How are schools and districts in NNPS developing their partnership programs? Two reports on 2006 UPDATE data were sent to all members of NNPS in January. This summary presents a few results.
Over 650 schools from 36 states and Canada reported on their progress on partnerships in the ’05-’06 school year. The elementary, middle, and high schools were located in urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods and served families that were racially, ethnically, linguistically, and economically diverse. The schools were at different points of program development, from planning or just beginning their programs (15%), to having average (24%), good (35%), very good (19%), and excellent programs (7%). Elementary schools tended to report higher quality programs. No high schools reported having an excellent program yet, though many are working toward that goal.
Thirteen graphs show how schools are implementing NNPS’s research-based components. Most schools organized action teams (81%) and wrote annual plans (79%). Fewer identified their budget for partnerships (60%), and still fewer (45%) had monthly team meetings, as recommended.
Although school principals are members of just about all Action Teams for Partnerships, they varied in how actively they supported partnerships. Figure 1 shows that elementary school principals were more actively engaged in encouraging educators, families, and the community to participate as partners. At all school levels, principals were least active in allocating funds for partnership activities.
The data revealed that there is room for improvement in schools’ actions on family and community involvement to meet NNPS expectations for excellent programs. For example, rather than working only as one large team, many ATPs could accomplish more by organizing committees to oversee activities on each page of the One Year Action Plan. More ATPs need to have regularly scheduled monthly team meetings and conduct end-of-year evaluations. Middle and high schools, especially, need to improve outreach to involve fathers in their children’s education. More ATPs at all school levels must address the challenge of getting information from school meetings and workshops to families who cannot attend.
Leaders for partnerships in 94 school districts in 28 states and 2 Canadian provinces reported on their work and progress in the ’05-’06 school year. The districts varied in size from one school to over 250, and leaders were at different stages of program development. About 25% of the district leaders reported being in a planning year or just beginning; 54% had a good start or good program; and 21% reported a very good or excellent program, overall.
In NNPS, district leaders are expected to conduct district-level leadership and directly assist individual schools in developing their partnership programs. Nine graphs show how districts are progressing on these responsibilities, along with levels of collegial support, adequacy of funding for partnerships, and other indicators.
Leadership. In 2006, most districts conducted basic leadership tasks to review policy (86%), share best practices across schools (77%), and conduct training workshops (64%). The data show that more district leaders need to write their own leadership plans outlining their work for the year.
Facilitation. Many district leaders were helping schools translate materials for parents into diverse languages (61%) and find community partners (70%). Figure 2 arrays other actions district leaders took to directly assist their schools. About 40% of the district leaders reported that their efforts to collect schools’ One Year Action Plans for partnerships were going “very well,” and 30% said their end-of-year celebrations for schools to share best practices were successful. Other leaders recognized they “need to improve” these actions, as well as their visits and connections with school teams and how they help schools evaluate their partnership programs.
At any point in time, district leaders in NNPS vary in their actions, in part because of their experience and collegial support. There is, however, evidence of growth in the right direction. Data from 62 districts over two years show small but clear improvements in program quality, with many districts moving from beginning to “good” programs from ‘05 to ‘06.
See the full summaries of the reports, including comments from schools on changes in program quality and links of partnerships to results for students, and comments from district leaders on how they are working to meet NCLB requirements for parental involvement.1
From:
Williams, K. J., Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. & (2007). Summary: 2006 UPDATE data from districts in NNPS. Baltimore: National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University.
Williams, K. J., Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2007). Summary: 2006 UPDATE data from schools in NNPS. Baltimore: National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University.
1Download the full reports from www.partnershipschools.org, in the section Research and Evaluations.