The document discusses educative governance networks (EGNs) and their use in addressing complex social problems related to education inequalities. It provides background on the interdependence of social issues and the need for organizations to collaborate across boundaries. EGNs are described as formal, long-term networks of organizations that work together through joint strategic planning, needs analysis, and sharing of resources to achieve social-educational goals. The document examines EGNs using three dimensions: organizational structure, operational performance, and cultural values. It also provides strategic principles for EGN management and compares the Schools of Hope project in Madison, WI to a similar network in Barcelona, Spain.

1. Educative Governance
Networks facing Education
inequalities
Jordi Díaz Gibson
Ramon Llull University
University of Wisconsin
School of Education 2011

2. Social Complexity
Interdependence of Social problems
“The actual interdependence between social problems sets
a complex scenario for the development of social
policies”. (Sorensen & Torfing, 2001)

3. Social Complexity
Interdependence of Social problems
“The actual interdependence between social problems sets
a complex scenario for the development of social
policies”. (Sorensen & Torfing, 2001)
…school success, poverty, child obesity, school to work
transition …

4. Social Complexity
Breaking organizational boundaries
“Since the problem is bigger than any organization,
collaborating with other organizations is necessary if
there is any hope of making progress in effectively
managing the problem” (Milward y Provan, 2006).

5. Social Complexity
Breaking organizational boundaries
“Since the problem is bigger than any organization,
collaborating with other organizations is necessary if
there is any hope of making progress in effectively
managing the problem” (Milward y Provan, 2006).
…school success, poverty, child obesity, school to work
transition (education, health, social services…?)

6. Social Complexity
Breaking organizational boundaries
“Since the problem is bigger than any organization,
collaborating with other organizations is necessary if
there is any hope of making progress in effectively
managing the problem” (Milward y Provan, 2006).

7. Social Complexity
Breaking organizational boundaries
“Since the problem is bigger than any organization,
collaborating with other organizations is necessary if
there is any hope of making progress in effectively
managing the problem” (Milward y Provan, 2006).

8. Social Complexity
Breaking organizational boundaries
“Since the problem is bigger than any organization,
collaborating with other organizations is necessary if
there is any hope of making progress in effectively
managing the problem” (Milward y Provan, 2006).

9. Complex problems, complex responses

10. Complex problems, complex responses
Networked approaches
“A narrow reductionist view of educational programs reform
is less likely to result in improved educational outcomes,
than a system perspective that addresses the
coordinated functioning of multiple aspects of the
academic enterprise” (Lieberman et. al., 2010).

11. Complex problems, complex responses
Collaborative Networks ; organizations jointly face common goals;
consist of linkages among a set of nodes, but instead of people, the
nodes are organizations:
- Interorganizational Networks (Provan & Milward,1991, 1995, 2001;
Agranoff & McGuire, 1998)
- Governance Networks (Marsh & Rhodes 1992; Kickert, Klijn, &
Koppenjan 1997; Sorensen & Torfing, 2001)
- Community Organizing (Kubish et. al, 2002; Renée & McAlister,
2011)
- Educative Networks (Ubieto, 2010; Díaz-Gibson & Civís, 2010)

12. Educative Governance Networks
Interorganizational Networks Governance Networks
- Members with independency
of resources
- Members with independency
on decision-making
- Interactions are based on
negotiation and mutual
adjustment
- Members interactions are
stable and continuous
-Multiple and divers actors
(governmental, non-governmental,
citizen associations)
- Members connected by the
interdependency of social
problems
- Members have different
perceptions of problems

13. Educative Governance Networks
• Formal and long-term organizational networks aimed to
achieve social-educative goals,
basing its action on collaboration through joint strategic
planning, joint analysis of needs, and resources sharing
as information, spaces, professionals expertise and
workload, ideas and projects.
(Díaz-Gibson & Civís, 2011)

14. Educative Governance Networks
• Formal and long-term organizational networks aimed to
achieve social-educative goals,
basing its action on collaboration through joint strategic
planning, joint analysis of needs, and resources sharing
as information, spaces, professionals expertise and
workload, ideas and projects.
(Díaz-Gibson & Civís, 2011)

15. Educative Governance Networks
Approaching to EGN complexity: 3 Dimensions within the
network,
Organizational/structure
Operational/ performance
Cultural/ values

16. Strategic principles in Network management:
How they interact to become a comprehensive
model??
1. Proximity (political management, program integration)
2. Transversality (multiple levels, comprehensive education)
3. Projection (strategic management, training and assessments)
4. Horizontality (multiple leaders, democratic governance)
5. Co-responsibility (joint commitment, community engagement)
6. Collaboration (metagovernance, collaborative innovation)

17. Transversality
V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L
HORIZONTAL
Horizontality
Collaboration
Co-responsibility
Proximity
Projection
COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT
Organizational
Outcomes
Community
Outcomes
Final goals
EGN
COMMUNITY

18. Comparison between EGN across countries
Variables
1. Context restrictions (Madison, Copenhagen, Barcelona)
2. Management strategies (Management model)
3. Quality of interactions (Social Network Analysis)
4. Organizational Outcomes (cultural change)
5. Community Outcomes (social Capital strength and
innovation capacity)

19. Transversality
V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L
HORIZONTAL
Horizontality
Collaboration
Co-responsibility
Proximity
Projection
COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT
CULTURAL
CHANGE
SOCIAL CAPITAL &
COLLABORATIVE
INNOVATION
Final goals
EGN
COMMUNITY

20. SCHOOLS OF HOPE (Madison, WI –USA)
INTERXARXES (Barcelona, Spain)
• US as a model of Collaborative partnerships (HCZ and Promise neighborhoods)
• Two experiences that face education inequalities through EGN (formal
government-nongoverment partnerships)
• Experienced EGN with more than 10 years of development and a networked
action defined
• EGN receiving funding from divers agencies (nongovernmental) and governmental
(State, local, federal)
• Two cities that share COLLABORATION and PARTNERSHIPS as priorities in their
Strategic educational Planning (Institut Municipal d’Educació de Barcelona and
Madison Metropolitan School District)
• Two regions that share education inequalities and school failure as priority
challenges for communities (Comissió europea, UE i Promise Neighborhoods, USA)
• Two countries from OECD (Org. econom. Develop) Countries sharing development
challenges in different contexts

21. Comparison between EGN across countries
Starting with the Schools of Hope Project (Madison,
Wisconsin –USA) a collaborative Partnership since 1998
Quantitative and qualitative approach:
• 2 Initial interviews to outsiders (2)
• 1 survey to all members (46)
• 1 survey to district wide managers (8)
• 3 interviews to district wide managers (3)
• 2 focus group with school based coordinators (18/ 8)

22. Links
• https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US
• http://www.partnertool.net/

23. Some thoughts in the middle of the
process…
• A community look
• An organizational
• An operational look
• An structural look

24. Some thoughts in the middle of the
process…
• A community look
• An organizational
• An operational look
• An structural look
… from the Schools of Hope Project to the
Schools of Hope Network

25. Some thoughts in the middle of the
process…
• A community look
• An organizational
• An operational look
• An structural look

26. Leadership team
30 members
2 or 3 times a year
District wide Coord

27. Leadership team
30 members
2 or 3 times a year
District wide Coord
Any other synergies to add…?
Any health service in
education related to tutored
children by the SOH? Other
services?
Are we taking advantage of
UW research staff? Can we
involve them in stable
research or assessment
processes
?
?
??

28. Some thoughts in the middle of the
process…
• A community look
• An organizational and managerial look
• An operational look
• An structural look

29. Some thoughts in the middle of the
process…
• High levels of commitment, medium levels of trust: Inequalities on
distributions of power between partners causes a significant loss of
trust
• How can we develop a join commitment if relations are not explicitly
equal? More horizontality, much cohesion and improvement.
Spreading leaderships!
• A project in potential movement… are we taking advantage from
diversity? Are we putting into practice professional’s talent?
• Reduce the achievement gap (process drivers). Process guidelines
in all levels, unified program and planning, process assessments in
all levels of the partnership.
• Fragmentation of middle and implementing levels in the EGN (3
different projects or 1?) Gaps within the network?

30. Some thoughts in the middle of the
process…
• A community look
• An organizational look
• An operational look
• An structural look

31. Some thoughts in the middle of the
process…
• Improve communication with schools to improve their
institutional commitment (connection with schools)
• Training to School based coordinators (school
environment and organization/ reunions between old and
new coordinators
• Improving the quality of the web so as the quantity of
information
• Continuity between projects in SOH (connections
between tutoring, parents training…
• Individual monitoring from elementary to high school

32. Some thoughts in the middle of the
process…
• A community look
• An organizational
• An operational look
• An structural look

33. Some thoughts in the middle of the
process…
• A community look
• An organizational
• An operational look
• An structural look
… how can we design a structure that
addresses these issues?

34. Leadership team
30 members
2 or 3 times a year
District wide Coord

35. Leadership team
30 members
2 or 3 times a year
Elementary
School Coord..
High School
Coord.Middle School
Coord.
20 Americorps
coord
Tutors (volunteers)
9 Americorps coord
Tutors (volunteers)
Teachers/
8Americorps coord
Tutors (volunteers)
Teachers/Principals
District wide Coord
School based Coord

36. Leadership team
30 members
2 or 3 times a year
Elementary
School Coord..
High School
Coord.Middle School
Coord.

37. Leadership team
30 members
2 or 3 times a year
Elementary
School Coord..
High School
Coord.Middle School
Coord.

38. Leadership team
30 members
2 or 3 times a year
Elementary
School Coord..
High School
Coord.Middle School
Coord.
Integrating commissions in the Network

39. Leadership team
30 members
Managerial team
(DW coordinators)
Coordinators
team (SB)

40. Leadership team
30 members
Managerial team
(DW coordinators)
Coordinators
team (SB)
Elementary
School
Commission
High School
Commission
Middle School
Commission

41. Leadership team
30 members
Managerial team
(DW coordinators)
Coordinators
team (SB)
Elementary
School
Commission
High School
Commission
Middle School
Commission
Is that enough??

42. Leadership team
30 members
Managerial team
(DW coordinators)
Coordinators
team (SB)
Elementary
School
Commission
High School
Commission
Middle School
Commission
Any others??
Administrative
...
Research or
Assessment
commission ??