|
|
Our task group would like to offer some cautionary notes for consideration in addition to the recommendations that were identified above.
- The effort to improve engagement needs motivation behind it, just as there is motivation (often provided by 4J Education Center administrators or the School Board) to adapt to a new computer system or state standards. Task group members stressed the need for administrators, especially building principals, to take the lead in modeling and insisting on continuous community engagement efforts.
- To achieve significant improvements in community engagement, the School Board and 4J Education Center administrators must be willing to commit resources (money, staff, time, physical space, etc.) and must be willing to do things differently. Without these commitments up front, the School Board and 4J Education Center administrators must understand that it may not achieve the desired outcomes, and people in the community may view the efforts as hollow, or "lip-service."
- Even though "the district" must take the lead in spreading and improving community engagement, schools are the most important component in successful outreach. Schools must be ambassadors of 4J and public education to their neighborhoods. Community engagement must start with simple building blocks, in schools, like the relationships between a teacher and parent, between the school secretary and a resident or between the principal and a local business owner. Community engagement will not be completely effective if schools don't make pervasive connections in their areas.
- Goals must be realistic. Because improvement in community engagement is slow, takes genuine effort and involvement, and much thought on the best steps to take, it is not realistic to plan for "successful engagement" of many different "communities" in one year. Nor is it realistic to assume that sweeping attitude changes (whether parent, staff or community attitudes) can be made in a short time.
- "Best practices" research needs to be done to identify school districts or other organizations who may have successfully engaged their communities in ways that our district has not yet considered or tried.
The task group recognized this as a time- and labor-intensive task, one that was not practical for the time frame of the Schools of the Future process. Nevertheless, members agreed that nets should be cast about the area, the region, the nation or world, looking for ideas. Then, the "answers" or ideas should be filtered through what we know about our communities.
Our report includes an appendix which identifies a list of engagement activities that have reportedly had a positive impact on at least some segments of our community. It was not meant to be an exhaustive list. It was meant to offer a beginning to a "pool of possibilities" to which 4J and community people could turn for ideas when considering how to engage one another.
- Don't overlook what's worked in the past, but don't only do what's already been done.
Several task group members felt strongly about the positive impact of 4J's "Community Schools" program which was lost to budget cuts in the 1990s. These members made it clear that if the School Board and 4J Education Center administrators want to seriously make efforts in community engagement, they should look at what worked from these efforts and consider reviving them.
On the other hand, it is important to think critically about community engagement efforts, taking into consideration the differences between the various "communities." The School Board and 4J Education Center administrators must look at the changing times and prevailing climate; things that worked 10 years ago may not work the same way now. And things that work in one area or with one community may not work with another.
Also, 4J staff members should proceed thoughtfully with how they reach out to these communities. In other words, don't put a notice in The Register-Guard for a meeting at the Education Center and then assume you've done your work.
- Surveys are important, but should be considered carefully. Surveys need to be purposeful; community members need to be part of their design, implementation and follow-up to action plans. 4J staff members needs to think carefully about the validity of a survey. Who is asked and who isn't? How are responses collected? Even beyond statistical validity, what are potential weaknesses of the survey or its method? How are the questions crafted? Etc.
Surveys are useful to gather information from people. Crafting surveys is no easy task. Because surveys have been routinely used to gather input from the community, many people are skeptical about completing them. After all, most often the results of surveys are never shared with them nor do they continue to play an active role in bringing about any changes which may be suggested by the data. Community members too often experience that their responses to surveys don't have any impact; they are unable to see any changes resulting from the information that they and others provided.
Using a survey is a method to accomplish some purpose(s). Before spending time thinking about method, people need to consider the purpose(s) to be accomplished. Promoters of surveys need to answer at least the following questions before they get immersed in any discussions of the merits of one method over another:
- Why do we want the information from the people of whom we are making inquiry? What is the need? What problems have caused us to want the information? Why now?
- Who ought to be included in the information gathering?
- What are we intending to do once we have gathered the information? Gathering information ought to be a "quid pro quo" -- i.e., in exchange for your time responding to our inquiries, we intend to do a, b, and c with the data.
- Is surveying an appropriate method for gathering the information? Is surveying the best method for one community but not for another? Are there other methods for gathering information that would work better in some communities?
|
| Schools of the Future | Site Map | Search