In 2017 the City of Vienna introduced educational neighbourhoods, the so-called Bildungsgrätzl (BG) as a policy strategy to enhance the intensity of collaboration between local education-relevant institutions. It is claimed that schools, kindergartens, out-of-school institutions like libraries, youth centers, music schools, and adult education centers in the local area of a district should work together to promote institutional opportunities to act in favor of children, students, teachers, and people living in the district (CoV, 2024). As part of a broader urban development strategy (SCWR, 2019) the initiative of BG is also linked to the global sustainable development goals of the UN Agenda 2030 (United Nations, 2015). It foresees sustaining district-based educational management through sharing resources among institutions, which is associated with socio-ecological benefits for all (young) people in the neighbourhood (Authors et al., 2024). In particular, positive effects on common living conditions are associated with the policy initiative (Müller, 2020). For this purpose, creating “lifeworld-oriented learning spaces” (SCWR, 2019) in a wide variety of places is described as BG aims. According to the City of Vienna (CoV, 2024), each BG is autonomous in choosing its learning offers but should consider the priorities of collaborating institutions and children's needs, interests, and potentials. Against this backdrop, 34 active BG in Vienna set up activities around core themes, like children and human rights, health, transitions, participation, space as a third pedagogue, intergenerational learning, sustainability, violence prevention, media education, etc. (CoV, 2024). The offers are primarily aimed at children and young people, e.g. exchange events between institutions and learning support, at parents and guardians, e.g. workshops and further training, as well as at teachers and educators, e.g. networking and training programs. However, the offerings depend on the willingness of the parties involved (including stakeholders, school management, teachers, etc.) to carry out BG work despite time and personnel limitations, since they are not mandatory. Special attention is drawn to the structural difficulties (selective education system) in achieving the BG principles (e.g. inclusion, participation, openness), which have been at odds with the efforts in the BG (Schrott & Lener, 2020). However, studies have shown that the success of collaborative networking endeavours cannot be derived from their mere existence but depends heavily on their functionality (Chapman & Muijs, 2014) and supporting structures (e.g. sociopolitical landscape) within the wider educational system (Armstrong & Ainscow, 2018). Indeed, pooling resources, knowledge transfer, joint activities, and an orientation towards common goals with a focus on all students’ participation in the region have been described as pivotal aspects of functioning collaborations (Brauckmann et al., 2018). In addition, sharing responsibilities between institutions, by planning joint activities, may contribute to the visibility and value of formal education in the neighbourhood (Locatelli, 2024; Riley, 2013). Furthermore, the connection between the local context of learning and living has been addressed as promoting a sense of place and belonging (Yemini et al., 2023). Still, these expectations are highly relational to the local contexts and policy translations. The international literature concerning educational neighbourhoods is particularly not extensive and reflects a variety of local influences. It is frequently presented through case studies, as is the case in this paper. Often, these case studies place significant emphasis on the role of schools (Locatelli, 2024; Yemini et al., 2023), such as the case of BG. Given these discourses on institutional collaboration and community learning, this paper underscores the case of the City of Vienna. Using qualitative data of key actors, the paper provides insights into collaborative activities between and beyond educational institutions as a means to enhance community learning. 

This article describes the joint activities of educational institutions based on the education policy introduced by the City of Vienna and critically examines the extent to which they can contribute to community learning. In comparison with international literature, similarities and differences in the potential and limits of community learning are discussed on the basis of empirical material. Access to the participants (n=17) was ensured through an ongoing project called “Anonymized for Review”. Semi-structured interviews according to Bogner et al. (2014) were conducted and analyzed according to the criteria of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The sample comprised eight stakeholders, five school principals of primary and secondary education, and four leaders of informal institutions, including those in adult education, social work, and environmental organizations. Following the methodological framework of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), the transcripts were coded initially after a systematic process of data familiarization. Meaningful segments regarding the research questions (e.g. What joint activities are mentioned by the key informants? How are these related to community learning?) were identified and ascribed descriptive codes. These codes (e.g. single joint activities were identified in BG) were organized into categories that have similar content (e.g. similar joint activities in other BG). In this process, key themes emerged, providing insights into different joint activities in- or outside institutions in the BG (e.g. Health literacy, Spanish, Sustainability, Children's rights, Peace education, Digitalization, Transition).

The primary focus of this study is to evaluate the perspectives of stakeholders, school principals, and informal leaders who shape and negotiate educational neighbourhoods as so-called Bildungsgrätzl (BG) at the local level in Vienna, involving families and schools in the socio-educational development of the community. As the number of BG foundations has steadily increased since the initiative’s introduction, this study provides a clear insight into the complexity of the local context, critically discussing the joint activities between and beyond educational institutions as a means to enhance community learning. The contribution suggests a mapping for an understanding of which factors shape these relationships in an educational environment. Throughout it posits crucial questioning on the potential and limits of the activities in BG in comparison to international findings. Thus, the case of Vienna and the translation of BG into practice is an interesting starting point to elaborate on broader questions on community learning such as: How can educational research best support the charting of the way forward in terms of school-community relationships? How might collaborative relationships between families and schools be created based on current realities and future hopes?

Authors et al. (2024) Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587 Armstrong, P. W., & Ainscow, M. (2018). School-to-school support within a competitive education system: views from the inside. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(4), 614–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1499534 Baldridge, B. J. (2023). Community-based education. In International Encyclopedia of Education (4th ed., pp. 297–300). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.08047-7 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2014). Interviews mit Experten: Eine praxisorientierte Einführung. Lehrbuch. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19416-5 Brauckmann, S., Lassnigg, L., Altrichter, H., Juranek, M., & Tegge, D. (2018). Zur Einführung von Schulclustern im österreichischen Bildungssystem – theoretische und praktische Implikationen. In Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung (Eds.), Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2018 (pp. 363–402). BMBWF. Chapman, C., & Muijs, D. (2014). Does school-to-school collaboration promote school improvement? A study of the impact of school federations on student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(3), 351–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2013.840319 CoV, City of Vienna. (2024). Wiener Bildungsgrätzl. Stadt Wien. https://www.wien.gv.at/bildung/schulen/bildungsgraetzl Locatelli, R. (2024). Community educational pacts in Italy: an interpretation of UNESCO’s new social contract for education? Journal of Education Policy, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2024.2351518 Müller, G. (2020). Bildungsgrätzl. Der Wiener Weg zu einem stadtteilbezogenen Bildungsmanagement. Schulheft, 179, 91–95. Riley, K. A. (2013). Walking the leadership tightrope: building community cohesiveness and social capital in schools in highly disadvantaged urban communities. British Educational Research Journal, 39(2), 266–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2012.658021 Schrott, S., & Lener, G. (2020). Das Bildungsgrätzl LeoMitte…ein Seiltanzakt zwischen Vision und (Struktur)beton… Schulheft, 179, 96–114. SCWR. (2019). Smart City Wien Rahmenstrategie 2019–2050. Stadt Wien. https://www.wien.gv.at/stadtentwicklung/studien/pdf/b008551.pdf United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. UN Press. Yemini, M., Engel, L., & Ben Simon, A. (2023). Place-based education – a systematic review of literature. Educational Review, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2023.2177260