A Framework for Physical Activity Programs Within School–Community Partnerships

Abstract

School-community partnerships have shown their potential as incubators for innovations and for contributing to comprehensive physical activity (PA) programs. However, implementation frameworks for school-community partnerships that allow local tailoring of PA programs remain scarce. The present paper aims at documenting the composition of a framework for PA programs within schoolcommunity partnerships. The framework addresses socioecological strategies to promote extracurricular PA opportunities for pupils, which are integrated into five complementary components. To implement and reinforce the five components of the framework, involvement of schools, pupils, family, and community is facilitated by sustainable partnerships between these stakeholders. Partnerships are not only recommended on the school and community level, but also on a broader regional level that covers multiple communities. The development of the framework was an effort to integrate school-community partnerships into a flexible implementation framework for PA promotion. Implications of the framework for research agendas, professional education, and policy are formulated.

The Association Between Socio‐Ecological Factors and Having an After‐School Physical Activity Program

“…In elementary schools, agreements with the community about the use of school facilities were positively associated with having an after‐school program. This finding supports the recommendation in literature to share school facilities with community organizations to create win‐win situations and reinforce after‐school PA programs 9,27 …”

“…In elementary schools the establishment of a PA working group showed the strongest association, while in secondary schools this was the case for the appointment of a remunerated coordinator. These findings support guidelines formulated by recent socio‐ecological frameworks for school‐based PA and health programs 9,22 . Both frameworks consider a coordinator and working group as essential school structures for the effective functioning of a PA or health program.…”

“…The fact that human resources were not associated with having an after‐school PA program in secondary schools may be due to (older) adolescents' increased ability to commute independently between school and the community 28 . This ability of adolescents may allow secondary schools to have joint programs with partner organizations, which may reduce indispensability of own human and physical resources 9 …”

“…On the personal level, elementary and secondary schools reporting more knowledge about community schools were more likely to have an after‐school PA program. Although community school features serve a broader cause than health promotion only, several studies argue that these may serve as incubators for innovations in PA promotion 9,33 . Key features of community schools include maximizing pupils' participation and learning opportunities; partnerships within schools and with the community; and a child‐centered approach with an integrated view on academics, services, and opportunities 34–37…”

“… ¶ Sports and PA leaders represent a pilot project funded by the Flemish government (since 2001) in which PE teachers' teaching hours are reduced by half and are replaced by other qualified PE teachers, creating more time to facilitate extracurricular PA opportunities for pupils in an entire region 9,25 …”