Pathways to Community Engagement in Education: Collaboration in Diverse, Urban Neighbourhoods 3031330005, 9783031330001

Citation preview

Pathways to Community Engagement in Education Collaboration in Diverse, Urban Neighbourhoods Catherine M. Hands

Pathways to Community Engagement in Education “Catherine Hands reports her study of educators and community partners in schools serving students and families with low incomes. She adds historic, geographic, scientific, and folkloric stories to deepen our understanding of the complex processes in establishing strong partnerships that will increase all students’ learning, health, and well-being. Then—going further—she sets a bigger and broader agenda on school, family, and community partnerships for all of us to consider. Across chapters, the book grows in importance.” —Joyce L. Epstein, Professor of Education and Director of Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships, Johns Hopkins University, USA “Dr. Hands’ book makes a unique contribution to the field by highlighting the voices of diverse community stakeholders as they engage with the education sector. Hands’ timely text offers insights into the challenges and possibilities inherent in collaborative relationships as participants navigate increasingly complex political landscapes.” —Michael Evans, Associate Professor of Family, School, and Community Connections, Miami University, USA “This book is an overdue and welcome addition to the important subject of school-­community collaboration. In her book, Dr. Hands skillfully and engagingly tackles the theory, policy, practice, and research in this under-explored field. Not surprisingly, she underscores that doing the necessary work to ensure communities and schools collaborate effectively will ensure that all of our students—not just those living challenging lives—will benefit and we as educators and community members will create and nurture the kind of foundation inside and outside of the classroom needed by all of our students to thrive.” —Bryan Auld, Educator and Founder of Auld Educational Consultants, Canada “Catherine’s book invites a boundless audience to learn about the important role school-community collaborations have on their neighbourhoods. She has ingeniously framed each chapter with a story offering the reader a scaffold to better understand the intersectional and multifaceted discipline of community engagement in education, through the interconnectedness of our world. A thorough and inspirational read!” —Emilija Lafond, Educator and Director of Auxiliary Programs, Cambridge Montessori School, USA

“Hands provides a conceptual rendering of school-community relations in Pathways to Community Engagement in Education. Importantly, as the title suggests, she gives concrete expression to what it means to collaborate with community, which has become aspirational at all levels of our educational system but which can remain unrealized if such goals are steeped in platitudes or adages. The case studies upon which the book is centered are timely for emphasizing the value of, but also the challenges associated with, developing mutually beneficial community engagement policies and practices. It’s refreshing to have a more balanced commentary on this topic to dislodge oversimplified and romanticized thinking about what it means for schools to work with their inevitably complex external communities. Hands’ micro and macro level exploration would make Bronfenbrenner proud.” —Bonnie Stelmach, Professor of Educational Administration and Leadership, University of Alberta, Canada “Drawing on rich evidence, Pathways to Community Engagement in Education provides an in-depth look at how school-community partnerships can be a lever for school improvement and meeting the needs of diverse learners. This comprehensive volume is an invaluable resource for educators and researchers alike, as school-family-community relationships are more critical now than ever.” —Amanda Datnow, Professor and Chancellor’s Associates Endowed Chair, Department of Education Studies, and Associate Dean of Social Sciences, University of California, San Diego, USA

Catherine M. Hands

Pathways to Community Engagement in Education Collaboration in Diverse, Urban Neighbourhoods

Catherine M. Hands Faculty of Education Brock University Toronto, ON, Canada

ISBN 978-3-031-33000-1    ISBN 978-3-031-33001-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33001-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: © Alex Linch shutterstock.com This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

This book is dedicated to my husband, Stephen, and our daughter, Erin. As central members in my personal community, I am grateful for their ongoing support and encouragement. They inspire me as a person and citizen in a global community, and in my more local roles as a life partner, parent, and educator.

Foreword

Pathways to Community Engagement in Education: Collaboration in Diverse, Urban Neighbourhoods is a timely contribution to the literature on educational reform, and I am delighted to introduce readers to its content and author. I have followed Catherine Hands’ research for nearly two decades. She published her first article on community engagement in schools, “It’s Who You Know and What You Know: The Process of Creating Partnerships Between Schools and Communities” in 2005, the same year that I completed the manuscript for my first book on the topic, Building School-Community Partnerships: Collaboration for Student Success (2005). What was clear to me then and remains true today is that Catherine and I not only share theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of community engagement in schools but also share a deep belief in the strategy’s ability to help transform schools into the learning environments that all students deserve. Needless to say, I am thrilled with her latest contribution to the field. Catherine Hands has dedicated her professional career to understanding how schools can strengthen connections with families and communities to better serve students. Her work is part of a broader body of research on school, family, and community partnerships that gained ascendency in the 1980s and continues to develop and evolve as researchers focus on issues of equity, authenticity, and impact. Most research on partnerships focuses on family engagement in schools, while the literature on community engagement is more limited. Catherine Hands’ research has helped to close the knowledge gap on school-community collaboration, and this book greatly adds to that effort. ix

x 

FOREWORD

The book is unique in that it promotes conceptual (e.g., the lifecycle of the community partnership process) and practical (through case studies) understanding of community engagement in diverse urban contexts. Catherine Hands deftly draws on her own scholarship and that of other internationally recognized experts in the field to expand and deepen the understanding of school-community collaboration in its many forms, implementation challenges and strategies, and the benefits of collaboration for students, families, educators, and communities. The book begins with a historical account of community engagement in schools and concludes with thoughtful insights to advance research and practice on school-­ community collaboration. The chapters in between provide useful information on the key actors, policies, contexts, strategies, and principles that are essential for effective collaboration. The book is thus instructive and beneficial for readers across fields, disciplines, and roles including researchers, higher education faculty, graduate students, teachers, and school, district, state, and provincial education leaders and policymakers. The book’s focus on community collaboration as a strategy to create more equitable and emotionally supportive schools for students is especially timely. Schools are increasingly called on to take a Whole Child approach to students’ learning, health, and social and emotional well-­ being. Such demands will likely increase, given the impact of the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic on students’ mental health and educational outcomes (Rochester & Sanders, 2022). Successfully implementing a Whole Child approach requires resources that are beyond the scope of most schools. Communities can assist schools by providing needed materials, services, and social relationships. Developing stronger connections with students’ communities can also help schools address issues of inequity for underserved student populations. Catherine Hands’ book addresses such issues head on—drawing readers’ attention to how community engagement can be a strategy to meet the needs and promote the leadership of diverse student groups including Indigenous children and youth, 2SLGBTQIA+ students, students experiencing poverty, students with disabilities, and students who are newly arrived immigrants. School-community collaboration provides an opportunity for schools to understand and build on these students’ strengths while creating more socially just and humane educational spaces for all students. Pathways to Community Engagement in Education is fresh, authoritative, and compelling. Readers will find much to reflect on, apply, and share

 FOREWORD 

xi

with others. It is not a book to be read once and placed on a bookshelf. It is meant to be a reference and a guide for those who remain optimistic about the capacity of schools to serve as engines of social improvement and renewal, for as the author notes, “Collaboration really is essential to our existence.” Bethesda, MD

Mavis Sanders

References Hands, C. (2005). It’s who you know and what you know: The process of creating partnerships between schools and communities. School Community Journal, 15(2), 63–84. Rochester, S. E., & Sanders, M. G. (2022). Responding to the needs of the whole child: Principals’ reports of non-instructional investments during COVID-19. Journal of School Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/10526846221133993 Sanders, M. (2005). Building school-community partnerships: Collaboration for student success. Corwin Press.

Preface

Why should we care about school-community collaboration and creating ways for community residents to engage with their neighbourhood schools? I can hear myself asking this question years ago when I started my teaching career in an elementary classroom. Armed with pedagogical training, a passion for teaching and the optimistic enthusiasm of most new teachers, I set out to ignite my young students’ curiosity and interest in learning without giving a thought to the ways in which the community shaped the students I was teaching and their families, or to the potential assets that were contained within it. It was not long before I realized in-­ school experiences could not address all aspects of students’ intellectual, social, and emotional development. I started looking beyond my classroom door for human and material resources, and opportunities to collaborate with families and community members in the neighbourhood surrounding the school. The benefits of community engagement for my students and my teaching practice soon became apparent, kindling a long-­ term interest in school-community collaboration. I am not alone in my revelation about the value of school-community partnerships; there has been a rediscovery of community participation in education in recent years, and an acknowledgement of the advantages gained when school personnel and community members come together to support children and youth. School-community collaboration can promote educational excellence through socially relevant pedagogy and curriculum, and it can also support other aspects of children’s development by nurturing multiple supportive ties to the community through the creation of networks and the pooling of resources. Despite the human and xiii

xiv 

PREFACE

material resources that can be shared among schools and communities for the benefit of children and youth, school-community collaboration is not widespread. With research highlighting the benefits to student achievement and wellbeing, and districts and governments increasingly supportive, why not? Do individuals know how to negotiate cross-sector partnerships? Are there social contexts that influence their desire for and ability to develop school-community relationships? With these questions in mind, I set out to explore educators’ and community members’ experiences with their collaborative activities. Almost 20 years later, I am still fascinated by the nuances of school-community collaborating, and I am still researching and writing about educators’, administrators’, and community members’ experiences working together. This book, and the multi-year research project on which it is based, takes a comprehensive look at school-community relations. The insights it offers are intended to provide teachers and educational administrators with strategies for creating mutually beneficial partnerships with community members while alerting them to some of the pitfalls others in similar positions have encountered along the way. At the same time, the book shares a broader perspective of the policy landscape as well as the characteristics at the school, district, and community organization levels that facilitate or impede collaboration, as a resource to policymakers, researchers, and instructors within higher education institutions who wish to support teachers and school administrators in their work. Taken together, the ten chapters provide an overview of the theory, policy, practice, and research in this area. Chapter 1 sets the stage with definitions of community, collaboration, and an overview of the importance of school-community collaboration. It provides a historical account of school-community relations that serves to explain the lack of collaboration until recent years, before introducing the reader to the four schools and their two districts as well as the mid-sized, diverse urban centre in which they were located. Chapter 2 explores district-­level administrators’ and school principals’ responses to provincialand district-level community engagement policies. How they interpreted these policies influenced which ones were implemented and what they looked like in practice. Chapter 3 extends the discussion in Chap. 2, examining the school-community partnership process from the perspectives of district and school personnel as well as community members. These chapters collectively describe the research participants’ strategies for interpreting policy and establishing school-community partnerships.

 PREFACE 

xv

Interactions are influenced by social contexts, and Chap. 4 steps back from interpersonal relationships within organizations outlined in the previous chapters to begin a broader examination looking at the roles that community characteristics, organizational culture, and human behaviour play in school-community collaboration. Chapter 5 focuses on the use of social and professional networks as an important strategy for identifying potential partners and developing collaborative activities. Chapter 6 describes the school-, district-, and community-level actors who are critical to networks and school-community partnerships, either championing or discouraging their flourishing. Chapter 7 builds on this discussion and considers additional contextual factors that facilitate or challenge community engagement in education. Collectively, these chapters offer insight into some of the social contexts that must be considered when developing collaborative activities. With the groundwork laid for understanding school-community partnerships on micro and macro levels, the next two chapters hone in on the complex life circumstances faced by vulnerable populations in the study schools. Chapter 8 explores the varied school-community supports provided to children and youth who were living in poverty, newcomers to the country, Indigenous children and youth, 2SLGBTQIA+ students, and those with intellectual disabilities and behavioural challenges, highlighting the ways in which these groups can substantially benefit from community engagement. Chapter 9 follows with an application of the strategies introduced in previous chapters for collaboratively addressing the prevalence of poor mental health among children and youth. Detailed examples from the study schools allow readers to consider the kinds of collaboration needed to address specific issues children and youth may experience in culturally and socio-economically diverse communities. The book concludes with an exploration of possibilities for promoting closer social ties within a community. Chapter 10 expands the focus from specific issues experienced in the study schools to opportunities for transforming schools into community hubs. Suggestions for research in school-­ community relations are also offered, and readers are encouraged to cultivate conditions that see community members more centrally positioned in the education of children and youth in the future. The idiom, doing more with less, has become a mantra for many organizations, and the education system’s organizations are no exception. At the same time, educators and school administrators are challenged to meet diverse students’ varied needs that, left unaddressed, threaten their

xvi 

PREFACE

academic, social, and emotional development. Many hands make light work—another idiom—serves as a fitting response. It is time for schools, districts, and the communities they serve to come together to create the kinds of educational environments in and out of schools that all students need to flourish. Toronto, ON, Canada

Catherine M. Hands

Acknowledgements

Community engagement in educational issues is reflected in the creation of this book, and throughout the research on which it is based. Consequently, I recognize the varied and valuable support I have been fortunate to receive, and I am deeply grateful to many people from different social and geographic communities. First and foremost, I am grateful to the educators, school and district administrators, and community members who willingly sat down to speak with me about their experiences collaborating with others. It takes time and effort to develop and maintain collaborative relationships, which is undertaken in addition to (and not instead of) regular workday tasks, and these individuals graciously shared their experiences and ideas for collaboration even though they had little time to spare. Without their generosity and insights, the research and book would not have been possible. I am also indebted to the academic community that surrounds me. The scholars at the National Network of Partnership Schools have been inspiring me to engage in family-school-community partnership work since the beginning of my teaching career, and the members of the American Educational Research Association’s divisions and special interest groups  and the Canadian Association for Studies in Educational Administration special interest group thankfully see fit to give me a forum to share my work and encourage me to examine and reflect on new ideas. Closer to home, my students and colleagues in Brock University’s Faculty of Education have been extremely supportive of my work. They willingly share their knowledge and thought-provoking comments, and they fuel my enthusiasm for community development and engagement in education. xvii

xviii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In addition, I recognize the broader scholarly community of which I am fortunate to be a part. I would like to offer my appreciation to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and to Brock University, for the funding that supported my research. It enabled me to complete both the research and the book, and in the process, work with the next generation of educators and researchers who will hopefully take up the mantle of community engagement in education. Also, this book would not have come to fruition without a community effort starting with the team at Palgrave. I am especially grateful to Linda Braus and Vinoth Kuppan, whose patience and guidance encouraged me to turn my research into a book. Towards that end, I am extremely appreciative of my editor, Adriana Brook, who provided invaluable feedback and insightful editing suggestions throughout the chapter drafts. I am also indebted to Ashleigh Neill for her illustrations that captured the book’s essence, and to  the book’s anonymous reviewers, who shared their thoughtful suggestions that shaped the final product. It is a better volume for this diverse group’s attention. Finally, I am especially grateful to my social community. My family members’ constant support encourages me to look beyond the way things are and towards what could be. My network of friends, their involvement in their civic communities, and their generosity, humour, and desire to make the world a better place, along with their interest and engagement in education validate the work I do, remind me why I do it and push me to do more.

Contents

1 I ntroduction to Pathways to Community Engagement in Education: Collaboration in Diverse, Urban Neighbourhoods  1 A History of Community Involvement in Schooling   3 The Roles of Those Not “Profiting From Instruction”: Community Members’ Historical Involvement in Schooling   5 Citizens Cast as “School Disturbers”   6 Contemporary Relations Between Schools and Communities   8 A Snapshot of Collaboration: What, Who, and How   8 Methods  11 Data Sources  12 The City of Stirling  12 A Sketch of the Schools in the Study  16 Concluding Thoughts and an Overview of the Book  20 Appendix: Community Engagement in Education Research Participants  23 References  25 2 Interpreting  the Map and Navigating to Destinations: Using School-Community Policy to Influence Practice 29 Map Makers and Map Readers  30 The Policy Mediator  31 The Policy Critic  32 The Policy Constructor  33

xix

xx 

Contents

Mediators, Critics, and Constructors in the Stirling School Districts  33 Policy Mediators  34 Policy Critics and Constructors  38 Policy Interpretation: Summary and Recommendations  42 Considerations for Collaboration  42 Concluding Thoughts  46 References  47 3 Sustainable  Partnerships: The Ecology of Community Engagement Initiatives 51 The Ecology of Collaboration  52 The Lifecycle of the School-Community Collaborative Process  53 Collaboration: Meeting Needs Together  58 Stage 1: Identifying Student, School, and Community Partner Needs and Goals  58 Stages 2 and 3: Identifying and Contacting Potential Collaborators  59 Stage 4: Negotiating Partnership Terms  61 Stage 5: Creating a Win-Win Situation  62 Stages 6 and 7: Engaging in Collaborative Activities and Assessing Collaborative Practices  64 A Collaborative Process: Summary and Recommendations  66 Considerations for Collaboration  67 Be Prepared to Accommodate Partners’ Needs and Goals  67 Concluding Thoughts  70 References  71 4 The  Social Contexts and Permeable Borders that Influence Partnerships 77 Intertwined Open Systems: A Depiction of School-Community Interaction  78 School and Community on the Path to Collaboration  81 Stirling: A Community in Transition  81 Community Context Determines Schools’ Visions and Priorities for Community Partnerships  83 School Personnel’s Inclination Toward Partnering Impacted Permeability  85

 Contents 

xxi

Exchanges of Human and Material Resources Across Permeable Borders  89 Social Context and Permeable Borders: Summary and Recommendations  92 Considerations for Collaboration  93 Concluding Thoughts  95 References  97 5 Networks:  The Importance of Who and What You Know101 Networks and Social Capital: Linking Schools and Communities  102 Building Social Capital by Cultivating Interpersonal Relationships 103 Building and Maintaining a Network 104 The Importance of a Social Network 104 Different Types of Networks and Their Impact 107 Challenges to Networks and the Consequences of Not Having One 111 How to Build a Network 114 Networks: Summary and Recommendations 115 Personal Connections Are the Glue Holding the Network Together 117 Considerations for Collaboration 117 Concluding Thoughts 120 References 122 6 Building  Bridges and Crossing Boundaries125 Social Networks and Boundary-Spanners 126 Boundary-Spanners Create Bridges to Resources 127 School-Level Bridges 128 Board-Level Liaisons for School Personnel and Community Members 130 Community Members with Mandates to Liaise 131 The Importance of a School-Community Liaison 133 Boundary-Spanning Capacity 136 Bridges and Boundary-Spanners: Summary and Recommendations 138 Considerations for Collaboration 139 Concluding Thoughts 143 References 144

xxii 

Contents

7 Facilitating  or Frustrating Efforts to Collaborate147 Social Contexts that Facilitate or Frustrate Collaborative Efforts 148 Structure 148 Culture 150 Behaviour 151 Social Contexts’ Characteristics Facilitated or Impeded Collaboration 152 Structural Features Impact Relationship Development and Maintenance 152 Organizational Cultures Shape Collaborative Opportunities 156 Individuals’ Mindsets and Behaviours Affect Collaboration 158 Collaboration Enablers and Challenges: Summary and Recommendations 164 Considerations for Collaboration 166 Concluding Thoughts 169 References 172 8 Collaboration  to Support Vulnerable Populations177 Collaboration as a Gateway to Social Capital 178 An Overview of Diverse Students’ Needs in Stirling 179 Students Living in Poverty 180 Newcomers to the Country 181 Indigenous Children and Youth 182 2SLGBTQIA+ Students 183 Students with Developmental Delays, Mental Health Challenges, and Behavioural Issues 184 Accessing Social Capital for Vulnerable Groups Through School-­Community Partnerships 185 Schools as Intermediaries 185 District-Level Support for Community Engagement 188 Community Organizations Provide Care, Opportunities, and Insight 190 Preparing to Transition into the Community: The Roles of School- and Community-Based Programs Supporting Vulnerable Populations 192 Vulnerable Populations: Summary and Recommendations 194

 Contents 

xxiii

Instrumental and Expressive Resources Available Through Community Engagement 195 Considerations for Collaboration 197 Concluding Thoughts 200 References 202 9 Thriving  and Not Just Surviving: Support for Mental Health in a Networked Community205 Social Networks Promote Wellbeing 208 Mental Health Issues and Their Prevalence in Schools 209 The Expanding Role of Schools and the Growing Need to Collaborate 211 A Solution: Grass-Roots Network Creation 214 Challenges to Networks: More Work to Be Done 217 A Networked Approach to Child and Youth Mental Health: Summary and Recommendations 220 Considerations for Collaboration 223 Concluding Thoughts 226 References 228 10 Creating  Schools as Community Hubs Through Collaboration233 A School-Community Relations Continuum 235 Type A: Family and Interagency Collaboration 235 Type B: Full-Service Schools 236 Type C: Full-Service Community Schools 236 Type D: Community Development 237 Readiness for Greater Integration of School and Community Services 238 A “One-Stop Shop” Encouraged Service Uptake 240 Planning a Path Towards Wrap-Around and Full-Service Community Schools 241 Recommendations to Support Schools as Community Hubs 247 Future Research 250 Concluding Thoughts 252 References 255 Index261

xxiv 

Contents

About the Author

Catherine M. Hands  is a professor and associate dean in the Faculty of Education at Brock University. She holds a PhD in Educational Administration from the University of Toronto following an eight-year career as an elementary school teacher. In addition to teaching in the areas of organizational leadership, policy, school and community development, and community engagement in education within undergraduate- and graduate-level programs, Catherine is a researcher and educational consultant, who has supported districts’ curricular programming and evaluated parent engagement initiatives across Ontario. She co-­edited and coauthored contributions to the volume, Including Families and Communities in Urban Education, and she maintains an active research agenda in the areas of school-community relations, educational leadership, school reform, social justice, and professional learning communities. She has presented and published her work regionally, nationally, and internationally.

xxv

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 1.2 Fig. 3.1 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 7.1

Ethnic diversity in Stirling and in Wards 3 and 5 Socio-economic status in Stirling and in Wards 3 and 5 The lifecycle of the partnership process The community-school dynamic Intertwined structures, cultures, and behaviours impact possibilities for educational reform

14 16 54 79 149

xxvii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction to Pathways to Community Engagement in Education: Collaboration in Diverse, Urban Neighbourhoods

Humans are fundamentally social beings, driven to form relationships. This tendency is no different in educational contexts. The importance of community engagement in education has “taken on the force of common sense” (Anderson, 1998, p. 572) in discussions among researchers, educators, and policymakers. For several decades, educational researchers have demonstrated the benefits of partnerships among schools, families, and communities in promoting student achievement and wellbeing (Epstein, 2011; Henderson et  al., 2007; Schutz, 2006; Sheldon, 2005; Warren et al., 2009). Within schools, community members can contribute material and human resources, co-ordinating and delivering breakfast programs, providing childcare and other supervision, or even just listening to students in the reading program or the band concert. Beyond school walls, local businesses can provide financial support for school programs (Sanders, 2001, 2006), opportunities for students to attend community events, and access to social services (Hands, 2005, 2014a, 2014b). Community organizations can provide training and work experience through Co-operative Education programs1 or service-learning placements (Hands, 2005). They can also support school and student business ventures, such as catering services for corporate events (Hands, 2006). In 1  Co-operative Education programs, offered in some secondary schools, are also known as Community-based Education programs. Co-op teachers liaise between students and employers to create learning goals and to define the work students will complete.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. M. Hands, Pathways to Community Engagement in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33001-8_1

1

2 

C. M. HANDS

short, communities provide teachers with far more than a population of children to educate, and the last few decades have seen a rediscovery of the advantages of community participation in educational matters. Some provincial and territorial governments in Canada are now seeing the potential of community engagement in education. Ontario’s Ministry of Education (OME), for instance, uses several strategies to promote public confidence in public education through community engagement. It has policies and offers financial support for elementary and secondary schools to develop programs in partnership with their communities, particularly in regions identified as economically challenged (OME, 2015, n.d.). To encourage school districts to include community engagement at the school level, community involvement is part of the Ontario Leadership Framework (Institute for Education Leadership [IEL], 2013), which includes home, school, and community partnerships as one of six focus areas (IEL, 2013, p.  11). School districts and some schools have also established policies to support collaboration (Hands, 2005). Despite the interest in school-community collaboration, it is not widespread, especially in areas characterized as low-income and culturally diverse (Schutz, 2006). In Ontario, as in other regions within North America, many schools are siloed from the surrounding community. This arrangement comes at a high cost to public school students, particularly in areas where cultural and economic diversity increase a school’s programming needs. In these neighbourhoods, the learning opportunities available through schools and school districts often provide inadequate student support without school-community collaboration, both in Ontario (Hands, 2005) and in the United States (Henderson et al., 2007; Merz & Furman, 1997). Beyond students’ basic needs, community partnerships also prepare students to contribute to society through access to personal and professional networks, skills, and knowledge, as well as job opportunities—all of which are limited without school-community collaboration (Coleman, 1988; Hands, 2005; Lin, 1999; Spier et al., 2018). Moreover, teachers, community mentors, and students agree that student educational achievement and wellbeing are best served when a school’s messaging is reinforced through community relationships (Epstein, 2011; Shapiro et al., 2003). Without school-community collaboration, opportunities for such interaction are often limited in Ontario public schools as well as in schools across the United States, where much of the research on this topic

1  INTRODUCTION TO PATHWAYS TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT… 

3

is conducted. Within an education system that can replicate societal inequities, then, school-community collaboration can be positioned to address inequities and to promote all students’ achievement and wellbeing. In brief, community engagement in education is incredibly valuable but has been underutilized in Ontario’s public schools. This book illustrates the nature and impact of such school-community partnerships through a case study of four schools in a culturally and economically diverse urban centre within Ontario. The schools reveal the factors that contribute to the success and failure of school-community partnerships in Ontario public schools serving neighbourhoods characterized as low-income and culturally diverse. At the same time, the research offers insights into school-community collaboration that may be broadly applicable in other North American contexts and beyond. This chapter will first examine the historical relations between schools and communities that gave rise to their present-day interactions. I describe the 100-year shift from community control of educational issues to the development of a centralized system under political control to illustrate the contexts that shaped contemporary school-community relations. Following an overview of the current state of community engagement in education primarily within North America, the chapter introduces the research study on which the rest of the book is based. It begins a discussion of the social contexts where the school-community collaboration takes place, with descriptions of the city where participants lived or worked, the school districts, and the four schools serving some of the most economically challenged neighbourhoods in the country. The chapter then presents the methodology used and the research questions that guided the study. It concludes with an overview of the book, its contributions to our understanding of community engagement in education, and a call to action for policymakers, administrators, educators, and community members to build strong school-community relationships.

A History of Community Involvement in Schooling The concept of community is complex, with many possible meanings (Beck, 1999; Merz & Furman, 1997). Communities are dynamic; they are both social processes and geographic locales, described by their physical features and distance from other populations and the human interactions

4 

C. M. HANDS

that take place in them (Fortunato & Clevenger, 2017; Steiner, 2002). In addition, communities have cultural, psychological, spiritual, economic, ecological, and political facets (Boyd & Crowson, 1993; Gregoric, 2013), as well as institutions that address a broad range of interests (Fortunato & Clevenger, 2017). Despite the challenges of framing it, there has been some effort to operationalize a definition of community so it can be studied in the context of education. Influential scholar of school, family, and community partnerships, Joyce Epstein (2011) states that “community includes not only families with children in the schools, but also all who are interested in and affected by the quality of education” (p. 460). This definition is a useful one for this book. For the purposes of school-community collaboration, then, the community is made up of the school personnel and all individuals and organizations external to the school with a common interest in education. Given this broad definition of community, two important considerations emerge. First, community boundaries are drawn in continually shifting sand, varying from community to community and across schools within a geographic area. Second, it is a challenge to tease school-community interactions apart from the social contexts in which they occur; they influence one another. Consequently, the relationships among people in schools, districts, and their broader geographic or civic community need to be examined in the environments that ground them. Because community and collaboration are embedded in social contexts, it is crucial to consider not just current conditions, but also historical precedents. Collaboration today is based upon foundations created in the past, such that possibilities for developing collaborative activities are influenced by relations developed historically (Kryazhimskii et al., 2001; Nicolis & Prigogine, 1989). Consequently, a historical overview of the relations between schools and communities is helpful for understanding community engagement in education today. It is important, for example, to understand just how contentious the relations between citizens and school authorities became in Ontario in response to the government’s takeover and regulation of education in the 1800s. This troubled history of school-­ community relations in Ontario helps to explain why community engagement is not widespread today.

1  INTRODUCTION TO PATHWAYS TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT… 

5

The Roles of Those Not “Profiting From Instruction”:2 Community Members’ Historical Involvement in Schooling In the early nineteenth century, parents and local school supporters controlled the common, or public, school systems that sprouted up throughout North America. They made decisions on all educational issues including school staffing, textbooks, location, and calendar (Curtis, 1988; Epstein, 2011). Tyack (1974) refers to these educational facilities as “village schools,” where the same goals for learning and the successful integration of students into society were supported at home, in the school, in the church, and through other local organizations within the region (see also Coleman & Hoffer, 1987; Epstein, 2011). By the late nineteenth century, a change in relations between the school, family, and community was evident in Canadian contexts as well as in the United States: community or village schools ceased to exist, and control over all educational matters was centralized under elected officials. With the development of a public education system that continues in Ontario to this day, the powers of educational management were stripped from communities, and placed with public officials instructed by the central public education office. In theory, school district officials were representatives of community school supporters; however, they were elected from the larger community, rather than from the local neighbourhood of each school (Murphy, 1997; Tyack, 1974). As a result, there was no guarantee that the decision-makers were directing education in ways consistent with community members’ wishes and, furthermore, there was no recourse for dissatisfied citizens except through the electoral process. Limited community engagement in education was institutionalized in Ontario in the 1800s as it was in other jurisdictions, including in the United States. Leading citizens in Ontario, most of whom were British, Protestant, and middle-class, obtained influential positions as city and school officials. As a result, the adoption of a hierarchical, bureaucratic model for schools and the school program content was determined by the values of the middle- and upper-classes (Murphy, 1997). In their occupations as mayor, counsellors, trustees, and committee members (Murphy,

2  In Ontario communities during the 1800s, all individuals who were not receiving an education in  school, including parents and  local citizens, were barred from  any involvement in schooling matters (Curtis, 1988).

6 

C. M. HANDS

1997), these Canada West3 reformers viewed pedagogy as a science and emphasized the teachers’ specialized knowledge of subject matter and instruction (Curtis, 1988; Epstein, 2011; Murphy, 1997). These popular pedagogical views further wrested the control of schools from the local communities in the period between 1850 and 1871. Schools’ goals were now separate from those of families and communities: while schools focused on teaching a common curriculum to students from all ethnic, social, religious, and economic groups, families and local community organizations had the responsibility of socializing children and teaching them about their heritage and religion (Epstein, 2011). Citizens Cast as “School Disturbers” As political control over education tightened, school-community relations worsened. In his historical examination of community resistance to public education in England, Ireland, and Canada West, Bruce Curtis writes, “Parents and those not ‘profiting from instruction’ were excluded from the schoolroom and later subjected to fines as ‘school disturbers’ for intervening in the educational process” (1988, p. 320). As a result, citizens’ participation was severely limited in the public education system. Although no province-wide resistance movements arose, community reaction to these limitations was often violent (Curtis, 1988), involving acts of vandalism, boycotting, assault, harassment, and intimidation. Much of the community resistance was a result of the schools’ central management. Citizens attended trustee-scheduled school meetings, or held meetings of their own, and attempted to claim the right to participate in educational decision-making from hiring and curricular decisions to school finances (Curtis, 1988). When unsuccessful, some citizens used vandalism and boycotting to voice their concerns. For example, when school arbitration ruled in favour of one teacher’s right to teach in an Oneida Township school, the students did not show up to school, the schoolhouse’s windows and doors were nailed shut, and someone put excrement on the teacher’s chair (Curtis, 1988). Given the utter lack of

3  Ontario was called Upper Canada until 1840, Canada West between 1840 and 1867, and Ontario after Confederation in 1867. Egerton Ryerson was the chief superintendent of education for Canada West/Ontario from 1846 to 1876 and was instrumental in making education a public enterprise.

1  INTRODUCTION TO PATHWAYS TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT… 

7

community consultation in educational decisions, it is likely that these kinds of protests were frequent. Some of the conflicts centred around questions of teachers’ authority over the students, particularly if they tried to impose rules that conflicted with community members’ values and traditions (Curtis, 1988). There are records of confrontations erupting between teachers and angry parents over matters of student discipline, with parents threatening, and in some cases, actually assaulting teachers (sometimes repeatedly) in response to their children’s punishment (Curtis, 1988). It was commonplace for parents and students alike to challenge the teachers’ authority resulting in an atmosphere of conflict. Efforts to reassert control could also lead to extreme actions. Schools that were in unpopular locations, considered too expensive by the residents (i.e., the taxpayers), or that employed unpopular teachers were often burned to the ground, in some cases after the school register used to calculate the school tax was itself set on fire (Curtis, 1988). When the district council eliminated a union school4 area in Madoc Township in 1846 and ordered two new schools to be built, one “was nearly finished when some malicious person it is believed set it on fire” (Archives of Ontario, as cited in Curtis, 1988, p. 322). To control community involvement, laws were put into place as of 1853 (Curtis, 1988). From then on, citizens’ attempts to use traditional community management powers against the educational bureaucracy were met with fines for “school disturbers”—those who were considered to be interfering with educational practices on or near school grounds—and all that was required for a conviction was “one credible witness”: the teacher (Curtis, 1988, p. 323). Policies like this, discouraging school-level involvement and the increasingly differentiated roles and responsibilities of school and community (including family), set the school apart from the community.

4  Union or central schools were more typically found in urban communities and offered the equivalent of a secondary school education. In contrast, most rural communities had one-room schools that provided a basic education (Murphy, 1997).

8 

C. M. HANDS

Contemporary Relations Between Schools and Communities The fact that community partnerships are not a priority with all educators and are not widespread in today’s schools may be a residual effect of the uneasy historical relationship between schools and communities. Beyond this historical precedent, it is also important to acknowledge that policies—including those related to school-community collaboration—are interpreted based on the needs and the skills of the people who put them into action (Clune, 1990). Finally, grass-roots relationships that provide opportunities for community members to work collaboratively with students and school personnel must be tailored to the specific community and school context to have the best chance of success and longevity (Epstein et  al., 2018; Sanders, 2006). At the same time, creating and maintaining such relationships involves a great deal of work for educators beyond the regular workday (Hands, 2005). Consequently, school-­ community partnerships face many challenges in the modern Ontario context. Given these challenges, community partnerships are best (and most often) developed when driven by need, not by externally imposed mandates (Hands, 2005). In order to both mitigate the challenges and maximize the potential for success, therefore, it is valuable to examine the ingredients that go into school-community collaboration from policy development through implementation. A Snapshot of Collaboration: What, Who, and How Before looking at the range of relationships possible and the types of organizations involved in school-community partnerships, it is helpful to consider how partnership is defined in this book. Partnerships can be described as the “connections between schools and community individuals, organizations, and businesses that are forged to promote students’ social, emotional, physical, and intellectual development” (Sanders, 2001, p.  20). Delving deeper, Hargreaves and Fullan (1998) note that the strength of these connections relies on differences between collaborators, particularly how the strengths of one collaborator—for example, their access to resources—can address the limitations of another to their mutual benefit. Collaboration involves the interaction of individuals to reach a shared understanding or goal which could not be achieved independently (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998).

1  INTRODUCTION TO PATHWAYS TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT… 

9

Some scholars have challenged this understanding of partnership in education because of a potentially unequal balance of power among participants in relationships. For example, families—including families of ethnic minority or low socio-economic status—are at risk of being included in their children’s education only when their activities conform to school agendas, overlooking the families’ own needs or goals (Auerbach, 2011; Pushor, 2007; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). Considering the neighbourhoods surrounding the schools more broadly, collaborators may not contribute or benefit equally from their relationship (Gregoric, 2013). Without denying that some collaborations may be problematic for the reasons described above, it is important to acknowledge that inequality does not necessarily mean inequity or that collaborators are not partners. It is difficult to assess the value or equity of relationships from outside of them, and the visible, tangible aspects of the exchange may not always fully reflect the true nature of the collaboration. It is enough that participants consider themselves to be in a partnership and they have had the opportunity to negotiate its terms (see Barton et al., 2004). In this book, then, I refer to collaborative activities as partnerships, interactions, or liaisons interchangeably. S chool-Community Collaborators and Cultures that Make Partnering Possible A number of researchers have shed light on community engagement in education, with the ultimate goal of promoting it. Identifying the types of organizations involved in school-community partnerships and whether the collaborative activities focus on students, families, schools, or communities (see Sanders, 2001, 2006; Sanders & Harvey, 2002; Wohlstetter et al., 2003) helps researchers and potential collaborators understand the breadth of community partnerships and their purposes. Community partners may represent for-profit businesses, universities and educational institutions, the government and military, organizations with a focus on healthcare, faith, national service, volunteering and senior citizens, or cultural and recreational institutions (Sanders, 2001, 2006; Wohlstetter et al., 2003). Knowing who to seek out and the kinds of collaborative activities that have been developed in some schools may inspire potential collaborators to follow in others’ paths towards partnership establishment. In addition to knowing who to collaborate with, it is necessary to know how to establish partnerships. The literature outlines the steps collaborators take to create their partnerships (Gregoric, 2013; Hands, 2005,

10 

C. M. HANDS

2014a; Sanders, 2001, 2006). The school is usually the locus of action for community partnerships and school culture is a key consideration in their success (Evans, 2011). School personnel can facilitate and maintain school-community partnerships by being open and receptive to community engagement in education and dialogue with partners (Sanders & Harvey, 2002). The school context can also constrict collaboration (Crowson & Boyd, 2001; Sanders, 2001) if potential school-based collaborators have limited capacity to create and participate in partnerships, and if leadership communication and support are lacking (Sanders, 2001). These types of challenges point to the importance of ensuring sufficient time, leadership, and resources to support collaborative activities (Sanders, 2001, 2006). Within the school, the goals of educators, the school vision, and the available community all shape the kinds of organizations sought out for collaboration and the partnerships that ensue (Hands, 2005, 2014a, 2015).  he Need for More School-Community Relations Research T and Knowledge-Sharing Despite the growing body of literature affirming the benefits of community engagement in education, collaboration is not widespread. This may be due, in part, to a lack of attention to context. Existing scholarship has established the importance of social context on school-community relationships; however, there has not been enough attention to the breadth of social contexts impacting collaboration. An investigation of policy and political contexts along with a close-up examination of school- and community-­level features that play a role in collaboration are needed to reveal the factors that support or undermine school-community partnerships. The aim of this book, then, is to begin to fill this gap in the literature, exploring the relationship between policymakers’, administrators’, educators’, and community members’ understanding of the vital role school-community collaboration can play in education, as well as the factors affecting collaborative activity development at the classroom and school levels. The research presented in this book provides insight into the complexities of school-community collaboration. To examine why potentially valuable partnerships in communities characterized as low-income and culturally diverse are not widespread, the following questions guided the study:

1  INTRODUCTION TO PATHWAYS TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT… 

11

• How do elementary and secondary school educators in the Ontario public school system interpret community involvement policies? • In what ways do educators and their community partners implement school-community collaboration initiatives? and • What social contexts impact the desire and capacity to develop school-community collaborative activities? The research addresses (a) how educators and their collaborators understand the role of community in education and (b) the school-, district- and community-level contexts that impact community involvement policy development and implementation. This book considers how to reconnect schools and communities to promote academic achievement and wellbeing for each student. In pursuit of this goal, it was therefore necessary to understand how the people who create partnerships understand community involvement and how they navigate the policies, structures, and organizational cultures that facilitate or impede it.

Methods To research the issues at hand, it was necessary to gain insight into the collaborative process and its relation to school and community contextual issues. Descriptive, empirical, and qualitative research is essential for developing a deeper understanding of the complexities of community involvement in education from policy interpretation to implementation from multiple stakeholders’ perspectives (Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Rothe, 2000). I chose case study methodology to examine the process of establishing school-community collaborative relationships in the real-life context where they existed (see Yin, 2017). Multiple sources of evidence, including documents and interviews, were obtained to enhance construct validity and the reliability of the findings that could be corroborated through converging lines of inquiry (Creswell, 2012; Merriam, 1998; Rothe, 2000; Yin, 2017). The data were coded and analysed using NVivo11 based on the concepts delineated in the literature review and conceptual framework (Merriam, 1998). I used the constant comparative method, and data from each participant and event were continuously examined and incidents were compared across the data from all sources (Merriam, 1998; Rothe, 2000). In this way, new categories and themes were developed and existing ones were evaluated and modified (Creswell, 2012).

12 

C. M. HANDS

Data Sources The study examined how community engagement in education is defined and expressed in policy, planning, and practice within two culturally and economically diverse Ontario school districts in the same city. As such, the sample selection was non-random, purposeful, and small (Merriam, 1998). I was looking for an urban centre with regions that were characterized as low-income as well as culturally diverse, with school districts that had policies and procedures in place  that supported community engagement in education. I selected the city and districts following internet searches of district websites and community resources as well as publicly available demographic information, and conversations with district personnel revealed they welcomed the opportunity to examine their community engagement practices. In meetings with district personnel, I requested to work with schools that reflected the average schools in the districts, rather than schools that were known for their community engagement practices. Participants (summarized in the Appendix) included 2 directors of education, 3 superintendents, 4 principals, 1 assistant principal, 25 teachers, 7 support staff members, 2 district-level community liaisons, 4 school district managers as well as 46 community partners, including 1 trustee, 1 parent, non-profit and public sector organizations (e.g., YMCA, Public Health, regional youth nutrition program) and for-profit businesses (e.g., Physical Education programs). These individuals participated in one 45-minute, open-ended, semi-structured interview based on the concepts in the literature review. At that time, documents and meetings regarding collaboration or their organization (e.g., district, school, or business) were collected, and field notes were taken. The City of Stirling Stirling5 is a mid-sized city in Ontario, with approximately half a million residents, and situated about 100 km from a large, urban centre. Owing to its size and amenities as well as its location in the province, it attracts workers from the large, neighbouring city, who are seeking affordable housing and a smaller community. Stirling is a blue-collar town, located on a lake, where the factories are continually active throughout the day and night, with freighters travelling to and from the city’s port. In addition to the factories, the north-east end of the city is mixed use, with 5  All names of places and people are pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality and to protect the participants’ anonymity.

1  INTRODUCTION TO PATHWAYS TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT… 

13

neighbourhoods of small, post-second-world-war homes mingled within the industrial commercial areas, which include food banks, cheque cashing storefronts, social services, a centrally located plaza with a grocery chain and Walmart as the anchor stores, as well as small, independently owned businesses. Running east to west, the downtown core is located in the southern part of the city’s northern end. While children’s aid services, a number of food banks, and thrift stores are easily accessible, much of the core has been gentrified, with a modern, multistorey library, a farmers’ market, a new stadium, and side streets lined with upscale boutiques featuring artisanal wares, bistros, and coffee shops. Travelling south from the downtown core, the region is served by a freeway that loops through suburban areas, which are characterized by a central shopping mall, big box stores, strip plazas, and surrounding neighbourhoods of detached and semi-detached single-family dwellings, apartment buildings, and condominiums. At the south end of the city lies an affluent, established community, with well-maintained, detached, single-family dwellings, including century homes, located on quiet, tree-lined streets. The two school districts that participated in this research served all of Stirling. Stirling School District (Stirling S. D.) was the larger of the two, with approximately 34,000 elementary students in around 90 schools, and approximately 15,000 secondary students in around 15 schools.6 Stirling Catholic School District (Stirling Catholic S.  D.) had approximately 19,000 elementary students in almost 50 schools, and around 11,000 secondary students in approximately 10 schools.7 The four schools in the study were located in two of Stirling’s lower-income areas in the north end of the city. The elementary and secondary schools in Stirling Catholic S. D. as well as the elementary school in Stirling S. D. served a ward with a population of around 38,000, approximately 7% of the city’s population. The Stirling S. D. secondary school served approximately 39,000, or 7.5% of the city’s population. Because the schools were serving neighbourhoods in a small region of the city—Ward 3 and Ward 5—it is helpful to take a closer look at the ethnicity, employment, income, and education characteristics of these wards,8 rather than relying on those for the city as a whole. One secondary school  Data based on 2016 information from the board website.  Data based on the 2014 Director’s Annual Report. At the time of the research, there were slightly fewer elementary schools. 8  All statistics were gathered from the 2016 city ward profiles, available online during the time of the research study. 6 7

14 

C. M. HANDS

and all of its feeder schools were part of Ward 5, while two of the elementary schools and one of the secondary schools as well as four out of its six feeder schools were in Ward 3. For the sake of clarity, the statistics are organized into two categories: ethnic diversity and socio-­economic status. In the sphere of ethnic diversity, I considered overall ethnicity, immigration, visible minorities, and languages spoken. Ward 3’s non-Canadian population of residents was slightly lower at 44.6% than Stirling’s reported population of 49.5%; however, 59.3% of Ward 5’s residents did not identify as either Canadian or of English heritage, and its population was comprised of 36.1% immigrants, which was higher than the city’s overall immigrant population of 24.5%. Stirling is also a southern destination city for individuals from northern Indigenous communities, and an Indigenous reserve is located between it and a neighbouring city. While Stirling has an overall Indigenous population of 3%, the Indigenous populations in the neighbourhoods being served by Ward 3 schools ranged from 5 to 8%. While Ward 3 and the city had similar percentages of visible minority populations (14% and 15.7%, respectively), Ward 5’s was higher, at 20.5%. Similarly, Ward 5 had a higher percentage of individuals that spoke non-­official languages (neither English nor French); at 23%, the percentage was approximately two times higher than Ward 3 and the city as a whole, which had similar percentages (10.8% and 11.7%, respectively), as shown in Fig. 1.1. 60

Population (%)

50 40 30 20 10 0

non-Canadians

immigrants

visible minorities

Ethnic Diversity Stirling

Ward 3

Ward 5

Fig. 1.1  Ethnic diversity in Stirling and in Wards 3 and 5

non-official languages spoken

1  INTRODUCTION TO PATHWAYS TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT… 

15

In terms of socio-economic status, I looked at employment rates, income levels, low-income status (after tax) percentages, child poverty, and education levels. Both Wards 3 and 5 had higher unemployment rates than Stirling as a whole; however, the Ward 3 unemployment rate of 16.5% was especially high, approximately two times higher than that of Stirling overall. The income distributions mirrored the unemployment rates, with nearly twice the percentage of people in Ward 3 making under $20,000 (24.9%) compared to Ward 5 and the city as a whole (13.3% and 13.4%, respectively). While both Wards 3 and 5 had almost half of the earners making between $20,000 and $59,000, they had far fewer high-income earners (over $150,000) than the 10% of earners in Stirling, at 1.9% and 4.8%, respectively. Ward 3 had an average household total income of $48,340, compared to Stirling’s average of $76,742. Consistent with these statistics, 30.7% of Ward 3 residents had low-income status (after tax) compared to those residents in Ward 5 and the city as a whole (21.9% and 15.7%, respectively). Of greatest concern was the number of children who were living in poverty in both wards. While Ward 3 had a slightly younger population than that of Ward 5 and Stirling as a whole, 47.6% of children under six years in Ward 3 and 48.7% of children under six in Ward 5 were identified as having low-income status, compared to Stirling’s 24%. Lastly, both Ward 3’s and 5’s residents reported having less formal education than the city as a whole, with 34.4% and 29.5% of Wards 3 and 5, respectively, reporting having no certificate, diploma, or degree, compared to Stirling’s 21.8%. Many fewer residents reported having a post-­secondary certificate, diploma, or degree (36.3% in Ward 3, and 39.5% in Ward 5) compared to the 50.9% in Stirling, as shown in Fig. 1.2. As this statistical sketch illustrates, Ward 5 was more culturally diverse than the city, while Ward 3 and Stirling had similar cultural diversity. Economically, Ward 5 had some neighbourhoods that were identified as low income, while Ward 3 was largely characterized as economically impoverished. The principals who participated in the research were keenly aware of the demographics of the neighbourhoods their schools served. They often described their mission or purpose for the school in terms like “providing an opportunity for kids that wouldn’t normally have it” and enabling children “to do what every Canadian kid does.” In the section that follows, I consider the characteristics of the schools from Wards 3 and 5 that participated in this study in greater detail.

16 

C. M. HANDS

60

Population (%)

50 40 30 20 10 0

unemployment

low income status

child poverty

Socio-economic Status Stirling

Ward 3

post-secondary (certificate, diploma or degree)

Ward 5

Fig. 1.2  Socio-economic status in Stirling and in Wards 3 and 5

A Sketch of the Schools in the Study Stirling Catholic S. D.’s Redeemer Elementary School in Ward 3 was situated close to the downtown core. Redeemer was newly erected on the original school site within the neighbourhood and enrolled 4109 students in Kindergarten through grade eight. Located next to a municipal park, and with a childcare centre attached to the school, pre-school- and school-aged children were often seen enjoying outdoor activities under the supervision of their teachers, and it was not uncommon for the principal to spend recess outside in the playground. The main entrance boasted a sunny, skylighted atrium with children’s colourful artwork on the walls. A large, carpeted room off the atrium equipped with a sink, chairs, and large rectangular tables was used as a meeting room for staff, parent groups, and community partners. Small groups of older children congregated in the atrium and contributed to large clothing and food drive bins. The main office off the atrium was a well-lit and cheerful space, lively with students and educators coming and going. Throughout the day, children moved to and from their classrooms, and in and out of the gym and 9  The schools’ enrolment statistics were taken from the Education Quality and Assessment Office (EQAO) enrolment data from 2015, the academic year in which the study commenced.

1  INTRODUCTION TO PATHWAYS TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT… 

17

playground areas, laughing and talking animatedly, while their supervising teachers acknowledged visitors courteously. Stirling S. D.’s Wendy Avison Elementary School and Stirling Catholic S. D.’s All Saints Secondary School, also in Ward 3, were situated in the next neighbourhood over from Redeemer. Like Redeemer, Avison was relatively newly built, opening its doors in September 2006. Serving 626 of the neighbourhood’s students in Kindergarten through grade six, it was located next door to an established but ageing recreation centre and across from a Christian mission providing shelter and food to residents. The busy parking lot was shared among the three buildings and metal fencing surrounded a portion of the school’s frontage to protect the Kindergarten play area from the traffic. In the entryway of the two-storey brick structure, children’s art, photos, and posters were displayed on the brick walls of the foyer. Classes of children chattered animatedly with their peers as they moved with their attentive teachers to and from the library and the gymnasium. The main office was located on the opposite side of the foyer—a quiet, calm space where visitors were greeted in a friendly manner by administrative support staff. Down the street towards the city centre, All Saints Secondary School occupied a square city block. As a comprehensive secondary school serving 1235 students in grades nine through twelve, the school’s property included a large, three-level main building that was built in 1992 to accommodate both boys and girls who had previously been housed in separate schools. At any given time of day, the school was bustling with activity. The main office was a large, busy space, accommodating the principal, three vice principals, and support staff. Along the common hallway, small groups of students bantered as they headed to class, while some students went in and out of the chaplain’s office, visited the social worker assigned to the school, or climbed the stairs to meet with their drop-out prevention program counsellors in the school library. Others participated in leadership or fitness programs in the school’s large common area and auditorium. Students from the hospitality program worked in the cafeteria serving the lunch they had prepared; others operated the school’s printing shop, designing logos and letterhead, and fulfilling customer orders. A community anchor since 1921, All Saints’ history was documented with archival photographs, athletic trophies, and various collegiate awards and acknowledgements displayed in glass cabinets. Outside the main school building, there was a portable containing a laundry service and thrift shop beside a large playing field. Under the supervision of two educational assistants, students with intellectual delays in the life skills class laundered

18 

C. M. HANDS

donated clothes as well as other students’ sports equipment, and they cleaned and displayed donated household goods on the shop’s shelves. While the shop was mainly for the school community’s use, it was open to the public. The school also served a local Indigenous community and had another portable housing a school counsellor of Indigenous heritage that provided a space for Indigenous students to plan educational experiences and social events. The three schools in Ward 3 shared similar demographic makeups. Although Redeemer’s community was classified as low income, Avison’s and All Saints’ neighbourhood had higher levels of poverty; 37% of its residents had low-income status, with 57% of children under six years living in poverty. As observed by Avison’s principal, the school was located in one of the most needy neighbourhoods within Stirling, an urban setting. We have many, many of our families living under the poverty line. So if you look at the postal code and the number of people who live under the poverty line, I think the average is $34,000 in this neighbourhood as a joint income. So it’s a deprived neighbourhood. With a lot of mental health [issues]. So there’s some substance issues. And very systemic poverty—[people] have lived here for generations.

The principals at the two other schools described similar community characteristics. Stirling S. D.’s Valley Ridge Secondary School was in Ward 5, and a different neighbourhood from the other schools in this study. Serving 808 students, the principal reported having a very socio-economically and culturally diverse school population, with a transient population of newcomers to the country and international students studying abroad in Canada. According to her, the school is one of three English language schools that’s been designated for English Language Learners. So we provide programs specifically for students new to Canada. So hence we take in a number of students, including some ­fee-­paying basis students and just people who move in. But the school [district] is basically split up so that it’s a very large geographical area … that brings in those English Language Learners. It’s demographically extremely diverse as well … [A]nd that’s the community itself, that’s Stirling. Unlike many other places in Ontario, Stirling has developed the city with pockets of supported housing … So we have two Code Red [high needs] zones that fall into our neighbourhood. We also have one of the districts, but I don’t think

1  INTRODUCTION TO PATHWAYS TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT… 

19

we have any students from that, that is actually in the top economic bracket. So there is one small pocket, one community, that hits the top. Most of our [school] community, if you look at the Code Red data for the city, most of our community is in the lower 40% economically.

Built in 1959 and nestled in an established suburban, residential area west of the downtown core, the two-storey school and its expansive playing fields occupied a central location in the neighbourhood. With programming for the trades as well as academic subjects, the school had shops for training students on site towards one end of the school. Clusters of students from different ethnic backgrounds spilled out of the main entrance to the school, socializing during their spare periods and lunchtime. Inside the school, glass cabinets with trophies and posters for the school’s Arts program were displayed prominently in the foyer. While space was at a premium, room was made available for settlement workers to work alongside the school’s guidance counsellors, engaging students and their families in their first languages, helping them to acclimatize to life in Canada, and easing any communication challenges. The main office, a hub of activity, housed the principal, two vice principals, and the support staff. In sum, these four schools shared characteristics that reflected the types of low-income, culturally diverse environments that scholars such as Schutz (2006) and Keyes and Gregg (2001) claim are in the greatest need of community involvement initiatives yet, ironically, are least likely to have strong school-community relations. However, this study revealed that most of the schools share a surprising feature: numerous school-­community collaborative activities where we would predict relatively few, due to the schools’ location in Stirling’s underprivileged areas. The one school that did not have many school-community liaisons gives insights into some of the key elements that need to be in place within a school in order to foster a climate that promotes collaboration. By understanding why school personnel have been successful in developing and maintaining school-­ community partnerships (or have not done so), we are in a better position to offer guidance and resources to other schools in low-income, culturally diverse communities so they can also create partnerships.

20 

C. M. HANDS

Concluding Thoughts and an Overview of the Book Communities are often mentioned in the school-family-community involvement literature but, paradoxically, they are rarely the focus: most research focuses on parental, not community engagement (Schutz, 2006). This book shifts the focus to collaboration in the community, by the community, and for the community. The complexity of education in low-­ income, culturally diverse communities poses substantial challenges to educators. At the same time, there are human, material, and economic resources in urban communities that can be accessed through collaboration (Hands, 2005; Lin, 1999) to support teaching and learning (Pushor, 2007). While collaboration presents a valuable opportunity, schools cannot benefit from these resources without consideration of the conditions at the school and community levels that necessarily impact collaborative relationships. This book takes up the call for more research on productive partnering practices, particularly within urban communities. The Stirling case study contributes a multifaceted perspective on the collaborative process from educational administrators, teachers, and community members as they interpret community engagement policy and put it into practice in a Western, specifically Ontario context. For those educators, policymakers, and community members who want to establish relationships, the book not only presents a step-by-step account of the process of creating collaborative activities in low-income, culturally diverse contexts, but also shares insights regarding what helps and what hinders relationship development. The book is organized to give readers both a broad overview and up-­ close perspective of school-community collaboration, as well as an appreciation of the social contexts impacting school-community relations and the specific facilitators and impediments that result. A detailed examination of collaborative practices influenced by the schools’ and surrounding community’s contexts is provided before returning to a broader perspective when considering future partnering practices. Despite the range in topics, the book’s chapters are structured similarly, beginning and ending with a story that illustrates the main issues covered in the chapter through analogy. These stories serve two purposes: they highlight the universal importance of collaboration and the interconnectedness of our world. The volume begins with an examination of factors affecting school-­ community partnership formation. District-level administrators’ and school principals’ responses in Stirling to provincial- or district-level policies are explored in Chap. 2. The ways in which these administrators and

1  INTRODUCTION TO PATHWAYS TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT… 

21

their staff interpreted community engagement policy had a great influence on which policies were enacted and how they manifested in application. Chapter 3 continues where the previous chapter leaves off and takes a look at how school-community collaborative activities are developed from the perspectives of district and school personnel as well as community members. Collaborative activities do not occur in a vacuum and the types of interactions are influenced by social contexts—the needs of the students and their families and the types of resources available in the community. Chapter 4 begins an examination of social context, looking at the roles that community characteristics, organizational culture, and human behaviour play in developing school-community collaboration. Chapter 5 focuses on the types of facilitators that enable collaborative activities in a social environment. The use of personal and professional networks is presented as a key strategy for identifying potential partners and developing collaborative activities. Chapter 6 describes the personnel who are critical to the successful creation of school-community interaction. It zeroes in on the school-, district-, and community-level actors who either champion community engagement or discourage its flourishing. Chapter 7 builds on this discussion and considers additional factors that facilitate or challenge community engagement in education. Collectively, these chapters offer insight into the general contextual considerations that must be taken into account when pursuing community engagement in education. With the groundwork laid for understanding school-community partnerships, several chapters narrow in on specific issues that school-­ community partnerships addressed in Stirling. The circumstances faced by vulnerable populations such as children and youth living in poverty, newcomers to the country, Indigenous children and youth, 2SLGBTQIA+ students, and those with intellectual disabilities and behavioural challenges are highlighted in Chap. 8, emphasizing the ways in which these groups can benefit greatly from community engagement. In addition to sharing the students’ experiences through the eyes of their teachers, principals, and the community members who worked with them, the strategies in place to support vulnerable students and their families are discussed. Chapter 9 follows with a discussion of strategies for addressing a community-wide issue—mental health—using a collaborative approach. School and district personnel, along with their community collaborators, shared a deep concern about the prevalence of poor mental health among children and youth. City leaders and residents took a collaborative approach to this

22 

C. M. HANDS

problem, putting a city-wide network of resources into place to support children and youth, and their families. Chapters 8 and 9 take a look at the unique experiences of specific groups in Stirling encountered in the research. Detailed examples from the study schools make it possible to consider the kinds of collaboration needed to address specific issues that vulnerable individuals experience in culturally and socio-­ economically diverse communities. The book concludes with an exploration of possibilities for promoting closer social ties within a community. Chapter 10 expands the focus from specific issues experienced in the study schools to opportunities for transforming a school into a community hub. Although the Stirling schools did not have broad integration of school and community services, school and district personnel were clearly open to greater integration and understood the benefits to students of situating a range of resources in the school. Structural, cultural, and behavioural changes are recommended for this kind of school reform, as well as an inclusive approach that promotes buy­in. Suggestions for future research in school-community relations are also offered. By investigating a narrow but deep segment of the community engagement phenomenon in a high-needs, urban core, it is possible to develop a picture of productive initiatives and the problems of practice that will (hopefully) be informative for those not only in some Canadian contexts, but also more broadly in other Western contexts. In doing so, specific recommendations throughout the book provide policymakers, district personnel, practitioners, and scholars with insights into the kinds of resources school personnel and community members need to successfully create and maintain collaborative relationships, and the strategies they can employ to make community engagement a reality.

1  INTRODUCTION TO PATHWAYS TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT… 

23

Appendix: Community Engagement in Education Research Participants Organization sector School—public sector All Saints Secondary School

Valley Ridge Secondary School

Redeemer Elementary School

Participant pseudonym

Occupation/role

Cameron

Principal

Mia Sandra Ida Warren Josephine Mark Olivia Loretta Jackie Kathleen May Janet Mavis Rami Rose Sam Martin Beatrix Kostas Diane

Physical Education department head Science department head Assistant principal Career Studies teacher Business department head Business teacher Chaplain Student Success teacher Student Success teacher Guidance head Educational assistant Educational assistant Special Education resource teacher Special Education teacher Special Education teacher Special Education teacher Communications teacher Community-based Education teacher Hospitality and Tourism teacher Principal

Leo Barry Charlotte Helen Marnie Kevin

Business department head Arts department head Guidance head English as a Second Language teacher English department head, Student Success lead Principal

Melissa Jackie Tabitha James Charlie Pete Connie

Specialist teacher Grade 3 teacher Grade 3 teacher Grades 7 and 8 teacher Grade 7 teacher K-8 teacher Administrative assistant, front office (continued)

24 

C. M. HANDS

(continued) Organization sector

Participant pseudonym

Occupation/role

Wendy Avison Elementary School

Damien

Principal

Sasha

Grade 2 teacher

Frank Suzanne Domenic Tamara Wanda Patricia Howie Ben

Director of education Superintendent (community engagement) Community engagement office manager Community engagement co-ordinator Planning, accommodations, and rental manager Early childhood education manager Social work services manager Director of education

Gian Carolina Betty Carlo Miriam

Superintendent (community engagement) Superintendent Social worker, All Saints Community liaison consultant College professor

Cathy Amy Linda Barbara Megan

Public Health nurse Public Health nurse Public Health nurse Librarian Manager, Stirling Child and Home Management Services Manager, botanical gardens education program Manager, YWCA programs

District—public sector Stirling School District

Stirling Catholic School District

Community—public sector

Jody Community—non-profit sector

Wendy Derek Holly Deanna Lorna Lynette Shannon Stacey Karen Krystal Renee

Manager, city-wide social skills program Manager, Contact Stirling Resource co-ordinator, Contact Stirling Manager, Stirling volunteer organization Executive director, Indigenous education programs Indigenous youth advisor Manager, YMCA after-school program Manager, YMCA after-school program Manager, child and youth mental health services Team lead, child and youth mental health program (continued)

1  INTRODUCTION TO PATHWAYS TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT… 

25

(continued) Organization sector

Participant pseudonym

Occupation/role

Gerrard

Carrie Luke Bonnie

Research manager, national drop-out prevention program National drop-out prevention case worker National drop-out prevention case worker Child and youth worker Manager, Stirling nutrition program Manager, newcomer and refugee trauma therapy Manager, YMCA settlement workers in schools YMCA settlement workers Manager, Boys and Girls Club Manager, John Howard Society Youth worker, John Howard Society Youth worker, youth empowerment program Youth worker, youth empowerment program Optometrists’ association community liaison Founder, leadership and physical education company Founder, physical education company Founder, physical education company Parent, Redeemer Elementary School

Sid

Trustee, Stirling Catholic School District

Bob Wayne Ron Petra Bev Adam 10 participants Mona Rina Carl Meg Larisa Susan Community—for-profit sector

Community—individual, resident

Paul

References Anderson, G. L. (1998). Toward authentic participation. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 571–603. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 00028312035004571 Auerbach, S. (2011). Conceptualizing leadership for authentic partnerships: A continuum to inspire practice. In S.  Auerbach (Ed.), School leadership for authentic family and community partnerships: Research perspectives for transforming practice (pp. 29–51). Routledge.

26 

C. M. HANDS

Barton, A.  C., Drake, C., Perez, J.  G., St. Louis, K., & George, M. (2004). Ecologies of parent engagement in urban education. Educational Researcher, 33(4), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X03300400 Beck, L.  G. (1999). Metaphors of educational community: An analysis of the images that reflect and influence scholarship and practice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 13–45. https://doi.org/10.117 7/0013161X9935100 Boyd, W.  L., & Crowson, R.  L. (1993). Coordinated services for children: Designing arks for storms and seas unknown. American Journal of Education, 101, 140–179. https://doi.org/10.1086/444037 Clune, W. (1990). Three views of curriculum policy in the school context: The school as policy mediator, policy critic, and policy constructor. In M. McLaughlin, J. Talbert, & N. Bascia (Eds.), The contexts of teaching in secondary schools: Teachers’ realities (pp. 256–270). Teachers College Press. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement), S95–S120. Coleman, J. S., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private high schools: The impact of communities. Basic Books. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson. Crowson, R. L., & Boyd, W. L. (2001). The new role of community development in educational reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 9–29. https://doi. org/10.1207/S15327930pje7602_2 Curtis, B. (1988). Patterns of resistance to public education: England, Ireland, and Canada West, 1830-1890. Comparative Education Review, 32(3), 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1086/446780 Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N.  R., Vanvoorhis, F.  L., Martin, C.  S., Thomas, B.  G., Greenfield, M.  D., Hutchins, D. J., & Williams, K. J. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbooks for action. Corwin Press. Evans, M. P. (2011). Learning to organize for educational change: One CBO’s efforts to influence educational policy. In C. M. Hands & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Including families and communities in urban education (pp.  139–160). Information Age. Fortunato, M.  W.-P., & Clevenger, M.  R. (2017). Toward entrepreneurial community development: Leaping cultural and leadership boundaries. Routledge. https://doi-­org.proxy.library.brocku.ca/10.4324/9781315677323 Gregoric, C. (2013). School-community involvement. UNESCO-APNIEVE. Hands, C. M. (2005). Patterns of interdependency: The development of partnerships between schools and communities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, ON, Canada.

1  INTRODUCTION TO PATHWAYS TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT… 

27

Hands, C. M. (2006). Seeing the glass as half full: Meeting the needs of underprivileged students through school-community partnerships. In D. E. Armstrong & B.  J. McMahon (Eds.), Inclusion in urban educational environments: Addressing issues of diversity, equity and social justice (pp.  71–90). Information Age. Hands, C. M. (2014a). Connecting to the world beyond the school: Social contexts that influence school leaders’ school-community collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations, 24(1), 41–56. Hands, C. M. (2014b). Youth perspectives on community collaboration in education: Are students innovative developers, active participants, or passive observers of collaborative activities? The School Community Journal, 24(1), 69–98. Hands, C. (2015). Creating links between the school and the community beyond its walls: What teachers and principals do to develop and lead school-community partnerships. Teaching & Learning, 9(1), 1–15. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What’s worth fighting for out there? Teachers College Press. Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale: The essential guide to family-school partnerships. The New Press. Institute for Education Leadership. (2013, September). The Ontario Leadership Framework: A school and system leaders’ guide to putting Ontario’s leadership framework into action. Retrieved October 16, 2022, from www.education-­ leadership-­ontario.ca Keyes, M.  C., & Gregg, S. (2001). School-community connections: A literature review. AEL. Kryazhimskii, F. V., Bol’shakov, V. N., & Koryukin, V. I. (2001). Man in the light of current ecological problems. Russian Journal of Ecology, 32, 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012531414462 Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merz, C., & Furman, G. (1997). Community and schools: Promise and paradox. Teachers College Press. Murphy, M. F. (1997). Unmaking and remaking the “one best system”: London, Ontario, 1852–1860. History of Education Quarterly, 37(3), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.2307/369447 Nicolis, G., & Prigogine, I. (1989). Exploring complexity: An Introduction. W. H. Freeman. Ontario Ministry of Education (2015). Community hubs in Ontario: A strategic framework and action plan. Retrieved on December 1, 2022, from https:// dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/4815/community-­h ubs-­a -­ strategic-­framework-­and-­action.pdf

28 

C. M. HANDS

Ontario Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Community use of schools. Retrieved October 16, 2022, from https://edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/community/ index.html Pushor, D. (2007, January). Parent engagement: Creating a shared world [Paper presentation]. Ontario Education Research Symposium, Toronto, ON, Canada. Pushor, D., & Amendt, T. (2018). Leading an examination of beliefs and assumptions about parents. School Leadership & Management, 38(2), 202–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1439466 Rothe, J. P. (2000). Undertaking qualitative research. University of Alberta Press. Sanders, M. G. (2001). The role of “community” in comprehensive school, family, and community partnership programs. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1086/499691 Sanders, M. G. (2006). Building school-community partnerships: Collaboration for student success. Skyhorse Publishing. Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1345–1368. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­9620.00206 Schutz, A. (2006). Home is a prison in the global city: The tragic failure of school-­ based community engagement strategies. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 691–743. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076004691 Shapiro, J. P., Ginsberg, A. E., & Brown, S. P. (2003). The ethic of care in urban schools: Family and community involvement. Leading & Managing, 9(2), 45–50. Sheldon, S. B. (2005). Testing a structural equation model of partnership program implementation and parent involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/499197 Spier, E., González, R. L., & Osher, D. (2018). The role of the community in learning and development. In G.  E. Hall, L.  F. Quinn, & D.  M. Gollnick (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of teaching and learning (pp. 79–105). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.  Steiner, F. (2002). Human ecology: Following nature’s lead. Island Press. Tyack, D. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warren, M. R., Hong, S., Rubin, C. H., & Uy, P. S. (2009). Beyond the bake sale: A community-based relational approach to parent engagement in schools. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2209–2254. https://doi. org/10.1177/016146810911100901 Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C. L., Smith, J., & Hentschke, G. (2003). Working Paper: Cross-sectorial alliances in education: A new approach to enhancing school ­capacity. University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education, Center on Educational Governance. Yin, R.  K. (2017). Case study research: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.

CHAPTER 2

Interpreting the Map and Navigating to Destinations: Using School-Community Policy to Influence Practice

One of the oldest ways of charting a course is celestial navigation. According to archaeologists (BBC News, 2000), the ancient caves of Lascaux, France may depict constellations that ancient peoples used to orient themselves. Similarly, the sea-trading Minoans of ancient Crete used the stars to navigate the Mediterranean (National Geographic, n.d.). While celestial navigation has been used frequently since those ancient times and is still taught to future officers in the U.S.  Naval Academy (Peterson, 2016), its popularity has waned and stellar maps have been overshadowed by the rise of cartography. The second-century C.E. Roman astronomer and astrologer, Claudius Ptolemy, is credited with inventing (and coining the term) “geography” in his quest to develop realistic mapping (Thompson, 2017). In total, he plotted nearly 10,000 locations throughout Europe, Asia, and North Africa, gathering detailed descriptions and stories from travellers to do so. He also developed a system of global lines, the forerunners of longitude and latitude (Thompson, 2017). Human history reveals that we have always needed tools to help us reach our desired destination. In the same way that navigational tools like maps help humans to move through space, policy is a kind of “map” that helps humans to navigate complex problems. Just as a map represents a route with a symbolic diagram, policymaking is “the dynamic and value-laden process through which a political system handles a public problem” (Fowler, 2004, p. 9), © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. M. Hands, Pathways to Community Engagement in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33001-8_2

29

30 

C. M. HANDS

identifying a current issue, a desirable goal, and a pathway of actions towards the goal (Fowler, 2004; Malen, 2005). This chapter focuses on school and district administrators and community members’ experiences with community engagement policy. It begins with a theoretical overview of the different roles constituents take in policy interpretation. Examining the experiences of study participants through the lens of these roles offers insight into district- and school-level practices around community engagement policy. A spotlight on the variety of ways in which individuals navigate these policies to achieve their organization’s vision renders a clearer picture of how community engagement policies are interpreted and the likelihood that partnerships will succeed. This chapter concludes with an overview of the findings from Stirling and the insights they provide for policymaking and educational practices related to school-community collaboration.

Map Makers and Map Readers There is no question that policymakers in Ontario and elsewhere are aware of policy’s powerful potential to guide schools in the journey towards lasting, beneficial community partnerships. The Ontario Ministry of Education has several policy documents, some attached to dedicated funding, designed to foster school-community collaboration (Ontario Ministry of Education [OME], 2006, 2009, n.d.). Many schools and their districts also have established family-school-community policies to support community engagement (Epstein et al., 2006; Hands, 2005, 2013). Regardless, there is often a disconnect between policy and its implementation. One of the challenges of navigating policy implementation is the people who use policy “maps” are seldom the same people who make them. Policies are created in evolving social contexts using input from diverse groups. These include policy authors and the elected officials who pass related legislation, as well as those who research or advocate for particular policy choices, with competing interests and diverse levels of influence (Brown, 2013). Policies are then interpreted and put into action by a different group of individuals with varying experiences, needs, and agendas (Ball et al., 2011) such as the administrators who interpret policies and the educators, staff, parents, and students who enact or are governed by them. In this section, we examine the complexities these varied roles engender. A political framework (Heck, 2004; Malen, 2005) is used to define the roles of various actors to demonstrate the complexity of the policy process.

2  INTERPRETING THE MAP AND NAVIGATING TO DESTINATIONS: USING… 

31

Each of these constituents potentially brings different perspectives, goals, or intentions for policy (Spillane et al., 2002), which can influence its outcome considerably. This explains why the path between policy and outcome is often meandering. Several scholars contribute to a political framework outlining the different roles interpreters and implementers play in an often-shifting policy landscape. William Clune (1990) focuses on school-level contexts and identifies three policy interpretation roles: mediators, policy critics, and policy constructors. Building on the work of Clune (1990), Stephen Ball and colleagues (2011) expand policy interpretation to include community members, acknowledging that constituents can play multiple roles. Combining these two conceptual frameworks, we can better understand how community engagement policy is mediated, critiqued, and constructed. The Policy Mediator Policy mediation involves school-level decision-making that influences how a policy is carried out (Clune, 1990). It can manifest in a great number of guises. In mediating policy, the narrator sub-role focuses on storytelling: distilling and explaining the policy’s meaning for others in the community and building a vision of the future the policy is meant to effect (Ball et al., 2011). School administrators frequently act as narrators (Ball et al., 2011), influencing their schools’ vision (Donaldson, 2006; DuFour et  al., 2006; Leonard, 1999) and interpreting community involvement policy through this vision (Hands, 2005, 2014). Policy narration is typically intended to encourage “organisational commitment and cohesion” and to present cohesive policy and practice to the public (Ball et al., 2011, p. 627). In charting a path from policy interpretation to implementation, logistical issues often come into play. Leaders provide both time and training to ensure that staff have the skills and knowledge to put the policies in question into practice (Clune, 1990). These activities form the foundation of the entrepreneurial sub-role. Entrepreneurs are policy advocates who champion a specific policy enactment, in part, by charismatically engaging others’ interest (Ball et  al., 2011). They often take a proactive role in establishing school-community relationships before passing them on to others to develop and maintain (Hands, 2009). This strategy builds the infrastructure needed to support community engagement initiatives and creates space to share leadership responsibilities with teachers and staff

32 

C. M. HANDS

(Hands, 2010). Similarly, both administrators and teachers can be policy enthusiasts—a third sub-type—who gain professional satisfaction from implementing particular policies, and are examples to others in putting policy into practice (Ball et al., 2011). Enthusiasts are often also translators, explaining what a policy means to members of their organization or community. By contrast, receivers are usually early career teachers who rely on administrators and more senior teachers for guidance in interpreting and implementing policy (Ball et al., 2011). When school-community collaborations succeed, it is often because educators and support staff take on the roles of enthusiasts and receivers (Hands, 2005, 2009). These roles can also be duplicated at the level of district or provincial administration. Individuals beyond the school walls also have a role to play in policy mediation (Ball et al., 2011). Outsiders are educational consultants, representatives of organizations with an educational focus (Ball et al., 2011), or anyone in the community with an interest in education (Epstein et  al., 2018). Outsiders can play many roles in policy processes, consulting on the interpretation of policy, providing professional development, or working with schools to put policy into practice (Ball et al., 2011). Outsiders, in short, facilitate both policy interpretation and implementation. Although the existing literature often overlooks these actors in the policy process (Clune, 1990; Fowler, 2004; Malen, 2005), some policies—such as those involving community engagement in education—can only be effectively carried out by involving outsiders. The last policy mediator sub-role arises once the policies are interpreted and put into practice. Transactors monitor the policy implementation to ensure accountability (Spillane et al., 2002). Policy goals have metrics, and data are gathered on the work done in response to the policy (Ball et al., 2011). In the sphere of community engagement initiatives, transactors can help to ensure that various constituents meet these accountability measures. A policy’s relative importance impacts the likelihood of transactors monitoring implementation; “the policies that count most are the ones that are counted” (Ball et al., 2011, p. 630). The Policy Critic Policy critique is an extension of mediation. Both mediators and critics use the policy goals as reference points but, while mediators support constituents in meeting policy goals, the policy critic identifies when a policy is not

2  INTERPRETING THE MAP AND NAVIGATING TO DESTINATIONS: USING… 

33

meeting its goals, has negative impacts that outweigh benefits, or cannot be achieved by the intended implementers (Clune, 1990). Critics consequently advocate for those policies to be withdrawn or substantially changed (Clune, 1990). Critics also develop and maintain “counter-­ discourses,” providing an alternative way to view the policy from that of the official or prevalent interpretation (Ball et al., 2011, p. 632). As an example, when policy negatively impacts teachers’ working conditions, union representatives can act as policy critics (Ball et al., 2011). School and district leaders may act as policy critics when they determine the policy goals are not meeting constituents’ needs (Clune, 1990). The Policy Constructor School personnel can also take on the role of policy constructors, not just implementing government or district policies but creating their own. Policies generated in the context where they will be applied can often respond better to unique school-level needs and priorities (Clune, 1990). Policy constructors also exist at higher levels. While Clune (1990) and Ball et  al. (2011) do not address the subject, school district personnel, for example, can and do create policy and district-wide improvement plans, tailoring them to address government mandates while taking into consideration their districts’ contexts (Hands, 2005). This level of policy control makes it possible for alternative, competing policies to be developed in response to school- and district-level critiques (Clune, 1990). While each of these roles has the potential to support effective policy creation and implementation, the sheer breadth of actors also contributes to the general instability of policy and the frequent disconnect between intent and practice. As Clune (1990) suggests, “policy is an endless, recursive dialogue, rather than a series of self-sealing implemented commands” (p. 259). In the following section, I illustrate this dynamic through examples from Stirling’s school districts.

Mediators, Critics, and Constructors in the Stirling School Districts Stirling demonstrates the vast number of roles individuals can take along the path from policy creation to implementation. It also shows how complex the policy landscape can become, as well as the potential roadblocks

34 

C. M. HANDS

and unexpected detours along the way. Given Stirling’s diversity of individuals and their perspectives, goals, and biases around both making and using the policy map, it is no wonder that it showcases the full breadth of roles outlined by Clune (1990) and Ball et al. (2011). Policy Mediators Although Stirling’s education directives and policies came from the Ontario Ministry of Education, their interpretation began at the district level. As Ben, Stirling Catholic S. D.’s director of education, observed, the communications are directly to the director of ed, so directives and policy and policy program memorandums … All of that flows through the director’s office … then to whoever has direct responsibility [for the area addressed by the policy]… . we don’t just take all that [the Ministry] would give to us. We meet all of our obligations under the Education Act, of course, but we also make sure we infuse what’s important to us locally, in the [district] … I find it a strength that we can make things make sense for us … there is a kind of morphing process as it moves its way to the classroom.

The impact of policy mediators depended on the flexibility of interpretation within a given policy. Some policies—for example, Ministry-prescribed curricula—were not as flexible as others. Regardless, there was room to adapt most policies to accommodate the different needs in each school and district. This flexibility paved the way for district and school administrators to take on translator, narrator, enthusiast, entrepreneur, and transactor roles. The sections that follow highlight the different roles various constituents played in policy interpretation and the ways these roles impacted policy outcomes.  ranslators and Narrators Act as Policy Interpreters T Educational leaders at district and school levels often act as policy translators, providing narrative around the policy for others. Interviews revealed that district personnel had the latitude to use their discretion when translating policy. Frank, Stirling S. D.’s director of education, noted that he and other district-level personnel, such as superintendents, served as both filter and translator for trustees’ priorities as communicated through policy. When considering putting policies involving community engagement into practice, Frank observed:

2  INTERPRETING THE MAP AND NAVIGATING TO DESTINATIONS: USING… 

35

If there’s anything in here that’s driven by legislation, then there’s no flexibility; we have to adhere to it.… If it’s not part of the regular program but there’s an enhancement opportunity, yes, we [have some flexibility].… We have to be a filter, a translator.

Tamara, Stirling S. D.’s community engagement co-ordinator, offered a similar perspective to Frank and provided a clear example of policy translation at the district level. In reflecting on the Ministry’s Community Use of Schools policy (OME, 2006, n.d.), which subsidizes school facility use by non-profit organizations, she noted, Community Use of Schools … doesn’t cover your full cost of use of schools, but it’ll cover usually a varying amount depending on what your programming is, whether it’s youth- or child-serving, or adult[-serving]. There are all these different levels. It is a bit confusing but we’re revising it to make it more accessible and make sense to everyone.

Here, district-level personnel from the community engagement office literally translated policy to ensure school personnel and community members understood it clearly. Tamara’s example and Frank’s clearly illustrate how policy interpretation can be idiosyncratic depending on the individual who serves as translator. These idiosyncrasies also played out elsewhere in the district through the translator roles taken on by staff. For example, Howie, Stirling S. D.’s Social Work Services manager, reflected on Ministry Policy Memorandum 149 (OME, 2009), which disallows overlap between the health and social services provided by the school district and by professionals in community organizations. In his own context, one possible translation of the policy is community-based social workers cannot work in schools. Howie, however, explained that our application of it is they can’t come in and do what our social workers do. They can come in and do social work if there’s social work that our social workers can’t do .… Different [districts] can interpret it in different ways.… When we first started, … social workers couldn’t work inside … We had to have conversations around if they’re gonna come in and do something we can’t do, then it’s not really duplication.

In this instance, a policy was translated flexibly, reflecting both the district’s needs and the translator’s perspective.

36 

C. M. HANDS

In contrast, community members were typically not engaged by district personnel to translate policy even if it impacted specific community groups as in the case of Policy/Program Memorandum 119, which seeks to cultivate an equitable and inclusive educational environment (OME, 2013). Lynette, representing an organization advocating for culturally relevant education for Indigenous children and youth, reflected on the fact that Indigenous communities were often not consulted on curricular content and instructional policies related to Indigenous culture. Sometimes a particular school [district] will call me and then say, “We have this project, we want to you to consult on it.” I’m like, “Whoa, I do not represent the community.” … I say, “You know what? Unless you’re gonna engage with … the broader community, you can’t put down in your notes that you consulted with me and I represent that … community ’cause I don’t”.… Their interpretation of what the Ministry says is so different than what our interpretation would be or their level of understanding, ’cause they’re not Indigenous people.

Lynette’s experiences highlight how different constituents translate and narrate policy in varying ways. Without community consultation, policy interpretation can be narrow, may overlook diverse ways of navigating the world, and may not achieve its desired ends. At the school level, principals were often translators, interpreting policy in ways that could be most effectively applied to their contexts and then narrating this interpretation to others in their buildings (see Ball et  al., 2011; Clune, 1990). For example, Redeemer Elementary School’s principal, Kevin, described principals’ roles in interpreting policy for specific contexts: We may have a pullout of all principals and something’s presented to us…. “Here’s Equitable and Inclusive Education. This is what the policy is. This is how we’re going to attack the bill from a school [district] perspective,” but then that’s different everywhere because every school looks different. The fabric of every building is just different. You’ve just got to figure it out. … So you see what the fabric of your building is and you’re like, “Okay, well, this is what I want this policy to look like.”

District- and school-level leaders discussed the policies and their implications at regular meetings—bi-weekly if necessary, according to Valley Ridge Secondary School’s principal, Diane—which assisted school-level

2  INTERPRETING THE MAP AND NAVIGATING TO DESTINATIONS: USING… 

37

administrators in interpreting and narrating policy for their schools’ context. As these examples of interpretation illustrate, once the policies were developed by the government or the district, administrators—including principals and their superintendents—had a great deal of influence on their outcome. For policies that were not mandated, but merely suggested or recommended, district and school leaders had the latitude to apply or not apply the policies based on their understanding of the students’ and the community’s needs. For both mandated and optional policies, then, policy interpretation was shaped by constituents’ interests and experiences (Clune, 1990) and reflected local practices (Connor & James, 1996).  olicy Enthusiasts, Entrepreneurs, and Transactors P Turning now to other mediator roles, interviews conducted in Stirling revealed that a policy enthusiast, or champion, was often needed to initiate and develop school-community partnerships. In Stirling, an enthusiast who could help others envision the policy in practice was beneficial for the uptake of non-mandated policies within a school and across a district’s schools. These same individuals also served as entrepreneurs, engaging others’ interest in policy implementation. Stirling Catholic S. D.’s director of education, Ben, identified Carlo, the district’s community liaison consultant as a school-community engagement policy entrepreneur. According to Ben, “the good idea happens somewhere at the real grass-roots level, and the responsiveness from the higher part of the organization” facilitated the collaboration, but most importantly, Carlo, as entrepreneur, was able to connect the two. With somebody to facilitate communication and understanding among participants at various levels, school personnel saw how partnerships were beneficial and community members understood how to engage with school and district personnel, which made more collaborative activities possible. The study’s principals and assistant principals also embodied the enthusiast’s role by providing community partners with physical space and resources. All Saints Secondary School’s assistant principal, Ida, provided space for several community partners, including the John Howard Society, which promotes criminal justice reform and supports at-risk youth through education and community services. Settlement workers from the YMCA had their own room in Valley Ridge where they met with newcomers, supported teachers with language interpretation, and referred families to local social services. Similarly, Redeemer had a room set aside for student nurses

38 

C. M. HANDS

from the local university so they could implement mental and physical health programming. In contrast, Avison Elementary School did not make any space available in the school due to high enrolment; personnel often sought the use of nearby community buildings for meetings and school activities. Apart from one teacher and the Public Health nurse assigned to the school, there were no community engagement policy enthusiasts at Avison, and few partnerships existed. These differences between schools highlighted the importance of enthusiasts in moving a policy from paper to practice. Finally, Stirling provided many examples of policy transactors. District liaisons, principals, teachers, and community partners all monitored partnerships to ensure they were beneficial for all parties (see Hands, 2005, and Chap. 3). Relationships that were not beneficial were revised or terminated by the participants. The principals, teachers, and community members who developed and participated in relationships were best positioned to assess progress and whether their partnerships were meeting needs. District personnel, by contrast, had varied success as transactors. On the one hand, Stirling S.  D.’s Community Engagement Office monitored partnerships of which they were aware, but principals and teachers reported not having the time to apply to the district for permission to partner with organizations, as per the district policy, which meant that some partnerships were not evaluated by the district. On the other, the best-placed district transactor was Stirling Catholic S. D.’s community liaison consultant, who not only vetted potential partners but also created many of the collaborative activities. As with the other mediator roles, diverse perspectives of people in different roles influenced the ways community engagement policies were enacted. Likewise, a variety of transactors at the school and district level impacted the monitoring that took place and the prognosis for partnerships’ longevity. Policy Critics and Constructors Stirling also showcased the roles played by critics and constructors who reject, modify, or create entirely new policies. Whether at the district or school level, administrators needed to prioritize among competing policies and initiatives. Decision-making from different perspectives and contexts made a one-to-one correspondence between policy intent and

2  INTERPRETING THE MAP AND NAVIGATING TO DESTINATIONS: USING… 

39

enactment unlikely at best, particularly for optional policies like community engagement initiatives. With many demands on the schools’ limited resources, school administrators in particular could not put all policies into practice; instead, using a clear vision and the school’s goals to guide them, they favoured some policies over others. As the following examples show, it is neither possible nor desirable to implement every policy imposed on schools from higher levels of the educational system. In response to this reality, as we will see, principals frequently critique policies and construct new ones. Responding to Policy Flexibility: Shaping Practices with More Policy at the District Level Ministry-level policies, such as those related to parent and community involvement, are often flexible so they can be implemented in diverse schools and communities. Principals observed that insufficient guidelines sometimes made it challenging to implement these policies. In response, administrators for both Stirling Catholic S.D. and Stirling S.D. created more policy, specifically to encourage community involvement. In one successful example, Stirling Catholic S. D. established a policy advocating for a community liaison consultant position to help create relevant relationships between schools and community organizations. The consultant attended community events and meetings with local businesses, and many relationships grew out of this contact. In contrast, when Stirling S.D. created a community engagement office headed by Suzanne, a superintendent, the new procedures for district and school interactions with the community did not lead to greater community engagement. Even though their policy urged schools to “foster positive relationships with community members who support student achievement and well-being,” the community engagement office did not engage in community outreach. The flexibility to create additional district-level community engagement policies had starkly different outcomes in the two school districts, as observed in interviews with individual who worked with both. For example, the founder of a Physical Education company, Luke, said, “[Stirling Catholic School District] actually calls me a partner. [Stirling School District]? Nothing. I don’t seem to be able to reach anyone, and I don’t have any relationship with them.”

40 

C. M. HANDS

Principals as Critics and Constructors: Circumventing Existing Policy and Creating New Policy at the School Level Since policies like those involving community engagement in education were not mandated, administrators had authority to interpret and enact the policies to suit their schools’ contexts. Or not. Judging policy as irrelevant to the school context was one form of criticism. For example, Valley Ridge principal, Diane, was responsible for determining whether the district-­level community engagement policy applied to her school context and the relationships she was developing at the school. She shared her approach in a conversation with the researcher: Interviewer: So as a principal, how do you typically deal with policy? When you know there are policies in place, do you modify any policies to suit your environment? Diane: No I don’t. No, don’t modify any policies. Don’t even interpret the policies. Just look at it in terms of, especially with the partnership policy, does it actually apply. And again, because most of what we do doesn’t fit the [district’s] mandate for a partnership. If this is a gift to the school from someplace, this is an opportunity for kids to go and experience something, it’s not a partnership. So I wouldn’t even say I’m trying to avoid the policy. It’s [just] that policy is so detailed and it’s such a large thing that it doesn’t really hit the school level. Not in my experience. So we do all kinds of neat things with community, but they’re just not falling under the umbrella of our [district’s] partnership policy. Interviewer: Okay, yes. So you look at partnerships more broadly perhaps? Diane: Yeah. We call them partnerships but by policy they’re not. Yes, we engage in as many experiences that are beneficial to kids as we can manage. We had run a pilot with a local community agency, just by a lucky association and some hard work again from my staff. … I’m never going to say no to things that are going to help kids, even though I

2  INTERPRETING THE MAP AND NAVIGATING TO DESTINATIONS: USING… 

41

probably should have said “I don’t think we can really do that.” So I circumvented maybe, ignored—I don’t know. …And then other schools heard about it, so last night, the [district] people attached to that area and myself met with the community agency to say “so what does this really look like across the school [district],” not with one school. Interviewer: So basically, you begged for forgiveness rather than ask for permission, and then it worked out really well, which is good. [Laughs] Diane: It is a fairly common strategy. I’m not the only one who uses it. Here, we see the administrator in the role of policy critic. Diane chose not to apply a district-level community engagement policy she considered irrelevant. Instead, she implemented an informal community involvement policy at the school, whereby teachers were encouraged to create connections with community-based organizations that would benefit students. Principals as Critics: Ignoring Policy Rather than side-stepping the details of Ministry and district policy to fit their school better, some district-level personnel and school principals simply ignored policies they deemed less important or optional. Community engagement policies often fell into this category. Avison principal, Damien, described how he had three central priorities: (a) strong numeracy and literacy, (b) safety and inclusion, and (c) diverse experiences and learning opportunities. Any policies that fell outside of this scope were not prioritized. For an optional policy that had potential community involvement in students’ career planning, Damien admitted, “Frankly, none of my staff know about it. I just dumped it in the garbage, because … it’s not part of the curriculum … Principals [need] to continue to filter this stuff.” This principal’s words were reflective of the other administrators’ observations in the study. Not all policies shared with school administrators by the district made it into staff meeting discussions.

42 

C. M. HANDS

Policy Interpretation: Summary and Recommendations From mediators, to critics, to constructors, a close examination of the various roles undertaken by stakeholders in the education system helps to shed light on the often-winding path from policy creation to policy implementation. It also helps to explain the variability between districts and schools that, on the surface, might otherwise appear quite similar. These roles elucidate the powerful influence that policy interpretation has on the relative abundance and success of community engagement initiatives. While it might seem sensible to legislate community engagement if we want to see it in every school, mandated community engagement through policy has not always been effective in the past (see Hands, 2005; Voisin, 2003). For example, while Ontario’s Ministry of Education legislated school councils in 1995 to enable the community to contribute to school governance, some schools did not have councils seven years later (Voisin, 2003). In other schools, educators complained that school councils were essentially social clubs with no impact on the school or parents complained about principals who directed meetings and limited community involvement (Hands, 2005). This example illustrates the key role interpretation plays in policy implementation; the same policy manifests differently in different schools. In part, differences occur because of the different social contexts and resources of each school (Epstein & Sheldon, 2016; Hands, 2005, 2014); in part, they occur as a consequence of the understandings and beliefs of those in a position to implement policy (Flessa & Grégoire, 2011), especially principals (Hubbard & Hands, 2011). Considerations for Collaboration The ways in which policies were understood and enacted in Stirling provide insights for implementing community engagement initiatives in all schools.  olicy Interpreters and Implementers Need Flexibility P The school leaders in this study revealed the power administrators exert in a political policy process (see Heck, 2004; Malen, 2005). Opportunities for discretion occurred when policies lacked clear guidelines for action (Heilmann, 2012). Leaders had discretion; that is, they had the “flexibility to accommodate unseen situations and the ability to individualize policy

2  INTERPRETING THE MAP AND NAVIGATING TO DESTINATIONS: USING… 

43

applications to meet the needs of particular clients or constituencies” (Ball, Krane & Lauth, 1985, p.  103, as cited in Heilmann, 2012). As policy mediators, school leaders were gatekeepers, determining which community organizations had access to the schools and in what capacity (Hands, 2009). The Stirling schools also demonstrated the discretionary function played by the principals as mediators supporting or hindering policy implementation. Government- and district-level policymakers should ensure there is flexibility in the language around the types of collaborative activities cited in community engagement policies so personnel can tailor initiatives to their contexts. Prescriptive policies for schools, such as Stirling S.  D.’s partnership policy, with its clearly defined terms and parameters, open the door for interpreters’ and potential implementers’ critique. Principals can choose to ignore non-mandatory policies they consider irrelevant or ones with time-consuming procedural protocols attached to them. Even legislated policies are at risk of being sidestepped or ignored if the language and procedures are too specific. Educational leaders can and do analyse the terminology during the interpretation phase and conclude that they can operate outside the policy, achieving the same ends without violating any mandates, as Valley Ridge principal, Diane, did when considering community engagement opportunities at her school. This finding extends the notion of policy critique articulated by Ball et al. (2011). Not only can school leaders critique policy, pointing out policy implications and lobbying for modifications or withdrawal (Ball et al., 2011), they can also prevent their staff from even being exposed to the policies they choose not to implement. S chools’ Vision and Goals Play a Key Role in Which Community Engagement Policies Are Promoted and to What Extent The literature presents several possible ways an organization’s vision and goals interplay with policy. While policy can shape the vision in keeping with policy guidelines, this study showed how a school’s vision and goals can conversely determine a policy’s fate. Ball and colleagues (2011) note that a school leader’s vision is part of policy narration; that is, it determines how they filter policy for their staff. These administrators are policy translators, “who plan and produce the events and processes and institutional texts of policy” (Ball et al., 2011, p. 630). They also act as policy enthusiasts, who “embody policy in their practice and are examples, to others, policy paragons” (Ball et al., 2011, p. 630). How they see the policy in

44 

C. M. HANDS

relation to their school’s vision determines whether they take on enthusiast or translator roles. In this study, school leaders had the discretionary capacity to interpret policies in light of their vision and goals for their schools. Vision and goals were grounded in legislated policy, and the school leaders’ decisions around possible courses of action were guided by the students’ best interests, which was consistent with the literature (DuFour et al., 2006; Evans, 2001). Policies, such as those supporting community engagement initiatives, were laid on top of this foundation and administrators assessed their applicability and viability. Importantly, this strategy did not apply to legislated policy, such as Ministry curriculum directives, which were always incorporated into the schools’ practices and, in turn, influenced schools’ vision and goals. Within this policy landscape, school administrators used their professional discretion to decide what community involvement policy would look like in its implementation or if it would be operationalized at all. This finding suggests that in order to promote non-mandatory community engagement policies, district leaders might create training opportunities (Epstein & Sheldon, 2016) to help principals see that they are in keeping with their school vision and goals. Stirling’s principals sometimes shaped teachers’ and staff’s access to policy by presenting a filtered version of it, which was consistent with existing literature (see Coburn, 2005). They sometimes also kept teachers and staff unaware of policy by deliberately ignoring established policies, which has also been demonstrated in the literature (see Borens & Zouridis, 2002, as cited in Heilmann, 2012). This level of discretion helps to explain why optional policies like community involvement may not be implemented in some schools, or may be less evident, as was the case at Avison. Principals only adopted policy maps that would help get their schools to the destination they had already envisioned. Community engagement, in particular, is versatile enough to support a wide range of possible visions and goals, and these connections have the potential to incentivize principals to implement community engagement policies. Without leaders’ clear understanding of policies’ relevance to the school’s priorities, they will likely languish. The large number of initiatives presented to the schools in this study—one reason principal discretion was needed in the first place—suggests that district leaders who wish to see more school-community collaboration across the district may need to take on increased responsibility for filtering the many proposals for collaboration schools receive.

2  INTERPRETING THE MAP AND NAVIGATING TO DESTINATIONS: USING… 

45

J ust Because District- and School-Level Administrators Can Mediate Policy on Their Own Does Not Mean They Should Principals’ clear interpretation and understanding of the students’ needs supported their application of community involvement policies and the selection of community partners for the school, which is consistent with existing literature (Epstein, 2011; Hands, 2005; Sanders & Harvey, 2002). Discretionary decision-making strategies were based on their broader vision and goals for their schools as well as their interpretation of how policy could address the school’s needs, which builds on Heilmann’s (2012) findings. In the best circumstances, principal discretion supports those community partnerships that best serve the needs and goals of the school and community. However, administrators’ discretion can be equally problematic when district- and school-level leaders are unfamiliar with cultures represented within the community, or they have agendas that are incompatible with the communities the schools were serving. Lynette’s experiences advocating for Indigenous children and youth with the district-level committees is one example of this. While district personnel clearly wanted to adopt a collaborative approach by consulting Lynette, these efforts were limited by a lack of any opportunity for debriefing or feedback from the relevant constituent groups. In this way, this study demonstrated the need to involve community members, not just school and district staff, in the interpretation of policies. “Outsiders” should not remain outside of the consultative and interpretive processes (see Ball et al., 2011), especially if the policy involves them or its enactment requires their co-operation. If constituents do not see their input being used, they may be less involved in education in the future (Marsh & Hall, 2018). Similarly, monitoring policy interpretation and implementation collaboratively helps to promote fidelity to intent. When individuals interpret policy idiosyncratically, transactors can play a valuable role in monitoring policy enactment and ensuring accountability (Ball et al., 2011; Spillane et al., 2002). Overall, district personnel in Stirling were not effective as transactors; they were often unaware of how community engagement policies were being implemented because they were not involved in developing community relationships. In light of this reality, schools or districts may consider setting up school-level benchmarks to help principals, teachers, and their community-based collaborators keep track of their school-­ community partnerships and assess whether they are meeting programming

46 

C. M. HANDS

needs. Policies and their enactment can be regularly revisited and benchmarks reviewed and adjusted as needed.

Concluding Thoughts Ptolemy’s realistic mapping and geography were lost for almost 1000 years after the Roman Empire fell. With the Renaissance, burgeoning international commerce and empire-building by the reigning monarchs saw the need for reliable maps to get travellers where they were going and to accurately depict the breadth of countries’ domains (Thompson, 2017). Ptolemy’s work was rediscovered and new maps were created based on his ancient calculations (Thompson, 2017). Unfortunately, Ptolemy had made mapping errors. Infamously, Cristoforo Colombo, interpreting a map based on Ptolemy’s work, arrived in the Americas thinking he was in Asia, which began “centuries of exploration and exploitation on the American continents” (History.com Editors, 2009, paragraph 22). Columbo’s misadventures in the New World highlight the need not just for a map, but one that accurately plots the route to the destination. He would have benefited greatly from the intervention of cartography’s version of a policy critic and constructor. Like maps, policies are meant to provide guidance, but they are limited in this capacity if they are inappropriate for their target constituency or unable to lead implementers to their goals. Policy critics and constructors, along with transactors, play a vital role in ensuring policies are charting an accurate course to the desired destinations; if they are not, they will either be reinterpreted, ignored, or re-written. Even appropriate policies can be misinterpreted or interpreted idiosyncratically by school administrators and educators, thereby leading in unintended directions. By focusing on policy interpretation, this chapter explains why implementation may be limited despite supports for school-family-community engagement initiatives (Epstein, 2011; Hands, 2013; National Network of Partnership Schools, n.d.). It also explains why, even if policies are implemented, the policy in practice may not resemble the policy’s intent. Policy is a valuable orientation tool for promoting community engagement in schools. However, defining community engagement, setting agreed-upon destinations, and navigating through the world of competing initiatives are daunting tasks. Knowledgeable school leaders receiving professional development to implement school-family, and community partnerships policy grounded in research-based practices is a valuable first

2  INTERPRETING THE MAP AND NAVIGATING TO DESTINATIONS: USING… 

47

step (Epstein & Sheldon, 2016). In Stirling, much of the decision-making happened on a discretionary basis at the school level. At the same time, this study showed what kind of community involvement might be possible with more district guidance for school-level administrators, teachers, and support staff in reading and navigating the policy map. While policy interpretation plays a key role in possibilities for school-­ community collaboration, it is only part of the story; partnering is possible through the active implementation of policies that promote collaboration. The next chapter examines the partnership development process, from identifying goals to celebrating and maintaining partnering success. Together, this chapter and the one that follows provide a map of the school-community collaboration process from intent to development and implementation.

References Ball, S., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy actors: Doing policy work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 625–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.601565 BBC News. (2000, August 9). Ice Age star map discovered. http://news.bbc. co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/871930.stm Brown, C. (2013, May). Beyond rationality: Why approaches to evidence-informed policy making fail and how they can flourish [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Clune, W. (1990). Three views of curriculum policy in the school context: The school as policy mediator, policy critic, and policy constructor. In M. McLaughlin, J. Talbert, & N. Bascia (Eds.), The contexts of teaching in secondary schools: Teachers’ realities (pp. 256–270). Teachers College Press. Coburn, C. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509. https://doi. org/10.1177/08959048052761 Connor, C., & James, M. (1996). The mediating role of LEAs in the interpretation of government assessment policy at school level in England. Curriculum Journal, 7(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958517960070203 Donaldson, G. A., Jr. (2006). Cultivating leadership in schools: Connecting people, purpose, and practice (2nd ed.). DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Solution Tree. Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis.

48 

C. M. HANDS

Epstein, J. L., Galindo, C., Sheldon, S.B., & Williams, K.J. (2006, April 7–11). Levels of leadership: Understanding district influence on schools, and programs of family and community involvement [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, United States. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N.  R., Vanvoorhis, F.  L., Martin, C.  S., Thomas, B.  G., Greenfield, M.  D., Hutchins, D. J., & Williams, K. J. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbooks for action (4th ed.). Corwin Press. Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2016). Necessary but not sufficient: The role of policy for advancing programs of school, family, and community partnerships. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation. Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(5), 202–219. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2016.2.5.10 Evans, R. E. (2001). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-life problems of innovation. Jossey-Bass. Flessa, J., & Grégoire, H. (2011). Policy aspirations and dilemmas of implementation: Leadership for partnerships in Ontario, Canada. In S.  Auerbach (Ed.), School leadership for authentic family and community partnerships: Research perspectives for transforming practice (pp. 117–132). Routledge. Fowler, F.  C. (2004). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Hands, C. M. (2005). Patterns of interdependency: The development of partnerships between schools and communities. Unpublished dissertation. University of Toronto. Hands, C.  M. (2009). Architect, advocate, coach and conciliator: The multiple roles of school leaders in the establishment of school-community partnerships and the impact of social context. In K. Anderson (Ed.), The leadership compendium: Emerging scholars in Canadian educational leadership (pp.  193–213). Atlantic Centre for Educational Administration and Leadership. Hands, C. M. (2010). Supporting teacher leadership for partnerships: A case study of the school-community partnership process. In S.  Auerbach (Ed.), School leadership for authentic family and community partnerships: Research perspectives for transforming practice (pp. 173–192). Routledge. Hands, C.  M. (2013). Including all families in education: School district-level efforts to promote parent engagement in Ontario, Canada. Teaching Education, 24(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2013.786893 Hands, C. M. (2014). Connecting to the world beyond the school: Social contexts that influence school leaders’ school-community collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations, 24(1), 41–56. Heck, R. (2004). Studying education and social policy: Theoretical concepts and research methods. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

2  INTERPRETING THE MAP AND NAVIGATING TO DESTINATIONS: USING… 

49

Heilmann, M. (2012). Principals’ perceptions on discretion and decision making. In M.  Manley-Casimir & A.  D. Moffat (Eds.), Administrative discretion in education (pp. 126–147). Brush Education. History.com Editors. (2009). Christopher Columbus. Retrieved October 16, 2022, from https://www.history.com/topics/exploration/christopher-­columbus Hubbard, L., & Hands, C. M. (2011). The role of leadership in forging family-­ school-­ community relationships. In C.  M. Hands & L.  Hubbard (Eds.), Including families and communities in urban education (pp.  41–68). Information Age. Leonard, P. E. (1999). Examining educational purposes and underlying values orientations in schools. In P. T. Begley (Ed.), Values and educational leadership (pp. 217–235). SUNY Press. Malen, B. (2005). Educational leaders as policy analysts. In F. English (Ed.), The Sage handbook of educational leadership (pp. 191–215). Sage. Marsh, J. A., & Hall, M. (2018). Challenges and choices: A multidistrict analysis of statewide mandated democratic engagement. American Educational Research Journal, 55(2), 243–286. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0002831217734803 National Geographic. (n.d.). Navigation. Retrieved on October 16, 2022, from https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/navigation/ National Network of Partnership Schools. (n.d.). Type 6 – Collaborating with the community. Retrieved October 16, 2022, from http://nnps.jhucsos.com/ nnps-­m odel/school-­m odel/six-­t ypes-­o f-­i nvolvement-­k eys-­t o-­s uccessful-­ partnerships/type-­6-­collaborating-­with-­the-­community/ Ontario Ministry of Education. (2006). Community Use of Schools Memorandum 2006: B13 Memo from Dominic Giroux and Nancy Naylor. Retrieved October 16, 2022, from https://efis.fma.csc.gov.on.ca/faab/Memos/B2006/ B_13.pdf Ontario Ministry of Education. (2009, September 25). PPM 149: Protocol for partnerships with external agencies for provision of services by regulating health professionals, regulated social service professionals, and paraprofessionals. Retrieved October 16, 2022, from https://www.ontario.ca/document/education-­ ontario-­policy-­and-­program-­direction/policyprogram-­memorandum-­149 Ontario Ministry of Education. (2013, April 22). PPM 119: Developing and Implementing Equity and Inclusive Education policies. Retrieved October 16, 2022, from https://www.ontario.ca/document/education-­ontario-­policy-­ and-­program-­direction/policyprogram-­memorandum-­119 Ontario Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Community use of schools. Retrieved October 16, 2022, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/community-­use-­schools Peterson, A. (2016, February 17). Why Naval Academy students are learning to sail by the stars for the first time in a decade. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-­switch/wp/2016/02/17/

50 

C. M. HANDS

why-­naval-­academy-­students-­are-­learning-­to-­sail-­by-­the-­stars-­for-­the-­first-­ time-­in-­a-­decade/ Sanders, M., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1345–1368. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­9620.00206 Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387 Thompson, C. (2017, July). From Ptolemy to GPS, the Brief History of Maps. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/ brief-­history-­maps-­180963685/ Voisin, S. (2003). Secondary school principals and school councils: Practices and perceptions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, ON, Canada.

CHAPTER 3

Sustainable Partnerships: The Ecology of Community Engagement Initiatives

Collaboration is essential to life. In the field of biology, mutualistic symbiosis describes a reciprocally beneficial relationship between species, which can include sharing food, protection from predators, or spreading seeds. In this kind of relationship, members of different species benefit from the other’s complementary skills. One example of this mutualism is the relationship between the oxpecker bird and the zebra or rhinoceros in sub-Saharan Africa (New England Complex Systems Institute [NECSI], n.d.). Oxpeckers perch on the backs of large mammals and consume ticks and parasites. Both parties realize benefits—zebras and rhinos are free from insects and oxpeckers enjoy an abundant food source. In essence, mutualistic symbiosis is a type of “biological barter” system (Biology Online Dictionary, n.d., paragraph 1). The relationship between oxpeckers and their sub-Saharan allies is not just about food exchange or insect relief. There is more to their collaboration: when the birds sense danger, they fly upwards, letting out a warning call to their four-legged partners. The animals’ activities are responsive to changes in the environment, and they adjust their actions because of the feedback they receive. As a consequence, their collaboration is sustained over time: the zebras and rhinos escape predators and the oxpeckers secure a steady food supply. Mutualism also exists in the human, social world. Individuals collaborate to benefit from each other’s varied experiences and interests, needs, and agendas in ways that mirror the animal world. This is as true in public © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. M. Hands, Pathways to Community Engagement in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33001-8_3

51

52 

C. M. HANDS

education as in any other context. The mammoth task of educating students in a public system relies on strong relationships between schools and their communities. As such, an ecological perspective offers an instructive lens for examining the kinds of interpersonal interaction district and school administrators, teachers, and community members report when developing and maintaining collaborative relationships. Despite their importance, these relationships are often limited. As community engagement in education policies in Ontario is not government-­ mandated or prescriptive, community partnerships may not come to fruition if they do not seem valuable to those interpreting the policies and implementing the practices (see Chap. 2). Even where implementers and resources exist, educators and community members may not know how to create these relationships. It is one thing to set up new partnerships with people in your own industry; it is quite another to develop relationships with organizations that have unfamiliar structures and cultures. Guidance for developing partnerships across sectors may assist those who would like to build school-community relationships. This chapter presents techniques for successful partnership cultivation, situating the relationships themselves within an ecological framework. It begins with an introduction to the ecological concepts that set the stage for the co-operation that promotes school-community partnerships. I then outline a research-based model of the collaborative process that is grounded in these ecological concepts. This introduction frames Stirling district and school administrators’, teachers’, and community members’ observations about their collaborative practices. The research findings give insight into specific district- and school-level practices that best promote community engagement, creating mutually beneficial school-community collaborative activities. The chapter concludes with several recommendations based on teachers’, educational administrators’, and community members’ experiences.

The Ecology of Collaboration In the simplest terms, ecology is the study of the interrelationships between organisms and all living and non-living entities in their environments (Allaby, 1998). Human ecology specifically addresses the relationships between people and their environment (Marten, 2001; Kormondy, 1974; Steiner, 2002). A subset of this ecosystem is the human social system, which includes the population, as well as the psychology and social

3  SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS: THE ECOLOGY OF COMMUNITY… 

53

organization that influence human behaviour (Marten, 2001). Two foundational ideas embedded in an ecological approach are interdependency and integration (Morgan, 2006); as Mitchell and Sackney (2009) suggest, “the world is not made up of disconnected parts that tick along on their own but is a complex integrated system in which all aspects are interconnected, reciprocal, and relational” (p.  4). Given the interdependence of human social systems and ecosystems, co-operation and partner development are key. According to Fritjof Capra (1994/2009), “in the self-organization of ecosystems co-operation is actually much more important than competition. We constantly observe partnerships, linkages, associations, and species depending on one another for survival. Partnership is a key characteristic of life” (p. 8). These ideas apply as much in the field of education as in ecology. In schools, authentic partnerships are characterized by shared responsibilities, with an emphasis on co-ordination, co-operation, and complementarity of schools and families (Darling-Hammond & Lieberman, 1993; Epstein, 2011) as well as communities (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998). Such partnerships require redrawing the boundaries of educators’ and community members’ social roles (Keith, 1999). This includes cultivating a shared mindset, which has a direct impact on the nature of the partners’ communication and the extent of their co-­operation (Auerbach, 2010, 2011). In education, this mindset must situate all parties as valued and contributing members of the education system who uphold children’s academic achievement and wellbeing. While the idea of ecological co-operation is a powerful metaphor for understanding school-community partnerships, it does not on its own explain the nuances of these collaborative relationships, particularly the mechanics of establishing and maintaining them. In the natural world, as in human communities, mutualism does not spring into existence fully formed. Rather, to extend the ecological metaphor, these relationships have their own developmental lifecycle. Through an iterative, cyclical process, collaborative relationships are identified, cultivated, assessed, and adjusted in ways that, if effective, maximize the mutual benefit of all parties involved. The Lifecycle of the School-Community Collaborative Process The research on school-community collaboration is extensive. There have been studies on the principal as partnership initiator (Sanders & Harvey,

54 

C. M. HANDS

2002), as well as the types of partnership foci: activities are either student-, family-, school-, or community-centred (Sanders, 2001, 2006). Studies have identified examples of the variety of collaborative activities developed by school personnel and their community partners (e.g., Hands, 2005b, 2015; Sanders, 1999; Wohlstetter et al., 2003). The initial steps of identifying goals and community resources and selecting the desired potential partners have also been outlined, as well as strategies to maintain the relationships (Sanders, 2001, 2003). Research prior to 2005, however, had not addressed the specific mechanisms involved in cultivating collaborative activities. To fill this gap, I mapped the collaborative process, revealing the lifecycle of a school-community partnership and its iterative nature. This cyclical pattern forms the conceptual framework I use to organize the findings from recent research (Fig. 3.1). I explain each stage in detail below.

Stage 2: Potential Partners identified Stage 1: Student, School Program and Community Partner needs/goals

If needs cannot be met, or a partnership comes to its conclusion: communication and new partnership(s) creation

If needs are not met: communication and renegotiation

Stage 3: Potential Partners contact and communicate

Stage 4: Negotiation of partnership terms (goals, activities)

If needs are met: communication and partnership maintenance

Stage 7: Assessment of Partnership and Activities

Fig. 3.1  The lifecycle of the partnership process

Stage 5: Win-win Situation created, both partners benefit Stage 6: Engagement in Partnership Activities

3  SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS: THE ECOLOGY OF COMMUNITY… 

55

S tage 1: Who Initiates School-Community Relationships and Why In theory, anyone—district personnel, school administrator, teacher, support staff, student, or community member—could establish collaborative relationships to support education. In reality, most school-community relationships are initiated by school personnel. While principals are responsible for establishing a school culture conducive to collaboration with the community (Hands, 2014a; Institute for Education Leadership [IEL], 2013; Sanders & Harvey, 2002), they may not be able to foster those links on their own. While principals sometimes initiate the relationships, they often hand off the job of developing the relationship to school personnel (Hands, 2005b). Teacher involvement is also considered crucial to community partnerships, including those with parents (Davies et al., 1992; Epstein, 2011). Collaborative activities that take place in the classroom, or directly involve students during the school day, for example, need teachers’ support and facilitation. By contrast, community members and students less frequently initiate collaborative activities in schools. Community members are not always aware of school priorities (Gregoric, 2013) and may lack the in-school connections needed to establish a new partnership (Hands, 2009). Students, on the other hand, are not seen and do not see themselves as responsible for developing relationships (Hands, 2014b). If the adults in their community, and particularly in their school, do not encourage youth advocacy and collaborative practices, they are not likely to happen (Mitra, 2009, 2018; Yonezawa & Jones, 2011). S tages 2 and 3: Partner Identification, Contact, and Communication In her discussion of effective implementation of school-community collaborations, Sanders (2001, 2006) notes that identifying goals, defining the activities’ focus, and selecting potential community partners are key. Potential partnerships are identified and potential collaborators are sought based primarily on the students’ needs (Hands, 2005b; Leonard, 2011; Sanders, 2006). In order to create comprehensive school-community engagement programs, information about student, family, school, and community characteristics needs to be gathered (Epstein, 1995). Several ways of collecting data have been used with success: • surveying families to determine needs, existing resources, and appropriate collaborative activities (Henderson et al., 2007);

56 

C. M. HANDS

• providing opportunities for families and community members to share feedback following each district or school initiative, workshop, or event in which they participate (Hands, 2013); • reviewing federal demographic statistics and census data on the communities involved (Hands, 2013); • collecting district-level data on school population demographics (Hands, 2013); and • having school- and district-level administrators and teachers meet with families and community members in their neighbourhoods (Hands, 2013) or teachers meet students’ families in their homes (Hiatt-Michael, 2010) to better understand the community context and the families’ strengths, aspirations, and needs (Pushor, 2019; Pushor & Murphy, 2004). Once these data are collected, two strategies are commonly used to recruit potential partners: networking and cold-calling. Drawing on social and professional networks is typically more successful because a trusting relationship already exists. For cold-calls to succeed, it is crucial to be clear about expectations and to highlight the impact that the relationship could have on students’ growth and development (Hands, 2005a). Regardless of how contact was initially made, participants in previous studies mentioned the importance of meeting in person to further explore possibilities for collaboration and the different directions the relationship could take (Hands, 2005b, 2014b; Sanders, 2003; Sanders & Harvey, 2002). Several educators and community members also described how they took some time to get to know each other personally at this initial meeting, and to establish commonalities, such as their shared interest in youth and community development initiatives (Hands, 2005b). Collaborative relationships are not typically developed in one meeting, though. It is a dynamic process, in which participants’ roles and the nature of the relationship evolve over time through discussion. S tages 4 and 5: Negotiation and the Anatomy of a Win-Win Partnership The process of relationship development continues as partners in a nascent relationship begin to articulate more clearly and specifically what they would like to contribute and get from the collaboration. In face-to-face meetings, school personnel and the community members discuss

3  SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS: THE ECOLOGY OF COMMUNITY… 

57

possibilities for partnering, establish activities in which both parties benefit, and voice their goals for the collaborative activity (Davies, 2002; Epstein, 1995). Mavis Sanders’ work on classifying school-community partnerships emphasizes the importance of identifying collaborative activities’ goals, which clarifies the beneficiaries of the activities. This is a key factor in the negotiation of collaborative relationships. There can be multiple goals and activity foci for any given collaboration, as noted by Sanders (2001, 2006), but the most successful relationships are win-win for all participants (Hands, 2005b). S tages 6 and 7: Engaging in and Sustaining Collaboration Once collaborative activities are established, they are monitored and evaluated, and success stories from the partnerships are shared (Sanders, 2001). Partners conduct ongoing assessments to determine whether the activities meet their goals (Hands, 2005b). The frequency of assessment depends on the activity. For example, partners might assess the success of a term-long Co-operative Education internship or service-learning project at the midpoint and at the end. A longer-term project, for example a year-­ long health awareness program run by Public Health nurses, might only be evaluated the following academic year. As the partnership proceeds, partners communicate with one another to provide feedback regarding the collaborative activities’ ability to address their needs (Hands, 2005b). This process mirrors the feedback loops that promote adaptability and sustainability in ecological systems over time in the face of change (Capra, 2004; Morgan, 2006). Collaborators continue to engage in those partnership activities (Stage 6) that meet their expectations (Hands, 2005b). It is also possible that the relationship is not meeting the collaborators’ goals. They will then renegotiate the partnership terms (Stage 4), changing their strategy to achieve the desired outcomes while maintaining a mutually beneficial relationship (Stage 5). If it is not possible to adjust the activities, or if they have established endpoints and come to their natural conclusion, the parties may decide to terminate them. In both situations, when activities are terminated or at their end, collaborators typically take care to maintain a positive relationship so future collaboration is possible (Hands, 2005b). The parties then assess their needs and goals (Stage 1) and seek potential partners they can work with to achieve desired outcomes (Stage 2), thus repeating the partnership lifecycle.

58 

C. M. HANDS

Collaboration: Meeting Needs Together Having described the lifecycle of school-community partnership in general terms, I now turn to specific examples from interviews conducted in Stirling. Not only were there similarities across the participants’ responses regardless of whether they were school-, district-, or community-based, but they also offered partnering guidelines that mapped directly onto the partnership stages and collaboration development process I laid out in 2005. The same lifecycle that defined mutually beneficial relationships in other communities in 2005 was apparent in Stirling more than a decade later. Stage 1: Identifying Student, School, and Community Partner Needs and Goals Participants in this study actively developed their ideas for collaboration and were vigilant about looking for opportunities. In line with the research outlined above, the educators in all four schools were most frequently the ones to initiate new relationships and set their priorities based on student needs. The Valley Ridge Secondary School principal, Diane, summed it up: The needs come first because … it’s about student needs. Knowing our students, who are our students, what are their needs. So it’s not that we always go seek partnerships based on the needs, but the needs are always on the table.… So sometimes it’s seeking things out, sometimes it’s just being aware of how [collaborative activities] would work here. And knowing what those unmet needs are because … Most of it breaks down to some kind of unmet need.

The same focus on student achievement and wellbeing was seen at the district level as well, with community representation on district committees. It was also advisable for community organizations to be able to identify where their services fit within the curriculum if they wanted to offer them to students. The education manager of the region’s botanical garden and the city-wide nutrition program manager both realized the need to link their programs with curriculum to provide learning opportunities educators valued and would seek out. Consequently, they employed curriculum consultants to match up elements of their programs with the Science curriculum. For school initiatives that were not curriculum-related, it was

3  SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS: THE ECOLOGY OF COMMUNITY… 

59

important to ground them in evidence-informed practices for greater appeal and uptake in the schools and district. For example, Gerrard, the research director at a national dropout prevention program, described how he and his colleagues conducted a comprehensive and lengthy evaluation of the community needs and assessed the suitability of the dropout prevention program for the region, engaging diverse groups of citizens in the process. According to Gerrard, “It often takes more than a year for that community consultation and engagement process to conclude. But I think that’s what also gives us the credibility.” Once everyone has a common understanding of the issues, it is easier to develop common goals and collaborative activities to meet them or to recognize when a proposed collaboration is impractical or unnecessary. To that end, Stirling S. D.’s Social Work Services manager, Howie, recommended providing research and data—quantitative or qualitative—to potential partners so that everyone was working with the same information and could better understand possibilities for collaboration. Stages 2 and 3: Identifying and Contacting Potential Collaborators While previous research revealed distinct stages for identifying and contacting potential partners, Stirling participants typically discussed them together without going into detail regarding the process they used to identify collaborators. They had much advice to offer on the best approaches for reaching out to potential community partners. From the district perspective, their support and oversight were often an important component of the initial ask. Stirling Catholic S. D.’s director of education, Ben, for example, noted the importance of having support from the Director of Education’s office: “I find that there’s a great deal of weight that can be put behind partnerships when [community members] come and meet with the director, connecting them with the right person in our organization to actually do the logistical work.” Indeed, several participants encouraged community members who were interested in establishing relationships with the districts or with schools to be pre-vetted by district personnel. Community members interested in becoming a district-level partner did not usually negotiate this status in person—they could fill out an application with the district’s central office, as was often the case at Stirling S. D. Sometimes, it was a matter of making principals more comfortable with the community partners, and

60 

C. M. HANDS

district-level partnerships assisted in this endeavour. As Stirling Catholic S. D.’s community liaison consultant, Carlo, observed, When services are being offered, or when programs are being developed to support our schools, we find that coming through central office [is best]. … There’s that relationship piece. If the [district] has a relationship already established and it’s being promoted, then as a principal, I feel more comfortable in inviting these partners in because it’s been approved centrally.

While it was also important to limit the barriers district involvement could create, such as bureaucratic procedures and the number of district-level administrators that were needed to give approval to initiate a collaborative activity, the school personnel’s overall assessment was district administrators could be helpful collaborators in contacting appropriate potential partners. Another common piece of advice from school- and district-level participants was the importance of including diverse perspectives in the initial consultation process. In reflecting on her most effective collaborative relationships, Stirling Catholic S. D. superintendent, Carolina, explained, You need to have, in your partnership, people who will challenge a particular vein of thought. Because only then do you select a path that is in the best interest of the child. ’Cause if you just have everybody who thinks like you do, who will agree with everything you say, then you’re not exploring all of your options.

Similarly, community partners emphasized above all the importance of inclusion in contacting potential school collaborators. For example, Krystal and Renee, managers of a residential youth mental health facility who regularly collaborated with school, district, and community partners, stressed the importance of “making sure that the right people are coming to the table and people aren’t hearing about things after that might impact the work they do…. It is about building a system.” They recommended including everyone who would be affected by the relationship and its outcomes at the earliest stages of the collaboration. This approach limited the potential for recreating collaborative activities already underway and promoted support for the activities. School and community collaborators also advised persistence in the face of roadblocks such as difficulties finding suitable partners. A manager for

3  SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS: THE ECOLOGY OF COMMUNITY… 

61

a school-based youth leadership program, Meg, noted that the best contact was not necessarily the person listed as the contact at a potential partnering organization. She observed it might be “time-consuming to get to the right person and to build the relationship.” As Mia, All Saints Secondary School’s Physical Education department head, noted, when you reach an impasse in contacting potential collaborators, you must persist until you find “the right person who kind of steers you to the other person.” Without them, any hope for collaborative activities was dashed. Stage 4: Negotiating Partnership Terms The next stage in the lifecycle of the school-community partnership is negotiation. As conversations with Stirling participants revealed, the first step for potential collaborators was identifying specific goals. Understanding was promoted by being clear with intentions and motivations, being transparent about the purpose of collaborating, and using clear language. According to Stirling S.  D.’s director of education, Frank, district- and school-level educators needed to understand what their goals were for public participation. “Be very clear and transparent around informing people. Are you consulting, are you involving them, are you collaborating with them, are you empowering them?” Carolina, a Stirling Catholic S. D. superintendent, agreed: Be very honest about what you hope to accomplish. Be very respectful of … everyone. Establish norms … just know what you want, if you’ve got the right partnerships, and ensure that when you invite people to participate that you really mean it.… People absolutely need to feel that they are there in a purposeful way. If it’s just to provide advice, then they need to know that.

These kinds of nascent discussions require not just clear communication of one’s own goals but also an openness to new opportunities. Carrie, an owner of a physical fitness program provided to the two districts, noted it was important to “be open to new ideas … not being afraid to try new things.” Krystal and Renee, who managed a child and youth residential mental health facility’s programs, also noted the importance of being open-minded and flexible, “thinking outside the box” to get work done. Inclusion was also flagged as important in the negotiation phase as well as in the early stages of a new partnership. For example, Larisa and Meg, co-ordinators for an organization that promoted youth empowerment,

62 

C. M. HANDS

humanitarian build programs, and leadership development, recounted how they worked with 20 to 30 teacher-, principal-, and district-level consultants not only in Stirling, but across Canada and regularly solicited their advice on new initiatives. In their own words, “We will send them out information throughout the year and say, ‘We’re considering going in this direction for our theme for next year and we want your feedback.’” From the perspective of school personnel, particularly principals, this level of inclusion could be difficult to sustain. Damien, Avison Elementary School’s principal, noted community members’ requests for meetings had the potential to consume most of his time when he first arrived at the school. He and the other administrators stated that it was important to be able to hand off initiatives to other staff who could develop the relationships. Interviews revealed that one of the goals of the negotiation phase was to avoid potential conflicts. Gerrard, the research manager of a national dropout prevention program, claimed that his organization had built respectful partnerships in communities across the country because the program was developed through community consultations including with school and district administrators. They did not “just parachute in and say, ‘We know what we’re doing, step aside, we’ll handle this.’” Gerrard considered that kind of interaction “very offensive, and it completely ignores community knowledge.” Negotiation also ensured that the ensuing initiative benefited from the full expertise of collaborators. As YWCA program manager, Wendy, observed, “I think it’s exciting when the community feels like there’s pockets of expertise in a lot of different areas, right? Not any one agency has all the expertise or not any one group of teachers at one school or even us as a YWCA.” Stage 5: Creating a Win-Win Situation In creating a win-win relationship, starting from the endpoint—that is, the goals—was a good approach. Mia, the Physical Education department head at All Saints, noted that potential partners “begin with the end in mind … What is it that you want? … And if you know what you want, then you can, you know, backwards design, you can figure out how you can get there.” She summed it up succinctly: “What is … [it] I’m really looking for? What is the end game and what is in it for the other person?” Beyond being clear about goals, interviewees noted that it was crucial for all potential partners to understand each other’s priorities and seek

3  SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS: THE ECOLOGY OF COMMUNITY… 

63

mutual benefit. For example, according to Stirling S.  D.’s community engagement office co-ordinator, Tamara: Our schools and students should be benefitting, but our community should be benefitting as well. I see it as really a give and take relationship. So what is the community getting back from doing something with our students and helping their … achievement and their well-being? What are they getting back?

These sentiments were echoed by Adam, the YMCA settlement program manager: “You have different principals you have a relationship with [and they agree to collaborate because] they see benefit for their kids.… Partnerships work only if there is a mutual benefit.” Mutual benefits sometimes meant contributions were equitable. Valley Ridge’s business department head, Leo, enumerated the mutual benefits of his school’s Community-based or Co-operative Education programs for school and community partners alike. Business owners received free labour, students gained hands-on experience and employability skills, and the school benefitted from the contribution of free training and supervision for its students. Community members felt they were giving back to the community, and many displayed decals on their company’s windows that advertised them as school district Community-based Education sponsors. Leo speculated that this statement of their support promoted their businesses in a positive light within the community. The give-and-take in this kind of relationship was fairly evenly matched. Although still mutually beneficial, other partnerships were not as equitable in their benefits. Sometimes students and teachers received material or human resources from the community but did not provide any in return. For example, Krystal and Renee provided the schools with a detailed school support plan that included all treatments and strategies that were found to be successful for students with mental health issues. In return, for community members with a mandate to work with youth, having access to students in the schools meant they were able to serve their organizations’ purpose and it simplified their jobs because they did not have to serve children and youth in a variety of venues across the city. In other cases, students and teachers provided services to others in the community without getting any resources back. All Saints’ students in hospitality courses catered community events, and school personnel established a clothing, furniture, and housewares bank for students and community

64 

C. M. HANDS

residents. While they and their teachers were not compensated directly, it was enough that the students were building their skills and making personal connections with community residents. Everyone involved in these partnerships accepted the relationships’ terms; regardless, collaborators who felt they were receiving more sometimes increased their contributions. From the school perspective, for example, Sandra, All Saints’ Science department head, would volunteer to speak with groups of students about her career and experiences to give back to Stirling’s dropout prevention program that supported some of the school’s students. On the community side, Larisa and Meg, who ran a leadership program for youth, realized they needed to provide more resources so that teachers could deliver the program in the classroom and help meet the organization’s goals. In short, the extent of a two-way exchange in each relationship depended on the agreed-upon terms, what each party hoped to gain, and, above all, on the relationship meeting the needs of all parties involved. Stages 6 and 7: Engaging in Collaborative Activities and Assessing Collaborative Practices Participants noted the need to monitor the collaborative activity’s progress, to seek out feedback, and to provide updates on the activity. These updates might include statistics (program use, participant numbers, any measured impact), feedback questionnaires to partners, reflection on progress, and future directions for the organization and the programs. Some organizations did a regular review of their relationships with their partners, sometimes on an annual basis. Stirling S. D. had developed what the community engagement office co-ordinator, Tamara, called a community engagement report card. We’re calling it a report card because that’s a language people are familiar with when it comes to a school, but really it’s a survey. It’s saying, “What are we doing well when it comes to community involvement? What can we do better?” … What that engagement policy says is that we really listen to our community, we accept their feedback, and we work from it.

Krystal and Renee, whose organization co-ordinated the mental health services for the school districts’ students, took a multi-pronged approach. They hosted an annual review with both school districts’ personnel to

3  SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS: THE ECOLOGY OF COMMUNITY… 

65

share data on referrals, student needs, and service access, and asked attendees what they needed from the organizations and what modifications to services they wished to see. They also sent questionnaires to their community partners including teachers, principals, and learning resource teachers who had students using their services. Krystal and Renee, along with their colleagues, also reflected on their own performance and looked for growth opportunities. Other participants described a more informal, face-to-face approach to partnership assessment. Carolina, a Stirling Catholic S.  D. superintendent, noted, Anyone who’s involved in any type of partnership or organization for a purpose … needs to have feedback … so that people see what is being done with their contribution.… “Yes, we’re seeing an improved attendance because you are here every morning providing before-school activities” or “Wow, achievement has really gone up.”

This kind of feedback allowed collaborators to adapt partnership activities and services to meet participants’ needs, as in the case of Wendy, a YWCA program manager, who noted that, “as new needs and gaps for services are identified, then we want to be able to evolve and support the community and individuals within the community in a relevant way.” The assessment stage of a community-school partnership’s lifecycle is also crucial for identifying and dealing with disagreements or ineffective programs. A superintendent, Carolina, noted the need for a conflict resolution process: “when there are challenges, disagreements, perhaps a lack of understanding or a misunderstanding … there is a process by which those issues are resolved quickly and fairly.” Carolina also stressed the importance of having a process by which something can end … Just because we have this partnership doesn’t mean that it has to continue on forever. Is there a natural conclusion to something? If you see that this isn’t going well, then be able to have an open, honest conversation about, “Okay, is this working?” If it’s not, we need to … shake hands and rethink this.

Several other district-level administrators also advised having a contingency plan to discontinue unsuccessful relationships and revise those that could be salvaged. Maintaining the school-community relationships once

66 

C. M. HANDS

collaborative activities were discontinued enabled the parties to reconnect when new needs or opportunities arose to discuss goals and possibilities for collaborating. In the meantime, they could divert time and resources to establishing relationships and collaborative activities with partners who could better meet their current needs. The assessment and feedback practices created an ongoing, cyclical lifecycle for the partnership process.

A Collaborative Process: Summary and Recommendations In sum, striking similarities were found among study participants’ descriptions of their collaborative practices, which aligned with the partnership process pattern identified in my 2005 study (see Fig. 3.1). The nature of the partnerships and partnership establishment process revealed in this study is also consistent with ecological and systems theories in the sense that there was a bi-directional flow of information and resources across the permeable borders of the systems involved in the school-community collaborations (see Campbell et al., 1980 and Chap. 4). Collaborators communicated openly, regularly, and in a two-way fashion (Sanders, 2006; Sanders & Harvey, 2002) with their partners to establish new relationships, discern common goals, maintain strong communication, evaluate the partnership’s success, and make any necessary adjustments (Hands, 2005b). In particular, monitoring and assessing the partnership activities were necessary elements of effective partnership implementation once liaisons were developed (Sanders, 2001, 2003, 2006). The processes as described by the participants in this and another study (Hands, 2005b) revealed cycles and feedback loops (see Fig. 3.1), which reflect an ecological network pattern (Capra, 1994/2009; Marten, 2001). As such, ecological principles are useful in interpreting the data generated in this study, and in making sense of findings in the existing literature. According to ecological principles, feedback enables self-regulation with nonlinear relationships such as partnerships; that is, people can learn from their mistakes and can modify their actions incrementally over time as a result of ongoing feedback (Capra, 1994/2009). Relationships that have this capacity for feedback and the flexibility to alter partnership activities as needs, circumstances, capacities, and resources change greatly increase the likelihood that they will be sustained over time (Capra,

3  SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS: THE ECOLOGY OF COMMUNITY… 

67

1994/2009; Marten, 2001). The interviews conducted in Stirling provided clear examples of such an ecological framework, both successful partnerships that responded to feedback and unsuccessful ones that failed to solicit feedback or respond to it (see Chaps. 5 and 7). Considerations for Collaboration Through the lens of an ecological metaphor, this chapter has answered questions regarding the process of successfully establishing collaborative activities from the lived experiences of teachers, administrators, and community members. As in the last chapter, these examples have implications for policymakers, practitioners, and scholars. In particular, they offer rough guidelines about ways to either encourage or discourage school-­ community collaboration, ensuring the success of those partnerships that are put into practice to better support student achievement and wellbeing (see Coburn et al., 2016). Flexibility in accommodating others and broad consultation among everyone impacted by a potential collaboration are recommended to ensure successful partnership initiation. Communication throughout the partnership process enhances the likelihood that collaborative activities will come to fruition and be maintained over time. Be Prepared to Accommodate Partners’ Needs and Goals Perspectives, agendas, and values vary across a school staff (Leonard, 1999) and between those in schools and in the community (Hands, 2005b). As such, collaboration requires “give and take.” Anyone wishing to work with schools, educators, or students needs to focus their discussion of potential collaborative activities around student needs, consistent with existing literature (Hands, 2005b; Sanders & Harvey, 2002). Conversely, just as community members have to understand students’ and schools’ needs, educators must understand the community surrounding the school and its needs for meaningful collaboration. Any school-­ community partnership has to benefit the community partner as well as the school; failing to seek out or use community input, or limiting communication greatly reduces both partnership quality and opportunities for future collaboration (Marsh & Hall, 2018). In this study, some participants commented on how disrespectful it was for potential partners to assume what others needed or to provide services without consultation.

68 

C. M. HANDS

There are many relatively easy ways to understand prospective partners: collecting demographic information from publicly available federal-level statistics sites or district data for the school in question, surveying the school-community members to determine their needs, and auditing parent engagement practices to understand family involvement in their children’s education (Hands, 2013). If these kinds of data do not already exist, it may be helpful for school and district personnel to generate it on behalf of potential community partners. A committee comprised of school, district, and community members could also act as an advisory group, providing insights into community characteristics, needs, and strengths, sharing their social and professional networks to support collaborative initiatives (see Chap. 5), and encouraging school personnel to take a strengths-based approach in their interactions with community members (Hardy & Grootenboer, 2016). Get Everyone Impacted by the Collaboration to the Table Once initiators understand school and community needs, it is easier to identify not only possible goals for relationships, but also who should be involved in collaborative practices. Inclusive practices are important for many reasons. Partnerships founded on mutual understanding make it possible for educators, families, administrators, and community members to co-construct their roles, as well as to contribute to dialogue and mutual learning (Auerbach, 2010; Cook et  al., 2017; Hardy & Grootenboer, 2016; Pushor, 2007). These “mutually respectful alliances among educators, families, and community groups … value relationship building, dialogue, and power sharing as part of socially just, democratic schools” (Auerbach, 2010, p. 734). By coming together in the negotiation stage, collaborators were able to come to an agreement regarding the goals of the activities and terms of the partnership, which the existing literature supports (see Cook et al., 2017; Hands, 2005b). Anyone who is affected by the relationship—particularly those who will need to develop, lead, or participate in the activities—should have a voice in the discussion from its initial stages (Davies, 2002; Epstein, 2011). This includes involving students, as will be addressed in Chap. 8. The type of open dialogue and communication advocated by the participants in this study made it easier for collaborators to establish partnerships.

3  SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS: THE ECOLOGY OF COMMUNITY… 

69

Effective Communication Involves Open Conversations and Clearly Explained Expectations Even when partners engage in intentional relationship building, the participants’ perspectives and goals may not always become clear without concerted efforts to promote open communication. Clear communication, in which initiators explain their expectations for the relationship, is essential. For example, Stirling Catholic S.  D.’s superintendent advised collaborators to specify the roles they wanted others to take on and to ensure all participants were engaged in ways aligned with established expectations. Opportunities for informal discussions at the beginning of a potential relationship can also allow people to become familiar with each other’s goals and values and to establish common ground (Cook et al., 2017; Hands, 2005a). Sometimes, new, unplanned opportunities arise organically when attendees are socializing rather than engaging in formal discussion (Hands, 2005b). When this research was conducted, the clear recommendation from interviewees was to ensure plenty of opportunity for in-person, face-to-face interactions. Now, three years into a pandemic that has irrevocably altered the ways in which we communicate, the overarching suggestion to create opportunities for spontaneous communication, preferably face-to-face whether in-person or virtually, still stands. Assessment Is an Important Part of the Conversation Among Collaborators While two-way communication is critical in the relationships’ beginning, it is equally important to monitor and assess collaborative activities once they are underway. Peter Drucker is credited for his work on goal-setting in the workplace and for providing the foundation for the Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bound (SMART) goals that are used today by many people (Sull & Sull, 2018), including educators. In addition to setting out clearly understood goals that are attainable and appropriate within a timeframe, other scholars highlight the importance of communication in goal-setting and attainment. Sull and Sull (2018), for example, advocate for goals that are FAST, not SMART. Goals should be grounded in frequent discussions, they should be ambitious but achievable, specific with metrics and milestones attached so collaborators understand exactly how they will know they have achieved their goals and when they will assess them, and they need to be transparent and understood by

70 

C. M. HANDS

all participants. FAST goals map onto the types of collaborative activities the Stirling partnerships experienced. Existing school-community partnership literature points out the key importance of assessment (Sanders, 2003) and encourages collaborators to communicate and celebrate partnership successes (Sanders, 2001), which promotes partnership lifecycle longevity. This was certainly the case for the partnerships observed in Stirling, where the most successful ones had built in frequent opportunities for collaborators to check in and assess progress towards goals. For those activities that had run their course or lacked expected successes, acknowledging and communicating about this reality made it possible to maintain collegial associations with others and to re-establish a partnership lifecycle when future opportunities arose.

Concluding Thoughts This chapter began with an example of a complex social relationship among different species. Over generations oxpeckers have sought reliable food sources and their large, mammalian partners have sought safety from parasites and predators alike. This kind of mutualism is found throughout the natural world, demonstrating the same cyclical relationship. Carrier crabs living in the water off the Indonesian coast have two back legs that are adapted to carry objects, from debris to other animals, on their backs (Gibbens, 2017). They are frequently sighted carrying fire urchins, using the urchins’ poisonous spines and painful venom as shields to protect them from their enemies (Gibbens, 2017). In return, the spherical, legless urchins are transported expediently to new feeding grounds when they hitch a ride with the crabs (Gibbens, 2017). These symbiotic relationships allow each partner to thrive in different ways, making it more likely they will both live to collaborate again and produce offspring that will also engage in the same kind of partnerships so they, too, will thrive in their environment. These types of mutualism and cyclical patterns are mirrored in the diverse and complex interactions among other living organisms, including humans in various social contexts. Throughout this chapter, we have seen that symbiotic and adaptive relationships among people form the foundation for establishing and maintaining school-community collaboration. The field of ecology, which emphasizes systems and relationships in nature, offers helpful analogies for this collaborative process. In this and other studies (see Chap. 4; Hands,

3  SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS: THE ECOLOGY OF COMMUNITY… 

71

2005b), the bi-directional flow of resources such as information, as well as material and human resources, is the hallmark of successful collaborative activities. In Stirling specifically, the formal and informal ongoing assessment of collaborative activities over time, the verbal and written exchange of partners’ evaluations, and the structural flexibility built into liaisons allowed participants to change and grow over time in response to feedback. These forms of collaborative communication mimic the biological mutualism ecologists study, and we can better appreciate what makes a school-community partnership successful by observing the corresponding patterns in nature. I have focused on the development and maintenance of individual relationships in this chapter. In the next chapter, I shift from the specific to the general and consider the broader context within which these relationships develop, returning again to the field of ecology. Within an ecological perspective, the world is understood as an interconnected whole (see Martell, 1994; Marten, 2001; Simmons, 1997; Steiner, 2002). As such, relationships, connectedness, and context are a primary focus. It seems fitting, then, that I carry the ecological theme through in my discussion of the school and school district cultures, the school in relation to the community, and the effect of the community context on partnerships.

References Allaby, M. (1998). A dictionary of ecology. Oxford University Press. Auerbach, S. (2010). Beyond coffee with the principal: Toward leadership for authentic school-family partnerships. Journal of School Leadership, 20(6), 728–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461002000603 Auerbach, S. (2011). Conceptualizing leadership for authentic partnerships: A continuum to inspire practice. In S.  Auerbach (Ed.), School leadership for authentic family and community partnerships: Research perspectives for transforming practice (pp. 29–51). Routledge. Biology Online Dictionary. (n.d.). Mutualistic symbiosis. Retrieved November 15, 2022, from https://www.biology-­online.org/dictionary/Mutualistic_symbiosis Campbell, D.  E., Steenbarger, B.  N., Smith, T.  W., & Stucky, R.  J. (1980, September). The ecological-systems approach in community psychology: Four implications for program evaluation. [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, QC, Canada. Capra, F. (2004). The hidden connection: A science for sustainable living. Knopf Doubleday.

72 

C. M. HANDS

Capra, F. (2009). Ecology and community. Center for Ecoliteracy. Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://www.ecoliteracy.org/article/ecology-­and-­ community (Original work published 1994). Coburn, C. E., Hill, H. C., & Spillane, J. P. (2016). Alignment and accountability in policy design and implementation: The Common Core State Standards and implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 243–251. https:// doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16651080 Cook, A.  L., Shah, A., Brodsky, L., & Morizio, L.  J. (2017). Strengthening school-family-community engagement through community dialogues. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 9(1), 9–37. Darling-Hammond, L., & Lieberman, A. (1993, April). James P. Comer, M.D., on the School Development Program: Making a difference for children. National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching. Davies, B. (2002). Rethinking schools and school leadership for the twenty-first century: Changes and challenges. The International Journal of Educational Management, 16(4), 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/095135402104 32182 Davies, D., Burch, P., & Johnson, V. (1992). A portrait of schools reaching out: Report of a survey of practices and policies of family-community school collaboration. Boston University School of Education. Center of Families, Communities, Schools and Children’s Learning. Epstein, J.  L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701–712. https://doi. org/10.1177/003172171009200326 Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis. Gibbens, S. (2017). Watch: Carrier crab uses spiny urchin as shield. Retrieved November 5, 2022, from www.nationalgeographic.com Gregoric, C. (2013). School-community involvement. UNESCO-APNIEVE. Hands, C. M. (2005a). It’s who you know and what you know: The process of creating partnerships between schools and communities. The School Community Journal, 15(2), 63–84. Hands, C. M. (2005b). Patterns of interdependency: The development of partnerships between schools and communities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, ON, Canada. Hands, C.  M. (2009). Architect, advocate, coach and conciliator: The multiple roles of school leaders in the establishment of school-community partnerships and the impact of social context. In K. Anderson (Ed.), The leadership compendium: Emerging scholars in Canadian educational leadership (pp.  193–213). Atlantic Centre for Educational Administration and Leadership. Hands, C.  M. (2013). Including all families in education: School district-level efforts to promote parent engagement in Ontario. Canada. Teaching Education, 24(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2013.786893

3  SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS: THE ECOLOGY OF COMMUNITY… 

73

Hands, C. M. (2014a). Connecting to the world beyond the school: Social contexts that influence school leaders’ school-community collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations, 24(1), 41–56. Hands, C. M. (2014b). Youth perspectives on community collaboration in education: Are students innovative developers, active participants, or passive observers of collaborative activities? The School Community Journal, 24(1), 69–98. Hands, C. (2015). Creating links between the school and the community beyond its walls: What teachers and principals do to develop and lead school-community partnerships. Teaching & Learning, 9(1), 1–15. Hardy, I., & Grootenboer, P. (2016). Cultivating community: Detailing school and community engagement under complex conditions. Teaching Education, 27(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2015.1034683 Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What’s worth fighting for out there? Teachers College Press. Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale: The essential guide to family-school partnerships. The New Press. Hiatt-Michael, D. (2010). Communication practices that bridge home with school. In D. Hiatt-Michael (Ed.), Promising practices to support family involvement in schools (pp. 25–55). Information Age. Institute for Education Leadership (2013). The Ontario leadership framework: A school and system leader’s guide to putting Ontario’s leadership framework into action. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://www.education-­leadership-­ ontario.ca/application/files/8814/9452/4183/Ontario_Leadership_ Framework_OLF.pdf Keith, N.  Z. (1999). Whose community schools? New discourses, old patterns. Theory Into Practice, 38(4), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/0040584 9909543858 Kormondy, E. J. (1974). Natural and human ecosystems. In F. Sargent II (Ed.), Human ecology (pp. 27–43). North-Holland Publishing Company. Leonard, J. (2011). Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory to understand community partnerships: A historical case study of one urban high school. Urban Education, 46(5), 987–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/004208 5911400337 Leonard, P. E. (1999). Examining educational purposes and underlying values orientations in schools. In P. T. Begley (Ed.), Values and educational leadership (pp. 217–235). SUNY Press. Marsh, J. A., & Hall, M. (2018). Challenges and choices: A multidistrict analysis of statewide mandated democratic engagement. American Educational Research Journal, 55(2), 243–286. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312 17734803 Martell, L. (1994). Ecology and society. Polity Press. Marten, G. G. (2001). Human ecology: Basic concepts for sustainable development. Earthscan Publications.

74 

C. M. HANDS

Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2009). Sustainable learning communities: From managed systems to living systems. [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Mitra, D. (2018). Student voice in secondary schools: The possibility for deeper change. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(5), 473–487. https://doi. org/10.1108/JEA-­01-­2018-­0007 Mitra, D. L. (2009). Collaborating with students: Building youth-adult partnerships in schools. American Journal of Education, 15(3), 407–436. https://doi. org/10.1086/597488 Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organizations. Sage. Publications. New England Complex Systems Institute. (n.d.). Mutualistic relationships. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from http://www.necsi.edu/projects/evolution/co-­evolution/mutualistic/co-­evolution_mutualistic.html Pushor, D. (2007, January). Parent engagement: Creating a shared world [Paper presentation]. Ontario Education Research Symposium, Toronto, ON, Canada. Pushor, D. (2019). Using parent knowledge to enhance teaching and learning experiences in schools for children and youth. In S. Sheldon & T. A. Turner-­ Vorbeck (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of family, school, and community relationships in education (pp. 243–263). John Wiley & Sons. Pushor, D., & Murphy, B. (2004). Parent marginalization, marginalized parents: Creating a place for parents on the school landscape. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 221–235. Sanders, M. G. (1999). Schools’ program and progress in the National Network of Partnership Schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679909597599 Sanders, M. G. (2001). The role of “community” in comprehensive school, family, and community partnership programs. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1086/499691 Sanders, M.  G. (2003). Community involvement in schools: From concept to practice. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 161–180. https://doi. org/10.1177/0013124502239390 Sanders, M. G. (2006). Building school-community partnerships: Collaboration for student success. Skyhorse Publishing. Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1345–1368. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­9620.00206 Simmons, I. G. (1997). Humanity and environment: A cultural ecology. Longman Publishing Group. Steiner, F. (2002). Human ecology: Following nature’s lead. Island Press. Sull, D., & Sull, C. (2018). With goals, FAST beats SMART. MITSloane Management. Retrieved November 15, 2022, from https://www.betterworks.

3  SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS: THE ECOLOGY OF COMMUNITY… 

75

com/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2021/02/MIT-­S loan-­M anagement-­R eview-­ With-­Goals-­FAST-­Beats-­SMART.pdf Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C. L., Smith, J., & Hentschke, G. (2003). Working Paper: Cross-sectorial alliances in education: A new approach to enhancing school capacity. University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education, Center on Educational Governance. Yonezawa, S., & Jones, M. (2011). Shaping youth’s identity through student-­ driven research. In C. M. Hands & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Including families and communities in urban education (pp. 213–232). Information Age.

CHAPTER 4

The Social Contexts and Permeable Borders that Influence Partnerships

The 2020 Netflix docuseries, Connected: The Hidden Science of Everything (2020), illustrates the interrelationship among seemingly disparate phenomena. In one episode, the host, Latif Nasser, focuses on the power of dust. While the now dried-up Lake Mega-Chad in the heart of the Sahara Desert might appear completely disconnected from the health of Atlantic Ocean plant life, Nasser shows otherwise. About 150 million tons of dust are transported by wind from Chad’s Sahara Desert to the Atlantic Ocean each year. This dust not only provides a vital source of nutrients for aquatic ecosystems but also mitigates the effects of climate change as phytoplankton—tiny ocean algae—draw carbon dioxide from the air and, using the nutrients from the dust of animal life from long ago, collectively produce more than half of the world’s oxygen. The uninterrupted journey of unassuming Saharan dust from one ecosystem to many others gives credence to the notion of connectedness among all entities on Earth. We can apply the concept of interconnectedness not just to ecosystems but also to the social systems within them (Marten, 2001). In human ecology, activities that affect the ecosystem—or broader social environment— are influenced by the values and knowledge, the social organization, and the available technology in a given social system (Marten, 2001). An ecological approach considers how humans impact their social environment and vice versa. This chapter uses a similar ecological perspective as the previous chapter to examine the social environment in which school-community relations © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. M. Hands, Pathways to Community Engagement in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33001-8_4

77

78 

C. M. HANDS

take place. We will begin with a discussion of concepts that provide a picture of the multiple contextual layers within and beyond the walls of the school that impact school-community interaction. The findings and discussion demonstrate the importance of attending to social context when taking collaborative activities from conception to implementation. We consider how a community’s context influences the need to partner and the available resources for partnering (Bascia, 1996; Lin, 1999), and explore the ways in which issues of organizational vision and philosophies around the value of community engagement in education can either encourage or discourage school-community relations. The chapter ends with an overview of various social contexts’ impact on school-community collaborative activities, and recommendations for working within the contexts that influence the collaborative process.

Intertwined Open Systems: A Depiction of School-Community Interaction Ecological and sociological concepts offer a helpful framework for understanding the contextual factors that influence the collaborative process. In ecological terms, “systems” are “integrated wholes whose properties cannot be reduced to those of smaller parts” (Capra, 2000, p.  5; see also Steiner, 2002). Every organism is a living system, as are both individual components of organisms and communities of organisms, including social systems and ecosystems (Capra, 2000). Bela Banathy (1992; see also Banathy & Jenlink, 2004)—an influential contributor to the literature on systems theory and its application to school reform—advocated applying a systems approach to educational issues. He observed that the education system is connected across multiple systems that are open; that is, they have permeable borders: “The systems view helps us to understand the true nature of education as a complex, open, and dynamic human activity system that operates in ever-changing multiple environments and interacts with a variety of societal systems” (Banathy, 1992, p. 17). Systems such as schools and communities both interact with one another and are nested in other larger systems (Capra, 1999). Uri Bronfenbrenner (1976, 1979) used a series of concentric circles to illustrate the multiple social systems that impacted children’s development. This depiction also allows us to envision the multiple contexts in which school-community collaboration takes place (see Fig.  4.1). The kind of

4  THE SOCIAL CONTEXTS AND PERMEABLE BORDERS THAT INFLUENCE… 

79

Fig. 4.1  The community-school dynamic

interaction across them is “horizontal as opposed to vertical; that is, describing the flow of information and products across mutual boundaries” (Campbell et al., 1980, p. 2). Community social systems and the school social systems embedded in them are multifaceted, made up of many different contexts. The community contains overarching socio-cultural contexts in what Bronfenbrenner (1976, 1979) terms the macrosystem. Its residents’ socio-economic status, ethnic, religious, and linguistic diversity (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979; McLaughlin & Talbert, 1990), as well as educational and professional backgrounds (Lin, 1999), influence both residents’ needs and their ability to address them. For example, while accessing healthcare might be a top priority for newcomers to an urban community, local residents experiencing underemployment might need access to retraining and employment opportunities more urgently. The impact of socio-cultural context on residents’ needs and their ability to address them, in turn, influences the kinds of partnerships sought within the community (Hands, 2005, 2014). Further, this socio-cultural context operates within a broader economic, social, legal, and political framework, which similarly shapes the

80 

C. M. HANDS

work of agencies and networks, and influences individuals’ roles and activities (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979). For example, provincial and federal policies reflecting societal, professional, and community educational values (McLaughlin & Talbert, 1990) also shape decision-making around educational issues, as we see in Chap. 2. Communities are made up of both human-made and natural resources (Marten, 2001; Steiner, 2002). These manifestations of what Bronfenbrenner calls the exosystem include everything from businesses, social services, and government to the technology used to promote transportation and communication within a geographic locale (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979; Lin, 1999; Marten, 2001; Steiner, 2002). The types of available goods and services impact students’, their families’ (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1979) and community members’ needs. For example, a rural or suburban community might not have the same variety of local social services as in an urban setting, and residents may need to seek them outside the community (Hands, 2005, 2014). Geographic locale, therefore, influences the kinds of needs residents can satisfy locally, as well as the kinds of organizations available to partner with schools (Hands, 2005). The school district exists within the community’s civic organization as part of the exosystem and can mirror the broader community’s socio-cultural contexts (macrosystem). In response to this context, districts develop policies and practices that enable schools to provide relevant educational opportunities in the communities they serve, and act as a liaison between school personnel and community residents to share resources in the mesosystem. In turn, schools themselves are located in the mesosystem, nested within the district. They have organizational structures such as subject areas or departments (in secondary schools), grade divisions (in elementary schools), as well as policies, committees, and school councils that influence how administrators, educators, community members, and students’ families interact with each other. They also impact the students’ microsystems, namely their direct, face-to-face relationships with others at home, in school, and in the community (see Leonard, 2011).1

1  Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model includes the chronosystem, which encapsulates the macrosystem, exosystem, mesosystem, and microsystem. While social context can certainly shift over time, including school-community relations (see Chap. 1), time has been omitted from the model used here, since this study’s interviews reflect just a snapshot of schoolcommunity partnerships in Stirling.

4  THE SOCIAL CONTEXTS AND PERMEABLE BORDERS THAT INFLUENCE… 

81

Schools, including their students, educators, and administrators, are therefore influenced by multiple contexts that emerge not only in the school itself but also in the community beyond the school walls (McLaughlin & Talbert, 1990), including the districts. At the same time, schools affect those external contexts in return (Datnow et  al., 2002). Within the ecological context of a given partnership, these nested systems have permeable borders that facilitate school-community relations (see Fig. 4.1).

School and Community on the Path to Collaboration In light of these theoretical considerations, I now turn to the specific example of Stirling to illustrate the impact of boundary permeability on school-community relationships. The section that follows provides a picture of the Stirling community from both national census data and the participants’ perspectives. Drawing on the demographic information I discuss in Chap. 1, I contextualize the observations of teachers, educational administrators, and community members about their community. Collectively, they characterized Stirling as being in a period of rebirth, speaking with pride about the community’s strengths, as well as issues, like poverty, that concerned them. Their understanding of the community highlights Stirling’s unique characteristics—its diverse industries and services as well as its needs—which are presented first. Their insights also show the community’s influence on the schools, and how different organizational cultures influence the permeability of the boundaries between different groups within a community ecosystem. Stirling: A Community in Transition As we saw in Chap. 1, the schools considered in this study were located in areas with lower socio-economic status and higher ethnic, linguistic, and cultural diversity than Stirling as a whole. Despite this difference, the neighbourhoods in this study were still very much influenced by Stirling’s culture and urban identity as well as the demographic shift Stirling was experiencing at the time interviews were conducted. Stirling’s largest employers were health services, other public sector services, and manufacturing (Statistics Canada, 2011). At the same time, Stirling was

82 

C. M. HANDS

transforming itself from a blue-collar, factory-based city to a more entrepreneurial, innovative, and arts-based locale. Study participants noted that people were moving to Stirling from other nearby cities because of housing affordability and new business opportunities. A city-wide nutrition program manager, Petra, observed that Stirling was a progressive city because of it. “It’s being influenced by newcomers, not just from other countries but from other cities .… We have a much different conversation about things now than we used to” because of the influx of different ideas, traditions, cultural backgrounds, and experiences. Valley Ridge Secondary School’s Arts department head, Barry, observed that Stirling was in a “renaissance, [with] the city itself changing.” Other participants agreed. Life-long Stirling resident and city-wide volunteering organization co-­ ordinator, Lorna, observed that Stirling was very diversified. We’re growing, we’re changing as a city. There’s a lot of entrepreneur-driven initiatives that are happening. Downtown [Stirling] is really booming right now. It’s in a reinvention of itself with arts and focused on just small business and different initiatives.

With the waterfront redevelopment, the city centre was being gentrified. Inevitably, this meant that, alongside the growth of wealth for some, families characterized as low-income and newcomers to the country without established social supports and stable incomes, for example, were struggling to keep pace with the rising cost of living. This was certainly true in the neighbourhoods considered in this study. Despite the effects of gentrification, or perhaps because of them, participants noted that Stirling had a robust infrastructure to provide residents with social services and other resources. Redeemer Elementary School principal, Kevin, noted that “[Stirling] offers … more social services than any city, I would say, in the country … There are so many community partners willing to invest in youth.” Volunteer Stirling’s community engagement co-ordinator, Lorna, agreed, and further noted that Stirling “had one of the highest rates in terms of cities and so on for volunteerism out of a population of a half a million.” Thus, despite the challenges facing the schools in this study, they also had both social services and community volunteers at the ready to help address them, setting the stage for collaboration between the schools and their environments.

4  THE SOCIAL CONTEXTS AND PERMEABLE BORDERS THAT INFLUENCE… 

83

Community Context Determines Schools’ Visions and Priorities for Community Partnerships One area where the impact of environment on schools was very clear in Stirling was school vision. Because the boundaries between a school and its context are permeable, the neighbourhoods’ and broader community’s characteristics influenced the visions the principals and their staff had for their schools. The principal’s role in discerning the impact of community context on the school’s vision was highlighted. Avison Elementary School’s principal, Damien, observed, “The principal’s responsibility is really having an understanding of … the community, what the focus needs are, what focus partnerships they want.” In all cases, schools sought out partnerships in the community when they were not able to deliver their programming goals or meet their students’ needs with the resources they had, clearly demonstrating the ways in which different contexts within social ecosystems influence one another. Valley Ridge, for example, had a very culturally diverse student body, with a large English language learner (ELL) population. Some of these students were internationally educated, from financially well-off families, living with Canadian homestay families for grades 11 and 12 in the hopes of attending a Canadian university. Others immigrated with their families voluntarily or as refugees. There was also a large group of domestic students from low-income families. In response to these contextual realities, school personnel had several partners focused on mental health and wellbeing, nutrition, and food security. Many students also needed academic support, such as literacy remediation as well as assistance with transitioning and integration into the community. School personnel partnered with settlement workers to provide support and implemented the International Baccalaureate program to reflect their school’s global perspective on education. The Catholic secondary school, All Saints, had a similar community context to Valley Ridge. While it had a mix of students from all socio-­ economic and cultural backgrounds, it was an inner-city school, and most of the students were living in poverty. The school supported these students through its vibrant sports program, which was used to promote a strong work ethic, perseverance, and a sense of community among the students. In addition to community partnerships that helped support

84 

C. M. HANDS

sports-related enrichment for all students, All Saints prioritized supplementary programming to support students from low-income families. Representatives of a non-profit organization with a mandate to provide financial and social support to increase secondary school graduate rates met with students regularly, and school administrators had made space for these meetings in the building. The school also had connections with an organization that provided students with leadership training and physical literacy classes. While context influenced the community partnership choices of both secondary schools, this dynamic was even more apparent in the elementary schools. Like All Saints, both elementary schools were located in some of the most impoverished neighbourhoods in the country. This strongly influenced the type of collaborative activities sought and nurtured. Redeemer, for example, had a focus on physical literacy. The principal and teachers (as well as their community partners) saw physical and mental health as paramount to supporting learning for students from underprivileged backgrounds. In addition to healthy bodies and brains, physical activity promoted resilience by encouraging skills such as perseverance, teamwork, goal-setting, and attainment. They welcomed several physical education companies into the school to run their play-based activities, giving the children an opportunity to engage in activities they might not otherwise have due to the cost. While the school’s understanding of its students’ needs impacted the kinds of partnerships it pursued in the community, its focus on physical literacy, in turn, impacted the way the school was perceived by the surrounding community. The administrator and educators made sure the district’s community liaison consultant and residents with connections to physical literacy programs knew they were very interested in these programs because, as one Redeemer teacher put it, “we’re known as the school for physical literacy.” As a result, they were approached by a number of community organizations, such as the local university’s student nurses, the Boys and Girls Club, and the YMCA to partner. Noting that some students had food security issues, the city’s nutrition program also approached the school and provided meals and field trips related to food, agriculture, and food science, and a group of student nurses from the local university worked with students to promote healthy eating habits and lifestyle choices. Avison principal, Damien, viewed his school as a hub or centre of care for the students and their families in the surrounding community. According to the principal, poverty made mental health and substance

4  THE SOCIAL CONTEXTS AND PERMEABLE BORDERS THAT INFLUENCE… 

85

abuse issues prevalent, while residents struggled with self-care, self-­ advocacy, and navigating systems in general, including the education system. The principal saw the school’s role extending beyond education to address these needs. According to Damien, “the school needs to take care of ‘I haven’t eaten in three days’ and ‘I have bedbugs at home’” before being able to address “the core of instruction.” Alongside the city’s nutrition program, a local optometrist provided free eye examinations and deeply discounted glasses for students in need and the YMCA ran after-­ school programming to provide childcare as well as homework support. As with Redeemer, the school’s evident needs impacted the way the local community interacted with it, further illustrating the permeable boundary between the school and its context. For example, when a social services organization—food bank, addiction outreach, and counselling—chose to relocate beside Avison, the school was able to partner with them to address its lack of available space (Avison was “packed to the rims,” according to grade 2 teacher, Sasha). Avison, thus, influenced the kinds of services and initiatives affiliated with that organization. In sum, interviews demonstrated clearly that the schools were embedded within the community ecosystem (see Fig. 4.1). The students were from the community, and as such, they reflected the community’s characteristics; in turn, the unique combination of students and their characteristics influenced the school vision and the partnerships each school prioritized and supported. School personnel limited their partnerships to those that best met their schools’ vision and their students’ and programming needs. This, in turn, impacted how the schools were perceived and treated by various local organizations. As such, school context strongly influenced collaborative activities in all of the schools in this study. School Personnel’s Inclination Toward Partnering Impacted Permeability While a permeable boundary between school and context was apparent in all four schools, the extent and nature of community partnerships varied considerably. Community members had variable access to the districts and schools because schools’ contextual boundaries were more or less permeable to their resources. A school’s vision informed the school-community partnerships, but principals and teachers also played a key role in making schools’ borders permeable to community influence regardless of the vision.

86 

C. M. HANDS

Most of the schools’ community partners—especially the social and public service agencies—had mandates to collaborate with other community-­ based organizations, which facilitated cross-boundary communication and partnership formation. In this regard, All Saints’ Community-based Education teachers noted that community members wanted to share their resources, particularly in at-risk neighbourhoods. At the same time, district and community members alike identified openness to collaboration as an important district feature for successful partnerships. Stirling Catholic S. D. had community outreach as one of its four strategic priorities, and it was part of the Catholic district mandate to be receptive to community members’ participation in education, and their students’ engagement with their community. Similarly, Stirling S.  D. prioritized community engagement and established a community engagement office that was overseen by a superintendent to provide a destination for partnership requests and enquiries. Without school buy-in, however, community and district support were insufficient for two-way exchanges. The sections that follow illustrate how important principal and teacher actors are to the collaborative process by highlighting possibilities for school-community relations and the consequences of limited interest from school personnel. Principals as Gatekeepers School leaders played an important role in their school’s permeability. Susan, an optometrists’ organization liaison, observed, “If you have a principal who has a vision and understands the importance of community engagement, it is so key.” Community collaborators with experience working with school districts on various pilot projects and program development opportunities highlighted the principal’s role in championing collaboration, particularly the importance of leaders who appreciate the relevance of school-community collaboration. As discussed in Chap. 6, school leaders play a key role in partnerships, so involving the principal from the beginning of a potential relationship ensured the collaborative activities were relevant to the students and families at the school, and helped to encourage buy-in. In other words, they made the school more receptive, its boundaries more permeable, to community influence. By contrast, a principal opposed to community partnerships had the opposite effect. For example, Damien, the principal at Avison, discouraged community involvement in his school because, in the context of “a deprived neighbourhood,” he felt the community was trying to tap into school resources—space for programs or a pool of participants—rather

4  THE SOCIAL CONTEXTS AND PERMEABLE BORDERS THAT INFLUENCE… 

87

than offering support. He did not view their involvement as potentially useful to his staff or students, and he considered meeting requests from community groups a diversion from his core tasks as principal. As a result, Damien limited his exposure to community partners: I think I have managed to whittle that away and still kind of go, “Okay, we don’t need to meet every day, I don’t need to meet with you once a month, let’s have these check-in periods and let’s pre-establish those check-in periods and then who is your key contact within the school?”

As a result, Avison had increasingly few partnerships since Damien became principal. The tone set by the principal, limiting cross-boundary communication with the community, impacted the school’s organizational culture. Avison’s Public Health nurse, Linda, reported that most of the school’s teachers, with the support of administration, did not welcome family and community involvement, particularly in the school building. They did not want parents and community members using spaces they considered theirs, such as the staff room, to prepare food for the breakfast program. In Linda’s words, the administrators were very focused on pleasing the teachers … So this has happened in two schools now. Two new principals coming in, same thing .… I feel like they are taking the advice of someone else who is not a community supporter.

Here, we can see how fundamental school administrators are to creating permeable borders or, in this case, siloing the school within the broader community.  eachers’ Understanding of Their Role and Its Impact on Collaboration T with Community The teachers in this study were supportive of collaborative activities with the community, both their own relationships and those of other teachers. Like principals, they also contributed to the school’s permeable borders because they were involved in their students’ lives both in the school and without. They understood they needed to be engaged in their students’ lives in ways they might not if they taught in other districts—another example of environment and context impacting culture. Josephine and Mark, teachers from All Saints, summed it up succinctly: “You’re more

88 

C. M. HANDS

than their teacher.” Many teachers from All Saints, in particular, reported visiting students in the hospital, driving them to doctors’ appointments, providing them with food, and taking them shopping for clothing for the end-of-year formal dance. All of the teachers interviewed felt they were advocates for the children and their families and, consequently, needed to connect with community members to support their students’ academic achievement and wellbeing. Not all teachers were supportive of collaboration. Only one teacher at Avison was identified by the principal and the school’s Public Health nurse as a supporter of collaboration, for example. Teachers and administrators at the study schools reported that their colleagues might not believe that teaching and learning should take place beyond school walls. This perspective was also at the root of some teachers’ resistance to community engagement. Stacey and Karen, the YMCA after-school program managers, observed: It’s disheartening for the frontline staff sometimes to see teachers who don’t value them. They might value the program, but “not in my room”. … In my grand vision, I would like everybody to be on board … that “We’re all here to work with the students, the same students that you work with and let’s provide programs for them without you being the barrier.”

Community members also recommended a cultural change at the school level. This kind of change needed the school administrators’ influence. Stacey described her ideal school environment as one with teachers “understanding that the school belongs to the community and during different times of the day, different people have charge of the school.” Here, we see that community members perceived the school boundaries to be impermeable on the basis of teacher attitudes. Where school-community partnerships were thriving, it was often because teachers understood that there were limitations to what they could do for their students and were, therefore, open to community intervention. Warren, a Career Studies teacher at All Saints, observed, “You can only learn so much from a textbook or workbook or notes or whatever, or even on computer, for that matter. But when we bring our learning outside these four walls, community partners make this happen.” Other teachers agreed that the educational opportunities in the community added relevance to students’ learning, and it eased the transition from

4  THE SOCIAL CONTEXTS AND PERMEABLE BORDERS THAT INFLUENCE… 

89

school to life after secondary school. According to Kathleen, All Saints’ guidance head, Having those connections with outside partners … really shows them the places they could go outside of just going to university and then getting a job … It gives them the opportunity to maybe find out something new about a community partner that they didn’t even know existed.

Even more fundamentally, teachers and administrators recognized that they could not support students 24 hours a day. They saw a need for community engagement because “a school can’t do it by itself,” according to Kathleen, All Saints’ guidance head. Community-based organizations like the YMCA could co-ordinate collaborative work involving other community-­based services. As a meeting group for numerous organizations with a mandate to work with youth, they partnered with arts programs, physical education organizations, and leadership training programs, for example, that were then available to the students beyond the school day. By allowing community partners to use the school for programming outside school hours, school personnel saw themselves as meeting the ongoing needs of students as well as any newly arising from current circumstances and changes within the community ecosystem, such as the major economic shifts in Stirling. School cultures that conceptualized community collaboration in this way had more permeable boundaries with the surrounding community and, therefore, stronger, more numerous school-community interactions. Exchanges of Human and Material Resources Across Permeable Borders As this study clearly showed, organizational cultures that fostered permeable boundaries between schools and their surrounding community facilitated the movement of resources across borders. The interviews, document analyses, and observations generated myriad examples of human and material resource exchange within a community ecosystem. Drawing on the arts-based expertise in the community, Valley Ridge had a professional stunt performer teach the staff and students how to stage a realistic fight scene and how to fly on stage for their Peter Pan production. The fact that Stirling was also increasingly a hub for innovation and a desirable community for starting up new businesses provided

90 

C. M. HANDS

further opportunities for resource exchange. Warren, a Career Studies teacher at All Saints, explained, “I bring in guest speakers quite often to share their experiences with our students to help reinforce some of the things that they are learning in the classroom.” Additionally, volunteerism was widespread in the city. Stirling Catholic S. D. superintendent, Gian, described a partnership with Costco, whose employees would volunteer to read with students. In these ways, human resources crossed over from the surrounding community into the school. The movement of human resources into schools benefitted some community partners as much as the schools. For example, Stirling S.  D.’s Social Work Services manager, Howie, described how some schools provided offices for addiction counsellors. While this provided an important resource to staff and students within the schools, it also provided the counsellors with valuable information and allies in the school community to support their work. Krystal and Renee, who managed the communityand school-based mental health services for youth in Stirling, noted that “a lot of the links happen with you when you are in the schools… with the kids that you are working with and the teachers.” And, as Howie observed, this in-school relationship had a tremendous advantage, by informing the caring adults around the youth that can help guide the youth to make a more appropriate decision .… If that setting was off in a downtown office somewhere, that exchange of information between … the educator … and the counsellor just wouldn’t happen.

The school-community partnership also made it easier for community members to support the school administrators and teachers. For example, Krystal and Renee had specialized knowledge about youth mental health and were able to provide evidence-based, up-to-date information educators requested, while addiction counsellors advised teachers on the signs of substance abuse and constructive ways to encourage students to seek help. Programs to benefit schools were possible because of permeable borders between schools and their communities, and often inspired students to give their knowledge and skills back to their communities. Exposure to the community around them gave the students not only direct access to resources, but also connections with caring community members and a sense of civic and professional responsibility. This study showed that it was just as important for material resources— often financial support—to cross boundaries as human resources. Valley

4  THE SOCIAL CONTEXTS AND PERMEABLE BORDERS THAT INFLUENCE… 

91

Ridge’s Arts program was designated a high skills major, so it received provincial grants, which were used to fund visits to universities’ performing arts programs and to pay for professional performers to teach workshops. Sometimes the money came from closer to home. Stirling Community Foundation funded programs all over the city, including the schools’ lunch and breakfast programs. The manager of the city’s nutrition program, Petra, reported that her organization provided bursaries to schools so the students could participate in workshops and events. Educators’ connections to community members with grant money were helpful for developing and supplementing their schools’ programming. Some collaborators also provided learning opportunities for the students. For example, a local botanical garden developed and delivered science content for all grades that met the province’s curriculum expectations. Others offered teaching materials and sports equipment. For example, national sporting goods, household, and automotive chain, Canadian Tire, provided Kin-Ball equipment to All Saints’ Physical Education program. Some partnerships promoted social and emotional wellbeing. The study schools had connections with social services organizations such as the YMCA, the John Howard Society, shelters across the city, Children’s Aid, as well as churches, in the case of the Catholic schools. As with human resources, the material resources’ movement across boundaries was also bi-directional. Pragmatically, many community organizations partnered with others, including schools, in order to secure more funding and thereby provide services to more people. Partnerships also created budget efficiencies. The YMCA settlement manager, Adam, noted, What you gain with partnerships is … the ability to … minimize the cost of delivery because you bring resources together. So instead of me … looking for space and paying for a hall to deliver [a program], now with my partnerships, I say, “Hey, you have a room, I have a staff, let’s do this together.” So … you tend to save on resources in your partnerships.

While elementary schools were less likely to give resources back to the communities who supported them than secondary schools, when they did it was usually material resources. Many Redeemer students, for example, donated their outgrown uniforms to other students who needed them but could not afford new ones. They also collected items for food and clothing

92 

C. M. HANDS

drives and participated in packing the boxes that would be sent to churches and other organizations for distribution in the community. Material resources also flowed from high schools into the community. All Saints had a portable on the grounds, stocked with used furniture, housewares, and second-hand clothing that was available to students and families in need as well as to the broader community. All Saints’ business department ran a printing and design shop for the community with the technology donated to their school by an alumnus. Students from a class for youth with developmental delays worked in the school’s laundry room and the school offered their laundering services to sports teams across Stirling. Additionally, All Saints’ Physical Education department head, Mia, and her colleague did a presentation to all elementary schools in low-­ income neighbourhoods, inviting them to bring their students to use the equipment in their new fitness room and to participate in health and wellness classes run by the All Saints students and staff. Ultimately, the educators and administrators at the school and district levels felt school-community partnerships were a way to secure additional support to students while contributing to the broader community.

Social Context and Permeable Borders: Summary and Recommendations Ecological systems and sociological theories contribute to an understanding of the interrelatedness of people and contexts. In the sphere of education specifically, contexts external to the school can have an impact on schools (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2002) and school community members can shape the community beyond their walls (Datnow et al., 2002). In this sense, everything is interrelated. Whether we consider students, families, school personnel, or communities, organizational culture, available resources, and identified needs and priorities influence individuals’ interest in collaboration and the types of partnerships they seek (Hands, 2005; Lin, 1999). Although separate systems, schools are embedded in their communities with permeable borders (McLaughlin & Talbert, 1990) that enable a bi-­ directional exchange (Datnow et  al., 2002). Schools participate in community-­based educational opportunities and contribute their resources to community development through students’ civic engagement. Conversely, community members bring resources into schools and

4  THE SOCIAL CONTEXTS AND PERMEABLE BORDERS THAT INFLUENCE… 

93

provide services and learning opportunities for students to promote academic achievement, wellbeing, skills development, and networking. In Stirling, the resulting close ties created seamless interaction among the school personnel, students, and community members. This study’s findings on school-community collaboration are consistent with ecological models that not only depict systems interacting with other separate and distinct systems, but also depict systems embedded in other systems and interacting with one another. Envisioning an expanded community in which children live and learn allows policymakers, educators, and children’s advocates to work together to create support networks for students across each community (Croninger & Finkelstein, 2002). Considerations for Collaboration The interplay among school vision, habits of thinking, system permeability, and the bi-directional exchanges of resources across borders yields suggestions for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers who want to increase school-community collaboration to benefit students. The recommendations outlined below emphasize schools, although the same processes might be used by community organizations. Create a Vision for the School that Addresses Its Unique Needs and Incorporates Opportunities for Community Engagement Visions vary from school to school, but should always reflect a “compelling, attractive, realistic future” (DuFour et  al., 2006, p.  24) that school  community members can pursue. As DuFour and colleagues (2006) articulate, “Vision provides a sense of direction and a basis for assessing both the current reality of the school and potential strategies, programs, and procedures to improve on that reality” (p. 24). Having a vision that includes meeting students’ diverse needs invites educators to step outside the singular role of academic instructor and opens the door for collaboration with individuals and organizations beyond the academic community. All constituents need to see that it is the responsibility of the entire community to educate children; if education is left solely to the schools, the task cannot be fully accomplished (Hands, 2005). The visioning process as well as the promotion of a collaborative culture is best done collaboratively—which is no surprise. District and school leaders who involve multiple stakeholders in the process make it more

94 

C. M. HANDS

likely that everyone in the school community will accept the vision and embody it in their actions (Datnow, 2000; DuFour et al., 2006; Kotter, 2012). Using the guiding metaphor of this chapter, we might say that broad consultation ensures that boundaries between contexts are as permeable as possible. The vision is also more likely to reflect the complex and unique realities of the school and its students because of the various and diverse perspectives that have informed the visioning process. But how is this best accomplished? In this study as in other research (see Hands, 2013), understanding students’ needs and the community context begins with collecting information (Epstein, 1995). School-based action teams can assist with this process (Epstein, 1995, 2011). In their absence, school councils in Ontario have taken on the action team’s role in some schools (Hands, 2013). School councils have collected demographic information on the communities using provincial census statistics, districtlevel data on the population each school serves, and surveys of the school community as well as audits of parents’ collaborative practices to get a clearer picture of students, their families, and the resources available in the community (Hands, 2013). This is the foundation upon which collaborative relationships defined by mutual understanding can be built. With this kind of information in hand, principals are in a better position to lead the process of developing a vision for the school that reflects the unique characteristics of the school in an inclusive way that involves not only teachers but also other constituents such as parents and community members. School Personnel, and Principals in Particular, Make the School Permeable or Impermeable Although organization members share some common philosophies and habits of thinking (Schein & Schein, 2017), any whole-school interest in community engagement is tempered by actors’ personal philosophies around partnering and their views about the potential value of community-­ based relationships. This idea helps explain why partnerships are not more widely spread. Not all teachers in schools—even ones with principals who support community engagement—value community engagement. A lack of principal support for collaboration, though, has dire consequences for community engagement in schools. As we saw in this study, the participants at three of the schools and all of the community organizations could appreciate the benefit of school-community collaboration and worked to ensure there was a two-way exchange of ideas, expertise, and resources. Their organizational cultures and their personal perspectives

4  THE SOCIAL CONTEXTS AND PERMEABLE BORDERS THAT INFLUENCE… 

95

were outward-facing. In contrast, Avison’s principal was less supportive of community engagement, and did not promote a culture of collaboration with community organizations. The one teacher who had a personal philosophy that valued community engagement was left to develop relationships on her own with the support of the Public Health nurse assigned to the school, and community members found themselves pushed out of the school by the principal and the other teachers. These findings illustrate the power the principal has in shaping a school’s vision, its goals, and even the way these goals are achieved. Because of their impact on school boundaries and others’ access to the school community, it is critical for school administrators to know not only how to seek out relationships with community organizations but also why they should do so. To support this understanding, Ontario has a leadership framework for district-level administrators as well as school principals that includes competencies in engaging community members (see Institute for Education Leadership [IEL], 2013). Indeed, one director of education in this study noted that there is increasingly widespread interest in community engagement because promoting it is included as part of administrators’ responsibilities. To support these requirements, districts, universities, and principals’ professional organizations could do much to provide guidance to school personnel. They could develop training workshops in these competencies that include a focus on the purpose of school-­ community collaboration and the benefits to be realized, not to mention concrete guidance in forming and maintaining them. With that foundation, administrators and teachers would be better positioned to adopt a perspective that welcomes community engagement in education.

Concluding Thoughts The ecosystems of vastly different regions are interconnected across the earth because of their permeable borders. Moreover, the impacts of one context are regularly felt in multiple others. Earlier in the chapter, we saw how Saharan dust provided unexpected but vital support for aquatic ecosystems in the Atlantic. In the same episode of Connected: The Hidden Science of Everything (2020), Latif Nasser also investigates the impact of Saharan dust on the Amazonian rainforest. He explains how Saharan dust settles in the Amazon basin and replenishes the soil and nutrients lost annually to rain and erosion, thereby keeping the rainforest stable. Despite the vast distance between these distinct ecosystems, the boundaries

96 

C. M. HANDS

between them are nonetheless permeable. Counterintuitively, without Saharan dust, originating from the driest, most desolate place in the world, we would not have one of the lushest, most diverse ecosystems on this earth. Nasser shows us how the introduction of resources from one ecosystem, in this case dust, sustains organisms in another—a type of partnership in the natural world that is mirrored in our social one. This chapter focuses on the importance of context, the two-way passage of resources across mutual borders, and the role of border permeability in social systems as in ecosystems. Our contexts not only shape us, but they are shaped by us; it is not possible to understand people’s actions without considering the social contexts in which the actions take place. This holds true for school-­ community collaboration. The availability of community resources like businesses, social services, education, and occupational skills influences the needs of students and their families and also shapes the types of collaborative activities available to develop (see Bascia, 1996; Hands, 2005; Lin, 1999). Even with a demonstrated need and available resources, collaboration is not a guaranteed outcome. For school-community relations, then, it is particularly important for educators to understand the value of community involvement in education, and either take the initiative to create collaborative activities to support the students or be receptive to others’ outreach. Developing this kind of culture requires agency—typically, the leader’s guidance and supportive action (Sanders, 1999, 2006; Sanders & Harvey, 2002)—to create an agreed-upon vision for the school. This vision should situate community engagement as key in meeting the goals set out in the vision and should foster and support the school staff’s active commitment to engaging resources outside of the school to meet their students’ and programming needs. These kinds of two-way exchanges, in which community members provide resources to the students and schools and vice versa, help to build not only resilient and resourceful students, but ultimately, resilient, and resourceful citizens. In the chapters that follow, we continue our examination of social contexts and their impact on collaboration with an investigation of social networks’ roles in facilitating collaborative activities, the key part liaisons and their personal connections play in school-community partnerships, and a discussion of the enablers of and challenges to community engagement. Networks, liaisons, and other features of the social context not addressed

4  THE SOCIAL CONTEXTS AND PERMEABLE BORDERS THAT INFLUENCE… 

97

in this chapter play key roles in partnership success and failure and highlight the impact context has on whether collaborative activities are developed and maintained or whether school-community partnerships are unable to take root.

References Banathy, B.  H. (1992). A systems view of education: Concepts and principles for effective practice. Educational Technology Publications. Banathy, B. H., & Jenlink, P. M. (2004). Systems inquiry and its application in education. In D.  H. E.  Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp.  37–58). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bascia, N. (1996). Caught in the crossfire: Restructuring, collaboration, and the “problem” school. Urban Education, 31(2), 177–198. https://doi. org/10.1177/0042085996031002004 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The experimental ecology of education. Educational Researcher, 5(9), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005009005 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Campbell, D.  E., Steenbarger, B.  N., Smith, T.  W., & Stucky, R.  J. (1980, September). The ecological-systems approach in community psychology: Four implications for programme evaluation. [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, QC, Canada. Capra, F. (1999). Ecoliteracy: The challenge for education in the next century. Liverpool Schumacher Lectures, March, 20, 1999. Capra, F. (2000). Ecology, community, and agriculture. http://2019.krumbecker-­ hof.de/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2019/02/vdocuments.site_capra-­f ritjof-­ ecology-­community-­and-­agriculture.pdf Croninger, R. G., & Finkelstein, B. (2002). Listening to communities: An ecological perspective on education and human services. In G.  Furman (Ed.), School as community: From promise to practice (pp. 256–276). SUNY Press. Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of school reform models. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 357–374. https://doi.org/1 0.1023/A:1021221627854 Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. Routledge-Falmer. DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Solution Tree.

98 

C. M. HANDS

Epstein, J.  L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701–712. https://doi. org/10.1177/003172171009200326 Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Westview Press. Hands, C. (2005). It’s who you know and what you know: The process of creating partnerships between schools and communities. The School Community Journal, 15(2), 63–84. Hands, C.  M. (2013). Including all families in education: School district-level efforts to promote parent engagement in Ontario, Canada. Teaching Education, 24(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2013.786893 Hands, C. M. (2014). Connecting to the world beyond the school: Social contexts that influence school leaders’ school-community collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations, 24(1), 41–56. Institute for Education Leadership. (2013, September). The Ontario Leadership Framework: A school and system leaders’ guide to putting Ontario’s leadership framework into action. Retrieved October 16, 2022, from www.education-­ leadership-­ontario.ca Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press. Leonard, J. (2011). Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory to understand community partnerships: A historical case study of one urban high school. Urban Education, 46(5), 987–1010. Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51. Marten, G. G. (2001). Human ecology: Basic concepts for sustainable development. Earthscan Publications. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1990). The contexts in question: The secondary school workplace. In M.  W. McLaughlin, J.  E. Talbert, & N.  Bascia (Eds.), The contexts of teaching in secondary schools: Teachers’ realities (pp. 1–14). Teachers College Press. McLaughlin, M.  W., & Talbert, J.  E. (2002). Reforming districts. In A.  M. Hightower, M.  S. Knapp, J.  A. Marsh, & M.  W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 173–192). Teachers College Press. Nasser, Latif (Writer) & Walsh, A. (Director). (2020, August 2). Dust (Season 1, Episode 3) [TV Series Episode]. In C.  Collins, D.  Mettler, L.  Nasser, E.  Osterholm, & L.  Tenaglia (Executive Producers), Connected: The hidden science of everything. Netflix. Sanders, M. G. (1999). Schools’ program and progress in the National Network of Partnership Schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679909597599 Sanders, M. G. (2006). Building school-community partnerships: Collaboration for student success. Skyhorse Publishing.

4  THE SOCIAL CONTEXTS AND PERMEABLE BORDERS THAT INFLUENCE… 

99

Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1345–1368. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­9620.00206 Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. A. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Statistics Canada. (2011). Census profile. Retrieved October 16, 2022, from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-­recensement/2011/dp-­pd/prof/index. cfm?Lang=E Steiner, F. (2002). Human ecology: Following nature’s lead. Island Press.

CHAPTER 5

Networks: The Importance of Who and What You Know

Much of the world’s diamond trade is conducted across international borders; the markets for diamonds are not typically found in the regions where diamonds are mined. This introduces an element of risk for diamond dealers, or diamantaires. Diamonds are easily portable, almost untraceable and, as such, easy to steal in one country and sell in another. To make matters worse, the legal system has little power to stop the trafficking of stolen diamonds; authorities cannot seize stolen goods that are outside their jurisdictions nor prosecute those who are accused of stealing diamonds if they have crossed borders (Richman, 2017). In the absence of governmental and legal mechanisms to track and thwart diamond thieves, diamantaires rely on a strong intra-industry network in their business dealings. In his scholarly analysis of co-operation among diamond dealers, Barak Richman (2017) takes a look at “how an insular merchant community could construct social networks that sustain mutually beneficial trade, despite enormous risk posed by cheating” (Richman, 2017, p. 248). In essence, in the absence of formal contracts, the business runs on credit and loans to procure stones. Diamantaires often have hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of someone else’s diamonds in their possession based on a mere handshake (Olfuski, 2011, as cited in Richman, 2017). This is possible due to trusting relationships cultivated and maintained among colleagues in the industry. Diamantaires build their reputations by honouring commitments and maintaining product quality (Shield, 2002, as cited in © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. M. Hands, Pathways to Community Engagement in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33001-8_5

101

102 

C. M. HANDS

Richman, 2017). Any challenges to honest dealing are handled through arbitration within the industry, rather than the state-supported legal system. Thus, strong trust-based relations built over time sustain trade within the network of diamond dealers while minimizing personal risk. Without this powerful network of relationships built on mutual trust, the diamond industry’s very existence would be threatened. In this chapter, networks are examined as an important tool for the initiation of school-community partnerships. As we saw in previous chapters, human ecological concepts provide some insight into this process since, as Capra (1994/2009) notes, networks are key to understanding the nature of interactions and relationships within a given ecosystem. Multiple interactions between individuals within a social system and between individuals and the ecosystem itself form an interdependent web or network (Capra, 1994/2009, 1999; Kormondy, 1974; Marten, 2001; Steiner, 2002; Stone, 2012). The concept of networks unifies the ideas discussed in the two previous chapters, as networks entail both individual relationships and interactions across contexts with permeable borders. It should come as no surprise, then, that networks strongly influence possibilities for collaboration. After laying a theoretical foundation for an examination of networks, we will take a closer look at the different kinds of networks educators, administrators, and community members use, their value in the partnership process, as well as the drawbacks of lacking a network when it comes to school-community partnerships, and strategies for building networks. The chapter concludes with a summary of the networks depicted in the research, and recommendations for network-building.

Networks and Social Capital: Linking Schools and Communities Strong networks share a set of common features, including homophily, proximity, perceived expertise, opportunities for regular, long-lasting interaction, minimal competition, and a maximally co-operative environment (Coburn et  al., 2010). People who are alike or who share similar occupations are drawn to one another more readily (homophily) and are more likely to form relationships. Similarly, people who are geographically close to one another (proximity) have greater opportunities to interact and develop relationships. Individuals are also drawn to others based on

5  NETWORKS: THE IMPORTANCE OF WHO AND WHAT YOU KNOW 

103

their perceived expertise; they are more likely to consult and subsequently establish relationships with people who may have information and other resources they lack. Networks need ongoing opportunities to interact to form bonds, and to maintain network connections once formed. Lastly, networks form and thrive when members cultivate an ethos of co-­ operation, not competing with each other for financial or material resources. All of these characteristics of successful networks are vital for the formation and preservation of school-community collaborations. Much of the literature on social networks in education focuses on school administrators’ or teachers’ groups (see Daly, 2010b; Diehl, 2020; Hands et al., 2020; Hite et al., 2010; Moolenaar & Sleegers, 2010). Nevertheless, the same ideas are at work in networks that promote community engagement in education. Building Social Capital by Cultivating Interpersonal Relationships Social capital and social network theories provide insight as to why individuals collaborate with one another and what structures and strategies they use to interact. Social capital is an “investment in social relations by individuals through which they gain access to … resources” (Lin, 1999, p. 39). There are two types of social capital. Emotionally based, expressive relationships involve an exchange of human resources such as social support (Finnigan & Daly, 2010), trust, and friendship (Moolenaar & Sleegers, 2010).1 Instrumental relationships pass on material resources associated with organizational goals (Finnigan & Daly, 2010; Moolenaar & Sleegers, 2010) such as possessions, products, and money (Lin, 1999). Instrumental relationships can also yield intangible benefits including information and access to expertise (Daly, 2010a; Finnigan & Daly, 2010; Hite et al., 2010; Lin, 1999). Social capital is often acquired through social networks. These networks help individuals both access new resources and preserve resources they already have (Lin, 1999). They are made up of actors who are connected by ongoing social ties or relations such as familial kinships, friendships, or professional contacts within and across organizations (Borgatti & Ofem, 2010). Instrumental and expressive relationships may 1  The impact of these kinds of relationships will be discussed in greater detail in Chap. 9. This chapter will focus primarily on instrumental relationships.

104 

C. M. HANDS

arise in the same network (Diehl, 2020), and the route by which social networks promote the acquisition of social capital depends on the relationship patterns among network members (Hangül & Şentürk, 2019; Moolenaar & Sleegers, 2010). Regardless of each network’s unique social interaction patterns, they are venues for people to share information and exchange the human and material resources to which the network has access (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The interactions among the actors may also include collaborative discussions towards common goals or conflict resolution (Borgatti & Ofem, 2010). These network activities are all elements of successful partnership development. As such, it is not surprising that collaborative activities are more easily developed within one’s own network or that of a friend or colleague (Hands, 2005), as the interviews in Stirling emphasized.

Building and Maintaining a Network Developing a network and working to maintain and expand it are key to creating opportunities for school-community collaboration. While building rapport and nurturing relationships across the community are time-­ consuming, participants in this study spoke enthusiastically about the importance of networking as a springboard for developing collaborative activities. They highlighted the crucial role networks played in their work, the kinds of networks to which they belonged, the consequences of not having a network, and their experiences building their networks. The Importance of a Social Network The urban schools in this study encountered pervasive poverty in the neighbourhoods they served, as well as cultural diversity, particularly in one of the secondary schools. Substance abuse, prostitution, underemployment, crime, and incarceration were also prevalent, and most students and their families had at least a passing acquaintance with them. At the same time, the community around the schools had a wealth of resources to support residents, and social networks were an important way of accessing these resources. Commenting on various schools in his district, Ben, Stirling Catholic S. D.’s director of education, noted that, as a principal in a high-needs community,

5  NETWORKS: THE IMPORTANCE OF WHO AND WHAT YOU KNOW 

105

You very quickly develop these connections out to many, many community resources … if you’re in that sort of setting—lots of times, you’re in the fires. You’re reaching out to the community quite extensively, so you build your connections very, very quickly.

He saw the Director of Education’s office as the hub through connections among members of the network were maintained. In Ben’s words, “it’s the anchor part of [the district for] folks to come through and work with us, or in turn, reach out to those folks [in the community].” Redeemer Elementary School principal, Kevin, confirmed the great importance of networks to his work: You can’t do it yourself .… You have your own focus in your building and it’s always predicated on the needs of your students and on your community. It might look different everywhere but as something comes up in another school you’re like, “Hey, I’d love to do that” .… Which is how it grows. I don’t see it working any other way. If you don’t network, you don’t build capacity, you’re never going to be able to facilitate opportunities on any level at any school—whether it’s an affluent school or a school that has lots of needs, it doesn’t matter.

Other participants echoed Kevin’s sentiments. Through communication and resource-sharing, networks allowed schools to build their capacity, and in turn, the capacities of others with whom they were connected. Community members reported the same advantages of networking. In particular, they noted that networks promoted partnering by facilitating communication. Adam, the manager of the YMCA Settlement Workers in Schools (SWIS) program, observed, You need to go after targeted partnerships … in terms of … what you hope to accomplish through your work—who you need at the table. So you can make … the process easier, because let’s face it: when you know people on a personal level, it is much easier to communicate or to come to an agreement than … [to] pick up the phone [and call someone] … you don’t know.

Participants noted that relationships through networks made it easier to overcome potential challenges like administrative barriers from funders and to come to a mutual understanding. Networks also made it easier to establish new initiatives and recruit volunteers. When interviewed, the manager of the city-wide nutrition

106 

C. M. HANDS

program, Petra, disclosed, “My afternoon was meeting three different volunteers for three different projects I have. They contacted me—one heard me speak somewhere. … It is all through networking.” For community members’ school partnerships in particular, having an “in” was very important; that is, knowing a principal or a teacher at a school opened up access to school spaces and student participants. Several community partners shared with the All Saints Secondary School’s social worker, Betty, that “they found it helpful to have one really solid connection here. … When you have one person who is … like your ‘in,’ who’s connected, who can help … spread the message and really engage people, then that’s really helpful.” Networks also helped to lower resistance to proposed initiatives. From the school perspective, All Saints’ principal, Cameron, illustrated how networking helped to create the impetus for new partnerships: There can be an inclination to say no to new stuff because it’s a hassle, or you worry about safety concerns, or you worry about strangers outside your [school] community coming into your community .… If one of my really good teachers who’s a really good person, who really cares about kids, comes to me with an idea for a connection or a program, I’m inclined to say yes.

In this way, having an extensive network expanded both the availability of human resources and the capacity to develop new projects. Similarly, participants reported that networks made collaboration easier because, just like in the international diamond trade, they facilitated trusting relationships. District, school, and community participants alike noted the importance of these relationships, especially where education was concerned. The city’s child and home management services manager, Megan, observed, We know with children, with families, their learning is so strongly based on relationships. If they have healthy relationships, it really nurtures growth in a lot of areas. … Because of that, that’s laid a really good understanding for our community partners to say, “You know what? Relationships and connections mean a lot and we’re going to nurture those things.” … So there definitely has to be trust; there has to be relationships.

5  NETWORKS: THE IMPORTANCE OF WHO AND WHAT YOU KNOW 

107

Luke, the founder of a Physical Education company running programs in several Ontario cities, noted the power of trust in existing networks for expanding partnering opportunities in other cities. We’ve got [Abbotsville] and now because of [Abbotsville], [Markvale] just signed up yesterday. I haven’t even met the lady, but then you start getting the trust and it starts working on the cities because they also have meetings and they go to conferences … and then they talk.

Accessing resources and establishing more personal connections were more easily accomplished through relationships with partners that had established a successful track record and built a positive reputation. In the words of Carlo, the district-level liaison consultant for the Stirling Catholic S. D. and seasoned collaborator, “It’s that trusting relationship piece that I’m finding more and more is the most effective way in working with any of our partners.” Existing connections ensured “a quicker navigation through the system,” according to Carlo and other participants. Different Types of Networks and Their Impact Participants spoke about the different kinds of networks of which they were a part. Some of the networks were more formal collectives, with invited membership and an established purpose from their inception. Other networks were informal, made up of professional colleagues who connected through work-related activities or friends. While both were advantageous in developing school-community partnerships, they were created in different ways and served various purposes. Formal Networks There were several formal networks throughout Stirling’s school districts. Frank, the Director of Education at Stirling S. D., talked about one such city-wide network. I sit at a table and it’s called SAIL: … the Stirling Anchor Institutional Leadership. We meet every three months .… We’re all involved with students or our broader community in some shape or form because we’re the key anchor institutions. We talked about [making the city of Stirling] the

108 

C. M. HANDS

best place to raise a child .… These leaders who come to the table, there’s a synergy and a willingness to look at integration of services, to put egos aside.

Invited participants in the network collaborated to identify the issues they needed to address to achieve their collective goals. They then put resources in place to support their common purpose. Participants noted that city-­ wide networks like SAIL increased efficiency and decreased redundancy, allowing members to see where services were most plentiful, where they were needed, and who was involved in their delivery across the city. Other formal networks in Stirling were developed for a narrower purpose. One such city-wide network (discussed in more detail in Chap. 9) was created to support child and youth mental health. The city’s mental health and developmental services organizations and school districts created the Single Point Access network, “one stop shopping for all mental health and wellness services” according to Holly, the manager of the lead organization, Contact Stirling. Contact Stirling created a mental health database and website, liaised with network members to maintain current information about their services, and provided intake assessments and referrals to appropriate partner organizations for students and their families. Another focused, city-wide network was SEDIC: Stirling’s Executive Director’s Indigenous Coalition, which addressed Indigenous children’s and youths’ educational opportunities. According to Shannon, an Indigenous social worker who was involved with the school districts, the network consisted of “all the executive directors of all the different community agencies … sitting on a committee so they don’t overlap with one another and they aren’t competing for any funding … [with] a vision to help the youth and provide different strategies for stay-in-school initiatives.” The narrow focus of this network helped participants use their resources efficiently in support of their target audience. Some formal networks were industry-specific. In one example, a working group for all principals administrating Equal Opportunities schools— schools in the Catholic district serving low-income neighbourhoods entitled to additional government funding for community support services—met once a month. This network was separate from the principals’ networks established for each superintendent’s family of schools across each district. According to Kevin, Redeemer’s principal, the network provided access to additional opportunities to partner with community organizations.

5  NETWORKS: THE IMPORTANCE OF WHO AND WHAT YOU KNOW 

109

There are community partners that they bring in to do presentations. There is … always a dialogue piece where we can say, … “I have a need for somebody to come in and do a physical literacy piece,” or “Can someone come in and demonstrate for a group of teachers what this would look like?” whatever it might be.

This network included the district’s community liaison consultant, who could help identify potential collaborators in schools’ areas of need corresponding to their vision. All of these formal networks were developed out of an identified need and with a specific purpose in mind, and membership was consciously curated. In many cases, the issues the networks set out to address were recognized as fundamental and far-reaching. As such, they were best addressed in networks set up specifically to confront the issues not just in one neighbourhood, but across many. I nformal Social Networks In contrast with administrators, teachers more often reported using informal professional networks. For example, their relationships with district-­ level administrators exposed them to information about opportunities to collaborate with community members. They also reported encountering other educators at conferences who shared information on programs in which they were involved. At the same time, teachers also established personal, social networks as part of their lives outside of the classroom. At Valley Ridge Secondary School, which had a strong Arts program, the Arts department head, Barry, talked about his connections with members of the local symphony with which he performed. Similarly, the drama teacher was connected with local theatre companies as a professional stage manager, a music teacher was part of an opera company, and a dance teacher taught in the community. Barry summed up this dynamic: “with us working together, we take advantage of each other’s connections and stuff, and then bring that back to the kids.” Community members also reported using informal networks to access resources for their programs. Ron, who ran a mental health treatment program at a Stirling S. D. school, stated, “I have a friend whose partner is an art therapist … and she works three days a week, but I’m trying to encourage her to maybe to come in for even just a couple of classes with us.” He hoped to give students access to beneficial therapy that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive or difficult to access. The same was

110 

C. M. HANDS

true for the schools in Stirling Catholic S.D. As Carlo, Stirling Catholic S. D.’s community liaison consultant, noted, many schools would benefit immensely from art or music therapy. Unlike Ron, he did not have a personal connection and so was unable to find a community partner to work with the children and youth. Without exception, community members identified having a well-placed friend or colleague as an ideal way to access scarce resources. In this study, all of the informal networks that participants described were pre-existing; that is, participants developed them organically in the course of their work or personal lives and not as a result of wanting to partner for a specific purpose. The partnerships that came out of these informal networks were typically serendipitous, a case of “right place, right time.” Regardless of the type of resource they were seeking, all participants—educational leaders, teachers, support staff, and community members—described their networks as critical to developing collaborative activities.  sing Others’ Networks U While all participants made use of their own personal and professional networks, the educators also noted the value of using others’ networks. For example, Kevin, the principal at Redeemer, talked about having greater access to resources by hiring staff based not just on their skill sets but also their connections in the community: “When you have people who have a skill set and they have a network and a partnership outside, then that helps with the partnerships that you have in your building.” In a similar vein, All Saints’ principal, Cameron, described how he relied on teachers to vouch for community members when evaluating potential collaborative activities. Sasha, a teacher at Avison Elementary School, described a parallel situation. She relied on the Public Health nurse who was assigned to the school to reach out to the community through her network. Some community members reported doing the same. For example, Wendy, a YWCA manager, described how some parents wore “professional hats” and could access donations and guest speakers to enrich programming. Other educators used their colleagues’ networks more fundamentally. Leo, the head of the business department at Valley Ridge, observed that new Community-based Education (Co-operative Education, or Co-op) teachers depended on other teachers’ connections to place students in workplaces across the city. As Leo put it, “realistically what happens is you’re taking over from someone else who’s done the job and they’re

5  NETWORKS: THE IMPORTANCE OF WHO AND WHAT YOU KNOW 

111

basically passing along all that information to you. … There’s that collaborative piece that you rely on so that you have a starting point.” An All Saints’ Career Studies teacher, Warren, agreed. His courses included forand non-profit organization guest speakers who exposed the students to a variety of careers and perspectives. The secondary schools’ Special Education programs were also integrally connected with the community through their life skills and work experience programming; the educators required a vast network for the programs to run and used each other’s contacts to support their students. Students aged 17 through 21 with special needs headed out into the community to learn job readiness skills from partner workplaces and to experience recreation-based activities that matched their interests. Educators who specialized in Community-based Education, Business and Career Studies, Arts, and Special Education all needed networks to support their teaching. They had to seek out relationships across the community and were comfortable sharing their networks and resources with other teachers at their school. Challenges to Networks and the Consequences of Not Having One In Stirling, networks were not static: they were living entities, growing as a result of members’ efforts but also disappearing through disuse. Failure to maintain communication with network members resulted in the erosion of relationships and limited opportunities for collaboration in schools. Reflecting on a partnership that had fallen by the wayside, a city-wide social skills program manager, Derek, acknowledged the paramount role of communication in both establishing partnerships and maintaining them: We didn’t have a protocol meeting probably for five or six years. So we’ve dropped the ball as an agency as far as our communication and our maintaining contact with, in this case, school [districts]. I made an attempt two years ago .… I didn’t really get much of a response …. I think there was a lot of enthusiasm and excitement when we came into the community. I don’t know if that’s dwindled. I think it has.

This community member’s experiences highlighted the importance of having a contact person at the destination schools, districts, and community-­based organizations to sustain engagement. He had lost his contacts over the years and was now in a position of cold-calling schools to run presentations and workshops for his organization’s program.

112 

C. M. HANDS

Individuals lost contact with their networks in other ways. Staff turnover at partner organizations was a major worry for participants. For example, a new principal might terminate an existing relationship if they did not see the value of the activities, if the activities were not in line with their vision for the school, or if they were not interested in collaboration with the community. Turnover within community organizations could be equally problematic for schools and sometimes it was not possible to maintain contact, especially with larger community organizations with high turnover. Tamara, the Stirling S.  D. community engagement co-­ ordinator, observed, The turnover can be quite high and that information that I exist isn’t always passed on, and I don’t know that there’s a new person .… Sometimes for a couple of months there could be issues [with the partnership] and I don’t know about it and they don’t know I exist.

Losing contacts in the network threatened the partnerships’ sustainability particularly if members were dissatisfied with their interactions. In addition to problems maintaining networks, educators in both districts noted that some teachers did not have a network to supplement their resources. This was often because potential school and community partners alike were not aware of each other. Marnie, Valley Ridge’s English department head and Student Success lead, observed, “It’s … difficult to know what’s out there. … I would say most teachers don’t have any idea about all the community partners and what they do” because the school’s administrators or guidance counsellors developed the relationships, which also meant community members did not contact the teachers directly. The Business department head at All Saints, Josephine, and her colleague, Mark, explained this situation from the teacher’s perspective, I don’t know if we’re entirely aware of what’s available out there. It tends to be hit and miss .… I’m sure there are opportunities out there for partnerships; I just don’t know where they are, and I’m not sure which ones are ripe for the picking.

These educators also observed that the lack of networking was two-sided: We don’t know they exist, and [community members] don’t know we have a need. … I’m sure there are a lot of people out there that would be more

5  NETWORKS: THE IMPORTANCE OF WHO AND WHAT YOU KNOW 

113

than willing to get involved in educational partnerships, but they just don’t even think about it .… So these connections don’t get made.

In this case, mutual ignorance of the needs and goals of the other kept schools and community members from collaborating. One contributing factor to this mutual ignorance was the heterogeneity of the education system. Not only are school districts vast and complex, but they are also not uniformly structured, with professional responsibilities divided differently from district to district. As such, community members found it both mystifying and frustrating to navigate district bureaucracy without a contact within the system in their network. This limited networking opportunities, at best slowing the partnership process and, at worst, stopping it in its tracks. Jody, the education director of the region’s botanical gardens, recounted the challenges of working with multiple districts to offer outdoor education programming: “That took a lot of work on my side of things just in figuring out who’s the appropriate person to talk to on each of the [districts] and making sure they had all the program information they needed.” It was six months before she had the programming implemented across the districts. While it was easier to work within a single community where there was less variability in organizational structures, policies, and practices, it was still time-consuming to identify the right contact and build a relationship. The same was true from district personnel’s experiences working with community organizations. Howie, Stirling S.  D.’s Social Work services manager, described how, when he and his team were trying to set up a health clinic in one of their schools, it took three years to get the program off the ground. Community members were superficially supportive but would not commit; they “would tell us they loved the idea and give us other names.” District personnel were not connected with a city healthcare network; as a result, it took considerable time and effort to learn the city’s healthcare landscape and build relationships with an organization that was willing and able to partner. Without existing ties to members in a network, initiators must first invest in establishing a relationship, and only then develop collaborative activities.

114 

C. M. HANDS

How to Build a Network Study participants who had successfully developed and maintained their networks offered advice to those who found building a network challenging, or who had lost their network connections. They emphasized, in particular, community involvement and persistence. The first step in establishing or rebuilding a network was to become very involved in the community, particularly by joining organizations. In reflecting on what made him an effective liaison between the Stirling Catholic school district, schools and community, Carlo noted it was an asset that he was at so many different tables. Connections I make at one particular meeting could lead to another area .… ’Cause you’re sitting at multiple tables, you are able to navigate the system, knowing where there could be possible relationship-building, where there is already a relationship, how we can expand on that relationship.

Community members also pointed out how crucial it was to get out into the community. For example, Luke, the owner of a Physical Education program for children, set up demonstrations at fairs and in recreational centres to engage with the community’s residents and increase his organization’s visibility. Teachers used the same strategy; they were out in the community, making introductions and participating in meetings and city-­ wide planning tables. In their work with All Saints’ life skills and work experience programs, May and Janet needed to network extensively. Like the other educators in the study, they advised, “Talk to everybody … Don’t be scared to approach people. It doesn’t matter who they are or what organization, just talk to people.” Many such connections were made through word-of-mouth. Other teachers and community members extended their networking efforts beyond Stirling. To build her knowledge and skills in the classroom, Avison teacher, Sasha, relied on social media such as Twitter to share resources beyond her immediate circle of in-person acquaintances. Carrie, who ran a Physical Education program in schools and city recreational centres, also noted the importance of social media. Alongside word-of-mouth, she found social media a valuable way to “get the information out there so people can find it and see it.” While she used to rent a table at various conferences to talk to attendees, make contacts, and

5  NETWORKS: THE IMPORTANCE OF WHO AND WHAT YOU KNOW 

115

promote her program, she noted that conferences were downsizing and people increasingly found them cost-prohibitive. Social media provided a cost-effective alternative. In addition to their comments about communication, participants highlighted the importance of being proactive and persistent in maintaining, expanding, or rebuilding a network. To garner support for Indigenous youth and their education in the city’s schools, Indigenous social worker, Shannon, advised, advocate for yourself, don’t sit back. … I realized I had to learn to speak up and really push for it .… Giving voice to what needed to be done. … Knowing the people you need to speak to, even if it is the higher ups, to say, “I need you.”

Others also noted the importance of both resilience and tenacity. For his part, it took Howie and his team of social workers years of contacting potential collaborators before they encountered a community-based organization that was willing to work to establish a partnership with Stirling S.  D. Community members like Meg, a youth empowerment program manager, noted that it was important to find the best contact, which was not always the same as the advertised contact: the person listed as the contact for an organization or program was not necessarily the one “who actually has their ideas, goals, passions aligned with whatever it is that you want to be working with them on.” The process of identifying the best contact often took time and determination.

Networks: Summary and Recommendations For all participants, networks were crucial for establishing and supporting school-community partnerships. Through interconnected relationships, networks provided access to the material resources, information, skills, and expertise needed to meet the partnerships’ goals. Studies have shown that strong networked relationships between employees in schools and districts as well as employees in peer systems such as government organizations, healthcare, and community businesses were necessary to develop collaborative activities (Banathy, 1992). This was particularly the case when those relationships were based on dialogue and deep listening to foster “social creativity” (Jenlink & Banathy, 2005, p. 7). By contrast, the absence of a network or ineffective communication within a network

116 

C. M. HANDS

negatively impacted collaboration, which aligns with research on central office staff’s and school leaders’ experiences with networks in educational settings (Finnigan & Daly, 2010; Hands et al., 2020). As we saw earlier in this chapter, the key features of successful networks are homophily, proximity, perceived expertise, opportunities for regular, long-lasting interaction, minimal competition, and a maximally co-­ operative environment (Coburn et  al., 2010). Research tells us that homophily, proximity, and members’ possession of resources along with other members’ ability to acquire them are the main mechanisms for promoting resource flow and transfer within a network (Hangül & Şentürk, 2019; Hite et al., 2010). Moreover, personal connections among members are more important than proximity (Daly, 2010b). These findings suggest that some network features are likely to be more important than others for education collectives. In this study, perceived expertise, access to resources, and homophily were paramount to network establishment (see also Diehl, 2020). Relationships took a great deal of time to develop and maintain (Hands, 2005) and were not sought out unless there was a perceived need to do so (Hands, 2010). Initiators contacted and sought relationships with others in possession of resources they needed. Once contact was initiated, similarities among members were articulated. Although members were from different types of organizations and industries in some cases, they either had common goals or worked together to articulate them. This was particularly true of the formal networks such as SAIL and Single Point Access. These examples from the study reinforced the findings of previous research, which showed that successful networks first evaluated the environmental context—for example, the economic circumstances of community members or current healthcare issues (see Appelbaum et  al., 2012; Kotter, 2012)—and only then developed a vision, that is, “a compelling, attractive, realistic future” (DuFour et  al., 2006, p.  24; see also Appelbaum et al., 2012). This included identifying potential strategies for collaboration, a set of shared results-based, measurable goals reflecting the vision, and ways of assessing progress (DuFour et al., 2006; Kotter, 2012). These kinds of activities are part of relationship-building and establishing shared interests among members—a type of homophily that came through clearly in the interviews conducted in Stirling.

5  NETWORKS: THE IMPORTANCE OF WHO AND WHAT YOU KNOW 

117

Personal Connections Are the Glue Holding the Network Together Most participants in this study reported having strong informal networks, both personal and professional. They had adequate connections with other members and communicated frequently enough to be able to share information and co-create solutions to common problems. They were also able to maintain their relationships and the trust2 that they had developed through sustained collaboration. Overall, once the networks were formed, the personal connections among members were key to resource acquisition and information flow. In several instances, participants lost access to networks because they did not put in the work to maintain personal connections. One participant and his colleagues did not maintain their relationships at the school and district levels and so their program was discontinued. In other cases, a collaboration based on a personal relationship with a principal was discontinued when the principal left. These examples stress the importance of not just strong networked relationships but also diverse ones. Members of a network with one or few connections are in a precarious position; the failure of even one connection risks network inaccessibility and the loss of potential resources (Hands, 2005; Hite et al., 2010). This problem does not just affect community members; when principals transfer to another school, students and staff can be cut off from the resources associated with a principal’s network of relationships. In cases where access to a network was lost, it was essential for these participants to develop new relationships within the network or seek membership in other networks. Considerations for Collaboration Since networks were touted as a very effective medium for establishing partnerships and their activities, the following implications for policy and practice are focused on developing and maintaining strong network relationships.

2  Trust is frequently discussed in the social networks literature and was a theme in the interviews conducted for this study. In their meta-analysis of trust literature, TschannenMoran and Hoy (2000) isolated common features of trust relationships: “trust is one party’s willingness to be vulnerable to another based on the confidence that the latter party is (a) benevolent, (b) reliable, (c) competent, (d) honest, and (e) open” (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000, p. 556).

118 

C. M. HANDS

I f Network Connections Are Lost, It Is Well Worth the Time It Takes to Develop New Relationships Having a network with established, trusting relationships helped to facilitate collaborative activities. Partnering initiatives were easier to create and took less time to set up. Conversely, cold-calling is not nearly as effective (Hands, 2005). For anyone who has lost connections to a network, the first point of contact should be the district liaison, like Carlo in the Stirling Catholic S.D., or somebody in a similarly centralized position who can help broker new relationships and identify opportunities for establishing collaborative activities. In the absence of a district-level liaison consultant or community engagement office, other options include contacting the director’s office, according to the directors of education in this study, the province-wide governing body, or the council of school administrators. Individuals need not build their own networks from scratch. Becoming affiliated with colleagues’ and friends’ networks also facilitates access to resources and partnership opportunities as a result of trust-by-proxy (Hands, 2009). Trust is essential to successful tie formation, enabling network members to share resources or collaborate on initiatives, supporting the “creation and maintenance of innovation-supportive climates” (Moolenaar & Sleegers, 2010, p. 111). Some educators in this study had vast networks because of their jobs (e.g., the city-wide volunteer organization manager, Stirling Catholic S. D.’s community liaison consultant, and the Co-operative Education, Business, and Special Education teachers). Those without a strong network would do well to seek out these individuals, who could likely connect them to relevant people and needed resources.  olicymakers at Government and District Levels Should Consider P Creating Spaces and Providing Funding for Teachers and Administrators to Forge Their Own Relationships To help individuals on their way to developing networks, policymakers could provide guidance and funding for teachers and administrators. Formal opportunities for the subgroups within a larger network to interact have the potential to promote new information creation that is beneficial to all involved (Daly, 2010b). Some school districts set up mandatory new teacher induction programs, which are intended to provide ongoing professional development during teachers’ first years in the classroom (Hands, 2013) including assisting them in building their professional network. As this study and other research have described (see Hands et  al., 2020), some districts also have clusters of principals meeting regularly under the

5  NETWORKS: THE IMPORTANCE OF WHO AND WHAT YOU KNOW 

119

guidance of their superintendent to discuss issues and share resources. In the case of Stirling Catholic S.  D., an additional network of principals administrating schools in low-income neighbourhoods was set up so the leaders could address issues specific to these conditions. All of these formal, organized opportunities for networking promoted network creation and the potential for stronger, more enduring networks. This research highlighted the role of large, formal networks such as city-wide planning tables to streamline services, to ensure equitable access and limited duplication of services across city regions, and to promote a co-ordinated strategy for addressing shared issues. It seems likely that the success of these large, formal networks was tied to Stirling’s moderate size; it is important to be mindful that what was successful in Stirling might not be successful in every context. In a larger city, there might be numerous city managers, heads of social services, or hospital administrators, for example, which could limit the efficacy of large, formal networks. As Bascia (1996) notes, large groups with diverse values and interests may struggle to reach a consensus. Further, a very large urban centre might be characterized by diversity across the region—even more diversity than Stirling—which could make it difficult to identify common issues and goals. Rather than striving to build as large a network as possible, as one might conclude from the example of Stirling, it may be prudent to develop smaller planning tables in various regions within a large city. Similarly, school districts could call together those social services and organizations that fall within their district’s catchment area to address issues of common concern rather than trying to gather a city-wide group.  ccess to Multiple, Diverse Networks Improves Access to Resources A and Encourages the Kind of Innovation Needed to Address Complex Issues As this research illustrated, association with multiple organizations and networks helped participants to develop many diverse partnerships throughout Stirling. But beyond the mere number of connections within a network, qualitative properties such as the strength of the relationships between people are important for resource flow (Daly, 2010a). The type of network also affects the types of relationships and interactions possible. As Moolenaar and Sleegers (2010) found, instrumental work-related discussion networks significantly increased the trust necessary to create and maintain organizational climates that promote innovation, while expressive relationships, or friendships, did not, as will be discussed further in

120 

C. M. HANDS

Chap. 9. The kind of risk-taking that fosters innovation is possible in a psychologically safe environment (Moolenaar & Sleegers, 2010), and may encourage increased and varied partnering with collaborative activities that benefit diverse students and community members in new ways. Educational administrators at the district and school levels may wish to assist principals and teachers in building diverse professional networks to encourage novel and varied approaches to challenges. Administrators’ professional organizations are formal networks that provide opportunities for educators to create their own networks as well as build and share their knowledge and skills (Hands et al., 2020). Teacher-centric organizations can function in the same way. For example, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario developed a Connected Communities initiative, with a range of teacher-led online programs to facilitate members’ access to information and opportunities to explore concepts, exchange ideas with colleagues, and apply them in their own school environments (Hands et al., 2016). Professional organizations and unions provide similar opportunities to develop innovation-supportive climates at the provincial level (Hands et al., 2016).

Concluding Thoughts In recent years, diamond dealers’ trust-based networks have eroded. There have been increasing reports of dishonest conduct, in which dealers do not pay for the diamonds they procured on credit, or they mislead purchasers regarding the diamonds’ quality and market value; nonetheless, they still work in the industry, often without consequences (Richman, 2017). While the diamond industry does have its own arbitration process, it can be fraught with impropriety, since the system is administrated by dealers’ clubs. Decisions have been made in favour of members over non-members in the face of contradicting evidence, which has prompted lawsuits in the state-supported legal system in some cases, and an overall cynicism about the very institutions that have mandates to sustain industry-wide trust (Richman, 2017). As a result, co-operation has been on the decline because members perceive that the diamond trade network does not transmit accurate information about diamantaires’ practices and reputations and its arbitration process is corrupt (Richman, 2017). A new kind of network and subsequent partnerships have taken the place of trust-based relationships in the diamond industry. Trust-based networks have given way to vertical integration, in which diamond

5  NETWORKS: THE IMPORTANCE OF WHO AND WHAT YOU KNOW 

121

producers keep a proportion of the stones for themselves, cut and polish the rough diamonds, and market them either on their own or in a contractual partnership with another company (Richman, 2017). Similarly, retailers such as Tiffany & Co. have established a subsidiary company that purchases, cuts, and polishes rough diamonds and have contracts with the diamond mines to secure their supply directly rather than through a broker (Richman, 2017). While this kind of network is less efficient bureaucratically, it is considered to be more reliable (Richman, 2017). Now formal partnerships with articulated terms and the possibility of legal recourse have replaced a handshake and an unreliable system of arbitration. The example of the diamond industry shows that networks can respond to contextual change. This suggests that networks such as the ones highlighted in this chapter can and should be flexible in the way they interact and define common goals. It would also be helpful for members of networks to be mindful of the group’s size. A network’s “success often causes eventual demise as stateless networks grow beyond their sustainable size” (Richman, 2017, p.  279). Technology facilitates network expansion among more geographically distanced areas, but videoconferencing or telephone—though a crucial means of sustaining networks through a global pandemic—does not provide the same networking benefits of in-­ person meetings to establish connections and collaborative activities. With too few ties across a vast network that is no longer localized, trust and self-sustaining co-operation is compromised, and therefore, so is the network. Education networks, in which individuals can choose many of the groups with which they are affiliated, should ideally remain small and geographically local, as was the case with the majority of the networks in this study. As we saw in the past two chapters, ecology provides a powerful metaphor for understanding the factors that influence school-community collaboration. The idea of mutualism—co-operative and beneficial relationships between species—offers an analogy for individual relationships between schools and their community partners. It is also possible to think about relationships between larger communities from a systems perspective. Just as permeable borders between ecosystems allow for critical exchange between seemingly separate systems, permeable borders between different parts of a community facilitate mutually beneficial interactions between schools and their communities. The idea of networks takes us one step further. The broad and far-reaching impact of networks incorporates both individual relationships and the larger contexts in which they unfold,

122 

C. M. HANDS

further elucidating the factors influencing the creation and success of school-community partnerships. Networks and partnerships are mutually reinforcing: networks help to initiate partnerships and partnerships encourage more and varied ties among people, which can extend and strengthen networks. In the next chapter, we consider key actors in the networks: individuals who connect network members to resources, create collaborative relationships for themselves and for others, and facilitate others’ partnering practices.

References Appelbaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J., & Shafiq, H. (2012). Back to the future: Revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development, 31(8), 764–782. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711211253231 Banathy, B.  H. (1992). A systems view of education: Concepts and principles for effective practice. Educational Technology Publications. Bascia, N. (1996). Caught in the crossfire: Restructuring, collaboration, and the “problem” school. Urban Education, 31(2), 177–198. https://doi. org/10.1177/0042085996031002004 Borgatti, S., & Ofem, B. (2010). Overview: Social network theory and analysis. In A.  J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp.  17–29). Harvard Education. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press. Capra, F. (1999). Ecoliteracy: The challenge for education in the next century. Liverpool. Schumacher Lectures, March 20, 1999. Capra, F. (2009). Ecology and community. Center for Ecoliteracy. Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://www.ecoliteracy.org/article/ecology-­and-­ community (Original work published 1994). Coburn, C. E., Choi, L., & Mata, W. (2010). “I would go to her because her mind is math”: Network formation in the context of a district-based mathematics reform. In A.  J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 35–50). Harvard Education. Daly, A. J. (2010a). Mapping the terrain: Social network theory and educational change. In A.  J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 1–16). Harvard Education. Daly, A. J. (2010b). Surveying the terrain ahead: Social network theory and educational change. In A.  J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 259–274). Harvard Education. Diehl, D. (2020). The multiplexity of professional learning communities: Exploring the co-evolution of teacher social networks. Research Papers in

5  NETWORKS: THE IMPORTANCE OF WHO AND WHAT YOU KNOW 

123

Education, 35(5), 623–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267152 2.2019.1615115 DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Finnigan, K. S., & Daly, A. J. (2010). Learning at a system level: Ties between principals of low-performing schools and central office leaders. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp.  179–195). Harvard Education. Hands, C. (2005). It’s who you know and what you know: The process of creating partnerships between schools and communities. The School Community Journal, 15(2), 63–84. Hands, C., Soleas, E., & Grant, J.  M. (2016, May). The ETFO Connected Communities initiative: A grassroots, online professional development model for elementary teachers. [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education at the Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences, Calgary, AB, Canada. Hands, C. M. (2009). The evolution of trust relationships in school-community partnership development: From calculated risk-taking to unconditional faith. In L. Shumow (Ed.), Promising practices for family and community involvement during high school (pp. 53–69). Information Age. Hands, C.  M. (2010). Why collaborate? The differing reasons for secondary school educators’ establishment of school-community partnerships. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(2), 189–207. https://doi. org/10.1080/09243450903553993 Hands, C.  M. (2013). Including all families in education: School district-level efforts to promote parent engagement in Ontario, Canada. Teaching Education, 24(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2013.786893 Hands, C. M., Armstrong, D. E., & Mitchell, C. (2020). Collaborative learning and knowledge-sharing: The potential of new administrator networks and mentoring programs. In B. J. Irby, J. N. Boswell, L. J. Searby, F. Kochan, R. Garza, & N.  Abdelrahman (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of mentoring (pp. 205–222). John Wiley & Sons. Hangül, Ş., & Şentürk, I.̇ (2019). Analyzing teachers’ interactions through social network analysis: A multi-case study of three schools in Van, Turkey. New Waves Educational Research and Development, 22(2), 16–346. Hite, J. M., Hite, S. J., Mugimu, C. B., & Nsubuga, Y. K. (2010). Strategic “co-­ opetition”: Headteacher networking in Uganda’s secondary schools. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 197–219). Harvard Education.

124 

C. M. HANDS

Jenlink, P. M., & Banathy, B. (2005). Dialogue: Conversation as culture creating and consciousness evolving. In B. Banathy & P. M. Jenlink (Eds.), Dialogue as means of collective communication (pp. 3–14). Kluwer Academic. Kormondy, E. J. (1974). Natural and human ecosystems. In F. Sargent II (Ed.), Human ecology (pp. 27–43). North-Holland Publishing Company. Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press. Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51. Marten, G. G. (2001). Human ecology: Basic concepts for sustainable development. Earthscan Publications Ltd.. Moolenaar, N. M., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). Social networks, trust, and innovation: The role of relationships in supporting an innovative climate in Dutch schools. In A.  J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 97–114). Harvard Education. Richman, B.  D. (2017). An autopsy of cooperation: Diamond dealers and the limits of trust-based exchange. Journal of Legal Analysis, 9(2), 247–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/lax003 Steiner, F. (2002). Human ecology: Following nature’s lead. Island Press. Stone, M. (2012, July 25). Applying ecological principles. Center for Ecoliteracy. Retrieved November 19, 2022, from https://www.ecoliteracy.org/article/ applying-­ecological-­principles? Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547–593. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070004547

CHAPTER 6

Building Bridges and Crossing Boundaries

Early in her novel, The Hamilton Case, author Michelle De Kretser (2005) describes one of her characters as a mudaliyar. The term comes from the Tamil words muthal (“first”) and yaar (“people”) and roughly translates as “head man” (Barnett, 2015). Historically, the mudaliyar was a respected individual in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). Mudaliyars were soldiers and diplomats, with extensive education, leadership abilities, and influence within their communities. With the arrival of the Europeans, the mudaliyars’ job description expanded to include roles as record keepers, intermediaries, and interpreters in the dealings between the Europeans and Ceylonese. This boundary-spanning role was not exclusive to Ceylonese society. Cordeiro and Kolek (1996) discuss the need for local Chinese citizens to act as compradors—a Portuguese word for “buyer”— assisting representatives of foreign companies in navigating the bureaucracies and hierarchies of imperial China. Fluent in at least two languages, compradors had a working knowledge of other cultures’ traditions and customs. As such, they were able to engage across cultural divides, assisting foreign businesses in accessing local Chinese organizations, and brokering business partnerships across cultures. These accounts highlight the historical importance of a go-between for establishing collaborative relationships between communities with different cultures, languages, customs, and hierarchies. In contemporary times, boundary-spanners also play an important role in collaborative activities. Chapter 5 investigated the vital role that © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. M. Hands, Pathways to Community Engagement in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33001-8_6

125

126 

C. M. HANDS

personal and professional networks play in developing collaborative activities. This chapter expands on the previous one by defining in greater detail the key individuals within a network who make collaboration possible. The focus here is on the role played by the boundary-spanner in initiating school-community collaboration, connecting diverse individuals within or across networks to facilitate collaboration. This chapter begins with a summary of network concepts, with particular attention to the different positions network actors hold in relation to available resources. We then examine the different kinds of positions that give individuals boundary-­ spanning status within their networks, before focusing on the benefits of associating with a boundary-spanner and the challenges people can encounter if they do not align themselves with one. The chapter ends with a summary of boundary-spanning, followed by recommendations for building liaising capacity.

Social Networks and Boundary-Spanners By seeking out social relations with others, individuals create networks that can provide access to people, information, and resources (see Diehl, 2020; Finnigan & Daly, 2010; Lin, 1999). Daly’s (2010) work on informal social networks highlighted tie density (or the number of relationships) and its importance in influencing network structure. Tie density shaped who members communicated with and how they interacted within the network, as well as the positions they occupied relative to one another. According to Daly (2010), central actors have the greatest number of ties with other actors in the network and, as a result, the greatest opportunity to access and share both knowledge and tangible resources. By contrast, peripheral actors have fewer associates and more restricted access to resources, while isolated actors do not collaborate and lack access to resources (Daly, 2010). Just as networks are diverse in their purposes, the actors within them are diverse in their level of access to resources (Bourdieu, 1986; Burt, 1992). Hierarchy within networks also plays a role in tie density and members’ centrality. The education system is one example of such a hierarchical network from province to school district to school administrator to staff and students. Finnigan and Daly (2010) examined the impact of organizational hierarchy on relationship development within a network by looking at ties between school- and district-level administrators involved in

6  BUILDING BRIDGES AND CROSSING BOUNDARIES 

127

implementing educational change initiatives. In general, Finnigan and Daly (2010) showed that ties are limited in networks with members from hierarchical organizations; actors occupying lower positions in an organization have fewer multidirectional ties and fewer opportunities to build their resources, collaborate, and share knowledge. In the school system specifically, this hierarchical structure leads to sparse ties in the network structure, with unidirectional communication patterns from the district to the schools that challenge collaboration (Finnigan & Daly, 2010). While this is not a problem for transferring simple or routine information, which requires few ties (Daly, 2010), it does limit opportunities to share complex or culturally implicit knowledge and to solve problems collaboratively, all of which require dense ties (Daly, 2010). Actors’ positions in networks are not static; peripheral and isolated members can take steps to locate themselves more centrally and gain access to resources. Typically, communication, relationship-building, and access to resources are facilitated through a bridge (Bourdieu, 1986) or liaison. This boundary-spanning individual is conversant in “the shared language that is created as different organizations with different cultures come together … [and has] permission to seek out others with whom to form linkages, with the authority to act as leaders” (Cordeiro & Kolek, 1996). As we saw in Chap. 5, using a friend’s or colleague’s network helped those without their own networks secure needed resources (see also Hands, 2005). Where these connections proved most successful, the friend or colleague was a central actor in their own networks, with many personal and professional relationships or ties. Moreover, as a boundary-­crosser, they had the ability to connect diverse individuals either within or outside a network to a network’s resources.

Boundary-Spanners Create Bridges to Resources In the process of talking about the importance of a personal or professional network to facilitate collaborative activities with others, the study participants emphasized the key role that a liaison played in helping them to identify and successfully develop relationships. This study showed that the liaison role could be configured in many ways, with the boundary-­ spanning individual coming from the school or the community and operating on any level from local to district-wide.

128 

C. M. HANDS

School-Level Bridges One constituency that frequently served in the role of liaison was teachers. As one educator from All Saints Secondary School described it, teachers “bridged that gap” and connected students to the community to provide additional resources and an enriched educational experience. According to Miriam, a college professor who taught dual-credit college courses in Communications to students at several schools in the city, “I want to give them the best experience possible. So if I can pull in some personal contacts, then I will do that.” Other educators focused on referring students out rather than bringing experts in. For example, Sandra, the All Saints Science department head, described how she regularly referred students to the nurse practitioner as well as the social worker assigned to the school. She also connected the students participating in the All Saints eco-team with the broader community through an eco-fair she and another teacher organized through their community connections. They won a youth division Environmentalists of the Year award, which attracted prospective partners and further strengthened the connection between the students and their community. As we have already seen in Chap. 5, many of the teachers in Valley Ridge Secondary School’s Arts department shared their expertise with the students and connected them to other artists in the community to enhance the youths’ learning opportunities. These teachers had connections in organizations as diverse as the Tanglewood Opera, the National Arts Centre, Cirque du Soleil, and the Stirling Philharmonic. As Barry, one of these teachers, explained, [Sam] is not just a drama teacher, he’s also a professional stage manager. [Kelly, another teacher] teaches dance outside of school … and [another teacher] has been part of Tanglewood Opera and various choruses. I played with the National Arts Centre…. So when you put all these resources together it leads to more community involvement…. I made a deal with Stirling Philharmonic to work with our school…. We have [someone] from Stomp coming to do a workshop with the kids because of their connection  … with [Kelly]…. and [Sam] is friends with… a Cirque du Soleil performer.

Beyond their artistic connections, the teachers also took the students to local colleges and universities to participate in classes and to meet the registrar and post-secondary students, and they invited representatives from a

6  BUILDING BRIDGES AND CROSSING BOUNDARIES 

129

talent agency to attend productions, which resulted in several students signing to be represented by the company post-graduation. All of these teachers were the modern equivalent of the mudaliyars. They were not only familiar with practices and needs within their educational organizations, but they were also steeped in their respective areas of expertise and had many professional contacts. They acted as intermediaries between the school and community, directly brokering collaborative activities between the two groups. Teachers were not the only school-based educators to liaise with the community. Principals in Priority Schools, identified by the province as located in low-income neighbourhoods, were often called upon to support the students in ways other principals in more affluent areas were not. According to Megan, Stirling’s Children and Home Management Services manager, The principal has a huge piece to play in implementing work that happens in the school. It really sets the tone, I think. So when a principal understands community involvement and the importance of connecting children to a system, I really think that there’s some success that can happen there.

The nature of the job expanded principals’ networks and placed them in a boundary-spanning position. As school leaders, principals understood their schools’ unique cultures in part because they influenced these cultures through their visions for their schools. In their leadership roles, they could connect people from the school and the community who were otherwise unlikely to interact. Not all principals were willing or able to liaise or to develop partnerships with community members. Damien, the principal of Avison Elementary School, explained the factors that limited collaboration at his school: In another building, sure. But in this building, it’s difficult to even maintain the partnerships that we do have and the time that [the community-based partners] want, and every one of them wants the time of the principal.

Damien did not have the capacity to take on the role of liaison and, as such, was not a champion of partnering. Instead, the Public Health nurse assigned to Avison built and maintained relationships for the school. She was instrumental in setting up activities such as a nutrition program that

130 

C. M. HANDS

relied on parents and community members to purchase and prepare breakfast for students. In this situation, while the principal was in a position to act as a bridge between the school and the community, somebody else took on the role of liaising because it was part of their job description and they had the capacity to do so. Board-Level Liaisons for School Personnel and Community Members Administrators in both districts recognized the sometimes-complex task of bridging cultural differences between schools and community organizations was a lot to ask of teachers. Instead, they had dedicated liaison personnel to support schools’ collaborative practices. Stirling Catholic S. D. superintendent, Gian, described how a group of principals at high-­ needs schools brought a report to the district, which resulted in the allocation of funds and personnel to support collaboration. This committee recognized that they would need a liaison to help broker relationships between their schools and outside organizations. They hired someone to identify possible connections and bring community organizations such as the YMCA and the Kiwanis Boys and Girls Club into the schools to run extracurricular programs, keep track of community-based events that would benefit the students, and refer principals to community resources in response to their specific needs. At the time of the study, Carlo served as community liaison consultant at the district, providing intake and outreach services by receiving requests to collaborate as well as seeking out suitable collaborative activities to meet expressed needs. Instead of a liaison consultant, the larger Stirling S. D. had a community engagement office, with two full-time staff members tasked with building school-community partnerships. The office manager, Dominic, highlighted how important the office was as a point of first contact for community members seeking to build relationships with schools: it was difficult, because no one knew who to go to before. They’d go to schools or they’d go to a superintendent … really, they’d go to anyone that they knew, but no one knew how to carry things further, or how do we vet the ideas coming to us from community partners?

The staff would receive requests to collaborate from the community and assess the opportunities presented to them. They gave priority to

6  BUILDING BRIDGES AND CROSSING BOUNDARIES 

131

initiatives with a focus on student achievement and wellbeing that were free or low cost, inclusive, and accessible. Once they vetted potential partnerships, they worked to formalize the relationship and co-ordinate schools’ access to the resources. Stirling S. D. and Stirling Catholic S. D. also had designated mental health leads who served as district-level liaisons. Funded by the provincial government, each district in Ontario had a lead, who, according to Frank, Stirling S. D.’s director of education, was “working very closely with community partners around trying to find pathways to care for mental health needs.” The mental health lead served as a single point of connection facilitating relationships between a school and its community. In this boundary-spanning role, the relationships they developed were used to connect school personnel, students, and their families with the community. Community Members with Mandates to Liaise The liaison role was as common in community organizations as it was in schools and districts. Some community organizations had mandates to collaborate with others in the community. For example, most of the social service agencies, such as the YMCA, YWCA, Public Health, and the Boys and Girls Club, provided a wide range of resources—from children’s programs to newcomer settlement programs to mental and physical health services—that necessitated outreach in the broader community. When asked specifically why the YMCA developed partnerships with schools, Karen, a manager for their after-school programs, answered, “It’s a community agency, and that’s our mission, right?” Responding to the same question, Mona, the program manager for the Boys and Girls Club, simply responded that “it’s what we do, and it’s who we are” as an organization. Not only did these organizations see themselves as fundamentally oriented towards collaboration, the districts and schools they partnered with also recognized this component of their organizational cultures. The organizations had liaisons whose responsibility was to ensure their services were reaching the right audience across the city. For example, Contact Stirling was a community hub and lead facilitator of the children’s service community tables. They were responsible for programs serving children from birth to age 18, dispersing money from the provincial government to 13 different child and youth mental health service agencies, each with a variety of programs. Because of their organization’s role in the

132 

C. M. HANDS

community—not only providing programs but also co-ordinating access to them as facilitators of the community tables—employees were extensively liaising with representatives from services across the city, allocating funds, and directing school personnel, students, and their families to resources that would address their needs. Public Health provided services to Stirling’s low-income neighbourhoods in several ways that each required liaising. The city provided community development workers to each neighbourhood identified as low-income and high-needs. The workers facilitated communication across boundaries, bridging the gap between neighbourhood councils and Public Health to create action plans for the neighbourhood’s development. According to Public Health nurses, Cathy and Amy: we’re able to liaise with the community development workers as needed .… We have access to all the action plans from each of the neighbourhood communities, and we can meet with them if we see that there’s a good fit for the schools coming together with the neighbourhood.

In this way, Cathy and Amy had the specialized knowledge of context— both the neighbourhood councils and the specific characteristics of the neighbourhoods they served—needed to broker stable and mutually beneficial relationships between the community’s organizations. This included intimate knowledge of the specific schools to which they were assigned, which allowed them to support parents, run drop-in groups, and facilitate discussions around school- or education-related issues. Sometimes Public Health liaisons would broker relationships not only with their own organization but also on behalf of another organization. For example, Avison’s Public Health nurse, Linda, organized visits to the local university for middle school students, set up a camp program at the school that was delivered by the university, and arranged for the students to use the adjacent recreation centre after school. She also worked directly with teachers to connect students with community services. Avison grade 2 teacher, Sasha, reported that Linda would approach her: “Okay, we have spots in this activity going on. Do you have any kids you think would like [the opportunity]?” … I call mom or dad or if I see them outside on the playground I say, “Would you be interested?”

6  BUILDING BRIDGES AND CROSSING BOUNDARIES 

133

For Public Health, as well as Contact Stirling, then, every employee took on a boundary-spanning liaison role in order to meet organizational mandates. By contrast, other organizations would designate only certain members to act as a bridge. For example, Lorna, Volunteer Stirling’s community engagement co-ordinator, regularly worked with organizations that were looking for volunteers, as well as with individuals who were interested in volunteering. She noted, My job is not one that I am able to just sit in an office .… I’m out in the community. I’m doing workshop presentations. I am liaising with other volunteer centres because we … [are] part of a network, the Ontario Volunteer Centre Network.

She engaged with diverse groups of people, getting to know their needs and helping to match volunteers to organizations on behalf of her organization. A country-wide organization with a mandate to support students through to their high school graduation had a similar structure. Administrators liaised with school districts and community organizations to determine the community needs, where to establish the education support workers in the community, and which organizations could provide additional support for students living in low-income, high-needs areas. In these organizations, a specific individual was the designated go-between. They built up extensive knowledge of the structure, practices, and needs of schools and communities alike to facilitate strong relationships between the two. The Importance of a School-Community Liaison When it came to identifying, planning, implementing, and sustaining school-community partnerships, the participation of a liaison who could bridge the divide between schools and community was often a key ingredient in successful collaborations. In Stirling, liaisons facilitated collaboration across broad and diverse neighbourhoods and communities. Community- and district-based liaisons connected schools with the community and assisted individuals in developing partnerships and accessing resources that would otherwise be difficult to obtain. They also enabled

134 

C. M. HANDS

schools and districts to be responsive to students’, families’, and teachers’ needs. Ironically, the liaison was often most effective when their activities were “behind the scenes” and the emphasis fell instead on the relationships they brokered. As a result, the liaison’s importance was sometimes only noticed and appreciated once the liaison was gone. For example, one organization that was devoted to fostering partnerships between businesses, industry, government, community, and education used to have liaisons but no longer had employees in that role. Their absence was keenly felt by educators. All Saints Career Studies teacher, Warren, observed, If it’s up to me, sometimes I just feel like it doesn’t get done as well as when … this group is pulling it off for me .… To enrich student learning with community involvement, tours, guest speakers, assemblies. It’s tough. It stresses you out a bit, I would say .… It’s emailing back and forth; you’re trying to teach and you are trying to do all these other things.

Without a liaison proactively contacting the educators with opportunities for collaboration, it was very challenging for the teachers to co-ordinate experiential learning opportunities while teaching full-time. Avison teacher, Sasha, agreed. There was limited time in the workday to co-­ ordinate community engagement and collaborative activities; it was an add-on to regular work and often took a backseat to more pressing needs. The importance of the liaison was also evident in their ability, through their boundary-spanning capacity, to broker relationships that others might not be able to procure for themselves. They had the capacity to cultivate a broad awareness of the available opportunities by investigating the programming and funding to support specific initiatives and, as such, were well-positioned to be creative in identifying opportunities for schools and communities to support one another. Perhaps the best example of such an individual from this study was Carlo, the Stirling Catholic S. D. community liaison consultant. Ben, Stirling Catholic S. D.’s director of education, observed that Carlo was connected all around the city to many, many different things. … If the truth were to be told, we probably twisted his arm … to become a central office person … ’cause he understands the inner workings of a community partner, and he gets our inner workings. He’s perfect.

6  BUILDING BRIDGES AND CROSSING BOUNDARIES 

135

Part of Carlo’s success as a liaison was his broad network of connections across the community in both a professional and personal capacity. As a community-minded resident of Stirling, Carlo was the president of Kiwanis’ local chapter and was involved in the Boys and Girls Club among other organizations. At the same time, he had also taught in Stirling Catholic S. D. for several decades, giving him extensive insider knowledge of the school system. He reported knowing 80–85% of the principals in his district, as he had worked with them on committees and had brokered school-community partnerships for many of them. He had also familiarized himself with the district’s and schools’ improvement plans, which allowed him to tailor proposals for collaboration that matched identified needs and goals. With expertise on both sides of the school-community divide, Carlo actively sought out community organizations to fill articulated needs not only at the Priority Schools, but also across the district. Carlo’s reputation and influence in the community also encouraged his contacts to partner with the schools. According to one Redeemer Elementary School teacher, “He gets a lot of people that say, ‘We have this program, what do you think?’ And he will [identify our school] and say, ‘This school … has a need here. Let’s go there.’” Over the years, he developed trusting relationships with the schools and a reputation for good judgement. Those he worked with could trust that the relationships he was setting up would be in their schools’ best interests. Without a liaison figure like Carlo to bring schools and community organizations together, Stirling Catholic S.  D. would not have had nearly so many flourishing school-community partnerships. One of the most important resources a liaison could bring to the relationships they brokered was trust. While it might otherwise be difficult for newly introduced partners to trust each other, the liaison, as a known quantity to both parties, could help establish a firm foundation of trust from the start. Carolina, a superintendent in Stirling Catholic S.  D., explained, “There’s already a trust there. The person may not know me, but if [Carlo] is making the introductions, it’s much easier to have a connection because there’s somebody who’s an intermediary.” The same was true from community members’ perspectives. For instance, Luke, the owner of a Physical Education business, described how he felt confident establishing his program in Stirling Catholic S. D.’s nine Priority Schools in part because of his relationship with Carlo. Carlo was also able to reassure school personnel that Luke’s organization would serve the schools’

136 

C. M. HANDS

needs well. In all cases, establishing close professional relationships meant the liaison understood what the community member wanted to accomplish and how it might fit with school and district needs, helping members of distinct communities to communicate and trust each other more quickly than would have been possible without a liaison. Boundary-Spanning Capacity The capacity to liaise can be developed, provided individuals have time and either an organizational mandate that makes liaising part of their occupation or an interest in connecting with others for personal or professional reasons. In Stirling specifically, both community members and district-­level employees above all needed time to develop connections across the community in order to become a boundary-spanner, regardless of their occupation and their organization’s mandate. For example, Gerrard was the research director of a drop-out prevention organization that liaised with city officials, school districts, recreation centres, and healthcare facilities in many communities across the country. Reflecting on the challenges to school-community relations and the organization’s role as a boundary-spanner, he commented on how his group was at a disadvantage compared to some of the more long-standing community organizations. The drop-out prevention organization was nation-wide and its employees worked in multiple cities across the country in response to ad hoc requests for educational support. While they were well-positioned to liaise within their national network, they were often newcomers in a specific community without local knowledge or connections. This experience contrasted with the experiences of established community-wide organizations like the United Way and the YMCA, which were anchor institutions, serving the community consistently over many years. Consequently, their employees had time to establish extensive connections across the city and could effectively act as a bridge for members of diverse organizations. The correspondence between liaison maturity and job effectiveness was also observed at the district level. For example, while each district had a mental health lead with the same job description and mandate to liaise, one lead was more effective than the other. Time in the position accounted for the difference in their capacity. Stirling S. D.’s lead had been in the position for approximately four years, and connected principals, teachers, students, and their families with resources through extensive relationships across the city. The Stirling Catholic S. D. lead was new to the position

6  BUILDING BRIDGES AND CROSSING BOUNDARIES 

137

and had only started to build a network of contacts among the healthcare services across the community. Over time, this liaison would build their community connections, but needed more experience and more opportunity to develop relationships before they could serve in the boundary-­ spanning role. As such, this lead was not reliably able to direct students and families to resources at the time of the study. Indeed, mental health support for students, their families, and educators was identified as a major area of need by Carlo from his broad understanding of the district. While time to develop connections was crucial to liaising capacity, boundary-spanners also needed a clear mandate to liaise in their official job descriptions. The importance of having liaising as part of their professional responsibilities was most clearly demonstrated with a comparison of the districts. Carlo, for example, was employed by Stirling Catholic S. D. specifically to network with community organizations and residents for the purpose of connecting the district and its schools with community resources. This allowed Carlo to make full use of the many connections he had cultivated throughout Stirling through his volunteer work. Like Carlo, Stirling S. D.’s community engagement co-ordinator, Tamara, was a long-time Stirling resident with many volunteer and social connections across the city. In contrast, she was not an effective liaison because other required aspects of her position superseded her desire to cultivate relationships in the community. I spend most of my time doing intake just because that’s what I can do. When I first started my job I thought it was really important to meet with each of our [high needs school] principals to find out, “What’s going on in your school? What’s going on in your neighbourhood? Who’s using your school?” … That’s about two years [ago] now, so I would love to do it again since our principals have shifted different needs in our schools…. Until last September, our department had an administrative assistant, and her position was cut. That was huge. So now I’m having to do things like our Staples [office supplies] orders, our mileage, and a lot of those initial intake phone calls that she used to do. So I became even busier. So I’m our finance person. I’m all those things because we don’t have an administrative assistant anymore.

This lack of human resources within the department limited Tamara’s ability to get out into the community. Even with an extensive network and the ability to liaise, not having boundary-spanning as an integral part of

138 

C. M. HANDS

individuals’ occupational responsibilities curtailed liaising activities and limited opportunities for partnerships.

Bridges and Boundary-Spanners: Summary and Recommendations Liaisons and their networks of professional and personal relationships play a foundational role in school-community relations. Members of any network have variable access to other members and their resources (Lin, 1999). As boundary-spanners with numerous strong ties within their networks, liaisons are central actors, creating bridges to resources and people for other network members. Their centrality in their networks is important, as they increase others’ connectedness, creating stronger ties and greater trust among individuals, distributing opportunities for social capital development, and expanding others’ potential partnerships (Diehl, 2020; Hite et al., 2010; Moolenaar & Sleegers, 2010). This research highlighted the challenges for educators and community members who did not have access to the support of a liaison. Despite creating a community engagement office to fulfil this function, Stirling S. D. had no one in a liaising role to assist individuals in building their relationships and partnerships. At the elementary level, the Avison teachers were isolated or, at best, peripheral actors. In a school led by a principal who did not seek out opportunities for community collaboration, the Public Health nurse, whose primary mandate did not include supporting community partnerships, was the only boundary-spanner to whom individual teachers had access. Community members had little to no access to school personnel and few—if any—opportunities to initiate collaborative activities. By contrast, as a secondary school offering subjects with clearer connections to the broader community, Valley Ridge had moderate success in initiating partnerships. A number of teachers in the Visual and Performing Arts as well as Business and Community-based Education teachers and guidance counsellors had vast personal and professional connections to draw on in establishing partnerships. They were more central actors in their networks and leveraged their existing relationships to establish partnerships with community members. The community partners who wished to forge connections with Valley Ridge did not fare as well. They were

6  BUILDING BRIDGES AND CROSSING BOUNDARIES 

139

unable to initiate partnerships unless they had an existing relationship with school or district personnel. The experience of interviewees in the Stirling S. D. was the opposite of those from the Stirling Catholic S.  D. This difference appeared to be largely due to the role played by the dedicated liaison consultant, Carlo. With his vast network of district, school, and community connections with whom he had built sturdy trusting relationships over time, he was a central actor in many networks and he was able to smooth the path for collaborations of all types. In stark contrast with Stirling S.  D., school- and community-­based participants commented on the ease with which they were able to access the resources they needed and to create new collaborative activities when Stirling Catholic S. D.’s liaison was guiding the process. They were situated close to a central actor and were, therefore, more centrally located in the networks with which Carlo was connected, and more readily able to exchange resources with other members. Cultivating a good relationship with a liaison figure or becoming a central actor and boundary-spanner oneself facilitates greater access to resources (Daly, 2010; Hite et al., 2010) and more opportunities to establish collaborative activities (Hardy & Grootenboer, 2016). This study demonstrated that liaising capacity was contingent on two factors: having both the time to create a network of relationships and a mandate (either professionally or personally) to collaborate. At the school level, teachers and principals undertook the role of liaison if they deemed collaboration necessary for their students to thrive academically, socially, and emotionally. As such, collaborative activities existed only in pockets across the schools where individual school personnel developed and used their existing networks to provide enrichment for the children and youth. At the district and community levels, individuals established networks of relationships when it aligned with their occupational responsibilities. In all cases, liaising required a conscious cultivation of professional and personal connections nurtured over time. Considerations for Collaboration Liaisons play a vital role in collaboration and partnership development. Several strategies can be put into place to encourage liaison cultivation and to support those who are already in these key roles.

140 

C. M. HANDS

 ducational Administrators Need to Dedicate Funds to Designated E Liaison Positions At the time of the study, Stirling S.  D. was not able to be proactive or responsive in creating partnerships. Due to a lack of time and resources, their community engagement office functioned solely in a screening and intake capacity, rather than identifying gaps in support for schools and students and seeking out community partners to fill them. In fact, their office often limited partnership formation. Those community partners who had not been vetted by the office had no opportunity to develop a relationship with school administrators or teachers. For those community members who were vetted, the community engagement office manager and co-ordinator did not have the time to support the development of collaborative activities. Access to community resources and support was therefore inconsistent across the city, depending on the ability of school personnel and community members to cultivate their own relationships. Children and youth in schools with teachers or principals who were uninterested or unable to establish relationships did not have access to the same community resources and support as their peers at schools with personnel who had the capacity to collaborate. To address this inconsistency, for their part, provincial governments could provide funding for establishing liaison positions for school-­ community collaboration at the district level. The Ontario government has designated funds for district-level mental health leads with responsibilities to liaise with mental health organizations across the district and surrounding region (Ontario Ministry of Education [OME], 2022). In the same way, the government could promote school-community collaboration more generally, particularly in Priority Schools, or those that are located in high-needs, low-income neighbourhoods. This would ensure the support of dedicated liaison personnel in all contexts, not just those where teachers and administrators are motivated and able to take on liaison duties on top of their existing obligations. Whether districts are given new government funding or allocate funds from existing budgets, having a specific person at the district level tasked with liaising with the community would promote teachers’ and principals’ consistent access to community resources across schools (Hardy & Grootenboer, 2016; Sanders, 2015). It would also assist community members in their work with schools and enable partnerships that are tailored to students’, families’, and educators’ needs. Stirling Catholic S.  D. had one such individual, Carlo, whose history of collaboration in

6  BUILDING BRIDGES AND CROSSING BOUNDARIES 

141

both the school district and the local community allowed him to meet the needs of the relatively small district office. There is ample evidence that greater financial support for this kind of liaison role would yield positive results for school-community collaborations. Similar roles already exist in other Ontario school districts, sometimes with multiple liaisons available to serve larger districts (Hands, 2005). Like the participants in this study, the educators in those districts found these liaisons invaluable. For schools serving multicultural communities, liaisons employed by the district were available to help school staff understand the concerns and needs of each ethnocultural community and, in turn, to assist students, parents, and community members in understanding the school system (Hands, 2005). This kind of district-level procedural support for the initiation and development of partnerships through its departments and internal resources as well as through established district-­level partnerships can enhance school personnel and community member capacities such that they can effectively create numerous and diverse partnerships (Hands, 2005; Sanders, 2015). Dedicating funding for these positions would go a long way towards supporting collaboration.  ducators Would Benefit from Building Their Community Contacts E by Liaising Principals and teachers in high-needs schools typically recognize they will be involved in their students’ lives to a far greater extent than at more affluent schools (Hands, 2005). In order to support students with greater needs, schools need to cultivate their ability to liaise with community organizations. The Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) positions community engagement in education centrally in the district- and school-­ level leadership guidelines found in their Ontario Ministry-funded Leadership Framework (IEL, 2013), which supports this conclusion. As many districts have pre-existing networks of principals who meet on a regular basis (Hands et al., 2020), this is one venue in which administrators could share knowledge and understanding related to liaising. For their part, Stirling Catholic S. D. had an additional principal network specifically for Priority Schools where administrators shared advice and resources about community liaising. On this model, district personnel could set up networks of principals at low-income neighbourhood schools and provide opportunities for them to build their associations with the community through speakers’ presentations, workshops, and direct

142 

C. M. HANDS

interaction with the district liaison, as Stirling Catholic S. D. did. Principals’ professional organizations, which reach beyond district boundaries, also provide professional development opportunities that could promote liaising skills (see Hands et al., 2020). In this study, while teachers generally expected to address more student needs than they would in more affluent schools, establishing partnerships was hit or miss in the absence of a dedicated liaison to facilitate the process. This finding is consistent with previous research. For example, department heads in one study (Hands, 2005) claimed that they had enough on their plates without adding to their jobs by developing and maintaining relationships with community members. With the exception of the Co-operative Education (Community-based Education) teachers and the guidance counsellors, whose job descriptions mandated community outreach, none of the teachers had time during the school day to build relationships and subsequent collaborative activities with partners (Hands, 2005). As such, they only liaised with community partners if they could see a benefit for their students or their programs. This study also highlighted the importance of taking a more proactive approach. Rather than cultivating partnerships only when a specific need arose, educators as well as school and district leaders needed to take the initiative to contact community members and develop collaborative activities that anticipated future needs. Additionally, they needed to be receptive to community members’ initiatives, and open to possibilities that would benefit students. Similar to having a district-level liaison, full-­service community schools (FSCSs) have site co-ordinators who are vital members of the school, working with school staff and organization representatives, establishing school-community partnerships and maintaining them on behalf of the school (Mayger & Hochbein, 2021; Sanders et al., 2019). While not all schools are FSCSs, other schools use their school councils as action teams to proactively create partnership programs (Hands, 2013; see Epstein, 1995, 2011). Both scenarios underscore the importance of having someone at the school who can cultivate relationships that are relevant and valued by all, thereby demonstrating the benefits of such collaboration and at the same time, modelling strategies for school-community relationship-building—approaches that may promote greater interest in proactively developing collaborative activities.

6  BUILDING BRIDGES AND CROSSING BOUNDARIES 

143

Concluding Thoughts The mudaliyars’ and compradors’ historical boundary-spanning activities are echoed in modern-day diplomacy. Diplomats gather information and provide advice to their home countries regarding the countries where they are posted (Barston, 2019; Sokanu Interactive, 2023). They must also reliably and accurately represent the home government’s views and intentions to the countries where they are posted (Sokanu Interactive, 2023). Their work with foreign governments is wide-ranging, encompassing ceremonial, information, communication, and managerial tasks, as well as the protection of their home country and its citizens, international negotiation, and contribution to international order (Barston, 2019). Typically posted in a country for three years, diplomats serve in numerous countries throughout their careers (Sokanu Interactive, 2023), building a wide network of associates around the globe. Their role situates diplomats as boundary-spanners across nations—a modern update on the same tasks that the mudaliyars and compradors of the past performed. School-community collaboration research has highlighted the importance of a similar diplomatic role in education. Whether they were community-, district-, or school-based, liaisons were central actors who helped to create networks and link others to them so they could more easily access the human and material resources they needed (see Bourdieu, 1986; Daly, 2010). Some of these resources can only be accessed through collaboration (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998), and boundary-spanning liaisons are fundamental in creating the conditions for school-community alliances or, in many cases, in establishing the collaborative activities on behalf of school personnel. The importance of a liaison in school-community relations was most starkly apparent in comparing the two Stirling districts. In the district with a dedicated liaison who had networking and school-­ community partnership development as part of his job, school-community partnerships thrived. In the other district with an office that provided intake services but had no one in place to actively develop relationships, there were fewer partnerships and they evolved only when principals and teachers went above and beyond their prescribed duties. These differences highlighted the potentially inequitable access students have to community resources without a district-level liaison. In this study, schools needed dedicated district-level staff to pave the way for partnership development tailored to different schools across the region. This individual had to have

144 

C. M. HANDS

a vast network to link educators to a range of resources needed to deliver enriched programming for their students. The good news is networks are dynamic, which means it is always possible to build liaising capacity where it does not already exist. Educators, administrators, and community members can move from isolated or peripheral actors in a network to a more central position with greater connectedness, more social capital, and a greater number of potential partners. Even if they cannot take on this kind of boundary-spanning role, they can associate themselves with someone who is a liaison (Hands, 2005; Hite et al., 2010). Individuals build their networks of relationships if they have the time and opportunity to meet and develop their associations either as part of their occupation or as a result of their personal interest. It is well worth the effort. Having liaisons who are familiar with the education system and have multiple connections within the community ensures that all students have access to the wide range of community-based services and learning opportunities they need. In this chapter, we have taken a close look at community liaisons. These key individuals within social contexts have a substantial impact on their environments through their ability to broker relationships that involve the exchange of resources within networks across permeable boundaries. In the chapter that follows, we explore additional elements that either facilitate or frustrate efforts to establish and maintain collaborative activities between schools and communities.

References Barnett, M. R. (2015). The politics of cultural nationalism in South India. Princeton University Press. Barston, R.  P. (2019). Modern diplomacy (5th ed.). Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781351270090 Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Harvard University Press. Cordeiro, P. A., & Kolek, M. M. (1996). Introduction: Connecting school communities through educational partnerships. New Directions for School Leadership, 2, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.26522/tl.v9i1.429 Daly, A. J. (2010). Mapping the terrain: Social network theory and educational change. In A.  J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 1–16). Harvard Education. De Kretser, M. (2005). The Hamilton case. Back Bay Books.

6  BUILDING BRIDGES AND CROSSING BOUNDARIES 

145

Diehl, D. (2020). The multiplexity of professional learning communities: Exploring the co-evolution of teacher social networks. Research Papers in Education, 35(5), 623–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1615115 Epstein, J.  L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701–712. https://doi. org/10.1177/003172171009200326 Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis. Finnigan, K. S., & Daly, A. J. (2010). Learning at a system level: Ties between principals of low-performing schools and central office leaders. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp.  179–195). Harvard Education. Hands, C. M. (2005). Patterns of interdependency: The development of partnerships between schools and communities. Unpublished dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Hands, C.  M. (2013). Including all families in education: School district-level efforts to promote parent engagement in Ontario, Canada. Teaching Education, 24(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2013.786893 Hands, C. M., Armstrong, D. E., & Mitchell, C. (2020). Collaborative learning and knowledge-sharing: The potential of new administrator networks and mentoring programs. In B. J. Irby, J. N. Boswell, L. J. Searby, F. Kochan, R. Garza, & N.  Abdelrahman (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of mentoring (pp. 205–222). John Wiley & Sons. Hardy, I., & Grootenboer, P. (2016). Cultivating community: Detailing school and community engagement under complex conditions. Teaching Education, 27(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2015.1034683 Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What’s worth fighting for out there? Teachers College Press. Hite, J. M., Hite, S. J., Mugimu, C. B., & Nsubuga, Y. K. (2010). Strategic “co-­ opetition”: Headteacher networking in Uganda’s secondary schools. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 197–219). Harvard Education. Institute for Education Leadership. (2013, September). The Ontario Leadership Framework: A school and system leaders’ guide to putting Ontario’s leadership framework into action. Retrieved October 16, 2022, from www.education-­ leadership-­ontario.ca Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51. Sage. Mayger, L. K., & Hochbein, C. D. (2021). Growing connected: Relational trust and social capital in community schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 26(3), 210–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/1082466 9.2020.1824676

146 

C. M. HANDS

Moolenaar, N. M., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). Social networks, trust, and innovation: The role of relationships in supporting an innovative climate in Dutch schools. In A.  J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 97–114). Harvard Education. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2022, March 35). Memorandum SB11: $10 million student mental health investment details. Retrieved November 19, 2022, from https://efis.fma.csc.gov.on.ca/faab/Memos/SB2022/SB11_EN.pdf Sanders, M., Galindo, C., & DeTablan. (2019). Navigating fragility and building resilience: A school–university partnership to support the development of a full-service community school. Children & Schools, 41(2), 89–99. https://doi. org/10.1093/cs/cdz006 Sanders, M. G. (2015). Building school-community partnerships: Collaboration for student success. Skyhorse. Sokanu Interactive. (2023). What does a diplomat do? Retrieved November 19, 2022, from https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/diplomat/

CHAPTER 7

Facilitating or Frustrating Efforts to Collaborate

When two-thirds of the students at Barbara Jordan Middle School failed to meet California’s state performance targets on standardized math and reading tests, the school and its community took note. Teachers and administrators blamed the school’s low-income, culturally diverse neighbourhood, while parents saw the school system itself as negligent, but all stakeholders agreed that they wanted to initiate reform locally rather than risk take-over by the state (Hubbard & Hands, 2011). One of the teachers approached the university where she had completed her Master of Education to ask for support in applying for charter status. With the input of teachers, parents, and community members, including university personnel, the application succeeded. The teacher became Executive Director (principal) and university faculty joined the school’s board of governors to assist in strategic planning (Hubbard & Hands, 2011). The university provided professional development for teachers and arranged for their students to tutor at the school. For collaborators and interested onlookers, this was the start of a successful school-community collaboration. Yet, over the next two years, cracks appeared in the partnership. Parents and community members instrumental in securing the school’s charter status seemed disengaged. When the university partners created a community engagement committee to solicit their involvement, the school’s teachers and administrators showed little interest. The Executive Director was often absent, leaving the committee without decision-making authority. She expressed doubt in the value of community involvement and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. M. Hands, Pathways to Community Engagement in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33001-8_7

147

148 

C. M. HANDS

focused her efforts on fundraising. The assistant principal, whose mandate included community engagement, was dismissed and not replaced. This school-community partnership that had seemed so promising could not sustain momentum. Not all collaborative activities come to fruition or are sustainable. There are many essential ingredients for successful school-community partnerships including willing participants and their knowledge of multiple social contexts. If these building blocks were all that were needed, school-­ community partnerships might be more prevalent. But this is not the case. Chapters 5 and 6 considered two important collaboration enablers: networks and boundary-spanners. This chapter continues this exploration by examining some of the additional factors that either promote or prevent partnership development and maintenance. It then concludes the social context discussion with a chapter summary and considerations for making it easier to initiate and maintain collaborative activities.

Social Contexts that Facilitate or Frustrate Collaborative Efforts Several theories shed light on the organizational characteristics to be considered when evaluating an initiative’s potential. Whether in higher education (Curry, 1992) or K-12 schools (Datnow et al., 2002), structural and cultural factors play a substantial role in initiating and sustaining reform initiatives, as does individual behaviour. The framework of structure-­ culture-­behaviour is a useful way to conceptualize the factors impacting possibilities for school-community partnerships (see Fig.  7.1). While structure, culture, and behaviour are presented separately in this chapter, it is helpful to understand that they are inextricably intertwined and that the success of any initiative requires consideration of all three (Datnow et  al., 2002). Any single component of the structure-culture-behaviour triad always implicates the other two. Structure To understand how school-community collaborations are developed and maintained, we need to examine the ways in which they are influenced by structures (Datnow et al., 2002) in schools and their surrounding civic or geographic communities. In general, a structure refers to any force that

7  FACILITATING OR FRUSTRATING EFFORTS TO COLLABORATE 

Fig. 7.1  Intertwined structures, cultures, and behaviours impact possibilities for educational reform

149

Structure

Behaviour

Culture

impacts social action with the potential to shape or define it (Hands & Hubbard, 2011). At the community level, structures include natural resources, wealth, available technology, and even residents’ knowledge and education levels (Lin, 1999). Organizations are also a community structure, including public sector institutions (e.g., museums and hospitals), for-profit businesses, non-profit organizations, and cultural/recreation centres (see Sanders, 2001, 2006; Wohlstetter et al., 2003). These structural features shape community needs as well as the possibilities for school-community collaboration (Hands, 2005). Organizational structures also exist within educational settings. These include, for example, decision-making processes, leadership roles, and personnel hierarchies (Curry, 1992), which can also influence collaboration. Examining trends in educational change, Andy Hargreaves (1994) observed that high schools were balkanized, with separate departments and subject specializations presenting barriers to participation in school-­ wide collaboration initiatives. In contrast, elementary principals tend to initiate most partnerships on behalf of the teachers and staff within an organizational structure that lacks departments (Sanders & Harvey, 2002). This open organization can make it easier to establish and maintain school-­ community partnerships. It is possible to create structures within the school system that impact school-community collaboration. For example, community involvement policies at the provincial, district, and school levels (Institute for Educational Leadership [IEL], 2013; Ontario Ministry of Education

150 

C. M. HANDS

[OME], 2006, n.d.; Stelmach, 2004) can either help or hinder collaborative efforts. Scholars advocate for the formation of standing groups of parents, educators, students, and community members—whether action teams (Epstein, 1995, 2011; Sanders, 1999), school councils (Voisin, 2003), Parent/Teacher Associations (PTAs), or steering committees (Hands, 2010)—to co-ordinate and support community engagement opportunities. Sanders (1999) and others argue that appropriate funding, time to develop partnerships, guidance, and leadership are all essential components of well-implemented collaborative programs (see Epstein & Sheldon, 2016). To this list we might add human resources to support school-community collaboration, including professional development provision to enable research-based collaborative activity development (Epstein & Sheldon, 2016). While the importance of these structures is clear, their availability is largely an issue of school culture, addressed in the next section. Culture In addition to race, ethnicity, gender, and socio-economic status (Hubbard & Hands, 2011), there are other cultural elements that impact collaboration. Edgar Schein (Schein & Schein, 2017) outlines the features that define organizational culture, which include patterns of group behaviour, unspoken and publicly acknowledged group values, policies and procedures, climate, shared skills and ways of thinking, and group perceptions of the organization. The organizational culture of a school has been described in similar terms as the manifestation of the patterns of beliefs, values, and expectations understood by the school personnel that guide behaviour and practice (Gilley, 2000). A culture is created and maintained when organizations’ members are socialized into it; “culture is what we create and pass on to others” (Steiner, 2002, p.  20). It is evident in the narratives shared with newcomers to explain “the way we do things around here” (Burke, 1992, p. 130). This includes potential community partners considering collaboration with a school. Sanders and Harvey (2002) found the school’s commitment to an academically challenging and supportive learning environment was one of the main attractions for collaborators. More broadly, a welcoming environment open to community involvement is crucial to the success of school-community collaboration (Hands, 2014; Medina et  al., 2019; Sanders, 2006; Sanders & Harvey, 2002).

7  FACILITATING OR FRUSTRATING EFFORTS TO COLLABORATE 

151

School, district, and community-based organizational cultures can either welcome or reject collaboration with outsiders. District- and school-­ level administrator support is crucial if a school-community initiative is to be implemented (Adams, 2019; Hands, 2005; Medina et al., 2019). As we saw in Chaps. 2 and 6, the principal’s vision for the school can contribute to a school’s receptivity to collaboration because it influences the culture (Donaldson, 2006; Epstein, 2011; FitzGerald & Quiñones, 2018; Leonard, 1999) and district policies can support school-level community engagement (Epstein et al., 2018). In short, the ideologies, beliefs, and values held by a school community’s constituents give rise to a shared purpose that can promote collaborative efforts or generate ideological conflicts that make collaboration difficult (Stelmach, 2004). Behaviour The beliefs, values, and group norms embedded in a school or community culture influence individual behaviour. Collaborative activities are driven by the individual actions of those involved, which in turn contribute to activity development and sustainability (Curry, 1992). Key individuals’ attitudes inform their actions (Begley, 2001), and are particularly crucial to successful partnerships. In her research on school administrators’ leadership approaches and interactions with urban families, Susan Auerbach (2010) found authentic partnership creation was possible when administrators adopted a strengths-based view of parents and community members as allies, advocates, and leaders and rejected deficit thinking (Auerbach, 2010; Cooper, 2009). The attitudes of other school-level personnel can also impact collaboration. Both principals’ and teachers’ beliefs about student, family, and community needs and the value of community involvement determine the nature (Hands, 2005, 2014) and even the existence (Hubbard & Hands, 2011) of school-community relationships. One particularly important behaviour is an individual’s commitment to communication, which is key in determining school and community needs and what potential collaborators can offer (Hands, 2005; Sanders, 2006; Sanders & Harvey, 2002). Ongoing, two-way communication assists initiatives to grow and improve over time in response to changing needs (Cook et  al., 2017; Hands, 2005; Sanders, 2006; Sanders & Harvey, 2002) as individuals provide feedback to each other and explore ways to better meet their goals (Curry, 1992).

152 

C. M. HANDS

Taken together, structure, culture, and behaviour influence whether a collaborative initiative will succeed or fail and, indeed, whether it will be created in the first place. The effects of these three factors were observed in the context of Stirling.

Social Contexts’ Characteristics Facilitated or Impeded Collaboration The majority of the participants in this study made earnest efforts to establish relationships and collaborative activities. While some reported great success in developing and maintaining their partnerships, others failed to establish or maintain them. Even those who successfully created relationships more often described situations where partnerships were not possible. In the following sections, the structural, cultural, and behavioural characteristics of Stirling’s social contexts are examined to elucidate the factors that facilitated or frustrated attempts to collaborate. Structural Features Impact Relationship Development and Maintenance Structural elements influenced whether collaboration was possible and if existing partnerships could be maintained. Time and money issues were structural elements external to the collaborative activities, while flexibility and feedback opportunities were features of the activities themselves that impacted their development and maintenance.  ime Limitations Impacted Partnering T Time was a crucial structural factor in the formation and maintenance of school-community collaborations. For principals, the protocols in place to vet potential partners created an additional administrative burden to bring a collaboration from proposal to implementation. This time requirement meant that Damien, Avison Elementary School’s principal, did not pursue formal partnerships, as we have already seen in other chapters. For the other principals, who were more supportive of collaboration, the considerable time required to vet partners meant that they often delegated partnership development to others after initial contact. Redeemer Elementary School principal, Kevin, frequently relied on Stirling Catholic S. D.’s liaison consultant to work out the details of a collaborative relationship. The

7  FACILITATING OR FRUSTRATING EFFORTS TO COLLABORATE 

153

secondary school principals, Diane and Cameron, took on a coaching role, encouraging teachers and staff and providing resources, but lacking capacity for sustained direct involvement. Teachers at the elementary schools also had limited time to develop and maintain partnerships. In the absence of district-level support, Avison teacher, Sasha, relied heavily on the school’s Public Health nurse to develop and maintain community connections. Her elementary school counterparts at Redeemer relied on their principal to co-ordinate collaborative efforts. Unlike Sasha, they could also rely on the community liaison consultant to find or develop collaborative activities tailored to Redeemer’s needs, which reduced their time investment. Secondary school educators initiated school-community activities more often than their principals and elementary counterparts. Specifically, teachers in both schools’ Business and Community-based (Co-operative) Education departments, All Saints Secondary School’s Physical Education and Special Education departments, and Valley Ridge Secondary School’s Arts department reported that they regularly built partnerships with community members. The Special Education and Community-based Education teachers had flexible workdays, giving them time to interact with community workplaces during business hours. Other teachers like Josephine, the head of All Saints’ Business department, had special arrangements with their principal to allow time to engage with partners during the workday. The Arts and Physical Education teachers, who did not have this schedule flexibility, shared the work of developing collaborative relationships with department colleagues and community networks to circumvent time constraints. In all cases, time needed to be set aside for partnering efforts.  oney: A Hindrance to Collaboration When Lacking M Collaboration also required funding. Both district and community partners noted that funding helped initiate partnerships and a lack of funding prevented progress. From the district perspective, every effort was made to find money for activities that could benefit the students. According to Ben, Stirling Catholic S. D.’s director of education, “What’s your barrier? You don’t have the funds to do it?” Well sometimes, the answer is no, we don’t have the funds to do it. But if the funds are the barrier, and we all believe it’s a good thing, “okay, then let’s do it.”

154 

C. M. HANDS

But funding was not always available, as Mia, All Saints’ Physical Education department head, illustrated. Regarding her desire to partner with the YMCA to get students certified as fitness instructors and personal trainers, she explained, “I have been trying to do [the initiative] for six years. Really, I have been trying, but it has just become a, you know, where’s the funding coming from?” Moreover, funding from the district was insufficient to guarantee the implementation of a partnership. From the district’s perspective, prospective community partners needed to be financially viable as well. Prospective community partners unable to explain how they would market their program and address potential financial pitfalls did not receive district support. The district administrators also expected partners to contribute to the built-in costs of a program, which could sometimes challenge partnering. For example, the districts’ Community Use of Space policy allowed community organizations to use schools for their extracurricular activities, provided they covered the cost of custodial services and electricity. To the district and school personnel, this financial requirement seemed reasonable. According to Damien, principal at Avison, I was originally like “Why are they paying $35 to do this?” But … my learning piece is wow, the [district] is paying for a custodian and the lights to be on, somebody to close the door, somebody to clean the gym, and they are only allotted so much money from the Ministry. … Is it unrealistic to ask a partner for $35 or whatever the fee may be to set up the permit? So I am kind of sitting in the middle going, “Yeah I get it. The money’s got to come from somewhere.”

At the same time, since the districts favoured non-profit organizations, partners often lacked the budget for these fees and were frustrated to be charged to provide a service. For example, Adam, the YMCA settlement worker program manager, had difficulty finding a space for a soccer program for newcomer youth across Stirling because his funding was limited to equipment purchases, but the school districts charged for use of their fields. Several participants partnered with Stirling S. D. remarked that they were particularly upset with this policy because district administrators had approached them first, requesting their programs in the schools, but then did not waive the fee. Here, a structural factor built into the schools’ Community Use of Space policy created friction between schools and community organizations.

7  FACILITATING OR FRUSTRATING EFFORTS TO COLLABORATE 

155

 artnership Flexibility Was Needed to Establish and Maintain P School-Community Relations Even if external structural factors like time and money supported the development of collaborative activities, collaborators also needed to consider the partnership structure itself. Whereas a rigid setup might hinder the viability of a given initiative, flexibility supported an initiative’s success. Changes in circumstance were inevitable in long-lasting partnerships. Stirling Catholic S. D. superintendent, Carolina, advised that partnerships “need to have the flexibility to grow and change and revise” given shifts in available resources and personnel. Sustainability could become an issue when individuals’ portfolios were switched and roles changed. Partners did not always know who their new contact would be or have sufficient time to establish a relationship with that person. Carolina noted, “When you establish a partnership, and it’s very effective, it’s being mindful of putting in place mechanisms that allow that to continue when different people move in and out.” Succession planning was needed to counteract the potential effects of staff turnover and the movement of people within organizations. Without future-oriented thinking built into the structure of the partnership, it was more difficult to sustain even successful collaborations.  Failure to Build Feedback into the Relationship Limited A Future Collaboration Sustained collaboration also required ample opportunity for feedback. Collaborators needed to set aside time for communication about what was working and what could be improved. A failure to provide this kind of feedback could undermine the partnership. For example, Derek managed a local social skills program that provided workshops and counselling services for students and teachers to help reduce bullying. It had been popular in the past, but the organization had failed to solicit feedback consistently. Derek reflected on how difficult it was to rebuild relationships after the fact: There should’ve been an annual meeting. All those community partners in attendance, we could say what’s going on at [the social skills program], where we’re heading, “what can we do to support your agency?” … We had a meeting [after five or six years] and it was—wasn’t a good one.

156 

C. M. HANDS

Without regular feedback, Derek and his staff had lost valuable contact with former partners. Worse, the last contact had been negative, making it difficult to reconnect. Derek generated little interest when he sent brochures to schools and districts to rekindle interest in his program. In this case, even though there was flexibility to change the terms of the partnership, a lack of consistent communication built into the structure of the relationship hindered meaningful adaptation. Derek’s program became irrelevant to its former partners and the relationship was lost. Organizational Cultures Shape Collaborative Opportunities In addition to structural elements, cultural elements such as individuals’ beliefs about the value of community engagement and an overall welcoming environment within an organization influenced school-community partnerships.  n Organization’s Cultural Norms, Beliefs, and Values Influenced A Possibilities for Collaboration For collaborative activities to flourish, it was important for school personnel to work with community organizations whose beliefs, values, and practices aligned with theirs. In some cases, the district vetted potential partners for compatibility. Stirling S.  D.’s manager of Early Childhood Education, Patricia, observed, We want to make sure they have policies and procedures in place that would fit what we believe. We want their mission and vision to balance ours, of course. … We want to make sure they’re financially viable.

For the Catholic district, compatibility included religious teachings. All Saints’ vice principal, Ida, noted that she would hesitate to establish a relationship with “a not pro-life organization … even if they were trying to help kids.” Similarly, Meg and Larisa, youth empowerment and leadership program co-ordinators, mentioned Stirling Catholic district and school personnel “don’t want us to talk about sex, period … like homosexuality, but just sex in general. Didn’t want us to talk about it, or obviously, abortion.” The district’s culture limited the kinds of workshops Meg and Larisa provided, and by extension, the breadth of their collaborative relationships with schools. In this case, incompatible beliefs and values hindered

7  FACILITATING OR FRUSTRATING EFFORTS TO COLLABORATE 

157

collaboration. A cultural mismatch among community organizations, schools, and districts often meant collaboration would not be attempted.  Welcoming Environment Paved the Way for Collaboration A In addition to other cultural factors, support for collaboration was crucial for successful partnerships. A lack of appreciation among district and school personnel limited school-community interaction. While most did appreciate the value of community engagement for student learning and wellbeing, this attitude was not universal. For example, Lynette, a manager for an organization providing social, emotional, and academic support for Indigenous youth and their families, felt that her organization was not valued for the support it could provide. Instead, she got the impression that school and some district personnel viewed her and her colleagues as providing unnecessary or irrelevant services at the behest of the Ministry of Education and district administrators. At the school level, the importance of a school that was open and welcoming to community members was illustrated by the relatively few collaborative activities at Avison. As food security was an issue in many households, a local church group served meals at the school on special occasions, and parents and community residents ran a breakfast program. Their work included shopping for, transporting, and preparing the food. Linda, the Public Health nurse assigned to Avison, described the hostile atmosphere the community partners faced: The parents had to go into the teachers’ staff room because there was no room in the school for them to go elsewhere. Well, the teachers were really annoyed that they were in the staff room and left them a mean message on the white board. And so the moms were upset. One of them is a great-­ grandmother of five who picked up groceries every Monday and Tuesday, and because with 755 children [at the school], she couldn’t fit the groceries in one van trip, she had to do two. And they left a mean message. And she was at the school every morning at 7:30.

In this unwelcoming environment, the parents and community residents left and the teachers took over the nutrition program. Meanwhile, Linda met with the group off-campus to keep them informed of Avison’s academic and social events. Other schools in this study were more welcoming. For instance, settlement workers assigned to Valley Ridge reported they had space in a central

158 

C. M. HANDS

location within the school where they could meet with students and interact with teachers and families. Teachers consulted them regularly to provide insight into the newcomer population the school served, and they communicated with families on behalf of the school. Similarly, nursing students from the local university had a room in Redeemer to meet with staff and administration to plan health and wellness programming for the students. Public Health nurses, Cathy and Amy, reported that the Catholic schools including All Saints were very welcoming. Amy reported, “I am much more included in the Catholic system I feel. I’m invited to assemblies. I’m invited to staff meetings. The staff themselves are much more interested.” Cathy agreed: “I have the Catholic and a public [district] and my Catholic [district] principal walks up to me and says, ‘I need some information about your Health Action Team. I really want to know what they’re doing.’” Both Amy and Cathy felt that the school community valued and supported the initiative. In Stirling, it was insufficient to have compatible beliefs, values, and practices to foster a welcoming environment. Partners needed to have a culture of appreciation for others’ contributions for the collaboration to flourish. Individuals’ Mindsets and Behaviours Affect Collaboration Individual behaviour was just as important as group-level culture for successful partnerships. Individuals’ actions during partnership negotiation and subsequent collaborative activities impacted activity longevity and future partnering opportunities. Flexibility, a reputation for reliability, an activity champion, and respectful interactions all played key roles in partnership development and sustainability.  lexible Personalities and Attitudes Were Important F to School-Community Relations Participants identified personal flexibility as one of the most important ingredients in a successful partnership. Paul, the owner of a physical literacy and leadership company, observed that “knowing that there are different sorts of stakeholders with different areas of interest, focus and education … you gotta just learn to be flexible and work with everyone and take your programs and make it fit from their perspective.” From a school perspective, Stirling Catholic S. D.’s community liaison consultant, Carlo, similarly noted that “being flexible and really identifying how we

7  FACILITATING OR FRUSTRATING EFFORTS TO COLLABORATE 

159

can support one another has been key,” especially when opportunities arose to raise funding or set up new collaborations. Petra, the city-wide nutrition program manager, also noted the importance of being flexible at the planning stage. Relationships are fluid, so … I have found that I need to be really flexible about when to meet people and where .… Some people really like coffee shops. I don’t drink coffee, but I’ll go.

Petra tried to accommodate her partners’ schedules and preferences, which helped her to maintain relationships, particularly with teachers and community members who did not have time to meet during the workday. Conversely, relationships could suffer without flexible partners. Lynette, an Indigenous youth program manager, had relationships with several districts and noted a lack of flexibility among personnel. District personnel required that Indigenous organizations and elders meet at the district offices during business hours, claiming they did not have the time to meet off-site. Lynette observed that district personnel were inflexible. Districts needed to hold the Ministry-mandated meetings but personnel seemed unaware their partners were voluntarily committing their time and had full-time work schedules to negotiate.  uilding a Reputation Impacted Opportunities for Collaboration B The participants in this study explained that success typically fostered success as partners established a reputation for effective collaboration. One strategy entailed individuals starting with small, low-stakes ventures and making sure to bring all projects to completion, establishing a reputation for reliability. All Saints’ Science department head, Sandra, offered her rationale for this strategy: It never always works out perfectly. … When we first started an eco-team we did some small little events and that went well, and then we scaled up into bigger and bigger ones … You have to build. You can’t take on a monstrous project right off the top.

It was most important to successfully meet partnership goals, according to participants, particularly when they did not have a history of partnering, or if they were working with new collaborators.

160 

C. M. HANDS

Positive publicity from collaborative activities, albeit unanticipated, led to further collaborative opportunities. Valley Ridge’s Arts head, Barry, recounted the Music and Theatre Arts students’ experiences writing a play and musical score about Indigenous students’ experiences in Canadian residential schools. The positive publicity Valley Ridge got from the Indigenous communities in Stirling led to the school being awarded a community grant to explore and promote social justice issues through the arts. Similarly, Sandra recounted her superintendent’s reaction when her students’ eco-team was featured on the national broadcasting station’s website for promoting green initiatives in Canada. As she humorously described: “You cannot buy that kind of publicity. My superintendent had kittens he was so excited. So when I … ask him for money, ‘Whatever you want. What do you need, how much?’ … A proven track record also works.” In addition to showcasing the students’ work, the schools were presented in a way that reflected positively on them, the districts, and public education in general, which encouraged administrators to support teachers’ future endeavours. Administrators were also more likely to back larger projects if the contributors had a proven track record of success. All Saints’ Physical Education head, Mia, recounted her experiences starting a Kin-Ball team at the school to attract the students who did not typically participate in organized sports. She and her colleague got free equipment from the Canadian Tire Jumpstart program and brought a Canadian national coach to Stirling to train the students for an upcoming Canadian Open tournament in Gatineau, Quebec, where they took bronze. This initial success sparked interest in the sport, and All Saints received district support to run a referee clinic and host the national tournament twice. In Mia’s words, “We proved that we were going to be dedicated to it—that is a really big part of building a community relationship. It is having that follow-­ through, I think is the real key.” Mia was able to build on her initiative’s success, ultimately making All Saints a hub for the sport’s development at the high school level with support from the district and the national Kin-­ Ball association. Like school personnel, community members advocated starting off small and building a reputation, which often led to future partnering opportunities. For example, Paul, the owner of a physical literacy and youth leadership company, would meet with school and district personnel to discuss possibilities for a relationship:

7  FACILITATING OR FRUSTRATING EFFORTS TO COLLABORATE 

161

I’m always going in thinking, “Well, we don’t have a lot of time anyway, so if we do something small to start off, then great. And if we don’t, then great.” I’m sure they’ll hear about what we’re doing somewhere else and eventually come back around and say “Hey, let’s have a conversation.”

He did not invest in a relationship when there was no initial interest. Instead, he relied on the reputation he earned from bringing smaller collaborative projects to completion. These successes built trust and supported stakeholders’ motivation to continue. It also exposed initiators to more potential partners, often changing the minds of those who had initially be reluctant.  aving Someone to Champion a Partnership Impacted Its Longevity H Once a relationship has been initiated, a “champion” was typically needed to take ownership in establishing relationship parameters and delineating roles. Meg, a co-ordinator for a youth empowerment and leadership organization, described champions as “the ones who are super invested in their students.” Meg’s colleague, Larisa, added that they are “people who are really motivated and excited about empowering their youth and getting their students involved in  local initiatives and getting excited about the kind of things with those different values.” The behaviours of a champion help to sustain a partnership through potential obstacles by providing leadership, organization, and motivation to participants. For some relationships, the champion sustained group momentum by providing administrative organization. Carolina, a Stirling Catholic S. D. superintendent, observed, “Partnerships work really well if there is a structure in place … You absolutely need somebody to take ownership as the lead, so that they can establish some of the parameters and some of the roles.” For Carolina and others, partnership committee chairing, team leadership, and project management were essential tasks of a champion and needed to be built into the partnership. Community organizations’ representatives often noted that their activities would not be sustainable without a champion partner within the school. Reflecting on their youth empowerment and leadership organization, Larisa and Meg noted, To be honest, [the teachers are] doing way more work than we are. They’re the ones that are there day in and day out who are actually running these

162 

C. M. HANDS

programs and creating activities and stuff for their students outside of the one day we visit.

Meg and Larisa relied heavily on school-level collaborators to spark students’ interest in youth empowerment and leadership initiatives. In this and other partnerships that took place in the classroom, the champion’s role was less about administration and more about implementation. As Carolina, a Stirling Catholic S. D. superintendent, noted, the loss of a champion can threaten partnership sustainability: “when the champion leaves and there isn’t somebody that’s been brought on board and a transition happens, that’s when [the collaboration is] in danger of disintegrating.” The loss of a champion was keenly felt at Avison. Damien, Avison’s principal, explained that this role had previously been held by the principal but he was not in a position to assume the mantle: “I think really establishing partnerships there has to be a championship. In my role I don’t feel I can—I don’t have the time in this building.” As Damien did not have the capacity to champion community engagement, the school’s relationships were in decline. Some community organizations had a similar experience. In Derek’s organization, which ran social skills programs for youth, the director was cast in the champion’s role. When a new director was appointed, she did not take on the role. Derek noted that, over the five years since the transition, he had seen requests for his program dwindle down to almost none. We’re not getting the invites … we have to take some responsibility. Previous senior management—we had developed a community centre and the focus was more on the community centre and developing it and its services there, than really continuing with our association with not only the school [districts], but other community partners.

Champions ensure a collaboration moves from theoretical discussion to implementation to maintenance. Derek’s and Damien’s experiences illustrate the impact on partnerships when a champion is lost.  espect Among Collaborators Affected Partnership Formation R and Relationship Longevity The ways in which individuals interact with each other also impact partnership development and maintenance. In most of the schools, mutual respect and recognition of the other’s strengths were essential elements of

7  FACILITATING OR FRUSTRATING EFFORTS TO COLLABORATE 

163

collaboration and positively impacted collaborative relationships. At Avison, by contrast, the school personnel’s understanding of the community limited the school’s collaborative activities. Damien, the principal, described Avison’s neighbourhood: There’s some substance issues. And very systemic poverty … for generations. Lots of mental health issues, lots of self-care and self-advocacy issues, lots of issues navigating not only the school system, but systems in general … . There is 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.

Damien failed to see his community’s potential to contribute anything to a partnership. His decisions around collaboration were based solely on the time and resources the school could contribute to Stirling not vice versa. At the time of the study, Avison had lost some previous community connections as a result. In contrast, educators at the other three schools, many district personnel, and all community members advocated mutual respect and openness to others’ contributions. According to Paul, the owner of a physical literacy and youth leadership company: You’re going in open minded and flexible and humble—is the word I’m looking for, humble, meaning you know what you know but there’s so much more to know and they have their authority and background, education and experiences which will be equal to yours. But as long as you can find the common ground and objective then there are many creative ways to achieve those objectives together and usually together you’re going to be much more effective than in isolation.

In brief, multiple partners addressed more needs than any individual entity, and those who embraced this perspective enjoyed greater collaborative success. Simple courtesy also played an important role in school-community collaborations. Many participants in this study, including Ron, a child and youth worker with a school-based mental health program, stressed the importance of being a “good guest.” This included everything from coaching a collegiate sports team at the school, lending the company van to school personnel for school business, to helping wash the coffee mugs at the end of a meeting. Conversely, a lack of respect, perceived or

164 

C. M. HANDS

otherwise, or even a misunderstanding of group norms limited the productivity and longevity of the relationship. Lynette, an Indigenous youth education program manager, commented on the frustration of working with district and school personnel who texted through meetings or arrived late. The relationship might have been terminated if this particular collaboration were not Ministry-mandated.

Collaboration Enablers and Challenges: Summary and Recommendations This chapter highlights the importance of attending to structural, cultural, and behavioural elements when implementing school-community partnerships. Indeed, the participants’ experiences highlight the interconnectedness among structural, cultural, and behavioural features. In the context of Stirling, conditions within each element either constrained or enabled opportunities to collaborate. In terms of structure, time and money were key supports for reaching goals, consistent with existing literature (Curry, 1992; Sanders, 1999, 2006). It was important to have time to seek out, establish, sustain, and grow partnerships over time (Hands, 2005; Sanders, 2006). Most teachers in this study were unable to engage with community partners during the school day. This is consistent with previous studies where school personnel reported developing partnerships on their preparatory or lunch period or outside of school hours (Hands, 2005, 2014). Time constraints impeded school leaders’ and teachers’ ability to develop or sustain high-quality school-community relationships. Similarly, the districts in this study did not have money set aside for partnering, as recommended by scholars (Epstein et  al., 2018; Sanders, 1999, 2006); instead, they attempted to accommodate initiatives on a case-by-case basis using small discretionary budgets. Moreover, the district’s preference for non-profit and public sector organizations meant the district and schools had minimal community-based funding, if any. In her nation-wide US study, Sanders (1999) noted that money allocated to administrative support for relationship development is a key element in strong partnership programs. In Stirling, providing discretionary funds for school-community collaboration to superintendents or even school councils would fulfil this structural need. School districts could set aside money at the district level for superintendents—who have community

7  FACILITATING OR FRUSTRATING EFFORTS TO COLLABORATE 

165

engagement in their portfolios—to disperse to their schools. They could also provide the money directly to school councils to help them get school-­ community collaborative activities off the ground. In addition to external structures, feedback and flexibility were internal structures that influenced successful activity implementation. Here, structures and behaviours are intertwined (Datnow et  al., 2002). Two-way communication among partners was necessary (Cook et al., 2017; Sanders, 2006; Sanders & Harvey, 2002), forming a feedback loop (Capra, 1994/2009) that allowed collaborators to create mutually beneficial goals and the relationship to evolve over time. In this vein, one superintendent noted that it was important to have diverse opinions when negotiating relationships, rather than seeking out only like-minded allies. Indeed, conflict aversion can make it difficult for diverse groups to find mutually beneficial solutions to problems (Robinson, 1994). Since needs and circumstances can change over time, flexibility is also needed in the partnership terms so that the collaboration and its activities can evolve over time (Hands, 2005). This capacity for adaptive development is crucial if social systems are to manage change. As Fritjof Capra (1994/2009) points out, flexibility in relationships and between individuals and their environment fosters resiliency to make social systems sustainable over time. In many cases, flexibility is the key factor distinguishing long-term partnerships from short-lived ones. School culture was critical to the success of collaborative activities that took place within schools. School culture is shaped and maintained by the principal and reflected in the teachers’ activities and goals (Leonard, 1999). This is not to say that principals embody a school’s culture. Rather, they influence the culture through their support—or lack of support—for school-level goals and activities (Muncey & McQuillan, 1996), including community involvement. Community partners feel welcome in schools when they are greeted warmly, given clear directions, and offered spaces to meet. These gestures contribute to the perception that community engagement is valued. Alternatively, an unwelcoming climate often spells the end of community collaboration. Culture and behaviour overlap when it comes to attitudes towards partnering. As Curry (1992) notes, an innovation or change initiative must be valued by the members of an organization to be sustained over time. In Stirling, individuals sometimes had an affinity for partnering because they understood and valued community engagement in education. In other situations, organizations with mandates to work with youth or educators

166 

C. M. HANDS

consequently had a culture that supported collaboration (see Chap. 4). In both cases, individual behaviour and organizational culture were mutually reinforcing, and created a warm and welcoming environment for potential partners (Sanders, 2006). The conditions at the partnership level needed to be echoed at higher levels, for example, at the district. While the district personnel might limit their partners to organizations that had beliefs and practices in line with their own, a willingness to provide funding and other human and material resources created a culture of support that fostered school-community interactions. On the flip side, deficit thinking, particularly at the level of the school, limited interest in school-community collaboration. In some cases, school personnel viewed community members as outsiders, no more than clients of the school-provided services and supporters of the school’s agenda. In particular, administrators who engaged in deficit thinking were less likely to listen to parent and community voices and to share power, which, in extreme cases, prevented collaboration altogether (Auerbach, 2010). Considerations for Collaboration Participants’ reflections on their experiences with school-community collaborations yielded several recommendations to ensure that structure, culture, and behaviour are aligned to foster successful and sustainable partnerships.  dministrators Should Provide Time and Money A for Collaborative Initiatives This research and previous studies have demonstrated the importance of having time to establish and maintain partnerships (see Hands, 2005; Sanders, 1999, 2006). While informal networks of colleagues (Sanders, 2006), personal and professional networks (Chap. 5), and community liaisons (Chap. 6) can reduce the amount of time spent on collaborative efforts, educators and support staff in schools may still lack the time to establish their own partnerships. Teachers and school leaders have full workdays; adding school-community collaboration to their responsibilities intensifies work pressures and further limits their time on task (Hands, 2005; Hauseman et al., 2017). In addition to providing district-level liaisons, as recommended in another chapter, school leaders could encourage their faculty and staff to develop their own school-community

7  FACILITATING OR FRUSTRATING EFFORTS TO COLLABORATE 

167

relationships by providing time during the workday to do so. Teachers and support staff would benefit from time set aside for collaboration. For grade partners or subject departments, this could be during common preparatory periods; to explore possibilities for cross-departmental work with the community, this could be in meetings across departments. While time is an essential ingredient, money is also key in ensuring school-community initiatives are created and implemented (Sanders, 1999, 2006). This study revealed how relatively small amounts of money can establish community-wide initiatives, while a lack of funding hampers opportunities for developing initiatives or even finding potential partners. District and school personnel who wish to promote collaboration should provide a discretionary budget for community engagement initiatives. It may also be possible to solicit donations from businesses, as well as grants from organizations with mandates to support education initiatives (Sanders, 2006).  artners Must Have the Flexibility to Negotiate Terms Through P Two-Way Communication Conflicts of interests may arise among collaborators but does not mean they cannot work together. Defining shared focus can counter the potentially negative impact of conflicts and promote collaboration (Earl & Katz, 2007; Sanders, 2006). Keith (1999) advocates working towards common goals that are unattainable individually and is echoed by philosopher Kenneth Strike (2002), who argues that shared investment in school projects binds the school community together. Dialogue characterized by deep listening among the people involved creates the conditions under which engagement can thrive (Jenlink & Banathy, 2005). To maintain the partnerships over time in an ever-changing environment, collaborators also need to create feedback loops (Hands, 2005). Flexibility and the ability to adapt activities in response to feedback are crucial for partnership sustainability.  void Deficit Thinking A A deficit view of families and, by extension, the community limits opportunities for school personnel to communicate and collaborate because they assume their potential partners have nothing to contribute to the relationship. On the other side, from the 1800s onward, communities have held tightly to the notion that a school’s sole role is to serve students, parents, and community members (Curtis, 1988; Keith, 1999; Merz &

168 

C. M. HANDS

Furman, 1997). Both viewpoints prevent families, schools, and community members from approaching partnerships as equals, which undermines collaboration. Given Stirling’s diverse demographic profile, it is also important to highlight the way in which deficit thinking can frame racial, social class, and cultural minority parents “as problems” (Baquedano-­ López et al., 2013, p. 152). They are positioned as “disorganized socially and deficient intellectually” (Moll et al., 2005, p. 75); as “poor” economically, as well as with respect to the quality of the experiences to which they expose their children; and as generally “lacking” in parenting skills and knowledge on education (Hensly, 2005; Moll et al., 2005). (Heers et al., 2016, p. 1023)

This kind of thinking overlooks the real and important contributions that diverse communities can make in schools. Novella Keith (1999) advocates a broader understanding of partnerships, circumventing deficit thinking through the redefinition of social roles. Neighbourhood residents should be considered agents with resources, rather than individuals without assets needing services, and school personnel should be understood as more than mere service providers. As Keith (1999) explains, “this means respecting each as both knowledgeable and needing to learn, without resorting to the power games of expert authority” (p. 230). These ideas are supported by Pushor’s (2007) work, arguing that families and community members should be engaged with schools, contributing knowledge as equals in the relationship, rather than involved, and being directed towards activities that fit with the district and school personnel’s agendas. In other words, they should negotiate their participation in education in ways that are meaningful to them (Auerbach, 2010, 2011; Barton et  al., 2004; Hardy & Grootenboer, 2016). In Stirling, as in other places, educators and administrators need to revise their view of minority parents and low-income, culturally diverse communities as obstacles to student achievement and wellbeing and focus instead on the community’s social and intellectual expertise. This expertise can help make local education more relevant to a school’s surrounding community (see Heers et al., 2016). Find a Champion Once the relationship is off the ground, a champion who is invested in the partnership is needed to facilitate members’ participation in the

7  FACILITATING OR FRUSTRATING EFFORTS TO COLLABORATE 

169

collaborative work. Champions do more than co-ordinate or administrate the group’s activities, though; they also monitor the group’s progress and provide insightful feedback to members (Hands et  al., 2015), enabling group members to reflect on their goals and progress (McNeil & Klink, 2004; Nanavati, 2011). As such, it would be beneficial to build the champion role into the structure of school-community partnerships. Sometimes, relationships do not go to plan. In these situations, champions build fellow collaborators’ confidence to persevere through challenging situations (Hands et al., 2015). Perseverance, in turn, helps build partners’ reputations through collaborative successes, which ultimately influences future activities and sparks the creation of new partnerships and activities (Hands, 2005). The champion’s important role in partnership maintenance suggests it may be advisable to have more than one champion for each collaborative activity so that the partnership does not rest on the shoulders of just one person. If not, the loss of a champion can spell disaster for school-community collaborations, making it difficult to maintain relationships, let alone develop new ones.

Concluding Thoughts Barbara Jordan Middle School’s experiences with school-community relations and the school personnel’s ultimate failure to engage families and the community were not unexpected. The interactions lacked attention to many structural, cultural, and behavioural elements that predicted a short-­ lived partnership. On a structural level, the principal preparation programs in place did not prepare the new Executive Director of this conversion charter school to interact with a board of governors and school partners. This lack of training in interpersonal skills influenced the way the partnership was formed and managed. Partners’ roles were ill-defined, a structural problem made worse by lack of communication, and no effort was made to check in with stakeholders to revisit the relationship over time. On a cultural level, the school and its community lacked shared educational goals related to curriculum, learning opportunities, or the role of the community in the school. Beyond a shared desire to convert the district-run school to a charter school, the school and its community partners were not culturally aligned, which made it difficult to work together. The structural challenges and cultural mismatch were exacerbated by the behaviour of the participants in the relationship. The Executive Director put policies and practices into place that promoted a deficit

170 

C. M. HANDS

perspective on the community, and many families no longer felt welcome (Hubbard & Hands, 2011). Instead of relationship-building with families and community residents, school personnel made decisions based on their perceptions of family and community needs, and community members felt their voices were not heard by the school personnel, the board, or the university partners (Hubbard & Hands, 2011). They then withdrew their support. For their part, the university partners were heavily invested, providing support to the students and teachers, and tens of thousands of dollars to the school. As such, they were reluctant to withdraw from the relationship, despite an increasingly unwelcoming ethos in the school. Their involvement ended when a teacher close to the Executive Director penned a complaint to a local newspaper regarding the university’s negative influence on the school. The university subsequently severed all ties. Barbara Jordan Middle School’s cautionary tale underscores the importance of structural, cultural, and behavioural considerations, and the value of using these concepts to assess facilitators of and obstacles to school-­ community collaboration. They extend our understanding of successful collaborations and explain limited implementation even when policies are in place and district-level support is available to educators to promote school-community engagement initiatives. Close attention to these features of a partnership can help those who wish to identify and implement collaborative activities ensure their partnerships are sustainable and avoid some of the more common obstacles. It is important to acknowledge that principals’ attitudes towards collaboration are particularly important when it comes to establishing community engagement initiatives, as school leaders can create school-level structures—such as policies and action teams—that support community engagement or remove these structures and impede engagement (Hubbard & Hands, 2011). Auerbach (2010) notes that the degree of educators’ deficit thinking about families and communities is a key factor in determining the interaction between schools and communities. Situating families and community members as recipients of services and not contributors promotes one-way communication from school to home and little collaboration. As deficit thinking diminishes, leaders are more willing to collaborate (Auerbach, 2010). This perspective enables school personnel and community members to develop shared educational projects (Strike, 2002) or goals that contribute to cultural commonalities and collaborative possibilities.

7  FACILITATING OR FRUSTRATING EFFORTS TO COLLABORATE 

171

As we saw in Chaps. 2 and 4, an organizational vision shapes a culture of collaboration or isolation and can facilitate shared goal development or discourage it. As such, district and school personnel who want to promote school-community collaboration might choose to create more inclusive organizational visions in which community engagement figures prominently (see Sanders, 2006). In addition to meeting specific goals, collaborative practices can have powerful ripple effects that benefit public education. This study illustrated that establishing a reputation for successful partnering made it easier to create relationships in the future, especially if there was any publicity arising from the collaborative activities. School-­ community collaboration raises a school’s profile and as a result, it may gain access to district resources that other schools might not (Hands, 2005). In a previous study, one secondary school principal got extra money to match a community donation to a school program, and another secured additional transportation for students to participate in collaborative activities. These two secondary schools had numerous partnerships, and the principals observed that they provided positive publicity for public education and gave staff an opportunity to showcase the schools in a positive light. The schools were threatened with student flight to other area schools; however, student transfers were avoided because of the schools’ close ties with the community and a sense of community loyalty to and ownership of the schools (Hands, 2005; Hanson, 2003). While individuals did not create partnerships to promote the school or public education, this was a nice by-product of partnering and paved the way for future support of collaborative efforts. This chapter concludes our examination of social context. We began with the role different social contexts play in school-community collaborative activities (Chap. 4) and then examined mechanisms that assisted partnering with an investigation of networks as a contextual phenomenon (Chap. 5) and key individuals within networks who facilitate partnership creation (Chap. 6). We then finished the section with an overview of the main contextual features that make it easier or more difficult to create and maintain collaboration. We take a different direction in the next chapter, as we explore the demographic characteristics of the Stirling children and youth the study schools served. In addition to gaining an appreciation for the diversity of this group of young people, we see how programming and school-community collaboration were tailored to their needs in some cases, but failed to address student diversity in others.

172 

C. M. HANDS

References Adams, C. M. (2019). Sustaining full-service community schools: Lessons from the Tulsa area community schools initiative. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 24(3), 288–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/1082466 9.2019.1615924 Auerbach, S. (2010). Beyond coffee with the principal: Toward leadership for authentic school-family partnerships. Journal of School Leadership, 20(6), 728–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461002000603 Auerbach, S. (2011). Conceptualizing leadership for authentic partnerships: A continuum to inspire practice. In S.  Auerbach (Ed.), School leadership for authentic family and community partnerships: Research perspectives for transforming practice (pp. 29–51). Routledge. Baquedano-López, P., Alexander, R. A., & Hernandez, S. J. (2013). Equity issues in parental and community involvement in schools: What teacher educators need to know. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 149–182. https://doi. org/10.3102/0091732X12459718 Barton, A. C., Drake, C., Perez, J. G., & St. Louis, K., & George, M. (2004). Ecologies of parent engagement in urban education. Educational Researcher, 33(4), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X03300400 Begley, P.  T. (2001). In pursuit of authentic school leadership practices. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4, 353–365. https://doi. org/10.1080/13603120110078043 Burke, W.  W. (1992). Organizational development: A process of learning and changing. Addison-Wesley. Capra, F. (2009). Ecology and community. Center for Ecoliteracy. Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://www.ecoliteracy.org/article/ecology-­and-­ community (Original work published 1994). Cook, A.  L., Shah, A., Brodsky, L., & Morizio, L.  J. (2017). Strengthening school-family-community engagement through community dialogues. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 9(1), 9–37. Cooper, C. W. (2009). Parent involvement, African American mothers, and the politics of educational care. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42(4), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680903228389 Curry, B.  K. (1992). Instituting enduring innovations: Achieving continuity of change in higher education (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7). George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. Curtis, B. (1988). Patterns of resistance to public education: England, Ireland, and Canada West, 1830–1890. Comparative Education Review, 32(3), 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1086/446780 Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. Routledge-Falmer.

7  FACILITATING OR FRUSTRATING EFFORTS TO COLLABORATE 

173

Donaldson, G. A., Jr. (2006). Cultivating leadership in schools: Connecting people, purpose, and practice (2nd ed.). Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2007). Leadership in networked learning communities: Defining the terrain. School Leadership & Management, 27(3), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701379503 Epstein, J.  L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701–712. https://doi. org/10.1177/003172171009200326 Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N.  R., Vanvoorhis, F.  L., Martin, C.  S., Thomas, B.  G., Greenfield, M.  D., Hutchins, D. J., & Williams, K. J. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (4th ed.). Corwin Press. Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2016). Necessary but not sufficient: The role of policy for advancing programs of school, family, and community partnerships. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(5), 202–219. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2016.2.5.10 FitzGerald, A.  M., & Quiñones, S. (2018). Working in and with community: Leading for partnerships in a community school. Leadership and Policy in Schools. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2018.1453938 Gilley, J. (2000). Understanding and building capacity for change: A key to school transformation. International Journal of Educational Reform, 9(2), 109–119. Hands, C., Guzar, K., & Rodrigue, A. (2015). The art and science of leadership in learning environments: Facilitating a professional learning community across districts. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 61(2), 226–242. Hands, C. M. (2005). Patterns of interdependency: The development of partnerships between schools and communities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, ON, Canada. Hands, C. M. (2010). Parent engagement in school decision-making and governance. In D. Hiatt-Michael (Ed.), Promising practices to support family involvement in schools (pp. 97–127). Information Age. Hands, C. M. (2014). Connecting to the world beyond the school: Social contexts that influence school leaders’ school-community collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations, 24(1), 41–56. Hands, C.  M., & Hubbard, L. (2011). An overview of family and community inclusion in urban education. In C. M. Hands & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Including families and communities in urban education (pp. 1–14). Information Age. Hanson, K. (2003). Strong school-community partnerships: Opening the windows of public education. Leading & Managing, 9(2), 153–159.

174 

C. M. HANDS

Hardy, I., & Grootenboer, P. (2016). Cultivating community: Detailing school and community engagement under complex conditions. Teaching Education, 27(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2015.1034683 Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in a postmodern age. Teachers College Press. Hauseman, D. C., Pollock, K., & Wang, F. (2017). Inconvenient, but essential: Impact and influence of school-community involvement on principals’ work and workload. The School Community Journal, 27(1), 83–105. Heers, M., Van Klaveren, C., Groot, W., & Maassen van den Brink, H. (2016). Community schools: What we know and what we need to know. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1016–1051. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034 654315627365 Hubbard, L., & Hands, C. M. (2011). The role of leadership in forging family-­ school-­ community relationships. In C.  M. Hands & L.  Hubbard (Eds.), Including families and communities in urban education (pp.  41–68). Information Age. Institute for Education Leadership. (2013, September). The Ontario Leadership Framework: A school and system leaders’ guide to putting Ontario’s leadership framework into action. Retrieved October 16, 2022, from www.education-­ leadership-­ontario.ca Jenlink, P. M., & Banathy, B. (2005). Dialogue: Conversation as culture creating and consciousness evolving. In B. Banathy & P. M. Jenlink (Eds.), Dialogue as means of collective communication (pp. 3–14). Kluwer Academic. Keith, N.  Z. (1999). Whose community schools? New discourses, old patterns. Theory Into Practice, 38(4), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/004058 49909543858 Leonard, P. E. (1999). Examining educational purposes and underlying values orientations in schools. In P. T. Begley (Ed.), Values and educational leadership (pp. 217–235). SUNY Press. Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51. McNeil, P. W., & Klink, S. M. (2004). School coaching. In L. B. Easton (Ed.), Powerful designs for professional learning (pp.  185–194). National Staff Development Council. Medina, M. A., Cosby, G., & Grim, J. (2019). Community engagement through partnerships: Lessons learned from a decade of full-service community school implementation. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 24(3), 272–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2019.1615923 Merz, C., & Furman, G. (1997). Community and schools: Promise and paradox. Teachers College Press.

7  FACILITATING OR FRUSTRATING EFFORTS TO COLLABORATE 

175

Muncey, D.  E., & McQuillan, P.  J. (1996). Reform & resistance in schools and classrooms: An ethnographic view of the Coalition of Essential Schools. Yale University Press. Nanavati, M.  S. B. (2011). Knowledge and learning strategies in principal Mentoring Coaching relationships. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Toronto, ON, Canada. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2006). Community use of Schools Memorandum 2006: B13 Memo from Dominic Giroux and Nancy Naylor. Retrieved October 16, 2022, from https://efis.fma.csc.gov.on.ca/faab/Memos/B2006/B_13.pdf Ontario Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Community use of schools. Retrieved October 16, 2022, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/community-­use-­schools Pushor, D. (2007, January). Parent engagement: Creating a shared world [Paper presentation]. Ontario Education Research Symposium, Toronto, ON, Canada. Robinson, V. M. J. (1994). The practical promise of critical research in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 56–76. Sanders, M. G. (1999). Schools’ program and progress in the National Network of Partnership Schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679909597599 Sanders, M. G. (2001). The role of “community” in comprehensive school, family, and community partnership programs. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1086/499691 Sanders, M. G. (2006). Building school-community partnerships: Collaboration for student success. Skyhorse Publishing. Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1345–1368. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­9620.00206 Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. A. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Steiner, F. (2002). Human ecology: Following nature’s lead. Island Press. Stelmach, B. (2004). Unlocking the schoolhouse doors: Institutional constraints on parent and community involvement in a school improvement initiative. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 31, 1–13. Strike, K. A. (2002). Community, coherence, and inclusiveness. In P. T. Begley & O.  Johansson (Eds.), The ethical dimensions of school leadership (pp.  61–76). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Voisin, S. (2003). Secondary school principals and school councils: Practices and perceptions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, ON, Canada. Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C. L., Smith, J., & Hentschke, G. (2003). Working Paper: Cross-sectorial alliances in education: A new approach to enhancing school capacity. University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education, Center on Educational Governance.

CHAPTER 8

Collaboration to Support Vulnerable Populations

In The Undoing Project (2017), Moneyball author, Michael Lewis, considers Kahneman and Tversky’s Nobel Prize–winning theory of human bias in decision-making in several contexts, including evidence-based medicine. He interviews Don Redelmeier, a senior scientist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Canada, who oversees the Centre’s Trauma, Emergency & Critical Care Research Program. Sunnybrook is the regional hospital of choice for many types of trauma, from car accidents to gunshot wounds to complicated pregnancies. As Lewis notes, these kinds of complex cases are potentially lethal because medical professionals must deal with uncertainty and the potential for clinical misjudgement. According to Redelmeier, “Wherever there is uncertainty, there has got to be judgement, and wherever there is judgement there is an opportunity for human fallibility.” In the trauma ward, bias and inaccuracy may creep into physician decision-­making in several ways. Patients with physical or cognitive vulnerabilities and without medical training may provide inaccurate information about their symptoms. Conversely, physicians may disproportionately notice symptoms in their area of specialization, missing less obvious symptoms with potentially lethal consequences. Redelmeier helped those treating trauma patients to question their assumptions and seek data to support their assessments. When initial misjudgement was minimized in this way, people with complex medical issues had better long-term outcomes. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. M. Hands, Pathways to Community Engagement in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33001-8_8

177

178 

C. M. HANDS

The Sunnybrook example illustrates the vulnerability of people with complex issues. Even when these issues are not immediately life-­ threatening, bias and inaccuracy can still reduce the effectiveness of external interventions. In the context of education, school-community collaboration can best support children and youth when their complex life circumstances are fully understood. As this book focuses on schools in multicultural and low-income communities, it is important to consider how these specific contextual circumstances, along with their intersecting identities, such as indigeneity, sexuality, gender identity, and characteristics like intellectual capacity, mental health and behaviour issues, impact students’ participation in education, social relations, and community activities. First, we briefly return to the concept of social capital, already introduced in Chaps. 5 and 6. Next, we examine the diverse circumstances that impact students’ access to social capital. The important role school-community collaboration plays in connecting the students with their community is considered along with ways in which school and district personnel as well as community members support students and their families through school-community collaboration. The chapter concludes with an overview of the findings and recommendations for collaborating with diverse populations.

Collaboration as a Gateway to Social Capital Resources, such as money, material goods, information, and even psychological wellbeing, are often more readily available to individuals who collaborate with others. They are markers of social capital, which is made up of “resources embedded in social relations and social structure” (Lin, 2001, p. 24) that can be accessed within the community and used by an actor (Coleman, 1988; Finnigan & Daly, 2010). Social relationships and structures influence the types of resources available, while the number of relationships within a network and the level of reciprocity determine how easily they are accessed (Moolenaar & Sleegers, 2010). In addition, relationship characteristics like level of trust or shared values can facilitate or challenge social capital exchange (Moolenaar & Sleegers, 2010). As we have already seen in Chap. 5, there are two broad categories of social capital (Lin, 1999). People take instrumental actions to gain resources they value but do not already possess, typically with economic, political, or social outcomes (Lin, 1999). The resources enhance individuals’ financial wealth, promote their influence in organizational or civic

8  COLLABORATION TO SUPPORT VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 

179

governance, or enhance their reputations within the community (Lin, 1999). They also engage in expressive actions to preserve resources they already have, which typically involves maintaining physical and mental health and life satisfaction (Lin, 1999). Instrumental and expressive actions can reinforce one another (Lin, 1999), often satisfying more than one goal at a time. Collaborative activities increase the number and variety of relationships to which individuals have access, which often increases access to social capital. In this way, collaboration provides a strategy for either gaining or maintaining valuable resources. Vulnerable populations often have more restricted access to social capital. In the context of education in particular, the dominant paradigm often fails to account for students’ diversity; as a result, some students enjoy less capital than their peers. This is especially true when students’ interwoven identities—for example, those who live in both low-income and immigrant households—create complex challenges and limit opportunities for educational and community engagement, as they did in Stirling. While school personnel alone cannot provide every needed resource, partnerships with community organizations can help students build social capital and generate both tangible and intangible resources that would otherwise be inaccessible. I first review the kinds of diversity found in the schools examined in this study. I then show how school-community collaboration and community-based programming had the potential to address gaps in support for vulnerable students.

An Overview of Diverse Students’ Needs in Stirling The schools in this study were culturally diverse and located in inner city neighbourhoods categorized as low-income, which sometimes led to challenges navigating the school system. Participants highlighted the students’ experiences with poverty and cultural challenges. For some students, these struggles were compounded by aspects of individual identity, which were often layered on top of poverty or cultural diversity. Some children and youth identified as 2SLGBTQIA+,1 others had developmental delays, and some were at risk of experiencing mental health and behavioural issues. The participants acknowledged that the complexities of student identity 1  The acronym 2SLGBTQIA+ encompasses a wide array of identities including two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, pansexual, non-binary, and many others.

180 

C. M. HANDS

shaped both specific collaborative activities undertaken in these schools and school-community relations within Stirling’s ecosystem. Here, we consider the students’ multifaceted circumstances in aggregate with the understanding that not all circumstances applied to all students even as many students experienced multiple challenges. It is important to emphasize that no students were interviewed as part of this research and all data were drawn from the observations of the school-, district-, and community-­ based adults in their milieu. Students Living in Poverty Redeemer and Avison Elementary Schools and All Saints Secondary School served a community characterized as low-income, with the dubious distinction of being the second most impoverished neighbourhood in Canada. Valley Ridge Secondary School—while situated in a middle-class suburban subdivision—had several red zones (or high poverty areas) in its catchment. As such, poverty was prevalent among the students. Valley Ridge principal, Diane, observed that many students worked to support their families financially. In some cases, they were their family’s main provider or were supporting themselves independently while attending school full-time. Poverty was largely a hidden issue. School personnel did not always know which students were homeless or when health crises or parent absenteeism might be compounding financial instability. This was particularly problematic in the predominantly middle-class neighbourhood, which received relatively fewer resources for students living in poverty because of its demographic profile, according to All Saints’ chaplain, Olivia, and the Stirling S.  D. community engagement co-ordinator, Tamara. She and Olivia both noted that resources, typically located in the urban centre, were inaccessible to suburban students because the cost of a student bus pass was prohibitive. Even when educators and administrators were able to identify students living in poverty, they struggled to offer long-term support for these students. All Saints’ Science department head, Sandra, recounted her experiences with a student whose family was homeless over the Christmas holidays. School personnel worked together to purchase gifts and food for the family. Similarly, Sandra and another All Saints teacher became aware of a grade 12 student who could not go to the prom because he had no dress pants. The teacher took him shopping for trousers so he could attend

8  COLLABORATION TO SUPPORT VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 

181

with his friends. While these acts of kindness undoubtedly did much to lift the students’ spirits, the teachers were well aware of their limitations. Beyond referring students to community services (if they were available) and purchasing items to address immediate needs, teachers and school administrators did not have the resources to offer ongoing support. Newcomers to the Country While all of the schools in the study had some cultural diversity, Valley Ridge had a particularly large international student population. Half of the students did not speak English as their first or primary language. Valley Ridge’s robust programming for English language learners alongside their International Baccalaureate diploma designation meant the school was sought out by students and families from a variety of cultural backgrounds. According to Helen, the English as a Second Language (ESL) program head, there were two main groups of international students at Valley Ridge, each facing their own set of challenges. One group of students was financially well-off. The youths were usually from China and their parents paid foreign student tuition to the school district so they could study in Canada. The school’s educators and administrators worked with district officials as well as the students’ homestay parents, who were their legal guardians while in Canada, to support the students while enrolled at Valley Ridge. Like any group of students, they had diverse abilities and challenges; some thrived academically, and others had undiagnosed learning differences or mental health issues. Homesickness and isolation were common challenges within this group, and they tended to stick together rather than mixing with other students. Because they stayed up late at night to stay connected with family and friends on the other side of the world, they were often tired during the day; lateness and truancy were also common. These problems worsened when students turned 18 and were able to live with each other rather than host families, which threatened their chances of graduating. Additionally, these students struggled to find volunteer and work opportunities, which impacted not only their mandatory volunteer hours but also their chances of employment after graduation. The other group of international Valley Ridge students usually arrived in Canada with their families, similar to the international students and their families in the other three schools. A large proportion of these international students were originally from the Middle East and had emigrated

182 

C. M. HANDS

as a result of civil war, violence, and terrorist activity in their home countries. Many were living in poverty and had difficulty acquiring affordable housing in a safe neighbourhood; they were frequently impacted by gang-­ related issues such as illegal drugs and violence. Family members, including students, typically worked several jobs to support the household. At the same time, many of these students’ academic skills were severely lacking. Some had interrupted schooling or no schooling at all due to unrest in their countries of origin and struggled with literacy in their first language even as they were attempting to learn English. In addition to the universal challenge of finding nearby employment, many students—particularly those who arrived as refugees—experienced levels of stress and trauma that were beyond the expertise of school personnel. Indigenous Children and Youth Stirling was located near a large reserve representing several Indigenous cultures and was a landing point for individuals from northern Indigenous communities. In the urban centre, residents of Indigenous heritage made up approximately 2% of the total population and all schools had students of First Nations, Metis, and Inuit (FNMI) heritage.2 Students with Indigenous heritage experienced racism and challenges arising when FNMI cultural practices were at odds with non-Indigenous ones (Talaga, 2017). In general, FNMI communities did not have good historical relationships with public education teachers and administrators. As with some newcomers to Canada, Indigenous students and their families may have also experienced trauma. In particular, residential schools, mandatory isolation from Indigenous influences, a prescribed Euro-Canadian curriculum, as well as physical abuse and neglect were used as genocidal weapons by British and French colonizers to forcibly assimilate FNMI communities into mainstream, settler culture. With the last publicly funded residential school only shutting its doors in 1996, 2  The term “Indigenous” is an umbrella term describing the people who first inhabited the country now known as Canada. “FNMI” is a collective term to describe multiple Indigenous cultures. The term “First Nations” reflects the country’s original populations, the term “Metis” encompasses populations with Indigenous and French-Canadian backgrounds, and “Inuit” refers to the original inhabitants of the country’s northern regions. In Stirling, more than 25 Indigenous languages are spoken, reflecting the diversity of the city’s FNMI community. I use the terms Indigenous and FNMI interchangeably here to refer to the diverse students and families who fall into these categories.

8  COLLABORATION TO SUPPORT VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 

183

some Indigenous students in Stirling counted residential school survivors among their relatives, which contributed to scepticism and fear of public education systems. For decades, public schools curricula contributed to the erasure of FNMI experiences, creating an unwelcoming and at times hostile school environment. As a result, students of Indigenous heritage had lower attendance and graduation rates than the student population as a whole. 2SLGBTQIA+ Students Sexual and gender diversity impacted the Stirling 2SLGBTQIA+ student population and their engagement in school life. Since 2012, the Ontario government has required all publicly funded school districts in the province to support students in establishing Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs)3 to counter homophobia, transphobia, and gender-based bullying. Intended as a student-led initiative, GSAs promoted social and emotional support and a safe school environment. However, if students did not request a GSA, the school was not required to have one. As one might expect, the non-denominational and Catholic school districts, while both publicly funded, responded differently to the provincial requirement. In this study, Stirling S.  D. contracted Petra, the city-wide nutrition program manager—not to mention a feminist and a supporter of sexual and gender diversity—to write the district’s GSA manual. In contrast, there was no evidence of a district-level manual at Stirling Catholic S.  D. Moreover, there were no GSAs, and other student groups were not permitted to use a rainbow or any symbol of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, according to Petra. With sexual and gender diversity unacknowledged, Petra was concerned that this left 2SLGBTQIA+ students vulnerable in Redeemer, All Saints, and other Catholic schools.

3  Since their inception, the name, “Gay-Straight Alliance”, has garnered criticism. Catholic church officials objected to the use of the terms “gay” and “straight” as contrary to Catholic doctrine, while 2SLGBTQIA+ students and allies argue that these binary terms do not reflect the full spectrum gender and sexual expression, proposing other names like “Gender and Sexuality Alliance,” “Pride Alliance,” or “Positive Space Group.”

184 

C. M. HANDS

Students with Developmental Delays, Mental Health Challenges, and Behavioural Issues The districts had Special Education programming for students with developmental delays or learning differences. District-level consultants worked with Special Education and classroom teachers to provide individualized education plans (IEPs) to address students’ needs. Students with developmental delays had diverse interests and abilities like any group, and they could remain in school until age 21 to develop life and job skills as was possible. While school and district personnel provided post-secondary planning resources as well as skills development training and coaching, they did not have resources available within the school to support students’ transition into community life. In contrast with the extensive Special Education department, there were limited resources within the school system to support mental health. Student mental health was a growing concern at all schools in the study and, as such, I address it in detail in Chap. 9. Here, I simply note that many teachers struggled to support students with symptoms of anxiety and depression, among other mental health conditions. Educators and administrators lacked training and experience in treating mental illnesses, and students had limited access to diagnosis and treatment outside of the school. Finally, teachers and administrators were also challenged to address child and youth behaviours that contributed to interpersonal problems. These included anger management and self-regulation issues along with oppositional defiance and conduct disorders. Although the provincial government provided program funding for children and youth convicted of a crime, there were few interventions available to school and district personnel for children and youth who were merely at risk and had not yet escalated to that level. This study revealed a broad range of issues and many students fell into more than one of the categories above, which challenged educators and school administrators to both deliver academic programming and provide adequate social and emotional support. In this endeavour, they nearly always needed to rely on resources they could only obtain through school-­ community collaboration. The following sections describe the ways in which school personnel acted as intermediaries to link students with their communities, and the specific strategies community organizations used to support them.

8  COLLABORATION TO SUPPORT VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 

185

Accessing Social Capital for Vulnerable Groups Through School-Community Partnerships Given the range of needs present in the Stirling education system, schools were not equipped to deal with all obstacles that students might face. While supports available to vulnerable populations were diverse, the most successful initiatives involved school-community collaboration. Schools as Intermediaries Teachers and administrators knew the children and youth in their schools were vulnerable and struggled to participate in both school- and community-­based activities. Many students did not know what services and activities were available in their community. Teachers and community members observed that many never left their neighbourhoods because transportation costs and activity fees were prohibitive. Yet, schools were not able to offer the breadth of experiences students needed, highlighting the importance of cultivating skills and experiences beyond the classroom, as Diane, Valley Ridge’s principal, noted. Given these needs, school personnel in elementary and secondary schools facilitated opportunities for their students to connect with their community. Through their relationships with community members, elementary teachers and principals arranged opportunities for students to engage with the community beyond the school. For example, the city-wide nutrition program organized field trips to farms at no cost to students. The educators and administrators worked with the local botanical gardens education manager, Jody. The gardens had a multi-kilometre obstacle course to promote outdoor activity and physical health alongside curriculum-based learning opportunities. Jody described the impact a visit to the gardens had on the children: They’re in awe the whole time. Some of them, it’s the first time they’re ever seeing wild spaces, nature. They’re used to living in the concrete jungle of downtown [Stirling] and they don’t get out.

As many of the students travelled between home and school with few deviations, according to Public Health nurse, Linda, field trips exposed children and youth to places and activities they would not otherwise experience.

186 

C. M. HANDS

Secondary teachers and administrators similarly wanted to expose their vulnerable students to the broader community, especially those about to transition into the workplace or post-secondary education. Towards that end, Diane, Valley Ridge’s principal, advocated for a greater exchange of resources between schools and their communities. Our kids, by sixteen years old, shouldn’t be in school all day … so whether that’s an apprenticeship … or some kind of engaged learning in the community … they should be focusing on their specific skills .… It should be much more partnership than it is sitting in a classroom by themselves. It’s so artificial and it’s not the way any of us work. It’s not the way the world works.

The educators at both secondary schools agreed with this perspective, acknowledging that the classroom-based curriculum was limiting. They consequently created opportunities for youth to engage with the community either on campus or beyond the walls of the school. Individual departments at both high schools embedded learning opportunities into their curriculum that linked vulnerable students with the community. Valley Ridge had a unique curricular initiative focused on Indigenous history that exemplified the enriched learning opportunities available to them through community engagement. As the Arts department head, Barry, described, students worked with an Indigenous scholar, educator, and author, as well as the district-level Indigenous consultant to create their “own play and music score about the Mohawk residential school. Our kids went out and worked with survivors and worked in the library there. We put on a week’s worth of performances. And it’s actually in the national archives.” Given the lack of curriculum content focusing on the realities of Indigenous history in Canada, the opportunity to work with community members of Indigenous heritage offered Valley Ridge’s non-Indigenous students a valuable perspective on Canadian history they would not otherwise have. Moreover, they were able to share their learning and insights with a broader audience. As noted by All Saints’ Indigenous counsellor, this school- and community-wide validation of Indigenous experiences created a welcoming environment and reassured Indigenous students that their voices were heard and mattered. The school received a thank you letter from the chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.4 Valley Ridge also had an eagle feather displayed prominently  Between 2008 and 2015, this committee investigated and recorded the experiences of residential school survivors and facilitated opportunities for reconciliation between Indigenous communities and settler Canadians. 4

8  COLLABORATION TO SUPPORT VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 

187

in their foyer—a gift and honour from the nearby Mohawk community as a symbol of integrity, respect, strength, wisdom, and courage. All Saints offered multiple ways for vulnerable students to connect with the local community. One media course gave students dual high school and college credit and provided opportunities to visit the local college and talk to the program co-ordinators. This experience increased their likelihood of attending a post-secondary institution, according to the course instructors. Science students at All Saints had opportunities to develop relevant, ecologically sound solutions to community challenges through the school’s nationally recognized eco-team. At the same time, Physical Education students had the chance to supervise elementary students, learn new sports, and compete nationally through All Saints’ Physical Education program. In these ways, community engagement enriched the curriculum available to vulnerable students. Both Valley Ridge and All Saints had robust Community-based Education (i.e., Co-operative Education) programming, designed to provide all students, especially those facing multiple obstacles, with career exploration opportunities. The All Saints Business department also set up All Saints Student Enterprises in order to give the students real-world experience through courses and work placements. Through this program, students had the opportunity to work with the cafeteria chef, planning and preparing meals for the school, as well as catering Stirling companies’ meetings and conferences. Other students worked in the school’s printing business, designing logos, brochures, and other promotional materials for their clients. The businesses offered competitive rates and had several clients across Stirling. These were real-world opportunities that many of the students could not have accessed without the exposure the school provided through partnership with community organizations. The Special Education teachers at the secondary schools provided the students experiencing cognitive and social delays with life and workplace skills training as well as coaching. For example, the All Saints teachers had a work experience program that relied on community partners to provide jobs to students in venues like car washes, supermarkets, dollar stores, the local recreation centre, food banks, and the public library. These community-­based opportunities helped students acquire skills that could not be cultivated in a school setting. The teachers also engaged in post-­ secondary planning with the students and their families. With the additional support of school-based coaches, the students were prepared to transition from their student life to full participation in the community.

188 

C. M. HANDS

In addition to providing vulnerable students with programming and access to community resources, schools were places where community members could reliably work with children and youth. Representatives of community organizations found it easier to engage with youth at the schools because most children and youth attended. This was particularly important for organizations working with youth at risk. Rina and Carl, youth workers at the John Howard Society, which promotes criminal justice reform, observed that youth at risk were a transient population who could not reliably be reached by phone; the numbers changed frequently and students could not afford data or pay-as-you-go minutes. If the youth attended school regularly, Rina and Carl could rely on school personnel to help them meet students on campus. Similarly, Public Health, healthcare organizations, physical education programs, the YMCA, and settlement workers, to name a few, also ran their programming on school campuses to reach as many children and youth as possible. District-Level Support for Community Engagement The school districts in this study were also intermediaries, facilitating connections with community organizations on behalf of the schools. They played an integral role in providing a process for establishing district-wide partnerships with community organizations that enabled principals and teachers to access resources for all of their students, including those from vulnerable populations, as described in Chaps. 5, 6, and 9. At the same time, district administrators also sought out community contacts for their insights on cultural and religious groups represented among the schools’ populations. Stirling School District worked with Focus on Youth, a program that also partnered with the federal and provincial governments and community agencies to provide summer activities and employment opportunities for children and youth in the district. In addition to a summer camp experience for approximately 7000 elementary and middle school children, the program employed about 95 high school students as leaders in training (LITs). Tamara, the district’s community engagement co-ordinator, interviewed and placed the LITs. She also employed five recent graduates from teachers’ colleges to guide students throughout the summer program, visiting them at their sites and otherwise accessible by text. Tamara emphasized how the program was designed to help the LITs as much as the campers:

8  COLLABORATION TO SUPPORT VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 

189

We really work with those kids to recognize their skills and build upon new skills. By the end of the program, we’re teaching them how to do resumes, how to do job applications. … I have a Focus On Youth email and I’ll send them jobs when I see them .… Or if they’re having trouble at school [during the academic year], I’ll connect them with their guidance officer because we become those caring adults over the summer.

Cognizant that many students lived in poverty, Tamara made sure her office was “providing all those extra supports, helping them get from point A to point B,” for example, buying a swimsuit or an alarm clock for a high school student who did not have one. She was gratified when she saw many of those same students were back at the camps in subsequent years as camp counsellors employed by the partner agencies. Personnel in both districts found it valuable to cultivate partnerships particularly when they served distinct student groups. For example, while All Saints had an Indigenous counsellor on campus, Valley Ridge relied on the district-level Indigenous consultant. The districts also had connections to an Indigenous organization with a mission to provide culture-based support to secondary students of Indigenous heritage and forge positive relations between Indigenous communities and Euro-Canadian education providers. To feel welcome and safe in their schools, the students needed to see their cultures reflected in the curriculum and respected by their peers and teachers. The Indigenous counsellor assigned to All Saints acted as a liaison, providing social and emotional support to individual students, working with educators on their behalf, and acting as a resource for school personnel. The counsellor helped facilitate greater understanding between Indigenous communities and schools. However, Lynette, an Indigenous organization manager, cautioned that districts needed to ensure their consultants were of Indigenous heritage who could draw on lived experiences—something the provincial government did not currently stipulate. As one might expect, the school districts differed in their approach to some aspects of student diversity. Stirling S. D. cultivated a strong relationship with the Stirling Centre for Civic Inclusion because it served a multicultural population. According to Stirling S.  D. superintendent, Suzanne, “we reach out when we are looking for innovative ways to connect with our culturally diverse communities,” making efforts to accommodate a wide variety of cultural and religious beliefs, for example, ensuring graduation celebrations did not interfere with Ramadan observances. Stirling S.  D. also co-ordinated support groups for parents of

190 

C. M. HANDS

transgender and 2SLGBTQIA+ students. Stirling S.  D. superintendent, Suzanne, described how these groups relied on the expertise of community leads. In contrast, Stirling Catholic S. D. trustees and administrators limited collaborative activities with organizations that had missions or educational content that ran counter to Catholic religious teachings. Representatives from a community-based organization that promoted youth leadership and community participation reported that they were instructed not to talk about gender issues, sexual orientation, or sexual activities of any kind in their presentations. Hence, the districts’ missions and visions for education and their students shaped the ways they addressed or did not address the range of diversity in the community. Community Organizations Provide Care, Opportunities, and Insight Community organizations provided academic and social support for all students; however, many focused specifically on some of the more vulnerable populations in Stirling’s education system. After-school programs like YMCA’s Beyond the Bell and the Boys and Girls Club supported sports, science, mathematics, literacy, and the arts. For those students living in low-income communities, the YMCA made efforts to fund activities that matched students’ interests and abilities. The Boys and Girls Club supported vulnerable groups with grants for students’ post-secondary studies. Some organizations provided additional support for newcomers to the country. YMCA settlement workers commented on the process of triaging the needs of immigrant families: When people come to Canada, they have to basically start from zero again. … The first needs that you have to satisfy are the basic needs, such as income, housing, right? Then you go to social needs, right? … We have to connect the families and students to resources in the community so they can satisfy those needs.

In light of Stirling’s large newcomer population, settlement workers were located on elementary and secondary school campuses, conducting needs assessments and working closely with students and their families. Many settlement workers had once been newcomers to Canada themselves, some even coming from the same countries as the students they served. As such, they understood the students’ and families’ countries of origin and

8  COLLABORATION TO SUPPORT VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 

191

the issues that might arise in acclimatizing to Canada. They were also an invaluable resource for the schools’ teachers. Valley Ridge ESL teacher, Helen, observed that settlement workers problem-solved with the students, helped to reduce friction among the students, and acted as additional adult supervisors on campus and in the community. Helen noted that they also acted as liaisons with the parents, communicating messages from the educators and administrators, and cited her experiences with the newest settlement worker at Valley Ridge: She’s building relationships with the parents … they are speaking Arabic and she’s right beside me and I can hear her laughing and connecting with the parents. And this is perfect for me as far as I’m concerned because what I want is the parents to feel that [Valley Ridge] is their place and that their kids are in the right place.

The settlement workers’ efforts helped to reduce challenges for teachers and enhanced programs for newcomer students and families. As a result of their past experiences, one population of newcomers— refugees—needed more psychological and social support than school personnel and settlement workers could provide. Given the large number of refugees in Stirling, sufficient support was often lacking. According to the Contact Stirling personnel, who co-ordinated youth mental health and adult developmental services for the city, it was difficult to meet the needs of Stirling’s immigrant population. Bev, the manager of the city’s refugee and immigrant trauma treatment program, agreed that refugee needs exceeded the capacity of one organization, and so Bev’s organization supported Contact Stirling’s efforts. Community organizations also helped to address the mental health and social challenges faced by youth. According to Derek, the manager of a city-wide social skills program, while there were many services for children under 12  years, older youths had fewer supports. These older students could participate in programming provided by the John Howard Society, such as rock climbing and bowling in downtown Stirling, but these did not specifically address mental health issues. Accessing services could be even more challenging for street-involved adolescents with mental health issues. Contact Stirling developed multiple partnerships with various community organizations to support homeless youth and others who had difficulty accessing services. For this population in particular, the availability of these services on school campuses was invaluable.

192 

C. M. HANDS

Preparing to Transition into the Community: The Roles of Schooland Community-Based Programs Supporting Vulnerable Populations Schools, districts, and community organizations all came together for students transitioning to life beyond secondary school, particularly those from vulnerable populations. School-run programming supported by the districts increased students’ familiarity with their community and helped them develop pre-employment skills. Secondary school students had opportunities to volunteer to meet the 40-hour requirement to earn an Ontario high school diploma. All Saints and Valley Ridge had many additional Community-based Education options; the schools cultivated partnerships throughout the community to provide diverse placements for the students. These placements helped students to become familiar with their community’s industries, social services, and businesses, and to identify professions they wished to pursue. All Saints and Valley Ridge Community-based Education and Business teachers, as well as guidance counsellors, felt that community placements were a win-win situation for students and community members alike. Business department head, Leo, observed community members feel like they are giving back to the community. … It’s another way of promoting themselves and saying, “You know what? We care about the younger generation and we wanna train them to have employability skills,” and so on. … It doesn’t cost them anything, so they get free labour, yes, but they’re also spending time to train our students [who] gain hands-on experience.

The educators and counsellors also described how students’ placements often yielded employment opportunities. According to Beatrix, an All Saints Community-based Education teacher, A lot of times at the end, some students, if they are really good, and the place is looking for part-time employees, they get hired. I’ve had students getting summer jobs, students getting signed as apprentices. So the bond can last.

Regardless of whether the students were employed in the future, the employers provided encouragement and support to the students. Beatrix observed, “They are always willing in the end to give a reference letter.

8  COLLABORATION TO SUPPORT VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 

193

They also give them a lot of encouragement, and this is big or small organizations .… They almost feel responsible for them.” While volunteering and Community-based Education programming were school-driven, community members and organizations sometimes also took the lead in preparing vulnerable students for their transition into the community. Contact Stirling counsellors ran a youth program for students aged 14–18 years with developmental delays. Co-ordinating the services of multiple organizations, Contact Stirling liaised with Ontario’s Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, and the school districts to create a unified plan for student support. The counsellors spoke with the students about their plans for the transition after high school. They completed applications for government-funded adult developmental services and helped match students and their families with available services. Similar community support was also available to students without developmental delays. For those students enrolled in the dual-credit media course at All Saints, for example, the college professor who co-taught the course acted as a “bridge” to post-secondary education, encouraging students to pursue post-secondary studies and offering advising and application support. The  Boys and Girls Club offered academic support for students of all ages, as well as financial planning and advice for older youth and their families in preparation for post-secondary studies. All Saints and Valley Ridge students who were transitioning to the workplace could also rely on the YMCA and the Boys and Girls Club for assistance. The YMCA provided targeted support for newcomers to the country with employment, training, and settlement. Both organizations also helped to prepare students for volunteer and paid positions in community organizations with resume and cover letter writing training. The Boys and Girls Club additionally ran career exploration programs, teaching 13- to 18-year-old participants how to align their interests to potential careers and how to access job hunting resources, as well as teaching them about the skilled trades, government-regulated apprenticeship programs, and career planning. Community members wanted to make sure students were informed and prepared to transition to the workplace or to post-­ secondary education, and their organizations had programming to assist the students in pursuing their goals, even when they faced significant challenges.

194 

C. M. HANDS

Vulnerable Populations: Summary and Recommendations The student population of Stirling faced a complex array of challenges that hindered their ability to complete school, seek employment, and fully participate in their community. While the schools and districts could not always address students’ intersectional identities on their own, community partnerships helped them address all facets of students’ complex identities. Role models and mentors within the family and community as well as school and community programs that allow youth to develop relationships with caring adults and prosocial peers can provide affirmation and encourage feelings of belonging (Rossiter & Rossiter, 2009). Some partnerships—particularly the relationships between the districts and cultural or religious groups—were intended to expose district personnel to the unique and varied needs of specific student groups. For instance, in this study’s districts, as in other Ontario districts, administrators work directly with FNMI communities. An Indigenous lead and colleagues in another Ontario district conducted community visits, spending a day visiting each of the FNMI communities served by the schools. They spoke with parents and community members to better understand the community’s strengths and needs before they developed learning opportunities, curriculum, and events for the students and their families (Hands, 2013). With an appreciation of all students’ needs—particularly where multiple issues such as poverty and FNMI identity might overlap—they could put accommodations and supports into place in the schools and advise school-­ level administrators and educators. The intersection of ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity also illustrates the complexities of students’ multiple identities. Gender roles and expectations related to individuals’ rights and responsibilities may differ between newcomer families and Canadian-born residents, which could cause stress for the students (Ngo & Schleifer, 2005). Students from immigrant backgrounds who identified as 2SLGBTQIA+ sometimes found it challenging to come to terms with their identity and might face negative reactions—including fear, homophobia, harassment and assault, rejection, and social stigmatization—from both their families and the broader community (Ngo & Schleifer, 2005). Students who are not newcomers to the country may also struggle with gender identity. A large-scale study involving Swedish youth aged 13 to 17 years investigated the relationship between gender identity and

8  COLLABORATION TO SUPPORT VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 

195

mental health (Durbeej et al., 2021). Participants included binary youth (i.e., youth who identified as male or female, including transgender individuals) and non-binary youth (i.e., youth who did not or could not identify with either established gender). Non-binary youth reported a significantly greater frequency of mental health problems than their binary counterparts and had greater challenges adjusting to school. They reported more frequent truancy and course failure, possibly due to discrimination and the challenges they experienced conforming to the established gender stereotypes at school (Durbeej et al., 2021). Children and youth with developmental delays may encounter additional challenges to their participation in classrooms that accommodate their academic and social needs while preparing them to transition to the community. Some researchers advocate educating students with intellectual disabilities in mainstream classrooms, rather than segregating them (Nowicki & Brown, 2013). In this context, they may be socially excluded, or experience bullying or prejudiced attitudes (Hamovitch, 2007, as cited in Nowicki & Brown, 2013) unless schools implement targeted interventions to promote student interaction and co-operation (Hundert, 2007) and directly teach prosocial skills like turn-taking in preschool classrooms (StantonChapman & Snell, 2011; Nowicki & Brown, 2013). Life skills training and community-based programming to help students develop social and employability skills already exist for older students (Hands, 2005). By contrast, younger students typically rely solely on classroom and school-level support. Instrumental and Expressive Resources Available Through Community Engagement Many of the collaborative activities reflected instrumental and expressive actions, linking students directly to the financial, information, skill-related, as well as socio-emotional resources they needed to navigate specific challenges. School personnel recognized that exposure to and an appreciation for the resources available in the community could support the growth and development of children and youth who were vulnerable for a variety of reasons. Structured opportunities for instrumental community engagement were available to elementary and secondary school students. Elementary school teachers took their students on day trips to community organizations that provided diverse learning opportunities and curriculum enrichment, as well as exposure to post-secondary institutions and their

196 

C. M. HANDS

programming. After-school programs at the schools and extracurricular activities in the communities provided academic enrichment to support students’ progress in school as well as opportunities for exploring interests and exposing them to leisure activities. Chances to complete an adventure course or visit recreational centres exposed students to enriching activities and hobbies. Similarly, they could participate in after-school, summer, and extracurricular programs focused on exposing children and youth to a variety of hands-on activities in areas like robotics, the arts, and sports. These kinds of instrumental opportunities were more prevalent in the secondary schools. While some of the secondary school educators embedded opportunities to engage with community members into course work, mandatory volunteering and options to complete a Community-based Education course encouraged all students to explore the community before they transitioned out of school. After-school programs in the communities also provided opportunities for career exploration and leadership training. Cognizant of the multiple challenges these vulnerable populations faced, community organizations or the districts typically absorbed the costs involved and provided language translation and settlement services. While collaboration did not result in immediate economic gain for the students, these opportunities were important for removing barriers. They gave students the potential to seek wealth by providing other instrumental resources such as knowledge (academic as well as practical) and financial support in building career experience, influence, and an enhanced public reputation (Lin, 1999) Removing barriers to children’s and youths’ education and engagement in the community is not just instrumental; these actions also promote a positive emotional state. Several partnerships in this study were grounded in expressive actions of this kind. Community-based organizations assessed and co-ordinated the mental health care of students referred to them through the school districts, as described in the following chapter. These partnerships sought to support child and youth mental health as well as positive social relations. Community-based counsellors also worked with students to address social issues and relational challenges such as anger management, self-regulation, and bullying, teaching social skills and providing opportunities for them to engage in recreational activities in social settings. Mental health support, along with social and recreational activities, promoted physical and mental health, and life satisfaction (Lin, 1999), which equally benefitted students from a wide variety of vulnerable populations. Through the actions of many caring adults, collaborative

8  COLLABORATION TO SUPPORT VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 

197

relationships promoted students’ access to instrumental and expressive resources. Considerations for Collaboration The classroom teachers’, school and district administrators’, and community members’ experiences with collaboration illustrated the importance of both instrumental and expressive resources for children and youth with complex life circumstances. They also highlighted some ongoing challenges to supporting these young people. In the section that follows, I offer several recommendations for addressing these challenges.  esources for Youth with Behavioural Challenges Are Needed and Can R Be Used with All Students, Not Just Youth At-risk Early intervention and prevention programs were available for children under 12  years of age who were experiencing behavioural challenges at home, at school, or in the community. Community-based organizations offered short- and long-term initiatives such as preschool centres, summer camps, and recreation centres to promote prosocial behaviour, as well as targeted workshops in response to identified crises in the community. There was also multidisciplinary clinical support from community resources for youth aged 12 and older who were in conflict with the law, according to Derek, the social skills program manager, and Rina and Carl, John Howard Society case managers. However, Stirling S.  D.’s Social Work Services manager and Derek noted that funding was available only once the youth committed an offence, a major gap in intervention. A search of the provincial government’s website yielded documents acknowledging the characteristics of adolescent social development and its importance, but no evidence of funding for intervention programs for older children and youth. In addition to individual behavioural challenges, bullying is a widespread phenomenon in schools (Vitoroulis & Georgiades, 2017). In one study, teachers reported bullying perpetration among domestic- and foreign-­born students, but there were lower levels of bullying victimization and perpetration at schools where students reported sense of belonging and perceived teachers’ support for cultural diversity (Vitoroulis & Georgiades, 2017). With all types of student vulnerability, a preventative approach rather than a reliance on rehabilitation would be beneficial. Since schools often lack the resources and staffing to support this kind of

198 

C. M. HANDS

preventative work, policymakers would do well to provide funding for community-­based organizations to develop and deliver preventative interventions for youth at-risk and their peers. Similarly, it would be beneficial to provide programming that can support teachers in creating a school climate that welcomes all students, ensuring all students feel they belong. S chools Are Important Meeting Places for Youth and Community Partners Children and youth spend a great deal of time at school; as such, scholars have suggested vulnerable students’ most critical needs should be addressed by school personnel (Ngo & Schleifer, 2005; Rossiter & Rossiter, 2009). Although the schools were often unable to address these needs on their own, school personnel were ideally positioned to act as intermediaries, ensuring children and youth had access to instrumental and expressive resources provided the community on campus. For example, some scholars have suggested that the most effective way for service providers and community-based agencies to support the academic, socio-­ emotional, and cultural development of newcomer children and youth is to establish partnerships with school personnel (Ngo & Schleifer, 2005). Other scholars advocate for school personnel to take the initiative in creating strong school-family-community ties (see, e.g., Epstein et al., 2018; Sanders & Harvey, 2002). Either way, the school is the central location where community-based resources of various kinds are made available to vulnerable students and their families. In Stirling, the school itself was an ideal venue for community members to meet with their young clients. Community members who offered supportive services for vulnerable populations found they could reliably engage with children and youth in schools. The school location removed obstacles related to travel or access to devices for electronic communication. The teachers interviewed reported that they also benefitted from having community partners on campus. Although some schools face capacity limitations, it would be helpful to ensure space is available at their site at least temporarily for community partners to engage with students.  onsultation with Community Groups Representing Students C at the Schools, and with the Students Themselves, Can Create Greater Understanding and Programming that Best Reflects Students’ Needs Given the variety of vulnerabilities that may exist in any one community, it is crucial that collaborators make every effort to understand the particular

8  COLLABORATION TO SUPPORT VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 

199

populations in their area when considering programming possibilities. For example, personnel at both districts expressed the importance of engaging with Indigenous communities to promote greater sensitivity to Indigenous students’ educational needs. In this vein, the provincial government required each district to employ a full-time Indigenous education lead to consult with district administration, including the superintendents with Indigenous education in their portfolios, and to promote Indigenous students’ academic attainment and wellbeing, and all students’ understanding of FNMI histories, cultures, and perspectives (Ontario Ministry of Education [OME], 2021a). While this was a laudable goal, there was no requirement that the leads have Indigenous heritage themselves. Even when these consultants had specialized training and knowledge about Indigenous cultures, members of a local Indigenous community and organization observed that training was not a replacement for lived experience. Ultimately, it was possible that FNMI cultures could be misinterpreted through a non-Indigenous lens. More open communication with Indigenous communities about their needs, rather than a top-down initiative to address a perceived problem without fully understanding it, would go a long way towards ensuring Indigenous students’ academic and socio-­ emotional needs are understood and appropriately addressed. While lack of consultation may have failed to address some perceived needs, others were not acknowledged at all. For example, there was no evidence that Stirling Catholic S.  D. consulted with advisors regarding 2SLGBTQIA+ students. As such, there was no opportunity to promote district- and school-wide understanding and sensitivity in this area. While there were no policies or practices that explicitly discriminated against students of 2SLGBTQIA+ identity, the schools’ failure to acknowledge this aspect of student diversity likely felt discriminatory, as the school personnel offered these students no validation or support and they were not reflected in the curriculum. In both situations—inadequate support or lack of support—students are at risk of disengaging from their schooling (Dei et al., 2000; Durbeej et  al., 2021). In the case of cultural diversity, employing educators and consultants that represent the cultures of the students and their families is an important inclusion strategy, ensuring relevant curriculum is being presented by individuals with whom students can identify (Dei et al., 2000). The same rationale applies to sexual and gender diversity. Interestingly, a grade one to eight provincial health curriculum was introduced in 2019 after this study’s conclusion, which makes it mandatory for publicly funded

200 

C. M. HANDS

schools, including those in Catholic school districts, to teach age-­ appropriate human development and sexual health (OME, 2021b). While these topics are also covered at the high school level, they are not mandated and exist only in elective courses. Finding ways to teach all high school students about sexual and gender diversity would be a positive step towards validating 2SLGBTQIA+ students in Catholic as well as nondenominational schools. In the short term, school and district personnel can support diverse populations by enabling youth activism (Mitra & McCormick, 2017; Yonezawa & Jones, 2011). For instance, the Swedish students with non-­ binary gender identity were more interested in influencing community practices and government-level policies than students with binary gender identity (Durbeej et al., 2021). Making space for 2SLGBTQIA+ students and their allies to challenge gender norms and promote inclusive practices through in-school GSAs or partnerships with equity-focused groups in the community would better support student wellbeing. In other cases, school personnel need to be willing to have school-wide discussions on difficult issues. Acknowledging that there is an ethical dilemma regarding whether schools should encourage democratic discussion or insulate students when it comes to controversial topics, recognition of students’ knowledge and agency (Moll et  al., 1992) can increase student advocacy (Mitra & McCormick, 2017). Encouraging activism and community engagement in adolescence is fundamental to positive youth development (Ramey et al., 2018). Youth-­ adult partnerships can promote civic empowerment and a sense of community belongingness (Mitra, 2009; Ramey et al., 2018), and can increase community and political engagement (Blevins et al., 2021). This kind of activism may have the added benefit of promoting ongoing civic engagement, educational attainment, prosocial behaviour, and greater life satisfaction in adulthood (Chan et al., 2014).

Concluding Thoughts In his chapter on evidence-based medicine, Michael Lewis retells Don Redelmeier’s story about a young woman who arrived in Sunnybrook’s emergency department following a serious car accident. When she was rushed into an operating theatre to treat multiple broken bones, the attending physicians noticed that her heartbeat was extremely irregular. The woman, who was still alert, explained that she had a history of an

8  COLLABORATION TO SUPPORT VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 

201

overactive thyroid, which the physicians took to explain her cardiac symptoms. However, after consultation with Redelmeier, who encouraged them to consider other causes, they discovered that the woman had a life-­ threatening collapsed lung, which was primarily responsible for the irregular heartbeat. They sought appropriate specialist treatment for the collapsed lung before taking care of the broken bones, and the woman recovered. This example underscores the importance of seeking multiple perspectives when attempting to discern and address the needs of vulnerable populations. In this case, the injured woman contributed valuable knowledge about her own medical history but was unable to self-diagnose her collapsed lung; her case required collaboration between the patient and medical experts to fully understand and address her medical condition. This example illustrates a concrete, physical vulnerability, arguably easier to detect than other common barriers faced by vulnerable populations including socio-economic-related issues, language, cultural or cognitive barriers, or exclusion based on sexual or gender identity. When dealing with vulnerable populations, those who wish to help must recognize the limitations of their own perspective and consult broadly in order to understand the constituencies they wish to assist. Collaborative activities with the goal of supporting children’s and youth’s academic and socio-emotional development are ultimately an investment in the future. For all children and youth, schools can provide a solid foundation for future success. Students experiencing good physical and mental health as well as positive social relationships are well situated to learn. In turn, the knowledge they acquire—whether academic or employment-related—allows students to pursue further studies or employment opportunities. For a large proportion of the student population in Stirling, however, personal circumstances, including poverty, newcomer status in Canada, Indigenous heritage, cognitive or behavioural challenges, and aspects of personal identity, hindered their ability to build capacity for the future. Students and families knowledgeable about community resources are better able to be proactive in surmounting these obstacles through the acquisition of social capital. Collaboration was easiest to do when community organizations met students where they were— at school—by partnering with the education system. Community members were educators, functioning as teachers and guidance counsellors in many different venues, blurring the borders between school and community.

202 

C. M. HANDS

In the chapter that follows, we examine another vulnerable group— children and youth experiencing mental health issues—and how community members alongside school and district personnel collaborated to increase students’ access to mental health services throughout Stirling. The chapter is illustrative of many of the concepts discussed in previous chapters and demonstrates a community-wide networked approach to promoting child and youth mental health.

References Blevins, B., LeCompte, K. N., Riggers-Piehl, T., Scholten, N., & Magill, K. R. (2021). The impact of an action civics program on the community and political engagement of youth. The Social Studies, 112(3), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.108 0/00377996.2020.1854163 Chan, W. Y., Ou, S.-R., & Reynolds, A. J. (2014). Adolescent civic engagement and adult outcomes: An examination among urban racial minorities. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 43, 1829–1843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-­014-­ 0136-­5 Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation, of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement), S95–S120. Dei, G. J. S., James, I. M., Karumanchery, L. L., James-Wilson, S., & Zine, J. (2000). Removing the margins: The challenges and possibilities of inclusive schooling. Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc. Durbeej, N., Abrahamsson, N., Papadopoulos, F.  C., Beijer, K., Salari, R., & Sarkadi, A. (2021). Outside the norm: Mental health, school adjustment and community engagement in non-binary youth. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 49, 529–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494819890994 Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N.  R., Vanvoorhis, F.  L., Martin, C.  S., Thomas, B.  G., Greenfield, M.  D., Hutchins, D. J., & Williams, K. J. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbooks for action. Corwin Press. Finnigan, K. S., & Daly, A. J. (2010). Learning at a system level: Ties between principals of low-performing schools and central office leaders. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp.  179–195). Harvard Education. Hands, C. M. (2005). Patterns of interdependency: The development of partnerships between schools and communities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, ON, Canada. Hands, C.  M. (2013). Including all families in education: School district-level efforts to promote parent engagement in Ontario, Canada. Teaching Education, 24(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2013.786893

8  COLLABORATION TO SUPPORT VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 

203

Hundert, J.  P. (2007). Training classroom and resource preschool teachers to develop inclusive class interventions for children with disabilities: Generalization to new intervention targets. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9(3), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007070090030401 Lewis, M. (2017). The undoing project. W. W. Norton & Company. Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press. Mitra, D. L. (2009). Collaborating with students: Building youth-adult partnerships in schools. American Journal of Education, 115, 407–436. Mitra, D., & McCormick, P. (2017). Ethical dilemmas of youth participatory action research in a democratic setting. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(3), 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016. 1260835 Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classroom. Qualitative Issues in Educational Research, 31(2), 132–141. https://doi. org/10.1080/00405849209543534 Moolenaar, N. M., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). Social networks, trust and innovation: The role of relationships in supporting an innovative climate in Dutch schools. In A.  J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 97–113). Harvard Education. Ngo, H.  V., & Schleifer, B. (2005). Immigrant children and youth in focus. Canadian Issues, 29–33. Nowicki, E.  A., & Brown, J.  D. (2013). “A kid way”: Strategies for including classmates with learning or intellectual disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51(4), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1352/19349556-­51.4.253 Ontario Ministry of Education. (2021a). Indigenous education in Ontario. Retrieved October 26, 2022, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/ indigenous-­education-­ontario Ontario Ministry of Education. (2021b). Health and Physical Education in Ontario. Retrieved October 26, 2022, from https://www.ontario.ca/document/health-­and-­physical-­education-­grades-­1-­8 Ramey, H.  L., Lawford, H.  L., Rose-Krasnor, L., Freeman, J., & Lanctot, J. (2018). Engaging diverse Canadian youth in youth development programs: Program quality and community engagement. Children and Youth Services Review, 94, 20–26. Rossiter, M. J., & Rossiter, K. R. (2009). Diamonds in the rough: Bridging gaps in supports for at-risk immigrant and refugee youth. International Migration & Integration, 10, 409–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-­009-­0110-­3

204 

C. M. HANDS

Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1345–1368. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­9620.00206 Stanton-Chapman, T. L., & Snell, M. E. (2011). Promoting turn-taking skills in preschool children with disabilities: The effects of a peer-based social communication intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.11.002 Talaga, T. (2017). Seven fallen feathers: Racism, death, and hard truths in a northern city. House of Anansi Press Inc. Vitoroulis, I., & Georgiades, K. (2017). Bullying among immigrant and non-­ immigrant early adolescents: School- and student-level effects. Journal of Adolescence, 61(1, Supplement C), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. adolescence.2017.10.008 Yonezawa, S., & Jones, M. (2011). Shaping youth’s identity through student-­ driven research. In C. M. Hands & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Including families and communities in urban education (pp. 213–232). Information Age.

CHAPTER 9

Thriving and Not Just Surviving: Support for Mental Health in a Networked Community

Mental health, the acknowledgement of thoughts and emotions and their impact on behaviour, and the importance of addressing illnesses of the mind have been documented since ancient times. In the absence of psychiatrists, responsibility for helping those with mental disturbances was distributed among professional community members. A number of mental illnesses, such as mania and melancholy (depression), were considered bodily ailments and were treated by doctors (Ahonen, 2019). But non-­ medical issues involving the psyche, or soul, were handled by philosophers, most often through the dispensation of philosophical advice as a form of cognitive or talk therapy (Ahonen, 2019). Philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and many others ascribing to philosophical schools such as Stoicism, Scepticism, and Epicureanism shared their wisdom on how to promote mental wellness until late antiquity (Ahonen, 2019). In some capacity then, there was community collaboration in the ancient Mediterranean world to address aspects of what we, in a modern Western context, would call mental health. When somebody suffered from a mental illness, it was agreed that they and their families should seek the outside expertise of philosophers and doctors as appropriate to help restore an individual’s mental health. These kinds of co-ordinated efforts among diverse community members reflected a team, or networked, approach to health. Mental health and wellness issues are currently capturing global attention (see, e.g., Cratsley & Mackey, 2018) as countries across the world © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. M. Hands, Pathways to Community Engagement in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33001-8_9

205

206 

C. M. HANDS

acknowledge both the prevalence and debilitating consequences of untreated mental illness. According to World Health Organization (WHO) data, one in four people will experience a diagnosed mental illness within their lifetime, making mental health disorders a leading cause of ill health and disability (Kickbusch et al., 2013). The actual number of people experiencing mental health issues is probably higher, since the data include reported cases only. Moreover, the prevalence of poor mental health may be on the rise, if its increase among Canadian youth over the recent years is any indication (Wiens et  al., 2020). These sobering data highlight the urgency of addressing mental health issues, including in schools. Mental health and wellness are “fundamental to our collective and individual ability as humans to think, emote, interact with each other, earn a living and enjoy life” (WHO, 2016, para. 2). In an education context, the ability to learn and form positive relationships hinges on our mental health. Social-behavioural competencies like interpersonal skills (e.g., prosocial behaviours and relationship development), self-regulation (e.g., anger management and compliance), and externalizing behaviours (e.g., aggression) all play a role in learning (Sheridan et al., 2019). Demonstrating prosocial behaviour and avoiding disruptive or antisocial behaviour are positively associated with peer acceptance and academic success (Wentzel, 2009, as cited in Sheridan, et al., 2019) because students’ prosocial actions allow them to get along with others, engage in the classroom, and appropriately respond to teachers’ requests (DiPerna & Elliott, 2002 and Kwon et al., 2012, as cited in Sheridan et al., 2019). Similarly, mental health, as indicated by internalizing behaviours (e.g., anxiety and depression), self-­ esteem (e.g., perceptions of efficacy), and emotional regulation (e.g., coping strategies), may play a role in learning outcomes among youth (Sheridan, et al., 2019). One large-scale Australian study found that positive mental health—which includes age-appropriate emotional regulation, social competence, and coping skills (Kristjansson, 2012, as cited in O’Connor et  al., 2019)—corresponded to positive academic outcomes (O’Connor et al., 2019). Poor mental health or a reduced sense of wellbeing negatively impacts the ability to engage in scholarly pursuits (WHO, 2016). Behavioural and emotional difficulties, among the most widespread childhood problems, hamper children’s ability to function and develop. Left untreated, students with behavioural and social-emotional challenges typically demonstrate inferior academic performance relative to their peers (Koch et al.,

9  THRIVING AND NOT JUST SURVIVING: SUPPORT FOR MENTAL HEALTH… 

207

2014; Schindler & Kientz, 2013), are at higher risk for dropping out of school (Kokko et al., 2006, as cited in Sheridan et al., 2019), and are more prone to mental health problems as adults (Reef et al., 2011, as cited in Sheridan et al., 2019). Because of the pervasive impact of mental health on life opportunities, it is important to address issues as early as possible, including among society’s youngest members. It is beyond the scope of this study to speculate on whether social changes in communities have played a part in the prevalence of youth mental health issues; however, it is certainly the case that the civic community no longer provides the support for mental health that it did in the Postindustrial era (Coleman & Hoffer, 1987). In the past, people tended to stay in a relatively small geographical area and, as a result, knew each other socially and professionally. This close-knit community supported parents in raising their children, helping them monitor their children’s schooling, behaviour, and associations (Coleman & Hoffer, 1987; Darling-Hammond & Lieberman, 1993; Merz & Furman, 1997), and therefore, supporting their development, including mental health. Now, shared history and relationships within a community are rarer, and the “small, coherent enclaves” prevalent prior to the late twentieth century (Merz & Furman, 1997) have been overtaken by more disparate global communities. The impact of this shift is apparent in schools. As educator and ethicist Nel Noddings (1992) points out, It is not surprising that the single greatest complaint of students in these schools is, “They don’t care!” (Comer, 1988). They feel alienated from their schoolwork, separated from the adults who try to teach them, and adrift in a world perceived as baffling and hostile. (p. 2)

Contemporary society is unlikely to return to the close-knit communities of the past. Yet, schools are well positioned to recreate aspects of them, as educators realize that they cannot reach their academic goals without providing “caring and continuity” for their students (Noddings, 1992, p. 14). The neighbourhood school, with its geographic proximity to community members and families, is a natural space for small-scale community building (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998). In particular, school-community partnerships can recreate the caring communities of the past in support of student mental health. In this chapter, we consider the policies and initiatives that can support community-building. Stirling illustrates how a collection of schools and

208 

C. M. HANDS

their districts, together with community organizations, can create community-­wide networks and, in some cases, school hubs to support student mental health. In essence, the chapter demonstrates many of the concepts addressed in the rest of the book—policy implications for collaboration (Chap. 2), the effects of social context on children’s and youth’s needs (Chap. 4), challenges to collaboration (Chap. 7), and the key role networks play in co-ordinating services in Stirling (Chap. 5). We will begin with an exploration of the types of relations that are possible within a social system and the reason they are developed before considering how such relationships can support good mental health.

Social Networks Promote Wellbeing As we have seen in other chapters, networks, including interactions among schools and community organizations, help individuals to gain social capital through access to both instrumental (information and material goods) and expressive (physical and mental health as well as life satisfaction) resources (Lin, 1999). In the latter category, network theorist, Nan Lin (1999), defines mental health as the “capability to withstand stresses and maintenance of cognitive and emotional balance” (p. 40), while “life satisfaction indicates optimism and satisfaction with various life domains such as family, marriage, work, and community and neighbourhood environments” (p.  40). As such, expressive actions encompass everything from choosing to move to a quiet residential neighbourhood to seeking out counselling for substance abuse issues. While instrumental and expressive actions are considered separately here, they can occur at the same time and influence one another (Diehl, 2020; Lin, 1999). For example, those with better mental health often cope better with school or workplace demands. At the same time, an influential, well-respected individual is more likely to have high levels of life satisfaction. The pursuit of instrumental and expressive resources often accounts for the types of school-community relationships that develop, but it does not address the deterministic role played by social context in their development. It is necessary to consider not only the available resources in a community, but also the micropolitical interactions within a community that explain how and why people create networks. As we saw in Chap. 5, factors like homophily (a sense of sameness), physical proximity, and availability of resources and expertise addressing needs and resource gaps all promote relationship development. Here, we should add that social

9  THRIVING AND NOT JUST SURVIVING: SUPPORT FOR MENTAL HEALTH… 

209

networks that mimic the features of voluntary personal relationships— characterized by high levels of co-operation and minimal competition— have the potential to be most impactful (Coburn et  al., 2010; Daly, 2010b). These predictors help explain why some individuals or organizations have many relationships while others have relatively few. Beyond these predictors, the contextual nuances of a situation also have an impact on network formation, and consequently, there is room for investigation regarding the contexts of social networks (Coburn et al., 2010). In this chapter, we will explore the impact of these contextual elements on the nature of social networks in school-community relations specifically associated with child and youth mental health. The consequences of mental illness and poor mental health are serious and, as we will see in this study’s findings, educators acknowledge an urgent need for community engagement to support student mental wellbeing. The examples from Stirling allow us to trace the development of a network from the earliest stages and highlight the role played by social context in this process. In the case of student mental health, the driving force behind network formation was the need to ensure student access to appropriate resources beyond home and school where issues tended to present but available resources were inadequate.

Mental Health Issues and Their Prevalence in Schools School personnel in this study were seeing an alarming increase in mental health issues among their students. The problem was widespread, affecting not just secondary or even middle school students, but students as young as four and five years old. At the same time, educators and district-­ level social workers were aware of the limited resources at their disposal to support students with suspected mental health issues. Mia, the Physical Education Department Head at All Saints Secondary School, observed, as educators, I think our greatest challenge is dealing with mental health issues .… A day doesn’t go by that we don’t talk to someone, that I don’t personally talk to someone who is like, “Yeah, I have some anxiety, I’m struggling with a little depression.”

Community partners agreed. As mental health problems have become less stigmatized, they noted an increase in diagnoses of anxiety, depression,

210 

C. M. HANDS

and even non-suicidal self-injury. Renee, the mental health manager and team leader in a children’s residential facility, observed that a number of Stirling middle schoolers were cutting themselves. She explained that the conspicuous nature of this form of self-harm made it more likely that other students would emulate the behaviours of students with serious mental health problems. There is usually one or two in the group that are at significant risk for a lot of mental health issues. … They are kind of the ones that are deeper into it and doing it for the concerning reasons, and then there are a whole bunch of kids who are just jumping on board because they think it is the cool thing to do. They want to say that they have tried it. They want to belong.

Teachers and administrators lacked the expertise to sort out who needed urgent support for their mental health and who was at lower risk. Most did not have the skills and expertise to make those distinctions and to provide support where it was most needed. Peer influence on mental health and student behaviour presented a substantial challenge to educators. For example, when students with internalizing behaviours must share space with those with externalizing behaviours, their mental health issues can be aggravated. According to Ron, a child and youth worker with a city-wide children’s mental health service organization, “if you mix those two populations, you often will retraumatize some of those internalizing kids because of their anxiety or depression, if [another] child, for instance, has oppositional defiance disorder, gets up and announces to the class that he’s going to kill everybody.” Because schools educate students in groups by design and lack the space and staffing to separate students who may exacerbate each other’s mental health problems, learning can become stressful and overwhelming. Stirling Catholic S.  D. superintendent, Carolina, highlighted the importance of making classrooms accommodating of those with mental health concerns: “It just speaks to student achievement in such a profound way. If somebody is unwell, they cannot focus on academic curricula or co-­instructional [activities].” While Carolina and many others identified the classroom as the place where mental health intervention was most urgently needed, educators struggled to provide meaningful interventions. The educators also noted the relationship between poverty (see Chap. 8) and mental health, specifically the inability to afford access to supportive programming. Redeemer Elementary School principal, Kevin, observed

9  THRIVING AND NOT JUST SURVIVING: SUPPORT FOR MENTAL HEALTH… 

211

that, while mental health issues can affect all students, affluent families typically have the resources to address them. In contrast, his school—like the others in the study—was located in a low-income neighbourhood. Study participants described mental health and substance abuse issues along with chronic, generational poverty among many community residents. Families did not necessarily have the resources to support their children through mental health struggles. Districts, meanwhile, were limited in the number of mental health referrals they could make due to the cost of evaluation and diagnosis, a problem made worse by long wait times for the students who were referred. As for educators, while they had expertise in curriculum and instruction, they lacked training in mental health. They felt ill-equipped to provide the support they felt was necessary to an ever-­ growing number of students waiting to access the meagre resources available. The Expanding Role of Schools and the Growing Need to Collaborate Over the years, more aspects of student wellbeing have been delegated to schools. They are no longer solely institutions of learning; they are becoming community hubs, providing a variety of services to students and their families. This increased responsibility taxes educators’ ability to meet student needs. As Holly, the manager for the city’s mental health services for youth, described: I believe school [district] systems are completely stressed and are not equipped and can’t manage mental health services for children very well. And I don’t think it’s their mandate. So let’s be clear that their role is to teach. … We have pushed the envelope for them to provide daycares and food and healthcare and mental health care, everything.

Interviews conducted in Stirling revealed that, while educators were expected to meet the students’ academic, social, physical, and emotional needs, they felt that some of these obligations exceeded the limits of their training and expertise. The districts in this study were supportive of mental health initiatives and most study schools were making use of the programming and resources available to them. However, in light of teachers’ lack of training in mental health, many, including the Stirling Catholic S.  D. superintendent

212 

C. M. HANDS

Carolina, agreed that it was essential for school personnel to seek out expertise to complement the educators’ skills. Carolina advised: “Let’s not intervene when a child or a student is experiencing some mental health issues. What do we know about mental health? That’s where Public Health and the medical community can advise.” Elementary and secondary school principals in this study echoed this sentiment. According to All Saints’ principal, Cameron: We do the best we can, but we’re limited … in what we can do. … I’m a math teacher who happens to be now a principal, and I’ve taken my principal’s courses. But I’m not a grief counsellor. I’m not a suicide prevention person .… That’s why we have folks [from the community working with us]. They’re experienced, they’re trained, that’s what they do for a living.

District- and school-level personnel were consistent in their belief that community engagement was needed to support student mental health. Despite this, there was unequal access to the resources at the school level. While there was support at the district level to bring in expertise from the community, some educators were ready and willing to look outside the education system for resources, but others did not seem to be able to bring those resources to their schools. Part of the reason for this difference seemed to be a lack of direction from the highest levels. At the time of writing, it was clear that provincial legislators were aware of the need for a collaborative approach to support mental health. Research reported in Canada’s Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (Public Health Agency of Canada, n.d.) highlighted the promotion of the health and wellbeing of children and youth through comprehensive, collaborative initiatives. Ontario ministries have encouraged school-based mental health services and schools as community hubs since 2015. This included mandated collaborative programs, a partnership between the Ministries of Education and Health and Long-term Care, a student mental health strategy, and funding to support a mental health lead in each school district to co-ordinate programming. While well-­ intentioned, these broad, high-level Ministry frameworks gave schools very little specific direction as to how they would be implemented, according to Stirling S. D. director of education, Frank. At the school level, while there was a clear need for these mandated mental health partnerships, they were not always in place. In some cases, this was due to a relatively new district mental health lead still building

9  THRIVING AND NOT JUST SURVIVING: SUPPORT FOR MENTAL HEALTH… 

213

professional networks. In other cases, schools could not meet the stringent standards required to access provincial funding. For example, if a school-­ based health clinic was deemed too small for the student population or in need of renovation, it was closed until it was expanded or refurbished rather than accessible on a restricted schedule. To access the mental health funding, some schools needed to invest money they did not necessarily have. Lack of guidance from provincial ministries also hampered the implementation of mental health programming with community partners in schools. For example, Public Health nurses, Cathy and Amy, had a mandate to address child health and, as such, partnering with schools where they could access children was vital to their work. Amy explained, “We know there’s benefit for students to have a nurse in their schools. … We can be the broker who helps them find those community services, be that extra support for families.” Regardless, not all school administrators supported their work. Cathy and Amy attributed the mixed reception to the broad, unclear provincial guidelines offered in the school effectiveness framework (Ontario Ministry of Education [OME], 2013) and Healthy Schools (OME, 2022) initiative, a collaboration between educators and Public Health nurses to serve youth in the schools. They commented, “We really hope direction’s coming from … the ministry level to help us collaborate more effectively.” Specific district and ministry guidance would better support mental health programming in all schools. Another obstacle to the provision of mental health supports in schools was a lack of open communication between schools and their potential partners. Megan, the manager for the city’s children’s early years programming, noted, We always say we are service-heavy and information-poor. So we have lots of great services happening in the city of [Stirling] but not everybody knows it. And how do you relay it in a way that people can understand and use?

Community members were challenged to share information with educators in a way that was not overwhelming or dictatorial. This, in turn, limited the ability of both schools and community organizations to address student mental health in a co-ordinated, systematic way. A more collaborative approach was needed.

214 

C. M. HANDS

A Solution: Grass-Roots Network Creation At the time of this study, Stirling had created networks within networks to meet community residents’ needs, including the mental health needs of children and youth. Their existence reflected a recent move towards collaboration over competition. According to Carlo, from his perspective as community liaison consultant, an increasing number of community organizations were willing to come into the school to provide services and the schools and districts were increasingly welcoming. At the time of the study, Stirling Catholic S. D. had a mental health lead in place to link the district and schools with community resources, but the planning for mental health promotion was in the beginning stages. Stirling S. D. had been one of the province’s pilot districts for a mental health strategy, with an established network of mental health organizations collaborating to support children and youth. Schools, districts, and community organizations came together in large and small networks to support child and youth mental wellness. At the highest level, the city-wide network, Stirling Anchor Institutional Leadership (SAIL), included the leaders from the city’s main institutions, including the school districts’ directors of education, the college and university presidents, the city manager, hospital executives, and executive officers for public and non-profit sector social services. With the overarching goal of making Stirling an attractive place to live, work, and raise a family, the leaders came together four times a year to identify ways to reach that goal.1 Frank, Stirling S. D.’s director of education, explained, “We’re trying to push this group to think, ‘What is the one measurable outcome that we should wrap our head around so we can have some synergies and not create duplication of work?’” The group settled on high school graduation rate. Frank described how this goal impacted all sectors and allowed for synergy “because a long-term impact of kids graduating, we know, is they’re likely to be more employed. There are economic gains. There are health cost benefits.” The goal of higher graduation rates touched on a dynamic array of contributing factors that could be targeted for intervention by this city-wide network, including student mental health. Within SAIL, numerous smaller networks supported child and youth mental health. For example, the school districts and various community 1  In the autumn of 2017, after the conclusion of this study, the partners reached a formal commitment with the city’s Family Health Team and community representatives to support an integrated healthcare and social support system.

9  THRIVING AND NOT JUST SURVIVING: SUPPORT FOR MENTAL HEALTH… 

215

organizations collaborated on the Single Point Access network. Supported by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the co-ordinating organization—Contact Stirling—was the initial contact for all children’s services in the city. This included a residential youth mental health treatment facility, a city-wide service for out-patient treatment providing in-­ school programming for section 23 classrooms—which provide temporary remediation for children with severe psychosocial issues—connections to trauma treatment services for newcomers to the country, and referrals to mental health and addiction nurses for all students. Community members like Holly, a Contact Stirling manager, described how the success of the network relied on a division of labour and expertise between educators and community partners. Classroom teachers and principals identified children in need and worked with the school’s assigned social worker to refer them to the district’s Social Work Services manager. The superintendents and Social Work Services manager vetted and prioritized the referrals, then submitted them to Single Point Access. Contact Stirling resource co-ordinators directed the students and their families to appropriate services within the network. All network members were within the same region, and members could meet face-to-face if needed to co-­ ordinate both collaborative activities and individual responsibilities. They shared a common goal of providing efficient referrals and access to treatment. Given Stirling’s finite mental health resources, it was important to make sure the children with the greatest needs could access the services. School participation in networks like SAIL and Single Point Access was beneficial, but unfortunately not sufficient to serve all students, given the lack of available resources and the constraints within which many Stirling families operated. On top of the shortage of health care professionals in Ontario more broadly, there were even fewer family physicians in the inner city where the schools were located. Even if school personnel could locate a doctor who was accepting new patients, it was difficult for families to take advantage. Some students, particularly elementary school-aged children, needed their parents or guardians to take them to offsite appointments, which was not always feasible. According to Howie, Stirling S. D.’s Social Work Services manager, My job is flexible enough that I probably could do that. If you work on a line, you can’t say, “I’m going to duck out from 10:00 to 11:00 to go take my kid to an eye doctor’s [appointment].” You’re actually taking a vacation day.

216 

C. M. HANDS

In brief, a different delivery model was required. Participants talked about the need to establish smaller networks at the schools to allow students direct access to social services, and principals, superintendents, and the districts’ Social Work services collaborated to set up these networks to promote health and wellbeing equitably for all students. Sometimes accessibility had less to do with practical barriers, like time investment and physical distance, and more to do with stigma. Secondary school students, in particular, did not necessarily want their parents and peers to know they were accessing services, according to Stirling S. D.’s Social Work Services manager, Howie. Helen, the English as a Second Language head at Valley Ridge Secondary School, explained that when the mental health counsellor is located in the school, “there isn’t this big stigma around making the appointment and there’s a person there … that students could go and just talk to, and it doesn’t have to be a big deal.” Having the resources centralized with the school as a hub made it more likely students could and would access them. In addition to their school social worker on site, the secondary schools in this study had an assigned Public Health nurse, as well as a mental health nurse, an addiction counsellor, and nurse practitioners who were connected to a family health team. According to All Saints’ chaplain, Olivia, “Kids who don’t have a doctor, they can see the nurse practitioner. Kids who can’t get a mental health referral, they can see the nurse practitioner or a mental health nurse.” At All Saints, the efforts of the nurse practitioners were supported by student nurses from the local university. Owing to its large population of newcomers to the country, Valley Ridge was additionally visited by an outreach worker from a new immigrant trauma treatment service. With the exception of the addiction counsellor, these health resources were also available at Redeemer Elementary School and to a lesser extent, at Avison Elementary School. All participants saw the value of having services available to students where they could access them. It is important to acknowledge that these local networks were successful, in part, because they were reinforced by similar networking at the provincial level. According to Betty, All Saints’ guidance counsellor, “The [provincial] mental health strategy is really five different ministries coming together to support children and youth mental health” through policy and legislation. The co-ordination of ministries at the provincial level, in turn, made it easier for schools to network with community partners locally across different sectors of the provincial government. For example, the

9  THRIVING AND NOT JUST SURVIVING: SUPPORT FOR MENTAL HEALTH… 

217

Healthy Schools (OME, 2022) initiative, which encouraged collaboration among educators and Public Health nurses in schools, reflected a move away from clinical treatment of mental illness to the promotion of a healthy lifestyle in the broadest sense. Schools put policies and practices in place to support healthy eating and physical activity while, at the same time, trying to create a school environment conducive to good mental health. As Public Health nurse Amy described, “we’re looking at mental health, is the school climate positive, supportive, welcoming for all? Or it might be safety and injury prevention.” Together she and her colleague, Cathy, created Health Action Teams that included teachers, students, and Public Health nurses to identify and tackle one issue each year. At the same time, Public Health contributed research-based curricula like Kids Have Stress Too for grades one to three, and Stress Lessons for grades four to six. By working in teams that spanned different sectors of the provincial government—education, health care, and so on—these groups helped to build a school climate that fostered good mental health. Challenges to Networks: More Work to Be Done The nested networks in Stirling, from the city-wide SAIL network down to the school-level health service networks, illustrated the ways in which services could be effectively co-ordinated and delivered. Yet participants still experienced challenges in developing collaborative relationships. School and community collaborators needed to come to agreement about every facet of the relationship including the use of school space, the provision of community resources, the delivery of services to students, and the referrals process. Each relationship consideration potentially challenged the network’s creation. The principals were ultimately responsible for academic and co-­ curricular programming, school safety, and students’ wellbeing; other educators often shared this sense of responsibility. The motivation to seek help for their students was well-intentioned but could lead to antagonism. On occasion, community members in this study reported that educators favoured their own expertise over that of mental health experts who, in turn, worked to correct these assumptions and provide educators with research-informed strategies to support students. Community members complained that, although they were the authority when it came to the complexities of mental health, they felt like mere guests in the school, even when Ministry-mandated partnerships dictated otherwise. They felt as

218 

C. M. HANDS

though they did not have the authority or latitude to put their expertise into practice and, instead, had to negotiate every decision through the principal. The personnel in Stirling S. D. Social Work Services observed the same issues in the schools. Most principals did not have expertise in mental health, yet some administrators were vetting service providers for their school, rather than calling in the district’s social workers to screen them. As a result, some services brought into the schools were not evidence-­ based, and some approaches competed with or cancelled out the benefits of others. Howie, the head of Social Work Services, recounted one such situation in a secondary school outside of this study: They had a … counsellor who’s doing addiction. They had four teachers who were bringing in members from Alcoholics Anonymous who were building a lesson plan within a school environment, and the parent council brought in a guest speaker who was working around substance use with a large number of kids. One [approach to substance use] was harm reduction. One was abstinence-based, and the other was a life choice base, which are three different theoretical paradigms around addiction counselling.

Each of these three forms of addiction mitigation was put into practice without consulting mental health experts and without central co-­ ordination. The different approaches sent mixed messages to the students and did not necessarily address the specific issues around alcohol use at the school. Although the social workers and the community partners did not voice concerns about the schools in the study specifically, they noted that uninformed decision-making and territorialism were common and needed to be navigated on a school-by-school basis. Those with decision-making authority and those who understand best practices are not always the same individuals, which can undermine the effectiveness of even well-­intentioned collaborative efforts. Treatment programs for individual students, like programming available to the student population at large, were intended to be a collaboration among educators and mental health professionals in a community- and district-level network. Sometimes these efforts were undercut when the parties’ expectations differed. For example, while some teachers wanted students with disruptive behavioural issues removed from the classroom, community members argued that this was not in the best interest of most of the students. And, even when it was—for example, in the remedial

9  THRIVING AND NOT JUST SURVIVING: SUPPORT FOR MENTAL HEALTH… 

219

psychoeducational programming of the section 23 classroom—social service partners had to explain to educators that the program was a temporary service designed to reintegrate students back into their home school communities within two semesters. In this example, the differing expectations of mental health professionals and teachers undermined the effectiveness of the partnership. Even when effective networks did exist to support mental health, access could be an issue. An expensive psychoeducational assessment was needed to access services within the mental health network. Unless the parents could pay for it, the school district was responsible for the cost, which meant that schools could only refer a limited number for assessment. Administrators selected the students with the most severe symptoms, which were typically obvious externalizing behaviours that impacted the learning environment, rather than internalized symptoms like anxiety and depression. The districts’ social workers then prioritized the students who would be referred to Single Point Access, where they would then be referred to mental health specialists for assessment. This process could be lengthy, and frustrated parents. As Ron, a child and youth worker, explained, “In the past, if you wanted to access any kind of mental health assistance, … a parent, just by saying ‘My kid needs help’, [could] fill out the necessary paperwork and we take a look at it.” Since then, the process of accessing mental health support had been bureaucratized to deal with overwhelming need, which, according to Ron, sometimes made the system itself more frustrating for parents than the children’s disruptive behaviour. Paradoxically, efforts to make services more accessible by triaging on the basis of severity made them less accessible to those without demonstrably severe symptoms. Even for those who were identified for assessment, unless they were in crisis and hospitalized, the vetting process involved multiple levels of professionals and their evaluative processes further lengthened the time children and youth waited to receive treatment. It is also important to acknowledge the challenges that arose due to the local school environment. Some schools in the study’s districts, such as Avison, did not have a robust network of mental health resources and experts to consult at the time of the study, despite Stirling S.D.’s support of mental health initiatives. Avison’s situation highlights the importance of a welcoming school climate. While the principal, Damien, claimed to be in favour of collaboration with the community, there had been a decline in partnerships during his tenure. In his own words:

220 

C. M. HANDS

I think the biggest partnership that we would need is supporting mental health. … Versus the limited resources we have in the school … Is that an area to explore, partnership supporting mental health? I think my big learning over the last three years … is really having an understanding of setting those expectations and limitations to know where to draw the line.

The contradiction in this statement is apparent. While Damien lamented the lack of resources to support student mental health, he also restricted his time with the organizations that had the potential to fill this gap and therefore limited their access to the school and its students. Avison was siloed in this respect; in addition to having few community collaborators, the principal, teachers, and support staff were not aware of the districtand community-level networks available to them. Avison’s lack of resources highlights the importance of school climate in relationships with community partners. Avison was part of Stirling S. D., which had been championing mental health for several years at the time of the study and was a frontrunner in the province in this area. According to Stirling S. D.’s Community Engagement department manager, Domenic, “We recognize the importance of creating a school community that’s caring and supportive. … Positive school climate is a big school focus for us, [and]… is about creating welcoming and inclusive environments” in which school and district personnel, students, families, and community members work together.

A Networked Approach to Child and Youth Mental Health: Summary and Recommendations This chapter has highlighted the importance of networks, as well as their prevalence in an urban centre, to support child and youth mental health. Stirling’s networked relationships affirm the ecological principle that people’s interdependence reflects the need for co-operation (Capra, 2004). Collaboration among educators and community members, as well as students and their families, resulted in the rise of networks made up of diverse relationships in response to mental health issues. Some embedded various community resources at a single school; others were district- or city-wide, connecting multiple organizations with clusters of schools. The World Health Organization (Kickbusch et al., 2013) data indicate that 25% of the world’s population will experience mental health issues at some point in their lifetime. In line with the scholarship on this issue

9  THRIVING AND NOT JUST SURVIVING: SUPPORT FOR MENTAL HEALTH… 

221

(Koch et  al., 2014; McMullen et  al., 2020; Schindler & Kientz, 2013; WHO, 2016), the participants in this study agreed that mental health promotion in schools was imperative for both students’ educational attainment and, ultimately, Stirling’s economic wellbeing. This study suggested that the best way to ensure adequate mental health support was schools’ establishment of networks with diverse community organizations. The city-wide networks—SAIL and Single Access Point—were excellent examples of the ways in which educators and community members could combine their diverse expertise to support children and youth. Network members advocated for mental health to improve graduation rates, broaden students’ employment opportunities, and bolster the city’s skilled workforce. The relationships within these networks made it possible to share resources, knowledge, skills, and innovations across the system (Daly, 2010a; Lin, 1999) to address youth mental health. The overall findings reflect the way in which expressive and instrumental actions are often mutually reinforcing, as discussed in the mental health literature (Lin, 1999). Students with good mental health (expressive) are better able to learn and to earn a living following their education (instrumental). At the same time, an education that helps students pursue their future goals likely increases their life satisfaction (expressive). The collaboration within social networks thrives when people downplay competition and promote co-operation (Coburn et  al., 2010). In contrast, schools are often contested territory, where differing expectations can limit potential collaboration. These conflicts can arise even when school personnel and community members have modest expectations of influencing or making decisions that will impact the students with whom they work (Boyd & Crowson, 1993; Keith, 1996; Mawhinney, 1994). As we see in this study, at worst, an unwelcoming school environment with personnel who are reluctant to engage with community members yields few networks and collaborative activities, which then limits their awareness of and access to services and resources (Baker-Doyle & Yoon, 2010; Finnigan & Daly, 2010). Individuals who wish to work with people in other organizations, including school personnel, should communicate clear expectations and goals for their networking efforts from the beginning of the relationship, as outlined in Chap. 3. Two-way communication encourages the enquiry and reflection to develop the knowledge, shared goals, values, and beliefs (Earl & Timperley, 2008; Sanders & Harvey,

222 

C. M. HANDS

2002) needed for establishing ties and co-ordinated services across a network. Even with effective strategies for relationship development and mutual interest from those involved, relationships take time to develop (Hands, 2005). There can be limited community engagement in school-based health initiatives even when it is recommended and part of the planned intervention strategies (McMullen et al., 2020). In this study, the contrast between the Stirling S.D. mental health lead, who had established broad networks over time, and their much newer colleague in Stirling Catholic S. D. explained why the Catholic district had relatively fewer mental health initiatives in place, particularly those relying on collaborative relationships (see Chap. 5). The breadth of support for mental health and wellness described in this study attests to the time required for relationship-­ building. It also speaks to the ability of school and district personnel as well as community representatives to articulate clear goals around providing crisis intervention and mental health support for students. The networks in place to support student mental health in Stirling contribute to our understanding of tie formation in social networks in several important ways. Previous research has shown us that members of networks seek each other out based on homophily, or perceived similarity (Coburn et al., 2010; Diehl, 2020). In contrast, this research found that tie formation in these types of social networks was not impacted by homophily, apart from shared goals and values; if anything, relationships were sought out precisely because potential partners were not the same and individuals realized they needed access to expertise and other resources they and their colleagues did not have. The partnership initiator’s goals influenced the resources needed and drove the partner choices (Hands, 2005; McMullen et al., 2020). Proximity also plays a role in tie formation (Coburn et al., 2010). In this study, partners who worked with students were ideally located within walking distance (Hands, 2005), while relationships involving schools and community organizations were more easily established when partners were located within the same region, which enabled in-person interaction. While a preference for physical proximity may change with technology, not to mention the vast cultural shift precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, participants in this study and in previous research preferred in-person meetings, which were possible only if partners were close enough to reach each other by car or public transit. Factors like these help to explain why some partnerships and networks garner more support than others.

9  THRIVING AND NOT JUST SURVIVING: SUPPORT FOR MENTAL HEALTH… 

223

Considerations for Collaboration In the section that follows, we will consider some strategies for supporting students’ mental health that can be gleaned from the findings presented in this chapter.  now Your Community, Including the Resources Available, K and Co-ordinate the Available Services For collaborative networks to succeed, participants need to understand the populations with whom they are working. At the beginning of a partnership, environmental scans, surveys, discussion panels, and focus groups are all good strategies for elucidating needs (see Chap. 3), current collaborative practices, and the expectations of educators, students, families, and community members. In an established partnership, these same strategies can clarify what is working, what is not, and next steps for collaboration (Epstein, 1995, 2011; Hands, 2013). This kind of information provides partners and potential partners with insight into schools and communities and can help to refine partnership goals. Once they have identified their goals, partnership initiators need to know who to approach. Educators and district-level mental health leads can conduct internet searches to seek mental health organizations and services for youth in the target community in addition to reviewing city or region websites for available resources. Reviews of school district and school websites may provide additional information, particularly for community members, who may not otherwise know what resources are available to children in their neighbourhoods. Once a list of organizations is generated, those developing the list might consider reviewing the organizations’ websites and including a short summary of the organizations’ mandates, as well as contact names and numbers for each organization. Partnership initiators are then equipped with the information they need to reach out to the desired organizations. This kind of list is a working document, requiring regular review. Additional organizations and contacts are often uncovered through relationships with those on the original list, who then also become part of the resource network. Once resource lists are developed, it is often evident that many organizations provide similar services, especially in mid-sized to large urban centres like Stirling. Ecologically, there needs to be a level of redundancy in any system to ensure sustainability. In other words, if several system components can do the same job, the system stands a better chance of survival

224 

C. M. HANDS

over time even if some components fail (Marten, 2001; Morgan, 2006). This kind of redundancy can also create inefficiencies, which are best avoided in environments like Stirling, where some resources can be scarce. Networks with co-ordinated oversight can ensure services distribution with minimal inefficiency. To ensure students and their families have access to the resources they need, mental health supports need to be co-ordinated at several levels. For example, to avoid geographical and financial barriers, some resources— particularly those accessed directly by students—are often best provided within the schools across the region (Hands, 2005). Other services can be co-ordinated so they are spread throughout the region, a task best accomplished through a regional network with strong communication. For mental health provision, as well as other social services, city-wide networks allow service providers to track service location and identify areas of duplication or underservice. This documentation process allows network participants to spread their resources across a given geographic area more equitably. Further, network participation promotes members’ knowledge of facilities as well as access to those services—the kind of instrumental action scholars in the field of social networks demonstrate in their research (Daly, 2010a; Lin, 1999).  rovide More Opportunities for Educators to Learn from Mental P Health Professionals Related to communication issues, this research highlights a need for more frequent and specific communication among community-based professionals and educators. Although the educators in this study did not comment on this issue, community members noted that teachers and principals expected mental health professionals to remove children with disruptive mental health concerns from the classroom permanently. Educators may not understand the temporary nature of the students’ withdrawal; at the same time, their expectations may be a kind of wishful thinking arising from discomfort teaching students with these behavioural issues. Despite misunderstandings like these, it was evident from the data that teachers were clear-eyed about both their expertise and their limitations. They were not psychologists, nor did they have the skills to treat children with mental health issues. Even if they could not remove these children from the classroom, teachers appreciated the support of community experts who provided them with information about various mental health issues as well as strategies for working with youth experiencing them (see

9  THRIVING AND NOT JUST SURVIVING: SUPPORT FOR MENTAL HEALTH… 

225

also Mælan et  al., 2020). More opportunities for professional development in this area are needed (see Ormiston et al., 2021) and would likely be well-received by teachers and principals alike. They would have a better understanding of the presentation of various mental illnesses or health issues, who to approach in the community for assistance and referral, as well as strategies for working with children awaiting and undergoing treatment. Professional development would support teachers in managing the behaviour of students with mental health concerns, who could then remain integrated in the regular classroom. This would also obviate the stress and anxiety of reintroduction to the regular classroom for teachers and students alike.  et Parents Involved in Their Children’s Mental Health G While parents are not central to this book’s focus and participants did not highlight the contributions of parents, they cannot be omitted from a chapter on mental health. Where mental health is concerned, many parents play a fundamental supportive role in children’s circle of care, tending to them at home, seeking assistance from physicians or mental health professionals, and facilitating access to necessary services. In Sheridan et al.’s (2019) meta-analysis of studies on interventions involving families with children from preschool through grade 12, communication, home-based support, parent-teacher relationships, and collaboration were all significantly linked to social-behavioural competence and positive mental health outcomes. Parents should certainly be included in the networks supporting students with mental health concerns as a supplement to other available resources. Given the long wait times to access services, districts might consider offering parents at-home resources and strategies to support their children. For example, Australia’s Positive Parenting Program (Triple P, n.d.) resources are based on social, cognitive, and developmental theories, providing practical guidance grounded in research, and available internationally (Triple P, n.d.). Parents can sign out materials from the school resource room or library as needed. The program focuses on a variety of issues impacting child and youth mental health, such as parental divorce and bereavement, with goals of assisting parents in reducing (or ideally eliminating) their children’s social and behavioural problems and strengthening familial relationships (Hands, 2009; Triple P, n.d.). Mental health interventions need to include all of the adults who assist in children’s development, including parents, and provide multiple, collaborative

226 

C. M. HANDS

strategies to support children across all environments that influence their development (Sheridan et al., 2019).  evelop District-Level Criteria to Refer Students D for Psychoeducational Assessments Children’s mental health issues and learning challenges are often first identified in the classroom. As such, one of the most pressing needs for educators are diagnoses of the specific socio-emotional and educational problems the children are experiencing. Many families in low-income, culturally diverse communities, including the Stirling schools in this study, rely on school districts to refer their children and cover the cost of the assessment. Given the high cost of testing, Stirling districts limited the number of students they referred each year, dividing the referrals among the schools equally regardless of the number of students with mental health issues and the severity of their symptoms. Within this quota system, some students with severe challenges were not referred for assessment. Instead of assigning a quota to each school, district personnel might consider developing district-wide criteria for referring students to mental health professionals for assessment. For instance, district personnel and mental health professionals might draft criteria of symptom severity for referral and then determine centrally how many assessments they could fund per year. Putting equity above equality, they would prioritize the students with the most severe symptoms no matter their school. Without training, though, they risk disproportionately referring the students with highly visible, disruptive, externalizing behaviours. Educators would need guidance from the community’s mental health professionals to help them more accurately identify the students in greatest need of support.

Concluding Thoughts There is much truth in the biblical observation “there is nothing new under the sun” (New International Version Bible, 2011, Ecclesiastes, 1:9). The philosophers of the ancient Mediterranean world set the stage for our approach to mental illness and health in the modern West, including the foundational premise that the mind and body are connected and aberrations in thought and perception impact behaviour (Ahonen, 2019). While little remains of the Epicureans’ and Sceptics’ writings, the physician and philosopher, Sextus Empiricus, outlined strategies for promoting peace of mind. In doing so, he described the impact of context and the subjective

9  THRIVING AND NOT JUST SURVIVING: SUPPORT FOR MENTAL HEALTH… 

227

nature of perception (Ahonen, 2019), arguing that our thoughts and perceptions are influenced by both our physiology and our environment. These ancient ideas exemplify the ecological notion of interconnectedness, not only within our bodies but between us and our environment. They also reflect the focus of this chapter. Given the impact community has on individuals’ mental health, it seems only appropriate that community members play a role in supporting those whose health is suffering. When examining community engagement in youth mental health, it is essential to consider how people interact with one another to create networks of support in their environments. Collaboration is foundational for addressing mental health issues because educators and families are typically not mental health experts. Further, the prevalence of these issues underscores the importance of community members taking a networked approach to co-ordinate services across regions. Strong lines of communication play a crucial role in ensuring that every individual in the network understands their role and the network’s activities benefit the whole community served. Regular, two-way communication also fosters a welcoming school (Sanders & Harvey, 2002) and district climate, which supports mental health and encourages community partnerships. There is value in promoting both crisis intervention and preventative mental health care through networks and collaborative community partnerships. Students with existing mental illnesses need the intervention of various social services. At the same time, partners need to work together to mitigate and prevent mental health issues and promote resilience through a positive school environment. Everyone in the environment contributes to the climate. It is notable that no one in this study mentioned the importance of educators’ mental health; the community partners had mandates to work with youth, not adults. That said, a positive school climate requires the good mental health and wellbeing of all members of the school community, not just its students. Beyond providing professional development for educators in this area, educators need mental health support themselves. Networks and community engagement are essential for addressing child and youth mental health, but, at least in some communities, they do not always address the much larger mental health crises impacting all sectors of society. A holistic, networked approach to mental health issues in the community may be one way of reducing their harmful impacts. A community can work collaboratively to create gentler, more compassionate environments that place a focus on all members’ wellbeing.

228 

C. M. HANDS

In the final chapter of the book, we move on from our examination of collaborative mechanisms and examples of impactful community engagement to investigate a growing trend in community engagement in education. As more educators and community members conclude that school-aged children and youth need to be more fully integrated into their communities, there has been growing support for wrap-around and full-­ service community schools. Chapter 10 examines Stirling educators’ and administrators’ philosophies towards community engagement and shows that a number of them may be ready to move towards schools as community hubs. The chapter situates the study’s schools on a continuum of community engagement and suggests ways in which schools could be more fully integrated into the community.

References Ahonen, M. (2019). Ancient philosophers on mental illness. History of Psychiatry, 30(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957154X18803508 Baker-Doyle, K. J., & Yoon, S. (2010). Making expertise transparent: Using technology to strengthen social networks in teacher professional development. In A.  J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp.  1–16). Harvard Education. Boyd, W.  L., & Crowson, R.  L. (1993). Coordinated services for children: Designing arks for storms and seas unknown. American Journal of Education, 101, 140–179. https://doi.org/10.1086/444037 Capra, F. (2004). The hidden connection: A science for sustainable living. Knopf Doubleday. Coburn, C. E., Choi, L., & Mata, W. (2010). “I would go to her because her mind is math”: Network formation in the context of a district-based mathematics reform. In A.  J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 35–50). Harvard Education. Coleman, J. S., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private high schools: The impact of communities. Basic Books. Cratsley, K., & Mackey, T. K. (2018). Health policy brief: Global mental health and the United Nations’ sustainable development goals. Families, Systems, & Health, 36(2), 225–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000329 Daly, A. J. (2010a). Mapping the terrain: Social network theory and educational change. In A.  J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 1–16). Harvard Education. Daly, A. J. (2010b). Surveying the terrain ahead: Social network theory and educational change. In A.  J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 259–274). Harvard Education.

9  THRIVING AND NOT JUST SURVIVING: SUPPORT FOR MENTAL HEALTH… 

229

Darling-Hammond, L., & Lieberman, A. (1993, April). James P. Comer, M.D., on the School Development Program: Making a difference for children. National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching. Diehl, D. (2020). The multiplexity of professional learning communities: Exploring the co-evolution of teacher social networks. Research Papers in Education, 35(5), 623–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019. 1615115 Earl, L. M., & Timperley, H. (2008). Understanding how evidence and learning conversations work. In L. M. Earl & H. Timperley (Eds.), Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement (pp. 1–12). Springer. Epstein, J.  L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701–712. https://doi. org/10.1177/003172171009200326 Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis. Finnigan, K. S., & Daly, A. J. (2010). Learning at a system level: Ties between principals of low-performing schools and central office leaders. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp.  179–195). Harvard Education. Hands, C. M. (2005). Patterns of interdependency: The development of partnerships between schools and communities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, ON, Canada. Hands, C. M. (2009). The evolution of trust relationships in school-community partnership development: From calculated risk-taking to unconditional faith. In L. Shumow (Ed.), Promising practices for family and community involvement during high school. Information Age. Hands, C.  M. (2013). Including all families in education: School district-level efforts to promote parent engagement in Ontario, Canada. Teaching Education, 24(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2013.786893 Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What’s worth fighting for out there? Teachers College Press. Keith, N. Z. (1996). Can urban school reform and community development be joined?: The potential of community schools. Education and Urban Society, 28(2), 237–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/001312459602800200 Kickbusch, I., Pelikan, J. M., Apfel, F., & Tsouros, A. D. (2013). Health literacy: The solid facts. WHO Regional Office for Europe. https://apps.who.int/iris/ handle/10665/326432 Koch, L. C., Mamiseishvili, K., & Higgins, K. (2014). Persistence to degree completion: a profile of students with psychiatric disabilities in higher education. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 40(1), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.3233/ JVR-­130663

230 

C. M. HANDS

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51. Mælan, E. N., Tjomsland, H. E., Baklien, B., & Thurston, M. (2020). Helping teachers support pupils with mental health problems through inter-professional collaboration: A qualitative study of teachers and school principals. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(3), 425–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00313831.2019.1570548 Marten, G. G. (2001). Human ecology: Basic concepts for sustainable development. Earthscan Publications. Mawhinney, H.  B. (1994). The policy and practice of community enrichment of schools. [Paper presentation]. Education and Community Conference, Toronto, ON, Canada. McMullen, J.  L., George, M., Ingman, B.  C., Kuhn, A.  P., Graham, D.  J., & Carson, R.  L. (2020). A systematic review of community engagement outcomes research in school-based health interventions. Journal of School Health, 90(12), 985–994. Merz, C., & Furman, G. (1997). Community and schools: Promise and paradox. Teachers College Press. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Sage Publications. New International Version Bible. (2011). Zondervan Publishing House. Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools. Teachers College Press. O’Connor, M., Cloney, D., Kvalsvig, A., & Goldfeld, S. (2019). Positive mental health and academic achievement in elementary school: New evidence from a matching analysis. Educational Researcher, 48(4), 205–216. https://doi.org/ 10.3102/0013189X19848724 Ontario Ministry of Education. (2013). School effectiveness framework: A support for school improvement and student success. Retrieved December 4, 2022, from https://files.ontario.ca/edu-­school-­effectiveness-­framework-­ 2013-­en-­2022-­01-­13.pdf Ontario Ministry of Education. (2022). Foundations for a healthy school: A companion resource to the K-12 school effectiveness framework. Retrieved December 4, 2022, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/foundations-­healthy-­ school-­companion-­resource-­k-­12-­school-­effectiveness-­framework Ormiston, H. E., Nygaard, M. A., Heck, O. C., Wood, M., Rodriguez, N., Maze, M., Asomani-Adem, A. A., Ingmire, K., Burgess, B., & Shriberg, D. (2021). Educators perspectives on mental health resources and practices in their school. Psychology in the Schools, 58(11), 2148–2174. Public Health Agency of Canada. (n.d.). Ottawa charter for health promotion. Retrieved December 4, 2022, from http://www.phac-­aspc.gc.ca/ph-­sp/ docs/charter-­chartre/pdf/charter.pdf

9  THRIVING AND NOT JUST SURVIVING: SUPPORT FOR MENTAL HEALTH… 

231

Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1345–1368. Schindler, V. P., & Kientz, M. (2013). Supports and barriers to higher education and employment for individuals diagnosed with mental illness. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 39(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-­ 130640 Sheridan, S. M., Smith, T. E., Kim, E. M., Beretvas, S. N., & Park, S. (2019). A meta-analysis of family-school interventions and children’s social-emotional functioning: Moderators and components of efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 89(2), 296–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318825437 Triple P. (n.d.). Triple P at a glance. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https:// www.triplep.net/glo-­en/triple-­p-­at-­a-­glance/ Wiens, K., Bhattarai, A., Pedram, P., Dores, A., Williams, J., Bulloch, A., & Patten, M. (2020). A growing need for youth mental health services in Canada: Examining trends in youth mental health from 2011 to 2018. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 29(e115), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S20457 96020000281 World Health Organization. (2016). Mental health: Strengthening our response. Retrieved December 1, 2022, from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs220/en/

CHAPTER 10

Creating Schools as Community Hubs Through Collaboration

The idea that our world is interconnected is not new. Centuries ago, Leonardo da Vinci reached the same conclusion through observation of the world around him. He was a scientist and engineer, with a ceaseless passion for investigating the “infinite works of nature” (da Vinci, as cited in Isaacson, 2017, p. 1). His studies encompassed animal and human anatomy, optics, botany, geology, fluid mechanics, and technology. Da Vinci’s ability to make connections across disciplines was at the heart of his genius and innovative capacities (Isaacson, 2017). We watch his mind and pen leap from an insight about mechanics, to a doodle of hair curls and water eddies, to a drawing of a face, to an ingenious contraption, to an anatomical sketch. … They allow us to marvel at the beauty of a universal mind as it wanders exuberantly in free-range fashion over the arts and sciences and, by doing so, sense the connections in our cosmos. (Isaacson, 2017, p. 108)

Da Vinci’s exceptional observational skills helped him perceive patterns in nature that demonstrated its unity. In over 7200 pages of drawings and writings, he argued eloquently for the interrelatedness of natural and human-made phenomena, frequently using well-known examples and analogues to broach new ideas, as I have done at the beginning of each chapter. These analogies underscore the recurring patterns or interconnection in the world’s natural and human-made systems (Capra, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. M. Hands, Pathways to Community Engagement in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33001-8_10

233

234 

C. M. HANDS

1994/2009) that can help us to understand complex ideas, like the nature of school-community partnerships. The theme of connection within and between various social environments is woven throughout this book. In the context of education, as Joyce Epstein (2011) argues, the school, the family, and the community are the three major overlapping spheres of influence in which students learn and grow (see also Durham et al., 2019; Epstein, 1995). When educators ignore the impact of the home and the community on teaching and learning, they limit learning opportunities and risk alienating students. At worst, siloed schools provide irrelevant education that is out of step with the society’s needs (Boyd & Crowson, 1993) and does little to prepare children and youth for productive citizenship. Epstein (1995, 2011) notes that the three spheres of influence may be brought together or pushed apart, depending on the quality and quantity of interaction between them. The promotion of collaboration and partnerships can help eliminate siloed schools that cannot meet the varied and complex needs of students and their families (Epstein, 1995, 2011; Mayger & Hochbein, 2021; Merz & Furman, 1997). This book has explored one facet of promoting this kind of interconnectedness, evaluating the best ways to forge fruitful relationships between schools and community organizations. In effective school-community partnerships, material and human resources—like information, expertise, funding, and technology—flow both ways across borders. Knowing how to seek out and create partnerships (Chap. 3) in order to obtain these resources is only part of the story. Successful collaboration requires an understanding and appreciation of the multiple and varied social contexts that come into play in the partnership process. As we saw in Chap. 2, policy plays a foundational role, providing guidelines for action in response to a problem (Fowler, 2004; Heck, 2004; Pal, 1992). The community’s characteristics not only shape the kinds of collaborative activities people seek but also the types of resources available, as we saw in Chap. 4. A closer look at contextual issues that help or hinder partnering (Chap. 7)—with special attention paid to the power of networks (Chap. 5) and the key roles played by liaisons (Chap. 6)—gives us insight into strategies for developing lasting partnerships. With attention to contextual demographic factors, it is possible to leverage school-­ community collaboration both to address specific needs within a community—for example, those of newcomers to Canada or students living in poverty, who also have other, intersecting identities (Chap. 8)—and to tackle a community-wide challenge like mental health (Chap. 9). This

10  CREATING SCHOOLS AS COMMUNITY HUBS THROUGH COLLABORATION 

235

book presents a research-informed exploration of all these factors, illustrating the benefits of school-community collaboration as well as strategies for implementing lasting partnerships. In this final chapter, we move away from the current situation in Stirling and explore future possibilities for promoting closer ties between schools and communities. I introduce a conceptual framework that locates school-­ community relations on a continuum. At one end are partnerships that offer a narrow range of services targeting a limited audience; at the other end are partnerships that offer a broad range of services targeting the entire community. The study schools are revealed to be at the narrow end of this spectrum, with ample room to grow into more collaborative community hubs. If schools are to collaborate more closely with community organizations, it will require the enthusiastic support and engagement of all involved. As we have seen in previous chapters, Stirling community members were already very supportive of school-community relationships at the broad end of the spectrum, welcoming the opportunity to collaborate with schools and districts and advocating for a simple, streamlined process to facilitate engagement opportunities. In this chapter, therefore, the focus is primarily on school- and district-level participants, where the greatest potential for change exists. Their observations revealed a need for closer relationships among the collaborating parties and, at the same time, promising strategies to increase opportunities for school-community collaboration. The chapter concludes with next steps to encourage full-­service community school development and suggestions for future research.

A School-Community Relations Continuum Several scholars have undertaken meta-analyses of school-community relationships to map the terrain (Schutz, 2006; Valli et al., 2013, 2016). Valli et  al. (2013, 2016) were able to cluster the conceptual, empirical, and meta-analytical sources in their review of the literature, which revealed four types of school-community relationships based on the level of interaction between them. Type A: Family and Interagency Collaboration Family and community engagement in education are central goals at the schools and districts that support family and interagency collaboration.

236 

C. M. HANDS

District- and school-level administrators put policies and practices into place that support collaboration to increase family and community involvement in schools. At the same time, school personnel co-ordinate the delivery of educational, health, and social services that can enhance children’s and youths’ academic and socio-emotional wellbeing (Valli et al., 2013). The partnerships created promote two-way communication and mutually beneficial terms for all parties (Hands, 2005; Sanders & Harvey, 2002). In Type A relationships, families and community agencies often serve the schools’ agendas (Pushor & Amendt, 2018; Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005; Schutz, 2006; Valli et  al., 2013), with partners supporting the specific student, school, and community needs identified by school personnel (Epstein, 1995, 2011). For this reason, schools that support family and interagency collaboration tend to offer only select, targeted services. This kind of collaboration—as with any type—requires organizational commitment from members of the schools, districts, community organizations, and families (Valli et al., 2013). Type B: Full-Service Schools Also known as “wrap-around” schools, full-service schools’ purpose is to establish relationships with community organizations to serve a broad range of student and family needs. Whereas Type A schools typically have organizations’ representatives either visiting the school on an occasional basis or assigned temporary space, full-service schools offer comprehensive services on school campuses for students and their families (Medina et al., 2019; Valli et al., 2013). In Type B schools, the school is a site for educational, health, social, and family services (Valli et al., 2013) provided before and after school, on weekends and throughout the summer (Biag & Castrechini, 2016). In this way, the services wrap around the school day and the physical space students and educators use for academics. Along with a shared commitment from all collaborators, organizational changes— for example, the addition of a site co-ordinator—are required to accommodate multiple services in the schools (Valli et al., 2013). Type C: Full-Service Community Schools Full-service community schools (FSCSs), while similar to full-service schools, invite greater participation from family and community. They promote the democratization of schools “by opening them, not only to

10  CREATING SCHOOLS AS COMMUNITY HUBS THROUGH COLLABORATION 

237

greater involvement, but to greater decision-making, on the part of the neighbourhood community” (Valli et al., 2013, p. 660). School personnel, families, and community members participate in collective decision-­ making around school operations and together decide the schools’ mission, strategies for meeting partners’ (including students’) needs, and comprehensive service provision (Valli et al., 2013). To meet their goals, Type C schools, like Type B, need organizational changes to manage services and deliver them efficiently. In addition, schools may require a cultural shift (Valli et  al., 2013). Type C schools may need a change in philosophy regarding the purpose of schools and, more specifically, a willingness to embrace democratic principles (see Starratt, 2003). Type D: Community Development Schools with a focus on community development take school-community partnerships beyond community engagement in schooling and support for students and their families. Their purpose is “to transform whole neighborhoods and communities, using schools as a primary base” (Valli et al., 2013, p. 66). The schools provide teaching and learning opportunities for all members of the community, not just children and youth, and offer a space for service delivery and civic discussion (Valli et  al., 2013). “Community development means that participants work together to strengthen social networks, the physical infrastructure, and the community’s economic viability” (Samberg & Sheeran, 2000, as cited in Valli et al., 2013, p. 662). Child and family development are promoted as a side effect of enhancing the wellbeing of the community as a whole (Valli et al., 2013). To create schools with a community development mission, school and community leaders must work together to forge a shared vision and common understanding of the school’s role in this. The community development goals should drive all school reform so that schools serve the community, not vice versa. As should be clear, these four types of school-community relationships are not mutually exclusive. Existing along a continuum, they share many features—above all, a belief in the idea that community organizations can and should work with schools to improve outcomes for children and youth. The most salient difference between them is the level of integration of school and community. At the narrow end of the spectrum, school needs supersede those of the community. At the other end, the school is

238 

C. M. HANDS

just one node—albeit an important one—in a much larger network of relationships that serves community development.

Readiness for Greater Integration of School and Community Services Stirling school and district personnel’s relationships with the community were characteristic of family and interagency collaboration (Type A). All partnerships, as described by participants, were based on student or family and—by extension—school needs (Valli et  al., 2013, 2016). Although participants also acknowledged that community members needed to benefit from the relationship, partners’ needs were not the focus (see Chaps. 4 and 7). As discussed in Chaps. 2 and 3, school districts did not establish collaborative relationships with organizations that did not serve the school and district visions for education. Also, there was minimal effort to recruit multiple agencies and co-ordinate services, as in full-service schools (Type B). As discussed in previous chapters, Stirling S. D. was overwhelmed by community interest in partnering and did not have the capacity to do more than screen potential partners and refer them to district departments. Stirling Catholic S. D. had a liaison consultant who was successful in establishing individual relationships between schools and organizations but did not co-ordinate a holistic partnership program for each school. That task, similar to that of a site co-ordinator, was not part of the district mandate or the consultant’s role. In brief, none of the schools at the time of the study had the staffing or infrastructure in place to support a wrap-­ around school (Type B) or full-service community school (Type C). Despite the limited infrastructure for a greater integration of school and community services, the participants’ comments suggested implicit support for full-service school and FSCS development. Interviews revealed that school and district personnel had already recognized that student needs could be better met through a more full-service approach to school-­ community collaboration. Most of the school-based educators, administrators, and staff realized that they needed to take a collaborative approach to address not just the academic but also the complex physical and social needs of students. Though they did not use the terminology of Valli et al. (2013, 2016), they were, in effect, advocating to shift Stirling’s existing models of partnership a little further along the continuum.

10  CREATING SCHOOLS AS COMMUNITY HUBS THROUGH COLLABORATION 

239

For example, Diane, Valley Ridge Secondary School’s principal, recounted her experiences investigating school reform strategies to meet students’ diverse needs. A group of us came together to look at schools of the future, what should schools look like.… But it wasn’t just the physical [space]. Two of us looked at what does programming look like in those schools of the future. One of the terms that came up at that time that I heard again [at a meeting] last night, and I was very excited by it, was community hub. The school is a community hub. So how do we bring in all those community partners who our kids need to see? What are the supports within the community and how do we restructure, restructure our communities to villages and we become part of the village square? That would help and benefit our kids here a lot.

In a similar vein, Stirling Catholic S. D. superintendent, Carolina, noted that bringing community partners into the school itself “serves an even greater purpose of extending these activities beyond the school day,” turning the schools into family-like settings. A full-service school was justified because it was good service delivery and more cost-effective; schools were natural hubs. Howie, the Stirling S. D. Social Work Services manager, explained that one benefit of concentrating services in schools was unparalleled access to students because attendance is compulsory. He noted, “No one knocks on the door and says, ‘Your kid missed an eye doctor’s appointment,’ or ‘Johnny hasn’t been to the dentist in a while,’ … but schools can play that role.” This exposure, in turn, allowed school personnel and service providers to identify and address issues that might not surface at home or in the community. Howie explained, Parents don’t know [the child] can’t see that well … [They may think] he sits close to the TV ’cause he likes to. Teacher notices ’cause when she moves him to the back of the class, he can’t see. You’ve got 30  hours of [contact time a week] especially with the younger kids. Oftentimes parents are strapped to get 30  hours of alone time with their kids. You’re bringing … the domains of a kid together; their own self, the community, the family and the school all into one. It’s just a much better service delivery model.

Some participants also saw full-service schools as an equity issue. Parental availability or the cost of public transit could both prevent some

240 

C. M. HANDS

students from attending appointments or extracurricular activities. Given the financial variability among households, school and district personnel felt it was very important for community partners to come to the students, rather than asking the students to come to them, so all students had access to services. A “One-Stop Shop” Encouraged Service Uptake Participants agreed that easy access to public and social services offered at the schools increased their uptake. Attending appointments was more convenient and took less class time, and children and youth were more likely to use the services because they were familiar. Howie, Stirling S. D.’s Social Work Services manager, talked about the value of a “warm hand-off”: When you’re talking to the 15-year-old who’s highly anxious, instead of saying, “Here’s a phone number, call them, book an appointment. It’ll be about six months down the road you’ll get some help,” what’ll happen is, “Let me introduce you to Mike. Mike’s a really nice guy.” “Hey, Mike, this is Julie. … Julie gave me consent to talk to you. Here’s what we were working on with Julie. Here’s some of the difficulties.” Julie meets Mike. Mike starts delivering a CBT-based (cognitive behaviour therapy-based) treatment program for Julie. And Julie doesn’t have to leave school.

Having a variety of healthcare services in the schools was particularly helpful for meeting students’ diverse needs. Howie observed that sometimes, students’ problems were complex and needed a multi-sector approach. He gave the following example of how a one-stop shop would work to meet a complex combination of needs. [A] kid comes in for really bad acne. … The kid can’t come to school ’cause his acne’s so bad he’s gonna get made fun of .… He sees the nurse practitioner, who thinks, “This acne’s really not that bad. I see kids with way worse, so there’s more underlying this.” … The kid is self-medicating … so the nurse practitioner can talk to him and introduce him to the addiction counsellor and can introduce him to the school social worker, to work on anxiety. [If] the kid’s anxiety’s way beyond treatment-ready, we can get a psych consult.

Instead of sending students off to multiple appointments at clinics across the city, it was possible to explore multiple potential causes of issues in one appointment and at one location.

10  CREATING SCHOOLS AS COMMUNITY HUBS THROUGH COLLABORATION 

241

While health and social services were frequently cited as essential partners in full-service schools, many participants also noted the importance of having a variety of recreational activities available so children and youth could build their interests and skills in different areas. By including a diverse menu of options for students, “the goal is to more efficiently use resources to bolster students’ learning, strengthen families, and promote healthy communities” (Blank et al., 2003, as cited in Biag & Castrechini, 2016, p. 158). Schools-as-hubs increase access to resources, closing service gaps and promoting more interagency communication and collaboration (Biag & Castrechini, 2016). Despite study participants’ enthusiasm for full-service schools, the research cautions us that these relationships take time to establish and have only an indirect impact on attendance and academic achievement (see Mayger & Hochbein, 2021). At the same time, greater home-school communication and family service uptake— that is, more overlap in Epstein’s (1995) three spheres of influence—have been linked with enhanced student attendance (Durham et al., 2019) and are foundational to the success of FSCSs (Medina et al., 2019). Planning a Path Towards Wrap-Around and Full-Service Community Schools Scholars and practitioners have been advocating for full-service schools since the early twentieth century as a way to integrate academic, healthcare, and social support for the benefit of children, youth, and the broader community (Biag & Castrechini, 2016). In recent years, this model has become popular around the world in countries like South Africa (Makhalemele & Nel, 2021), New Zealand (Haig, 2014), Australia (University of Melbourne, n.d.), the United Kingdom (Muijs, 2007; Raffo & Dyson, 2007), and especially the United States (see, e.g. Adams, 2019; Biag & Castrechini, 2016; Mayger & Hochbein, 2021; Medina et al., 2019; Sanders et al., 2019). The Ontario government released recommendations in 2015 for creating community hubs, with schools as the ideal location for them (OME, 2015, n.d.), and a description of investments for expanding child and family support programs (Ontario Government, 2016). Regardless, community access to schools is mostly limited to childcare, sports, and recreation, with few schools offering integrated health and social services, cultural programs and events, and the arts (People for Education, 2017). At the time of publication, there was limited evidence of widespread elementary or secondary full-service

242 

C. M. HANDS

schools (Type B) and FSCSs (Type C) in Canada. In Ontario, only three such early childhood programs have been researched (Corter & Peters, 2011). In Saskatchewan, by contrast, schools as community hubs are becoming more commonplace, following their Ministry of Education’s championing of community education (Amendt, 2019; Saskatchewan Learning, 2004a, 2004b). While still nascent in some parts of the world, progress towards integrated services through strong school-community partnerships has gathered steam in the twenty-first century. Many participants in this study envisioned school hubs as an ideal state, with school-community relationships that extended beyond individual, targeted collaborative activities. They supported “a more comprehensive array of services to a broader clientele, creating a tightly knit web of support for students and families” (Valli et al., 2016, p. 741). An education philosophy that places importance on collaboration—like that held by many study participants—is essential if full-service schools and FSCSs are to be a reality. Sustained effort to implement school reforms requires buy­in (Datnow, 2000; Spier et al., 2018). With a goal of creating an FSCS, collaborators may still be challenged to agree on a vision that positions families and community members as full partners in the school community (Valli et al., 2016). The first step is to move from a family and interagency collaboration model to a full-service school—that is, from Type A to Type B in Valli and colleagues’ classification system. It is important to recognize that any shift in the school-community relationship would require careful preparation, implementation, and institutionalization of any organizational change (Curry, 1992). As we saw in Chap. 7, anyone aiming to make sustainable changes needs to consider structure, culture, and behaviour (Curry, 1992; Datnow et al., 2002). Structure includes both community structures—like natural and human-made resources, wealth, residents’ knowledge (Lin, 1999), as well as public non-profit- and for-profit businesses and institutions (Sanders, 2001; Wohlstetter et al., 2003)—and organizational structures which, in educational settings, include standard practices around decision-­ making, leadership, teaching, and curriculum management (Curry, 1992). Culture, as reflected in shared beliefs, values, and traditions (see Schein & Schein, 2017), binds together the members of a community and can either help or hinder efforts to effect significant organizational change (Curry, 1992; Datnow et  al., 2002). Influenced by both structure and culture, individual behaviour can generate new practices and sustain them over time (Curry, 1992; Datnow et al., 2002).

10  CREATING SCHOOLS AS COMMUNITY HUBS THROUGH COLLABORATION 

243

Some elements of structure, culture, and behaviour are consistent across successful community schools. Longitudinal studies revealed that schools required consistent school leadership over time, aligned district and school visions and goals, and a full-time site co-ordinator to assist with school-family-community collaboration (Adams, 2019; Mayger & Hochbein, 2021; Medina et  al., 2019). Through the lens of structure, culture, and behaviour, we can identify a series of steps that could be taken to allow Stirling’s schools and others like them to move from family and interagency collaboration to a full-service school or FSCS strategy.  xisting Structures and Structures to Add E The schools in this study were in the process of cultivating a greater number of services based on the needs in the neighbourhoods they were serving. Through robust community partnerships, both elementary schools had daycares on site, which provided weekday childcare for the youngest community residents as well as before- and after-school care for the school-­ aged children. These extended the school day and provided a transition between home and school. This partnership was the product of collaboration among the school districts and their Early Childhood Education departments, the provincially funded, city-managed Children and Home Management Services division, and childcare operators. Although not full-service (community) schools, the procedures, infrastructure, and relationships around these embedded childcare centres shared some features of this model of school-community collaboration and had the potential to move closer to a community hub model of service provision. The secondary schools were increasingly hosting school-based services. Due to its large immigrant population, Valley Ridge had settlement workers in the school to support curriculum delivery, counsel students on a variety of issues from anxiety to culture shock, and liaise between the school and students’ families. This partnership was the product of Stirling S.  D.’s collaboration with the YMCA’s Settlement Workers in Schools program. According to Adam, the program’s manager, “It made more sense … [to offer the] services in those places where the newcomers gravitate,” avoiding the cost and time involved in situating these services outside of schools. Valley Ridge also had a youth addiction counsellor on site, who would work with self-referring students and provide guidance to teachers, according to Howie, the Stirling S. D. Social Work Services manager. This was another example of how Stirling schools were already

244 

C. M. HANDS

starting to move towards a full-service model in their school-community partnerships. All Saints Secondary School served one of the most impoverished neighbourhoods in the country; its students and their families faced chronic unemployment or underemployment, health-related issues, family instability, and exposure to high rates of drug use and violence. Like Valley Ridge, All Saints had an addiction counsellor on site, as well as a full-time social worker, a nurse practitioner, and a nurse specializing in mental health issues who could refer students to psychologists and psychiatrists. All Saints also served a substantial Indigenous population, as Stirling was a landing point for northern Indigenous community members moving south, and employed a full-time Indigenous counsellor to support these students. Like the elementary schools, Stirling’s secondary schools did not have comprehensive services at the time of the study, but participants had established a partnering process through which to broaden the availability of services in schools as community hubs. Beyond the specific school-community partnerships already in place in the study’s four schools, there are other structures in Ontario’s publicly funded schools with the potential to promote the kind of shared decision-­ making needed in FSCSs. As discussed in Chaps. 2 and 4, the provincial government mandated parent-led school councils in 1995. They were established to give family and community members formalized opportunities to contribute to school governance (Voisin, 2003) and represent one venue in which schools and communities already work together in a formalized way. School councils at the study schools and elsewhere in Ontario have the potential to function as an action team to seek out and nurture school-family-community partnerships (Epstein et  al., 2018; Hands, 2013). They can also serve as decision-making bodies contributing to the schools’ mission and vision (Valli et al., 2013, 2016). This model already exists in full-service schools in South Africa. Schools have institutional-­ level support teams (ILSTs) made up of teachers, Special Education consultants, district personnel, students, and community members, particularly parents (Makhalemele & Nel, 2021). Their main tasks include “the co-­ ordination of all learner, teacher, curriculum and institution development; identifying institutional needs and, more specifically, barriers to learning at learner, educator and curriculum levels; and developing strategies to address these needs and barriers to learning” (Department of Education, 2005, and Landsberg & Matthews, 2016, as cited in Makhalemele & Nel, 2021, p.  298). In the context of the Ontario school system, a site

10  CREATING SCHOOLS AS COMMUNITY HUBS THROUGH COLLABORATION 

245

co-ordinator attached to the school council would help school personnel and community members interested in developing their school into a full-­ service facility to co-ordinate and maintain services (Durham et al., 2019; Mayger & Hochbein, 2021; Sanders et  al., 2019; Spier et  al., 2018). Perhaps most importantly, site co-ordinators would liaise with families, building trusting relationships with them to support the families and their children’s learning (Sanders et al., 2019) and creating a welcoming environment that encourages student attendance and service uptake (Durham et al., 2019). In sum, along with the education system’s multi-level leadership, and both district and school personnel’s willingness to collaborate with community organizations to host services at their schools, it is possible to build on existing structures like school councils to convert schools into community hubs. At the same time, there are obstacles to this kind of development that must be considered. For example, the study schools’ facilities limited their potential as full-service schools. None of the schools had the space available to accommodate a wide range of services on site permanently. Every room besides the main office and staff room at Avison Elementary School was used for teaching and learning during the school day. Redeemer Elementary School, All Saints, and Valley Ridge had more space, but even so, they could only make a room available for visiting community-based services on an ad hoc basis. A survey of Ontario schools also found the lack of school space restricted partnering abilities; custodial staff struggled to keep up with school use and the presence of various community members in the same building as children and youth raised safety concerns (People for Education, 2017). The buildings and staffing had not been designed to accommodate a permanent community presence, and accessible off-campus options were limited and difficult to negotiate. At the time of the study, there were no co-ordinated services across school and community buildings. While these constraints must be circumvented in existing schools, new schools can be designed with an eye to providing comprehensive services. A promising initiative is currently taking place in Australia. Scholars from the University of Melbourne’s faculties of Design, Education, and Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences have been collaborating with community partners, including architects, school district administrators, and other university scholars, with the goal of creating country-wide full-­ service schooling (University of Melbourne, n.d.). Australia has a growing population and is poised to build up to 700 new schools; this provides an

246 

C. M. HANDS

opportunity to create environments that “can support more connected and resilient communities” (University of Melbourne, n.d., paragraph 1). The researchers note that full-service school development is influenced by urban and community planning issues, architectural design, governance, multi-sector service delivery, facility management concerns, and funding issues. As such, a multi-sector approach is being used to plan and build full-service schools from the ground up (University of Melbourne, n.d.). While collaboration between different ministries already exists in Ontario, as we saw in the case of mental health service provision in Chap. 9, the Australian initiative envisions partnership on a much broader scale than is currently possible in Ontario and provides a model that Ontario might consider as its own population continues to grow. S hifting Current School Cultures to Encourage Collaborative Behaviour While structure can create obstacles to school-community partnerships, culture may ultimately be more impactful in promoting or discouraging collaboration between schools and community organizations (Muijs, 2007). As we saw in Chaps. 4 and 7, organizational culture encompasses a wide range of characteristics, including beliefs, behaviour patterns, group norms and values, transferred skills, and organizational philosophy (see Schein, 1995; Schein & Schein, 2017). The schools in this study had many of the necessary structures in place to develop full-service schools. Moreover, district and most school personnel in this study showed a willingness to engage community members. Yet, culture seemed largely responsible for the fact that they had not yet done so. Two elements of culture that facilitate full-service schools—the belief that schools should serve communities and that families and community members should contribute to educational decision-making (Valli et  al., 2013, 2016)—were not embraced by everyone at the schools. A cultural shift of this nature would make school personnel more accepting of a site co-ordinator role or school councils as action teams (Dryfoos, 2005; Sanders et al., 2019; Valli et  al., 2016) to establish cross-boundary relationships (Sanders et  al., 2019). The result would be more inclusive schools that encourage community organizations’ engagement in educational issues, making full-­ service schools and even FSCSs more feasible. In order to move towards full-service schools and FSCSs, all school personnel must prioritize school-community partnerships and work with community members to develop shared goals (Muijs, 2007). To identify these goals and promote the resulting collaborative activities,

10  CREATING SCHOOLS AS COMMUNITY HUBS THROUGH COLLABORATION 

247

communication is paramount (see Chap. 7). As this study found, recognizing the mutual benefits of partnership more publicly will also help to generate community residents’ interest in partnering. Even when attitudes are conducive to collaboration, though, other aspects of culture pose a potential threat to collaborative engagement. Schools can be contested territory (Boyd & Crowson, 1993; Keith, 1996; Mawhinney, 1994), and culture often includes complex power and privilege dynamics (Herrenkohl et al., 2019). Educators may resist community engagement in full-service schools when they feel their expertise is being questioned or their autonomy to set priorities and choose instructional methods is undermined (Boyd & Crowson, 1993; Evans, 2011; Gitlin & Margonis, 1995). Certainly, the study schools’ teachers, principals, and community partners reported that not all teachers welcomed community members in their classrooms. Communication problems, including unclear division of responsibility, disputes over resource allocation and access, as well as ego clashes (Muijs, 2007) can also arise in full-service schools and FSCSs. Recommendations to Support Schools as Community Hubs While it is easy to speak about changing culture in a broad sense, it can be difficult to shift attitudes and practices that may have become habitual or entrenched. In this section, I suggest several actions that can be taken to support more extensive school-community partnerships in the service of creating more wrap-around (Type B) and full-service community (Type C) schools. S uccessful Collaboration Is Built on Broad Consultation with All Constituents Activities at the district and school levels have the potential to foster the cultural shift that would support schools as community hubs. Relationship-­ building is at the heart of collaborative activities (Herrenkohl et al., 2019). District personnel need to initiate consultations between schools and community organizations, ensuring they engage all constituents. This task was challenging in Stirling S. D., which was larger and more diffuse than its smaller Catholic counterpart. It also served a more diverse community with a more diverse set of cultural beliefs and values. Howie, S. D.’s Social Work Services manager, described parental complaints about a health and wellness centre at one of the district secondary schools where the nurse practitioner prescribed birth control pills. Lynette, the manager of the

248 

C. M. HANDS

city-wide organization supporting Indigenous students, shared her concerns about how the districts’ Indigenous liaison was misinformed and disconnected from the Indigenous communities the districts served. In both cases, the collaborative programming was in line with ministry policy but was not embraced by its target constituency due to a lack of consultation with representatives from the groups impacted. While it is not possible to secure the full agreement of every constituent, greater consultation would ensure programming and services do not conflict with the values or needs of those they seek to serve. Students who identify as collaborators and are acknowledged in that capacity are more likely to voice their insights and take an active role in their education, yet the power dynamic between teachers and students is skewed towards the adults, who “can easily eclipse students’ voices and insights” (Yonezawa & Jones, 2011, p. 230). Dana Mitra’s work (2007, 2009) also demonstrates how students can become advocates for their own education by working with adults. Youth-adult partnerships provide opportunities for mutual learning, shared decision-making, and educational or community-level change (Mitra, 2009). Mitra makes it clear these partnerships do not require prescribed roles for all; rather, it is important to cultivate a respectful relationship, in which the expertise, skills, and contributions of each member are valued—a hallmark of a collaborative culture. In moving towards full-service schools and FSCSs, district personnel need to consult with any representatives whose groups and communities are impacted by various initiatives prior to implementing services on site. Frequent, clear, and timely communication among individuals at multiple levels such as the classroom, school, and district allows for a two-way exchange of ideas that promotes shared understanding (Herrenkohl et al., 2019) and opportunities for family-school-community collaboration (Medina et al., 2019; Sanders & Harvey, 2002). In the case of FSCSs, the constituents also collaboratively decide on the services to be offered on school campuses (Valli et al., 2013, 2016), which helps eliminate values conflicts. Valley Ridge’s guidance counsellor, Charlotte, observed the current challenges for community members: “The hardest part for them is the co-ordination within someone else’s building. If [someone] can take care of that for them, it makes it easier for them to transition [into the school].” A site co-ordinator can facilitate these processes, communicating with the school principal, initiating partnerships, resolving any

10  CREATING SCHOOLS AS COMMUNITY HUBS THROUGH COLLABORATION 

249

conflicts, and managing shared space (Sanders et al., 2019). These strategies would eliminate potential misunderstandings between collaborators. Student representatives should also be involved in decision-making, something that will likely require cultural change. While youth participated in the student-led Health Action Teams at the secondary schools (Chap. 9), most were not engaged in school-community collaborative activities except as participants. A previous study examining approximately 150 school-community partnerships in two secondary schools found only two community-based participants that involved students in developing collaborative activities, not just participating in them (Hands, 2005). In another study of student involvement in school-community collaboration, students and educators alike saw partnership development as the domain of school personnel, with no role for students (Hands, 2014).  ook Beyond “the Usual Suspects” When Seeking Out Collaborators L Providing services that support not only students and families but also the community at large requires looking beyond the organizations that traditionally engage with schools. Currently, districts engage with other public sector organizations such as higher education institutions and Public Health, and they receive provincial government funding to support non-­ profit organizations’ work with the schools (Ontario Ministry of Education [OME], 2015, n.d.). Consequently, the district and school personnel in this study worked almost exclusively with non-profits, which created challenges. Non-profits were often too small to partner with multiple schools and community organizations. The research manager for a non-profit, city-wide dropout prevention program commented on the challenges of expansion: “When non-profits expand, it generally means that you have to now raise more money ’cause now you’re spending more money.” By contrast, expansion of for-profit organizations typically entails larger profits to offset increased costs. Other community members noted that non-­ profit organizations must compete for the same limited grant opportunities. Their small size and limited funding meant they could not reliably provide their services broadly across a region. Wrap-around schools and FSCSs can provide a solution to service delivery shortfalls due to limited funds. Sharing space within school buildings is one way to reduce overhead costs for non-profit and public providers. Non-profits that share space can apply for grants collaboratively and share facility costs equitably. It may also help to establish a centralized funding strategy that involves tracking expenses, charting unduplicated and

250 

C. M. HANDS

duplicated services, and assigning costs proportional to the extent of the services (Medina et al., 2019). School districts should also consider partnering more extensively with for-profit organizations (see Sanders, 2001, 2006; Wohlstetter et  al., 2003). Some organizations donated money and other material and human resources as part of their philanthropic mandate in this study as in previous research (see Hands, 2005). For example, an All Saints alumnus donated a fully equipped computer lab for the students’ use. Organizations also supported schools by purchasing resources they provided to the community, like All Saints’ graphic design and printing services. Including for-­ profit partnerships opens up financial opportunities for schools to support students directly or subsidize needed services from non-profits. Expanding the scope of collaborative activities to include more for-­ profit collaborations will diversify school-community partnerships. Diverse agencies working together are more likely able to address the complex life circumstances and interwoven challenges experienced by students and their families. Moreover, multiple agencies available to partner create a level of redundancy—a key feature in system resiliency and maintenance over time and under varying ecological conditions (Capra, 1994/2009; Morgan, 2006). The community members of Stirling understood this concept well. In the words of YMCA education program managers, Stacey and Karen, interagency co-operation ultimately will create a healthier city for us if everyone has access to different services.… If everyone works together you can leverage resources and build on strengths of different people. Different agencies have different strengths. … The more the people are involved the healthier they become and I think the children will be healthier and it will, eventually I would hope, address some of the poverty issues.

School collaboration with a broad range of partners is a community-­ building strategy that promotes a resilient, well-resourced city, the central purpose of community schools (Valli et al., 2013, 2016).

Future Research While the research described in this book yielded many actionable insights into school-community collaboration, further research has the potential to shed light on areas of study that have not been adequately investigated. A

10  CREATING SCHOOLS AS COMMUNITY HUBS THROUGH COLLABORATION 

251

closer examination of promising practices and potential stumbling blocks may make it easier for those interested in collaborating to move forward. With that intent in mind, several research pathways based on the book’s findings might yield some useful insights. Action teams in schools, made up of educators, students, parents, and community members, serve an important role in identifying and creating partnerships to meet the needs of students and their families (Epstein, 2011; Hands, 2005; Sanders, 1999). Ontario school councils, with a similar membership, can take over this role in individual schools (Hands, 2013). Parent Involvement Committees representing Ontario schools across districts (OME, 2022) may be able to broaden connections across schools. Given that this study revealed the presence of district- and city-­ wide networks representing school district and community organizations (Chap. 5), future research might investigate whether networking across districts could promote school-community partnerships in an analogous way to the school council. Such networks have already been shown to promote school stability, resource acquisition and exchange, mentoring and learning, and to provide a solid foundation for school-level relationship ties (Hite et al., 2010). Further research on these types of planning tables would be helpful to understand how they might operate to promote close school-community relations, whether to enhance schools’ family and interagency collaboration or to move schools and districts towards developing full-service schools, FSCSs, or schools in service to community development. Part of this work would involve social network analysis to determine the strength of interpersonal ties among network members and whether additional supports are needed, as Finnigan and Daly (2010) suggest. Collaborators need to understand how information and innovative practices flow between network members from all parts of the city. It is also necessary to look more closely at community engagement policy and how it is put into practice. All four school-community relationship types rely on a flattened decision-making structure. As we saw in Chap. 2, Ball et al. (2011) highlight the hierarchical roles entailed in policy creation and implementation, which give administrators far more power than teachers and leave community members on the periphery. This hierarchy, however, does not reflect the roles played by different individuals in school-community collaboration. As was found in this and previous studies, decision-making leadership resides with different individuals depending on the circumstances. Teachers often take the initiative to develop collaborative activities with community members in secondary

252 

C. M. HANDS

schools (Hands, 2005, 2014), while principals may more frequently take the lead in elementary schools (Sanders & Harvey, 2002), and in some cases, community members initiate partnerships. Research on the leadership strategies that promote efficient and effective decision-making would be helpful. A school culture that promotes distributed leadership practices, for example, allows different constituents to take the lead whenever their expertise best serves the school’s common goals (Daniel et  al., 2019; Diamond & Spillane, 2016). Research on student voices in school reform also highlights the importance of students having opportunities to take on a partnering role in their schools (see, e.g., Yonezawa & Jones, 2011; Mitra, 2007, 2009), but they need to see themselves as leaders and organizers, not just participants (Hands, 2014). More research is needed to investigate how to best support teachers and students in their community engagement practice from their respective vantage points. If FSCSs are to be a possibility for all schools and not just a select few, teachers, students, and especially community members need to be positioned more centrally as actors. More research is also needed on the roles school districts can play in putting structures into place and cultivating cultures and behaviours (Curry, 1992; Datnow et al., 2002) that create more space for community members to play a leading role in partnership development.

Concluding Thoughts Some of the most successful mutually symbiotic relationships are among flora and fauna. Arguably the most critical partnership is the relationship between the honey bee and flowering plants (Tucker, n.d.). Most flowering plants are not able to pollinate themselves and require outside assistance to survive. Worker bees move from plant to plant, foraging for pollen to feed their hive’s occupants, motivated by the promise of receiving the flowering plant’s tiny treat—the nectar. As they fly from flower to flower, the bees collect and carry the pollen on their legs, and in the process, they fertilize the plants, enabling fruit (and their seeds) to grow. While other animals can help with the process, plants rely mainly on bees for pollination. According to one source, bees were responsible for helping to produce crops worth $19  billion in the United States in 2010, which was approximately one-third of US consumption (Tucker, n.d.). The importance of bees and pollination is becoming more widely understood, as environmental activists throughout Canada and other countries spread the

10  CREATING SCHOOLS AS COMMUNITY HUBS THROUGH COLLABORATION 

253

word about the essential role bees play in our ecosystem. Without bees, there is limited pollination. Without pollination, there is no fruit. Without fruit, there are no seeds to reproduce the plants. Without plants, life is unsustainable. Collaboration really is essential to our existence. Collaborative relationships among humans promote a sustainable society, with multiple diverse networks of activity taking place among people and their environment (Allaby, 1998; Kormondy, 1974; Marten, 2001; Steiner, 2002). The social processes involved in education are no exception. The perspective prevalent in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that home and school were separate entities, with different goals, roles, and responsibilities (Epstein, 2011; Parsons, 1959), has been challenged since the 1960s. And with good reason. Collaboration is hampered when people assume that schools and communities share no common goals, and as a consequence, none are sought. Despite the existing resources and strategies to support school-community collaboration and an increasing interest in schools as hubs for accessing social and community services, the path to collaboration is not without its obstacles and collaboration is still not widespread. To understand the underlying and often invisible complexities that impact collaborative activities, the research on which this book is based examined a narrow, deep slice of the educational landscape to appreciate the factors influencing the activities being developed and the people working on them, rather than conducting a broad survey. This book acknowledges the interrelationship between schools and communities on a macro level, examines the impacts of processes and social contexts on a micro level, and rejects the notion that schools can or should operate independently from the community. While care must be taken in applying case study findings and conclusions to other situations, the book’s focused and detailed approach shines a light on school-community collaboration in intimate, granular detail. Readers can then consider the practices and circumstances that impacted participants’ actions as they developed their relationships and determine if and how the findings might apply in other circumstances. While the book acknowledges urgent issues regarding equitable access to educational opportunities, as well as economic, physical, and socio-­ emotional support, it also amply demonstrates that school-community collaboration is already underway to address these issues. This case study of four schools in economically challenged neighbourhoods within a mid-­ sized, culturally diverse urban centre highlights the voices of the teachers,

254 

C. M. HANDS

administrators, and community members who shared the responsibility of caring for children (Epstein, 1995). They acknowledged challenges, but they did not wring their hands in helplessness. Almost all participants reached out to others—families, teachers, educational administrators, and community members—and most went well beyond the strict requirements of their jobs to create the conditions to support academic achievement and wellbeing. From their experiences, it is clear that school-community collaboration does not result from a simple set of sequential steps. As the book illustrates, Stirling’s social context—and any other community’s social context, for that matter—is multi-faceted and complex and must be accommodated in the partnering process. The time is right for cultivating school-community collaboration. Education is embedded within a broader socio-economic context of cities, provinces, and nations, and school reforms need to be implemented in conjunction with community-wide movements towards equity and social justice (Raffo & Dyson, 2007). At the same time, there are human, material, and economic resources in communities that can be accessed more readily through collaboration (Hands, 2005; Lin, 1999) to support teaching and learning (Pushor, 2007) and contribute to community development (Haig, 2014; Raffo & Dyson, 2007). As the research in this book demonstrates, some school and district personnel and community members have already prepared the ground for growing collaborative relationships. And they are not acting alone. Over the years, a robust international community of scholars and practitioners has developed to research collaborative practices and, in some cases, advise school district personnel as well as school-based administrators and teachers on developing school-­ family-­community relationships. These include, for example, the National Network of Partnership Schools, European Research Network About Parents in Education, International Network of Scholars, Coalition for Community Schools, and the American Educational Research Association’s Family School Community Partnerships special interest group. Governments are also supporting initiatives that promote greater school-­ community integration (see, e.g., Makhalemele & Nel, 2021; Ontario Government, 2016; OME, 2015, n.d.; University of Melbourne, n.d.). “Rich democratic participation” (Schutz, 2006, p. 291) in communities characterized by cultural and socio-economic diversity (Auerbach, 2011) gives everyone, and not just children and youth, opportunities to flourish.

10  CREATING SCHOOLS AS COMMUNITY HUBS THROUGH COLLABORATION 

255

References Adams, C. (2019). Sustaining full-service community schools: Lessons from the Tulsa Area Community Schools Initiative. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 24(3), 288–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/1082466 9.2019.1615924 Allaby, M. (1998). A dictionary of ecology. Oxford University Press. Amendt, T. (2019). A critical analysis of school community councils in Saskatchewan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan, SK, Canada. Auerbach, S. (2011). Conceptualizing leadership for authentic partnerships: A continuum to inspire practice. In S.  Auerbach (Ed.), School leadership for authentic family and community partnerships: Research perspectives for transforming practice (pp. 29–51). Routledge. Ball, S., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy actors: doing policy work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 625–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.601565 Biag, M., & Castrechini, S. (2016). Coordinated strategies to help the whole child: Examining the contributions of full-service community schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 21(3), 157–173. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10824669.2016.1172231 Boyd, W.  L., & Crowson, R.  L. (1993). Coordinated services for children: Designing arks for storms and seas unknown. American Journal of Education, 101, 140–179. https://doi.org/10.1086/444037 Capra, F. (2009). Ecology and community. Center for Ecoliteracy. Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://www.ecoliteracy.org/article/ecology-­and-­ community (Original work published 1994). Corter, C., & Peters, R. D. (2011, January 1). Integrated early childhood services in Canada: Evidence from the Better Beginnings, Better Futures (BBBF) and Toronto First Duty (TFD) projects. In R. E. Tremblay, M. Boivin & R. D. Peters (Eds.). Encyclopedia on early childhood development. Retrieved December 1, 2022, from https://www.child-­encyclopedia.com/activite-­physique/ according-­experts/integrated-­early-­childhood-­services-­canada-­evidence-­better Curry, B.  K. (1992). Instituting enduring innovations: Achieving continuity of change in higher education (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7). George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. Daniel, J., Quartz, K. H., & Oakes, J. (2019). Teaching in community schools: Creating conditions for deeper learning. Review of Research in Education, 43, 453–480. https://10.3102/0091732X18821126 Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 357–374. https://doi. org/10.3102/01623737022004357

256 

C. M. HANDS

Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. Routledge-Falmer. Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2016). School leadership and management from a distributed perspective: A 2016 retrospective and prospective. Management in Education, 30, 147-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020616665938 Dryfoos, J. (2005). Full-service community schools: A strategy – not a program. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2005(107), 7–14. https://doi. org/10.1002/yd.124 Durham, R. E., Shiller, J., & Connolly, F. (2019). Student attendance: A persistent challenge and leading indicator for Baltimore’s community school strategy. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 24(3), 218–243. https://doi. org/10.1080/10824669.2019.1615922 Epstein, J.  L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701–712. https://doi. org/10.1177/003172171009200326 Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N.  R., Vanvoorhis, F.  L., Martin, C.  S., Thomas, B.  G., Greenfield, M.  D., Hutchins, D. J., & Williams, K. J. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbooks for action. Corwin Press. Evans, M. P. (2011). Learning to organize for educational change: One CBO’s efforts to influence educational policy. In C. M. Hands & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Including families and communities in urban education (pp.  139–160). Information Age. Finnigan, K. S., & Daly, A. J. (2010). Learning at a system level: Ties between principals of low-performing schools and central office leaders. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp.  179–195). Harvard Education. Fowler, F.  C. (2004). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Gitlin, A., & Margonis, F. (1995). The political aspect of reform: Teacher resistance as good sense. American Journal of Education, 103(4), 377–405. https://doi.org/10.1086/444108 Haig, T. (2014). Equipping schools to fight poverty: A community hub approach. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(9), 1018–1035. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00131857.2014.931006 Hands, C. M. (2005). Patterns of interdependency: The development of partnerships between schools and communities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, ON, Canada.

10  CREATING SCHOOLS AS COMMUNITY HUBS THROUGH COLLABORATION 

257

Hands, C.  M. (2013). Including all families in education: School district-level efforts to promote parent engagement in Ontario. Canada. Teaching Education, 24(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2013.786893 Hands, C. M. (2014). Youth perspectives on community collaboration: Are students innovative developers, active participants, or passive observers of collaborative activities? The School Community Journal, 24(1), 69–97. Heck, R. (2004). Studying education and social policy: Theoretical concepts and research methods. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Herrenkohl, L. R., Napolitan, K., Herrenkohl, T. I., Kazemi, E., McAuley, L., & Phelps, D. (2019). Navigating fragility and building resilience: A school–university partnership to support the development of a full-service community school. Teachers College Record, 121, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 016146811912101203 Hite, J. M., Hite, S. J., Mugimu, C. B., & Nsubuga, Y. K. (2010). Strategic “co-­ opetition”: Headteacher networking in Uganda’s secondary schools. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 197–219). Harvard Education. Isaacson, W. (2017). Leonardo Da Vinci. Simon & Schuster. Keith, N. Z. (1996). Can urban school reform and community development be joined?: The potential of community schools. Education and Urban Society, 28(2), 237–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/001312459602800200 Kormondy, E. J. (1974). Natural and human ecosystems. In F. Sargent II (Ed.), Human ecology (pp. 27–43). North-Holland Publishing Company. Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51. Makhalemele, T., & Nel, M. (2021). Investigating the effectiveness of institutional-­ level support teams at full-service schools in South Africa. Support for Learning, 36(2), 296–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­9604.12356 Marten, G. G. (2001). Human ecology: Basic concepts for sustainable development. Earthscan Publications. Mawhinney, H.  B. (1994). The policy and practice of community enrichment of schools. [Paper presentation]. Education and Community Conference, Toronto, ON, Canada. Mayger, L. K., & Hochbein, C. D. (2021). Growing connected: Relational trust and social capital in community schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 26(3), 210–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/1082466 9.2020.1824676 Medina, M. A., Cosby, G., & Grim, J. (2019). Community engagement through partnerships: Lessons learned from a decade of full-service community school implementation. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 24(3), 272–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2019.1615923

258 

C. M. HANDS

Merz, C., & Furman, G. (1997). Community and schools: Promise and paradox. Teachers College Press. Mitra, D. (2007). Student voice in school reform: From listening to leadership. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 727–744). Springer. Mitra, D. L. (2009). Collaborating with students: Building youth-adult partnerships in schools. American Journal of Education, 15(3), 407–436. https://doi. org/10.1086/597488 Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Sage Publications. Muijs, D. (2007). Leadership in full-service extended schools: Communicating across cultures. School Leadership and Management, 27(4), 347–362. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13632430701563296 Ontario Government. (2016, May 6). Ontario helping more schools become community hubs: Province investing in schools to better serve communities. https:// news.ontario.ca/en/release/38763/ontario-­helping-­more-­schools-­become-­ community-­hubs Ontario Ministry of Education. (2015). Community hubs in Ontario: A strategic framework and action plan. Retrieved December 1, 2022, from https:// dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/4815/community-­h ubs-­a -­ strategic-­framework-­and-­action.pdf Ontario Ministry of Education. (2022). Parent involvement committees. Retrieved December 4, 2022, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/parent-­involvement-­ committees Ontario Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Community use of schools. Retrieved October 16, 2022, from https://edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/community/ index.html Pal, L. (1992). Public policy analysis: An introduction. Nelson Canada. Parsons, T. (1959). The school class as a social system: Some of its functions in American society. Harvard Education Review, 29(4), 297–318. People for Education. (2017). Schools as community hubs. Retrieved December 2, 2022, from https://peopleforeducation.ca/wp-­content/uploads/2017/06/ P4E-­Schools-­as-­community-­hubs-­2017.pdf Pushor, D. (2007, January). Parent engagement: Creating a shared world [Paper presentation]. Ontario Education Research Symposium, Toronto, ON, Canada. Pushor, D., & Amendt, T. (2018). Leading an examination of beliefs and assumptions about parents. School Leadership & Management, 38(2), 202–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1439466 Pushor, D., & Ruitenberg, C. (2005). Parent engagement and leadership. Report # 134. Dr. Stirling McDowell Foundation for Research into Teaching. Raffo, C., & Dyson, A. (2007). Full service extended schools and educational inequality in urban contexts  – New opportunities for progress? Journal of Education Policy, 22(3), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093070 1269160

10  CREATING SCHOOLS AS COMMUNITY HUBS THROUGH COLLABORATION 

259

Sanders, M., Galindo, C., & DeTablen, D. (2019). Leadership for collaboration: Exploring how community school coordinators advance the goals of full-­service community schools. Children & Schools, 41(2), 89–100. https://doi. org/10.1093/cs/cdz006 Sanders, M. G. (1999). Schools’ program and progress in the National Network of Partnership Schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679909597599 Sanders, M. G. (2001). The role of “community” in comprehensive school, family, and community partnership programs. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1086/499691 Sanders, M. G. (2006). Building school-community partnerships: Collaboration for student success. Skyhorse Publishing. Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1345–1368. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­9620.00206 Saskatchewan Learning. (2004a). Building communities of hope: Effective practices for meeting the diverse learning needs of children and youth (2nd ed.). Children’s Services and Programs Branch, Saskatchewan Learning. Saskatchewan Learning. (2004b). Toward SchoolPlus: Empowering high schools as communities of learning and support. Community Education Unit, Children’s Services and Programs Branch, Saskatchewan Learning. Schein, E.  H. (1995). Defining organizational culture. In J.  T. Wren (Ed.), The leaders companion: Insights on leadership through the ages (pp. 271–281). NY: The Free Press. Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. A. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Schutz, A. (2006). Home is a prison in the global city: The tragic failure of school-­ based community engagement strategies. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 691–743. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076004691 Spier, E., González, R. L., & Osher, D. (2018). The role of the community in learning and development. In G.  E. Hall, L.  F. Quinn, & D.  M. Gollnick (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of teaching and learning (pp.  79–105). John Wiley & Sons. Starratt, R. J. (2003). Democratic leadership theory in late modernity: An oxymoron or ironic possibility? In P.  T. Begley & O.  Johansson (Eds.), The ethical dimensions of school leadership (pp. 13–31). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Steiner, F. (2002). Human ecology: Following nature’s lead. Island Press. Tucker, J. (n.d.). Why are bees are important to our planet. One Green Planet. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/why-­bees-­are-­important-­to-­our-­planet/ University of Melbourne. (n.d.). Building connections: Schools as community hubs. Retrieved October 29, 2022, from https://sites.research.unimelb.edu.au/ learn-­network/home/projects/building-­connections

260 

C. M. HANDS

Valli, L., Stefanski, A., & Jacobson, R. (2013). Community support for schools: What kind and with what success? Procedia  – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 658–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.075 Valli, L., Stefanski, A., & Jacobson, R. (2016). Typologizing school-community partnerships: A framework for analysis and action. Urban Education, 51(7), 719–747. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914549366 Voisin, S. (2003). Secondary school principals and school councils: Practices and perceptions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, ON, Canada. Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C. L., Smith, J., & Hentschke, G. (2003). Working Paper: Cross-sectorial alliances in education: A new approach to enhancing school capacity. University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education, Center on Educational Governance. Yonezawa, S., & Jones, M. (2011). Shaping youth’s identity through student-­ driven research. In C. M. Hands & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Including families and communities in urban education (pp. 213–232). Information Age.

Index1

NUMBERS AND SYMBOLS 2SLGBTQIA+, 179, 183, 190, 194, 199, 200 A Action teams, 94, 142 Actors central, 126, 127, 138, 139, 143 isolated, 126, 127, 138, 144 peripheral, 126, 127, 138, 144 Assess/assessment, 53, 57, 59, 60, 65, 66, 69–71 See also Evaluations B Behaviour, 148, 150, 151, 158, 161, 164–166, 169 definition, 151 Behavioural challenges, see Behaviour(al) issues

Behaviour(al) issues, 178, 179, 197, 201 Boundary-spanner(s)/boundary-­ spanning, 125–127, 129, 131, 133, 134, 136–139, 143, 144 Bridge(s)/bridged, 127, 128, 130, 133, 136, 138 C Case study, 3, 11, 20 Central Actors, 126 Champion(s), 158, 161, 162, 168, 169 definition and role, 161, 162 Cognitive barriers/challenges, 201 delays, 187 See also Developmental delays Communication/communicate, 53, 55, 61, 66–69, 71, 105, 111, 115, 117 See also Two-way communication

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. M. Hands, Pathways to Community Engagement in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33001-8

261

262 

INDEX

Community definition, 3, 4 development, 237, 251, 254 Competition, 53, 102, 116, 209, 214, 221 Connecting/connectedness/ connected, 103, 105–107, 109, 111, 113–117, 121, 126, 127, 133, 136–138, 144 Connection(s), 103, 105–107, 109, 110, 113, 114, 117, 118, 121, 127, 128 lacking, 110, 113, 117 See also Connecting/connectedness/ connected; Interconnected/ interconnectedness Co-operation/co-operative, 52, 53, 101–103, 116, 120, 121 Critics, 32, 33, 38, 40–42 Culture(s), 81, 87, 89, 92, 95, 96, 151, 156, 158, 165, 166, 171 definition, 150 D Deficit, 151, 166–170 Deficit thinking, see Deficit Developmental delay(s), 179, 184, 193, 195 See also Cognitive barriers/ challenges; Cognitive delays; Intellectual disabilities E Ecology, 51–53, 70, 71, 77 See also Human Ecology Ecosystems, 52, 53, 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 89, 95, 96, 102, 121 Enthusiast(s), 32, 34, 37, 38, 43, 44 Entrepreneur(s), 31, 34, 37

Evaluations, 59, 71 Exosystem(s), 80 Expertise, 94, 102, 115, 128, 129, 135, 205, 208, 210–212, 215, 217, 218, 221, 222, 224 See also Perceived expertise Expressive action(s), 179, 195, 196, 208, 221 See also Expressive resources Expressive relationships, 103, 119 See also Expressive action(s) Expressive resources, 179, 197, 198, 208, 221 See also Expressive action(s) Externalizing behaviour(s), 206, 210, 219, 226 F Family and interagency collaboration, 235, 236, 238, 242, 243, 251 Family/families, 1, 4–7, 9, 18–22, 236, 238, 244 Feedback, 151, 152, 155, 156, 165, 167 First Nations, Metis, and Inuit (FNMI), 182, 183, 194, 199 Flexibility, 152, 165 partnerships, 155, 156, 165, 167 personal, 158, 159 Full-service community school(s) (FSCS), 235, 236, 238, 241–244, 246–249, 251, 252 Full-service schooling, 236, 238, 239, 241–248 See also Wrap-around school(s) H Homophily, 102, 116, 208, 222 Human ecology, 52, 53, 77, 81

 INDEX 

I Immigrant(s), 179, 190, 191, 194 Impermeable, 88 Indigenous community, communities, 182, 189, 199 cultures, 182, 199 definition, 184 heritage, 182, 183, 186, 189, 199, 201 See also First Nations, Metis, and Inuit (FNMI) Ineffective communication (absence of) communication, 111, 115, 127, 156, 169, 170 Inflexibility, 159 Instrumental action(s), 178, 179, 195, 196, 208, 221, 224 See also Instrumental resources Instrumental relationships, 103 See also Instrumental action(s) Instrumental resources, 195–198, 208, 221 See also Instrumental action(s) Integrated/integration, 53 Intellectual disabilities, 195 Interaction(s), 2, 3, 8, 9, 21, 102, 104, 112, 116, 119, 121 See also Partnership(s) Interconnected/interconnectedness, 77, 95, 115, 127, 136, 137 interdependence/ interdependency, 53 See also Connected/connection(s) Internalized symptoms, 219 Internalizing behaviour(s), 206, 210 See also Internalized symptoms Isolated actors, 126

263

L Liaisons, 9 definition, 127, 133, 138, 143 Lifecycle, 53, 54, 57, 58, 61, 65, 66, 70 M Macrosystem(s), 79, 80 Mental health, see Mental health issues/mental health problems Mental health issues/mental health problems, 178, 179, 181, 184, 191, 195, 202 Mesosystem(s), 80 Microsystem(s), 80 Money, 152–155, 160, 164, 166, 167 required to partner, 153, 154 N Narrator(s), 31, 34 Negotiation/negotiate, 56, 57, 61, 62, 68 Network(s)/networking, 56, 66, 68 definition, 102, 103 Networked relationships, 102, 115 See also Systems theory; Systems, open systems Newcomer(s), 181, 182, 190, 191, 193, 194, 198, 201 See also Immigrant(s); Newcomers to Canada; Newcomers to the country Newcomers to Canada, 190 Newcomers to the country, 190, 193, 194 O Outsider(s), 32, 45

264 

INDEX

P Partnership(s), 1–4, 8–11, 19, 21, 102, 104, 112, 116, 119, 121 creation, 9, 10 definition, 8 (see also Liaison(s); School-community collaboration; School-­community interaction; School-community partnership(s)) lifecycle, 70 process, 66, 67 (see also Lifecycle; Partnership(s), lifecycle) types, 9, 54 (see also School-­ community collaboration) Perceived expertise, 102, 103, 116 See also Expertise Peripheral Actors, 126 Permeability/permeable, 81, 83, 85, 86, 93, 94, 96 Permeable boundaries/permeable borders, 78, 81, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92, 95, 102, 121 See also Impermeable; Permeability/ permeable Policy, 1, 3, 8, 10–12, 20, 21, 30, 31, 251 constructor(s), 31, 33 critic(s), 31–33, 40, 41, 46 (see also Critics) definition (see Policymaking) process, 30 Policy interpretation, 31–32, 34, 35, 37, 42, 45–47 roles, 31 Policymaking, 29, 30, 43 Positive Parenting Program (Triple P), 225 Poverty, 179, 180, 182, 189, 194, 201 Proximity, 102, 116, 207, 208, 222 Psychoeducational assessment, 219, 226

R Receiver(s), 32 Reputation, 158–161, 169, 171 S School-community collaboration, 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 20, 21, 53 School-community interaction, 4, 21 School-community partnership(s), 3, 8–10, 19–21, 37, 46, 52–54, 57, 58, 61, 67, 71, 85, 88, 90, 92, 96, 97, 102, 107, 115, 122, 130, 133, 135, 142, 143, 148, 149, 156, 164, 169, 185–193, 207, 234, 237, 242, 244, 246, 247, 249–251 School council(s), 42, 80, 94, 142, 244–246, 251 Site co-ordinator(s), 142, 236, 238, 243, 245, 246, 248 Social capital, 103, 104, 138, 144, 178, 179, 201, 208 Social network(s), 208, 209, 221, 222, 227 Social system(s), 52, 53, 77–79, 96 Stigma/stigmatized, 209, 216 Structure(s), 148, 149, 152, 155, 161, 164–166, 169, 170 definition, 148 Structure-culture-behaviour framework, 148 System(s), 78–81, 85, 92, 93, 113–115, 127 definition, 78 open systems, 78, 115, 117, 121 See also Ecosystems Systems theory, 78, 92, 93, 115, 117 See also Networked relationships; System(s), open systems

 INDEX 

T Tie formation, 118, 222 Time, 152, 153, 155, 163, 164, 166, 167 required to partner, 150, 152, 153 Transactor(s), 32, 34, 38, 45, 46 Translator(s), 32, 34–36, 43, 44 Two-way communication, 66, 69, 151, 165, 167, 221, 225, 227, 236, 248

V Vulnerable populations, 185, 188, 190, 192, 196, 198, 201 definition, 179 W Wrap-around school(s), 236, 241, 247, 249, 251 See also Full-service schooling

265