Keywords

Introduction

Cooperation and partnership play a foundational role in all non-human and human interaction and interrelationships in the environment (Capra, 1994/2009; Marten, 2001; Steiner, 2002). “In the self-organization of ecosystems, cooperation is actually much more important than competition” (Capra, 1994/2009, p. 8), which is reflected in the extensive network relationships in any society, with information and resources flowing in and across networks (Capra, 1994/2009; Marten, 2001; Steiner, 2002). Because cooperation is so prevalent in our world, it is a surprising contrast when we find it is not present.

Often culturally and economically diverse, urban schools are depicted as islands in the community, cut off from the neighbourhoods they are supposed to serve, disconnected from the lives students and their families lead outside of the school. A comprehensive meta-analysis of research on community involvement in North American urban schools revealed an overwhelming number of schools with limited community engagement (Schutz, 2006). While this analysis focused on the United States, similarly, in Canada, school personnel and community members such as parents were not frequently sharing their resources, and fitting their knowledge together (Pushor, 2007). Authentic partnerships, in which all parties are viewed as having resources and able to democratically engage in a collaborative relationship (Auerbach, 2011; Hands, in press) are uncommon.

Students with the greatest need for support in diverse, urban settings are least likely to be connected to their community (Schutz, 2006). In observing the disconnect between youth and the adults in their lives, influential American ethics scholar, Nel Noddings (1992), noted that children and youth are cast adrift in an adult world they perceive to be baffling at best and hostile at worst, so it is no wonder they think adults do not care about them and their concerns. Noddings’ (1992) solution at its core is the establishment of caring relationships between youth and the adults surrounding them, building bonds of trust and nurturing over time to support and prepare youth to take their place in society as positively contributing citizens.

Youth, educators and community members alike have identified support from community members as vital to keeping youth engaged in their education by providing them with consistent messages about the importance of obtaining an education and persevering to achieve their academic goals (Epstein, 1995, 2011; Epstein et al., 2018; Shapiro et al., 2002). It can also strengthen trust and build their resilience when dealing with adversity (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). Recognizing the critical need to re-establish family-school-community relations, intentional, deliberately cultivated partnerships have been touted to provide relevant educational opportunities and support for students as well as strengthen community ties since the early 1980s (Epstein, 1995, 2011; Epstein et al., 2018).

Chapter Overview

Community engagement exists on a continuum from no engagement or few connections between schools and their communities, to interagency collaboration, to full-service community schools and community development, which reflect the most integrated relationship between schools and their communities (Valli et al., 2016). This chapter examines community engagement from a North American perspective, drawing heavily on American empirical literature and research studies conducted in Ontario, Canada and California, USA. The common themes from three studies of school-community partnerships at schools with numerous relationships and collaborative activities are presented and discussed. While these studies focus on interagency collaboration, the findings are broadly applicable, as they relate to human interaction, which is a foundational component of full-service schools just as they are for any school with partnerships. First, the chapter looks at strategies that individuals deploy and their resulting impact when seeking to establish and maintain collaborative activities. Moreover, collaboration does not take place in a vacuum; partnering success or failure is contingent on the social contexts that make collaborating across multiple sectors and organisations simple or complex. Consequently, the chapter explores enabling factors and challenges in the social contexts surrounding school-community collaboration and concludes with recommendations for policy and practice.

A Close-up of the School-Community Partnership Process

Collaboration is not widespread, even with increasing interest in school-community partnerships. Consequently, there is room to examine features that critically impact possibilities for partnering and relationship sustainability. District- and school-level administrators, teachers, and community business owners, plus representatives from non-profit organisations, social services and other public sector institutions have reflected on their successful and not-so-successful professional relationships, reporting strikingly similar experiences. Their insights and advice have contributed to a map of the partnership process, revealing a pattern of seven distinct stages, and feedback loops in which collaborators share information with each other (Epstein et al., 2018; Hands, 2005, 2014, in press; Sanders & Harvey, 2002). These stages are explored below.

  • Stage 1: Identify own needs and goals (student, school, programme, or community partner).

  • Stage 2: Locate potential partners.

  • Stage 3: Initiate contact among potential partners and begin collaborative discussions.

  • Stage 4: Negotiate partnership terms (goals, activities).

  • Stage 5: Create win–win situation whereby all partners benefit.

  • Stage 6: Engage in collaborative activities.

  • Stage 7: Assess activities in terms of their ability to meet needs and goals.

In the first three stages, partnership initiators identify stakeholder needs and goals and contact potential collaborators. Partnerships involving schools, their employees or the students themselves are most commonly based on students’ needs and school administrators and teachers most often identify them (Stage 1) (Epstein et al., 2018; Hands, 2005). If partnership initiators determine that stakeholder needs and goals cannot be met within their organization, they seek out potential collaborators who can likely help to achieve them (Stage 2) (Hands, 2005). Contact is most easily initiated through the individuals’ social and professional networks, although initiators will reach out to people they do not know if they believe the potential partners can contribute to the relationship (Stage 3) (Hands, 2005, in press).

During Stages 4 and 5, school and district personnel and their prospective community partners discuss possibilities for partnering and establish collaborative activities in which all parties may benefit. First meetings often focus on building rapport among potential collaborators who do not know one another and seeking commonalities, such as shared interests and goals (Hands, 2005). Next, collaborators negotiate a win–win relationship with benefits for both sides. Relationships may not always be equal or quantitatively equitable: partnership terms need to satisfy collaborators’ needs, and resources that may seem inconsequential for one party might be highly valued by the other (Hands, 2005, in press).

Once the partnership terms are defined and the collaborative activities are developed, the participants engage in the activities and assess the activities’ success in meeting their needs and goals during Stages 6 and 7. Partners create feedback loops, communicating their observations and evaluations to one another in an ongoing manner, comparing their experiences with their established needs and goals (Hands, 2005, in press). If needs and goals are met, they continue engaging in the collaborative activities, and celebrate successes (Sanders & Harvey, 2002). If at any time they are not met, collaborators renegotiate terms, modifying the partnership or the activities as needed (Hands, 2005, in press).

Partnership Features and Partnering Practices That Promote School-Community Collaboration

Having a clearly articulated partnering method is a promising direction for improving school-community collaboration, but it is only part of the story. Some potential liaisons run up against unexpected obstacles despite concerted efforts to collaborate. It is therefore worthwhile to closely examine the partnership process, looking for essential components that may make or break school-community relations, and any tactics collaborators use to successfully develop their partnerships and maintain relationships over time. In doing so, this section highlights the importance of the relations among various people as well as ways in which to enact formal relationships among school personnel and community organizations’ representatives that promote collaboration and limit potential conflict.

Involve All Constituents in Collaboration Discussions from the Beginning

Partnerships may cross sectors involving multiple groups, and collaborators need to be prepared to engage with diverse individuals with different perspectives and ways of working with others. According to a city leisure services manager, “it’s not something you can do on your own. It’s got to be a two- or three-way conversation. With all the partners. You know, to get everybody’s input…. You need to get people to come in on it with you”. Everyone who is affected by a policy or practice needs to be involved in negotiating the shared goals, interpreting any guiding policy with an intent to reach a common understanding, and developing collaborative activities (Epstein, 2011; Epstein et al., 2018; FitzGerald & Quiñones, 2018; Hands, 2005).

Students also need to be included in partnership creation if they are involved in the collaborative activities in any capacity. Students can play an integral role in advocating for school change and initiatives involving community members with some guidance from the adults around them (Mitra, 2007, 2009; Yonezawa & Jones, 2011). While students and educators alike may think it is not part of a student role to participate in a formative way in curriculum or community engagement initiatives (Hands, 2014), teachers and educational administrators in particular might consider adopting an inclusive approach to ensure students’ voices are heard throughout the partnership development and implementation processes.

Similarly, any teachers or support staff who are expected to develop relationships with the community should be involved in discussions. Including diverse groups of people to define a purpose for partnering that is shared by everyone promotes constituent buy-in that is crucial for not only the initiation of a relationship but also its longevity (Datnow, 2000). It is a step towards creating “respectful alliances among educators, families, and community groups that value relationship building, dialogue, and power sharing as a part of socially just, democratic schools” (Auerbach, 2010, p. 729).

Promote Partnering Benefits

It is best to promote the benefits of partnering to potential partners from the beginning of the relationship (Hands, 2005). This requires initiators to have a good idea of what they can offer that would be of interest to the potential partners. Organizations’ missions and visions shape the kinds of partnerships sought or whether they are sought at all. For example, some community-based organizations such as the YMCA or Public Health may have mandates to work with children and youth, while schools may have a vision to promote holistic education and goals to include physical literacy, mental health or the arts (Hands, in press). Consequently, partnerships are sought with organizations that align with their missions and visions and can support their goals (Hands, 2005, 2014, in press). From the district and school perspective, generally, relationships involving school personnel and their students are not likely to come to fruition if there is no clear benefit to the students. It is important for community members to explicitly articulate the benefits to students when seeking partnerships with schools and underscore any direct links between academic curricula and the learning opportunities they are offering (Hands, 2005, in press).

In the process of promoting the benefits, it is important to clearly outline the relationship parameters. Collaborators understand their and their organisations’ limitations and are forthcoming about what they are able and willing to do within the parameters of the relationships; similarly, they are clear about what they want from their potential partners. Clear communication reduces chances partners’ expectations are not met and increases their confidence that their time and expertise are valued (Hands, in press).

Embed Flexible Negotiation and Partnership Terms into Relationships

School personnel and community members alike have noted that flexibility is a key feature in partnering to ensure relationships are relevant. Collaborators are willing to accommodate their prospective partners from the beginning, shaping the terms of the relationship so that they can create a mutually beneficial partnership. At the same time, partnerships need parameters: “a structure in place that has to be flexible enough to accommodate everybody, but also where it’s not loose, or nobody knows quite what’s happening, when it’s happening, and how we are doing along the way”, observed a district superintendent. The collaborative activities also have room to change the partnership over time as needs evolved. Even with formal, contractual partnerships, “leaving some things vague and some things open, … we can make modifications if we have to”, according to a college broadcasting programme coordinator.

Opportunity to assess ongoing collaborative activities and communicate them to collaborators are essential ways to ensure policies and relationships are adjusted to meet all constituents’ needs or terminated if they cannot. Collaborators need “the option of exiting, where it’s not just ‘Okay, we just don’t show up anymore’”, according to the superintendent. A plan from the beginning of the relationship for ending a partnership with activities that could not be altered to accommodate participants’ needs helps to keep the doors open for future collaboration (Hands, 2005, in press). Flexibility is adaptive, promoting resiliency and enabling partnerships to be sustained over time (Capra, 1994/2009).

Social Contexts and Practices That Challenge School-Community Relations

The school, district and community contexts can create conditions conducive to partnering, or they can make it difficult to collaborate. Many of these challenges are not unique, and in the section that follows, various approaches to enhancing opportunities to collaborate and strategies for overcoming challenges are examined.

Territorialism, and Opening Schools up to Collaboration

Schools are contested territory (Boyd & Crowson, 1993; Keith, 1996). Multiple organisations, each with a mandate to support youth and responsibilities to carry out their mission as well as staff to guide towards their goals, can come into conflict with one another when they are all working under the same roof. Problems develop when community partners’ mandates are not clearly understood, and there is a mismatch between educators’ expectations and partners’ capacity. Challenges may also occur when organisations are using school space after school hours, during the week, on weekends and during the summer. Questions arise regarding who has authority when the principal is not on site after hours and there are potential problems when classrooms are used. Community members and educators both report that some teachers are not supportive of community engagement in the school because users can leave the classes in disarray or damage classroom materials (Hands, in press).

The risk of potential territorial friction is minimized when school personnel reach out to community organisations to partner, inviting them into the schools. For several years, researchers investigating school-family-community partnerships have recommended that school leaders and teachers initiate collaborative activities with family and community members (see for example Epstein, 2011; Epstein et al., 2018; Sanders & Harvey, 2002; Sheldon, 2005), and with good reason: families are more readily involved in their children’s education when they feel welcomed by school personnel (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1992; Walker et al., 2005). The same is true for community members who may not know how to navigate the school system and are not able to initiate activities (Hands, in press; Sanders, 2018). Ontario’s mandated school councils, which are made up of parents, teachers, administrators and community members, can function as action teams (Hands, 2013) to develop and maintain school-family-community partnerships (Epstein et al., 2018), as can district-level community liaisons (Hands, in press). Similarly, the full-service community schools literature highlights the importance of a site coordinator to establish and maintain diverse school-community collaborative activities at the school (Durham et al., 2019; Mayger & Hochbein, 2021; Sanders et al., 2019).

For those community members with established partnerships in schools, it is important to maintain respectful engagement. Some community partners—particularly those working with students in educational institutions during school hours, report they take their direction from principals, and try to be good “guests” while they are in the schools. One child and youth worker who ran a pull-out programme for students with mental health and substance abuse issues within a school explained that meant he helped to coach collegiate sports, the school personnel were allowed to use his organization’s van to transport students to sporting events, and he and his colleagues worked to minimize any potential disruption to the rest of the school community from his clients (Hands, in press).

Address Limited Understandings of Community

Partnerships are usually initiated based on a schools’ agenda (Pushor, 2007), with goals that are not necessarily shared by the community members (Hands, in press). A mismatch between educators’ and students’ socioeconomic status or cultural experiences can create a divide between the teachers and the youth and their families, whereby they work in isolation at best or in opposition to one another in the worst scenarios (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). A mismatch limits the provision of culturally relevant educational experiences to engage the students in their learning (Dei et al., 2000) and threatens to break down communication and trust (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Without allowing families and community members space to negotiate their involvement in education, they are not authentically engaged in ways that are meaningful to them (Auerbach, 2011; Barton et al., 2004; FitzGerald & Quiñones, 2018).

At times, the challenge lies within the individuals in the school building. Some educators adopt a deficit view of the community, assuming that residents need the school’s resources, rather than being able to provide others with any resources of their own. In one school with relatively few partnerships, the principal observed:

There’s a tremendous sense of community and a tremendous sense of, “We will take care of each other and try to take care of each other’s kids.”… The difficulty lies in the skill sets in order to get that accomplished…. to solve the problems and move forward are not always there.

With this approach, community involvement is not sought because the educators do not think the community has anything to offer (Keith, 1999). A school ethos that values collaboration is not fostered, and community engagement is not sought or welcome (Hands, in press). Schools remain siloed, separate from the communities they serve, and running the risk of providing irrelevant educational opportunities that do not meet societal needs.

Most importantly, all constituents need to share a philosophy that educating students cannot be left to the schools alone. One Community-based Education teacher captured the sentiments of other study participants and the mindset that encourages seamless, unobstructed exchanges between schools and communities: “I think education is a community responsibility…. If it’s left to us—the educators—then it’s not going to happen to its fullest potential.” A secondary school guidance counsellor offered:

If we can have the community in and out of the school, and the school involved in different things in the community, then our kids’ll benefit. And I think that’s what needs to [take place] for real education to happen.

An outward-looking perspective that values the resources different constituents can potentially bring to a relationship needs to be adopted in place of a deficit approach, which views community members as needing support rather than as providers of support (Auerbach, 2011; Keith, 1999).

When school personnel have a philosophy that promotes community engagement as an essential educational component in place, they may be more inclined to seek out information about the communities surrounding their schools. With few educators living and working in the same community (Coleman & Hoffer, 1987; Hands, 2005), most need information about the neighbourhoods their schools are serving. Conducting an environmental scan is a strategy for gaining an appreciation of the community, its characteristics, as well as the residents’ needs and resources before setting up any relationships. School and district personnel as well as any interested parties can access publicly available Canadian statistics to build a picture of community demographics across the provinces, territories and country. At some individual schools in Ontario, school councils have been encouraged to seek out additional data from the school district, regarding student and family characteristics, such as languages spoken in the home (Hands, 2013). They also conduct surveys to find out how families are involved and how they are using community resources (Hands, 2013). School personnel can also visit students and their families at home (Hiatt-Michael, 2010), and district personnel can conduct community visits to get to know residents (Hands, 2013). A thorough review ensures initiators understand what others need and can therefore select partners with missions and visions that are compatible with theirs and promote the potential benefits of collaborating.

Ensure Alignment Among Policies and Practices

At other times, the social contexts external to the school negatively impact possibilities for partnering in the building. Even if governments are supportive of community engagement in education, legislation and the numerous mandates and guidelines for schools can conflict with one another and impede collaboration. The same is true for district-level policies and practices. For example, funding for school renovations was contingent on the schools having enough students to be populated at 83% capacity according to one study’s participants (Hands, in press). At the district level, schools near one another with low enrolment were being combined so they were eligible for refurbishing. While provincial government administrators may want to encourage collaboration, policies around school renovation reduce possibilities for partnering because high student capacity limits the available space in the school for services and community resources. According to a district social work department head, “if I realise there’s just no way that I’m gonna have any room in buildings to bring in partners, then I’m not gonna waste my time bringing in partners”. The choice is between buildings that meet safety regulations as well as students’ learning and educators’ teaching needs and community engagement in education.

Although relationships among policies and their impact on one another are not always evident, policies at the district and provincial or state levels can compete and conflict with one another. Policy is often drafted as a response to a problem or to address an issue (Fowler, 2004; Malen, 2005). Policymakers would do well to survey the policy landscape with their goals in mind to identify any potential conflict before drafting new policy that may create other problems. A failure to do so leaves policy implementers, such as school administrators and teachers—who are able to initiate and maintain relationships with community members—with the task of prioritizing conflicting policies. Since community engagement is not always mandated, as is the case in Ontario, policies of that nature run the risk of being sidelined in favour of legislation or policies deemed more important (Clune, 1990).

Conclusions

Collaboration and partnerships are essential to life on this planet (Capra, 1994/2009). This is not surprising. Collaboration allows access to resources individuals would not have otherwise. In the case of school-community relationships, opportunities to share knowledge and expertise, material goods and funds, may enhance learning opportunities for students, programming support for educators, as well as provide information, skills and a workforce for the community. This kind of bi-directional resource exchange between schools and their wider communities promotes relevant education that reflects the communities’ contexts and may become more sustainable over time because the feedback accompanying such an exchange allows for modifications over time (Capra, 1999). From an ecological perspective, this kind of adaptability promotes resilience, or “the ability of social systems and ecosystems to continue functioning despite severe and unexpected stresses” (Marten, 2001, p. 158).

Insights from studies of the school-community partnering process inform us about the necessary ingredients collaborators require for developing mutually beneficial relationships— and alert us to potential pitfalls. Resources, such as time to develop and to participate in collaborative activities, a budget to support activities related to partnership development and engagement, a steering committee to coordinate and support community involvement initiatives, guidance, and leadership at the school and district levels (Sanders, 1999) are helpful and may be essential for effective collaboration. Yet, they alone do not guarantee successful partnering. The partnership features discussed, as well as less tangible elements such as participants’ mindsets and social contexts, may also play a role in school-community collaborative successes and failures.

There is a promising shift in some North American societies presenting opportunities for reconnecting communities with their schools. A growing number of schools and their districts are opening the doors to community engagement in education (Sanders, 1999, 2001), in some cases working closely with their partners in full-service community schools (Biag & Castrechini, 2016; Mayger & Hochbein, 2021; Sanders, 2018; Valli et al., 2016). Resilience is promoted not only within individual partnerships, but the partnerships themselves assist school systems to weather the storms of social change. Community engagement is not a substitute for “sound educational policies, adequate funding, or excellent teaching. It can, however, … be the little extra that makes a big difference” (Sanders, 2003, p. 176), enabling educators and community members alike to meet the diverse needs of the children in our communities (Hands, 2005; Keith, 1996). Engaging multiple constituents from across communities is a way to support all students so they have opportunities to flourish academically, physically, socially and emotionally.