Importance of Networking and Partnership in Education
Part 1
Networking and partnership have recently enjoyed popularity in education. The theoretical basis of networking helps to illuminate when to network or otherwise and what conditions they are likely to succeed. Both national and local initiatives have triggered a variety of partnership arrangements. Three such arrangements include schools volunteering to network, groups that have been inspired to network, and others that have been pressured to network by external forces (Mel & Mel, 2006). Nonetheless, Muijs, West, and Ainscow argue that “fruitful forms of interschool networking do not always revolve around pupil learning” (2010, p. 5). From a sociopsychological perspective, Borgatti and Foster (2003) have defined a network as a set of organizations or individuals (actors) linked by a set of ties that can be of a more or less formal nature.
Various theories have laid down the basis for schools to network. Networks can first be differentiated from the perspective of goals and activities. Muijis et al. (2010) argue that networking does not solely involved in improvement of schools and learning, as different objectives can be achieved in tandem with the basic goals. Networks can also trigger a renewed stress on full-service learning institutions and multi-agency working, leading to schools collaborating with each other and with external agencies to facilitate the provision of full service to students at the same time attending to the health, psychological, and social needs of the learners better than non-networked schools would (Sailor, 2002).
Four theories have been identified as having provided the basis for networks. These theories are the Durkheimian network theory, the new social movement theory, the constructivist organisational theory, and the theory of social capital (Muijis et al., 2010). The theories provide insight into the goals and objectives of networking.
Based on the constructivist perspective, institutions comprise logical systems creating shared perceptions and translation of prevailing situations. This implies that individual organisation will have its unique perception of reality, to some degree, that is tied to its environment. This perspective implies that such organisations are lacking in the autonomy construct and an unanchored sense of the situation, as doing so is precursor for failure. Indeed, making sense of the situation is expedient for organizations to succeed despite the tendency for shortsightedness regarding the common perception of reality (Muijis et al., 2010). Consequently, such organizations risk being cut from outside influences that disconnect them from options and their environment. In fact, networks with other organizations or outside partners help address this limitation by facilitating access to complementary cognition (Weick, 1995). The more uncertainty and complication present within the environment, the more the need for networks to aid partners cope with the environmental complexity surrounding and affecting them (Nooteboom, 2004). Such a scenario is the case in education mainly for schools in disadvantaged communities.
Networks of schools can be classified in part based on the new social movement theory, displaying several characteristics, such as transience, complexity, and the need to build up new identities for the network that are distinct from those of the individual schools (Hadfield, 2005). For some schools, new identities may be a key driver to becoming part of a network. The dominant role of activist leaders is evident in many networks between schools, communities, and governments. Nevertheless, a key distinction between New Social Movements and school networks would appear to lie in the voluntaristic characteristics of the collaboration. While New Social Movements are construed to have a bottom-up arrangement related to perceived shared objectives, the structure applies to just a few school networks many of which were developed partly in response to financial incentives or coercion from higher authorities (Muijis et al., 2010).
Principles of Networking
Various factors facilitate network and networked communities. For network and networked learning communities to achieve their intended purpose, such as to improve professional development, build social capital, and mobilizing resources, certain principles are necessary to make network and networked communities work. Lumby (2009) found in her research that the lack of shared goals is detrimental to partnership work. The original root for the partnership coupled with the quality and style of leadership determine the amount of work needed at every stage of a partnership (Open University 2016). For the partnership to succeed, leaders must prioritize the work required at each stage. These principles include building and maintaining shared purpose and goals, building and maintaining relations with partners, building and maintaining capacities for partnership work, building and maintaining partnership governance and leadership, and building and maintaining trust and trustworthiness.
Building and maintaining shared purpose and goals is imperative. It involves identifying the interests and concerns of the partners and developing a framework for the collective achievement of these goals (Open University, 2016). The partners must actively review and reflect on the goals of the network community while considering conflicting interests in light of the sacrifices made (Billett et al., 2007). A high level of honesty is a prerequisite to execute the mentioned role of partners, and in case changes occur, the stakeholders must address it.
Building and maintaining relations in the network is equally an important principle in promoting network communities. It involves “building trust and commitment, encouraging participation, and developing processes that are inclusive and respectful” (Billett et al. 2007, p. 648). Trust and commitment building is an ongoing process. Over time, the members of the network must continue to strengthen existing relationships that involve mutual respect and openness besides honesty. Building and maintaining capacities for partnership work as a principle exceeds relationship building and maintenance to include developing resources and infrastructure.
With regard to building and sustaining the leadership and governance of the partnership, networks must conform to specific ground rules and roles that they defined and agreed upon. Participants must ensure that the original or renegotiated purpose of the partnership remains the priority and consider any shifting agendas or relationships with the entities (Billett et al 2007).
Part 2
The Family School Communication Educational Partnership (FSCEP) is a good example of a working network. The FSCEP was an educational partnership that lasted four years and involved five primary schools that offered to be part of the network. It launched off to nurture effective educational partnership relationships between the community, schools, and home. Thus, it acknowledges the pre-existing work that the Home School Community Liaison (HSCL) coordinators and aims to provide extra support to the work performed by the HSCL. The rationale for collaborating is based on the appreciation that there are adequate advantages to be derived from partnering between the stakeholders.
The FSCEP project applied partnerships on different levels. Mary Immaculate College (MIC) collaborated closely with the primary schools during the four years. Within the college, the Learner Support Unit (LSU), the Curriculum Development Unit (CDU), the Targeting Educational Disadvantage (TED) project, and the Finance Department and the Research Office all teamed up to counsel and support the initiative.
During the initial phase of FSCEP, several urban and rural schools were consulted regarding their interest and availability to participate in the initiative. Although the founders of the project envisioned it working with seven schools, limited funds necessitated adjusting to five schools. The champions of the project approached schools, meetings with principals were effected and presentations were shown to the whole staff groups. Staff of the approached schools voted on whether to participate resulting in five schools self-selecting. The schools selected were three schools from Limerick City that were components of the Primary Liaison with University Services (PLUS) network. The PLUS itself is an initiative in the TED project. Moreover, all the schools were located within the RAPID areas. The other two schools were from West Clare within the CLAR areas, which is a rural setting.
Part 3
Various strategies would have helped improve the outcomes of the above partnership. First, the participants of any partnership ought to have shared core values. In effective programs, members of the network should take time during the design phase of the project to brainstorm their beliefs and the reason they think their efforts will work. The FSCET should have taken time to families what would work to make their neighbourhood a better place to bring up children, including what support should be provided for schools to improve learning. Such inquiry would reveal hidden opinions and attitudes towards schools that hinder school performance. This exercise would help distinguish the role of different stakeholders in the education of children. Specifically, it will highlight the significance of collaboration between parents and teachers in improving pupil’s learning. The participants should have stressed making schools full-service community centres for parents and other family members besides students. The participants should have assessed the risks of leaving behind some students from disadvantaged family backgrounds.
The other strategy entails taking into account the views of the community. For any partnership to succeed, participants ought to determine priorities and develop action plans collaboratively to create consensus between the larger community regarding what order of priorities should be followed. The first priority should have been improving school communication with parents by increasing the number of bilingual staff in schools to help parents and children with English as an Addition Language (EAL).
Successful networks closely assess the prevailing trends of achievement and tackle areas of weaknesses in the knowledge and skills of students. With this regard, participants should provide a structure to facilitate parent-teacher and parent-parent interaction to gain skills for developing their children’s academic skill development (National Education Association, 2011). This step would improve the performance of the learners in general.
In addition, the partnership should have provided appropriate, on-site professional development. Successful networks base professional development on discourse among stakeholders and data in a style that promotes both educator-parent and educator-educator collaborations (NEA, 2011). The partnership should design a program to help teachers infuse student service projects in the community outreach and engagement agreement between the partners. This approach would provide students and teachers with the opportunity to handle community issues and gain collaboration, critical thinking, communication, and creativity skills.
Moreover, the partnership would have worked better if it involved community partners, such as colleges, community groups, local leaders, businesses, public officials, and social service agencies, as it would help improve other outcomes besides academic performance. A monthly newsletter would suffice to keep the interest of the locals high. The media should include information, a calendar of events, and resources for mentors (NEA, 2011). News about various activities associated with the network, participant profiles, and inspirational quotes would suffice to mobilize support and buy-in from existing and potential mentors.
Equally important, the partnership should have adopted a targeted outreach approach to focus on high-needs communities, learners, and institutions. Successful networks identify the student population in need of special attention, learn concerning those needs, and respond in culturally appropriate ways. Parent involvement concerns building the trust of the community, and a school culture to reciprocate for the benefits they accrue from schools.
The last strategy that would have driven a better outcome for the mentioned partnership involved promoting relationships between the stakeholders in the partnership. The relationship is directly related to favourable learning outcomes. Participants should take time to brainstorm and agree on the appropriate ways to collaborate meaningfully in order to boost the achievement of students (NEA, 2011).
Effective communication is an important determinant of success in any form of relationship. The success of networks hinges on the capacity of the participants to communicate with one another. The leadership must recognize the role it plays in curving the course of the partnership. Specifically, all stakeholders must agree on the problem they are trying to resolve. The stakeholders and participants may have different perspectives on the problem reflecting their divergence in values, and cultural viewpoints among other factors (Lulu 2015). Thus, a leader should mobilize the stakeholders to discuss such divergence in order to build a shared perception of the problem. Leaders of networks must persistently seek feedback from the community. The group may carry out open meetings; organize forums, and issue surveys or other methods that promote communicating relevant information to the community to obtain their input into the partnership. This step would help clear suspicions from the community, which can adversely compromise the network.
Part 4
Partnership congregates different social challenges that require top-notch leadership to circumvent. Various leadership approaches would be necessary to overcome such barriers and achieve results. The first leadership task a leader in the network needs is to build the trust of the members. The members need to trust the vision and mission of the network. Multiagency partnership involves the use of resources, energy, and time such that leaders must trust the process. Lack of trust can be the greatest obstacle to networking. Thus, a leader should lead the participants in the partnership to develop relationships and trust, to facilitate collaboration in accomplishing the goals of the partnership identified at the design stage. Of note, setting up governance policies at the start of the partnership would suffice to build trust and mitigate risks for errors and misunderstandings (Lulu, 2015).
Managing the expectations of the participants can be the difference between a disastrous and successful partnership; therefore, all stakeholders must agree to and understand the governance process for partnership. The process of governance entails the technique for measuring success and the definition of the accountability mechanisms, the things that will considered confidential, the sharing of information, and the role of representatives among other relevant procedural guidelines. Surprisingly, it is crucial to have an exit strategy in the event of partnership crush (D'Agostino, Pelletier, & Iversen, 2014).
Multi-sector partnerships are based on cooperation between the participants rather than rivalry. In many scenarios, the most successful results are achieved when stakeholders and beneficiary pool their resources and help each other, generating a profound shift. When schools work together with governments as allies rather than as an ally as opposed to regulatory forces and when communities collaborate with businesses to make the environment conducive to learning, positive changes are bound to happen. Indeed, the strongest multi-sector partnership includes all stakeholders the community, schools, and the private and public sectors. Yet, the majority of multi-sector partnerships do not afford members of communities an equal role in the process, such that most fail to achieve their objectives. Even if networking may help communities build their own capacity, it fails to help such communities build their own capacity for making change happen (Lulu, 2015). In this light, therefore, leaders must ensure they facilitate communities to build their capacity for making change.
References
Billet, S., Ovens, C., Celamsn, A., and Seddon, T., 2007. Collaborative working and contested practices: Forming, developing and sustaining social partnerships in education. Journal of Education Policy, 7, 1-18.
Borgatti, S., and Foster, P., 2003. The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29, 991-1013.
D'Agostino, S., Pelletier, S., and Iversen, K., 2014. Delivering on the promise of multisectoral collaboration. [Online].
Lulu, P., 2015. 4 skills leaders need to drive multi-sector partnerships. [Online].
Lumby, J., 2009. Collective leadership of local school systems. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 37(3), 310-328.
Mel, A., and Mel, W., 2006, Improving urban schools: Leadership and collaboration, New York: Open University Press.
Muijis, D., Mel, W., & Mel, A 2010. Why network? Theoretical perspective on networking. School of Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(1), 5-26.
National Education Association., 2011. Family-school-community partnership 2.0: Collaborative strategies to advance student learning. [Online].
Nooteboom, B., 2004, Inter-firm collaboration, networks and strategy: An integrated approach (1st ed.), New York, NY.: Routledge.
Open University 2016, Introduction to Theme 4.
Sailor, W., 2002, Whole-school success and inclusive education, New York: Teachers College Press.
Weick, K., 1995, Sensemaking in organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Ratings
