|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY SCHOOLS IN FAMILY FRIENDLY COMMUNITIES: CASE STUDY OF THE WUTZKYALLEE EDUCATIONAL MILE IN BERLIN, GERMANY By BRITTANEY ROSS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013
2 2013 Brittaney Ross
3 To my Mom, Aunt Cassandra, and Grandparents Helen and WL Ross
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my mother, aunt Cassandra and Grandparents for their love and support over the course of my academic career. I also thank my advisor Dr. Ruth Steiner, co chair Dr. Richard Schneider, and NEURUS ad visor Dr. Christopher Silver for their guidance and faith throughout this process.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURE S ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 Scope of the Work ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 11 Research Problem ................................ ................................ ............................ 14 Glimpse at the Theoretical Framework Relative to the Case Study ................. 17 Research Objectives ................................ ................................ ............................... 18 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 19 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ............ 20 Conceptual Background: Family Friendly Planning ................................ ................ 21 Convention on the Rights of the Child ................................ .............................. 21 Livable Communities Movement ................................ ................................ ...... 22 Traditional Tools for Child and Family Friendly Planning ................................ 23 Participation in the planning process ................................ ......................... 23 Comprehensive planning ................................ ................................ ........... 24 Urban design ................................ ................................ .............................. 26 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 26 Theoretical Background: Social Capital ................................ ................................ .. 28 Role of Social Structures in Building Social Capital ................................ .......... 29 Spaces and Institutions for Bridging Social Capital ................................ .......... 32 Role of Planning in Bridging and Bonding Social Capital ................................ ........ 35 Advent of Schools as Community Centers ................................ ....................... 37 Utilizing Community Schools in Family Friendly pPanning ............................... 38 Smart Growth ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 39 Smart Schools for Smart Cities ................................ ................................ ........ 41 Coalition for Community Schools Approach ................................ ..................... 45 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 48 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 50 Study Approach ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 50 The Choice of the Case Study ................................ ................................ ................ 51 Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 52
6 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 52 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 53 4 CASE STUDY ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 54 Social Development in the Districts of Berlin, Germany ................................ .......... 55 Social Urban Development Interventions ................................ ................................ 57 Social Integrative City: Integrative Action Plan ................................ ................. 58 Neighborhood Management: Program Implementation ................................ .... 59 Key Target Groups and Areas ................................ ................................ .......... 60 History of the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile, Gropiusstadt Berlin Germany ........... 61 Gropiusstadt, Berlin Germany Overview ................................ ................................ 61 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 62 Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management ................................ ........................ 63 Vision ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 64 Forming the Wutzkyalle e Educational Mile ................................ ............................. 65 Organizational Structure ................................ ................................ ................... 66 Community Partnerships ................................ ................................ .................. 67 Goals and Objectives ................................ ................................ ....................... 68 Urban design features ................................ ................................ ...................... 69 Shared Community Use Features ................................ ................................ .... 70 Joint use ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 70 Co location ................................ ................................ ................................ 71 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 73 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 95 Summary and Analysis of Case Study ................................ ................................ .... 95 What is it About Child Family Friendly Communities that Warrants the Need for Social Capital Development and How Can Community Schools Fulfill This Role? ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 96 How do the Characteristics of Community Schools Differ from Public Schools? .... 97 How do the Characteristics of Community Schools, Historically and Presently, Position this Practice as a Key Element in the Development of Family Friendly Communities and Social Capital? ................................ ................................ ........ 98 In What Manner has the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile Fulfilled the Role of Community Schools in the Service Provided to the Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management Area of Berlin, Germany? ................................ ..... 100 6 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 4 Summary Case Study Observations ................................ ................................ ..... 105 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ............................... 108 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 110 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 116
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 List of 2008 activities organized by Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management and Wutzkyallee Educational Mile Partners ................................ ....................... 76 4 2 List of 2009 activities organized by Gropius stadt Neighborhood Management and Wutzkyallee Educational Mile Partners ................................ ....................... 77 4 3 List of 2010 activities organized by Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management and Wutzkyallee Educational Mile Partners ................................ ....................... 78 4 4 List of 2011 activities organized by Gropiusstadt Neighb orhood Management and Wutzkyallee Educational Mile Partners ................................ ....................... 79 4 5 List of 2012 activities organized by Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management and Wutzkyallee Educational Mile Partners ................................ ....................... 80
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 Separation of East and West Berlin ................................ ................................ .... 81 4 2 Conclaves of Immigrant Settlements ................................ ................................ .. 82 4 3 Berlin Districts: Neuklln Indicated in Orange, Gropiusstadt NM in Blue ............ 83 4 4 Gropiusstadt in Detail ................................ ................................ ......................... 84 4 5 Gropiusstadt Residential Settlement ................................ ................................ .. 85 4 6 Suburban are bordering the Gropiusstadt residential settlement ........................ 86 4 7 Gropiusstadt Vision Map ................................ ................................ ................... 87 4 8 Wutzkyallee Educational Mile Facilities ................................ .............................. 88 4 9 Pedestrian Square in Front of Hermann von Helmholtz School ......................... 89 4 10 Wide Pedestrian Sidewalk and Bike Path ................................ ........................... 90 4 11 Pedestrian Paths Connecting Residential Settlement to Wutzkyallee Mile ......... 91 4 12 Street calming elements ................................ ................................ ..................... 92 4 13 Pedestrian path configurations ................................ ................................ ........... 93 4 14 Pedestrian Path ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 94
9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY SCHOOLS IN FAMILY FRIENDLY COMMUNITIES : CASE STUDY OF THE WUTZKYALLEE EDUCATIONAL MILE IN BERLIN, GERMANY By Brittaney Ross May 2013 Chair: Ruth Steiner Cochair: Richard Schneider Major: Urban and Regional Planning Many family friendly planning theories have proposed comprehensive approaches to encourage family well being within their neighborhoods, advocating multiple interventions housing, access to childcare and family supportive services, quality schools, walkability, and security. However traditional family friendly planning initiatives do not consider social capital plan s to sustain physical capital interventions or the potential of schools to facilitate these efforts in policy and practice. As the family friendly planning movement continues to grow, planners should be engaged to develop the role of schools to collectivel y confront the unique issues of children, youth, and families. Planners tend to have the ability to braid existing streams of resources, which can promote synergies between neighborhood and school initiatives to establish mutually beneficial community part nerships to support key objectives of family friendly communities. The purpose of this research is to frame existing literature on social capital and community schools within the family friendly planning paradigm to 1) use the redevelopment of the Wutzkaylee Educational Mile in Berlin as a case study to examine the characteristics of
10 family friendly planning communities that call for the development of social capital plans and contributions of community schools and 2) identify development process es of the Wutzkyallle Educational Mile and features that justify the positioning of community schools as a central element in improving the quality of life for children, youth, and families.
11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Scope of the Work Increasingly planners and community development advocates are emphasizing the importance of contingency between school planning and neighborhood planning to address the growing challenges communities face in meet ing the diverse needs of children, youth and families. This thesis examines community schools in Berlin, Germany and their role in building social capital within the context of family friendly communities Based on an analysis of the case study, recommendations for harnessing the potential of primary and secondary schools in the United States are made to support these efforts by developing strong relationships with their surrounding neighborhood and local government. This study seeks to partially answer the research question: How can community schools strengthen family friendly community capacity I hypothesis that the social and spatial relationship between schools and their surrounding neighborhoods provide a foundational resource for developing social capital and demonstrates child friendly urban form implications related to fami ly friendly planning. The United Nation Convention on the Rights of Child (CRC) established the legal political and cultural rights to the maximum extent of thei Article 4 1989, Rees, Chai, Anthony 2012 p V). Since the declaration of this human rights treaty, the perspective on children with respect to their surrounding environment has evolved from one of vulnerability to active citiz ens with the capacity to inform decisions on issues that directly impact their quality of life (Bartlett 2002). Thus, advancing the rights outlined in the CRC can be based upon the ability to develop
12 sustainable resources in the built environment that supp ort the capacity for children to participate in society. However, the realization of these rights is dependent upon the ability of planners and communities to align development processes and policies to support these efforts. Warner and Rukus makes the connection between planning and the well being of children, youth, and families in light of the ideas expressed in the CRC, and positions the paradigm of family friendly planning to provide objectives for developing communities conducive to their specific needs. Warner states, access to safe places to play, safe transportation (walking and biking) and services near their homes are key features of family frien 8). These elements reflect a development approach in promotion of childhood independence in their community and suggest the importance of accessible services and amenities. Unfortunately, in the United States, serv ices for children, such as recreation childcare, health, and youth development, are commonly met with opposition (NIMBY o these challenges, planners are looking to schools, public institutions common in all communities, to pursue interests in services that support broad family needs by co locating schools with community services and promoting joint uses between schools and recreational facilities (McDonald 2010). Educational institutions, in a family friendly planning context, are emphasized as a critical community element for families with children, but they are commonly acknowledged as an entity that functions outside th e realm of planning. Ruth Miller,
13 contributor to the Berkeley Planning Journal, describes schools as the planners uninvolved or exe mpt from planning processes. The Center for Cities and Schools that requires or offers incentives for school districts and local governments to work together to plan school infrastructure as part of (McKoy, D. L., J. M. Vincent, et al. 2008 p 20). Today, while most school planning is still developed separately from urban planning, some progress has been made with the use facilities through lo M. Vincent, et al 2013 p 185). At this time, the potential for collaboration between urban planning and school planning to further community development plans and services for children is narrowly established as a prospect in family friendly planning. According to the United States Department of Education, the nation s 132,656 K 12 schools and preparation for global competitiveness by foste ring educational excellence and community schools in 42 states are dually committed to education, as well as the integration of : academic, health, and social services: youth and comm unity development, community engagement by drawing in school partners with resources to improve student and adult learning, strengthen[ing] families, and promoting healthy communities (Coalition for Community Schools 2009 p 1). While the mission of the C oalition for Community Schools works independently from urban and regional planning, it reflects the service based goals of family friendly communities and introduces a new interpretation of the role of local schools as an
14 interdisciplinary partner in the planning process. This prompts the question, what normative approach supports the role of community schools in larger family friendly Research P roblem This thesis seeks to assist community development practitioners engaged in planning family friendly communities by supplementing the known uses of public schools with interdisciplinary partnership strategies identified in the o rganizational structure of the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile in Berlin Germany These partnerships include primary and secondary community schools as facilitators of neighborhood services and amenities essential to child, youth, and family well being. Attention to services and amenities is becoming increasingly important as family friendly planners attempt to address the needs of a diversifying population with varying family compositions (Gutierrez et al 2008). The Center for Cities and Schools ident ifies schools as public, educational, social, and physical infrastructure with the capacity to offer diverse amenities as a community asset and educate diverse families as an educational asset (Bierbaum, Vincent, Mckoy 2011). In addition to the supplement ing the strategies of family friendly planning, this thesis also attempts to distinguish the operational differences between public schools and community schools as they relate to the advancement of family friendly communities. Unlike traditional public schools, community schools link school and community resources as an integral part of their design and operation. As a result, community schools have three major advantages that schools acting alone do not. Community schools can: 1) Garner additional reso urces and reduce the demands on school staff, 2) Provide learning opportunities that
15 develop both academic and nonacademic competencies, 3) Build social capital; the networks and relationships that support learning and create opportunity for young people w hile strengthening their communities (Coalition for Community Schools 2003 p 15). Each of these advantages demonstrates the importance of neighborhood integration and civic interactions in the collaborative community school model. In the literature, hi storically local schools serving as multifunctional centers or capital as well as human capital. Historical records show that these buildings facilitated objectives defined in the CRC and family friendly communities in providing resources to children that encourage autonomy and societal participation, c ommunity schools could not be more significant in sustaining these efforts. In addition to significant social factors, the role of community schools in strengthening family friendly initiatives is also dictated by spatial factors, and thus obvious locatio nal advantages adheres to neighborhoods with community schools located centrally, within close proximity to residential areas, and physically well integrated into urban landscape Family friendly communities emphasize the provision of community resources a nd amenities within reach of all family members from children to seniors. Therefore it would seem logical to consolidate, normally fragmented local resources, with in a public institution common to all neighborhoods and designed with the capacity to accommo date diverse population groups and diverse needs. Within the context of the United States, the community school concept has yet to be implemented as a type of coordinated infrastructure in family friendly community plans. Components of this collaborative method such as, co location which provide s
16 community amenities as an extension of public school resources, the most common being libraries, parks, and childcare, manifest in half of all fami ly friendly comprehensive plans. The performance and creation of productive relationships between schools and the communities they serve does not typically fall within the purview of planners (Israel and Warner 2008). However, recent approaches to enhance social cohesion in neighborhoods across Europe have employed innovative community planning methods that integrate areas of community life and education. Federal support for these strategies are authorized implemented through the Sociall y Integrative City program, a series of integrated and productiveness of citizens (Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development 2008 p 5). This program places acces sibility to education, social, cultural, and public amenities as a significant priority in eliminating barriers to inclusion (Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development 2008). According to Ingeborg Junge Reyer, Senator for Urban Development in Berlin, Germany, in pursuit of the mission outlined in the Socially Integrative City program, lessons were learned in how communities support families, and it was established that education and integration account for the most critical elements in over 1,000 comm unity projects (Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development 2010). In these projects urban development focused heavily on roads, squares and open spaces and the promotio n of the neighborhood culture to
17 Development 2010 p 7). In the last decade, both American and European cities have provided different degrees of school based strategies aimed at improving urban conditions for children and families, but European cities have also implemented long range practical examples in the urban landscape (City for Children 2010). The lack of formal examples in the United States allow this thesis to provide so me supplementation to existing knowledge on community school partnerships with the use of an international case study, the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile Berlin, Germany, and an analysis of its family friendly planning implications. Glimpse at the T heoretical F ramework R elative to the C ase S tudy In order to accomplish the proposed research, this thesis institutes the theoretical background for soc ial capital. The community school, the integrative and holistic counterpart to public schools, is defined and discussed as a resource for family friendly communities and referred to as a central community feature in the development of social capital (Hanni fin 1920). The characteristics of community schools and its role in family friendly communities and social capital development are explored. recent to analyze its m easurable effects on the social capital building and wellbeing in the context of family friendly planning. Therefore the available data: history, organizational structure, and planning processes, provided by the Berlin Senate for Urban Development, Gropius stadt Neighborhood Management, and the Wutzkyallee Mile personnel, are examined as a normative application of community school principles within the scope of broad community development goals. The creation of new youth
18 amenities, services, programs, and urban developments is reviewed as indicators of the community sch ools role in building social infrastructure and contributing to social capital within the context of family friendly planning. Finally, the potential reapplication of the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile model is explored for similar community school networks within the United States as identified by the Coalition of Community Schools. Recommendations on broadening community school partnerships in the US and integrating them into community planning strategies to strengthen family friendly planning init iatives are also be made in this thesis. Research Objectives Th is thesis addresses three research objectives that drive this research First, it examine s the characteristics of family friendly communities that necessitate the developm ent of social capital and contributions provided by community schools. What is it about family friendly communities that warrant the need for social capital development, and how can community schools fulfill this role? Second it frame existing literature on community schools within the paradigm of family friendly planning as a critical element in building vibrant family friendly communities. How do the characteristics of community schools, historically and presently, position this practice as key element i n development of family friendly communities and social capital? Third, identify the development process and features of the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile that justify its position as a central element in improving the quality of life for children, youth, a nd families in the community it serves. In what manner has the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile fulfilled this role in its service of the Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management area of Berlin, Germany?
19 Summary This thesis examines these research objectives with respect to theory of social capital within the context of a community school model defined by the Coalition of Community Schools and child and family friendly planning principles established by UNICEF and the American Planning Association described in Cha pter 2. Methods to available public information provided by the Berlin Senate for Urban Development, Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management, and the Wutzkyallee Educati onal Mile, as well as site observations, interviews with relevant administrative staff of the Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management team, and archival information from the Gropiusstadt monthly newsletter The Walter described in C hapter 3. These methods are utilized in the case study to describe the history of the site area and formation of the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile, its organizational structure, collaborative action plan, and synergetic partnerships in Chapter 4. This thesi s attempt s to answer the three key questions outlined in the research objectives with the intention of clarifying the understanding of the role of community schools in family friendly communities Each question is addressed in Chapter 5 as indicators of social capital production and enhancements to the capacity of family friendly communities are examined in relation to activities and programs produced by the Wutz kyallee Educational Mile and the potential for reapplication in similar neighborhood conditions Finally, in Chapter 6, the case study findings and opportunities for future research are summarized in the Conclusion.
20 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In order to understand the context in which community schools contrib ute to social capital in family friendly communities, the conceptual background of family friendly planning is reviewed. The guiding principles and goals of family friendly planning are also examined in relation to the theory of social capital. Finally, the distinct nature of community schools will be reviewed in contrast to public schools, along with an identification of characteristics, both historical and contemp orary, that aids in the production of social capital within the family friendly planning framework. The concept of child and family friendly environments has been a subject of urban development since the United Nations established the first international agenda to make cities livable for children during the second conference on Human Settlements in 1996 (UNICEF 2009). Subsequent initiatives have focused upon local action that lead to the development of holistic neighborhoods, which simultane ously support the needs of children, youth, adults, and seniors (Hodgson 2011, Israel and Warner 2008, Rukus and Warner 2013 ). The literature that follows provides a overview of core themes making up the conceptual framework of family friendly planning, t heoretical background of social capital, and practical framework of community schools. The underpinnings of each of the se elements are reviewed from a national and international perspective to inform universal family friendly planning guidelines as well as alternative approaches based on community school models. In the traditional and alternative themes, the key focuses are the same: 1) public participation, 2) comprehensive planning, and 3) urban development/design. Alternative
21 approaches include urban d evelopment factors as well as synergetic partnerships between urban planning, education, and interdisciplinary agencies. Conceptual Background : Family Friendly Planning Convention on the R ights of the C hild Seventeen years ago, the welfare of children in relation to the urban landscape subsequently influenced the creation of the Child Friendly Cities Initiative (CFCI) in 1996 (UNICEF 2009 p 1 2004 well being to: Influence decisions about their city Express their opinion on the city the y want Participate in family, community and social life Receive basic services such as health care and education Drink safe water and have access to proper sanitation Be protected from exploitation, violence and abuse Walk safely in the streets on their ow n Meet friends and play Have green spaces for plants and animals Live in an unpolluted environment Participate in cultural and social events
22 Be an equal citizen of their city with access to every service, regardless of ethnic origin, religion, income, gend er or disability (UNICEF 2009 p 1 2) Development of child friendly cities occurs if the rights of children are reflected in policy, laws, and physical developments. Establishing partnerships between local agencies, including health and education sectors, municipalities, and active community agents, specifically children, leads to a greater degree of efficiency in recognizing and realizing the rights of children to guide improvements in local situations that impact well being (UNICEF 2004, UNICEF 2009). In partnerships and participatory planning become foundational. This provides an immediate opportunity for those involved in promoting Child Friendly Cities to highlight h ow this concept can be harnessed and developed as a major contribution to the national process of implementing the CRC (Convention on the Rights of Children) and building a world fit for children (UNICEF 2004 p 3). sectors that directly impact the lives of children is foundational to the process of developing child friendly cities at the neighborhood planning level. Livable C ommu nities M ovement broadens the scope of the Child Friendly Cities Initiative in the United States by promoting the importance of acknowledging the needs of children in the planning pr ocess and the benefits that communities may experience with the development and design of urban amenities fit for children. A neighborhood or community that contains features promoting children and youth well being is considered to be more vibrant,
23 economi cally stable, supportive of multigenerational needs, and experience less crime (Gutierrez et al, 2009, Hodgson 2011, and Rukus and Warner 2013). As a result, addressing the needs of children can have multiplier effects that are beneficial to the stability of families and communities. Israel and Warner base their assessment of Family Friendly Cities within the broader notion of Livable Communities. A livable community is one that has affordable and appropriate housing, supportive community features and se rvices, and adequate mobility options, which together facilitate personal independence and the engagement of residents in civic and social life (Kochera and Straight 2005 p 4). The focus placed on families, children, and youth set Israel and Warner apart from popular planning paradigms such as new urbanism whose livability standards reflects the interests of the creative class: single young professionals (Israel and Warner 2008, Florida 2002). The American Planning Association defines family friendly comm unities play in, pedestrian pathways, quality public schools, and safe neighborhoods among er 2008 p1). The more inclusive position of family friendly planning attempts to build the supportive capacity of cities, communities, and neighborhoods by focusing on livability of families (Rukus and Warner 2013 ). Traditional Tools for Child and Family Friendly Planning Participation in the pl anning p rocess The CFC Rights of the Child and L ivable C ommunities concept s provide the foundation for national and international approaches to planning child and family friendly
24 cities (Gutierrez et al 2009). One of the key aspects of family friendly planning is child ers local knowledge a better understanding of youth (and vice versa), and society as a whole advances the 353 353). However, Frank (2001) and Olson (2009) note that child participation often functions within the context of broad community building agendas and comprehensive plans. Knowles ss confirms (Knowles Comprehensive p lanning Child and f amily fri endly planning approaches based upon land use, site planning, and zoning is aimed at developing essential community resources that support livability. (Rukus and Warner, 2013). Family friendly planning has primarily focused on the development of affordable multi, and family sized housing in local level action plans to promote the interests of families with children and ultimately, lead to sustainable local growth ( Israel and Warner 2008). As a condition for family friendly communities, affordable housing i s the number one factor influencing neighborhood choice and a general demand for the development of new housing programs persist for families of every income level (Gutierrez et al. 2009 and Ross 2009). As with housing, factors such as transportation and m obility, parks and open space, and child care and education have also been established as key criteria to support the common interests of families. According to a national Family Friendly Planning survey conducted by Israel
25 and Warner in coordination with the American Planning Association (2008), considerations for housing, transportation, and parks are included in the comprehensive plans of communities branded family friendly to support appropriate land use and zoning decisions (Figure 2 1). The key themes expressed by the survey indicates that issues of suitable and affordable housing, pedestrian mobility, and accessibility to parks and open space are the prime conditions recognized by planners in the United States in the development and construction of fa mily friendly environments. In contrast to the United States, the European Network of Child Friendly Cities (EN CFC) model encourages broader neighborhood planning themes that include three focus points: Holistic approach Child friendliness requires a holistic approach and is representative of the entire city in all its aspects. It is not a quality limited to the development of specific provisions, it is not an aspect of provisions nor an aspect that is determined by the number of provisions. Integra l approach Child friendly policy requires an integral approach where all areas of life within the urban area should be child friendly: education, mobility, urban planning, care services, health, environment, leisure, sports and several others. Intergene rational approach Child friendliness also requires an intergenerational approach. Child friendliness does not imply that children require their own city but it does imply that children are recognized as citizens that are a part of the entire city. Childre n should not be socially isolated. (EN CFC 2013 p 1) Accordin anual (2012) and precedent projects established by Cities for Children (2012), the integration of livability elements and amenities 2012 p 8), are essential in the planning and land development process. Eisinger (2012)
26 a child friendly neighborhood manual, describes the lack of coordination between different land use requirements and community resources as a weakness and challenge to the development of child friendly neighborhoods. Urban d esign The role of urban design i n family friendly planning is emphasized as a key action in the removal of environmental barriers that inhibit the flexibility, safety, mobility, and participation of citizens form childhood to adulthood (Rukus and Warner 2013, Hodgson 2011). Family f riendly neighborhoods promote urban design elements that able pedestrian focused tran sportation options, mixed used development oriented neighborhood security, and location efficient community parks, public spaces, and essential services: healthcare, child care, schools, etc. (Hodgson 2011, Olson 2009, Rukus and Warner 2013, UNICEF 2011). Summary In the last few decades the Child and Livable Communities have encouraged planners to recognize the needs and capabilities of children and youth in the development of child and family friendly communities. The Convention on the Rights of the Child seek to realize their principle objectives of advancing child wel lbeing and citizenship through coordinated political and practical actions making the development of child friendly urban and social landscapes obligatory to local governments committed to this human rights treaty. The standards that shape physical enviro nments conducive to child and youth independence are
27 conceptualized in the community development paradigm of the family friendly planning, with respect to the land use influences of the livable communities movement. According to a survey conducted by the A merican Planning Association for practicing planners in the United States in communities branded family friendly more than half of all respondents indicated the following target areas considered in comprehensive plans : Zoning regulations that promote a v ariety of housing types and prices to enable an economically and socially diverse community ; Zoning regulations allow for open space and parks ; Zoning regulations allow for sitting community facilities ; Site plans reviews that consider pedestrian issues ; Design guidelines that facilitates interactions between neighbors ; and Co location of schools with parks, recreational areas, libraries, and community centers (Israel and Warner 2008 p 12 ). The community resources emphasized in United States family frien dly planning model, such as housing, transportation, parks/recreational space are informed by the planner s interpretation of what families are likely to find attractive and essential when determining residential location (Israel and Warner 2008). Althoug h each of the prescribed community elements holds significance in meeting the physical capital needs of families, they function as resources that are experienced by individuals or individual families. The current framework of family friendly planning in t he United States does not sufficiently emphasis the production of community amenities for collective programs and services. Due to global demographic trends of changing family compositions and community structures, the traditional urban development interv entions of child and
28 family friendly planning must be supplemented with social development plans that manifest social capital objectives as outline in the CRC (Buys and Miller 2009). Families are on their own. Family privacy, economic prosperity, and mobi lity patterns all separate parents and children from traditional sources of support and feedback ... Isolation is contagious, we become estranged from each other and all families lose the social support of close and caring loved ones (Garbarino and Abramow itz, 1992 p 94). In her book, the Death and Life of Great American Cities Jane Jacobs (1961) wrote about the importance of environmental features that promoted interactions between people to support cohesive communities and assimilate children int o society. In order for cities to fully engage children as citizens and support their development, as detailed in the CRC, the paradigm of family friendly planning must integrate physical community resources with provisions for social capital to activate t role in society and opportunities to contribute their community. Theoretical Background: Social Capital Over 90 years ago, the concept of social capital emerged in Lyda Judson Hanifin's discourse of rural school community centers ( Woolcock and N arayan 2000 European Commission 2005) Hannifin held that the notion of social capital is used to describe: [T hose] tangible substances [that] count for most in the daily lives of people; namely, good will, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among the individuals and families who make up a social unit, the rural community, whose logical center in most a cases is the school. In community building, as in business organization, there must be an accumulation of capital before construct ive work can be done...Such accumulation may be effected by means of public entertainments, picnics, and a variety of other community gatherings. When people of a given community have become acquainted with one another and have formed a habit of coming tog ether occasionally...then by skillful leadership this social capital may easily be directed towards the general improvement of the community (Hannifin 1920 p 78 79).
29 In order to effectively facilitate the development of social capital, social interactions and the development of settings that promote those interactions ar e foundational. Hannifin writes : H ope lies in the possibilities of the community center...people must first get the habit of meeting together in a neighborly way. By such meeting they wil l have acquired certain community interests and accumulated some social capital. By varying the programs of community center meetings to include entertainment, culture, social enjoyment, and discussions of ways for community improvement, the skillful [lead er] by a proper use of social capital thus accumulated will lead his community...through the art of community building (Hannifin 1920 p 142). organized interaction be tween community members and local agents are central to the process of social capital development for individuals as well as the entire community. Role of S ocial S tructures in Bu ilding S ocial C apital 19 88 S98). Like Hannifin, Coleman refers to the importance of goodwill, trust, associations, and civic interactions, but describes the processes of developing social capital relative to the social structure of communities and family compositions. According t to an actor. And inheres in the structure of relations between actors an d (Coleman 1988 S98). Resources, such as interactions and associations, within a community for the production of social capital, can be beneficial to some individuals and useless to others
30 S105). Coleman describes these conditions as social structures in facilitating some form of social capital, which include open and closed social networks. In an open social network, relationships do not extend to each entity within the network, prohibitin g the transference of social norms, and allowing negative actions to be carried out by certain actors. In a closed network, where community interactions are promoted and far reaching, entities can work together to sustain or sanction the actions carried ou t by certain actors. As a result, in a closed network all actors or community members are exposed to social norms while working collectively in the production of social capital. The case for both community and family is similar in regards to the linked sy stem of social structures. Coleman places special emphasis on closed social networks between parents and children and its effect on social capital and the development of human capital. Unlike adults, whom generate social capital through horizontal relation ships with peers, neighbors, and others children are dependent upon the vertical transference of accumulated social capital from parents in what he describes as two p arents have greater potential in transferring social capital due to the ability of strength of the relations between parents and child [is reflective of] the measure of socia trustworthiness that ari Putnam (2000) describes two
31 forms of social capital: bonding and bridging. Bonding refers to the generation of social capital through relationships in community groups. While bridging, reflects the development of social capital through links beyond immediate social groups, such as cross generational, gender, multi ethnic linkages, and even institutional l inkages. ary future citizens dependent upon bridging social capital from parents and adults to make the transformation to human capital. In his assessment of the benefits of social ca pital, reaching effects on their opportunities and choices, educational achievement, an d 306). While still emphasizing the importance of the family in the transference of social capital to children, he broadens the scope with the introduction of additional community networks to brid ge paths between children, family, and the community. With the addition of supplemental networks for the transfer of social capital to children, Putnam (2000) and Leonard (2005) acknowledge social and physical features in communities that can inhibit chil dren and youth from utilizing the resources these networks provide a vis adults in society may provide additional constraints to their ability to manage exchange ability between different children cannot fully realize their citizenship through traditional civic privileges and activities, such as voting or choice in where they live. For these reasons Putnam relies
32 heavily on child and y outh involvement in collective recreational activities as an indicator of civic participation and method of bridging social capital. In 1979 James Gibson wrote about the theory of environmental affordances, describing the influence of one s environment o n constrai nts and allowances of certain behaviors. In terms of social capital, the ability to carry out social and interactive local environment than other age groups with the 2005 p 613 and Schaefer McDaniel 2004). For this reason the development of social capital between their peers or across generations must be supported in the physical environment. With respect to Coleman ries on social structures and their influence on the production of social capital, the wellbeing of children and youth are dually compounded by societal structures as well as the constraints and allowances of their everyday physical environment. Thus, prac tical and policy contributions to bridging social capital in children must recognize spaces and institutions suitable for developing activities and programs that promote collective engagement and feelings of social connectedness (Coleman 1990, Cohen 2001, Marrow 2002, Schaefer McDaniel 2004, and Leonard 2005). Spaces and I nstitutions for B ridging S ocial C apital work, he stresses the importance of social structures in the production of social capital in children, particularly the significance of families. In his later work, like much of the contemporary literature, his focus shifts to social capital as a concept that also applies to environmental settings, specifically scho ols (Coleman 1990b, Schaefer interpersonal relationships in the school setting: among students, among teachers,
33 among parents, between teachers and students, between teachers and parents, and between McDaniel 2004). Like Putnam, he describes the significance of collective activities in bridging social capital through parent led school based extracurricular activities. In his theory, this setting strengthens existing rela tionships between students and teachers and parents and students while building new relationships between parents and teachers. It should be stated however, that school can be utilized, not as a basis for the p roduction of social capital in children but as an institutional facilitator in the transference of social capital in addition to the foundational family structure. Schaefer theory supports the notion that these social capital and thus play a role in not only enhancing existing relationships, but also McDaniel 2004). A growing body of empirical research reinforces the role of school based activities in fostering social capital (European Commission 2005, McGrath et al 2009, Buys and Miller 2009, and Ferguson 2004, Coalition for Community Schools 2003). According to a social capital stud y performed by the European Commission, schools 2005 p 52) based on their positive impact on the frequency of new peer relationships and interactions between youth and a dults. In addition to the schools core function as a educational institution, some facilities also share commitments to the community by offering art and cultural activities, which : A re increasingly viewed as a catalyst in building strong communities...[ and a]...way of fostering social capital in children through participation in
34 community cultural/arts programs, whereby the process of community integration and connectedness occurs through the creative capacity of the people who participate (Buys and Mil ler 2009 p 2 3 and Kingma, 2002). that the majority of enrolled students in the study sample do not take part in any arts or cultural activities t community based arts initiatives within schools may serve as a vehicle for the enhancement of social capital, particularly in the context of socio economically disadvantaged communities where this research was d on the responses from study participants, students experienced greater self concept, reciprocity, knowledge sharing/skill learning, extensions to their peer networks, and feelings of obligation and safety while working collectively. The research findings of the European Commission and Buys and Miller provides some insight on the methods and impacts of building social capital through school based programs and use of school facilities as a vehicle for child and youth engagement in distressed area. Summary The advancement of social capital theory reinforces to a certain degree the significance Hannifin's literature, which included schools as spatial facilitators of social capital production. With the concept of environmental allowances expressed by Gibson in mind, the advent of the more vital role played by schools, which is an environmental feature common in all communities, produces greater possibilities in facilitating social capital in children, youth, and families. By accommodating collective activities and programs open to the entire community, schools not only allow bonding relationships between students, they also have the capacity to facilitate bridging between citizens and local institutions within a community Thus schools becom e
35 within a closed community network. It should be noted that these types of outcomes are dually dependent upon the design of the schools physical form, surrounding area, and policies that shape its program allowances (Schaefer McDaniel 2004). Based on the processes expressed in the literature, it is understood by each contributor, that social capital can have significant positive outcomes in regards to social issues associated with children, youth, and family wellbeing (Hannifin 1920, Coleman 1988, Ferguson 2004, Coleman & Hoffer, 1987; Furstenberg & Hughes, 1995, Putnam, 2000, Leonard 2005, Teachman, Paasch and Carver 1996, Buys and Miller 2009, and Schaefer McDaniel 2004). Role of Planning in Bridging and Bonding Social Capita l With regards to social capital, the nature of family friendly planning as a contributor to the wellbeing of children, youth, and families in the built environment, justifies the need to develop new or enhance existing resources that promote regular commu nity interactions and civic participation. Cases from the Netherlands and Denmark suggest that the development of social capital can be pursued in a variety of : A ctively contribu te to foster beneficial bridging of social capital and thus counteract group segregation harmful to society (Uslaner 2006, 2009) and lead to excessive bonding social capital The state may also invest in high quality meeting places, where vital public, trade and leisure time services are offered, in the following termed multifunctional centers. In short, bridging social capital presupposes inclusive meeting places (Uslander 2006 and Svednsen 2010 46). The literature on metho ds of developing effective spaces to bridge social capital, 1996, Chaskin 2011, Vincent 2010). These multifunctional centers operate in
36 accordance with the needs of the surrounding community and generally provide services su ch as: L ong day care, before and after school care, occasional care, mobile kindergartens, toy libraries, play groups, support groups for parents, and youth activity services for young people of secondary school age who live in socially and economically disadvantaged areas (Wylie et al 1997 p 28). The Dutch model for multifunctional centers is acknowledged as a f ull service community house such as schools is instituted in some parts of the United States through joint use school school as library services, performance arts facilities, community social services, and meeting spaces (Vincent 2010, Fila rdo et al 2010). Both cases support consolidating collective services and activities in one location to maximize points of community intersection, and with respect to social capital theory and children, schools present the greatest advantage in bridging ne tworks between all age groups, based on their presence in all communities, pre established relationships between children and parents, and their capacity to support diverse programs and activities (Andersen and Svednsen 2010, Vincent 2010, Coleman 1988). T he potential described in the concept of multifunctional centers manifests in community schools, which coalesce a range of community services and broaden the context for family friendly pla nners to meet its key objective of providing services close to home to ensure accessibility for child, youth, and families.
37 Advent of S chools as C ommunity C enters the value placed on western public schools in the early 20th century. During this period : M odern theories of urban planning [recognized] the school building as a place based institution, a day to day facility in close relationship with the neighborhood. Garden Cities of Tomorrow to principles consigned by Raymond Unwin in Town Planning in Practice (1909), as well as by [Clarence] Perry in 20s or in the German Dutch experiences of the late 20s and 30s, school premises became a key element of neighborhood structure (Heitor and Alegre 2012 p 4). In the early 20th century, western schools were centrally planned within walking distance to two or more residential service areas (Heitor and Alegre 2012) Its physical placement in the center of neighborhoods reinforced the schools role as the essential vehicle for establishing mutually beneficial relationships between the areas served. The visibility and access afforded to schools during this era fostered collective engagement construct, an ordering system, one of the principal means by which humankind re orders and re Alegre 2012 p 2). For children, youth, and parents the school represented a prominent community asset for the transference of knowledge and social norms. With the growth of urban sprawl and increasing demand for public schools during the baby boomer perio d, the factors of construction for schools shifted from neighborhood contexts to uniform construction solutions determined by site area minimum requirements. This shift led to larger schools constructed on the outskirts of its supported area, physically an d socially detached from existing neighborhoods and
38 community planning strategies (Heiter and Algre 2012 ). The distance and lack of environmental affordances for day to day interaction altered neighborhood perceptions of schools as community assets to a si ngular service based institution. From the 1950s to the present civic perception of schools has been reflected in the disconnect that exists between urban planning and school planning. Until recently, the role of western primary and secondary schools was rarely acknowledged in urban planning strategies. Today, in both the United States and Europe, inner city schools are being revitalized to serve as a shared community resources, as they once did in the early 20th century, to address social and physical cap ital deficits in impoverished communities. As mentioned earlier, contemporary public schools that coalesce education based services and public amenities operate as community schools. Utilizing C ommunity S chools in F amily Fr iendly p P anning In the context of community schools and the principles that provide its Communities (SSSC) and The Coalition for Community Schools (CCS) (Norris 2009 and CCS 2011) is offered fo r planners seeking to unite urban planning and educational reform in local urban and suburban neighborhood settings. In comparison to public schools, which honor a singular commitment to their students through formal educational practices, community school s share a commitment to both students and non students with the development of integrative relationships with their communities, other local institutions, interdisciplinary agencies, and local government. However, while community schools play a multifuncti onal role in the neighborhoods they serve, they are still technically public schools, in terms of how they are financed and their offerings of free enrollment (Coalition for Community Schools 2013).
39 The SSSC framework for community schools balances the ed ucation sector factors of school facility design, school siting, and co location of services, with non school factors of participatory planning, land use planning, and urban design (Eisberg et al. 2005). Smart Growth advocates stress the interaction betwe en all of these factors, while Coalition of Community School advocates promote the activation of local partnerships to make the education based interventions sustainable (Fuller et al. 2009). All of these factors are essential in the advancing the interest s of family friendly communities, while connecting individuals, families, and institutions to support closed community networks. Both approaches work to strengthen coordination between the broad community assets and reassess quality of life elements that m ake a community sustainable and family friendly. Finally, the framework reflects the realities of community school developments with respect to the challenges that tend to disassociate the practice from urban planning as well as the opportunities for utili zing the potential of schools as a central community element to enhance social capital and subsequently strengthen the capacity of family friendly planning initiatives. Smart G rowth Smart growth development suggests that a community should not be shaped by vs. time, attention, and resources in community and provides new life to centre cities an d Brookings Institute suggests that the products of these efforts are neighborhoods that are more economically viable and equitable via more compact development patterns
40 along w ith community oriented amenities and opportunities within reach of all residents (Muro and Puentes 2004). Smart growth development is pursued through a comprehensive series of Mak e development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices. Provide a variety of transportation options. Strengthen existing communities and direct development towards them. Preserve natural beauty, p arks, farmland and environmentally critical areas. Make efficient use of public investments in infrastructure, schools, and services. Create neighborhoods where daily needs are close at hand. Create safe, inviting environment for walking. Foster distinctiv e communities with a strong sense of place. Put jobs and good schools within reach of all who need them. (Goldberg 20 p 4) In the last decade, smart growth development activities have been adapted to appropriately synchronize development with K 12 public schools, which currently presents one of the greatest obstacles to holistic planning in the United States due to Typically, a school is planned by one entity, the stree ts surrounding the school by another entity, and the land around the school by a third entity (Norris 2009 p 6). Continuity between school development and planning is essential for a number of reasons. First, the disconnect that exists between schools and planning is significant to both smart growth and family friendly planning initiatives due to the limitations it presents in developing a compact and safe urban landscape between the home environment and educational institutions. According to Smart Growth of America, it should be debated whether new school facility size is analyzed on a small neighborhood scale or if older schools can be restored in contrast to allowing school boards to dictate
41 that a larger facility size, requiring more land and developmen t on the outskirts, is more effective in meeting local needs and budgets. Second, in order for smart growth and family friendly communities to be successful, it is important to determine the level of mobility and local participation that the urban environm ent surrounding the schools allows children and other pedestrians. Poor school siting decisions hinders mobility for children, walking or biking, and accessibility to other services co located with school facilities: parks, open space, libraries, etc. Thir d, the design of the schools should be reflective of the manner in which local students use it and also support community members who do not have school age children. The holistic nature of smart growth and family friendly planning is often restricted by barriers of NIMBYISM, which can the block development of public resources and services. Because educational institutions are staples in every community, schools designed to support non students encourage increased family participation, which, according to Rukus and Warner (2013) leads to more action and less resi stance in the planning process. students are granted the opportunity to enjoy the for th e school system than they would if they had no interaction with the school concepts for community schools established by Smart Schools for Smart Communities. Smart S c hools for S mart C ities The Smart Schools for Smart Cities approach references neighborhood configurations of the early 19 th century, specifically Neighborh ood Unit (1926). This concept promoted public schools as a center for neighborhood life and facilitator of comm unity based supportive services. T he
42 community schools concept influenced neighborhood development both nationally and abroad (APA, 2013). The school served as central community element because of its st (Glazer 1959 p 191). This early 19 th century planning theory first presented the central role played by public schools in shaping the local physical and social environment of neighborhoods and today those ideals provide the foundation for the principles of modern community schools. However, during the 1950s and 1960s, after the introduction o the position of public schools as central element in neighborhood planning diminished in practice and literature (Glazer, 1959 and McDonald 2010). Until recently, community school plans have been lead solely by the education sector with comprehensive planners abdicating controls over school siting to school districts (Israel and Warner 2008 and McDonald 2010). This disjointed method is consistent with many cities across the United States and that do not require collaborations or producti ve relationships between planners and school districts in school siting. Based on a Family Friendly Planning survey conducted by Evelyn Israel and Mildred Warner in coordination with the American Planning Association (2008), half of all the planners survey school boards to reuse schools, site new schools, or co locate schools with parks, recreation areas, lib raries, and comm (Israel and Warner 2008) According to the Center for Cities and Schools compr ehensive plans that consider
43 public schools are commonly unenforced in land use procedures, undermined by the education sector, and rarely adapted to neighborhood revitalization efforts. As special planning districts, public school districts have their o wn governing bodies, budgets and land development powers. School districts have the power to condemn and assemble land, but they are not always required to abide by comprehensive plans or zoning laws. Current land use and governance policies, such as acrea ge requirements and two thirds spending rules, bias new school siting toward new construction, as opposed to infill development, and the reuse of existing building and sites. These schools are often cut off from existing communities, and inaccessible to mo st students by walking, biking, or public transit (Eisber et al 2006 p 4) While the consideration of schools in comprehensive plans is significant in establishing the overall community vision, the absence of coordination between the governing bodies of schools planning and neighborhood planning severely limits the flexibility necessary for efficient school siting, joint use, and co location developments that enhance the value of communities for children, youth, and familie s (Eisber et al 2006). The Smart Schools Smart Cities approach, works to reorient the location and the role of schools back into the heart neighborhoods as promoted in the Neighborhood chools should be located in existing neighborhoods, within walking distance of residents and services, accessible schools located in the center of communities, the SSSC appro ach maintains 6 guiding principles to promote win wins between local schools and its surrounding community. These principles include: Promote a sense of safety and security Build connections between members of the school and the community Instill a sense o f pride Engage students in learning Encourage students in learning Encourage strong parental involvement
44 Foster environmental stewardship (US EPA 2004 p 11 12) The SSSC approaches each of these principles by directly addressing the governing structure of school boards that undermine planning efforts and corroborates with municipalities, developers, disciplinary agencies, and local actors to inform more productive planning decisions that promote concurrency on smart growth issues that can add value to comm unities with children and youth. The SSSC has established a Smart Growth Schools Report Card, which offers examples of best practices and development criteria, which includes: Full Cost Analysis Determination of reinvesting in existing schools vs constr uction of new schools Holistic Planning Concurrency between land use planning and school planning Community Buy In Ensures meaning input from Community Elimination of Design Constraints Flexibility to site and design school efficiently Neighborhood Schools Schools embedded into neighborhood context; walk able, safe, and accessible to children, youth, and families Prominent Site Visible and communicates importance in the community Shared Use accommodates both school and non school amenities Flexibi lity schools designed for potential reuse Connected Learning Environment Networks with local business and organizations to promote life long learning for both students and non students Community Pride in Design Aesthetically pleasing design High Perform ance Green Building Certification Construction follows LEED practices (Norris 2009 p 25)
45 development criteria promote the alignment of commonly segregated development entities that directly impact environmental affordances for children, youth, and families: transportation planning, land use planning, and school planning. For example, a local planning department might use an existing school as a key ingredient to the revitalization of a neighborhood. Meanwhile, the school district might want to close the school because enrollment has been declining for years. At the same time, the neighborhood might have experienced a decline because the streets were not properly. Getting all three entities to act in concert when those enti ties have a different set of priorities and concerns is a difficult task to say the least. And the bottom line is that when all three planning disciplines are needlessly out of sync, they invariably lead to unintelligent growth patterns (Norris 2009 p 6) The proposed solution by t he SSSC includes incentivizing the cooperation of local school boards with planning efforts through exactions on tax increment financing funds (TIFF), which is the primary financial support system for development and investment of public schools, as well as a source of financial aid for trans portation infrastructure improvement s (Andris 2006). Through structured TIFF funding, holistic planning efforts have been successful states such as California and Alabama (Andris 2006) Over all outcomes the SSSC method is described to: 1) save the community money, 2) decrease environmental impact of schools on the community, 3) Improve the health of students, 4) Increase long term support for the school system by tho se who do not have school aged children Coalition for C ommunity S chools A pproach The community schools process follows a collaborative people based and place based planning approach. The Coalition for Community Schools is the distinct leader in its people based approach while Smart Schools for Smart Communi ties fosters a more place based, land use, and development strategy. The former relates to organizational
46 action and partnerships between community members, local government and institutions to develop a shared vision, utilize community strengths, and influence local decision making regarding the educational landscape (CCS 2011). The later provides a development strategy to unite school facility planning with smart growth principles (Norris 2009). Together both approaches provide a community oriented framework for pursuing more livable and family friendly neighborhoods. National and international community school developments are frequently implemented in accordance with the Coalition of Community Schools (CCS) approach (CCS 2013). The CCS strategy has produced 4,000 5,000 community schools nationally and in ternational (CCS 2011). The CCS envisions community schools as a: A place and a set of partnerships connecting school, family, and community. A commun ity school is distinguished by an integrated focus on academics, youth development, family support, health and social services, and community development. Its curriculum emphasizes real world learning through community problem solving and service. By exten ding the school day and week, it reaches families and community residents. The community school is uniquely equipped to develop its students into educated citizens ready and able to give back to their communities (CCS 2011 p 3). The vision of the CCS is approached under a n action agenda, which features four guiding elements: Motivating vision establi shed through community outreach ( involving children, youth, parents, community residents educational institutions, partner agencies, and local governmen t ) and data to define desired results and drive decision making Connected learning experience encouraged through the integration of school systems, local governments, and higher education institutions. Community partnerships to create broad based, local coalitions to advance develop and sustain community schools. Strategic organization and financing with the creation of a community school organizer position to braid existing funding streams and local resources.
47 (Coalition of Community Schools 2003 p 57 61) Each of these elements work s to evolve public school facilities into a sustainable neighborhood resource that contributes to conditions for learning, public programs, and supportive services. However, the aim of the CCS is not to position sole responsibility of community school operations on the public school, this approach calls for shared services and resources between broad partnerships to ensure educational facilities are not overburdened and to sustain the organizational capa city necessary to meet diverse community needs (Coalition for Community Schools 2002). This integrative process engages a variety of school and non school partners (Appendix A) and as a result the CCS practice acknowledges a broad range services (Appendix B) and conditions to make school services flexible in addressing diverse needs reflective of changing demographics, health issues, and family circumstances. In contrast to the SSSC approach, which promotes concurrency between schools and land development the CCS focuses on achiev ing social goals such as removing barriers to learning youth development and strengthening families by restructuring relationships between schools, communities, public services, and local government. The success of the CCS pro student behavior and youth development, parent and family participation, safety and Essentially, the CCS method bridges conditions of family wellbeing with community improvement strategies that are traditionally deemed beyond the purview of planning (Israel and Warner 2008). Fo r this reason, CCS processes are commonly implemented in iso lation of land use procedures, often emer ging as policy responses to existing
48 community needs rather than projected needs established in urban planning procedures (Coalition of Community Schools 2003). Summary In addition to the collaborative community approach of the Coali tion for Community School, the Smart Schools Smart Cities method can be seen as an urban development response that affords strong relationships between communities and schools. In both cases, there is an acknowledgment that local schools and their surro unding communities share a mutually reinforcing relationship that is often undermined by disjointed planning practices. As a result, advocates for school reform recogni ze that the urban form of schools and their practical relationship wit h their surrounding community present significant family friendly and social capital implications based on factors of accessibility to collective services, mobility, community interaction, and wellbeing. The literature on child and family friendly communi ties all have identified the importance of: youth and family participation, comprehensive community planning, and urban design. Spatially the family friendly planning framework focuse s on traditional dimensions of planning including housing and transp ortation to advance the interests of families. However, planners have increased attention to services such as childcare, diverse needs. Building a supportive family fr iendly capacity and developing an urban landscape that benefits community members of every age has been the primary goal of these efforts The methods for reaching this goal in a planning remains weak in regards to is contributions to the social needs of f amilies. Incorporating community school
49 planning into the family friendly planning framework is a justifiable and practical vehicle for enhancing conditions supporting the Rights of Child, and the critical development of social capital. The case study that follows provides a international example of CCS strategies as well as SSSC elements to inform the practical relationships community schools can foster between children, youth, families, and local institutions along with supportive urban form implications conducive to the production of social capital in family friendly environments.
50 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This thesis focuses on the degree to which community schools in Berlin, Germany play a role in strengthening social capital and family friendly community capacity. The methodological approach includes a case study and an analysis of the role the Wutzkyallee Education Mile plays in responding to social needs and the efforts at d eveloping local conditions conducive to child, youth, and family well being through a qualitative analysis. Three key questions are included to examine the broad role of community schools as a supportive local resource in family friendly planning context followed by questions specific to the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile case study example: 1) What has been the role of the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile in influencing the improvement of community conditions supportive of children, youth, and family well being ? 2) What were the major causes of this development? 3) How has this role changed or advanced since its inception? 4) Does the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile support family friendly planning principles in its method of fostering relationships between schools and the communities they serve? Study Approach A case study was chosen to demonstrate a normative example of a community school in a urban setting and to identify themes that indicate a degree of concurrency with family friendly planning objectives. The s tudy of the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile, examines the occurrence of family friendly planning patterns in Berlin, Germany as local residents in collaboration with Education Association and Neighborhood Management
51 work to develop a coalition of community sc hools and align offerings of the educational environment with aspects of community life. The Choice of the Case S tudy Wutzkyallee Educational Mile in Berlin, Germany was chosen as the subject for this case study for several reasons. First, on a practical level, the researcher was a participant in the Network for European and United States Regional and Urban Studies program (NEURUS) in Berlin, Germany and had access to the educational and recreational facilities in terms its physical location. Second, the W utzkyallee Educational mile is located in an environment that includes core livability elements defined by family friendly principles. Third, of the fourteen cities in Germany identified by the European for child friendly cities) and the thirty five Neighborhood Management areas in Berlin, Germany for the application of joint school community programs to improve child, youth, and family wellbeing, the Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management area that houses the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile was the only site that included all of the following: 1) formal and informal educational programs, services and amenities open to students and non students, 2) internal networks between schools, daycare, and recreational f acilities, 3) external partnerships with non education institutions/organizations, 4) an organizational structure established by a community action plan, and 5) the utilization of the physical educational landscape to guide broad community development goal s. Fourth and examined with respect to the relationship between the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile and the community in its aim to improve the quality of life of children a nd families by harnessing existing public resources to build social capital and cohesion.
52 Data In order to determine how family friendly planning initiatives are supported in the development and performance of the community schools included in the case st udy, data regarding demographics, child, youth, and family supportive services, accessibility to local resources and neighborhood amenities, as well as maps and images offering evidence of urban design features will be reviewed as indicators of enhancement s to family friendly conditions. The concepts of social capital, community schools, and its relation to family friendly planning examined in the literature review offer a theoretical framework in support this thesis. The literature on community schools a nd family friendly planning is taken from published reports and on line journal resources. The case study will rely on qualitative data based on observations, a review of documented community activities in the monthly district newsletter and transcribed in terviews from key informants, as well as informal conversations with staff of the neighborhood management team involved in community planning efforts. The demographic data included in this case study is obtained from the Statistical Office of Berlin Brande nburg, Germany and the Quartiersmanagement (neighborhood management) of the Gropiusstadt neighborhood in Berlin Germany, as outlined in table 3 1. Limitations The analysis of the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile contribution to social capital within the co ntext of family friendly communities is established with consideration to the limitations of research methodology. The intent of this research is to examine a normative approach that involves community schools as an asset in the paradigm of family friendly planning. The Case Study and the Discussion that follows is not an
53 attempt to measure the performance of the Wutzk yallee Educational Mile or provide an analysis of the programs outcomes. This study is limited by the age of the program and its relatively recent implementation in 2008. Thus, the degree to which social capital and family wellbeing outcomes can be measure d is inadequate Summary Based on the lim itations discussed above, the Case Study aims to document the neighborhood context of the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile to identify social urban feat ures that warrant the need for utilizing community schools as a vehicle to support family wellbeing. The Discussion will provide an interpretation of significant urban form implications of school siting, supportive family services, and pedestrian access on family friendly environments based on the Case Study Observations. This approach will work to broaden the paradigm of family friendly planning by analyzing of the interdependent relationship between communities and schools
54 CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDY The function of local schools have broadened in development practices and theory to provide a dual role in building community capacity to support child, youth, and family needs while enhancing the bridging and bonding of social capital for community wellbeing as described in Chapter 2. First, the universal priority of schools has been to provide quality educational resources to ensure professional preparedness and youth development. In the case of community schools, these institutions have coupled education based priorities with additio provide bridging and bonding opportunities for the development of social capital that transcends all ages, race, and cul ture. Recently, in Berlin, Germany, more than 1,000 social urban development projects since 2005 have emerged through co operative schools have begun to operate as key social infrastructure to stabilize areas of concentrated neglect, poverty, and isolation. Because of its vital role as provider of educational opportunities and prevalence as a form of existing infrastructure in all communities, schools are being promoted to the forefront as a resource for social capital development and community cohesion (Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development 2010). As discussed in Chapter 2, the the oretical advantages of utilizing schools for their potential as multifunctional centers and environmental affordances to children, youth, and families, are reviewed in relation to the development strategies employed in the
55 case study. This study includes a n examination of the extensive position of community schools in designated Neighborhood Management (NM) areas of Berlin, Germany. First, interventions are described. Second, a br ief introduction to the framework of the federal agencies responsible for planning and funding social urban development programs is discussed to offer context for the intervention strategies in NM areas. Third, the history, vision, and goals of the Gropius stadt NM community, the focus area containing the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile, are reviewed. Finally, the development process, organizational structure, objectives, and features of the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile are described in detail. Social Developm ent in the Districts of Berlin, Germany 1) economic conditions experienced a sharp decline due to labor shortages of male workers. On October 30th of the same year, Germany and Turke y formalized an agreement that would allow thousands of Turkish migrants into West Berlin to fill those roles as guest workers. However, it was the presumption of the German government that as guest works their stay would be temporary. Contrary to their as sumption, Turkish families also migrated into the into the Western Germany from Turkey generating the largest population of Turkish people outside of Turkey (Kaya 2012). Leading up to the fall of the Berlin Wall during the late 80s and early 90s, Germany experienced two significant economic structural changes: 1) deindustrialization and 2) a shift towards a service economy, both of which lead to a dramatic declin e in low skilled jobs, largely held by Turkish migrants/guest workers
56 migrants became a contentious issue as competition for the remaining low skilled jobs and soc ial housing increased between German citizens and the foreign population. Throughout the 19 80s until the new millennium immigration policy in Germany remained ineffective in integrating Turkish migrants into German society. Government policie of guest workers, which meant that little emphasis was placed on language training, and in the 1980s guest workers and their families w ere offered cash to return to their country of origin. German born children of guest workers were often ineligible for citizenship, resulting in a generation of foreigners born and raised in Germany (Angelos 2011 p 1). Because of the German Governments a ssumption that these migrant workers would return to Turkey, they were neither prepared to offer paths to citizenship or support for economic fabric (Kaya dents felt insecure and unprotected by their government, [which influenced the formation] of their own enclaves rather than d in enclaves throughout formally West Berlin, specifically in the districts of Wedding, Kreuzburg, and Neuklln (Figure 4 2). Long term unemployment, dependency on social housing and transfer benefits, in addition to various forms of discrimination and xe nophobia has resulted in spatial and social segregation from mainstream German society (Senate Department for Urban Development 2010). In connection with unemployment and low (often social benefit) income levels, [minorities] have less opportunities in education and to participate in other societal spheres. In fact, immigrants and other students of low social status have worse school examination results and often leave school without any examination or qualifications at all. This severely influences
57 the ir future chances for societal participation as well as in the labour market (Beer et al 2008 p 5). All of the above mentioned factors present challenges to the affected districts as well as regional cohesiveness throughout the State of Berlin. Social U rban Development Interventions In 1999, the Senate for Urban Development conducted a study titled Urban Districts with Special Development Needs for the purposes of identifying and providing future support to communities that have historically experienced discrimination and severe social and economic barriers to development (Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development 2010). Districts designated as h aving special development needs: E xhibit a complex, interdependent mixture of problems developmental, e cological, infrastructural, economic, and social. These unfavorable conditions put residents at an additional disadvantage: since many districts very heterogeneous and therefore o ften not in contact with [mainstream society] many residents react by retreating into the private sphere and resignation such neighborhoods lose their function as social networks. In chil dren and young people who, in an environment that offers few models school, education, and work. In an environment marked by unemployment, minor crime and public welfare replace work as the material bases for consumption (Franke and Lhr 2001 p 2). These problems identified by the Berlin Senate for Urban Development led to the establishment of the Socially Integrative City program, which is managed by the German Federal governm Development Policy (Cohesion Policy), which offers the financial framework for facilitating interventions and programs to enhance socio economic development throughout European territories (European Commission 2010). As a recipient of the
58 the Socially Integrative City Program, heralded the o ne of most significant national al 2002 p 6). Social I ntegrative C ity: I ntegrative A ction P lan The Socially Integrative City program is a policy response to the findings of the Urban Districts with Special Development Needs (1999). In essence this program aims to amend the socio spatial challenges resulting from the German Governments inability to i ntegrate former guest workers into socio economic fabric of German society. overriding issue: the need to redefine the relationship between government and society. In Germany, as in other European countries, the call for integrative, socially oriented urban development policy is associated with the demand for reform in political and administrative structures (Franke and Lhr 2001 p 3 4). The key objective outlined in this progr am is to improve the role of the government in social policy issues through more inclusive decision making and planning processes. Since the programs inception in 2004, community members have been involved for self empowerment purposes as well as to provid e local perspectives for planning processes. Today the core elements of this program include: Socio spatial orientation on neighborhoods suffering from social problems Cross departmental bundling of resources, both urban development and non investment meas ures: Concentration of resources and cooperation An integrated plan of action as indispensable precondition: Embedding in the overall urban context Civil participation: Participation by the citizenry and industry (Franke and Lhr 2011 p 5 6 and Spanier 20 12 p 5).
59 Neighborhood M anagement: P rogram I mplementation Socially Integrative City program through local level implementation. Whereas the coordination of assistance programs, te chnical planning, and financing has tended to be the concern of inter ministerial working groups at the Land level [(National Level)] and interdepartmental bodies at the local government level, neighborhood management handles coordination, arbitration, med iation, and is the on others not located directly in the district (Franke and Lhr 2011 p 6). Thus, the joint project, Districts with Special Development Needs and Socially Integrative City, provide the broad goals and parameters for local level actions, which are shaped by the Neighborhood Management in relation to the uniqu e conditions presented by each site. Although site conditions vary from community to community the Neighborhood Management aims and functions maintain the same key objectives: Social and ethnic integration: improving neighborly community life Employmen t and education for local residents: placement on the primary labour market Economic revitalization: support for the local economy Redevelopment and modernization measures: improving the residential environment; linking investment measures in urban renew al with non investment social and employment measures Improving the transport: infrastructure and accessibility Improving the social and cultural infrastructure, integrating infrastructural facilities such as schools, youth and senior citizen facilitie s etc, into district work, the promotion of children, young people, and families, Improving (residential) security in the neighborhood Public relations: image development (Franke And Lhr 2011 p 7)
60 Each area of action is shaped by individual neighbor hood contexts. The functioning role of Neighborhood Management is an intermediary one, that works to activate existing resources and community members in the approach of each local action. I n general, a neighborhood management is intended to integrate strategies and players in neighborhood development, link up economic and social development projects, and strengthen the scope and capacity of residents to take action. Under no circumstances is neighborhood management to replace or displace local activiti es. The job of neighborhood management can thus be district/neighborhood coordination (networking on site players, establishing cooperative relations between players at the citywide and district levels), resident activation, project initiation/fund raising public relations, and cost revenue control/reporting (Franke And Lhr 2011 p 7). Key T arget G roups and A reas The aim of district level coordination and resident activation specifically targets the most vulnerable population or those considered by the Berlin Senate for Urban Development to be the most socially distressed. For the Neighborhood Management, the most important target group includes children, youth, and families in segregated residential e nclaves throughout Berlin. Subsequently the key target areas include social and spatial dimensions that present the greatest opportunities for fostering socialization It is the belief of the Berlin Federal Family Ministry, that opportunities provided by local public institutions esta for improvement and structuring the lives of children, youth, and families (BMFSFJ 2005). The Neighborhood Management has acknowledged this notion and offered response through : T he opening up of schools to the community and reaching out to parents threatened by exclusion. [Promoting] day care centers and schools [to] offer venues for new social communication spaces,[allowing] social networks [to] dock onto them. [Thus] Schools become district centers and civil engagement can be introduced (Spanier 2012 p 7).
61 For the Neighborhood Management, the scope of local level action has focused upon enhancing the socio spatial dimensions of public institutions where children, youth, and families have direct exposure. History of the W utzkyallee Educational Mile, Gropiusstadt Berlin Germany I n order to understand the development and purpose of Wutzkyallee Educational Mile, it is important to acknowledge the context of the neighborhood it serves: Gropiusstadt Berlin, Germany (Figure 4 3) In 2005, the government of Berlin, Germany, implemented a Neighborhood Management (NM) in the borough of Gropiusstadt to address social development issues due to deficits in supportive social and physical infrastructure (Walter 2007). Since the inception Management, the area has been committed to enhancing existing local strengths to provide opportunities for residents within the community. Through an assessment of neighborhood conditions and conversations with local residen ts and institutions, it was educational landscape presented the greatest potential in improving the areas living environment (QM Lipschitzallee / Gropiusstadt 2011). Then, in 200 9, the Wutzkyallee Education Mile was established through collaborative community efforts (Kleinhans 2010). Gropiusstadt, Berlin Germany Overview Gropiusstadt is a locality within the southeastern district of, Berlin (Figure 3 1). It is the largest of Ber named after the famous Bauhaus architect Walter Gropius, designer of prominent 1970s residential complex also titled Gropiusstadt (QM Lipschitzallee / Gropiusstadt 2011). This area consists of one of the densest residential settlements in Neuklln. The
62 high rise neighborhood apartments (Figure 4 4) are boarded by suburban style single family homes to the west and south (Figure 4 5). This apartment complex was originally constructed under Ber the key support systems in the area (Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment 2013). Demographics According to the Statistical Office of Berlin Brandenburg as of 2011, the population of Gropiusstadt NM area is 23,761 with 4 797 residents living within the neighborhood core. From 2005 to 2010 there was a steady decline in the total population, while the neighborhood core experienced a very slight increase. From 2010 to 2 011 the decline was halted with the total population increasing by 118 new inhabitants. The proportion of seniors (people over 55) is 36.5% currently higher than the national average and steadily rising. Children and adolescents under 18 make up 24.18% of the total population. This population group has remained significantly higher than the national average of 14.72% since 2005. It i s also important to note that 71.4% of the children and youth in Gropiusstadt have an immigration background and non G erman origins. The total proportion of residents with an immigrant background has increased since 2009 (45.98%) and presently stands at 47%, with 57% identified in the core area. People from Turkish backgrounds make up the majority in this populat ion group. The racial diversity present in this neighborhood is higher in comparison to the In comparison to the entire district of Neuklln, Gropiusstadt's unemployment levels and proportion of families receiving transfer income is slightly lower than the regional average. Those residents who are employed regularly work low paid, part time
63 positions; this group commonly includes single parent households, households with m ultiple children, and elderly residents (QM Lipschitzallee / Gropiusstadt 2011). The increasing minority population, particularly minority youth, coupled with cultural and language differences has often presented obstacles in fostering community engagement and in some cases resulted in conflicts with the growing elderly German population (Walter 2007). These problems in the social environment were also attributable to physical urban conditions given the lack of neighborhood amenities and quality public spac groups (QM Lipschitzallee / Gropiusstadt 2011). Gropiusstadt N eighborhood M anagement The most significant and recent government sponsored intervention in the area of Gropiusstadt has been the 2005 implementation of Neighborhood Management (QM Lipschitzallee / Gropiusstadt 2011). This is a local level intervention strategy introduced emonstrable neglect of public areas, roads, squares and green Development and the Environment 2013 p 1). The key components in this process include cooperation between local i nstitutions and citizen empowerment through an concentrated on improving the future prospects of the people living in disadvantaged areas; accordingly integration, educat ion and employment became the main areas of approaching these objectives, residents, local businesses, public organizations, housing associations, community centers, and scho ols play a major role in developing
64 synergetic partnerships to support innovative ideas and the efficient use of funding and place based resources. The Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment (2013) has consistently promoted educ ational institutions and local schools as focal points in NM areas that encourage community engagement and cultural exchanges as significant element to enhance quality of life. Vision The Wutzkyallee Educational Mile is a product of the shared interests o f Urban Development and the Environment and the Gropiusstadt community. The coexistence of cultural diversity in an education (QM Lipschitzallee / Gropiusstadt 2011 p 11). This overarching mission is supplemented by four strategic goals: Promotion of diversity and culture Good education for children and youn g people by utilizing the locational advantages of school Development of quality green and open space for all residents to enjoy Health Promotion (QM Lipschitzallee / Gropiusstadt 2011 p 11) Each of these objectives is approached with consideration to existing local strengths and aspirations for facilitating a self supporting community structure to make those strengths sustainable. Even though these objectives address a broad range of issues, it was determined by the Gropiusstadt community and NM team that education would serve as the guiding vision to respond holistically to each of these factors.
65 The Gropiusstadt neighborhood is comparable to a dense bedroom community based on the large prop ortion of residential land use making up the area. The focus area for this study consists of the Walter Gropius dense residential housing complex boarded to the north by an underground metro line and station, single family residences to the east and south, and a series of educational institutions to the west (Figure 4 6). This areas extensive educational landscape, that boarders the street Wutzkyallee, (indicated by the map in yellow/orange) presented the greatest potential in supporting the educational nee ds of the surrounding area and also the capacity to accommodate activities and programs developed by the NM team. Its location and proximity to the areas densest residential settlement and metro line makes each school facility accessible to pedestrians and commuters. In addition to its locational advantage, as local institution, the school also represented a place of social exchange between children, youth, and adults, therefore it became an ideal place based resource to build upon existing community relati onships (Thoene 2012). Forming the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile The idea of utilizing the local schools was broadened with the inclusion of recreational facilities that neighbor the partner primary and secondary schools but despite the locational advanta ge and common connection to the surrounding community, lack of cooperation between each school facility and the physical state of the neighborhood created difficult conditions for executing the NM project. In April 2008, the first ideas to address the coop eration between local schools were presented at greater networking and exchange opportunities between each neighboring facility guided the preliminary visioning process. Following the conference, a steering
66 committee was formed, which included heads of each educational institution, local stakeholders, community representatives, and neighborhood management team to develop an organizational structure in the development and operation of the mile, along with priorities for addressing specific social and physical circumstances that presented Organizational S tructure The steering committee determined that the eac h educational and recreational facility would operate within a network of continuous learning from early childhood care through secondary school. Each facility would contribute to this mission by offering publicly accessible physical development amenities and collaborative training oriented curriculums, which include art, science, and technology, to ensure successful transitions from day care through secondary school. The schools and recreational facilities associated with Wutzkyallee Educational Mile inclu de (Figure 3 7): Wutzkyallee Youth and Cultural Center Intergenerational cultural center open to students and non students. Functions in part with neighboring elementary schools to advance life long learning as well as counseling support children, youth and their families. Wutzkyallee Adventure Playground Interactive playground that combines recreational activities and environmental education features: green infrastructure and urban farming. Hermann von Helmholtz School Junior (elementary) school t hat supports 500 students from 7 10 grade. Wutzkyallee Kita Local child care center Martin Lischtenstein School Primary School Oberstufenzentrum Lise Meitner School Vocational training school. Not an official partner but works in collaboration for app renticeship programs (Bildungsmeile 2012)
67 Resources such as the school and recreational premises, classroom space, personnel, and equipment are shared between each facility to ensure that the educational and recreational facilities support one anoth er. Katrin Kleinhans of Empirica Research and Consulting offered did not have specialized training in natural sciences, received teaching support from the neighboring secondary school teachers, or space c onflicts in the cultural center being Community P artnerships School curriculums and public amenities/uses offered by each educational institution and recreational facil ity are developed in coordination with community partners who provide local expertise in specific neighborhood problems and family circumstances such as race and culture, language proficiency, and health. There is external support provided by: Students Ch ildren and youth Parents working independently with children and teachers or in community organizations Local actors Seniors, non students, individuals from households without children Social services Administrative staff from the Ministry of Families, Seniors, Women, and Youth Degewo Housing Corporation Residential development corporation associated with the Gropiusstadt residential complex Local business and vocational training schools Job training Regional Inspectorate Neuklln Regional education authority Empirica Research and Consulting External facilitator of the Wutzkyallee development process and outcome analysis
68 Neighborhood Management Gropiusstadt Local organizing agent for development of social programs and physical construction District of Neuklln Local government responsible for overseeing urban development projects and allocation of District Funding. (Bildungsmeile 2012) These external partnerships are facilitated by Empirica Research and Consulting, an agency specializing in neighborhood redevelopment strategies. Goals and O bjectives Following the 2008 Education Association training conference, the first education based programs were developed through voluntary coordination between the primary and seco encouraged the initial integration of recreational activities between the neighboring institutions, joint uses of facilities, and meetings between personnel of each institution. At the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile in 2009, an action plan was established to ensure each member and partnership associated with the mile maintained the common goal of supporting a vib rant and open educational landscape. The main objectives include: Providing an attractive education location Improving the future prospects of children and youth by coordinating educational and recreation activities Optimization of existing and potential resources Opening of the educational and recreational facilities to the district Enhancing educational facilities and the surrounding environment (Bildungsmeile 2012)
69 Urban d esign f eatures Each facility within the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile is c entrally located within the largely immigrant and low income community of Gropiusstadt. The network of schools and youth centers making up the Wutzkyallee Mile provide an environment that is safe for young children and pedestrians traveling from the surrou nding residential areas and metro stations. The site extends for 1.9 km, or 1.18 miles, taking the average pedestrian 20 25 minutes to access each facility. Each building fronts Wutzkyallee, the main street, and engages the community with either direct wal k up access from the pedestrian side walk or a provides egress via a small public square. The sidewalk network also includes a bike path separated from the two lane street by guard rails and on street parking to ensure safe child and youth mobility. The op en green space separating the dense residential areas surrounding the partnerships with the Neighborhood Management team, DeWego Housing Association, and each education al institution within the community school network (QM Lipschitzallee / Gropiusstadt 2011) Wutzkyallee includes a number of street calming features crosswalks at and between traffic lights, traffic calming signage, on street parking, sidewalk extensions, and neck downs, all of which provide direct access from the east side of the street where metro line stops and dense residences are sited. The residential area feeds into to Wutzkyallee Mile via a series of formal pedestrian paths made up of flat surfaces, steps, and ramps to serve children, seniors, as well as youth for skateboarding. (figure 9) These paths are flanked by benches for resting, open green spaces, traditional playgrounds for toddlers, and adventure playgrounds for young children (figure 10). All of these elements improve the aesthetics
70 of the circulation areas leading to the Wutzkyallee Mile, while also providing residents of every age with an engaging route to nearby destinations. The environment allows children to walk or ride freely and ind ependently to school facilities and utilize community amenities the WM provides (Theone 2012). Shared C ommunity U s e F eatures The Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management promotes the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile as an educational landscape inclusive to all community members and accommodative to a range of community uses and activities. In pursuit of the age diversity, culture, education, and health promotion the facilities of the Mile operate as integrated multifunctional community spaces. The shared use of the primary and secondary schools, youth center, and adventure playground are facilitated through p ractices of joint use and co location. Joint u se Facilitating greater networking and collaboration opportunities between neighboring educational institutions and recreational facilities represent s the preliminary guiding vision of the Wutzkyallee Educati onal Mile. Keeping with these priorities the first coordinated action involved voluntary joint use between members of the Wutzkyallee Mile to extend and share facility uses and premises between the Martin L ischtensten primary day school, Herman von Hel mho ltz School secondary school, and the Gropiusstadt senior center, a public institution in the neighborhood district. For the two public schools, the interests supporting the initial joint use plans involved sharing school resources and subsequently, the res ponsibility for succuessfully transitioning children and youth from primary to secondary school. Shared school resources of the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile encourages :
71 Access to learning spaces, such as secondary school laboratories, to both primary and secondary school students Opportunities for cooperation between students from kindergarten to secondary school on joint projects Chances for students to engage with future teachers and school premises Informal language learning and transference of social skills from older students to younger peers Mutual support between each educational institution to impro ve student transition from kindergarten through secondary school. (Kleinhans 2010) In addition to internal joint use practices between the primary and secondary school, the Wutzkyalllee Educational Mile extends the use of its educational facilities to non school public institutions and community o rganizations. The first example, documented by Empirica Consulting includes basic joint use actio ns with the to address space issues affecting the performance of a local community service. To solve spatial challenges facing the Senior Center, the Hermann von Helmh oltz School expanded the use of its premises to accommodate senior programs and activities. Since 2009 this practice has evolved to include joint use partnerships with the : Wutzkyallee Kita Adventure Playground Lise Meitner College Vocational Training Ins titution Gropiusstadt Community Center UFO Lipsch itzallee Childrens Club N eighborhood Management Council (Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment 2010) Co l ocation In addition to sharing resources and space between public school fa cilities and partner organizations, the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile has also promoted a series of co located services and permanent programs into the educational landscape. The
72 integrative community interests of the Wutzkyallee Mile initially manifested t hrough efforts to meet c ommunity education based needs by extending access of school libraries, computer labs, and recreational spaces to both students and non students. The space sharing strategy evolved to house permanent programs formalizing the use of shared school resources to support specific education al cultural and social interests of student, parents, and community members. Programs and activities geared to advancing each of these interests are join tly organized by members of the Wutzkyallee Mile, Neighborhood Management, and local community organizations, which include: Neighborhood Mothers Local organization of professionally trained women who share immigrant background, language, and knowledge of immigrant families. Women visi t families within their community who are isolated and share information on the German school system for families with children, German language learning for children and parents, health promotion, and family counseling. Manna Family Center Multifunction al meeting space serving children, parents, and seniors. Offers language learning, senior activities, homework help, and daycare. Degewo Housing Society Housing authority for the Gropiusstadt residential settlement Community organization foc using on outreach and support to women and mothers with immigrant backgrounds. These l ocal partnerships function in coordination with the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile to permanently house community services by sharing school premises personal, and reso urces Community services range from language support, homework help, counseling, recreation, youth development, parenting courses, job preparation, technology training, citizen empowerment, and cultural tolerance. According to the local district newslette r the Walter, and Edward Heuen the current coordinator for the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile, the most successful and well received programs include:
73 Education Caf Offers low threshold for switching of educational skills especially for paren ts of young children without Kita Square. Delivery of courses and e vents such as to language learning, develop motor skills, education funding, and also consulting and referral services to family specialists. Learning Workshop An educational supervised homework assistance in the afternoon care of family Manna Centre in coordination with neighborhood mothers It also serves as a social focal point of many children and her parents, works with surrounding p rimary schools and offers h oliday workshops at partnering schools In addition to the traditional focus p romoting reading and homework help are the primary objectives of the learning workshop I n the fu ture this program seeks to provide more educational events parents and primary school children Service Learning A joint project with the Womens C afe eV Gropiusstadt Association to p romote communication among Gropius community women (in cooperation with the Hermann von Helmholtz school) Works with adults in Gropiusstadt and pupils o f th e Hermann von Helmholtz school. The primary objectives are to promote a di alogue between young and old p eople, build a long term cooperation wi th the school structure to support children and seniors promote vo lunteering in Gropiusstadt, and provide in sight into a social p rofessional field s (eg, soc ial assistants, geriatric nursing). Training Association Gropiusstadt a p rofessional guidance program for sc hools for internal development, cooperation with each other and with surrounding facilities to open the schools to the neighborhood and partnering educational institutions. Program facilitated jointing with the Dewego Housing Society and Wutzkyallee Mile. Provides support in d evelopment of new educationa l campus Efeuweg, which pools primary educati on and High School resources at the Efeuweg campus to promote new community schools and construction of the new senior center Lise Meitner (The Walter 2013 p 2 3 and Heuen 2013) Summary Since 2007, efforts to improve community cohesion have been f unded under the European Unions Socially Integrative City program. In Neighborhood Management Districts of Berlin, Germany, the most vulnerable populations and public institutions that are directly engaged with these groups make up the key target areas for interventions integrate immigrant populations of Berlin via language learning and support from pre school to profession has been a common social urban development strateg y in areas
74 with special development needs. The Neighborhood Management area of Gropiusstadt approaches community cohesion through those same strategies with a specific focus on the integrative capacity of primary and secondary schools to advance both the e ducational and professional interests outlined under the socially integrative city program as well as the cultural, social, and health interests of the community. Today, the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile is described as the flagship organization of the Gro piusstadt Neighborhood Management team that functions as the focal point in the network of existing community services and foundation for the development of new neighborhood resources (The Walter 2013). According to the Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management project manager Heike Thoene the support for the Wutzkyallee Mile continues to shape development priorities. She describes the education, parental involvement, working with people for knowledge and experience sharing, particularly immigrants. And facilitating construction projects to create the (Theone 2012 p 1). Initially two school s, the Hermann von Helmholtz School secondary schools and the Martin Lischtenstein School primary school, the Wutzkyallee Kita, Adventure Playground, and Youth and Cultural Center joined forces to foster opportunities for joint implementation on neighborho od projects, shared resources, and responsibilities towards their surrounding community under the title of Wutzkyallee Educational Mile. Between the organizations inception in 2009 to 2010, Gropiusstadt experienced an increase in the availability of local activities and program targeting children youth and
75 families. The following period between 2010 2012, exhibited stabilization in the numb er Due to the success of the progrmas produced by the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile, the Berlin Senate for Urban Development and the Environment has approved fundi ng additional investments in the Mile and future community construction projects until the end of 2015 (The Walter 2013). With this funding the Wutzkyalle Mile anticipates an expansion to 12 participating primary and secondary schools within the Gropiusst adt District. According to Edward Heuen success of the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile has places partner schools in high demand by families of both German and immigrant backgrounds (Walter 2013). As of 2012, the Wutzkyallee Mile partner Herman von Helmho ltz S chool integrative capacity with its surrounding community. Here in the Gropius city students learn with many different c ultures The teachers have a lot experience in language education and the most important thing achieved so far has been that each school has a significant development al role in the community and takes pride in their performance ( Heuen The Walter p 7). With an increase in parents consciously choosing schools within the Gropiusstadt District, the Wutzkyalle Mile continues to advance community interests of stabilization and cohesion with its internal interests enhancing the performance of its overall educational landscape through collaboration, joint use, and co locati on strategies.
76 Table 4 1. List of 2008 activities organized by Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management and Wutzkyallee Educational Mile Partners Activity Type Common Activities Total Children and Youth Disco fr Alle (Dance for all ages) Monthly Concerts Multi Media Creative Arts Family Afternoons at the Youth Center Days 6 Cultural Theater Puppet Shows Comedy Nights Seasonal Music Events 32 Socio Cultural Health and Wellness Workshops Mental Health Workshops Physical Health Workshops Support for Outpatient Youth Medical Services Job Preparedness Training for Young People with Immigrant Background Computer Training for Immigrant Women Wellness Days for Women an d Mothers 54 Church Senior Lunches Worship Youth Concerts 4
77 Table 4 2 List of 2009 activities organized by Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management and Wutzkyallee Educational Mile Partners Activity Type Common Activities Total Children and Youth Open Schools Days Christmas Festival Dance for All Monthly Concerts Hip Hop Festivals Manna Family Center Days Fall Festival at the Adventure Playground Summer Festival Cinema at the Youth Center 52 Cultural Theater Puppet Shows Theater Comedy Nights Seasonal Music Events Christmas Recital Little Star and Rising Star Language Learning Film Festival Meeting of Cultures 94 Socio Cultural Health and Wellness Mental Health Workshops Physical Health Workshops Wellness Days for Women and Mothers Dialogue Round Table Treatment of Cultures Cooking Workshops Dignity and Identity Workshops Craft Workshops 56 Church Senior Lunches Worship Youth Concerts Night of Open Churches Wellness Walk Youth and Senior Craft Circle 37
78 Table 4 3 List of 2010 activities organized by Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management and Wutzkyallee Educational Mile Partners Activity Type Common Activities Total Children and Youth Open Schools Days Christmas Festival Dance for All Monthly Concerts Hip Hop Festivals Manna Family Center Days Fall Festival at the Adventure Playground Seasonal Festivals Cinema at the JuKuz Breakfast in JuKuz Y 52 Cultural Theater Puppet Shows Comedy Nights Seasonal Music Events Christmas Recital Little Star and Rising Star Language Learning Film Festival Meeting of Cultures 66 Socio Cultural Health and Wellness Workshops Mental Health Workshops Physical Health Workshops Dialogue Round Table Treatment of Cultures Cooking Workshops Dignity and Identity Workshops Craft Workshops 35 Church Senior Lunches Worship Youth Concerts Night of Open Churches Wellness Walk Youth and Senior Craft Circle 2 2
79 Table 4 4 List of 2011 activities organized by Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management and Wutzkyallee Educational Mile Partners Activity Type Common Activities Total Children and Youth Open Schools Days Dance for All Monthly Concerts Fall Festival at the Adventure Playground Autumn Festival Summer Festival Bake on the Adventure Playground Breakfast in JuKuz Open Caf at JuKuz Family Festival 45 Cultural Puppet Shows Theater Seasonal Music Events Christmas Recital Little Star and Risin g Star Language Learning Meeting of Cultures Seniors Dance Festival Cinema of the World Summer Arts and Garden Festival 73 Socio Cultural Health and Wellness Workshops Wellness Days for Women and Mothers Dialogue Round Table Treatment of Cultures Cooking Workshops Dignity and Identity Workshops Craft Workshops Turkish Culture and Living Workshop 49 Church Senior Lunches Youth Concerts Night of Open Churches Wellness Walk Youth and Senior Craft Circle 28
80 Table 4 5 List of 2012 activities organized by Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management and Wutzkyallee Educational Mile Partners Activity Type Common Activities Total Children and Youth Open Schools Days Dance for All Monthly Concerts Fall Festival at the Adventure Playground Bake on the Adventure Playground Breakfast in JuKuz Open Caf at JuKuz Family Festival 39 Cultural Theater Puppet Shows Comedy Nights Seasonal Music Events Little Star and Rising Star Language Learning Film Festival Meeting of Cultures Seniors Dance Festival Cinema of the World Summer Arts and Garden Festival 43 Socio Cultural Physical Health Workshops Wellness Days for Women and Mothers Cooking Workshops Dignity and Identity Workshops Craft Workshops Turkish Culture and Living Workshop 43 Church Senior Lunches Worship Youth Concerts Night of Open Churches Wellness Walk Youth and Senior Craft Circle 16
81 Figure 4 1. Separation of East and West Berlin
82 Figure 4 2. Conclaves of Immigrant Settlements
83 Figure 4 3 Berlin Districts: Neuklln Indicated in Orange, Gropiusstadt NM in Blue
84 A B Figure 4 4 Gropiusstadt in Detail A) Map View B) Satellite/Map Hybrid View
85 A B C Figure 4 5 Gropiusstadt Residential Settlement A) View from green space B) View from sidewalk C) View from parking lot
86 A B Figure 4 6 Suburban are bordering the Gropiusstadt residential settlement A) View of single family homes B) view of streetscape
87 A B Figure 4 7 Gropiusstadt Vision Map A) F ocus area displayed in satellite view B) Detail of Gropiusstadt Satellite View
88 Figure 4 8. Wutzkyallee Educational Mile Facilities. 1) Wutzkyallee Youth and Cultural Center 2) Wutzkyallee Adventure Playground 3) Hermann von Helmholtz School 4) Wutzkyallee Kita (Day Care) 5) Martin Lischtenstein School
89 Figure 4 9 Pedestrian Square in Front of Hermann von Helmholtz School
90 Figure 4 10 Wide Pedestrian Sidewalk and Bike Path
91 Figure 4 11 Pedestrian Paths Connecting Residential Settlement to Wutzkyallee Mile
92 A B Figure 4 12 Street calming elements A) S
93 Figure 4 13 Pedestrian path configurations
94 A B Figure 4 14 Pedestrian Paths A) Example of pedestrian furniture B) Example of
95 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Summary and Analysis of Case Study In the providing the structure for analyzing the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile Case Study, the following key research objectives where described in the Introduction and Methodology: 1) a n, examination of the characteristics of family friendly communities that necessitate the development of social capital and contributions provided by community schools 2) f rame existing literature on community schools within the paradigm of family friendly planning as a critical element in building vibrant family friend ly communities. 3) i dentify the development process and features of the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile that justify its position as an central element in improving the quality of life for children, youth, and families in the community it serves. Th is r esearch reveal s the potential for community schools to foster contemporary approaches for activating existing resources and local actors to aid in the production of social capital and improvements to quality of life. With global demog raphic shifts, changing family compositions, and limited supply of land and capital resources in urban areas, the solid presence and the capacity of local schools to offer diverse amenities and educate diverse families has afforded a new platform for appro aching family friendly planning. The observed conditions from this case study indicate that this platform can be introduced to areas with similar situations and the benefits to those areas that facilitate and fully integrate the practice into larger commun ity development plans will be enhanced. The spatial and social relationship between the community school and the neighborhood it serves, specifically for primary and secondary schools, is essential to
96 foundation of this platform. As indicated by the case study, the spatial advantages of local schools alone can not shape community dynamics, influence collaborative processes, both internal and external, or facilitate closed community networks that translate into the production of social capital and improveme nts to local wellbeing. The community school, because of its integrative social and spatial nature with the community it serves, promotes inclusiveness with residents, local institutions, and organizations. These social relationships intensifies recogniti on to specific family circumstances that allows it to efficiently develop programs and services with regards to diverse lifestyle preferences of children, youth, and families. These factors are increasingly ushering community schools back to the forefront of public infrastructure relied upon to aid in social urban development efforts. The research supporting this thesis establishes this from a child and family friendly planning perspective, and it is the emphasis on family wellbeing that drives the developm ental framework for addressing challenges in the urban environment. In the following section, three fundamental questions posed in the introduction of this thesis will be addressed in an analysis based on the contents of the Literature Review and Case Stu dy. What is it About Child Family Friendly Communities that Warrants the Need for Social Capital Development and How Can Community Schools Fulfill This R ole ? The paradigm of child and family friendly communities has been in existence for nearly two decade s and the factors promoting its development indicate that its emergence and role has been to enhance involvement and recognition of the unique needs of children, youth, and families in the processes of urban and regional planning. The key principles in its framework, participation, comprehensive planning, and urban
97 design, work to provide targeted interventions and policies that advance the interests of these population groups while also creating amenities for social interaction to promote community ties an d involvement in local decision making process that impact their lives. The former relates to spatial urban development features that affords families access to quality resources for habitation, mobility, youth independence, and socio economic betterment, the later relating to opportunities for realizing citizenship, engagement with neighbors, and broad socialization to build resilient and safe communities. The key principles show that family friendly planning objectives has consistently been grounded in b attention to environmental affordances to support healthy physical and social behaviors of families, growing attention towards the integration of public services and amenities to satisfy child and youth development needs, and collective participation to gain family perspectives for planning decisions all manifest processes for building social capital. All of these corresponding factors converge in the institutional mission of community sch ools and provide the parameters and conditions the these public institutions work to satisfy. How do the Characteristics of Community Schools Differ from Public S chools? With respect to the integrative relationship with the communities they serve and the partnerships with other local institutions in pursuit of efficiently providing holistic family supportive services, the available information indicates that organizational structure and design of community schools contrast greatly with the singular education based mission of modern public schools. The inception of community schools is influenced by specific community and family circumstances affecting its service area. Thus, not all community schools are the same, but they tend to share the same co re
98 principles: 1) develop strong collaborative partnerships with local actors, institutions, and government, 2) build on existing community strengths, and 3) share resources, premises, and personnel. Also, the typical community activities and programs offe red by community schools for both students and non students far exceed that of modern public schools (Appendix B). Unlike public schools, which also participate in collaborative partnerships and occasionally provide programs, the organizational structure o f a community schools is established under a community action plan, requiring on going interaction and activity from all partners in accordance with the terms of the plan. This orhood How do the Characteristics of Community Schools, Historically and Presently, Position this Practice as a Key E lement in the Development of Family Friendly Communities and Social C apital? As introduced earlier, the community schools operational structure consists of collaborative partnerships with school officials, community members, and other local institutions to address a full range of community issues through the effici ent use of existing local resources. The integration of essential community services in the design and operation of contemporary community schools draws reference to the performance of western public schools of the 20th century, which functioned as a share d community resource contributing to social, cultural, and educational interests of the surrounding neighborhood. Historically, these factors enhanced the value of educational institutions as well as the relationships with the surrounding neighborhood. The se relationships where supported by embedding the educational landscape into the community context through planning the physical development of schools in the center of neighborhoods. The combined social and physical integrative nature of western 20th cent ury
99 educational institutions positioned the platform to support a range of community interests and needs in both an international and national context. The research in this this thesis has established that contemporary community schools reflects the histo ric role of 20th century western public schools as a central neighborhood institution and public community asset for children, youth, and families. This is partially due to the active accommodation of comprehensive services and programs but mostly to the s upport these activities foster for enhanced community interactions and relationships, which aid in the development of social capital. The inclusiveness that translates from the open design and collaborative framework, which facilitates the sharing of physi cal and social assets, makes community schools prime sources of social capital production. Additionally, the social and spatial positioning of community schools is driven by the core missions of family friendly planning in terms of supporting wellbeing, e nhancing local opportunities, and strengthening the community to better serve child, youth, and families. Improved conditions for youth development, life long learning, recreation, independence, socialization, and civic involvement can all attributed to th e closed community social structure, established by partners, contributors, and local actors involved in the formalization of community school networks. These partnerships enable community schools to provide services in and outside of school hours, without overburdening facilities and personnel, making the resources more flexible to the diverse needs of families. Furthermore, in communities with limited resources and concentrations of poverty the features of community schools become even more essential to families. The social
100 and physical capital deficits confronting many disadvantaged communities undoubtedly impact the future opportunities of children and the wellbeing of families. Through collaboration, funding constraints of individual public institution s, organizations, and governing bodies are lessened as partners are able to utilize a range of existing resources, take on joint funding endeavors, braid those funding streams, and coordinate the use of allotted money creatively and efficiently under a com prehensive action plan. In addition to bridging institutional capital, community school networks also invest a great deal of effort into programs within the educational landscape that foster bonding between peers, neighbors, and personnel of supporting in stitutions. This characteristic is essential for all family friendly communities, but even more so in diverse communities and areas experiencing barriers to social cohesion, delinquency, poverty, and issues with safety. Community schools operate as a neigh borhood node, in its pursuit to bridge gaps in surrounding areas social structure, making it conducive to the flow of social norms, shared knowledge, cultural tolerance, language learning, and opportunities for civic engagement in decision making processes Unlike other public amenities favorable to community interaction such as open spaces, parks, and other recreational facilities, educational environments present clear and conventional behavioral affordances recognizable to diverse groups, making it advan tageous to position community schools as a holistic neighborhood center. In What M anner has th e Wutzkyallee Educational Mile Fulfilled the Role of Community Schools in the Service P rovided to the Gropius stadt Neighborhood Management A rea of Berlin, Germany ? The Wutzkyallee Educational Mile has only been in existence for three years and the brief history the network of community schools appears to demonstrate, that since its emergence, its role has been to provide residents within the Neighborhood
101 Managemen t area with shared community amenities to foster social cohesion and opportunities for life long learning using the existing public infrastructure making up its educational landscape. The former would enhance opportunities for integrating the largely immi grant community into the socio economic and institutional fabric of Berlin, Germany, starting with the bridging and bonding of local social capital; the latter supports this goal by advancing formal and informal educational opportunities for both students and non students to support language learning, hea l th promotion, cultural and recreational activities, as well as youth and family supportive services. Community news archives and program data show that the Wutzkyallee ntly worked to improve the communit capacity to improve the bridging and bonding of social capital. Regardless of the spatial proximity between each of the neighboring facilities, now serving under the Wutzkyallee Mile, the capacity to establish prod uctive relationship was scarce. The broadened function of local primary and secondary schools and the subsequent development of a community action plan that mandated increased collaboration with local actors, public institutions, organizations, and the Gro piusstadt Neighborhood Management over time have have shaped local conditions to better achieve this goal. The initial voluntary collaborative activities between the networks primary and secondary schools, which eventually extended to out to partnerships w ith the neighboring daycare, cultural and youth center, and the adventure playground, bridge s relationships between key facilities to support the diverse service needs of the areas children, youth and families. Partners and participants of the Wutzkyallee Mile experienced mutual gains from the collaborative framework, with the increase in activities and programs made possible by shared
102 resources, premises, and personnel working strategically to ensure no facilities were overburdened. Thus, ensuring the org anizational framework, associated with the community school model, operated in a sustainable manner. In addition to collaborative partnerships under the action plan, the Wutzkyallee rrounding residential areas of the Gropiusstadt neighborhood, places it in an ideal location with respect to locational advantages of 20th century western schools and its environmental affordances. The flexible social and educational services offered to ch ildren and families are enhanced by the locational qualities of the Wutzkyallee mile. Families benefit from facilities that are in reach via transport links and pedestrian corridors. The local coordination and proximity between each educational facility al so promotes a continuous exchange between children, youth, and adults, which aides bonding, socialization and in a successful transition from day care and early childhood education to primary, secondary, and high school (Theone 2012). According to the Grop iusstadt Neighborhood Management team (2012), co locating important community services with local schools has improved local awareness of the facilities and its services. This international example demonstrates how community school principles can be adap ted and applied to neighborhoods with existing educational institutions that lack social capital to establish a mutually supportive relationship with the surrounding conditions the relationship between the institutions over a long period of time were traditionally less pronounced. With increasing exchange and greater networking among the institutions they recognized that the problems can not be solved at the level of
103 individual institutions. Rather, developed the conviction that only a common approach collaborative action plan committed to enhancing resources within the community through activities faci litated by the Wutzkyallee Mile, educational and public partners support one another through planning concurrency along with the sharing of premises an personnel. As a public facility the schools can accommodate multiple community functions. As an organi zation it improves the capacity of community outreach and collaborative capability due to its common connection with diverse populations. The lack of social improvement preceding the development of the Mile indicates the significance of acknowledging di versifying composition of families and subsequently, the need to enhance the typology and function of basic amenities (affordable housing, transportation, schools, and daycare) necessary to raise the quality of life of children, youth, and families.
104 CHAP TER 7 CONCLUSION Only five years ago, the Berlin Education Association presented ideas for collaborative partnerships between the local schools of the Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management Area of Berlin, Germany. This initial voluntary action helped to lay the foundation t o position the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile as a key community asset in the Neighborhood Managements (NM) social cohesion and integration strategies. Originally the primary and secondary schools were established within the network of community schools, to day with the NM and Empirica Consulting and Research acting as intermediary agents, cultural, recreational, and early childhood care centers have been inducted making the educational landscape a shared community resource to support academic, cultural, and social development needs. Since 2009, the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile was instituted to serve the primary purpose of supporting the whole life of the child from early childhood care to professional life. With the sharing of resources, premises, and perso nnel between each facility in the network the creation of child and youth activities emerged as a permanent service offering in the Gropiusstadt Community Activities Agenda. Since 2008, the number of programs and services targeting youth experienced a sign ificant increase before leveling off after 2010. Each of these activities are concentrated on site at the Wutzkyallee Mile along side parenting, senior, and life long learning programs to encourage community interaction and civic engagement at every level of the community. In its five years of existence, the action plan that established the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile has consistently been updated to address real time social and
105 environmental circumstances. It is implied that with the production of servic es and activities for children, youth, and families and other shared community resources, the environmental conditions for family capacity have changed and existing infrastructure and local actors have been activated sustain these changes. These circumstan ces are manifested in both the organizational structure established by the Education Association and the Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management and the modified relationships between the community and its public institutions. This thesis has attempted to e xplore the role that the community school plays in strengthening the capacity of family friendly neighborhoods in its ability support the diverse needs of children, youth, and families. It has specifically focused on the mpts to address the needs of the most socially disadvantaged population groups, children and their families, by taking local action to develop supportive services and programs that bridge and bond social capital for individuals and the community as a whole The section following presents a summary of the case study observations and recommendations for future research. Summary Case Study Observations Based upon the case study presented in the thesis, the Wutzkyallee Educational ork and educational landscape can be seen to impact the bridging and bonding of social capital between public institutions and peers. The foundation of the Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management a mission seeks to achieve "good neighborly coexistence of cult ural diversity in an education oriented and green
106 focuses the social and spatial relationship the educational landscape maintains with the surrounding community. The m ission and its key objectives are implemented by the partnering institutions of the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile, which encompasses features of physical, public, and social infrastructure. Because of these features the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile is able to accommodate and support both social and physical capital needs of the community within the structure of Gropiusstadt NM vision and in a way the is efficient and inclusive to all partners and participants in the community. The ability to enhance socio s patial conditions by utilizing existing infrastructure and involving local actors is an important characteristic of this program due to the cost and land use constraints that often challenge child and family friendly planning strategies. The method for im plementing programs under the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile, occurs through a collaborative process involving six internal partners, primary and secondary schools, youth center, adventure playground, and day care, and ten external partners that include: stu dents, parents, seniors, non students, social services, local housing association, local business, vocational schools, regional education authority, planning consultants, Neighborhood Management, and the District of N euklln Each of these partnerships man ifest the bridging of institutional capital through the establishment of productive relationships between a range of public institutions, organization, private entities, and the community. Additionally, the interactions between each of these partners works to formulate systems of outreach, funding, and accommodations for community events and program.
107 Each of the six facilities of the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile aid in housing neighborhood services and activities, which provides a central location for community engagement and collective participation. The one mile strip of neighboring institutions prov ides a visible and holistic setting that is easily accessed via public transportation, bus or metro, walking, and biking with the provision of pedestrian trails, sidewalks, bike paths, as well as alternations between stairs and ramps for walking senior and skate boarding youth. The provision of additional pedestrian easements and enhancement to existing informal paths between the surrounding residential complexes continues to be a joint endeavor between the Wutzkyallee Mile, Dewego Housing association, and Gropiusstadt Neighborhood Management. programs currently provides families with supportive counseling, legal, parenting, child, and youth development services to enhance, as Coleman would term, intergenerational closure, in addition to advancing the structure of families, language courses, cultural events, and recreational activities are accommodated along the Mile to bridge and bond individuals of every age and race, to ulti mately aid in a closed community network. These methods of providing services that overlap spatially, reinforces the Miles ability to efficiently address the diverse needs of the community and engage diverse individuals to accumulate community social capi tal. As reflected in the supporting literature of social networks and environmental affordances in the facilitation of social capital production, this community school intervention provides an setting conducive to the described efforts with minimal impact on existing operations of the community and within the limits of the resources currently in existence.
108 Recommendations for Future Research Almost 20 years ago, the United Nations established the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This human rights tre aty recognized to relationship between child welfare and the built environment and established the legal responsibility of governing bodies to advance the realization of their citizenship through participation in society and planning processes that impact their lives. This treaty in combination with the Initiative for Child Friendly Cities and Family Friendly Cities, marked the intersection between the interest of child, youth, and families and social and urban development family processes. The principles a nd objectives established by these planning initiatives provides benchmarks for recommendations designed to enhance planning interventions that address the unique needs of child and family friendly communities. The following section includes recommendatio ns for future research: Long term review of the broad range of services offered by the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile in relation to the resources available within the educational institutions or partnerships to determine what programs are directly supporte d by the school and which services are offered by neighboring facilities. The programs listed in Appendix A should be further analyzed to determine the degree they aided in bonding and bridging social capital between peers. In terms of addressing the ser vice needs of families, the offerings of the Wutzkyallee Educational Mile can be tested to measure the supply of specific programs in relation to the demand by the community residents. Examining more closely the spatial relationship between the Wutzkyalle e Educational Mile would be beneficial in determining the walkability/accessibility for children and youth in efforts to enhance their mobile independence. The economic impact of Socially Integrative City investments and additional services should be anal yzed to determine the potential of negative externalities on community tax rates. In summary, the community schools position as an essential community asset poses considerable social and physical capital advantages with respect to child and
10 9 family friendly planning. As an institution it can be relied upon to aid in the socialization and transference of knowledge to children, as an organization it can accommodate collective services and provide community outreach to b uild social capital and support the diverse needs of families. As a result, its contributions to family friendly communities encompass many possibilities open to further research to gain an understanding of its performance measures as they relate to its or ganizational structure an operation. This thesis has provided a broad basis for future attempts to develop tools of measure to analysis the progress of community schools within the paradigm of family friendly planning
110 LIST OF REFERENCES The 2011 Community Schools National Awards for E xcellence. (2011). Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools. Adris, C. (2006). School Infrastructure Funding A lternatives. (School Infrastructure Funding Alternatives). National Association of Home Builders Land Develop ment Services. Allaire, J. R. (1960). Neighborhood B oundaries. (Historic PAS Report Series No. 141). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Angelos, J. (2011 ) Wha orkers. Foreign Affairs Archiv: Quartiersman agment Gropiusstadt. (2013). Retrieved 9/1/2012, 2012, from http://www.qm gropiusstadt.de/232.0.html Beer, I., Deniz, A., & Schwedler, H. (2011). Berlin: Urban, Social, and Ethnic Integration An Urban Policy C hallenge. European Academy of the Urban Environment. Bierbaum, A. H., Vincent, J. M., & McKoy, D. L. (2011). Growth and Opportunity: Aligning H ig h Quality Public Education and Sustainable Communities Planning in the Bay A rea. (A Framing Paper for the San Francisco Bay Area FOCUS Initiative). Berkeley, California: Center for Cities and Schools. Bildungsmeile Wutzkyallee. (2012). Retrieved 9/1/20120, 2012, from http://www.bildungsmeile wutzkyallee.de/uber uns/ Brooks, H. (2002). Children and Smart growth Translation Paper Number N ine Funder Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities. Buys, L., & Miller, E. (2009). Enhancing Social Capital in Children Via School Based Community Cultural Development Projects: A Pilot S tudy. International Journal of Education and Arts, 10 (3) C haskin, R. J. (2001). Building C ommunity Capacity: A Definitional Framework and Case Studies from a Comprehensive Commun ity I nitiative. Urban Affairs Review, 36 1/1/2013. Child Friendly Schools M anual. (2000). New York, NY: UNICEF. Chung, C. (2002). Using Public Schools as Community D evelopmen t Tools: Strategies for Community Based D evelopers. Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.
111 Coleman, J. S. (1998). Social Capital in the Creation of Human C apital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94 1/1/2013 S95 S120. Community school initiatives: State to state. (2009). Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools. Eisberg, J., Slingluff, S., Friedman, l., & Lollini, C. (2006). Planning Integration: Reconnecting Land Development Policies in Cities and S chools (Planning for the Next Generation: Cities, Regions & Schools Policy Briefs). Berkele y, California: Center for Cities and Schools. Eisinger, A. (2012). Agenda for Child Friendly N eighbourhood planning. Stuttgart Germany: Cities for Children. Empirica. (2013). Retrieved 9/1, 2013, from http://www.empirica institut.de/empi2007/english.html European Network for Child F riendly Cities. (2012). EN CFC Guidelines Child Friendly C ities. Retrieved 01/01, 2013, from http://www.childfriendlycities.eu/EN CFC/Guidelines Child Friendly Cities/page/2940/ Ferguson, K. M. (2006). Soci the International S ocial Capital Li terature. International Journal of Social Welfare, 15 (2), 2 18. Frank, K. I. (2006). The Potential of Youth Participation in P lanning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20 Franke, T., & Loher, R. (2012). Neighborhood Management A Key Inst rument in Integrative Urban D evelopment. Berlin, Germany: German Institute of Urban Affairs. Garbarino, J., & Abramowitz, R. H. (1992). The Family as a Social S ystem. Children and Families in the Social E nvironment (pp. 71 89). New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter, Inc. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual P erception Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Glazer, N. (2010). The School as an Instrument in P lanning. Journal of the American Institute of Planner s, 25 (4), 191 196. Goldberg, D. (2012). most out of new development. Washington, DC: Smart Growth America. Gutierrez, E., Hoover, K., Kwon, J., McAvey, K., Ols an, B., & Warner, M. E. (2009 ). Planning for Family Friendly Communities: Issues and O pportunities. (Planning for Family Friendly Communities: Overview). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
112 Hanifin, L. J. (1920). In Charters W. W. (Ed.), The Community C enter Boston, MA: Silver, Burdett, and Company. Heitor, T., & Alegre, A. (2012). School Place as a Collective Urban E ntity. Porto, Portugal: University of Oporto. Henkin, N. Z., Holmes, A., Walter, B., Greenberg, B. R., & Schwarz, J. (2005). Communities for All Ages: Planning Across G ene rations. (Elders as Recourses: Intergenerational Strategies Series). Baltimore, Maryland: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Hodgson, K. (2011). Multigenerational Planning: Using Smart Growth and Universal Design to Link the Needs of Children and the Aging P op ulation. (Family Friendly Communities Briefing Papers). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Hoover, K. (2009). Expanding Lifestyle Amenities for families: Parks and R ecreation. (Planning for Family Friendly Communities: Issue Brief). Ithaca, NY: C ornell University. Imbriano, K. R. (2010). Parks, Open Space and R ecreation. (Planning for Family Friendly Communities Briefing Paper). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Interviews: Quartiersmanagement Gropiusstadt. (2013). Retrieved 9/1/2012, 2012, from http://www.qm gropiusstadt.de/77.0.html Israel, E., & Warner, M. E. (2008). Planning for Family Friendly C o mmunities: Results of the 2008 National S urvey. (PAS Memo). Chicago, IL: America n Planning Association. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American C ities (1992nd ed.). New York, NY: Vintage Books. JuKuz Jugend & Kulturzentrum W utzkyallee 88. (2013). Retrieved 9/1/2012, 2012, from http://www.wutzkyallee.de/bildungsmeile wutzkyallee.html Kaya, A. (2012, November 23). The Lowest of the Low: Guest Workers and Multiculturalism in Post Wa r Germany Message posted to http://hist243.blogs.wm.edu/2012/11/23/the lowest of the low guest workers and multiculturalism in post war germa ny/ Kleinhans, K. (2010 ) Bildungsmeile Wutzkyallee (Education Mile W utzkyallee) Gewerkschaft Erziehung Und Wissens chaft Know les Yanez, K. (20). Children's Participation in the Planning P rocesses. Journal of Planning Literature, 1 (2005) Kochera, A. (2012). Beyond 50.05: A Re port to the Nation on Livable Communities: Creating Environments for Successful A ging. Washington, DC: AARP.
113 Kwon, J. (2009). Transportation and Family Friendly C ommunities. (Planning for Family Friendly Communities: Issue Brief). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Leonard, M. (2005). Children, Childhood, and Social Capital: Exploring the L inks. Sociology, 39 (4), 605 622. Making a Difference in Your Neighborhood: A Handbook for Using Community Decision Making to Improve the Lives of Children, Youth, and F amilies. (2011). Washington, DC: Center of for the Study of Social Policy. Making the Differe nce: Research and Practice in Community S chools. (2003). Washington, DC: Coalition for Community School. McCarthy D. (2009). Opportunitie s for Aligning Planning and Urban E ducation. Panorama, McDonald, N. C. (2010). School S iting. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76 (2), 184 198. McKoy, D. L., Bierbaum, A. H., & Vincent, J. M. (2009). The Mechanics of City School I nitiatives: Transforming Neighborhoods of Distress and Despair into Neighborhoods of Choice and P romise. Berkeley, California: Center for Cities and Schools. McKoy, D. L., Vincent, J. M., & Bierbaum, A. H. (2011). Opportunity Rich Schools and Sustainable Communities: Seven Steps to Align High Quality Education in Innovations in City and Metropolitan Planning and D evelopment. Berkeley, California: Center for Cities and Schools. Miller, R. (2013, February 21st). The Self Defeating Disconnect Between Cities and S chools. Message posted to http://colabradio.mit.edu/the self defeating disconnect between cities and schools/ Morrow, V. (1999). Searching for Social N eighbourhood and N etworks: A Preliminary A nalysis (LSE GENDER INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES No. 7). London, United Kingdom: LSE Gender Institute. Muro, M., & Puentes, R. (2004). Investing in a Better future: A Revie w of the Fiscal and Competitive A dvantages of Smart Growth Development P atterns (DISCUSSION PAPERS). The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2004/3/metropolitanpolic y%20muro/200403_smartgrowth.pdf Nachr icten: Quartiersmanagement gropiusstadt. (2013). Retrieved 9/1/2012, 2012, from http://www.qm gropiusstadt.de/41.0.html?& tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=471&cHash=add12f2c8a 57fa02f2f0313e59c0e142
114 Neighborhood Management in Berlin: Information on the Program "Socially Integrative C ity". (2010). Senate Department for Urban Development. Norris, N. (2009). Sm art growth Schools report C ard. Smart Schools for Smart Communities. Olsan, B. (2009). Compressive Planning for Family Friendly C ommunities. ( Planning for Family Friendly Communities Issue Brief). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Rawlings, L., Murthy, S., & Winder, N. (2013). Commo n G round: UNICEF and World Bank Approaches to Building Social Protection S ystems. UNICEF Rukus, J., & Warner, M. E. (2013). Crime Rates and Collective Efficacy: The Role of Family Friendly P lanning. Cities, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Rukus, J., & Warne r, M. E. (2013). Planning for Family Friendly Communities: Motivators, Barriers, and B enefits. (Planning for Family Friendly Communities Issue Brief). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Rukus, J., & Warner, M. E. (Forthcoming Journal of Urban Affairs, Decemb er 2013). Planners' role in Creating Family Friendly Communities: Action, Participation, and R esistance. Unpublished manuscript. Schaefer McDaniel, N. J. (2004). Conceptualizing Social Capital Among Young People: Towards a New T heory Children, Youth and Environments, 12 (1), 140 150. Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart G rowth. (2004). Scottsdale, Arizona: United States Environmental Protection Agency. Seggern, L. v. (2010). Doc umentation of the 2nd European A ward of E xc ellence City of C hildren Stuttgart, Germany: City of Stuttgart. Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment. Socially Integrative C i ty: Neighborhood M anagement in B erlin. Retrieved 9/1/2012, 2012, from http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/wohnen/quartiersmanagement/index_en.sh tml Shrivastava, R., & Shar ma, A. (2011). Smart growth: A Modern Urban P r inciple. Architecture Research, 1 (1), 1/1/2013 8 11. Smart growth schools. Retrieved 1/1/2013, 2013, from http://smartgrowthschools.org/resources.html Smith, M. K. (2009). Social capital Retrieved 1/1/2013, 2013, from http://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htm Social capital. (2005). (Special Eurobarameter N 223). European Commission.
115 Social Cohesion in Neighborhoods Across Europe A B asel ine S tudy. (2008). Berlin, Germany: Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development. Spanier, W. (2012). Political Strategies for Organizing Life Worlds and Social C ommunication Spaces in Segregated Urban N eighborhoods Berlin, Germany: German Institute for Urban Affairs. Svendson, G. L. H. (2010). Socio Spatial Planning in the Creation of Bridging Social Capital: The Importance of Multifunctional Centers for Intergroup Networks and I ntegration. International Journal o f Social Inquiry, 3 (2), 45 73. This is smart growth. (2012) Smart Growth Network. Thne, H. (2012, August 21). Geiles ghetto. Berliner Zeitung pp. 1. Thne, H. (2012). Neue projektleitung im QM team. Retrieved 9/1/2013, 2012, from http://www.qm gropiusstadt.de/41.0.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news ]=158&cHash=a638d39cb0a70762 16981b3a1505d2e8 UNICEF. (2004). Building Child Friendly C ities. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Cent re. UNICEF. (2009). Child Friendly C ities Geneva, Switzerland: UNICEF. Vincent, J. M. (2010). Partnerships for Joint Use: Expanding the Use of public school Infrastructure to Benefit Students and C ommunities. Berkeley, California: Center for Cities and Schools. Warner, M. E. (2007). Planning for Inclusion: The Case of C hildcare. Chicago, Illinois: American Planning Association. Weller, S., & Irene, B. (2009). Children's Place in the Development of Neighborhood Social C apital. Urban Studies Journal Limited, 46 (3), 629 643. What is smart growth? (2001). Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency. Winkel, R. (2008). Innovative Concepts for Social I nfrastructure. German Journal of Urban Studies, 47 (2), 1/1/201 3. Woolcock, M ., & Naraya, D. (2000). Social C apital: Implications for Development Theory, Research, and P olicy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15 (2), 225 24 9
116 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Brittaney Ross earned her Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in Industria l Design from the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign in 2008. She enrolled in the Master of Urban and Regional Planning program at the University of Florida in 2009 and anticipates the completion of her graduate studies in the s pring of 2013. Britta ney has participated as a NEURUS Fellow in the Network for European and United States Regional Urban Studies program in 2012 to conduct field research for the completion of her m aster s her tea competition. As a native of Chicago, IL, Brittaney has aspirations to pursue a career in Schools In itiative.