This paper draws from a chapter in a book that has recently been accepted for publication (Otrel-Cass, Laing & Wolf, 2022) containing transdisciplinary international contributions that examine the nature of partnerships in education and the possible and actual risks that arise for individuals or organisations. Our paper introduces a partnership model from the UK, developed by the authors in collaboration with others, to tackle the effects of poverty for children in the North East of England. Inspired by the learning emerging from the Harlem Children’s Zone in the US (Dyson et al., 2012; Dyson & Kerr, 2013), and Extended Services pilots in the UK ((Pearson et al., 2007; Cummings et al., 2011; Carpenter et al., 2011) new forms of place-based strategies have begun to emerge in the UK for tackling disadvantage and the associated educational effects. These strategies take many forms but are developed locally in response to local challenges, involve schools and prioritise long-term collaborative partnerships. One such model is known as a Children’s Community in the UK. This model of partnership aims to overcome educational disadvantages by supporting families ‘from cradle to career’, involving partners across all sectors of family life, including health, education, local government, the cultural sector, charities and others. By working in partnership in this way, organisations aim to create a ‘tipping point’ at which the effects of poverty can be challenged effectively and outcomes for children are improved.

This paper describes the development of the West End Children’s Community, in the inner west area of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in Northern England, which has been led by a partnership (Trust) of 8 primary schools, and researchers from a local university. They have worked with local government, health services, local charities and the cultural sector to form a steering group which is driving the partnership to develop a vision for all children in the area, a robust long-term strategy for tackling disadvantage, and an effective set of actions. Our paper draws on the development of this collaborative model as a case study within which to highlight the learning that has emerged from working in partnership. It describes our progress as a partnership, the challenges that we have faced, and the solutions we have implemented, and analyses the risks inherent in the partnership that we were confronted with throughout the process.

Freire (1970) is used as a framework for understanding the development of the partnership. Freire highlights the transformatory power of true dialogue. He posits that true dialogue encompasses both reflection and action, in other words that critical thinking is essential otherwise people risk taking action without realising what those actions really mean. Critical thinking can be more difficult in the current climate of a high stakes, market-driven educational culture (Giroux, 2015). Dialogue has been a feature of our partnership from the very beginning, and yet we found that this was often not quite enough to keep partners engaged, and that we had to do something quite quickly to provide a focus for the dialogue, critical thinking and reflection.

The paper positions the West End Children’s Community (WECC) as a case study of a particular approach in situ, steeped in the histories, geographies, culture, practices and lived experience of a community in Northern England and bound by the structures, processes and policies being enacted by those with decision-making power. There is no standard methodological approach for evaluating progress and no single method that can fully address each of the complex dimensions (Bamberger et al., 2016). Instead, we have been active participants in the development of the WECC and chosen to take a grounded, somewhat ethnographical approach to documenting the process of development. The process is somewhat akin to a Participatory Action Research approach and draws strongly on community development approaches to co-producing research recently described by Banks et al. (2019). Our role has been varied in respect of research, therefore, and has included: observing the process as active participants; encouraging reflective dialogue; acting as critical friend; undertaking bespoke evaluations of particular initiatives; and developing evaluation capacity in partners to support a culture of evidence gathering. We have been guided throughout our involvement in the development of the WECC by several broad research questions: 1. What can we learn about multi-strand doubly holistic area-based initiatives to tackle the impact of socio-economic disadvantage on children and families, by working with the community and with key organisations to set up a children’s community? 2. What can we understand about the role of the university in co-production as relationship building over time? What can we learn about how the university works with local communities? 3. Can a children’s community be developed by building on existing networks and structures, and if so, how? What are the barriers and how can they be overcome? All three research questions incite the study of partnership and the risks and opportunities it engenders. This paper draws upon our observations, notes, and reports and reflective dialogue with partners and offers examples of practice in the development of the West End Children’s Community to explore the nature of the partnership and the risks that have emerged.

The paper discusses several key features that characterise the WECC partnership and that help us to work in line with our principles and towards our vision of tackling poverty. However, this kind of partnership is not unproblematic and we have found working in this way exceedingly difficult at times. Some of the issues we have struggled with are deciding on the form our partnership should take, maintaining a shared understanding of the function of our partnership, and, for the university partners, understanding and communicating our role within the partnership. We have been challenged to question and reflect much more on the assumptions we make about children and families in poverty and how we involve them in meaningful partnership and how we are ‘making the pedagogical more political’ (Giroux 2011, p. 135) which is a risk in itself as it poses a challenge to the existing role of schools, universities and their wider partnerships to change and adapt to what communities need. Our conclusions form important messages for the development of such Children’s Communities or Zones across Europe and beyond.

Banks, S., Hart, A., Pahl, K., & Ward, P. (eds) (2019). Co-producing research: A community development approach. Bristol: Policy Press. Carpenter, H., Cummings, C., Dyson, A., Jones, L., Kassam, N., Laing, K., Muijs, D., Papps, I., Peters, M. & Todd, L. (2011). Extended services in practice: A summary of evaluation evidence for Headteachers. London: Department for Education. Cummings, C., Dyson, A., & Todd, L. (2011). Beyond the School Gates: Can full service and extended schools overcome disadvantage? London: Routledge. Dyson, A. & Kerr, K. (2013). Developing children’s zones for England: What’s the evidence? London: Save the Children. Freire, P. (2001/1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: The Continuum Publishing Company. Giroux, H.A. (2015). Education and the crisis of public values: Challenging the assault on teachers, students and public education. New York: Peter Lang. Martin, D. (2016). Whatever happened to extended schools? The story of an ambitious education project. London: UCL IOE Press. Pearson, D., Dyson, D., Muijs, R., Cummings, C., Tiplady, L., Todd, L., Papps, I., Raffo, C., & Crowther, D. (2007). Evaluation of the Full Service Extended Schools Initiative: Final Report. Nottingham: (DfES) Department for Education and Skills.