UNIT THREE

AN OVERVIEW OF PARTICIPATORY SOCIETAL PARTICIPATION

(Time allotted 12 hrs.)

UNIT INTRODUCTION
Dear Learner! Welcome to the unit entitled as ‘An Overview of Participatory Societal
Participation’. I hope that you remember what you discussed in Unit two regarding the diverse
nature of school and society. In this unit, you will discuss the essence of participatory approach
and regarding the concepts of decentralization, accountability and empowerment. At the same
time, this unit focuses on the major goals of school- society relations and major partners in
school- society relations. Well Stay!

Unit Learning Outcomes 

Upon completion of this unit, you should be able to:
 Discuss participatory approaches to societal participation on education
 Differentiate the different forms and levels of participation
 Explain the differences between decentralization, accountability and empowerment
 Discuss the main goals of school-society relations
 Identify obstacles to school-society relations
 Identify major partners to school-society relations.

Lesson One
3.1. The Essence of Participatory Approach (Society’s
participation on development issues Including Education)

Activity 3.1. Take time home assignment and answer the following
 Dear Learner, What are the key principles of facilitating participation for empowerment?
How is it described?
 What are the outcomes of participation? What characteristics define meaningful
participation? How is participation measured? Good job!
Nice attempt! Now compare what you have reflected with what follows. Let us look in detail
what participation, ownership, collaboration and team work and an approach based on
democratic decisions provided by different scholars. In the 1970s and early 1980s, a desire by
decision-makers to more effectively incorporate the perspectives and priorities of the local
people in decision-making, policy development and project implementation led to the emergence
of a number of “participatory approaches” to development. This re-orientation towards greater
participation in development by individuals was motivated by the development communities
desire to move from an emphasis on top down, technocratic and economic interventions towards
greater attention to bottom-up, community-level interventions. Then, what is all about
 participation?

To start with, it is useful to consider the origins, or etymology, of the word participation.
Participation originates from Latin—derived from particeps meaning part-taking, and pars +
 capere, meaning to take or to share in. Common English definitions include taking part in or
becoming involved in an activity; the state of sharing in common with others; and the act or state
of receiving or having part of something. Thus, the central concept in participation is
involvement or sharing, particularly in an activity. What is important to note about these
definitions is the focus on both the nature and the extent of involvement, with qualitative and
quantitative implications.
Hence, a higher level of involvement - of 'participation', defined as "having a share in, having a
part in, being part of" - is achieved farther along the range, where parents take a more active part
in the activities of associations, perhaps help in the classroom, and assist in other work. In this
way, the focus of their relationship with the school widens from that of the parent concerned
with his/her child's education per se, to a more global concern with the school as a whole. People
from differing professional backgrounds may have different values and attach a range of
meanings to terms (Shaeffer, 1994).

This shows us, participation means many things to many people; open to varied interpretations
and the level or intensity of involvement by various groups of actors may also greatly vary. At
the same time, often the term participation is modified with adjectives, resulting in terms such as
community participation, citizen participation, people’s participation, public participation, and
popular participation. The definitions given to terms associated with 'participation' have often
remained vague, confusing, and even contradictory; especially, when we see the distinction
between 'participation' and 'involvement' is a case in point. Regarding the relationship between
parents and school, two aspects are being discerned in the literature, namely parental
involvement and parental participation (Deslandes, 2009). On the one hand, you can found that
the term 'community involvement' has been given preference over 'community participation'
because it is not sufficient merely to participate, which may be simply a passive response; there
should be mechanisms and processes to enable people to become actively involved and to take
responsibility for some decisions and activities jointly with professionals. On the other hand,
according to Deslandes (2009), unfortunately, these notions are often not operationalzed
unambiguously and moreover it is not made clear what the exact differences are between them.
The description of ‘parental involvement’ has been expanded from participation of parents at
school to include involvement of parents in the education of their children at home. Desforges in
Deslandes (2009) distinguishes two forms of parental involvement/participation, namely
‘spontaneous’ versus ‘planned’. Whereas the first is bottom–up, the second is more top–down
and typically concerns interventions or programs aimed to solve the problem of insufficient or no
parental involvement. Further differentiation of parental involvement/participation takes the
following form: (1) home involvement: (a) home discussion of school activities; (b) home
supervision or monitoring of the child; (2) school involvement: (a) school communication or
parent–school contact; (b) participation of parents in school activities or organizational matters.

Here, we can ask such question: What is objectives of and variation in involvement and
 participation? Following the distinction made above, two objectives underlying the
optimalization of the relations between parents and school can be identified (see Table 3.1
under).

Table 3.1 Objectives underlying the optimalization of the relations between parents and school
Objectives Nature of the partnership
 Parental involvement
Pedagogical Attunement of approaches to student at home and at school.
Preparation Improved preparation of not only parents but also teachers with an eye to
strengthening parent–school relations and the school careers of students.
Parental participation
Organizational Parental contribution to course of things at school in the form of not only
undertaking activities but also jointly thinking about things.
Democratic Parents think and decide both formally and informally together with the
school; the school justifies its work to parents.
Source: Deslandes, R. 2009. ed. International Perspectives on Contexts, Communities and Evaluated Innovative
Practices: Family–School– Community Partnerships. London: Routledge. p66.
Then, we can ask ourselves question like what is the effects of involvement and participation?
Well, despite the fact that the relevant research results were found to strongly diverge as a
 consequence of conceptual differences, many of the results point to a positive relation between
the involvement of parents and the school development of their child. According to Desforges in
Deslandes (2009), the most important factor is ‘good parenting at home’ with the following
characteristics: the provision of a safe and stable environment, intellectual stimulation, the
conduct of parent–child discussions, the functioning of parents as constructive role models who
propagate the value of education and provide signs of high expectations for their children. The
following elements are also of importance: the maintenance of contact with the school for the
exchange of information, participation in school activities and the conduct of activities at the
school and within the school administration.

As a result, several different degrees of participation in development can be described. A useful

modification of this 'ladder' would describe degrees of participation as follows:
1. the mere use of a service (such as a primary health care facility);
2. involvement through the contribution (or extraction) of resources, materials, and labor;
3. involvement through 'attendance' and the receipt of information (e.g., at parents' meetings at
school), implying passive acceptance of decisions made by others;
4. involvement through consultation (or feedback) on a particular issue;
5. participation in the delivery of a service, often as a partner with other actors;
6. participation as implementers of delegated powers; and
7. most completely, participation in real decision-making at every stage - identification of
problems, the study of feasibility, planning, implementation, and evaluation (Shaeffer,
1994).

Therefore, for purposes of the present discussion in this course, the concept of parental
involvement was defined as the role of the parents in the support of their own child, both at home
(e.g. reading out loud) and at school (e.g. discussion of marks with teacher). The concept of
parental participation was defined as active participation of parents in school activities. With
respect to the latter, a further distinction is made between non-institutionalized forms of parental
participation (e.g. lending a helping hand) and formal, institutionalized forms of parental
participation (e.g. parents’ council, advisory board or school administration membership).

Then, when we are looking the issues associated with participatory approaches to development
are not neutral and 'value-free'. Rather, they are based on a number of assumptions which need to
be taken into account while reading this lesson; namely that:
 1. Participation has become a necessary aspect of development. Programs of development
are likely to be more relevant, more supported, more successful, and more sustainable to
the extent that they involve their 'targets' in their planning, implementation, and
evaluation.
2. Participation and collaboration are not panaceas for educational under-development.
They cannot solve all problems, and they should not be used as a substitute for serious,
systematic public attempts to plan, manage, and finance basic education more efficiently
and with greater imagination. Above all, they should not be used as an excuse by
government to get out of the 'business' of basic education.
3. Participatory and collaborative approaches are dependent on, and affected by, social,
cultural, and political contexts. What works in one country may not work in another.
These approaches therefore cannot be treated as recipes able to be implemented in the
same way in all regions of the world. Rather, they should be seen as items on a menu of
mechanisms, procedures, and administrative actions which can lead to a higher degree of
participation in education, at both local and national levels depending on the context.
4. Such approaches have disadvantages as well as benefits, costs as well as savings. They
are often difficult to implement, can be risky as well as beneficial, and are not 'free'.
5. Based on considerable evidence of case studies, under the right conditions, and given the
right precautions, the greater participation of more actors can help improve the quality
of, and the demand for, particularly basic education (Shaeffer, 1994).

This lesson is therefore not meant to propose universal, standardized methods to promote
collaboration and strengthen partnerships. Rather, it will suggest steps that need to be taken by
central government officials and local authorities in order to facilitate the implementation of such
approaches both at their own level and at the local level. This recognition is quite explicit in the
Declaration of the Right to Development adopted by the United Nations in 1986, which says:
‘The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person
and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to and enjoy economic, social, cultural
and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully
realized.’ (UN 1986, Paragraph 1 of Article 1; italics added). It is evident from this statement
that the right to development is to be seen not simply as a right to ‘enjoy’ the fruits of
development, but also as a right to participate in the process of realizing them (Shaeffer, 1994;
UN, 2008). Hence, people’s involvement could be realized in many ways and by different
methods. This shows us that there are different ways to conceptualize family involvement in
education.

However, only some underscore active, ongoing engagement of parents and educators in ways
that connect directly with children’s learning. Consider three variations. First, do we view our
goal as enhancing parent involvement in education? If so, Christenson (2004) suggested parent
involvement is the dedication of resources by the parent to the child in terms of (a) behavior
(activities at home and school); (b) cognitive-intellectual (intellectually stimulating, enriching
home environment); and (c) personal (knowledge of child’s progress and learning content). Or,
second, do we view our goal as enhancing the interface of home and school to promote students’
learning competence? If so, school–family partnerships are the mutual collaboration, support,
and participation of parents and school staff at home or at the school site in activities and efforts
that directly and positively affect the educational progress of children. Or, third, do we add the
essential nature of the partnership with parents to ensure optimal conditions for students’
learning? If so, home, school and community are three major spheres of influence on children.
Their interactions may be either positive or negative, close or distant, growth promoting or
growth discouraging. They range from one-on-one interactions with the child to events occurring
in the society itself. All three major spheres of influence should be considered in efforts to
promote family involvement in education.

Then when we are looking the types and levels of parental involvement Epstein’s (1995) in
Davis (2000) identifying six types of parent involvement tends to be cited in the literature more
often than any other. The six types of involvement identified by Epstein are:
 Parenting: Helping families with parenting skills to establish home environments to
support children as learners;
 Communicating: Assuring effective communication about school programs and
students’ progress - school-to-home- and home-to-school communications;
 Volunteering: The recruitment and organization of the school’s volunteer program;
 Learning at Home: involving families in working with their children at home - with
homework and recognizing other learning at home opportunities;
 Decision-making: Including parents, students, and community members in the school
decision-making process; and
 Collaborating with the Community: The identification and integration of resources and
services from the community (coordinating resources and services).
The above framework is based on three key principles:
1. Different stakeholders are involved, each with different aims and capabilities.
2. Stakeholders participate at different levels, from passive involvement to active
empowerment.
3. The level of participation of each stakeholder may change at different phases of a
development process (analysis, planning, doing and reviewing).

However, development tends to work best when all stakeholders can participate to their desired
level throughout the development process. The most important and complicated issue bearing on
local level planning and development is community participation. Effective community
participation may lead to social and personal empowerment, economic development, and
sociopolitical transformation. Yet there are obstacles: the power of central bureaucracies, the
lack of local skills and organizational experience, social divisions, and the impact of national and
transnational structures. We can site also some barriers to participation, such as lack of time and
knowledge about how to become involved, cut across all cultures and peoples. Others barriers,
such as language differences and distrust of schools, may be particular to specific cultural
groups.

Unfortunately, too often schools do not recognize and honor different ways families are involved
in their children’s learning. It is important for school leaders and staff to redefine their vision of
family involvement, and to recognize other forms of family involvement that go beyond those
commonly traditional way that “One size does not fit all” when developing school-family
partnerships. For these purpose, school leaders and staff need support/training to encourage
family involvement. And, eventually, we should have to consider as educational leader that
“Change takes time,” and building a successful partnership requires “continued effort over
time”. For that reason, as educational leader at any echelon, we should have to have a vision;
based on this, we should have to be long sited; these entails also to us – to have a consolidated,
shared, comprehensive school-community relations plan or goal - which will be dealt
underneath.

Lesson Two
3.2. Defining Decentralization, Accountability and
Empowerment
Dear Learner! In the previous lesson, we have seen the essence of participatory approach in
education. For successful community participation, however, collaborating structures and
organization is essential. This lesson is therefore intended to serve as a basis for delivering
sessions related to the major concepts entertained in participatory approaches that is
decentralization, accountability and empowerment.
Activity 3.2. Take time home assignment and answer the following
 Dear Learner, to what degree has each new decentralization fostered greater local
autonomy? To what degree have these reforms represented the extension of the central state
further into everyday life?

A) Decentralization
Decentralization has quietly become a fashion of our time. One of the most critical perquisites to
translate decentralization from theory to practice is a clear understanding of the concept. To be
able to better envision what decentralization means, how best it can be planned and
implemented, what its intricacies are, and how its challenges can be overcome, development
practitioners should be equipped with appropriate tools which could provide an analytical
knowledge of decentralization from a conceptual viewpoint accompanied by real and field-tested
examples of the concept in practice (UNDP, 1999).

Accoarding to Shaeffer (1994), decentralization is a process often particularly crucial in any

attempt to facilitate the participation of a broader range of actors in development. However,
decentralization is not simply a unitary concept, but has different forms for different functions; it
is another concept fraught with multiple and often contradictory variations. The term covers a
wide range of policy measures which are undertaken by governments as part of a larger strategy
to restructure the socioeconomic sectors, in response to changing patterns in the international
economic order and external pressures from global monetary institutions. Today, decentralization
is a firm component of national policy debates, donor recommendations and public sector
management reforms.

In its literal sense the term “decentralization” implies “moving away from the centre”. But this
does not necessarily imply less central government control; it may only mean spreading central
control across sub-national levels, thereby, in fact, strengthening the reach-out, the power of the
central authorities. Another view is that decentralization necessarily implies the weakening of
central government and concomitant strengthening of local, sub-national government levels. This
links the term decentralization to the notion of participation and sharing of responsibility
through active involvement of the civil society; for instance citizen participation at community
level, and decision autonomy in the framework of school-based management, for instance. So,
let us look some of the definitions given for decentralization by different authors as follows.

Based on the definition of United Nations, decentralization, or decentralizing governance, refers

to the restructuring or reorganization of authority so that there is a system of co-responsibility
between institutions of governance at the central, regional and local levels according to the
principle of subsidiarity, thus increasing the overall quality and effectiveness of the system of
governance, while increasing the authority and capacities of sub-national levels. Decentralization
could also be expected to contribute to key elements of good governance, such as increasing
people's opportunities for participation in economic, social and political decisions; assisting in
developing people's capacities; and enhancing government responsiveness, transparency and
accountability (UNDP, 1999).

While decentralization or decentralizing governance should not be seen as an end in itself, it can
be a means for creating more open, responsive, and effective local government and for enhancing
representational systems of community-level decision making. By allowing local communities
and regional entities to manage their own affairs, and through facilitating closer contact between
central and local authorities, effective systems of local governance enable responses to people's
needs and priorities to be heard, thereby ensuring that government interventions meet a variety of
social needs. When we see other views and definitions of decentralization from the World Bank,
decentralization entails the transfer of political, fiscal, and administrative powers to sub-national
units of government. Or it may consist of expanding the resources and responsibilities of existing
sub-national governments (UNDP, 1999).

Hence, decentralization may be defined in terms of the form (functional activities) and level
(national to sub-national) as well as the nature or degree of power that is transferred.
Administrative, fiscal, market and political dimensions capture the form (functional activities)
and level (e.g. national to sub-national and local) of decentralization while devolution, de-
concentration, and delegation refer to the nature and degree of power being transferred (Dunne &
Others, 2002). In other words, it covers a range of concepts with different implementation
implications, especially in the degree of responsibility intended to be transferred to local actors.

But, decentralization does not mean a relinquishing of all forms of control from the central
government or administration to the local level (De Gauwe et al., 2005). As Kataoka (2006)
points out, even in contexts where devolution of roles and responsibilities are intended, central
governments have continued to exercise some control or oversight of many responsibilities
devolved to local government. The important questions in this regard are: (1) what central
powers are being decentralized (e.g., only data collection and not policy-making? Only resource
extraction and not allocation and expenditure?), (2) why such decentralization is occurring (e.g.,
for the reasons listed above or because an impoverished State can no longer finances its needed
social services?); and (3) to whom various levels in more decentralized systems are ultimately
accountable (Shaeffer, 1994).

From the above clarifications, we can understand that there are different types of decentralization
systems. Definitions of the different types of decentralization vary and the same terms are
sometimes used in inconsistent ways in the literature on the subject. So, let us look some of the
types of decentralization as cited by Ribot (2001) and Yuliani (2004) as follows.
 Political decentralization: Groups at different levels of government–central, meso and
local–are empowered to make decisions related to what affects them.
 Administrative decentralization: Different levels of government administer resources and
matters that have been delegated to them, generally through a constitution. In terms of
decentralization as a process of change, and according to the level of transfer of
responsibilities, it is useful to distinguish between deconcentration, delegation and
devolution.
 Administrative decentralization, i.e. a transfer to lower-level central government
authorities, or to other local authorities who are upwardly accountable to the central
government.
 The transfer of administrative responsibility for specified functions to lower levels within
the central government bureaucracy, generally on some spatial basis.
 One of administrative decentralization which redistributes decision-making authority and
financial and management responsibility among levels of the central government; there is
no real transfer of authority between levels of government. It may involve only a shift of
responsibilities from federal service officials of the capital city to those stationed in
provinces, districts, etc.
 One form of administrative decentralization which transfers specific decision-making
powers from one level of government to another (which could be from lower level to
higher level of government, in the case of federations, or government transfers decision-
making powers to entities of the civil society. Regional or provincial governments, for
example, become semi-autonomous and administer resources according to their own
priorities and within clear geographical boundaries under their control. Most political
decentralization is associated with devolution.
 Fiscal decentralization. In this case, previously concentrated powers to tax and generate
revenues are dispersed to other levels of government, e.g., local governments are given the
power to raise and retain financial resources to fulfill their responsibilities.
 Fiscal decentralization, the decentralization of fiscal resources and revenue generating
powers, is also often identified by many analysts as a separate form of decentralization. But
while fiscal transfers are important, they constitute a cross-cutting element of both
deconcentration and political decentralization, rather than being separate category.
 Market decentralization: Government privatizes or deregulates private functions.

As mentioned above, there are also other types of decentralization such as deconcentration,
devolution and delegation, presented here below as cited by Dunne and Others (2002), Ribot
(2002) and Yuliani (2004).
 Deconcentration, sometimes called administrative decentralization, involves handing over
more routine authority and decision-making powers from a higher level of the central
government to lower levels (regional, district, cluster), still accountable to, and staffed by,
the central ministry. As deconcentration it aims to redistribute administrative
responsibilities within the central government whereas in what some describe as its ‘purest’
form, as devolution it seeks to create or strengthen autonomous action of local actors and
institutions outside central government control.
  Deconcentration, is the term referring to the process by which the agents of central
government control are relocated and geographically dispersed.
 Deconcentration or administrative decentralization involves the transfer of power to local
branches of the central state, such as prefects, leaders, or local technical line-ministry
agents. These upwardly accountable bodies are local administrative extensions of the
central state. They may have some downward accountability built into their functions, but
their primary responsibility is to central government. Deconcentration is a “weak” form of
decentralization because the downward accountability from which many benefits are
expected are not as well established as in democratic or political forms of decentralization.
 Delegation transfers (or lends) certain specific management responsibilities for some
activities to other units, governmental or non-governmental, implying somewhat stronger
(but easily cancellable) local autonomy.
 Delegation, refers to the transfer of managerial responsibility for specified functions to
other public organizations outside normal central government control, whether provincial
or local government or parastatal agencies. It is one form of administrative decentralization
which transfers responsibilities and authority to semi-autonomous entities that respond to
the central government but are not totally controlled by it.
 Delegation is when public functions are transferred to lower levels of government, public
corporations or any other authorities outside of the regular political-administrative structure
to implement programs on behalf of a government agency.
 Privatization is the divesting of functions to the private sector, to either voluntary or for-
profit organizations. Ferguson and Chandrasekharan include privatization as a particular
form of devolution to private ownership that has become prominent in recent times.
 Privatization is the transfer of powers to any non-state entity, including individuals,
corporations, NGOs, etc. Although often carried out in the name of decentralization,
privatization is not a form of decentralization. It operates on an exclusive logic, rather than
on the inclusive public logic of decentralization.
 Devolution (sometimes called political decentralization) strengthens sub-national units of
government and actually transfers considerable decision-making powers to local political
bodies relatively independent of the central government. Devolution could also refer to the
‘transfer of competencies from the central state to the distinct legal entities’ which could
include non-governmental and private organizations (Jutting et al., 2004). Another way of
viewing devolution is as a process of devolving administrative and fiscal responsibility to
lower levels of government.

It is in the actual devolution of power to local lower-level bodies of government (and even to
community associations and NGOs) that the greatest scope for participatory development can be
found. This strategy is meant to achieve various results: (1) to generate more resources and
assure their more equitable allocation and effective use within the decentralized administrative
units; (2) to improve the quality of decision-making and planning by making these processes
more responsive to indigenous cultures and to local conditions, needs, and practices; (3) to speed
up the decision-making process and free the centre to focus on its legitimate strategic concerns;
(4) to encourage initiative, innovation, and participation; (5) to increase local responsibility and
accountability over issues more readily understood by local management and (6) to stimulate
communication down and (especially) up the system of control (Shaeffer, 1994).
On the other hand, decentralization is a large area covering a wide range of aspects: conceptual,
institutional, organizational, and methodological. When we are looking decentralization in our
context – education - what the literature also indicates is that in many contexts decentralization
of critical decision-making on school development has produced desirable outcomes, especially
in terms of local government and communities taking up responsibility for building classrooms,
hiring community or contract teachers, or raising funds for school infrastructure development.
What appear to have received scant attention are initiatives where local authorities, schools and
local communities have galvanized their efforts to address ‘software’ issues such as improving
access to schooling (Dunne & Others, 2002).

Within the local community context, shared educational concerns, such as persistent dropout,
high student absenteeism, and utilization of school fees are expected to galvanize community and
local government action. Decentralization of education service delivery, it is also argued, can
produce greater community pressure for transparency and accountability in school management
(Chapman, 2000). One of the purposes of decentralizing education services is to widen the
participation of non-education professionals at local community level in the running and
management of schools.

Over the past two decades, many countries have been engaged in a shift of decision-making
authority to lower administrative levels, either to local or regional governments, or to schools.
This move towards decentralization is a global phenomenon, affecting developing as well as
industrialized countries, although the motives and incentives are diverse. The increased attention
for decentralization in education is perhaps best reflected by the numerous initiatives to stimulate
decision making by schools, such as site- or school-based management (SBM), the local
management of schools and the establishment of relatively autonomous schools like. However,
greater community participation in school governance serves no purpose in the absence of
quality teaching and learning. Therefore, the importance of quality education has placed a
heightened focus on accountability for teaching-learning performance. In other words, greater
involvement of the community in school governance is purely to support the delivery of quality
teaching-learning. It is for this reason that teaching and learning-based accountability is
emphasized as one of the pillars of today’s school governance. In short, establishing
reconciliation and peace through the school governance mechanisms, practicing teaching and
learning performance-based accountability policies and the engagement of broader and inclusive
participatory school governance are the pillars to empowering the community and all the
stakeholders.

B) Accountability
The second issue arising from more participatory development is accountability - another word
that continues to span a very wide variety of concepts and policies, making it an elusive concept
to grasp. Governments claim to be responsible to their people; people try to hold them to
account. Accountability is thus the measure of responsibility. The essence of accountability is
answerability; being accountable means having the obligation to answer questions regarding
decisions and/or actions. Derick Brinkerhoff in Ribot (2001) insist that citizens can only
legitimately authorize representatives and hold them accountable if there are many avenues and
institutions through which they engage with both each other and their representatives.
There is another very important consideration about the relation between accountability and
representation. Society is highly differentiated. More marginal groups within society will be less
able to take advantage of certain accountability mechanisms, thus skewing the accountability
toward more privileged groups. Because of this, there is always a need for multiple mechanisms
that privilege marginalized or disadvantaged groups if they are to be included in the political
process (Young, 2000 in Ribot, 2001).

Accountability can also be enabled by legal instruments. Judicial, criminal, civil, penal and
police codes uphold the above laws determining who has official jurisdiction over the
management and disposition of resources. They also clearly set the framework for channels of
recourse and the ability of citizens or local authorities to defend rights in general. Laws
governing associations, cooperatives, economic interest groups, and lobbying are critical for
providing protections to individuals and groups within society wishing to organize and act for
social, cultural, economic or political purposes.

Therefore, accountability relates to who is required to report to whom about - and therefore can
ultimately be held responsible for - the determination and implementation of policies and
procedures, the achievement of goals, the performance of institutions, and compliance with
standards and regulations. At the most general and ideal level, this relates to the accountability of
the "State and its agencies, institutions, and structures to civil society. More specifically and
realistically, in regard to participation and decentralization, it relates to the extent to which
various levels of the administrative hierarchy are responsible to other levels both above and
below it and to other 'partners'. In systems both decentralized and participatory, higher levels of
the bureaucracy are to some extent accountable to lower levels (rather than only the other way
around), and local government agents (e.g. the school and its staff) are to some extent
accountable to their 'clients' (e.g. children, parents, the community) as well as to the local
government office and the bureaucratic levels above. The question, answered differently
according to the context, is how such accountability is put in place (Shaeffer, 1994). Hence,
accountability, defined as counter-power—that is, any power that balances or puts a check on the
power of other power holders. Accountability is constituted by the set of mechanisms and
sanctions that can be used to assure policy outcomes are as consistent with local needs,
aspirations and the best public interest as policymakers can make them. Accountability then is
about power, authority, and ownership—and defines the relationship between actors through
identifying who can call whom to account, and who owes a duty of explanation and rectification
by defining the lines and directions of accountability the distribution of power is also defined
(Ribot, 2002).

Based on the above clarification, there are three main types of accountability mechanisms:
political, administrative and public. Political accountability of political parties and
representatives is increasingly through elections. Administrative accountability of government
agencies is through internal accountability mechanisms, both horizontal and vertical within and
between agencies. Public or social accountability mechanisms hold government agencies
accountable to citizens. Citizen action or social accountability can reinforce political and
administrative accountability mechanisms.
Similarly, societies where multi-directional accountability occurs guarantee some degree of
autonomy or 'self-government' to lower levels of the system. This includes both autonomy for
organizations to make and implement decisions regarding their own operations; and for
individuals, to make decisions regarding matters pertaining to their own concerns. Such
autonomy, within a context of accountability to other actors above and to clients below, can help
to encourage better management, higher professional competence, and more effective services.
One important premise of such a process of providing greater autonomy is that the various actors
in the autonomous institutions (e.g. a school) are professionals and able to make informed
decision and conscious of self-responsibility for consequences arising from the decisions - a
premise which may need to be realized by better training of these actors (Shaeffer, 1994).

C) Empowerment
One important outcome of more participatory processes will be empowerment. Greater
participation in a decentralized system, with multiple and more democratic processes of
accountability of more autonomous institutions, implies that people:
• gain knowledge and awareness of their own social, economic, and political conditions;
• take action - to make and act on choices and to construct their own futures through a
process of analysis and action; and, above all,
• gain control over the goals and processes of development, and over regulatory
institutions. If it is accepted that participation should start at the stage of conception and
still be in evidence at the stage of supervision, then it is necessary to agree to share
certain elements of power (Shaeffer, 1994).

The concept of empowerment has become especially important in attempts to move the concept
of participatory development from rhetoric to concrete practice. This concept is perhaps best
defined as a group process where people who lack an equal share of valued resources gain
greater access to, and control over, those resources. As a result, poor communities come more
explicitly to assert rights and responsibilities in determining the direction of their own
development. This power must be real, formal, and legitimate, including both the ability to make
use of formal structures and regulations and control over decision-making processes, knowledge,
and techniques. People who are empowered have the power to find direct solutions to their
problems - they propose solutions, they do not beg for them (Shaeffer, 1994). Therefore, the term
empowerment has different meanings in different socio-cultural and political contexts, and does
not translate easily into all languages. An exploration of local terms associated with
empowerment around the world always leads to lively discussion. These terms include self-
strength, control, self-power, self-reliance, own choice, life of dignity in accordance with one’s
values, capable of fighting for one’s rights, independence, own decision-making, being free,
awakening, and capability—to mention only a few. These definitions are embedded in local
value and belief systems. Hence, empowerment is of intrinsic value; it also has instrumental
value. Empowerment is relevant at the individual and collective level, and can be economic,
social, or political. The term can be used to characterize relations within households or between
poor people and other actors at the global level.

There are thousands of examples of empowerment strategies that have been initiated by poor
people themselves and by governments, civil society, and the private sector. Successful efforts to
 empower poor people, increasing their freedom of choice and action in different contexts, often
share four elements:
• Access to information
• Inclusion and participation
• Accountability
• Local organizational capacity (World Bank, 2001).

Lesson Three
3.3. Major Goals of School-Society Relations
Dear learner! How do you proceed? Participation, ownership and an approach based on
democratic decisions are key to the success of developing a health-promoting school. However,
collaboration and bringing teams together is often not as easy as it sounds; because the extent or
nature of participation by various actors may vary from place to place. Therefore, the level or
scope of the activity must be taken into consideration when defining objectives of school-
community relations. So, to make participatory approach meaningful for learners it is significant
to discuss some major goals considered for creating smooth school-community relations which
are included in this lesson.
Activity 3.3. Reflective Group Activity (5 minutes for discussion, 5 minutes for reflection)
 Dear Learner, Why do we bother for close school-community relations?
 Is close school-community an end or a means to any other ends?
 Please mention few of the objectives of close school-community relations from your own
experiences and discuss them with your peer.
Dear learner! Why do we have school in the first place? Why should we send our children to
school? What is the purpose of schooling in general? Please try to reflect on this issue
 individually. Really excellent, now let us examine different views of purpose of schooling
provided by different scholars and compare your answer with that of the scholars. When we ask
such questions, we are getting at the heart of the kind of community we want to live in and the
kind of community we want our children to live in.

First, when we look at the big picture - Society - we see schooling not as a neutral island separate
from, but as an integral part of, Society. This implies to us to see – School-Community
Context. School is conceptualized as a community of families and school personnel engaged in
the educational process. The educational process is dynamic and wide ranging and involves
children, their families, and an institution called school. School is no longer viewed as a building
or a collection of classrooms in which teachers and students work together. The school
community, no longer simply bounded by geography, comprises all those who engage in the
educational process. Rather, education systems are investing in schools as learning communities
with strong partnerships between students, teachers, families and the wider community. Second,
a society is a number of people held together because they are working along common lines, in a
common spirit, and with reference to common aims. The common needs and aims demand a
growing interchange of thought and growing unity of sympathetic feeling. Based on this, society
places a heavy responsibility on schools and families. Schooling is not simply a process of
teaching and learning, but of preparing children for the future. Schools are the vehicle for
aspirations, not only for children who may conform easily to external expectations, but for every
child. Therefore, responsibilities are placed on the school, on the parent, and on the child to
 make the educational process work so that each child who goes to school may fulfill his or her
potential for growth.

For that reason, many of today's leaders in education, business and community development are
coming to realize schools alone cannot prepare our youth for productive adulthood. It is evident
schools and communities should work closely with each other to meet their mutual goals.
Schools can provide more support for students, families and staff when they are an integral part
of the community. Appropriate and effective collaboration and teaming are seen as key factors to
community development, learning and family self-sufficiency. Thus, school-community relations
are essential to securing public input and public support for educational programs. Community
awareness of public meetings of the PTA or School Board and an opportunity to be heard at such
meetings are necessary components of a positive school-community relations policy. At this
instance, we can confront with question: What is and could be the goals for school-community
relations? The School Board may set goals and standards for school-community relations and
 may regularly evaluate its relationship with the public and its programs for maintaining open
channels of communication and good relations with parents, community organizations, the
business and industrial sector, and the community at large. Through its school-community
relations programs, the PTA or School Board will encourage the community to take an active
interest in the schools and participate in planning activities; to place a high priority on education
and make funds available for an educational system that supports learning for all children; and to
establish partnerships with the schools to enhance learning opportunities. Here, community
participation is an important component of community development and reflects a grassroots or
bottom-up approach to problem-solving. When we are looking from this perspective, one of the
major aims of community development is to encourage participation of the community as a
whole. Indeed, community development has been defined as a social process resulting from
citizen participation. Through citizen participation, a broad cross-section of the community is
encouraged to identify and articulate their own goals, design their own methods of change, and
pool their resources in the problem-solving process.

So, let’s ask ourselves: What are major goals of school-community relations? First and
 foremost, the education of children and young people in schools is one of the most important
tasks of any society – a task that is about much more than obtaining academic qualifications. In
particular, schooling can help to counteract the negative views – hate, bigotry and prejudice –
that exist in our society, and promote the healing of community divisions. Not enough schools
have addressed the difficult issues that confront our society. Something more must be done to
encourage greater sharing and collaboration between communities and schools. If we are to help
change our society from the path it has travelled on for too long, we need to empower not only
our teachers but also our young people and our communities. We need to promote and encourage
real, meaningful and sustained contact with children and young people from diverse backgrounds
and cultures.

Hence, the interest in greater participation in development derives from the belief that such
participation can achieve several goals, these include:
1. Ideological goals: to empower people in order to ensure their greater control over
development and their greater influence over decisions that affect them;
 2. Economic goals: both to seek more resources from a wider range of actors and to share
the price of development by transferring some costs from the 'suppliers' to the
'consumers';
3. Political goals: from the government's side, to strengthen the legitimacy of the current
government and make people co-responsible for social problems; from the 'popular' side,
to gain greater share of power in policy-making and budget allocations;
4. Programmatic: to increase program or project demand, coverage, relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency, success, and sustainability; and
5. Capacity building: to develop new knowledge, skills, and attitudes and provide
beneficiaries a useful share in management tasks, monitoring, etc. (Shaeffer, 1994).

Hence, a more participatory approach to development begins with the assumption that
sustainable development ultimately depends on enhancing people's capacities as individuals and
groups to improve their own lives and to take greater control over their own destinies. This
assumption may seem self-evident, but, in fact, it is really quite radical in implication. A
participatory approach to development represents a considerable change in the process of
governance, in social and political relationships, and in who participates in, controls, and is
empowered by the development process (Shaeffer, 1994). However, the challenge of achieving
the education goals is both central to and strongly influenced by many factors such like the
social, economic and other context (UNMP, 2005). And what is this integrity? Here we return to
the question posed earlier about the reason for sending children to school. Ultimately, school
serves not the business world nor any political agenda, but rather the child and young adult as he
or she unfolds those capacities that make him or her uniquely human. And what makes the
human being unique? At some level it is comforting to know that the current struggle to define a
common purpose for schooling is not a new condition. Centuries ago, Aristotle noted there was
no consensus regarding what should be learned by the young; he mentioned the possible
purposes of study being usefulness in life, seeking goodness, or advancing the bounds of
knowledge. Any way we can agree that educational organizations are social entities that have
exceptional mission and orientation towards their goal fulfillment.

To sum up this lesson, therefore, the emergence of the concept of participatory development, that
is conceived not only as society-centered but also as democratic and people-centered, has also
led to the redefinition of the role of the state, the local authorities, educational leaders and above
all the community in addressing national development priorities. Especially, in developing a
family involvement program, educators need to consider the cultural, social, and economic
factors that are relevant to the unique needs of diverse children and families.

Lesson Four
3.4. Obstacles to School-Society Relations
Dear Learner! In the previous three lessons we have seen that the essence of participatory
approach, the concepts regarding decentralization, accountability and empowerment as well as
major goals of school-society relations. This is the fourth lesson of unit three. In this lesson, we
are going state the major obstacles for close school-community relations and discuss also the
risks and uncertainties of participation in general.
Activity 3.4. Investigative Group Activity (5 minutes for discussion, 5 minutes for
reflection)
 Dear Learner, Assume your school and surrounding areas:
 Mention some of the major factors hindering school-society participation.
 What do you think are the risks of participation in development?
 What do you think are the major challenges of community mobilization in your locality?
First and foremost, it wouldn’t be fair to pose a framework for building family and community
involvement without acknowledging the difficulty and challenges of the work. Because, the
challenges come in many shapes and sizes, but perhaps can be illustrated in different ways,
contexts and circumstances. Read the following case study, what do you learn or deduce from
the statements given below, give your reflection.
Case Study 4 Observation in work Place
Almost any teacher could tell a discouraging tale of parents’ nights with few in attendance, or of bruising
conflicts with families over goals or decisions. Almost any parent or family member could tell a tale of an
unproductive meeting, a poorly planned event, or a conversation with a teacher or principal that felt
disrespectful or patronizing. It is difficult work to bridge the gap between our worlds, experiences, needs
—even our schedules!

Encouraging participatory approaches to development is difficult to do for several reasons. This

is because there are often gaps in this relationship, within the school, within the family, and in
their relationships to each other and to the needs of students. There are gaps between aspirations
and realities, between manifest need and available programs. In the dynamic multicultural world
of the child today, there are gaps between particular cultures and what education may offer.
However, everywhere it is a top public priority that children develop well and that schools
support that development.

According to Shaeffer (1994), when we are examining the gap, first, many communities -
perhaps especially those most disadvantaged - are not at all homogeneous in nature. Social
stratification, divisions along caste, religious, and ethnic lines, personal rivalries and social
factionalism, and the incompatibility of interests are all factors which make it difficult to talk of
'community' mobilization through participation. In such a context, participation may bring
unresolved and unresolvable conflicts out into the open, exacerbating rivalries of class, caste, and
ethnicity by making potential differences in goals and tactics explicit, rather than keeping them
constrained and hidden through the operation of traditional roles and responsibilities. Second,
even where community members may want to work together, a major obstacle may be the sheer
lack of experience and skill in participatory and collaborative activities. Participation by the
community in development and the collaboration of the community with other partners imply
certain knowledge and skills: setting goals and priorities, running meetings, planning budgets,
accounting for resources and so on. Third, potential participants, especially those economically
and socially weakest, may lack a sense of self-confidence and political efficacy - the feeling that
individual political action does have, and can have, an impact upon the policy process. They may
also feel, or may have been encouraged to feel, that, given the overriding authority of the
government, they have little political power, few obligations beyond receiving government
services, and little ability to affect government policy.
 Fourth, marginal communities (and many governments) cannot bear the added expense of
participatory processes – especially in terms of financial resources and of the time and energy
required of participating community organizations, government agencies, and individuals. Fifth,
participatory processes do not just happen by themselves or by fiat, but rather require new and
complex managerial and supervisory skills, attitudes, and behaviors. Principals able to share
authority within and across schools, teachers (especially those from another region, ethnic group,
or language group) able to carry out surveys of community needs, woreda officers able to work
with program staff of NOGs, central planners willing to issue the regulations mandating
community involvement in curriculum development - all of these are not easy to develop in
traditional bureaucracies and, once developed, to sustain.

Sixth, participation is often in conflict with a political culture where initiatives toward reform
may require clear sanction from above and where, for example, both parental participation in
designing (let alone questioning) school policies and flexible, non-standardized responses to a
variety of development contexts are difficult to imagine. Seventh, many institutions and
individuals have a profound inability or resistance to change. The inertia of inflexible systems,
bureaucratic delays, the lack of teamwork and co-coordinating mechanisms, the absence of clear
rules as to who should do what and when, poor technical support from those meant to provide it,
and the fear of losing control to other agencies, to lower levels of the system, or to outsiders - all
make it difficult, at least early in various reforms, to encourage new initiatives. Eighth, such
problems are compounded by more concrete administrative obstacles. Logistical problems and
staff turnover are notable in this regard; when staff trained in a more participatory approach and
method are transferred or resign, much time and effort are wasted. Administrative procedures
may also discourage collaboration. This can make any innovation, let alone that based on greater
popular participation, difficult to implement. Although, PTAs and SMCs are being set up in
many education systems in developing countries, there are tensions and contradictions in their
roles and responsibilities that undermine their effectiveness. Also, the composition of these
bodies may not necessarily be representative of parents. Another problem, for many parents,
their own personal school experiences create obstacles to involvement. Those who have dropped
out of school do not feel confident in school settings; explain how the diverse contexts of their
lives create tensions that interfere with positive home/school relations. Even, educators often
don't take into account how a parent's own school experience may influence school relationships.
Listen in as one father describes his son's school progress:
Case Study 5 Obscured Father
“They expect me to go to school so they can tell me my kid is stupid or crazy. They' ve been telling me that for
three years, so why should I go and hear it again? They don' t do anything. They just tell me my kid is bad. See,
I' ve been there. I know. And it scares me. They called me a boy in trouble but I was a troubled boy. Nobody
helped me because they liked it when I didn't show up. If I was gone for the semester, fine with them. I dropped
out nine times. They wanted me gone.
Source: Finders, M. & Lewis, C. 2002. Why Some Parents Don’t Come to School. Barrington, IL: EBSCO Publishing, p 51.

Reflection
This father's experiences created mistrust and prevented him from participating more fully in his
son's education. Yet, we cannot say that he doesn't care about his son. On the contrary, his
message is urgent. For many parents their own personal school experiences create obstacles to
involvement. On the other hand, school practitioners are less and less willing to give time to
participation schemes they see as inauthentic. School personnel may subtly display patronizing
or negative attitudes toward parents. Schools need to welcome parents whenever they visit the
school by conveying a positive attitude toward the first language of the students and families.
However, just as parents have challenges that impede their collaboration with schools, teachers
have challenges that impede their work with parents. Most literature report that the following
barriers that impede teachers when it comes to family and community involvement:
 Negative attitudes toward parents: misconceptions and assumptions about parents;
 Unfamiliar cultures: lack of understanding of the students’ cultures;
 Language barriers: inability to understand the parents’ home languages;
 Training: lack of training in working with parents; and
 Increased responsibilities: lack of time to develop family involvement activities.

Similarly, because of the variety of students’ backgrounds, reaching out to families has become
increasingly complex for schools. Educators who define families in more narrow terms may have
assumptions that make it difficult for them to understand the families of many of their students.
Carter (2003) identified the following “common assumptions” held by educators that can either
hinder home-school collaboration.
 Parents who don’t attend school events don’t care about their children’s success in
school;
 Parents who are illiterate or unemployed can’t help their children with school;
 Parents from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds don’t understand how to help their
children with school;
 It’s up to parents to find out what is going on at school; and
 Parent involvement is not worth educators’ effort.

For many years, the prevailing view of many educators was that families had a very limited role
to play at their children’s schools: parents should come to school only when invited, stay-at-
home mothers served as “room mothers”. Contrary to the assumption of many educators,
research on family connections with schools has revealed that parents are interested in their
children’s academic success regardless of ethnicity, culture, or economic status, although they
may not know how to help their children or may feel incapable of assisting them. Ferguson
found that
Parent involvement encompasses a multitude of complex phenomena. Differences in the
family structure, culture, ethnic background, social class, age and gender represent only
a few of the factors affecting interpretations of or generalizations about the nature of
parent involvement (Scribner and Scribner in Ferguson, 2005: 1).

This statement reflects a few of the factors that complicate and sometimes inhibit family
involvement with schools, particularly for those families representing diverse populations. In his
reports, Ferguson (2005) also says that the way a family defines support and interest is through
their own perspective. Unfortunately, many times the school’s perspective and definitions of the
family involvement in school are not the same as those of the families. These differing
viewpoints can create barriers to meaningful participation of families’ participation in schools.
Activity 3.5. Take time for five minutes and discuss these issues in class
 Dear Learner, Assume your school and surrounding areas:
 What kinds of opportunities can the school principal explore to collaborate with families?
 How can family and parental involvement challenges be overcome?
Parents need to know how the school system works and how they can have access to it for the
betterment of their children. Conceptualizing barriers for each socializing system as well as the
relationship may serve to promote perspective taking and enhance the understanding of
constraints involved for all individuals. Educators must be sensitive to the status-oriented family
issues such as socioeconomic status, parental education, and the like. The stimulus for engaging
parents in education lies with educators; therefore, addressing barriers for educators is necessary.
At the school level, it appears that strong leadership and administrative support are essential to
increasing meaningful family involvement. The good news is that barriers, if identified,
understood, and thought of as opportunities, can lead to positive service delivery changes, such
as school practices for outreach to families or new responsibilities for families.

Therefore, identifying these assumptions is a first step toward changing them and determining
ways for educators to encourage family involvement in school. If educators view children simply
as students, they are likely to see the family as separate from the school. That is, the family is
expected to do its job and leave the education of children to the schools. If educators view
students as children, they are likely to see both the family and the community as partners with
the school in children’s education and development. Partners recognize their shared interests in
and responsibilities for children, and they work together to create better programs and
opportunities for students (Ferguson, 2005). Most of the time it is not lack of interest that
prevents parents from becoming involved in their children’s education but challenges such as
poverty, single parenting, language/literacy barriers, and cultural and socioeconomic isolation
that hinder involvement. A number of other barriers can prevent families from being involved in
their children’s education. These barriers may originate in the home environment or may be
related to school policies and practices. Schools can address these challenges by creating an
environment (and explicit structures) for sharing and learning about home cultures, values,
talents, and experiences, as well as for identifying and dealing productively with conflict. In
many ways, building such an environment is the crux of all family and community engagement.
Families know their children the best and should be respected for that knowledge.
Schools have a lot of knowledge about children, but they are not in the relationship for
a lifetime. When schools understand and respect what families bring to the table then
partnerships can grow (Carter, 2003: 20).

To summarize this section, school-community partnership development also takes time;

partnerships are built “one relationship at a time” and need continual nurturing. Collaboration
also often requires changes in traditional roles, responsibilities, expectations, and schedules,
which can prove difficult for partners. All of the subsequent structures and strategies can be
viewed as contributing to creating a welcoming environment, valuing and learning about home
and community, and negotiating differences and conflicts.

Lesson Four
3.5. Major Partners in School-Society Relations
Dear learner! The major partners are the fifth one you are going to learn as a strategy of
collaboration for two way communication in school-community relations. Partnership is
important concept that implies sharing of power, responsibility and ownership, though with each
party having different roles. This section provides an illustration on the: concept of partnership,
 why partnership, identify potential partners, types or kinds of partnership and finally we are
going to see also the problems and solutions in partnership. You are advised to read each topic in
detail and relate with the existing partnership that you working at you school. Well Stay!
Activity 3.6. Reflective Group Activity (5 minutes for discussion, 5 minutes for reflection)
 Dear Learner, What is partnership? More specifically, What are family-school partnerships?
 What agencies and organizations within our community have a strong parent-provider
partnership model and approach, including shared leadership?
 Do family, school and community connections make a difference?
 What can be the role of the community to strengthen school-community relationship?
Well! I presume you have very well tried to scrutinize how and what type of partnership is
effective for educational institutions from other social organizations. Now, check your reactions
with what pursues. Education in the 21st century means much more than providing students with
academic knowledge and skills. Educators alone cannot help children develop intellectually,
personally, socially, and morally — develop all the knowledge, attitudes, and skills they need to
be productive citizens and caring people as adults. Educating children to live in our rapidly
changing and increasingly complex society requires contributions and commitments from
everyone in the community (Carter, 2003). Here, the notion of partnership is important point.
 Then, let us deal with such question: What is the essence of partnership? What are the major
characteristics of effective partnership?

Well, to partner: Implies a relationship, frequently between two people, in which each has equal
status and certain independence but also implicit or formal obligations to the other or others.
Partnerships are a collaborative relationship designed primarily to produce positive educational
and social effects on the child while being mutually beneficial to all other parties involved.
Hence, partnerships need to be underpinned by broad principles and strategies but remain
specific to school context, including family/community characteristics, school size, levels of
schooling and student needs. Thus, the central characteristics of effective family-school
partnerships include:
 sharing of power, responsibility and ownership, though with each party having
different roles;
 a degree of mutuality, that begins with the process of listening to each other and that
incorporates responsive dialogue and ‘give and take’ on both sides;
 shared aims and goals based on a common understanding of the educational needs of
children; and
 commitment to joint action, in which parents, students and teachers work together
(Carter, 2003).

Second question: Why we concern partnership? What is the necessity behind the curtail? Nice!
 Case Study 6: The story – The Enormous cassava
There was once a farmer who decided to plant a field of cassava. He noticed that one cassava grew bigger and faster than all the
others so he decided to leave it until the end of the harvesting season so that it could grow as much as possible. Later in the year,
the farmer decided that it was time to harvest the enormous cassava. He went down to the field and pulled and pulled and heaved
and shoved, but the cassava stayed firmly in the ground.
Greatly frustrated by this turn of events, the farmer called his wife to pull on his belt while he pulled the cassava. Still the cassava
would not move. So, the wife decided to call her dog and told it to pull her while she pulled her husband and the farmer pulled the
cassava. Still the cassava would not budge. A little while the dog thought about calling the cat to come and assist them. The cat
pulled the dog, while the dog pulled the farmer’s wife, and she pulled her husband, who pulled the giant cassava. Still the cassava
would not come out of the ground and soon they were all exhausted and angry with each other.
Eventually, and by this time everybody was very tired and short-tempered, the cat thought about calling the mouse to help. The
farmer, his wife and the dog all laughed at the cat and wondered how such a small creature as a mouse could possibly make a
difference and result in the cassava being pulled from the ground.
However, there seemed to be nothing else to do, so the cat went and called the mouse. The mouse pulled the cat, the cat pulled the
dog, the dog pulled the farmer’s wife, the farmer’s wife pulled the farmer and the farmer pulled the cassava. Suddenly, there was a
very loud ‘plop’ sound and the cassava was pulled clear of the ground. Everybody was delighted that the great task had been
1

Students Activity
 Students pay attention to the story read by facilitators. (3 minutes)
 In pairs, participants talk about what this story means to them. (2 minutes)
 Still in pairs, participants now talk about what this story means to them in relation to development planning
and partnership specifically. (3 minutes)
 In plenary, one pair shares their thoughts. Another pair who thinks they have something new to say makes a
contribution. This continues until four or five pairs have had a chance to speak and the story has been
‘unpacked’. (6 minutes)

Someone will hopefully make the point that the contribution and the opinion of even the ‘smallest’ counts, and
will make a big difference – this may be the child, a school cleaner or even a new teacher. This is part of the
rationale for the term whole-school-partnership planning. If this point does not come out, the facilitator can ask:
 Who is ‘the farmer’ in the school?
 Who is the wife? etc…
 And finally, who is the mouse? (6 minutes)

Reflection:
In today `s complex and dynamic world a single person or a couple of persons cannot manage
everything. No leader, institution or nation can exist or lead without the support or involvement
of others; the same applies to education as well. Management activities should not be placed in
one individual's hands, but rather the contrary - they should be shared both by teams and
employees. This means that any person in one way or other would act as a leader. School
personnel involvement in the management of educational institutions requires a management
approach based on trust, cooperation, communication and cultural development and
improvement, which in turn implies changes in the school strategy, culture, tasks and work
organization. The above mentioned points show the need to build a school environment that
focuses on constructive debates, differences of views, goal and task interactions. Already two or
three decades practitioners found that an educational institution will gain noticeable benefit only
if it is supported by a structure model which encourages maximum participation along with the
appropriate cultural context which promotes collaboration.

Partnerships offer different, but mutual benefits to schools, including staff and students, and to
everyone they work with. Effective partnerships can: raise school morale by bringing staff
together to work to shared goals, promoting collaboration in curriculum development and others;
promote and develop innovative working methods; strengthen the school’s relationship with its
community through sharing skills, expertise and resources. There are benefits, too, for the
organizations and individuals who work with schools in these ways. These include: sharing skills
and expertise with young people and adults in a variety of new contexts. These and other studies
1
Acknowledgement
This story was written by the group of education management professionals in Nigeria and included in the whole School Development Planning
(WSDP) Program © DFID (2006).
share several findings. First, all of them indicate that recurrent costs, not capital investments,
represent the bulk of required funds. Second, although the incremental costs needed to meet the
goals are large, countries should be able to finance a significant share from domestic resources
and other sources. Third, differences across countries and regions are extremely large in terms of
the affordability of reaching particularly universal primary enrollment. Currently, in Ethiopia,
Tanzania, and many other Sub-Saharan African countries, even with a doubling or tripling of
domestic primary spending, reaching the goals will require very large increases in local resources
as well as external aid. Even with new resources, the education goals are not reachable without
major changes in institutional arrangements and improvements in the efficiency of education
spending in developing countries particularly in Ethiopia (UNMP, 2005).

From the above, we can understand that partnerships between schools and outside organizations
and individuals are essential to the kinds of educational development we are advocating. They
are not additional luxuries. Such partnerships enrich and extend the experiences of young
people and support teaching and training. In both ways they can help directly to raise standards
of achievement. In this lesson, we are going to identify potential partners in education in general
and schools in particular for successful mutual development.

Partnerships should be considered as connections between schools and community resources.

The partnership may involve use of school or neighborhood facilities and equipment; sharing
other resources; collaborative fund raising and grant applications; volunteer assistance;
mentoring and training from professionals and others with special expertise; information sharing
and dissemination; networking; recognition and public relations; shared responsibility for
planning, implementation and evaluation of programs and services; expanding opportunities for
internships, jobs, recreation and building a sense of community. School-community partnerships
can interconnect together many resources and strategies to enhance communities that support all
youth and their families. They could improve schools, strengthen neighborhoods and lead to a
noticeable reduction in young people's problems. Building such partnerships requires visioning,
strategic planning, creative leadership and new multifaceted roles for professionals who work in
schools and communities.

When we are talking about partnerships in education, there are two approaches appear to have
dominated thinking about rural institutions, and both are unfortunately fallacious, these are:
Paternalistic and Populistic Approaches to society participation in education. According to
Shaeffer (1994: 32), the paternalistic approach assumes that rural people are passive and
fatalistic, uninterested in improving their lives, and incapable of initiative in making
improvements. Consequently, everything must be done for them (or to them) in a top-down,
bureaucratic manner. An opposing view is the populistic approach which assumes that rural
people are vitally interested in change and completely capable of transforming their communities
if only the politicians and bureaucrats would leave them alone. Both approaches derive from
unreal stereotypes of rural people, who are neither as inert and ignorant as the first assume, nor
as virtuous and wise as assumed in the second. On the whole, rural people are more capable and
responsive than the paternalistic model of social change suggests, but less able to change their
lives autonomously than the populistic model presumes.
The particular interest of this lesson is the development of more participatory approaches in
education. This includes the broader and more active partnerships both inside the system at the
central level and in the school and the greater collaboration of educational personnel and the
external community in planning, managing, and implementing educational programs. The
potential partners are many: students, teachers, school principals, and local educational officials;
parents and members and leaders of the local community; community associations and NGOs;
private enterprises and universities and so on. For the purposes of this analysis, we will focus on
five major partners: two 'internal' (the government and its officials, and the school) and three
external (parents and the larger community surrounding the school, NGOs and other
stakeholders) (Shaeffer, 1994; Carter, 2003).

3.5.1. The Government: Bureaucracies and Bureaucrats

What are the general characteristics of 'government' and its officials which affect their usual
reaction to more participatory approaches to development? To answer this question, we must
first differentiate between the political and the administrative sides of government. The political
side is critical for any discussion of participation. Depending on the government's philosophy,
legitimacy, and strength, it may either ignore, resist, or actively prohibit greater participation in
society - or permit, encourage, and actively facilitate it. Especially in large education systems, it
may realize the utility of moving at least some of the responsibility for the implementation of
policies and programs to lower levels of the bureaucracy.

On the other hand, the administrative side of government may also have their own
responsibilities. Commonly, the bureaucracies - in education ministries as well as in other sectors
- may be effective managers of top-down development projects and programs and may have a
range of human and material resources, an extensive infrastructure, and administrators and
experts who bring to their work considerable knowledge, skills, and experience that help to
participatory approaches. But even if the politics of a nation tend to encourage participation, they
also may possess several characteristics which work against more participatory approaches to
development. Some of the problems are: limited knowledge of, or sensitivity to, community
conditions and local experience; a top-down mentality; centralized, standardized, and routinized
governmental structures and procedures; limited financial and human resources; inflexible
procedures of planning, decision-making, implementation, evaluation, accountability, etc.
However, as education policy drivers - there are a number of key government policies and
strategies that facilitate the promotion of equal opportunity and good relations in education.
Especially, the creative and cultural development of young people is of concern to several
government departments. But local education authorities still have statutory duties to ensure that
schools in their area meet the terms and requirements of the National Curriculum and to improve
standards and quality in education. This level is necessarily a crucial actor in any kind of
educational change, especially given the variety of important roles it can play. These include:
• providing professional assistance and technical support to schools and their personnel;
• promoting the exchange of information across schools;
• mediating and channeling communication between the top and the bottom and passing
information both up and down the system; and
• participating in the selection, placement, and promotion of teachers and principals.

3.5.2. The School: Principal and Teachers

The school, as the major actor in educational development, is composed of both teachers and
managers. Both are included in this heading, though their roles in various contexts are often quite
different. In some systems, school principals are seen as the lowest end of the government
bureaucracy, trusted to carry out its administrative tasks and deliver its educational instructions
to teachers; they therefore tend to share many of the characteristics of the government
administrators. In other contexts, however, school principals are seen more as senior teachers -
above all responsible for pedagogical issues, with administrative tasks added on, but generally
treated in the same way as teachers by the bureaucracy. Some teachers have considerable
knowledge of their students, of the local environment and of what is feasible and useful in the
context of the local school. There are many so-called 'high involvement' teachers who equate
professionalism with the ability to maintain a dialogue between the in-and out-of-school lives of
both their students and themselves. Hence, teachers and schools are important, and they have
also undergone significant changes. These changes are related in part to changes in sociological
perceptions: certain factors, such as organizational and social composition factors or teachers’
work patterns and conditions neglected before due to theoretical and methodological focus, have
now come to the fore.

This is because, we should have to consider that Schools as Extended Family. When children
begin their educational careers, the school becomes an “extension of the family”: “If learning is
to occur, the trust relationship developed between a parent and child during the first years of life
must be transferred to school staff”. In order to build a trusting relationship, families need to
convey to children that teachers play a “special role” in their lives similar to that of extended
family members. In turn, teachers must earn this trust as extended family members in the
relationships they build with children and their families. In addition to offering emotional
support, teachers can also nurture resilience by helping students build networks of caring adults
who will serve as a positive force in their lives, encouraging activities that will help students
develop caring relationships with peers, and teaching students social skills.
All stakeholders should have to recognize the crucial role that schools have in contributing to the
reconciliation of our society. This is not a job solely for schools, but schools do play a critical
role. The roles of schools in partnerships are twofold. First, the ethos of the school itself can be
enormously enriched through the involvement of the wider community. Second, schools’ own
resources can be of tremendous benefit to the community at large. Schools have much to offer in
terms of the experience and expertise of staff and their own specialist facilities and resources,
including laboratories, sports halls and performing arts facilities. Creative schools can contribute
significantly to the social and economic development of the whole community. Significant sums
of public money are invested in schools. The return on this investment is less than it might be
because many schools are closed more than they are open. Creative partnerships between school,
business and the wider community are already taking place in many areas. We need to identify
and build on existing good practice to develop a national strategy of creative partnerships.

Reviews of research (Boethel, 2003; Henderson & Mapp, 2002) in Ferguson (2005) on
addressing the needs of the families of diverse populations suggests that if school leaders desire
to increase family-school connections, school staff should take the following steps:
 Adopt formal school- and district-level policies that address issues related to the
involvement of families from diverse populations;
 Engage principals in active support of these programs;
  Help staff learn strategies for working with parents from all cultures;
 Help all families navigate the educational system;
 Practice outreach rather than traditional approaches to involvement;
 Practice trust- and relationship-building strategies and recognize that it takes time;
 Help families learn strategies to support students’ academic needs; and
 Encourage the development of the total child as this greatly impacts academics.

To apply the above strategies in practice, principals and teachers are critical to successful family
and community involvement efforts. Therefore, principals need professional development and
adequate resources to implement and support these programs.

3.5.3. The Community: Parents and Local Organizations

There exists an enormous gap between the power and authority of the educational administration
at the national level and that of parents. The educational administration represents a wide and
stable organization. Its personnel have extensive experience in mobilizing resources and public
support for the execution of their decisions. Parents, in contrast, constitute an unorganized body
which lacks a common ideological stand. The natures of the 'community' and of the conditions
which determine its fate are perhaps even more varied than those of the 'school'. Communities
can be defined by law and geography, culture and language, class and caste, 'interest' and
'attachment'. They can be heterogeneous or homogeneous, united or conflictive, poor or rich and
so on. The involvement of parents and the community in school is largely extractive in nature;
that is, community (especially parental) participation is limited to the provision of resources -
money, materials, labor. Other, more substantial involvement in terms of consultation or
management or control - in the diagnosis of needs, the development and implementation of
school policies, the design of educational content, or the delivery or evaluation of such content -
is usually seriously constrained. More involvement in education might therefore permit families
and communities to accept that: "their accountability in the education of children extends beyond
the provision of material requirements for schooling; that it includes the main responsibility of
assisting, guiding, and extending whatever help their children need to harness their potential; and
that they equally share the burden of education children with the teachers".

What are family-school partnerships after all? Family-school partnerships are collaborative
relationships and activities involving school staff, parents and other family members of students
 at a school. Effective partnerships are based on mutual trust and respect, and shared
responsibility for the education of the children and young people at the school. Why are family-
school partnerships important? Families are the first educators of their children and they
continue to influence their children’s learning and development during the school years and long
afterwards. Schools have an important responsibility in helping to nurture and teach future
generations and families trust schools to provide educational foundations for their children’s
future. At the same time, schools need to recognize the primary role of the family in education.
This is why it is important for families and schools to work together in partnership. Research
demonstrates that effective schools have high levels of parental and community involvement.
This involvement is strongly related to improved student learning, attendance and behavior.
Family involvement can have a major impact on student learning, regardless of the social or
cultural background of the family.
Family involvement in schools is therefore central to high quality education and is part of the
core business of schools. The aim of the Family-School Partnerships Framework is to encourage
sustainable and effective partnerships between all members of the school community, including
teachers, families, and students. These partnerships should:
• view each partner as making equally valuable contributions, while respecting different
contributions;
• respect student needs and preferences;
• address barriers to involvement in schools by families, in particular indigenous families,
and actively help previously uninvolved families to become involved;
• create better programs, opportunities and learning for students;
• give families appropriate opportunities to contribute to school decision-making and
governance; and
• contribute to professional satisfaction for principals and teachers.

Among the principles which underpin effective family-school partnerships, families are the first
and continuing educators of their children. Therefore, in order to achieve effective school, family
and community partnerships and successfully to improve student learning is to build effective
relationships. A school will not achieve equity and excellence for all of the students in its care if
it does not acknowledge, understand, and include the families and communities of all its
students.

3.5.4. Non-government Organizations (NGOs)

NGOs, as a sector of society, are a diverse entity operating under different paradigms with a
diverse range of interests, activities, and perspectives on development issues. At the same time,
other types of umbrella organizations exist that represent groups of NGOs with common
development, ideological, religious, or other affiliations. In most of the cases, NGOs see
development not merely as an activity geared towards producing a certain output but as a process
of developing community motivation and awareness, of promoting people's abilities so that they
can help themselves and, in turn, create a self-reliant community and nation. As NGOs play an
increasingly large role in the collection and distribution of development assistance, their
involvement in the planning and delivery of development programs also mounts.

In most of the cases, NGOs have developed from agencies primarily concerned with relief,
welfare, and service delivery activities, to those encouraging small-scale, self-reliant local
development projects and processes, to those more directly involved with community
empowerment and social transformation. Another is the 'service provider' organization which
sees its role more in terms of supporting, protecting, linking, and developing the capacity of a
myriad of action-oriented. In ideal terms, NGOs are most often described as people-centered,
flexible and responsive, creative, democratic and non-hierarchical, cost-effective and pragmatic,
and often independent and non-aligned. From the above clarifications one can infer that NGOs
encompass many things and all differ from each other and from their equivalents in different
countries. Nevertheless, regardless of the difficulties, Hall (1986) and Moser (1993) list the
following characteristics of NGOs.
 flexible and adaptable to environmental conditions;
 close to grassroots than governmental agencies;
 stress the participation of beneficiaries in planning, implementation and evaluation of
programs;
 have simple administrative structures which require their personnel to be responsible for
multiple tasks in the organizations; and
 subject to fewer rules and regulations.

Whatever their characteristics, NGOs generally seek to carry out several functions: providing
development services in those fields, activities, or regions either underserved by government or
parallel to those provided by the government, often with greater effectiveness and equity. More
and more frequently, they also work directly with governments (and sometimes with donors) in
the provision of services, often as an intermediary between government agencies and the poorest
levels of society especially in education.

Other stakeholders
When we say school community – it is a group of people bound by a common interest in
ensuring a high-quality education for all students in a school or district. School community
members include, but are not limited to, students, teachers, school leaders, school counselors,
school support personnel, families, community agencies, businesses, residents, and other partners
in the educational process. Hence, there is a need for greater co-ordination between these
departments in order to promote a more coherent pattern of provision, and a more strategic use of
existing resources (NACCCE, 1999). This is because schools can not achieve the required
standards on their own, and need to work in partnership with a variety of agencies, organizations
and individuals. They have a key role as catalysts in establishing partnerships and encouraging
relationships between schools and outside organizations and individuals. Even though it is
difficult to mention all important partners in education, it is worthwhile to mention some major
stakeholders here under as stated in NACCCE (1999).
The Youth Service: In recent years, both the voluntary and statutory youth service sectors have
become increasingly active in promoting and supporting creative and cultural programs for
young people. These are important areas of development. The Youth Service reaches out to
young people beyond the formal education sector in a wide range of different contexts: through
youth clubs, community projects, festivals and visits. In many instances they do this in
partnership with a variety of funding and organizational partners. Young people themselves are
often closely involved in the planning and organization of events and initiatives.
Cultural Organizations: We noted earlier the extraordinary growth of interest in cultural
organizations over the past twenty years or so in developing work with education. In recent
years, national and regional funding policies in the arts have strongly encouraged this need.
There is a wide variety of models of organization and of types of practice. Especially, the arts are
important in education because they give young people access to the ideas, values and beliefs of
others and contribute to all aspects of a child’s development. They have been shown to feed the
creative imagination and improve cognitive and academic skills.
 Business and media, along with famous entertainers, often link with schools by advertising
products, such as sponsoring activities, reading contests.
Sports clubs and organizations: Sports clubs and organizations too have important roles in the
creative and cultural education of young people. The diversity and range of physical activity and
sport provides students with many opportunities to develop a variety of skills. Sport also
provides challenging opportunities for students to develop their problem-solving abilities,
creative thinking, social skills, and physical competence as part of their continued development
within society. Sport clubs and organizations can support schools in promoting these particular
skills in children and should be regarded as important allies in promoting the creative and
cultural development of all young people in schools.
Business and Industry: Business and industry are valuable resources to education in a variety of
ways. There is a wealth of experience and expertise within business. Industry must be
encouraged to share this through active engagement in education. This investment will be
mutually beneficial. Ways of involving business in education include: experts from business and
industry should be encouraged to visit schools and share their experience of the professional
world with children and teachers; work experience placements could be provided for students
and teachers; business could be encouraged to share equipment with schools or to donate old
stock; cash donations could be made to support specific creative projects of schools. The focus
here is not only on big businesses, but on medium and small businesses that could donate an hour
a week to link with schools. Successful partnerships exist between some schools and private ICT
firms. The firms provide the schools with up-to-date ICT equipment and training for teachers in
return for the use of the facilities out of school hours to provide adult courses. It is only through
business partnerships that education can keep up with the development of new technologies.
Visiting Professionals: Visiting professionals in all subject areas should be encouraged to visit
schools to share their experience of the world of work and about their chosen fields. There are
many examples of professional artists visiting schools. These are important but people from
many other areas of work have much to offer too. Students should be offered the opportunity for
work experience placements within the creative industries. It will be involved at least in three
broad activities: (a) helping talented individuals in the fields of science, technology and the arts
to achieve their full potential; (b) helping turn inventions and ideas into products and services
which can be effectively exploited; (c) contributing to public knowledge and awareness of
science, technology and the arts. This is particularly effective where students share the same first
language.
Further and Higher Education Sector: There is a wealth of experience and expertise in further
and higher education in all disciplines. Successful links can be forged between schools and
further and higher education to support the work of the National Curriculum, to provide teacher
training and to enrich opportunities for creative and cultural education. Many good examples of
such links already exist.
Professional Associations: Many professional teacher and subject associations also play key
roles in supporting and enriching the school curriculum and teacher training across a range of
subjects and disciplines.

We can mention a lot of partners. However, we should have to take care from factors that affect
the quality of partnerships. For instance, while families may be more diverse than ever before,
they share the common trait that they are all busy. Similarly, teachers and school leaders are
busy people with multiple responsibilities. Family involvement may not be a priority among the
many issues that compete for their attention each day. Scarce school resources, in terms of time,
personnel, and funds, may make the adoption of any new initiatives seem unreasonable. Tight
budgets — a reality in most schools — may not support additional activities to encourage more
family involvement (Carter, 2003). However, for families as well as educators, family
involvement need not be a supplemental activity — one more thing they have to do each day.
Working together with strong administrative support, families, schools, and communities can
find effective ways to integrate the most promising strategies into their daily routines so that they
mesh with other school improvement initiatives. In this way, family involvement can be viewed
by both parents and educators as a valuable and necessary part of what is done each day to help
encourage all children to learn.

To conclude this lesson, the interests of the various partners are mutual but not always identical.
Each partner has different contributions to make and each will gain differently in terms of skills,
understanding and experience. The success of partnerships lies as much in the quality of
preparation and follow-up work as in the event itself. Consequently, partnership projects must
include enough time for research, planning, evaluation and dissemination. Success in improving
education requires tremendous political leadership and commitment by citizens, civil society
leaders, bureaucrats, politicians, parents, and many others outside the education system (UNMP,
2005). Finally, schools need no longer be sole traders in education. We all have an interest in the
quality of education and many people can contribute from different fields of expertise. We see
these partnerships in education not as luxuries but as essential to the kind of education all young
people now need. They do not happen without planning, and they often have implications for
resources.
Activity 3.7. Summary Group Activity (Take home assignment, discuss on these issues)
 Dear Learner! To what extent is partnership occurring in your locality?
 Is there any evidence from your staff and parents on the performance of partnerships?

Unit Summary
Dear Learner! How do you get the content of unit three? Yes, I assume that you said we have
got a lot of lessons. To recapitulate, we have seen that good schools alone will never be good
enough; it can be seen that there are a multitude of levels and types of participation and each has
a necessary role and it is also dependent on the context within which participation is practiced.
Participation is the process through which stakeholders’ influence and share control over priority
setting, policy-making, resource allocations and access to public goods and services. We have
seen also the term decentralization in the context of public sector management has a variety of
meanings making it broadly synonymous with socio-economic restructuring in general. In this
case, decentralization refers to a range of reforms such as the devolution of decision-making
powers to lower levels of government or to the private sector; or deconcentration of tasks from
the centre to lower levels without moving decision-making powers. Privatization is emphasizing
on shifting responsibilities between the government and non-governmental actors. The term is
employed to describe measures to transfer responsibilities to the private sector, reallocating
responsibilities to the informal, commercial and not-for-profit (voluntary) sector. We have seen
also the barriers in the school-community relations come in many shapes and sizes, but perhaps
can be summarized in the following points: diversity, imbalance of power between educators and
families, negative experiences of parents with school, mistaken assumptions, time, resources, and
logistics. Besides, the lesson also shows the more the relationship between families and the
school is a real partnership, the more student achievement increases. From this unit we have got
also that there are a variety of activities in which schools can become involved to build/improve
school-community partnerships. School communities are encouraged to review their current
supporting structures, policies and procedures and develop new ones where necessary to
accommodate all partners in to goal fulfillment of schooling.