The Role of "Community" in Comprehensive School, Family, and Community Partnership Programs Author(s): Mavis G.

Sanders Source: The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 102, No. 1 (Sep., 2001), pp. 19-34 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable 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 unless you 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 support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Elementary School Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

The Role of "Community" in Comprehensive School, Family, and Community Partnership Programs
Mavis G. Sanders
JohnsHopkins University

Abstract
In this article,I examinethe role of "community" in school-basedprogramsof school, family,and community partnerships.I offer a working definition of school-communitypartnerships,discuss the benefits of school-communitycollaboration,identify gaps in currentknowledge in the field, and analyze survey data collected from over 400 schools acrossthe United Statesthatare members of the National Network of Partnership Schools. Analyses were conductedto learn more about the types of community partners with whom schools collaborate, the foci of school-communitypartnerships,the challenges schools face in developing community partnerships, strategies to address challenges to community partnership development, and factors that influence schools' satisfaction with their community partnershipactivities.Steps needed in researchand practiceto improve community connectionswithin comprehensiveschool, family, and community partnershipprograms are discussed. Within the research and programmatic literature, community involvement is variously conceptualized as parent involvement (Stone, 1995), community education (Boo & Decker, 1985; Dryfoos, 1998), community collaboration (Boyd & Crowson, 1993; Jehl & Kirst, 1992), and community development and empowerment (Canada, 1996; Keith, 1995, 1996). Regardless of its definition, community involvement is generally reported as beneficial for children and youth, schools, neighborhoods, parents, and the larger society (Families and Work Institute, 1995; U.S. Department of Education, 1994). Given the desirability of community involvement, the task for educators is to begin to define and develop a rigorous research agenda around different aspects of the term.

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

20

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLJOURNAL

The Importanceof Partnerships

Families and schools traditionally have been viewed as the institutions with the greatest effect on the development of children. Communities, however, have received increasing attention for their role in socializing youth and ensuring students' success in a variety of societal domains. Epstein's (1987) theory of overlapping spheres of influence, for example, emphasizes that schools, families, and communities are major institutions that socialize and educate children. A central principle of the theory is that certain goals, such as student academic success, are of interest to each of these institutions and are best achieved through their cooperative action and support. Similarly, Heath and McLaughlin (1987, p. 579) argued that community involvement is important because "the problems of educational achievement and academic success demand resources beyond the scope of the school and of most families." They identified changing family demographics, demands of the professional workplace, and growing diversity among students as some of the reasons that schools and families alone cannot provide sufficient resources to ensure that all children receive the experiences and support needed to succeed in the larger society. Other authors also have emphasized the importance of schools, families, and communities working together to promote students' success. Toffler and Toffler (1995) contended that school-family-community collaborations are one way to provide a caring component to today's often large, assembly-line schools. Boyd and Crowson (1993, p. 36) suggested that schools must "reach out into the community in an attempt to strengthen the 'social capital' available to children." Similarly, Waddock (1995) agreed that schools alone cannot provide children and youth with the resources they need to be competent citizens in the twenty-first century. She explained that good schools are part of a total system of interactive forces, individuals, institutions,

goals, and expectations that are linked together inextricably. School-community partnerships, then, can be defined as the connections between schools and community individuals, organizations, and businesses that are forged to promote students' social, emotional, physical, and intellectual development. Community within this definition of schoolcommunity partnerships is not constrained by the geographic boundaries of neighborhoods (Chaskin, 1994) but refers more to the "social interactions that can occur within or transcend local boundaries" (Nettles, 1991b,

p. 380). Partnershipsin Practice

Forms of Collaboration School-community partnerships can take a variety of forms. The most common linkages are partnerships with businesses, which can differ significantly in focus, scope, and content (Ascher, 1988). Other school-community linkages involve primary service organizations such as churches and libraries that can provide resources and social support to youth (Sanders, 1996). Service integration or "one-stop shopping" is another form of school-community collaboration (Dryfoos, 1994; Wynn, Merry, & Berg, 1995). With this type of collaborative effort, schools and specialized service organizations, including health clinics and child welfare agencies, attempt to provide more efficient services to children and their families who need them (Dolan, 1992; Kagan, Goffin, Golub, & Pritchard, 1995; Wynn, Costello, Halpern, & Richman, 1994). Common community partnership activities include mentoring and tutoring, contextual learning and job shadowing, academic enrichment, as well as the provision of services, equipment, and supplies to students and schools. Research has suggested that these activities can lead to improved student outcomes. For example, one-on-one mentoring programs have been found to have significant and positive effects on students' grades and attendance (McPartland & NetSEPTEMBER 2001

COMMUNITY

21

ties, 1991). School-community collaborations focused on academic subjects have been shown to enhance students' attitudes toward these subjects, as well as the attitudes of teachers and parents (Beyerbach, Weber, Swift, & Gooding, 1996). Nettles (1991a) reported positive effects of school-community collaborations with an instructional component on students' grades, attendance, and school persistence. School-community partnerships, then, can be an important element in schools' programs of improvement and reform (Sanders & Harvey, 2000). Effective Implementation Nettles (1991b) noted, however, that not all collaborations realize their goals for school improvement. This is most likely due to the collaboration's design and implementation. Some organizations (Information Technology Foundation, 1993; Partnership for Family Involvement in Education, 1997) have attempted to identify a process for effective implementation of school-community partnerships. Although some variation exists, the organizations generally agree on several key steps for building successful collaborations. These steps include (1) identifying issues or goals to address; (2) defining the focus and scope of the partnerships; (3) identifying community assets (potential partners); (4) selecting partners; (5) monitoring progress; (6) evaluating activities; and (7) sharing success stories. Barriers to Implementation Research also has identified several obstacles to the implementation of schoolcommunity collaborations. Cushing and Kohl (1997), for example, identified three barriers to successful collaborations. One is schools' fear of public scrutiny. Cushing and Kohl argued that because of years of negative media coverage, many administrators and teachers are hesitant to further expose themselves to community scrutiny through collaborations. Another obstacle these authors identified was staff burnout. They found high levels of exhaustion and

frustration among the staff at most schools and at all grade levels. Because of these feelings, many teachers and administrators find the idea of extending themselves beyond the school to be overwhelming. Third, Cushing and Kohl (1997) found that teachers' and administrators' attitudes and perceptions can impede school-community collaborations. Some administrators and teachers perceive their communities as uncaring or bereft of resources that can contribute to students' school success. Mawhinney (1994) also identified barriers to effective collaborations with the community. According to Mawhinney, one of the most pervasive hindrances to collaboration is territorialism or, as Boyd and Crowson (1993, p. 152) noted, "unresolved issues of information sharing, resource mingling and professional turf." However, Mawhinney documented how committed individuals in schools and communities can address barriers to collaboration through careful planning and purposeful dialogue. In addition to turf issues, Epstein (1995) has identified other challenges to developing successful school-community partnership activities. One challenge is linking partnership activities to school improvement goals. Another challenge for schools is to assist all families in identifying community programs and services that address their needs. Epstein also highlighted the need for schools to develop two-way forms of school-community collaborations so that schools provide useful services to the community as well as receive useful services from the community. Research thus provides a foundation from which to understand potential forms and benefits of school-community collaborations, general guidelines for building successful school-community collaborations, and possible obstacles to such collaborations. However, this research lacks the specificity required for effective partnership program development. In the present study, I sought to provide such specificity through analyses of survey data collected from hun-

22

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLJOURNAL

dreds of elementary, middle, and high schools in the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS).1 Analyses were conducted to (1) identify and categorize the community agencies and organizations with whom the schools partnered; (2) document the focus of their partnership activities; (3) identify obstacles to the implementation of their school-community partnerships and strategies to overcome these obstacles; and (4) examine factors that influenced schools' satisfaction with their community involvement activities. In so doing, I provide detailed information on how schools can develop effective community connections.

Method
Sample The sample consisted of 443 schools that joined the NNPS at Johns Hopkins University before December 1997. The NNPS provides theory-driven and research-based assistance, support, and training to schools, districts, and states that are committed to building permanent school, family, and community partnership programs (Sanders, 1999; Sanders & Epstein, 2000). There is no fee to join the NNPS, but each school agrees to use an Action Team for Partnerships (ATP) composed of the principal, teachers, and family and community representatives and to use Epstein's framework of six types of involvement-(1) parenting, (2) communicating, (3) volunteering, (4) learning at home, (5) decision making, and (6) collaborating with the community-to develop comprehensive programs of school, family, and community partnerships that will promote students' success (Epstein, Coates, Salinas, Sanders, & Simon, 1997). Each school is also required to allocate time for ATP monthly meetings and a budget to support its partnership program. As members, schools receive a free copy of School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbookfor Action (Epstein et al., 1997), which contains materials and information to guide the work of ATPs. The ATPs also are issued a certificate of mem-

bership that they are encouraged to display in their schools as one symbol of their commitment to school, family, and community partnerships. The NNPS members receive a semiannual newsletter that summarizes current research on partnerships and an annual collection that describes promising partnership practices. Schools also are provided technical assistance from NNPS staff via phone, email, and the PartnershipSchools web site. Member schools have the option of participating in cross-site research studies and attending an annual training workshop for new members held at Johns Hopkins University. Schools in the NNPS do not constitute a formal representative sample of schools in the United States, but they are diverse on key demographic characteristics. Of the 434 schools in the sample, about one-third are located in large cities (34%), over onequarter are located in suburban areas (27%), 20% are located in small cities, and about 19% are located in rural areas. The majority (70%) are elementary schools serving only students from prekindergarten to grade 6; 14% are middle schools that include only students from grades 4 to 9; 7% are high schools with students between grades 9 and 12; and 9% are schools that serve students from a range of grade levels. Sixty-five percent of the schools in the sample receive some Title 1 funds, and 43% are schoolwide Title 1 programs. The schools also differ in the size and ethnic diversity of their populations. For example, one-third of the schools reported that their students' families spoke between two and five languages other than English. Data Collection and Analysis During the spring of 1998, each school that joined the NNPS by December 1997 was asked to complete an annual end-ofyear survey titled UPDATE. The survey is designed to help the network (1) update the names and addresses of key contacts; (2) learn about schools' progress and challenges in their work on partnerships; and
SEPTEMBER 2001

COMMUNITY

23

(3) understand how to best support schools' work with useful services. The survey is also used as schools' renewal of membership in the NNPS. The 1998 UPDATE included a short survey on community connections that was designed to elicit detailed information from schools in the NNPS on (1) the types of community collaborations they were implementing and key features of the collaborations, (2) factors that facilitated and/or impeded implementation, and (3) their satisfaction with their collaborations. Surveys were returned by 443 (73%) of the then 611 school members of the NNPS. The surveys were completed by key contacts to the NNPS. Respondents included school principals (44%);family/community involvement coordinators (15%); teachers (14%); Title 1 personnel (8%); school counselors, social workers, and nurses (6%);and school secretaries, grant coordinators, and parents (13%). The majority of respondents who completed the survey (51%) were assisted by additional members of their schools' ATPs. In this study, I analyzed data on community connections reported by 443 schools in the NNPS. Because of these schools' expressed focus on school, family, and community partnerships as a strategy for school improvement, they provide useful information for other schools at various stages of partnership program development. The article includes descriptions of the types of community partners with whom the schools collaborated, the foci of their partnership activities, obstacles to implementation, and suggestions for overcoming these obstacles. I also report correlations between school context variables and schools' satisfaction with the quantity and quality of their community partnership activities. Context variables included location in urban or nonurban areas; school level, whether elementary only 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 leaders supported the school's program of partnerships; obstacles to school, family, and community partnerships-a variable summing schools' reports of major challenges to partnerships; and number of active community partners. Schools' satisfaction with the quantity of their community partnership activities was measured with a single item to which respondents answered yes (1) or no (0), as was schools' satisfaction with the quality of their activities.

Results and Discussion

Community Collaborations: Partners and Foci Of the 443 schools that returned the survey, 312 (70%) reported having at least one school-community partnership activity. The community partners and the partnership activities that schools in the NNPS implemented varied. Schools identified 817 activities that involved school-community collaborations and that included sufficient information for categorization (see Table 1). As shown in Table 1, schools can work with a variety of community partners to develop activities that support school improvement. Community partners identified in the 1998 UPDATE survey fell into 10 major categories: (1) businesses/ corporations; (2) universities and educational institutions; (3) government and military agencies; (4) health care organizations; (5) faith organizations; (6) national service and volunteer organizations; (7) senior citizens' organizations; (8) cultural and recreational institutions; (9) other community-based organizations; and (10) individuals in the community. Of the 817 school-community partnership activities reported, the greatest proportion (366 or 45%) involved one or more business partners. These included small and large local businesses, such as bakeries, groceries, barbershops, funeral homes, beauty salons, banks, utility companies, and florists, as well as national corporations and franchises, such as LensCrafters, IBM,

C1

UU

oa~
0) (f)

a)

(;J

uu
N0 00 C14 N \ CLf

orm m"C" U-V)

CCl

~10

-4,

E
cn U U

-u

~2

7:5C

>1 U;

~N00Cl~N00

COMMUNITY

25

State Farm Insurance, General Motors, Walmart, AT&T, Pizza Hut, Burger King, and McDonald's. Seventy-seven (9%) of the reported school-community activities included universities, colleges, and other educational institutions, including neighboring schools. Health care organizations, including hospitals, mental health facilities, and health foundations, were involved in 68 (8%) of the reported school-community activities. Government and military agencies were partners in 62 (8%) of the activities. Examples of government and military agencies include fire and police departments, chambers of commerce, and other state and local agencies and departments. National service and volunteer organizations, including Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, AmeriCorps, Concerned Black Men, Inc., the Urban League, and Boys and Girls Clubs, were involved in 49 (6%) of the school-community partnership activities described by schools in the national network. Faith organizations such as churches, synagogues, and religious charities participated in 47 (6%) of the reported activities. Senior citizens organizations were involved in 25 (3%) of the 817 activities school-community reported. Zoos, libraries, recreational centers, museums, and other cultural and recreational institutions participated in 20 (2%) of the reported activities. Other community-based organizations, including sororities and fraternities, alumni organizations, neighborhood associations, and local service organizations were involved in 79 (10%) of the activities. Nineteen (2%) of the reported activities included individuals in the school community volunteering their time, energy, and talents. As indicated in Table 1, and similar to previous research findings (Ascher, 1988), schools in the sample relied heavily on businesses and corporations as their partners. Schools' preference for business partners may be due to their greater visibility, availability, and familiarity. However, this reliance on business partners may result in

schools underutilizing other community partners who also may provide goods and services to their faculties, students, and families. For example, there were noticeably few cultural and recreational institutions among the many partners that were reported. Similarly, activities that included faith organizations and national service and volunteer organizations as partners were limited. These findings suggest that schools may need to broaden their definition of "community" and reach out to organizations that are less visible than businesses but are equally interested in partnering with schools. Table 1 also shows that schoolcommunity partnership activities may have multiple foci. Activities may be (1) student centered, (2) family centered, (3) school centered, or (4) community centered. Studentcentered activities include those that provide direct services or goods to students, for example, student awards and incentives, scholarships, tutoring and mentoring programs, and job shadowing and other career-focused activities. Family-centered activities are those that have parents or entire families as their primary focus. This category includes activities such as parenting workshops, GED and other adult education classes, parent/ family incentives and awards, family counseling, and family fun and learning nights. School-centered activities are those that benefit the school as a whole, such as beautification projects or the donation of school equipment and materials, or activities that benefit the faculty, such as staff development and classroom assistance. Communitycentered activities have as their primary focus the community and its citizens, for example, charitable outreach, art and science exhibits, and community revitalization and beautification projects. Table 1 shows how the schoolcommunity activities reported in the survey are represented in these four categories. Overall, most activities were student centered. This finding suggests that schools' view of their partnership activities may be

26

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLJOURNAL

too narrow. Schools may not have fully explored collaborative activities to benefit the total school program or to assist in providing adults in students' families with primary services, skills training, or other parental supports. Such school- and family-centered partnership activities might be especially important for high-need/resource-poor schools in at-risk communities. The community-centered category was the least represented of the four, indicating that many schools had not developed partnership activities that served the larger community. As previously noted, developing two-way or reciprocal school-community partnership activities is a key challenge for schools as they work to improve and expand their programs of school, family, and community partnership (Epstein, Coates, et al., 1997). Schools in the NNPS recognize the importance of this challenge. Seventyfive percent (75%) of the respondents reported that their schools were developing ways for schools, families, and students to contribute to the larger community. Finally, the data in Table 1 suggest that schools may currently underutilize some of their community partners. For example, most partnership activities with senior citizens' organizations involved students visiting citizens' facilities. Few partnership activities gave senior citizens opportunities to provide services and information to schools, families, and students. In addition to broadening their definitions of "community," then, schools also may need to expand their visions of how community partners can help them to facilitate school improvement and students' success. Partnership Program Development: Obstacles and Strategies As Boyd and Crowson (1993), Mawhinney (1994), Epstein (1995), and others (Cushing & Kohl, 1997) noted, there are a number of obstacles to school-community partnerships. Some obstacles may be more prevalent at some schools than others. Schools must address them before they can maxi-

mize the benefits of their connections with community members, businesses, and organizations. When asked what obstacles they faced in developing and expanding their community partnership activities, 233 schools responded. Only 18% of these respondents reported that they faced no obstacles in planning and implementing partnership activities. Others reported several obstacles including insufficient participation, time, community partners, leadership, funding, communication, and focus (see Fig. 1). I discuss these obstacles and some strategies to address them below. Participation. As shown in Figure 1, nearly one-third (30%) of respondents who reported challenges identified insufficient participation as an obstacle to schoolcommunity partnerships. Although some noted that involving school faculty was a challenge, others reported that involving 30%25%o 20%Cn

- 15%* 10% 5%-

a.

S
o
0-"' E 0

E
? r.. -tO .0 o
-

(I)

-3

to school-co unitypartnerS1-Obstacles Cz 3 0 ,U E _ o O U E cz o
o _j

Obstacles
ships (N = 192).
SEPTEMBER 2001 FIG. l.-Obstacles to school-community partner-

COMMUNITY

27

families, students, and community members also was a problem. The following responses were illustrative: "We (the ATP) asked teachers to each contact two businesses for a Book Plate Drive; they all refused.... Teachers feel they do enough" (school 29). "Since our district is so spread out, we have a difficult time getting people to go to different community activities" (school 474). "Our reading program got off to a very slow start. We had difficulty getting community members to volunteer to assist our youngsters" (school 195). Several survey respondents identified strategies to improve participation in school-community activities. Some suggested reaching out beyond faculty members to volunteers for help in coordinating partnership activities. Some suggested using local media and school newsletters to increase awareness of activities. Still others mentioned making reminder phone calls, encouraging participants to bring friends to activities, and providing door prizes and other incentives for participation. Other strategies included changing the time of activities to accommodate more interested individuals; organizing Saturday as well as weekday functions; providing transportation, food, and baby-sitting services; and using community facilities for activities. Time. A second, and perhaps related obstacle was that of insufficient time. Nearly one-quarter (24%) of school respondents reported that they found it difficult to find time to meet, identify, and contact potential community partners and to implement partnership activities. According to these respondents, "Our big challenge is having time to approach businesses in the area" (school 93). "It is difficult finding time to create more partnerships or different ones" (school 101). "We need more time to contact organizations and encourage their involvement. We also need time for staff to work with agencies and parents" (school 124). "Time is a challenge. The time that the Downtown Merchants' Association can

meet (between 8:30 and 9:15) is when we are teaching" (school 133). Respondents offered several strategies to address the time limitations many schools faced. They suggested that schools identify a wider range of staff and parent and community volunteers to plan and implement activities. They also noted that ATPs could organize into committees responsible for specific tasks so that frequent meetings of the entire ATP are not required. Some respondents suggested that schools hire facilitators to help ATPs coordinate partnership activities; others mentioned that ATPs could plan activities in the spring or summer of each school year so that they are ready to implement activities in the fall. Finally, some respondents suggested that ATPs hold meetings before or after school or use volunteers to cover classrooms so that teachers have time to meet during the school day. Community partners. About 12% of respondents reported identifying community partners as a primary obstacle to schoolcommunity partnerships. Some of these respondents noted that they were located in resource-poor communities with few businesses and other community-based organizations. Others reported that competition from other schools made finding partners difficult, and still others indicated that their students were bussed into the school, which made community partners difficult to identify. The respondents explained: "We are in competition with 12 other schools seeking partnerships with businesses in our community" (school 95). "Our challenge is limited business/industry to draw on" (school 330). "Ours is a small, rural area that is in an economically distressed area. Community partners are difficult to find" (school 475). "Very few of the students actually live in the community where the school is located. It is difficult to establish relationships with area businesses that are consistent" (case a166). To address the obstacle of limited community resources, some respondents en-

28

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLJOURNAL

couraged schools to identify community partners other than businesses and corporations. Table 1 is a resource that schools can use to consider other potential partners. Respondents also noted that schools can learn more about available community resources by attending local community events and meetings. Other respondents emphasized the importance of schools networking with individuals within and outside their immediate geographic area to secure partners. Leadership. Some respondents (8%) found that inadequate leadership was an obstacle. They reported that without an individual or individuals to lead in the development, evaluation, and maintenance of school-community partnership activities, coordinating and sustaining such activities was challenging. Typical responses included, "Weneed leadership within the school to develop the necessary relationships" (school 336). "We need a coordinator to work with the Rotary Club and the school" (school 259). "Our biggest challenge is time and consistent leadership" (school 667). The most frequently reported strategy to address insufficient leadership was to involve other school groups, like the school leadership council or Parent-Teacher Association (PTA), in the planning and implementation of partnerships. School respondents also suggested building a wide and diverse pool of leaders by providing training on school, family, and community partnerships to the entire school staff, as well as to interested parents and community members. Funding. Funding also was viewed as an obstacle by some respondents (8%). They stated: "We need an operating budget" (school 72). "Lack of funds was our biggest challenge" (school a107). "Finding the funds needed 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 donations from businesses; holding fundraisers; and applying for small and large grants to secure funding for partnership activities. Other re-

spondents noted that community partners themselves may offset some of the costs associated with partnership activities through the provision of goods and services. Communication. A small percentage of respondents (6%)identified communication as a challenge. Although some schools faced this obstacle because of the linguistic diversity of their student and family populations, others found it difficult to communicate in a timely manner to increase participation in activities. Schools reported: "We found that the language barrier between the many families and Englishspeaking community members was a challenge" (school 231). "Parent attendance at community activities was poor due to the lack of communication" (school a162). To improve communication, some school respondents suggested using students to make reminder phone calls; using interpreters to translate written notices and information provided at school-community activities and meetings; and using a variety of communication sources, for example, newsletters, newspapers, television, and radio, to convey information about partnership opportunities and activities. Focus. A few respondents (3%)also identified insufficient focus as an obstacle. That so few respondents identified this area as an obstacle may be because of advanced planning in the form of "One-YearAction Plans for Partnerships" required by the NNPS. It also may reflect the move that many schools are making toward site-based management and school improvement plans that identify school goals and foci for the academic year. In fact, the primary strategy offered to improve the focus of schools' community partnership activities was to link the activities to school improvement goals. The data show that, despite reported obstacles, most NNPS schools collaborated with at least one community partner. To do so, many employed one or more of the strategies just described. School leaders also were persistent and committed. One respondent observed: "Any new program has
SEPTEMBER 2001

COMMUNITY

29

difficulty getting off the ground, but people dedicated to this partnership program have been highly successful in organizing and maintaining it" (school 173).

though respondents are generally satisfied with their activities with community partners, many schools want to do more. Table 2 shows the zero-order correlations between schools' reports of satisfaction with Schools' Satisfaction with the quantity and quality of their community Activities Partnership partnership activities, and key school context variables. As reported earlier, the school a count Of the 355 schools that provided context variables included in the analysis 12% reof their active community partners, no community partners; were location in urban or nonurban area; ported having close to one-half (48%) reported having one school level, whether elementary only or secto three partners; 20% reported having four ondary (middle and high school); general to six partners; 7% reported having seven to support for partnerships; obstacles to school, nine partners; and another 13% reported family, and community partnerships; and number of active community partners. having 10 or more partners (see Fig. 2). Not surprisingly (see Table 2), schools in When schools the sample were asked if they were satisfied with the quantity of that reported having more active commutheir partnership activities, 57% of the 364 nity partners also were more likely to report schools responding said yes, whereas 43% being satisfied with the quantity (r = .17, reported that they were not satisfied with p < .01) and quality (r = .12, p < .05) of their current number of activities. When their partnership activities. Schools' reports asked about the quality of their partnership of satisfaction with the quantity (r = .17, activities, of the 356 schools responding, p < .01) and quality (r = .28, p < .001) of 83% reported satisfaction, whereas only their activities also were significantly corre13% reported that the quality was less than lated with the general support that schools satisfactory. These data suggest that al- received for their partnership efforts. This 50%45%40%

30% o 25%
C/

20% 15% 10% 5%

0

7 to 9 4 to 6 1 to 3 Number of Community partners

FIc. 2.-Schools' reports of active community partners (N = 355)

10+

4-a
6 * * *

;..4

4-

.r- .4

-. .

II

.o

CD D

CD

Zo

COMMUNITY

31

finding suggests that schools with widespread support for school, family, and community partnerships were more likely than those without such support to have satisfactory school-community collaborations. It also is interesting that, although there was a significant, negative correlation between schools' location in a large, urban city and their satisfaction with the quantity of their community partnership activities (r = -.10, p < .05), being located in a large urban area was not significantly correlated with schools' satisfaction with the quality of their partnership activities. This finding suggests that schools in large, urban areas may have more difficulty than nonurban schools in identifying the number of community partners required to meet their needs. This difficulty may be due to overreliance on business partners or to greater competition for community partners. There also was a significant, negative correlation between the number of obstacles to school, family, and community partnerships that schools face, and their satisfaction with the quantity of their community partnership activities (r = -.11, p < .05). Perhaps schools with many obstacles to partnerships are less likely than those with fewer obstacles to have the necessary resources to actively seek out viable community partners. Although negative, the correlation between number of obstacles and satisfaction with the quality of partnership activities was not significant. Table 2 also reveals other interesting, though not surprising, correlations. For example, schools that reported having more general support for partnerships were less likely to report facing major obstacles to developing school-community collaborations (r = -.19, p < .001). There also was a significant, positive correlation between schools' reports of general support for partnerships and the number of active community partners they identified (r = .25, p < .001). These findings may explain the previously reported relation between widespread support for partnerships and schools' satis-

faction with their partnership efforts. The results thus highlight the significance of widespread district, school, parent, and community support for effective partnership program development. To identify independent effects of the correlations shown in Table 2, I conducted multiple regression analyses. The exploratory model tested used as its outcome variable schools' overall satisfaction with partnership activities. This variable was a summation of schools' satisfaction with the quantity and quality of their partnership activities. The responses were (0) not satisfied with quantity or quality; (1) satisfied with either quantity or quality; or (2) satisfied with both quantity and quality. Of the school context variables included in the regression model, general support (3 = .22, p < .001) and number of active community partners (1 = .12, p < .05) were found to significantly influence schools' overall satisfaction with their school-community partnership activities. Regression results also indicated that when compared to other schools in the NNPS, urban schools, elementary schools, and schools facing a greater number of obstacles to partnerships were less likely to report overall satisfaction with their community partnership activities. The model's adjusted R2 value was .08 (N = 313). The modest level of explained variance in this cross-sectional analysis indicates that additional variables, including longitudinal patterns over time, may better explain schools' overall satisfaction with their community partnership activities. Continued research in this field is needed to identify these variables in order to better inform school practice.

Summary and Conclusion

This study reveals that hundreds of schools in the NNPS are implementing traditional as well as innovative partnership activities with their communities as they develop their comprehensive school, family, and community partnership programs. Schools in the sample established partnerships with a wide variety of community institutions.

32

THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLJOURNAL

These include large and small businesses, national service organizations, health facilities, and individuals in the community. Some activities focused on students; others focused on schools and students' families and communities. Many of the community activities supported or strengthened the five other types of involvement in Epstein's framework (Epstein, Coates, et al., 1997). For example, a local church provided meeting space for parenting workshops (Type 1 involvewhile student groups ment-parenting) met at the nearby school (school 330). A local community organization translated school flyers into different languages for its families and provided interpreters for school meetings with families-a Type 2 (school 271). activity-communicating and a local AmeriCorps university supplied reading tutors for students in grades 1 through 5-a Type 3 activity-volunteering (school 513). A local children's bookstore gave parents information on books they could read with their children at home-a Type 4 activity-learning at home (school 400). And McDonald's provided meals to increase parents' attendance at school meetings on curricular goals and objectives-a Type 5 activity decision making (school a113). Other schools partnered with the community to provide support and services for their schools and community members. One school, for example, worked with its state Department of Environmental Protection to help science faculty integrate local resources and environmental concerns into the science curriculum (school 119). At another school, IBM helped to develop a computer center to promote computer literacy among adult members of the community (school 175). A local library held a community art exhibit of students' work (school 382). And local hospitals, dentists, nurses, and dieticians developed a low-cost health care site at one school that provided preventive/maintenance health care for students, families, and community members (school 66).

These and other reported activities show how important community partnerships can be for students, schools, families, and communities. Yet planning, implementing, and sustaining such partnerships are not without obstacles. Although research on community collaborations identifies "turf" issues as a primary obstacle to successful school-community partnerships, schools in the NNPS identified other obstacles that are more common in school reform: lack of participation, time, and community partners. Despite some schools' success in overcoming reported obstacles to schoolcommunity partnerships, 132 (30%) of the schools in the sample did not implement community partnership activities during the 1997-1998 school year. Of the 60 schools that provided an explanation, 44% reported that they were planning such activities. Others, however, reported that they did not implement community partnership activities because of obstacles that they faced: difficulties identifying community partners (14%), time constraints (11%),and a lack of leaders to facilitate and coordinate activities (9%). Although I offer several strategies to address these obstacles, research that documents the effects of such strategies on schools' partnership program development is needed. Dryfoos (1998) highlights the need for quality case study data that describe how successful community connections are developed and implemented, as well as their effects on students. In-depth case studies that specify the processes by which schools with successful school-community partnerships identify, develop, and maintain their connections with members of the community would help schools struggling with obstacles to overcome them more effectively. Based on survey data from over 400 schools, this study suggests that factors such as widespread district and school support for partnerships may influence the number of obstacles schools face when trying to develop community partnership activities, as well as schools' overall satisfaction with activities. Further quantitative
SEPTEMBER 2001

COMMUNITY

33

research on factors that facilitate and hinder school-community connections also would inform both policy and practice. Many studies have been conducted on different types of family involvement and their effects on student, family, and school outcomes (Comer, 1984; Dornbusch & Ritter, 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 needed on different forms and functions of community involvement. This research would help educators and scholars better understand and integrate community connections into comprehensive school, family, and community partnership programs that encourage students' learning and success.

for stormsand seas unknown.American JourCanada, G. (1996). The beacons-building healthy communities.In J. Gardner& P. Ednal of Education,101, 140-179.

NationalCommunityEducation Association. Chaskin,R.J. (1994).Definingneighborhood. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Centerfor Children. as Comer,J. P. (1984).Home-schoolrelationships they affect the academicsuccess of children. Cushing, E., & Kohl, E. (1997).Alliesfor education-Community involvementin schoolchange: A two yearexploration. San Francisco:San FranEducationand Urban Society, 71, 323-337.

wards (Eds.), The communityhalfof community education-Part 2 (pp. 16-18). Fairfax, VA:

cisco SchoolVolunteers and the Williamand FloraHewlett Foundation.

Dolan, L. (1992, March). Modelsfor integratinghuman services into the schools (Report No. 30).

Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University,Center for SocialOrganizationof Schools. Dornbusch,S. M., & Ritter,P.L. (1988).Parents of high school students: A neglected resource. EducationalHorizons, 66(2), 75-77. Dryfoos, J. (1994). Full-serviceschools:A revolution in health and social services for children, youth

Notes

andfamilies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. This researchwas supportedby the U.S. De- Dryfoos, J. (1998). The rise of the full-service community school. High School Magazine, Repartmentof Education,Officeof Educational 6(2), 38-42. search and Improvement (OERI),the Dewitt Wallace-Readers' Digest Fund, and by a grant Durkin, D. (1984).Poor black childrenwho are successful readers. Urban Education, 19(1), from the SpencerFoundation.The opinions ex53-76. pressed are mine and do not necessarilyrepresent the positions or policies of the funding Epstein,J. L. (1987).Towarda theory of familyschool connections: Teacher practices and sources. 1. For more information on the National parent involvement. In K. Hurrelmann,F. Kaufmann,& F. Losel (Eds.),SocialintervenNetwork of Partnership Schools, readers can tion: Potential and constraints (pp. 121-136). visit the NNPS web site (www.partnership New York:De Gruyter. schools.org). Epstein, J. L. (1995).School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we References
Ascher, C. (1988). Urban school-community alli-

Epstein J. L., Coates L., Salinas K. C., Sanders, ThousandOaks,CA: Corwin. Epstein,J. L., Herrick,S., & Coates,L. (1996).Effects of summer home learning packets on students'achievementin languageartsin the Epstein,J. L., Simon,B., & Salinas,K. (1997,SepM. G., & Simon, B. (1997). School,family, community partnerships:Yourhandbook for action.

share. Phi Delta Kappan,76(9), 701-712.

ances. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on UrbanEducation. S., Swift,J. N., & GoodBeyerbach,B. A., Weber, ing, C. T. (1996).A school/business/university partnership for professional develop112. Boo, M. R., & Decker, L. E. (1985). The learning Alexandria,VA: National Comcommunity. munity and EducationAssociation. Boyd, W. L., & Crowson, R. L. (1993). Coordinated services for children:Designing arks
ment. School Community Journal, 6(1), 101-

middle grades. School Effectivenessand School Improvement,7(3), 93-120. tember). Effects of TeachersInvolve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) language arts interactive homeworkin the middle grades (Research Bul-

letin No. 18). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta KappaCenterfor Evaluation,Development, and Research.

34 Families and Work Institute. (1995). Employers, families and education: Promoting family involvement in learning. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Heath, S. B., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1987, April). A child resource policy: Moving beyond dependence on school and family. Phi Delta Kappan,68, 576-580. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children's education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record,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 provide school-linked services: What schools must do. Future of Children,2, 95-106. Kagan, S., Goffin, S., Golub, S., & Pritchard, E. (1995). Towardsystemic reform:Service integration for young childrenand theirfamilies. Falls Church, VA: National Center for Service Integration. 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 and community development be joined? A potential of community schools. Educationand Urban Society, 28(2), 237-268. Mawhinney, H. B. (1994). The policy and practice of community enrichment of schools. Proceedings of the Education and Community Conference, Department of Educational Administration. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Educational Administration. McPartland, J. M., & Nettles, S. M. (1991). Using community adults as advocates or mentors for at-risk middle school students: A twoyear evaluation of project RAISE. American Journalof Education,99, 568-586. Nettles, S. M. (1991a). Community contributions to school outcomes of African-American students. Educationand UrbanSociety,24(1), 132147. Nettles, S. M. (1991b). Community involvement and disadvantaged students: A review. Review of EducationalResearch,61(3), 379-406. Partnership for Family Involvement in Education. (1997). Building business and community partnerships for learning. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

THEELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL Sanders, M. G. (1996). Action teams in action in the Baltimore school-family-community partfor Stunership program. Journalof Education dents Placedat Risk, 1(3), 249-262. Sanders, M. G. (1998). The effects of school, family, and community support on the academic achievement of African American adolescents. Urban Education,33(3), 385-409. Sanders, M. G. (1999). School membership in the National Network of Partnership Schools: Progress, challenges and next steps. Journal of EducationalResearch,92(4), 220-230. Sanders, M. G., & Epstein, J. L. (1998). Schoolfamily-community partnerships and educational change: International perspectives. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbookof educational change (pp. 482-502). Hingham, MA: Kluwer. Sanders, M. G., & Epstein, J. L. (2000). The National Network of Partnership Schools: How research influences educational practice. Journalof Educationfor Students Placedat Risk, 5(1/2), 61-76. Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2000, April). Developing comprehensive programsof school,family, and community partnerships:The community perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Stone, C. R. (1995). School/community collabothree initiatives. Phi ration-Comparing Delta Kappan,76(10), 794-800. Toffler,A., & Toffler,H. (1995). Getting set for the coming millennium. TheFuturist,29(2), 10-15. U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Strongfamilies, strongschools:Buildingcommunitypartnerships for learning.Washington, DC: Author. Waddock, S. A. (1995). Not by schools alone: Sharing responsibility for America'seducationreform. Westport, CT: Praeger. Winters, W. G. (1993). African American mothers and urban schools. New York: Lexington. Wynn, J., Costello, J., Halpern, R., & Richman, H. (1994). Children,families, and communities:A new approachto social services. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children. Wynn, J., Merry, S., & Berg, P. (1995). Children, families, and communities:Early lessons from a new approach to social services. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

SEPTEMBER 2001