A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Educational Partnerships Case Studies February 1996

Executive Summary

Congress enacted the Educational Partnerships Act in 1988 (Title VI, Subtitle A, Chapter 5 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Public Law No. 100-418). The Educational Partnerships Program (EPP) stimulated the creation of educational partnerships to demonstrate their contribution to educational reform. The EPP was administered by the Educational Networks Division, Programs for the Improvement of Practice, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). The authorizing legislation required documenting the partnerships that received assistance, assessing their impact on educational institutions, evaluating the extent to which they improved their communities' climate for support of education, and identifying promising activities.

OERI provided funds to 30 educational partnerships, and this document contains case studies of 5, which were selected because each of the case studies illustrates a particular focus for an educational partnership. For example, one case study is of a partnership whose main concern is providing health and social services through the schools; another is an innovative program that focuses on students who have dropped out of school; the third is concerned primarily with the transition from school to work; the fourth, with improving curriculum and instruction; and the fifth is an extremely complex partnership with multiple objectives and foci.

The case studies reveal the problems and successes typical of educational partnerships. They provide illustrations that illuminate general conclusions about educational partnerships and give readers a sense of the life of a partnership.

The "lessons learned" from the case studies are:

Each of the projects included in the case studies is disguised for two reasons. First, while on site, we promised those we interviewed that they would be anonymous. This increased the candor with which they spoke to us. In the technical reports that were derived from the cross-site analyses, anonymity easily could be preserved, but in the case studies, it will be easier for those who know the site to identify particular informants. Second, although we believe that evaluators are obliged to present both positive and negative information, we also know that individuals can be harmed by such presentation. Consequently, we have chosen to mask the sites and individuals to decrease opportunity for such harm.


-###-


[Title Page] [Contents] [Acknowledgments]

This page was last updated January 8, 2002 (jca)