A Proposed Framework for Conceptualizing and Enacting School–Community Partnerships

• In Event: 65.049 - Implementing School and Community Partnerships: Lessons From Community School and Promise Neighborhood Initiatives

Abstract

School-community partnerships are frequently touted as a promising means of educational reform. In these reforms, schools expand the traditional school’s mission to include health/social services for children and families. Partnerships seek to improve students’ overall wellbeing and strengthen families and neighborhoods. But a close look at these partnerships indicates a variety of models that require different commitments and resources. Our literature review indicated that a partnership typology would be a useful tool in guiding systemic educational reform, research, and evaluation. In this paper, we describe that typology, summarize key findings, and make recommendations for progress.

Our literature review began with an electronic database search using such terms as school-community partnerships, and community-school linked services. We then conducted ancestral searches, scanned targeted journals, and contacted community school organizations to identify additional commissioned studies. Thirty-eight (38) sources were identified through these processes, enabling us to compare and sort the partnerships into four distinct categories.

The most basic type, Family and Interagency Collaboration, connects social and health services to students and families and requires the school’s organizational commitment. The Full-Service School aims to coordinate and deliver comprehensive services at the school site. Full-Service Community Schools continue this model, but add a more democratic component, in which families and community members provide input as full partners rather than simply receiving services. The Community Development model aims not only to assist students and families, but to transform whole neighborhoods. It requires both inter-organizational and cultural change.

The most studied outcome, and the one with the most consistent record of success, was academic achievement, especially in mathematics. There is also evidence showing literacy improvement as well as improved attendance, classroom behaviors, and attitudes toward school. Extending the school day and having a resource person on site were two important strategies used across the four models to meet the academic and social needs of students and families.

Fewer studies examined more complex goals such as improved health, housing, employment, and safety. The studies of organizational and infrastructure change that do exist indicate how difficult it is to create new types of institutions and transform whole neighborhoods. Implementation and sustainability problems fell into four broad areas: organization, communication, resources, and leadership. But some of these ambitious partnerships were successful, increasing the school’s capacity, improving its climate, attending to health and adult education needs, and developing collaborative leadership styles. There is also some promise of sustained improvements in housing, health, employment, and transportation in the Community Development model.

Taken as a whole, the sources we reviewed provide evidence that school-community partnerships around the country are based on sound evidence on the importance of parent and community involvement, building trust, attending to the whole child, and having the resources to respond to specific academic and social needs. But studying school-community partnerships is an incredibly complex effort, itself requiring strong and sustained networks of support. We recommend that community activists, researchers and policymakers collaborate to strengthen and sustain chosen models of partnership; develop on-going evaluation processes; and build comprehensive, integrated databases.

Authors

• Linda R. Valli, University of Maryland

• Amanda Stefanski, University of Maryland

• Reuben Jacobson, Institute for Educational Leadership