1 / 8

NLCs & community engagement

NLCs & community engagement. Alan Dyson & Charlotte Dean School of Education, University of Manchester d.a.dyson@manchester.ac.uk. Background. NLCs have initially focused on internal communities Potential & need to consider external communities

ham
Download Presentation

NLCs & community engagement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NLCs & community engagement Alan Dyson & Charlotte Dean School of Education, University of Manchester d.a.dyson@manchester.ac.uk

  2. Background • NLCs have initially focused on internal communities • Potential & need to consider external communities • Notions of ‘community’ & schools’ roles in relation to community are problematic • Study of two contrasting NLCs to surface conceptualisations & possibilities

  3. NLC 1 • Metropolitan – city district – high deprivation • 17 schools, nursery to secondary • Primary focus on ICT • Embedded in an EAZ and a regeneration area – and wider LEA • Much community-oriented work • Less consultation of involvement

  4. NLC 2 • Commuter town – moderate deprivation – self-contained • 15 schools initially – all schools in the town – moving to federation • Limited initiatives and sources of funding but SRB important • Borough council has no education function but involved in NLC • Town-school issues seen as intertwined • ‘Genuine’ community involvement

  5. The dimensions 1 Autonomy and collaboration • Schools collaborate without compromising their autonomy. • Schools work together within some more-or-less formal structure which impacts on their individual autonomy Action and learning • There is joint action but little deeper engagement which allows schools and/or their partners to learn from each other • There are opportunities for schools to learn from their partners, whether these be in other schools or other agencies or in communities Focus of action • School concerns dominate the issues that are addressed. Community issues figure mainly as they impact on schools. • Wider community concerns figure prominently in the issues that are addressed Decision-making • Decisions are made by schools • Decisions are made jointly with community agencies, organisations and members.

  6. The dimensions 2 Scope of action • Issues are limited in focus. If more than one issue is addressed they are likely to be dealt with sequentially or as a loose bundle of concerns. • There is a strategic focus. Issues are dealt with as part of a coherent agenda. Definition of needs • The needs of communities are defined by schools. • Schools engage with definitions of community needs other than their own Relationships with communities • When schools develop relationships with community members, they do so primarily with those whose concerns relate most closely to their own, particularly parents/carers. • Schools develop relationships with a wide range of community members, organisations and stakeholders

  7. Loose collaboration School focus Community focus Formal organisation Four ideal types of community-oriented NLCs

  8. Some reflections • Traditional school community links have disappeared – via LEAs & catchment areas • ‘Corner shop’ schooling seems inadequate • Alternatives remain ill-defined • Questions are urgent as last vestiges of LEA control disappear

More Related