|
Sitemap
| Jobs
|
Contact Us
|
Building Smart Education Systems |
Voices in Urban Education
Archives
Engaging Communities
VUE Number 13, Fall 2006
| VUE Home | Archives | Order Print Copy |
A Citywide Partnership
By Robert Rothman
Robert Rothman is a Principal Associate & Editor of VUE at the Annenberg Institute for School Reform. > Author's biography
Educators increasingly recognize, at least rhetorically, that community engagement is an essential component
of education reform. They know that community engagement builds support for public schools and for
a reform program and that the lack of engagement can doom any reform. The history of education is
littered with examples of promising initiatives that faltered — and with school and district leaders who lost
their jobs — because of public opposition.
Educators and community leaders also know that an engaged community provides needed ballast in times of transition or dramatic policy shifts. In urban districts, especially, where leaders typically last only two or three years, community engagement can ensure stability. New leaders will be reluctant to abandon or shift a course with community backing behind it.
Engaged communities also create pressure for improvement. Such pressure can help move a system that has served students poorly. And it can lend support to leaders who must gore some oxen in order to produce effective changes.
Despite the increased recognition of the need for community engagement, though, engagement is often a sidelight to reform. Educators think of engaging the community after the reforms are in place and they want to "sell" a package already developed, rather than work with the community to determine what is needed and how to implement it. Or educators engage a fairly narrow segment of the community and find, too late, that key constituents have been left out of the room A Citywide Partnership when decisions are made. Such efforts can undermine a reform, no matter how promising or successful
What would authentic community engagement look like? How can genuine engagement serve the goal of educational improvement? This issue of Voices in Urban Education looks at ways the whole community can engage in education and demand and support changes that will benefit all young people.
Norm Fruchter and Richard Gray define community engagement and provide examples that illustrate the rewards of effective engagement and the costs of ineffective attempts.
> Full text with audio
Donald McAdams highlights the role of school boards in engaging broad sectors of the community in education.
> Excerpt
Mayor Bill Purcell of Nashville discusses how that city has reconnected parents and schools and improved public support for education.
> Excerpt
LaShawn Routé-Chatmon, Katrina Scott-George, Anne Okahara, Emma Fuentes, Jean Yonemura Wing, and Pedro Noguera describe an effort to involve communities of color in a project to eliminate achievement gaps at Berkeley High School.
> Excerpt
Jeremiah Newell discusses ways that Mobile, Alabama, is engaging students in educational improvement efforts.
> Excerpt
These articles illustrate that engagement is multifaceted and involves many "communities" within a city. Of particular importance are groups that have been poorly served by the schools. Despite a widespread belief, such families are deeply interested in their children's education and will work hard for school improvement.
The articles also show that engagement is a long-term task. Communities that have been successful have created new structures and institutions to support engagement over the long haul and ensure that the public continues to have a voice and a role.
The good news is that there is some evidence that these efforts pay off in better outcomes for students. And over time, they strengthen communities. As Mayor Purcell notes, education is the most important thing a city does. The entire city has a huge stake in its success. An engaged community can make that success happen.
Archives
Engaging Communities
VUE Number 13, Fall 2006
| VUE Home | Archives | Order Print Copy |
A Citywide Partnership
By Robert Rothman
Robert Rothman is a Principal Associate & Editor of VUE at the Annenberg Institute for School Reform. > Author's biography
Educators increasingly recognize, at least rhetorically, that community engagement is an essential component
of education reform. They know that community engagement builds support for public schools and for
a reform program and that the lack of engagement can doom any reform. The history of education is
littered with examples of promising initiatives that faltered — and with school and district leaders who lost
their jobs — because of public opposition.
Educators and community leaders also know that an engaged community provides needed ballast in times of transition or dramatic policy shifts. In urban districts, especially, where leaders typically last only two or three years, community engagement can ensure stability. New leaders will be reluctant to abandon or shift a course with community backing behind it.
Engaged communities also create pressure for improvement. Such pressure can help move a system that has served students poorly. And it can lend support to leaders who must gore some oxen in order to produce effective changes.
Despite the increased recognition of the need for community engagement, though, engagement is often a sidelight to reform. Educators think of engaging the community after the reforms are in place and they want to "sell" a package already developed, rather than work with the community to determine what is needed and how to implement it. Or educators engage a fairly narrow segment of the community and find, too late, that key constituents have been left out of the room A Citywide Partnership when decisions are made. Such efforts can undermine a reform, no matter how promising or successful
What would authentic community engagement look like? How can genuine engagement serve the goal of educational improvement? This issue of Voices in Urban Education looks at ways the whole community can engage in education and demand and support changes that will benefit all young people.
Norm Fruchter and Richard Gray define community engagement and provide examples that illustrate the rewards of effective engagement and the costs of ineffective attempts.
> Full text with audio
Donald McAdams highlights the role of school boards in engaging broad sectors of the community in education.
> Excerpt
Mayor Bill Purcell of Nashville discusses how that city has reconnected parents and schools and improved public support for education.
> Excerpt
LaShawn Routé-Chatmon, Katrina Scott-George, Anne Okahara, Emma Fuentes, Jean Yonemura Wing, and Pedro Noguera describe an effort to involve communities of color in a project to eliminate achievement gaps at Berkeley High School.
> Excerpt
Jeremiah Newell discusses ways that Mobile, Alabama, is engaging students in educational improvement efforts.
> Excerpt
These articles illustrate that engagement is multifaceted and involves many "communities" within a city. Of particular importance are groups that have been poorly served by the schools. Despite a widespread belief, such families are deeply interested in their children's education and will work hard for school improvement.
The articles also show that engagement is a long-term task. Communities that have been successful have created new structures and institutions to support engagement over the long haul and ensure that the public continues to have a voice and a role.
The good news is that there is some evidence that these efforts pay off in better outcomes for students. And over time, they strengthen communities. As Mayor Purcell notes, education is the most important thing a city does. The entire city has a huge stake in its success. An engaged community can make that success happen.
|
Annenberg Institute for School Reform Brown University, Box 1985 Providence, RI 02912 |
Telephone: 401.863.7790 Fax: 401.863.1290 |
AISR_info@brown.edu
|
© all material AISR