Are All Partnerships Created Equal?
Examples of the Sufficiency Model
by Didi Fahey, PhD
In universities and communities across the country, partnerships are viewed as a means to share resources in order to expand services that could not be accomplished by separate organizations severally. What one group does well, another may do poorly, or not at all.
For example, a university may have an excellent natatorium while a local recreational center does
not. A partnership between the two will provide an opportunity for university students as well as community members to learn how to swim, participate in water aerobics, etc., thereby saving the costs of building, staffing, and maintaining two swimming pools. In return for access to the pool, the recreation center may offer free life-saving courses to university students. In that light, partnerships are beneficial and should be encouraged to expand services and stretch resources within a community (Coulson, 2005).
Partnerships are especially beneficial when they concern education
Ever since the earliest days of public education in this country, school administrators, teachers, and elected officials have encouraged and developed partnerships with various community groups, institutions of higher learning, non-profit organizations, businesses, and even the military (Woyshner, 2003; Leistnya, 2002). By partnering, schools literally share the expense of educating children (Epstein, 2001) whether through after-school activities, classroom demonstrations, or sharing resources such as library space or soccer fields.
Partnering with the schools is very desirable for community groups and organizations, as they serve as both a point of access to youth, and a means of sharing a passion or interest with the next generation (Bainer, 1997; Sergiovanni, 1994). Should an organization wish to build interest in musical theatre, a good starting point would be to develop a program that introduces Broadway musicals at a local elementary school. For this, a partnership is needed with the schools, and perhaps other like-minded groups within the community, such as the local orchestra or chorale group. Once everyone agrees on the particulars of the program, it could be said that a partnership exists.
Or does it? It is not unusual for community groups to begin their work with schools only to see the program falter after the initial few years in operation. Sometimes this occurs as a result of changes in staffing or funding levels, but more often than not, problems emerge between the school and the organization that are not resolved, or are viewed as being the sole responsibility of either the group or the school (Acar and Robertson, 2004; Giroux, 1999).
Is it a partnership.or not?
Many programs that involve partnerships between community groups and schools are really not partnerships at all (Edens and Gilsinen, 2005). They are simply programs that involve different components from different areas of the community. The people sitting around the table may call it a partnership, it may be registered as a partnership at the local school board office, and referred to as a partnership within the community (Acar and Robertson, 2004), but in fact, there is very little partnering being done. This is not because of poor planning or lack of effort. Rather it is because the work of the individuals involved center exclusively on delivery of the program instead of taking the time to tend to the partnership supporting the program (Giroux, 1999).
Partnerships have specific criteria. Legal definitions usually revolve about contracts with explicit obligations and responsibilities for each party. The same is not true for partnerships between community groups and local schools. Quite a number of school-community partnerships are less formal -memos of understanding instead of notarized contacts, short term obligations (Bainer, 1997), or little if any shared funding structures (Sanders, 2003) and are more central to the missions of educating children (Epstein, 2008; Sheldon, 2005; Sanders, 2003; Catsambis, 2002). The literature on school-business or school-community partnerships supports this premise and advocates that educators take a leadership role in developing such partnerships (Sanders, 2005; Epstein, 2001).
Unfortunately, not enough space has been given over to understanding the types of partnerships, and whether or not the different groups have sufficient capacities to engage in those partnerships. There is an assumption that all partnerships are somehow homogenous in design, practice, structure, and desired outcome. This is not the case. Some partnerships are true collaborations with the participating groups sharing costs, decision-making, and taking responsibility for the outcomes. Others are partnerships in name, purpose, or location only (Edens and Gilsinen, 2005; Acar and Robertson, 2004).
Three types of partnerships
In brief, there is no right or wrong type of partnership, but some partnerships may be less sufficient than others. Researchers at the P-12 Project at Ohio State University have identified three different types of partnerships and some of their characteristics. (See the literature review, model, and toolkit on the Partnerships page.) The table represents the research to date on the various types of educational partnerships.
Partnership Types and Characteristics
Characteristic* |
Supportive Partnership |
Competitive Partnership |
Collaborative Partnership |
|---|---|---|---|
Environment |
One dominant culture and leadership style |
Multiple cultures, leadership styles |
Multiple cultures, Shared leadership |
Shared Vision |
Possible Shared Vision |
Shared Needs |
Shared Mission |
Membership |
Participants embrace project, but are neither engaged nor committed to anything beyond the project. Partners embrace stakeholder role, but engagement limited to specific task |
Partners are willing to commit resources. Partners are engaged with a shared mission. |
Partners embrace stakeholder role and are willing to commit resources. |
Process/Structure |
Independent operations and governance, Reactive decision making |
Independent governance, Project-dependent operations, Some shared decision making |
Governance equity, Formal operational structures, Shared decision making |
Communication |
Very limited communication |
Strong communication at institutional level, Communication at staff level limited to project or operation |
Strong communication at institutional and staffing levels |
Resources |
Lopsided resource commitment |
Equity in resource commitment |
Equity and transparency in resource commitment |
Examples |
PTO at an elementary school |
Colleges and universities in the same general region in a partnership to encourage young people to go to college |
Local schools and health departments working on childhood health immunizations |
*Mattessich, Murray-Close, & Monsey, 2001
Essentially, a Supportive Partnership exists to benefit the mission and operations of only one of the partners. A good example would be a PTO or other formal parent organization. Typically, these partnerships are dominated by the schools’ broader mission of education and operate under the premise that activities will support that broad mission. Most parent groups require the permission of the school board and the school principal. In some districts, the schools are legally liable for how these groups raise money and conduct their business.
A Competitive Partnership may seem to be little more than an oxymoron; however, these partnerships tend to be extremely effective over a narrow range of issues. Many educational institutions engage in competitive partnerships to encourage such things as greater diversity on local campuses, safer athletic competition for high school athletes, and even elementary school spelling bees.
These partnerships begin with the clear understanding that the partners are competitors, but that they share similar goals. True Collaborative Partnerships in education are both rare and even more specific than a competitive partnership. Collaborations require both an organizational and a resource commitment from all partners in an equitable fashion. Furthermore, collaborations share the decision making about the program, at times including supportive functions extending beyond the program.
Combination partnerships
There is the possibility for some programs to operate through a combination of these types of partnerships. One such program involves the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts in a large Western city. For over 25 years, the two organizations have worked together to deliver a supplemental educational program at participating elementary schools. The two groups share all program expenses equally, plan operations, and deliver training to the program’s part-time workers. The two program directors are in constant communication with each other, providing necessary information such as school closures due to weather or any other event that may affect the delivery of the program. All decisions regarding the program are shared between the two organizations, from board-level endorsement to the purchase of supplies. Although the two organizations have separate memberships and policies, both groups are needed as their target populations limit activities to one gender. The collaborative ensures that any classroom can elect to participate in the program.
In addition to the collaborative partnership with one another, the two organizations have a supportive partnership with the local school district. The supplementary educational program supports learning by engaging students in specific tasks, demonstrations, or hands-on activities at the request of the classroom teacher. For instance, an educator in the middle of a unit on physical geography may request a demonstration on volcanoes or tectonic plates. The program directors would select a demonstration or hands-on experiment and purchase the supplies for the lesson. None of this could happen unless the school, its principal, and the classroom teacher offer their approval. Should the local school board decide to eliminate such supportive programming, the two organizations would have neither recourse nor option of continuing their program. No funding is allocated for the program and there is no formal review of the program at the building or district level. Finally, communication between the school and the program directors is more haphazard. At times, the program may be disrupted due to an assembly or fire drill, or cancelled outright when a substitute teacher has not been notified that a program aide will be presenting.
Regardless of the problems inherent in the supportive partnership, the collaborative partnership has endured. The two organizations strive to keep the program viable through evaluation and constant review. Demonstrations are updated on an annual basis and program aides endeavor to deliver a program that not only compliments classroom learning, but is also fun and engaging for students. At the end of each academic year, the two collaborative partners have an opportunity to withdraw from the partnership and the program; yet, despite the significant costs, both organizations remain committed to delivering the program and work throughout the summer to improve the program itself. At the same time, each schools or individual classroom may opt out of the program at any time. Over the years, this has happened; however, most withdrawals, are the result of building closures or reduced staffing levels—factors well outside the scope of the supportive partnership.
References
Acar, M. & Robertson, P. (2004) Accountability challenges in networks and partnerships: evidence from educational partnerships in the United States. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70, 331-344.
Bainer, B. L. (1997). A comparison of four models of group efforts and their implications for establishing educational partnerships. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 13(3), 143-152.
Catsambis, S. (2002). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children’s secondary education: Connections with high school seniors’ academic success. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 149-177.
Coulson, A. (2005). A plague on all your partnerships: Theory and practice in regeneration.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(2), 151-163.
Edens, R., & Gilsinan, J. E. (2005, February). Rethinking school partnerships. Education & Urban Society, 37(2), 123-138.
Epstein J. L. (2001). School and family partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Epstein, J. L. (2008, February). Improving family and community involvement in secondary schools. Education Digest, 73(6), 9-12.
Giroux, H. A. (1999). Schools for sale: Public education, corporate culture, and the citizen consumer. Education Forum, 63(2), 140-149.
Leistyna, P. (2002). Defining and designing multiculturalism: One school system’s efforts. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Sanders, M. G. (2003). Community involvement in schools: From concept to practice. Education & Urban Society, 35(2), 161-181.
Sanders, M. G. (2005). Building school-community partnerships: Collaboration for student success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1994). Building community in
schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sheldon, S. B. (2005). Testing a structural equations model of partnership program implementation and family involvement. Elementary School Journal, 106, 171-187.
Woyshner, C. (2003). Race, gender, and the early PTA: Civic engagement and public
education. Teachers College Record, 105(2), 520.
