Jeanita W Richardson1. 1. Department of Educational Leadership, Virginia State University, 8454 Spruce Pine Drive, Richmond, VA 23235, USA. przdnc@aol.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2 institutions that hold great promise in mitigating the negative cyclical relationship between poor health and educational readiness are schools and school-based health care facilities (SBHCs). In partnership with schools, SBHCs could have a profound effect on learning outcomes, which include, but are not limited to, poor concentration in school, attendance, and disturbances of normal sequential development. This article provides an overview of the role of federal, state, and local governmental agencies in the development and implementation of public educational policy and funding in an effort to provide SBHCs the foundation for building a bridge between the health and the educational lexicon. METHODS: This article reviews literature from a wide variety of sources to develop a better understanding of the complexities associated with public K-12 education and provides suggestions for initiating meaningful interactions between SBHC supporters and educational decision makers. RESULTS: Strategic reasoning between supporters of SBHCs and educational policy makers is critical because of the limitations of time and money for those delivering educational services. Additional projects (eg, SBHCs) no matter how well conceived will be difficult to promote unless officials can be convinced that collaboration in school-based health care actually enhances compliance with the No Child Left Behind Act. CONCLUSIONS: Though SBHCs and schools are both committed to enhancing the lives of children, these institutions speak different languages and are accountable to very different types of public and private bodies.
BACKGROUND: The 2 institutions that hold great promise in mitigating the negative cyclical relationship between poor health and educational readiness are schools and school-based health care facilities (SBHCs). In partnership with schools, SBHCs could have a profound effect on learning outcomes, which include, but are not limited to, poor concentration in school, attendance, and disturbances of normal sequential development. This article provides an overview of the role of federal, state, and local governmental agencies in the development and implementation of public educational policy and funding in an effort to provide SBHCs the foundation for building a bridge between the health and the educational lexicon. METHODS: This article reviews literature from a wide variety of sources to develop a better understanding of the complexities associated with public K-12 education and provides suggestions for initiating meaningful interactions between SBHC supporters and educational decision makers. RESULTS: Strategic reasoning between supporters of SBHCs and educational policy makers is critical because of the limitations of time and money for those delivering educational services. Additional projects (eg, SBHCs) no matter how well conceived will be difficult to promote unless officials can be convinced that collaboration in school-based health care actually enhances compliance with the No Child Left Behind Act. CONCLUSIONS: Though SBHCs and schools are both committed to enhancing the lives of children, these institutions speak different languages and are accountable to very different types of public and private bodies.