Strong School–Community Partnerships in

Inclusive Schools Are “Part of the Fabric of

the School.…We Count on Them”
Judith M. S. Gross, Shana J. Haines, Cokethea Hill, Grace
L. Francis, Martha Blue-Banning, and Ann P. Turnbull

Abstract
School–community partnerships play an essential role in successful
schools, often providing supports and resources to meet staff, family, and
student needs that go beyond what is typically available through school.
Reciprocally, commu- nity partners benefit from their relationships with
schools, including learning about schools’ inclusive culture. To better
understand strong community part- nerships and what fosters their
development, we conducted focus groups with community partners of five
schools. The first main finding presented in this article is that these
schools have a variety of partners and partnerships, but all partnerships are
reciprocal in that they are mutually beneficial. The second set of findings
presented include the school factors that were facilitators of successful
school–community partnerships: strong school leadership, an invit- ing
school culture, educator commitment to student success, and the ability to
collaborate and communicate with community partners. The community
partners in many of these schools emphasized how the culture of including
all students and providing all students with an excellent education
profoundly in- fluenced how they perceived disability and how they used
their new knowledge in other settings. Implications for practice and future
research are discussed.

Key Words: inclusion, school–community partnerships, inclusive culture,

dis- ability, collaboration, communication, external organizations
School Community Journal, 2015, Vol. 25, No. 2 9
Available at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Introduction

Willems and Gonzalez-DeHass (2012) described school–community

part- nerships as meaningful relationships with community members,
organizations, and businesses that are committed to working cooperatively
with a shared re- sponsibility to advance the development of students’
intellectual, social, and emotional well-being. School–community
partnerships can impact student success and post-school outcomes as well
as positively influence and benefit the community in return. Auerbach
(2010) characterized authentic partnerships as “respectful alliances among
educators, families, and community groups that value relationship
building, dialogue, and power sharing as part of a socially just, democratic
school” (p. 729). The development of authentic, trusting rela- tionships is
germane to establishing effective school–community partnerships.
Community involvement in schools is a critical component for student
achievement (Anderson, Houser, & Howland, 2010; Bryk, 2010; Coleman,
1988; McAlister, 2013; Sanders, 2006). Research shows schools that
develop strong community partnerships have (a) a higher percentage of
students per- forming on grade level (Sheldon, 2003), (b) increased
parental volunteerism (Anderson et al., 2010), (c) supported school reform
efforts (McAllister, 2013),
(d) increased student test scores (Blank, Melaville, & Shah, 2003;
Sheldon,
2007), (e) increased student attendance rates (Sheldon, 2003, 2007;
Sheldon & Epstein, 2004), and (f ) connections for students to learning
opportunities outside of school (Blank et al., 2003). Because of their
strong influence on stu- dents, families, and schools, trusting community
partnerships are an integral feature of the Schoolwide Integrated
Framework for Transformation (SWIFT). SWIFT is an evidence-based
theoretical framework for a fully braided, in- clusive educational delivery
system that extends beyond the school to include families and community,
as well as state and district policies and practices (Mc- Cart, Sailor,
Bezdek, & Satter, 2014; Sailor & Roger, 2005; Sailor et al., 2006). We
define “evidence-based” as practices drawn from research studies that
have been replicated numerous times with defined, measurable outcomes
indicating effectiveness. Inclusive schools educate all students in learning
environments that practice equity-based inclusion of all children, where
every student is valued as a member of his or her neighborhood school and
is provided the sup- ports needed to achieve social and academic success.
The SWIFT framework integrates five evidence-based domains as the

1
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

foundation of effective inclusive

school transformation (see Figure 1):
(a)administrative leadership (e.g., Ainscow & Sandhill, 2010; Burrello,
Hoff- man, & Murray, 2005; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005;
Waldron & McLeskey, 2010),

1
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

(b)multi-tiered system of support (e.g., Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf,

2010; Lane, Oakes, & Menzies, 2010; Sugai, Simonsen, Bradshaw,
Horner, & Lewis, 2014),
(c)integrated educational framework (e.g., Hang & Rabren, 2009; O’Day,
2002; Wenger, 2000),
(d) family and community engagement (e.g., Anderson-Butcher et al.,
2008;
Bryk, 2010; Lawson & Sailor, 2000), and
(e)inclusive policy structure and practice (e.g., Burrello, Sailor, &
Kleinham- mer-Tramill, 2013; Kozleski & Smith, 2009).
While the SWIFT framework is appropriate for any school (O’Rourke,
2014; Ryndak, Jackson, & White, 2013), it is especially beneficial for
trans- forming schools that struggle with low achievement, high rates of
problem behavior, and segregated delivery of specialized services. As
such, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) es- tablished the National Center on Schoolwide
Inclusive Reform, referred to as SWIFT Center, to provide intensive
technical assistance to K–8 urban, rural, and high need schools, along with
their districts and state education agencies, to improve outcomes for
students with disabilities while transforming schools to positively impact
all students (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
SWIFT Center defines the domain of family and community
engagement as “strong, ongoing, collaborative working partnerships…that
are developed with consideration of the unique culture of the community
[and] allow for stakeholder input in the design, implementation,
evaluation, and continuous improvement of the system” (SWIFT Center,
2013, p. 3). We define the fea- ture of trusting community–school
partnerships as partnerships contributing to positive student outcomes and
occurring when schools work collaboratively with community members,
agencies, organizations, businesses, and industry around common goals,
resulting in (a) direct participation by community rep- resentatives in
school leadership, and (b) enhanced community resources. In other words,
partnerships between schools and community members benefit students,
families, schools, communities, or any combination of these parties
(Sanders, 2006). Understanding what kinds of school–community
partnerships are typically a part of successful schools and how schools
foster and develop those partnerships is important to the research of
SWIFT Center as we seek to support schools in developing their own
school–community partnerships. This knowledge and understanding is
also critical to the education field, as many states are undergoing

1
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

budgetary constraints; both schools and communities may benefit from the
resource sharing incurred from such partnerships.

1
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

To inform SWIFT Center’s development of its technical assistance
process, we conducted a broad knowledge development study across six
schools nomi- nated due to their implementation of one or more of the
domains in the SWIFT framework (see Figure 1). The broad knowledge
development study examined influencing factors in these schools as
related to the SWIFT evidence-based do- mains. Here we report on the
analysis of the community partnership data from the larger study.
Specifically, we sought to explore the following questions:
(a) What kinds of community partnerships do successful schools develop?
(b)What factors support the development of strong community
partnerships in these schools?

Figure 1. Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation

(SWIFT) Domains and Features

1
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

Methods

This knowledge development study was conducted as part of SWIFT’s

ap- preciative inquiry into inclusive schoolwide transformation
(Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). Appreciative inquiry is a strengths-based
approach to sys- temic and organizational change that seeks to understand
and value the best of what exists, imagine what could be possible,
collaboratively plan for what we desire to be, and implement what will be.
By developing a greater under- standing of the successes and challenges
faced in the schools nominated for this research, the goal was that the
knowledge gained would inform the implemen- tation efforts among
SWIFT partner states, districts, and schools undergoing systemic
transformation into fully inclusive schools (Shogren, McCart, Lyon, &
Sailor, 2015) and other schools seeking positive change.
There were five lines of inquiry guiding the appreciative inquiry:
classroom practices, teacher and administrator perspectives, student
perspectives, fam- ily and community partner perspectives, and supports
for students with the most significant needs. The present article provides
the findings of an analysis of the community partner focus groups. We
report the methods of participant selection, including (a) the selection of
the schools identified as Knowledge Development Sites (for the remainder
of the article referred to as KDS), (b) the demographics of the KDS, (c) the
recruitment of participants for the communi- ty partner focus groups, and
(d) the demographics of focus group participants.
Participants
Selection of KDS
Six inclusive elementary and middle schools were selected as KDS
through a systematic nomination and screening process that included
surveys, interviews, and site visits. The study design included three
selection criteria: representation of at least three different states, at least
one urban and one rural school, and both elementary and middle schools.
These criteria were used to ensure diver- sity in geography (state), school
community (rural vs. urban), and school level (elementary vs. middle) in
the final KDS selection since SWIFT is a national, K–8 technical
assistance center and is charged with serving schools within each of these
demographics. This diversity helped to provide models of excellence
within different communities from which SWIFT partner schools
undergoing systemic transformation could learn.
With these criteria in mind, SWIFT Center’s national leadership con-

1
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

sortium, composed of researchers and leaders in the field of inclusion with

information to share and an interest in exploring the questions along with
us, nominated 37 schools for their perceived excellence in implementing
one or

1
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

more domains in the SWIFT framework (see Figure 1) and in student

achieve- ment (Shogren et al., 2015). After screening the nominated
schools based on these criteria as well as gauging school interest in study
participation, the pool was reduced to 11 schools. Teams of three to five
researchers and technical as- sistance providers vetted these 11 schools.
Vetting involved one-day site visits to collect more information about
inclusive practices. Vetting results and diver- sity criteria narrowed the
selection to the six KDS. The teams visited these sites two more times
(each lasting three to four days) and collected various forms of data (e.g.,
interviews, focus groups, observations, checklists), including the focus
group data reported here, from numerous stakeholders (i.e., students,
families, school staff, community partners).
In this article, we report findings from the analyses of the data from the
community partnership focus groups held at five of the six KDS. We did
not hold a community partnership focus group at the sixth KDS (an
elementary school) due to logistics beyond our control.
Demographics of KDS
The KDS included five elementary schools and one middle school in
ur- ban and rural communities representing four major U.S. geographic
regions (Northeast, South, West, Midwest). Across the six sites, disability
prevalence ranged from 11% to 27% of students; 12% to 54% of students
were identi- fied as economically disadvantaged; and 2% to 15% were
English learners. The schools varied widely with respect to race/ethnicity
with 27% to 64% of stu- dents categorized as White, 18% to 24% Black,
11% to 24% Hispanic, 0.4% to 10% Asian, less than 1% Native Hawaiian
or Pacific Islander and American In- dian or Alaska Native, and 6% to
11% reporting two or more races/ethnicities.
Participant Recruitment
We communicated the criteria for recruiting participants for the focus
groups through both phone and email conversations with school contacts
as well as through mailing and emailing a packet of information
explaining the participant recruitment process. Because we wanted to
understand who the schools considered to be their partners in the
community and did not want to confine their concept of partnership, we
described the requested focus group participants broadly, asking schools to
identify six to nine members from the community who partnered with their
school. We described “partners” as
…individuals [who] partner with your school to provide support, re-
sources, and information to staff, students, and families. They may

1
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

in- clude volunteers, local businesses, community agencies,

community leaders, professionals, and/or university or high school
students. These may also include individuals from the community
who partner with

1
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

your school outside of the school setting (e.g., family homes, in the
community). They could also be community members who formerly
or currently partner with your school…. In order to best represent
the individuals from the community who partner with your school,
we are looking for participants with a range of characteristics.
Using these guidelines, school contacts recruited, organized, and
scheduled the focus groups.
Participant Demographics
Participants (n = 40) included both men (32.5%) and women (67.5%).
These community partners represented community businesses, state and
city agencies and departments, cultural organizations,
colleges/universities, and charitable organizations including faith-based
organizations. We describe these partners and their relationships with the
schools in more detail in the findings.
Data Collection
Considering the exploratory nature of our research and since the
develop- ment of community–school partnerships is strongly influenced
by contextual factors (e.g., state or district policy, rural or urban nature of
the community), we chose to conduct a qualitative study. Focus groups
were selected as the best method (as opposed to individual interviews) for
gathering rich informa- tion from those who experienced school–
community partnerships firsthand, allowing us to form of a picture of the
community partnerships at each KDS (Kreuger & Casey, 2009). The
Institutional Review Board of the University of Kansas approved all
aspects of the broad knowledge development study.
Questioning Route
Soliciting rich information to answer research questions is best done by
constructing a written questioning route or a series of questions that cause
con- versation, flow naturally in sequence, maximize time, and progress
from general to more specific questions as participants share their
experiences (Kreuger & Casey, 2009). Our questioning route consisted of
complete, conversational sentences. We based the questioning route topics
on a review of the literature as well as specific areas in which the
knowledge from the KDS could poten- tially inform SWIFT technical
assistance and the education field in general. Experts in focus group
methodology and topic content provided feedback on a draft of the
questioning route which we then revised. Our “grand tour” top- ics (i.e.,
the broad topics of interest; Shank, 2006) were Communication and

1
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Relationships (e.g., “Tell me about your communication and relationship

with the school, families, and other community organizations that partner
with the school”), Partnership Activities (e.g., “In what ways to do you
partner with the

2
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

school?”), and Benefits/Challenges (e.g., “What are the benefits of

partnering with this school?”). Each general topic had several possible
probes to use when appropriate to draw out more detail from participants.
Focus Groups
We conducted five community partnership focus groups. As noted in
the “Selection of the KDS,” we were unable to hold a focus group at one
elemen- tary school. Each focus group session lasted between 90–120
minutes. Two SWIFT researchers moderated each focus group. The
researchers had terminal degrees or were seeking terminal degrees in
special education and had training and experience in the conduct of
research. One acted as the primary facilitator and used an interview
protocol to guide the focus group. The other researcher took field notes,
monitored the time, and managed audiorecording, consent forms, and
name tags.
The schools scheduled the sessions, which took place during the school
day on the school campus. The smallest focus group had three participants,
and the largest group had 12 participants. Each session started with an
overview of the purpose of the KDS research and SWIFT Center and an
explanation of the informed consent process. All participants signed forms
consenting to be au- diorecorded for later transcription of all focus group
conversations.
Data Analysis
We used constant comparative analysis methods to develop a codebook
and code the data. Below we describe the qualitative analysis in four
stages: (a) open coding, (b) conceptual categorization, (c) axial coding in
Dedoose, and
(d) theme development.
Two researchers participated in open coding (Corbin & Strauss, 1990)
four of the five focus group transcripts, coding line-by-line and using
constant com- parative methods (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The researchers
independently coded the same two community transcripts, each
developing their own codes. They met after coding each transcript to
review coding, discuss, and develop appropriate definitions for each code.
They also then each coded additional transcripts separately and met to
discuss new codes that emerged and how the developing codebook
applied.
During the process of open coding, as we compared the coded data of
each new document with the developing codebook and key quotes
identified from previous transcripts, solid conceptual categories began to
2
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

emerge. We often used participant quotes as initial codes in order to

capture the essence of the quote. The constant comparative analysis
process facilitated close examination of categorizations of the data,
helping us to identify errors in our categoriza- tions and collapse categories
where appropriate (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). To

2
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

condense, clarify, and exemplify the categories in the codebook, the

researchers engaged in an exchange of analysis and codebook revisions
(e.g., adding and revising definitions, adding exemplifying quotes) until
we developed a stable codebook.
In axial coding, the developed codebook with its categories and
subcatego- ries are tested against the data, resulting in further development
and refinement of the codebook (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Through this
process, relationships between categories and subcategories are further
described, and their relation- ships to others emerge. In this stage, we used
an online, qualitative analysis application, Dedoose (2013), and recoded
the four transcripts used to devel- op the initial codes as well as the
remaining transcript using the developed codebook codes and definitions.
In doing so, we confirmed the conceptual cat- egories and gathered
additional data for each code (Charmaz, 2006).
Themes in qualitative research can be thought of as the conceptual
linking of expressions (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). In developing the themes
found in the focus group data, we collapsed the categories of coded data
(expressions identi- fied in the transcripts) into big bucket concepts, which
represent the primary ideas as related to the development of successful
school–community part- nerships. Although respondents in the community
partnership focus groups discussed many aspects of the KDS that were not
related to the development of their partnerships (e.g., inclusion strategies
used by teachers, benefits of inclu- sion, barriers to inclusion, student
outcomes), we restrict the themes reported in the findings only to those
related to the development of successful school– community partnerships
in the KDS. Themes began to emerge during the development of the initial
codebook and then were confirmed or revised based on analysis of the data
as it was recoded in Dedoose.
Trustworthiness Measures
We worked to improve trustworthiness of the data in three ways. First,
we used multiple researchers at every stage of the study from protocol
develop- ment to data analysis (Merriam, 1998). Using multiple
researchers improved trustworthiness by reducing the influence of the
personal biases of individual researchers and providing opportunities for
analysis and a convergence of in- terpretations from those who were
involved in differing stages of the research (e.g., protocol development,
data collection, data analysis). Our team’s diverse experiences with these
phases of the research enabled us to deeply examine the data to ensure that
our analysis captured all the themes that emerged. Second, SWIFT staff

2
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

interviewed community partners from various organizations with different

roles and responsibilities within the school (Creswell, 2007; Max- well,
2005), allowing for triangulation of the data. Finally, all transcripts were

2
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

transcribed verbatim, providing thick and detailed descriptions and quota-

tions (Creswell, 2007; Maxwell, 2005). These three strategies for
validation improved the credibility of the findings.

Findings

The data revealed a diversity of community partners and partnerships,

and participant sentiments across focus groups converged to underscore
sever- al key factors supporting the development of successful school–
community partnerships. First, we illustrate the range of school–
community partnerships represented in our focus groups. Second, we
describe the factors that supported the formation of strong partnerships in
these successful schools.
Diverse and Reciprocal School–Community Partnerships
The data revealed the diverse and reciprocal nature of successful
school– community partnerships. Schools benefitted from the increased
resources, supports, and relationships resulting from the development of
trusting school– community partnerships. One school staff member
articulated their value, saying that community partnerships are “part of the
fabric of the school…. We embrace them as our family, and they’re one of
us, and they’re not going anywhere. We count on them.” While the school
and its constituents (e.g., students, families, teachers, staff) benefitted
from all partners’ contributions to the school, each community partner also
benefitted from its interactions. These included benefits to their business
or program, personal satisfaction, enhanced knowledge of best practices,
and personal growth. For example, one partici- pant stated, “this [the
school] is where I come to…refocus and recharge.”
The community partners in many of the schools emphasized how the
cul- ture of including all students and providing all students an excellent
education profoundly influenced how they perceived disability and how
they used their new knowledge in other settings. In particular, several
participants referenced the instructional principles of universal design for
learning, which provides students with opportunities for multiple forms of
representation, expression, and engagement in an activity. One participant
summarized how he inter- nalized the strengths-based inclusive culture of
his school partner regarding students with disabilities:
It’s really easy to walk past a student in a wheelchair with cerebral
palsy and immediately think, “well there’s no way that student’s ever
going to learn,” and it’s just not true. Every student can learn
2
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

something and can make progress forward; and you know in today’s
world, where we have all these standards and…you have to meet
this year’s progress. Well what

2
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

is a standard year’s progress really? It’s going to be different for

every kid, but it’s truly discriminatory to say, just, “we’re just gonna
set you aside and not try and push you to the limits.”
Another community partner concurred: “He’s [a student with a disability]
a human being, and we’ve got to treat that same kid the same as the other
kids, no difference.”
Another community partner described a “trickle effect” from her
experience with the school, “we just know [inclusion through universal
design] is benefi- cial for everyone.” Learning about the inclusive culture
in their schools was a major benefit for the community partners. A
community partner, regarding inclusion, stated that because of her work
with her school partner, she “can say with certainty, we can do that, and
we even know how to do it… there’s a gold standard.” The various types
of community partnerships, their relationships with the schools, and other
mutual benefits gained are discussed below.
University
We defined university partnerships as partnerships formed with a local
col- lege or university offering teacher education. Representatives of the
university partnerships served as “field advisors” and “supervisors” for
student teachers, directors of “elementary and secondary education
program[s],” “coordinators” of credential and master’s degree programs,
and instructors of targeted educa- tion programs in the schools (e.g.,
“Family Nutrition Education”).
University partnerships provided schools with student teachers, profes-
sional development and continuing education (e.g., master’s degree
programs) for in-service teachers, instructional support and training, and
other support for students with disabilities. Schools benefitted from the
support of student teachers, the universities’ recognition of their teachers’
innovative practices, and the ongoing training and support provided to
them.
In turn, universities benefitted from having placements and space for
on- site seminars for their student teachers. University partners expressed
gratitude that they could trust the schools’ practice, as explained by one
participant:
We have several teachers here [at the school] who are graduates of
our program in special ed. [They’ve] hired a number of graduates.
It’s al- ways fun to see that full circle…come through our program.
They really learned what inclusion should look like, and then they
move here where it’s really happening more than at any other school

2
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

in the district, so that’s part of why we always want to have our

students here each semester.
University partners also expressed gratitude about being able to rely on
schools for high-quality and organized placements for their student
teachers. One university partner said:

2
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

I visit probably 20 to 25 schools in my observations, but [this

school] is the only one that calls the interns in prior to their starting
their ser- vice and runs a workshop for them. Any intern that I’ve
had at [school] knows exactly where to sign in, how much it costs to
eat, and what they’re expected to do aside from my assignments for
them.
Social Service
Social service partnerships included healthcare, child advocacy,
communi- ty mental health, developmental disability resources, and
juvenile detention agencies. These agencies partnered with schools in
order to provide their servic- es at the school. These partnerships
benefitted the schools because they helped keep students in school and out
of trouble, provided free or reduced cost health services (e.g., medical,
dental, vision), and referred students and families for disability or needs-
based services. They also benefitted the school by ensuring collaboration
between the school and other agencies that provide education- al services
in other environments (e.g., detention centers). These partnerships
benefitted the social service agencies because the schools provided
convenient access for their clientele. One participant stated, “Without our
school allow- ing us…to come in, a lot of these kids wouldn’t get the help
they need….The school played an integral part in us being able to link
these families to every- thing that they need.”
Business
Business partnerships were developed with a wide range of local and
na- tional for-profit businesses. For example, one school identified Reebok
as a community partner because they donated the Build Our Kids Success
(BOKS) before-school physical fitness program. The BOKS program
benefited from having a school willing to run their program, and the
school benefitted from implementing the program. Another business
partner, the leader of a local pest control company who wanted to be more
than just a sign on a baseball field, created a program to encourage
students to read, but the school was able to define how it was
implemented. Through that program, the local business do- nated money
to the school to use for book purchases to enhance individual classroom
libraries. The business partner benefitted from the satisfaction she felt in
making a real contribution to the school and being able to advertise for her
small local company. In turn, the school benefitted from the donation of
books. Another type of business partnership developed was with
educational tech- nology companies located in two schools’ communities.

2
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

The company pilot tested their products, which were geared towards
students with disabilities in the inclusive schools, and conducted focus
groups with the teachers to learn how to improve their products. Teachers
were given access to the technology

3
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

and learned how to use it and monitor their students’ success with it. A
com- munity partner stated:
They can call me up any time, and I’ll come out here to train them or
work with them on the software. [They are] great partners in giving
us ideas as to how to improve our software. It never ends. But we’re
just hap- py to be a partner, and I’m happy to have some place close
to home that I can go and see that I’m still having an effect every
day, and from what’s going on in the classroom, to try to get better at
what we do…our soft- ware primarily serves those with learning
disabilities and fits truly into a universal design for learning model,
which is an on-ramp for everybody in education—fits right into an
inclusive model, so it’s a great tool.
Another community partner stated that partner schools have
given [them] multiple ideas that have gone to engineering and gone
to development because of their feedback when they’re using the
product with these kids [with disabilities]….So it’s, it’s reciprocal.
It’s not just us giving to them; it’s them giving to us as well.
Nonprofit Organizations
Partnerships with nonprofit organizations included organizations with a
cultural mission (e.g., museum, arts council) or service mission (e.g.,
feeding the hungry, providing clothing to those in need). For example, a
museum in a large city partnered with a school to provide professional
development, class- room curriculum, museum tours, and coaching on
visual thinking strategies for the students at the school. The school
benefitted from the partnership in numerous ways, including student
enrichment activities and professional de- velopment for teachers. The
benefit to the museum, as one community partner stated, included a
greater understanding of how to support students with spe- cial needs in
the museum setting:
We’re seeing more and more…autism in our school tours…we need
to do more training of our volunteers, too, to understand what we are
now dealing with in the school setting…so it’s been a great two-way
learning street here between [school] and the [museum].
The benefits of this partnership extended beyond the local community
to the state. The museum, using what they learned about the benefits of
univer- sal design for learning from the teachers at their partnering school,
“made a partnership with the State Arts Council to promote the use of
universal design principles throughout the state.”
Service-oriented community partners helped students and families from
3
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

the school (e.g., “adopting” families at Christmas, providing food baskets

or cloth- ing for families in need). One community partner said:

3
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

Typically about once a month, I’ll just come in and ask [the
principal] what’s your greatest need, and then whatever [is needed], I
try and fill that need…just to have a relationship with the school and
just to help out….We just want to be a community church. We don’t
want to be a church that’s just for ourselves, so we want to be known
as “we’re here for the community.”
Another mission of some service-oriented community partners was to
encourage all students to do community service. The community partners
benefitted from the schools because often the children for whom they
imple- mented their programs participated in the community service
projects, and the schools benefitted because their students learned about
contributing to their community through the projects. For example, one
community partner coor- dinated a local charity that provided backpacks
full of food sent home from school to families in need every Friday. The
charity raised money by selling bowls made by the school children filled
with soup at a fundraising luncheon:
[The] children made a number of…bowls that were given out to all
the business people, commissioners, senators; whoever was there [at
the fun- draiser] got some bowls, so [the principal] connects that
way with the community, with the children….They were not only
doing a fun thing, they were helping other people. You have to
implement that early on… that just shows them that they’re part of
the community.
Local Municipality
Local municipality partnerships were with local governmental officials
and employees engaged in positions of civic service (e.g., fireman,
policeman, city commissioner). Since the schools and the local
municipalities served the same populations, their partnership was very
natural. The benefits of this type of partnership to the schools included
programs to implement in school (e.g., fire safety), activities, and
infrastructure (e.g., adding a sidewalk near the school). For example, one
city commissioner said, “we bend over backwards for our schools. Our
schools are our number one priority….We just all pull together. What our
schools need, we try our best to provide it for them.”
Local municipalities also benefitted from partnering with the schools.
One example of this benefit was group problem solving. In a small city,
the Parks and Recreation afterschool sports program enrollment declined
sharply. Through conversation with the principals of local schools, the
Parks and Recre- ation staff figured out that the economy was the culprit,

3
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

because parents could not transport their children due to needing to work.
In addition, the principal wanted her students to receive homework help
after school. Here, the Parks and Recreation Commissioner explains the
solution arrived at by the group:

3
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

We worked through the schools to get a designated bus stop at the

Rec Center from the [schools] and…we were able to get the kids
through the Rec Center, give them their snack, knock their
homework out [with volunteer and paid tutors], and then get them
into our athletic program to be able to boost our numbers back
up….We have a scholarship pro- gram that the commission awarded
us…and we base that on the school lunch.…We’re working now
with the school board through the middle school and the high school
to tack on to the activity bus so kids that are in our athletic programs
can catch the activity bus to be able to get home.
School Factors That Promote the Development of
Strong Community Partnerships
Community partners of all types identified school factors that they felt
contributed to the success of their school–community partnerships. The
four school factors that appeared to contribute most to the promotion of
strong community partnerships were (a) strong school leadership, (b)
inviting school culture, (c) teacher commitment to student success, and (d)
collaboration and communication among partners.
Strong School Leadership
Strong school leadership played a pivotal role in the formation of
commu- nity partnerships. Community partners described the need for the
principal to be vision-oriented with respect to the school and the
community’s role in sup- porting trusting partnerships. “[The principal]
sees a vision not just as inclusion with kids with disabilities in the
classroom but inclusion of the community and the school.” While a vision
was important, “the capacity of the principal to motivate his or her staff
and to engage the community” was also viewed as “essential to the
success of this or probably any school.” Partners perceived the principal’s
“buy-in” of the community partnerships and their actions as being
important to “get[ting] the community involved.”
Additionally, strong school leaders were also described as going above
and beyond to access and sustain school–community partnerships, to the
point of eliciting a board member reaction of “Oh my God, what’s [the
principal] done this month? [He’s/She’s] exhausted!” due to the extensive
outreach “in terms of community involvement,” such as attending
university partner’s events, cham- ber of commerce meetings, and PTO
meetings, “actively creating relationships in the community.” One
participant described their school partner’s principal as having a “special
talent for nurturing relationships with parents, with teach- ers, with
3
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

community partners.”

3
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

Inviting School Culture

Focus group participants noted that having an inviting school culture
was conducive to community partnership development. Community
partners de- scribed their school partners as having an “open door policy,”
meaning they felt welcome to contribute to the school on various levels.
Community part- ners also felt that their school partners enabled them to
initiate new ways of contributing to the school on projects of the
community partner’s choice: “You can…participate in any way you
want…it’s an open relationship, and it’s because of [the principal’s]
attitude, I think.” The “open door policy” also ex- tended to inviting the
community to support and attend extracurricular school activities (e.g.,
theatre performances, carnivals):
It was almost like the whole community was involved. The city
counsel- ors came. You know, there were other people, not just the
parents and the students. Everybody, it’s like an open door policy
here, so they really go out and reach out to the community.
This inviting school culture was recognized as a reason that community
part- ners really enjoyed visiting their partner schools. One participant
noted how the school culture “infected the whole school. Everybody is
really inviting.”
Teacher Commitment to Student Success
Community partners felt that teachers in the partner schools were
commit- ted to their students’ success and that their commitment made the
partnerships, particularly those that crossed into the classrooms, that much
more effective. Teachers’ willingness to go above and beyond what is
typically expected of them encouraged community partners’ to support
their work:
The commitment that I see just from the teachers alone, it’s not an
8:00 to 3:00 job; it goes well beyond that, where they’re willing to
take those extra steps, and not, you know, “work-to-rule” as the
saying goes, but take those extra steps to educate themselves so that
they can educate the children even more.
This strong dedication motivated community partners to address
barriers to student success. About the principal of one school, a
community partner com- mended the principal’s hiring practice, saying
that the principal believed that “every student can learn” and that the
principal “doesn’t accept anything less than that from her teachers.” The
principal expected the teachers “to push ev- ery student forward as far as
you possibly can when you’re working with them.” Such dedication
3
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

inspired the community partner to be willing to “supply [the school] with

whatever support I can to help [the school] achieve that goal.”

3
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

Partners also felt that teachers took advantage of opportunities made

avail- able to them through the community partnerships, such as providing
coaching for classroom teachers. Teachers “willing to be in that situation
and have an outsider come in and work with them in this way”
demonstrated “a genuine goal for, you know, striving for excellence.” One
partner expressed that there appeared to be “a connection between the
quality of teaching and…their com- mitment to teaching,” resulting in
student success. The clear vision of success for all students, the invitation
to support it, and teachers’ commitment to achiev- ing it combined to
motivate community members to partner with the school.
Collaboration and Communication
In addition to the factors previously discussed, participants described
col- laboration and communication as essential to fostering strong
partnerships. Collaboration included working together on projects,
“contribut[ing] your ideas,” and “bring[ing] something new to the table.”
As one participant said, “the boundaries of your collaborating are only
limited by you, so you take off those defenses literally and share and meet
collaboratively.” Collaboration also included ensuring reciprocal benefits
for community partners, as mentioned.
Of course, collaboration is only as good as the communication among
the partners. Communication was described as “open” and occurring
across partners: “the parents are involved, they’re communicated with, they
receive communication from the school and the community.” Some
schools sent out weekly or monthly communications to all partners (family
and community). Communication also involved listening to each other and
to families. Schools also included community partners anonymously in
their annual online school climate surveys. All community partners valued
communication and deemed it essential, particularly those partners who
sought to address unmet family needs (e.g., clothing, food, shelter) and
keep students in school and out of juvenile detention. Most simply said,
the partnership “needs communication to work.”

Discussion
This article reports data gathered from focus groups with 40
community partners at five schools (four elementary and one middle
school) identified as KDS by SWIFT. Community partnerships are an
evidence-based feature in the SWIFT domain of Family and Community
Engagement.
The focus group participants represented a range of community

3
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

partners, and multiple themes about what factors they felt fostered strong
partnerships were consistent across sites. The reciprocal nature of
community partner- ships permeated all focus group discussions. Across
focus groups and types of partners, the mutual benefit for the school and
its constituents as well as the

4
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

community partner was an important factor. This finding of reciprocity is

con- sistent with the findings of Anderson and colleagues (2010). In their
study of community service provider partners, the community partners
perceived their partnership as “all about helping one another” (Anderson et
al., 2010, p. 48). In a study of how schools develop successful school–
community partnerships, Hands (2005) noted the importance of
identifying those mutual benefits of partnering from the beginning and
making sure to set up a “win-win situation” (p. 72) for the school and
community partners.
Multiple types of school–community partners were represented at each
KDS. These included the following types of partners: (a) university, (b)
social services, (c) business, (d) nonprofit organization, and (e) local
municipality. These types of partnerships we identified align with existing
community re- search. Both Blank, Jacobson, and Melaville (2012) and
Adger (2001), in their research on school–community partnerships,
identified many more types of partnerships than were represented in our
small sample. Blank and colleagues (2012) identified the same five as
above and more, including neighborhood groups, teachers unions, and
parks and recreation organizations. Although Adger’s findings were quite
similar to ours, they did not include nonprofit organizations (e.g., those
with service or cultural missions) among types of community partners.
School factors that contributed to strong community partnerships were
strong school leadership, inviting school culture, teacher commitment to
stu- dent success, and collaboration and communication among partners.
The powerful influence of strong school leadership, in which the principal
has a clear vision and a genuine desire to build and sustain collaborative,
mutually beneficial relationships, is not surprising. Furco (2013),
summarizing the liter- ature on community engagement, highlighted the
“importance of establishing democratic partnerships that are built on
meaningful, mutually beneficial activities and that are developed through
shared values, trust, and mutual re- spect” (p. 627). In the case of the five
KDS included in this analysis, a clear vision of providing all students an
excellent education was a driving force be- hind all decisions. This vision
united school staff and community partners and benefited everyone
involved.
One beneficial outcome of strong school leadership committed to a
clear vi- sion is an inviting school culture. Noted author and poet Maya
Angelou once stated, “people will forget what you said, people will forget
what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”
Territorialism is the most pervasive impediment to collaboration between

4
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

schools and community part- ners (Sanders, 2001); this study found that
community partners appreciated feeling like they were valued and
welcome members of the school community.

4
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

As valued members of the community drawn to work towards a clear

vision, community partners were motivated by educators’ commitment to
all stu- dents’ success. Community partners trusted their efforts would be
maximized and were aligned with the educators’ efforts to teach all
students, including those with the most extensive needs. Our study
confirmed that teachers’ com- mitment to all students’ success fostered
community partners’ relational trust in teachers (Bryk & Schneider, 2002)
and in the organizational conditions of the school (Kirby & DiPoala,
2011). This study strongly supports Kirby and DiPoala’s (2011) finding
that “there is a relationship between schools where faculty have a sense of
optimism toward students’ academics and how fac- ulty perceive the way
their school engages parents and community members” (p. 553).
An important finding of this study is that collaboration involves
reciprocity: community partners and schools both benefit from the
partnership. Sanders (2001) reported that developing two-way partnership
activities was a challenge for schools but something they strived to
accomplish. Of the numerous ben- efits of the partnerships to community
partners and schools, an important finding of this study was that
community partners learned about supporting successful inclusion of
students with disabilities through their partnerships with the schools.
Although participants expressed satisfaction with their partnerships
with these inclusive schools, they also noted that communication is key to
successful collaboration (e.g., Epstein, 2011). Knowing that the school
staff will com- municate openly with community partners to convey their
needs as well as understand how community partners can help them is
paramount to partner- ship. Schools and partners communicated in
multiple ways, as no one form of communication suits every relationship.
Blank et al. (2012) posit that honest and constructive communication is
critical in creating shared ownership of partnership activities.
Recommendations for School Leaders
Based on this and other research in the field, we have derived the
following practices and strategies for school leaders on how to establish
trusting commu- nity partnerships, as presented in Table 1.

4
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Table 1. Recommendations for School Leaders

Recommended
Practices Strategies for Implementation
 Frequent businesses and service organizations and
inquire about what they sell or the services they offer
 Establish a relationship with the owner/proprietor of
local
1. Engage with businesses and service organizations
the community  Attend social and cultural events within your
community and network with other attendees
 Identify a staff member to be the “community liaison”
for the school and set aside time for that staff member
to build and sustain community relationships
• Invite local business and service representatives to a
school event (e.g., evening social, luncheon cooked by
the stu- dents) to discuss mutual interests and goals
2. Jointly • Create a site council and invite community
identify mutual representa- tives to join and engage in school and
interests and community im- provement efforts
goals • Survey community partners about what they see as
needs of the families and students in their community
• Link mutual interests and goals to student learning
• Meet regularly with community partners to identify
and update mutual interests and goals for the
3. Ensure partnership
reciprocity in • Identify ways that the school can give back to the com-
the partnership munity (e.g., open building use, participation in service
learning projects)
• Identify ways to harness community resources and ser-
vices to support families and children in the school
setting
• Invite families, school staff, and community members
to provide meaningful feedback on school programs,
poli- cies, practices, and goals
4. Maintain an • Invite individual local business and service
“open door representatives to tour the school, observe classrooms,
policy” and participate in a classroom or schoolwide event
• Schedule appointments with community
representatives to discuss student, family, school, and
community needs
• Make school buildings available for community use
• Invite community members to serve on committees
5. Invite
and leadership teams and contribute to governance
community
decisions

4
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

Limitations
The findings from this qualitative study are valuable but have some
limi- tations. First, we report data from only five of the six SWIFT KDS.
Due to reasons beyond our control, we were unable to obtain data from the
sixth school, which may have resulted in a different interpretation of the
findings and key themes. Second, one of the KDS is a charter school, and
many of its partnerships were heavily focused on the administration of
the school. We did not report this as a theme because it did not align with
our definition of school–community partnerships, though these
relationships were certainly important to the administration of the charter
school and its success. Third, one elementary school focus group included
community partners who worked with the high school. We excluded these
data (e.g., data on partnerships aiding transition to employment) from our
analysis because, while informative and evident of partnership at the
secondary level, it was not applicable to this study as the high school was
not one of our knowledge development sites.
Recommendations for Further Research
This exploratory study unearthed interesting themes that should be
inves- tigated in more depth in future research. Most notably, participants
discussed how much they have learned about inclusion through their
partnerships with these schools. Future research should examine how
community partnerships spread inclusive values in the community; to
investigate examples of this spreading of values, researchers might query
other schools, camps, recreational event groups, religious entities, sports
teams, and businesses (the latter on hir- ing practices). Additionally, the
findings on community partners’ perceptions of teacher commitment to
student success suggests a need for future research on the influence of
teacher commitment on community stakeholders’ interest in and
willingness to partner.

Conclusion
This study demonstrates that school–community partnerships can be a
strong and needed support for local schools while also providing a recipro-
cal benefit to the community partners. Schools have a variety of partners
and partnerships, ranging from local small businesses and nonprofits to
large uni- versities and corporations. Each community partner provided
unique and individualized support to his or her local school, while also
receiving social, emotional, and tangible benefits in return. In particular, a
4
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

strong finding of reciprocal benefit was that community partners apply

what they learn from a school’s inclusive culture and practices to better
support the inclusion of all

4
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

individuals with disabilities in their community outside of the school.

School factors that facilitate these partnerships include strong school
leadership, an in- viting school culture, educator commitment to student
success, and the ability to collaborate and communicate with community
partners. Strong community partnerships support schools in the present,
while the benefits to the commu- nity may continue long into the future.

References
Adger, C. T. (2001). School–community-based organization partnerships for
language minor- ity students’ school success. Journal of Education for Students
Placed At Risk, 6, 7–25. doi: 10.1207/S15327671ESPR0601-2_2
Ainscow, M., & Sandhill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: The
role of organisational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 14, 401–416. doi:10.1080/13603110802504903
Anderson, J., Houser, J., & Howland, A. (2010). The Full Purpose Partnership model for
pro- moting academic and socio-emotional success in schools. School Community
Journal, 20(1), 31–53. Retrieved from
http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Anderson-Butcher, D., Lawson, H. A., Bean, J., Flaspohler, P., Boone, B., & Kwiatkowski,
A. (2008). Community collaboration to improve school: Introducing a new model
from Ohio. Children & Schools, 30, 161–172. doi:10.1093/cs/30.3.161
Auerbach, S. (2010). Beyond coffee with the principal: Toward leadership for authentic
school– family partnerships. Journal of School Leadership, 20(6), 728–757.
Bernard, H. R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and
quantitative methods
(3rd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Blank, M., Jacobson, R., & Melaville, A. (2012, January). Achieving results through
commu- nity school partnerships: How district and community leaders are
building effective, sustain- able relationships. Washington, DC: Center for
American Progress. Retrieved from http://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2012/01/18/10987/achieving-results-
through-community-school-partnerships/
Blank, M., Melaville, A., & Shah, B. (2003). Making a difference: Research and
practice in com- munity schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community
Schools. Retrieved from www.
communityschools.org/assets/1/page/ccsfullreport.pdf
Bradshaw, C., Mitchell, M., & Leaf, P. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide
positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes results from a
randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interven- tions, 12, 133–148. doi:10.1177/1098300709334798
Bryk, A. S. (2010, April). Organizing schools for improvement. Kappan Magazine,
91(7), 23–30. Retrieved from
http://www.mcknight.org/system/asset/document/648/Bryk_Or-
ganizing_Schools_for_Improvement_6_.pdf
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for
improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

4
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Burrello, L., Hoffman, L., & Murray, L. (2005). School leaders building capacity
from within.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Burrello, L., Sailor, W., & Kleinhammer-Tramill, J. (2013). Unifying educational
systems: Lead- ership and policy perspectives. New York, NY and London, UK:
Routledge and Taylor & Francis Group.

4
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through

qualitative analy- sis. London, UK: Sage.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94(s1), S95–S120.
Cooperrider, D., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive
revolution in change.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and
evalua- tive criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–19.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dedoose (Version 4.5) [Software]. (2013). Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research
Consul- tants, LLC.
Epstein, J. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing
educators and improv- ing schools (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Furco, A. (2013). Legitimizing community engagement with K–12 schools. Peabody
Journal of Education, 88(5), 622–636. doi:10.1080/0161956X.2013.835180
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:
Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Hands, C. (2005). It’s who you know and what you know: The process of creating
partnerships between schools and communities. School Community Journal, 15(2),
63–84. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Hang, Q., & Rabren, K. (2009). An examination of co-teaching: Perspectives and
efficacy indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30(5), 259–268.
Kirby, M. M., & DiPoala, M. F. (2011). Academic optimism and community
engagement in urban schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 542–
562. doi:10.1108/095782 31111159539
Kozleski, E. B., & Smith, A. (2009). The complexities of systems change in creating
equity for students with disabilities in urban schools. Urban Education, 44, 427–
451. doi:10.1177/ 0042085909337595
Kreuger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied
research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., & Menzies, H. M. (2010). Systematic screenings to
prevent the de- velopment of learning and behavior problems: Considerations for
practitioners, research- ers, and policymakers. Journal of Disability Policy Studies,
21, 160–172. doi:10.1177/1044 207310379123
Lawson, H., & Sailor, W. (2000). Integrating services, collaborating, and developing
connec- tions with schools. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33(2), 1–22.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From re- search to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McAlister, S. (2013). Why community engagement matters in school turnaround.
Voices in Urban Education, 36(Winter/Spring), 35–41.
McCart, A., Sailor, W., Bezdek, J. & Satter, A. (2014). A framework for inclusive
educational delivery systems. Inclusion, 2(4), 252–264.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Fran- cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

O’Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard

Educa- tional Review, 72(3), 293–329.
O’Rourke, J. (2014). Inclusive schooling: If it’s so good—Why is it so hard to sell?
Interna- tional Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–17.
doi:10.1080/13603116.2014.954641
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods,
15(1), 85–109. doi:10.1177/1525822X02239569
Ryndak, D., Jackson, L. B., & White, J. M. (2013). Involvement and progress in the
general curriculum for students with extensive support needs: K–12 inclusive
education research and implications for the future. Inclusion, 1(1), 28–49.
Sailor, W., & Roger, B. (2005). Rethinking inclusion: Schoolwide applications. Phi
Delta Kap- pan, 86(7), 503–509.
Sailor, W., Zuna, N., Choi, J., Thomas, J., McCart, A., & Roger, B. (2006).
Anchoring school- wide positive behavior support in structural school reform.
Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 18–30.
doi:10.2511/rpsd.31.1.18
Sanders, M. G. (2001). The role of “community” in comprehensive school, family, and
com- munity partnership programs. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 19–34.
Sanders, M. G. (2006). Building school–community partnerships: Collaboration
for student suc- cess. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Shank, G. D. (2006). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach (2nd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school–family–community partnerships in urban
elementary schools to student achievement on state tests. Urban Review, 35, 149–165.
doi:10.1023/A: 1023713829693
Sheldon, S. B. (2007). Improving student attendance with school, family, and
community partnerships. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 267–275.
doi:10.3200/JOER.100. 5.267-275
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2004). Getting students to school: Using family and
commu- nity involvement to reduce chronic absenteeism. School Community Journal,
4(2), 39–56. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Shogren, K. A., McCart, A. B., Lyon, K. J., & Sailor, W. S. (2015). All means all:
Building knowledge for inclusive schoolwide transformation. Research and
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(3), 173–191.
doi:10.1177/1540796915586191
Sugai, G., Simonsen, B., Bradshaw, C., Horner, R., & Lewis, T. J. (2014). Delivering
high quality schoolwide positive behavior support in inclusive schools. In J.
McLeskey, N. Wal- dron, F. Spooner, & B. Algozzine (Eds.), Handbook of
effective inclusive schools: Research and practice (pp. 306–321). New York, NY:
Routledge.
SWIFT Center. (2013). Introduction to SWIFT. Lawrence, KS: Author. Retrieved from
http:// www.swiftschools.org/Common/Cms/Documents/SWIFT-Introduction-Packet-
052914. pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP].
(2012). Tech- nical assistance and dissemination to improve results for children
with disabilities, CDFA 84.326Y. Washington, DC: Author.
Waldron, N. L., & McLeskey, J. (2010). Establishing a collaborative school culture
through comprehensive school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological

5
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

Consultation, 20(1), 58–74.

Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems.
Organization, 7(2), 225–246. doi:10.1177/135050840072002

5
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Willems, P., & Gonzales-DeHass, A. (2012). School–community partnerships: Using

authen- tic context to academically motivate students. School Community Journal,
22(2), 9–30. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx

Authors’ Note: The authors produced this document under U.S.

Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs Grant
No. H325Y120005, National Center on Schoolwide Inclusive Reform:
The SWIFT Center. OSEP Project Officers Grace Zamora Durán and Tina
Diamond served as the project officers. The views expressed herein do not
necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of
Education. No official endorsement by the
U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service, or
enter- prise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred.

Judith M. S. Gross is an assistant research professor at the Beach

Center on Disability at the University of Kansas and a member of the
SWIFT Fam- ily and Community Engagement Team, which provides
technical assistance to SWIFT partner schools. Dr. Gross is also the
principal investigator of the Assessing Family Employment Awareness
Training research project which pro- vides training and technical
assistance to families that raises expectations for and knowledge of
competitive employment for individuals with disabilities. Her research
interests include family–disability policy, competitive employ- ment,
participant direction of supports and services, and community access for
individuals with disabilities. Correspondence concerning this article may
be addressed to Judith M.S. Gross, PhD, Beach Center on Disability,
University of Kansas, Haworth Hall 3134, 1200 Sunnyside Ave.,
Lawrence, KS 66045 or email [email protected]
Shana Haines is an assistant professor in the College of Education and
Social Services at the University of Vermont. Dr. Haines’ research
interests in- clude family and community partnerships, improving schools,
effective teacher education, and refugee and former refugee education.
Cokethea Hill is a doctoral student at the University of Kansas,
Educational Leadership and Policy Studies department. Her research
interests include ur- ban education reform, desegregation and the
resegregation of public schools. Cokethea is currently employed at The
United Way of Greater Kansas City where her responsibilities include
aligning donor interest with the United Way’s Community Impact focus
areas of poverty, literacy, career readiness, and well-being.
Grace L. Francis is an assistant professor of special education at
George Ma- son University. Her research interests include family–
5
 PARTNERSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE

professional partnership policies and practices and post-school outcomes

that result in a high quality of

5
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

life for individuals with significant support needs.

Ann Turnbull is a distinguished professor in the Department of Special
Ed- ucation and co-director of the Beach Center on Disability at the
University of Kansas. Dr. Turnbull’s research interests focus in the areas of
family quality of life, family–professional partnerships, and
school/community inclusion.
Martha Blue-Banning is a qualitative researcher on the Schoolwide
Inte- grated Framework for Transformation (SWIFT) Project at the Beach
Center on Disability at the University of Kansas. Dr. Blue-Banning is the
co-director of the SWIFT Family and Community Engagement Team. Her
primary re- search focus has been on parent–professional partnerships and
the transition of adolescents and young adults with disabilities to an
inclusive life in the com- munity. Her other research interests include
cognitive coping and participant direction of Medicaid waivers.