Journal of Elementary Schools Role of Community 2001

8/13/2019 Journal of Elementary Schools Role of Community 2001

1/17

The Role of "Community" in Comprehensive School, Family, and Community PartnershipProgramsAuthor(s): Mavis G. SandersSource: The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 102, No. 1 (Sep., 2001), pp. 19-34Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002167.Accessed: 14/07/2011 09:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at.http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress..

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Elementary School Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1002167?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1002167?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/17

The Role ofCommunity in

ComprehensiveSchool, Family, andCommunityPartnership ProgramsMavis G. SandersJohnsHopkins University

TheElementarySchoolJournalVolume 102, Number 1? 2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.0013-5984/2001/10201-0002$02.00

AbstractInthisarticle, examinetherole of communityin school-basedprogramsof school,family,andcommunity partnerships. offer a workingdef-inition of school-communitypartnerships,dis-cuss the benefits of school-communitycollabo-ration, dentify gapsin currentknowledgein thefield, and analyze survey data collected fromover400 schools acrossthe UnitedStates hataremembers of the National Network of Partner-ship Schools.Analyseswere conductedto learnmore about the types of community partnerswith whom schools collaborate, the foci ofschool-communitypartnerships, he challengesschools face in developing communitypartner-ships, strategiesto address challenges to com-munity partnershipdevelopment, and factorsthat influence schools' satisfaction with theircommunity partnershipactivities.Stepsneededin researchand practiceto improvecommunityconnections within comprehensiveschool, fam-ily, and community partnershipprogramsarediscussed.Within the research and programmatic lit-erature, community involvement is vari-ously conceptualized as parent involve-ment (Stone, 1995), community education(Boo & Decker, 1985; Dryfoos, 1998), com-munity collaboration (Boyd & Crowson,1993; Jehl & Kirst, 1992), and communitydevelopment and empowerment (Canada,1996; Keith, 1995, 1996). Regardless of itsdefinition, community involvement is gen-erally reported as beneficial for childrenand youth, schools, neighborhoods, par-ents, and the larger society (Families andWork Institute, 1995; U.S. Department ofEducation, 1994). Given the desirability ofcommunity involvement, the task for edu-cators is to begin to define and develop arigorous research agenda around differentaspects of the term.


3/17

20 THE ELEMENTARY CHOOLJOURNALThe Importanceof PartnershipsFamilies and schools traditionally havebeen viewed as the institutions with thegreatest effect on the development of chil-dren. Communities, however, have re-ceived increasing attention for their role insocializing youth and ensuring students'success in a variety of societal domains. Ep-stein's (1987) theory of overlapping spheresof influence, for example, emphasizes thatschools, families, and communities are ma-jor institutions that socialize and educatechildren. A central principle of the theory isthat certain goals, such as student academicsuccess, are of interest to each of these in-stitutions and are best achieved throughtheir cooperative action and support.Similarly, Heath and McLaughlin (1987,p. 579) argued that community involvementis important because the problems of edu-cational achievement and academic successdemand resources beyond the scope of theschool and of most families. They identi-fied changing family demographics, de-mands of the professional workplace, andgrowing diversity among students as someof the reasons that schools and familiesalone cannot provide sufficient resources toensure that all children receive the experi-ences and support needed to succeed in thelarger society.Other authors also have emphasized theimportance of schools, families, and com-munities working together to promote stu-dents' success. Toffler and Toffler (1995)contended that school-family-communitycollaborations are one way to provide a car-ing component to today's often large, as-sembly-line schools. Boyd and Crowson(1993, p. 36) suggested that schools mustreach out into the community in an at-tempt to strengthen the 'social capital'available to children. Similarly, Waddock(1995) agreed that schools alone cannot pro-vide children and youth with the resourcesthey need to be competent citizens in thetwenty-first century. She explained thatgood schools are part of a total system ofinteractive forces, individuals, institutions,

goals, and expectations that are linked to-gether inextricably.School-community partnerships, then,can be defined as the connections betweenschools and community individuals, orga-nizations, and businesses that are forged topromote students' social, emotional, physi-cal, and intellectual development. Com-munity within this definition of school-community partnerships is not constrainedby the geographic boundaries of neighbor-hoods (Chaskin, 1994)but refers more to thesocial interactions that can occur within ortranscend local boundaries (Nettles, 1991b,p. 380).Partnershipsin PracticeForms of Collaboration

School-community partnerships cantake a variety of forms. The most commonlinkages are partnerships with businesses,which can differ significantly in focus,scope, and content (Ascher, 1988). Otherschool-community linkages involve primaryservice organizations such as churches andlibraries that can provide resources and so-cial support to youth (Sanders, 1996).Serviceintegration or one-stop shopping is an-other form of school-community collabora-tion (Dryfoos, 1994; Wynn, Merry, & Berg,1995). With this type of collaborative effort,schools and specialized service organiza-tions, including health clinics and child wel-fare agencies, attempt to provide more effi-cient services to children and their familieswho need them (Dolan, 1992;Kagan, Goffin,Golub, & Pritchard, 1995; Wynn, Costello,Halpern, & Richman, 1994).Common community partnership activ-ities include mentoring and tutoring, contex-tual learning and job shadowing, academicenrichment, as well as the provision of ser-vices, equipment, and supplies to studentsand schools. Research has suggested thatthese activities can lead to improved studentoutcomes. For example, one-on-one mentor-ing programs have been found to have sig-nificant and positive effects on students'grades and attendance (McPartland & Net-SEPTEMBER001


4/17

COMMUNITY 21

ties, 1991).School-community collaborationsfocused on academic subjects have beenshown to enhance students' attitudes towardthese subjects, as well as the attitudes ofteachers and parents (Beyerbach, Weber,Swift, & Gooding, 1996). Nettles (1991a) re-ported positive effects of school-communitycollaborations with an instructional compo-nent on students' grades, attendance, andschool persistence. School-community part-nerships, then, can be an important elementin schools' programs of improvement andreform (Sanders & Harvey, 2000).Effective ImplementationNettles (1991b) noted, however, that notall collaborations realize their goals forschool improvement. This is most likelydue to the collaboration's design andimplementation. Some organizations (In-formation Technology Foundation, 1993;Partnership for Family Involvement in Edu-cation, 1997) have attempted to identify aprocess for effective implementation of

school-community partnerships. Althoughsome variation exists, the organizations gen-erally agree on several key steps for buildingsuccessful collaborations. These steps in-clude (1) identifying issues or goals to ad-dress; (2) defining the focus and scope of thepartnerships; (3) identifying community as-sets (potential partners); (4) selecting part-ners; (5) monitoring progress; (6) evaluatingactivities; and (7) sharing success stories.Barriers to ImplementationResearch also has identified several ob-stacles to the implementation of school-community collaborations. Cushing andKohl (1997), for example, identified threebarriers to successful collaborations. One isschools' fear of public scrutiny. Cushingand Kohl argued that because of years ofnegative media coverage, many administra-

tors and teachers are hesitant to further ex-pose themselves to community scrutinythrough collaborations. Another obstaclethese authors identified was staff burnout.They found high levels of exhaustion and

frustration among the staff at most schoolsand at all grade levels. Because of these feel-ings, many teachers and administrators findthe idea of extending themselves beyond theschool to be overwhelming. Third, Cushingand Kohl (1997)found that teachers' and ad-ministrators' attitudes and perceptions canimpede school-community collaborations.Some administrators and teachers perceivetheir communities as uncaring or bereft ofresources that can contribute to students'school success.Mawhinney (1994) also identified barri-ers to effective collaborations with the com-

munity. According to Mawhinney, one ofthe most pervasive hindrances to collabo-ration is territorialism or, as Boyd andCrowson (1993, p. 152) noted, unresolvedissues of information sharing, resource min-gling and professional turf. However, Ma-whinney documented how committed in-dividuals in schools and communities canaddress barriers to collaboration throughcareful planning and purposeful dialogue.In addition to turf issues, Epstein (1995)has identified other challenges to develop-ing successful school-community partner-ship activities. One challenge is linkingpartnership activities to school improve-ment goals. Another challenge for schoolsis to assist all families in identifying com-munity programs and services that addresstheir needs. Epstein also highlighted theneed for schools to develop two-way forms

of school-community collaborations so thatschools provide useful services to the com-munity as well as receive useful servicesfrom the community.Research thus provides a foundationfrom which to understand potential formsand benefits of school-community collabo-rations, general guidelines for building suc-cessful school-community collaborations,and possible obstacles to such collabora-tions. However, this research lacks the spec-ificity required for effective partnershipprogram development. In the present study,I sought to provide such specificity throughanalyses of survey data collected from hun-


5/17

22 THE ELEMENTARYCHOOLJOURNALdreds of elementary, middle, and highschools in the National Network of Partner-ship Schools (NNPS).1 Analyses were con-ducted to (1) identify and categorize thecommunity agencies and organizations withwhom the schools partnered; (2) documentthe focus of their partnership activities;(3) identify obstacles to the implementationof their school-community partnerships andstrategies to overcome these obstacles; and(4) examine factors that influenced schools'satisfaction with their community involve-ment activities. In so doing, I provide de-tailed information on how schools can de-velop effective community connections.Method

SampleThe sample consisted of 443 schools thatjoined the NNPS at Johns Hopkins Univer-sity before December 1997. The NNPS pro-vides theory-driven and research-based as-sistance, support, and training to schools,districts, and states that are committed tobuilding permanent school, family, andcommunity partnership programs (Sanders,1999; Sanders & Epstein, 2000). There is nofee to join the NNPS, but each school agreesto use an Action Team for Partnerships(ATP) composed of the principal, teachers,and family and community representativesand to use Epstein's framework of six typesof involvement-(1) parenting, (2) commu-nicating, (3) volunteering, (4) learning athome, (5) decision making, and (6) collabo-rating with the community-to developcomprehensive programs of school, family,and community partnerships that will pro-mote students' success (Epstein, Coates, Sa-linas, Sanders, & Simon, 1997). Each schoolis also required to allocate time for ATPmonthly meetings and a budget to supportits partnership program.As members, schools receive a free copyof School, Family, and Community Partner-ships: YourHandbook or Action (Epstein etal., 1997), which contains materials and in-formation to guide the work of ATPs. TheATPs also are issued a certificate of mem-

bership that they are encouraged to displayin their schools as one symbol of their com-mitment to school, family, and communitypartnerships. The NNPS members receive asemiannual newsletter that summarizescurrent research on partnerships and an an-nual collection that describes promisingpartnership practices. Schools also are pro-vided technical assistance from NNPS staffvia phone, email, and the PartnershipSchoolsweb site. Member schools have the optionof participating in cross-site research stud-ies and attending an annual training work-shop for new members held at Johns Hop-kins University.Schools in the NNPS do not constitute aformal representative sample of schools inthe United States, but they are diverse onkey demographic characteristics. Of the 434schools in the sample, about one-third arelocated in large cities (34%), over one-quarter are located in suburban areas (27%),20% are located in small cities, and about19%are located in rural areas. The majority(70%) are elementary schools serving onlystudents from prekindergarten to grade 6;14% are middle schools that include onlystudents from grades 4 to 9; 7% are highschools with students between grades 9 and12; and 9% are schools that serve studentsfrom a range of grade levels. Sixty-five per-cent of the schools in the sample receivesome Title 1 funds, and 43%are schoolwideTitle 1 programs. The schools also differ inthe size and ethnic diversity of their popu-lations. For example, one-third of theschools reported that their students' fami-lies spoke between two and five languagesother than English.

Data Collection and AnalysisDuring the spring of 1998, each schoolthat joined the NNPS by December 1997was asked to complete an annual end-of-

year survey titled UPDATE. The survey isdesigned to help the network (1) update thenames and addresses of key contacts;(2) learn about schools' progress and chal-lenges in their work on partnerships; andSEPTEMBER001


6/17

COMMUNITY 23(3) understand how to best support schools'work with useful services. The survey is alsoused as schools' renewal of membership inthe NNPS.

The 1998 UPDATE included a short sur-vey on community connections that was de-signed to elicit detailed information fromschools in the NNPS on (1) the types of com-munity collaborations they were imple-menting and key features of the collabora-tions, (2) factors that facilitated and/orimpeded implementation, and (3) their sat-isfaction with their collaborations.

Surveys were returned by 443 (73%) ofthe then 611 school members of the NNPS.The surveys were completed by key con-tacts to the NNPS. Respondents includedschool principals (44%); amily/communityinvolvement coordinators (15%); teachers(14%);Title 1 personnel (8%);school coun-selors, social workers, and nurses (6%);andschool secretaries, grant coordinators, andparents (13%).The majority of respondentswho completed the survey (51%) were as-sisted by additional members of theirschools' ATPs.In this study, I analyzed data on com-munity connections reported by 443 schoolsin the NNPS. Because of these schools' ex-pressed focus on school, family, and com-munity partnerships as a strategy for schoolimprovement, they provide useful informa-tion for other schools at various stages ofpartnership program development. The ar-ticle includes descriptions of the types ofcommunity partners with whom the schoolscollaborated, the foci of their partnership ac-tivities, obstacles to implementation, andsuggestions for overcoming these obstacles.I also report correlations between schoolcontext variables and schools' satisfactionwith the quantity and quality of their com-munity partnership activities. Context vari-ables included location in urban or nonur-ban areas; school level, whether elementaryonly or secondary (middle and high school);general support-an 11-item scale (a = .88)measuring how much (none = 1; a little =2; some = 3; a lot = 4) teachers, parents,

school board members, and district leaderssupported the school's program of partner-ships; obstacles to school, family, and com-munity partnerships-a variable summingschools' reports of major challenges to part-nerships; and number of active communitypartners. Schools' satisfaction with the quan-tity of their community partnership activitieswas measured with a single item to whichrespondents answered yes (1) or no (0), aswas schools' satisfaction with the quality oftheir activities.Results and Discussion

Community Collaborations:Partners and FociOf the 443 schools that returned the sur-

vey, 312 (70%)reported having at least oneschool-community partnership activity. Thecommunity partners and the partnershipactivities that schools in the NNPS imple-mented varied. Schools identified 817activities that involved school-communitycollaborations and that included sufficientinformation for categorization (see Table 1).As shown in Table 1, schools can workwith a variety of community partners to de-velop activities that support school im-provement. Community partners identifiedin the 1998 UPDATE survey fell into 10 ma-jor categories: (1) businesses/ corporations;(2) universities and educational institu-tions; (3) government and military agen-cies; (4) health care organizations; (5) faithorganizations; (6) national service and vol-unteer organizations; (7) senior citizens'organizations; (8) cultural and recreationalinstitutions; (9) other community-based or-ganizations; and (10) individuals in thecommunity.Of the 817 school-community partner-ship activities reported, the greatest pro-portion (366 or 45%) involved one or morebusiness partners. These included smalland large local businesses, such as bakeries,groceries, barbershops, funeral homes,beauty salons, banks, utility companies,and florists, as well as national corporationsand franchises, such as LensCrafters, IBM,


7/17

C1 N

UU

oa~(f) a))

uu

U-V)rm m C

(;J

~10

N0 00 C14 \ CLf

CCl

0-4,

U

E -u

~N00Cl~N00

U 2 z7:5C

>1 U;

cn U

U 7

U z


8/17

COMMUNITY 25State Farm Insurance, General Motors, Wal-mart, AT&T, Pizza Hut, Burger King, andMcDonald's.

Seventy-seven (9%) of the reportedschool-community activities included uni-versities, colleges, and other educational in-stitutions, including neighboring schools.Health care organizations, including hos-pitals, mental health facilities, and healthfoundations, were involved in 68 (8%)of thereported school-community activities. Gov-ernment and military agencies were part-ners in 62 (8%)of the activities. Examples ofgovernment and military agencies includefire and police departments, chambers ofcommerce, and other state and local agen-cies and departments. National service andvolunteer organizations, including RotaryClubs, Lions Clubs, AmeriCorps, Con-cerned Black Men, Inc., the Urban League,and Boys and Girls Clubs, were involved in49 (6%) of the school-community partner-ship activities described by schools in thenational network. Faith organizations suchas churches, synagogues, and religiouscharities participated in 47 (6%) of the re-ported activities. Senior citizens organiza-tions were involved in 25 (3%) of the 817school-community activities reported.Zoos, libraries, recreational centers, muse-ums, and other cultural and recreational in-stitutions participated in 20 (2%) of the re-ported activities. Other community-basedorganizations, including sororities and fra-ternities, alumni organizations, neighbor-hood associations, and local service orga-nizations were involved in 79 (10%) of theactivities. Nineteen (2%)of the reported ac-tivities included individuals in the schoolcommunity volunteering their time, energy,and talents.As indicated in Table 1, and similar toprevious research findings (Ascher, 1988),schools in the sample relied heavily on busi-nesses and corporations as their partners.Schools' preference for business partnersmay be due to their greater visibility, avail-ability, and familiarity. However, this reli-ance on business partners may result in

schools underutilizing other communitypartners who also may provide goods andservices to their faculties, students, andfamilies. Forexample, there were noticeablyfew cultural and recreational institutionsamong the many partners that were re-ported. Similarly, activities that includedfaith organizations and national service andvolunteer organizations as partners werelimited. These findings suggest that schoolsmay need to broaden their definition ofcommunity and reach out to organiza-tions that are less visible than businessesbut are equally interested in partneringwith schools.Table 1 also shows that school-community partnership activities may havemultiple foci. Activities may be (1) studentcentered, (2) family centered, (3) school cen-tered, or (4) community centered. Student-centered activities include those that providedirect services or goods to students, for ex-ample, student awards and incentives, schol-arships, tutoring and mentoring programs,and job shadowing and other career-focusedactivities. Family-centered activities arethose that have parents or entire families astheir primary focus. This category includesactivities such as parenting workshops, GEDand other adult education classes, parent/family incentives and awards, family coun-seling, and family fun and learning nights.School-centered activities are those that ben-efit the school as a whole, such as beautifi-cation projects or the donation of schoolequipment and materials, or activities thatbenefit the faculty, such as staff develop-ment and classroom assistance. Community-centered activities have as their primary fo-cus the community and its citizens, forexample, charitableoutreach, artand scienceexhibits, and community revitalization andbeautification projects.Table 1 shows how the school-community activities reported in the surveyare represented in these four categories.Overall, most activities were student cen-tered. This finding suggests that schools'view of their partnership activities may be


9/17

26 THE ELEMENTARYCHOOLJOURNALtoo narrow. Schools may not have fully ex-plored collaborative activities to benefit thetotal school program or to assist in providingadults in students' families with primaryservices, skills training, or other parentalsupports. Such school- and family-centeredpartnership activities might be especially im-portant for high-need/resource-poor schoolsin at-risk communities.The community-centered category wasthe least represented of the four, indicatingthat many schools had not developed part-nership activities that served the larger com-munity. As previously noted, developingtwo-way or reciprocal school-communitypartnership activities is a key challenge forschools as they work to improve and ex-pand their programs of school, family, andcommunity partnership (Epstein, Coates, etal., 1997). Schools in the NNPS recognizethe importance of this challenge. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the respondents re-ported that their schools were developingways for schools, families, and students tocontribute to the larger community.Finally, the data in Table 1 suggest thatschools may currently underutilize someof their community partners. For example,most partnership activities with senior cit-izens' organizations involved students vis-iting citizens' facilities. Few partnershipactivities gave senior citizens opportuni-ties to provide services and information toschools, families, and students. In additionto broadening their definitions of com-munity, then, schools also may need to ex-pand their visions of how community part-ners can help them to facilitate schoolimprovement and students' success.

Partnership Program Development:Obstacles and StrategiesAs Boyd and Crowson (1993), Mawhin-ney (1994),Epstein (1995),and others (Cush-ing & Kohl, 1997) noted, there are a numberof obstacles to school-community partner-ships. Some obstacles may be more preva-lent at some schools than others. Schoolsmust address them before they can maxi-

mize the benefits of their connections withcommunity members, businesses, and or-ganizations. When asked what obstaclesthey faced in developing and expandingtheir community partnership activities, 233schools responded. Only 18% of these re-spondents reported that they faced no ob-stacles in planning and implementing part-nership activities. Others reported severalobstacles including insufficient participa-tion, time, community partners, leadership,funding, communication, and focus (seeFig. 1). I discuss these obstacles and somestrategies to address them below.

Participation. As shown in Figure 1,nearly one-third (30%)of respondents whoreported challenges identified insufficientparticipation as an obstacle to school-community partnerships. Although somenoted that involving school faculty was achallenge, others reported that involving30%-25%-

o 20%-Cn- 15%-* 10%a.

5%-S E

0- ' (I) -tO .0 -o E ? .. r- o

- -0 -3

Obstacles

S1-Obstacleso school-co unitypartner-,- 3 Cz 0o E U - _U E cz o

o _j

ObstaclesFIG.l.-Obstacles to school-community partner-ships (N = 192).

SEPTEMBER001


10/17

COMMUNITY 27families, students, and community mem-bers also was a problem. The following re-sponses were illustrative: We (the ATP)asked teachers to each contact two busi-nesses for a Book Plate Drive; they all re-fused.... Teachers feel they do enough(school 29). Since our district is so spreadout, we have a difficult time getting peopleto go to different community activities(school 474). Our reading program got offto a very slow start. We had difficulty get-ting community members to volunteer toassist our youngsters (school 195).Several survey respondents identifiedstrategies to improve participation inschool-community activities. Some sug-gested reaching out beyond faculty mem-bers to volunteers for help in coordinatingpartnership activities. Some suggested us-ing local media and school newsletters toincrease awareness of activities. Still othersmentioned making reminder phone calls,encouraging participants to bring friends toactivities, and providing door prizes andother incentives for participation. Otherstrategies included changing the time of ac-tivities to accommodate more interested in-dividuals; organizing Saturday as well asweekday functions; providing transporta-tion, food, and baby-sitting services; andusing community facilities for activities.Time.A second, and perhaps related ob-stacle was that of insufficient time. Nearlyone-quarter (24%)of school respondents re-ported that they found it difficult to findtime to meet, identify, and contact potentialcommunity partners and to implementpartnership activities. According to theserespondents, Our big challenge is havingtime to approach businesses in the area(school 93). It is difficult finding time tocreate more partnerships or different ones(school 101). Weneed more time to contactorganizations and encourage their involve-ment. We also need time for staff to workwith agencies and parents (school 124).Time is a challenge. The time that theDowntown Merchants' Association can

meet (between 8:30 and 9:15) is when we areteaching (school 133).Respondents offered several strategiesto address the time limitations manyschools faced. They suggested that schoolsidentify a wider range of staff and parentand community volunteers to plan and im-plement activities. They also noted thatATPs could organize into committees re-sponsible for specific tasks so that frequentmeetings of the entire ATP are not required.Some respondents suggested that schoolshire facilitators to help ATPs coordinatepartnership activities; others mentionedthat ATPs could plan activities in the springor summer of each school year so that theyare ready to implement activities in the fall.Finally, some respondents suggested thatATPs hold meetings before or after schoolor use volunteers to cover classrooms sothat teachers have time to meet during theschool day.Community partners. About 12% of re-spondents reported identifying communitypartners as a primary obstacle to school-community partnerships. Some of these re-spondents noted that they were located inresource-poor communities with few busi-nesses and other community-based organi-zations. Others reported that competitionfrom other schools made finding partnersdifficult, and still others indicated that theirstudents were bussed into the school, whichmade community partners difficult to iden-tify. The respondents explained: Weare incompetition with 12 other schools seekingpartnerships with businesses in our com-munity (school 95). Our challenge is lim-ited business/industry to draw on (school330). Ours is a small, rural area that is inan economically distressed area. Commu-nity partners are difficult to find (school475). Veryfew of the students actually livein the community where the school is lo-cated. It is difficult to establish relationshipswith area businesses that are consistent(case a166).To address the obstacle of limited com-munity resources, some respondents en-


11/17

28 THE ELEMENTARY CHOOLJOURNAL

couraged schools to identify communitypartners other than businesses and corpo-rations. Table1 is a resource that schools canuse to consider other potential partners. Re-spondents also noted that schools can learnmore about available community resourcesby attending local community events andmeetings. Other respondents emphasizedthe importance of schools networking withindividuals within and outside their im-mediate geographic area to secure partners.Leadership. Some respondents (8%)found that inadequate leadership was an ob-stacle. They reported that without an indi-vidual or individuals to lead in the devel-opment, evaluation, and maintenance ofschool-community partnership activities, co-ordinating and sustaining such activitieswas challenging. Typicalresponses included,Weneed leadership within the school to de-velop the necessary relationships (school336). We need a coordinator to work withthe RotaryClub and the school (school 259).Our biggest challenge is time and consis-tent leadership (school 667).The most frequently reported strategy toaddress insufficient leadership was to in-volve other school groups, like the schoolleadership council or Parent-TeacherAsso-ciation (PTA), in the planning and imple-mentation of partnerships. School respon-dents also suggested building a wide anddiverse pool of leaders by providing trainingon school, family, and community partner-ships to the entire school staff, as well as tointerested parents and community members.Funding. Funding also was viewed as anobstacle by some respondents (8%). Theystated: We need an operating budget(school 72). Lack of funds was our biggestchallenge (school a107). Finding the fundsneeded to provide materials, trips, speakers,and/or incentives is difficult (school a045).

Respondents suggested using PTA, PTO,Goals 2000, Safe and Drug Free Schools,and/or Title 1 funds; soliciting donationsfrom businesses; holding fundraisers; andapplying for small and large grants to securefunding for partnership activities. Other re-

spondents noted that community partnersthemselves may offset some of the costs as-sociated with partnership activities throughthe provision of goods and services.Communication. A small percentage ofrespondents (6%) dentified communicationas a challenge. Although some schoolsfaced this obstacle because of the linguisticdiversity of their student and family pop-ulations, others found it difficult to com-municate in a timely manner to increaseparticipation in activities. Schools reported:We found that the language barrier be-tween the many families and English-

speaking community members was a chal-lenge (school 231). Parent attendance atcommunity activities was poor due to thelack of communication (school a162).To improve communication, someschool respondents suggested using stu-dents to make reminder phone calls; usinginterpreters to translate written notices andinformation provided at school-communityactivities and meetings; and using a varietyof communication sources, for example,newsletters, newspapers, television, and ra-dio, to convey information about partner-ship opportunities and activities.Focus. A few respondents (3%)also iden-tified insufficient focus as an obstacle. Thatso few respondents identified this area as anobstacle may be because of advanced plan-ning in the form of One-YearAction Plansfor Partnerships required by the NNPS. Italso may reflect the move that many schoolsare making toward site-based managementand school improvement plans that identifyschool goals and foci for the academic year.In fact, the primary strategy offered to im-prove the focus of schools' community part-nership activities was to link the activities toschool improvement goals.The data show that, despite reported ob-stacles, most NNPS schools collaboratedwith at least one community partner. To doso, many employed one or more of the strat-egies just described. School leaders alsowere persistent and committed. One re-spondent observed: Any new program hasSEPTEMBER 2001


12/17

COMMUNITY 29

difficulty getting off the ground, but peoplededicated to this partnership program havebeen highly successful in organizing andmaintaining it (school 173).Schools' Satisfaction withPartnership ActivitiesOf the 355 schools that provided a countof their active community partners, 12% re-ported having no community partners;close to one-half (48%)reported having oneto three partners; 20%reported having fourto six partners; 7%reported having seven tonine partners; and another 13% reportedhaving 10 or more partners (see Fig. 2).When schools in the sample were askedif they were satisfied with the quantity oftheir partnership activities, 57% of the 364schools responding said yes, whereas 43%reported that they were not satisfied withtheir current number of activities. Whenasked about the quality of their partnershipactivities, of the 356 schools responding,83% reported satisfaction, whereas only13%reported that the quality was less thansatisfactory. These data suggest that al-

though respondents are generally satisfiedwith their activities with community part-ners, many schools want to do more.Table2 shows the zero-order correlationsbetween schools' reports of satisfaction withthe quantity and quality of their communitypartnership activities, and key school con-text variables. As reported earlier,the schoolcontext variables included in the analysiswere location in urban or nonurban area;school level, whether elementary only or sec-ondary (middle and high school); generalsupport for partnerships;obstacles to school,family, and community partnerships; andnumber of active community partners.Not surprisingly (see Table 2), schoolsthat reported having more active commu-nity partners also were more likely to reportbeing satisfied with the quantity (r = .17,p < .01) and quality (r = .12, p < .05) oftheir partnership activities. Schools' reportsof satisfaction with the quantity (r = .17,p < .01) and quality (r = .28, p < .001) oftheir activities also were significantly corre-lated with the general support that schoolsreceived for their partnership efforts. This

50%-45%-40%30%

o 25%C/ 20%

15%10%5%

0 0 1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 9 10+Numberof Community partnersFIc. 2.-Schools' reports of active community partners (N = 355)


13/17

( ,

o

6 * * *

;..44-u

4-a

r. .4 -. .II

Zo

.o

O *CD D CD

o *


14/17

COMMUNITY 31

finding suggests that schools with wide-spread support for school, family, and com-munity partnerships were more likely thanthose without such support to have satis-factory school-community collaborations.It also is interesting that, although therewas a significant, negative correlation be-tween schools' location in a large, urban cityand their satisfaction with the quantity oftheir community partnership activities (r =-.10, p < .05), being located in a large ur-ban area was not significantly correlatedwith schools' satisfaction with the qualityoftheir partnership activities. This findingsuggests that schools in large, urban areasmay have more difficulty than nonurbanschools in identifying the number of com-munity partners required to meet theirneeds. This difficulty may be due to over-reliance on business partners or to greatercompetition for community partners.There also was a significant, negativecorrelation between the number of obstaclesto school, family, and community partner-ships that schools face, and their satisfactionwith the quantity of their community part-nership activities (r = -.11, p < .05). Per-haps schools with many obstacles to part-nerships are less likely than those withfewer obstacles to have the necessary re-sources to actively seek out viable commu-nity partners. Although negative, the cor-relation between number of obstacles andsatisfaction with the quality of partnershipactivities was not significant.Table 2 also reveals other interesting,though not surprising, correlations. For ex-ample, schools that reported having moregeneral support for partnerships were lesslikely to report facing major obstacles to de-veloping school-community collaborations(r = -.19, p < .001). There also was asignificant, positive correlation betweenschools' reports of general support for part-nerships and the number of active commu-nity partners they identified (r = .25, p


15/17

32 THE ELEMENTARY CHOOLJOURNALThese include large and small businesses,national service organizations, health facili-ties, and individuals in the community.Some activities focused on students; othersfocused on schools and students' familiesand communities.

Many of the community activities sup-ported or strengthened the five other typesof involvement in Epstein's framework(Epstein, Coates, et al., 1997). For example,a local church provided meeting space forparenting workshops (Type 1 involve-ment-parenting) while student groupsmet at the nearby school (school 330). Alocal community organization translatedschool flyers into different languages forits families and provided interpreters forschool meetings with families-a Type 2activity-communicating (school 271).AmeriCorps and a local university sup-plied reading tutors for students in grades1 through 5-a Type 3 activity-volunteer-ing (school 513). A local children's book-store gave parents information on booksthey could read with their children athome-a Type 4 activity-learning at home(school 400). And McDonald's providedmeals to increase parents' attendance atschool meetings on curricular goals and ob-jectives-a Type 5 activity decision mak-ing (school a113).Other schools partnered with the com-munity to provide support and services fortheir schools and community members. Oneschool, for example, worked with its stateDepartment of Environmental Protection tohelp science faculty integrate local resourcesand environmental concerns into the sciencecurriculum (school 119). At another school,IBM helped to develop a computer center topromote computer literacy among adultmembers of the community (school 175). Alocal library held a community art exhibit ofstudents' work (school 382). And localhospitals, dentists, nurses, and dieticians de-veloped a low-cost health care site at oneschool that provided preventive/mainte-nance health care for students, families, andcommunity members (school 66).

These and other reported activities showhow important community partnershipscan be for students, schools, families, andcommunities. Yet planning, implementing,and sustaining such partnerships are notwithout obstacles. Although research oncommunity collaborations identifies turfissues as a primary obstacle to successfulschool-community partnerships, schools inthe NNPS identified other obstacles that aremore common in school reform:lack of par-ticipation, time, and community partners.Despite some schools' success in over-coming reported obstacles to school-community partnerships, 132 (30%) of theschools in the sample did not implementcommunity partnership activities duringthe 1997-1998 school year. Of the 60 schoolsthat provided an explanation, 44%reportedthat they were planning such activities. Oth-ers, however, reported that they did not im-plement community partnership activitiesbecause of obstacles that they faced: difficul-ties identifying community partners (14%),time constraints (11%),and a lack of leadersto facilitate and coordinate activities (9%).Although I offer several strategies to addressthese obstacles, research that documents theeffects of such strategies on schools' partner-ship program development is needed.Dryfoos (1998) highlights the need forquality case study data that describe howsuccessful community connections are de-veloped and implemented, as well as theireffects on students. In-depth case studiesthat specify the processes by which schoolswith successful school-community partner-ships identify, develop, and maintain theirconnections with members of the commu-nity would help schools struggling with ob-stacles to overcome them more effectively.Based on survey data from over 400schools, this study suggests that factorssuch as widespread district and school sup-port for partnerships may influence thenumber of obstacles schools face when try-ing to develop community partnership ac-tivities, as well as schools' overall satisfac-tion with activities. Further quantitativeSEPTEMBER001


16/17

COMMUNITY 33research on factors that facilitate and hinderschool-community connections also wouldinform both policy and practice.Many studies have been conducted ondifferent types of family involvement andtheir effects on student, family, and schooloutcomes (Comer, 1984; Dornbusch & Rit-ter, 1988; Durkin, 1984; Epstein, Herrick, &Coates, 1996; Epstein, Simon, & Salinas,1997; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995;Sanders, 1998; Sanders & Epstein, 1998;Winters, 1993). Similar research is neededon different forms and functions of com-munity involvement. This research wouldhelp educators and scholars better under-stand and integrate community connectionsinto comprehensive school, family, andcommunity partnership programs that en-courage students' learning and success.

NotesThis researchwas supportedby the U.S. De-partmentof Education,Officeof EducationalRe-search and Improvement (OERI),the DewittWallace-Readers'Digest Fund, and by a grantfrom the SpencerFoundation.The opinionsex-pressed are mine and do not necessarilyrepre-sent the positions or policies of the fundingsources.1. For more information on the NationalNetwork of PartnershipSchools, readers canvisit the NNPS web site (www.partnershipschools.org).

ReferencesAscher, C. (1988). Urban school-communityalli-ances. New York:ERICClearinghouseonUrbanEducation.Beyerbach,B.A., Weber,S., Swift,J.N., &Good-ing, C. T. (1996).A school/business/univer-sity partnershipfor professional develop-ment. School Community Journal, 6(1), 101-112.Boo, M.R., & Decker,L.E. (1985).Thelearningcommunity.Alexandria,VA:National Com-munityand EducationAssociation.Boyd, W.L., & Crowson, R. L. (1993).Coordi-nated services for children:Designing arks

for stormsandseas unknown.Americanour-nal of Education,101, 140-179.Canada, G. (1996). The beacons-buildinghealthycommunities.In J.Gardner& P.Ed-wards (Eds.), Thecommunityhalfofcommunityeducation-Part 2 (pp. 16-18). Fairfax, VA:NationalCommunityEducationAssociation.Chaskin,R.J. (1994).Definingneighborhood.hi-cago: University of Chicago, Chapin HallCenterfor Children.Comer,J.P.(1984).Home-schoolrelationships sthey affect the academicsuccessof children.Educationand UrbanSociety,71, 323-337.Cushing,E., & Kohl, E. (1997).Alliesfor educa-tion-Community involvement n schoolchange:A twoyearexploration. an Francisco:San Fran-cisco SchoolVolunteers nd the WilliamandFloraHewlettFoundation.Dolan, L. (1992, March). Modelsfor integratinghu-man services into the schools (Report No. 30).Baltimore: ohnsHopkinsUniversity,Centerfor SocialOrganizationof Schools.Dornbusch,S.M., & Ritter,P. L. (1988).Parentsof high school students: A neglected re-source. EducationalHorizons,66(2), 75-77.Dryfoos, J. (1994).Full-serviceschools:A revolutionin health and social servicesfor children,youthand amilies.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.Dryfoos, J. (1998).The rise of the full-servicecommunity school. High School Magazine,6(2),38-42.Durkin,D. (1984).Poorblackchildren who aresuccessful readers. Urban Education, 19(1),53-76.Epstein,J.L. (1987).Towarda theoryof family-school connections: Teacherpractices andparent involvement. In K. Hurrelmann,F.Kaufmann,& F.Losel (Eds.),Social nterven-tion: Potential and constraints (pp. 121-136).New York:De Gruyter.Epstein,J.L. (1995).School/family/communitypartnerships:Caring for the children weshare. Phi Delta Kappan,76(9), 701-712.EpsteinJ.L., Coates L., Salinas K.C., Sanders,M. G., & Simon, B. (1997). School, amily,com-munity partnerships:Yourhandbookfor action.ThousandOaks,CA:Corwin.Epstein,J.L.,Herrick,S.,&Coates,L. (1996).Ef-fects of summerhome learning packetsonstudents'achievement nlanguagearts n themiddle grades. SchoolEffectivenessand SchoolImprovement,7(3), 93-120.Epstein,J.L., Simon,B.,&Salinas,K.(1997,Sep-tember). Effectsof Teachers nvolve Parents inSchoolwork (TIPS) language arts interactivehomework n the middlegrades (Research Bul-letin No. 18). Bloomington,IN: Phi DeltaKappaCenterfor Evaluation,Development,and Research.


17/17

34 THEELEMENTARYCHOOLOURNALFamilies and Work Institute. (1995). Employers,families and education: Promoting family in-volvement in learning. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education.Heath, S. B., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1987, April).A child resource policy: Moving beyond de-pendence on school and family. Phi DeltaKappan,68, 576-580.Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995).Parental involvement in children's educa-tion: Why does it make a difference? TeachersCollegeRecord,97(2), 310-331.Information Technology Foundation. (1993).Roadmapto success 2000: A guide to business/educationpartnering.Arlington, VA: Author.Jehl, J., & Kirst, M. (1992). Getting ready to pro-vide school-linked services: What schools

must do. Future of Children,2, 95-106.Kagan, S., Goffin, S., Golub, S., & Pritchard, E.(1995). Towardsystemic reform:Serviceintegra-tion for young childrenand theirfamilies. FallsChurch, VA: National Center for Service In-tegration.Keith, N. Z. (1995). The community in the school:Can we create community across difference?EducationalHorizons, 73, 169-173.Keith, N. Z. (1996). Can urban school reform andcommunity development be joined? A po-tential of community schools. EducationandUrbanSociety,28(2), 237-268.Mawhinney, H. B. (1994). The policy and practiceof community enrichmentof schools. Proceed-ings of the Education and Community Con-ference, Department of Educational Admin-istration. Toronto: Ontario Institute forStudies in Educational Administration.McPartland, J.M., & Nettles, S. M. (1991). Usingcommunity adults as advocates or mentorsfor at-risk middle school students: A two-year evaluation of project RAISE. AmericanJournalof Education,99, 568-586.

Nettles, S. M. (1991a). Community contributionsto school outcomes of African-American stu-dents. Educationand UrbanSociety,24(1), 132-147.Nettles, S. M. (1991b). Community involvementand disadvantaged students: A review. Re-view of EducationalResearch,61(3), 379-406.Partnership for Family Involvement in Educa-tion. (1997). Building business and communitypartnerships for learning. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education.

Sanders, M. G. (1996). Action teams in action inthe Baltimore school-family-community part-nership program. Journalof Education or Stu-dents Placedat Risk,1(3), 249-262.Sanders, M. G. (1998). The effects of school, fam-ily, and community support on the academicachievement of African American adoles-cents. UrbanEducation,33(3), 385-409.Sanders, M. G. (1999). School membership in theNational Network of Partnership Schools:Progress, challenges and next steps. Journalof EducationalResearch,92(4), 220-230.Sanders, M. G., & Epstein, J. L. (1998). School-family-community partnerships and educa-tional change: International perspectives. InA. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, &D. Hopkins (Eds.), Internationalhandbookofeducational change (pp. 482-502). Hingham,MA: Kluwer.Sanders, M. G., & Epstein, J.L. (2000). The Na-tional Network of Partnership Schools: Howresearch influences educational practice.Journalof Education or StudentsPlacedat Risk,5(1/2), 61-76.Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2000, April). De-veloping comprehensive rogramsof school, am-ily, and community partnerships:The commu-nity perspective. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, New Orleans.Stone, C. R. (1995). School/community collabo-ration-Comparing three initiatives. PhiDelta Kappan,76(10), 794-800.Toffler,A., & Toffler,H. (1995). Getting set for thecoming millennium. TheFuturist,29(2),10-15.U.S. Department of Education. (1994).Strong am-ilies,strongschools:Buildingcommunitypartner-shipsfor learning.Washington, DC: Author.Waddock, S. A. (1995). Not by schoolsalone:Shar-ing responsibility orAmerica's ducationreform.Westport, CT:Praeger.

Winters, W. G. (1993). African American mothersand urbanschools.New York:Lexington.Wynn, J.,Costello, J.,Halpern, R., & Richman, H.(1994). Children, amilies, and communities:Anew approach o social services.Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center forChildren.Wynn, J., Merry, S., & Berg, P. (1995). Children,families, and communities:Early lessonsfrom anew approachto social services. Washington,DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

SEPTEMBER001

Journal of Elementary Schools Role of Community 2001

Documents