July 2004

Q: We are trying to build more collaborative relationships between our schools, families, and community agencies. What research has been done in this area that may give us some guidance? (Part 2)

Last month’s FAQ [Part 1] provided an overview of school-family-community partnerships. This month’s answer [Part 2] will address communication issues related to these partnerships. Next month’s answer [Part 3] will address staff training and community development activities.

A:Historically, strategies that inform parents, news media, and communities about school activities have been given little or no attention. Most outreach focused only on parent information. The culture of schools is changing, and the various constituents of these schools are looking for new levels of communication from them. Letters home or regular newsletters do not adequately address the new and changing roles of our communities. New forms of two-way communication, such as focus groups, town hall meetings, subcommittees with focused agendas, and family and community members as decision-makers are all emerging within our school districts. School leaders are now required to be public relations specialists as well as academic leaders. They expect staff members to be involved in community groups and organizations, provide computerized access to information about community issues, track proposed legislation that impacts schools and communities, maintain ongoing relationships with community groups, and generate a continuous series of articles by school representatives (Howlett, 1993).  

The National School Public Relations Association recommends outlining specific protocols in a communications plan that reflects a district’s mission and vision, in a communications plan (NSPRA, 2002). Typical communication methods including flyers, newsletters, newspapers, and radio have functioned as dissemination outlets; however, these served the function of “informing,” not being informed. They did not help districts understand the underlying values and priorities of a community (Iowa Association of School Boards, 2004). The question is, “How do you move to more meaningful interactions and increase levels of understanding of common mission, values, and relationships?

  Increased programs, diversity, and technology have created a fast-paced system that is difficult to keep up with. The challenge is creating effective communication channels within the community.    Scott and Cantor (1996) recommend an 11-step process:    

Communication with families is still a major piece of the total communication plan. Increased communication with families equals improved outcomes for students (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002).   Individual contacts and designating a primary contact person has a positive impact on school attendance and chronic absenteeism.   Web sites, email and, electronic discussion boards are all resources now available to schools.   Web sites can be especially helpful in providing access to forms and communications needed by students and families. They provide easy access to teachers’ email addresses and other contact information, provide examples of how schools are using technology, provide quick and easy updates on school and community information, and can be used as a central communication point as students move from school to school (Hanson & Johnson, 2001).

An example of innovative communication emerged from a middle school principal in California (Peterson, 1996).    He decided to publish a community based “good news” paper called Our Kids: Our Community.   It is an independent project outside of the school. The paper spotlights all the positive things happening in the community that impacts kids and families.   It includes pictures and stories from all schools in the community and features student work.   It is not a forum for political discussions, but a forum for accurate information to be disseminated to the community. Community organizations and businesses also use it to inform families of upcoming events.  

Over the past several years, the National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University has worked with more than 1000 member schools, districts, and state departments of education to develop and implement programs of school, family, and community partnerships.   Director Dr. Joyce Epstein (2004) explains that “based on more than a decade of research and the work of many educators, parents, students, and others, we know that it is possible for all elementary, middle, and high schools to develop and maintain strong programs of partnership” (p. 12).   Dr. Epstein and the staff work with members of the Network to encourage, inform, recognize, and support efforts to improve and maintain school, family, and community connections that produce positive results for students ( http://www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/ ).  

It is important to create a school culture that allows families and communities to become informed about, and involved in their children’s education both at school and at home.   Additionally, partnerships must be viewed as an essential component of school and classroom organization.   They can no longer be considered an optional activity or a simple matter of public relations because school, family, and community partnerships are essential for student learning and success in school. The National Network of Partnership Schools guides school, district, and state leaders; and teams of educators, parents, and others to improve school, family, and community partnerships.   Research is being conducted on the structures and processes used to “gear up” programs of partnership to all schools in a district or state, including the results of these programs ( http:/www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/program2.htm ).   The following 9 partnership program components lead to successful program development:

Reference/Resources List

Epstein, J. L., & Salinas, K. C. (2004).   Parenting with families and communities. Educational Leadership , 61 (8), 12-18.

Epstein, J. & Sheldon, S. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through family and community involvement. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 308-317.

Hanson, A. & Johnson, D. (2001). Communication with a bang (and few whimpers). Library Talk, 14, 10-12.

Howlett, P. (1993). The politics of school leaders, past and future. Education Digest, 58, 18-22.

  Iowa Association of School Boards (2004). Message posted to site. Internet [On-line]. Available: http:/ www.ia-sb.org/communityrelations/commengage.asp.

National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA). (2002). Raising the bar for school PR: New standards for the public relations professional .   Rockville, MD.

National Network of Partnership Schools.   (2004).   Retrieved May 10, 2004 from:.

National Network of Partnership Schools: Partnership Program.   (2004). Retrieved May 10, 2004 from: http://www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/program2.htm .

Peterson, W. (1996). Filling the communications gap. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 25, 38-41.

Scott, E. & Cantor, J. (1996). Gotta tell somebody. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 26, 38-42.