Collaboration between schools and community education agencies in tackling social exclusion

Abstract

This paper describes the nature of the joint initiatives taking place between primary and secondary schools in Scotland and community education providers in local authorities and the voluntary sector, as reported on by the schools themselves. It details the characteristics of the relatively few schools which had strong links with their communities in terms of provision, collaboration and participation in decision making. Ten case-study schools and a detailed comparison of practice are used to illustrate the variety of approaches to collaboration found among them. Differences are explained not only in terms of the actors' perceptions of the purposes of the collaboration, the values inherent in such perceptions, the conditions under which collaboration took place and the practices in operation but also in more analytic terms of institutional boundaries and pedagogic purpose. It is suggested that this analysis will help plot various models of collaborative practice and provide a useful way of interrogating the multifaceted strands of social inclusion policy.

Collaborative Partnership in the higher education curriculum: a cross-sector study of foundation degree development

“…Other researchers who have studied the nature of collaboration and partnership in curriculum development have found that the critical success factors include a clear articulation of the aims of each of the stakeholders taking part in the project and convergence of those aims towards a common purpose (Field, 1995;Jones, 2000;Tett et al, 2001;Clegg & McNulty, 2002). This is borne out by this study.…”

Collaborative partnership between HE and employers: a study of workforce development

“…This clearly depends on stability of personnel until completion of the job and also the personnel involved having good skills of networking and project management (Geddes, 1997). Collaboration is easier where there is a greater degree of similarity in the organizational structures, purpose and philosophies between the partners (Jones, 2000;Tett et al, 2001). In this study there was no existing formal relationship but the small academic pool of people engaged with human/animal behaviour meant that both organizations were aware of the work of the other.…”

“…An analysis of the literature points to a number of commonalities in the benefits and problems associated with partnership work (see Geddes, 1997;Appelbee, 1998;Gilchrist, 1998;Hughes & Carmichael, 1998;Machell, 1999;Jones, 2000;Tett et al, 2001Tett et al, , 2003Clegg & McNulty, 2002). The participants in the development have to at least perceive that the benefits outweigh the costs.…”

“…Other researchers of collaborative curriculum partnerships have found that one of the critical success factors is a clear articulation of the aims of each of the stakeholders and convergence of those aims towards a common purpose (Field, 1995;Jones, 2000;Tett et al, 2001;Clegg & McNulty, 2002). The strategic aims are usually agreed and subscribed to by all the partners and stated publicly in programme documentation.…”

“…There are many different definitions of collaborative partnerships (see Huxham, 1996;Pratt et al, 1998;Tett et al, 2001Tett et al, , 2003. At its simplest form, it is about working jointly together with at least one other person/group.…”