Home-School-Community Partnerships

By Linda Madison
It probably comes as no surprise that research
supports the widely held belief that the educational
success of a child is very dependent on the family.
In fact, the National Education Goals have been
edited to include a goal emphasizing parental
participation. Goal 8 states the following.
By the year 2000, every school will promote
partnerships that will increase parental
involvement and participation in promoting the
social, emotional, and academic growth of children.
Home-school-community partnerships can be
fostered in a variety of ways. For a creative teacher
the community can be a rich source of expertise,
financial support, and volunteer services.
Partnerships can be developed with community
organizations, individual families, and local
businesses or corporations. The resulting
partnerships can serve the school with support and
services, and the school can serve the community
by providing an educated population of students
who are mathematically and scientifically literate.
Family-Involvement Programs
Family-involvement programs are an effective way
to facilitate partnerships between the home and
the school. Programs developed by school
personnel can provide a forum for parents and
children to experience learning in an atmosphere
quite different from the usual classroom setting.
Locations for the interaction might include the
school library, cafeteria, or multi-purpose room.
Evening programs may take place outside the
school in other community buildings.
One such program originated at the Lawrence Hall
of Science, University of California, Berkeley, and
Portland State University, Oregon. The program is
called Family Science and has been adapted for
implementation on the East Coast by the
Consortium for Educational Equity, at Rutgers
University. The purpose of Family Science is to
reach out to those groups that have historically
been underrepresented in math, science, and
technology.
Children and parents are encouraged to participate
in a series of evening activities during which they
explore science ideas. During the exploration,
teachers take on the role of facilitator and
encourage the families to look at familiar things in
a different way. Families are encouraged to
discover something again, for the first time. The
science does not have to be high-tech or
complicated. The equipment should not be
sophisticated. The goal is to demystify science, to
promote the notion that everyone is a scientist and
everyone can do science.
The content of the session should take a back seat
to the promotion of the process skills.
Observation, measurement, prediction,
experimentation, data collection and
interpretation, classification, and so on are lifelong
skills that can be useful in many different contexts.
Use of everyday materials will encourage families
to continue their journey through the discovery
process at home. Parents will soon see that their
attitudes toward science have changed, and this
change will ultimately impact the attitudes of their
children. Children will benefit from seeing their
parents enjoying the problem-solving process.
Sharing a fun-filled learning experience with their
parents sends a subliminal message to children
that we are all lifelong learners and that learning
can be fun.
Community Involvement
Community support is an outgrowth of family-
involvement programs. Community awareness
fosters a positive belief about the school and the
effectiveness of the teachers. The positive
community attitude toward education often
manifests itself in ways that are very important to
the school community, such as the passing of
school budgets, win-win negotiations of teacher
contracts, and the public's feeling of pride in the
municipality.
Communication between the school and the
community is critical to a successful relationship,
as is the case in any relationship. In today's highly
technological world, communication should be
relatively easy to facilitate but is sometimes
neglected. Some schools have set up voice-mail
systems on which there is a way for parents to
access school information. The information may
include notices of school programs, homework
hotline information, or PTA news. Usually there is a
way to leave messages for individual teachers as
well.
Another way for the community to work closely
with the school is through community volunteers.
When we provide a way for non-school personnel
to come into the classroom, we give parents the
opportunity to recognize and respond to the
problems that the classroom teacher faces
everyday. With increased understanding comes
mutual respect. Parents are given the opportunity
to volunteer their time working with students who
can make significant gains when given a little more
individual attention. Parents see how they can
make a difference in the classroom by helping the
teacher as an additional facilitator of learning.
Parents who volunteer should participate in an
orientation session designed to outline the role of
parents in the classroom. Various options can be
explored, and parents can choose how they feel
they can best help. Suggestions range from
working behind the scenes, shopping for and
packaging materials that may be used in a science
or math class, to working with individual students
on reading skills, word recognition, or editing of
writing assignments.
Everyone Benefits
Home-school-community partnerships come in a
variety of styles. Such partnerships build
understanding of the education process and are
beneficial to the students we serve. There is an
African proverb that states that it takes a whole
village to raise a child. Partnerships allow the
whole village to help educate our children.

Chapter 9
SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Randall B. Lindsey
Schools of the 1990s are characterized by their
continued interaction with the communities they
serve. Today's and tomorrow's administrators need
to have skills for working effectively with the
diverse communities in which all schools exist.
Well-developed community relations skills are a
necessary component in administrators' being
responsive to the needs of students and other
educators. This chapter examines the importance
of school-community relations, the national and
local perspectives on various administrative roles
and functions, the differentiated roles of
administrators with regard to school-community
activities, and the importance of these topics to
the new administrator.
Importance of School-Community Relations
Today's school administrators are expected to be
multi-talented in their approach to their jobs. First,
within the context of instructional improvement,
collective bargaining, budget issues, and other
complex tasks facing administrators is the need to
possess well-honed community relations skills.
Second, is the recognition that administrators do
not function in a monolithic community. Even the
district which appears homogeneous is made up of
diverse constituencies. Third, the expectations are
that administrators will anticipate and prevent
crises, increase communications between the
school and the home, and respond to special
interest groups. The consideration of these issues
presents administrators with the understanding
that they are an important link to our communities
and that the development of appropriate skills is
important to being a successful administrator.
Increased Emphasis on Community Relations Skills
One of the dramatic shifts in the last two
generations has been in the direction of increased
emphasis on administrators developing good
relationships with their communities. From the mid-
19th century through the middle part of this
century, concerted efforts had been focused on not
politicizing the role of school administrators. The
shift to a more community-involved role for school
administrators was noted by Kimbrough and
Burkett (1990) in their acknowledgment that:
Studies since the early 1950s have shown that
schools do not exist in a political vacuum; . . . this
opinion dictates that the school leader should see
that an effective home-school partnership in the
education process is developed. Thus the principal,
or the person so designated by the principal, must
mount strategies to establish good school-
community relations . . . . (p. 89)
The community relations function of the
administrator's role is usually described in terms of
providing programs which result in the school and
district being viewed more favorably by the
community. The executive director of the National
School Public Relations Association states that the
way to garner community support for schools is to
do four things (Coursen & Thomas, 1989):
1. Do a good job.
2. Do a Good Job.
3. Do A GOOD JOB.
4. Make sure people know about it. (pp. 263-264)
The administrator must do a good job and
communicate that success to the diverse publics
each school serves. Too often schools are doing a
good job and make no attempt to communicate
their accomplishments to their constituent
communities. Undoubtedly, there are also those
schools whose public relations campaigns greatly
exceed their factual accomplishments. However,
the emphasis here is on the schools which are
striving to provide both a sound education for
students and the rationale behind strong, positive
school-community relations.
Communities as Pluralistic Entities
A second major change in schools during the last
two generations has been the increasing
recognition that our constituent communities are
pluralistic in nature. Lipham (1988) quotes Getzels'
definition of communities "as groups of people
conscious of a collective identity characterized by
common cognitive and affective norms." He then
offers Getzels' taxonomy of communities (Lipham,
1988):
1. Local community. The collective identity is
founded in a particular neighborhood or region: for
example, the local neighborhood or school
community.
2. Administrative community. The collective
identity is found in a particular politically
determined identity: for example, the city, county,
or school district community.
3. Social community. The collective identity is
founded in a particular set of interpersonal
relationships without regard to local or
administrative boundaries: for example, all the
people in one's community of friends.
4. Instrumental community. The collective identity
is founded in direct or indirect engagement with
others in performance of a particular function of
mutual concern: for example, a professional group;
such as the educational community, a union
community, or a philanthropic community.
5. Ethnic, caste, or class community. The collective
identity is founded in affinity to a particular
national, racial, or cultural group: for example, the
Irish, black, or upper-class community.
6. Ideological community. The collective identity is
founded in a particular historic, conceptual, or
sociopolitical community that stretches across the
local, administrative, social, instrumental, or ethnic
communities: for example, the Christian, scholarly,
or socialist communities. (p. 178)
This recognition of the diversity of our communities
provides the administrator with a basic awareness
on which he or she can proceed to develop
constructive and high impact programs. Once the
administrator scans the landscape of the
community and identifies the various communities,
then he or she is ready to identify the leadership
within the communities. It is recognized that
communities have visible, invisible, and emerging
leaders. The visible leaders are easy to distinguish
due to their presence on councils, committees, and
task forces. Invisible leaders are those who work
behind the scenes to influence drives, elections, or
other issues. The emerging leaders are those in the
wings preparing to take the positions of those
currently in power. This latter group is particularly
significant because an early recognition and
involvement of them in school activities can reap
future rewards.
The recognition of the diversity of communities and
the leadership within those communities will
equally serve the veteran administrator, the
neophyte administrator, the urban administrator,
the suburban/rural administrator, the
superintendent, and the assistant principal.
Whether the local schools are in need of support
for tax referenda or bond issues, support for
curricular or co-curricular programs, support for
new student discipline policies, or the general need
for improvement in the public's confidence in
school; the process is equally political and
necessary. The role of the administrator has
evolved to include the need for effective attitudes
and skills in working with the community. The
recognition and self-acceptance of that role is a
first step in effectively administering schools.
Wherry and Bagin (Kindred, Bagin, & Gallagher,
1990) in their respective roles as executive director
of the National School Public Relations Association
(NSPRA) and as president of the American
Association of School Administrators (AASA), posed
several suggestions to improve public confidence
in educational leaders and in schools. Included in
their recommendations are: to work effectively
with the business community; to involve
nonparents in the schools; and to recognize
communication as a two-way process. The use of
this information results in what Armistead (1989, p.
12) recognizes as the planning of positive public
relations as opposed to the negative public
relations which just happen.
Crises, Home-School Relations, and Special Interest
Groups
Typically, though not exclusively, the community
relations opportunities for administrators include
dealing with crises, communication with students'
families, and responding to special interest groups.
Jay (1989, p. 14), in noting that the Chinese symbol
for crisis is a combination of the words danger and
opportunity, recognizes that how a school responds
to crises may determine the climate of the school
for a considerable time after a crisis. She states
that a school must have trust, credibility, open
lines of communication, and an effective plan.
Central to the plan is an administrator who is
attuned to potential hot spots and adverse
conditions. The effective administrator anticipates,
and hopefully prevents crises, or knows how to
guide his or her school and community through
difficult times.
The administrator who guides his or her school in
staying in close contact with the home recognizes
that such action on the part of the school usually
results in higher student achievement, improved
student discipline, increased student attendance,
better student attitudes toward learning, and
increased parent and community support for
schools (Hester, 1989). Knowing that these are
characteristics of effective schools gives the
informed administrator a rationale for guiding his
or her faculty in developing strategies which
accomplish these ends. Additionally, it can be an
important bridge to understanding the diversity of
the community and the various interests found
there.
Kudlacek (1989) acknowledges that there is no
"sure-fire formula . . . for working with special
interest groups" but she does recognize that they
exist and that the effective administrator
recognizes this. She indicates that the effective
community-oriented administrator is one who
values introspection, has good listening skills,
nurtures contacts with key community people and
involves special interest leaders in the planning of
school programs.
The Importance of School-Community Relations
There is no doubt that the roles and responsibilities
of school administrators have undergone and will
continue to undergo transformation. Initially it
appears that the importance of school-community
relations programs and skills is to relate the
accomplishments of the school to the community
so that the administrator of the school looks good.
However, on further examination, it is apparent
that one of the more profound implications of
effective school-community relations is the
recognition of the pluralistic nature of
communities. Not only are they diverse in terms of
race, ethnicity, and culture, but they are diverse in
terms of neighborhoods, friendships, and ideology.
It is incumbent on the effective administrator to be
aware of those elements within the larger
community. The transformation is from a view of
the administrator/school being isolated from the
community to one in which the school is seen as an
integral part of a dynamic community.
Some of the more visible and tangible functions of
today's administrators are how crises are handled,
how good home-school relations are facilitated,
and how special interest groups are treated. These
outward
Manifestations of good skills need to be built on a
solid footing which recognizes school-community
relations skills as an indispensable function of all
administrators' roles and which recognizes and
values the diversity within our communities.
The Organization and Function of School-
Community Relations Programs
The title school-community relations implies a
formal procedure or process which could be called
a program.
While formal programs do exist in most school
districts, there are informal processes which also
need to be examined. It is the amalgam of formally
constituted programs and informal processes which
insure the effectiveness of school administrators.
Beginning a Formal Process
Implementing a new program is best accomplished
if it is data based. Several sources have identified
that surveys and other inventories are efficient
ways to collect information from the community
(Kimbrough &
Burkett, 1990; Coursen & Thomas, 1989; Kindred,
Bagin, & Gallagher, 1990). Surveys range from
highly sophisticated and commercially available
instruments to those which are locally designed.
Whatever their
genesis, the instruments should collect reliable
baseline information. The following is selected
information from a list compiled by Kindred, et al.
(1990) which gives an idea of the types of relevant
baseline information available:
1. Existing needs and expectations of citizens
regarding public education.
2. Opportunities and means for effecting better
cooperative relations with various publics.
3. The nature of the power structure and the areas
of decision-making.
4. Immediate and long-term problems that need
attention.
5. Gaps that should be filled in order to produce
more public understanding of educational policies
and programs.
6. The channels through which public opinion is
built in the community.
7. Changes occurring in patterns of community life.
8. Leadership and leadership influence.
9. The number and types of organizations and
social agencies existing in the community.
Information which is gathered in a systematic
manner becomes the content on which goals and
objectives are established. Whether the data are
gathered from mailed surveys, personal interviews,
or surveys administered to groups invited to school
meetings, they provide the administrator with
ideas on the needs of the community. Additionally,
they provide the administrator with a baseline of
information for measuring the success of
implemented programs and for comparing future
needs assessments.
Goals and Objectives
Whether the administrator is establishing a new
program, refining an existing school-community
relations program, or establishing a district-wide
program or a school site program, a system of
goals and objectives
is vital. Kindred, Bagin, & Gallagher (1990) offer
examples of program goals often found in schools:
1. To develop intelligent public understanding of
the school in all aspects of its operation.
2. To determine how the public feels about the
school and what it wishes the school to accomplish.
3. To secure adequate financial support for a sound
educational program.
4. To help citizens feel a more direct responsibility
for the quality of education the school provides.
5. To earn the good will, respect, and confidence of
the public in professional personnel and services of
the institution.
6. To bring about public realization of the need for
change and what must be done to facilitate
essential progress.
7. To involve citizens in the work of the school and
the solving of educational problems.
8. To promote a genuine spirit of cooperation
between the school and community in sharing
leadership for the improvement of community life.
The power of goals and objectives is directly
proportionate to two key ingredients: the integrity
of the survey instrument and the comprehensive
nature of surveying the community. Whether a
person selects a
commercially available instrument or develops his
or her own, it is important that the instrument be
perceived and used as an unbiased and neutral
tool. Many school districts have run afoul of public
opinion by administering survey instruments that
are clearly biased in favor of certain outcomes.
Likewise, the administration of the instrument
must be done in a manner which recognizes the
aforementioned pluralistic nature of the
community. Care should be taken to define the
geographic boundaries of the sample and to
include opinions from a broad base of the
community.
Once the school has gathered its information and
set its goals and objectives, it is in a position to
decide on the formal nature of the school-
community relations program. At the district level
it may be an office as formal as the Public
Information Office or School-Community Relations
Specialist, or it may be the adjunct duties of key,
visible administrators. When it is an adjunct duty, it
is often the responsibility of the superintendent or
other respected district office administrator. At the
school site level the formal program is usually the
responsibility of the principal, involving select
teachers and members of the community as
appropriate.
Formal Programs
Formal school-community relations programs have
both internal and external programs. Internal
programs are those designed for the benefit of
communicating with the employees and students
of the school or district. External programs are
those designed for communicating with the
communities which a school or district serves.
Kindred, Bagin, & Gallagher (1990) have identified
three reasons for schools to establish good internal
communications programs:
1. A good external communication program cannot
survive without it.
2. Constructive ideas will be suggested by
employees because someone is listening to them
and informing them.
3. human needs, such as recognition and a sense
of belonging, will be met, thus making employees
more productive. (p. 100)
The variety of internal communications programs is
almost limitless. They can be formal networks such
as district-wide or school-wide newsletters; student
and faculty handbooks; student publications;
student, teacher, and/or classified personnel
advisory councils; staff recognition programs; staff
development programs; and procedures for
handling emergency situations. Shared decision-
making councils are rapidly emerging as formal
processes, often negotiated through collective
bargaining in which administrators, teachers,
classified personnel, and students make
consensual decisions on designated topics.
Less formal internal programs include daily
bulletins, conferences between administrators and
the staff they supervise, and faculty/student
activism. Though the line separating the less
formal and the more formal internal
communications programs may be somewhat
arbitrary, it should be noted that schools highly
structure some communications programs,
whereas others appear to be more incidental to the
schools' operation.
Formal external programs, like their internal
counterparts, are diverse in structure and purpose.
They range from programs designed to work with
the general community, to programs designed for
parents or students. A recent example of schools
working with their communities is the adopt-a-
school program. Most frequently based on
identified needs, schools increasingly are reaching
out to local businesses for assistance which ranges
from direct financial assistance to the involvement
of the businesses' employees as tutors. The
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation has been
providing training in establishing the school as a
centerpoint of the local community, and in the last
few years businesses have been directly involved
in the daily operation of schools. President Bush's
America 2000 education strategy is the most
current evidence of that type of involvement.
Other external programs include those where
school programs are open to the public, programs
which interact with constituent groups, and
programs designed for parents. School programs
which are open to the public like athletic events,
school plays, and adult education programs are
powerful ways in which schools interact with the
larger community. They provide a basis for identity
for both the neighborhood school and the larger
community in which the school resides. In
interacting with constituent groups, schools often
enlist constituent support on either side of contract
issues, on tax bond referenda, with neighborhood
associations, and with community advisory
committees. Parent programs include parent-
teacher organizations, school visit programs,
inservice programs, and parent involvement on
important committees such as those deciding
curricular issues. Whatever the purpose of the
external program, its success rests on the ability of
the school to communicate with the designated
community.
Communications with external communities take
many forms. They can include the basic bulletin
carried home by students, meetings held at
community or school sites, and messages via the
media. Though the technology can be as basic as
word-of-mouth communication to orchestrated
press conferences, the common denominator of an
effective communication is one which adheres to a
carefully planned purpose and recognizes the
diversity of the community.
Informal Processes
Within every successful formal school-community
relations program are effective informal
communication processes. Schools have one
characteristic which makes them unique in the
social order. Schools are the
only institutions which virtually every person in the
community has had direct experience. It is
exceedingly rare to find a person who has never
attended a school. As a result, many people regard
themselves as expert, or at least experienced, on
what schools are or should be about. This provides
school personnel with either an opportunity or a
dilemma. If the preponderance of people with
whom an administrator interacts had negative
experiences in school, then it may be safe to say
that this administrator has a different challenge
from his or her counterpart who deals with
constituents who had positive experiences with
schools. Though the challenge may be different,
the approach is virtually the same. A formally
derived community relations program must value
every constituent community based on informal
interactions.
The informal communication process can begin
with how the public is greeted on the school
telephone, how the school grounds appear, how
the parent is greeted by school personnel, how
students regard the contiguous community, or the
extent to which school personnel are aware of the
unique needs of a particular community. It is
through these often unrecognized acts of
awareness and courtesy that schools may often
determine the effectiveness of their relationships
with their communities. For example, if a local
businessperson telephones the school and is
inadvertently disconnected several times, it may
lead to frustration and a poor evaluation of the
school. Or, if a concerned parent visits the district
office unannounced to voice a concern over a new
curricular unit and leaves feeling listened to, it may
lead to a good evaluation of the school. Or, lastly, if
a neighborhood-watch organization has targeted
gang intervention efforts as a high priority item
and is rebuffed by the school administrator in
trying to establish a liaison relationship with the
school because the school has its own program, it
may lead to strained relationships.
The magic in the informal process is that the image
the school projects becomes the medium of
communication. Through inadvertent efforts
schools can either enhance or retard effective
communication
with their diverse communities. The role of the
administrator becomes crucial in helping the
school staff project an image based on true regard
for the total environment of the school. The
administrators' role is to project an image of
treating others as we want to be treated and of
treating the environment as if it were pridefully
theirs.
School-Community Relations in California
School-community relations in California, similar to
national efforts, are illustrated in four types of
formal programs and numerous informal processes.
Formal programs include federal and state
legislated programs, adopt-a-school programs,
shared decision-making programs, and locally
created programs.
The School Based Coordinated Program (SBCP) is a
state effort to coordinate limited-English proficient,
gifted and talented, special education, and school
improvement programs. Each district is required to
have a broad-based site council which represents
each of the constituent areas, the parents and
community members, teachers, other school
personnel, and the principal. Members of the
council are selected by their peers. The major
responsibility of the councils is to oversee the
programs. These councils are advisory in nature
(Education Code §§52010-52034). This program is
a good example of how schools respond to
designated constituent communities. The most
recent legislated effort is Assembly Bill 322 (AB
322), effective January 1, 1991, requiring all school
districts' governing boards to adopt a policy on
parent involvement. Jenkins (1991) summarized
the legislation (Education Code §11502) which
emphasizes the intent for the policy and programs
to:
1. Engage parents positively in their children's
education by helping parents develop skills to use
at home that support their children's academic
efforts at school and their children's development
as responsible future members of our society.
2. Inform parents that they can directly affect the
success of their children's learning by providing
parents with techniques and strategies that they
can use to improve their children's academic
success and to assist their children in learning at
home.
3. Build consistent and effective communication
between the home and the school so that parents
know when and how to assist their children in
support of classroom learning and activities.
4. Train teachers and administrators to
communicate effectively with parents.
5. Integrate parent involvement programs into the
school's master plan for academic accountability.
(p. 37)
As with President Bush's America 2000 strategy,
AB 322 may become a vehicle by which the issue
of school
choice is addressed in California. Jenkins (1991)
acknowledges the issue of choice and extends it to
a discussion of the taxonomy of communities by
posing questions like:
Is it (the school plan for parent involvement)
sensitive to the different educational backgrounds
of the parents and does it take into consideration
the different learning styles that all individuals
have? Is it sensitive to the different ethnic and
cultural heritages of families in the school
community? With the changing family structure,
are all caregivers taken into consideration -
parents, grandparents, relatives, and foster
parents? Are the schedules of working parents
given consideration? (p. 37)
In a true school-community relations conclusion to
her article on AB 322, Jenkins (1991, p. 37) states,
"Truly, for our children to succeed, education must
become a client-based business - before the chaos
called choice
becomes the driving force." In that single sentence
Jenkins illustrates at least two sides of effective
school-community relations. First, the recognition
that education should be a client-based business,
one which responds to a remarkably diverse client
community. Second, that schools exist in a political
milieu, one in which either schools are to be
responsive to political pressures or the political
systems will redefine them.
The second type of community-school relations
program widely evident in California is the adopt-a-
school program. From the smallest rural districts to
the largest urban systems, adopt-a-school
programs proliferated during the last decade. The
usual process was for the local school to identify
specific needs and then to approach a local
business or the office of a large corporation located
in the local community for assistance. The
programs vary in scope and breadth and most
often provide the stimulus for extra assistance in
the forms of tutors, funds for equipment and
materials, and funds for participation in community
events like professional and collegiate athletic
events, visits to museums, and field trips.
Typically these programs afford the school the
opportunity to offer incentives and programs that
would not be possible with district revenues.
Benefits for the businesses to be involved are in
addressing pressing educational issues at the
school site and to be apprised of the remarkable
diversity of local schools.
The third type of school-community relations
program evolving in California is the shared
decision-making program which is spreading
throughout the state. The program which has
received the most regional and national attention
has been the program negotiated between the Los
Angeles Unified School District and the United
Teachers of Los Angeles. The district and the
teachers' union have negotiated a process for
involving administrators, teachers, classified staff,
community members, and sometimes students,
into making decisions on topics derived through
the collective bargaining process. In terms of
school-community relations, shared decision-
making gives schools the opportunity to improve
not only these formal processes, but the informal
processes which, when properly constituted, can
positively affect the interaction between schools
and their diverse communities.
The fourth category of school-community relations
programs, the locally derived program, is in
evidence
throughout the state. Whether through offices like
the Public Information Office or as a designated
responsibility of traditional school personnel,
virtually every district has some type of formal
school-community relations program.
The Roles of Administrators
The differentiated roles of the administrative
hierarchy are as evident in school-community
relations functions as they are in any other aspect
of school organization. From the school board to a
wide variety of administrators, there are
interdependent, mutually supportive, sometimes
overlapping, as well as discretely different roles.
The recognition of these roles and forces is central
to administrator effectiveness. The Board of
Education
The major school-community relations function of
boards of education was put succinctly by
Kimbrough and Burkett (1990, p. 98): "The
establishment of excellent community-school
relations begins with educational purpose." They
note that the alternative to a program based on
purpose is "mindlessness and the development of
a credibility gap with the public." Coursen and
Thomas (1989) use the terms ineffective and
destructive to similarly describe programs which
are unplanned. Successful school-community
relations programs are the result of detailed
planning.
For the development of positive school-community
relations, the National School Public Relations
Association recommends five points for school
boards to consider when developing a
communications policy statement (DeLapp &
Smith, 1991):
1. The educational organization should commit to
writing a clear and concise policy statement with
respect to its public information program.
2. The policy statement should be approved
through formal action by the governing board of
the organization, should be published in its policy
manual, and should be reviewed by the governing
board annually.
3. The policy statement should express the
purposes of the organization's public information
program and provide the delegation of such
authority to the executives of the organization as
necessary to achieve the objectives.
4. The provisions of the policy statement should be
made known to the entire staff or membership of
the organization through all appropriate means.
5. Commitment to the achievement of the
purposes of the organization's public information
policy should be demonstrated through the
allocation of adequate human and financial
resources to the public information program. (p. 9)
The school board's function is to set policy, usually
with the guidance of the superintendent, that
recognizes the diversity of the community, its
various social systems and special interest groups.
From the base of a well-crafted policy statement, it
becomes the province of the superintendent and
his or her immediate support staff to design the
procedures of a school-community relations
program.
The Superintendent and District Staff
The superintendent and his or her staff have
responsibilities which are two-way in nature. They
have the
responsibility to see that clear communications
flow from the school to the community and,
conversely, to see that effective communications
flow from the community to the school. Schools
traditionally have performed the former role of
informer to the community in adequate terms. The
difference between less than adequate and
exemplary programs appears to be the degree of
well-planned school-community relations
programs, as opposed to those which just happen.
The administrative role of listening to communities
is one which has emerged rapidly in the last forty
years. It represents the formal and informal ways
in which schools elicit communities' perceptions of
schools and the unique community needs which
the schools must address. Kindred, Bagin, &
Gallagher (1990) delineated a series of functions
for superintendents and their staffs in fulfilling the
duality of their responsibilities. A selected list of
those functions are:
1. Assuming initiative in the planning of processes
and procedures for keeping the board, staff, and
public well-informed on school matters.
2. Helping all personnel connected with the school
system become sensitive to the meaning and
importance of their contacts in the community.
3. Working with key groups and influential
individuals in the community on significant
educational policies and problems.
4. Taking leadership to providing the opportunities
required for district-wide involvement of citizens in
programs for educational improvement. (pp. 64-65)
Howlett (1988, p. 18) summarized the
responsibility of the superintendent and his or her
staff in stating that "No community relations
program can succeed if it is treated as a second-
class activity to be brought out when I can find
time . . . . Community relations means relating, and
relationships are ongoing, . . . ." She contends that
the administrators in charge of community
relations must contact local constituents to
determine needs, identify goals, and implement,
monitor, and assess plans. A well-designed school-
community relations plan at the district level sends
a clear message to the school sites as to the value
placed on this mode of communication.
Possibly the most important school-community
relations function of the superintendent and his or
her district office staff is to develop procedures for
relating with the media. Well-developed procedures
are important as a vehicle for dispensing
information to the community and for responding
to queries from the media. Secondarily, well-
developed procedures identify primary
responsibilities for those who respond to inquiries
from the media and guidelines for that relationship.
This process is of particular importance to site level
administrators because they often will not have
immediate access to district level administrators.
When inquiries come from members of the media,
they should appear informed and responsive. The
media represent the open access of the community
to schools. A relationship built on openness and
accessibility is crucial.
A second level of responsibility of the
superintendent and his or her staff is the
communication with the employees and students
within the district. This includes coordinating
internal publications, coordinating
formal committee structures to address
professional issues, developing and disseminating
procedures for use in emergency situations, and
keeping the focus of schools on students. The
successful implementation of clear communication
procedures with teachers, classified employees,
and students provides a positive support for
communication with the community at large.
The Principal and the School Site
The roles and responsibilities of school site
personnel closely parallel those of the
superintendent and district level administrators.
Site level personnel are also responsible for
communication to and from their communities.
They are responsible for having well-designed
procedures for communicating with their
communities, and for having systems of
communicating with school personnel and
students.
Communication processes and techniques for the
site administrator include organizing and
administering
publicity, making presentations and speeches to
community groups, distributing printed material to
parents and community group representatives, and
conducting special school events (Kimbrough &
Burkett, 1990). Each of these is an important
category of events which can be orchestrated at
the school site. Too often publicity about school site
events lacks a professional touch. Both printed
materials and direct personal contact must be of
the highest professional order. Publications should
carry with them the recognition that the media are
a powerful source of public opinion about schools.
Similarly, highly professional presentations to
community and parent groups can be a way of
engendering support for schools. In addition to the
caution to insure that all printed materials are
technically accurate and professionally organized,
it is equally important that they be free of
educational jargon. Finally, special school events,
whether they are curricular or co-curricular,
provide a way for the school to put its best foot
forward. Our various communities enjoy seeing
their children performing at their best and are
more likely to be supportive of schools when they
participate in well- organized student-centered
activities.
The principal's role in crises is one of the realities
of the modern age. Twineham (1991) and Jay
(1989) have
described the crisis situations faced by principals
as being an opportunity. In addition to the
aforementioned need for a well-designed media
relations process, is the recognition that in times of
crises it is important to have accessible
spokespersons who are credible, well-prepared,
and articulate. With these two factors in place, the
responsible communication of the facts of a crisis
are more likely to occur. Well-designed media
relations processes and well-versed spokespeople
should counter the negative effects of any
emerging rumor mills.
Future Trends
The roles of school administrators and teachers
have become increasingly complex over the last
two generations. No longer are administrators and
teachers living and working in an environment
isolated from
the community. Today's schools exist in a complex
environment of strong political overtones. The
principal, superintendent, and teacher of the 1990s
are seeing the community take a forthright role in
school processes. It will be the effective school
leader who knows how to orchestrate linkages
between the school and its communities.
The recognition of the complexities of the
community is vitally important to school personnel
being effective in their jobs, to students being
socially and academically successful, and to the
evolving definition of the roles schools play in this
society. In California by the middle of this decade,
the student population will be multicultural to the
extent that there will be no majority group. In an
unprecedented fashion, educators are providing
programs which respond to the needs of students
with diverse language experiences.
At least three trends in California bear watching.
First, the immigration of students from other
countries is projected to continue unabated and
will provide challenges and opportunities to schools
and their communities. Second, whether from
President Bush's America 2000 program or from a
statewide voter initiative, the issue of school
choice is likely to become a reality. Third, the
community relations role of school administrators,
as a consequence of these and other pressures, is
going to broaden.
It has been reported by various sources that over
15 percent of California's student population was
born in another country. Projections are that this
trend will continue and is likely to expand. Given
the state's position on the Pacific Rim, it is no
surprise that the bulk of immigration is from
Mexico, Central America, and countries of Asia.
Though the policy considerations for this
demographic shift have implications at all levels of
federal, state, and local government, the impact is
most directly felt at the local school district level.
The challenge for the local school district is to
assure access to the school system, provide a
quality educational program by appropriately
trained educators, provide English language
instruction, and to provide for the special needs of
immigrant children (California Tomorrow, 1986).
Given that many of the children are coming from
war-ravaged countries, their special needs will
often include responding to trauma caused by war.
The issue of school choice is likely to preoccupy the
attention of school administrators for the next
generation. It may become for administrators of
today and tomorrow what school desegregation
has been for the last generation, a political hot
potato that fails to respond to the attainment of
education for the historically lowest-achieving one-
third of the population. While discussing the merits
of America 2000, Pellicer and Stevenson (1991)
note:
Despite the fact that, to date, there is no real body
of convincing research to suggest that choice will
improve classroom instruction for a majority of
youngsters, America 2000 will most likely propel
choice to the forefront of the national educational
agenda. (pp. 90-91)
The proponents of America 2000 point out that
school choice is not the focus, but that a voluntary
national testing program and a related curriculum
are efforts to make this country competitive in the
international marketplace once again. School
choice provides options to conventional schools by
creating a series of
break-the-mold schools. They are to be designed to
provide better options to existing, failing schools.
Those opposed to America 2000 mainly focus on
the issues of national standards as not insuring the
educational
needs of those currently being underserved in
schools.
Whatever the issues may be, the message for
school administrators is clear: It is important to be
well-versed on the text of America 2000 and any
similar state level initiatives. There is little doubt
that the various communities each school serves
will be coming down on all sides of these
proposals. For the next few years, school
administrators can be conduits for assuring that
accurate information is disseminated.
Concurrently, it will be the wise administrator who
keeps in touch with the opinions of both the formal
and informal community leaders.
Robison (1991) typifies the school-community
relations-aware superintendent in her comment:
If anyone tells you they have a strategy for working
with the community, they have probably missed
the mark . . . . In any school or district, there are
multiple communities and special interest groups.
Each has its own agenda and communications
should be tailored specifically to the needs of each.
(p. 18)
Robison (1991, pp. 19-20) stresses the importance
of keeping "an ear to the ground" in identifying the
key opinion-makers; in providing parent outreach in
their multi-cultural, multi-racial, and multi-lingual
community; in interacting with the nonparent
business community; in recognizing that the
district's employees are "important ambassadors
to the community;" and in being accessible to the
community. It is important to note that none of this
detracts from the instructional role of either the
district level or site level administrators. What it
should do is to provide the administrator with a
keener understanding of the needs of the student
population.
Conclusion
The latter half of the 20th century has witnessed
the school-community relations role of the
administrator evolving from a depoliticized function
to one responding to the educational needs and
feelings of a diverse community. It can be no other
way. The effective administrator must be alert to
the educational needs and the political pressures in
the community. A well-designed formal school-
community relations program, augmented by an
effective informal communications network, will
help meet this goal.
Discussion Questions
1. What is meant by communities as pluralistic
entities? Discuss as many classifications as
possible and give examples of each.
2. What is the responsibility of the administrator in
responding to constituent communities whose
agendas are appreciably different from his or hers,
or those of the district?
3. How do communications with the school's
internal community differ from those with the
external communities? How are they similar?
Should there be differences? Why or why not?
4. What is the responsibility of the principal on an
important school-community relations issue like
school choice, when he or she disagrees with the
superintendent?
Suggested Projects or Activities
1. Interview your principal, a district office
administrator, and a teacher union leader and ask
them to identify key community groups and
leaders. Ask them for the key community issues
presently before the district. Compare and contrast
your findings.
2. Select a representative sample (4 or 5) of
communications techniques your school utilizes
with its
communities. Analyze them in terms of their
strengths and weaknesses. Make recommendations
for their improvement.
3. Your school district is growing rapidly, mostly
due to foreign immigration. As the principal, what
activities would you conduct to welcome these
families to your school? How would you get them
involved in the school?
4. The local newspaper does not print much about
your school, or education in general. As the
principal, what steps would you take to increase
media coverage?
Suggested Readings
California Tomorrow. (1986). Crossing the
schoolhouse border. San Francisco: California
Tomorrow Foundation.
Kimbrough, R. B., & Burkett, C. W. (1990). The
principalship: Concepts and practices. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kindred, L. W., Bagin, D., & Gallagher, D. R. (1990).
The school and community relations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
NASSP Bulletin, 73(513), January, 1989.
Thrust for Educational Leadership, 20(7), May/June,
1991.
References
Armistead, L. (1989, January). A four step process
for school public relations. NASSP Bulletin,
73(513),6-13.
California Tomorrow. (1986). Crossing the
schoolhouse border. San Francisco: California
Tomorrow Foundation.
Coursen, D., & Thomas, J. (1989). Communicating.
In S. C. Smith & P. K. Piele (Eds.). School
leadership: Handbook for excellence. Eugene, OR:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
DeLapp, T., & Smith, D. (1991, May/June). Schools
in the spotlight. Thrust for Educational Leadership,
20(7), 8-11.
Education Codes of California. (1991). West's
Annotated California Education Codes. St. Paul, MN:
West.
Hester, H. (1989, January). Start at home to
improve home-school relations. NASSP Bulletin,
73(513),
23-28.
Howlett, P. (1988, February/March). Community
relations activities - a buffet of ideas. Thrust for
Educational Leadership, 17(5), 17-18.
Jay, B. (1989, January). Managing a crisis in the
school - Tips for principals. NASSP Bulletin,
73(513), 14-18.
Jenkins, N. (1991, May/June). Parent involvement: A
state mandate. Thrust for Educational Leadership,
20(7), 36-37.
Kimbrough, R. B., & Burkett, C. W. (1990). The
principalship: Concepts and practices. Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kindred, L. W., Bagin, D., & Gallagher, D. R. (1990).
The school and community relations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kudlacek, B. (1989, January). Special interest
groups: Friends or foes? NASSP Bulletin, 73(513),
29-33.
Kipham, J. M. (1988). Getzel's models in
educational administration. In N. M. Boyan (Ed.).
Handbook of research on educational
administration. New York: Longman.
Pellicer, L. O., & Stevenson, K. R. (1991). America
2000: A principal challenge for the 21st century.
NASSP Bulletin, 75(538), 84-93.
Robison, S. (1991, May/June). Who needs to know
what. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 20(7), 18-
20.
Twineham, L. (1991, May/June). Don't knock an
opportunity. Thrust for Educational Leadership,
20(7),