Establishing sustainable school-community partnerships: strategies for school management teams

ABSTRACT

School-community partnerships (SCPs) in under-resourced contexts provide invaluable support and resources for meeting the needs of staff and learners beyond the perimeters of a school. This article explored the strategies which school management teams (SMTs) employ, in establishing sustainable SCPs in township secondary schools in the Johannesburg Central (JC) District of Gauteng, South Africa. The study followed a concurrent triangulation mixed-methods design, to investigate the partnerships between 16 secondary schools and their respective community partners (CPs). However, for this article, the study reports only on the quantitative results. Two complementary, standardized questionnaires – one for SMTs and the other for CPs were used to collect data, which were subsequently analyzed using descriptive, factor, and reliability statistical analysis procedures. I employed sustainable SCPs, using the collective impact model as the theoretical framework. The study produced favorable findings regarding strategies for establishing sustainable partnerships between the school and community partners, including two-way conversations; negotiated partnerships; a common purpose; funding; a reflection on the quality of the partnership; accountability; monitoring and evaluation; trust and respect; commitment to implementing the partnership and collaborating to find solutions. To conclude, I highlight the implications of the findings for educational practitioners and make recommendations for future research.

Introduction

Schools are an inextricable part of the communities to which they belong, and they carry an important agenda for building bridges that connect communities and the private sector via collaborative programs (Keetanjaly et al., 2019). A burgeoning body of research confirms that schools do not exist independently of their communities, and history reminds us that schools have never been the sole source of a child’s education (Benson et al., 2009). Why is it important to have SCPs? Schools can achieve more if they work collectively with the communities of which they form part, especially in disadvantaged areas (Lasker & Weiss, 2003). According to DePetris and Eames (2017), SCPs are a potential mechanism for helping schools to engage with their wider communities and develop meaningful and ongoing relationships. Although a considerable amount of research has been conducted on SMT and SCPs, there is still a gap in the literature regarding how they interplay between each other. This study seeks to close this gap and provides a fresh perspective to understanding the dynamics between the SMTs and SCPs. Consequently, there is a lack of insight into the strategies for establishing and maintaining SCPs. To add to this, there is still remain a limited understanding on the ability of SCPs in improving the educational outcomes and providing much-needed educational resources. As I indicated earlier that schools and CPs do not operate isolation but intricately interwoven, so by conducting this study, the SMTs will find innovative ways to maximize resource allocation, increase educational outcomes and build a sense of community ownership in schools. Again, and interestingly, this study would not have been conducted at the better time. It is contextualized in the South African township schools who were marked by and continued to be, among others, segregation, inequality, inadequate resources and so forth especially in black communities, it is therefore relevant for the current educational climate. Township schools in South Africa are located in urban residential areas that provided racially segregated low-cost housing for black African laborers during the 20th century, to enable them to live near their workplaces (Mampane & Bouwer, 2011). It is for this reason that this study seeks to shorten the gap by examining these intricate partnerships between SMTs and CPs by looking at the innovative strategies of establishing and maintaining SCPs.

In today’s challenging fiscal climate, partnerships among community members, the private sector, government agencies and nonprofit entities are becoming increasingly common, but have almost become a necessity in the education sector. The South African government alone is incapable of addressing the insurmountable challenge of providing high-quality education to South Africa’s children (Republic of South Africa, 2012). In this respect, Ramaphosa and Nevhutalu (2013, p. 5) argue that there is a ‘compelling argument [to be made] for all citizens to become more involved in education on a more sustained basis’. Back in 2011, an accord was signed between the DBE, the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) and organized labor movements, including the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) (Department of Economic Development, 2011). This accord required all role-players in education – the various stakeholders and CPs included – to commit their organizations to supporting the drive to achieve high-quality education in this country. In light of the above, Khosa (2010, p. 1) claims that the problem with South Africa’s public education system is ‘systemic; therefore, it requires systemic solutions based on partnerships between the state, the private sector, and civil society’. This, therefore, suggests that establishing partnerships could be one of the ways in which schools and community organizations can work together to ensure that the needs of disadvantaged learners are addressed.

SCPs can be described as any ‘connection between schools and community individuals, organizations, and business that is forged to promote learners’ social, emotional, physical, and intellectual development’ (M. G. Sanders, 2001, p. 20). According to Publow (2010), working definition of a partnership envisages a collaborative relationship between entities, in which they work toward shared objectives through a mutually agreed division of labor. In essence, the concept of ‘partnership’ is used broadly to describe working relationships between two parties in pursuit of shared goals (Allen et al., 2010). To investigate this further, the following research question was posed: What strategies do SMTs use to establish and maintain SCPs? In response to the research question, the quantitative objectives are classified as follows: firstly, determining the establishment and different strategies use by SMTs and CPs to establish and maintain sustainable, and how they contribute to learner outcome and availability of resources in school communities. Hora and Millar (2011) argue that many partnerships are instigated internally by school leaders, who identify a challenge as well as the potential partners that could help to reach the mutually beneficial goal of overcoming that particular obstacle. In South Africa, SMTs are expected to ‘creating and putting structures in place for developing and sustaining collaborative culture, connecting the school to the broader environment, and building working relationships with families and communities’ (Marishane, 2016). In this way, SMTs can become effective networkers, both to promote a school’s interests within the local system, and to collaborate productively in a partnership with their peers (Preedy et al., 2003).

Furthermore, SMTs are expected to take the lead in establishing community partnerships (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001), and that requires a great deal of effort (Hands, 2010). I admit that, while a school’s leadership needs to recognize the strengths each of its members brings to the partnership, SMTs also need to know when others ‘can do it better’ (Slater, 2005, p. 329). CPs can include professional bodies, teacher unions, political parties, various agencies, cultural societies, skills training organizations, businesses, donors, universities, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (Education, 2005).

Next, a glimpse of the strategies used for establishing sustainable SCPs. Such partnerships are not established overnight: they involve a process that requires ongoing planning, development, and evaluation (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Storytelling, 2010). The starting point is that a school’s personnel should first identify which community resources could benefit their school. Communication is important and involves broad consultation during the negotiation stage (Wanni et al., 2010). As Hands (2005, p. 72) found, in that study school personnel were ‘engaged in discussions [during initial partnership meetings] with the potential partners, with the essential aim of establishing clear expectations for partnerships and coming to an agreement that was mutually satisfying’. Importantly, schools and community organizations need to have ‘initial discussions about each other’s roles in the partnership and the school, so that territorialism and turf wars do not impede the partnership process’ (Bryan & Henry, 2012, p. 415).

Sound and open communication can lay a strong foundation for drawing up a partnership plan (Naidu et al., 2008). Maintaining sound and active communication throughout a partnership, serves to establish and support equity among the partners involved (Garber & Adams, 2017). Financial resources are also important in building sustainable SCPs. If such partnerships are to be sustained – especially in impoverished communities – then financial creativity, flexibility, and a growing number of partners, are needed (Peel et al., 2002). Hall, 2011 reports that, during the process of partnership building, optimum flexibility must be achieved by promoting a decision-making climate that is open, inclusive, and collaborative. The availability of resources (e.g. time, funding, and human capital) are just as crucial in establishing sustainable SCPs, according to M. G. Sanders and Lewis (2005), schools with strong internal and external accountability mechanisms have a better chance of maintaining a partnership agreement. As Khosa (2010) specifies, mutual accountability is imperative for maintaining SCPs.

Since establishing sustainable partnerships is a process rather than an event, it is important for partners to take the time to reflect on, and evaluate, the quality of their relationships and the implementation of their partnership agreement (M. G. Sanders, 2003). If the goal is to make a collective impact, continuous communication is vital, as is affording partners sufficient time to ensure that their own interests are treated fairly, and that decisions are not biased but will benefit all parties involved in seeking an optimal solution to the problem (Kania & Kramer, 2011). Mutual reflection among partners can facilitate the process of refining the partnership and enhancing collaborative skills (M. G. Sanders, 2003). Effective evaluation gives SMTs and CPs an indication of what worked in the past, and what needs to be improved (Bryan & Henry, 2012). Without systematic monitoring and evaluation, it would be difficult to assess whether – and to what extent – a partnership is effective (Wanni et al., 2010). Finally, at the core of successful SCPs, is trust. In the opinion of Preedy et al. (2012, p. 222), school managers have ‘a critical role to play in building trust and mutual understanding between schools and communities’. Trust is the ‘superglue’ that binds partners in a partnership, connecting a school’s internal community with outside communities (Preedy et al., 2012).

Understanding collective impact: theoretical framework

Currently, there is no available data pointing that Collective Impact (CI) model has not been implemented in township secondary schools in the JC District of the Gauteng province, South Africa. However, I believe that, first its conditions and principles as explained below, are widely applicable in different contexts. Second, CI model has been implemented in other parts of the world and has been proved to be a success in addressing social complex issues. CI model, which was designed as a model for partnerships to address a myriad complex challenges, seeks to align partners across government institutions, nonprofits, and private business, while fully engaging members of the community (Flood et al., 2015). CI is a controlled process that focuses on the dedication of all stakeholders involved in a partnership, enabling them to move beyond tentative, initial suggestions, toward working collaboratively on agreed-upon larger social problems (Garber & Adams, 2017). According to Garber and Adams (2017), CI is a framework for achieving tangible transformation and improvement in communities, through a series of well-defined parameters for partnerships. CI model has five conditions that, when combined, have the ability to create genuine alignment and deliver positive results.

First, a common agenda. CI requires a vision for change – one that includes a common understanding of the problem, and a joint approach to solving that problem by taking agreed-upon actions (Hanleybrown et al., 2012; Kania & Kramer, 2013; Kania & Kramer, 2011). To draw up a common agenda, the parties involved in a partnership must have a shared understanding of the issues and challenges confronting their communities, and create a shared vision for how to approach those issues (Garber & Adams, 2017). In employing a CI framework, it is critical that all the relevant partners have a common understanding of the challenge, as well as a shared and collective approach to resolving it (Matthew & Monroe-White, 2020).

Second, shared measurement systems must be developed to achieve collective impact. Kania & Kramer (2011) argues that reaching agreement on a common agenda is misleading, if the parties concerned fail to reach agreement on the ways in which success will be measured and reported. When all partners in a partnership contribute to a collective goal, the measurement systems for assessing progress made in reaching that goal, must also be aligned (Fletcher et al., 2021). A shared measurement system reflects agreement on how outcomes will be evaluated through a mutual means of data collection, and an accompanying collective process of analysis (Garber & Adams, 2017; Kania and Kramer, 2013). Through this process, not only is accountability shared among partners, but various community groups also benefit from the opportunity to learn (Garber & Adams, 2017).

Third, mutually reinforcing activities. CI framework initiatives depend on a diverse group of partners working together. This does not require all participants to do the same thing: rather, each partner is encouraged to undertake the specific set of activities at which it excels, in a way that supports – and is coordinated with – the actions of others (Hanleybrown et al., 2012; Kania & Kramer, 2013; Kania & Kramer, 2011). CI is built by leveraging partners, each of whom brings different perspectives and assets to the table, to advance the goals of the organization (Fletcher et al., 2021). Collective impact involves the formulation of a strategic plan for coordinating the various activities occurring within a diverse partnership, to ensure continuously reinforcing mutual actions (Garber & Adams, 2017). When using a CI framework it is critical that, even though participants are working toward the same goal using the same approach, they be empowered to realize that goal in different ways (Monroe-white & Berry, 2020).

Fourth, continuous communication. Developing trust among nonprofit organizations, businesses, and government agencies is a monumental challenge (Hanleybrown et al., 2012; Kania & Kramer, 2013; Kania & Kramer, 2011). CI recognizes the value of maintaining a dialogue with all partners to learn what knowledge, passion, and concerns exist, and how to communicate these, to maximize their use for learning and problem solving (Garber & Adams, 2017). Fifth, backbone support organisation. Creating and managing CI requires a separate organization and staff with a very specific set of skills to serve as the backbone for the entire initiative (Hanleybrown et al., 2012; Kania & Kramer, 2013; Kania & Kramer, 2011). The backbone organization requires a dedicated staff cohort – separate from the participating organizations – that is tasked with planning, managing, and supporting the initiative through ongoing facilitation, technological and communications support, data collection and reporting, and handling the myriad logistical and administrative details needed for the initiative to function smoothly (Kania & Kramer, 2011). A backbone support organization is critical for making collective impact. Backbone staff and functions can be shared across different parties to a partnership, to assist in building group consensus, support, and trust.

The employment of CI for this study came in response to the lack of educational resources that promoting learner achievement, especially in South Africa’s township schooling context. Internationally, organizations view CI as a new and more effective process for bringing about educational change (Kania & Kramer, 2011). Some scholars who focus on SCPs also use CI framework to analyze and examine networks of partnership support. That is why this study employed CI as theoretical foundation to understand how schools can best interact with the communities they serve. This implies that, although we as people are independent entities in our own right, we all exist in an interdependent realm where we are dependent on one another. The process of accessing resources and the potential returns provides a useful framework for examining how school personnel establish SCPs, the processes, and the resources made available to them and their learners (Hands, 2010). CI requires a highly structured process that leads to effective decision making (Kania & Kramer, 2011). With this theoretical lens in mind, here, the focus fell on the strategies SMTs can adopt in establishing sustainable SCPs. The next section discusses the methodology employed in conducting the study.

Methodology

The aim of this study was to examine strategies employed by SMTs to establish and maintain sustainable SCPs in township secondary schools in the JC District of Gauteng province, South Africa. To that end, the study sought to address the following research question: What strategies do SMTs use to establish and maintain sustainable SCPs? Though, I employed a concurrent triangulation mixed-methods design and a pragmatic research paradigm (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011) to focus on SMTs’ practices in putting in place sustainable SCPs, however this study reports only on the quantitative results. The idea was not to compare results between quantitative and qualitative studies or vice versa to find whether there is conformity or nonconformity This was simply because this study focused on a specific objective(s) which I stated earlier, and as a result, I deemed quantitative results to be adequate for this research paper.

Sample and data collection

The study population comprised 39 township secondary schools in the JC District. Simple random sampling was used to select 16 schools from the population, from a list of secondary schools in the JC District provided by the Gauteng DBE. Twenty unevenly numbered schools were randomly selected. To arrive at the required sample size, four schools were removed from the DBE list by eliminating every fifth school, starting from the bottom of the list. Seventeen community organizations that had entered into partnerships with the sampled schools were intentionally identified by the selected SMTs, to form part of the study. I developed two complementary standardized questionnaires: one for SMTs and one for CPs. In total, 100 of the 140 distributed questionnaires were completed by SMTs, and 17 of the 29 questionnaires were completed by CPs.

Data analysis

The questionnaire data were analyzed using descriptive, factor and reliability statistical analysis procedures. Descriptive statistics summarize data to allow the researcher to better understand trends in the data (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). This analysis procedure allows a researcher to ‘understand the data, detect patterns and relationships, and better communicate the results’ (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009, p. 258). To conduct a factor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were used. The KMO measured whether the distribution of values was adequate for conducting factor analysis (George & Mallery, 2009).

Trustworthiness

The reliability of the quantitative data was realized by measuring the internal consistency of the data collected via the questionnaires, as recommended by Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009). Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure the reliability of a group of items in the questionnaires (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). In this research, the validity of the quantitative data was achieved by ensuring face, content, and construct validity. The study was carried out in accordance with the University of Johannesburg Ethics Committee and the Gauteng Department of Basic Education. A letter to the respondents, in conjunction with the informed consent form, contained all the information they needed to know about the research undertaking, spelling out their role in the study and confirming the fact that their participation had to be voluntary. The data and subsequent analysis were drawn from SMTs (N = 100) and CPs (N = 17) serving in the JC District. The university’s Statistical Consultation Service (Statkon) department coded and processed each questionnaire and used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software program to perform the data analysis. The results of the study are presented below.

Results

The results concerning strategies used by SMTs and CPs for establishing SCPs are presented in Table 1 and for maintaining are presented in Table 3.

Table 1. Strategies for establishing SCPs: percentages, mean and standard deviation scores.

		N	SD/D	N	SA/A	Mean	SD
Description of items for SMTs
SE1	Two-way conversations	100	2%	8%	90%	4.28	0.740
SE2	Negotiating the partnership proposal	100	4%	9%	87%	4.12	0.808
SE3	Developing a common purpose	100	5%	10%	85%	4.14	0.792
SE4	Funding	100	11%	18%	71%	3.86	0.964
SE5	Reflecting on the quality of the partnership	100	3%	10%	87%	4.21	0.743
Description of items for CPs
SE1	Two-way conversations	17	0%	5.9%	94.1%	4.94	0.243
SE2	Negotiating the partnership proposal	17	0%	0%	100%	4.71	0.470
SE3	Developing a common purpose	17	5.9%	0%	94.1%	4.76	0.562
SE4	Funding	17	17.6 %	17.6%	64.8%	3.94	1.197
SE5	Reflecting on the quality of the partnership	17	0%	0%	100%	4.59	0.507

SD/D = Strongly Disagree/Disagree; N = Neutral; SA/A = Strongly Agree/Agree; SD = Standard Deviation.

As shown in Table 1, the results of the study revealed similar scores among SMTs and CPs in respect of the strategies used to establish SCPs. Two-way conversations: the results highlight that a combined majority of respondents (Mean = 4.61; SD = 0.492; Frequency = 92%) agreed that two-way conversations are important for establishing partnerships. Negotiating the partnership proposal: a combined majority of respondents (Mean = 4.42; SD = 0.639; Frequency = 94%) agreed that SMTs and CPs should negotiate the partnership proposal. Developing a common purpose: a combined majority of respondents (Mean = 4.45; SD = 0.677; Frequency = 90%) agreed that establishing SCPs begins by developing a common purpose for the partnership. Funding: a combined majority of respondents (Mean = 3.90; SD = 1.079; Frequency = 68%) agreed that funding is critical for establishing a partnership. Reflecting on the quality of the partnership: a combined majority of respondents (Mean = 4.40; SD = 0.625; Frequency = 94%) agreed that reflecting on the quality of the partnership is important for establishing SCPs. In general, an average of 87% of respondents understood what strategies to use when establishing a partnership between the school and the community.

Table 2 presents the factor analysis for responses to questions put to the SMTs, on the strategies for entering into SCPs (refer to Table 1). (Note: The factor analysis for CPs’ responses to the questions could not be performed, due to their low questionnaire response rate.)

Table 2. KMO, bartlett test, variance, and cronbach’s alpha for SMT questionnaire for the total sample.

Description of items		Factor load	KMO	Bartlett test	Variance explained	Cronbach’s alpha
SE3	Developing a common purpose	0.891	0.846	0.000	64.888	0.849
SE2	Negotiating the partnership proposal	0.870
SE5	Reflecting on the quality of the partnership	0.831
SE1	Two-way conversations	0.805
SE4	Funding	0.596

Table 2 shows that the KMO overall statistic of sampling adequacy of all the components in the ‘strategies for establishing SCPs’ factor was calculated at 0.846: this implies that that unit was relevant, and thus likely to factor well in the research. Bartlett’s test of sphericity measured the significance of the factor to the study and, in this case, the significance of measuring respondents’ strategies for SCPs. Here, Bartlett’s test for the factor ‘experiences’ was calculated to be 0.000, thus a factor analysis was done. In Table 2, the KMO value is .846 and Bartlett’s test is significant (p = 0.000), therefore factor analysis was deemed appropriate. The Eigenvalue for components SE2–SE5 (SMTs’ questionnaire) were 3.244, 0.760, 0.415, 32.9 and 0.252 respectively. The percentage of variance in component SE2 was 64.888%, while the percentage of deviation from the mean for component SE1, in relation to other components (was 64.888%. The percentage of variance for SE1 alone constituted 64.888% of the cumulative variance, which was determined by adding the percentage variance of the former factor to the percentage variance of the next factor, and it formed the largest part of the cumulative percentage. The scree plot below (Figure 1) shows a steep slope after component SE1. After component SE3, the graph begins to flatten out. This suggests that the first component is the significant factor (SE1) in explaining the greatest amount of variance (Cohen et al., 2011) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Scree plot: eigenvalue for components SE1–SE5.

To measure reliability in the ‘strategies for SCPs’ unit, the Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at 0.849, which is 0.8. This suggests that the questions used in the unit had a meritorious internal consistency.

Strategies for maintaining SCPs

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for the SMTs’ and CPs’ responses to questions on the strategies for maintaining SCPs.

Table 3. Strategies for maintaining SCPs: percentages, mean and standard deviation scores.

		N	SD/D	N	SA/A	Mean	SD
Description of items for SMTs
SM1	Accountability	100	6%	25%	69%	3.87	0.917
SM2	Monitoring and evaluation	100	10%	25%	65%	3.78	0.949
SM3	Trust and respect	100	4%	8%	88%	4.18	0.821
SM4	Committed to implementing the action plan	100	7%	15%	78%	4.02	0.932
SM5	Collaborating to find solutions	100	8%	16%	76%	4.04	0.920
Description of items for CPs
SM1	Accountability	17	5.9%	11.8%	82.3%	4.41	0.939
SM2	Monitoring and evaluation	17	0%	8.8%	91.2%	4.53	0.717
SM3	Trust and respect	17	0%	0%	100%	4.88	0.332
SM4	Committed to implementing the action plan	17	0%	8.8%	91.2%	4.59	0.712
SM5	Collaborating to find solutions	17	5.9%	11.8%	82.3%	4.41	0.939

SD/D = Strongly Disagree/Disagree; N = Neutral; SA/A = Strongly Agree/Agree; SD = Standard Deviation.

The results of the study revealed similar positive scores among SMTs and CPs for the strategies for maintaining SCPs. Accountability: the results revealed that a combined majority of all respondents (Mean = 4.14; SD = 0.928; Frequency = 77%) agreed that all partners should be accountable to the partnership. Monitoring and evaluation: a combined majority of all respondents (Mean = 4.16; SD = 0.833; Frequency = 79%) agreed that a partnership had to be collaboratively monitored and evaluated by both partners, in order to maintain it. Trust and respect: a combined majority of all respondents (Mean = 4.53; SD = 0.577; Frequency = 94%) believed that trust and respect hold partnerships together. Committed to implementing the action plan: a combined majority of all respondents (Mean = 4.31; SD = 0.822; Frequency = 85%) agreed that all partners had to be committed to the action plan. Collaborating to find solutions: a combined majority of all respondents (Mean = 4.23; SD = 0.930; Frequency = 79%) agreed that CPs and SMTs have to work together to find solutions, within a partnership. An average of 85% of respondents had a good idea of the strategies for maintaining SCPs.

Table 4 presents a factor analysis for SMTs’ responses to questions about the strategies for maintaining SCPs (KMO, Bartlett test, variance, and Cronbach’s alpha for SMTs’ questionnaire for the total sample).

Table 4. KMO, bartlett test, variance, and cronbach’s alpha for SMTs’ questionnaire for the total sample.

Description of items	Factor load	KMO	Bartlett test	Variance explained	Cronbach’s alpha
Committed to implementing the action plan	0.854	0.767	0.000	65.217	0.866
Trust and respect	0.810
Collaborating to find solutions	0.800
Monitoring and evaluation	0.787
Accountability	0.785

Table 4 shows that the KMO overall statistic of sampling adequacy of all the components of the ‘strategies for maintaining SCPs’ factor was calculated at 0.767, which means that that unit was relevant, and thus likely to factor well in the research. Bartlett’s test of sphericity measured the significance of the factor to the study. In this case, Bartlett’s test for the factor ‘experiences’ was calculated to be 0.000, therefore factor analysis was done.

In Table 4, the KMO value is 0.767 and Bartlett’s test is significant (p = 0.000), therefore factor analysis was deemed appropriate. The Eigenvalues for components SM1–SM5 (SMTs’ questionnaire) were 3.261, 0.730, 0.509, 0.296 and 0.203, respectively. The percentage of variance in component SM1 was 65.217%, which means the percentage of the deviation from the mean for component SM1, in relation to other components (SM2SM5), was 65.217%. The percentage of variance for SM1 alone constituted 65.217% of the cumulative variance, which was determined by adding the percentage variance of the former factor to the percentage variance of the next factor, and it formed the largest part of the cumulative percentage. The scree plot below shows a steep slope after component SM1; after component SM3, the graph begins to straighten and flatten out. This suggests that the first component (SM1) was the significant factor (SE1) in explaining the greatest amount of variance (Cohen et al., 2011) (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Scree plot: eigenvalues for components SM1–SM5.

To determine reliability in the ‘strategies for maintaining SCPs’ unit, the Cronbach’s alpha was calculated at 0.866, which is approximately 0.9. This shows that the questions used in the unit had good internal consistency. The results are discussed below.

Discussion

The study aimed to examine strategies employed by SMTs to establish and maintain sustainable SCPs in township secondary schools. In this section, the quantitative results are discussed and interpreted in light of the body of literature, with the research aim and theoretical framework critically analyzed. Left out, are discussions of factor and reliability statistical analysis results, in order to provide an in-depth understanding of the descriptive statistics and their inferences. Furthermore, discussing only the descriptive statistical results highlighted, in detail, the research question, without examining the underlying factors or the reliability of the measures. The strategies were grouped together in terms of how they relate to one another.

Two-way conversations, negotiation, common purpose, and shared vision

When parties establish a partnership, regular communication between them is essential and must be the norm. If a partnership is to succeed, communication and strong feedback loops are required. Effective communication is needed at all levels within the partnership and within the partner organizations, as are sharing and accessing pertinent knowledge and information (Publow, 2010). The study results show that the majority (92%) of respondents agreed that two-way conversations are necessary to establish a partnership. The data further showed that, for partnerships to be successful, SMTs need to ensure that there is mutual conversation and effective communication between partners. The need for effective communication goes beyond the partnership itself (Publow, 2010). Partners should communicate by sharing ideas, expertise, knowledge and information about pertinent activities and programs. The significance of mutual conversation and effective information sharing as a successful strategy for establishing SCPs is highlighted in the research: for example, Mbokazi and Bhengu (2008) found that establishing SCPs is a two-way process, where both partners initiate communication. Partnerships commence for various reasons, including the desire to share and advance knowledge and work with colleagues, the existence of an established personal relationship, and the sharing of similar interests (Buys & Bursnall, 2007).

Prior to the formation of partnerships, informal conversations with potential partners are valuable for gaining an understanding of the culture and ethos of the parties involved and learning about the challenges that might arise from such partnerships. Effective partnerships require two-way conversations that enable the exchange of knowledge and ideas among all parties involved (Đurišić & Bunijevac, 2017). The majority (94%) of study respondents agreed that it was important for partnerships to be negotiated – clear agreement had to be reached, regardless of who initiated the proposed partnership. Communication is an integral aspect of negotiating a partnership, especially during the initial meeting (Hands, 2005) where first impressions count. However, potential partners need regular meetings to build up enough experience and relationships with each other, to recognize and appreciate the common motivation behind the different partnership efforts (Kania & Kramer, 2011).

Negotiation is essential for establishing partnerships. The goal of a negotiated partnership is to develop effective working relationships between partners (Billett et al., 2007). During initial negotiations it is also important for partners to understand that strategic partnerships are about joint activities and collaborative efforts aimed at organizational improvement – in this case, the school. Before a partnership goes ‘live’, the parties should ensure that their objectives are aligned through contractual agreements. When drafting a partnership agreement or proposal, it is important for both parties to agree on the standards for achieving success (Allen et al., 2010). A thriving CI model is dependent on continuous communication, to support learning both vertically from school leadership and (Fletcher et al., 2021) and horizontally from partner organizations Continuous communication – in the form of monthly virtual meetings, e-mails, and an open ‘virtual door’ policy – are features of partnerships, and are deemed to be highly valuable (Fletcher et al., 2021).

Having a common purpose was highlighted as one of the main practices of successful SCPs (Thurlow, 2005). Together, schools and CPs should develop a broad common purpose and be clear about what they expect to achieve (Blank et al., 2003). In their study, Thomas et al. (2010) identified commonality of purpose as characteristic of effective SCPs. The data of the current study show that the majority (90%) of respondents believed developing a common purpose to be one of the important strategies for establishing SCPs. This is because there must be a shared common vision, purpose-built trust and openness, and a recognition of the value and contribution of each member. Shared goals and aims, understood and accepted as being important by each partner, will lead to the improved coordination of policies, programs, and service delivery, and, ultimately, better outcomes (Publow, 2010). It is important that parties understand their goals, expectations, roles, and imperatives; develop empathy in regard to their challenges; and gain a realistic picture of how participating parties getting ‘their work done, can go a long way toward establishing a positive climate for a productive partnership’ (Allen et al., 2010, p. 107; M. G. Sanders, 2003). CI affirms that, as a means of developing a holistic understanding of relevant pertinent educational issues, it is important to use a strategic action framework for building a common agenda (Garber & Adams, 2017).

Once partners have been identified, schools and CPs should work on crafting a partnership vision and goals (Bryan & Henry, 2012). Without a shared vision and predetermined goals, no partnerships can be firmly established. A sense of sharing a common intent is vital to the formulation of goals and expectations when it comes to partnerships. Building working partnerships requires the parties involved to have shared goals (Thomas et al., 2010). FitzGerald and Quinones (2018) provide a powerful summary of everything discussed here, arguing that a partnership which is characterized by trusting relationships, clear and timely communication, shared goals, and a collective sense of responsibility, will succeed in building social capital between a school and its community. When adopting a CI framework, continuous communication is essential for fostering and sharing objectives, and maximizing motivation (Monroe-white & Berry, 2020).

Leveraging funding streams

To foster strong SCPs, funding is needed to ensure that the partnership is both effective and sustainable. The existing literature indicates that establishing sustainable SCPs requires adequate financial resources (M. Sanders, 2016). Such partnerships have the potential to ‘garner financing and programmatic support from multiple sources’ (Blank et al., 2012, p. 16). One of the key resources in any organization is funding; and the majority of respondents in the current study agreed that funding was critical for establishing and maintaining SCPs. As discussed, any partnership requires a common vision, and if that vision is to be realized, schools and their CPs should harness their funding streams to support that. The need for funding cannot be overemphasized. Few (if any) schools can cover the costs of communication, transport, materials, accommodation, and refreshments associated with creating partnerships (Blank et al., 2003). School leaders need to solicit adequate and stable funding to finance related activities and programs (Blank et al., 2003). Leveraging multiple streams of financial income may be necessary to secure the start-up costs involved in establishing partnerships.

Thomas et al. (2010, p. 429) report on a partnership, the Logan Healthy Schools Project, whose aim was to ‘promote health by providing before-, during, and after-school activities to promote nutrition and physical activity behaviors to prevent overweight and obesity in secondary school students’. The project received a grant that funded the partnership steering committee, and initiated partnerships between participating schools and community-based partners and service providers to conduct activities with students (Thomas et al., 2010). To meet some of their financial obligations, schools need to outsource certain strategies for achieving efficiencies. This can be done by placing a value on establishing partnerships with CPs, to help schools make the best use of their financial capital. The positive effect of SCPs is that they can ensure that partnership programs continue even after funding for a specific undertaking has been exhausted (Thomas et al., 2010). According to the research findings of Kirby et al. (2018), sharing resources ensures that partnerships are maintained in the absence of government funding.

Accountability, reflective practice, monitoring, and evaluation

Accountability begins with a partnership being ‘complemented by more detailed plans, for example, school strategic plans, improvement plans and operational plans that flesh out the expectations, roles and responsibilities’ of the respective partners (What Works, 2013, p. 19). To ensure mutual accountability in a partnership, schools and CPs can design a process for monitoring how well the assigned roles and responsibilities of each partner are being performed (What Works, 2013). Schools with strong internal and external accountability mechanisms have a higher probability of maintaining a partnership agreement. In line with the above, mutual accountability between partners is essential for maintaining a partnership (Khosa, 2010), as 75% of the respondents in my study concurred. The current study also revealed that majority of respondents agreed that reflecting on the potential benefits of the partnership was important for establishing and maintaining SCPs. Dewey (1933, p. 9) argues that reflection involves ‘active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends’. This definition has significant implications for all parties, as they are required to be active and persistent in examining their own values, activities, and contributions to the partnership.

As Sahlin (2018, p. 27) reports, in that study, one school principal reflected on partnership, stating that ‘one can always do more, but you also have to stop and say, “this is good that we do, and that is enough”’. This implies that SMTs should consistently reflect on the meaning of the partnerships between their school and the CPs, and enact developmental activities in their schools (Sahlin, 2018). Furthermore, SMTs should reflect on the potential benefits of a partnership, before entering into any agreement with CPs. According to Casale and Thomas (2018, p. 260), ‘an effective partnership requires consistent reflection on practice within a non-hierarchical environment’. Therefore, clear communication and shared reflection among partners, about the envisaged mutual benefits of the partnership, are critical to establishing sustainable collaborative efforts.

The present study showed that the majority (79%) of respondents agreed that collaborative monitoring and evaluation were required to maintain successful SCPs. Evaluation should be shared by all partners, so that no individual partner wields the power to decide what and how data should be gathered, or how it should be used (Bryan & Henry, 2012). Being able to monitor and evaluate the partnership provides SMTs and CPs with a sense of what has worked, and what needs to be improved (Bryan & Henry, 2012, p. 16). These are invaluable tools for both ensuring accountability and responsibility in a partnership, from its initiation to its termination. Both negative and positive feedback can be used to correct deficiencies or improve a partnership which, in turn, can benefit a school (Lunenburg, 2010). From their inception, SMTs should develop a systematic approach to evaluating each program they implement, and should celebrate their progress (Bryan & Henry, 2012).

Allen et al. (2010, p. 102) assert that ‘if a partnership is worth exploring, developing a transparent evaluation process for potential partners’ is vitally important. The process may involve drawing up a request for proposal (RFP) or a memorandum of understanding (MoU), but arguably the ‘important part of the evaluation process requires direct and frequent communication with both internal stakeholders and outside parties about what is important to the institution: the challenges at hand, the objectives that have already been established, and the degree to which the objectives can be reshaped as part of the process’ (p. 104). In their research, Kirby et al. (2018) report that partners agreed that relationships required ongoing monitoring to assess the success of the partnership and troubleshoot when things went wrong. As Jackson et al. (2005) point out, the evaluation of a partnership should be measured in terms of the lessons learned, the leveraging of support, and the role of each collaborator. Using collective impact’s shared measurement systems, partners can receive clearer evidence of all the visible disparities that may exist, and CI agenda of large-scale change will be further supported (Garber & Adams, 2017).

Trust and respect, and commitment to the action plan

SCPs are, in many ways, no different from any other type of relationship. Trust is the glue that holds all kinds of relationships together. For Preedy et al. (2012), trust is the ‘superglue’ that bonds the elements of partnerships and connects a school’s internal community with its outside community. Building trust is of critical importance in establishing enduring relationships (Hall, 2011). Truly listening to partners can be an important technique to use, to develop trust and ensure consistency among interdependent groups (Garber & Adams, 2017). The findings of the current study showed that the majority (94%) of respondents agreed that trust and respect can help to maintain a partnership. Building and maintaining trust require genuine engagement, and processes that reflect the concerns of both SMTs and CPs (Billett et al., 2007). A partnership is unlikely to survive a breakdown in trust. Open, honest communication and exchange of information are critical for building trust and respect between partners (M. G. Sanders, 2003). Finally, being open, honest, and communicative is vital, as is exchanging information in an open network, so as to build mutual understanding and shared values. Partnerships are deemed crucial for building trust and finding common ground (Woolford et al., 2019). In light of the above, clearly, good plans and strategies alone are not enough to maintain a healthy partnership, where trust does not exist. Trust will allow open access to information that could be transformed into valuable ideas on issues of implementation, so that all voices are heard and accorded the appropriate respect (Hall, 2011).

A study by Billett et al. (2007) found that respondents in SCPs regarded the process of building trust and respect as foundational for an effective partnership. Partnerships require deep interdependence and high levels of trust between partners (Allen et al., 2010). Couchenour and Chrisman (2011) confirm that trust is integral to any partnership. Kirby et al. (2018, p. 509) state that ‘trust between partners was consistently reported as an important partnership ingredient developed over time as partners had worked in other joint projects’. However, they warn that high levels of trust are reportedly associated with high levels of risk in partnerships (Kirby et al., 2018). Research has shown that there is a need for greater respect and trust to build capacity within partnerships (Woolford et al., 2019). The findings reported on here, show that trust has the potential to engender deeper trust and reinforce working relationships between members of a partnership. Partnerships are more likely to succeed where personal and social interactions overlap, because individuals in the partnership are more likely to trust their fellow partners (Kirby et al., 2018).

Maintaining a partnership requires a commitment from both parties to an action plan (Naidu et al., 2008). The current study revealed that the majority (85%) of respondents agreed that all partners need to be committed to a plan of action plan. SMTs and CPs should ensure that a well-documented action plan is in place – one which outlines, inter alia, clear roles for the respective partners; the priorities, sequences, and timelines for executing the program and its activities; and regular monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the plan (What Works, 2013). Bryan and Henry (2012) believe that, although it is essential for partners to plan for setbacks, they should focus on implementing the plan regardless. In this instance, the role of backbone organizations is crucial in clarifying goals, managing the details of implementation, and facilitating communication (Garber & Adams, 2017). Employing dedicated staff who are separate from any participant organization, and ‘can plan, manage, and support the initiative through ongoing facilitation, is needed for the initiative to function smoothly’ (Garber & Adams, 2017, p. 40). The successful creation and management of CI model initiative requires a backbone organization to coordinate the entire initiative and maintain engagement, all while leading from behind, so that respondents can chart their own strategy and own their successes (Monroe-white & Berry, 2020). A supportive backbone organization is key to sustained initiatives with CI (Garber & Adams, 2017). Such projects require a dedicated group of individuals to coordinate the work, support the communications infrastructure, and lead organization-wide data collection and reporting (Fletcher et al., 2021). Individual parties have to exhibit a greater level of commitment to facilitate and coordinate partner involvement, so that all partners are kept well informed, and make the most of the potential contributions they receive (DePetris & Eames, 2017).

Collaborating to find solutions

The ability of partners to collaborate, is key to establishing sustainable SCPs (Billett et al., 2007). The majority (79%) of the present study’s respondents agreed that CPs and SMTs should work together by solving problems and making informed decisions. When authentic partnerships are established, it is inevitable that challenges will arise (Couchenour & Chrisman, 2011). Collaboration means that those who are collaborating should work together on projects, contribute their ideas, and bring something new to the table (Gross et al., 2015). Partners need to work with everyone involved to resolve potential challenges that may arise in such relationships. In fact, partners have a greater impact when they work together. Schools, by their very nature, cannot function adequately without the support of partners, who need to collaborate to find solutions to the numerous challenges associated with partnering with others. SCPs are not immune from challenges, and as a result partners must be collaborative.

Collaboration ensures that schools and CPs benefit. Successful SCPs require partners to have the ability and skill to work collaboratively (M. Sanders, 2008). Couchenour and Chrisman (2011) state that collaborators recognize and respect the experiences, skills, and knowledge that each party brings to the partnership effort. In building a sustainable partnership, the partners must collaborate to allocate the time and resources needed, to find solutions to pressing problems. SMTs should view working together with partners not as a mechanism solely for acquiring resources, but as a way for schools and their partners to provide positive activities for learners. CI emphasizes mutually reinforcing activities, therefore the absence of interdependence will inhibit progress toward finding solutions, especially when partners act as isolated entities (Garber & Adams, 2017).

Implications for further research

The implications for further research are divided into two sub-sections covering both theoretical and practical implications. First, the application of CI model has several theoretical implications for further study. Research in CI model is significant in ensuring that SCPs are successfully developed and implemented in various educational contexts. Second, CI model can provide insights into best possible practices for SCPs. CI model is important for the evaluation of SCPs over a long period of time, its long-term effectiveness in mitigating challenges that come with establishing sustainable SCPs. CI model plays a significant role in helping us understand the importance of interconnectedness and interdependence of the plurality of factors in the community that impact our education. Further research in the CI model can examine how different role players within the educational settings can influence the establishment of SCPs and how these settings can inform different partnerships strategies.

In practice, further research in CI model can inform policy and, advocacy in supporting and promoting of SCPs in the township schools both locally and internationally. Most of the township school are under resourced, research CI model will ensure the mobilization of resources from various community partners, including private and public organizations, to support educational initiatives and learners ‘academic outcomes. While my study presented invaluable implications, I acknowledge that there may be some limitations for further research to address. First, establishing sustainable SCPs have inherent challenges, and as a result, future research can examine what constraints might prevent SCPs from becoming successful, and sustainable. Second, further research is needed to identify the roles which other social partners – the DBE in particular – could play in promoting SCPs that have a potential to add value to the socioeconomic context of schools.

Conclusion

In this study, I clearly demonstrated that can create a sustainable SCPs if schools and CPs work together and pursue common purpose. The study presented useful strategies for establishing sustainable SCPs and explained how those strategies could produce desired outcomes and benefits for all collaborating partners. The strategies presented here, provide an impetus and a roadmap for school managers and CPs, as they seek to establish, develop, and strengthen those partnerships that support learners’ educational needs. This research article also demonstrated that SCPs could mobilize much needed resources, especially in under-resourced educational contexts, while also providing benefits to CPs. Such partnerships are an instrument that allows CPs and schools to share their resources, including their expertise, equipment, and facilities, for reciprocal benefit. By employing CI model, schools and CPs can tap into intellectual, social, economic, and cultural resources for mutual benefits.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Stanley Ngobeni

Stanley Ngobeni is a senior lecturer in the Department of Educational Foundations at the University of South Africa, South Africa.