| Course | HLTH 6433 Foundational Leadership in Health Education |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Relational leadership analysis |
| Length | 1,280 words, about 5 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | Ed.S. in Public Health Education |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 6433 Module 3
Nurses, Pediatricians and Pastors: Relational Skills and Trust-Building for a Coordinator Bringing Health Centers Into Two Piedmont Schools
Student Name
American College of Education
HLTH6433: Foundational Leadership in Health Education
Module 3 Assignment
Instructor Name
May 4, 2026
Introduction
Module 2 chose a south side middle school and a north side high school as the first sites for school-based health centers in a composite Piedmont district, run with a community health center partner. The decision was made in public with transparent data, which helps. But a clinic inside a school depends every day on relationships among people who did not choose one another: school nurses, teachers, principals, the partner's clinicians, parents, local pediatricians and faith leaders. This paper analyzes the relationships the coordinator must build, uses a framework of trust to identify what each group needs to see, describes the relational skills involved and explains how the coordinator will know whether trust is growing.
A Framework for Trust
In a multidisciplinary review, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000) defined trust as a readiness to accept vulnerability to someone else based on confidence that the party is benevolent, reliable, competent, honest and open. The five facets are useful because different groups weigh them differently. A school nurse may already believe the coordinator is honest but doubt that the centers will respect her role, a question of benevolence. A pediatrician may doubt the partner's competence or reliability in sharing information. Parents may need openness above all: clear answers about what the centers do and what they tell families. Trust is not built in general; it is built facet by facet with particular people.
School Nurses
The district's school nurses are the relationship most at risk. Several have said privately that they fear the centers will make their positions look unnecessary or turn them into receptionists. Their trust depends on benevolence and competence: they need to see that the coordinator values their work and that the centers will make it more effective. The coordinator will involve the two affected nurses in designing referral workflows, will describe their role in every public presentation and will ask the partner to offer them continuing education. Listening skills matter most here. In early meetings, the coordinator will ask what the nurses see each day and what they wish they could offer, and will reflect their concerns back before proposing anything.
Teachers and Principals
Teachers worry about students leaving class and about one more program in a crowded school day. Principals worry about space, supervision and complaints. For both, reliability is the key facet: they need to see that the centers will follow agreed procedures, such as sending students back with a pass and notifying the office. The coordinator will draft procedures with each principal, share a one-page guide at a staff meeting and ask teachers for feedback after the first month. Framing matters: the centers are presented as a way to keep students in school, which is a goal teachers share, rather than as a health initiative imposed on them.
The Partner's Clinicians
The community health center's nurse practitioner, behavioral health counselor and medical assistant will work in the schools but report to the partner. Relational coordination research finds that cooperation across organizations works best when people hold common aims, understand one another's jobs, respect one another and talk often, promptly and accurately, with problem solving rather than blame in mind (Gittell et al., 2013). The coordinator will hold a joint orientation for clinicians, nurses and counselors, set up a weekly huddle during the first semester and create a single contact list. Early conflicts, such as who calls a parent when a student is seen, will be settled in writing rather than left to habit.
Parents and Families
Parents need openness and honesty. Many have questions about consent, about what services are offered and about what will be shared with them. The coordinator will hold meetings at each school in the evening and on a Saturday, with interpreters for Spanish-speaking families, and will answer questions directly, including difficult ones about confidentiality for older students. A short written guide will explain which services require parental consent, how parents will be informed and what the centers will not do. Two parents from each school will join the steering group, giving families a voice in decisions rather than only information about them.
Local Pediatricians
Two pediatric practices worry that the centers will draw away patients, especially those with Medicaid. Their concern is legitimate and needs negotiation rather than reassurance. Interest-based negotiation separates people from the problem and focuses on underlying interests rather than fixed positions, inventing options that serve both sides (Fisher et al., 2011). The pediatricians' interest is continuity and revenue; the centers' interest is access for students who have no regular care. Options that serve both include referring students who already have a pediatrician back to that practice, sharing visit summaries with consent and reserving the centers' primary care for students without another source of care. A written referral agreement will make these commitments reliable.
Faith Leaders
Several pastors in the south side neighborhood are influential with families and have asked whether the centers will provide contraception or discuss sexuality with students. The coordinator's honesty is at stake: the answer depends on board policy and state law, which Module 4 will address, and the coordinator will say so plainly rather than offering vague assurances. The coordinator will meet with the ministerial alliance, explain the range of services, including physical examinations, asthma care and counseling, and invite pastors to visit the centers once they open. Even where disagreement remains, being open about it preserves trust better than avoiding the subject.
Handling Conflict
Conflict is certain. The coordinator will use three practices. First, surface disagreements early in the steering group rather than managing them in private conversations. Second, distinguish disagreements about facts, which data can settle, from disagreements about values, which require negotiation or a board decision. Third, keep promises small and keep them, since reliability accumulates. When a promise cannot be kept, the coordinator will say so before the deadline, not after.
The Coordinator's Own Habits
Relational skills are practiced daily, not only in planned meetings. The coordinator will return calls and messages within one working day during the launch, since slow replies are read as indifference. Before any presentation, the coordinator will ask who in the room is likely to be skeptical and meet with that person first. In meetings, the coordinator will speak last on contested questions, which invites others to say what they think before the person with the most information frames the answer. After difficult conversations, the coordinator will send a short written summary of what was agreed, so that misunderstandings surface quickly. None of these habits is dramatic, but together they signal reliability and openness, two facets of trust that are easiest to lose and slowest to rebuild.
Checking Whether Trust Is Growing
Trust can be checked. The coordinator will use a short survey of steering group members, nurses, principals and a sample of teachers at the end of each semester, with items adapted to the five facets, and will track practical signs: the number of referrals from nurses and teachers, consent forms returned, complaints received and whether the referral agreement with pediatricians is renewed. Declining scores or referrals in one group will prompt a direct conversation rather than a new program.
Conclusion
The centers will succeed or fail on relationships. By analyzing trust facet by facet for each group, the coordinator can direct effort where it matters: benevolence and competence for nurses, reliability for teachers and principals, shared work routines with clinicians, openness for parents, negotiated interests with pediatricians and honesty with faith leaders. Module 4 turns to the legal and ethical questions that several of these relationships have raised.
References
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin Books.
Gittell, J. H., Godfrey, M., & Thistlethwaite, J. (2013). Interprofessional collaborative practice and relational coordination: Improving healthcare through relationships. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27(3), 210-213. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2012.730564
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547-593. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070004547
What the HLTH 6433 Module 3 instructions ask for
In HLTH 6433, Module 3 usually turns from plans to people. Expect a prompt about the skills that let a leader work with others, listening, communicating, collaborating and handling conflict, and about how trust is earned and kept with each group an initiative needs. Expect to use a framework or research on trust or relationships and to apply it to the people your initiative depends on. Specialist-level work should distinguish between groups rather than describing relationships in general, since each group trusts for different reasons. Continue with the initiative from earlier modules, and consider how you would know whether relationships are improving. Many instructors also ask how you would handle a relationship that breaks down.
How this HLTH 6433 Module 3 example is built
An introduction lists the people who must work together once the centers open. A framework section defines trust and its five facets, drawn from a review that spans several disciplines. Six sections then take one group each, school nurses, teachers and principals, the partner's clinicians, parents, pediatricians and faith leaders, naming the facet of trust most at stake, the specific concern and the actions and skills the coordinator will use. A section on handling conflict sets out three practices, and another explains how trust will be measured through surveys and practical signs. A short section on the coordinator's daily habits shows how trust is maintained between meetings, and the conclusion summarizes the facet-by-facet approach.
Reading the HLTH 6433 Module 3 rubric
Relational leadership papers are generally graded on the use of a framework, the specificity of the analysis and the practicality of the skills described. Rubrics tend to reward papers that identify distinct stakeholders and their concerns, apply research on trust or collaboration and describe concrete behaviors rather than traits. Handling conflict honestly, including disagreements that cannot be resolved, shows maturity. A plan for checking whether trust is growing adds rigor that most relationship papers lack. Keeping the same initiative as earlier modules, with APA 7 references for the trust, negotiation and teamwork sources, rounds out the paper. Everyday habits, such as prompt replies and written follow-up, make the analysis believable.
HLTH 6433 Module 3 help: mistakes that cost points
Papers on relationships often say a leader should communicate and build trust without saying with whom or how. If you would like help mapping stakeholders, applying a trust framework or describing the skills a situation calls for, a writer can help. Share your initiative, the people involved and the prompt, and the Module 3 analysis a writer prepares will take each relationship in turn and describe what you would actually do. If your course uses a specific model of collaboration or conflict, the analysis will apply it. We can also help you design a short survey to track trust over time and decide what to do if scores fall.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More HLTH 6433 and Ed.S. in Public Health Education sample papers
- HLTH 6433 Module 1: Leadership Approach Analysis
- HLTH 6433 Module 2: Data-Informed Decision Paper
- HLTH 6433 Module 4: Legal and Ethical Analysis
- HLTH 6433 Module 5: Leading Change and Collaboration
- HLTH 6433 Module 6: Leadership Action Plan
- HLTH 6403 Module 2: Theory Application
- HLTH 6483 Module 5: Community Program Evaluation
- HLTH 6473 Module 3: Grant and Fundraising Strategy
- HLTH 6483 Module 1: Epidemiological Data Analysis
HLTH 6433 Module 3 questions, answered
What does HLTH6433 Module 3 usually ask for?
In HLTH6433, Module 3 generally centers on relational skills: how a health education leader listens, negotiates and builds trust with the people an initiative depends on.
What are the five facets of trust?
In Tschannen-Moran and Hoy's review, trust rests on perceptions that the other party is benevolent, reliable, competent, honest and open.
What is interest-based negotiation?
An approach that focuses on the interests behind each side's position and looks for options that meet both sides' interests, rather than bargaining over fixed positions.
Where can I find a free HLTH 6433 Module 3 sample paper?
You can read the full Module 3 paper here: how a coordinator builds trust with nurses, teachers, clinicians, parents, pediatricians and pastors to open two school health centers.
How can a leader measure trust?
Short surveys with items on each facet of trust, combined with practical signs such as referrals, participation and complaints, can show whether trust is growing.