CAT ARTICLE DOSE – 23

The literature on school cooperation and partnership is extensive, to say the least. . . . However, most existing
research about school–community partnerships focuses on the effects of different interventions. Fewer studies
have investigated how initiatives such as community schools contribute to defining what the problems and
challenges are. . . . Social problems are not defined in an objective manner. On the contrary, what appears to be
a problem is dependent on the knowledge and definition established in different institutions and fields of
knowledge within society. Thus, the aims and strategies formulated within a school-community partnership can
be viewed as constituting what the problem is and thus allow certain actions and explanations while causing
other interventions and interpretations to appear less suitable or credible.

In Sweden—as in the United States and other European countries—school-community partnerships are a type of
social intervention that is often used in socially disadvantaged areas. In the Swedish context, the definition of
what a socially disadvantaged area is has changed over the last few decades. When this term was presented and
used by various authorities in the mid-1990s, the focus was on the fact that the residents in such areas had low
or very low incomes compared with the rest of the Swedish population. In recent years, however, the term
‘especially disadvantaged areas’ has been used by police and other authorities, resulting in a change in the
definition. It now refers to an area characterized by a low socioeconomic status, where criminals have an impact
on the local community. It is in this context that school-community partnerships have become a strategy to
counteract school students’ weak performance, as well as a strategy to handle social disturbances and crime.

Research has revealed how processes of social categorisation of individuals and groups may result in stigma, in
which stereotypical representations reduce those individuals or groups to the stigmatic characteristics thus
articulated. For example, studies show that educators at schools located in socially disadvantaged areas avoid
engaging with the local community, as they do not want the school to be associated with the problems
connected to the neighbourhood. In urban studies, the concept of stigma has been used in a similar way to
understand how certain areas become categorised in a way that deprives their residents of recognition in
defining their local identity and what it means to be a resident there.

Previous research has also displayed the challenges of establishing school-community partnerships as a means
of building trust and cooperation with the local community. Studies show how collaboration with parents and
other actors is primarily seen as a means of improving students' performance and attendance at school. The
criticism has been that such policies are often characterised by a clear top-down perspective, in which the local
administration and school management define the framework for this type of collaboration. Similar patterns of
challenges can also be found in research in other national contexts. For example, decisions concerning the
content of activities are usually based on what the local administration identifies as social problems in the
neighbourhood. Research also shows how individualism and competition—as well as distrust between educators,
schools and organisations in the community—can be a challenge when developing a network that supports both
students’ learning and the local community.

However, research also shows that there is great variation in how schools establish partnerships and in how such
partnerships affect the relationship with the local community. Research shows how the school can be part of
comprehensive works to change a neighbourhood. In these cases, the school is defined as a central meeting
point for the efforts to influence the social conditions in the community. School activities are organised on the
basis of jointly defined goals and shared responsibility between the local administration, students, parents and
local associations. Previous research has highlighted how such networks and partnerships can function as a
resource for students and parents, improve students’ learning and reduce the number of dropouts. Furthermore,
partnerships and networks within the local community and with parents have been shown to contribute to the
development of teachers’ work and to the students’ learning.

[Turn to the next page to check your comprehension & analysis]

Page 1 of 8
PASSAGE DETAILS
• Source: Journal - Anabel Corral-Granados, Anna Cecilia Rapp, Eli Smeplass. (2023) Nordic challenges related to
exclusion and local responses in Swedish, Finnish, and Norwegian urban compulsory education. Education Inquiry
0:0, pages 1-32.
• Length of the Extract: 683 words
• Flesch Kincaid Grade Level: 15.6
• Genre: Ethnographic Studies, Social Sciences

MIND MAPS

After carefully reading the passage, evaluate your understanding through the following exercises:

1. Comprehension Check: This part is focused on identifying and summarising the main ideas in the passage.
Look for pivotal sentences or groups of sentences that encapsulate the core themes in each paragraph.
Summarise these main ideas using your own words. Your goal is to capture the essence of the passage
accurately.

2. Reasoning Check: In this part, you’ll engage with questions centred on inference and critical reasoning.
These questions will require you to analyse the logic and arguments presented in the passage and make
inferential deductions. Reflect on the strength of the reasoning, assess the evidence provided, and evaluate if
the conclusions drawn are well-supported.

Upon completing each exercise, review the provided answers to gauge your comprehension and reasoning
performance. This is a valuable opportunity to enhance your critical reading skills.”

Page 2 of 8
COMPREHENSION CHECK
“In this exercise, your task is to identify the key sentence or group of sentences in each paragraph that best encapsulates
its main idea. Once you’ve identified these, provide a concise summary of the principal theme or message conveyed in each
paragraph. Remember, your goal is to effectively distil the essence of the paragraph using the key sentences and your own
summarisation.”
KEY IDEA
[1] The literature on school cooperation and partnership is extensive, to say the least. . . . [2]
However, most existing research about school–community partnerships focuses on the effects of
different interventions. [3] Fewer studies have investigated how initiatives such as community
schools contribute to defining what the problems and challenges are. . . . [4] Social problems are
not defined in an objective manner. [5] On the contrary, what appears to be a problem is
dependent on the knowledge and definition established in different institutions and fields of
knowledge within society. [6] Thus, the aims and strategies formulated within a school-community
partnership can be viewed as constituting what the problem is and thus allow certain actions and
explanations while causing other interventions and interpretations to appear less suitable or
credible.

[7] In Sweden—as in the United States and other European countries—school-community

partnerships are a type of social intervention that is often used in socially disadvantaged areas. [8]
In the Swedish context, the definition of what a socially disadvantaged area is has changed over
the last few decades. [9] When this term was presented and used by various authorities in the mid-
1990s, the focus was on the fact that the residents in such areas had low or very low incomes
compared with the rest of the Swedish population. [10] In recent years, however, the term
‘especially disadvantaged areas’ has been used by police and other authorities, resulting in a
change in the definition. It now refers to an area characterized by a low socioeconomic status,
where criminals have an impact on the local community. [11] It is in this context that school-
community partnerships have become a strategy to counteract school students’ weak
performance, as well as a strategy to handle social disturbances and crime.

[12] Research has revealed how processes of social categorisation of individuals and groups may
result in stigma, in which stereotypical representations reduce those individuals or groups to the
stigmatic characteristics thus articulated. [13] For example, studies show that educators at schools
located in socially disadvantaged areas avoid engaging with the local community, as they do not
want the school to be associated with the problems connected to the neighbourhood. [14] In urban
studies, the concept of stigma has been used in a similar way to understand how certain areas
become categorised in a way that deprives their residents of recognition in defining their local
identity and what it means to be a resident there.

[15] Previous research has also displayed the challenges of establishing school-community
partnerships as a means of building trust and cooperation with the local community. [16] Studies
show how collaboration with parents and other actors is primarily seen as a means of improving
students' performance and attendance at school. [17] The criticism has been that such policies are
often characterised by a clear top-down perspective, in which the local administration and school
management define the framework for this type of collaboration. [18] Similar patterns of challenges
can also be found in research in other national contexts. [19] For example, decisions concerning
the content of activities are usually based on what the local administration identifies as social
problems in the neighbourhood. [20] Research also shows how individualism and competition—as
well as distrust between educators, schools and organisations in the community—can be a
challenge when developing a network that supports both students’ learning and the local
community.

[21] However, research also shows that there is great variation in how schools establish
partnerships and in how such partnerships affect the relationship with the local community. [22]
Research shows how the school can be part of comprehensive works to change a neighbourhood.
[23] In these cases, the school is defined as a central meeting point for the efforts to influence the
social conditions in the community. [24] School activities are organised on the basis of jointly
defined goals and shared responsibility between the local administration, students, parents and
local associations. [25] Previous research has highlighted how such networks and partnerships can
function as a resource for students and parents, improve students’ learning and reduce the
number of dropouts. [26] Furthermore, partnerships and networks within the local community and
with parents have been shown to contribute to the development of teachers’ work and to the
students’ learning.

[Check your answers on the next page]

Page 3 of 8
 KEY IDEA
[1] The literature on school cooperation and partnership is extensive, to say the least. . . . [2] The need to investigate how
However, most existing research about school–community partnerships focuses on the effects of school-community partnerships
different interventions. [3] Fewer studies have investigated how initiatives such as community contribute to defining social
schools contribute to defining what the problems and challenges are. . . . [4] Social problems are problems and challenges.
not defined in an objective manner. [5] On the contrary, what appears to be a problem is
dependent on the knowledge and definition established in different institutions and fields of
knowledge within society. [6] Thus, the aims and strategies formulated within a school-community
partnership can be viewed as constituting what the problem is and thus allow certain actions and
explanations while causing other interventions and interpretations to appear less suitable or
credible.

[7] In Sweden—as in the United States and other European countries—school-community In socially disadvantaged areas in
partnerships are a type of social intervention that is often used in socially disadvantaged areas. [8] Sweden, school-community
In the Swedish context, the definition of what a socially disadvantaged area is has changed over partnerships have evolved to
the last few decades. [9] When this term was presented and used by various authorities in the mid- become a strategy to tackle social
1990s, the focus was on the fact that the residents in such areas had low or very low incomes disturbances and poor student
compared with the rest of the Swedish population. [10] In recent years, however, the term performance.
‘especially disadvantaged areas’ has been used by police and other authorities, resulting in a
change in the definition. It now refers to an area characterized by a low socioeconomic status,
where criminals have an impact on the local community. [11] It is in this context that school-
community partnerships have become a strategy to counteract school students’ weak
performance, as well as a strategy to handle social disturbances and crime.

[12] Research has revealed how processes of social categorisation of individuals and groups may Social categorization in
result in stigma, in which stereotypical representations reduce those individuals or groups to the disadvantaged areas may lead to
stigmatic characteristics thus articulated. [13] For example, studies show that educators at schools stigma, influencing the school's
located in socially disadvantaged areas avoid engaging with the local community, as they do not and educators' engagement with
want the school to be associated with the problems connected to the neighbourhood. [14] In urban the local community.
studies, the concept of stigma has been used in a similar way to understand how certain areas
become categorised in a way that deprives their residents of recognition in defining their local
identity and what it means to be a resident there.

[15] Previous research has also displayed the challenges of establishing school-community Establishing school-community
partnerships as a means of building trust and cooperation with the local community. [16] Studies partnerships poses challenges,
show how collaboration with parents and other actors is primarily seen as a means of improving including top-down decision-
students' performance and attendance at school. [17] The criticism has been that such policies are making, individualism,
often characterised by a clear top-down perspective, in which the local administration and school competition, and distrust within
management define the framework for this type of collaboration. [18] Similar patterns of challenges the community.
can also be found in research in other national contexts. [19] For example, decisions concerning
the content of activities are usually based on what the local administration identifies as social
problems in the neighbourhood. [20] Research also shows how individualism and competition—as
well as distrust between educators, schools and organisations in the community—can be a
challenge when developing a network that supports both students’ learning and the local
community.

[21] However, research also shows that there is great variation in how schools establish Despite the challenges, the right
partnerships and in how such partnerships affect the relationship with the local community. [22] implementation of school-
Research shows how the school can be part of comprehensive works to change a neighbourhood. community partnerships can have
[23] In these cases, the school is defined as a central meeting point for the efforts to influence the numerous benefits, improving
social conditions in the community. [24] School activities are organised on the basis of jointly student learning, reducing
defined goals and shared responsibility between the local administration, students, parents and dropouts, and supporting teacher
local associations. [25] Previous research has highlighted how such networks and partnerships can development.
function as a resource for students and parents, improve students’ learning and reduce the
number of dropouts. [26] Furthermore, partnerships and networks within the local community and
with parents have been shown to contribute to the development of teachers’ work and to the
students’ learning.

[More Analysis on the next page]

Page 4 of 8
Central Theme: The central theme of the passage revolves around the study and exploration of school-community
partnerships, primarily in socially disadvantaged areas. It includes a critical examination of their function, challenges, and
benefits, as well as how these partnerships are influenced by and influence the perception of social problems and
categories.

Tone: The tone of the passage is analytical and informative, providing an in-depth study of the topic with a balanced
perspective, presenting both the challenges and benefits of school-community partnerships.

Structure of the Passage: The passage begins by identifying a gap in the current research on school-community
partnerships, emphasizing the need to understand how these partnerships define and respond to social problems
(paragraph 1). It then provides a contextual backdrop in Sweden, discussing the evolving definitions of socially
disadvantaged areas and the role of school-community partnerships within these contexts (paragraph 2). The text transitions
into discussing the socio-cultural implications of such partnerships, exploring the concept of stigma in socially disadvantaged
areas and its influence on schools and educators (paragraph 3). Next, the passage critically examines the challenges
encountered when establishing school-community partnerships, including issues of trust, top-down decision-making, and
individualism (paragraph 4). Finally, it concludes by showcasing variations in the implementation of school-community
partnerships and the potential benefits they can bring to the community, the students, and the teachers (paragraph 5).

[Check your Reasoning on the next page]

Page 5 of 8
REASONING CHECK
Choose the best alternatives for each of the 10 questions.
1. Based on passage, which of the following would most likely lead to a successful school-community partnership?
a. Imposing a top-down approach by the school administration.
b. Promoting competition among educators, schools, and organizations.
c. Encouraging collaboration and shared goals among all stakeholders.

2. If a school-community partnership focused solely on improving student performance, how might the author respond?
a. They would fully support it, as it aligns with their views.
b. They might express reservations, suggesting a broader scope.
c. They would disregard it, as it contradicts their position.

3. What would most weaken the author's argument regarding the current definition of socially disadvantaged areas in
Sweden?
a. Evidence that the term 'especially disadvantaged areas' is outdated.
b. Proof that income levels have risen in these areas.
c. Data showing reduced crime rates in these areas.

4. How might the author respond to a school-community partnership that does not engage with the local community?
a. They would view it as counterproductive to the partnership's objectives.
b. They would consider it a viable strategy to avoid association with neighborhood problems.
c. They would see it as irrelevant to the discussion of school-community partnerships.

5. Which of the following statements would most challenge the effectiveness of school-community partnerships?
a. A case study showing successful partnerships in socially advantaged areas.
b. Evidence of increased student dropouts despite existing partnerships.
c. A report detailing how partnerships have improved teacher development.

6. If a school-community partnership was able to improve the socioeconomic status of an area, how might this affect the
author's argument?
a. It would contradict the author's position, as they don't believe partnerships can affect socioeconomic status.
b. It would support the author's perspective that partnerships influence the social conditions of a community.
c. It would be irrelevant to the author's discussion on partnerships.

7. How would the author most likely respond to the argument that individualism and competition among stakeholders are key
to improving students' performance?
a. They would agree, as these values align with the top-down perspective they support.
b. They would disagree, as they view these as challenges to establishing effective networks.
c. They would remain neutral, as these values are not mentioned in the passage.

8. Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the author's argument regarding the positive impact of school-
community partnerships?
a. Evidence showing that partnerships have led to lower crime rates in disadvantaged areas.
b. A report stating that a high percentage of students value their education.
c. Anecdotes from educators about how they prefer working in socially advantaged areas.

9. What assumption underlies the author's criticism of a top-down perspective in school-community partnerships?
a. Collaboration between the local administration, students, parents, and local associations is less effective.
b. A top-down approach allows for a wide range of social problems to be addressed.
c. A top-down approach might disregard the inputs of parents and other community actors.

10. If stigma attached to socially disadvantaged areas is eradicated, how might this affect school-community partnerships?
a. It would make school-community partnerships unnecessary.
b. It would enhance the effectiveness of school-community partnerships.
c. It would not affect the school-community partnerships as they are focused on academic performance.

[Answers on the next page]

Page 6 of 8
1. Based on passage, which of the following would most likely lead to a successful school-community partnership?
a. Imposing a top-down approach by the school administration.
b. Promoting competition among educators, schools, and organizations.
c. Encouraging collaboration and shared goals among all stakeholders.

a. Incorrect. The author criticizes the top-down approach as limiting the success of school-community partnerships.
b. Incorrect. The author suggests that competition among stakeholders might be a barrier to effective partnership.
c. Correct. The author highlights the importance of shared goals and collaboration for the success of these partnerships.

2. If a school-community partnership focused solely on improving student performance, how might the author respond?
a. They would fully support it, as it aligns with their views.
b. They might express reservations, suggesting a broader scope.
c. They would disregard it, as it contradicts their position.

a. Incorrect. The author suggests a broader focus for these partnerships, not limited to just student performance.
b. Correct. The author would likely have reservations about a narrow focus only on student performance.
c. Incorrect. While the author advocates for a broader focus, they do not completely disregard the importance of student performanc

3. What would most weaken the author's argument regarding the current definition of socially disadvantaged areas in Sweden?
a. Evidence that the term 'especially disadvantaged areas' is outdated.
b. Proof that income levels have risen in these areas.
c. Data showing reduced crime rates in these areas.

a. Incorrect. The author does not suggest that the term is outdated, rather how its definition has evolved over time.
b. Incorrect. A rise in income levels alone does not counter the author's argument about the comprehensive nature of the disadvantage.
c. Correct. Reduced crime rates might challenge the author's understanding of the current definition which includes the influence of
criminals on the community.

4. How might the author respond to a school-community partnership that does not engage with the local community?
a. They would view it as counterproductive to the partnership's objectives.
b. They would consider it a viable strategy to avoid association with neighborhood problems.
c. They would see it as irrelevant to the discussion of school-community partnerships.

a. Correct. The author suggests that engagement with the local community is integral to the concept of school-community partnerships.
b. Incorrect. While some schools may avoid association with neighborhood problems, the author criticizes such an approach.
c. Incorrect. Engagement with the community is relevant to the author's discussion of school-community partnerships.

5. Which of the following statements would most challenge the effectiveness of school-community partnerships?
a. A case study showing successful partnerships in socially advantaged areas.
b. Evidence of increased student dropouts despite existing partnerships.
c. A report detailing how partnerships have improved teacher development.

a. Incorrect. The effectiveness of partnerships in socially advantaged areas doesn't challenge the effectiveness in disadvantaged areas.
b. Correct. Increased student dropouts would challenge the idea that partnerships contribute to improving students' learning and reducing
dropouts.
c. Incorrect. Improvements in teacher development are viewed as a positive outcome of school-community partnerships by the author.

6. If a school-community partnership was able to improve the socioeconomic status of an area, how might this affect the author's
argument?
a. It would contradict the author's position, as they don't believe partnerships can affect socioeconomic status.
b. It would support the author's perspective that partnerships influence the social conditions of a community.
c. It would be irrelevant to the author's discussion on partnerships.

a. Incorrect. The author doesn't explicitly state that partnerships cannot affect socioeconomic status.
b. Correct. The author views partnerships as part of comprehensive efforts to change social conditions in the community.
c. Incorrect. A change in the socioeconomic status would be relevant to the author's argument.

7. How would the author most likely respond to the argument that individualism and competition among stakeholders are key to improving
students' performance?
a. They would agree, as these values align with the top-down perspective they support.
b. They would disagree, as they view these as challenges to establishing effective networks.
c. They would remain neutral, as these values are not mentioned in the passage.

a. Incorrect. The author criticizes the top-down approach and doesn't advocate for individualism and competition among stakeholders.
b. Correct. The author views these as potential challenges to establishing effective networks and partnerships.
c. Incorrect. These values are mentioned in the passage and are viewed as challenges by the author.
Page 7 of 8
8. Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the author's argument regarding the positive impact of school-community
partnerships?
a. Evidence showing that partnerships have led to lower crime rates in disadvantaged areas.
b. A report stating that a high percentage of students value their education.
c. Anecdotes from educators about how they prefer working in socially advantaged areas.

a. Correct. Lower crime rates in disadvantaged areas would support the author's argument about the positive impact of partnerships.
b. Incorrect. The value students place on their education is not directly linked to the impact of school-community partnerships.
c. Incorrect. Anecdotes from educators about their preferences would not necessarily strengthen the author's argument.

9. What assumption underlies the author's criticism of a top-down perspective in school-community partnerships?
a. Collaboration between the local administration, students, parents, and local associations is less effective.
b. A top-down approach allows for a wide range of social problems to be addressed.
c. A top-down approach might disregard the inputs of parents and other community actors.

a. Incorrect. The author doesn't suggest that collaboration is less effective. On the contrary, collaboration is considered important.
b. Incorrect. A top-down approach, according to the author, might limit the range of problems addressed due to lack of collaboration.
c. Correct. The author's criticism implies that a top-down approach might neglect inputs from the community, thereby affecting the
effectiveness of partnerships.

10. If stigma attached to socially disadvantaged areas is eradicated, how might this affect school-community partnerships?
a. It would make school-community partnerships unnecessary.
b. It would enhance the effectiveness of school-community partnerships.
c. It would not affect the school-community partnerships as they are focused on academic performance.

a. Incorrect. Even without stigma, the author implies that school-community partnerships would still play a role in improving student
performance and social conditions.
b. Correct. The eradication of stigma might enhance partnerships by removing barriers to engagement with the community.
c. Incorrect. The author sees the role of school-community partnerships as broader than just focusing on academic performance.

Page 8 of 8