School–community learning partnerships for sustainability: Recommended best practice and reality

International Review of Education volume 64, pages313–337(2018)Cite this article

Abstract

Effective partnerships across different stakeholders are essential to the collaboration required for learning cities to contribute to sustainable development. Through partnerships, formal educational institutions, such as schools and universities, play a vital role in establishing and sustaining learning cities, often by facilitating the meaningful participation of different local community members. The research presented in this article examines the characteristics of effective school–community partnerships in the literature and compares it to the results of a three-year research study which examined 16 case studies of school–community partnerships in the state of Victoria in Australia. Using participatory action research, the researchers identified four approaches to implementing partnerships for sustainability, explored challenges to achieving an idealised partnership, and made recommendations for establishing successful partnership networks. The researchers propose that partnerships be viewed as a dynamic resource rather than merely a transactional arrangement that addresses the identified challenges of time, funding, skills and personnel. Furthermore, the use of “partnership brokers”, such as local government or non-government organisations, is recommended to expand the current school-centred approach to partnerships. These insights aim to contribute to providing quality education and lifelong learning through partnerships – outcomes crucial for establishing and sustaining learning cities.

Résumé

Partenariats d’apprentissage école-collectivité pour la viabilité : meilleure pratique recommandée vs réalité – Des partenariats efficaces entre diverses parties prenantes sont indispensables à la collaboration requise pour que les villes apprenantes contribuent au développement durable. À travers les partenariats, les établissements scolaires formels tels que les écoles et universités jouent un rôle essentiel dans la création et la pérennisation des villes apprenantes, souvent en facilitant la participation effective de différents membres de la communauté locale. Le travail présenté dans cet article examine dans la documentation existante les caractéristiques des partenariats efficaces école-collectivité, et les compare aux résultats d’une étude de recherche triennale qui analyse 16 études de cas de partenariats école-collectivité dans l’État australien de Victoria. Appliquant la recherche-action participative, les chercheurs ont identifié quatre approches en vue de l’implantation de partenariats pour le développement durable, exploré les obstacles à la réalisation d’un partenariat idéal, et émis des recommandations pour l’instauration de réseaux concluants de partenaires. Les chercheurs proposent de considérer le partenariat comme une ressource dynamique et non un simple accord commercial, en vue d’aborder les défis en termes de temps, de financement, de compétences et de personnel. Ils recommandent en outre le recours à des « courtiers en partenariat » tels que gouvernement local et organisations non gouvernementales, pour élargir l’approche du partenariat actuellement centrée sur les écoles. Ces observations visent à contribuer via les partenariats à une éducation de qualité et à l’apprentissage tout au long de la vie – ces critères étant cruciaux pour créer et pérenniser les villes apprenantes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. 1.

    A learning city is “a city which effectively mobilises its resources in every sector to promote inclusive learning from basic to higher education; re-vitalise learning in families and communities; facilitate learning for and in the workplace; extend the use of modern learning technologies; enhance quality and excellence in learning; and foster a culture of learning throughout life. In so doing it will create and reinforce individual empowerment and social cohesion, economic and cultural prosperity, and sustainable development” (UIL 2013, p. 27).

  2. 2.

    In a nutshell, formal education refers to traditional classroom teaching by a trained teacher, usually leading to students’ assessment and certification, while non-formal teaching and learning occurs outside of the formal system and is not usually accredited. Community projects typically involve non-formal learning. The latter is distinct from informal learning in that the learning process is still intentional (and not incidental as in informal learning).

  3. 3.

    From 2008 until 2011, the National Australia Bank provided incentives to develop school–community partnerships that contributed to improved student outcomes, offering awards for the best programmes.

  4. 4.

    For more information about the ResourceSmart AuSSI star rating system, see: http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/School/Get-started/Star-progression [accessed 8 April 2018].

  5. 5.

    For more information on the Eco-Schools programme, see http://www.ecoschools.global/ [accessed 8 April 2018].

  6. 6.

    Global Action Days involve students and teachers showcasing their innovative ideas and positive action for change to help the environment on the EcoSchools website and social media sites on a chosen day each year.

  7. 7.

    The Department of the Environment was dissolved in 2016 and superseded by the current Department of the Environment and Energy. For more information, see http://www.environment.gov.au/ [accessed 22 March 2018].

  8. 8.

    Action research refers to authentic participation and planning leading to “action that is intentionally researched and modified, leading to … the next stage of action, which is then again intentionally examined for further change …, and so on as part of the research itself” (Wadsworth 1997, p. 78; italics in original).

  9. 9.

    The Most Significant Change (MSC) approach (Davies and Dart 2005) is a tool for monitoring project impacts in a participatory way.

  10. 10.

    Grounded theory is the systematic collection and analysis of data which allow a researcher to identify patterns and develop concepts from the data (see Corbin and Strauss 2008).

  11. 11.

    In Australia, the “parks and gardens” sector includes government and not-for-profit associations from the local community who are committed to sustaining the conservational, historical, scientific, cultural, educational and recreational functions of these natural public spaces.

  12. 12.

    A working bee is a gathering of volunteers to accomplish a task or project for the public good. In our research project, it was usually composed of volunteer parents and community members providing manual labour and other skills for an environmental project for the school. There is also an element of socialising during this work.

  13. 13.

    For more information on the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden programme, see https://www.kitchengardenfoundation.org.au/ [accessed 22 March 2018].

  14. 14.

    For more information on the RACV Energy Breakthrough programme, see https://www.racveb.com/ [accessed 22 March 2018].

  15. 15.

    P–6 refers to preschool to Year/Grade 6. Children in the Australian state of Victoria can enter preschool (3 years, voluntary) at age 3, and then progress to primary school (Years/Grades 1–6, compulsory) at age 5 or 6, depending on whether their birthday is before or after 30 April.

  16. 16.

    Further details on the case studies mentioned in this section can be accessed via the guidebook on SCLPfS produced as a result of this research study (Smith et al. 2012).

  17. 17.

    An action competence framework refers to a positive approach which encourages learners to ask critical questions such as how, where and to whom to address “authentic” issues such as environmental problems. Learners are given confidence to make decisions about change and think about solutions.

References

  1. ACER (Australian Council for Educational Research) (2008). Schools first. Final report, October 2008. Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved 1 August 2016 from http://www.schoolsfirst.edu.au/docs/schools-first-evidence-base-acer.pdf.

  2. ACER (2010). School–community partnerships in Australian schools. ACER Report November 2010. Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved 20 January 2017 from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=policy_analysis_misc.

  3. Bélanger, P. (2006). Concepts and realities of learning cities and regions. In C. Duke, L. Doyle, & B. Wilson (Eds.), Making knowledge work, Sustaining learning communities and regions (pp. 18–39). Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Black, R. (2008a). Beyond the classroom: Building new school networks. Camberwell, Vic: ACER Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Black, R. (2008b). New school ties: Networks for success. Office for Policy, Research and Innovation. Paper No. 15. Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. Retrieved 12 February 2018 from http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/94114/20090205-1548/www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/publ/research/publ/new-school-ties-report.pdf.

  6. Blunden, P., & Wheeler, L. (2015). Melton, Australia. In R. Valdes-Cotera, N. Longworth, K. Lunardon, M. Wang, S. Jo & S. Crowe (Eds), Unlocking the potential of urban communities: Case studies of twelve learning cities (pp. 8–21). Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). Retrieved 15 February 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002345/234536e.pdf.

  7. Clerke, S. (2013a). Partnering for school improvement: Case studies of school–community partnerships in Australia. Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved 5 October 2016 from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=policy_analysis_misc.

  8. Clerke, S. (2013b). Snapshot of school–community partnerships in Australian schools. Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). Retrieved 6 October 2016 from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=policy_analysis_misc.

  9. Cole, P. (2008). New work for networks. In R. Black (Ed.), Beyond the classroom: Building new school networks (pp. 91–104). Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Cubbin, C., Pedregon, C., Egerter, C., & Braveman, C. (2008). Where we live matters to our health. Issue brief 3: Neighborhoods and health. New York, NY: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Commission to Build a Healthier America. Retrieved 20 January 2016 from http://www.issuelab.org/resource/where_we_live_matters_for_our_health_neighborhoods_and_health.

  12. Davis, J. M. (2003). Innovation through action research in environmental education: From project to praxis. Unpublished PhD thesis. Griffith University, Nathan QLD, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Australian School of Environmental Studies. Retrieved 15 February 2018 from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/67230/2/67230.pdf.

  13. Davies, R., & Dart, J. (2005). The “Most Significant Change” (MSC) technique: A guide to its use, Version 1, April 2005. Cambridge, UK/Hastings, Vic: self-published. Retrieved 12 February 2018 from http://www.isa-youth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Handbook-Most-Significant-Change.pdf.

  14. DEEWR (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations) (2013). Sustainable school and community partnerships: A research study. What works. The work program. Improving outcomes for indigenous students. Abbotsford, Vic: National Curriculum Services (NCS). Retrieved 15 February 2018 from http://www.whatworks.edu.au/upload/1363254474573_file_WWPartnershipsReport.pdf.

  15. DEH (Department of the Environment and Heritage) (2005). Educating for a sustainable future: A national environmental education statement for Australian schools. Carlton South, Vic: Curriculum Corporation. Retrieved 12 February 2018 from http://naturalresources.intersearch.com.au/naturalresourcesjspui/bitstream/1/16314/1/Gough_Sharpley%202005.pdf.

  16. Department of Education Tasmania. (2006). The student at the centre: Supporting improving schools plan 2006–2007. A summary. Hobart: Department of Education Tasmania.

    Google Scholar 

  17. DEST (Department of Education, Science and Training) (2006). Family-school partnerships project: A qualitative and quantitative study. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Science and Training, Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 15 February 2018 from http://familyschool.org.au/files/6613/7955/4781/muller.pdf.

  18. Epstein, J. (2010). School, family and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. New York: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Flowers, R., & Chodkiewicz, A. (2009). Local communities and schools tackling sustainability and climate change. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 25, 71–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gleeson, B. (2006). Australia’s toxic cities: Modernity’s paradox? In B. Gleeson & N. Sipe (Eds.), Creating child friendly cities: Reinstating kids in the city (pp. 33–48). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Guevara, J. R. (2006). Re-conceptualizing the practice of school–community learning partnerships for sustainability. Paper presented at the 10th UNESCO APEID International Conference, “Learning together for tomorrow: Education for sustainable development”, held in Bangkok 6–8 December. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok. Retrieved 9 February 2008 from http://www.unescobkk.org/index.php?id=5512.

  22. Henderson, K. & Tilbury, D. (2004). Whole-school approaches to sustainability: An international review of sustainable schools programs. A report prepared by the Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability (ARIES) for The Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australian Government. Canberra, ACT/Sydney, NSW: Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability (ARIES)/Macquarie University. Retrieved 15 February 2018 from http://www.peecworks.org/peec/peec_research/0179AC37-001D0211.0/international%20review%20of%20whole%20school%20sust.%20progs.pdf.

  23. Kearns, P. (2012). Learning cities as healthy green cities: Building sustainable opportunity cities. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 52(2), 368–391. Retrieved 15 February 2018 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1000175.pdf.

  24. Kilpatrick, S., Jones, S. & Mulford, B. (2003). Maturing school–community partnerships: Developing learning communities in rural Australia. CRLRA Discussion Paper D2/2003. Hobart: University of Tasmania, Centre for Research and Learning in regional Australia (CRLRA). Retrieved 15 February 2018 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242181518_Maturing_school-_community_partnerships_Developing_learning_communities_in_rural_Australia.

  25. Knowlton Cockett, P., Dyment, J., Espinet, M., & Huang, Y. (2017). School partnerships are key to vibrant and sustainable cities. In A. Russ & A. E. Krasny (Eds), Urban environmental education review (pp. 133–143). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Chapter preview retrieved 1 November 2016 from http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2016/05/05/school-partnerships-for-urban-environmental-education/.

  26. Longworth, N. (2006). Learning cities, learning regions, learning communities: Lifelong learning and local government. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lonsdale, M. (2011). School–community partnerships benefit all. Research Developments, 25(11), 9–11. Retrieved 15 February 2018 from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1090&context=resdev.

  28. McTaggart, R. (1989). Principles for participatory action research. Paper presented to the 3rd World encounter on participatory research, held in Managua 3–9 September.

  29. Malone, K. (2006). United Nations: A key player in a global movement for child friendly cities. In B. Gleeson & N. Sipe (Eds.), Creating child friendly cities: Reinstating kids in the city (pp. 13–32). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mogensen, F., & Mayer, M. (2005). Trends and divergences in the national reports – a comparative analysis. In F. Mogensen & M. Mayer (Eds), ECO-schools – trends and divergences: A comparative study on ECO-school development processes in 13 countries (pp. 52–68). Vienna: Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Dept. V/11c, Environmental Education Affairs. Retrieved 15 February 2018 from http://www.ensi.org/global/downloads/Publications/173/ComparativeStudy1.pdf.

  31. nidirect (n.d.). Extended schools [Northern Ireland government webpage]. Retrieved 20 March 2017 from https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/extended-schools.

  32. Platform for Advancing Green Human Capital (2016). Green jobs, skills, education and training. Reflections from COP21: inspiring dialogues on the road to COP22. Bonn: UNESCO International Centre for Technical and Vocational Education and Training (UNEVOC) et al. Retrieved 20 October 2016 from http://www.unevoc.unesco.org/up/COP21brochure.pdf.

  33. Rathzel, N., & Uzzell, D. (2009). Transformative environmental education: A collective rehearsal for reality. Environmental Education Research, 15(3), 263–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sheridan, S. M., & Moorman Kim, E. (2016). Family–school partnerships in context. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Smith, J.-A., Wheeler, L., Guevara, J. R., Gough, A., & Fien, J. (2012). Conversations on school–community learning partnerships for sustainability (A guidebook). Bundoora, Vic: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, School of Education. Retrieved 1 August 2016 from http://www.rmit.edu.au/about/our-education/academic-schools/education/research/projects/schoolcommunity-learning-partnerships.

  36. Steele, F., & M. Singh (2008). Education for sustainability through secondary school knowledge networks: Policy dilemmas. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE), held in Brisbane 30 Nov–4 Dec 4. Paper code STE 08649. Retrieved 15 February 2018 from https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2008/ste08649.pdf.

  37. UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) (2008). School–community partnerships: A guide. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Mental Health in Schools at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Retrieved 15 February 2018 from http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/guides/schoolcomm.pdf.

  38. UIL (UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning) (2013). Key features of learning cities. In UNESCO, International conference on learning cities. Lifelong learning for all: Inclusion, prosperity and sustainability in cities (pp. 27–36). Conference report, 21–23 October, Beijing. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). Retrieved 15 February 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002267/226720e.pdf.

  39. UIL (2014). UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities [flyer]. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). Retrieved 7 November, 2016 from http://www.uil.unesco.org/fileadmin/keydocuments/LifelongLearning/learning-cities/en-unesco-learning-cities-flyer.pdf.

  40. UIL (2015a). Mexico City Statement on sustainable learning cities. In UNESCO. 2nd International Conference on Learning Cities: Building sustainable learning cities (pp. 62–64) Conference Report, 28–30 September, Mexico City. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). Retrieved 15 February 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002446/244623e.pdf.

  41. UIL (2015b). Guidelines for building learning cities: UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). Retrieved 8 August 2017 from http://www.uil.unesco.org/fileadmin/keydocuments/LifelongLearning/learning-cities/en-guidelines-for-building-learning-cities.pdf.

  42. UN (United Nations) (2015). Sustainable development goals. 17 Goals to transform our world [online resource]. Retrieved 9 November 2016 from http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/.

  43. Uzzell, D. (1999). Education for environmental action in the community: New roles and relationships. Cambridge journal of education, 29(3), 397–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wadsworth, Y. (1997). Everyday evaluation on the run (2nd ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wadsworth, Y. (2006). The mirror, the magnifying glass, the compass and the map: Facilitating participatory action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of Action Research: Concise (Paperback ed., pp. 322–334). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Walker, D., & Nocon, H. (2007). Boundary-crossing competence: Theoretical considerations and educational design. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(3), 178–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wals, A. E. J. (2014). Social learning-oriented capacity-building for critical transitions towards sustainability. In R. Jucker & R. Mathar (Eds.), Schooling for sustainable development in Europe: Concepts, policies and educational experiences at the end of the UN decade of education for sustainable development (pp. 87–107). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wheeler, L., Wong, S., Farrell, J., & Wong, I. (2013). Learning as a driver for change. Sydney, NSW: Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG), University of Technology. Retrieved 20 March 2017 from https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/42056.

  49. Wheeler, L., Lang, J., et al. (2014a). Conversations in school: Community learning partnerships for sustainability. In I. Bartkowiak-Théron & K. Anderson (Eds.), Knowledge in action: University-community engagement in Australia (pp. 183–208). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wheeler, L., Wong, S., & Blunden, P. (2014a). Learning community framework and measuring impact toolkit, vol. 2. Sydney, NSW: Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG), University of Technology. Retrieved 20 March 2017 from https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/42098.

  51. Wheeler, L., Wong, S., & Blunden, P. (2014b). Learning community framework and measuring impact toolkit, vol. 1. Sydney, NSW: Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG), University of Technology. Retrieved 20 March 2017 from https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/42098.

  52. Wheeler, L., & Wong, S. (2006). Learning communities in Victoria: Where to now? In C. Duke, L. Doyle, & B. Wilson (Eds.), Making knowledge work: Sustaining learning communities and regions (pp. 134–144). Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wierenga, A., Wyn, J., Guevara, J., Gough, A., Schultz, L., Beadle, S., King, J. (2008). Youth-led learning: Local connections and global citizenship. Melbourne, Vic: Australian Youth Research Centre (AYRC).

  54. Yarnit, M. (2013). Whatever became of the learning city? Paper presented at the 11th PASCAL International Observatory Conference, “Cities learning together: Local communities in the sustainable and healthy learning city”, held in Hong Kong 18–20 November.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported under the Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects funding scheme (Project LP098314). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Australian Research Council. Partners in the project included the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, Sustainability Victoria (SV), Centre for Education and Research in Environmental Strategies (CERES), South East Councils Climate Change Alliance (SECCCA), Foundation for Young Australians (FYA), Independent Schools Victoria (ISV), and Yarra Ranges Council (YRC). The chief investigators on the project were Professor John Fien, Professor Annette Gough, Associate Professor Jose Roberto Guevara, Dr Leone Wheeler and Dr Jodi-Anne Smith. The authors wish to express their appreciation to Professors Fien and Gough for their ongoing guidance. We also thank our research partners for truly making this research not just about learning partnerships but also conducted through learning partnerships. We especially want to recognise the valuable contribution of Eric Bottomley who passed away in the middle of the research. We dedicate this article to him for his commitment to learning for sustainability through his work at CERES and with the Victorian Government’s ResourceSmart Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative (AuSSI) programme.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Leone Wheeler & Jose Roberto Guevara

  2. Meadows, Australia

    Jodi-Anne Smith

Authors
  1. Leone Wheeler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jose Roberto Guevara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jodi-Anne Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leone Wheeler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wheeler, L., Guevara, J.R. & Smith, JA. School–community learning partnerships for sustainability: Recommended best practice and reality. Int Rev Educ 64, 313–337 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-018-9717-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • sustainability
  • learning
  • communities
  • schools
  • partnership
  • local government