Leadership in School-community Partnerships

Abstract

Over the decades, a wide variety of educational reforms have attempted to improve schools and student outcomes. Schoolcommunity partnerships are among the currently popular reform initiatives. In these initiatives, schools expand the traditional educational mission of the school to include health and social services for children and families and to involve the broader community. Such partnerships have been found to support student learning, strengthen schools and families, and help neighbourhoods flourish. Although the research on these partnerships indicates a variety of models, strategies, and purposes, it is clear about one thing: the vital role of leadership. Through a close review of the literature, we developed a typology of four types of partnerships, ranging from least to most comprehensive in purpose and design: Family and Interagency Collaboration, FullService Schools, Full-Service Community Schools, and a Community Development Model. These categories provided the framework necessary to comparatively analyse the role of leadership in each of these models. Our analysis indicates the importance of leadership, across all four models, at all levels of the organization. The more comprehensive the model, the more important "cross-boundary" leadership became.

Crossing Boundaries: A Qualitative Exploration of Relational Leadership in Three Full-Service Community Schools

“…In these buildings, a range of support services is provided by community agencies to help overcome the many barriers that schools face in producing successful students. (p. 7) Full-service community schools, then, require leaders with the skills to overcome traditional school norms of isolation in order to build bridges between and among key stakeholders within and outside the school walls (Smrekar & Mawhinney, 1999;Valli, Stefanski, & Jacobson, 2014). Without such leadership, conventional school structures, roles, and patterns of interaction are likely to prevail, resulting in parallel rather than integrated and overlapping programming among service providers and other school actors (Crowson & Boyd, 1996).…”

“…Full-service community schools, in particular, require cross-boundary school leaders prepared to carry out such practices because the social capital on which these schools depend and seek to generate is only possible through expanded relationships (Valli et al, 2014). That is, the essence of full-service community schools is more extensive resources for children's learning and well-being that result from horizontal and vertical ties among school administrators, teachers and staff, families, and community partners.…”

“…Several studies have found that principals play a unique and essential role in facilitating cross-boundary collaboration and these schools' success (Abrams & Gibbs, 2000;Valli et al, 2014). For example, using qualitative methods, Jean-Marie and colleagues (2010) found that principals in effective full-service community schools are critical in creating the structures and norms that make boundary spanning relationships possible and, in turn, use these relationships to diffuse reform principles.…”

Figure of community support in achieving Muhammadiyah school autonomy progress

“…In fact, their role is not only the funds, but community is entitled to give aspirations, ideas, creativity to develop, services, donate their knowledge, even moral. Community support can be divided into 4 categories: 1) emotional support, in form of appreciation, affection, trust, attention and willingness; 2) appraisal support, in form of approval, feedback, comparing positively, 3) informational support, in form of advice, advice, guidance, and information; and 4) instrumental support, in form of various kinds of real assistance both morale and material like money, energy, time [6], [7].…”

“…School relationships with community are important to do. It aims to: a) promote the importance of schooling for community; b) obtain necessary moral and financial support for school development; c) inform community about core and implementation of school program; 4) enrich or expand the school program as needed community, d) developing closer cooperation between family and school in educating children, e) maintaining school survival, f) improving school quality, g) expediting the learning process [7], [11]- [13].…”