It's Who You Know "and" What You Know: The Process of Creating Partnerships between Schools and Communities.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".