer, J. P., & Hamilton-Lee, M. (1989b). School climate
enhancement through parental involvement.
Journal of School Psychology, 27, 87-90.
Payne, C. (1991). The Comer intervention model and school reform in Chicago:
Implications of two models of change. Urban Education, 26(1), 8-24.
Ramirez-Smith, C. (February 1995). Stopping the cycle of failure: The Comer model.
Educational Leadership, 52(5), 14-19.
* * *
Edward T. Joyner, Ed.D.
Executive Director
Comer School Development Program
Yale Child Study Center
New Haven, Connecticut.
Contact Information:
Beverly Crowther
Comer School Development Program
55 College Street
New Haven, CT 06510
Phone: (203) 737-1020
FAX: (203) 737-1023
E-mail: beverly.crowther@yale.edu
The School Development Program has developed a series of how-to videotapes
entitled For Children's Sake: The Comer School Development Program and an
accompanying manual. They also publish a quarterly newsletter, the SDP Newsline.
"This approach is still being replicated, and where the
implementation is sound the outcomes are good."
--James P. Comer
"Where the implementation is sound" is a caveat big enough to drive an
truck through, or, as in the case of Castle Park Elementary in Chula Vista,
big enough to drive an entire school into chaos. In 2001 the Comer
Program sent a representative, Roger Cunningham, to Castle Park
Elementary. Cunningham worked vigorously to undermine teachers who
were trying to implement the principles the Comer Program uses to sell
itself to schools. The events that ensued proved that Comer's
much-vaunted principles are not supported by the people at Yale who
collect large sums of money from schools for training and implementation
of the Comer Program (see emails in sidebar).
implementation is sound the outcomes are good."
--James P. Comer
"Where the implementation is sound" is a caveat big enough to drive an
truck through, or, as in the case of Castle Park Elementary in Chula Vista,
big enough to drive an entire school into chaos. In 2001 the Comer
Program sent a representative, Roger Cunningham, to Castle Park
Elementary. Cunningham worked vigorously to undermine teachers who
were trying to implement the principles the Comer Program uses to sell
itself to schools. The events that ensued proved that Comer's
much-vaunted principles are not supported by the people at Yale who
collect large sums of money from schools for training and implementation
of the Comer Program (see emails in sidebar).
Update: The Comer
Program was not at all
interested in Castle
Park Elementary, and
did no follow-up.
Program was not at all
interested in Castle
Park Elementary, and
did no follow-up.
The Place of Education
A Response to Can Working Families Ever Win?
James P. Comer
Boston Review
Jody Heymann addresses a challenge facing America that is as important
as "Homeland Security," but is less apparent and draws much less
attention. The more subtle nature of the problem certainly makes it as
dangerous. As she points out, the fabric and future of American society is
threatened by the prospect that a growing number of Americans are not
able to experience the American Dream.
The belief that if one works hard and plays by the rules, one will have a
reasonable chance of succeeding as a child and an adult (the American
Dream) is a central organizing and motivating force in our society. This,
and a growing respect for founding ideals and the rule of law has moved
our society from acts of genocide and slavery, as well as the oppression
of immigrants, women, and children, to the point of becoming the most
powerful force for humane living in the world, perhaps in the history of the
world. But changes in the nature of the economy have weakened the
family in a way that makes it difficult for too many to rear their children
well. If we do not reverse these tendencies, our quality of life will decline—
slowly at first, and then precipitously, as many more in generation after
generation are excluded from the dream.1
Throughout human history, children have grown up in close proximity to
their families and a primary social network of friends, kin and communal
organizations (the village) in which they felt a sense of belonging.
Children and parents were able to form powerful emotional attachments
and bonds.2
Living conditions were often poor, but one head of family, without an
education, could usually provide a reasonable living for his or her
dependents; and the other could usually provide home and community
support for child and youth development.
Children were able to identify with, imitate and internalize the attitudes,
values, and ways of their parents and other members of their network.
The adults in the network were able to help them grow along the critical
developmental pathways (socio-interactive, psycho-emotional, ethical,
linguistic, cognitive-intellectual). In these powerful relationship settings,
most children were able to establish habits, beliefs, and behaviors that
enabled them to become successful as youngsters and as adults, and
this promoted desirable social functioning.
But the relentless, 150-year march from an agricultural economy through
an industrial to a science- and technology-based economy has not only
pulled both parents into the workforce, it has also removed "the village"
that once helped parents rear their children.3
Despite the speed and magnitude of this change, the needs of children
remain the same as in antiquity—they require protection and support for
development. Importantly, they now need a higher level of development in
order to get the level of education required to be able to function well in
this complex age. The sad fact, however, is that the developmental
support many currently receive would be inadequate in any society.
Because of modern communication technologies, children receive an
enormous amount of information. For the first time in the history of the
world, information goes directly to children without a chance for censor or
censure on the part of responsible adults. There are too few people
available to help young people examine the information and to encourage
an appropriate response. Because of high mobility, many of the adults in
their lives—teachers, police, doctors, and other service providers—are
essentially strangers. And again, often the only parent or both parents
are in the workforce and busy. All of this creates burdensome and
disorganizing levels of stress, which is a major cause of divorce and the
creation of single-parent families. For these and other reasons, many
parents are not able to provide their families with the quality and level of
care necessary for adequate development today.
Our society has been slow to recognize the effects of change and the
range of services needed to reduce the stress on families and to make it
possible for them to rear their children well in today's world. Instead, we
blame families for not adequately performing their child rearing tasks.
Family and child advocates call for more and better child care options for
working parents and better education for children. Both are very much
needed, but not sufficient. Moreover, traditional education cannot do the
job of parenting. And fragmented social services, without a context of
meaningful relationships, can't provide children with the experiences that
will enable them to become successful as youngsters and as adults.
Traditional education has put the cart before the horse. It focuses on
curriculum, instruction, assessment, and technology first, and child and
youth development second, if at all. Many of our school problems stem
from the fact that many of our children are underdeveloped and therefore
unprepared for academic learning. Most school staff are not prepared to
help them grow. This leads to staff and student underachievement and
failure. Generally, school systems have not taken responsibility for the
earliest years of childhood, now shown to be very important in providing
the platform for later learning.
Nonetheless, the school is the only institution in our society positioned to
reduce family stress and to provide the essential elements of the
traditional "village." All children go to school. The mission is highly
positive. There are more adults available in schools who can offer
children positive growth-producing interaction than anyplace else. Also,
the school can provide a context in which other service providers—
health, recreation, and community organizations (arts, athletics, other
opportunities for positive self-expression)—can engage with young
people in a coordinated, purposeful, and sustained way.
Brought together to support social development and maturity, the
programs of a range of service providers could be designed to help
students acquire the critical capacities once provided almost exclusively
in family networks. But to do so, our education system needs a
perspective oriented to child and youth development from birth through
sixteen years of schooling. This will require changes in the theory and
practice of public education, in graduate schools of education, and
among policy and opinion makers. All must understand how to put the
horse before the cart: development before curriculum, instruction,
assessment, and technology. When educators take on the role of helping
young people grow and function rather than merely trying to transmit
information, student resistance and struggle will diminish.
In 1968, our Yale Child Study Center School Development Program went
into two inner-city elementary schools in New Haven. The students were
almost all black and from families under severe economic and social
stress. They were thirty-second and thirty-third in academic achievement,
and had the worst attendance and behavior in the city. By applying the
principles of the behavioral and social sciences to every aspect of the
school program, we helped parents and staff recreate "the village" in
school in a way that actively encouraged student development. Good
teaching and learning became possible. The students eventually
achieved the third and fourth highest ranks in academic achievement
(putting the school on par with those in wealthier neighborhoods), and
produced the best attendance record in the city, with no serious behavior
problems.4
This approach is still being replicated, and where the implementation
is sound the outcomes are good. In 2000, a similar school in Detroit,
using the SDP focus on development, achieved the highest scores in
Michigan on state-wide tests for fourth graders.5
But the experiences they received that helped them grow and prepared
them for life are probably more important. We are now working with
school districts, schools of education, policy and opinion leaders. It is our
hope that these efforts will ignite a national movement to put the focus in
schools on development, and thus prepare students for the challenges of
modern life.
In short, rapid scientific and technological change weakened the vital
infrastructure for development, teaching and learning, and preparation
for life. But with policies and programs geared to restore the essential
elements of this infrastructure, we may be able to recreate the social
fabric of the "village," and offer a generation of children a real chance at
realizing the American dream. <
James P. Comer is Maurice Falk Professor of Child Psychiatry at the Yale
University Child Study Center. He founded the Center's School
Development Program in 1968.
A Response to Can Working Families Ever Win?
James P. Comer
Boston Review
Jody Heymann addresses a challenge facing America that is as important
as "Homeland Security," but is less apparent and draws much less
attention. The more subtle nature of the problem certainly makes it as
dangerous. As she points out, the fabric and future of American society is
threatened by the prospect that a growing number of Americans are not
able to experience the American Dream.
The belief that if one works hard and plays by the rules, one will have a
reasonable chance of succeeding as a child and an adult (the American
Dream) is a central organizing and motivating force in our society. This,
and a growing respect for founding ideals and the rule of law has moved
our society from acts of genocide and slavery, as well as the oppression
of immigrants, women, and children, to the point of becoming the most
powerful force for humane living in the world, perhaps in the history of the
world. But changes in the nature of the economy have weakened the
family in a way that makes it difficult for too many to rear their children
well. If we do not reverse these tendencies, our quality of life will decline—
slowly at first, and then precipitously, as many more in generation after
generation are excluded from the dream.1
Throughout human history, children have grown up in close proximity to
their families and a primary social network of friends, kin and communal
organizations (the village) in which they felt a sense of belonging.
Children and parents were able to form powerful emotional attachments
and bonds.2
Living conditions were often poor, but one head of family, without an
education, could usually provide a reasonable living for his or her
dependents; and the other could usually provide home and community
support for child and youth development.
Children were able to identify with, imitate and internalize the attitudes,
values, and ways of their parents and other members of their network.
The adults in the network were able to help them grow along the critical
developmental pathways (socio-interactive, psycho-emotional, ethical,
linguistic, cognitive-intellectual). In these powerful relationship settings,
most children were able to establish habits, beliefs, and behaviors that
enabled them to become successful as youngsters and as adults, and
this promoted desirable social functioning.
But the relentless, 150-year march from an agricultural economy through
an industrial to a science- and technology-based economy has not only
pulled both parents into the workforce, it has also removed "the village"
that once helped parents rear their children.3
Despite the speed and magnitude of this change, the needs of children
remain the same as in antiquity—they require protection and support for
development. Importantly, they now need a higher level of development in
order to get the level of education required to be able to function well in
this complex age. The sad fact, however, is that the developmental
support many currently receive would be inadequate in any society.
Because of modern communication technologies, children receive an
enormous amount of information. For the first time in the history of the
world, information goes directly to children without a chance for censor or
censure on the part of responsible adults. There are too few people
available to help young people examine the information and to encourage
an appropriate response. Because of high mobility, many of the adults in
their lives—teachers, police, doctors, and other service providers—are
essentially strangers. And again, often the only parent or both parents
are in the workforce and busy. All of this creates burdensome and
disorganizing levels of stress, which is a major cause of divorce and the
creation of single-parent families. For these and other reasons, many
parents are not able to provide their families with the quality and level of
care necessary for adequate development today.
Our society has been slow to recognize the effects of change and the
range of services needed to reduce the stress on families and to make it
possible for them to rear their children well in today's world. Instead, we
blame families for not adequately performing their child rearing tasks.
Family and child advocates call for more and better child care options for
working parents and better education for children. Both are very much
needed, but not sufficient. Moreover, traditional education cannot do the
job of parenting. And fragmented social services, without a context of
meaningful relationships, can't provide children with the experiences that
will enable them to become successful as youngsters and as adults.
Traditional education has put the cart before the horse. It focuses on
curriculum, instruction, assessment, and technology first, and child and
youth development second, if at all. Many of our school problems stem
from the fact that many of our children are underdeveloped and therefore
unprepared for academic learning. Most school staff are not prepared to
help them grow. This leads to staff and student underachievement and
failure. Generally, school systems have not taken responsibility for the
earliest years of childhood, now shown to be very important in providing
the platform for later learning.
Nonetheless, the school is the only institution in our society positioned to
reduce family stress and to provide the essential elements of the
traditional "village." All children go to school. The mission is highly
positive. There are more adults available in schools who can offer
children positive growth-producing interaction than anyplace else. Also,
the school can provide a context in which other service providers—
health, recreation, and community organizations (arts, athletics, other
opportunities for positive self-expression)—can engage with young
people in a coordinated, purposeful, and sustained way.
Brought together to support social development and maturity, the
programs of a range of service providers could be designed to help
students acquire the critical capacities once provided almost exclusively
in family networks. But to do so, our education system needs a
perspective oriented to child and youth development from birth through
sixteen years of schooling. This will require changes in the theory and
practice of public education, in graduate schools of education, and
among policy and opinion makers. All must understand how to put the
horse before the cart: development before curriculum, instruction,
assessment, and technology. When educators take on the role of helping
young people grow and function rather than merely trying to transmit
information, student resistance and struggle will diminish.
In 1968, our Yale Child Study Center School Development Program went
into two inner-city elementary schools in New Haven. The students were
almost all black and from families under severe economic and social
stress. They were thirty-second and thirty-third in academic achievement,
and had the worst attendance and behavior in the city. By applying the
principles of the behavioral and social sciences to every aspect of the
school program, we helped parents and staff recreate "the village" in
school in a way that actively encouraged student development. Good
teaching and learning became possible. The students eventually
achieved the third and fourth highest ranks in academic achievement
(putting the school on par with those in wealthier neighborhoods), and
produced the best attendance record in the city, with no serious behavior
problems.4
This approach is still being replicated, and where the implementation
is sound the outcomes are good. In 2000, a similar school in Detroit,
using the SDP focus on development, achieved the highest scores in
Michigan on state-wide tests for fourth graders.5
But the experiences they received that helped them grow and prepared
them for life are probably more important. We are now working with
school districts, schools of education, policy and opinion leaders. It is our
hope that these efforts will ignite a national movement to put the focus in
schools on development, and thus prepare students for the challenges of
modern life.
In short, rapid scientific and technological change weakened the vital
infrastructure for development, teaching and learning, and preparation
for life. But with policies and programs geared to restore the essential
elements of this infrastructure, we may be able to recreate the social
fabric of the "village," and offer a generation of children a real chance at
realizing the American dream. <
James P. Comer is Maurice Falk Professor of Child Psychiatry at the Yale
University Child Study Center. He founded the Center's School
Development Program in 1968.
Spring, 2005
A method to his mastery: James Comer's
enigmatic model for school success
by Nathan Glazer
Education Next
Leave No Child Behind: Preparing Today's Youth for Tomorrow's World
By James P. Comer, M.D.
Foreword by Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Yale University Press, 2004, $28.00; 327 pages.
Leave No Child Behind is the most recent and perhaps the fullest
account of Professor James Comer's approach to the improvement of
schools and education. All of the competing models for school
improvement that have been developed and in various degrees
implemented in the past few decades have distinctive features, but the
School Development Program (SDP), or the Comer process, as it is also
called, is unique: it is apparently indifferent to specifics of curriculum.
But is it after all not a distinctive approach to curriculum--traditional or
progressive, intensive or relaxed, free or prescribed, pluralistic or
monistic--that characterizes the various competitive models for
enhancing school achievement?
So how do we define or characterize the Comer process? Some years
ago, a proposed model for school achievement labeled Atlas, which
brought together the approaches of Theodore Sizer, Howard Gardner,
the Educational Development Corporation, and Comer's SDP, received
funding in a competitive process to develop the model and implement it
in various schools. It was easy enough, from their works and products,
to describe what the first three approaches were, and curriculum
loomed large in all of them. But I became perplexed when I tried to
understand the content of the Comer approach.
To enhance learning, Comer does not recommend any particular
content as much as "relationships, relationships, relationships."
"Good relationships among and between the people that
influence the quality of child life, largely home and school, make
good child and adolescent rearing and development possible.
Good relationships make student, adult, and organizational
development possible, which in turn makes a strong academic focus
possible." But note how far down the line the "academic focus" comes in
this characterization of his approach. Indeed, as Dr. Comer takes us
through his interesting and varied experiences in trying to improve
schooling and education for children who are generally at the bottom in
school achievement, we discover that, in contrast to some other models,
his does not aim at or expect any rapid improvement in achievement. I
should emphasize at the beginning that Comer is not indifferent to
achievement; it is a key objective of his emphasis on relationships and
psychological development. He knows achievement is essential to
functioning in today's society, and the book has an extensive chapter
on the ramifications of failure in school achievement for life, health, and
income. But he knows it will take a while to see any improvement in
achievement as he builds his foundation of relationships.
From Indiana to the Ivy League
Dr. Comer began working with two New Haven schools in 1968. He
came from a working-class black family in East Chicago, Indiana,
earned medical and public health degrees, worked in various settings
as a child psychiatrist, and had pondered problems of dysfunctional
child development. He leapt at the opportunity offered by Yale's Child
Study Center to go into two elementary schools in New Haven on a Ford
Foundation program. "The schools were thirty-second and thirty-third
out of thirty-three in the city on standardized achievement tests. They
had the worst attendance. The student behavior problems were
overwhelming.... The almost completely new staff brought in for the
project was in disarray from the first day; almost all were gone by the
end of the year. My first reaction was that we had to change the
environment; children could not learn and develop in that chaotic
situation." After five years, one of the schools was dropped and
replaced by another. "Eventually the two schools in our project
achieved the third and fourth highest-level mathematics and
language arts test scores and the best attendance in the city."
But it took seven years.
Building on the foundation of all he and his associates have
learned over the years--they have since worked in almost a
thousand schools--Dr. Comer writes that when they begin with a
dysfunctional school they might expect improvement in five
years. It is a rare administrator or public that is that relaxed in its
expectations.
But just what do they do during those years of building
relationships? One would like to know more than one learns
from this book, but that would undoubtedly take detailed logs of
daily actions and problems.
The Comer process begins with a committee--teachers,
administrators, parents, social agency workers, and, at the high-school
level (which Dr. Comer does not discuss in this book), students. The
committee considers ways of improving the school, and these could be
very varied indeed.
But the key, as Dr. Comer presents it, is that the members of the
committee must not find fault with any of the participants (though
there would seem to be much to find fault with), and they must
operate by consensus. One has the impression that if this
condition is not possible, the Comer group will simply withdraw.
The process does not and cannot operate with conflict.
It is very far from the Alinsky method or some other social change
processes that look for and find a mobilizing grievance against
authority. One hears little in this book about school bureaucracies and
the difficulties they create for education reformers.
Dr. Comer does not think much of some of the approaches that are
popular with many of the readers of this journal. He does not think
school choice will do much, as many believe, for poor minority children.
He does not think much of "merit-pay and high-stakes accountability, or
'reward and punishment,' to solve education problems." One could
enter into an argument with him on the basis of various studies, but Dr.
Comer would not be easily moved. His approach is clinical, and one
suspects he would be more convinced by what he sees in a school than
by a proper scientific study comparing it with others. But in the end, as I
have noted, yes, he would be in full agreement that there must be a
payoff in academic achievement, and that achievement tests show
whether there is such a payoff.
But what do they actually do in Comer process schools, aside from
providing "vital environments and good experiences"? The first
reference in this book to anything one might call a curriculum comes on
page 150, where we learn of the development of a "Social Skills
Curriculum for Inner-City Children" in 1977. "The goal was to better
prepare students to be successful in school by introducing them to
activity areas where they could learn and develop the skills needed to
be successful in life." Dr. Comer thinks highly of this curriculum, but
there are no further details. The first reference to anything that one
could call an academic curriculum comes on page 196, where Comer
describes an "Essentials of Literacy" program. The six essential
elements are "phonics, story sense, listening, guided reading,
vocabulary, and writing." The program "provides students with a safe,
nurturing, highly stimulating, and rewarding environment in which to
develop their literacy skills." It seems to stand aside from the regular
school curriculum.
The SDP has many success stories to tell, as well as cases where it had
to withdraw from the school or where administrators and principals
changed or abandoned support. The story is not very different from
other school-reform models. Its successes are based on committed and
energetic individuals and the inspiring role of Dr. Comer himself. Some
claim to be proof against individual variation and effectiveness, but that
would be far from Dr. Comer's approach. Clearly this is an interesting
man, with a program that has been attractive to many schools. One
would still like to know just what they do, and after this book this reader,
at least, is still somewhat at sea.
Nathan Glazer is a professor emeritus of education at Harvard
University and the author of, among other books, We Are All
Multiculturalists Now (Harvard University Press, 1998).
A method to his mastery: James Comer's
enigmatic model for school success
by Nathan Glazer
Education Next
Leave No Child Behind: Preparing Today's Youth for Tomorrow's World
By James P. Comer, M.D.
Foreword by Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Yale University Press, 2004, $28.00; 327 pages.
Leave No Child Behind is the most recent and perhaps the fullest
account of Professor James Comer's approach to the improvement of
schools and education. All of the competing models for school
improvement that have been developed and in various degrees
implemented in the past few decades have distinctive features, but the
School Development Program (SDP), or the Comer process, as it is also
called, is unique: it is apparently indifferent to specifics of curriculum.
But is it after all not a distinctive approach to curriculum--traditional or
progressive, intensive or relaxed, free or prescribed, pluralistic or
monistic--that characterizes the various competitive models for
enhancing school achievement?
So how do we define or characterize the Comer process? Some years
ago, a proposed model for school achievement labeled Atlas, which
brought together the approaches of Theodore Sizer, Howard Gardner,
the Educational Development Corporation, and Comer's SDP, received
funding in a competitive process to develop the model and implement it
in various schools. It was easy enough, from their works and products,
to describe what the first three approaches were, and curriculum
loomed large in all of them. But I became perplexed when I tried to
understand the content of the Comer approach.
To enhance learning, Comer does not recommend any particular
content as much as "relationships, relationships, relationships."
"Good relationships among and between the people that
influence the quality of child life, largely home and school, make
good child and adolescent rearing and development possible.
Good relationships make student, adult, and organizational
development possible, which in turn makes a strong academic focus
possible." But note how far down the line the "academic focus" comes in
this characterization of his approach. Indeed, as Dr. Comer takes us
through his interesting and varied experiences in trying to improve
schooling and education for children who are generally at the bottom in
school achievement, we discover that, in contrast to some other models,
his does not aim at or expect any rapid improvement in achievement. I
should emphasize at the beginning that Comer is not indifferent to
achievement; it is a key objective of his emphasis on relationships and
psychological development. He knows achievement is essential to
functioning in today's society, and the book has an extensive chapter
on the ramifications of failure in school achievement for life, health, and
income. But he knows it will take a while to see any improvement in
achievement as he builds his foundation of relationships.
From Indiana to the Ivy League
Dr. Comer began working with two New Haven schools in 1968. He
came from a working-class black family in East Chicago, Indiana,
earned medical and public health degrees, worked in various settings
as a child psychiatrist, and had pondered problems of dysfunctional
child development. He leapt at the opportunity offered by Yale's Child
Study Center to go into two elementary schools in New Haven on a Ford
Foundation program. "The schools were thirty-second and thirty-third
out of thirty-three in the city on standardized achievement tests. They
had the worst attendance. The student behavior problems were
overwhelming.... The almost completely new staff brought in for the
project was in disarray from the first day; almost all were gone by the
end of the year. My first reaction was that we had to change the
environment; children could not learn and develop in that chaotic
situation." After five years, one of the schools was dropped and
replaced by another. "Eventually the two schools in our project
achieved the third and fourth highest-level mathematics and
language arts test scores and the best attendance in the city."
But it took seven years.
Building on the foundation of all he and his associates have
learned over the years--they have since worked in almost a
thousand schools--Dr. Comer writes that when they begin with a
dysfunctional school they might expect improvement in five
years. It is a rare administrator or public that is that relaxed in its
expectations.
But just what do they do during those years of building
relationships? One would like to know more than one learns
from this book, but that would undoubtedly take detailed logs of
daily actions and problems.
The Comer process begins with a committee--teachers,
administrators, parents, social agency workers, and, at the high-school
level (which Dr. Comer does not discuss in this book), students. The
committee considers ways of improving the school, and these could be
very varied indeed.
But the key, as Dr. Comer presents it, is that the members of the
committee must not find fault with any of the participants (though
there would seem to be much to find fault with), and they must
operate by consensus. One has the impression that if this
condition is not possible, the Comer group will simply withdraw.
The process does not and cannot operate with conflict.
It is very far from the Alinsky method or some other social change
processes that look for and find a mobilizing grievance against
authority. One hears little in this book about school bureaucracies and
the difficulties they create for education reformers.
Dr. Comer does not think much of some of the approaches that are
popular with many of the readers of this journal. He does not think
school choice will do much, as many believe, for poor minority children.
He does not think much of "merit-pay and high-stakes accountability, or
'reward and punishment,' to solve education problems." One could
enter into an argument with him on the basis of various studies, but Dr.
Comer would not be easily moved. His approach is clinical, and one
suspects he would be more convinced by what he sees in a school than
by a proper scientific study comparing it with others. But in the end, as I
have noted, yes, he would be in full agreement that there must be a
payoff in academic achievement, and that achievement tests show
whether there is such a payoff.
But what do they actually do in Comer process schools, aside from
providing "vital environments and good experiences"? The first
reference in this book to anything one might call a curriculum comes on
page 150, where we learn of the development of a "Social Skills
Curriculum for Inner-City Children" in 1977. "The goal was to better
prepare students to be successful in school by introducing them to
activity areas where they could learn and develop the skills needed to
be successful in life." Dr. Comer thinks highly of this curriculum, but
there are no further details. The first reference to anything that one
could call an academic curriculum comes on page 196, where Comer
describes an "Essentials of Literacy" program. The six essential
elements are "phonics, story sense, listening, guided reading,
vocabulary, and writing." The program "provides students with a safe,
nurturing, highly stimulating, and rewarding environment in which to
develop their literacy skills." It seems to stand aside from the regular
school curriculum.
The SDP has many success stories to tell, as well as cases where it had
to withdraw from the school or where administrators and principals
changed or abandoned support. The story is not very different from
other school-reform models. Its successes are based on committed and
energetic individuals and the inspiring role of Dr. Comer himself. Some
claim to be proof against individual variation and effectiveness, but that
would be far from Dr. Comer's approach. Clearly this is an interesting
man, with a program that has been attractive to many schools. One
would still like to know just what they do, and after this book this reader,
at least, is still somewhat at sea.
Nathan Glazer is a professor emeritus of education at Harvard
University and the author of, among other books, We Are All
Multiculturalists Now (Harvard University Press, 1998).
Comer Schools
Funderstanding
Downloaded April 21, 2011
This is an approach to restructuring the governance and
practices of individual schools, initiated by psychologist James
Comer in the mid-1970s. This approach hinges on Comer’s theory of
how children develop and learn, and the reasons that disadvantaged,
minority children do not learn in schools.
Comer believes that children follow a developmental continuum. They
are born, totally dependent, into a family that is part of a social network
with beliefs, attitudes, activities, and lifestyles. Parents become
mediators who tell children what is important. Children gradually learn to
manage their feelings and impulses, in essence, to control themselves.
Development occurs in speech and language, cognition, intellectual and
academic understanding, and moral, psychological, and social
dimensions. To learn, children must imitate and identify with authority
figures, in other words, internalize attitudes and values by relating
emotionally to others.
When children come to school prepared to learn in that school’s style,
due to how they have fared in the developmental continuum, they are
perceived as “good.” When they do not, they are often perceived as
“bad.” For this reason, Corner attests individual schools must support
further developmental growth.
Basic Elements
When the Comer process is introduced into a school, it usually involves
the following elements:
* Changed School Governance–Parents, community members,
teachers, administrators, and school staff collaborate in making key
educational decisions.
* Creation of a Social Skills Curriculum–Schools need developmental
programs for young children who do not learn certain types of skills at
home. Typically, a social skills curriculum covers politics and
government, business and economics, health and nutrition, and spiritual
and leisure activities.
* Adoption of a Developmental Perspective Toward Children and
Their Learning–This perspective incorporates three beliefs:
1. All children are capable of learning.
2. Learning is best achieved through the collaborative participation of
all involved adults.
3. Students enter school at different points along a developmental
continuum.
The content on this page was written by On Purpose Associates.
Funderstanding
Downloaded April 21, 2011
This is an approach to restructuring the governance and
practices of individual schools, initiated by psychologist James
Comer in the mid-1970s. This approach hinges on Comer’s theory of
how children develop and learn, and the reasons that disadvantaged,
minority children do not learn in schools.
Comer believes that children follow a developmental continuum. They
are born, totally dependent, into a family that is part of a social network
with beliefs, attitudes, activities, and lifestyles. Parents become
mediators who tell children what is important. Children gradually learn to
manage their feelings and impulses, in essence, to control themselves.
Development occurs in speech and language, cognition, intellectual and
academic understanding, and moral, psychological, and social
dimensions. To learn, children must imitate and identify with authority
figures, in other words, internalize attitudes and values by relating
emotionally to others.
When children come to school prepared to learn in that school’s style,
due to how they have fared in the developmental continuum, they are
perceived as “good.” When they do not, they are often perceived as
“bad.” For this reason, Corner attests individual schools must support
further developmental growth.
Basic Elements
When the Comer process is introduced into a school, it usually involves
the following elements:
* Changed School Governance–Parents, community members,
teachers, administrators, and school staff collaborate in making key
educational decisions.
* Creation of a Social Skills Curriculum–Schools need developmental
programs for young children who do not learn certain types of skills at
home. Typically, a social skills curriculum covers politics and
government, business and economics, health and nutrition, and spiritual
and leisure activities.
* Adoption of a Developmental Perspective Toward Children and
Their Learning–This perspective incorporates three beliefs:
1. All children are capable of learning.
2. Learning is best achieved through the collaborative participation of
all involved adults.
3. Students enter school at different points along a developmental
continuum.
The content on this page was written by On Purpose Associates.
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
[Maura Larkins' note: The following article is either disingenuous or
mistaken. In fact, the Comer representative for Chula Vista
Elementary School District, Roger Cunningham, advised a principal
in February 2001 that there was no need to have any discussion
with a teacher who complained that the Comer principles were
being violated. He advised that the teacher should leave the
school. A false allegation was concocted by powerful teachers who
controlled the school, and the teacher who complained was sent
home. Later the district paid $100,000s in legal fees in a case
involving the wronged teacher. Then the district tried to transfer
some of the powerful teachers, and ended up paying even more in
legal fees. The school was deeply damaged, and now has falling
enrollment, a high suspension rate, and falling test scores. The
Comer Program seems to have been the trigger for the implosion of
this school.]
COMER SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM:::
GETTING BUY-IN
GETTING BUY-IN
by Courtenay Singer
More than half of school reform efforts fail, many as a result of poor
implementation. Without buy-in from critical actors such as teachers,
administrators and parents, any reform effort – no matter how well-
intentioned and conceived – is sunk.
Faced with such crushing odds, all education reformers confront the
same dilemma – how can they convince key players to implement their
reforms correctly?
“You really can’t make people do very much,” points out James Comer, a
professor of child psychiatry at Yale University. “And if you do, they very
often resist and rebel.”
Lauren Resnick of the Institute for Learning at the University of
Pittsburgh concurs. “If we just tell them what to do, they will either protest
and walk away, or fight, or pretend to do it. And nobody’s mind will get
changed.”
So if you can’t dictate, how do you ensure success? The key is buy-in,
or ownership, from the participants. Orchestrators of different school
models all rely on getting others excited about, and invested in, the
success and implementation of the model, but they do it in different ways.
For instance, one proven reform model, Success for All (SFA), sets itself
up for accomplishment by imposing tough terms. SFA requires that 80%
of the teachers in any school agree to implement the program before
SFA will even work with their school.
Another model, James Comer’s School Development Program, pushes
its schools to adopt a team approach to school management, thereby
demanding a significant shift from traditional top-down school
management. In Comer schools, everyone has the opportunity to
participate in decision-making, giving key players a greater feeling of
ownership over important decisions.
To get everyone on the same page, KIPP (Knowledge is Power
Program) requires that parents, teachers and students all sign a form
called the “Commitment to Excellence.” Teachers commit to make
themselves available to kids, and to teach to the best of their abilities.
Parents commit to check their children’s homework, to provide a quiet
place for them to get homework done, to provide the school uniform, and
to keep their child on schedule and following the rules. And the students
make an enriching but intense commitment of time, good behavior and
hard work.
Getting buy-in is far from automatic.
Teachers at Centennial Elementary School in Washington State were
hesitant before adopting Success for All’s stream-lined, scripted reading
program. “I was a little bit reluctant because … I didn’t know for sure that
this was the answer,” fourth grade teacher Nancy Rashko explains.
“Having been in education a long time, we sometimes say ‘oh, there’s a
pendulum. You try this…. and then you try this.’ So I wasn’t sure whether
we were jumping on a pendulum or whether this was something that was
really going to be effective. But I voted for it because we obviously
needed to do a better job.”
The 80% vote is critical, because when teachers confront the hard
realities of serious change, many want to back-out. The advance
commitment helps teachers recognize that this is not just a flavor-of-the-
month reform. Instead, they’re put on notice to prepare for significant
and hopefully permanent change. Success for All “…can’t be imposed
by a principal,” says founder Bob Slavin. “It can’t be imposed by a district
mandate. Because we know that this is a very substantial change, we
want the individual teachers and principals to be fully bought into that
change and to feel as though they made a choice; that this was not
something that they were forced to do.”
Teacher buy-in at Centennial Elementary School became crucial since
instructors were forced to make drastic changes in their teaching
methods. They had to follow scripts and schedules dictated by Success
for All. It took awhile for them to see results. But over a year or two, the
school achieved significant gains in reading, and now, according to
Principal Alan McDonald, the teachers are enthusiastic. “They have
bought into this program,” he affirms. “They get results and because of
that, they’ve accepted it. Close to 100% believe that is a good program.”
In Chicago, similar problems confronted reform. When Principal Maurice
Harvey opened the Jordan Community School, he adopted the Comer
Process, seeking the benefits of involving parents and teachers in
school management. But Harvey did not fully understand the implications
for him personally. Neither did the teachers.
The Comer Process mandated parceling out power, in the form of
shared decisions being made not by Harvey alone but by management
teams such as the Student Staff Support Team (SSST) and the School
Planning and Management Team (SPMT). And Harvey, trained as a
dictatorial principal, struggled royally against the requirement for him to
let go of some power.
In fact, third grade teacher Judy Owens remembers that Harvey “wanted
to rule with an iron fist.”
“It’s very difficult to relinquish power,” Harvey agrees. “It’s very difficult.
As Dr. Comer says, ‘consensus, no fault, collaboration’. Those are very
easy words to say… but very hard to do.”
But Owens also recalls disbelief and discomfort among the teachers who
suddenly had more clout. She remembers thinking about Harvey, “You
really care about what we think? Our suggestions are worthwhile? You
are listening? It was … unbelievable.”
The teachers quickly learned to participate in informed decisions. In fact,
they eventually overturned one of Harvey’s major curricular initiatives.
Over one summer, Jordan received a grant from the Chicago Board of
Education, which Harvey directed into teaching Spanish. This
aggravated teachers who felt the students still needed more help
mastering basic math and science. They brought their concerns to the
School Planning and Management Team (SPMT). As a group, the SPMT
voted to redirect the funds to enhanced math study for kindergarten
through third grade, through an innovative program called “Everyday
Math.” Now steeped in the Comer Process, Harvey accepted being
overruled by his faculty.
In inner city schools like Jordan, running a parents’ organization is much
harder than running the P.T.A. in a suburban community where many
parents take involvement at school for granted. But the Comer Process
pushes schools like Jordan to get parents involved in decision-making
and improving the school culture.
Rhonda Jones is a prime example of the challenge and the potential. At
the time Rhonda’s daughter, Shequeta, started school at Jordan,
Rhonda was addicted to “uzis” – a potent blend of marijuana and crack.
Nonetheless, when she insisted on watching over her child and evinced
an interest in helping out at the school, the Comer social worker drew
her in as a volunteer. Rhonda began with small office tasks, answering
phones, and helping out as a teacher aide. As she felt supported and
useful, and her sense of self-worth emerged, she quit doing drugs.
In time, Rhonda became a key leader among parents. Given
responsibility, she “bought-in” to the school and began involving other
parents, and the school became like a community center, run by its
many members, working in the best interests of the children.
James Comer asserts that without buy-in, reform faces failure. Of the
schools currently seeking to pursue the Comer Process, he says about
two-thirds are making headway and about one-third are showing little
improvement. “The reason that’s so is the degree to which they buy in to
these ideas, and the degree to which they really apply them,” he says.
“There are many people who say they are using the process but they
are not really using it, and we have done studies to demonstrate that.
The studies show that the schools that buy-in and implement best have
the best outcomes.”
Like Success for All and the Comer Process, the Knowledge Is Power
Program (KIPP) holds that ongoing achievement necessitates getting
everyone on board up front. Success, explains Diana Soliz, Assistant
Principal at KIPP 3D Academy in Houston, “takes three entities working
together – the parents, the students and the teachers.”
Having buy-in from all three parties is essential, she points out, because
KIPP middle schools have the high ambition of putting children from high
poverty neighborhoods on a track toward college. As a charter program,
KIPP schools can demand more of the fifth through eighth graders than
normal public schools: longer school days, school on Saturdays, hours
of homework every night, and significant parental involvement. So
parents, teachers and students must all sign KIPP’s “Commitment to
Excellence” to insure that everyone is prepared for the long road ahead,
as the students “climb the mountain to college.”
These commitments come in handy when the going gets tough –
something KIPP is very up-front about. “We look in everyone’s eyes and
make sure that everyone agrees that they’re up for it, they’re up for the
challenge,” says Dan Caesar, Principal of KIPP 3D in Houston. “We let
them know it’s a sacrifice. We look at the kids, a little fourth grader, nine-
year-olds and say, ‘your life is going to change. You’re going to have
homework.’ We let them know how it’s going to be. We don’t sugar coat
it. We look at the parent and the child and say ‘but it’s worth it. We’re
going to work with you as hard as we can. Our teachers are going to put
in 100% effort to make sure that for the next four years you’re going to
get the best education you can and we’re going to talk about getting into
a great high school and getting into a great college four years later.’”
Success for All gets buy-in by a pre-emptive vote. Comer achieves it with
joint management. And KIPP obtains it through an up-front commitment
from all players. These models are succeeding – and the buy-in
makes all the difference.
mistaken. In fact, the Comer representative for Chula Vista
Elementary School District, Roger Cunningham, advised a principal
in February 2001 that there was no need to have any discussion
with a teacher who complained that the Comer principles were
being violated. He advised that the teacher should leave the
school. A false allegation was concocted by powerful teachers who
controlled the school, and the teacher who complained was sent
home. Later the district paid $100,000s in legal fees in a case
involving the wronged teacher. Then the district tried to transfer
some of the powerful teachers, and ended up paying even more in
legal fees. The school was deeply damaged, and now has falling
enrollment, a high suspension rate, and falling test scores. The
Comer Program seems to have been the trigger for the implosion of
this school.]
COMER SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM:::
GETTING BUY-IN
GETTING BUY-IN
by Courtenay Singer
More than half of school reform efforts fail, many as a result of poor
implementation. Without buy-in from critical actors such as teachers,
administrators and parents, any reform effort – no matter how well-
intentioned and conceived – is sunk.
Faced with such crushing odds, all education reformers confront the
same dilemma – how can they convince key players to implement their
reforms correctly?
“You really can’t make people do very much,” points out James Comer, a
professor of child psychiatry at Yale University. “And if you do, they very
often resist and rebel.”
Lauren Resnick of the Institute for Learning at the University of
Pittsburgh concurs. “If we just tell them what to do, they will either protest
and walk away, or fight, or pretend to do it. And nobody’s mind will get
changed.”
So if you can’t dictate, how do you ensure success? The key is buy-in,
or ownership, from the participants. Orchestrators of different school
models all rely on getting others excited about, and invested in, the
success and implementation of the model, but they do it in different ways.
For instance, one proven reform model, Success for All (SFA), sets itself
up for accomplishment by imposing tough terms. SFA requires that 80%
of the teachers in any school agree to implement the program before
SFA will even work with their school.
Another model, James Comer’s School Development Program, pushes
its schools to adopt a team approach to school management, thereby
demanding a significant shift from traditional top-down school
management. In Comer schools, everyone has the opportunity to
participate in decision-making, giving key players a greater feeling of
ownership over important decisions.
To get everyone on the same page, KIPP (Knowledge is Power
Program) requires that parents, teachers and students all sign a form
called the “Commitment to Excellence.” Teachers commit to make
themselves available to kids, and to teach to the best of their abilities.
Parents commit to check their children’s homework, to provide a quiet
place for them to get homework done, to provide the school uniform, and
to keep their child on schedule and following the rules. And the students
make an enriching but intense commitment of time, good behavior and
hard work.
Getting buy-in is far from automatic.
Teachers at Centennial Elementary School in Washington State were
hesitant before adopting Success for All’s stream-lined, scripted reading
program. “I was a little bit reluctant because … I didn’t know for sure that
this was the answer,” fourth grade teacher Nancy Rashko explains.
“Having been in education a long time, we sometimes say ‘oh, there’s a
pendulum. You try this…. and then you try this.’ So I wasn’t sure whether
we were jumping on a pendulum or whether this was something that was
really going to be effective. But I voted for it because we obviously
needed to do a better job.”
The 80% vote is critical, because when teachers confront the hard
realities of serious change, many want to back-out. The advance
commitment helps teachers recognize that this is not just a flavor-of-the-
month reform. Instead, they’re put on notice to prepare for significant
and hopefully permanent change. Success for All “…can’t be imposed
by a principal,” says founder Bob Slavin. “It can’t be imposed by a district
mandate. Because we know that this is a very substantial change, we
want the individual teachers and principals to be fully bought into that
change and to feel as though they made a choice; that this was not
something that they were forced to do.”
Teacher buy-in at Centennial Elementary School became crucial since
instructors were forced to make drastic changes in their teaching
methods. They had to follow scripts and schedules dictated by Success
for All. It took awhile for them to see results. But over a year or two, the
school achieved significant gains in reading, and now, according to
Principal Alan McDonald, the teachers are enthusiastic. “They have
bought into this program,” he affirms. “They get results and because of
that, they’ve accepted it. Close to 100% believe that is a good program.”
In Chicago, similar problems confronted reform. When Principal Maurice
Harvey opened the Jordan Community School, he adopted the Comer
Process, seeking the benefits of involving parents and teachers in
school management. But Harvey did not fully understand the implications
for him personally. Neither did the teachers.
The Comer Process mandated parceling out power, in the form of
shared decisions being made not by Harvey alone but by management
teams such as the Student Staff Support Team (SSST) and the School
Planning and Management Team (SPMT). And Harvey, trained as a
dictatorial principal, struggled royally against the requirement for him to
let go of some power.
In fact, third grade teacher Judy Owens remembers that Harvey “wanted
to rule with an iron fist.”
“It’s very difficult to relinquish power,” Harvey agrees. “It’s very difficult.
As Dr. Comer says, ‘consensus, no fault, collaboration’. Those are very
easy words to say… but very hard to do.”
But Owens also recalls disbelief and discomfort among the teachers who
suddenly had more clout. She remembers thinking about Harvey, “You
really care about what we think? Our suggestions are worthwhile? You
are listening? It was … unbelievable.”
The teachers quickly learned to participate in informed decisions. In fact,
they eventually overturned one of Harvey’s major curricular initiatives.
Over one summer, Jordan received a grant from the Chicago Board of
Education, which Harvey directed into teaching Spanish. This
aggravated teachers who felt the students still needed more help
mastering basic math and science. They brought their concerns to the
School Planning and Management Team (SPMT). As a group, the SPMT
voted to redirect the funds to enhanced math study for kindergarten
through third grade, through an innovative program called “Everyday
Math.” Now steeped in the Comer Process, Harvey accepted being
overruled by his faculty.
In inner city schools like Jordan, running a parents’ organization is much
harder than running the P.T.A. in a suburban community where many
parents take involvement at school for granted. But the Comer Process
pushes schools like Jordan to get parents involved in decision-making
and improving the school culture.
Rhonda Jones is a prime example of the challenge and the potential. At
the time Rhonda’s daughter, Shequeta, started school at Jordan,
Rhonda was addicted to “uzis” – a potent blend of marijuana and crack.
Nonetheless, when she insisted on watching over her child and evinced
an interest in helping out at the school, the Comer social worker drew
her in as a volunteer. Rhonda began with small office tasks, answering
phones, and helping out as a teacher aide. As she felt supported and
useful, and her sense of self-worth emerged, she quit doing drugs.
In time, Rhonda became a key leader among parents. Given
responsibility, she “bought-in” to the school and began involving other
parents, and the school became like a community center, run by its
many members, working in the best interests of the children.
James Comer asserts that without buy-in, reform faces failure. Of the
schools currently seeking to pursue the Comer Process, he says about
two-thirds are making headway and about one-third are showing little
improvement. “The reason that’s so is the degree to which they buy in to
these ideas, and the degree to which they really apply them,” he says.
“There are many people who say they are using the process but they
are not really using it, and we have done studies to demonstrate that.
The studies show that the schools that buy-in and implement best have
the best outcomes.”
Like Success for All and the Comer Process, the Knowledge Is Power
Program (KIPP) holds that ongoing achievement necessitates getting
everyone on board up front. Success, explains Diana Soliz, Assistant
Principal at KIPP 3D Academy in Houston, “takes three entities working
together – the parents, the students and the teachers.”
Having buy-in from all three parties is essential, she points out, because
KIPP middle schools have the high ambition of putting children from high
poverty neighborhoods on a track toward college. As a charter program,
KIPP schools can demand more of the fifth through eighth graders than
normal public schools: longer school days, school on Saturdays, hours
of homework every night, and significant parental involvement. So
parents, teachers and students must all sign KIPP’s “Commitment to
Excellence” to insure that everyone is prepared for the long road ahead,
as the students “climb the mountain to college.”
These commitments come in handy when the going gets tough –
something KIPP is very up-front about. “We look in everyone’s eyes and
make sure that everyone agrees that they’re up for it, they’re up for the
challenge,” says Dan Caesar, Principal of KIPP 3D in Houston. “We let
them know it’s a sacrifice. We look at the kids, a little fourth grader, nine-
year-olds and say, ‘your life is going to change. You’re going to have
homework.’ We let them know how it’s going to be. We don’t sugar coat
it. We look at the parent and the child and say ‘but it’s worth it. We’re
going to work with you as hard as we can. Our teachers are going to put
in 100% effort to make sure that for the next four years you’re going to
get the best education you can and we’re going to talk about getting into
a great high school and getting into a great college four years later.’”
Success for All gets buy-in by a pre-emptive vote. Comer achieves it with
joint management. And KIPP obtains it through an up-front commitment
from all players. These models are succeeding – and the buy-in
makes all the difference.