It's Who You Know "and" What You Know: The Process of Creating Partnerships between Schools and Communities.
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Based on qualitative research, this article aims to clarify the process of creating school-community partnerships. Two secondary schools with numerous partnerships were selected within a southern Ontario school board characterized by economic and cultural diversity. Drawing on the within- and cross-case analyses of documents, observations, and 25 semi-structured interviews with 2 principals, 1 office manager, 8 teachers and 19 community partners, the process of creating partnerships is discussed from educational and ecological perspectives. The findings indicated that the majority of the partnerships were teacher-initiated, and the liaison types sought were based on their determination of their students' and programs' needs. The most effective partnering strategy was to promote the benefits of liaising from the initial contact. Meetings in person and the negotiation of partnership activities created win-win relationships. The influence of school and community contexts on partnership development is also discussed. The principals' support created school cultures that built staff capacity and were conducive to partnerships. The nature of the community influenced the types of partners available for collaborating. Issues of partner proximity, limited time and money, and personal capacities were potential challenges to partnering, while networking facilitated the process. The article aims to assist both educators and researchers to better understand the partnership process and to enable educators to effectively establish partnerships with community members. Key Words: school-community relations, partnerships, high school, community involvement, partnership development, human ecology, systems theory Introduction For several decades, educational researchers have been advocating the benefits of partnerships between schools, families, and communities as a means for promoting student achievement (Davies & Johnson, 1996; Epstein & Sanders, 1998; Henderson, 1987; Swap, 1993). With frequent interactions between the partners, it is more likely that common sentiments regarding the importance of school, of exerting academic effort, of assisting others, and of in school will be reiterated and subsequently reinforced by a variety of influences on the students (Epstein, 1995). Conversely, researchers demonstrate that a lack of attention and support from the adults in the students' lives, an absence of discipline, and not staying on them or prodding the students are considered the most important barriers to educational success by educators, community mentors, and students (Shapiro, Ginsberg & Brown, 2002). A number of schools and their boards are arriving at the same conclusion- that collaboration is an avenue through which students' needs may be met and achievement promoted. In our economically and culturally diverse society, the gap in student achievement between advantaged and disadvantaged groups is widening (Davies, 2002). Schools are finding it increasingly difficult to create educational programs to address the diverse needs of the students (Merz & Furman, 1997) with the finances and the resources available to them. Consequently, some school personnel are seeking to garner financial and material resources, as well as social support and educational experiences, to supplement students' in-school learning opportunities. These principals and teachers view partnerships as a way to provide a support network for each student. For secondary school students, it may be particularly important to cultivate partnerships with community organizations and citizens, along with parents, to address the students' needs. Adolescents who are transitioning from school to work or post-secondary educational institutions may learn to anticipate variations in the occupational and social practices and the values systems beyond the school walls, in comparison to those of their families and those within the school. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,036 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,034 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,023 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle