UNIT 2

SCHOOL AS A SOCIAL SYSTEM

PRESENTATION

SOCIAL SYSTEMS MODEL

(Source: https://open.lib.umn.edu/socialproblems/chapter/11-2-sociological-perspectives-on-education/)
The major sociological perspectives on education fall nicely into the functional, conflict, and
symbolic interactionist approaches (Ballantine & Hammack, 2012). Table 11.1 “Theory
Snapshot” summarizes what these approaches say.
Table 11.1 Theory Snapshot

Theoretical
Major assumptions
perspective

Education serves several functions for society. These include (a) socialization, (b)
social integration, (c) social placement, and (d) social and cultural innovation.
Latent functions include child care, the establishment of peer relationships, and
Functionalism
lowering unemployment by keeping high school students out of the full-time labor
force. Problems in the educational institution harm society because all these
functions cannot be completely fulfilled.

Education promotes social inequality through the use of tracking and

standardizedtesting and the impact of its “hidden curriculum.” Schools differ
Conflict theory
widely in their funding and learning conditions, and this type of inequality leads
to learning disparities that reinforce social inequality.

Theoretical
Major assumptions
perspective

This perspective focuses on social interaction in the classroom, on the playground,

and in other school venues. Specific research finds that social interaction in
Symbolic
schoolsaffects the development of gender roles and that teachers’ expectations of
interactionism
pupils’ intellectual abilities affect how much pupils learn. Certain educational
problems have their basis in social interaction and expectations.
The Functions of Education
Functional theory stresses the functions that education serves in fulfilling a society’s various needs.
Perhaps the most important function of education is socialization. If children are to learn the norms,
values, and skills they need to function in society, then education is a primary vehicle for such learning.
Schools teach the three Rs (reading, ’riting, ’rithmetic), as we all know, but they also teach many of the
society’s norms and values. In the United States, these norms and values include respect for authority,
patriotism (remember the Pledge of Allegiance?), punctuality, and competition (for grades and sports
victories).

A second function of education is social integration. For a society to work, functionalists say, people
must subscribe to a common set of beliefs and values. As we saw, the development of such common views
was a goal of the system of free, compulsory education that developed in the nineteenth century.
Thousands of immigrant children in the United States today are learning English, US history, and other
subjects that help prepare them for the workforce and integrate them into American life.

A third function of education is social placement. Beginning in grade school, students are identified by
teachers and other school officials either as bright and motivated or as less bright and even
educationally challenged. Depending on how they are identified, children are taught at the level that is
thought to suit them best. In this way, they are presumably prepared for their later station in life.
Whether this process works as well as it should is an important issue, and we explore it further when we
discuss school tracking later in this chapter.
Social and cultural innovation is a fourth function of education. Our scientists cannot make important
scientific discoveries and our artists and thinkers cannot come up with great works of art, poetry, and
prose unless they have first been educated in the many subjects they need to know for their chosen path.
Figure 11.6 The Functions of Education

Schools ideally perform many important functions in modern

society. These include socialization, social integration,
socialplacement, and social and cultural innovation.
Education also involves several latent functions, functions that are by-products of going to school and
receiving an education rather than a direct effect of the education itself. One of these is child care:
Oncea child starts kindergarten and then first grade, for several hours a day the child is taken care of
for free. The establishment of peer relationships is another latent function of schooling. Most of us
met many ofour friends while we were in school at whatever grade level, and some of those friendships
endure the rest of our lives. A final latent function of education is that it keeps millions of high school
students outof the full-time labor force. This fact keeps the unemployment rate lower than it would be
if they were inthe labor force.

Because education serves so many manifest and latent functions for society, problems in schooling
ultimately harm society. For education to serve its many functions, various kinds of reforms are needed
to make our schools and the process of education as effective as possible.

Education and Inequality

Conflict theory does not dispute the functions just described. However, it does give some of them a
different slant by emphasizing how education also perpetuates social inequality (Ballantine & Hammack,
2012). One example of this process involves the function of social placement. When most schools begin
tracking their students in grade school, the students thought by their teachers to be bright are placed
in the faster tracks (especially in reading and arithmetic), while the slower students are placed in the
slower tracks; in high school, three common tracks are the college track, vocational track, and general
track.

Such tracking does have its advantages; it helps ensure that bright students learn as much as their
abilities allow them, and it helps ensure that slower students are not taught over their heads. But
conflict theorists say that tracking also helps perpetuate social inequality by locking students into
faster and lower tracks. Worse yet, several studies show that students’ social class and race and
ethnicity affect the track into which they are placed, even though their intellectual abilities and
potential should be the only things that matter: White, middle-class students are more likely to be
tracked “up,” while poorer students and students of color are more likely to be tracked “down.” Once
they are tracked, students learn more if they are tracked up and less if they are tracked down. The
latter tend to lose self-esteem and begin to think they have little academic ability and thus do worse in
school because they were tracked down. In this way, tracking is thought to be good for those tracked up
and bad for those tracked down. Conflict theorists thus say that tracking perpetuates social
inequality based on social class andrace and ethnicity (Ansalone, 2010).

Conflict theorists add that standardized tests are culturally biased and thus also help perpetuate social
inequality (Grodsky, Warren, & Felts, 2008). According to this criticism, these tests favor white, middle-
class students whose socioeconomic status and other aspects of their backgrounds have afforded them
various experiences that help them answer questions on the tests.

A third critique of conflict theory involves the quality of schools. As we will see later in this chapter, US
schools differ mightily in their resources, learning conditions, and other aspects, all of which affect how
much students can learn in them. Simply put, schools are unequal, and their very inequality helps
perpetuate inequality in the larger society. Children going to the worst schools in urban areas face many
more obstacles to their learning than those going to well-funded schools in suburban areas. Their lack of
learning helps ensure they remain trapped in poverty and its related problems.

In a fourth critique, conflict theorists say that schooling teaches a hidden curriculum, by which they
mean a set of values and beliefs that support the status quo, including the existing social hierarchy
(Booher-Jennings, 2008). Although no one plots this behind closed doors, our schoolchildren learn
patriotic values and respect for authority from the books they read and from various classroom
activities.
A final critique is historical and concerns the rise of free, compulsory education during the nineteenth
century (Cole, 2008). Because compulsory schooling began in part to prevent immigrants’ values from
corrupting “American” values, conflict theorists see its origins as smacking of ethnocentrism (the
belief that one’s own group is superior to another group). They also criticize its intention to teach
workers the skills they needed for the new industrial economy. Because most workers were very poor in
this economy, these critics say, compulsory education served the interests of the upper/capitalist class
much more than it served the interests of workers.

Symbolic Interactionism and School Behavior

Symbolic interactionist studies of education examine social interaction in the classroom, on the
playground, and in other school venues. These studies help us understand what happens in the schools
themselves, but they also help us understand how what occurs in school is relevant for the larger
society. Some studies, for example, show how children’s playground activities reinforce gender-role
socialization. Girls tend to play more cooperative games, while boys play more competitive sports (Thorne,
1993)

A. Applying Social Research

Assessing the Impact of Small Class Size
Do elementary school students fare better if their classes have fewer students rather than more
students? It is not easy to answer this important question, because any differences found between
students in small classes and those in larger classes might not necessarily reflect class size. Rather,
they may reflect other factors. For example, perhaps the most motivated, educated parents ask
that theirchild be placed in a smaller class and that their school goes along with this request. Perhaps
teachers with more experience favor smaller classes and are able to have their principals assign them to
these classes, while new teachers are assigned larger classes. These and other possibilities mean that
any differences found between the two class sizes might reflect the qualities and skills of students
and/or teachers in these classes, and not class size itself.

For this reason, the ideal study of class size would involve random assignment of both students and
teachers to classes of different size.

The study, named Project STAR (Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio), began in Tennessee in 1985 and
involved 79 public schools and 11,600 students and 1,330 teachers who were all randomly assigned to
either a smaller class (13–17 students) or a larger class (22–25 students). The random assignment
began when the students entered kindergarten and lasted through third grade; in fourth grade, the
experiment ended, and all the students were placed into the larger class size. The students are now in
their early thirties, and many aspects of their educational and personal lives have been followed since
the study began.

Some of the more notable findings of this multiyear study include the following:
 While in grades K–3, students in the smaller classes had higher average scores on standardized
tests.
 Students who had been in the smaller classes continued to have higher average test scores in
grades 4–7.
 Students who had been in the smaller classes were more likely to complete high school and alsoto
attend college.
 Students who had been in the smaller classes were less likely to be arrested during adolescence.
 Students who had been in the smaller classes were more likely in their twenties to be married
and to live in wealthier neighborhoods.
  White girls who had been in the smaller classes were less likely to have a teenage birth than
white girls who had been in the larger classes.

Why did small class size have these benefits? Two reasons seem likely. First, in a smaller class, there are
fewer students to disrupt the class by talking, fighting, or otherwise taking up the teacher’s time. More
learning can thus occur in smaller classes. Second, kindergarten teachers are better able to teach
noncognitive skills (cooperating, listening, sitting still) in smaller classes, and these skills can have an
impact many years later.

Regardless of the reasons, it was the experimental design of Project STAR that enabled its findings to
be attributed to class size rather than to other factors. Because small class size does seem to help in
many ways, the United States should try to reduce class size in order to improve student performance
and later life outcomes.
Sources: Chetty et al., 2011; Schanzenbach, 2006

Research guided by the symbolic interactionist perspective suggests that

teachers’ expectations may influence how much their students learn. When
teachers expect little of their students, their students tend to learn less.
ijiwaru jimbo – Pre-school colour pack – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Another body of research shows that teachers’ views about students can affect how much the students
learn. When teachers think students are smart, they tend to spend more time with these students, to
call on them, and to praise them when they give the right answer. Not surprisingly, these students learn
more because of their teachers’ behavior. But when teachers think students are less bright, they tend
to spend less time with these students and to act in a way that leads them to learn less. Robert
Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson (1968) conducted a classic study of this phenomenon. They tested a
group of students at the beginning of the school year and told their teachers which students were bright
and which were not. They then tested the students again at the end of the school year. Not surprisingly,
the bright students had learned more during the year than the less bright ones. But it turned out that
the researchers had randomly decided which students would be designated bright and less bright. Because
the “bright” students learned more during the school year without actually being brighter at the
beginning, their teachers’ behavior must have been the reason. In fact, their teachers did spend more
time with them and praised them more often than was true for the “less bright” students. This process
helps us understand why tracking is bad for the students tracked down.

Other research in the symbolic interactionist tradition focuses on how teachers treat girls and boys.
Many studies find that teachers call on and praise boys more often (Jones & Dindia, 2004). Teachers do
not do this consciously, but their behavior nonetheless sends an implicit message to girls that math and
science are not for them and that they are not suited to do well in these subjects. This body of research
has stimulated efforts to educate teachers about the ways in which they may unwittingly send these
messages and about strategies they could use to promote greater interest and achievement by girls in
math and science (Battey, Kafai, Nixon, & Kao, 2007).
PRESENTATION

SCHOOL AS A LEARNING COMMUNITY: What Is a Professional Learning Community?

Richard DuFour
(Source:http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may04/vol61/num08/What-Is-a-Professional-Learning-
Community%C2%A2.aspx)

The idea of improving schools by developing professional learning communities is currently in vogue.
People use this term to describe every imaginable combination of individuals with an interest in
education—a grade-level teaching team, a school committee, a high school department, an entire school
district, a state department of education, a national professional organization, and so on. In fact, the
term has been used so ubiquitously that it is in danger of losing all meaning.

The professional learning community model has now reached a critical juncture, one well known to those
who have witnessed the fate of other well-intentioned school reform efforts. In this all-too-familiar
cycle, initial enthusiasm gives way to confusion about the fundamental concepts driving the initiative,
followed by inevitable implementation problems, the conclusion that the reform has failed to bring about
the desired results, abandonment of the reform, and the launch of a new search for the next promising
initiative. Another reform movement has come and gone, reinforcing the conventional education wisdom
that promises, “This too shall pass.”

The movement to develop professional learning communities can avoid this cycle, but only if educators
reflect critically on the concept's merits. What are the “big ideas” that represent the core principles of
professional learning communities? How do these principles guide schools' efforts to sustain the
professional learning community model until it becomes deeply embedded in the culture of the school?

Big Idea #1: Ensuring That Students Learn

The professional learning community model flows from the assumption that the core mission of formal
education is not simply to ensure that students are taught but to ensure that they learn. This simple
shift—from a focus on teaching to a focus on learning—has profound implications for schools.

School mission statements that promise “learning for all” have become a cliché. But when a school staff
takes that statement literally—when teachers view it as a pledge to ensure the success of each student
rather than as politically correct hyperbole—profound changes begin to take place. The school staff
finds itself asking, What school characteristics and practices have been most successful in helping all
students achieve at high levels? How could we adopt those characteristics and practices in our own
school? What commitments would we have to make to one another to create such a school? What
indicators could we monitor to assess our progress? When the staff has built shared knowledge and
found common ground on these questions, the school has a solid foundation for moving forward with its
improvement initiative.

As the school moves forward, every professional in the building must engage with colleagues in the
ongoing exploration of three crucial questions that drive the work of those within a professional
learning community:

What do we want each student to learn?

How will we know when each student has learned it?
How will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in learning?
The answer to the third question separates learning communities from traditional schools.
Here is a scenario that plays out daily in traditional schools. A teacher teaches a unit to the best of his
or her ability, but at the conclusion of the unit some students have not mastered the essential
outcomes.On the one hand, the teacher would like to take the time to help those students. On the other
hand, the teacher feels compelled to move forward to “cover” the course content. If the teacher uses
instructional time to assist students who have not learned, the progress of students who have mastered
the content will suffer; if the teacher pushes on with new concepts, the struggling students will fall
farther behind.

What typically happens in this situation? Almost invariably, the school leaves the solution to the
discretion of individual teachers, who vary widely in the ways they respond. Some teachers conclude
that the struggling students should transfer to a less rigorous course or should be considered for
special education. Some lower their expectations by adopting less challenging standards for subgroups of
students within their classrooms. Some look for ways to assist the students before and after school.
Some allow struggling students to fail.

When a school begins to function as a professional learning community, however, teachers become aware
of the incongruity between their commitment to ensure learning for all students and their lack of a
coordinated strategy to respond when some students do not learn. The staff addresses this discrepancy
by designing strategies to ensure that struggling students receive additional time and support, no
matter who their teacher is. In addition to being systematic and schoolwide, the professional learning
community's response to students who experience difficulty is

Timely. The school quickly identifies students who need additional time and support.
Based on intervention rather than remediation. The plan provides students with help as soon as they
experience difficulty rather than relying on summer school, retention, and remedial courses.
Directive. Instead of inviting students to seek additional help, the systematic plan requires students to
devote extra time and receive additional assistance until they have mastered the necessary concepts.
The systematic, timely, and directive intervention program operating at Adlai Stevenson High School in
Lincolnshire, Illinois, provides an excellent example. Every three weeks, every student receives a
progress report. Within the first month of school, new students discover that if they are not doing well
ina class, they will receive a wide array of immediate interventions. First, the teacher, counselor, and
faculty advisor each talk with the student individually to help resolve the problem. The school also
notifies the student's parents about the concern. In addition, the school offers the struggling student a
pass from study hall to a school tutoring center to get additional help in the course. An older student
mentor, in conjunction with the struggling student's advisor, helps the student with homework
duringthe student's daily advisory period.

Any student who continues to fall short of expectations at the end of six weeks despite these
interventions is required, rather than invited, to attend tutoring sessions during the study hall period.
Counselors begin to make weekly checks on the struggling student's progress. If tutoring fails to bring
about improvement within the next six weeks, the student is assigned to a daily guided study hall with
10 or fewer students. The guided study hall supervisor communicates with classroom teachers to learn
exactly what homework each student needs to complete and monitors the completion of that homework.
Parents attend a meeting at the school at which the student, parents, counselor, and classroom teacher
must sign a contract clarifying what each party will do to help the student meet the standards for the
course.

Stevenson High School serves more than 4,000 students. Yet this school has found a way to monitor each
student's learning on a timely basis and to ensure that every student who experiences academic
difficulty will receive extra time and support for learning.
Like Stevenson, schools that are truly committed to the concept of learning for each student will stop
subjecting struggling students to a haphazard education lottery. These schools will guarantee that each
student receives whatever additional support he or she needs.

Big Idea #2: A Culture of Collaboration

Educators who are building a professional learning community recognize that they must work together
toachieve their collective purpose of learning for all. Therefore, they create structures to promote a
collaborative culture.

Despite compelling evidence indicating that working collaboratively represents best practice, teachers in
many schools continue to work in isolation. Even in schools that endorse the idea of collaboration, the
staff's willingness to collaborate often stops at the classroom door. Some school staffs equate the term
“collaboration” with congeniality and focus on building group camaraderie. Other staffs join forces to
develop consensus on operational procedures, such as how they will respond to tardiness or supervise
recess. Still others organize themselves into committees to oversee different facets of the school's
operation, such as discipline, technology, and social climate. Although each of these activities can serve
a useful purpose, none represents the kind of professional dialogue that can transform a school into a
professional learning community.

The powerful collaboration that characterizes professional learning communities is a systematic

processin which teachers work together to analyze and improve their classroom practice. Teachers work
in teams, engaging in an ongoing cycle of questions that promote deep team learning. This process,
inturn, leads to higher levels of student achievement.

Collaborating for School Improvement

At Boones Mill Elementary School, a K-5 school serving 400 students in rural Franklin County, Virginia,
the powerful collaboration of grade-level teams drives the school improvement process. The following
scenario describes what Boones Mill staff members refer to as their teaching-learning process.

The school's five 3rd grade teachers study state and national standards, the district curriculum guide,
and student achievement data to identify the essential knowledge and skills that all students should
learn in an upcoming language arts unit. They also ask the 4th grade teachers what they hope students
will have mastered by the time they leave 3rd grade. On the basis of the shared knowledge generated
by this joint study, the 3rd grade team agrees on the critical outcomes that they will make sure each
student achieves during the unit.

Next, the team turns its attention to developing common formative assessments to monitor each
student's mastery of the essential outcomes. Team members discuss the most authentic and valid ways
to assess student mastery. They set the standard for each skill or concept that each student must
achieve to be deemed proficient. They agree on the criteria by which they will judge the quality of
student work, and they practice applying those criteria until they can do so consistently. Finally, they
decide when they will administer the assessments.

After each teacher has examined the results of the common formative assessment for his or
her students, the team analyzes how all 3rd graders performed. Team members identify strengths and
weaknesses in student learning and begin to discuss how they can build on the strengths and address
the weaknesses. The entire team gains new insights into what is working and what is not, and members
discuss new strategies that they can implement in their classrooms to raise student achievement.

At Boones Mill, collaborative conversations happen routinely throughout the year. Teachers use
frequent formative assessments to investigate the questions “Are students learning what they need to
learn?” and
“Who needs additional time and support to learn?” rather than relying solely on summative assessments
that ask “Which students learned what was intended and which students did not?”

Collaborative conversations call on team members to make public what has traditionally been private—
goals, strategies, materials, pacing, questions, concerns, and results. These discussions give every
teacher someone to turn to and talk to, and they are explicitly structured to improve the classroom
practice of teachers—individually and collectively.

For teachers to participate in such a powerful process, the school must ensure that everyone belongs
toa team that focuses on student learning. Each team must have time to meet during the workday and
throughout the school year. Teams must focus their efforts on crucial questions related to learning and
generate products that reflect that focus, such as lists of essential outcomes, different kinds of
assessment, analyses of student achievement, and strategies for improving results. Teams must develop
norms or protocols to clarify expectations regarding roles, responsibilities, and relationships among
teammembers. Teams must adopt student achievement goals linked with school and district goals.

Removing Barriers to Success

For meaningful collaboration to occur, a number of things must also stop happening. Schools must stop
pretending that merely presenting teachers with state standards or district curriculum guides will
guarantee that all students have access to a common curriculum. Even school districts that devote
tremendous time and energy to designing the intended curriculum often pay little attention to the
implemented curriculum (what teachers actually teach) and even less to the attained curriculum (what
students learn) (Marzano, 2003). Schools must also give teachers time to analyze and discuss state and
district curriculum documents. More important, teacher conversations must quickly move beyond “What
are we expected to teach?” to “How will we know when each student has learned?”

In addition, faculties must stop making excuses for failing to collaborate. Few educators publicly assert
that working in isolation is the best strategy for improving schools. Instead, they give reasons why it is
impossible for them to work together: “We just can't find the time.” “Not everyone on the staff has
endorsed the idea.” “We need more training in collaboration.” But the number of schools that have
created truly collaborative cultures proves that such barriers are not insurmountable. As Roland Barth
(1991) wrote,

Are teachers and administrators willing to accept the fact that they are part of the problem? . . . God
didn't create self-contained classrooms, 50-minute periods, and subjects taught in isolation. We did—
because we find working alone safer than and preferable to working together. (pp. 126–127)
In the final analysis, building the collaborative culture of a professional learning community is a
question of will. A group of staff members who are determined to work together will find a way.

Big Idea #3: A Focus on Results

Professional learning communities judge their effectiveness on the basis of results. Working together
to improve student achievement becomes the routine work of everyone in the school. Every teacher team
participates in an ongoing process of identifying the current level of student achievement, establishing
a goal to improve the current level, working together to achieve that goal, and providing periodic
evidenceof progress. The focus of team goals shifts. Such goals as “We will adopt the Junior Great Books
program” or “We will create three new labs for our science course” give way to “We will increase the
percentage of students who meet the state standard in language arts from 83 percent to 90 percent” or
“We will reduce the failure rate in our course by 50 percent.”

Schools and teachers typically suffer from the DRIP syndrome—Data Rich/Information Poor. The results
- oriented professional learning community not only welcomes data but also turns data into useful
and
relevant information for staff. Teachers have never suffered from a lack of data. Even a teacher who
works in isolation can easily establish the mean, mode, median, standard deviation, and percentage of
students who demonstrated proficiency every time he or she administers a test. However, data will
become a catalyst for improved teacher practice only if the teacher has a basis of comparison.

When teacher teams develop common formative assessments throughout the school year, each teacher
can identify how his or her students performed on each skill compared with other students. Individual
teachers can call on their team colleagues to help them reflect on areas of concern. Each teacher has
access to the ideas, materials, strategies, and talents of the entire team.

Freeport Intermediate School, located 50 miles south of Houston, Texas, attributes its success to an
unrelenting focus on results. Teachers work in collaborative teams for 90 minutes daily to clarify the
essential outcomes of their grade levels and courses and to align those outcomes with state standards.
They develop consistent instructional calendars and administer the same brief assessment to all
studentsat the same grade level at the conclusion of each instructional unit, roughly once a week.

Each quarter, the teams administer a common cumulative exam. Each spring, the teams develop and
administer practice tests for the state exam. Each year, the teams pore over the results of the state
test,which are broken down to show every teacher how his or her students performed on every skill and
on every test item. The teachers share their results from all of these assessments with their colleagues,
andthey quickly learn when a teammate has been particularly effective in teaching a certain skill. Team
members consciously look for successful practice and attempt to replicate it in their own practice; they
also identify areas of the curriculum that need more attention.

Freeport Intermediate has been transformed from one of the lowest-performing schools in the state to
a national model for academic achievement. Principal Clara Sale-Davis believes that the crucial first step
in that transformation came when the staff began to honestly confront data on student achievement
and towork together to improve results rather than make excuses for them.

Of course, this focus on continual improvement and results requires educators to change traditional
practices and revise prevalent assumptions. Educators must begin to embrace data as a useful indicator
of progress. They must stop disregarding or excusing unfavorable data and honestly confront the
sometimes-brutal facts. They must stop using averages to analyze student performance and begin to
focus on the success of each student.

Educators who focus on results must also stop limiting improvement goals to factors outside the
classroom, such as student discipline and staff morale, and shift their attention to goals that focus on
student learning. They must stop assessing their own effectiveness on the basis of how busy they are or
how many new initiatives they have launched and begin instead to ask, “Have we made progress on the
goals that are most important to us?” Educators must stop working in isolation and hoarding their ideas,
materials, and strategies and begin to work together to meet the needs of all students.

Hard Work and Commitment

Even the grandest design eventually translates into hard work. The professional learning community
model is a grand design—a powerful new way of working together that profoundly affects the practices
of schooling. But initiating and sustaining the concept requires hard work. It requires the school staff
to focus on learning rather than teaching, work collaboratively on matters related to learning, and
holditself accountable for the kind of results that fuel continual improvement.
When educators do the hard work necessary to implement these principles, their collective ability to help
all students learn will rise. If they fail to demonstrate the discipline to initiate and sustain this work,
then their school is unlikely to become more effective, even if those within it claim to be a professional
learning community. The rise or fall of the professional learning community concept depends not on the
merits of the concept itself, but on the most important element in the improvement of any school—the
commitment and persistence of the educators within it.

Partnering with Families and Communities

Joyce L. Epstein and Karen Clark Salinas
(Source: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may04/vol61/num08/Partnering-with-Families-and-Communities.aspx)

A well-organized program of family and community partnerships yields many benefits for schools and
their students.

What is the difference between a professional learning community and a school learning community? A
professional learning community emphasizes the teamwork of principals, teachers, and staff to identify
school goals, improve curriculum and instruction, reduce teachers' isolation, assess student progress,
and increase the effectiveness of school programs. Professional teamwork is important and can greatly
improve teaching, instruction, and professional relationships in a school, but it falls short of producing a
true community of learners. In contrast, a school learning community includes educators, students,
parents, and community partners who work together to improve the school and enhance students'
learning opportunities.

One component of a school learning community is an organized program of school, family, andcommunity
partnerships with activities linked to school goals. Research and fieldwork show that such programs
improve schools, strengthen families, invigorate community support, and increase student achievement
and success (Epstein, 2001; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Sheldon, 2003).

Pipe Dream or Possibility?

Is it a pipe dream to think that every school can become a true learning community, or is it really possible?
During the past eight years, more than 1,000 schools, districts, and state departments of education in
the National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University have worked with researchers
to develop and implement programs of school, family, and community partnerships. Their efforts have
produced not only many research publications but also research-based materials that elementary, middle,
and high schools can use to customize and continually improve their programs of family and community
involvement (Epstein et al., 2002).

Research-Based Approaches
A well-organized partnership program starts with an Action Team for Partnerships. Made up of teachers,
administrators, parents, and community partners, the Action Team is linked to the school council or
school improvement team. With a clear focus on promoting student success, the team writes annual
plans for family and community involvement, implements and evaluates activities, and integrates the
activities conducted by other groups and individual teachers into a comprehensive partnership program
for the school.

Annual action plans use a research-based framework of six types of involvement—parenting,

communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and collaborating with the
community—to focus partnerships on school improvement goals (see fig. 1, p. 15). By implementing
activities for all six types of involvement, schools can help parents become involved at school and at home
in various ways that meet student needs and family schedules. Input from participants helps
schools address challenges and improve plans, activities, and outreach so that all families can be
productive partners in their children's school success.

Figure 1. Six Types of Involvement

Parenting. Assist families with parenting skills, family support, understanding child and adolescent
development, and setting home conditions to support learning at each age and grade level. Assist
schools in understanding families' backgrounds, cultures, and goals for children.
Communicating. Communicate with families about school programs and student progress. Create two-
way communication channels between school and home.
Volunteering. Improve recruitment, training, activities, and schedules to involve families as volunteers
and as audiences at the school or in other locations. Enable educators to work with volunteers who
support students and the school.
Learning at Home. Involve families with their children in academic learning at home, including homework,
goal setting, and other curriculum-related activities. Encourage teachers to design homework that
enables students to share and discuss interesting tasks.
Decision Making. Include families as participants in school decisions, governance, and advocacy activities
through school councils or improvement teams, committees, and parent organizations.
Collaborating with the Community. Coordinate resources and services for families, students, and the
school with community groups, including businesses, agencies, cultural and civic organizations, and
colleges or universities. Enable all to contribute service to the community.
Source: Epstein et al., 2002.

Stories from the Field

To understand how research on partnerships is applied in practice and to learn from educators and
families about challenges that must be addressed to involve all families, each year the National Network
of Partnership Schools collects what are called promising partnership practices (Salinas & Jansorn,
2003). The following examples illustrate how schools in urban, suburban, and rural locations are working
to create effective programs of family and community involvement to strengthen their learning
communities.

Welcoming All Families

A school learning community welcomes all families. Many schools serve a diverse range of students,
including new immigrants and refugees. The parents of such students, like all parents, want their
children to succeed in school. These children, like all students, do better when their parents and
teachers are partners. In a welcoming school, educators appreciate differences and involve all families
inmany ways throughout the school year.

Like many schools in the National Network of Partnership Schools, Madison Junior High in Naperville,
Illinois, fosters a welcoming environment by implementing activities for all six types of family
involvement. Last year, the school held evening discussions about adolescence to help parents share
effective parenting strategies and network with one another on important topics; published newsletters;
held “Thursday Things,” a weekly activity for sending information home; created a database of
volunteers; hosted honor roll breakfasts; conducted family literacy nights; built connections with
business partners; and celebrated Dad's Day. All activities were linked to goals for students in the school
improvement plan and help foster an active learning community.

Roosevelt Elementary School in St. Paul, Minnesota, organized the Second Cup of Coffee program—a
monthly morning activity during which parents have the opportunity to meet with teachers,
administrators, and other parents and discuss such school activities as testing, homework, and
reading
programs. Translators encouraged parents with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds to attend
these and other school activities.

Early Childhood Center #17 in Buffalo, New York, conducted its Diversity Celebration program to help
students, teachers, and families learn about and appreciate more than eight cultural groups
represented in their learning community. Families and community volunteers contributed cultural items
and worked with students on costumes, skits, poems, songs, and dances. The activities helped students
develop language skills and other talents and involved diverse families in their children's learning.

Focusing on Achievement
A school learning community puts a laserlike focus on student learning and success. Schools in the
National Network of Partnership Schools have implemented many family and community involvement
activities to support and extend students' reading, writing, math, and goal-setting skills. The home,
school, and community connections make school subjects more meaningful for students.

Reading. Many schools engage parents and community partners by offering workshop sessions on reading,
by organizing reading volunteers, and by helping parents strengthen students' reading skills and
encourage reading for pleasure at home (Baker & Moss, 2001; Sheldon & Epstein, in press-a). For
example, Clara E. Westropp School in Cleveland, Ohio, conducted monthly family reading nights. The
school librarian identified age-appropriate books for students from kindergarten through grade 4.
Parents came to school with their children, selected books from the library, asked teachers questions
about reading, and learned strategies to increase children's reading at home.

All students in grades 1–3 participated in the Book Check program at Ladysmith Elementary School in
Ladysmith, Wisconsin. Parents, teachers, retired teachers, and high school students performing
community service volunteered to listen to children retell the stories they had read and to discuss plots,
settings, and characters. The students took tests on the books they had read and then moved on to new
reading. The program expanded from a pilot project to a whole-school activity, creating an active
reading community.

Many schools in the National Network of Partnership Schools conduct reading-partner programs once a
week, twice a month, or on other schedules with a variety of volunteers, including parents, senior
citizens, and community groups. Others hold special reading events. For example, Dr. Lydia T. Wright
School in Buffalo, New York, ran a reading marathon for 26 days to focus the entire community on
reading. This event involved parents, grandparents, and others in the community—for example, police
officers, firefighters, local authors of books for children, the mayor, judges, local celebrities, and older
students—in reading activities.

The Lea Conmigo (Read with Me) program, conducted by Families in Schools in Los Angeles, California,
provided books to more than 23,000 students and families in an effort to improve the early literacy skills
of preschool and kindergarten children. Teachers introduced the program to parents, many of whom did
not speak English. Parents received English and Spanish books to take home and learned ways to
encourage their children's reading. Data show that students improved their reading skills and parents
increased the time they read with their children.

Writing. Partnerships for writing take many forms, including workshops n the writing process, activities
that engage parents in writing, presentations by local authors, and celebrations of student writing
beforefamily and community audiences. At Highlands Elementary School in Naperville, Illinois, a writing
workshop series helped more than 120 parents learn about the school's writing process, state writing
tests, and ways to support student writing at home. All sessions were videotaped for parents who could
not attend. Arminta Street Elementary School in North Hollywood, California, turned a classroom into
the
Arminta Café That Celebrates Literacy, serving coffee, tea, and cookies to parents who listened to
students read their writing aloud. Other schools have students share their stories, poems, journals, and
artwork with their parents. At Discovery School #98 in Buffalo, New York, students discussed their
portfolios with family members or neighbors who came to class. Visitors were given a list of questions to
ask to keep the discussion moving.

Many schools take other innovative approaches. Teachers from Loreto Elementary School in Los Angeles
attended a district workshop on Parents as Authors and then worked with their students' parents on
Thursday mornings for three months. Many new immigrant parents created books and videos about their
lives and experiences, wrote poems about their children, and then presented their work to their children.
The activity expanded when 5th grade teachers met with their students' families to create family books
as gifts for the 5th grade graduates. In this way, the school's learning community grew to include
parent-authors who had had little or no prior schooling in the United States.

Math. Family involvement in math may encompass events for parents and students, community
connections, information sessions for parents on math curriculum and assessments, and homework
support (Sheldon & Epstein, in press-b). In Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, more than 600 people wanted to attend
Woodridge Primary School's Math Night program, making it necessary for the school to conduct the
program twice. For Math Night, the school invited families to learn about the new Ohio state math
standards. The Action Team for Partnerships, in cooperation with parents, teachers, and community
partners, provided dinner, conducted teacher-led math sessions on ways to help students with math at
home, distributed take-home bags of math materials and information on state standards, handed out
coupons from local businesses, and even held a math-related raffle.

Math also became a real-world activity at Kennedy Junior High in Lisle, Illinois. In an estimation project
called Beat Pete, a math class followed Pete, a local moving man, to estimate the weight and cost of a
moving job. The program provided students with bus transportation, printed materials to prepare for
theestimation task, and prizes for best estimates.

Thurmont Middle School in Thurmont, Maryland, conducted a highly focused workshop series for parents
and students to help students prepare for the state's Functional Math Test. At monthly meetings,
parentsand students worked together under teachers' guidance and received math homework materials.
Students who failed a practice math test were invited with their parents to additional sessions.
Morethan 80 percent of the 6th graders passed the required math test, exceeding the school's goal by
more than 10 percent and surpassing the percentage of passing 7th graders, who had not taken the
workshops. The teachers enjoyed working with one another as well as with parents and students to
reach an important school goal as they strengthened their math learning community.

Because most parents cannot frequently come to the school building to see what their children are
learning, new designs for homework hold promise for engaging all parents in weekly discussions with
their children about schoolwork. For example, an interactive homework process from the National
Network of Partnership Schools called Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) helps elementary
and middle school teachers design and assign homework that enables all students to share what they
are learning with a family member (Epstein, Salinas, & Van Voorhis, 2001; Van Voorhis & Epstein, 2002).
Homework is part of a full program of school, family, and community partnerships and extends the
learning community to include student learning outside school (Epstein, 2001; Van Voorhis, 2003).

Planning for college and work. In school learning communities, educators, parents, and community
partners help students focus on their plans for college and careers and on the education requirements
they must fulfill to meet their goals. For example, at Glenmary School in Peace River, Alberta, Canada,
high school students, parents, and faculty were involved in Career Portfolio Night. Eleventh
graders
researched a career of interest, interviewed a professional in their selected field, and created a
personal career path and portfolio about that career. By involving families in this class assignment, the
students' career portfolio displays, presentations, and evaluations became a shared learning experience
and created new contacts for students with many potential future employers. This age-appropriate
activity reflects research findings that demonstrate the importance of parent-student discussions
throughout high school about education and future plans.

The Mother-Daughter College Preparation Program was started in District B in Los Angeles to help 5th
grade Latinas and their mothers think about postsecondary education. In 2003, more than 160 mothers
and daughters made college visits to California State University at Northridge. The program serves 17
schools and approximately 425 mother-daughter teams, and participation continues to grow. Due to its
popularity, Families in Schools and District F expanded the Mother-Daughter College Preparation
Program to form an extension known as Going On To (GOT) College. The GOT College program guides boys,
girls, and family members to visit local colleges and to plan their middle and high school programs to
enable students to qualify for college. By introducing postsecondary pathways early in students'
education careers, families and students can plan more effectively for their futures—both educationally
and financially.

Collaborating with the Community

A school learning community works with many partners to increase students' learning opportunities and
experiences. Activities to enrich students' skills and talents may be conducted during lunch, after school,
and at other times by school, family, and community partners (Sanders, 2001; Sanders & Harvey, 2002).

Teachers in the middle grades at Good Shepherd School in Peace River, Alberta, asked community
instructors in tai chi, tae kwon do, and hip-hop dance to volunteer their time to conduct fitness classes
for students during the lunch hour. This program, known as Try It at Lunch, enrolled many students,
increasing interest in the community programs.

FamiliesFORWARD, working in Cincinnati, Ohio, conducted the Gifts We Share program to help students
and families in high-poverty schools give of themselves, meet their neighbors, and improve students'
writing and reading skills. Students wrote letters to invite senior citizens to become pen pals and to
interact in other ways. Parents helped students coordinate several events, including a dinner to
honor the seniors. The seniors, too, shared their talents and participated as guest readers, oral
historians, and volunteers at school. The project extended the demographics of the learning community
by including senior citizen neighbors.

Studies indicate that enriched learning activities help students do better in school, but not all families
have extra resources for such activities. At East Taunton Elementary School in Taunton, Massachusetts,
business partners provided part of the costs of buses and entrance fees for students and families to
visit museums and attend cultural programs. Many community partners are more willing to help when
they know that their investments contribute to student learning and success in school.

Allen and Lathrop Elementary Schools in Canton, Ohio, organized the Mercy Pals program to support two-
way community service. Local medical center volunteers provided students and families with health care
information and medical testing, gave presentations on careers and hobbies, led science activities, and
supplied nutritious treats to sustain students during achievement testing. In return, students
conducted community service activities for patients and hospital staff, created art displays, and
performed at hospital celebrations.
 Strengthening School Learning Communities
Schools have a vested interest in becoming true learning communities. They are now accountable for all
students' learning. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires schools, districts, and states to develop
academic programs that will increase students' proficiency in reading, math, and science. To learn at
high levels, all students need the guidance and support of their teachers, families, and others in the
community.

NCLB also requires schools, districts, and states to develop programs to communicate with all families
about their children's education and to involve them in ways that help boost student achievement and
success. The federal legislation, related state and district policies, school goals, family and student
expectations, and useful research on partnerships are converging to encourage all schools to establish
active and effective learning communities.

Most schools conduct at least a few activities to involve families in their children's education, but most donot have
well-organized, goal-linked, and sustainable partnership programs. The schools featured here differ from most
schools in two important ways. Organizationally, educators, parents, and other partnersare working together to
systematically strengthen and maintain their family and community involvement programs over time. Interpersonally,
these partners recognize that they all have roles to play in helping students succeed in school—and that, together
with students, they are the school's learning community.

PRESENTATION
THE WHY AND HOW OF SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP

Opportunities for School-Community Partnership

Partnership implies two parties helping each other. Both parties benefit. This means that if a
school-community partnership exists, both parties benefit from the relationship. Thus, in the following
paragraphs, we shall present what communities can do for schools and what schools can do for
communities.

What can the community do for schools?

Here are examples of what a community can do for schools:
1. Brigada Eskwela – This program engages all education stakeholders to contribute their time,
effort and resources to ensuring that public school facilities are set in time for the forthcoming
school opening. It takes place more or less two weeks before classes begin in June. This is a
school maintenance program that has been institutionalized since 2009 when DepEd issued DepEd
Order # 100.
2. Curriculum Development – This can mean use of community resources for learning, e.g. museum,
elders of the community as key information in research or resource persons in thestudy of
local history.
3. Work experience programs – Business establishments and offices in the community can serve as
training ground for learners. A concrete example is the Work Immersion required of Senior High
School students. In this Work Immersion, students are given the opportunity to work in relevant
establishments or offices in the community to help develop in them “the competencies, work
ethics, and values relevant to pursuing further education and/or joining the world of work…
Partner offices the immersion provide Senior High School students with opportunities: 1) to
become familiar with the work place; 2) for employment simulation; and 3) to apply their
competencies in areas of specialization / applied subjects in authentic work environments
(Enclosure to DepEd Order No. 30, s. 2017).

In this school-community partnership, the school can fulfill what curriculum requires and may
improve on their curriculum based on community feedback, enables the students to undergo hands-on
work experience, while community establishments contribute to the formation of graduates who are
more ready for life and more equipped for the world of work. Business establishments or any world of
work in the community are the ultimate beneficiaries of these graduate who have been more prepared
through work immersion.
Some schools call this service learning since it actively involves students in a wide range of
experiences which benefits students and the community at the same time fulfilling the requirement of a
curriculum.
4. Remediation and enrichment classes – Parents and retired teachers may be involved in the
School Reading remediation and Learning Enrichment Programs.
5. Youth Development Programs – The young may involve themselves in youth development
programs and develop their skills and talents, learn how to deal positively with peers and adults
and serve as resources in their communities.
6. Community Service – Examples of community service are students participating in tutorial
programs, community reforestation programs, clean up drive for a river, assisting in medical
mission; school head involved in planning local celebrations, teachers managing programs,
projects, activities; school band playing in fiesta parade.
What can schools do for communities in return?
Schools may allow the community to use school resources. Here are concrete examples
enumerated by the DepEd Primer on School-Community Partnership:
 Classroom used by community organizations for meetings
 School used as a polling place and venue for medical mission in which it may co-sponsor withthe
Rural Health Unit
 School used by the Rural Health Unit for mothers’ class on child care
 School used as an evacuation center
 School facilities used for community assemblies
 School basketball court used for local celebrations and barangay sports league
 Schools conduct livelihood skills-training programs for parents and out-of-school youth by
usingschool resources
 Livelihood skills-training for parents and out-of-school youths by teachers themselves

Learning from the Experiences of Schools and Community Partners

Here are concrete examples:
1. Dumingaga Central School, Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur
Strong school community partnership – Feeding program was maintained by community donors –
Mother Butler Mission Guild, barangay councils, office of the mayor, parents who budgeted, cooked and
purchased.
“Kiddie Cop” classes – Cops lectures on good manners and right conduct, drug addiction, child
abuse, child welfare. Municipal Welfare and Development Office – Municipal Health Office conducted
special classes on health and nutrition, rights of the child.

2. Angels Magic Spot and Project REACH, etc. – Pembo Elementary School, Makati
Pembo Angels Magic Spot (PAMS) were the volunteer environmental steward-students of Pembo
Elementary School while magic spots were the small dumpsites or empty lots in the barangay which were
converted by the students into vegetable gardens from which members of the barangay could harvest for
home supply, the school for their feeding program or sold them for cash for the purchase of seedlings
and planting of more vegetables.
PAMS brought together students, teachers, school head, parents, barangay officials and other
members of the community clean up little nooks for garbage and converted them into green areas with
vegetables shared by all. It also taught gardening skills and positive attitude toward work to
studentsand supplemented the feeding program for the underweight and the malnourished in the school,
Project BOWLS (Brain Operates Well on Loaded Stomachs).
Another effective practice was Project Revitalized Enthusiasm for Assistance to Children of
Humanity (REACH) where each teacher adopted one student and acted as his/her mentor for the entire
school year. The teacher gave free tutorial to the adopted student during his/her free time, visit the
student’s family every now and in some instances gave the student a daily allowance of ten pesos from
rd
the teacher’s own pocket. This contributed to improved performance of Pembo Elementary School. 23
in rank in the Division Achievement Test zoomed up to rank 9 and six years later rank 1 (near-zero drop
out rate), ad Kid
Urbanidad Kids were ideal students who acted as role models for the students and the PEMBO
community. They were the cleanest, most well-mannered and most diligent in class.
BOWLS means Brain Operates Well on Loaded Stomach. Evert recess, children who were selectedby
the school as BOWLS beneficiaries due to malnutrition were provided a free bowl of lugaw.
Pera sa Panapon was a weekly trash market where students, their parents and other members of
the community were invited to bring their recyclable garbage. The project helped the school purchase
the necessary supplies and was able to support to a 2010 math competition in Singapore.
Sociological Basis of School-Community Partnership
The functionalist theory states that institutions must perform their respective functions for
the stability of society. Other institutions must come in if one institution fails to do its part for the
sake of society.
The school cannot do it all. “It takes a village to educate a child,” so goes the African proverb. It
has to work in partnership with other institutions in the community such as the church, government
organizations and non-government organizations. With the breakdown of families, schools face greater
challenge in educating the young.
The rearing and education of the child is the primary obligation of parents. The school, the
Church and other social institutions come in to assist parents and families to fulfill their irreplaceable
obligation. The breakdown of marriages, the demand for both mother and father to work to meet the
demands of a rising coast of living resulting to less or practically no more time for parents to spend time
with their children have, however attacked the stability of families and have adversely affected
families in the performance of their irreplaceable duty to educate children. Added to these is the
increasing number of families composed of single mothers struggling to raise a family. With the burden
of earning lodged solely on the shoulders of one parent, single parents struggle to earn enough to
provide for their families. Consequently, this responsibility leads to their having a limited amount of time
to spend for and with growing and developing children who, unfortunately become more likely single-
parent families themselves. The cycle goes on.
This is not to mention the negative effect of uncontrolled and unregulated use of technology on
the young. While the use of technology has brought a lot of convenience its uncontrolled and
unregulated use by the tech-savvy kids expose these kids to all sorts of information not necessarily
favorable for their development. So families, schools and other school institutions need to work
together to save the youth.

Legal Bases for Parents and Community Involvement

It is no wonder why even our laws support and school-community partnership. RA 9155,
Governance of Basic Education Act, Section E (10) explicitly states one of the responsibilities of school
heads is “establishing school and community” networks and encouraging the active participation of
teachers organizations, nonacademic personnel of public schools, and parents-teachers-community
associations.”
Section 3 (f) of the same Act encourages “local initiatives for the improvement of schools and
learning centers and to provide the means by which… improvements may be achieved and sustained.”
Batas Pambansa Blg. 232, otherwise known as the Education Act of 1982, Section 7 states that:
Every educational institution shall provide for the establishment of appropriate bodies through
which the members of the educational community may discuss relevant issues and communicate
information and suggestions for assistance and support of the school and for the promotion of their
common interest. Representatives from each subgroup of the educational community shall sit and
participate in these bodies, the rules and procedures of which must be approved by them and duly
published.
Another law, RA 8582, Adopt-A-School Program Act, also provides for school-community
partnership. It allows “private entities to assist a public school, whether elementary, secondary, or
tertiary… in, but not limited to, the following areas: staff and faculty development for training and
further education; construction of facilities; upgrading of existing facilities, provision of books,
publications and other instructional materials; and modernization of instructional technologies.”
Even the Philippine Education for All (EFA) 2015 Plan, then a vision and a holistic program of
reforms that aimed to improve the quality if basic education for every Filipino by end of 2015 likewise
states: “Schools shall continue to harness local resources and facilitate involvement of every sector
ofthe community in the school improvement process>’
 This EFA 2015 Plan was extended in Education for All Beyond 2015 – Agenda 2030. Agenda 2030has
7 new educational targets from 2015-2030 that must involve education stakeholders which in essence is
school-community partnership. UNESCO Assistant Director General for Education, Dr. Qian Tang, himself
admits that Agenda 2030 cannot be realized without schools partnering with community. He said: “Our
vision must be more aggressive, more committed not just involving government, non- government
agencies but all stakeholders.”
RA 9155, states that partnership between school and community also ensures… that: 1)
educational programs, projects and services take into account the interests of all members of the
community (Sec. 3, d); 2) the schools and learning centers reflect the values of the community by
allowing teachers/learning facilitators and other staff to have the flexibility to serve the needs of all
learners (Section 3, e); and 3) local initiatives for the improvement of schools and learning centers are
encouraged and the means by which these improvements may be achieved and sustained are provided (Sec.
3, f). So schools and communities function better when they work as a team.