Community partnerships and their organizational impact

Community Partnership

The notion that the community has a role to play in the education of youth is long standing in United States. From Dewey's concept of community schools at the turn of the 20th century to calls for community control from parents and community activists in the late 1960's, community involvement has been a central theme in educational reform. Today, community involvement has taken a new significance in configurations and discussions in of school improvement. Federal, state and local educational legislation; political slogans; professional addresses; and casual conversations about schooling are likely to include references to the role or responsibility of the community (Sanders, 2005; pg: 1)."

One of the main focal points for improvement for the American Education Board as well as the national educational district boards is the ability and training of the pupils in the urban societies to achieve better academic records as well as mingle affably and with capability in a sound and modern social environment (Boykin, 2000; Helge, 1989; Sanders, 2000). Over the years, numerous theories have been highlighted that could bring about this particular improvement with effective results. On of these latest theories brought forth was the community partnership programs i.e. contracts of mutual assistance were signed between the numerous schools set up in the urban society and the stakeholders willing to invest in the educational resources of the country. These community partnership programs, statistically speaking, have actually ended up being one of the most flourishing and effective means of gaining monetary, human as well as substance/object stability for the majority of the urban district schools, and have provided a way to allow the students with the opportunity to aim higher academically and socially (Beaumont & Hallmark, 1998; Kemple, Poglinco, & Snipes, 1999; Morse, 2001; Osguthorpe, Harris, Harris, & Black, 1996; Sanders, 2000).

Of course this achievement of school and society development is not the work of just the dual entities of stakeholders and school districts but includes the peripheral contributions of (Ferguson & Dickens, 1999; Harkavy, 1996,1998) the numerous non-profit and for-profit institutes, religious groups, students' and faculties' families, universities, the district, central and national authorities, colleges, academies, establishments, etc. It is important to note here that the results and outcomes of these programs have proved that these community partnerships have enormously benefited the efforts to develop the urban schools and it has been because of the huge offerings made by the establishments and organizations and the results achieved thereof that various politicians and activists have endorsed as well as made official these partnership programs to achieve a greater and wider spectrum for improving student educational achievements (Becker, 1999; Clark, 1991; National Governor's Association, 1990; U.S. Department of Education, 1994).

All of these results and endorsements have over the years laid more emphasis and pressure on the colleges and organizations to not only create but also sustain these community partnerships. One of the main features of these partnerships has been the element of cooperation that has existed between the numerous sovereign units to achieve the school and society development (Beaumont & Hallmark, 1998). The theories and execution of these community partnership programs, still, need to be constantly modified and improved for the greater achievement of students on the academic and social spheres. In fact, change has been the main hallmark of community partnerships in the preceding decade. As White and Harris (2001) note in their book:

Social workers and front-line managers in the field of community care have lived through a gale of change over the last ten years (White and Harris, 2001; pg, 13)."

The main aim of this study is to bring forth the theory, practicality and effects of the partnership programs to improve the community and school setting at large. The six sections that this study will analyze separately and exclusively are: It presents six areas of information:

The need for community partnership programs

Explanations of theories of community partnership programs;

Records of community partnerships programs;

Disputes facing the concept of partnership programs, and;

Catalysts and advocates of the partnership programs.

By focusing our paper on these five aspects, we aim to show the significance of community partnership programs for the future of the youth of this country.

1. The need for community partnership programs:

Several strong advocates of community partnerships exist, who have brought forth various reasons for development and maintenance of community partnership programs. Majority of them base their argument on the lack of student achievement in urban areas in subjects related to science (Mackler, 1980; Carroll, LaPoint, and Tyler 2001; Epperson, 1991). Whereas some give significance to community partnership by connecting the level of violence to the lack of such a program's existence (Sanders, 1996). For instance, Mackler, (1980) writes:

The main problem in inner-city schools is the lack of academic achievement, we need programs which pose effective solutions to the improvement of reading and mathematics proficiency. A milieu that fosters involvement, competence, cooperation and accountability for administrative staff, teachers, children and their parents could be an achieving school. We need to create a climate in which children are motivated to learn, in which they feel cooperative and involved with their peers, teachers, and parents. Education, including achievement and social learning, must be restructured to reflect enjoyment' rather than estrangement. Community participation is an appropriate mechanism to form the nucleus of such restructuring (Mackler, 1980; pg, 60)."

Similarly, Carroll, LaPoint, and Tyler (2001) assert:

Maximizing student academic achievement and social competence in public schools in under-resourced urban communities continues to be a major concern and quandary for American school districts and state education departments. In recent years, partnership programs, between under resourced urban public schools and varying stakeholders, have emerged and proliferated as one of the most effective proven strategies to provide human, material, and financial resources to improve student academic and social competence (Carroll, LaPoint, and Tyler, 2001; pg, 38)."

Likewise, Epperson (1991) summarizes the recommendations made by several researchers. He writes:

Two common threads can be found in most of the recommendations that have been put forth to solve the problems associated with the low academic attainment of American children. The first is the need for more parental involvement in education, and the second is the need for intensified community participation at the local school district level. A Nation at Risk (1983) identified one of the tools at hand as "the voluntary efforts of individuals, businesses and civic groups to cooperate in strengthening educational programs" (p. 16). Community participation is a vital and needed component if our children are to attain the academic levels they are capable of reaching (Epperson, 1991; pg, 454)."

In the same way Sanders (1996) links the significance of community partnership programs with the level of teenage violence and gang fights. He writes,

In our nation's states, cities, and neighborhoods, students' exposure to and involvement in violence is increasing. Baltimore, Maryland is no exception. Between April 1, 1993, and March 31, 1994, 293 youth under the age of 20 were hospitalized for assaults in Baltimore. This number constitutes approximately 62% of the total number of hospitalizations for assaults among youth in the state of Maryland. The violence that youth in Baltimore are exposed to is symptomatic of the increasingly distressed nature of their communities. Seventy-two neighborhoods in Maryland have been classified by the Annie E. Casey Foundation as severely distressed by virtue of their high levels of poverty, female-headed families, high school dropouts, unemployment, and reliance on welfare; 62 of these are in Baltimore City (Sanders, 1996; pg, 369).

He links this state with the lack of community partnership is these areas and strongly suggests that local and state government should step forward and make way for all the urban communities in Maryland to enter into a strong partnership. This pattern is also seen in other states as well, where researchers have put forward facts about student achievement and simultaneously theorized the need for strong community partnerships.

2. Explanations of theories of community partnership programs;

The partnerships between the schools, universities and the communities are also called K-16 partnerships. Over the years, many explanations and theories have been formulated around this phenomenon. Beaumont (1998) in his study states that the K-16 partnerships or the school-university agreements are not only based upon the institutions' and the applicants' mutual aims but are also driven by the approach, capital, as well as the procedures of the institutions as well as the ethnic mannerisms of the faculty members as well as the assessors involved in the joint venture. According to the study conducted by Osguthorpe, Harris, Harris, and Black (1996), the school-community partnerships have extremely variant structures i.e. some institutions give the school-supported family establishments their focal attention, as opposed to other institutions that give the industrialists and stakeholders the focal attention. The researchers further go on to define the difference of approach between institutions as some incorporate a limited number of schools and universities in their partnership while others prefer an intricate and populated web of institutes within a district. Osguthorpe and his fellow researchers highlight the following points as the main constituents of these partnership programs (Osguthorpe et al., 1996):

To train those college students who aim to join the teaching profession;

To provide the teachers with a wide spectrum and grounds for exploration so that they can apply their knowledge and ability in a way that boosts the overall educational standards of the institution and the students;

To design a schedule and academic profile that aims to purely heighten the academic and social growth of the students; and to support and carry out studies that will in eventuality help escalate and improve the educational standards at not only the school level but also the college and university levels.

Harkavy (1998) believes that the partnership between the school, community and the university is far more complex and inter-dependent that believed by the masses. In his study he brings forth new theories and explanation of his statement with the help of annals and current studies and examples. He feels that the academic improvements and restructuring are inter-connected and highlight dependent on the overall development and modernization of the society or district. He feels that not only universities but various non-profit and for-profit organizations have a major role to play in the development and modernization of the district, and hence, as a result, in the academic revolution.

3. Records of community partnerships programs;

Before looking at the history of community partnerships and assessing its success it is vital to note how this phenomenon actually began. Doherty (2000) gives a historical description of community partnership programs. He writes:

During the 1920s and 1930s, family professionals set about the task of bringing expert knowledge about children and families to the public through government-supported publications and the proliferation of parent education programs and study commissions. Over the remainder of the twentieth century, the scholarly field of family science emerged, along with the applied professions of parent education, family life education, and marriage and family therapy. Like other disciplined professions created in that century, ours embraced a vision of making the world better through the work of University-trained professional experts who would generate new knowledge and pass it on to families in the community. Professional training in the twentieth century, first in medicine and then in law and the emerging modem professions, moved away from community-based apprenticeships offered to local citizens, to recruiting and credentialing individuals who had no necessary tie to, or endorsement by, a local community. For the first time, professional expertise was established by large institutions specializing in abstract, universal knowledge, not local, contextualized knowledge (Doherty 2000; pg, 319).

When looking at the history of the school-community and/or university partnerships, Harvaky (1998), in his study first notices them in the late stages of the 19th century when the University of Columbia and Chicago and the Johns Hopkins University, had incorporated into a linked and interlinked network of collaboration. All these universities jointly carried out studies and examinations that analyzed and modeled various community ventures in the urban districts to not only endorse academic endeavors but also community, humanitarian and labor beneficiary activities. The end of World War II was the beginning of a completely new phase of the partnership programs structure. Now, the community and school development was rated as the most important factor and element to work on. All the social and scientific efforts being made were more and more demarcated within the workings of the academic institutes and universities. After that, the phase shifted to a more profession and office-based training in schools, mainly during the 1960s and 70s where education mainly focused on training students so that they would have the ability to adapt, survive and thrive in the cut-throat business world. A good example to explain this change can be seen in the study done by Pitsch (1991) which clearly showed statistics that proved that till the end of the 1970s, the main aim of these partnerships and collaborative schemes was to give the teachers the opportunities to explore and expand their training and teaching skills but the remarkable turn of events that led to the industrial revolution and the population boost became the critical factors that highlighted the decreasing contribution of the universities and establishments in the primary and secondary academic spheres (Morse, 2001; Sommerfield, 1996).

Sommerfield (1996), in his study, does awesome analyses of the reason behind the low period that the school-community development partnership faced during the 1970s and he 1980s. He first highlights the rise in the crime rates and violence within certain communities that forced the policymakers and authoritarians to tighten the security around the college campuses and hence build new institutes in areas that are far from the societies. Secondly, the university adopted the curriculums that gave the students more opportunities to specialize in certain aspects of labor and work that divided and disintegrated the education inside and between the communities, isolating them furthermore. Thirdly, he says that the communication between the different faculties of different districts decreased tremendously and communication of faculties within districts decreased too as universities faculty members contacted the K-12 faculty members less and less. Fourth, the tradition of awarding accolades to professors-based n the academic and social contributions was initiated by the universities at the primary and secondary levels (Sommerfield, 1996).

Several national events highlighted the growth of school-university partnerships (Pitsch, 1991). In 1982, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching helped organize the country's first national conference of state school superintendents and college and university presidents. A second conference, one year later, marked the Carnegie Foundation's report on the upsurge of school, community, university partnerships (Pitsch, 1991). A published directory, listing more than 2,200 school-university partnerships of differing sizes and scopes, was noted by Sommerfield (1996). The proliferation of school, community, and university partnerships in the 1990s was largely a result of the recognized peril of universities if they did not become more responsive to their communities. Harkavy (1998) noted that universities are facing scrutiny now more than ever as public funds, from the federal government, foundations, and private sectors, become more tied to direct societal benefit, particularly in improving K-12 schooling and community development.

4. Disputes facing the concept of Partnership Programs

One of the major setbacks that the partnership programs face are the hesitancy pf the public and individual school systems to adopt these programs and/or come up with a clear cut structure and implementation program to help grow, maintain, and assess the best way for the establishment of partnership between the school, community and universities. Davies (1991) in his studies highlights the extremely weak implementation and execution strategies used the investors in certain school settings even though the theory of partnerships has been considered an accomplishment. Numerous other agendas and hindrances with the partnership and collaboration effort have been recognized in the study done by Riordan and Da Costa (1998). There are many reasons why and how collaboration and the partnership program might backfire but the main one that has come forth after careful analyses is that numerous institutions have adopted the concepts but the consequences of the implementation have been unconstructive mainly due to the uneven distribution of responsibilities between the various entities involved in the partnership programs leading to the monopoly of one or two of these entities (Riordan & Da Costa, 1998).

The power struggle or uneven distribution of responsibilities does leave certain entities in control of the end result leaving the others out of the loophole to an extant that it causes dissatisfaction and falling out. One of the job distribution lies in the researches that are carried out with various stages from the statement of the problem to methodology to the conclusions (Erickson & Christmas, 1996). The struggle occurs when one part of the structure like the universities asks the questions controlling the flow of the research and leaving the school faculty with very little power and at times this exact situation is reversed based upon the type of research. McCall, Green, Strauss, and Groark (1995) in their study highlighted the different angles that the partnerships can and are viewed by the various entities in the partnership. Weiss (1995), in his research concluded that the disparity in the achievement of a target can lead to suspicion and doubt between the various entities. Some of this aloof attitude might come from the haughty perception that the school administrators have of the university faculties where they come across too authoritative and make the school administrators skeptical of whether they know more about the school structures than those running the schools (McCall, 1990).

Ellickson (1994) in his study concludes that this disparity may be because at times the school administrators feel that the research being done is based more on personal motive than on the betterment of the educational setup. McCall et al. (1995), in his study also analyzes the aims and objectives behind conducting a study and agrees with the conclusion of the previous study and says that most researchers aim to find a new angle to an existing problem and thereof gain popularity amongst their peers whereas the main aim of the school administrators is to improve the educational standards and structure for the overall good of the community and its people which they feel should always be the foremost precedence (McCall et al., 1995).

5. Catalysts and Advocates of Partnership Programs

There is no doubt in the success that the partnership programs have had in the improvement and development if the urban-based students' academic and social competency. According to Davies, the two most important elements for a partnership program to work are the reciprocal (all entities have equal, interdependent and precise responsibilities to achieve the target) and democratic processes (where the differences between the entities are recognized and respected, common ground for mutual aims is achieved) (Davies, 1991). Furthermore, it is also important to note that the partnership program has been most successfully implemented with constructive results when the schools and universities have carried out research on an equal and mutual parallel (Davies, 1991; Hallmark, 1998; Rutherford, Billig, & Ketterling, 1999).