Foundations of Education

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Foundations of Education by Mind Map: Foundations of Education

1. Politics of Education

1.1. Conservative- 1) Individuals are responsible for their success with their working towards their own full potential. 2) Schools provide social practice which prepare students for social order within their future. 3) Schools provide needed ingredients to lay groundwork of both economic gain and a stable social standing among students. 4) Individual problems are solved per individual student with the educator as the facilitator. 5) School provides a practice setting for students to realize their potential through challenge and rewards and gains for their own effort 6) Competition among students proves to drive students to show self-initiative.

1.2. Traditional -1) School teach American values of hard work, family, and self initiative. 2) Schools should transfer the best of the present and the best of the past. 3) Education is knowledge-centered. 4) Schools should uphold and teacher discipline and levels of authority. 5) Schools should maintain strong, academic standards. 6) Intellectual goals are of greater focus than social goals.

2. History of U.S. Education

2.1. 1. Describe a reform movement that you think has had the most influence. The progressive movement has had great influence. The liberal view that began in the 20th century and supported by John Dewey and other progressives of the U.S. suggests that the disadvantaged are caught in an unfair cycle within society and within the education process. Liberals of this time period believed that government needed to get involved in the social, economic and political settings of the disadvantaged in order to make sure they received fair treatment. Liberals pushed that schools had to make sure that they took serious their training and socializing responsibility by providing equal opportunity to all. This equal opportunity would certainly lead to equal opportunity in society, if done correctly. Liberals also felt schools could socialize students in such a way to change their social standing in society and limit the distinguished few from the less fortunate. They promoted the inclusion of cultural diversity studies and an overall appreciation and taught respect for the greater good of certain profiles. They also felt there was an educational citizenry that could be learned in school. The school was seen as the enabler for success and the development of talents. This called upon educators to see to the balance of needs of society and the individual. They openly rejected the idea that merit and achievement alone should define opportunity and that equal opportunity had to be seen to within the training of youth. The goal was to narrow the achievement gap between the rich and the poor and this would be accomplished through the use of the schools. The results of the liberal ideas and demands of the 1960s and 1970s schools saw great changes. Some changes were within the structure of the academic systems and standards, which many said reduced educational quality and difficulty. In response to the demand for respect for all cultures, schools dropped some of their emphasis on traditional curriculum and American heritage of Western Civilization. This compromised our cultural literacy. Schools also moved away from moral issues and values due to the liberal call for cultural relativism to avoid offending any group. In the push for acceptance and individuality of all, schools seemed to lose authority and their traditional disciplinary abilities. This developed chaos with a steady decline of authority. As states controlled their own schools and the competitive free market, schools became inefficient and full of poor workers that were covered.

2.2. 2. Name one historical interpretation of U.S. Education. Traditional visions of what schools should provide include the teaching of American values and traditions of hard work, unity, family, and individual initiative. Traditionalist feel that the school is responsible to pass on what is respectable and considered to be the best training to make sure that the hardest workers and most talented are equipped to take advantage of economic and social advances. Traditionalist think that schools are socializing playgrounds for the coming social order and that youth will eventually fall into that learned social order. In the end, the school promotes economic advancements and productivity and a stable social setting over time. This process evolves with and through competition in the educational marketplace with rewards for individual excellence. This means that traditional conservatives think that an individual succeeds due to their own work and the school simply provides a strong curriculum and playground for that to blossom when encouraged and rewarded.

3. Sociological Perspectives

3.1. What is my theory about the relationship between school and society?

3.2. Functionalism –

3.3.  Interdependence of the social systems and the school

3.4.  Society as a mechanism where one part works for the needs of another

3.5.  Moral unity, Harmony & Social Cohesiveness

3.6.  Consensus rules.

3.7.  School reform promotes unity of all and must bridge gaps for various profiles.

3.8.  Universal expansion to reach all for their success.

3.9.  School is a miniature society that prepares for transition for the future.

3.10.  Hard work/Merit Systems yields success.

3.11.  Cooperation with various types of people.

3.12. Three effects of schooling on individuals that you think have the greatest impact on students.

3.13. 1. Income – 1/3 of income potential comes from level of education.

3.14. 2. Tracking/Curricular Placement – Schools channel opportunity to students they judge to

3.15. be matched within a said profile or “track,” which could deny some opportunities.

3.16. 3. Knowledge & Social Participation – Students become more politically involved, read

3.17. more, and become a more active, confident citizen.

4. Philosophy of Education

4.1. Generic notions – “Existentialism” –

4.2.  People create their own meaning from the world.

4.3.  Experiences/Chaos/Structure for Order

4.4.  Humans give meaning to objects within their world.

4.5.  Merit & Success drive students.

4.6. Key Researchers – http://www.iep.utm.edu/existent/

4.7.  Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) as an Existentialist Philosopher

4.8.  Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) as an Existentialist Philosopher

4.9.  Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) as an Existentialist Philosopher

4.10.  Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) as an Existentialist Philosopher

4.11.  Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986) as an Existentialist Philosopher

4.12.  Albert Camus (1913-1960) as an Existentialist Philosopher

4.13. Goal of Education – Individual Success

4.14.  Focus on the individual.

4.15.  Individuality is good.

4.16.  All things are possible.

4.17.  Education is the liberator from a chaotic, ridiculous world.

4.18. Role of Teacher –

4.19.  Know your students personally and academically.

4.20.  Take risks with students who resistant being educated.

4.21.  Work constantly.

4.22.  Encourage reflection within self.

4.23.  Teachers have a personal connection and responsibility as far as their students are concerned.

4.24. Method of Instruction –

4.25.  Methods should be personalized per child or generalized group.

4.26.  Tapping in on Learning Styles maximizes learning.

4.27.  Student-Centered Classroom

4.28.  Teacher as facilitator to learning

4.29.  All things are possible.

4.30. Curriculum –

4.31.  Personal responses and levels of awareness

4.32.  Exposure of young children to problems and possibilities.

5. Schools as Organizations

6. Curriculum and Pedagogy

6.1. 1) The needs and interests of the student is the focus of a classroom’s mission. This follows the system at work within the developmentalist philosophy of curriculum theory. This parallels Dewey’s work in that he saw a connection between the student and the curriculum. The developmentalist approach is also seen in Piaget’s ideas of focusing on processes of instruction along with content. When Dewey’s and Piaget’s ideas come together, the needs and interests of students is addressed along lines that address their developmental stage and individual needs. Certainly, this would take an intentional attention to individual differences within interests and levels of development per student. It was also give attention to varied strategies of instructed as they would best reach each, individual learning profile within a population of students. Taking individual interests, varied levels of readiness, and then weaving into meaningful, real-life investigative learning opportunities would yield the best set opportunity for all students. The teacher would work to know each student’s interests, clarify their individual developmental and skill levels, while bringing it all together inside of a rationalized, learning setting. The teacher is therefore a facilitator of learning, using skills of research per student, per subject, within mandated requirements, while integrating it into what is real within a student’s life.

6.2. 2)Two dominate traditions of teaching would include a mimetic approach and a transformative approach. They are completely the opposite of the other in their presentation and rationale for function. The first approach is titled mimetic and it is generally what most people think of when they think of content and learning. It finds favor with those who want a rigorous following of content absorption with scientific proof that the student will leave the class with enough knowledge to compete within society. Plainly, it is the transfer of factual information and knowledge from the teacher to the student. The teacher follows a working system of transmission that is believed to transfer the course content to the student and the student absorbs the intended message. The end product is the information contain in the set course of content. The information is known and accepted and should be taken and learned by the student. It represents absolutes, for the most part, and is considered to be part of mastery of a particular class or discipline. Students do not have to experience its truths or apply its truths to anything within their lives. They just need to know it when it is time to show mastery. The goal of mastery is seen when the message is returned from teacher back to student in the same condition that it was transmitted. This characteristic of mimetic approach makes it easy to evaluate due to its stamp of return expectation. Students do not have to connect or remember it over time, although some parts could be remembered. Usefulness and application are not necessarily demanded either. It can be found in lectures, books, videos, and more. In the classroom, knowledge of content is assessed, lessons on key concepts are presented for transmission to students, feedback for return of transmitted messages of content are rewarded, assessment checks the mastery of teacher transmission, students get retransmission where needed, issues seemed to be fixed and covered, and finally transmission of the fixed content has met its requirements. A second approach is titled transformative approach. This approach seeks to find change and growth in the learner. This approach attempts to attach to what a student already knows and bring about growth. Since this approach builds on something a students already knows, there is more likelihood that the content will be remembered over the long term. This approach is more of a modification of the student’s knowledge as information and experience is blended into what is already known. The process of learning is a processing of change over time and along different levels for different students. The teacher is more of an artist who shapes and changes within a student’s active change process. The teacher is a participant in the learning process as a resource to assist, not a resource of all content. The teacher would lead students to think, consider, and experience content at any number of levels and in and out of set boundaries. The student receives recognition for progress and for their unique paths, which seems to motivate them to see themselves as progressing.

7. Equality of Opportunity

7.1. 1) Class, race, and gender are connected to and impact the educational product. There are various facets within class, race, and gender that fall victim to the power exerted within classrooms. The process or impact comes from different sources and forms, but zeros in consistently to impact class, race and gender groups. The first power shower comes within the classroom, itself. Power sources of the classroom include the teacher, textbook writers or content, curriculum leaders, state interest groups, assessments, and school-career predictive processing. Students are under the thumb of each of these and must understand the control that is place and the expected behaviors to work productively and with success within the power’s rules for accomplishment. The system at work tends to reinforce certain class profiles, race profiles, and gender groups through a presentation of how the world looks. Teachers, content studies, and curriculum writers get to communicate what is important and their perception falls in-line with certain profiles and not with others. State leaders and assessments get to evaluate and give credit to student profiles that speak to certain student profiles. Even individual student career choices or course paths trend to certain groups, which again reinforces the power mechanism at work. A second power is seen in participation rules. In this area, a student’s presentation of self by means of communication approaches, linguistic forms, and overall ability to present oneself a certain way yields power. More specifically, the way one talks, writes, interacts and even dresses gives one power. Various classes and races see clear advantage as their communications and presentations skills are different than the accepted norm. Gender can also have differences in communication within the accepted norm that places some at an advantage. A third power that is seen has to do with the degree that one is able to meet expectations of the one who is in power. Those with power would include the school, businesses, social situations. If the student is able to demonstrate the cultural characteristics of ones already in power, then they could be empowered. Schools have norms that are easily reached by certain races over other races. The same advantage is seen with the requirements and expectations from society’s business onlookers and within a student of a given race’s social trends. The fourth power shows itself in a way so that if one is already a part of a set culture, they have an advantage. This is a result of them understanding the culture and receiving information more naturally. Differing races, genders, and class groups have great hurdles to jump to see mastery and accomplishment. A fifth consideration has to do with an awareness of the power in the works and its power to block or disadvantage one that is from a given gender, race, or culture. Those at a disadvantage clearly realize which race, class, or gender has greatest power and which race, class and gender finds it easiest to move through to reach greater power. Certain races or genders may see advantage in the recognition of them more often due to their present connection or membership within that race or social status grouping. Their credibility could be compromised indirectly, but have direct impact on the disadvantage profiled student.

7.2. 2) There were two responses from the Coleman Study of 1982. Coleman’s study saw differences in private and public schools. His findings were debated by many. His research claimed that schools do make a difference as far as achievement of a variety of student profiles. Specifically, the study concluded that a school that puts emphasis on activities that are geared towards student achievement rather than academic activities sees greater gains. The focus on achievement placed added demands on students and those students, from a balance of backgrounds, saw greater success. The comparison was from public to private institutions. The private schools’ organizational approach appeared to yield greater achievement, especially with low income, minority populations. In reaction to Coleman’s findings, Jencks, Alexander and Pallas took a closer look and reported that the difference from private to public school achievement was significant statistically, yet not that impressive when looking at differences in learning. Other researchers have reported that private schools do have a better system of educating low income students, especially within urban settings. Another reaction to the Coleman’s findings came 40 years post publication. Borman and Dowling took at look at Coleman’s conclusions and study. This group concluded that low income, minority students performed better in environments that were less like their economic and racial profile. This points to the impact of the schools racial and economic profiles and its impact on students of similar or different profiles. In considering this, tracking systems at work and schools that are set within one profile of study makeup should be reconsidered. To bring all of this information together, one would focus on the difference in student outcomes that could be seen based on Coleman’s research. Academically oriented school environments are best for students. Schools seem to accommodate the middle class and see less impact on extremes within social and academic profiles. It appears to be a matter of equality of educational opportunity. A communities’ socioeconomic standing appears to impact performance. This is something that many believe can be overcome due to the fact that charter schools and private institutions seem to reach these same profiles with greater success towards individual achievement. This suggest that schools in lower socioeconomic settings could do better outside of their study bodies’ racial and economic issues.

8. Educational Inequality

8.1. 1) Cultural Difference Theories work to explain differences in students and their function within today’s educational systems. Cultural deprivation theory communicates that working-class and non-white families are missing resources connected to cultural excellence by way of books and other educational stimulating materials. It is suggested that this accounts for added educational disadvantage. It seems that poor students live in a culture that is deprived and this scenario impacts their achievement. Values of hard work, initiative, working for goals in the future, and a focus on the importance of education seem to put middle class students at an advantage. In turn, cultures of poverty appear to find little value in hard work, working for goals and gratification, a drive with initiative, and a view of school and education as a way to success. So, cultural differences from working-class groups, nonwhite students, and white, middle-class students as compared to students of lower socioeconomic standing and lack cultural resources are at a clear advantage within the general, educational systems. Deutsch sees educationally disadvantaged students as a product of their family environments. Schools have attempted to compensate for these findings with target programs for students from poor, family environments and have with programs like Project Head Start to provide a base line for learning prior to Kindergarten. Head Start has also worked with parents and students from these profiles to coach parents on ways to promote literacy, which are good for academic development. Many critics have labeled these programs as racists with their focus on specific races, but it has been these profiled race groups that have found themselves within this economic and impacting scenario. Others claim that it is an institution’s attempts to shift their work onto families with blame and shame. Some suggest that the process that brings the environmental issues should be addressed and point to the limited success of these early intervention programs. More approaches have been considered given their claims that these disadvantaged students come to classroom with different cultural dispositions and lacking the skill and motivation that works best in today’s classrooms. These seems to look like a learned and adapted, level of poor aptitude which leads them to fail to accept values that would move them to a higher performing level in maximizing their potential. Ogbu suggest that the only way to improve this would be to encourage impoverished students to move into ideals that are coined for progress and success. This would require schools to seek opportunities to reach out within these students’ culture and weave in a rationalize, working system that motivates this profile to greater achievement through changed perceptions, aspirations, and goals. Bourdieu, Passeron and Bernstein researched and saw schools as places where gaps between student profiles widen and are a reflection of what is seen within these students’ personal situations. So, the school systems are not set to facilitate movement for these students due to the students’ economic and cultural situation.

8.2. 2) There are ideas regarding a school’s approach to learning and products of educational inequality. Coleman and Jencks gave school differences as a reason that economically challenged and varied race groups saw improved or diminished educational success. There are environmental issues that were connected to funding that push middle and upper class students to a higher potential for achievement. Today, much speculation is given to the fact that some impoverished students performed better than others. Most give reasoning to this observation in that some students are stronger cognitively and have greater motivation, yet still share common environmental bases. With this in mind, questions regarding how schools address and balance this dilemma. One way is through funded programs. School districts receive funding from taxes and allotments that are community based. Given that communities’ expenditures vary, the very schools that serve the neediest populations may receive the smallest revenues. Public schools receive funding from sources like local, state, and federal monies. Again, these sources can produce unequal funding so and the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of providing equal funding while other courts saw it differently. This caused much controversy. Therefore, local school districts have made attempts to fill needs where unequal funding is an issue. It is seen as a moral issue to some, a political issue to others, and a business/accounting issue for others. No matter which issue or the combination of issue categories that communities place this situation within, schools must address and funding is one of their approaches. Another way that schools addressed the imbalance in various schools was with an emphasis on what makes the effective school. In the struggle to explain the differences in achievement of lower socioeconomic profiles, researchers looked closely at teacher effectiveness as a possible answer. With regard to Edmonds and other effective school researchers, certain effective schools carried specific characteristics. These included communication of high expectations, strong leadership, student and teacher accountability, ongoing processes of student monitoring, time on task for teacher and students, and an atmosphere of flexibility for varying one’s approach according to needs present. Still, another way that schools have addressed the imbalance in various schools has to do with curriculum and pedagogic practices. Curricular considerations and pedagogic practices impact student achievement. Researchers, like Bernstein, saw trends along these lines that point to the advantage in some schools. He noted that the type of education that is made available to a group of students within a given school is related to their socioeconomic level and this trend was for entire schools. Schools in inner city areas with poor student populations had less demands and opportunities. Schools within other economic classes had greater demands and opportunities for achievement and excellence. It seemed that schools were a reflection of the communities’ culture. Others suggested that the lower achievement in certain schools might not be due to curricular or pedagogic approaches. They suggested that it could have to do with the students background and response to the curriculum and strategies in place, no matter where the student would attend. Still others claimed that a school’s curriculum and practices within instruction had to have an impact on student achievement. Leaders in research on this subject included Cookson, Persell, and Catsambis and they noted that differences among different types of school within communities of vary socioeconomic levels produces different achievement levels. Many suggested that the difference might have a great deal to do with student motivation differences from one social group to another. Maybe the students in affluent schools dreamed bigger and were motivated and certain of their potential for success. A fourth and final consideration that seemed to point to educational inequality and what it has to do with curriculum and ability grouping within schools. This issue wasn’t a school-to-school consideration, but was a class-to-class situation within the walls of one school. This led one to note the characteristics per class that yield greater or less achievement. Grouping students according to ability is common in today’s classrooms. It was also common for students to experience curriculum grouping, as well. In elementary schools, students were grouped for math and reading according to test scores that were formal and informal. Students could also be a part of a tracking system where ability and curricular focuses were in use. The problem with the varied groupings was not the content taught, but the pace of instruction and the expectations variations from the teacher for students at different group levels. At the middle school and high school level, students were many times ability-grouped with pathways for college bound students and pathways for students interested in vocational education. Students who score within lower percentiles were automatically place in less demanding curricular tracks while higher scoring students were placed in the most advanced and stimulating coursework. Many argued that separation of students is an attempt to meet individual needs and provide the appropriate level of difficulty and stimulation per student population was advancing some and providing less challenging classes for those that might have less ability. Those that denied support for this system argued that lower achieving students were denied access to classes that were more stimulating and challenging. Also, Oakes and Sadovnik suggested that unequal education for various groups in schools impacted academic outcomes as a result of differing school climates, pedagogic practices, expectations, and curricular gaps. Other critics of tracking within schools, like Albert Shanker, concluded that American schools made many assumptions. Schools predicted that students in lower track levels were not able of doing academic work in the more advance classes and therefore denied opportunities based on their analysis per student. He suggested that students must be given opportunity and exist under systems that hold high expectations for their achievement and their futures. Some systems of track selections were not fair and were questionable if race and placement were examined. Another consideration had to do with students that have strengths and weaknesses or those that fall between track placements. Who decides their real placement given the expectations that will be communicated to the student once the decision were made? This appeared to be a larger problem in high school climates and tha varied tracks were very different in what they offered students, instructors, approaches to learning, and more. The higher tracks were more experienced-oriented in their approach to learning while the lower tracks worked from memorization routines. Differences within track curriculum yielded groups that received totally different educational opportunities and yet were the same age and in same school. It was certain that tracking had the potential to make a huge difference in elementary and high school years and the impact seemed to be greatest in the elementary years and within ability groupings. If tracking was conducted along racial and social lines, then students of color and poorer students would basically be assigned to their ceiling of achievement. The question that haunted many was if the tracks determine level of achievement for students or were the student placements meant to fulfill those predetermined potentials of students in an accurate way? One thing was known for sure was that lower track placement for some populations denied them an opportunity to climb the social ladder from their present situation. This would define unequal educational opportunity in a clear way.

9. Educational Reform

9.1. 1) Due to the reported failure of public schools within the 1980s and 1990s, leaders and interested parties called on schools to provide other options to parents. At the same time, researchers were looking closely at private schools and noting that their students were seeing greater waves of achievement. These schools seemed to be reputable, more accountable to investors and safer environments for students. This brought the idea of choice for American students and their parents given the noted differences from school to school. Magnet schools were also getting attention for their greater trends in achievement as compared to public schools. An explanation for the excellence within private and magnet schools was said to be that these learning institutions gave more attention to change in order to please their clients. This idea spun the argument about school vouchers for tax payers so that they might put their tax dollars into successful learning institutions. This allowed parents to choice within a public system and reward schools that were demonstrating achievement. The result would be that poorly functioning, public schools would not be protected from change or abandonment. So, the idea of choice became a focus within educational circles and with political talks within the 1980s and was seen as a form of school reform. This type of reform was solely due to product delivery and saw support in federal legislation in the 1990s. Opposing parties saw this as a matter of choice that would serve to segregate and provide unequal opportunities for some populations of students. Even private schools would serve as an option for some states and many began to question the entire system of choice versus opportunity. With all of the choice options, some students in inner cities would be able to attend schools outside of the city while other students would enter the city school to seek special specialties offered in city, magnet schools. There would curriculum-specific choices within certain school options and freedom to cross district attendance restrictions of the past. Charter schools by state controlled charters would also be in the works and offered. Powers and Cookson took a close look at the advantages of school choice and provided reports of their ideas. The benefits of choice fed from market-centered choices for parents, an increase in opportunities for minorities, added parental involvement due to their effort to make a new choice, more satisfaction due to their personal choices, and student motivation due to the fact that they had a choice. All these positive attributes for choice seemed popular against the typical, public school where bureaucracy lived, teacher unions ruled, and improvement was rarely seen. School-based business partnerships were also trending in the 1980s. Businesses and their leaders were concerned about the failure of schools to produce a product that meet necessary skill sets for work environments. The impact this poorly trained work force was speculated to compromise the nation’s excellence and dominance in business and production. Many programs were put in place in certain states to support and bridge a gap between schools and the needs of the business world. Support from businesses was not what it should be and the publicity had little real reform for school partnerships. In turn, entrepreneurs and certain foundations gave great amounts to this reform efforts. The wave of interests in the business to school partnerships saw little great impact but got a great deal of media attention. Many feel this is because the things that were failing in schools were not addressed within the partnerships, nor could a business sector know how to correct areas that needed attention. In time, these partnerships could impact the education of participating parties and give opportunities to students who need to jump social circles. Only time will tell if this program will be a success for America. Reports on the effectiveness of charter schools were mixed given the influx of new students and their need to be brought up to optional measures of performance. Data collection from one school to another was another issue in following true achievement differences.

9.2. 2) School accountability has been a focus for decades. It has shown itself in many forms from programs to evaluation structures, to certification requirements, to testing goals and achievement requirements, to monitoring, to managing, and to educational management. These attempts were within schools, states, and overseen by federal regulators. State regulators payed attention to all schools’ movement along achievement lines and gave rewards and penalties accordingly. Within these efforts, some failing schools reach state “take-over” and further measure to direct the school’s work through accountability. Statutes within states gave power to state leaders to deal directly with a school’s poor work. Principals lost their jobs, districts saw annexation to other districts, and some saw municipal control. All the changes within failing schools were to radically enact change. There have been positive and negative effects from these measures of control. These efforts have seen limited success with instructional quality and improvement although they did reduce nepotism in decisions within the district, improved a school district’s leadership and management approaches, help to reduce teacher strikes in sanctioned school, lead in the upgrade of the school’s grounds, put in place new programs within the district and more. To all these efforts, there is little movement in the target districts towards gains in achievement. Listed disadvantages to these efforts include the perceived empowered body, the state, has little overall control, morale in the community and teacher population feels the dread of being pinpointed as failing and therefore lose motivation, new officials in charge may have little experience, new takeover plans are narrowly planned, aggressive change measures tend to start at the top and do not get to the areas that most impact learning and achievement, and there is a loss of cohesive team spirit from the district to the state leaders. In the end, this process is a long process that gains little true reform. Another effort to see reform in schools includes a full service and community school image effort. This image is an effort to include family members and community in the business of school improvement and promotion. This approach comes in 3 types. These include the meeting of the needs of students and their families’ needs within educational, psychological, physical, and social needs. The approach is accomplished with communication across boundaries between school and the community services. The school is seen as a community institution and provides extra, open hours, programs, health services that center around mental health, health clinics, centers for recreation, after-school programming, mental health services addition programs, job placement services, training and tutoring services. These programs zero in on at-risk neighborhoods and work to be proactive in areas of concern for that community. The rationale behind the work is to improve overall community health through full-service work that will eventually impact overall school health in education.