Community Partnership Programs in Urban Education Reform

Introduction: Community Partnership in Education

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

One of the main focal points for improvement identified by American education boards at both the national and local levels is the ability and academic preparation of pupils in urban communities — specifically, their capacity to achieve better academic records and to participate capably in a modern social environment (Boykin, 2000; Helge, 1989; Sanders, 2000). Over the years, numerous theories have been proposed that could bring about this improvement with effective results. Among the most recent is the concept of community partnership programs — that is, agreements of mutual assistance signed between urban schools and the stakeholders willing to invest in the country's educational resources. Statistically speaking, these community partnership programs have proven to be among the most successful and effective means of securing monetary, human, and material resources for the majority of urban district schools, while also providing 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).

This achievement in school and community development is not the work of just two parties — stakeholders and school districts — but also includes contributions from numerous non-profit and for-profit organizations, religious groups, students' and faculty members' families, universities, local and national authorities, colleges, academies, and other establishments (Ferguson & Dickens, 1999; Harkavy, 1996, 1998). The outcomes of these programs have demonstrated that community partnerships have enormously benefited urban school development, and it is because of the significant contributions made by these organizations that various politicians and activists have endorsed and formalized these partnership programs in order to achieve broader improvements in student educational outcomes (Becker, 1999; Clark, 1991; National Governors' Association, 1990; U.S. Department of Education, 1994).

All of these results and endorsements have over the years placed greater pressure on colleges and organizations not only to create but also to sustain these community partnerships. One of the defining features of these partnerships has been the element of cooperation among numerous independent units working toward school and community development (Beaumont & Hallmark, 1998). The theories and execution of these community partnership programs still need to be constantly modified and improved for the greater academic and social achievement of students. Indeed, change has been the hallmark of community partnerships over the preceding decade. As White and Harris (2001) observe: "Social workers and front-line managers in the field of community care have lived through a gale of change over the last ten years" (p. 13).

The main aim of this paper is to examine the theory, practicality, and effects of partnership programs in improving community and school settings. The five areas of focus are: (1) the need for community partnership programs; (2) theories of community partnership programs; (3) the history of community partnership programs; (4) disputes and challenges facing partnership programs; and (5) catalysts and advocates of partnership programs.

The Need for Community Partnership Programs

Several strong advocates of community partnerships have offered various reasons for developing and maintaining such programs. The majority base their argument on the lack of student achievement in urban areas, particularly in science-related subjects (Mackler, 1980; Carroll, LaPoint, & Tyler, 2001; Epperson, 1991). Others connect the significance of community partnership to levels of youth violence in communities where such programs are absent (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" (p. 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" (p. 38).

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

"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" (p. 454).

In the same way, Sanders (1996) links the significance of community partnership programs with levels of teenage violence and gang activity. 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" (p. 369).

Sanders connects this situation to the absence of community partnerships in these areas and strongly suggests that local and state governments should step forward and enable all urban communities in Maryland to enter into strong partnerships. This pattern is replicated in other states, where researchers have documented student achievement data and simultaneously argued for the creation of robust community partnerships.

Theories of Community Partnership Programs

Partnerships between schools, universities, and communities are also referred to as K–16 partnerships. Over the years, many explanations and theoretical frameworks have been formulated around this phenomenon. Beaumont (1998) states that K–16 partnerships — or school-university agreements — are not based solely on the mutual aims of the institutions and participants, but are also shaped by the approach, capital, and procedures of the institutions themselves, as well as the cultural practices of the faculty members and assessors involved in the joint venture.

According to the study conducted by Osguthorpe, Harris, Harris, and Black (1996), school-community partnerships take on extremely varied structures. Some institutions focus their primary attention on school-supported family programs, while others give priority to business leaders and stakeholders. Some partnerships incorporate a small number of schools and universities, while others prefer an intricate and populous network of institutions within a district. Osguthorpe and colleagues identify the following as the main components of these partnership programs (Osguthorpe et al., 1996):

To train college students who aim to enter the teaching profession; to provide teachers with a wide range of opportunities to apply their knowledge and skills in ways that raise overall educational standards; to design academic programs that aim specifically to heighten the academic and social growth of students; and to support and carry out research that will ultimately help improve educational standards at both the school and college levels.

Harkavy (1998) believes that the partnership between schools, communities, and universities is far more complex and interdependent than most people recognize. Drawing on historical records and current research, he argues that academic improvement and institutional restructuring are interconnected with — and dependent on — the broader development and modernization of society. He contends that not only universities but also various non-profit and for-profit organizations have a major role to play in the development of a district and, consequently, in academic progress.

Conclusion: Lessons from Successful Partnership Models

In the end it is worth noting that community partnership programs have been relatively successful in developing student achievement as a whole. Several models have been presented that advance the notion of community partnership and bring it in line with the dynamics of the twenty-first century. Several community-level programs have been extremely successful in this regard.

For instance, SHAPE — also referred to as "School and Homes as Partners in Education" — was a partnership program between the Plattsburgh City School District and the State University of New York at Plattsburgh. The program had a twofold aim: to improve student achievement and to improve social competence. A number of researchers have reported positive results from this program (Edwards, Abel, Easton, Herbster, & Sparapani, 1996).

Another highly successful community-level program has been WEPIC — the West Philadelphia Improvement Corps. The program began in the mid-1980s and has since provided instructional, cultural, and community development programs as well as training events on a yearly basis. The education component supports extended-day and weekend programs taught by public school teachers, community members, and university faculty, staff, and students. A national foundation recently provided funds to replicate the WEPIC model at the University of Kentucky at Lexington, the University of Alabama, and Miami University in Cincinnati (Erickson & Christman, 1996).

The National Network of Partnership Schools (NPS) is another community program that has succeeded in bringing communities together around the goal of raising youth in a healthy environment (Epstein, 1987; Epstein, Coates, Salinas, Sanders, & Simon, 1997). The underlying reason for NPS's success has been its flexibility in allowing families, schools, and communities to participate in students' educational and social development. Drawing on data collected over several decades, Epstein (1997) identifies six characteristics of a near-ideal community development program: developing parenting skills; sharing school curricula and student progress with parents; utilizing the help of families and communities through volunteerism; providing home-learning opportunities to all community members involved in education; granting greater influence to family and community members in policy-making; and enhancing student involvement by teaming up with the broader community.

These examples demonstrate that when partnership programs are designed with clear goals, equitable responsibility, and genuine mutual respect among all stakeholders, they have the capacity to produce meaningful and lasting improvements in both student achievement and community well-being.

References

Anderson, B. D., Stetler, E. G., & Midle, T. (2006). A case for expanded school-community partnerships in support of positive youth development. National Association of Social Workers, 28(3), 155–163.

Beaumont, J. J., & Hallmark, D. L. (1998). Introduction: School-university partnerships in urban settings. Urban Education, 32(5), 557–560.

Beaumont, J. J. (1998). Administrator and researcher: Conflicting dual roles in directing a school-university partnership. Urban Education, 32(5), 645–660.

Becker, J. (1999). Partnerships with families promote TRIO student achievement (ERIC Document 432197).

Boykin, A. W. (2000). The Talent Development Model of schooling: Placing students at promise for academic success. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5(1&2), 3–25.

Carroll, G., LaPoint, V., & Tyler, K. (2001). Co-construction: A facilitator for school reform in school, community, and university partnerships. The Journal of Negro Education, 70(1/2), 38–58.

Clark, T. A. (1991). Collaboration to build competence: The urban superintendents' perspective (Feasibility Rep. No. 91-850). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Davies, D. (1991). Schools reaching out: Family, school, and community partnerships for students' success. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 376–382.

Doherty, W. J. (2000). Family science and family citizenship: Toward a model of community partnership with families. Family Relations, 49(3), 319–325.

Edwards, P., Abel, F. J., Easton, S. F., Herbster, D., & Sparapani, E. F. (1996). Disadvantaged rural students: Five models of school-university collaboration. Paper presented at the Association of Teacher Educators 76th Annual Meeting, St. Louis, MO.

Ellickson, P. L. (1994). Getting and keeping schools and kids for evaluation studies. Journal of Community Psychology (Special Issue), 102–116.

Epperson, A. I. (1991). The community partnership: Operation Rescue. The Journal of Negro Education, 60(3), 454–458.

Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F. Kaufman, & F. Losel (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints (pp. 121–136). New York: DeGruyter.

Epstein, J. L., & Jansorn, N. R. (2004). Family and community partnerships link the plan. Prakken Publications, 69(6), 19–23.

Epstein, J. L., Coates, L., Salinas, K. C., Sanders, M. G., & Simon, B. S. (1997). School, family, community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Erickson, F., & Christman, J. B. (1996). Taking stock/making change: Stories of collaboration in local school reform. Theory into Practice, 35(3), 149–157.

Ferguson, R. F., & Dickens, W. T. (1999). Urban problems and community development. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Feyl, N., & Brown, K. (1992). School social workers building a multiethnic family-school-community partnership. National Association of Social Workers, 14(3), 160–164.

Hallmark, D. L. (1998). Growing our own: A three-way partnership. Urban Education, 32(5), 591–615.

Harkavy, I. (1996). Service learning as a vehicle for revitalization of education institutions and urban communities. Paper presented at the APA Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada.

Harkavy, I. (1998). School-community partnerships: Effectively integrating community building and education reform. Paper presented at a joint forum between the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC.

Helge, D. (1989). Rural at-risk students: Directions for policy and intervention. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 10(1), 3–16.

Kemple, J. J., Poglinco, S. M., & Snipes, J. C. (1999). Career academies: Building career awareness and work-based learning activities through employer partnerships. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers' professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536.

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129–151.

Mackler, B. (1980). Cooperation and community: Reflections on a model for urban education. The Journal of Negro Education, 49(1), 60–65.

McCall, R. B. (1990). Promoting interdisciplinary and faculty-service professional relations. American Psychologist, 45, 1319–1324.

McCall, R. B., Groark, C. J., Strauss, M. S., & Johnson, C. N. (1995). The University of Pittsburgh Office of Child Development: An experiment in promoting interdisciplinary applied human development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 593–612.

Morse, J. (2001). The new college try. Time Magazine, 157(1), 48.

National Governors' Association. (1990). National education goals. Washington, DC: Author.

Osguthorpe, R. T., Harris, R. C., Harris, M. F., & Black, S. (1996). Partner schools: Centers for educational renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pitsch, M. (1991). Partners: Schools and colleges forge new bonds to advance reform. Teacher Magazine, 3(3), 12–13.

Riordan, G., & Da Costa, J. L. (1998). Leadership for effective teacher collaboration: Suggestions for principals and teacher leaders. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.

Rutherford, B., Billig, S. H., & Kettering, J. F. (1999). Creating family/school partnerships: A review of the research and practice literature on parent and community involvement related to the middle grades. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Sanders, M. G. (1996). School-family-community partnerships focused on school safety: The Baltimore example. The Journal of Negro Education, 65(3), 369–374.

Sanders, M. G. (2000). Schools, families, and communities: Partnerships for school success. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Sanders, M. G. (2005). Building school-community partnerships: Collaboration for student success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Sommerfield, M. (1996). Beyond the ivory tower. Education Week, April 24, 1996.

U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Strong families, strong schools: Building community partnerships for learning. Washington, DC: Author.

Weiss, A. R. (1995). The school-community connection. New Schools, New Communities, 12(1), 5–11.

White, V., & Harris, J. (2001). Developing good practice in community care: Partnership and participation. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.