August 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 3)

May’s FAQ (Part 1) provided an overview of school-family-community partnerships. June’s answer (Part 2) added communication issues related to these partnerships. This month’s answer (Part 3) will address staff training and community development activities.

A:

Staff Development and Training

Since it may be a departure from past practice, teachers and other school staff may be uncomfortable with the shift to working more closely with families and the community. Schools will need to provide professional development activities that include assistance in developing parenting skills, communicating with families about school programs and student progress, improving the experience of parent volunteers, establishing strategies to help families reinforce academic learning at home, including families in decision-making, and coordinating community contributions and resources (Billig, 2002). In addition, school staff and faculty will need professional development and staff training to understand their role in attracting and maintaining community partnerships. As more service providers co-locate their support programs in schools, staff will need to learn to coordinate with staff in other community agencies. Whenever possible, schools need to begin collaborations with area colleges and universities to ensure preservice training in values and practices in family and community involvement (Sanders & Harvey, 2002; Chavkin, 2000).

One strategy for building those collaborations is “family as faculty,” which gives providers and professionals the invaluable opportunity to learn what has worked from families who have been active participants in the design and development of effective services for their children. Their personal experience brings to life what providers and administrators can only partially learn through textbooks. Family as faculty, and the curricula offered by family-run organizations, provides families an opportunity to develop strategies that dissolve some of the barriers that make it difficult for local systems and providers to be creative in designing services and supports for children and their families. When family members serve as faculty, students observe and experience a practical modeling of partnerships and mutual respect before they enter the service delivery work force. Students exposed to family as faculty have realized how important it is to listen to parents and respect their expertise. The experience of the university programs that have tried this model indicates the practice of using family as faculty makes a lasting and far-reaching difference in how services are provided in the community (Osher, T., 1998).

Strategies for the Development of External School and Community Partnerships

Over the past several years, the National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University has worked with more than 1,000 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 simply a 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:

1. Create or identify an action team for school-family-community partnerships
2. Obtain funds and official support
3. Provide training and guidelines to action team members
4. Identify starting points – present activities, strengths, and weaknesses
5. Identify the present practices conducted at the school for each of Epstein's six types of involvement
6. Develop a 3-year outline that defines the school's inventory of starting points, school improvement goals, and ideas that will produce the desired results
7. Write a 1-year action plan for partners – asks the action team to be clear about the dates, preparation, helpers, and results for each activity that is scheduled
8. Enlist staff, parents, and community groups to help conduct activities
9. Evaluate implementation and results

Making Partnerships Work

School-Family-Community Partnership programs have yielded a number of insights about how Action Teams are helping schools develop and maintain strong connections with their students' families and communities. Sanders (1996) lists 10 specific insights that should be helpful to other schools that are committed to establishing effective, comprehensive, and permanent programs of school-family-community partnerships (p. 65).

1. Partnerships are a shared responsibility
2. Partnerships take time
3. Partnerships reach out to all family members
4. Partnerships improve incrementally
5. Partnerships are important throughout the grades
6. Partnerships need students
7. Partnerships include the community
8. Partnerships include the hard-to-reach
9. Partnerships link to the curriculum and student learning
10. Partnerships follow the six types of involvement

The National Network of Partnership-2000 Schools is open to schools, districts, and states that are committed to developing comprehensive, permanent programs of school-family-community partnerships. Sanders (1996) states that “with the right ingredients and time, every school can develop programs of partnership that enable schools, families, and communities to better educate today's youth” (p. 66).

Successful Implementation in the Field

Every year, the National Network of Partnership Schools collects what are defined as promising partnership practices (Salinas & Jansorn, 2003). A number of examples define how schools from a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds are working to create effective programs of family and community involvement to support their learning communities.

Madison Junior High School in Naperville, Illinois maintains a welcoming school culture by implementing activities for all six types of family involvement mentioned earlier by Epstein. Over the past year, the school conducted open forums on adolescence so that parents could share effective and meaningful parenting strategies and establish a parental network in an effort to improve communication. They also published newspapers, initiated a weekly activity centered around sending information home, created a database of volunteers, and conducted family literacy nights. Epstein (2004) notes “all activities were linked to goals for students in the school improvement plan, which helped to foster an active learning community” (p. 13).

Roosevelt Elementary School in St. Paul Minnesota created a strategy that became known as the “Second Cup of Coffee” program. A monthly morning meeting was held so that parents would have an opportunity to get together with teachers, administrators, and other parents to exchange ideas regarding homework, testing, reading programs, and other school activities. Support personnel were also made available to accommodate non-English speaking and culturally diverse parents.

In Buffalo, New York, Early Childhood Center #17 conducted its Diversity Celebration program, which was designed to help students, teachers, and families become more aware and appreciative of the eight different cultural groups represented in their learning community. Community volunteers helped students create poems, songs, costumes, skits, and dances. Epstein (2004) points out that “the activities helped students develop language skills, and other talents and involved diverse families in their children's learning” (p. 14).

Engaging community partnerships

Voke (2002) defines community engagement as “a willingness on the part of citizens to invest not only the financial resources, but also the time and energy necessary to support a system of quality public schools that are accessible to all children” (p.1). The Annenberg Institute (1998) suggests that there are five shared characteristics of public engagement initiatives, including:

1. an inclusive, dialogue driven process;
2. a dedication to real improvement in schools;
3. a commitment to creating dynamic partnerships;
4. a sincere desire to find common ground; and
5. an atmosphere of honesty and mutual trust.

These characteristics are combined with efforts to produce improvement in teaching and learning, greater community trust in schools, more supportive legislative policy framework, and better media reporting (Annenberg, 1998).

Additional supports invested in the physical and emotional well-being of students and families can also help build relationships, trust, and a community's capacity to provide appropriate services. Schools can improve their capacity to serve all students by linking with community-based mental health and social service agencies. Agency staff can contribute to individual and school-wide assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation. Agency resources can enhance the schools' capacity to provide universal, early, and intensive interventions. Links with agency resources can also align school and agency services (e.g., universal after-school programs, early interventions for families whose circumstances place children at risk, and individualized targeted interventions for children with intense levels of need).

The Report of the Surgeon General's Conference on Children's Mental Health (U.S. Public Health Service, 2001) underscores the need to focus on mental health as a critical component of children's learning and general health. The report calls for creation of a community health system that balances health promotion, disease prevention, early detection, and universal access to health care. Specifically, the report recommends training for teachers and others who work directly with children to recognize early symptoms of emotional or behavioral problems for intervention. The report also calls for better coordination of community services to end the fragmentation that spreads human services across many institutions.

References:

Billig, S. (2002). Involving middle-graders' parents. Middle Matters, 10, 42-45.

Chavkin, N. (2000). Family and community involvement policies: Teachers can lead the way. Clearing House, 73, 287-291.

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

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

Osher, T., deFur, E., Nava, C., Spencer, S., & Toth-Dennis, D. (1999). New roles for families in systems of care. 1998 Series. Washington, DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, American Institutes for Research. Systems of Care: Promising Practices in Children's Mental Health.

Sanders, M. & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104, 1345-1368.