SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY
RELATIONS
Randall B. Lindsey
Schools of the 1990s are
characterized by their continued interaction with the communities they serve.
Today's and tomorrow's administrators need to have skills for working
effectively with the diverse communities in which all schools exist. Well-developed
community relations skills are a necessary component in administrators' being
responsive to the needs of students and other educators. This chapter examines
the importance of school-community relations, the national and local perspectives
on various administrative roles and functions, the differentiated roles of
administrators with regard to school-community activities, and the importance
of these topics to the new administrator.
Today's school
administrators are expected to be multi-talented in their approach to their
jobs. First, within the context of instructional improvement, collective
bargaining, budget issues, and other complex tasks facing administrators is the
need to possess well-honed community relations skills. Second, is the
recognition that administrators do not function in a monolithic community. Even
the district which appears homogeneous is made up of diverse constituencies.
Third, the expectations are that administrators will anticipate and prevent
crises, increase communications between the school and the home, and respond to
special interest groups. The consideration of these issues presents
administrators with the understanding that they are an important link to our
communities and that the development of appropriate skills is important to
being a successful administrator.
One of the dramatic shifts
in the last two generations has been in the direction of increased emphasis on
administrators developing good relationships with their communities. From the
mid-19th century through the middle part of this century, concerted efforts had
been focused on not politicizing the role of school administrators. The shift
to a more community-involved role for school administrators was noted by
Kimbrough and Burkett (1990) in their acknowledgment that:
Studies since the early 1950s have shown that
schools do not exist in a political vacuum; . . . this opinion dictates that
the school leader should see that an effective home-school partnership in the
education process is developed. Thus
the principal, or the person so designated by the principal, must mount
strategies to establish good school-community relations . . . . (p. 89)
The community relations
function of the administrator's role is usually described in terms of providing
programs which result in the school and district being viewed more favorably by
the community. The executive director of the National School Public Relations
Association states that the way to garner community support for schools is to do
four things (Coursen & Thomas, 1989):
1.
Do a good job.
2. Do a Good Job.
3.
Do A GOOD JOB.
4.
Make sure people know about it. (pp. 263-264)
The administrator must do a
good job and communicate that success to the diverse publics each school
serves. Too often schools are doing a good job and make no attempt to
communicate their accomplishments to their constituent communities. Undoubtedly,
there are also those schools whose public relations campaigns greatly exceed
their factual accomplishments. However, the emphasis here is on the schools
which are striving to provide both a sound education for students and the rationale
behind strong, positive school-community relations.
A second major change in
schools during the last two generations has been the increasing recognition
that our constituent communities are pluralistic in nature. Lipham (1988)
quotes Getzels' definition of communities "as groups of people conscious of
a collective identity characterized by common cognitive and affective
norms." He then offers Getzels' taxonomy of communities (Lipham, 1988):
This recognition of the
diversity of our communities provides the administrator with a basic awareness
on which he or she can proceed to develop constructive and high impact
programs. Once the administrator scans the landscape of the community and identifies
the various communities, then he or she is ready to identify the leadership
within the communities. It is recognized that communities have visible,
invisible, and emerging leaders. The visible leaders are easy to distinguish
due to their presence on councils, committees, and task forces. Invisible
leaders are those who work behind the scenes to influence drives, elections, or
other issues. The emerging leaders are those in the wings preparing to take the
positions of those currently in power. This latter group is particularly
significant because an early recognition and involvement of them in school
activities can reap future rewards.
The recognition of the
diversity of communities and the leadership within those communities will
equally serve the veteran administrator, the neophyte administrator, the urban
administrator, the suburban/rural administrator, the superintendent, and the assistant
principal. Whether the local schools are in need of support for tax referenda
or bond issues, support for curricular or co-curricular programs, support for
new student discipline policies, or the general need for improvement in the
public's confidence in school; the process is equally political and necessary.
The role of the administrator has evolved to include the need for effective
attitudes and skills in working with the community. The recognition and
self-acceptance of that role is a first step in effectively administering
schools.
Wherry and Bagin (Kindred,
Bagin, & Gallagher, 1990) in their respective roles as executive director
of the National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA) and as president of
the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), posed several
suggestions to improve public confidence in educational leaders and in schools.
Included in their recommendations are: to work effectively with the business
community; to involve nonparents in the schools; and to recognize communication
as a two-way process. The use of this information results in what Armistead
(1989, p. 12) recognizes as the planning of positive public relations as
opposed to the negative public relations which just happen.
Typically, though not
exclusively, the community relations opportunities for administrators include dealing
with crises, communication with students' families, and responding to special
interest groups. Jay (1989, p. 14), in noting that the Chinese symbol for
crisis is a combination of the words danger and opportunity, recognizes that
how a school responds to crises may determine the climate of the school for a considerable
time after a crisis. She states that a school must have trust, credibility,
open lines of communication, and an effective plan. Central to the plan is an
administrator who is attuned to potential hot spots and adverse conditions. The
effective administrator anticipates, and hopefully prevents crises, or knows
how to guide his or her school and community through difficult times.
The administrator who guides
his or her school in staying in close contact with the home recognizes that such
action on the part of the school usually results in higher student achievement,
improved student discipline, increased student attendance, better student
attitudes toward learning, and increased parent and community support for
schools (Hester, 1989). Knowing that these are characteristics of effective schools
gives the informed administrator a rationale for guiding his or her faculty in
developing strategies which accomplish these ends. Additionally, it can be an
important bridge to understanding the diversity of the community and the
various interests found there.
Kudlacek (1989) acknowledges
that there is no "sure-fire formula . . . for working with special
interest groups" but she does recognize that they exist and that the
effective administrator recognizes this. She indicates that the effective
community-oriented administrator is one who values introspection, has good listening
skills, nurtures contacts with key community people and involves special
interest leaders in the planning of school programs.
There is no doubt that the
roles and responsibilities of school administrators have undergone and will continue
to undergo transformation. Initially it appears that the importance of
school-community relations programs and skills is to relate the accomplishments
of the school to the community so that the administrator of the school looks
good. However, on further examination, it is apparent that one of the more
profound implications of effective school-community relations is the
recognition of the pluralistic nature of communities. Not only are they diverse
in terms of race, ethnicity, and culture, but they are diverse in terms of
neighborhoods, friendships, and ideology. It is incumbent on the effective
administrator to be aware of those elements within the larger community. The
transformation is from a view of the administrator/school being isolated from
the community to one in which the school is seen as an integral part of a
dynamic community.
Some of the more visible and
tangible functions of today's administrators are how crises are handled, how good
home-school relations are facilitated, and how special interest groups are
treated. These outward
manifestations of good
skills need to be built on a solid footing which recognizes school-community relations
skills as an indispensable function of all administrators' roles and which
recognizes and values the diversity within our communities.
The title school-community
relations implies a formal procedure or process which could be called a
program.
While formal programs do
exist in most school districts, there are informal processes which also need to
be
examined. It is the amalgam
of formally constituted programs and informal processes which insure the effectiveness
of school administrators.
Implementing a new program
is best accomplished if it is data based. Several sources have identified that surveys
and other inventories are efficient ways to collect information from the
community (Kimbrough &
Burkett, 1990; Coursen &
Thomas, 1989; Kindred, Bagin, & Gallagher, 1990). Surveys range from highly
sophisticated and commercially available instruments to those which are locally
designed. Whatever their
genesis, the instruments
should collect reliable baseline information. The following is selected
information from a list compiled by Kindred, et al. (1990) which gives an idea
of the types of relevant baseline information available:
Information which is
gathered in a systematic manner becomes the content on which goals and
objectives are established. Whether the data are gathered from mailed surveys,
personal interviews, or surveys administered to groups invited to school
meetings, they provide the administrator with ideas on the needs of the
community. Additionally, they provide the administrator with a baseline of
information for measuring the success of implemented programs and for comparing
future needs assessments.
Whether the administrator is
establishing a new program, refining an existing school-community relations program,
or establishing a district-wide program or a school site program, a system of
goals and objectives
is vital. Kindred, Bagin,
& Gallagher (1990) offer examples of program goals often found in schools:
The power of goals and
objectives is directly proportionate to two key ingredients: the integrity of
the survey instrument and the comprehensive nature of surveying the community.
Whether a person selects a commercially
available instrument or develops his or her own, it is important that the
instrument be perceived and used as an unbiased and neutral tool. Many school
districts have run afoul of public opinion by administering survey instruments
that are clearly biased in favor of certain outcomes. Likewise, the
administration of the instrument must be done in a manner which recognizes the
aforementioned pluralistic nature of the community. Care should be taken to
define the geographic boundaries of the sample and to include opinions from a
broad base of the community.
Once the school has gathered
its information and set its goals and objectives, it is in a position to decide
on the formal nature of the school-community relations program. At the district
level it may be an office as formal as the Public Information Office or
School-Community Relations Specialist, or it may be the adjunct duties of key,
visible administrators. When it is an adjunct duty, it is often the
responsibility of the superintendent or other respected district office
administrator. At the school site level the formal program is usually the
responsibility of the principal, involving select teachers and members of the
community as appropriate.
Formal school-community
relations programs have both internal and external programs. Internal programs are
those designed for the benefit of communicating with the employees and students
of the school or district. External programs are those designed for
communicating with the communities which a school or district serves.
Kindred, Bagin, &
Gallagher (1990) have identified three reasons for schools to establish good
internal
communications programs:
The variety of internal
communications programs is almost limitless. They can be formal networks such
as district-wide or school-wide newsletters; student and faculty handbooks;
student publications; student, teacher, and/or classified personnel advisory
councils; staff recognition programs; staff development programs; and
procedures for handling emergency situations. Shared decision-making councils
are rapidly emerging as formal processes, often negotiated through collective
bargaining in which administrators, teachers, classified personnel, and
students make consensual decisions on designated topics.
Less formal internal
programs include daily bulletins, conferences between administrators and the
staff they supervise, and faculty/student activism. Though the line separating
the less formal and the more formal internal communications programs may be
somewhat arbitrary, it should be noted that schools highly structure some
communications programs, whereas others appear to be more incidental to the schools'
operation.
Formal external programs,
like their internal counterparts, are diverse in structure and purpose. They range
from programs designed to work with the general community, to programs designed
for parents or students. A recent example of schools working with their
communities is the adopt-a-school program. Most frequently based on identified
needs, schools increasingly are reaching out to local businesses for assistance
which ranges from direct financial assistance to the involvement of the
businesses' employees as tutors. The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation has been
providing training in establishing the school as a centerpoint of the local
community, and in the last few years businesses have been directly involved in
the daily operation of schools. President Bush's America 2000 education
strategy is the most current evidence of that type of involvement.
Other external programs
include those where school programs are open to the public, programs which interact
with constituent groups, and programs designed for parents. School programs
which are open to the public like athletic events, school plays, and adult
education programs are powerful ways in which schools interact with the larger
community. They provide a basis for identity for both the neighborhood school
and the larger community in which the school resides. In interacting with
constituent groups, schools often enlist constituent support on either side of
contract issues, on tax bond referenda, with neighborhood associations, and
with community advisory committees. Parent programs include parent-teacher
organizations, school visit programs, inservice programs, and parent
involvement on important committees such as those deciding curricular issues.
Whatever the purpose of the external program, its success rests on the ability
of the school to communicate with the designated community.
Communications with external
communities take many forms. They can include the basic bulletin carried home
by students, meetings held at community or school sites, and messages via the
media. Though the technology can be as basic as word-of-mouth communication to
orchestrated press conferences, the common denominator of an effective
communication is one which adheres to a carefully planned purpose and
recognizes the diversity of the community.
Within every successful
formal school-community relations program are effective informal communication processes.
Schools have one characteristic which makes them unique in the social order.
Schools are the
only institutions which
virtually every person in the community has had direct experience. It is exceedingly
rare to find a person who has never attended a school. As a result, many people
regard themselves as expert, or at least experienced, on what schools are or
should be about. This provides school personnel with either an opportunity or a
dilemma. If the preponderance of people with whom an administrator interacts
had negative experiences in school, then it may be safe to say that this
administrator has a different challenge from his or her counterpart who deals
with constituents who had positive experiences with schools. Though the
challenge may be different, the approach is virtually the same. A formally
derived community relations program must value every constituent community
based on informal interactions.
The informal communication
process can begin with how the public is greeted on the school telephone, how
the school grounds appear, how the parent is greeted by school personnel, how
students regard the contiguous community, or the extent to which school
personnel are aware of the unique needs of a particular community. It is
through these often unrecognized acts of awareness and courtesy that schools may
often determine the effectiveness of their relationships with their
communities. For example, if a local businessperson telephones the school and
is inadvertently disconnected several times, it may lead to frustration and a
poor evaluation of the school. Or, if a concerned parent visits the district
office unannounced to voice a concern over a new curricular unit and leaves
feeling listened to, it may lead to a good evaluation of the school. Or,
lastly, if a neighborhood-watch organization has targeted gang intervention
efforts as a high priority item and is rebuffed by the school administrator in
trying to establish a liaison relationship with the school because the school
has its own program, it may lead to strained relationships.
The magic in the informal
process is that the image the school projects becomes the medium of communication.
Through inadvertent efforts schools can either enhance or retard effective
communication
with their diverse
communities. The role of the administrator becomes crucial in helping the
school staff project an image based on true regard for the total environment of
the school. The administrators' role is to project an image of treating others
as we want to be treated and of treating the environment as if it were pridefully
theirs.
School-community relations
in California, similar to national efforts, are illustrated in four types of
formal programs and numerous informal processes. Formal programs include
federal and state legislated programs, adopt-a-school programs, shared
decision-making programs, and locally created programs. The School Based Coordinated Program (SBCP)
is a state effort to coordinate limited-English proficient, gifted and
talented, special education, and school improvement programs. Each district is
required to have a broad-based site council which represents each of the
constituent areas, the parents and community members, teachers, other school
personnel, and the principal. Members of the council are selected by their peers.
The major responsibility of the councils is to oversee the programs. These
councils are advisory in nature (Education Code §§52010-52034). This program is
a good example of how schools respond to designated constituent communities.
The most recent legislated effort is Assembly Bill 322 (AB 322), effective
January 1, 1991, requiring all school districts' governing boards to adopt a
policy on parent involvement. Jenkins (1991) summarized the legislation
(Education Code §11502) which emphasizes the intent for the policy and programs
to:
As with President Bush's
America 2000 strategy, AB 322 may become a vehicle by which the issue of school
choice is addressed in
California. Jenkins (1991) acknowledges the issue of choice and extends it to a
discussion of the taxonomy of communities by posing questions like:
Is
it (the school plan for parent involvement) sensitive to the different
educational backgrounds of the parents and does it take into consideration the
different learning styles that all individuals have? Is it sensitive to the
different ethnic and cultural heritages of families in the school community?
With the changing family structure, are all caregivers taken into consideration
- parents, grandparents, relatives, and foster parents? Are the schedules of
working parents given consideration? (p. 37)
In a true school-community
relations conclusion to her article on AB 322, Jenkins (1991, p. 37) states,
"Truly, for our children to succeed, education must become a client-based
business - before the chaos called choice
becomes the driving
force." In that single sentence Jenkins illustrates at least two sides of
effective school-community relations. First, the recognition that education
should be a client-based business, one which responds to a remarkably diverse
client community. Second, that schools exist in a political milieu, one in
which either schools are to be responsive to political pressures or the
political systems will redefine them.
The second type of
community-school relations program widely evident in California is the
adopt-a-school program. From the smallest rural districts to the largest urban
systems, adopt-a-school programs proliferated during the last decade. The usual
process was for the local school to identify specific needs and then to approach a local business or the office of a
large corporation located in the local community for assistance. The programs
vary in scope and breadth and most often provide the stimulus for extra assistance
in the forms of tutors, funds for equipment and materials, and funds for
participation in community events like professional and collegiate athletic
events, visits to museums, and field trips.
Typically these programs
afford the school the opportunity to offer incentives and programs that would not
be possible with district revenues. Benefits for the businesses to be involved
are in addressing pressing educational issues at the school site and to be
apprised of the remarkable diversity of local schools.
The third type of
school-community relations program evolving in California is the shared decision-making
program which is spreading throughout the state. The program which has received
the most regional and national attention has been the program negotiated
between the Los Angeles Unified School District and the United Teachers of Los
Angeles. The district and the teachers' union have negotiated a process for
involving administrators, teachers, classified staff, community members, and sometimes
students, into making decisions on topics derived through the collective bargaining
process. In terms of school-community relations, shared decision-making gives
schools the opportunity to improve not only these formal processes, but the
informal processes which, when properly constituted, can positively affect the
interaction between schools and their diverse communities.
The fourth category of
school-community relations programs, the locally derived program, is in
evidence
throughout the state.
Whether through offices like the Public Information Office or as a designated
responsibility of traditional school personnel, virtually every district has
some type of formal school-community relations program.
The differentiated roles of
the administrative hierarchy are as evident in school-community relations functions
as they are in any other aspect of school organization. From the school board
to a wide variety of administrators,
there are interdependent, mutually supportive, sometimes overlapping, as well
as discretely different roles. The recognition of these roles and forces is
central to administrator effectiveness. The Board of Education
The major school-community
relations function of boards of education was put succinctly by Kimbrough and
Burkett (1990, p. 98): "The establishment of excellent community-school
relations begins with educational purpose." They note that the alternative
to a program based on purpose is "mindlessness and the development of a
credibility gap with the public." Coursen and Thomas (1989) use the terms
ineffective and destructive to similarly describe programs which are unplanned.
Successful school-community relations programs are the result of detailed
planning.
For the development of
positive school-community relations, the National School Public Relations Association
recommends five points for school boards to consider when developing a
communications policy statement (DeLapp & Smith, 1991):
The school board's function
is to set policy, usually with the guidance of the superintendent, that recognizes
the diversity of the community, its various social systems and special interest
groups. From the base of a well-crafted policy statement, it becomes the
province of the superintendent and his or her immediate support staff to design
the procedures of a school-community relations program.
The superintendent and his
or her staff have responsibilities which are two-way in nature. They have the
responsibility to see that
clear communications flow from the school to the community and, conversely, to see
that effective communications flow from the community to the school. Schools
traditionally have performed the former role of informer to the community in
adequate terms. The difference between less than adequate and exemplary
programs appears to be the degree of well-planned school-community relations
programs, as opposed to those which just happen.
The administrative role of
listening to communities is one which has emerged rapidly in the last forty
years. It represents the formal and informal ways in which schools elicit
communities' perceptions of schools and the unique community needs which the
schools must address. Kindred, Bagin, & Gallagher (1990) delineated a
series of functions for superintendents and their staffs in fulfilling the
duality of their responsibilities. A selected list of those functions are:
Howlett (1988, p. 18)
summarized the responsibility of the superintendent and his or her staff in
stating that "No community relations program can succeed if it is treated
as a second-class activity to be brought out when I can find time . . . .
Community relations means relating, and relationships are ongoing, . . .
." She contends that the administrators in charge of community relations
must contact local constituents to determine needs, identify goals, and
implement, monitor, and assess plans. A well-designed school-community
relations plan at the district level sends a clear message to the school sites
as to the value placed on this mode of communication.
Possibly the most important
school-community relations function of the superintendent and his or her district
office staff is to develop procedures for relating with the media.
Well-developed procedures are important as a vehicle for dispensing information
to the community and for responding to queries from the media. Secondarily,
well-developed procedures identify primary responsibilities for those who
respond to inquiries from the media and guidelines for that relationship. This
process is of particular importance to site level administrators because they
often will not have immediate access to district level administrators. When
inquiries come from members of the media, they should appear informed and
responsive. The media represent the open access of the community to schools. A
relationship built on openness and accessibility is crucial.
A second level of
responsibility of the superintendent and his or her staff is the communication
with the employees and students within the district. This includes coordinating
internal publications, coordinating
formal committee structures
to address professional issues, developing and disseminating procedures for use
in emergency situations, and keeping the focus of schools on students. The
successful implementation of clear communication procedures with teachers,
classified employees, and students provides a positive support for
communication with the community at large.
The roles and
responsibilities of school site personnel closely parallel those of the
superintendent and district level administrators. Site level personnel are also
responsible for communication to and from their communities. They are
responsible for having well-designed procedures for communicating with their
communities, and for having
systems of communicating with school personnel and students.
Communication processes and
techniques for the site administrator include organizing and administering
publicity, making
presentations and speeches to community groups, distributing printed material
to parents and community group representatives, and conducting special school
events (Kimbrough & Burkett, 1990). Each of these is an important category
of events which can be orchestrated at the school site. Too often publicity
about school site events lacks a professional touch. Both printed materials and
direct personal contact must be of the highest professional order. Publications
should carry with them the recognition that the media are a powerful source of
public opinion about schools. Similarly, highly professional presentations to
community and parent groups can be a way of engendering support for schools. In
addition to the caution to insure that all printed materials are technically
accurate and professionally organized, it is equally important that they be
free of educational jargon. Finally, special school events, whether they are
curricular or co-curricular, provide a way for the school to put its best foot forward.
Our various communities enjoy seeing their children performing at their best
and are more likely to be supportive of schools when they participate in well-
organized student-centered activities.
The principal's role in
crises is one of the realities of the modern age. Twineham (1991) and Jay
(1989) have
described the crisis
situations faced by principals as being an opportunity. In addition to the aforementioned
need for a well-designed media relations process, is the recognition that in
times of crises it is important to have accessible spokespersons who are
credible, well-prepared, and articulate. With these two factors in place, the
responsible communication of the facts of a crisis are more likely to occur. Well-designed
media relations processes and well-versed spokespeople should counter the
negative effects of any emerging rumor mills.
The roles of school
administrators and teachers have become increasingly complex over the last two generations.
No longer are administrators and teachers living and working in an environment
isolated from
the community. Today's
schools exist in a complex environment of strong political overtones. The principal,
superintendent, and teacher of the 1990s are seeing the community take a
forthright role in school processes. It will be the effective school leader who
knows how to orchestrate linkages between the school and its communities.
The recognition of the
complexities of the community is vitally important to school personnel being effective
in their jobs, to students being socially and academically successful, and to
the evolving definition of the roles schools play in this society. In
California by the middle of this decade, the student population will be
multicultural to the extent that there will be no majority group. In an
unprecedented fashion, educators are providing programs which respond to the
needs of students with diverse language experiences.
At least three trends in
California bear watching. First, the immigration of students from other
countries is projected to continue unabated and will provide challenges and
opportunities to schools and their communities. Second, whether from President
Bush's America 2000 program or from a statewide voter initiative, the issue of school choice is likely to become a
reality. Third, the community relations role of school administrators, as a
consequence of these and other pressures, is going to broaden.
It has been reported by
various sources that over 15 percent of California's student population was
born in another country. Projections are that this trend will continue and is
likely to expand. Given the state's position on the Pacific Rim, it is no
surprise that the bulk of immigration is from Mexico, Central America, and
countries of Asia. Though the policy considerations for this demographic shift
have implications at all levels of federal, state, and local government, the
impact is most directly felt at the local school district level. The challenge
for the local school district is to assure access to the school system, provide
a quality educational program by appropriately trained educators, provide
English language instruction, and to provide for the special needs of immigrant
children (California Tomorrow, 1986). Given that many of the children are
coming from war-ravaged countries, their special needs will often include
responding to trauma caused by war.
The issue of school choice
is likely to preoccupy the attention of school administrators for the next generation.
It may become for administrators of today and tomorrow what school
desegregation has been for the last generation, a political hot potato that
fails to respond to the attainment of education for the historically
lowest-achieving one-third of the population. While discussing the merits of
America 2000, Pellicer and Stevenson (1991) note:
Despite the fact that, to date, there is no real
body of convincing research to suggest that choice will improve classroom
instruction for a majority of youngsters, America 2000 will most likely propel
choice to the forefront of the national educational agenda. (pp. 90-91)
The proponents of America
2000 point out that school choice is not the focus, but that a voluntary
national testing program and a related curriculum are efforts to make this
country competitive in the international marketplace once again. School choice
provides options to conventional schools by creating a series of
break-the-mold schools. They
are to be designed to provide better options to existing, failing schools.
Those opposed to America 2000 mainly focus on the issues of national standards
as not insuring the educational
needs of those currently
being underserved in schools.
Whatever the issues may be,
the message for school administrators is clear: It is important to be well-versed
on the text of America 2000 and any similar state level initiatives. There is
little doubt that the various communities each school serves will be coming
down on all sides of these proposals. For the next few years, school
administrators can be conduits for assuring that accurate information is
disseminated. Concurrently, it will be the wise administrator who keeps in
touch with the opinions of both the formal and informal community leaders.
Robison (1991) typifies the
school-community relations-aware superintendent in her comment:
If anyone tells you they have a strategy for working
with the community, they have probably missed the mark . . . . In any school or
district, there are multiple communities and special interest groups. Each has
its own agenda and communications should be tailored specifically to the needs
of each. (p. 18)
Robison (1991, pp. 19-20)
stresses the importance of keeping "an ear to the ground" in
identifying the key opinion-makers; in providing parent outreach in their multi-cultural,
multi-racial, and multi-lingual community; in interacting with the nonparent
business community; in recognizing that the district's employees are
"important ambassadors to the community;" and in being accessible to
the community. It is important to note that none of this detracts from the
instructional role of either the district level or site level administrators.
What it should do is to provide the administrator with a keener understanding
of the needs of the student population.
The latter half of the 20th
century has witnessed the school-community relations role of the administrator evolving
from a depoliticized function to one responding to the educational needs and
feelings of a diverse community. It can be no other way. The effective
administrator must be alert to the educational needs and the political
pressures in the community. A well-designed formal school-community relations program,
augmented by an effective informal communications network, will help meet this
goal.
Suggested Projects or
Activities
California Tomorrow. (1986).
Crossing the schoolhouse border. San Francisco: California Tomorrow Foundation.
Kimbrough, R. B., &
Burkett, C. W. (1990). The principalship: Concepts and practices. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kindred, L. W., Bagin, D.,
& Gallagher, D. R. (1990). The school and community relations. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
NASSP Bulletin, 73(513),
January, 1989.
Thrust for Educational
Leadership, 20(7), May/June, 1991.
Armistead, L. (1989,
January). A four step process for school public relations. NASSP Bulletin,
73(513),6-13.
California Tomorrow. (1986).
Crossing the schoolhouse border. San Francisco: California Tomorrow Foundation.
Coursen, D., & Thomas,
J. (1989). Communicating. In S. C. Smith & P. K. Piele (Eds.). School
leadership: Handbook for excellence. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Educational Management.
DeLapp, T., & Smith, D.
(1991, May/June). Schools in the spotlight. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 20(7),
8-11.
Education Codes of
California. (1991). West's Annotated California Education Codes. St. Paul, MN:
West.
Hester, H. (1989, January).
Start at home to improve home-school relations. NASSP Bulletin, 73(513),
23-28.
Howlett, P. (1988,
February/March). Community relations activities - a buffet of ideas. Thrust for
Educational Leadership, 17(5), 17-18.
Jay, B. (1989, January).
Managing a crisis in the school - Tips for principals. NASSP Bulletin, 73(513),
14-18.
Jenkins, N. (1991,
May/June). Parent involvement: A state mandate. Thrust for Educational
Leadership,
20(7), 36-37.
Kimbrough, R. B., &
Burkett, C. W. (1990). The principalship: Concepts and practices. Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kindred, L. W., Bagin, D.,
& Gallagher, D. R. (1990). The school and community relations. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kudlacek, B. (1989,
January). Special interest groups: Friends or foes? NASSP Bulletin, 73(513),
29-33.
Kipham, J. M. (1988).
Getzel's models in educational administration. In N. M. Boyan (Ed.). Handbook
of research on educational administration. New York: Longman.
Pellicer, L. O., &
Stevenson, K. R. (1991). America 2000: A principal challenge for the 21st
century. NASSP Bulletin, 75(538), 84-93.
Robison, S. (1991,
May/June). Who needs to know what. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 20(7),
18-20.
Twineham, L. (1991,
May/June). Don't knock an opportunity. Thrust for Educational Leadership,
20(7),
42-45.