Schools and districts in NNPS reported progress on partnerships for the 06-07 school year on the annual NNPS UPDATE surveys. NNPS provided data summaries so that members can compare their own efforts to the work of districts and schools across the country. In addition, districts with eight or more schools in NNPS received customized reports of their own schools’ responses on UPDATE for monitoring and reporting the quality of their work on partnerships. Each year, the surveys and summaries assist NNPS members to evaluate their programs.
Districts and schools in the 2007 sample were in urban, rural, and suburban communities across 36 states, D.C., and 3 Canadian provinces. They served racially, ethnically, linguistically, and economically diverse families and students. The districts and schools varied in how long they have worked with NNPS, from about one year to over 10 years.
School Data
Over 660 schools provided information on their programs in 2007. Some schools were in a planning stage (19%), had fair/average (26%), good (29%), very good (20%), and excellent (6%) programs. The results show schools’ strengths and areas that need improvement.
Most schools at all levels (elementary, middle, and high) were implementing core program components. They had Action Teams for Partnerships (80%) and wrote action plans in 06-07 (78%) to increase family and community involvement. Elementary schools tended to conduct more activities and report more parental involvement, but many middle and high schools were working to organize and improve their practices, outreach, and results.
Meeting Challenges
As schools develop their programs, they face challenges to reach all families in ways that support student success. On UPDATE, a 9-item scale (α = .86) asked ATPs to rate their efforts to involve all families, with responses ranging from not working on the challenge, to made fair progress, good progress, or solved the challenge.
Figure 1 shows that in 2007, most schools were working to recruit and train volunteers and to include diverse family representatives on school committees. Elementary and K-8 schools were more likely than secondary schools to try to get information to parents who could not attend meetings at school. They also were more likely to address the challenge of involving fathers in partnership activities (also see Meeting the Challenge, p. 4 in this issue).
Principals’ Support. Data from 470 schools with two years of UPDATE data showed that principals’ support for partnerships was linked to program quality. Schools that improved in quality from 06 to 07 were more likely to have principals who provided time for ATP meetings, allocated funds for activities in the One-Year Action Plan, publicized activities, had a strong vision of partnerships, and welcomed all families to the school.
ATP Comments. School survey responses were supported by written comments about improvements in the 06-07 school year. About 85% of the ATPs commented on changes in program development and improved outcomes, such as:
Needed Improvements. UPDATE data also suggested that ATPs could improve the quality of their schools’ partnership programs by taking action on six organizational strategies:
District Data
One hundred and two districts in NNPS reported on district-level leadership and their work in helping schools develop partnership programs in the 06 -07 school year. The districts varied in size from one school to over 200 schools. Leaders were at different stages of program development, with about 24% in a start-up stage, 51% had a good start or good program; and 25% reported a very good or excellent program, overall.
Most district leaders in NNPS were implementing key program components. For example, in 2007, most conducted basic leadership tasks to review policy (83%), share best practices across schools (70%), and conduct training workshops (64%).
More Facilitation. The most intriguing information came from 79 district leaders with two-years of data in 06 and 07. Leaders who continued working on partnerships:
These leaders improved on all 18 items in the UPDATE facilitation scale (α = .94). Figure 2 shows that in 2007, over 80% of district leaders in NNPS reported doing OK or Very Well in helping schools’ ATPs understand and use the framework of six types of involvement, compared to about 67% in 2006. Other double-digit increases were reported by district leaders in making presentations at school meetings for parents and teachers, helping teams implement specific involvement activities, helping ATPs organize their committees, meeting with school principals on partnerships, guiding ATPs to replace team members who were leaving, helping ATPs develop a budget for partnerships, and visiting school teams on a regular schedule.
District Leaders’ Comments. Over 90% of the district leaders added open-ended comments on their progress at the district level and observations of their schools’ work on partnerships. They noted improvements on district policies and schools’ actions plans. Some commented on new connections between involvement activities and student learning:
Needed District Improvements. The 2007 data also showed that district leaders have “room to grow” to better organize their work and assist their schools. Three topics need attention by some or many districts:
The 2007 UPDATE data suggest that districts and schools in NNPS that continue their work on partnerships from year to year are likely to improve their programs, increase outreach to families, and improve the results of family and community involvement. Developing excellent programs of school, family, and community partnerships is an on-going process for district leaders and their schools.