Community Education:
Friend or Foe?

by Nick DiGrino

Dr. DiGrino is Assistant Professor of Recreation and Park Administration at Western Illinois University. He also maintains the position of Practicum and Internship Coordinator. Before attending Texas A & M University in 1974 to pursue a Ph.D., he held the position of Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Eastlake, Ohio. Dr. DiGrino has been professionally active in IPRA and NRPA, and was recently elected to the Illinois Community Education Association board for a second term.

Community Education in Illinois has paralleled the evolving success of the movement at the national level. Just as the National Recreation and Park Association positively influenced federally sponsored Community Education legislation, so too have conscientious recreation and park professionals monitored and at times opposed Community Education legislation at the state level. Currently, proposed Community Education legislation does not appear to conflict with the broad concerns of leisure service agencies.

Most recreation and park professionals comfortably identify with the Community Education concept and its holistic approach to delivery of human services. Unfortunately, few models exist which exemplify the three major components: agency coordination, community involvement in decision making, and personal enrichment/development programs. A tendency basic to all organizations is to take actions to maintain or increase the autonomy, security, and prestige of the organization. School districts, guilty of selecting only the community education components that will directly benefit their organization, are behaving in an organizationally predictable manner, but are not adhering to the concept of Community Education.

Are there minimal components at the local level that a Community Education project should include before other local organizations and the general public recognize it as" Community Education"? Yes, but since the concept is process oriented, commitment and genuine efforts to establish the components are what should be recognized and measured. Such an approach calls for encouragement by the school district (or other initiating agency) of various agencies and organizations to take an active role in development of the project. Absence of such encouragement is indicative of meager commitment usually accompanied by ulterior motives.

Unfortunately, many school district projects billed as Community Education are limited to a series of leisure oriented programs. In many cases these programs are in direct competition with public recreation and park agencies, YMCA's, and other leisure service organizations. Some leisure service agencies have had long standing school facility use agreements terminated, with the school district rendering the same services in a less effective manner. Such action violates the concept of Community Education which calls for the coordinating agency to serve as a catalyst to other agencies and organizations in maximizing community services. School districts should be involved in the direct delivery of leisure services only when the resources of other agencies and organizations have been exhausted, or when unresolved philosophical differences exist relative to quality or selection of programs and services provided. A goal of the Community Education process should be to transfer responsibility for direct delivery of services to appropriate organizations and agencies, while assisting the public in identification of additional service voids that can ultimately be filled by the most appropriate organization.

The school district that initiates Community Education with an unselfish approach to direct provision of enrichment/development programs deserves full support from local agency administrators including recreation and park professionals. It should also receive assistance from patient community leaders in the development of process related goals such as development of community involvement mechanisms and interagency coordinating councils. The rewards associated with these components are far reaching considering the fiscal dilemmas experienced by many agencies and the disillusionment of most people who view themselves as "victims" of the system rather than part of the cure.

What are signs of a school district's disinterest in practicing true Community Education? The recreation and park administrator has reason for skepticism if the sponsoring agency fails to inform him of project intentions well before it becomes a reality. Similarly, other agencies and organizations should be notified and requested to channel human, facility, or fiscal resources through the coordinated effort. Selective notification is usually an indicator of a desire to eliminate organizational conflict rather than encourage full involvement by all interested parties. Overnight interest among school officials with a history of noncooperative behavior is sometimes the result of an unusually persuasive Community Education advocate, but is probably due to the expected receipt of state or federal funding. Community Education projects financed by outside sources usually dry up soon after the funding is discontinued.

Sincere and unselfish agency representatives, with compatible organizational policies and goals can spell success for any Community Education project. The recreation and park professional, realizing that such is rarely the case, must be prepared to force the issue and be prepared to articulate the true definition of Community Education while negotiating a major role as a key member of the human services team. Familiarity with Community Education developments at the state and national levels, in addition to understanding the concept, is a must for community recreation and park practitioners. We must grasp the concept with open arms while approaching local situations identified as Community Education with an open mind.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 11 November/December 1980