Co-constructing community, school and university partnerships for urban school transformation

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

CO-CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY, SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY

PARTNERSHIPS

FOR URBAN SCHOOL TRANSFORMATION

by

Joshua Joseph Watson

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Joshua Joseph Watson
i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I first want to thank the Chair of the dissertation team, Dr. Sylvia Rousseau, who
brilliantly led the team throughout this process. Additionally, Dr. Anthony Maddox and
Dr. David Marsh brought invaluable comment and critique to this work as part of the
dissertation committee. I also want to thank each of the members of the dissertation team
who gave insight that helped shape this journey: Corina Espinoza, Jamila Gillenwaters,
Jeff Kim, Laura Hernandez, Michelle Avila, Michelle Rainey-Woods, Nina Woolridge,
Phaidra Crayton and Stephanie Kim.
There have been many co-workers that have offered their support throughout this
degree program, from the Office of Residential Education and the Office of Student
Judicial Affairs and Community Standards at the University of Southern California. I
especially thank my supervisors, Christopher Zacharda and Dr. Raquel Torres-Retana,
Faculty Master Stan Rosen and the teams of Residential Advisors at New Residential
College.
There are also many family and friends I would like to acknowledge. My parents,
John and Peggy, have been supportive throughout my educational career. I also
appreciate the encouragement I have received from my siblings Jim, John, Molly and
Jordan, along with their spouses Sheryl, Lori and Brian. The friends that make up my
family away from home have been a significant and positive influence. Residing in
neighborhoods across the country, and locally ranging from the South Bay to the Valley,
I appreciate all of their support. I especially thank Liz Jordan for her continual
encouragement and Hernando Bansuelo for his willingness to go the distance.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………………………...…………………..i

LIST OF TABLES ……...……....…………………………………………………….….iv

LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………….…v

ABSTRACT.……………………………………………………………………………..vi

CHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEM AND UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK ………………..1
Co-construction ........................................................................................…...........1
Dialogical Relationships ...………………………………………………..............4
Mutual Learning ……………..………...……………………………….…………5
Barriers to Success ...………………………………………………….…..............6
Strategies to Combat Barriers …………………...…………..................................7
Critical Bridge Person as a Strategy………………………………………............7
Potential Attributes …….……………………………………….………………...9
Statement of the Problem ...…………………………………………….…............9
Purpose ...………………………………………………………………..….........10
Research Questions …..………………………………….………………………11
Significance of the Problem………………………………………..…………….11
Limitations ………………………………………………………………………12
Definitions …………………………………………………………………….....13

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...……………………….……...........17
Literature Review …..………………………………………………….…...........17
Co-construction ……………………………………………………………..…...19
Review of Partnership Examples ……………...……...…………………............19
Dialogical Relationships …………………………………...…….……………...25
Mutual Learning ..………………………………………………………………..26
Barriers to a Successful University, School and Community Partnership ....…....27
Strategies for Overcoming Barriers to Success ……………………………..…..31
Critical Bridge Persons ………………………………………………….............34
Key Characteristics of Critical Bridge Persons ...…...………………..…………35
Attributes of a Successful Community, School and University Partnership …....37
Summary………………………………………………………….………...……38

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……………………………………...…40
Research Questions ...……………………………………………………………40
Problem ………...…………………………...…………………………………...41
Unit of Analysis …………………………………………….…………………...42
Theoretical Framework ...………….…………………………………………….43

iii

Justification for Qualitative Methods ……………………………………………44
Research Design …………………………………………………………………44
Limitations of the Study …………...………………………….............................50
Researcher’s Subjectivity ………………………………………………………..50
Summary ………………………………………………………………………...51

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS .............…………………...…………………………........…52
Research Questions ………………………………...……………………………53
Setting/Context ……………..………………………………………………...…54
Findings …………….…………………………………………………………...57
Co-Construction .….....…………………………………………………………..58
Dialogue ……...……………...…………………………………………………..62
Mutual Learning ...………………………...…………………………………..…68
Persistent Barriers ...………....……………………………...……..…………….73
Effective Strategies ………….....……………………………………………......86
Critical Bridge Persons ...………………………………………………………..95
Attributes ...………………………………………………………………...…...102
Summary ………...……………………………………………………………..106

CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ……...…...……………….…………107
Observations ………………….………………………………………………..107
Conclusions …...………...……………………………………………………...112
Recommendations ………...…………………………...………………….……117
Limitations …………......………………………………………………...…….119
Summary …………...…………………………………………………...……...120

REFERENCES….….…………………………………………………………………..121

APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………………127
APPENDIX A: Administrative Interview Protocol ….….....………………………….127
APPENDIX B: Teacher Interview Protocol ……………....…………………………..130
APPENDIX C: Classified Personnel Interview Protocol ………….……………….....133
APPENDIX D: Parent Interview Protocol ...…………………………………..………136
APPENDIX E: Community Based Organization Interview Protocol .............………...139
APPENDIX F: University Stakeholder Protocol ………….………………...………...142
APPENDIX G: School Environment Observation Protocol ………..…..……………..144
APPENDIX H: Meeting Observation Protocol ...............……………………………..145
APPENDIX I: Data Sources ……….………………………………………………….146

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Theoretical Framework …………...………………………………………….43

Table 4.1: List of Pseudonyms ………………...………………………………………...57

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1: Co-construction Process …………………………………………………….58

Figure 4.2: Barriers to Co-construction ……………………………………………...….72

Figure 4.3: Strategies to Combat Barriers …………………………………………….....86

vi

ABSTRACT

Many of our urban K-12 neighborhood schools are characterized by hierarchical
relationships and inequities in power. Co-constructed relationships among communities,
schools, and universities have the potential for redistributing power, thus enabling all
partners to contribute to the quality of education in urban communities. This study
focused on the unit of analysis of a particular community, school and university
partnership brought together in the goal of transforming an urban neighborhood high
school. Utilizing the theoretical framework of Freire (2003), including his theories of
dialogue and praxis, the process of co-construction was analyzed. Additionally, the study
identifies the barriers that stand in the way of success for such a partnership, the
strategies to help alleviate these barriers, as well as attributes resulting from the process.
Through the development of a process of co-construction, which includes
dialogue and mutual learning, these partnerships have the potential to transform urban
schools.

1

CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK

Background of the Problem

It has been over 50 years since the Supreme Court Case Brown v. Board of
Education, outlawing segregation in our nation’s schools. However, many of America’s
urban school districts are just as segregated as before this landmark case (Valencia,
Menchaca & Donato, 2002). Many of our urban public schools that typically serve
higher percentages of minority students fall far behind in student achievement outcomes
when compared to students at some private schools or public schools in more affluent
areas. A result is lowered expectations and missed opportunities for higher education and
the jobs that accompany such attainment. America’s educational systems need to react
with the necessary changes to our urban schools, or minority students “are likely to be
trapped in a cycle of limited job opportunities and low wage work” (Latino Score Card,
2006).

Co-construction
Co-constructed relationships among communities, schools, and universities have
the potential for redistributing power, thus enabling all partners to contribute to the
quality of education in urban communities. Benson et al. (2000) remind us that “no
problem that really matters (i.e. poor schooling) can be solved and understood without
academics and practitioners working closely together to solve it” (p. 24). Partnerships
between some combination of community agencies, schools and universities have been
2

one answer to the debate over how to increase achievement outcomes for our urban
students. Although this recommendation is found in the literature, a triadic partnership
between all three entities seems to be rarely found in practice. John Dewey, theorist and
philosopher, who popularized the notion of the community school, “never identified
universities as a key source of broadly based community schools” (Benson & Harkavy,
1997). As schools are made a part of the partnering process and able to suggest strategies
of working alongside other stakeholder groups, “the result is improved learning for all
students and strengthened schools, families and communities” (Caplan, 1998, p. 1). The
community and the many stakeholder partners it represents is another integral voice
needed at the table. The Highlander Center, which trains community members to be
activist leaders, is an example of an organization that encourages participation from the
community in addressing societal ills. “The answers to the problems facing society lie in
the experiences of ordinary people (and) those are the keys to grassroots power”
(Obtained on July 14
th
, 2008 from The Highlander Center website
http://www.highlandercenter.org/about.asp). There have been many partnerships formed
among these entities, or some combination thereof, in an attempt to provide solutions to
the problems that our urban schools face. Some have found success where others have
not.
Many scholars have insisted on higher education taking a significant role in
addressing the problems in our urban schools due to their proximity and availability of
resources (Benson & Harkavy, 2003; Ostrander, 2004; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005). The
university is just one necessary component that makes up these partnerships which have
3

the potential to impact K-12 education. The public neighborhood school is an entity that
affects every part of a community; therefore, all community members and organizations
have a stake in that entity and have the potential to make contributions to the schools
(Benson, 2000). In order to increase the potential for success, a partnership should bring
stakeholders together to co-construct their relationship. The way in which a partnership
is formed is significant in ensuring an equitable and sustained investment of all partners
early on in the partnership process (Ostrander, 2004). A review of past partnerships and
the various successes and failures that have ensued can be instructive in considering the
potential role of community, school and university partnerships in improving K-12
schools.

Review of Past Partnerships
Suarez-Balcazar (2005) defines a partnership among a community, school and
university as “an explicit written or verbal agreement between a community setting and
an academic unit to engage in a common project or common goal, which is mutually
beneficial for an extended period” (p. 85). A number of partnerships have been
researched for the purpose of gaining insight into their potential benefits. A sampling of
higher education institutions that have been involved include University of
Massachusetts, Loyola University, University of Illinois Chicago, DePaul University,
Chicago State University, Brown University, Portland State University, Bates College,
University of Minnesota, Brigham Young University, and the University of
Pennsylvania.
4

The University of Pennsylvania has found much success throughout the existence
of its campus-community partnership. Beginning with The West Philadelphia
Partnership, created in 1959, continuing through the opening of the University of
Pennsylvania Center for Community Partnerships in 1992, U Penn has worked closely
with the community. The partnership is home to other satellite offices as well that impact
the community. “Porous boundaries” with people “flow(ing) from one place to another”
describe the Penn success (Ostrander, 2004, p. 87). The development of dialogical
relationships among the various partners plays a role in the various degree to which co-
construction of relationships can be successfully achieved.

Dialogical Relationships
Dialogical relationships between the community, school, and university partners
can play a major role in helping partners co-construct new cultural models that empower
all stakeholders to participate in removing the barriers to student achievement common to
many urban schools. Shared, positive dialogue is an essential component to a successful
relationship. When successful, these relationships convert to collective power or social
capital that can be used as a resource to bring about change (Oakes & Rogers, 2006).
Freire (2003) understood that all people are capable of successful dialogical relationships,
no matter the educational background the person is coming from. Often, universities
have thrust programs into communities with little or no discussion, let alone a forum of
equal and open dialogue. The true thinking and understanding of life’s most urgent
problems does not take place in the isolated ivory tower of academia, but rather in
5

dialogical communication with the community (Freire, 2003). Additionally, dialogical
relationships among university, school and community partners require that community
members and school officials be open to the relationship, willing to hear from academia
and respect the knowledge offered. These dialogical relationships do not come easy and
establishing and maintaining them across the divides may be the most challenging
component to the success of the community, school and university partnership
(Ostrander, 2004).

Mutual Learning
Achieving co-construction among a community, school and university partnership
requires mutual learning to take place among all stakeholders involved in the partnership.
Mutual learning, a process in which all entities of the partnership are cognitively and
socially engaged for the purpose of creating a shared body of knowledge, is not often a
typical partnership procedure. Freire (2003) discusses the concept of banking which treats
learners as empty containers ready to sop up information provided by the teacher.
Community members may resist a partnership due to a sense that banking will occur,
with academia suggesting what the community needs to do in order to change without
their input. This does not allow for co-construction, rather it offers a devalued look at
what the learner is bringing to the learning experience. In a co-constructed partnership,
each of the partners learns from each other. Banking may occur in a number of
relationships: teacher to student, teacher to parent, university official to teacher to name a
few. In a co-constructed, dialogical relationship, each of the partners learn from one
6

another with no single partner’s knowledge or experience being valued or utilized at the
expense of another.

Barriers to Success
There are many barriers to successfully creating a co-constructed community,
school and university partnership. In the beginning, a multitude of goals may be
acknowledged, followed by stretching thin community resources, and dissipating time
and energy (Murray & Weissbourd, 2003). Ledoux & McHenry (2008) identified
significant pitfalls associated with partnerships involving universities and schools,
including (but not limited to) partner expectations, the discrepancy between theory and
experience, and dispositional status. In addition, “distrust, differing goals and problem
definition within schools, universities and communities” show up as potential barriers
(Brabeck et al., 2003, p. 2). Schools and the community they represent may not trust the
advice that is being offered from a university. Additionally, a history of relationship
building without co-construction can take a toll on the potential success of the
partnership. The Dean of Bates College remarked that a history of negative labels that
the community had about the college students, as well as negative labels the students had
for the members of the community led to “uneven town-gown relationships” (Carignan,
1998, p. 41). Due to these historic relationships, community members may look toward a
university as unimportant and unengaged. Negative feelings that one partner group has to
portray another partner group could debilitate the potential of a partnership. Aronson
(2008) calls this concept group-think and says it can lead to attitude heuristics, strategies
7

that negatively impact others. Negative attitude heuristics are barriers that may weaken
the partnership foundation.

Strategies to Combat Barriers
Research has suggested effective strategies to combat these potential barriers to
success that come with community, school and university partnerships. Ledoux &
McHenry (2008) suggest that communication allowing a full understanding of a school
culture to stakeholders involved with the partnership is essential to a partnership’s
success Ostrander (2004) found that key to building a successful campus-community
partnership is the willingness on the part of the university to “share power, decision
making, and material resources, with local communities and to actively and consistently
demonstrate this in how the work is organized” (p. 86). Systems of representation that
include various stakeholders are one way to accomplish shared power among the partners
(Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Ostrander, 2004). Developing a culture of sharing from the
beginning of the partnership where relationships among stakeholders are co-constructed
may help lead to a redistribution of power among stakeholders (Ostrander, 2004). For
any degree of success in community, school and university partnerships to occur, critical
bridge persons from one or more of the partners may play a crucial role.

Critical Bridge Person as a Strategy
Critical bridge persons among community, school, and university partners can
facilitate dialogical relationships that contribute to a cultural model of learning within
8

urban communities. These leaders need to be prepared to work across boundaries,
encouraging everyone to come from a place of trust toward one another, and fostering
understanding and equal weight to the various perspectives presented by each side
(McCroskey, 2003). Essential at the outset, critical bridge persons can help to broker
unified goals based on common interests and potentially solidify the partnership for
sometime (Williams, 1988). Ideally, a critical bridge person would actually be a part of
at minimum two of the stakeholder groups, such as a university paid staff member who
also resides in the community involved with the partnership, or is also a parent of a
student at the school involved (Ostrander, 2004). In the situations of both Bates College
and the University of Pennsylvania, a paid university staff member served as a critical
bridge person within the partnership (Ostrander, 2004). Finding out the characteristics of
those people who can successfully navigate a partnership as a critical bridge person is a
key factor for the success of the partnership.
Understanding characteristics of critical bridge persons may contribute to a
stronger university, school and community partnership that enables schools to nurture
students to be active and contributing citizens. These leaders have been known by many
terms but possess common characteristics. The research points to a number of important
characteristics these leaders should possess when participating in these types of
partnerships (Chrispeels & Rivero, 2001; Dryfoos, 2003; Lauria, 1997; McCroskey,
2003). As critical bridge persons aid the partnership in its quest of transforming a K-12
school, particular attributes may emerge as a result.

9

Potential Attributes
Successful community, school and university partnerships coming together
through a process of co-construction may have common attributes. For example, being
characterized by collaborative relationships may be an emerging attribute of a successful
partnership. Lawson (2003) found that successful partnerships needed to be interactive
and consistently collaborative. Aronson (2008) found that changing the environment to
one that encourages cooperation among stakeholders rather than competition for
resources can bring down hostilities among members of the partnership, and help lead to
greater success. In addition, trust among the partners would be an attribute one would
expect from a successful partnership (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002). Finding out the extent
to which certain attributes have emerged from a partnership may help characterize its
current level of success.

Statement of the Problem
The quest for the upper hand in community, school and university partnerships
creates a historically impermeable power struggle that is counter-productive in the pursuit
of educational excellence in urban youth. Relationships within the partnerships that
involve community organizations, urban schools, and universities are often neither co-
constructed nor consistent, thus perpetuating hierarchical relationships rather than
promoting a truly dialogical one. Before the various partners come together there is often
a lack of trust and understanding on the part of the various stakeholders (Brabeck et al.,
2003; Mayfield et al., 1999). Negative thoughts and attitudes may be perpetuated once
10

the partnership ensues if the group does not co-construct the relationship through
meaningful dialogue from the very beginning (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1998). Additionally,
varying weight is given to the value of the knowledge and experience of these partners.
The university and the academia it represents come into the dialogue with power. When
this power is expected by the university and not challenged by the other partners, the
result will likely not be a redistribution of power but rather continued hierarchy
(Ostrander, 2004). Additionally, there is also power in the way people associated with
schools and the community at large may reject the knowledge that the university has to
offer. This knowledge can be seen as too academic and useless to the practical day-to-
day operation of a K-12 urban school, thus stifling the process of mutual learning. As
community, school and university partnerships are formed with various entities making
such power plays against one another, the potential for success becomes lessened. The
answer is not to fit a marginalized people into a structure, it is to transform the structure
all together (Freire, 2003).

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to inform future community, school and university
partnerships looking to impact student achievement at K-12 urban schools. The intent
was to identify successful implementation strategies that could be useful to other such
partnerships. Bringing a community, school and university together in a co-constructed
partnership has the potential to transform a K-12 urban school. The work that this
research sheds light on may prove useful to other similar partnerships in the future.
11

Research Questions
This qualitative study aimed to develop an increased understanding of
community, school and university partnerships aimed at improving urban schools. The
researcher used the following research questions as a means of attaining the in-depth
examination of the partnership identified for this study:
1. What is a process that enables a unique set of community, school, and university
partners to co-construct partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12
schools?
a. What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools, and universities that seek to transform urban
schools?
b. What are the effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming
barriers in co-constructing partnerships among community, schools, and
universities for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban schools?
2. What attributes of a partnership capable of creating a new cultural model in urban
schools, result from the process of co-constructing in a community, school, and
university partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?

Significance of the Problem
This case study adds to the body of research that involves community, school,
university partnerships. It will look at the potential that a different kind of community,
school and university partnership has in reforming urban K-12 schools. These
12

partnerships have the potential for great impact in our urban communities and their role
in the larger society. Reforming our K-12 urban schools has huge social, economic, and
political implications. Eliminating achievement and opportunity gaps in our urban
schools will create a more equitable society, one better prepared to compete in a growing
global market. The current retention and graduation statistics for our urban schools are
dire and in need of significant change. A successful community, school, and university
partnership that takes the best that theory and practice have to offer has the potential to be
that significant change. Significant findings here may be generalized and replicated in
other similar urban settings. Transforming schools may begin with transforming
ourselves and the way in which we come together to begin to carry out the change
process.

Limitations
This case study was conducted during a limited length of time. The research was
conducted during the two months of mid-November, 2008 through mid-January, 2009. It
included research of a select private university, Western Pacific University (WPU), a
select urban public high school, Freedom High School (FHS), and two select community
based organizations, Metropolitan League (ML) and the Civic Engagement Foundation
(CEF), that have come together in a partnership to bring about a transformation in a local
K-12 school. The make-up of the urban area, specifically the types of students and other
stakeholders involved may be factors in the transferability of the qualitative data gathered
through this case study
13

Definitions
The following terms and their definitions are included here for the purposes of
this research study.
Achievement Gap: A term that has come to be commonly used since the enactment of
No Child Left Behind to describe the disparity in positive student outcomes typically
between middle class students and students of color in high poverty urban areas.

Opportunity Gap: A term adopted by those who resist using the term achievement gap to
describe the disparity in student outcomes occurring between historically oppressed
persons due to historic barriers and inequities in school.

Banking: A term derived from Paolo Freire’s seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed
(2003) in which the oppressors attempt to ‘bank’ or ‘deposit’ knowledge into the
oppressed with no regard for the knowledge already possessed by the learner and the
sociocultural context that informs that knowledge. This instrument of oppression is
oftentimes manifested within power relationships.

Community: Traditionally defined as a group of people interacting and living in a
common geographic location. Community is also defined as the shared characteristics,
norms, behaviors, identity and cohesiveness of a group sharing common spaces of
interaction. The ‘community’ in this case study is representative of the aforementioned
definition and has a variety of assets as well as liabilities. However, many of the assets
14

have been untapped. This term may also refer to community based organizations,
families in the community, or to other members of the community.

Co-Construction: Co-constructing is a process to create something new—something that
has not existed before in exactly the same way. Although the concept of partnerships in
general is not new, each partnership has its own unique features. A co-constructed
partnership implies that the partners consciously enter a process for defining the nature of
their relationship and for defining the goal of the partnership.

In this case, a community made up of a community-based civil rights organization (ML)
and a community-based research and service oriented organization (CEF) have joined
with a top-tiered private research university (WPU), and an urban school (FHS), for the
purpose of transforming the school that is a member of the partnership. Co-construction
implies that all participants in the process make a contribution to conceptualizing what
the final goal or product will look like. It also means that all members are willing to
relinquish preconceived notions of what the goal or product is to be.

Critical Bridge Person: An essential member of a community, school and university
partnership who brokers dialogic relationships among the partners. A bridge person may
belong to any one or more of the stakeholder groups involved in the partnership.

15

Cultural Model: Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) broadly define cultural models as the
“shared mental schema or normative understanding of how the world works, or ought to
work” (p. 47).

Dialogical Relationship: The interaction of multiple entities in a context that is bound by
inclusiveness, mutual respect, trust, and the value of the contributions, knowledge and
experiences of others. This type of relationship engages participants horizontally versus
hierarchically and allows the discussants, to articulate their intentions, needs, talents,
capacities, and resources without denigration or domination.

Mutual Learning: A process in which all entities of the partnership are cognitively and
socially engaged for the purpose of creating a shared body of knowledge.

Oppressed: Defined in Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2003) as a people who
are in need of liberation, but must be a part of that liberation. They are in a struggle for
justice, freedom and equality and yet maintain a fear of expressing their own freedom.

Partnership: A convergence of knowledge, resources, and assets from a community, K-12
school, and university co-constructed through dialogic relationships that have the
potential to eradicate historic, social, economic, and political barriers on behalf of urban
school transformation.

16

Power: The potential for effecting influence and change through decision-making
capabilities and resources.

Power Relationship: Hierarchical distribution of social, political, and economic capital
that can result in the status of an oppressor and an oppressed.

Praxis: From Paolo Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2003) in which the actor must
first engage in reflection before he/she commits to action or activism. Oftentimes it is the
crossroads between theory and practice necessary for educational transformations.

Social Capital: The availability of and access to resources and assets within an
environment that serve as highways to improve an individual’s ability to negotiate her
position in the social strata.

Urban: A large, densely populated diverse metropolitan area that face challenges due to
historic barriers, stratified wealth, and power relationships, but have the potential to draw
upon the many untapped and unrecognized assets of the university, school, and
community.

17

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
“Democracy must begin at home, and its home is the neighborly community” (Dewey,
1927, p. 213).

The K-12 urban schools of the United States of America are experiencing a
number of difficult issues in regard to student achievement. The federal government has
placed a higher focus on accountability with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act,
increasing the already growing pressure on our school officials to turn around what many
find to be a dire situation. Urban schools seem to be more segregated today, 50 years
after segregation was outlawed in this country by way of Board v. Board of Education
(Valencia et al., 2002). The schools with the highest levels of minority population, most
often found in our nation’s urban areas, are finding the most difficulty with student and
teacher retention, graduation, and test scores. Many theories have been given to explain
this achievement and/or opportunity gap, as well as strategies to turn the situation around.
To meet these difficult challenges, school officials have increasingly turned to local
agencies and universities to form partnerships (Ledoux & McHenry, 2008). Co-
constructed relationships among communities, schools, and universities have the
potential for redistributing power, thus releasing the potential of all partners to contribute
to the quality of education in urban communities.

Literature Review
As early as the 1920’s, Philosopher John Dewey was writing of the importance of
true democracy in the public arena illustrated by all sectors of society coming together to
18

tackle the prevailing social ills of the time (Oakes & Rogers, 2007). Harkavy et al. (1998)
describes the need to create a living democracy across divisions within our urban centers
as the most pervading challenge of our time. The proposition of a true and living
democracy continues to be important to the success of our nation’s urban schools.

The State of Los Angeles Urban Education
Evidence demonstrates that student academic achievement in urban education is
in distress and in need of innovative solutions. Within the county of Los Angeles, 44% of
Latino students and 56% of African-American students will graduate in four years,
compared to 77% and 87% of their White and Asian counterparts (State of Black Los
Angeles, 2005). In 2002, the overall passing rate for the California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE) was 28% for Black students, 30 % for Latinos 65% for Whites and
70% for Asians (State of Black Los Angeles, 2005). The college preparatory track also
demonstrates an opportunity gap in the way urban students are served by urban schools,
as 28% and 32% of Latino and Black graduates from high school took a college
preparatory curriculum, compared to 43% of Whites and 62% of Asians (State of Black
Los Angeles, 2005). This crisis is further illustrated in the 2004 admission rates to the
University of California and California State higher education systems: 26% for Latinos
and 31% for African-Americans, compared to 43% and 57% for White and Asian
students (Latino Score Card, 2006). It is clear that changes are needed in our nation’s
urban schools. Bringing together stakeholders from a community, school and a
university in a co-constructed partnership may begin to address this situation.
19

Co-construction
Co-constructing a relationship is a process in which people come together to
create a new shared culture where power is distributed. It is important that partnerships
that include stakeholders from the community, school and university be founded in co-
constructed relationships. It has been argued that our urban educational problems can
only be solved with a coming together of academics and practitioners from within the
community, in a mutually beneficial partnership (Benson et al., 2000). According to
Basinger (1998), Donald N. Langenberg, Chancellor of the University System of
Maryland, said this about working alongside schools:
We have come to believe strongly, and elementary and secondary schools have
come to believe, that they cannot reform without us…This is not telling them how
to do it, but both of us working together to fix what’s wrong with our education
systems (p. A28).

If formed out of mutual respect for each partner, these partnerships could be the central
strategy for improving educational systems from elementary school through the college
years (Benson & Harkavy, 2003). Reviewing the success and failures of past
partnerships may prove instructive in the considerations for the future role of university,
school and community partnerships formed on behalf of today’s schools.
Review of Partnership Examples
The research includes various examples of partnerships involving some
combination of a community, K-12 school and university. Suarez-Balcazar et al. (2005)
defines such a partnership as an explicit agreement between a university, school and
community organization to engage in a common, mutually beneficial goal. This study
20

focuses on this kind of partnership for the benefit of a K-12 urban school. A number of
examples of university collaboration with a school or community organization in an
urban setting is found in the literature. The Massachusetts Coalition of School
Improvement is a partnership between elementary and secondary schools with the
University of Massachusetts. The university-school coalition has demonstrated how
bringing together various stakeholders to discuss problems and solutions can be “an
invigorating and empowering process” (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988, p. 99). The Coalition
succeeded in broadening the notion of research to include contributions from
stakeholders outside of academia, including community members, teachers and
administrators (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988).
Another example of a university-community partnership was formed in Illinois.
At the University of Illinois Chicago in the late 1990s, a neighborhood initiative was
created to increase employment prospects for local community members. However, the
“project produced meager results because of the legal and bureaucratic complexity of
university policies” (Mayfield & Lucas, 2000, p. 173). The university implemented some
changes, namely working more closely with community groups and giving them a seat at
the table to “shape research, teaching and service projects” (Mayfield & Lucas, 2000, p.
173). It was not until reaching out to include community members in the shaping
process that this program got close to finding the results it was looking for; namely, an
enduring process in place for the university to give business and individual contracts to
community businesses and individual citizens (Mayfield & Lucas, 2000).

21

Academics from Loyola University, University of Illinois Chicago, DePaul
University, and Chicago State University joined forces to create the Policy Research
Action Group (PRAG). This partnership involving several universities and community
members is similar to the University of Massachusetts case. When the group was first
formed to impact local school outcomes, a new kind of conference was sponsored that
invited community members to submit papers alongside other academics which
demonstrated ideas on answering problems in urban education (Mayfield et al., 1999).
This is an example of capacity building: “community participants learn specific research
skills, and academics learn to put a face on their work” (Mayfield et al., 1999, p. 873).
Through inclusion of community members and their ideas, the partnership began to see
successful implementation of its goals.
Ongoing collaborative organizations have since been formed at University of
Illinois Chicago’s Neighborhoods Initiative (UICNI) and Loyola University Chicago’s
Center for Urban Research and Learning (CURL). While UICNI’s community objectives
were not ultimately obtained, the case points to real mutual benefits to those involved in
the partnership (Mayfield & Lucas, 2000). Partners came to understand the level of
commitment needed to effect change, specifically the requirement of sustained
commitment from those involved (Mayfield & Lucas, 2000). Mayfield (1999) and her
colleagues identified nine lessons learned from the partnerships in Chicago that could
help other urban areas in developing their own university, school, and/or community
partnerships. The lessons that could help in guiding others to similar successes include
making partnerships “responses to jointly perceived needs that develop useful knowledge
22

and skills within the community,” and organizations that are “refined by an ongoing
conversation among partners and participants about the goals, objectives, and
implementation before and during” the partnership (Mayfield et al., 1999, p. 873).
The Center for Community Partnerships of the University of Pennsylvania was
founded on the notion that an American university and all that it has to offer can be a
positive source for change when it comes to urban education (Benson et al., 2000). In
creating this Center, Penn has demonstrated the ability to foster community schools that
serve as focal points in creating healthy urban environments (Benson & Harkavy, 2003).
Part of its success is due to the West Philadelphia Improvement Corps (WEPIC), which
serves as an “independent, neighborhood-based, public-school-centered entity and
functions as a mediating structure for on-site delivery of academic resources (Ostrander,
2004, p. 87).
In a comparative study of five university campuses, Ostrander (2004) looked at
each of the schools’ role in developing partnerships with the community. Brown
University, Portland State University, Bates College, University of Minnesota, and
University of Pennsylvania each developed community-university partnerships that had
some level of success. The study’s key findings demonstrate how new structures, such as
partner relationships, within the organizations can link the university and community in
order to share resources and power (Ostrander, 2004). The degree to which faculty and
students’ “engage with issues and questions that people in communities off campus name
as important” will help to bring about a “true partnership” (Ostrander, 2004, p. 77). The
priorities deemed important by the community need to be part of the conversation.
23

Important to success at both the Universities of Minnesota and Pennsylvania was creating
knowledge guided from civic engagement. Scholars at these schools focused on
developing ways of practicing civic “engagement as a way to address pressing issues and
expand democracy in their own cities and around the world” (Ostrander, 2004, p. 82).
This study points to success stemming from a partnership’s ability to create new
organizational structures for successful community-university relationships (Ostrander,
2004).
Giving schools and their representatives a voice in the partnership process is a key
to success. Teaching to Change LA is a partnership program with the University of
California at Los Angeles and public school teachers that empowers teachers through
inquiry. Through participatory social inquiry teachers come together to reflect on the
problems at their respective schools and collaborate to find solutions (Oakes & Rogers,
2006). Oakes & Rogers (2006) led a facilitation of teacher groups that “enabled the
teachers to recognize patterns of inequality or inadequacy across schools and the larger
policies and structures” that led to the patterns (p. 76). Through co-construction of
transformative goals these teachers went back to their respective schools to work on
enacting change (Oakes & Rogers, 2006).
As teachers come back to schools with certain goals, a new level of co-
construction with family and community members may aid in the implementation of
transformation. When schools co-construct the relationship with families, and work
towards a partnership between school and home in the education of their children, “the
result is an increase in the levels and types of parent involvement as well as the support
24

that families demonstrate for the school” (Caplan, 2006). There are counter arguments to
this notion of partnership between schools and families. Some educators believe that
schools lack the resources to establish these partnerships, and giving parents a greater say
may lead to untrained opinions about school related issues such as curriculum and text
books (Caplan, 2006). However, not bringing families into the partnership process at all
demeans and diminishes the role they play in the education of their children. Difficulties
exist with the partnering process, but the successes give merit to an attempt at bringing
partners together to change a school.
Additionally, the federal government has a short history of supporting
community, school and university partnerships. The government’s Department of
Housing and Urban Development established the Office of University Partnerships in
1994. For nearly 15 years, the office has served “as a catalyst for joining colleges and
universities with their communities, (supporting) over 125 university-community
partnerships through its extraordinarily successful Community Outreach Partnership
Centers Program (COPC)” (Benson & Harkavy, 2003). Working toward the
improvement of schools (i.e. mentoring and educating youth) is just one the allowable
elements under this partnership program. Attention to health care, housing,
unemployment, technical service, job training and financial assistance are also included
as potential partnership models (Office of University Partnerships: Community Outreach
Partnership Centers, Retrieved June 27, 2008, from
http://www.oup.org/programs/aboutCOPC.asp). However, the Office did not fund grants
for fiscal year 2008 and universities are being asked to check back in 2009 (Office of
25

University Partnerships: Community Outreach Partnership Centers, Retrieved March 8,
2008, from http://www.oup.org/programs/aboutCOPC.asp). No specific reason for the
grant stoppage is given on the website, but changing political agendas along with a
looming economic slowdown may be to blame.
Each of these partnership examples represented in the literature involved bringing
together various community, school or university partners. There were some partnerships
that seemed to achieve more success than others. The degree to which a dialogical
relationship is achieved among the partners of a community, school and university
partnership seems to play a factor in the level of success found in their respective co-
construction.

Dialogical Relationships
Dialogical relationships between the community, school and university partners
have the potential for the co-construction of new cultural models that empower all
stakeholders to overcome barriers to student achievement. In Freire’s Pedagogy of the
Oppressed, (2003) the importance that true dialogical communication has in the change
process is outlined. In order to bring about a true liberation of others, Freire (2003) says,
“the only effective instrument is a humanizing pedagogy in which the revolutionary
leadership establishes a permanent relationship of dialogue with the oppressed” (p. 68).
Freire (2003) calls dialogue “the correct method” when speaking of the way to bring
about necessary changes in our education system (p. 67). The very essence of learning
involves the give and take that dialogue brings. “Dialogue presents itself as an
26

indispensable component of the process of both learning and knowing that is” therefore
essential to the formation of knowledge in its purest sense (Freire, 1995, p. 379). As
dialogical relationships reach success, the relationships themselves are seen as power or
capital to be shared in order to bring about change to the current system (Oakes &
Rogers, 2006). According to Freire (2003) people of all educational backgrounds have
the ability to successfully engage in a dialogical relationship. This is a particularly
important point to understand when bringing together persons of various educational
backgrounds with vast arrays of experience levels for the purpose of forming a university,
school and community partnership on behalf of students in urban schools. Allowing for
mutual learning among the partnership stakeholders will aid in the co-construction
process.

Mutual Learning
Mutual learning in a community, school and university partnership is a process in
which all entities of the partnership are cognitively and socially engaged for the purpose
of creating a shared body of knowledge. This mutual learning combines knowledge and
experience that various stakeholders bring to the table in order to create new
understandings. Combining the best of theory and research that the university has to
offer with the practical value of experience from school officials and community
members provides a necessary praxis to enact lasting change (Freire, 2003). Partners
outside of academia, including community agencies and K-12 stakeholders, may have
theories of their own to add to the construction of the relationship. Mutual learning is
27

accomplished through open communication with equal weight given to the thoughts and
opinions of all stakeholders (Dewey, 1927; Freire, 2003; Oakes & Rogers, 2007). The
current state of many educational relationships is “suffering from narration sickness,”
with one side doing all the communicating (Freire, 2003). The continuation of these
traditional social norms of education only contributes to further inequities, impeding the
co-construction process (Oakes & Rogers, 2007). For the partnership to be truly co-
constructed, community members must not feel like objects, but rather subjects with
equal weight given to their experience and ideas (Freire, 2003). This will help to bring
about the more radical and robust change strategy required to transform our educational
system (Freire, 2003; Oakes & Rogers, 2007). However, as the partnership moves
toward this end, there are impeding barriers standing in the way of success.

Barriers to a Successful Community, School & University Partnership
There is much difficulty found in the co-construction process, characterized by a
truly dialogical relationship with mutual learning among members of a community,
school and university partnership. Of those partnerships that have been attempted, the
literature has identified a number of barriers to co-constructing relationships among the
partners involved. The barriers cited include a history of mistrust, differing goals, the
absence of systems and structures for communication, hierarchical relationships and
insurmountable boundaries.

28

History of Mistrust
A number of barriers stand in the way of a successful co-construction among
participants of a community, school and university partnership. For one, history is
stacked against the potential success. History reveals a large number of universities that
have been in urban neighborhoods for generations without such a local partnership
coming into existence. This disconnection from the neighborhood can breed distrust
toward the university community by members of a school community and vice versa
(Brabeck et al., 2003; Carignan, 1998; Mayfield et al, 1999). This mistrust can lead to
the development of negative attitudes among the stakeholders or what Aronson (2008)
refers to as attitude heuristics. Unfavorable strategies such as “disfavoring, avoiding,
blaming, neglecting and harming” can be present with a negative attitude heuristic
(Aronson, 2008, p. 140). These harbored attitudes make it difficult for a dialogical
relationship to initially form. The Dean of Bates College, involved in one of these
partnerships, remarked that the negative attitudes that community members and
university students had about each other had led to “uneven town-gown relationships”
(Carignan, 1998, p. 41). Mistrust can be present in the school/community relationship as
well, as negative attitudes about parents, teachers, students, administrators, or members
of the greater community are harbored among the respective groups.
Differing Goals
Once the respective partners do begin to come together, differing goals make the
task of truly coming together in a dialogical way all the more difficult (Brabeck et al.,
2003; Murray & Weissbourd, 2003). Various groups may see the problems faced by the
29

school from different points of view. There may be different expectations among the
partners involved about what should be gained from the partnership itself (Ledoux &
McHenry, 2008). This may lead to what Aronson (2008) calls in-group favoritism or
“the tendency to see one’s own group as better on a number of dimensions and to allocate
rewards to one’s own group” (p. 147). If a group perceives a lack of rewards for their
group, the success of the partnership may be threatened (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1998). In
addition, the literature argues that some universities have moved from a focus on
educational goals to a goal of economic self interest (Ledoux & McHenry, 2008). This
goal does not line up well with a redistribution of power with an aim on serving K-12
education. For the best chance of producing results, the partnership must find through
dialogue “tailored responses to jointly perceived needs that develop useful knowledge
and skills within the community” (Mayfield et al, 1999, p. 873).
Absence of Systems and Structures for Communication
Consistent communication that recognizes the importance of all partners is
crucial. However, all too often communication is lacking with these partnerships
(Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1998). Face-to-face relationships are a key to successful
communication among the partners (Benson et al., 2000). Those involved need to be
willing to be present with the other stakeholders. When systems and structures for
communication are not consistently in place encouraging such presence, a breakdown in
relationships may begin. Coming together in discussion consistently and continuously,
with reflection on the progress or lack thereof, is a vital component to a successful
relationship (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1998).
30

Hierarchical Relationships
These partnerships too often follow a charity model rather than one of justice,
where the university acts as a giver of power to the lesser school community (Bringle &
Hatcher, 2002). The problems with this model are exacerbated by the problem of power,
both actual and perceived, such as the university being seen as the higher authority due to
its wealth of money and other resources (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Ostrander, 2004).
When there is an expectation of power from the university that is not challenged by the
other partners, the result will likely not be a redistribution of power but rather continued
hierarchical structures.
Insurmountable Boundaries
It is often difficult for outsiders to gain entrance or understanding from the
stakeholder groups involved in these partnerships or at the very least understanding. The
systems are fragmented, difficult for outsiders to maneuver (Brabeck et al., 2003). Few
people have the ability to cross these boundaries and learn to work effectively with all
parties (Brabeck et al., 2003; Ostrander, 2004). The groups come with their own set of
rules, cultural expectations and norms. The social norms that are created within the
cultures of each of these groups make forming a dialogical relationship difficult (Oakes
& Rogers, 2007).
These barriers to a dialogical relationship among the various partners of a
community, school and university partnership make success difficult but not impossible.
It is in the overcoming of such barriers through an implementation of effective strategies
that the potential for these partnerships is found.
31

Strategies for Overcoming Barriers to Success
Research has shown that these barriers can be overcome with the implementation
of certain strategies (Benson & Harkavy, 2003; Brabeck et al., 2003). Among those cited
include combining theory and practice, a space for dialogue, and systems of
representation.
Theory and Practice
To help alleviate the barrier of differing values based in theory and practice, a true
coming together of the best academia has to offer and the practical experience on the
ground seems a valid strategy to pursue. In their experiment involving the University of
Pennsylvania, Benson et al. (2000) concluded that “no big problem that really matters can
be solved and understood without academics and practitioners working closely together
to solve it” (p. 24). Penn also established a Provost’s Council on Undergraduate
Education in 1995 which “emphasized action oriented union of theory and practice”
(Benson et al., 2000). The theory side coming from the university must not be limited to
an education department, but include departments such as “social work, nursing, health,
public administration, college of arts and sciences and others” (Lawson, 2003). To enact
change through the partnership, theory must be attached to what is happening in real
world situations (Ostrander, 2004).
As for the practical side, the partnership should focus on the strengths within the
community rather than the problems or deficits (McCroskey, 2003). Community and
school members must be made to feel that they are true collaborators and not just being
consulted before changes occur (Ostrander, 2004). Developing a culture of sharing, in
32

which the university comes to the table with the willingness to open its boundaries and
share power and resources, is a key component to building a successful partnership
(Ostrander, 2004). Research shows that successful partnerships focus on closing the gap
between research and practice (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988).
Space for Dialogue
Another important strategy is having a place for communication that is open from
the beginning and includes reflection throughout the process (Dryfoos, 2003; Lawson,
2003). Lawson (2003) found that effective collaborations of this kind needed to be
interactive, inclusive of all participants and never ending in their quest for dialogue.
Benson et al. (2000) found that “only by reconstructing face-to-face communities” can
we begin to address the needs of our modern schools (p. 25). Each stakeholder must be
willing to come to the partnership to share who they are and what they know. From the
very beginning, “each of the partners needs some working knowledge of the structure and
operation of the other’s organization” (Mayfield et al., 1999, p. 873). The collaborations
must be made up of representatives from all stakeholder groups who feel accountable and
responsible for the well being of the school and its students (Lawson, 2003). The
responsibility will be increased with “ongoing conversation among partners and
participants about the goals and implementation” (Mayfield et al., 1999). Getting a good
start is crucial, but equally important is a “paying attention to the maintenance and
development” of the partnership (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988, p. 146).

33

Systems of Representation
The way in which the university personnel view the partnership and their role in it
is important to the partnership’s potential success. A system of representation is one that
encourages the sharing of decision making, power and resources. In an effective process
of sharing resources among partners, they are considered to be mutual and beneficial to
the community as a whole (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002). This strategy may help in
overcoming the hierarchical power structures that are pitted against the partnership.
Ostrander (2004) found that the key component to building a successful university-school
partnership is the willingness on the part of the university to “share power, decision
making, and material resources, with local communities and to actively and consistently
demonstrate this in how the work is organized” (p. 86). This culture of sharing, if
developed from the beginning, may aid in a redistribution of power among the
stakeholders (Ostrander, 2004). Benson & Harkavy (2003) called on universities to
“reallocate the largest share of their intellectual resources to improving their neighboring
schools and communities” (p. 99). The sharing of resources can make a significant
impact by solidifying the relationships and keeping the partnership going strong
(Mayfield et al., 1999).
In addition to these strategies, a critical bridge person that closes the gaps between
group boundaries may be an essential component to a successful partnership between a
community, school and university (Lawson, 2003; Ostrander, 2004; Rubin, 2002).
Therefore, there is importance to understanding the impact that such people have on the
partnership and the implementation of the change process.
34

Critical Bridge Persons
Critical bridge persons among community, school and university partners can
facilitate dialogical relationships that contribute to a cultural model of learning within
urban communities. Ostrander (2004) found the presence of a critical bridge person as a
main structural feature to a successful partnership. Critical bridge persons may come
from any of the organizations or groups that are affiliated with the partnership. There has
been little research that looks at the specific activities of educator leaders in community-
based partnering (Crowson, 2003). However, educators are an important component of a
community, school and university partnership and may provide the critical bridge needed
for a successful partnership. In the successful cases at Bates College and the University
of Pennsylvania, one linking factor cited was the inclusion of a key member of the
leadership team that was drawn from the community and sits on the staff of the university
(Ostrander, 2004). Clark (1988) identified key educators for several successful
community, school, and university partnerships, emphasizing their critical role to their
respective successes. In a study of Brigham Young University’s Public School
Partnership, Williams (1986) describes the notion of kingpins and their critical role in the
creation and maintenance of the partnership. As these leaders change positions, transfer
to new assignments, or alter their focus, the complete partnership may be thrown off
balance (Williams, 1986).
Critical bridge persons may be found outside the formal world of education. In
fact, one study found it rather advantageous when the bridge person was from outside the
“formal hierarchy and power structure of any particular organization” (Goldring & Sims,
35

2005, p. 234). Community elders, parent activists, business leaders, and other members
representative of the surrounding areas can serve in such a role. For the greatest impact,
critical bridge persons from the community must be viewed as partners rather than
outsiders (Edelman, 2001; Lawson 2003). More formal civic leaders such as journalists,
public officials and other elected leaders may be crucial in developing the necessary
grassroots leadership to bring about change (Henton et al., 1997). Regardless of their
partner group identity, these critical bridge persons are partner-level leaders who may
help mediate conflicts, keep the partnership on agenda, and facilitate a diverse group of
stakeholders (Miller & Hafner, 2008). The research literature describes a number of
necessary traits and skills for successful critical bridge persons described in the literature.

Key Characteristics of Critical Bridge Persons
Identifying the contributions of critical bridge persons of these university, school,
and community partnerships could contribute to a multi-faceted culture of learning
among the urban community. In looking at the organizers and leaders of these
partnerships, including formal representatives and informal activists, light may be shed
on the query on how to create a more democratic community of learners. Critical bridge
persons have also been referred to as facilitators, coordinators, developers, boundary
spanners or crossers, cultural brokers or linking agents (Lawson, 2003). McCroskey
(2003) has found that few people possess what it takes to be successful as a critical bridge
person; namely the needed interpersonal skills and abilities to cross such boundaries.

36

Rubin (2002) describes successful critical bridge persons as optimistic people,
who bring together concepts of tenacity and veracity. These tenacious leaders must be
engaged on a daily basis in a serious manner with the work at hand, while possessing a
high level of patience and flexibility (Heckman, 1986). People who demonstrate an
appropriate balance of doing what is right (leadership) and accomplishing these things in
the right ways (management) are an essential factor in successful collaborative
governance (Lawson, 2003). The bridge person must engage in a “sophisticated dance
between those in organizational power and those (with) informal power within the same
institutions” (Goldring & Sims, 2005, p. 234). The effective bridge persons will promote
honesty and integrity, leading aspects of the partnership in a way that will balance this
power relationship (Lawson, 2003).
The knowledge and experience brought to the table by the critical bridge person is
an important characteristic to consider. Miller & Hafner (2008) studied a university-
community partnership from a dialogical perspective and found that bridge persons
should be strategically representative of the people being served, coming with experience
from within the community. They found that the leadership having “extensive
experiences and understanding in both university and community environments” to be
“one of the greatest strengths” of the partnership (p. 102). Goldring & Sims (2005) refer
to critical bridge persons as boundary spanners, and found a key characteristic to be
legitimacy. The bridge persons will connect people to new practices and ideas in part due
to “being viewed as legitimate by each organization” (Goldring & Sims, 2005, p. 233).
The way in which these critical bridge persons go about leading throughout the
37

partnership process may help to explain the eventual success or failure of the entire
endeavor. If a community, school and university partnership does lead to success in its
goal of transforming a K-12 school, there is an expectation that it may result in particular
attributes.

Attributes of a Successful Community, School and University Partnership

As stakeholders of a community, school and university come together in a process
of co-constructing a partnership, attributes emerge as it find success in transforming a K-
12 school (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Mayfield et al., 1999; Oakes & Rogers, 2007).
These attributes may include trust among partners, and collaborative relationships.
Trust
A building up of trust is one attribute of a successful co-constructed community,
school and university partnership (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Mayfield et al., 1999; Oakes
& Rogers, 2007; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005). Dryfoos (2003) found that “respect for
and trust in other people…are necessary components of successful collaborations” (p.
161). Trust is not created overnight. Working together throughout a given time will
demonstrate the willingness of partners to trust one another. Research calls on “people to
develop new relationships, to learn to trust each other and to work in teams made up of
people with different backgrounds, training and perspectives” (McCroskey, 2003, p.
118).

38

Collaborative Relationships
A successfully co-constructed partnership will also exhibit collaborative
relationships among the partners (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Freire, 2003). The effort
cannot be lopsided with any one partner taking on too much of the problem. When asked
about the lessons learned from their partnership, one University Chancellor observed “we
have come to believe strongly, and elementary and secondary schools have come to
believe, that they cannot reform without us…This is not telling them how to do it, but
both of us working together to fix what’s wrong with our education systems (Basinger,
1998, p. A28). A successful collaboration requires a “special tripartite partnership among
students, faculty and the community solidified by strong, trusting relationships” (Bringle
& Hatcher, 2002, p. 505). Therefore, focusing on building up trust from the beginning is
a key to successful collaboration.

Summary

Institutions of higher education in the United States of America have a
foundational responsibility to help achieve the democracy set forth in the Declaration of
Independence (Benson et al., 2000; Gardner, 1998). Research has shown how these
partnerships can increase the civic capacity of community members to impact the school
and surrounding area (Shirley, 1997). In engaging community members (including
students’ themselves) in the partnership process from the beginning, there is potential for
lessons of citizenship to be realized and values of efficacy to be established and solidified
universally among the participants. The idea of bringing about transformation “implies
39

major changes in the form, nature, function and/or potential of some phenomenon”
(Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990, p. 5). The current situation of many of our urban schools
calls out for such major changes to the way things are done. Critical bridge persons may
empower stakeholders of a university, school and community partnership to engage in the
change process. This could lead to higher academic achievement in our urban schools,
which ultimately will contribute to a more equitable, democratic society.
This study looks closely at a community, school and university partnership
through a lens informed by a theoretical framework that includes Freire’s (2003) concepts
of dialogue and praxis. Freire provided the lens through which to view the partnership
co-construction process, including the degree to which dialogical communication and
mutual learning are occurring among the partners. Additionally, the barriers preventing
success and the strategies established to combat those barriers were examined. Finally,
attributes that emerged as a result of the partnership’s successful co-construction were
explored.

40

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter will describe the methodology design for collecting and analyzing
data for the study. The purpose of this study was to explore the way in which
communities, schools and universities co-construct relationships, and develop
partnerships to work together for the purpose of transforming a high school. This chapter
will outline the basic design for the research study which investigated the challenge of
forming a community, school and university partnership. The study examined the
Greater Urban Education Partnership (GUEP): the partnership between the Metropolitan
League (ML), the School of Education at Western Pacific University (WPU), the Civic
Engagement Foundation (CEF), and Freedom High School (FHS). This is a basic applied
research study of qualitative design in the form of a case study.

Research Questions
This study of a community, school and university partnership used the following
research questions:
1. What is a process that enables a unique set of community, school, and
university partners to co-construct partnerships for the purpose of
transforming K-12 schools?
a. What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools, and universities that seek to transform
urban schools?
41

b. What are the effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming
barriers in co-constructing partnerships among community, schools,
and universities for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban schools?
2. What attributes of a partnership capable of creating a new cultural model in
urban schools, result from the process of co-constructing in a community,
school, and university partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?

Problem
The problem behind this study is that partnerships involving communities, urban
schools, and universities face huge challenges. Attempts to form partnerships between
any two of these entities have faced huge challenges; therefore it can be anticipated that
the challenges may be greater in forming partnerships including all three of these
partners. One reason previous attempts at partnerships involving even two of the partners
included in this study fail is that they are often neither co-constructed, nor consistent.
These partnerships often perpetuate hierarchical relationships rather than promoting truly
dialogical ones. Before the various partners come together there is often a lack of trust
and understanding on the part of the various stakeholders (Brabeck et al, 2003; Mayfield
et al., 1999). Negative thoughts and attitudes may be perpetuated once the partnership
ensues if the group does not co-construct the relationship from the very beginning
(Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1998). Additionally, varying weight is given to the knowledge and
experience of these partners. The university and the academia it represents come into the
dialogue with power. When this power is expected by the university and not challenged
42

by the other partners, the result will likely not be a redistribution of power but rather
continued hierarchy (Ostrander, 2004).

Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis of this study was the community, school, university
partnership itself. This partnership was formed to bring the respective partners together
to impact student achievement at a particular neighborhood public school. This study
investigated the process of such a partnership, barriers to partnership success, strategies
to overcome those barriers, and the attributes resulting from the partnership.

43

Theoretical Framework
Research Question: Theory that informs the question:

What is a process that enables a unique
set of community, school, and
university partners to co-construct
partnerships for the purpose of
transforming K-12 schools?

Freire’s theories of dialogue and praxis

What are the persistent barriers to
establishing partnerships among
universities, K-12 schools, and
universities on behalf of a K-12 urban
school transformation?

Freire’s theories of dialogue and praxis

What are some effective strategies for
overcoming barriers and co-
constructing partnerships of shared
power among K-12 schools,
communities, and universities for the
purpose of transforming K-12 urban
schools?

Freire’s theories of dialogue and praxis

What attributes of a partnership
capable of creating a new cultural
model in urban schools, result from the
process of co-constructing in a
community, school, and university
partnership with the intent to transform
a K-12 school?

Freire’s theories of dialogue and praxis
Table 3.1

44

Justification for Qualitative Methods
A qualitative, case study research method was used to carry out this study. The
case study method is ideally suited for the examination of a change process as its taking
place (Merriam, 1998). Case studies are used in research to focus on particular
organizational and/or human behaviors (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Qualitative
methods are best when the research calls for depth over breadth (Patton, 2002). The goal
of this research was to glean as much as possible from the data presented in the study.
This was inductive research, moving from the data to theory. Using Patton’s checklist
(1987), there was a need in this research study to gather detailed information about
program implementation. In addition, the participants of the research may respond better
to unobtrusive observations, as qualitative data collection may bring about less
unintended reactions from the research participants than quantitative data collection. It is
important for the research design of this qualitative study to bring a richness of data
which thoroughly describes the case study.

Research Design
Participants and Setting
This study focused on the partnership between respective stakeholders working
together to impact a 70 block radius in the areas of health, safety, housing, employment,
and education. This study looked particularly at the education component of the
initiative. This partnership signified the beginning of a five-year grant funded

45

neighborhood change initiative. This study explored the early implementation of the
partnership.
Method for Selecting Sample
Patton (2002) suggests a number of sampling strategies that should be used
depending on the goal and purpose of the research. Extreme sampling involves
“selecting cases that are information rich because they are unusual or special in some
way” (p. 230-231). This partnership is information rich because it is not a typical
partnership. It is an extreme case due to the forming of a partnership with three entities:
community based organizations, a school and a university.
Data Collection
In qualitative research, validity and reliability require the researchers to see the
world as it truly is rather than how the researcher imagines it, hence the “importance of
such qualitative approaches as participant observation, depth interviewing, detailed
description, and case studies” (Patton, 2002, p. 53). The researchers’ data collection
process included collecting and analyzing key documents that reflect the roles, assets, and
goals of the three entities that constitute the partnership in the study. They were analyzed
to learn about history of these organizations and events that preceded the partnership.
Documents analyzed include strategic plans of the organizations in the partnership,
demographic information about the community involved in the partnership, mission
statements from the partner organizations, and a fact sheet outlining partnership
achievements. Documents were photocopied, catalogued, and coded and the content was
analyzed. These documents provided one means of answering the research questions
46

formulated by the dissertation team studying community, school and university
partnerships.
A second way to obtain answers to the research questions was through
observations. The researcher established a schedule for attending partnership meetings to
observe the kind of interaction that takes place among the key participants, including
nature of the dialogue and the roles different stakeholders play in decision making. The
relationships among students, teachers, staff members, university agents, and community
members was also observed to determine the degree to which they conform to the tenets
of dialogical relationships as described in the literature. These observations took place in
formal partnership settings, and informal discussions at the school, community locations,
and community events. The researcher took field notes during these observations. The
field notes were structured according to the major themes of co-constructed relationships,
dialogical communication, and mutual learning, coded and analyzed.
A third way to obtain information in this research study was through interviews.
The researcher interviewed a range of persons who represent the key stakeholders in the
partnership. They include parents, community organizers, teachers, school
administrators, classified staff, university members and other community members who
are a part of this partnership. Particular attention was given to members of the transition
team, made up of elected members of the community including parents, teachers, and
administrators.
These interviews lasted approximately 30 to 45 minutes in length, were tape
recorded and transcribed. The research team conducted nearly forty interviews. The
47

interviews were semi-structured (Patton, 2002) in nature, with specific questions agreed
upon by the dissertation group and written out before hand to ensure a degree of
consistency in the questions asked by all interviewers leading to a common body of
knowledge. The semi-structured nature of the questions also allowed the interviewers to
probe for deeper insights and viewpoints on each of these topics. Therefore, individual
researchers had the option to ask new questions during the interviews to expand upon the
information generated by the set of prepared questions, depending on the answers given
from the participants. The interviews served to answer all three research questions. They
helped identify the partnership process, barriers to the partnership, effective strategies in
combating those barriers, and particular attributes of the partnership.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained through both Freedom
High School’s district, and the University of Southern California.

Instrumentation
The following instruments were designed by the research cohort and are included
as appendices in the back:
Instrument A: Administrative Interview Protocol
Instrument B: Teacher Interview Protocol

Instrument C: Classified Personnel Interview Protocol

Instrument D: Parent Interview Protocol

Instrument E: Community Based Organization Interview Protocol
48

Instrument F: University Stakeholder Protocol

Instrument G: School Environment Observation Protocol
Instrument H: Meeting Observation Protocol

Data Analysis
The data was analyzed through coding of all document content analysis, field
notes, and transcribed interviews. The data was checked for overarching themes, as well
as any evidence that contradicts the data. The data was analyzed with the research
questions in mind, with each set of data being set against the other to ensure that
corroborating evidence is caught in the process. The various types of data
(document/artifact analysis, observations, and interviews) allowed for triangulation of the
data which increase the validity of the findings. The various types of sampling (intensity,
typical and snowballing) also created triangulation. A study that relies on one method
alone is “more vulnerable to errors linked to that particular method” (Patton, 2002, p.
248). “Triangulation is ideal” and leads to “cross-data validity checks” (Patton, 2002, p.
247).
The data was organized into visual tables to assist in the process of data analysis.
Throughout the course of the study, including data collection and analysis, the researcher
adhered to ethical guidelines.
Ethical Considerations
Throughout this case study, the researcher adhered to the guidelines and
procedures for ethical conduct in research set forth by the University of Southern

49
California, and the Los Angeles Unified School District. He made a point to obtain
informed consent for any research participant prior to conducting any observations or
personal interviews to be included in this case study. This informed consent was asked
outside the presence of any supervisors. Participants were assured that this is a voluntary
study and at no time were coercive tactics used for participation. Rather, individuals
were asked to volunteer through an anonymous form.
Additionally, the researcher obtained informed consent before walking onto
school grounds, classrooms, community meetings and/or partnership meetings in order to
observe participants. Consent was requested from the designee from each location (i.e.
principal, teacher, president, chair) before any observational research took place. A letter
was sent from the researcher to prospective interviewees to request their voluntary
participation. A small thank you was given to participants upon the completion of their
participation.
Anonymity of all participants was of highest importance. All participants remain
anonymous and all data gathered remain confidential. The final dissertation reflects this
confidentiality through the use of mock names for individuals and organizations
involved. The data collected from artifacts was also kept confidential and protected from
outside contamination. Data was kept on the researcher or in a secured personal
computer away from outside influence.

50

Limitations of the Study
This case study was conducted during a limited length of time. The research was
conducted during the two months from mid-November, 2008 through mid-January, 2008.
It only included research of a select tier-one private research university, a select urban
high school characterized by low academic performance and now under the state’s high
priority program, and two select community based organizations with a history of
advocacy for civil rights of the poor and people of color. The study was limited to
individuals involved with the partnership, or those involved as stakeholders of the partner
organizations. The make-up of the urban area, specifically the types of students and other
stakeholders involved may be factors in the transferability of the qualitative data gathered
through this case study.

Researcher’s Subjectivity
As the researcher moved forward in the final dissertation phase of this process, it
was important to remember that possibilities of his own personal bias and subjectivity
may come into play. As a current student who has enjoyed his time at the university in
the study, the researcher kept in mind that this could lead to personal bias. Other aspects
of his personal background and community experience may also have come into play
during this case study. For example, the researcher has worked as a teacher within this
school district, albeit a different school, for the past six years. It was not a high school
(elementary school), but it was still a public school near this specific location. The
researcher has also been a member of a neighborhood council that neighbors the
51

community in the study for the past four years. The researcher hoped in choosing this
project that his experience and personal history would aid in understanding the issues
surrounding community, school and university partnerships, rather than acting as a
hindrance to the objectivity of the research process. Awareness of the potential for bias is
a vital first step as he moved forward with the dissertation. In the end, his personal
background may have allowed for better insight into the research, as long as he remained
cognizant of his own subjectivity to the data.

Summary

This chapter outlined the research design and analysis procedures for this
qualitative case study of a tripartite community, school and university partnership.
Ethical considerations, limitations and the researcher’s subjectivity were also addressed.
The next chapter provides the findings from the data collected and analysis from the case
study.

52

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

Co-constructed partnerships between a community, school and university are not
easy to accomplish and not often found. The relationships among the entities of these
partnerships are often perpetuated by hierarchy with varying weight given to the
knowledge and experience that each brings to the table. On one hand, a university enters
the partnership with a certain level of esteem due to its role in the academic realm. On
the other, a community may refuse to dialogue with a university due to historic barriers
that have systematically kept them from benefiting from that realm thus far. The school
may feel caught in between, left out of the dialogue all together, relegated to having
things done to it rather than with it as a true partner. However, there is potential for co-
constructed partnerships to make a difference in the transformation of a K-12 school.
There are strategies that have the potential to overcome the barriers standing in the way
of partnership success in the transformation of a school. In addition, it is rare to find a
co-constructed partnership attempted among all of these entities, especially when the
specific combination of partners is as unique as the ones in this study. The individual
partners in this partnership have uniqueness as well. The partnership in this study brings
together a historical community-based civil rights organization in existence for over
seventy years, a civic engagement and research foundation, a private research university,
a public high school at risk of losing its accreditations, and the local neighboring
community with their respective stakeholders.

53

The purpose of this study was to add to the body of research that involves
community, school and university partnerships. It examined the potential that a
partnership like the one in this study has in transforming an urban high school. It
specifically looked at the process the partnership went through, the barriers to its success,
the strategies employed to overcome those barriers, and the potential attributes of the
partnership that emerged as the partners co-constructed its nature and its goals. The
research was conducted as a case study with the partnership as the unit of analysis. A
research team of 10 doctoral students in the Rossier School of Education collected data
throughout a two month period. The data were collected through interviews,
observations and artifacts. 29 interviews were conducted including 4 community
members, 6 parents, 2 school administrators, 7 teachers, 1 classified staff, 3 university
faculty members, and 6 community based organization members. 9 observations took
place at partnership meetings, at the school and within the community. 4 artifacts were
analyzed. A complete data source table is located in the back of the paper: Appendix J.
The data were viewed through the lens of the theoretical framework outlined in chapter
three: in particular through Freire’s (2003) theories of dialogue and praxis.

Research Questions
The data were coded and analyzed to answer the following research questions:
1. What is a process that enables a unique set of community, school, and university
partners to co-construct partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12
schools?
54

a. What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools, and universities that seek to transform urban
schools?
b. What are the effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming
barriers in co-constructing partnerships among community, schools, and
universities for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban schools?
2. What attributes of a partnership capable of creating a new cultural model in urban
schools, result from the process of co-constructing in a community, school, and
university partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?

Setting/Context
Involved in this partnership was an urban community represented by two distinct
community based organizations, (CEF) and (ML), general community members, an urban
public high school (FHS), and a top research university (WPU). The surrounding
community remained for many years solely African-American. In recent years, however,
immigration patterns have brought an increasing Latino presence in the school and
surrounding community. Since its inception as a neighborhood school in 1968, the
enrollment had been close to 100% African-American; currently, the school population is
roughly one-third Latino and two-thirds African-American. In a school district with an
average graduation rate of 78% in the 2007-2008 school year this school had a graduation
rate of 49%. Additionally, according to the Partnership Business Plan (2008) 54% of the
students at the school live in foster homes.
55

The neighborhood and its community school have a rich history. There are
burgeoning local businesses, opportunities to share and experience art, and festivals at the
local public park. However, gang violence has increased and become an issue for the
community and its neighborhood school. The task of getting to and from school safely is
problematic for students attending the neighborhood schools. Additionally, there is a
large socioeconomic disparity among the families in this neighborhood. Some are living
at the lowest poverty levels among the working poor, while others are positioned
comfortably in the middle to upper-middle class. Many families, particularly middle
class families, have opted out of the local neighborhood high school. This drain of
students and their families has had a negative impact on the school.
In 2005, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) determined
the school would face a loss of accreditation. Many teachers, parents and other
stakeholders came together at that time to address the situation. A local civic
engagement organization (CEF) aided in this collaboration and empowered parents to
organize toward solving this crisis. The result was an organization called Friends of
Freedom (FOF). The school district’s intervention program for Program Improvement
schools identified through No Child Left Behind assessments, New Charter (NC), signed
on to allow the school to work with a partnership in lieu of continuing under district
control. The school and many of its stakeholders held a vote among faculty and parents
to work with a partnership rather than stay within the confines of the school district. The
unique partners that would eventually form this education partnership were not known at
the time of the vote, and this would prove to be an issue with some stakeholders.
56

However, the vote did pass and approve the move to go with a partnership, thus
beginning the tough work ahead.
In the days leading up to the official charter of the partnership, leaders of the
CEF, ML and WPU got together in partnership meetings that were largely held at the ML
and WPU sites. A formalized and legalese track of communication was set in motion at
the onset of these planning meetings. A Memorandum of Understanding between the
community based organizations, the university and the school district was discussed,
created and implemented. As this track was in motion, so too was a relational track in
which relationships among the members of the community based organizations, the
university, the school site, and other at large community members began to form. This
relational track was mainly among stakeholders at the school site. It did not include the
heads of the CBOs who represented the formalized track. The two tracks experienced
difficulty as they tried to become one unified partnership.
At the onset of the partnership, there was a lack of cohesion among these two
tracks. There was a push among some members of the school community for everyone to
be at the table when decisions were being made. However, the formal process pushed for
the recognition of representative voices which would be at the table on behalf of
stakeholder groups. As the partnership continued to develop, the understanding of this
representative system grew and there was less of a struggle among the stakeholder groups
to push for a process that allowed everyone to physically be at the table. Yet, there were
times when the desire for full participation of each stakeholder group reemerged, and
further dialogue was required to create shared meanings of partnership and participation.
57

Since this dialogical process has been in place, there have been some noticeable
differences at the school. On a recent WASC visit since the partnership took over
leadership, officials mentioned the stark positive difference seen in the school since the
partnership took over, resulting in the restoration of accreditation.
The seventy-block radius that surrounds the school was recently chosen as the
neighborhood of focus for a five-prong approach at community transformation focusing
on education, public safety, housing, economic development, and health. The unit of
analysis for this study is a unique educational partnership aimed at the transformation of
the high school within the range of the community transformation plan.

List of Pseudonyms

Pseudonym Title
Greater Urban Educational
Partnership
Case Study
Metropolitan League Community-based organization partner
Civic Engagement Foundation Community-based organization partner
Western Pacific University University partner
Freedom High School School partner
Friends of Freedom Committee comprised of parents, teachers, and
classified staff members at Freedom High School
New Charter School District Divisional Partner
Table 4.1

Findings
Research Question 1: What is a process that enables a unique set of community, schools,
and university partners to co-construct partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12
schools?
58

Co-construction Process

Figure 4.1

Co-Construction

Mutual Learning

Dialogue
Co-construction
Co-construction is a process which two or more parties work together to create
something new - something that has not existed before in exactly the same way.
Although the concept of partnerships in general is not new, each partnership has its own
unique features. A co-constructed partnership implies that the partners consciously enter
a process for working together over time to define the nature of the partnership and to
define the goal(s) of the partnership.
Co-construction also implies that all participants in the process make a
contribution to conceptualizing what the final goal or product will look like.
59

Additionally, all members are willing to relinquish preconceived notions of what the goal
or product is to be. Findings from artifacts, observations and interviews demonstrated the
extent to which co-construction existed in this partnership. An analysis of the
community, school and university stakeholder points of view identified patterns and
trends of the data.
Community and Co-construction
Community members within the partnership found that co-construction will take
time, but there was a general willingness to move forward and an understanding of the
potential that co-construction can offer to the partnership. We was an often used term
when community members described their role in the partnership during their interviews.
This sense of involvement and ownership over their role in the partnership reinforced the
willingness to be a part of co-constructing the partnership even though they knew it
would be time consuming. When describing the partners and their goal, one community
member stated that “overall, I believe that we’re partners because we all believe in the
same concept.” When referring to a partnership retreat, another community member said
“that was an environment and a moment when everyone needed to weigh in and I think
that everyone’s voice was heard.”
Through the interviews and observations, the stakeholders of the community
based organizations expressed faith in the potential of the process of co-construction in
creating a partnership capable of transforming the school and its neighboring community.
One pointed out that the changes he has seen “in a relatively short amount of time…is
absolutely phenomenal.” The involvement of all of the entities with the partnership
60

provides “layers that help to contribute to the success of students,” said one organizer.
Observations at partnership meetings showed members of ML and CEF actively engaged
in the work of the partnership. A willingness to co-construct with stakeholders including
parents, students and other community members was also evident from this organizer. “I
heard that when you really support the inherent wisdom of constituents and stakeholders
who are most affected - in this case students and parents - you probably will get better
outcomes.”
School and Co-construction
Those affiliated directly with the school also showed evidence of the process of
co-construction. Parents were engaged in this early stage of co-constructing. Referring
to “co-construction” and “understanding co-constructing” in positive ways demonstrated
their familiarity with the term and their willingness to engage in the process. Observing
parents at the table during partnership meetings reinforced the evidence of their
willingness to be a part of the co-construction process. The Partnership Business Plan
(2008) also commented on engagement, as it states one of their transition goals is to
“engage students, parents, teachers, administrators, and the community in shaping the
culture and goals of the school” (p. 7). Engagement suggests their participation with
others in some common action. During their interviews, teachers had positive things to
say about the partnership, but it was often worded in terms of what it was going to
produce for them and their needs. Phrases such as the network partners being
“supportive” and “there were certain things that we didn’t have the capacity to do”
demonstrated those recognized needs. From teachers, there was a lack of language
61

suggesting their involvement in the work of co-construction. However, observations of
the partnership meetings revealed a number of teachers who were engaged in the co-
construction process. They were sharing in leadership of the partnership activities,
guiding decisions on Small Learning Communities (SLCs), and chairing committees and
subcommittees along the way. Classified staff at the school demonstrated slight evidence
of co-construction occurring in this early stage of the partnership process. One member
of the classified staff spoke of the need to “sit down and talk and hash it out, (so) maybe
we can all work towards the same goal.” This spoke to a general willingness to be a part
of the co-construction process, as well as provided evidence that some form of co-
construction was occurring.
School administrators at FHS were also still trying to conceptualize what co-
construction is all about and what it means for the transformation of the school. For
school administration, there was evidence of co-construction emerging as a process of the
partnership, but they felt it was in an early stage of development. One administrator
stated, “We’re still trying to figure out what the roles are” and that there were lingering
“misunderstandings” of those roles. This was confirmed in an observation of the fore-
mentioned retreat where members of all entities involved with the partnership were able
to come together and air thoughts on the state of the partnership. Within the group’s
articulation of their misunderstandings, the persistence of co-construction was evident, as
the retreat and its guided focus demonstrated.

62

University and Co-construction
WPU personnel shared in understanding the potential that co-construction holds
for the partnership. One university official understood the partnership as “a strong
constructing process that is trying to work respectfully with members” of the school, and
saw this is a “very healthy…appropriate and good strategy.” Key documents made it
clear the partners from the beginning intended for this co-construction process to take
place. According to the Mission Statement in the Partnership Business Plan (2008) the
mission of the partnership was, “to actively generate and support unity of efforts among
teachers, parents, administrators and the community in assuming responsibility for
rigorous teaching, learning, and outstanding citizenship for all students in our
community” (p. 6). In spite of these words by the university professor, the observations
of partnership meetings did not reflect a large WPU presence in the early stage of the co-
construction process. However, the interim executive director, who is a member of the
university faculty, has had a presence in the school facilitating the co-construction for
over a year, as an in-kind contribution of the university.

Dialogue
Dialogical relationships among partners are needed in order for co-construction to
take place within a partnership. Dialogue is a process of engaging people in exchange of
ideas, experiences, and knowledge for the purpose of creating shared meaning. Freire
(2003) referred to dialogical communication as the only truly effective instrument in
liberating others. Until this partnership, power structures have kept many of the
63

stakeholders now participating in this partnership excluded from conversations related to
school transformation. Patterns and trends emerged among the community, school, and
university stakeholders indicating that dialogue was a key to the process of co-
constructing a partnership with reduced hierarchical power.
Community and Dialogue
There was evidence among community members that dialogue had begun among
the various entities of the partnership. One community member stated “we would like to
establish a stronger relationship” with some partners and we “share information” in order
to accomplish this. This statement demonstrated a willingness on behalf of the
community to be a part of the process of dialogue. As evidenced by observations at the
various partnership meetings, community members have come to the table to be engaged
in the dialogue process. In observation of the partnership retreat, dialogue which
included representation of all entities of the partnership did occur, but the process has
been a slow one.
An emerging theme from the organizers in the community was that the dialogic
process was definitely underway with some stakeholders and impacting the partnership in
a positive way. One organizer mentioned, “I just see more communication and I see
more conversation with players that would not have been at the table together, just
because I’m sorry to say, they don’t go together.” This spoke to the difficulty in bringing
about dialogue with players who have previously co-existed without this kind of dialogue
process. According to another organizer interviewed, “to let go of our own egos” played
an important part of a true dialogue process.
64

School and Dialogue
Emerging themes about the concept of partnership coming from parents included
the importance of respect and the feeling that their voices were heard. The inclusion of
parents at the table of dialogue with equal voices, through the building up of trust and
respect, was a unique feature to this partnership. This demonstration of respect has aided
parents in getting engaged in the process of dialogue. Another parent described the
partnership as having:
Openness, and that’s what has to happen, openness to listen. And at no moment
have I felt, what we say needs to get done is not being listened to, and that’s a
good thing. We have to listen to the opinions of others. Something good comes
out when you listen.

This statement provided evidence of dialogue occurring and a parent’s understanding its
importance to the partnership. Another parent commented that “there’s a place for all of
us to come together and make sure that it really works for the goals of the young people.”
This reiterated how parents see that coming together in dialogue is helpful for the goals
of the partnership.
During an observation of a partnership meeting, parents were vocal about feeling
left out of a decision on what to include in a job description for the partnership executive
director position. It was pointed out that the job description created by two board
members was a working draft and not a finished product, yet there was concern from
parents about being left out of the dialogue even at this draft stage. The intention of this
being the beginning of a dialogue surrounding the topic of the draft language was
reiterated, but some parents felt left out of the beginning of the process. Compounding
65

the feeling was the existence of a draft on which some parents had worked which had not
been received in time by the sub-committee chair heading up the draft process. At that
meeting the board formalized a process by which an ad-hoc committee created from the
school’s transition team would work on modifications to the draft that the subcommittee
chair had presented. At the next observed partnership meeting, the discussion about the
executive director job description was open for suggestions from anyone at the table.
One parent, who had been vocal about being left out earlier, turned to a respected
member of the partnership, who represented the university, and asked for her opinion first
to create a foundation on how to proceed. This act reflected growing trust in the process
of dialogue that had been built by the stakeholders. Feeling respected and having trust in
the other partners around the table had facilitated the necessary process of dialogue.
FHS administrators viewed the dialogic process as a work in progress as well, but
evidence of that progress was evident. For example, according to one administrator,
professional development provided by the partnership brought teachers “out of their little
silo” and encouraged them to “have a dialogue…back and forth” with the presenters and
each other. She continued “it was just great” when “they were all talking to each other”
rather than saying “oh, here we go again” as they left. The administrator also said,
“Teachers are developing relationships with one another and better relationships with
students that they work with.” One FHS administrator mentioned that the partnership
should:

66

Do some backward planning…but include the teachers, as well as our parents.
Starting with the ultimate goal of where we want to go and work backwards as to
how we get there. What steps need to be taken; that takes time. It can’t happen
next week; it can’t happen…it happens over a period of time. I think the changes
that occur…takes time.

According to administrators, one goal that came about quicker than expected was the
creation of SLCs in the school. In the administration’s view, achieving this goal was
aided through the dialogic process. According to one administrator, it was something the
school had been working on for five years to get done. The partnership provided the
necessary support to get the dialogue going on SLCs. “The focus was there and together
we all got it done. That was a major feat.” In observation of the partnership meetings, it
was clear that the SLCs were all up and running. It was also clear that it took a great deal
of effort from a number of stakeholders in the partnership over an extended and
consistent period of time to bring these changes about.
Members of the FHS faculty were a big part of the change toward SLCs at the
school. Among those teachers interviewed, the SLCs were a welcomed change to the
way things used to be. According to one faculty member, the partnership seemed to
“definitely be seeking the input and involvement from key stakeholder representatives.
The SLC meetings – they are not exclusionary. They are including representatives from
the different SLCs and magnets to try to move this thing forward.” Another teacher
mentioned the feeling that their high school was ahead of others in some ways, especially
“in terms of having really clear transparent discussions about the need for equality and
beginning the conversations about mechanisms to create equality.” The teacher
continued to say that “parents and teachers are already in relationship with each other in
67

some very powerful and meaningful ways.” The partnership retreat was pointed out by a
teacher as a pivotal moment in terms of the dialogue process:
I didn’t really have a clear picture…the retreat that took place…I think really was
something in hind sight now, for those coming into innovation is something you
want to do right away because I think that’s the opportunity to sit down and talk
to your partners about what your expectations are.

In observation of the partnership retreat, roughly 10 faculty members were in attendance
and participating in the dialogue process, discussing partnership expectations. A school
classified staff member agreed that this was a pivotal day to “sit down and talk and hash
it out” in order to have all of the partners working “towards the same goal.”
University and Dialogue
Personnel from WPU who have been involved in the partnership mentioned
evidence of a process of dialogue. After attending a number of partnership meetings, one
university member described them as everyone having “equal voice in those meetings.”
One said “all you can do is meet and talk and try to understand” the partnership.
According to Freire (2003), coming to a place of understanding the other partners
involved is a key concept to a true dialogue process. One member of the university
attended regular breakfast meetings with another member of the partnership to “really try
to understand where each other is coming from.” Two university members mentioned
being a part of early dialogue with the partnership, but having since trailed off. This kind
of language was evidence of the initial dialogical relationship among university members
and other stakeholders within the partnership.

68

Mutual Learning
Another necessary facet to a process of co-construction is mutual learning.
Mutual learning is a process in which all entities of the partnership are cognitively and
socially engaged for the purpose of creating a shared body of knowledge. Patterns and
trends also emerged from the data regarding mutual learning.
Community and Mutual Learning
One community member addressed the importance of mutual learning to the
partnership process:
We need to be open…very open to questions from the other stakeholder groups
that we may not have heard or thought about. Hopefully, we’re all in a learning
mode and are meeting always accepting feedback, questions, etc., from people
who come from a different vantage point.

She went on to speak of mutual learning’s potential, but not real evidence of it having
had occurred yet:
The main thing that the partners need to do is to be in a learning mode and I’m not
sure that they are. I think suspending certainty and coming with a big dose of
humility as learners is hard for people to do…but if we are talking about being
innovative, can we open up to learning and creating and inventing? I think that’s
a shift in paradigm about what the partnership’s responsibility is and I’m not sure
we’re there yet. I’m not sure it’s going to happen…really open mindedness,
preparing to study and learn and we really haven’t had that opportunity.

Community based organizers shared in the willingness to be a part of a mutual learning
process. One organizer stated “there is a willingness in this organization and all the other
organizations involved with the partnership to be agile enough to change.” Another
organizer stated that one question they need to ask the partners “is ‘how can you help me
grow…’ and the other question is from the other partners…’how can we help you
69

grow?’” This speaks to an understanding that mutual learning needs to take place to
move the partnership forward. That organizer went further to state that the partnership
“needs to help create the entire neighborhood as a learning community” and “that it has
to promote learning throughout the community, in whatever space you happen to be in.”
This demonstrated a yearning for all to be at the table and for learning to be encouraged
by the partnership in all spaces throughout the neighborhood. The importance of all the
stakeholders being involved was shared by another organizer when he said “I think that
there is a real appreciation for the resources that each of the entities bring” to the
partnership.
School and Mutual Learning
In interviews, parents were ready to step to the table and share their knowledge,
but were less positive that mutual learning was taking place. When asked about the
partnership and what it will bring to the school, one parent remarked “we can also
provide ideas, right?” This alluded to the same skepticism which came from some
community members, although, there was evidence that learning among the parents was
taking place. “I’m learning new words…co-construct, one of the parents has really keyed
on co-construct…I’ve keyed in on scaffolding, and I’m really beginning to see and
understand that and I think our teachers need that” remarked one parent. The use of this
verbiage demonstrated that some amount of knowledge sharing was taking place. It was
largely coming from the interim executive director and members of the CEF community-
based organization. Parents were observed at the partnership retreat participating in
group discussions over these and other terms of the partnership.
70

There was a lack of evidence from the interviews with the FHS teachers that they
felt that mutual learning was occurring. There was more a recognition of what the
university involvement would mean to the school, rather than the partnership itself. One
teacher mentioned that the university “had things to offer that we could take advantage of
and that we had what they would want to play a part in.” This spoke to a mutually
beneficial relationship between the university and the school, but failed to mention the
inclusion of the community and the importance of that inclusion. The Partnership
Business Plan (2008) outlined teaching and learning relationships, signifying their
importance to the partnership. Points of importance included:
• Meaningful teacher-student relationships.
• Time for teachers to meet, collaborate and learn from each other.
• Culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy, curriculum and school
environment.

• Collaborative relationships with parents and the community, including
community based resources.

• Both structured and informal engagement between the school, parents and the
community.
(p. 19).
The notion of mutual learning in the classroom did take hold with one faculty person at
the school. She commented that there was a “mediated space in the classroom; the idea
that it is our classroom.” She continued to say, “It’s not my…I’m not the teacher; it’s not
my classroom, and at no point if are you the student…is it your classroom. It’s our
classroom.” However, there was a lack of evidence from the teacher perspective that
mutual learning that includes all entities of the partnership was occurring on the
71

partnership level, although, in transition team meetings and at the retreat, school faculty
were present and participating in attempts at mutual learning.
FHS administration had a similar ‘wait and see’ perspective to the process of
mutual learning. One administrator commented “they are learning as they go and they’re
creating rules as they go…we’re still trying to figure out what the roles are.” The use of
the word ‘they’ may be indicative of the administrator feeling a lack of involvement with
the mutual learning process. However, the statement finishes with a ‘we’re’ statement,
denoting a feeling of inclusion in the partnership process. That sense of inclusion
continued in the statement “we’re feeling this thing out, but the potential is wonderful.”
Although, the process of mutual learning was not quite there yet, there was potential in
the views of the school administration. In observations at partnership meetings and a
partnership retreat, school administrators have been observed participating. The
partnership has been designed to facilitate this participation in the mutual learning
process. Based on the organizational charts listed in the Partnership Business Plan
(2008), administrators and administrative staff were intended to engage in mutual
learning with the partnership Board of Directors, and the executive director.
University and Mutual Learning
The WPU perspective on mutual learning included the willingness to be a part of
that process. One university official stated “I know what I believe, but sometimes we
need to come to some compromises.” The interviewee continued to say, “After all this,
we will not be the same; if you get involved you won’t come away the same.” This
demonstrated a willingness to be changed by the process; allowing the partnership to in
72

effect alter the university. However, at this stage of the partnership, there were very few
members of the university actively engaged in this process. In observations of
partnership meetings and the partnership retreat, there were only a couple of WPU
officials present. The Partnership Business Plan (2008) pointed out that although the
education school was “at the hub of the relationship with the partnership, the entire
university considers itself a resource for the improvement of urban education” (p. 8).
This was evidence of a potentially larger university presence in the partnership than is
currently in existence.

Research Question 1a: What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools, and universities that seek to transform urban schools?

Barriers to Co-Construction

Persistent Barriers

Absence of
Systems and
Structures for
Communication

History
Co-construction

Hierarchy
Figure 4.2

73

Persistent Barriers
The process of co-construction, based in dialogue and mutual learning are made
more difficult due to persistent barriers. These barriers stand in the way of a successful
partnership and its end goal of the transformation of an urban school. Weighty barriers,
identified through the literature review, include history, hierarchy, and the absence of
systems and structures for communication.
History as a Barrier
Understanding the history that led up to the creation of this partnership is crucial
to understanding its potential for success. Various parts of that history may have had or
continue to have a major impact on the current status of the partnership. This section will
discuss how history acted as a barrier to the partnership and its goal of transforming an
urban school.
The Community’s View on History as a Barrier
Members of the community referred to a number of historical barriers impeding
the partnership process. One community member spoke about the difficulty in changing
the current state of the school. In her view, it has become “this massive school where
people are kind of faceless and nameless.” Further addressing the challenges that the
school faces, the community member said “for the most part (they) are systems
challenges.” FHS was founded as a part of a large school district, and until very recently
remained directly accountable to that district. The community member further stated, “I
think that it’s very difficult that the default is very, very present and very, very strong.”
Another historical barrier that hindered the process of co-construction was the
74

community viewpoint that some community based organizers have political agendas. A
community member pointed out that “political aspirations of some individuals who
believe that’s what it’s all about and not student success is another obstacle” to the
partnership. She went onto say “politics plays a great deal in a lot of this work and
“some people believe that their feet are being stepped on when something that they’ve
been working on for years gets taken from them.”
The members of the community based organizations who were interviewed
understood this history and how it served as a barrier to the partnership. “Establishing
trust is very difficult and it’s going to remain difficult and I understand why” said one
community organizer. He continued on, “given the events that have happened over a
number of years…it’s been a rocky road.” Part of that is based on “different perceptions
of the ML in the community…it’s just taken a lot of time to build trust.” Another
member said, “the suspiciousness is not really us…it’s just that FHS has been bruised in
the past.” There has been a history of intervention attempts at the school with not much
success to show for them. There have been many organizations involved at the school,
“so many that not everybody knew who was there doing what,” said one community
organizer. In agreement, another member spoke of the obstacles in place “when they’ve
seen things start and fail over the years more than anyone would care to remember
again.” This same member continued to speak about the “herculean challenges” in
starting this process under the auspices of the “initial suspicion and skepticism.” Overall,
emerging themes found in the community’s view of history as a barrier were the feelings
of mistrust, misperception, and misguided attempts in the past
75

The School’s View on History as a Barrier
Parents involved in the partnership looked at some of the history that led up to
this partnership and felt misled and mistreated. “Sheep in wolves clothing; that’s how
they came to us,” said one parent. The parent went onto reiterate what the members of
the community based organization felt was a barrier. “They (ML) are yet to build a level
of trust here at the school site.” One parent said that there was a “lack of understanding
of what this transition really was, and what role they played. I think that from the onset,
nobody was really clear about the changes that were made.” One parent commented on
her history of involvement with the school and her feeling that their collective work was
going unrecognized. “We worked for hours on hours on how to reform this school…and
what do they do? They form a partnership and leave us completely out of the loop.
That’s not good.”
School staff also shared evidence of history being a barrier to the partnership.
The initial vote to agree to the partnership “left classified staff out of the vote” mentioned
a classified staff member, causing a feeling of being a “second-class citizen.”
Administrators were left out of the vote as well. Speaking to this issue, an administrator
said “when you have a move that is going to change how business is done on a campus,
then you need to have the support of all stakeholders.” The strength and validity of the
initial vote was brought into question when an administrator said:
If you look at the number of parents that voted, it really wasn’t significant, it was
not a significant number based on student population. But they didn’t say there
had to be a minimum. They just said parents had to vote and out of those (who)
voted, the majority said yes.

76

This issue of a lack of choice was reiterated when an administrator said, “a lot of this has
to do with the fact that the partner was chosen for them as opposed to them having a say.”
This administrator was first introduced to the ML when they were “escorted in by district
personnel as being community partners. Didn’t ask, just told me.”
FHS faculty brought up historical barriers during their interviews. They were
included in the initial vote, but reiterated that they did not vote on which particular
organizations to partner with, rather just voted for the idea of partnering. “We never
really, voted for specific partners. Some people felt it was implicit, but there was some
unrest - initially about the partnership,” said one teacher. Another barrier mentioned by a
teacher was changes in administration after the decision to partner was made. “We had
two AP’s leave between the end of last school year and beginning of this year. I don’t
know if they were all on the same page with what the partnership was doing.” The
emerging theme from school stakeholders about history as a barrier was feeling left out of
the decision of specific partners, hence unsure of the intentions those partners have for
their neighborhood school.
The University’s View on History as a Barrier
The university brought up some other historical barriers that act as a hindrance to
the partnership. Originally, there was some sense of financial assistance for educational
research grants that would be coming from the ML. However, “when the faculty found
out that (it) wasn’t funding faculty projects (and) that was problematic to some faculty.”
The research goals of some of the partners and some university professors did not seem
to align early on. One WPU official said that his understanding initially was “it was not a
77

partnership for service-providing or difference-making. It was a partnership around
evaluating what they had done.” Another WPU faculty member saw making a
difference as one of the partnership research goals. However, some university professors
were looking forward to their own research agendas. “Most thematics do traditional
research studies…very few thematics go in the direction that makes a difference,” he
continued. He went further to acknowledge “universities are too ready to study such
dilemmas and not do enough about it (or) have enough to offer.” He went on to express
understanding of the views from school stakeholders that they did not have enough say in
the beginning was expressed. “I know that (parents) have expressed frustration because
they feel they are responsible for bringing the partnership and feel left out of the
partnership board,” he said. Finally, the high turnover of high school administrators at
the school as a barrier was mentioned. “The problem a lot of times is that principals
change, key people leave and there’s no buy-in from the rest.” University stakeholders
cited historical barriers impeding the co-construction process including unaligned
research goals, a lack of co-construction among all stakeholders from the very beginning
and a lack of consistency in school leadership.

Hierarchy
There can be structures and systems of hierarchy that impede the processes of co-
construction, dialogue and mutual shared learning. These structures and systems keep
certain stakeholder groups from feeling engaged and pertinent to the partnership. Freire’s
(2003) banking concept comes to mind, where the oppressed are told what they should
78

know and what they should do. This is in direct opposition to the concept of co-
construction, working with others to identify solutions to problems together.
Community and Hierarchy
Members of the community felt that there were hierarchical relationships in
place making the process of co-construction difficult to take place. “There is no
autonomy if someone is telling you who your partner is,” said one member of the
community. When asked to give a score on a scale from one to ten as to the degree to
which the school was an equal partner in the partnership, another community member
said a four. This perspective demonstrated the feeling that other partnership entities were
acting in a role of superiority to the school and community.
The members of the community based organizations understood that perception.
One member of a community based organization said that as the partnership has become
formalized as a board of a 501c3, “we are far more subject to the Brown Act; everything
discussed at a board meeting must be publicized in advance so you don’t really have the
ability to have spontaneous discussions with parents at board meetings any longer.” This
was a barrier to co-construction. Keeping spontaneous conversations away from the
dialogue can limit anyone accustomed to these conversations, as opposed to the more
formalized business-like Brown Act speak. One organizer affirmed that “because we
have infrastructure connected with the community, we might be looked at as dominant at
times.” Another organizer pointed out that “it is really all about resources,” as WPU has
more than the ML and it has more than the CEF. One organizer spoke of the risk
involved to the ML which he represents. “If this venture were to fail, (we) have a lot to
79

lose. I don’t think anyone thinks that way. Teachers can go to another school; there are
no ramifications, but for a community based organization that took this risk…it definitely
is a risk.”
School and Hierarchy
School officials also showed evidence of the barrier of hierarchy. Interestingly, a
teacher said nearly the same thing as the organizer quoted above, but about the risk to
FHS.
You can change partners, but in the end it’s really the school that’s looked at as
either a success or a failure, not so much the partners. I think for us it’s more…I
think the relationship is not one that you can say is equal.

This was evidence that members of the various partnership entities believed there was an
unequal burden and pressure on specific partners for overall success of the partnership.
The teacher continued, “I feel there’s a greater burden on the school than it is on the
partners, because in the end the partners can always walk away.” Some teachers agreed
with the community members who felt they were told what to do rather than fully
participated in the decision. “There’s some trepidation of an outside organization coming
in to tell us what to do…when a community based organization or a university think they
know more than a school site does and comes in to make change.” Another teacher
commented on the “top-down” approach that was taken by the partnership “in the
beginning.” This sentiment was echoed in another teacher’s comments:
Based on conversations with a lot of my colleagues, a lot of them don’t feel like
we are in an equal partnership. It’s almost like someone (is) mysteriously out
there making the decisions and calling the shots with little regard for the people
on the campus.

80

This faculty member went on to say the “students are definitely the missing link” to the
partnership. In observations of partnership meetings, there has been a student presence at
times, but this has not always been the case. Additionally, it was most often just one
student present at partnership meetings and there was not a lot of dialogue among the
other partners observed with that student.
The school administration agreed that the lack of student presence within the
partnership has been an issue. According to one administrator, the students “were upset
because they had no vote” to go with the partnership. There was a “token vote” after the
fact, but since then “I don’t really feel they’re involved,” said the administrator. One
staff member said “classified did not feel like equal partners; we felt like they were still
dictating to us.” There has not been a feeling of being involved, but rather ignored; being
treated as “second-class citizens.”
Parents reiterated the notion of hierarchy within the partnership in their
interviews. Alluding to the difficulty in their partner relationship, one parent said,
“Partners have to understand, when you use the word partner, the partner does not come
from the front, does not come from the back; your partner is on the side with you –
together.” Another parent said, “There hasn’t been complete transparency on their part to
the point where parents can trust them.” At a partnership board meeting observed by the
research team, a parent wanted to revisit an issue she had stated before but to which she
had yet to get a definitive answer. She wanted to get parents and their organization
(FOF) formally recognized as a founding member of the partnership. According to the
Partnership Business Plan (2008) FOF was not listed as a founding member of the
81

partnership. There was some discussion regarding this possibility, but it was not clear to
the parent that the issue had been properly addressed. The FOF concern was identified in
an interview as well when a parent said:
If I can be so candid, that they would have the audacity to say we can’t be
founding members and put this stipulation about a 501c3; I’m just very upset
about that and so many of the parents are upset about that, because we did work
so hard and we were feeling like they just lied to us.

Parents also used similar words to those of some teachers and community members;
being “dictated to,” “not an equal partner,” and “not feeling respected.”
University and Hierarchy
The interviews with WPU members revealed the barrier of hierarchy as well.
When asked about dispelling the perception of universities expecting to hold greater
decision-making power in the partnership, one university member said, “That’s probably
a reality.” In regards to coming in with their own research agendas without co-
construction with the community, he continued “you have to realize that at a research
university, that’s what research faculty do.” The university has certain expectations for
professors and their research. “Research that makes a difference” in the community does
not seem to be a high expectation.

Absence of Systems and Structures for Communication
The mechanisms in place that enable the partners to communicate with one
another are vital to the success of co-construction. There must be a space for dialogue to
take place and structures in place to allow dialogue to flow inside and outside of that
82

space. Within this partnership there was evidence of an absence of adequate systems and
structures in place for communication.
Community and Absence of Communication Systems and Structures
Community members displayed evidence of a lack of adequate communication
structures. “There is no board that has all stakeholders (represented) on it. That’s a
problem; it shouldn’t take a year,” mentioned one stakeholder. As to communication
among the partnership and its stakeholders, this community member went on to say “we
are really short on anything in writing from the partnership period. That is a huge void
and it’s a huge problematic void.” She continued on to say things are “very, very vague”
right now, and “there is a need for the partners to come together and say more about what
they envision.” The system of “communication outreach is an obstacle” says one
member of the community. “People are not understanding of what the partnership is all
about and it hasn’t been broadcast well to the community.”
Members of community based organizations found agreement with those
community members who believed the partnership needed to do more communication
outreach. “I don’t think a lot of people know about the partnership” said one organizer;
“it appears that it is invisible to some degree.” Another organizer spoke of the sheer
difficulty in bringing all these represented stakeholder groups together in communication
and mentioned the need for ongoing infrastructure development. “I think the crossroads
we are at right now is really having the parents and others on campus really understand
the partnership’s roles.” He went on to acknowledge that many parents and teachers did
not understand what the partnership was and what its goals were for the school. “There
83

should be a brochure highlighting what the vision and mission of the partnership (is) and
what’s our role.” Additionally, there was evidence of a lack of understanding of the roles
that particular entities are playing or should be playing within the partnership. Regarding
ML, one organizer said, “I’ve heard some administrators talk about their background, but
quite frankly, I don’t know what they are bringing to the table.” The overall emerging
theme of an absence of adequate communication systems from the community
perspective involves outreach, written communication and formal representation.
School and Absence of Communication Systems and Structures
Similar to the community stakeholders, parents spoke of a lack of understanding
due to a lack of transparency of goals and vision. Said one parent, “it’s very unclear what
their goals are…they have yet, for me as a parent established those goals within the
community.” They spoke of teachers and students not knowing what the partnership is
and what it was there to do. Another factor has been the participation of Latino parents
being “almost non-existent.” Latino representation of the student body is near one-third,
but the Latino parent participation level with the partnership is very low. In observation
at a partnership meeting, there was one active parent from the Latino community. There
did not appear to be translation available in observations of partnership meetings, which
may have played a factor in the lack of Latino participation.
FHS faculty reiterated much of what the parents had said. There was a sense that
communication was a real problem with this partnership. There was a lack of clarity
regarding roles and goals in the partnership. A lack of transparency was also reiterated.
In agreement, a school classified staff mentioned “open communication and clarity” as
84

important improvements the partnership needed to make. “I know that much of the
teachers, the staff, the whole staff feels that there’s not enough communication, even the
parents,” she said. However, some faculty did mention that progress was being made in
some areas of communication. “There’s small connections being made in small places,
but I don’t think there’s enough of a comprehensive approach,” mentioned one teacher.
One faculty member offered a slightly more middle ground perspective. “I don’t know
that it’s been as accommodating as it could have been, but at the same time, I don’t think
it’s been shutting people out either.”
An FHS administrator named the “communication piece and visibility” as main
barriers to the partnership process. Characterizing why some teachers have yet to make
the connection as to why the partnership is here, an administrator said, “there has not
been communication on what they are doing, so the perception is that they are not doing
anything.” Not having all stakeholders a part of the communication structure from the
beginning “made for very strained relations” according to one administrator, which lead
to a “level of distrust.” There was also an agreement that more outreach needs to be
done. “They have to do a lot of PR to help parents become more comfortable coming to
school because of the biggest issues that has always been there – that lack of
communication.” FHS stakeholders pointed to issues of outreach, language, and timing
as examples of inadequate systems and structures of communication.
University and Absence of Communication Systems and Structures
WPU stakeholders shared some evidence of the lack of effective communication
systems and structures within the partnership. One university member mentioned the lack
85

of a “governance device” with “incentives and accountability” structured into the
partnership. “It needs to be power-shared” and without such a structure in place, it acts
as a barrier to co-construction. The misconception about money and which organization
has what has been a barrier as well. The money for a new executive director, the grants
for research and the ongoing budgetary needs of the partnership were all mentioned as
issues. Overall, there was a positive look ahead for the partnership and its ability to have
effective communication strategies. One university member said, “Understanding can’t
come until we co-construct what we mean by values and principles for the partnership.
We are all servants of the students, working together as a village to accomplish goals.”
This quote demonstrated a view that the partnership was still in an early stage of the co-
construction process, but its aim was just that – to come together in co-construction,
engaging in dialogue with one another and providing one another with mutual learning.

Research Question 1b: What are the effective strategies that have the potential for
overcoming barriers in co-constructing partnerships among community, schools, and
universities for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban schools?

86

Strategies to Combat Barriers

Figure 4.3

Figure 4.3

Co-Construction

Critical Bridge
Persons

History
Systems of
Representation
Effective Strategies
The partnership and the stakeholders involved have employed strategies to
combat the barriers that stand in the way of co-construction, through dialogue and mutual
learning. These strategies mitigate the effects that the barriers have on the success of the
partnership and the overall goal of transforming an urban school. Although the
partnership was at an early stage of creation, there was evidence of particular strategies
being put to use by the various players and partner entities involved with the partnership.
These strategies included building on elements of the school’s history, systems of
representation, and critical bridge persons.

87

History as a Strategy
Understanding the positive history that led up to the creation of this partnership
may help to overcome the persistent barriers that make it difficult to achieve the
partnership goal of transforming an urban school. In this case, there is a rich history that
the unique partners brought to the table.
The Community’s View on History as a Strategy
An emerging theme from the community members regarding history as a
partnership strategy was the sense of pride in the community and its community school.
One community member said “I think FHS has, from everything I can see, a dedicated
staff, a serious staff of people who are here with an expectation of positive outcomes for
young people.” Before this particular partnership existed there was a feeling among
community members that they needed to “take our school back.” According to one
community member, “we just thought, hey, why don’t we just take our school back and
that’s the principle that we’ve been working on ever since.” This community member
went onto say, that it “gave us the feeling of cohesiveness and being able to come
together and…work for the better of students.”
Members of the community based organizations spoke to how the history of their
organizations can have a positive impact on the partnership. One organizer pointed out
how CEF, which became a founding member of the partnership, “had already been on the
ground working with parents and teachers and doing things so they trusted them, and
trust is a big part of this relationship.” Another member mentioned how he had been
attending FOF meetings for quite some time before the partnership officially came about,
88

demonstrating how “building those relationships was extremely important” to the
foundation of the partnership. There was some agreement with community organization
members that the community was a driving force, but that it was helped along by the risk
of losing its accreditation which was seen as a “wakeup call.” The high school “is
fortunate in some sense to get the wakeup call and then that allowed enough attention to
be focused on the school to bring in the resources necessary to actually cause its change.”
In addition, the school itself was seen as a real asset to this change process. One
organizer said, “I think the school has incredible legacy and reputation. There are people
all over the country who recognize the school by name.” He went on to point out that
“the community generally has some deep seated emotional ties to the school” and that
“people are invested…people are really committed.”
The Partnership Business Plan (2008) outlined the various assets that the
participating community based organizations brought to the partnership. The Plan stated
that CEF’s work over the past two years “has provided a substantive framework for
communal solidarity and civility of processes to engage in the work that lies ahead” (p.
8). It went onto say how CEF has “a record of civic engagement” and how it “has
already established a relationship of trust within the school and community that is helping
stakeholders unify around educating the community’s youth” (p. 9). ML was
characterized as bringing a “rich history of advocacy, leadership and neighborhood
change” (p. 9). The Plan went on to recognize ML’s “history of eradicating barriers to

89

educational, economic, and social equity” and how that “provides a resource for
understanding and eradicating the barriers that school districts alone cannot eradicate” (p.
10).
The School’s View on History as a Strategy
The parents involved in the partnership also spoke of a history of involvement
with FOF that helped lead to this change. “I feel that (if) it hadn’t been for the parents
here, we may not be at this juncture now.” She continued on:
I feel the parents that were involved here…they’re very strong parents, and
they’re a force to reckon with…we were on a mission to say that there was going
to be reform at this school. And so, parents played a big part in what’s happening
here and a really big part in (the partnership). We all worked so hard to get this
reform…failure is not an option here. We’re making a commitment to our kids
and the community so we’re going to push to make this happen.

According to another parent, there was a sense that the high school was “the parents’
school and your child attends with that, so it’s more of a family feel” there. Another
parent stated:
This is the community I live in, and this is the community’s school, and so I feel
that since I am part of this community that it’s important that I make sure that this
school helps our children. And so, whether I’m a classified employee here, I love
the idea (of) even volunteering here even if I wasn’t working here. I still want to
be involved because education is important to me.

FHS administrators spoke of several instances that were important historical
factors to remember before the formation of this partnership. The first was the lack of
involvement from the school district. “There was a history of non-support” with the local
district. Some time ago the local district changed and ever since then the school and its

90

members “were considered stepchildren.” Speaking about the impact that this had on the
partnership, one administrator characterized the school and its community as having
“frustration with the local district and the way that they had been treated, and many of
them blamed the district (and) local district for losing accreditation.”
One of the administrators pointed out the importance of CEF in particular that has
had a history and a record of involvement with the school. “They were here when I got
here, they’ve been here ever since and I anticipate that they will be here long after any of
these so called partnerships dissolve.” Another administrator pointed out the ML as
having been “working with the high school for a very lengthy period of time, providing
mentors and tutoring programs and other services to the school.”
The FHS faculty also pointed out some important historical context that helped to
bring about the call for transformation. One teacher said that the high school had been “a
Program Improvement school for multiple years…our options were either to stay with the
district and become a part of the high priority schools…or to have an option of doing
something totally different.” The role that both parents and teachers had played leading
up to the creation of the partnership was also emphasized by the faculty. This outreach
and subsequent collaboration took place prior to the creation of the partnership. In
speaking about FOF, one teacher commented:
I was one of the teachers that initiated (FOF) and outreaching to the parents to just
gain a better understanding of the things that were happening at the school; and
helping to empower them to outreach to other parents to get them involved at the
school site on a daily, more consistent basis. So, that they knew some of the
issues that were happening that they ordinarily wouldn’t know from just coming
into the school site, but actually being involved in councils.

91

FOF “has really stuck around for a long time” according to one faculty member. The
teacher continued, “Those parents and the sort of leading set of teachers who were
involved in community outreach were involved in pushing for something like (this
partnership) for quite awhile.” Another teacher reiterated the importance of the
foundation of service that CEF had shown to the school. “They’ve definitely provided
and extended their services that they already had to the (greater) community. They
already had a presence here and now they have a bigger presence.” Reiterating evidence
from the Partnership Business Plan, the presence of CEF at the school campus was
pointed out to be “two-three years maybe longer” by one faculty member. Another
characterized the organization has “already working with us…in terms of looking at ways
to help and reform the education here for our students.” Again, this historical foundation
of service from CEF has led to greater buy-in among faculty to the greater partnership
and the goals it has set forth.
The University’s View on History as a Strategy
WPU members affiliated with the partnership spoke of the university’s rich
history involved in community engagement. “All aspects of WPU are very community
oriented,” according to one university member. He continued to say that many years ago
the university had an opportunity to relocate in a less urban location, but “they turned it
down, because that wasn’t what they wanted. They wanted an urban university, and the
focus on the local community has been very strong from here on.” University members
pointed out the importance of the community based organizations to the partnership.
ML was described as having the intent “to make a fundamental difference in the lives of
92

community members in that region.” CEF was described as “an important partner
because it stresses civic responsibility and awareness” and it has brought that to the table.
According to the Partnership Business Plan (2008), WPU was characterized as
“interested in long-term collaborative relationships with K-12 schools to build
communities of practice that enable teachers and communities to build the educational
experiences all students deserve” (p. 9). Due to its interest in long-term collaborative
relationships and its history of focusing on urban education, WPU was a prime candidate
to partner with a community, its local organizations, and its neighborhood school in order
to transform the educational experience at that school.

Systems of Representation
Another strategy to help combat the barriers impeding the partnership process was
the creation of systems of representation. This takes the structure for communication and
formally ensures representation within that structure.
Community and Systems of Representation
Community members agreed in interviews that there were systems for
representation in place, but there was still a long way to go for them to be fully
representative. One mentioned structures that “have representation in most of the major
stakeholder groups,” but falls short of being totally inclusive. However, other
community members saw the efforts being made and welcomed these positive changes.
“I saw a level of engagement that I think is a bit unusual in terms of voices of parents and
community people and some degree of engagement,” said one community member. FHS
93

did go through a deliberate process of having each stakeholder group, including the
community, elect three representatives to the transition team. In observations of
partnership meetings, it was clear that these structures have been created and are in
motion. With this being the early stage of the process, talk of expansion of these
committees to be more inclusive and far reaching was also observed.
The members of the community based organizations were able to express a clear
understanding of these created structures of representation. “To get all the stakeholders
involved and to make that change in a relatively short amount of time, for me, is
absolutely phenomenal,” said one organizer. The structures need to be continued to be
monitored and reflected upon because as one organizer commented, “it’s kind of like
gumbo. You know, where you really do need to be careful about the ingredients because
any one, too much of any one, it just doesn’t taste right.”
School and Systems of Representation
An emerging pattern among parents was the understanding that these structures
are important, have been created and that their representatives were invited to the table.
“It’s important that when you say you are a community or a family that everybody in the
family plays their roles and their voice is being heard,” said one parent. Another parent
said, “I believe it is a very good opportunity for not only the parents and the employees,
but for all of FHS to have a close relationship” with each other. Parents agreed with
organizers that not everyone can have a seat at the table, but that representation can be an
effective way at getting all stakeholder groups involved with the partnership.

94

School administrators also believed the structures to be in place, but did not agree
that it had translated to full involvement yet. Through observation of the meetings, it did
appear that the administration was not as involved as other stakeholder groups. One
administrator pointed out that some of “the APs (Assistant Principals) aren’t going” to
the meetings, but maybe they “should have.” On the part of some of the administration,
there was a willingness to be a part of these structures, but perhaps not fully invested in
the work that was being done. The SLC Council did send the principal, the lead teacher,
and the counselor for each SLC to the Transition Team meetings each week. Their
charge was to bring the interests and concerns for their constituents and to communicate
back to their constituents the discussions at the meetings. The School Site Council was
also made up of representatives elected by their peers. The student population was still
the least represented group on the Council.
Teachers at FHS understood that these structures of representation were in place
and many were participating in them. The teachers interviewed spoke of participating in
Board meetings, transition meetings, committee meetings, sub-committee meetings and
other stakeholder meetings. In addition, a group of approximately twenty-five teachers
and five counselors took the lead to work collaboratively with the interim executive
director in creating the particular SLCs at the school. A Small Learning Communities
Council that has met weekly since March and nearly every day during the summer has
emerged from this effort. One teacher pointed out how representation in SLCs has led to
an outcome of further representation. “The SLCs have helped because now they have
their own leadership so you’ve expanded the concept of student leaders from just the
95

school by itself to times seven, so we’ve had more opportunity there.” In observation of
these meetings, teachers were seen present and involved, participating fully in the actions
of the partnership.
University and Systems of Representation
The university personnel did not specifically address systems of representation in
their interviews, although, the notion that collaboration with various stakeholder groups
was understood and encouraged on the part of participating university personnel. At this
stage of the partnership, the number of WPU members who are actively engaged in the
process is small. Several other stakeholders did point out how specific members of the
university encouraged their participation in these systems of representation. For
example, one parent expressed gratitude toward the interim executive director who “asks
us to come” to any “meeting concerning the process of the partnership.” The interim
executive director, also a university stakeholder, was observed at many points of the
partnership process employing the strategy of a critical bridge person.

Critical Bridge Persons
A critical bridge person is an essential member of a community, school and
university partnership who brokers dialogic relationships among the partners. A bridge
person may belong to any one or more of the stakeholder groups involved in
the partnership. It is a term used by Ostrander (2004) to describe an individual or
individuals who can serve as brokers within university, K-12 school, and community
partners to create new relationships where power is distributed. This individual has also
96

been referred to elsewhere in literature as a mediator, social advocate, institutional agent,
mediator, boundary spanner and kingpin. There was evidence of a number of critical
bridge persons in this partnership.
Community and Critical Bridge Persons
In interviews with community stakeholders, several critical bridge persons were
identified: from the community, school and the university. The trend that emerged from
members of the community in describing these critical bridge persons was that they help
to bring people together around common goals. One community member mentioned
efforts she had made in bringing the partnership groups together because “these entities
needed an opportunity to get to know each other.” In describing a university member
bridge person, one community member said she “has worked intimately and integrally
with teachers on changing the structure” and encouraged “professional development
around rigorous teaching and learning.” Another community member said about this
bridge person:
She was just phenomenal as usual, you know, and she stayed with the business
and that’s what we love about her so much. She just stays with the business.
There’s no one side more than the other. She doesn’t favor the administration
over the students. She’s all about the students and that’s what this is all about.

This spoke to characteristics of consistency, giving equal voice to all those involved, and
having a focus on students and their success.
A member of ML was described by a community member as “eager” and doing a
lot of work to make the partnership a success. This same ML member characterized her
own work as “my passion” and “I will always be involved.” This spoke to the critical
97

bridge person characteristics of genuine passion and commitment to seeing something
through. In describing the critical nature of a bridge person, one community member
stated “the persons that get it – it’s inside of them and then they leave, everything goes
into default, falls apart.”
A member of CEF was described as being the “social consciousness of the
entity;” someone with a “history of being a force at the school.” This particular organizer
was also described as being “a listening advocate” of parents and stakeholders. An ML
member was described as encouraging of “distributed leadership” and having worked
consistently with the partnership “since day one.” The consistent presence continued to
emerge as a pattern of the views of the community stakeholders. In describing her work,
one ML members said “I try to work with schools to leverage information, resources, and
relationships with the goal of focusing on student achievement.” She encouraged the
relationship building among her peers as well. She said she focused on “engaging my
colleagues to do the work they need to do by creating a space and funding, where their
relationships can come to bear.” Her commitment was reiterated by school stakeholders
and other community organizers. She was also observed participating in partnership
meetings and special partnership events.
In describing the interim executive director, the constancy of involvement and
encouraging that involvement in others continued to present itself in the data. According
to an organizer, she “just opened the door for all of us to come in. In fact, she has been
quite animate about stepping up all of our commitments.” In further description of her
impact it was said, “Talk is cheap right? I have seen a dramatic turn around since she has
98

been on that campus. I mean in countless ways. I do see where school staff has got the
notion that there is something new happening.” Another WPU official was described as
being wise and having the necessary experience “in terms of creating the kind of
interdisciplinary environment and the…goodwill at the university.” An FHS teacher was
described as “critical to identifying who we should talk to” in beginning of the
partnership process. This alludes to the importance of having a bridge person in the
know when it comes to vital voices that should be at the table. Equally important in her
role, a parent recognized as a bridge person was described as highly involved in the
process. She may see “twenty students” in her role at the school each day and “she’s a
parent to (all of) them.”
School and Critical Bridge Persons
When it came to school stakeholders identifying a critical bridge person to the
partnership process, an organizer and the interim executive director were identified. The
emerging theme from parents was the importance of support and communication. The
organizer from the ML was described as “wonderful,” “very good at providing
resources,” and someone who is “seen on a regular basis.” The consistency of presence
was important to the school faculty. The interim executive director was described by
parents as welcoming and inviting their participation. Said one parent:
She asks us to come. With such a great leader, everything that has any intricate
part to where it can develop a better relationship between parents, teachers,
students, and the community; it has not been anything that we couldn’t get
involved in. It was up to us to make that step; to do it.

99

This parent went onto describe the relationship as “positive,” and with her there “it gets
brought up and worked out.” Parents have been observed at partnership meetings
bringing issues up and making their voices heard. Seeing things get done is another
emerging theme from the parent viewpoint. The parent further described this bridge
person’s impact as “she is really making things happen on their behalf. And really, truly
understanding, it’s who she is and who she belongs to.” The notion of understanding and
respect was further explained by the parent.
She didn’t take over, she took part. She made herself approachable to all of us.
Even though they don’t consider our parent group as “status quo;” she came to
our meetings, she talked to us, expressed opinions about things and how we could
probably do things differently. She respects us. That’s what everybody says that
she deals with. She has the respect for who they are and what they are.

The Partnership Business Plan (2008) reiterated the notion of taking part and not taking
over. It said that the partnership relationship “includes a strong daily presence in the
school as members of the school family, not as outsiders exerting influence only (p. 15).”
Another parent reiterated the positive relationship built with this particular bridge person
but gives a reminder of the early stages of this process. This parent said the university
had:
Given us a jewel, a diamond, and we know we’re never going to find anybody
(who can) even come to her shoe heel. But she’s training us. There’s (sic) not
enough words to describe what this lady does for us. So, if nothing else, they did
do that much for us.

At this early stage of the partnership process the parents identified a very strong, positive
relationship with a bridge person from the university. The relationship is built on a
foundation of respect, understanding and follow through.
100

School administrators described the interim executive director as focused,
organized, personable, caring, and able to get the job done. “We’re usually given a line
of goods and it takes months, even years, for things to change,” said one school
administrator. However, she “can pick up the phone and get some things done
immediately.” Again, the theme of action has emerged. The classified staff member
commented on the heart that the interim executive director showed to the members of the
partnership and students in particular.
She cares for these kids and it shows. That is not just a job for her. That it’s a
relationship with the staff and the kids and it always shows and everyone feels her
caring. And that’s what makes it work. They don’t feel that she’s just dictating.
That she’s there to help the children and help the students and to help the staff.

The interim executive director was described by faculty as “inclusive of everybody,”
having a “wealth of knowledge,” maintaining a “constant presence,” “collaborative,” and
being “very actively involved” in the partnership process. One teacher said that she “has
just been a beacon of light, hope, and inspiration. She’s just so extremely knowledgeable
and is sharing what she knows with us…to help us develop our program in the best way
we can.” Just as Freire saw praxis as important to partnership success, a faculty member
agreed when describing this critical bridge person. “If you talk to her or have a concern
or see something that needs to be done she does listen and will act upon it.” The
combination of listening with experiencing, reflecting with acting: true praxis finds the
harmony between them. The Partnership Business Plan (2008) made a point to mention
university personnel specifically as potential key players in this partnership. “Key
persons with knowledge and expertise (including the leading universities in the area) will
101

interact with the school as a part of the school’s operations to facilitate informed
decisions and implementation of the targeted change that it requires” (p.15).
University and Critical Bridge Persons
Among university personnel, several potential bridge persons were identified.
The emerging theme among them was a consistent commitment, active listening and
involvement. One university member mentioned several critical bridge persons and
described their strongest attribute as “enhancing community awareness.” Among those
included in that assertion were members of CEF, ML and WPU. This university official
also mentioned the importance of “having a lot of guts” to get in there and do this kind of
work, in describing one member of the university. The interim executive director was
described as being “collaborative and constructing,” a willingness to “be a part of
conversations,” and someone who “is going to make a difference.” This described
someone willing to tackle the barriers to enhance co-construction, dialogue and mutual
learning. Looking at the Partnership Business Plan (2008), particular individuals are
listed as representatives of the founding members of the partnership who will lead it
through this early implementation stage (p. 12-13).

Research Question 2: What attributes of a partnership capable of creating a new cultural
model in urban schools, result from the process of co-constructing in a community,
school, and university partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?

102

Attributes
Within this community, school and university partnership there was evidence of
co-construction, dialogue and mutual learning being both attempted and implemented to a
significant degree. Discovering what attributes were present under these conditions was
an important aspect of this partnership study. Using Freire’s theory of dialogue and
praxis, the researcher studied the extent to which trust and collaborative relationships
were present in the partnership.
Trust
Building a bond of trust takes time and this partnership has not yet officially been
around for a year. Still, there was some evidence that those bonds were being built
during this initial partnership stage. The Partnership Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) (2008) said that that the educational services the partnership provided will be
“based on trust, mutual respect, common educational objectives and clear
accountability.” However, parents and other FHS community members do not seem to
have been involved in co-constructing the MOU. This may have lead to feelings of
mistrust. The mistrust seemed to be mitigated by critical bridge persons. One
community member spoke of being “under wise guidance” from the interim executive
director, which led her to trust that the partnership is moving in the right direction.
Another community member mentioned having “tremendous respect” for the interim
executive director, and having “learned a lot from her in that professional relationship.”
Bridge persons can be the link to partnership trust, through relationship building and
following through on commitments. A member of ML said “I have turned them around
103

by doing what I’m saying I am going to do; I’ve had relationships turn around.” Parents
shared in these feelings of trust with a bridge person that “cares about them.” That trust
led to a belief that the transformation can be successful. “I think if you have hope, you
can feel like you’re gonna (sic) have success and that’s what we need here,” said a parent.
Another community member agreed that the ML and CEF organizations have the
“leadership structure and the resources to be able to accomplish” what the partnership is
set up for. With the partnership being in this early stage, it lacked a long record of
accomplishment that will bring with it more trust from the stakeholders. However, the
little successes that had occurred seemed to have brought some stakeholders to a place of
trust. At this point, there was more evidence of a hope that trust will come rather than
evidence that it already existed.
Collaborative Relationships
Co-construction requires partnership members to come together in collaboration.
The extent to which collaborative relationships were evident within the partnership may
also help to determine how the process of co-construction is progressing. According to
the Partnership Business Plan (2008), a goal of the partnership was to “assist the school
in developing mutually accountable relationships with parents and other members of the
school community” (p. 16). The Partnership Fact Sheet, produced after the partnership
had officially been in existence for five months, listed a number of completed and
ongoing initiatives that brought entities together in collaboration. Work with students,
teachers, parents, university members, police officers and other community members was
evident in the fact sheet. In observations of partnership meetings, various stakeholders
104

were coming together with varying degrees of collaboration. In hearing from community
members, it appears, from their perspective, that heightened collaboration was happening,
but it was more evident in silos than in the greater partnership. Teachers, parents, and
administration were all cited by community members as more collaborative within one
another’s own stakeholder group. School administration spoke about the SLCs and how
they came about through a collaborative process. A faculty member agreed that
“conversion to small learning communities wouldn’t have been able to happen without
the strong support and facilitation” of the partnership.
Parents also spoke generally about their role in the collaborative process of the
partnership. “If you have parents and community working with you, the growth of the
school and the improvement of the surrounding (area) of the school will change its
culture.” Another parent already saw that collaboration in the partnership was taking
place. “People understand that it’s not top-down; it’s aligned. There’s a place for all of
us to come together and make sure it really works for the goal of the young people.”
Teachers mentioned the interim executive director how “she’s made a great effort to
make (the partnership) collaborative.” Citing some improvement in the collaborative
process, another teacher says that “it’s more of a collaborative thing now than it was” in
the beginning. The members of the community based organizations understand the
importance of collaboration and were hopeful that the partnership was working toward it.
One member of the ML said “I have been able to make partnerships and
relationships…and co-construct with stakeholders and leverage resources.” She
continued to say that “it is about relationship building and hearing the needs of the
105

school.” From the perspective of university members, the collaborative relationships will
be stronger over time. “Even though you have formal agreements, you still need real face
time” said one university member. This was indicative of the overall theme of
collaboration within the partnership. There was some evidence of the foundation for
those relationships being built and in time there was hope among all stakeholders that
they will grow stronger and help lead to the emergence of a new cultural model at the
school.
New Cultural Model
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) broadly define cultural models as the “shared
mental schema or normative understanding of how the world works, or ought to work”
(p. 47). Transformation of this neighborhood school involves the coming together of
partnership entities and their stakeholders to define and implement a new cultural model
for their school. Attributes such as trust and collaborative relationships have the potential
to facilitate a new cultural model at the school. The Partnership Business Plan (2008)
stated:
The state of education in America’s urban areas requires a new look and a
reconceptualization of schools, a reconceptualization of the community’s
relationship to its schools, and a reconceptualization of the role of school districts
in relation to urban communities (p. 11).

From interviews of stakeholders, it was clear that they are on board with this goal of
reconceptualization. There was evidence of common recommendations and similar goals
toward a new culture at the school. One parent said, “We’re trying to change the culture

106

and to me, to change the culture means we are all in this and we all work together. That’s
my vision.” A community member shared her thought that “the students have limitless
potential…and the adults have limitless potential.” Over the coming months and years,
it will be important to investigate if the goal of a new cultural model was realized at this
neighborhood school.

Summary
This community, school and university partnership displayed evidence of the
process of co-construction, and its necessary components of dialogue and mutual
learning. The barriers of history, hierarchy, and absence of systems and structures of
communication worked against the partnership process. However, the partnership had
evidence of the use of strategies to help overcome these barriers. These strategies
included history that provided the ground work on which to build, systems of
representation, and critical bridge persons. Although the partnership has officially been
in existence for less than a year, there was still evidence of attributes including trust and
collaborative relationships, which may help lead to a new cultural model of K-12
education. The next chapter will discuss conclusions and the implications of this
evidence for this and other community, school and university partnerships that have the
goal of urban school transformation.

107

CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
This study looked at a community, school and university partnership with the goal
of transforming a K-12 urban school. The purpose of this study was to inform future
partnerships looking to impact student achievement at K-12 urban schools. The intent
was to identify successful implementation strategies that could be useful to other
partnerships. Interviews, observations and artifacts were coded and analyzed. The
findings were analyzed by stakeholder group: the community made up of community
members, and members of the two participating community based organizations; the
school, comprised of parents, teachers, classified staff, and administrators; and the
university, made up of faculty and administrators. Patterns and themes were gleaned
from the data.

Observations
Co-construction
The process of co-construction was present in this early stage of the community,
school and university partnership. Members of all interviewed stakeholder groups were
able to speak about the process and its potential for the partnership and its goal of
transforming a K-12 urban school. The discrepancies came in terms of different
perceptions about how far along the partnership was in the co-construction process.
Understandings were mentioned and allowances given for the simple fact that the
partnership has officially been in existence for less than a year. However, there were
108

varying degrees of expectation given for how far along the partnership should be in the
co-construction process thus far. For example, members of the community and parents
generally saw the partnership moving too slowly compared to their expectations, while
community based organization members and teachers were generally satisfied with the
progress made thus far. The diversity in stakeholder representation within the Transition
Team, along with the work put into the SLCs can be pointed to as co-construction
success. There was also the recurring question of how the co-construction process
applies to the end goal of the partnership. As the co-construction process continues over
time, it will allow for stakeholders to form dialogical relationships with one another, on a
foundation of respect and mutual understanding. It will also create more clarity about the
end goals.
Dialogue
There was evidence of dialogical relationships being formed among various
stakeholders and stakeholder groups involved with this partnership. With any
relationship, the more time one commits to it, the stronger the foundation will be. Due to
one community-based organization’s (CEF) pre-existing relationship with the school and
its community, it was characterized as having a stronger dialogical relationship with
parents and general community members than the other organization (ML). Although
parents did not feel they were in dialogical relationships with all stakeholders, they at
least felt they had a voice at the table. This is real progress from a history of systems
where their input was often not valued, heard or even asked for.

109

The importance of dialogue to the success of the partnership was evident. The
SLCs were an often mentioned manifestation of the successful process of dialogue. The
need for mutuality, openness to listening and engaging in discussion were also evident.
In bringing all stakeholders together in an inclusionary way, continued commitment to
dialogue will help to build relationships and engage all in goal setting for the partnership.
Through this process of dialogue, the process of mutual learning can be realized.
Mutual Learning
The mutual learning process is at a very early stage. It is occurring among some
stakeholders, but not as much among all of the partnership entities. Some of the learning
is happening among common stakeholder groups, rather than across those groups. The
willingness to participate also varies among the stakeholder groups, although there does
seem to be a generally positive outlook when it comes to the potential that mutual
learning could bring to the partnership and the success of the school transformation.

Barriers
History
Overall observations taken from a look at the barrier of history included a lack of
trust among stakeholders, the feeling of being left out or unrecognized, lack of agreement
on goals, and a plethora of programs that have come and left with little signs of success.
That so many stakeholders spoke about not feeling included in the partnership process
from the beginning, demonstrates a significant barrier to the co-construction process.

110

Hierarchy
Overall observations from the data regarding the barrier of hierarchy include
certain stakeholders not feeling that they were equal members of the partnership. This
created a power imbalance with some members and groups of people feeling less
involved, less important and less positive about the potential for success. Additionally,
the formalities involved with the 501c3 process including the founding member
discussion and Brown Act requirements serve as impeding factors, keeping some from
feeling a part of the dialogue, particularly in the formal structures like board meetings.
Absence of Communication
Stakeholders found communication systems and structures to be inadequate
within the partnership. There was a lack of transparency, clarity of goals and roles of
partners involved. Spanish translation at meetings was not consistent, perhaps resulting
in a less than welcoming invitation for Spanish only speaking stakeholders. There was a
lack of written material about GUEP readily available to stakeholders. This included
material detailing the foundation of the partnership, as well as ongoing materials such as
minutes from partnership meetings. The GUEP retreat was consistently pointed to as a
positive communication structure; however, stakeholders from the community questioned
the amount of time that passed between the formation of the partnership and the retreat
day. As this and the other barriers are important to understand in the partnership process,
so too are the effective strategies that mitigate the effects of those barriers.

111

Strategies
History as a Strategy
Overall observations of the history that led up to the partnership was that each of
the entities was able to articulate what brought them into the partnership and the
importance of their inclusion. Additionally, CEF’s foundation of service provided to the
school, and the history of involvement in the community by WPU, have helped to bring a
greater level of trust than might otherwise be there without that history. In recognizing
the “great history” of the high school and tapping into the drive to transform the school
by parents, the partnership has set itself up for a greater chance of success.
Systems of Representation
Observations taken from the strategy of systems of representation included most
stakeholders believing the systems having been created and implemented. Everyone
seemed to agree that either they or someone who represented their stakeholder group had
a seat in co-construction of this partnership. However, not everyone was feeling
welcomed to fully participate in those systems. Observations of the school, however,
indicate that more systems are needed to ensure ongoing co-construction of the
partnership in ways that lead to school transformation.
Critical Bridge Person
Critical bridge persons identified from this partnership had characteristics which
included being supportive and caring persons who both listen and get things done, and
persons who actively and consistently worked to bring people together. There were
different stakeholders named as critical bridge persons, but the interim executive director
112

representing WPU was named most often and consistently throughout each stakeholder
group.

Attributes
The clearest attribute to emerge from a look at partnership attributes was the
consistent use of one word: hope. In this very early stage of the partnership process,
many stakeholders from the community, school and university spoke about the hope they
have for the partnership and its ability to transform the high school in the study. There
was evidence of trust and collaborative relationships among stakeholders; however, these
and other attributes of the partnership were at the early stages of development. There
remains a consistent hope that, over time, this co-constructed partnership will lead to
these and other attributes that will facilitate a new cultural model of urban school
transformation.

Conclusions
The process of bringing together a community, school and university to form a
partnership to impact a K-12 school is not an easy task. There are many persistent
barriers that will stand in the way of partnership success. However, if the partnership
combats those barriers with effective strategies, the effects of those barriers may be
mitigated. Several important conclusions came out of this study: putting an inclusive co-
construction process from the onset of the partnership, the potential for a critical bridge

113

person becoming too critical to the success of the partnership, and stakeholders having
the patience to allow the process to run its own course.

Co-construction process
The co-construction process of a community, school and university partnership
should begin from the very onset of the partnership. A major hang-up on this partnership
has been parents and community members affiliated with the FOF organization not
feeling that they are officially a part of the partnership. This feeling seems to have
dissipated some from its original intensity, but it clearly held up the process of co-
construction.
In the Partnership Business Plan (2008) the parents and their organization are not
listed as founding members of the partnership (p. 12). Parents objected to this notion that
they were not considered as official founding members. The perception that parents and
other community members were not involved in the early part of the partnership process
acted as a barrier to the initial co-construction, hence slowing down the overall
partnership co-construction. For example, not being included in the process of co-
constructing the MOU (2008), may have led to feelings of disrespect among some parents
and community members. The feeling of disrespect led some parents to mistrust the
partnership. There was mistrust in the partnership based on some parents’ perception of
not being included from the beginning of the process. Having a feeling of respect from
the partnership and the partners involved was crucial in engaging parents in the dialogue
process. The potential for these partnerships can be fully realized if formed out of mutual
114

respect for each partner (Benson & Harkavy, 2003). There are dilemmas which
partnerships sometime face when they are caught between meeting formal structured
requirements and building on-the-ground relationships. However, engaging school
stakeholders as early as possible in the co-construction process will allow the partnership
and the school to reap the benefits of that participation as they move toward school
transformation.

Critical Bridge Person
There were a number of partners mentioned as critical to the partnership who
worked toward bridging stakeholder groups and their ideas together. They came from all
three entities of the partnership: community, school and university. The interim
executive director, representing the university, and her impact on the partnership was
mentioned overwhelmingly more than any other bridge person, making her most critical
to the partnership at this time. She was actively engaged with the co-construction process
and welcomed all stakeholders to be a part of that process. The level of respect and trust
that she was able to build throughout the early stage of this process was evident in the
study. This brings up the notion of a bridge person being too critical to a partnership.
As a critical bridge person decides or is made to leave a partnership, how detrimental will
this be for the partnership as its process continues? A critical bridge person may be
essential in the onset of a partnership (Williams, 1988), but must concentrate on finding
support from other stakeholders and embrace a system of distributive leadership. The
sustainability of a community, school and university partnership will depend on critical
115

bridge persons empowering others to reach for their own potential as bridge persons
themselves. Additionally, this effect depends on how much capacity the critical bridge
person has built—how many systems and structures which can be sustained by the people
who have been involved in developing them.
As community, school and university partnerships look for candidates to fill a
similar interim executive director role there are particular characteristics that are
necessary for success. First, the IED should have a solid level of experience with urban
K-12 education. Second, a successful candidate will need a firm understanding of
diversity and an appreciation for learning from and among various cultures and world
views. Third, a deep understanding of pedagogy that affirms students as participant
learners in their own education is important. Finally, someone that has a passion for
listening and learning from others and a willingness to be part of a transformation process
themselves is a key characteristic.
The process of any new community, school and university partnership should
begin with a great deal of listening as the IED comes to a better understanding of the
particular situation among the neighborhood school community. To be successful at
facilitating the process of co-construction, IEDs or critical bridge persons must be
immersed within the process themselves. As the process is modeled by the IED,
stakeholders are able to get a better understanding of what it takes to co-construct and
develop greater trust in and respect for the work the IED is contributing to the
partnership.

116

Stakeholder Patience
The co-construction process for a community, school and university partnership is
lengthy and tedious. Stakeholders who participate with an understanding of the patience
needed to see the work through to the end will lead to greater potential for success. The
literature pointed to hierarchy as a frequent barrier to the success of these partnerships,
with the university being seen as superior to the school community due to its wealth of
particular resources (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Ostrander, 2004). At this early stage of
the process of this community, school and university partnership there was a limited
number of university stakeholders engaged with the partnership. An explanation was not
apparent for the lack of WPU professors being actively engaged with the partnership at
this juncture. It was not clear if individual situations, lack of research funding, or
personal choice were reasons for this lack of current involvement, versus some aspect of
the partnership itself. However, it may have been a purposeful decision by WPU
leadership to delay that involvement. In limiting the university role early on in the
partnership process, it also limited the reality or the perception of a dominant university
partner role. Patience from university stakeholders to take a limited role in the early
stages of co-construction will perhaps lead ultimately to increased feelings of trust and
respect from the more non-traditional partners, i.e. parents and outside community
members. Infusing participation and encouraging leadership from the community
stakeholders can increase their feeling of ownership over the neighborhood school and
lead to greater potential for school transformation.

117

Recommendations
There is great potential for this community, school and university partnership and
its goal of transforming an urban neighborhood school. Dialogical relationships and
mutual learning among the various stakeholder groups during this early stage of the
partnership process were evidence that its process of co-construction should continue.
Recommendations as GUEP continues to move forward include increased outreach to the
various stakeholder groups, continued efforts toward a consistent communication
structure at the school site, and continued research of the partnership.

Increased Outreach
In order to have a greater chance at survival, the partnership needs to reach out to
include more members of the community, school and university stakeholder groups.
Communication structures need to be put in place that cast a wider net in order to bring
more stakeholders on board to be involved in the partnership process. The creation of an
Outreach Coordinator or Partnership Development Director may bring guidance to this
important work. The Partnership Business Plan (2008) had as one of its long-range and
ongoing process goals to create “interlocking centers of distributed leadership (to)
include parents, students, teachers, administrators, and community organizations (p. 7).”
These centers for distributed leadership are crucial to the sustainability of the partnership.
They will help to identify stakeholders with the right balance of skill, passion,
commitment, and care that it will take to get the work of the partnership done. There
should be members of the partnership who give consistent time and energy on
118

recruitment efforts. This includes doing a better job of recruiting students to take part in
the co-construction process. They are an important voice that needs to be at the
partnership table in a consistent and profound way. Freire (2003) reminds us that people
that require transformation must be involved in their own transformation process.

Consistent School-Centered Communication
Dialogical relationships and mutual learning are essential components for a
process of co-construction among community, school and university partners. The space
where dialogue and mutual learning take place should be school-centered; after all, this is
the focus of the transformation. GUEP has moved in this direction with the partnership
having more meetings and events at the school site. In the early days of the partnership, a
number of meetings took place at WPU’s campus or the ML office. The physical
location of a meeting may lead to higher comfort levels for those stakeholders who are
used to the space. Inversely, for those who are not used to the space, it can be
intimidating and lead to lower levels of participation. GUEP should continue to focus on
a consistent presence at FHS. As the GUEP Board members and its stakeholders from
ML, CEF, and WPU continue to have a visual presence at the campus, it may help lead to
partnership attributes such as trust and collaborative relationships.

Continued Research
This partnership is worthy of continued study. Particular points of research should
be:
119

• The impact of SLCs on the students
• The transition from the interim executive director to an executive director
• Common characteristics employed by critical bridge persons
• Leadership style exhibited by critical bridge persons
Additionally, continued research into the overall state of the partnership co-construction
process and its goal toward a new cultural model of school transformation are merited.

Limitations
This case study was limited to stakeholders of a particular community, school
and/or university who came together to form a partnership to transform their
neighborhood high school. Community stakeholders were limited to members of two
unique community based organizations: Civic Engagement Foundation and Metropolitan
League, and general members of the Freedom High School community. School
stakeholders were limited to parents, teachers, administrators, and classified staff of FHS.
Western Pacific University stakeholders included faculty, administrators and the
partnership interim executive director. The participants were limited to subjects who
agreed to participate voluntarily in the study. The study was also limited to a specific
point in the life of the partnership. The research was conducted during the two months of
mid-November, 2008 through mid-January, 2009, at a time before the partnership had
been officially in existence for a year.

120

Summary
This partnership has been a conduit of empowerment, putting parents, teachers
and community members into the mix of transforming their neighborhood school and
surrounding community. This empowerment can lead to a new cultural model,
transforming an urban school and its community. There is potential in that empowerment
for other partnerships with the goal of transforming urban schools.

121

REFERENCES
Aronson, E. (2008). The Social Animal. New York: Worth Publishers.
Basinger, J. (1998). University joins with entire community to raise academic standards
in El Paso Schools. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A28. In M.M., Brabeck,
M.E., Walsh, & R. Latta (Eds.) Meeting at the hyphen: Schools-universities-
communities-professions in collaboration for student achievement and well being.
The 102
nd
yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II.
Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
Belasco, J. & Stayer, R. (1993). Flight of the Buffalo: Soaring to Excellence, Learning to
Let Employees Lead. New York: Warner Books.
Benson, L. & Harkavy, I. (2003). The role of the American research university in
advancing system-wide education reform, democratic schooling, and democracy.
In M.M. Brabeck, M.E., Walsh, & R. Latta (Eds.) Meeting at the hyphen:
Schools-universities-communities-professions in collaboration for student
achievement and well being. The 102
nd
yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Education, Part II (pp. 94-116). Chicago: National Society for the Study
of Education.
Benson, L., Harkavy, I., & Puckett, J. (2000). An Implementation Revolution as a
Strategy for Fulfilling the Democratic Promise of University-Community
Partnerships: Penn-West Philadelphia as an Experiment in Progress. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 29 (1), 24-45.
Bolman, L. and Deal, T (1994). Looking for Leadership: Another Search Party’s Report.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 30 (1) 77-96.
Bolman, L. and Deal, T. (1997). Second edition. Reframing Organizations: Artistry,
Choice and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brabeck, M. M., Walsh, M. E., & Latta, R. E. (2003). Meeting at the hyphen schools-
universities-communities-professions in collaboration for student achievement
and well being. Chicago, Ill: National Society for the Study of Education.
Bringle, R.G., & Hatcher, J.A. (2002). Campus-Community Partnerships: The terms of
engagement. Journal of Social Issues. 58 (3), 503-516.
Caplan, J.G. (1998). Constructing School Partnerships with Families and Community
Groups. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Web site:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/famncomm/pa400.htm.
122

Carignan, J. (1998). Curriculum and community connection: The Center for Service
Learning at Bates College. In E. Zlotowski (Ed.), Successful service-learning
programs: New models for excellence in higher education, 40-58. Bolton, MA:
Anker Publishing Co.
Chrispeels, J. & Rivero, E. (2001). Engaging Latino families for student success: How
parent education can reshape parent’s sense of place in the education of their
children. Peabody Journal of Education, 76 (2), 119-169.
Cibulka, J. G., Ed, & Boyd, W. L., Ed. (2003). A Race against Time: The Crisis in Urban
Schooling. Contemporary Studies in Social and Policy Issues in Education.
Westport, CN: Praeger Publishers.
Crowson, R.L. (2003). Empowerment Models for Interprofessional Collaboration. In
M.M. Brabeck, M.E., Walsh, & R. Latta (Eds.) Meeting at the hyphen: Schools-
universities-communities-professions in collaboration for student achievement
and well being. The 102
nd
yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, Part II (pp. 74-89). Chicago: National Society for the Study of
Education.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (2002). The power of community: Mobilizing for family and
schooling. New York: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers.
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Denver, CO: Allan Swallow. In Oakes, J.,
& Rogers, J. (2007). Radical change through radical means: learning power.
Journal of Educational Change. 8, 193-206.
Dryfoos, J. (2003). Comprehensive Schools. In M.M. Brabeck, M.E., Walsh, & R. Latta
(Eds.) Meeting at the hyphen: Schools-universities-communities-professions in
collaboration for student achievement and well being. The 102
nd
yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 140-163). Chicago:
National Society for the Study of Education.
Edelman, I. (2001). Participation and service integration in community-based initiatives.
Journal of Community Practice. 9 (1), 57-75.
Freire, P. (2003). 30
th
Anniversary Edition. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York:
Continuum.
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001) Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36, 45-56.
123

Goldring, E. & Sims, P. (2005). Modeling creative and courageous school leadership
through district-community-university partnerships. Educational Policy. 19 (1),
223-249.
Harkavy, I., Johnston, F. & Puckett, J. (1996). The University of Pennsylvania’s Center
for Community Partnerships as an organizational innovation for advancing action
research. Concepts and Transformation, 1(1), 15-29.
Heckman, P.E. (1988). The Southern California Partnership: A Retrospective Analysis.
In Sirotnik, K. A., & Goodlad, J. I. (1988). School-university partnerships in
action concepts, cases, and concerns. New York: Teachers College Press.
Henton, D., Melville, J. & Walsh, K. (1997). Grassroots leaders for a new economy:
How civic entrepreneurs are building prosperous communities. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Highlander Center. (2008). Obtained from the Highlander Center website on July 14,
2008. http://www.highlandercenter.org/about.asp.
Johnston-Parsons, M. (1997). Contradictions in collaboration new thinking on
school/university partnerships. New York: Teachers College Press.
Keith, K. (1995). Call to Servant Leadership. Facilities Manager, Fall, 24-31.
Lauria, M. (Ed.). (1997). Reconstructing urban regime theory. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Latino Score Card (2006). Los Angeles, CA.
Lawson, H.A. (2003). Pursuing and securing collaboration to improve results. In M.M.
Brabeck, M.E., Walsh, & R. Latta (Eds.) Meeting at the hyphen: Schools-
universities-communities-professions in collaboration for student achievement
and well being. The 102
nd
yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, Part II (pp. 45-73). Chicago: National Society for the Study of
Education.
Ledoux, M. & McHenry, N. (2008). Pitfalls of school-university partnerships. The
Clearing House, March/April, 155-160.
Leithwood, K. (1990). The principal’s role in teacher development. In B. Joyce (Ed.)
Changing School Culture Through Staff Development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

124

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30 (4), 498-518.
Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (1990). Transformational leadership: How principals can help
reform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1 (4), 249-
280.
Leithwood, K. & Jantzi D. (1999). The effects of transformational leadership on
organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of
Educational Administration, 38 (2), 112-129.
Maurrasse, D. J. (2001). Beyond the campus how colleges and universities form
partnerships with their communities. New York: Routledge.
Mayfield, L., Hellwig, M., & Banks, B. (1999). The Chicago response to urban problems:
Building university-community collaborations. American Behavioral Scientist, 42
(5), 863-875.
Mayfield, L., & Lucas, E.P. (2000). Mutual awareness, mutual respect: The community
and the university interact. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and
Research, 5 (1).
McCroskey, J. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for higher education. In M.M.
Brabeck, M.E., Walsh, & R. Latta (Eds.) Meeting at the hyphen: Schools-
universities-communities-professions in collaboration for student achievement
and well being. The 102
nd
yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, Part II (pp. 117-139). Chicago: National Society for the Study of
Education.
McEwan, E. & McEwan, P. (2003). Making Sense of Research. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Memorandum of Understanding (2008). Greater Urban Educational Partnership.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Miller, P. & Hafner, M. (2008). Moving Toward Dialogical Collaboration: A Critical
Examination of a University School Community Partnership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44 (1), 66-110.

125

Murray, J. & Weissbourd, R. (2003). Focusing on Core Academic Outcomes: A Key to
Successful School-Community Partnerships. In M.M. Brabeck, M.E., Walsh, &
R. Latta (Eds.) Meeting at the hyphen: Schools-universities-communities-
professions in collaboration for student achievement and well being. The 102
nd

yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 179-197).
Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
Northouse, P. (2007). Fourth edition. Leadership – Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks.
Sage Publications
Office of University Partnerships: Community Outreach Partnership Centers, Retrieved
June 27, 2008, from http://www.oup.org/programs/aboutCOPC.asp
Oakes, J., Rogers, J., & Lipton, M. (2006). Learning power organizing for education and
justice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Oakes, J., & Rogers, J. (2007). Radical change through radical means: learning power.
Journal of Educational Change, 8, 193-206.
Ostrander, S. (2004). Democracy, civic participation, and the university: A comparative
study of civic engagement on five campuses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 33 (1), 74-93.
Partnership Business Plan. Draft, May 6, 2008.
Patton, M. (1987). Second edition. Creative Evaluation. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. (2002). Third edition. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pedraza, P., & Rivera, M. (2005). Latino education an agenda for community action
research. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Quinn, J. (2003). An Interprofessional Model and Reflections on Best Collaborative
Practice. In M.M. Brabeck, M.E., Walsh, & R. Latta (Eds.) Meeting at the
hyphen: Schools-universities-communities-professions in collaboration for
student achievement and well being. The 102
nd
yearbook of the National Society
for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 164-177). Chicago: National Society for
the Study of Education.
Ramaley, J. (2002). Moving Mountains: Institutional Culture and Transformational
Change. In R. Diamond (Ed). Field Guide to Academic Leadership. (pp. 59-73).
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
126

Rubin, H. (2002). Collaborative leadership: Developing effective partnerships in
schools and communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Shirley, D. (1997). Community organizing for urban school reform. Austin Texas:
University of Texas.
Sirotnik, K. A., & Goodlad, J. I. (1988). School-university partnerships in action
concepts, cases, and concerns. New York: Teachers College Press.
State of Black Los Angeles (2005). Los Angeles Urban League.
Stone, C.N. (1989). Regime politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence, KS:
University Press of Kansas.
Suarez-Balcazar Y, Harper G.W., & Lewis R. (2005). An interactive and contextual
model of community-university collaborations for research and action. Health
Education & Behavior: the Official Publication of the Society for Public Health
Education, 32 (1), 84-101.
University of Pennsylvania. (1989). Universities and community schools. Philadelphia,
Pa: Center for Community Partnerships, Penn Program for Public Service,
University of Pennsylvania.
Valencia, R., Menchaca, M. & Donato, R. (2002). Segregation, Desegregation, and
Integration of Chicano Students: Old and New Realities. In R. Valencia, Chicano
School Failure and Success: Past, Present, and Future (2
nd
ed.), (Ed.), pp. 70-
109.
Williams, D. (1988). The Brigham Young University – Public School Partnership. In
Sirotnik, K. A., & Goodlad, J. I. (1988). School-university partnerships in action
concepts, cases, and concerns. New York: Teachers College Press

127

APPENDIX A
Administrative Interview Protocol

Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is a
conversation between the two of us about your experience with the Greater Urban
Educational Partnership.

1. What is your position and role at the Freedom High School?
2. How many years have you been an administrator at Freedom High School?
3. How many years have you worked as an educator?
4. What are some other schools/districts you have been employed in?
5. What has been your experience working with community-based or university
partnerships, especially those focused on school reform?
6. How much do you know about the GUEP partnership? Do you know its goals?
7. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join New Charter and take on
a network partner?
8. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in any
meetings with the Greater Urban Educational Partnership or their representatives?
9. What do you know about the role of the Civic Engagement Foundation, the
Metropolitan League, or Western Pacific University, particularly the WPU School
of Education?
10. How do you see the members of GUEP working together as one organization?
11. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Greater Urban
Educational Partnership?
12. Why do you believe/or not believe Freedom High School needed a network
partner?
128

13. In what ways do you feel the Greater Urban Educational Partnership has benefited
the school or has the potential to benefit the school?
14. What changes have occurred under the partnership? Have they been positive or
negative or mixed? Please explain.
15. Describe the relationship between the administration and GUEP up to this point.
16. To what degree do you think the network partnership can provide greater support
to the quality of teaching and learning at Freedom? Do you have
recommendations?
17. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
18. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the partnership?
19. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
20. How involved has the classified staff been in the work of the partnership to
improve Freedom High School? What have been the barriers?
21. How involved have parents been in the partnership to improve Freedom High
School?
22. What has been the level of students’ participation in the work of the partnership to
improve Freedom High School?
23. What structures or opportunities for widespread participation in the partnership
have been created? What are some of the barriers you have seen or anticipate to
the success of this partnership?
129

24. What characteristics do you think can make the Greater Urban Educational
Partnership effective and increase longevity?
25. What can you do to contribute to the partnership in order to increase student
achievement?

130

APPENDIX B
Teacher Interview Protocol

Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is a
conversation between the two of us about your experience with the Greater Urban
Educational Partnership.

1. What is your position and role at the Freedom High School?
2. How many years have you been a teacher at Freedom High School?
3. How many years have you worked as an educator?
4. What are some other schools/districts you have been employed in?
5. What has been your experience working with community-based or university
partnerships, especially those focused on school reform? How much do you know
about the GUEP partnership? What are its goals?
6. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join New Charter and take on
a network partner?
7. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in any
meetings involving the Greater Urban Educational Partnership or their
representatives?
8. What do you know about the role of the Civic Engagement Foundation, the
Metropolitan League, or Western Pacific University, particularly the WPU School
of Education?
9. How do you see the members of the GUEP working together as one organization?
10. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Greater Urban
Educational Partnership?

131

11. Why do you believe/or not believe Freedom High School needed a network
partner?
12. In what ways do you feel the Greater Urban Educational Partnership has benefited
the school or has the potential to benefit the school?
13. What changes have occurred under the partnership? Have they been positive or
negative or mixed? Please explain
14. Describe the relationship between the administration and GUEP up to this point.
15. To what degree do you think the network partnership can provide greater support
to the quality of teaching and learning at Freedom? Do you have
recommendations?
16. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
17. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the work of the
partnership to improve Freedom High School?
18. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
19. How involved have parents been in the partnership to improve Freedom High
School?
20. What has been the level of students’ participation in the work of the partnership to
improve Freedom High School?

132

21. What structures or opportunities have been created for widespread participation in
the work of the partnership? What are some of the barriers you have seen or
anticipate to the success of this partnership?
22. What characteristics do you think can make the Greater Urban Educational
Partnership effective and increase longevity?
23. What can you do to contribute to the partnership in order to increase student
achievement?
24. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.

133

APPENDIX C
Classified Personnel Interview Protocol

Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is a
conversation between the two of us about your experience with the Greater Urban
Educational Partnership.

1. What is your position and role at the Freedom High School?
2. How many years have you been employed at Freedom High School?
3. How many years have you worked as a school employee?
4. What are some of the other schools/districts you have been employed in?
5. What has been your experience working with community-based or university
partnerships, especially those focused on school reform? How much do you know
about the GUEP partnership? What are its goals?
6. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join New Charter and take on
a network partner?
7. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in any
meetings involving the Greater Urban Educational Partnership or their
representatives? What structures have been created here at the school to include
your participation?
8. What do you know about the role of the Civic Engagement Foundation, the
Metropolitan League, or Western Pacific University, particularly the WPU School
of Education?
9. How do you see the members of the GUEP working together as one organization?
10. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Greater Urban
Educational Partnership?
134

11. Why do you believe/or not believe Freedom High School needed a network
partner?
12. In what ways do you feel the Greater Urban Educational Partnership has benefited
the school or has the potential to benefit the school?
13. What changes have occurred under the partnership? Have they been positive or
negative or mixed? Please explain.
14. Describe the relationship between the administration and GUEP up to this point.
15. To what degree do you think the network partnership can provide greater support
to the quality of teaching and learning at Freedom? Do you have
recommendations?
16. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
17. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the work of the
partnership to improve Freedom High School?
18. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
19. How involved has classified staff been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
are your recommendations to increase their involvement?
20. How involved have parents been in the work of the partnership to improve
freedom High School?
21. What has been the level of students’ participation in the partnership?
135

22. What structures or opportunities have been created for widespread participation in
the work of the partnership? What are some of the barriers you have seen or
anticipate to the success of this partnership?
23. What characteristics do you think can make the Greater Urban Educational
Partnership effective and increase longevity?
24. What can you do to contribute to the partnership in order to increase student
achievement?
25. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.

136

APPENDIX D
Parent Interview Protocol

Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is a
conversation between the two of us about your experience with the Greater Urban
Educational Partnership.

1. How are you affiliated with Freedom High school? How many years have you
been affiliated with the school? How many more years do you expect to be a part
of the Freedom High School community?
2. Have your children attended any other schools within the school district? What
are those schools?
3. Do you live in the Freedom High School attendance area?
4. Are your children a part of the home school or one of the magnet programs at
Freedom (Gifted Magnet or Teacher Transition Magnet)?
5. Have your children attended any schools outside of the district?
6. How would you compare your experience as a parent here at Freedom with your
experience as a parent in any other school?
7. How would you compare your student’s experience here at Freedom with your
child’s experience in other schools?
8. What do you think is the extent of parent involvement at Freedom High School?
How have parents been involved in the school in the past?
9. What are your recommendations for increased parent involvement at Freedom?
What roles would you like to see parents play at the school?
10. Describe what you know about the Greater Urban Educational Partnership’s
involvement with Freedom High School. What are its goals?
137

11. How has your role as a parent at Freedom High School changed since the Greater
Urban Educational Partnership has become the network partner? Are you more
involved or less involved?
12. What other types of partnerships, that you are aware of, has Freedom High School
been involved with (i.e. universities, community-based organizations)? Have you
ever been an active participant in these partnerships? How does the Greater Urban
Educational Partnership compare to the other partnerships? What is different
about GUEP?
13. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join New Charter and take on
a network partner?
14. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in any
meetings involving the Greater Urban Educational Partnership or their
representatives? What structures have been created here at the school to include
your participation in the work to reform/transform Freedom High School?
15. What do you know about the role of the Civic Engagement Foundation, the
Metropolitan League, or Western Pacific University, particularly the WPU School
of Education?
16. How do you see the members of the GUEP working together as one organization?
17. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Greater Urban
Educational Partnership?
18. In what ways do you feel the Greater Urban Educational Partnership has benefited
the school or has the potential to benefit the school?
138

19. What changes have occurred under the partnership? Have they been positive or
negative or mixed? Please explain.
20. What kind of relationship do you observe between the administration and GUEP
up to this point? Please describe.
21. To what degree do you think the network partnership can provide greater support
to the quality of teaching and learning at Freedom? Do you have
recommendations?
22. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
23. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the work of the
partnership to improve Freedom High School?
24. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
25. How involved has classified staff been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
are your recommendations to increase their involvement?
26. What has been the level of students’ participation in the partnership?
27. What characteristics do you think can make the Greater Urban Educational
Partnership effective and increase longevity?
28. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.

139

APPENDIX E
Community Based Organization Interview Protocol (Metropolitan League and Civic
Engagement Foundation)

1. What is your position and role in the community?
2. How long have you been a partner with Freedom High School? Why did you
decide to become a partner with the school?
3. How and why did you decide which organizations you would join with to form
the Greater Urban Educational Partnership? Describe how your relationship has
developed over the length of your partnership. Describe some of the successes
and challenges and what you have learned from both of them.
4. What do you think are the challenges and strengths of Freedom High School?
5. What involvement did you have with Freedom High School prior to joining the
Greater Urban Educational Partnership?
6. What are GUEP’s goals for transforming Freedom High School in the next five
years? What role did the school play in determining those goals?
7. What contribution do you expect your organization to make to the Greater Urban
Educational Partnership in its efforts to transform Freedom High School? Do you
believe your contribution will be enhanced by joining the partnership?
8. Describe the relationship between GUEP and teachers at the school. What
structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key stakeholders in the
transformation of Freedom High School? What have been some of the barriers?
How has GUEP worked to overcome them?

140

9. Describe the relationship between GUEP and parents at Freedom High School.
What structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key stakeholders
in the transformation of Freedom High School? What have been some of the
barriers? How has GUEP worked to overcome them?
10. Describe the relationship between GUEP and administrators at Freedom High
School. What structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key
stakeholders in the transformation of Freedom High School? What have been
some of the barriers? How has GUEP worked to overcome them?
11. Describe the relationship between GUEP and students at Freedom High School.
What structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key stakeholders
in the transformation of Freedom High School? What have been some of the
barriers? How has GUEP worked to overcome them?
12. Describe ways in which the GUEP partners have created a dialogic relationship in
which all partners have equal power. What have you done to diffuse real or
perceived inequalities in power among the partners?
13. What have been the challenges to forming a partnership in which all members and
stakeholders work collaboratively with equal decision making power?
14. What changes to your organization have occurred or you envision occurring as a
member of GUEP?
15. How does the partnership work with the school to ensure that it is an equal
partner, versus a mere recipient of services from GUEP?

141

16. How successful do you think the partnership will be in increasing student
achievement at Freedom High School? Explain your answer. What are the
barriers? What are the strategies in place to overcome the barriers?
17. What characteristics and practices does the GUEP need to adopt to make the
partnership effective in carrying out its goals and ensuring its longevity?
18. What role does GUEP envision for the community as Freedom High School
works to be seen as a viable school option for community residents?
19. When have you felt that your role was an equal member of the partnership? When
have you felt your role was a dominant member of the partnership? When have
you felt that your role or your voice was not respected in the partnership?
20. Do you have comments that you have not been able to express in response to the
questions asked?

142

APPENDIX F
University Stakeholder Interview Protocol

1. What is your position and role in the university?
2. What do you know about the Greater Urban Educational Partnership?
3. What do you know about Freedom High School?
4. What other partnerships with K-12 schools have you been involved with?
5. Describe the meetings in which you have been involved with Freedom High
School, the Metropolitan League, or the Civic Engagement Foundation. In your
opinion, did the participants have equal voices in the discussions about
transforming Freedom High School?
6. How receptive have you observed the school staff, teachers, and administration to
be about forming a partnership?
7. Have you ever visited Freedom High School? How long ago? Describe your
impressions?
8. Have you visited Freedom High School since the Greater Urban Educational
Partnership was established?
9. What contribution do you think WPU or the WPU School of Education can make
to the work of the Greater Urban Educational Partnership’s efforts to transform
Freedom High School?
10. What personal or professional contribution do you intend to make to the work of
the Greater Urban Educational Partnership?

143

11. What are some strategies that the partnership leaders can employ to dispel the
perception or reality that the university expects to hold greater decision-making
power in the partnership?
12. How do you see this partnership changing or affecting WPU or the WPU School
of Education?
13. What elements of the professional development school model can the partnership
employ that, you believe, will increase student achievement?
14. Research shows that most partnerships do not last longer than five years. What do
you think is the most significant factor in the failing of these partnerships? How
can the network partners avoid these pitfalls?
15. Do you think incorporating the community more in how students are taught will
increase the longevity of the partnership and its ability to effect positive change at
Freedom High School?
16. When did you feel that your role was a dominant member of the partnership?
When did you feel that your role was an equal participant of the partnership?

144

APPENDIX G
School Environment Observation Protocol
Purpose of
Activity

Date/Location

Participants

(Circle one)
• Community Members
• School Staff
• Faculty
• Students
• Administration
• Parents
• University Partners

Describe
the physical
setting

Describe
• the culture &
climate, dynamics,
i.e., power
relationships,
dominant talkers,
respectful
listening,
roles played by
different
parties or
stakeholders

Evidence of
barriers in
communication/
interaction
Circle all that apply:
conceptual pragmatic attitudinal
professional

Strategies to
promote a
dialogic culture
of co-constructing
knowledge

What are the
decision-making
patterns (i.e.
during activities)

145

APPENDIX H
Meeting Observation Protocol

Purpose of
Activity

Date/Location

Participants

(Circle one)
• Community Members
• School Staff
• Faculty
• Students
• Administration
• Parents
• University Partners

Describe
the physical
setting

Describe
• the culture &
climate, dynamics,
i.e., power
relationships,
dominant talkers,
respectful
listening,
roles played by
different
parties or
stakeholders

Evidence of
barriers in
communication/
interaction
Circle all that apply:
conceptual pragmatic attitudinal
professional

Strategies to
promote a
dialogic culture
of co-constructing
knowledge

What are the
decision-making
patterns (i.e.
during activities)

146

APPENDIX I
Data Sources

Interviews

#

Observations
#
Observations
by Location

Artifacts

University
Faculty
3 Community
Based
3 Memorandum
of
Understanding
(MOU)

Community-
Based
Organization
6 School Site 6 Partnership
Business
Plan
Community
Member
4 University
Setting
1 Partnership
Fact Sheet

Parent

6
School-
Faculty

7
School-
Classified

1
School-
Administrator

2

TOTAL 29 10 3

Asset Metadata

Creator Watson, Joshua Joseph (author)

Core Title Co-constructing community, school and university partnerships for urban school transformation

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/30/2009

Defense Date 05/01/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag co-constructing,community,dialogue,mutual learning,OAI-PMH Harvest,partnerships,praxis,school,transformation,university,urban

Language English

Advisor Rousseau, Sylvia G. (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Marsh, David D. (committee member)

Creator Email jjwatson@usc.edu,joshjwatson@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2430

Unique identifier UC1501264

Identifier etd-Watson-3041 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-406251 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2430 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Watson-3041.pdf

Dmrecord 406251

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Watson, Joshua Joseph

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email uscdl@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Many of our urban K-12 neighborhood schools are characterized by hierarchical relationships and inequities in power. Co-constructed relationships among communities, schools, and universities have the potential for redistributing power, thus enabling all partners to contribute to the quality of education in urban communities. This study focused on the unit of analysis of a particular community, school and university partnership brought together in the goal of transforming an urban neighborhood high school. Utilizing the theoretical framework of Freire (2003), including his theories of dialogue and praxis, the process of co-construction was analyzed. Additionally, the study identifies the barriers that stand in the way of success for such a partnership, the strategies to help alleviate these barriers, as well as attributes resulting from the process.