Leadership and Family-School-Community Partnerships in the Model Schools for Inner Cities Initiative

Abstract

This study investigates leadership strategies that fostered family-school-community partnerships in the equity-focused school-based Model Schools for Inner Cities initiative in Toronto, Canada. Descriptive analysis of parent focus group and school administrator interview qualitative data explored leadership strategies to foster school-family-community partnerships at two schools located in ethno-culturally diverse, equity-deserving Toronto communities. Seven promising leadership practices and strategies were revealed, including: (1) creating a welcoming physical and social school environment, (2) fostering a culture of care, (3) communicating with families, (4) encouraging parent leadership and advocacy, (5) having leadership presence in the community, (6) establishing the school as a social and cultural broker, and (7) leveraging community partnerships and administrator’s personal social capital to address systemic inequities. This research highlights the voices of Canadian families and school leaders, revealing that in marginalized communities, leadership efforts to foster family-school-community partnerships play a key role in enhancing equity and justice in education.

Introduction

Literature on family-school-community partnerships has evolved from primarily focusing on narrow school-centric conceptions of parent engagement where parents are physically involved in the day-to-day activities of the school (e.g., Epstein & Becker, 1982), toward broader views of engagement where partnerships are built on reciprocity and mutual goals (Epstein, 2011), where schools, families and communities are engaged and communicate with one another in varying and diverse ways (Auerbach, 2010), and where equitable collaboration can happen while schools co-advocate for community causes (Ishimaru, 2019; 2020). School leaders are known to be vital in terms of fostering reciprocal partnerships and advancing social justice (DeMatthews et al., 2016; Theoharis, 2007). Few studies have explored school leadership and family-school-community partnerships in the Canadian context, and more specifically in Ontario, within equity-deserving, marginalized communities. Research has focused on other aspects of school leadership in Ontario schools including principals’ professional development practices (Tuters & Portelli, 2017), understandings of student diversity (Pollock & Briscoe, 2019), identity (Edge et al., 2017), and approaches to social justice (Wang, 2015). While studies have explored the role of educators in parent engagement (Hands, 2013), few have considered the role of school administrators in fostering these partnerships. For example, Hauseman et al. (2017) explored how school-community involvement involves more work for principals, but did not investigate the strategies used to encourage school-community involvement.

Studies of school leadership and family-school-community partnerships, have revealed that school leaders who create a welcoming tone in the school and encourage open communication can encourage family engagement and positive family-school relations (Medina et al., 2019; Patel et al., 2008; Patel & Corter, 2013). Relationships built on trust are also important, especially in marginalized communities (e.g., Barr & Saltmarsh, 2014; Khalifa, 2012). Effective school leaders partner with families and communities to co-advocate for community causes and systemic change (FitzGerald & Quiñones, 2018; 2019; Ishimaru, 2018). They may establish the school as a site of social and cultural brokering for families and community members, where staff might assist families in navigating and accessing education, social, or health services (e.g., Green, 2018). Effective leaders reduce power hierarchies and share decision-making to foster sustainable family-school-community partnerships and parental engagement by creating opportunities for students, families, and communities to engage in dialog and encourage parent and community leadership (Auerbach, 2010; Ishimaru, 2018; Peterson & Durrant, 2013). Other scholars have focused on the characteristics of leaders that foster family-school-community partnerships, such as attitudes about social justice and leaders’ racial, cultural, and linguistic identity (e.g., Quiñones & FitzGerald, 2019; Shah, 2018).

The present study addresses the aforementioned research gaps by amplifying the voices and perspectives of school administrators and parents, as they share their experiences of family-school-community partnerships in an urban public school board committed to enhancing equity in education in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

The Present Study

This study explores how school administrators (i.e., principals and vice principals) in two urban Toronto schools, part of the innovative, equity-focused Model Schools for Inner Cities (MSIC) initiative, fostered family-school-community partnerships. Analyses of interviews with school administrators and focus groups with parents were guided by the following research question: Within the context of the MSIC equity-focused initiative, what leadership strategies and practices do school administrators use to foster family-school-community partnerships?

Context: The Model Schools for Inner Cities Initiative

The MSIC initiative was first implemented at three Toronto District School Board (TDSB) schools in 2006, to increase educational equity by providing additional funding, services, and resources for elementary schools in priority neighborhoods that experienced greater socio-economic inequity (Toronto District School Board [TDSB], 2005). By 2012–13, the initiative had expanded to include 150 schools located in the school board’s most marginalized communities. The initiative has five guiding principles: innovations in teaching/learning practices and school structure; support services to meet physical, social, and emotional needs; school as heart of the community; review and evaluation of students and programs; and commitment to share successful practices (TDSB, 2005). Key initiative features include school and community partnerships to provide recreation, health, and social services that meet the unique needs of school communities, Learning Coaches that support pedagogy in classrooms, curriculum templates with a focus on social justice, and Community Support Workers who act as a liaison between the school and community (TDSB, 2016).

Methodology

Case study techniques were used to investigate leadership strategies in two MSIC schools in order to gain in depth understanding of participant experiences. The research is informed by a critical place-based perspective, which encourages a focus on a school’s local community, neighborhood, and socio-cultural context of the environment in which education takes place, with emphasis on customized education initiatives that respond to the unique socio-demographic conditions of local communities (Gruenewald, 2003; Haymes, 1995). The research also draws from a critical social justice perspective that recognizes that society is stratified in significant ways along social group lines (e.g., race, socioeconomic status, gender, sexuality, and ability), and actively seeks to change this (Sensoy & Di Angelo, 2012). The research was approved by Toronto Metropolitan University’s (formerly Ryerson University) Research Ethics Board and the External Research Review Committee of the TDSB.

Case Study Sites

In Canada, publicly funded education is managed by each province or territory. The Ontario Ministry of Education includes 72 school boards, of which the TDSB is the largest (583 schools, ~247,000 students; TDSB, 2020a). The TDSB is also one of the most diverse in the province, with about 71% of students identifying as a visible minority, 34% reporting a first language other than English, and 67% of students from immigrant families with both of their parents born outside of Canada (Yau et al., 2013). The two case study sites, Model School 1 (MS1) and Model School 2 (MS2), both Kindergarten to Grade 8, are located in racially diverse, marginalized communities and are designated City of Toronto “Neighborhood Improvement Areas,” meaning that these communities experience inequities on several indicators of well-being including employment, income, education rate, immigration status, and race (City of Toronto, 2022). According to Statistics Canada’s 2016 census of the population, the most recent available data, in comparison to a visible minority rate of 22.3% in Canada, 47% of residents in MS1′s neighborhood and 60% in MS2′s neighborhood identified as a visible minority (South Asian was the highest reported, then Chinese, Black, Filipino and Latin American). 28.6% of residents in MS1′s neighborhood and 20% of MS2 neighborhood residents were considered earning low-income, compared to 13% of the rest of Canada. Both schools were matched in terms of socio-demographic data (e.g., median family income, adult education levels, and number of families receiving social assistance). MS1 and MS2 are in the top 22 of 473 TDSB elementary schools, where the top 150 are considered MSIC schools and have the highest socio-demographic risk (TDSB, 2020b). While similarly “high-risk” communities, MS1 and MS2 had unique school and community context.

Model School 1

MS1 is located in a high-density neighborhood in downtown Toronto, within walking distance for most students and near several community services and resources. The area was undergoing a redevelopment where social housing buildings were being torn down and replaced by new townhouses and condominiums with a mix of public and private-sector housing. MS1 had recently completed a school building upgrade with on-site childcare, a provincially funded drop-in family support center, an on-site pediatric health clinic, and an adjoining community center. Its student population is linguistically and culturally diverse: almost two-thirds have a first language other than English.

Model School 2

MS2 is located in a more sprawling neighborhood; it is in walking distance for many students, but other services such as community centers, libraries, and childcare centers are not generally within walking distance for most families. The school building at MS2 is deteriorating and more cramped than MS1. Its student population is also linguistically and culturally diverse: almost one-third of students had a first language other than English.

Participants and Data Collection

Eight semi-structured focus groups with parents and four interviews with school administrators were conducted at MS1 and MS2 in 2014 and in 2019. By parents, we refer to any legal or non-legal guardian responsible for the care of a child attending the school. Parents and administrators were asked about programs and services available to children and families at the school, school-family relationships, family engagement, and how the school acts as the hub of the community.

Parents

Two focus groups with MS1 parents (n = 23) and four focus groups with MS2 parents (n = 29) were conducted in school and other community locations in 2014. Parents were recruited through flyers and with the help of community organizations. In 2019, sampling was more purposeful because the Research Advisory Committee for the project (including researchers and community partners) wanted to hear from parents who were more actively engaged in the school (e.g., parent advisory committee, school volunteers). Recruitment was carried out in partnership with the TDSB, primarily through parent councils. Translators were offered but not requested. One focus group was held at each school, with five parents at MS1 and seven parents at MS2 in 2019.

School Administrators

Semi-structured interviews were held with school administrators at both schools in 2014 and 2019. MS1 had consistency in school administrators in 2014 (n = 2) and 2019 (n = 1), whereas, MS2 had administrator turnover between 2014 (n = 2) and 2019 (n = 2). Administrator interviews took place at schools, coffee shops, and one follow-up interview was completed over the phone at the request of the administrator. All administrators interviewed were people of color and had varying levels of experience working with the TDSB and in equity-deserving marginalized communities.

Data Analysis

Thematic inductive descriptive analysis at each time point was informed by a grounded theory approach (Urquhart, 2013) and involved open coding, inter-rater coding discussions, focused coding in NVivo, summarizing exported nodes, and further inter-rater coding discussion and adjustments as required. Seven prominent themes emerged in this study.

Results and Discussion

There were similarities and differences between MS1 and MS2; when no noteworthy differences were observed between time points, 2014 and 2019 data are discussed together. See Supplemental Table 1 for additional parent and school administrator quotes.

Creating a Welcoming Physical and Social School Environment

Parents at both schools spoke about the importance of a welcoming entrance way. Administrators at MS1 said that having an inviting entrance helped families to feel welcomed in the school building. All schools in the TDSB have automatic locks on their doors, but MS1 administrators tried to allow more open access to families. Conversely, parents and administrators described the front entrance at MS2 as small and not welcoming. It was inaccessible for people using wheelchairs or strollers. One parent said, “How do you have a parenting [center] here and no ramp? Does that make sense? Do the connection here.”

Parents and administrators at both schools discussed the important role of all school staff, particularly front desk staff, in establishing a welcoming environment. Some parents at both schools did not feel welcomed, but MS2 parents spoke highly of a now-retired school custodian who was particularly approachable and involved with the school. One MS1 parent noted that how parents are welcomed by school staff is reflective of the broader relationship between the school and community.

Consistent with previous research, parents and administrators commented that establishing a welcoming front entrance and school atmosphere, both physically and socially, is a key strategy to make families feel known and comfortable in the school community (e.g., Barr & Saltmarsh, 2014; FitzGerald & Quiñones, 2019).

Fostering a “Culture of Care”

Administrators at both schools referred to the importance of fostering a caring school culture, but their understandings of a “culture of care” differed: those at MS1 had a broad understanding of a culture of care that included caring about family wellbeing, student educational success, the larger community, and social justice; while those at MS2 focused more on fostering caring, trusting relationships between school staff and families.

At MS1, administrators tried to make a culture of care visible in the school building and mentioned it often in conversations with students and families. It was posted in the entranceway, mentioned in school newsletters, discussed in school announcements, and examples of caring were posted on the school office display. MS1 parents explicitly mentioned this culture of care in focus groups, and also reported that they contributed to this school culture where everyone feels comfortable and cared for. For MS1 parents, a culture of care involved valuing racial, cultural, and religious diversity in the school community. MS1 administrators spoke often about their anti-racist, anti-oppressive stance and said that they did not tolerate racism and discrimination in their school. Parents noted appreciation for this commitment and cited examples of administrators confronting racism.

At MS2, administrators focused more on building trusting and caring relationships between school staff and families. MS2 administrators said there was some distrust between parents and school staff and attributed this to past traumas or negative experiences with schools among parents. Indeed, MS2 parents noted that they did not trust school staff, with some relating this distrust to power dynamics. In 2014, one parent commented, “I don’t really feel comfortable. I have seen it happen too many times. Teachers and everybody at the school have too much authority in the sense that if they don’t like me, they can make my life hell.” Others said they felt they rarely got the “whole story” from staff about incidents involving their children. Trust between MS2 parents and school staff appeared to have improved somewhat in 2019, when parents reported that school staff were very transparent in their communications with parents. MS2 administrators also spoke more explicitly about strategies to build trust with parents in 2019, such as focusing on building individual, reliable relationships with families and establishing the office as a “safe place” where students can, “get a hug, whatever they need, get a meal, get attention.”

Alongside other authors who have highlighted the importance of trust and caring relationships (e.g., DeMatthews et al., 2016; Khalifa, 2012), these findings reveal ways that administrators can foster a culture of care by promoting this vision in communications with families; committing to social justice, anti-oppression, and anti-racism; and taking the time to establish relationships built on care and trust between school staff and families.

Communication With Families

Administrators and parents identified informal (e.g., casual conversations) and formal (e.g., parent council) communication strategies used by schools to connect parents, school staff, and administrators. Communication generally seemed to improve in both schools between 2014 and 2019.

At both time points, MS1 administrators referred to using weekly newsletters, phone calls, and social media. Although most felt positive about school-family communications in 2014, a few said that the school never phoned or sent flyers to tell them about school events. In 2019, all MS1 parents spoke positively about family-school communications, saying parents “can’t miss” anything happening in the school.

Many MS2 parents noted a lack of communication and organization between school staff and said there were limited ways to raise concerns with administration in 2014. For example, some parents received calls saying their child was absent and then received another call saying that the child was indeed at school. By 2019, communication at MS2 had improved and parents were more comfortable approaching administrators. Parents and administrators identified several ways that the school communicated with families in 2019, including flyers, emails, phone calls, informal conversations, and events, including one organized by administrators and the Community Support Worker where parents could chat with school staff over tea. Parents appreciated that the Community Support Worker was always available, noting that “whenever you need her you can call the school or you can get in contact with her, she is always around.”

Administrators at both schools said it was important for parents to feel validated and heard: at MS1, the parent council was an important avenue for parents to feel heard. In 2014 MS2 administrators said that school staff would accommodate parent work schedules and speak with them over the phone as needed. In 2014, MS2 parents wanted more positive phone calls; one said, “Why do I always have to get the negative phone call? All you are going to do is call me and tell me negativity. You’re never going to uplift my child. You’re always going to put down my child.” Parents at both schools discussed the importance of receiving phone calls about when their children are doing well, instead of only when they are struggling, and felt these phone calls contributed to a sense of pride in their parenting. Overall, communication between school and parents seemed to improve between 2014 and 2019, and consistent with previous research, parents appreciated frequent and varied opportunities to connect with school staff (e.g., Medina et al., 2019; Patel et al., 2008; Patel & Corter, 2013).

Encouraging Parent Leadership and Advocacy

Administrators, especially at MS1, referred to encouraging parent advocacy and leadership via parent councils. In 2014, MS1 administrators and parents reported that the parent council had recently been working to support local community charities. In addition to advocating for school uniforms, the parent council had advocated for more local recreation programs, and in collaboration with the Community Support Worker led guest speaker events on parent chosen topics. By 2019, MS1 parents were actively involved in recruiting and encouraging more parents to join the parent council, and described the Community Support Worker and school administrators as co-leaders in the parent council. One MS1 parent said the parent council is a space where parents can grow into advocates who use their voice to create change.

MS2 administrators did not speak about specific strategies to encourage parent leadership, and the parent council was not as active as the MS1 parent council. MS2 administrators noted that engagement in the parent council fluctuated over time, and that the parent council’s main role was to organize hot lunches for students. Parents at MS2 did not take on leadership roles in terms of school or community initiatives in the way that parents did at MS1.

Efforts to flatten power hierarchies between schools, families, and communities seemed to contribute to parent engagement at MS1. Previous research has documented the importance of shared leadership in family-school-community partnerships and how parent leadership can foster feelings of ownership and belonging (e.g., Auerbach, 2010; Ishimaru, 2018; Quiñones & FitzGerald, 2019). Indeed, MS1 parents appreciated opportunities to co-construct the school environment and act as decision-makers contributing to school policy.

Leadership Presence in the Community

Parents at MS1 and MS2 appreciated when school staff were visible and present in their community. MS1 parents said that by also serving as a basketball coach in the neighborhood, their Community Support Worker made the school an active, supportive part of the larger community. Administrators at MS1 participated in community events, supported and advocated for families at community meetings about local social housing initiatives, and visited local organizations and community centers.

MS2 administrators referred to taking school staff members on walks led by community representatives so that the staff could get to know the community and get a sense of what family life was like outside of school. Although community walks were a regular practice in many MSIC schools, school staff at MS2 had never taken part in one until 2019. MS2 administrators noted that the walks educated teachers about available community supports and services, and led some teachers to visit community organizations with their classes.

After noticing low parent council attendance in 2019, MS2 administrators recognized that it was difficult for some parents to get to the school in the evening and began holding some meetings and an intergenerational reading club in the community rooms of a local apartment building in order to connect with families. Two MS2 parents shared that they appreciated this, as illustrated by the following excerpt:

We’re meeting . . . in the Community Housing Room . . . a place where someone was just killed a couple of months ago. It’s not the safest place to be. . . and these Principals and Vice Principals and teachers are coming there [at] 6:00 p.m. This is hours after they’ve finished, they’re not being paid to be there and they’re sitting with the community for one reason, to get feedback from the community on what we can do to better enable the students and the teachers at our school to help us to learn and to grow as a community. (2019)

Consistent with the findings of previous research (e.g., Khalifa, 2012), the presence of school staff members in the community demonstrated to families that staff were willing to go the extra mile to connect with parents and felt part of the larger community.

Establishing the School as a Social and Cultural Broker

Administrators at both MS1 and MS2 established their school as a social and cultural broker for families. Green (2018) draws from social capital theory (Coleman, 1988) and Chaskin et al.’s (2001) “organizational brokers” to define a social broker as a place in a community that acts as a link between different organizations and services that together build individual, family, and community capacity. A cultural broker refers to what Lopez and Stack (2001) call a “cultural bridge,” meaning, an individual or organization that acts as an intermediary between two or more social groups of people in order to help families and community members decode, translate, and navigate dominant networks and social systems, while “affirming community cultural values, resources, and rights” (p. 48).

With regard to the school as a social broker, both schools supported family health and social well-being by offering either on-site services or referrals to services. In 2014 and 2019, MS1 parents and administrators described the co-located service model that their school’s redesign afforded. On-site services and programs included a school health clinic, a parent and child family support program, childcare center, before- and after-school programs offered by community groups, and an adjacent community center. The health clinic was particularly important because families could quickly receive care, health screenings (e.g., vision, dental), and referrals to other healthcare services. In essence, MS1 served as a community hub where families and community members could access services and programs all day and into the evening.

Although fewer on-site programs and services were available at MS2, parents said that they could turn to the school for referrals and support. One MS2 parent said that the school had helped her children to access glasses and hearing aids; another described how supported she felt at MS2 compared to a previous school that their daughter attended where they felt “isolated” from support. She noted that if she needs support now, the “first people” she would turn to are the administrative staff and Community Support Workers.

With regard to the school as a cultural broker, both MS1 and MS2 helped families, particularly newcomer families, find support to navigate Canadian health, education, and social systems. Administrators and parents at both schools noted that the Community Support Worker was particularly important in supporting the vision of the school as a cultural broker. Community Support Workers, as well as TDSB Settlement Workers, helped families connect to settlement services, local transportation, and childcare. Still, parents at both schools felt that the schools could be more supportive of newcomer families; for example, by providing newcomers with translators and information about the Canadian educational system as soon as they arrive at the school.

The schools differed in terms of their vision of the school as a site of social and cultural brokering. MS2 administrators attributed the drive for the school to act a social and cultural broker as coming from external pressures – from community organizations approaching the school and wanting to partner with the school, as well as related to the province-wide implementation of full-day kindergarten in 2010. In contrast, the MS1 administrator’s vision of the school as a social and cultural broker was rooted in their personal historic understanding of schools supporting the whole child, sharing that:

Back in the 70, early 80 this school. . . when I was a student, you had a full time nurse. We had dental care. We had breakfast and lunch programs. . . then a certain era came and they were removed and so now it’s sort of putting those pieces back. . . but if you don’t have that historical lens then it seems, “oh this is more.” But for me it’s just doing what was always done and I think in many ways what should be done in all schools. (2014)

Community Support Workers, TDSB Settlement Workers, and administrators who encourage family-school-community partnerships help to foster schools that serve as social and cultural brokers. School leaders, families and community liaisons play a key role in family engagement (e.g., FitzGerald & Quiñones, 2018; Green, 2018).

Leveraging Community Partnerships and Administrators’ Personal Social Capital to Address Systemic Inequities

MS1 and MS2 administrators leveraged community partnerships and their own social capital to address systemic inequities, which parents noticed and appreciated. This was more pronounced at MS1 than at MS2, although there was a slight shift toward more school-based efforts to address systemic inequities at MS2 in 2019. Systemic inequity occurs when social groups (based on socio-economic status, ethnicity, race, gender, culture, and/or ability) are disadvantaged compared with other groups as a result of historic and cultural socio-economic conditions and structures that systematically privilege specific social groups over others (Dani & de Haan, 2008). The following sub-sections explore six main themes related to systemic inequity and the structural and systemic conditions that can cause it.

Establishing Partnerships and Leveraging Personal Social Capital to Address Systemic Racism

Administrators at MS1 described several ways that they had leveraged community partnerships with universities, not-for-profit organizations, and hospitals to address systemic racism. They partnered with community agencies to offer coding clubs led by women of color, with the goal of engaging girls to explore fields typically dominated by men. They recognized that Black boys in their school were interested in video games, but that Black men were not adequately represented in the field of technology and creating video games, so they partnered with a community organization to offer a coding club targeted specifically at Black boys. In partnership with a local university, they organized professional development courses focused on Africentric math pedagogy for school staff and staff from other nearby schools. In partnership with healthcare and mental health organizations they offered child and family programs focused on behavior management and relationship-building skills, with the hope that these programs would help address the suspension rates of racialized students in a manner that was “supportive as opposed to punitive.”

In contrast, MS2 administrators spoke less often about specific partnerships they developed to address systemic racism, and in 2014, there was no mention of partnerships to address systemic racism. In 2019, MS2 administrators had begun to organize professional development for staff members focused on Black student excellence, anti-bias training, and culturally relevant pedagogy. This professional development series was part of a larger, board-wide initiative targeted at supporting Black student success (TDSB, 2019). After observing low parent engagement at workshops about literacy, math, and other academic topics, MS2 administrators partnered with a community organization to offer a workshop on the topic of trauma, but again had low parent attendance.

Administrators at both schools leveraged their own social capital and position of power to ensure marginalized families were represented in school leadership, school staff, and school resources. One MS1 administrator said, “I think as a South-Asian leader for the school, they understand when it comes to dealing with racism that I understand what they are going through and I try to put structures in place to mitigate that across the school.” Ensuring that leaders reflected the diversity of the school population contributed to an anti-oppressive and anti-racist culture within the school, as well as a sense of allyship with parents. MS1 administrators intentionally recruited families to ensure parent leadership on the parent council represented the diverse cultural, racial, religious, and lived experiences of families in the school. MS2 administrators spoke about a lack of diversity in the books and resources used in classrooms, and one noted that the additional funding from the MSIC initiative was important, and allowed them to buy more resources that reflected the ethno-racial identities of families in their school.

Leveraging Personal Social Capital to Address Systemic Ableism

Administrators at MS1 leveraged their power to advocate for more access to programing for students with disabilities. The school redesign at MS1 afforded more space, and administrators persuaded the school board to allow the school to offer “autism and developmental delay programs” so that families who wanted this programing would no longer have to leave the neighborhood. MS1 parents said that this helped to create an inclusive environment for children and families.

Partnerships to Address Food Insecurity

Both schools have breakfast and lunch programs for students supported by the MSIC initiative (TDSB, 2016) to address food insecurity. MS2 parents additionally mentioned a food-sharing program at the school offered in partnership with a community organization. They described long lineups at the nearby food bank and also referred to stigma associated with using the food bank, which caused some families to avoid going. MS2 administrators and parents felt that the food security and nutrition programs offered through the school were particularly important for MS2 families.

Partnerships to Increase Access to Extracurricular Activities

In 2014, MS2 had limited social programing for children and parents. Parents appreciated that the school helped them to access local attractions through programs like Community Passport, a MSIC initiative program providing families with coupons for attractions like art museums and science centers (TDSB, 2016), but they wanted more extracurricular programing before and after school and on-site childcare. In 2019, MS2 administrators were aware that there were limited nearby community resources, services, and recreation activities in the neighborhood, so they were working to offer more school-based programs and clubs in partnership with local organizations. One MS2 parent in 2019 said that there was always something happening in the school including, “wellness nights. . . basketball programs. . . there’s so many things every week.”

A Desire for More Relevant Parent Programing

At MS2, there seemed to be a disconnect between the types of programs and events the school was offering and the types of programs parents wanted. MS2 parents wanted the school to address systemic issues such as unemployment, food insecurity, addiction, teen pregnancy, and other issues, and shared feelings that the programs offered by the school were “band-aid” solutions that did not address the root of community challenges. This highlights the importance of collaboration with parents and community members when shaping school- and community-based services (e.g., Goldfarb & Grinberg, 2002; Peterson & Durrant, 2013). Parents at MS2 desired such collaboration. One MS2 parent referred to the need for schools to support parents’ social capital:

There’s people [in the community] who will take the initiative on their own and find the resources out there and get on their feet and get. . . [family] to help. . . but there’s some of us who don’t have that support – how do we ever, ever get out of this stagnation? How? It’s only the school or the people you are involved in daily that can help [and say] here’s an opportunity for you. I don’t see that really coming my way. It’s an issue. . . you just can’t ever get up. It reflects on the community. It reflects on people who have addiction problems. It reflects on so many issues that we just can’t ignore. (2019)

The same parent called for school staff to leverage their own social position and connect with municipal councilors and other change makers to address community concerns.

Administrator Social Justice and Equity Stance

Administrators’ social justice stance seemed to influence the ways the schools addressed systemic inequities. MS1 administrators often referred explicitly to anti-oppression and equity in conversations with families, in newsletters, and at parent council meetings, and this stance was the basis for their work with community partners. One MS1 administrator said that:

When our newcomer Black families see the work that we are doing around promoting excellence explicitly for Black children and naming it, it makes them realize we care deeply about their children. We see where there are gaps in provision of services for Black children across the system and [that] we are trying to address that at [MS1]. (2019)

By naming the school’s anti-oppressive and equity-focused stance, administrators highlighted their intention to co-advocate with families for more equitable educational and social systems. A few MS1 parents also referred to the school’s social justice stance.

Administrators at MS2 did not speak as explicitly about addressing systemic inequities. In 2014, they were aware of systemic inequities in the community, including poverty, food insecurity, young pregnancy rates, and a lack of community resources, but did not mention how they worked to address these issues, with the exception of the MSIC breakfast and nutrition programs. In 2019, there seemed to be a shift, with more recreational activities introduced in the school to address the gaps in neighborhood services. Previous research has demonstrated that principals who are committed to enacting social justice and equity and champion community concerns will identify the root cause of inequities and work to address them within the school (e.g., Green, 2018; Theoharis, 2007). Administrators’ social justice and equity stance appeared to affect the degree to which they partnered with other agencies to address systemic inequities. Administrators at MS1 seemed to have a clearer social justice stance, in comparison to MS2.

Conclusion

This investigation revealed seven key strategies and practices school administrators use to foster family-school-community partnerships: creating a welcoming physical and social school environment; fostering a culture of care; communication with families; encouraging parent leadership and advocacy; leadership presence in the community; establishing the school as a social and cultural broker; and leveraging community partnerships and administrators’ personal social capital to address systemic inequities.

Limitations of the present study offer opportunities for future research. Future research should include the voices of students, Community Support Workers and teachers. An investigation of how the individual racial, cultural, and privileged identities of administrators might affect their strategies for family-school-community partnerships would be an interesting line of future research. Finally, research should explore how the leadership strategies employed by administrators might improve children’s educational success and well-being.

This research has important implications for future educational practice, particularly given the importance for ongoing advocacy for anti-racism, anti-oppression, and justice in systems like education that can reproduce – and help to dismantle – classism, racism, ableism, and social inequities.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-imp-10.1177_13654802251397190 – Supplemental material for Leadership and Family-School-Community Partnerships in the Model Schools for Inner Cities Initiative

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-imp-10.1177_13654802251397190 for Leadership and Family-School-Community Partnerships in the Model Schools for Inner Cities Initiative by Natalie Cummins and Sejal Patel in Improving Schools