Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Power-sharing in co-constructed community-school partnerships: examining values, opportunities, and barriers around community engagement in New York City school leadership teams
(USC Thesis Other)
Power-sharing in co-constructed community-school partnerships: examining values, opportunities, and barriers around community engagement in New York City school leadership teams
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Power-Sharing in Co-Constructed Community-School Partnerships: Examining Values,
Opportunities, and Barriers Around Community Engagement in New York City School
Leadership Teams
Kavita Gupta
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2023
© Copyright by Kavita Gupta 2023
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Kavita Gupta certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Courtney Malloy
Patricia Tobey
Kathy Stowe, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iv
Abstract
Research indicates that strong partnerships between schools and the communities they serve lead
to higher academic achievement and better social and emotional outcomes for students,
particularly in marginalized communities where there is high poverty and low income. Despite
evidence to suggest that strong school-community partnerships lead to better student outcomes,
there is an increasing disconnect between schools and communities. This qualitative study
examined the values, beliefs, opportunities, and barriers associated with developing a culture of
power-sharing between members of two school leadership teams (SLTs) in two New York City
(NYC) schools. It utilized Epstein’s six types of parent involvement framework to understand
this problem of practice. Interviews conducted with SLT members, both school professionals and
community members, revealed that despite an expressed value for community, there was low
community engagement, particularly among parents. Findings revealed that low parent
engagement primarily stems from parents who may not feel that their contributions are respected
or valued. The recommendations address low parent engagement by supporting educators in
developing both the value for community and the skills to build collaborative engagement
opportunities that address community needs and leverage community wealth. The
recommendations build on the NYC Department of Education’s systems, structures, and policies
and aim to support educators in generating positive family and community engagement in
support of the whole child.
Keywords: school-community partnerships, school leadership teams, collaborative school
partnerships, parent engagement
v
Dedication
To the community of Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, thank you for teaching me resilience,
patience, and humility.
vi
Acknowledgements
Thank you to my fellow cohort 20 members who provided a high level of discussion,
steadfast encouragement, and levity throughout the dissertation journey. A special thank you to
Dr. Kathy Stowe, my advisor and committee chair, and my dissertation committee members, Dr.
Courtney Malloy, Dr. Jennifer Phillips, and Dr. Patricia Tobey, for shepherding me through a
rigorous dissertation process and providing valuable insights around my dissertation topic.
I also want to thank a cadre of people whose expertise lent to a greater understanding of
school-community dynamics. A big thank you to Dr. Syraj Syed, who pushed me to say the quiet
part out loud, and to Nadine Johnson, a community advocate who provided voice to the
voiceless. Many thanks to school leaders Corinne Vinal, Reginald Richardson, Charles
Amundsen, and Alan Dichter for providing valuable insights into school-community partnerships
in NYC public schools and to Dr. Shubha Govind, a researcher and scholar at City College of
New York, who provided me with a nuanced understanding of the research process.
To my family, I extend deep appreciation. Thank you to my parents, Drs. Ramesh and
Pushpa Gupta, retired professors from the University of Maine-Orono, whose lifetimes of
scholarship provided me with examples of professional excellence and true community
contribution. Thank you to my aunt, Dr. Radha Syed, who taught me to take one day at a time
and who encouraged me to stay the course, even in the most difficult of circumstances. Thank
you to my siblings, Dr. Sandeep Gupta and Sangeeta Rajgopal, for encouraging me to pursue my
dreams and to my nephews, Vikas, Gaurav, Aadim, and Aaryn, for reminding me of what is
possible.
Finally, I want to extend my heartfelt gratitude to all my students. Thank you for teaching
me about hope, courage, and unbounded potential.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures..................................................................................................................................x
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study...........................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................2
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions.....................................................................4
Importance of the Study.......................................................................................................4
Overview of Descriptive Framework...................................................................................6
Definitions............................................................................................................................7
Organization of the Dissertation ..........................................................................................8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ...........................................................................................9
Evolution of School in the United States.............................................................................9
School-Community Partnerships in Marginalized Communities......................................16
Descriptive Framework: Epstein’s Parent Involvement Framework.................................25
Summary............................................................................................................................27
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................29
Research Questions............................................................................................................29
Overview of Design ...........................................................................................................29
Research Setting.................................................................................................................30
The Researcher...................................................................................................................34
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................35
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................41
viii
Ethics..................................................................................................................................42
Chapter Four: Findings..................................................................................................................43
Participants.........................................................................................................................43
Findings for Research Question 1: What Are the Values and Beliefs of SLT Members
Around Power-Sharing Between the School and the Community?...................................47
Findings for Research Question 2: What Are the Opportunities and Challenges
Associated With Developing a Culture of Power-Sharing Between School and
Community?.......................................................................................................................61
Overview of Opportunities ................................................................................................62
Overview of Barriers: Low Parent Involvement Can Serve as a Barrier to Partnership
Development Between Schools and Communities (Theme 3) ..........................................69
Summary of Findings.........................................................................................................72
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations..........................................................................74
Discussion of Findings.......................................................................................................74
Thematic Correlation with Parent Involvement Framework .............................................83
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................84
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................86
References......................................................................................................................................89
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 1...............................................................................................101
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 2 ...............................................................................................103
Appendix C: Community Involvement Domains Legend ...........................................................105
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: School Alpha: Comparison of Ethnicity Between Students and Faculty/Staff 32
Table 2: School Beta: Comparison of Ethnicity between Students and Faculty/Staff 34
Table 3: Sampling Criteria for Selection in Study 37
Table 4: Participant’s Names, Gender, Role, Ethnicity, School Site, and Service History 44
Table 5: Sample Statements on School-Community Collaboration 45
Table 6: Findings for Research Question 1 48
Table 7: Participants’ Influences on Value for Community 49
Table 8: Sample Statements That Describe Relationship Building as a Key Element to
Partnership 56
Table 9: Key Findings for Research Question 2 62
Table 10: List of Opportunities by Participant 63
Table 11: List of Barriers by Participant 70
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 1 101
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 2 103
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Joyce Epstein’s Framework for Six Types of Involvement for School-FamilyCommunity Partnerships 26
Figure 2: Visual Representation of Findings 87
1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Research indicates that schools that actively partner with the communities they represent
lead to better academic, social, and emotional outcomes for students, particularly in marginalized
communities where there is high poverty and low income (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2006;
Dryfoos, 1993; J. Epstein, 2016; Goldberg et al., 2019; Hill & Craft, 2003; Maier et al., 2017;
Wilder, 2014). Students in schools where there are strong school-community partnerships tend to
have higher grades and attendance (W. H. Jeynes, 2007; Sheldon, 2007; Sheldon & Epstein,
2004), are more motivated (Noguera, 2003), and have higher self-esteem (Patrikakou et al.,
2005). In addition, schools with strong relationships with the communities they represent tend to
have high-quality learning conditions that allow students to focus and actively engage in their
academic journeys (Maier et al., 2017; Noguera, 2001). The literature defines school-community
partnerships as collaborative interactions and connections between school representatives (often
a teacher, school leader, or staff member) and/or students within a school environment, and an
individual or group from the wider community aimed at achieving academic or broader
developmental goals (Baker et al., 2016; Brunner, 1998; Bryk & Schneider, 2002; J. Epstein,
2016; Noguera, 2011).
In schools where there is a disconnect or weak relationship with the community, students
may arrive at school with unmet needs and challenges, limiting their ability to achieve
(J. Epstein, 2016; Maier et al., 2017; Noguera, 2001). Non-academic barriers to learning, such as
aggression, antisocial attitudes, poor peer relations, exposure to trauma and violence, family
conflict and instability, and negative community norms and disorganization hinder student
achievement and often are challenging to address because they tend to be out of the school’s
domain of control, residing squarely within the purview of the community to help generate
2
solutions (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2006; J. Epstein, 2016; Mapp & Bergman, 2021). DelgadoGaitan (2004), Noguera (2003), Wacquant (2002), Rothstein (2015), and Yosso (2005) further
contended that schools perceived as ineffective at serving children’s needs operate as a source of
negative social capital and perpetuate the marginalization of community. For this reason, it
becomes critical to examine the relationships between schools and communities and to actively
confront the factors that may lead to weak or even non-existent ties between the two entities.
This study examined school professionals’ and community leaders’ values, including the
structural opportunities and barriers around school-community partnerships and the process by
which schools develop a culture of power-sharing and decision-making with the communities
they serve to improve the academic, social, and emotional outcomes for marginalized students.
Background of the Problem
Historically, schools have served as social centers wherein to exchange and ingrain ideas,
develop citizenship, and develop a labor force to support industry (Dewey, 1902). In the early
1800s, free-of-charge universal common schools developed, funded by the state. By the late
1800s, 78% of all children were enrolled in school (Kaestle, 1983). While the path to universal
education was not easy, there was a fundamental understanding that school could be a vehicle for
social change, and the process of developing public schools was considered an exercise in
building community (Kober & Rentner, 2020).
Over time, however, the role of school shifted, and there has been an increasing
separation between school and community, as the focus of school has been on the development
of individual intelligence, and the focus of community has been on the development of the
individual’s social and emotional well-being (Stefanski et al., 2016). Research on these
relationships’ effectiveness indicates a need to return to shared collaboration, responsibility, and
3
decision-making between school leaders and communities to advance the development of the
whole child, including their intellectual, social, and emotional well-being (Anderson-Butcher et
al., 2006; J. Epstein, 2016; Noguera, 2001; Stefanski et al., 2016). Additionally, the research
indicates that while schools are not primarily responsible for a community’s holistic wellness,
many of the community’s social mobility barriers intersect with school issues (Baker et al., 2016;
J. Epstein, 2016; Johnston et al., 2020). Because schools are situated in communities, they are
well positioned to be the primary social institution to leverage change (Maier et al., 2017;
Noguera, 2011; Yosso, 2005).
While there is substantial evidence that school-community partnerships benefit students
(J. Epstein, 2016; Fan & Chen, 2001; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; W. H. Jeynes, 2007; Noguera,
2011; Stefanski et al., 2016), many schools are structured to exclude community voice (Dyrness,
2009; Noguera, 2011; Rothstein, 2015; Wilkerson, 2020; Yosso, 2005). Education practitioners
indicate that they value parent engagement, and communities indicate that they want to be
partners, but historical barriers to this engagement have created mistrust between schools and the
communities they serve (Baker et al., 2016; Brunner, 1998; Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Dyrness,
2009; Fine, 1993; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Mapp & Bergman, 2021; Olivos, 2006). Differences
in language and culture (Carreón et al., 2005), poor communication (Baker et al., 2016; Lawson,
2003; Yosso, 2005), systemic racism (Crenshaw, 1989; Noguera, 2003; Yosso, 2005), and
unrealistic expectations of community capacity (Lohmann et al., 2018; Yosso, 2005) have led to
a deepening divide between schools and their communities (Brunner, 1998; Dyrness, 2009;
J. Epstein, 2016; Noguera, 2011; Smith et al., 2011).
4
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to explore school professionals’ and community leaders’
values and the structural barriers and opportunities around school-community partnerships at two
secondary schools in New York City and how these schools develop a culture of power-sharing
with their communities. This study will focus on the values of the members of two school
leadership teams (SLTs) guided by the following research questions:
1. What are the values and beliefs of SLT members around power-sharing between the
school and the community?
2. What are the opportunities and challenges associated with developing a culture of
power-sharing between school and community?
Importance of the Study
It is important to assess practitioner perceptions and values around sharing power
between schools and marginalized communities because strong partnerships between schools and
communities where decision authority is shared improve student outcomes, including higher
student achievement and educational attainment, increased student engagement, and improved
social-emotional development, including a sense of belonging (J. Epstein, 2016; W. H. Jeynes,
2007; Johnston et al., 2020; Noguera, 2011; Patrikakou et al., 2005). Because these partnerships
lead to improved student outcomes, it is critical that schools understand that community
engagement with shared decision-making authority is an effective strategy for school
transformation (Celoria, 2016; Ishimaru et al., 2016).
Research indicates that despite some schools’ efforts to partner with their communities,
many of these school-community partnerships are limited (Auerbach, 2010; Bryk & Schneider,
2002; Goldberg et al., 2019; Noguera, 2003). In some instances, SLTs and other school-
5
community collaborative structures do not meet regularly, and when they do, community voice is
minimized (Auerbach, 2010; Dyrness, 2009). J. Epstein (2016) noted that these partnerships do
not work because teachers and administrators do not fully understand family and community
dynamics, particularly those in marginalized communities. In response to supporting educators in
understanding marginalized communities’ social and economic complexities, J. Epstein (2016)
suggested that teacher and leadership training include family and community engagement as a
core component of the curriculum and that programs teach procedural knowledge related to
building strong school-community partnerships. For example, the author stated that educators
need to understand how to build systems and structures to support collaboration and shared
decision-making (J. Epstein, 2016). Literature related to this suggestion supports this response
(Auerbach, 2010; Bettez & Hytten, 2013; Brown, 2004a, 2004b; Capper et al., 2006; Celoria,
2016; Diem & Carpenter, 2012; Grissom et al., 2019; Hackman, 2005; Hughes, 2019; Mapp &
Bergman, 2021; Solomon, 2002; Theoharis, 2008).
Noguera (2011) and Rothstein (2015) argued that efforts to educate are futile if they do
not address marginalized communities’ social issues, including the effects of poverty. They
suggested that coordinated efforts between the school and community must first address the
adverse environmental conditions that impact students’ social and emotional well-being. Other
research indicates that in many communities, schools actively create environments of
disengagement (Dyrness, 2009) and marginalize non-dominant groups through deficit thinking
and structural barriers (Delgado-Gaitan, 2004; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Lawrence-Lightfoot,
2003; Olivos, 2006; Yosso, 2005).
This study is important because it focused specifically on the process by which school
professionals and community leaders cultivate collaborative relationships to make key school
6
decisions through a very specific school structure: the SLT. The insights gained from this study
can provide further information on how to create stronger school-community partnerships with
the values of both community leaders and school professionals considered.
Overview of Descriptive Framework
The descriptive framework that will be utilized to frame this study is J. L. Epstein’s
(1992) parent involvement framework which outlines six types of parent involvement that
schools can foster to support student learning and development. This framework is not only
about parent involvement but also includes broader family engagement and community
partnerships. These six types of involvement are parenting, communicating, volunteering,
learning at home, decision-making, and collaborating with the community. Each of these areas
reflects a spectrum of family and community engagement, positioning decision-making and
collaboration as key sectors that empower families and communities.
Epstein’s framework was designed to guide schools in creating comprehensive programs
of partnership, where each type of involvement contributes to a network of activities that support
student achievement and school improvement. Given that this framework recognizes the value
that parents and communities can bring to the transformation of schooling, this is an appropriate
framework through which to examine the need for more intention in building and strengthening
school-community partnerships where power is shared between schools and the communities
they serve.
To examine school-community partnerships, I conducted a qualitative study consisting of
semi-structured interviews with school professionals and community leaders of two SLTs in two
secondary high schools in New York City. The SLT is a mandated governing body responsible
for establishing school goals whose members consist of the school leaders, teachers, students,
7
and the community, including parents and community-based organization (CBO) representatives
and leaders. The interviews with educator practitioners and community members addressed the
research questions outlined above. A qualitative design is appropriate for this study because the
primary objective of this study was to understand both the experiences and perceptions of
members of a school’s leadership team around sharing power between school professionals and
community leaders.
Definitions
This section contains definitions and context of terms and concepts central to this study.
Community refers to a social group of members who have something in common. For
purposes of this study, the something in common primarily refers to having children attend the
same school but also refers to the concept of social, emotional, and economic effects that an
educated and well-supported population of students has on a community.
Marginalization refers to social exclusion and occurs when certain people are denied
access or opportunities. In the context of this study, marginalization refers to disadvantaged
communities where there are concentrations of poverty and low income.
SLTs refers to a committee comprised of the principal, parent-teacher association
president, United Federation of Teachers (UFT) chapter chair, and a combination of teachers,
parents, students, and community leaders. This committee is required to meet monthly and to
collaborate on key school-wide decisions, including goals for the year.
School-community partnerships refer to schools’ reciprocal relationships with the
communities in which they serve and where this is shared responsibility around the academic,
social, and emotional outcomes of children attending the community school.
8
Organization of the Dissertation
This study has five chapters. This chapter provided an overview of the problem of
practice and background, the purpose and significance of this study, research questions, and an
overview of the theoretical framework and methodology related to this study. Chapter Two will
detail the literature related to schools, communities, and school-community partnerships,
including the benefits and barriers to forming these partnerships. Chapter Three details the
approach for selecting participants and collecting and analyzing data. Chapter Four explains the
data and results in the context of a detailed analysis of stakeholder interviews. Finally, Chapter
Five provides a discussion of findings and recommendations for further inquiry.
9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter integrates literature from diverse perspectives and serves as a guide for an
examination of school-community partnerships in marginalized communities and the process by
which schools develop a collaborative culture of shared power and decision-making with the
communities they serve. This review consists of three specific sections. First, it describes the
evolution of school in the United States to understand the historical context of school in the
United States and how this context, primarily school segregation, has affected the relationships
between schools and communities today. Second, it explores school-community partnerships in
disadvantaged communities alongside their benefits and barriers as well as the effects of these
partnerships on student outcomes and school transformation. The chapter will also discuss key
principles from the literature regarding parent engagement in all communities as a means for
understanding the fundamental beliefs that all parents hold for their children, regardless of race
and socio-economic status. Finally, J. L. Epstein’s (1992) parent involvement framework will be
described as a means for understanding a continuum of parent and community involvement
where shared decision-making and collaboration represent key domains.
Evolution of School in the United States
The purpose and role of school in the United States has changed over time. School began
in the 18th century, initially developed to serve community needs, but over time, schools moved
away from serving the community and began operating in silos, relying primarily on internal
capacity to address students’ social, emotional, and academic needs. This section provides a
historical perspective of school from the mid-1700s to the present day, including the impact of
school segregation on school-community partnerships in marginalized communities.
Additionally, the story of one community, Ocean-Hill/Brownsville in New York, is highlighted
10
as a seminal example of a community uprising as a response to schools operating independently
from the communities they serve.
The Beginning of School (Mid 1700s)
Historically, U.S. communities utilized schools to prepare people for democratic
citizenship. Morality, good character, and virtues were essential elements of school curricula
with the intent of preparing the nation to be educated about political and social issues. In the
mid-1700s, states entering the union received federal land grants, supporting the creation of new
schools and the establishment of stable communities across the country. Over time, public
schools were established to serve citizens, and they became community centers and venues for
town meetings, exhibitions, and social events. In some small communities, schoolhouses were
the only suitable places for such events to occur (Benson et al., 2009; Kober & Rentner, 2020;
Neem, 2017).
The Proliferation of School (1800-1860)
With Horace Mann’s efforts in the early 1800s, public schools became available to all
White children, free of charge, and funded by the state government. The emphasis was to create
a “common” school where students learned reading, writing, and arithmetic along with civics
and morality and where public investment in education would benefit the entire nation. Horace
Mann believed that universal education would generate political stability and social harmony and
prepare young people to be democratic citizens. While there were regional differences in the
growth of the common school movement, eventually, the North, South, Midwest, and West
adopted the principles of the common school movement (Baines, 2006; Neem, 2017).
Horace Mann outlined six principles of education that he believed to be important,
including a free, universal, non-sectarian education system. He also articulated a vision for
11
professionally trained teachers, especially given the fact that teachers at the time were transient
and unqualified. In the 1840s, there was the development of normal schools across the United
States where teachers received training in both teaching and school management. Teachers had
the opportunity to practice their craft and were schooled in teaching proper virtues and morality
to children as well (Baines, 2006; Kaestle, 1983).
The Industrial Revolution in the mid-18th century brought about changes in the education
system, whereby children were seen as a viable labor source. Industries needed labor and turned
to young children, some of whom were in school and some of whom were not. Over time, laws
changed and required school-age children to attend at least 2 hours of school per day. With the
passage of time, immigrants from Europe landed in the United States and served as another
source of labor. The public school system saw increases in enrollment and a return to educating
new immigrants about democratic ideals, morality, and good character, as well as more technical
skills needed for industry (Becker et al., 2011; Kober & Rentner, 2020). These increases in
enrollment, however, did not include Black children who were still enslaved and working on
farms (Alexander, 2010; Wilkerson, 2020).
The Reconstruction Era and School Segregation (1865-1954)
The end of the Civil War in 1865 led to the ratification of the 13th Amendment, which
ended slavery and a period of reconstruction in America. With the abolishment of slavery, four
million Africans were free, and some children started to attend school. Black churches and Black
schools were created to educate the formerly enslaved (Alexander, 2010). The number of
churches and schools open to Black children varied according to locality and funding. The
segregation of White and Black students continued for almost 100 years and ended in 1954 with
12
the landmark ruling in Brown v Board of Education that school segregation was unconstitutional
(Reardon & Owens, 2014).
Concurrently, with industrialization and immigration, schools for White children started
to change. The curriculum became more diverse, moving away from strictly teaching democratic
ideals and morality to teaching technical and core subject matter. Students hailed from all parts
of the world, and there was also a call for preserving their culture, values, heritage, and language.
Immigrant families started to call for schools to offer languages other than English as part of the
curriculum. When these changes did not occur, many White communities started their own
schools (Becker et al., 2011; Zervas, 2017).
With this expansion in curriculum, schools also started to move away from community
control. Industrialization, urbanization, and immigration led to schools shifting away from
serving the local community. Public schools grew, and as they started to serve a more diverse
student body, their locus of power shifted away from communities and toward institutions such
as school boards and city, state, and national governments. These larger governing bodies started
to control schools through curriculum and enrollment policies (Zervas, 2017).
1954-Present
The period after Brown v. Board of Education was both challenging for schools and
communities. It took time to dismantle school segregation, and schools in urban communities
remained under-resourced and underfunded. Inequitable housing policies concentrated people of
color in areas with few opportunities and restricted social mobility (Rothstein, 2004). These
inequitable policies and practices led to community voice and agency being limited or nonexistent (Reardon & Owens, 2014) and to the increasing separation between schools and
13
communities (Delgado-Gaitan, 2004; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995; Olivos, 2006; Reardon
& Owens, 2014).
In response to these inequities that existed between White and Black communities, there
was a resurgence of schooling that addressed community need, including poverty. In the 1960s
and 1970s, advocacy groups wanted to regain their power by improving learning and addressing
social issues, specifically those related to desegregation, discrimination, and underfunded
schools. Communities believed that if they regained control of schools, they could remedy the ill
effects resulting from desegregation and make schools accountable to low-income Black parents
in the same ways White parents made schools accountable to them (Orr & Rogers, 2011). While
many of these initiatives failed, particularly because there was a lack of political support,
insufficient funding, and significant teacher opposition, there were important lessons that
emerged as communities struggled for self-determination (Orr & Rogers, 2011).
The following section presents two examples of New York City communities exercising
agency: a middle school in Harlem and a high school in Ocean-Hill, Brownsville, in Brooklyn.
Both schools were part of demonstration districts that the Ford Foundation created in the 1960s,
and both are examples of communities responding to educational inequity. Both narratives
surface important questions about school integration after Brown vs. Board, including who
makes decisions around school integration and power distribution between schools and the
communities they supposedly serve.
Intermediate School 201 in Harlem (1966)
In the spring of 1966, Intermediate School (IS) 201 in Harlem was scheduled to open its
doors to students from all New York City boroughs. The school was brand new, cost almost five
million dollars to design and construct, and was touted as the only city school with fully
14
functional air conditioning. The school was also built next to a railroad and the Triborough
Bridge so that White students from Queens and the Bronx would be able to travel to the school
easily. The school was windowless, would double as a fallout shelter, and involved tenants’
relocation and restricting play areas due to limited space. Despite the money spent on the new
school’s design and construction, many Harlem residents criticized the board of education’s
efforts, citing that a windowless school next to a railroad that doubled as a fallout shelter did not
consider children’s emotional and psychological needs (Gutman, 2019).
However, in a response to Brown v. Board and the call for integration, the New York
City (NYC) Board of Education stated that this school was brand new and would enroll students
from all racial backgrounds, including White and Black children. Despite the criticism regarding
the design, many Black parents expressed satisfaction at the intent to integrate, with the hope that
the resources afforded to White children would be afforded to their children as well. However,
only Black and Puerto Rican children enrolled in the school. Parents and community activists
were upset, and as a response to their anger, the NYC Board of Education delayed the school’s
opening until September 1966. Between April and September of 1966, only nine White children
had registered to attend IS 201 (Gutman, 2019).
The Harlem Parents Committee and other community organizations boycotted the school,
citing that the board of education had not met their demands for full integration. On opening day,
only 600 out of 1,800 students who were to enroll crossed the picket lines, all of whom were
Black and Puerto Rican. Eventually, the Harlem parents organized and stated that if all the
students were to be Black and Puerto Rican, they wanted a Black principal, and they wanted
control over the school budget and curriculum. After a 162-day boycott, the Harlem parents
prevailed, and the White principal was removed. For several years, the community controlled IS
15
201, and the board of education and the Ford Foundation deemed it a demonstration district.
Three NYC neighborhoods, Harlem, Brooklyn, and the Lower East Side, were given the
authority to govern their local schools, including the ability to choose school leadership and
teachers, determine the curriculum, and allocate school funds (Glass, 2016; Gutman, 2019).
After a few years, the demonstration districts were dismantled, there was a shift to local
governance, and eventually, there was a shift in power; the board of education took control once
again of NYC schools, including IS 201.
Ocean-Hill Brownsville Movement (1968)
In the spring of 1968, Black and Puerto Rican parents organized to take back their
schools in Ocean-Hill Brownsville, a community located in Brooklyn, New York. Specifically,
parents demanded control of all decisions related to administrators’ and teachers’ hiring and
firing and of all their own money in their own banks. They also wanted their children to receive
the same amount of money for education as children in White neighborhoods. They also
demanded that they could buy their own books and supplies and that they could build and
revamp their own schools utilizing Black and Puerto Rican companies and workers from their
own communities. The central board of education responded to these demands by approving a
pilot community-school program with community-level school boards making decisions related
to hiring, school policy, and school budgets. The locus of power shifted to community boards
and resulted in the dismissal of 19 White unionized teachers who were underperformers (Isaacs,
2014; Podair, 2002).
The teacher’s union, primarily consisting of Jewish teachers, pushed back on the decision
by the local community board to dismiss these teachers, resulting in city-wide teacher walkouts
and teacher strikes of approximately 60,000 teachers. These teacher strikes were the largest in
16
United States history and resulted in only 60% of students attending school. Reports were that 1
million school children were affected, and one-fourth of their instructional time was lost. Schools
were closed for 36 days. Violence broke out daily amid the strikes, and replacement teachers
were difficult to find. Since the teacher’s union was accustomed to working with the central
board of education, not the local community board, negotiations were tense and unresolved.
Ultimately, New York State took control of the school, ended the teacher strike, reinstated
teachers, and ended community control (Podair, 2002).
Both schools, IS 201 and Ocean-Hill Brownsville, are stories of how power, race, class,
and self-determination shaped a movement around integration. This movement, while considered
a failure at the time, led to important developments in NYC public schools and their respective
communities in the years afterward. Decentralization and community voice did take root, leading
to the small schools movement in NYC, the bilingual education movement, and the development
of Afro-Centric schools (McGrail, 1977). However, despite the efforts to address segregation,
many schools still operate in silos today, independent of the communities they serve. The next
section presents a more in-depth analysis of school-community partnerships in marginalized
communities, the benefits and barriers to these partnerships, and their effects on student
outcomes and school transformation.
School-Community Partnerships in Marginalized Communities
The literature on school-community partnerships is vast, and there is a growing body of
evidence indicating that strong school-community partnerships are essential to address inequities
in marginalized communities. This section explores the benefits and barriers of schoolcommunity partnerships, including how school as an institution can also serve as a source of
marginalization. Additionally, this section explores key principles from the parent engagement
17
literature, including the fundamental principle that regardless of race and socioeconomic status
and the barriers presented, parents look to school as the primary social institution to educate their
children and support the realization of their potential.
Benefits of School-Community Partnerships
Research indicates that positive relationships between schools and communities benefit
students across economic, racial/ethnic, and educational backgrounds for students at all ages, and
in marginalized communities, these partnerships are necessary, not optional, to generate positive
student outcomes (Bryk, 2010; Johnson, 2011; Maier et al., 2017; Noguera, 2011; Rothstein,
2015). School-community partnerships are essential in marginalized communities because,
through these relationships, the needs of the whole child can be addressed, including the socioeconomic factors that arise out of structural inequities and multi-generational poverty.
In a series of studies conducted by Jeynes (2003, 2005, 2007, 2012, 2015, 2017), the
positive correlation between student achievement and strong school-community partnerships is
established across all socio-economic and racial backgrounds. Bryk (2010) further states that
strong school-community partnerships in urban schools become even more essential to confront
the overwhelming human need and scarce social capital in disadvantaged communities. Through
these partnerships, schools and communities can address the social and economic needs of their
students, paving the way for students to learn. Like Bryk, Noguera (2011) and Rothstein (2015)
also contended that strong school-community relationships can accelerate student progress and
achievement when all students have their needs met.
Maier et al. (2017) conducted a review of evidence related to community schools as an
effective school improvement strategy and contended that there was significant evidence that
supports the notion that strong school-community partnerships are essential for increasing
18
student achievement in marginalized communities (Henderson, 2007; Mediratta et al., 2009;
Noguera, 2011). Additionally, Maier et al. (2017) found that schools that develop social capital
with their communities can leverage resources in the community to address student needs and
that strong partnerships and a shared sense of responsibility can alleviate the damaging effects of
poverty. Because schools lack the resources to address all their students’ needs, they must join
forces with the community. Utilizing community expertise and resources enables schools to
focus on what they do best: help students learn (Baker et al., 2016).
The benefits of strong school-community partnerships also affect the academic, social,
and emotional well-being of students in marginalized communities (Anderson-Butcher et al.,
2006; J. Epstein, 2016; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Goldberg et al., 2019; Jeynes, 2003, 2005,
2007, 2012, 2015, 2017; Noguera, 2011). According to Noguera (2011), all three domains, the
academic, social, and emotional well-being of students, are interconnected. A consistent finding
in the literature is that the benefits of these partnerships include the following: higher grade point
averages, higher scores on standardized tests, enrollment in more rigorous academic programs,
more classes passed and credits earned, better attendance, improved behavior, more positive
attitudes toward school, better ability to adapt, increased resilience, and better social skills
(Anderson-Butcher et al., 2006; J. Epstein, 2016; Fan & Chen, 2001; Goldberg et al., 2019;
Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Maier et al., 2017; Noguera, 2011; Sheldon & Epstein, 2004).
Students are also more likely to have positive peer relationships, communicate better with others,
exercise agency over their own learning, and are less likely to engage in conflict but are prepared
should conflict occur (Goldberg et al., 2019; Maier et al., 2017).
J. Epstein (2016) agreed with Noguera and emphasized that these positive student
outcomes in all three domains result from a shared responsibility between families, schools, and
19
communities. As one of the most cited authors in school-community partnerships, J. L. Epstein
(1987) described a model where there are internal and external factors that affect student
outcomes. While the model is not specific to marginalized communities, it is a useful framework
to describe the forces or spheres of influence that can be pushed or pulled to affect outcomes for
children. The influential external factors include the backgrounds, philosophies, and actions of
families, schools, and communities (J. Epstein, 2016). The internal factors include the lines of
communication and social interactions between parents, teachers, students, and community
members (J. Epstein, 2016). In marginalized communities, there are more challenging external
factors that influence schooling, including the structural barriers that result from systemic racism
and historic oppression (Crenshaw, 1989; Rothstein, 2015).
Building on Epstein’s work, Ishimaru et al. (2016) recognized that strong partnerships
between schools, families, and communities take place in inequitable contexts defined by race,
class, and language. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995) and Auerbach (2010) also affirmed
that power, culture, race, class, gender, and socio-economic status shape community
engagement. Ishimaru et al. (2016) suggested that parents and families need to move beyond
only supporting their own children to advocating for other children as well because collective
efforts to engage all families can result in advancement and learning opportunities for all
students. The collective and relational power generated between parents, families, and
communities at the school level can influence institutions more broadly to provide access to
resources, key knowledge, and opportunities that can lead to greater change for more students.
Ishimaru et al. (2016) asserted that shared goal setting and decision-making are strategies that
can lead to this systemic change.
20
While J. Epstein (2016), Ishimaru (2016), and Noguera (2011) provided a useful lens
through which to examine school-community partnerships, many of these challenges are difficult
to overcome, given that they are systematic, deep-rooted and require a more integrated and
holistic approach to address. Next, these barriers will be discussed, along with their effects on
whole school change.
Barriers to School-Community Partnerships
Communities of color with low socioeconomic status and high poverty have more limited
parent engagement than communities that do not face the same adverse conditions (Bryk, 2010;
Coleman et al., 1966; Noguera, 2011; Rothstein, 2015). Key findings in the literature indicate
that there is a history of mistrust between schools and families (Bryk & Schneider, 2002;
Lohmann et al., 2018; Noguera, 2011), poor communication between schools and families
(Auerbach, 2010; Baker et al., 2016), schools whose faculty and staff have negative attitudes and
perceptions of community (Baker et al., 2016; Lohmann et al., 2018), challenges with logistics
such as varying work schedules and issues with transportation (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011;
Lawson, 2003; Lohmann et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2011; Waanders et al., 2007) adverse
environmental factors that exist specifically in poor and marginalized communities (Noguera,
2011; Rothstein, 2015), and differences in language (Carreón et al., 2005) that serve as barriers
to generating positive student outcomes.
One of the most prevailing factors in the literature, and one that warrants special
attention, is the history of mistrust between schools and their communities (Bryk & Schneider,
2002; Fine, 1993; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Olivos, 2006). This history of mistrust stems from a
legacy of institutional racism and neglect (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Yosso, 2005), the
consolidation of socioeconomic disadvantage (Bryk, 2010; Rothstein, 2015), and the
21
dehumanization of Black people during and after slavery (Crenshaw, 1989; Uslaner, 2012;
Wilkerson, 2020; Yosso, 2005). All three factors have led to communities feeling neglected,
unwelcome, and unheard (Auerbach, 2010; Bryk, 2010; Ishimaru et al., 2016; Noguera, 2011).
Consistent in the literature on school-community partnerships is that trust is necessary to
build strong and effective schools (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Meier, 2002). High levels of trust
between schools and communities can foster social capital that can lead to school improvement
and better outcomes for students (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). In many marginalized communities,
the absence of trust due to historical structural inequities makes it difficult to develop the strong
relationships necessary for positive student outcomes (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Noguera,
2011). Because of the power differentials between schools and communities, the research
suggests that schools must take the lead in rebuilding and generating trust with the communities
they serve (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; J. Epstein, 2016; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995;
Ishimaru et al., 2016).
In addition to the barriers mentioned above, a consistent finding in the literature is that
school as a social institution can serve as a barrier to generating positive student outcomes
(J. Epstein, 2016; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2003; Noguera, 2001; Olivos,
2006; Valenzuela, 1999; Wacquant, 2002). Next is a discussion of school’s role in
marginalization.
22
School’s Role in Marginalization
There is a substantial body of literature that indicates that public schools, while often
sources of stability in urban communities, can also serve as negative sources of capital that can
lead to marginalization and barriers to positive student outcomes (Crenshaw, 1989; J. Epstein,
2016; A. E. Lewis & Diamond, 2017; Noguera, 2001; Olivos, 2006; Wacquant, 2002). Schools
can create environments where there is parent disengagement (Dyrness, 2009) and
marginalization of non-dominant groups, which may include low-income, immigrant, and
students of color (Delgado-Gaitan, 2004; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2003).
Olivos (2006) and Valenzuela (1999) described some schools as subtractive spaces that
dismiss and mischaracterize students of color. Rather than fully embracing bilingualism and
biculturalism, schools subtract students’ identities formed through language and culture.
Research conducted by Valenzuela (1999) reveals that schools’ exclusionary practices fracture
students’ cultural and ethnic identity, resulting in students feeling isolated, misunderstood, and
fragile. These feelings of isolation can contribute to poorer student outcomes and explain
differences in achievement between marginalized and non-marginalized communities
(Valenzuela, 1999).
Schools can also serve to marginalize students by actively or passively ignoring the
communities they should serve (Noguera, 2011; Wacquant, 2002). School faculty and leadership
can resist building partnerships with families and communities out of fear, biased thinking, or a
lack of awareness that support is needed. Resisting partnerships with communities can lead to the
social isolation and erosion of trust that many families experience and can contribute to the
differences in student outcomes between marginalized and non-marginalized communities
(Auerbach, 2010; Bryk, 2010; Yosso, 2005). A growing body of research indicates that schools
23
must actively work to create partnerships with communities that move “beyond the bake sale”
(Henderson, 2007) and “coffee with the principal” (Auerbach, 2010). Limited school agendas
and mandates with communities must give way to authentic partnerships that foster collaboration
and shared decision-making (Auerbach, 2010; Celoria, 2016); a community’s cultural wealth,
language, special skills, and social capital must be recognized, harnessed, and activated
(Acevedo & Solórzano, 2021; Yosso, 2005).
Key Principles From Parent Engagement Literature
Despite the negative effects of these institutional barriers over many generations, the
literature on parent engagement in disadvantaged communities consistently states that parents
believe in their children’s potential (Eccles & Harold, 1993; Henderson, 2007), believe in
schools’ ability to teach their children (J. Epstein, 2016; Noguera, 2011) and believe in schools
providing more and varied opportunities for community engagement and collaboration
(J. L. Epstein, 1992; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011; Noguera,
2011; Williams & Stallworth, 1984).
According to Eccles and Harold (1993) and Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995),
parents want their children to succeed because they have a personal sense of efficacy, they have
a personal construction of their role as parents, and they believe in the potential of their children.
In fact, according to Henderson (2007), parents should be considered equal partners by school
professionals and regarded as experts on their children and their communities.
J. Epstein (2016) discussed the role that schools hold in a family’s life and explained that
school, despite the barriers to engagement and the history of mistrust, is the sole institution to
provide children with an education to propel them forward. Yosso (2005) described schools as
having the ability to either marginalize students with exclusionary practices and policies or to
24
empower them through liberating and equitable policies and practices. Noguera (2011) stated
that school reform is community reform and believes in the power of school to educate young
people so that they can realize their full potential.
Hornby and Lafaele (2011) described a parental attitude survey conducted by the
National Opinion Research Centre in the United States, where parents indicated that they believe
schools are valuable for their children’s learning and that they wanted more involvement,
particularly in the areas of school programming and decision-making. In a review of concepts
and evidence relative to family-school engagement, Barton et al. (2021) described research
conducted by Williams and Stallworth (1984) almost 40 years ago indicating that parents were
not involved in their child’s school because there was a lack of power in decision-making
processes and that parents wanted a more equal partnership with the school. Parents further
indicated that this relationship should not center around fault-finding conversations.
Barton et al. (2021) further described how The National Association for the Education of
Young Children conducted a systematic review of successful family-school engagement in
education programming that led to the specification of six principles to guide effective parent
involvement, one of which was decision-making where teachers should invite families to
actively collaborate in goal setting. In their work, Mapp and Bergman (2021) also delineated
three core beliefs that are essential to effective school-community partnerships, one of which
also includes the fact that family-school engagement should be a collaborative process where
schools and communities co-construct shared values and goals.
The literature also describes how parents want schools to provide more opportunities for
their engagement, specifically opportunities that go beyond volunteering and that include shared
decision-making and collaboration (J. L. Epstein, 1992; Noguera, 2011; Williams & Stallworth,
25
1984). While Ishimaru et al. (2016) strongly encouraged collaboration between schools and
families, they cautioned educators to be mindful of the historic and systemic inequities that affect
how families and communities participate in formal environments and states that, despite good
intentions, patterns of inequities tend to reemerge and reassert themselves over time.
The next section will present J. L. Epstein’s (1992) parent involvement framework as it
relates to this dissertation’s problem of practice. This framework describes a continuum of parent
and community engagement, providing a model to comprehend the dynamics of a school’s
interactions with its students, family, and wider school community.
Descriptive Framework: Epstein’s Parent Involvement Framework
The framework utilized to contextualize this study is J. Epstein’s parent involvement
framework (J. L. Epstein, 1992). This framework provided a useful lens to understand and situate
this dissertation’s problem of practice as it relates to parent and community engagement,
specifically domains five and six: decision making and collaborating with the community. The
following section will describe these types of involvement and their application in the context of
this problem of practice. Please see Figure 1 for a visual representation of Epstein’s framework
for six types of involvement.
26
Figure 1
Joyce Epstein’s Framework for Six Types of Involvement for School-Family-Community
Partnerships
Note. This framework was produced by Joyce Epstein in 1990 and has been adapted for the
purposes of this literature review. Adapted from School and Family Partnerships (Report No. 6)
by J. L. Epstein, 1992. Center on Families, Schools, and Children’s Learning. Copyright 1992 by
Center on Families, Schools, and Children’s Learning.
J. L. Epstein (1992) described six types of involvement for school-community
partnerships: parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision-making, and
collaborating with the community. Parenting refers to the home environments to support children
in learning and communicating refers to the forms of communication between schools and
families regarding school programs and student progress. Volunteering refers to how schools
recruit and organize parents and community members for support and learning at home refers to
27
how schools provide information and ideas to families around helping students at home with
homework, planning, and preparation for school. The fifth domain, decision-making, refers to
including parents in decision-making and developing them into leaders. The sixth domain,
collaborating with the community, refers to utilizing and leveraging the resources from the
community to support learning and development.
The six areas of involvement detailed by J. L. Epstein (1992) outline a comprehensive
range of engagement strategies for families and communities that can be pivotal in whole school
transformation. This transformative process is rooted in equipping parents with the necessary
resources to support their children’s education within the home and ensuring open and effective
communication between schools and their surrounding communities, thereby facilitating
learning. Furthermore, schools that forge partnerships with families and welcome them as
integral contributors in the decision-making process, especially in matters affecting their
children, foster an environment where parents are acknowledged and valued. Such inclusive
partnerships can address and potentially dismantle systemic obstacles, leading to better student,
family, and community outcomes.
Summary
This dissertation’s problem of practice explores power-sharing and decision-making
between schools and communities because research indicates that strong school-community
partnerships, particularly in marginalized communities, improve student outcomes in all three
dimensions: academic achievement, social development, and emotional resilience. Research also
indicates that despite the barriers to engagement, families look to school as the primary
institution in a community for their children’s education. Because of all these factors, it becomes
necessary for schools to provide meaningful opportunities for community engagement that
28
includes collaboration and shared decision-making. Examining the dynamics between schools
and communities may lead to an increased awareness of how schools and communities can form
strong partnerships in service of all students’ needs.
29
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study is a qualitative inquiry, specifically a case-based phenomenological approach
that examined school-community partnerships. This study examined both school professionals’
and community leaders’ perceptions of school-community partnerships and the process by which
schools developed a culture of sharing power and decision-making with the community to
support marginalized students. Seen through a lens of educator perceptions of their own and
others’ preparedness for community collaboration and shared leadership, the opportunities and
barriers for power-sharing were examined. The research plan, the methodology, study
participants, procedures, analysis method, and ethical concerns are components of this chapter.
Research Questions
This study focused on the values of the members of two SLTs guided by the following
research questions:
1. What are the values and beliefs of SLT members around power-sharing between the
school and the community?
2. What are the opportunities and challenges associated with developing a culture of
power-sharing between school and community?
Overview of Design
This study utilized a qualitative approach to examine the driving values that inform the
operation of SLTs and their impact on school-community partnerships. I triangulated literature
on the evolution of school and the nature of school-community partnerships in marginalized
communities with data collected from SLTs in two NYC public schools, one located in
Williamsburg, Brooklyn, and the other school located in Brownsville, Brooklyn. These two
schools were selected based on school leaders’ interest in examining school-community relations
30
with the expectation of strengthening collaboration. The triangulation of data served to provide
deeper insight into how schools and communities share decision-making to determine school
goals and policies in service of the whole student and the wider school community.
This study involved a qualitative approach consisting of individual semi-structured
interviews with two SLTs in two secondary schools in NYC. I interviewed school professionals
to understand their values around power-sharing and decision-making between the school and
the community. The relationship between schools and communities is complex, rooted in a
history of mistrust and structural inequity. Uniting schools with their communities and
encouraging collaboration and shared decision-making requires both a holistic understanding and
approach to this multi-faceted challenge. Conducting qualitative research helps to facilitate
learning about challenges directly from the participants and strategically guides the research to
obtain needed information to increase our knowledge base (Creswell & Creswell, 2016).
A qualitative research design was appropriate for this research on school-community
partnerships and shared decision-making to understand the feelings, thoughts, and intentions of
both school and community leaders. Patton (2015) further indicated that qualitative research can
help researchers understand how individuals organize and make meaning from the world.
Research Setting
This qualitative study consisted of interviewing members of the SLTs in two secondary
schools in CYC. School leadership teams are mandated to meet as a governing body once a
month throughout the school year, with optional meetings scheduled based on the individual
school’s needs. The research setting for this qualitative inquiry included groups of people
(anywhere from 5 to 17 members) on SLTs who are required to meet once a month at their
respective schools. For this inquiry, there were two research sites: one school located in
31
Williamsburg, Brooklyn, and the other school located in Brownsville, Brooklyn. Both school
leaders convene their SLT meetings in person, but in certain circumstances, they have utilized
video conferencing as another method for holding meetings. For this inquiry, I conducted semistructured individual interviews through video conferencing, specifically Zoom, given
participant convenience. I recorded and transcribed the interviews with the permission of the
interviewees. This study did not include students.
The following sections provide more detail about the school context for both schools,
referred to as School Alpha and School Beta, for anonymity purposes. Included in the discussion
is the school mission, the composition of students, and a description of the culture that frames
their understanding of community value, particularly as it relates to this study’s research
questions.
School Alpha
School Alpha is in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, and was founded in 2004 as part of the small
school movement that attempted to address low graduation rates across large comprehensive
high schools in NYC. City officials and policymakers believed that breaking large secondary
schools into several smaller schools would offer more personalized and individualized learning,
which would increase student achievement. School Alpha’s original mission and vision was to
replicate the values and beliefs of a traditional preparatory school for marginalized students
where high expectations and academic rigor were founding principles to prepare students for
college.
Since 2004, with a change of two school leaders, the mission has evolved. Preparing
students for college is still central, but additionally, the school has emphasized building
relationships as core to its mission. In the 2022–2023 school year, with the collaboration of
32
stakeholders, the school has created and adopted a new mission: relationship renders results.
Their six core values are relationship, citizenship, leadership, scholarship, and partnership.
According to the current principal, “Without having a relationship, nothing else can happen. You
need to have that strong bond. It’s learned from people they respect.”
In addition to an evolving school mission, there has been a shift in student demographics
over time. School Alpha’s initial enrollment was approximately 400 students in 2004 and has
steadily grown to approximately 700 students overall in Grades 9 through 12. The student body
was composed primarily of Black students from all boroughs of NYC. Today, Black students
represent 20% of the student population, with LatinX representing 66%, and Asian and White
students representing the other four and six percent, respectively. The changes in demographics
reflect changes in the neighborhood and changes across NYC. With an open enrollment policy,
students can apply to School Alpha from any borough in the city. Current demographics related
to faculty and staff indicate that 72% are White, 14% are LatinX, and 12% are Black. There are
no Asian faculty members. See Table 1 for a comparison of demographics between students and
faculty.
Table 1
School Alpha: Comparison of Ethnicity Between Students and Faculty/Staff
Ethnicity Students Faculty/Staff
Black 20% 12%
LatinX 66% 14%
White 6% 72%
Asian 4% 0%
Other 4% 2%
33
The principal describes her school as a “neighborhood” school and states that she and her
faculty and staff have worked diligently to recruit students from Greenpoint and Bushwick,
neighborhoods that are proximal to Williamsburg. During her interview, she stated that because
the school is desirable, many White students are applying to the school as well.
School Beta
School Beta is situated in Brownsville, Brooklyn, and was founded in 2012 in response to
the closing of a middle school in the same building. The school was founded on the following
principles: resilience, empathy, advocacy, collaboration, and honor. The school has had two
leadership changes, and its third principal has led it since 2017. The current school leader was a
teacher and assistant principal at other NYC Department of Education schools before being
selected as the principal at School Beta. The school’s mission is to enable all students access to
learning through the provision of hiring and nurturing highly effective teachers, to provide a
quality inclusive learning environment to all students, and to provide opportunities for the
community and parents to learn and exercise decision-making authority. The mission has not
substantially changed since its inception.
The school’s demographics have not substantially changed since its inception either. The
school is a Title 1 school, with approximately 64% of its students identifying as Black, 30% as
Hispanic, 3% as Native American, and less than 1% as White. Approximately 95% of the faculty
are Black, with 3% identifying as White. No faculty identify as Asian, Hispanic, or Native
American. See Table 2 for a comparison of demographics between students and faculty.
34
Table 2
School Beta: Comparison of Ethnicity between Students and Faculty/Staff
Ethnicity Students Faculty/Staff
Black 64% 95%
LatinX 30% 0%
White 1% 3%
Asian 0% 0%
Native American 3% 0%
Other 0% 0%
According to the principal, he conducts a series of stakeholder meetings in addition to the
SLT meeting once a month. Every week, he holds a “solution team” meeting and a “vision team”
meeting. In the solution team meeting, all CBOs meet to determine school and community needs.
Most of the participants in this meeting are external employees of the school. In his vision team
meeting, participants, who are mostly school staff and faculty members, meet to discuss items
related to the school’s mission and vision, including methods of collaborating and
communicating with one another. Additionally, the school is open from 7 am to 7 pm, with the
intent of sharing space with community organizations and providing support to students through
an after-school program.
The Researcher
Creswell and Creswell (2016) described reflexivity as the examination of one’s own
beliefs, judgements, and practices during the research that may influence the study. As a
practicing educator in NYC public schools for 20 years, I am aware that my beliefs and
experiences may influence this qualitative study. I have worked as a mathematics teacher in both
middle and high schools in the Bronx and Manhattan, as an assistant principal and principal in
two schools in Brooklyn and am currently working as an instructional and leadership coach
35
across a network of 23 public secondary schools in NYC. Additionally, I am a graduate of two
professional preparation programs located in NYC: the New York City Teaching Fellows
Program and The New York City Leadership Academy (NYCLA).
Throughout these multiple roles, I have had the opportunity to become involved in school
transformation at all levels. During my tenure as instructional leadership coach with CUNY
Research Foundation, through which I have had the privilege of working with a network of
schools throughout NYC, I have observed an emerging trend among educators. From 1st year
teachers through principals, practitioners have become increasingly disconnected from students
and their individualized life contexts. Even less interest has been placed on connecting with
school communities, despite the idea that school was originated to serve local communities. This
disconnect between school and community has resulted in the compartmentalization of a
student’s education, resulting in poor academic, social, and emotional student outcomes,
particularly in marginalized communities.
This study attempted to understand why there is a disconnect between schools and
communities from the perspective of both school and community leaders and the process by
which schools can develop a culture of collaboration and shared decision-making between the
two entities with the purpose of improving student outcomes. Given my background as an
educator, I am aware of my biases. To conduct a bias-free and fair study, I exercised reflexivity,
which is the active examination of my own judgements, practices, and beliefs, especially during
the data collection process (Khanal, 2021).
Data Sources
My selection of the two participating schools and their corresponding SLTs was a
function of my access to school leadership through the position of leadership coach and
36
facilitator. One of the schools, an intermediate secondary school consisting of three hundred
students, is in Brownsville, Brooklyn, NY, and the other school, located in Williamsburg,
Brooklyn, NY, is a secondary school consisting of seven hundred students.
School leadership teams’ were originally conceived as a structure that would allow for
both school and community agency and voice. The NYC Department of Education values a
governance structure that ensures collaborative decision-making at both the school and district
levels. This structure allows for consensus-based decision-making and serves to empower all
stakeholders, creating a culture of cooperation, collaboration, and mutual respect. Within these
two data sites, I found the most appropriate space in which to examine the opportunities and
barriers for power-sharing between schools and the communities they serve.
Interviews
I utilized interviews as the study’s primary data source. Through semi-structured
interviews, I gained more clarity and understanding as to how schools develop a culture of
power-sharing, specifically with the communities they serve. I conducted individual interviews
on Zoom and scheduled them according to the participants’ availability. Recordings were made
of the interviews and transcribed utilizing Zoom. Each interview lasted approximately 45 to 60
minutes. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) highlighted that the method of interviewing represents a
robust data collection method that helps to gain a deeper understanding of the interviewees’
experiences and sense-making.
Participants
I conducted semi-structured interviews with participants who were purposefully selected
based on established criteria, including the school qualifying as a Title I school, having a
functioning SLT that meets regularly with a mix of school professionals and community
37
members as participants, and having a school leader indicate that school-community
collaboration is a school goal. Table 3 indicates these criteria.
Table 3
Sampling Criteria for Selection in Study
Sampling criteria Alpha Beta
Title I school (low income) X X
Functioning SLT X X
SLT has a mixture of school professionals and
community members
X X
Principal indicated that strengthening
collaboration with community is a school goal.
X X
38
I originally recruited participants through my professional networks, which consisted of a
population of 23 schools representing a group of schools in NYC under the same
superintendency. I initially selected two schools to participate in the research based on the
established criteria. However, I learned that both principals were seeking employment in other
school districts and would no longer be available to participate in this study. Thus, I had to
utilize snowball sampling as a technique to identify potential candidates for this research.
Snowball sampling is a technique that involves starting with a small group of initial participants
or seeds who meet specific criteria. These seeds can then identify and recruit additional
participants from their social networks, creating a chain effect (Creswell & Creswell, 2016).
Based on snowball sampling, I identified 10 schools and compared these schools against
the qualifying criteria. After careful review and a conversation with each principal, the
researcher identified two secondary schools that matched the established criteria for this study.
After speaking with both principals, I learned that they had a demonstrated interest in shared
decision-making with their respective communities and that they would like to learn more about
strengthening ties with their communities. Both principals also indicated that they have active
SLTs whose participants meet regularly to discuss school-related matters, including setting goals
and monitoring progress toward those goals. Additionally, both principals indicated that they
were born and raised in the communities they serve. While this was not a criterion for selection,
it may indicate motivation for the school leaders to collaborate with their communities.
Both schools are situated in Brooklyn, New York, and consist of a student body that is
primarily low-income and qualifies for free or reduced-price lunch. One school, an intermediate
school, serves students in Grades 6 through 8 with a total population of 300 students. The other
school, serving Grades 9 through 12, consists of a population of 700 students. Most of the
39
students in each school reside near the school as well. Given NYC’s open enrollment policy that
allows students to attend school from any NYC borough, this is a unique feature of the student
population possibly attributable to a variety of factors, including the school leader’s vision to
recruit and enroll students from the school’s neighborhood.
The target population for this study included members of the SLT in both qualifying
schools. An SLT is a governing body with representatives from the community, school
leadership, students, and school faculty/staff. The purpose of the SLT is to collaboratively
construct the school’s goals and its comprehensive educational plan. This governing body is
appropriate for the research questions because (a) the members represent a group of stakeholders
with a diversity of thought and experience and (b) the stakeholders are responsible for creating
school goals and an educational plan that aligns with the school’s mission and vision. Taken
together, the SLT members have power and privilege and can influence key school decisions,
including those that affect the entire school community.
Generally, the SLT consists of three to 10 members. The SLT must include the principal,
the UFT chapter chair, and the parents association president. At the secondary school level, the
SLT must have at least two students and an equal number of parents and staff members. The
target sample size was nine participants from both school sites. Members interviewed included
school leaders, school staff, parent and community coordinators, an executive director of a nonprofit organization, and a Parent Teachers Association (PTA) president.
Instrumentation
I conducted semi-structured interviews in two NYC schools with the members of two
SLTs. Individual interviews provide a comprehensive understanding of member perceptions and
values related to this dissertation’s problem of practice. I developed two sets of interview
40
protocols based on the SLT members’ roles. I asked school-based professionals, such as the
principal, assistant principal, and teacher leader, questions related to the reasons for becoming
educators and their views on community engagement, their preparedness around community
engagement, and the types of support available for community partnership. Additionally,
questions concerned the benefits and challenges of community engagement and their views on
the criteria for an optimal school-community partnership. I maintained flexibility with the
question order, depending on the responses of the participants. I presented an interview guide
with an introduction to the study to the participants to ensure full transparency.
The second interview protocol was for community-based members of the SLT, including
the community coordinator, parent coordinator, PTA president, and community-based
organization (CBO) leader. I asked these participants similar questions, including their reasons
for becoming community organizers and interest in becoming an SLT member, their values
around community engagement and the origins of these values, and their views on what makes
for an optimal school-community partnership. I also maintained flexibility throughout the
interviews and presented an interview guide with an introduction to the study to these
participants as well.
Data Collection Procedures
I identified the two schools for this qualitative study based on interview sampling criteria
established in Table 3. Originally, I identified schools for this study based on my access to
school leadership through the position of leadership coach and facilitator. However, when I
learned that the two school leaders were seeking employment in another school district, I utilized
snowball sampling as a technique to identify two more schools. Through this process, I identified
10 schools as possible candidates for this study based on the sampling criteria, and after
41
conversations with the school leaders, I selected two schools, both in Brooklyn, NYC. The
school leaders for these schools then selected the individuals on the SLT who would be willing
to participate in the interviews, keeping in mind that there had to be a mix of school
professionals and community members as interviewees. I then sent an invitation email to these
participants with information about the study, the purpose of the interview, and the interview
logistics. I also sent a follow-up thank-you email after completing the interview.
The majority of interviews were conducted over Zoom and lasted approximately 45 to 60
minutes. The recordings were HIPAA compliant and utilized a Zoom account that was passwordprotected. All transcriptions were completed utilizing Zoom and saved to a password-protected
account. I complemented the recording with my field notes and referred to both the recordings
and transcripts throughout the coding process.
Data Analysis
Analysis of the data included coding the interview content for emergent themes.
Interview participant responses were transcribed via Zoom and uploaded to QDA Miner, a
qualitative data analysis program that specializes in easy importation of data. A process of open
coding ensued, which comprised two processes: open coding focused on textual content and
axial coding focused on the data’s thematic organization. During the coding process, I mapped
relevant themes, patterns, and categories that emerged to the research questions. Open and axial
coding was repeated several times with each transcript to ensure accuracy and reliability.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To ensure the credibility and validity of this study’s findings, I adhered to the interview
guide that provides a basic line of inquiry. All participants were asked the same questions,
depending on whether they were school professionals or community-based professionals.
42
Depending on their responses, I asked additional probing questions. In addition, I utilized
member checking as a method of triangulation to ensure the data’s validity (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). I shared all protocols regarding the interviews with the participants.
Ethics
I ensured that ethics, validity, and reliability were priorities throughout this study.
Participants engaged in informed consent procedures that ensured voluntary participation,
indicated both the benefits and risks of this participation, and sought permission to record.
Additionally, I read the informed consent form to each participant prior to the interview, both in
English and Spanish, and gave them a copy in both languages as well, ensuring clear and
transparent communication. There were minimal risks to human subjects associated with this
study, and all participants were over 18 years of age. According to Creswell and Creswell
(2018), researchers should ensure the confidentiality and privacy of information and that all
participants receive the same treatment. Data should also be protected through anonymizing
procedures.
All interviewees engaged in this study voluntarily, having understood that this study’s
purpose was to improve school-community relations through situating value for power-sharing
between school and community. I gathered data through Zoom-based, password-protected
interview recordings, which I stored on a 128-bit secured drive. All data used in this study were
anonymized and de-identified. There were no known risks or benefits to participants, and they
consented to participate in this study through signed informed consent forms, which the
institutional review board approved. I sought approval from the board before conducting the
study.
43
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine how school professionals and community
leaders perceive school-community partnerships and the development of a culture of powersharing and decision-making to support marginalized students. This study focused on the values
of the members of two SLTs in two secondary schools in Brooklyn, New York, as well as the
opportunities and barriers associated with building strong school-community partnerships. This
chapter describes the participants of the qualitative study and reports on the findings, guided by
the following research questions:
1. What are the values and beliefs of SLT members around power-sharing between the
school and the community?
2. What are the opportunities and challenges associated with developing a culture of
power-sharing between school and community?
The following sections of this chapter present the findings of these research questions. Results
are organized according to themes and subthemes that emerged during data analysis and are
categorized by research questions. To be considered as a theme, it had to emerge in at least five
of the participant interviews. Separate sub-sections describe the themes and include direct
quotations as a form of evidence to ensure credibility. An overview of the participants is also
presented.
Participants
This study utilized a purposeful sampling method that yielded two schools and nine
participants in semi-structured interviews. I selected the schools and participants based on
established criteria outlined in Chapter Three. I assigned the participants and school sites
pseudonyms to protect their identities throughout the study. All the participants are active
44
members of their SLTs and are considered either school professionals or community members
with some decision-making authority. The participants were six women and three men,
representing three ethnicities. Six participants work at School Alpha, and three participants work
at School Beta. Of the total sample, four participants are considered school-based professionals,
and five are considered community members. All are employees of the NYC Department of
Education, except for Melissa, an executive director of a non-profit, who is employed by the city
of New York.
Table 4 shows participant demographic information, including their years of service in
education and their current role, and Table 5 includes sample statements from participants
regarding their perspectives on school-community collaboration.
Table 4
Participant’s Names, Gender, Role, Ethnicity, School Site, and Service History
Name Gender Role Ethnicity School
site
Years in
education
Years in
current role
Sally Female School leader Caucasian Alpha 17 2
Bill Male Teacher
leader
Caucasian Alpha 16 15
Angela Female Community
coordinator
Caucasian Alpha 16 2
Jennifer Female Assistant
principal
Caucasian Alpha 25 2
Sandra Female PTA
president
Caucasian Alpha 15 2
Jill Female Parent
coordinator
Latina Alpha 3 2
Henry Male School leader African
American
Beta 30 7
Ryan Male Community
coordinator
African
American
Beta 25 3
Melissa Female CBO leader African
American
Beta 20 10
45
Table 5
Sample Statements on School-Community Collaboration
Participant Sample statement on school-community collaboration
Sally I work closely with my SLT, my parents, my students, my teachers. I never
make a decision without collaborating with all my stakeholders, and I do
feel partnership and collaboration with all my stakeholders is one of the
reasons why my school is so successful.
Bill I think that connections to the community should definitely be made. I feel
that that’s a good way of getting people involved.
Angela Well, we do a lot in the community, like the soup kitchens [and] Toys for
Tots. We would collect presents because it was always important for us to
be very involved with the community.
Jennifer The school acting as one community in and of itself. When you come here,
you’re a member of this community, you’re a valuable member of this
community, and you make contributions to this community every day, and
that’s for everybody: kids, office staff, custodial staff. It should feel like
we are one community.
Sandra I think we have to come together as a community and find ways to help
parents, as a school community, and students succeed.
Jill It’s important to engage the community because these kids are part of the
community, and some of these kids and parents can be helpful, and I
wouldn’t know this if I didn’t speak to the parents.
Henry I believe communities play a huge role. We have a solution team meeting
that meets every Tuesday, made up of community stakeholders, business
members, elected official, and we talk about things that are working well
and how we can make the school community better.
Ryan I always am making sure that the young scholars and their families benefit
from whatever decision that we make and always looking at the whole
child and getting them the benefit of the resources that are possible.
Melissa So, the goal for me as long as I’m here is to create a holistic community
where we have strong businesses that are culturally reflective of the
community.
Sally has worked in education for 17 years in multiple roles, starting as a school aide,
parent coordinator, student dean, teacher, assistant principal, and now, as a principal in School
Alpha. She described her experience as unique in that she has primarily worked in one school
and has worked in multiple capacities, both as a community-based professional and now as a
46
school-based professional. She says that she understands the value of community and seeks to
hire professionals who believe that working with the community is important.
Bill is a teacher leader and a career changer, having worked in the biotech industry before
joining the NYC Teaching Fellows program in 2007 and becoming a science teacher. Bill has
worked in two NYC schools and indicated that he became a teacher in School Alpha to learn
from others. He has served on the SLT for 2 years.
Angela is a community coordinator in School Alpha and served as a school aide at an
elementary school before joining School Alpha in 2010 as a parent coordinator. She was recently
selected as a community coordinator and indicated that she lives in the community, her children
have attended schools in the community, and she believes that schools and communities must
work together for the students’ benefit.
Jennifer is a seasoned educator with 20 years of experience in the NYC Department of
Education. She stated that since the age of 4, she has always wanted to be a teacher. She has held
several roles in her career, serving as a teacher and literacy coach before becoming an assistant
principal at School Alpha. She is the first person in her family to attend college, and in 2022,
Sally asked Jennifer to work with her in the capacity of an assistant principal.
Sandra is the president of School Alpha’s PTA and is a parent of two children who
graduated from School Alpha. She also serves as a paraprofessional in a pre-kindergarten class
and lives in the neighborhood. Even though parent engagement drops off in high school, she
believes that parents must continue to actively engage with the school.
Jill is a 2014 graduate of School Alpha and currently serves as the school’s parent
coordinator. After graduating from School Alpha, she went to college at John Jay’s School of
Criminal Justice and had a family of her own. She began her career in education in the
47
elementary school she attended, and then the school principal offered her the position of parent
coordinator. Jill is bilingual in English and Spanish.
Henry has worked in education for over 20 years and is School Beta’s principal. He
described how he chose between playing basketball nationally and becoming an educator and
that once in the classroom, he fell in love with his students and made education his career. Henry
believes that schools exist to serve communities and states that his motivation for becoming a
school leader in Brownsville stems from the fact that he was born and raised in this community.
Ryan has been a community coordinator in School Beta for 3 years but has been an
educator for the past 25 years. Henry hired him to work with community organizations in
Brownsville and states that he was born and raised “down the block” from the school and that he
has a vested interest in ensuring that the children in the community get the resources and
education they deserve.
Melissa serves as the executive director of a CBO in Brownsville that supports both
businesses and schools in the community. She grew up in Buffalo, New York, and moved to
Brooklyn after a personal tragedy. She believes that schools are “anchor institutions” in the
community and that young people should serve as stewards of the communities in which they
reside. Melissa works closely with School Beta and stated that she attends meetings regularly
with Henry, his faculty, and staff.
Findings for Research Question 1: What Are the Values and Beliefs of SLT Members
Around Power-Sharing Between the School and the Community?
The first research question focuses on school and community members’ values and
beliefs around sharing power with one another. As data were collected, two themes emerged
addressing the first research question. These themes were established when a minimum of five
48
interviewees referenced them. First, all participants communicated that the value for the
community primarily derived from their personal experiences, including being born and raised in
the community in which they serve. Additionally, participants described establishing their own
families, particularly becoming parents themselves, as contributing to value for community.
Furthermore, they referred to having strong mentors as influencing their value for themselves
and others. Second, participants indicated that developing strong relationships with the
community is important, with building collective trust and understanding school and community
needs as core elements of partnership. Participants described trust-building with the community
as involving developing a shared vision, engaging in consistent communication that takes
multiple forms, and fostering a sense of belonging. Table 6 includes the overarching themes and
key findings for Research Question 1. These two themes and subthemes are developed in detail,
with evidence, in the following sections.
Table 6
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 Theme 1 Theme 2
What are the values and
beliefs of SLT members
around power-sharing
between the school and the
community?
Personal connection to
community influences
value, establishing own
family influences value for
community, and strong
mentorship informs value
for community.
Building Strong
Relationships based on
collective trust and
understanding school and
community needs is central
to partnership
49
Theme 1: Personal Connection, Establishing Own Family, and Mentorship Inform the
Value for Community
All nine participants indicated that their personal belief systems around value for
community have been shaped and influenced by personal connections to the communities they
currently serve, personal experiences with their own families, and their individual accessibility to
strong mentorship. They shared both negative and positive experiences with community and
family, and there was no mention of formalized structures informing community value. While
this may be coincidental and related to the specific role a person holds in a school and
community, it appears that an individual’s upbringing, culture, and access to resources, including
mentorship, can fundamentally shape an individual’s value for community. The next section
presents an analysis of this finding. Table 7 indicates the factors that influence community value
by participant.
Table 7
Participants’ Influences on Value for Community
Name School Role Personal
Connection to
Community
Having Own
Family
Mentorship
Sally School leader X X X
Bill Teacher leader X
Angela Community coordinator X X
Jennifer Assistant principal X
Sandra PTA president X X X
Jill Parent coordinator X X
Henry School leader X X X
Ryan Community coordinator X X
Melissa CBO leader X
50
Personal Connection to Community Influences Value
Five out of nine participants indicated that their motivation for serving their school
community is derived primarily from the fact that they grew up in the same community in which
they currently serve. Both school leaders, Sally and Henry, stated that they were born and raised
in Williamsburg and Brownsville, respectively, and attributed their shared lived experience as
primary drivers for the high value they hold for the communities in which their school is
situated. In her interview, Sally stated that she had lived in this community her whole life and
that one of the benefits of working in this school was living and working in the same community.
She further stated,
So, I feel like having those strong relationships with the parents and our community
really is helpful because I live here. I know the struggles. So, a lot of decisions that I
make, I try to ensure that the new people that moved into the community feel welcomed
as well as the people who have always been here and the families that don’t speak
English. … So, even when I just hire teachers, like, having somebody who’s bilingual,
who speaks Spanish, is always a plus for me because I want our families to feel like
there’s somebody at the school that I could talk to. … I feel like living in the community
helps me stay connected.
For Sally, being personally connected to the community in which she grew up serves as a core
influence in her decision-making process. During her interview, Sally described how she
ascended from school aide to principal and that throughout her professional journey, she was
always rooted in the belief that schools and communities are intertwined.
Similarly, Henry described growing up in Brownsville as the primary driver for his
motivations and actions and stated that Brownsville is a “very unique community” and that he is
51
“very proud to be from here.” He further stated that “this is where God wanted me to be” and
indicated that every decision he makes is rooted in what is best for his students. He described
having to choose between becoming a professional basketball player or an educator. He
ultimately chose to be an educator and stated that his decision to become an administrator
stemmed from the fact that he could drive change at a systemic level. After several years serving
as an assistant principal in Queens, he was offered the position of principal in Brownsville,
Brooklyn. Henry stated that he “had returned home.”
Both school leaders also stated that recruiting individuals who value the contributions of
community is important to them. Sally described recruiting Angela to serve as a community
coordinator for School Alpha, just as Henry described the recruitment of Ryan for the position of
community coordinator for School Beta. Both Angela and Ryan grew up in Williamsburg and
Brownsville, respectively. When asked about connection to community, both Angela and Ryan
reaffirmed their personal connection to the community as a primary motivating driver for
community value. Sandra, PTA president for School Alpha, also grew up in Williamsburg and
joined the PTA because she wanted to address declining parent engagement in high school.
Personal connection to the community emerged as a prominent theme and served as a
motivating influence for Sally, Henry, Angela, Ryan, and Sandra. The next section explores the
role of family as another influence on the value for community.
Establishing Own Family Influences Value for Community
Five participants indicated that their value for family, including having their own family,
contributed to their individual value for community. Sally, School Alpha’s principal, described
her involvement in her children’s PTA as the catalyst for becoming an educator, stating, “I knew
that I could offer things that I didn’t see.” Ryan described growing up and raising a family in
52
Brownsville as a primary motivator for his value for community as well, stating he was “born
and raised down the block” and that he has a “common interest in making sure that the
community kids get what they deserve.”
Jill, a parent coordinator at School Alpha, had pursued a degree in criminology, but after
having a child, she went to work in a family shelter and said that she needed a job “better suited
for the hours during which her daughter could be in school or daycare.” She also stated that after
having her daughter, she understood how helping children was important and that she started
working at the elementary school she had attended years prior. Jill described this experience in
her life as “a full circle moment.” She further indicated that becoming a parent and ultimately
becoming involved in education informed her beliefs about parent and community engagement.
She stated, “I want to reach every parent possible” and “I want everyone to have the same
opportunities.”
Like Jill, Angela and Sandra said that parenthood informed their value for community,
specifically referencing their experiences as PTA members in their children’s schools. Angela
described serving as vice president of the PTA of her son’s school and stated that she believes
“our kids are our main priority.” She served in two roles at School Alpha, formerly as parent
coordinator and now as community coordinator. She sent her children to schools in the
community, including School Alpha, after it had become a neighborhood school. For Sandra,
serving on the SLT and PTA has informed her value for active parent and community
engagement, stating, “I think it comes down to wanting our children to have the best education
they can have and what can we do to help them.”
All five individuals, Sally, Ryan, Jill, Angela, and Sandra cited their active parent and
community involvement as being rooted in wanting to support their own children. This finding
53
reaffirms how individual experiences, such as establishing one’s own family, can contribute to a
value that may not already have been inculcated through other means, such as school mandates
or union contracts that legislate teacher time for community outreach.
Mentorship Influences Value for Community
Seven participants reported that the presence of influential mentors significantly shaped
their perceptions of their own worth and that of others, making this observation one of the most
significant findings related to the values and beliefs of SLT members around power-sharing.
Participants reported that parents, teachers, supervisors, and close friends also contributed to
their own individual capacity and identity and that of others, including community. Henry, the
principal of School Beta, referred to both his parents as influencing his personal and professional
trajectory. Henry’s mother was a lifelong educator, and his father was a community organizer in
Brownsville. Referencing the value of community, Henry stated,
I learned it from my dad. It was easy. I watched my father my whole life. He didn’t have
a budget. He said politicians can’t say no to schools or to churches. I already knew I
could have what I wanted as long as I knew how to package it right.
Jennifer, an assistant principal at School Alpha, stated that since the age of four, she had always
wanted to be a teacher and that she was the first family member to go to college. She stated,
Okay, so I’m the first person in my family to be formally educated, right? My father was
a high school dropout, and my mother has a high school diploma. At 4, I knew it because
I like to organize things and come up with systems for things. And for some reason, I
kind of knew that this would be so much fun, … and then, in high school, I had a teacher
who really saved me. I was going down a really wrong path, and she was like, no, you,
you know, what I mean, you’re going to be okay, and that just reaffirmed the belief of,
54
like, I’ll do this with my life. But, yeah, I did know that at that age, and then I knew it
later on that it wouldn’t become a reality had that teacher not intervened for me. I
wouldn’t have probably stayed in school.
Jennifer’s description of a teacher who intervened in her life changed her professional trajectory
at an early age and influenced her decisions about attending college. Like Jennifer, Bill, a teacher
leader at School Alpha, mentioned that close friends in college steered him toward becoming an
educator. After losing his job, Bill joined the Teaching Fellows Program in NYC, which supports
the transition of employees working in corporations to those who want to teach. He described his
first teaching experience, stating,
I had a community of people that helped me out. … Experts that could, like, talk to me
about ways to reach the students. So I really kinda honed in on a lot of the skills that I’ve
developed through my own collaborations with colleagues.
For Bill, fellowship with colleagues helped inform his value for community. Sally, Sandra, and
Jill all referenced supervisors who served as mentors to them in formal and informal ways. Sally
discussed a former principal she worked with, stating, “I had a great mentor. my principal, Mrs.
Wallant, she became a superintendent.” Sandra and Jill referenced Sally as a strong leader whose
vision around community collaboration influenced their perspectives and value for community.
Melissa, a CBO leader in Brownsville, described in detail her close relationship with her
sister, stating, “Everything I do is about my sister and my family.” When her sister was fatally
shot in her own community, Melissa stated that she wanted to become a community activist. She
moved to Brooklyn from Buffalo, New York, and began her career as an urban planner and,
ultimately, the leader of a CBO in Brownsville.
55
Theme 2: Building Strong Relationships Based on Collective Trust and Understanding
School and Community Needs Is Central to Partnership
All nine interviewees revealed that both school professionals and community leaders
place a high value on building relationships as a method for partnership and shared decisionmaking. Participants discussed developing collective trust, including building a shared vision,
communicating in multiple forms, and fostering a sense of belonging as critical to trust-building.
They also cited understanding each other’s needs as fundamental to building relationships with
one another. Both school leaders ask directly for the supports they and community members
need. Melissa works directly with Henry, supporting his school needs. The degree of
responsiveness to school and community needs may vary, however, based on leadership,
resources, and the nature of the challenge. The next section discusses these findings in more
detail.
56
Table 8
Sample Statements That Describe Relationship Building as a Key Element to Partnership
Participant Sample statement on relationship building
Sally We came up with a new model. It’s relationship render results. And,
like, that is what we’re going to live our life by, right?
Without having a relationship. Nothing else can happen.
Bill Here, it’s a lot of relationships between the students and the students
finding an adult that they can trust, and I think that there’s a lot of
fostering of relationships between students and adults here.
Angela We do everything for our kids and for our community. We want the
neighborhood to know what kind of school we are.
Jennifer So, you can’t repair what you didn’t build. So, like, building
community and relationships is really important.
Sandra We need them to know that this is a partnership. We can’t do this. This
is a partnership. We can’t do this without you. And I think parents
need to be heard. At the end of the day, parents care about their
children. They care about their education.
Jill I don’t feel we get the same interaction with these parents if it’s just via
email or via call. The face-to-face or in person is what actually
makes these bonds stronger.
Henry It’s important that I am the one to make the initial contact with a
community organization to build a relationship.
Ryan We have a solution team meeting that happens on Tuesdays with all the
partnerships that come in. So, we build relationships.
Melissa So, the goal for me as long as I’m here is to create a holistic
community where we have strong businesses that are culturally
reflective of the community.
Building Collective Trust Is a Pre-condition for Partnership Development
All nine participants indicated that developing trust is essential for building strong
relationships with schools and communities and ultimately necessary for partnership and shared
decision-making. To build trust between schools and communities, participants described having
a shared vision, engaging in ongoing communication in a variety of forms, and fostering a sense
57
of belonging as essential ingredients. For purposes of this analysis, these elements will be
discussed independently, although all three domains inform one another.
Both Alpha and Beta’s school leaders said that developing a shared vision with all key
stakeholders is central to fostering trusting relationships. Sally, principal of School Alpha,
discussed how she embarked on revisiting her school’s mission and vision by asking for
feedback from community members, parents, students, and faculty. The result was the
development of a new vision: relationships render results. Sally stated,
So, I did a collaboration between all of our stakeholders. The SLT did a protocol. The
students, the teachers, the parents. We sent jam boards for people to write what they
thought our school mission vision should be, things that we should add, … and we
together came up with a new mission and vision. … A decision that I could have clearly
made on my own as the principal, but I chose to incorporate everyone.
Sally said this collaborative process around developing a shared vision allowed for multiple
voices. Like Sally, Henry stated that he believes in developing a shared vision with key
stakeholders as well. In addition to the SLT convening monthly, Henry introduced a “vision
team” meeting, an idea brought to him by one of his teachers. Henry stated that he “won’t make
any decisions without notifying the vision team” and that “it’s great because I would do things
and nobody understood why.” He reported that “communication has improved tremendously.”
Henry also described a “solution team” meeting that he holds weekly with partner organizations.
In these meetings, partners problem-solve and generate new ideas. Both examples of Sally and
Henry developing a shared vision with key stakeholders indicate a high level of trust and a value
for community.
58
Effective communication in multiple forms also surfaced as an essential element to trustbuilding. Jill, the parent coordinator at School Alpha, said that being bilingual has helped her
communicate with parents:
Being bilingual, it helped me reach a lot of the Spanish-speaking community, which is, I
believe, if I’m not wrong, about 80 to 85% Hispanics or Spanish-speaking parents, so
being able to be that person that they could talk to in case of anything going on and we
could speak in the same language definitely helps.
Sandra, the PTA president, also discussed communication as fundamental to building trust with
community. She stated,
And I think … we need to figure out a way to create a stronger base because, you know,
having those core parents are great, and, you know, you need those, but you need to find
a way to increase that base, and I don’t know how to do that. … You need to tell us what
we need to do, and we’ll do it. I think we have to get that trust back with them. We have
to tell them that, you know, we have to get involved. We all have to be here. You know,
these kids need us. You think that because they’re in high school, they don’t need us, but
they need you even more.
In her interview, Sandra found that fostering parent relationships is challenging, and she would
like to learn new strategies to increase the parent base for participation and engagement.
Fostering a sense of belonging as part of trust-building is a theme that also emerged in
participant interviews. Jennifer stated that belonging is a critical element of school culture,
stating that “feeling like you belong somewhere is really important, and all of our teachers care
about the kids and would stop what they were doing if a kid needed something.” She further
stated, “I think that’s really a point. That’s, like, one of the most important qualities you can
59
have. Everything else can kind of be learned.” Jennifer believes that fostering a sense of
belonging is an essential element that cannot be taught and that contributes to a positive school
culture. Like Jennifer, Sandra states that at School Alpha, “it’s not just about academics. You
know, it’s about caring about the children.” Jill stated that parents at her school say: “I want to be
a part of this community because I feel heard.”
At School Beta, CBO leader Melissa stated that “people in the community understand
that we have youth in our community that need support, and it might not be educational, it may
just literally be like a third place. A lot of communities of color don’t have third places. Kids …
go to school and they go home.” For Melissa, creating a safe space, or a third space, helps to
create a sense of belonging that fosters trust and relationship building.
All nine participants indicated that building trust is essential to building strong
relationships between schools and communities and that this trust is centered around a shared
vision, effective communication, and a sense of belonging. Study participants also discussed
understanding one another’s needs as critical to building strong relationships with one another.
Understanding School and Community Needs
All nine participants discussed relationship building as a key component to shared
decision-making, and five participants discussed that understanding collective needs is essential
to building strong ties with one another. It is the understanding of needs that ultimately informs
key decisions that must be made. Jennifer, AP at Alpha Prep, said that students trust both
teachers and administrators and how they express their needs when directly asked. She stated,
We don’t just make decisions for kids anymore. We ask kids like, “What would you
need?” I had a boy who was really acting out horribly in May, and finally, I said to him,
“Can you just tell me what you need to be successful here”? He’s like, “I really want a
60
para.” Yeah, that would be a starting point, and I guess at some point, he’s coming to,
like, some form of, like, self-actualization or self-realization that he can’t do this alone. I
am overwhelmed all day. … I don’t ever remember in school being asked what I would
need.
Like Jennifer, Sally asks students directly what they need. Sally stated that last year, she
interviewed almost 700 of her students personally and asked the question, “What does
engagement mean to you?” because there was a disconnect between school-wide survey data and
her observations in classrooms. Through this process, Sally learned that students want to be more
challenged and that teachers expressed that classroom conversation constitutes engagement. She
shared student sentiment with the teachers and stated that this process contributed to better
decision-making because “I got the feedback from the kids.”
Ryan, at School Beta, stated that understanding community is essential and said that
“once we know that what is needed in our community, we can provide it.” Melissa, leader of the
CBO in Brownsville, discusses how she asks Henry, the school leader, exactly what he needs.
She says, “I really just try go to Henry and be sure to ask him, ‘What are your expectations of the
CBO in our relationship? What is it that you want to see more of for me?’” Melissa further
mentioned that speaking to Henry directly helps her to allocate resources to fulfill school and
community needs, including a community refrigerator. Finally, Henry described his relationship
with community organizations, referring to his solution team meeting that he holds weekly.
During this meeting, we discuss “how we can make the school and community better and how
we can leverage resources.” By convening community members weekly, Henry described an
integrated approach to understanding and fulfilling community need.
61
Findings for Research Question 2: What Are the Opportunities and Challenges Associated
With Developing a Culture of Power-Sharing Between School and Community?
All participants described a variety of opportunities and barriers associated with
developing a culture of sharing power between their school and community. As I coded and
analyzed data, two major themes emerged relative to opportunities. These themes emerged when
a minimum of five out of the nine interviewees referenced them. Consistent with the schoolengagement literature, participants indicated that the benefits of partnership include the ability to
provide integrated support to students and their families. Participants described increased student
and family engagement and exposure to new and varied learning opportunities as cornerstones to
this comprehensive support. Second, participants described how partnership development can
result in community members feeling more valued and respected.
While participant data indicated the opportunities for power-sharing, there were barriers
to developing this culture as well. Participants named multiple barriers; some of them were
mentioned only once and seemed to correlate with the individual’s role in the school. These
barriers included differences in culture and language as well as issues related to transportation.
The most significant barrier that emerged from the data, however, was the insufficient
involvement of parents and community members, despite the school’s indication of its best
efforts and high value for community collaboration. Some participants described that this lack of
involvement could be attributed to community members not feeling respected or valued,
particularly parents. Table 9 indicates the overarching themes and findings for Research
Question 2.
62
Table 9
Key Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3
What are the
opportunities and
challenges
associated with
developing a
culture of powersharing between
school and
community?
Integrated support
results in increased
engagement and
new and varied
learning
opportunities for all
stakeholders.
Shared decisionmaking authority
can lead to
community
members feeling
valued and
respected.
Low parent
involvement can
serve as a barrier to
partnership
development
between schools
and communities.
Overview of Opportunities
A major advantage of robust partnerships between schools and communities is the
capacity to deliver integrated support to all key stakeholders. Insights from eight interviewees
suggest that such thorough support can lead to enhanced engagement among students and the
community, as well as the availability of diverse and innovative educational experiences for all
members of the school community. Participants reported that students, school professionals, and
community members experience an increased sense of civic engagement and stewardship and
that for students, this stewardship can result in increased physical and emotional safety as well.
Another benefit of strong school-community alliances is that key stakeholders gain a
heightened sense of individual empowerment stemming from a recognition and respect for their
contributions because they feel that their contributions were valued and respected. It is essential
for families, students, and community members to feel valued; this recognition is a cornerstone
for active engagement within school communities. When education professionals and
community members both acknowledge this value, it encourages participation. Students, feeling
63
appreciated, are more likely to take risks and assert their independence, while parents,
acknowledged as experts on their own children, engage more deeply with the school when they
perceive their input as valuable. Table 10 indicates the type of opportunity the participants
identified.
Table 10
List of Opportunities by Participant
Name Integrated support Increased value and
respect
Sally X X
Bill X
Angela X
Jennifer X X
Sandra X X
Jill X X
Henry X
Ryan X
Melissa X X
64
Theme 1: Integrated Support Results in Increased Engagement and New and Varied
Learning Opportunities for All Stakeholders
Eight participants indicated that offering comprehensive support to students, families, and
communities is an opportunity resulting from shared decision-making between schools and their
respective communities. As a result of this support, participants reported that there was increased
student and community engagement and exposure to new and varied learning opportunities for
all stakeholders involved. The subsequent section discusses the benefits of comprehensive
support with evidence from select participant interviews.
Increased Student and Community Engagement
Participants highlighted that comprehensive support contributes to fulfilling student
needs, thereby enabling their concentration on academics. For instance, Henry recounted a case
where a student disclosed her vision impairment and the inability to afford eyeglasses. In
response, he reached out to a collaborating agency, which promptly provided the glasses. With
her vision corrected, Henry observed the student’s newfound ability to concentrate on her
studies.
Ryan, a community coordinator who works with Henry, stated that the inequities in
resources allocated between districts in NYC fuel his desire to ensure that students receive the
necessary support. Ryan stated,
I know some districts such as ours don’t always get the same financial resources that
others get, and that’s why it’s so important that outside agencies and organizations play a
major role in making sure that our kids get all the necessary opportunities and resources
that those who are in other districts receive.
65
With students’ needs met, Ryan described an increase in student attendance and student
engagement. Melissa, a community leader in Brownsville, noted that providing extensive support
also led to an increase in community engagement. As cited earlier, Melissa said the origination
of a community refrigerator allowed access to critical food supplies for families in need. She also
described her role as creating a holistic community. She stated,
So, the goal for me as the leader as long as I’m here is to create a holistic community
where we have strong businesses that are culturally reflective of the community.
We have a community that wants to shop at these businesses and are not just obligated to
because of proximity. And we have people in the community, not just myself, but other
community organizations that understand that we have youth in our community that need
support, and it might not be educational. It may just literally be a third place. A lot of
communities of color don’t have third places. Kids go to school, and they go home.
Melissa further described how an integrated approach to connecting schools and communities
can result in higher community engagement, particularly as it relates to the safety of young
people. She said, “Because we are the first thing the kids see before they go to school, before
they get into those safe doors, they have to go through the community, and when they get out,
they have to go through the community.” She further stated,
So, I think it’s important for everybody to be watching out for each other, especially the
kids, because this is not limited to a Brownsville thing. … You need everybody in the
community to be looking out for these kids.
Like Melissa, Angela described how creating a neighborhood school through student
involvement resulted in increased safety. She stated that before Sally became the leader of
School Alpha, “I don’t know if the people around here felt it was safe to come here. … I would
66
always see, you know, the cop cars here, the ambulance here, and it became a school for our
community that everybody wants to come to.” Jill said strong relationships between schools and
communities could result in emotional safety as well, stating that “kids like to come to school
because they know that if they have any problem, they could go to Sally. It really affects them
because they know they have a support system.” Ryan, Melissa, Angela, and Jill noted that a
partnership between schools and communities can offer all-encompassing support, enhancing
engagement by addressing fundamental needs. This type of support also paves the way for
unique educational opportunities in the school community, which the following section
discusses.
New and Varied Learning Opportunities for Key Stakeholders
Providing an integrated and holistic approach to fulfilling school and community needs
can also provide new and varied learning opportunities for all principal stakeholders, including
students, school faculty, and community members. New and varied opportunities for learning
can stimulate curiosity, creativity, and problem-solving and contribute to stronger ties between
schools and communities.
Both Sally and Melissa described how strong partnerships between schools and
communities can result in increased civic engagement and stewardship in students. Sally stated
that her students serve the community through participation in soup kitchens, blood drives, and
cancer walks. Melissa stated that “community stewardship starting at a young age is extremely
important to me, and it’s a form of experience.” Melissa further discussed how students learn
about a variety of professions from community members as well. She said, “You have people
with careers right in your community that’s not educators,” and that as an urban planner herself,
she can expose students to this field. She further stated, “I think one of the best things that has
67
happened specifically in our dynamic is that I’ve been able to show students what an urban
planner is.”
Jennifer, AP at School Alpha, stated that partnering with community businesses can
provide new learning opportunities for both students and businesses. She stated that School
Alpha can “produce graduates who could go work in these businesses or may hopefully start
their own businesses someday in this neighborhood or in the community where they live.” She
further stated that businesses gain exposure by working with students and young graduates,
providing them with the opportunity to learn from one another.
Finally, school leaders Sally and Henry said that a strong alliance with the community
can provide an opportunity to build new learning for their faculty, particularly around the value
for community. Staff and faculty members participate in community events with students, such
as blood drives, cancer walks, and toy drives. School members work with students in community
elementary schools and on civic engagement projects, which all contribute to new learning
around community capacity and community value.
Theme 2: Shared Decision-Making Authority can Lead to Parents Feeling Valued and
Respected.
Six participants indicated that strong school-community partnerships can lead to parents
feeling valued and respected. Participant data indicated that parents and families experience an
increased sense of value through partnership, especially when they are viewed as experts in their
own children. The following sections provide evidence from select interviews.
Jennifer, AP at School Alpha, found that including parents in decision-making leads to
better student outcomes and increases parents feeling valued and respected. She stated,
So, for example, every time a child is struggling. Right? Or there’s an incident.
68
There is always an in-person parent meeting scheduled now, and the parent can opt not to
come. … We do a lot of, like, repairing relationships between kids and teachers. … So, I
think that the idea of just, like, being where everyone’s at makes a huge difference in
even building community. I mean, because you can’t, like, repair what you didn’t build.
…You also can’t hold people accountable for breaking norms of a community that they
don’t feel they belong to or have a stake in. So, it’s really important to make sure that all
people that are here with us every day and the people who raise them.
She further stated that “we don’t ask parents enough what they want for their children when their
children are with us” and that a “parent is an expert with their child.” Jennifer believes that
parents can support their children in various ways and that treating parents as experts in their
children gives them a sense of agency and voice and leads to better decisions relative to students.
Jill, the parent coordinator at School Alpha, also stated that it is important to engage the
community and that parents can be helpful. She said, “I have parents that always say tell me,
hey, if you need help with funding or if you need help in getting in touch with this or we’re
interested in this program, I could help you with it.” Like Jill, Sandra believes in parents as
experts and believes that they have “a community of parents that I’m sure have, you know,
fantastic careers and jobs and different outlets.”
Finally, both Sally and Melissa discussed how students’ feel valued when they are asked
to contribute to school decisions. As cited earlier, Sally discussed students being interviewed and
asked what they believe engagement looks like in the classroom. Sally had described students
being honest with their principal and stating that they could be more challenged by their teachers.
Melissa, leader of a CBO, stated that with strong alliances between schools and communities,
69
students can participate in community events, which generates self-respect, stewardship, and
personal value.
Overview of Barriers: Low Parent Involvement Can Serve as a Barrier to Partnership
Development Between Schools and Communities (Theme 3)
Participants described a variety of barriers that hinder the ability of schools and
communities to share power and decision-making authority. Many of the barriers described
seemingly correlate to the role the participant holds relative to the school community.
The most frequently cited obstacle by the participants was the minimal parent involvement in
their school communities, especially in School Alpha. In discussions about obstacles to forming
partnerships, five of the nine participants pointed out that low parent participation poses a
difficulty in establishing relationships based on shared decision-making.
Despite all participants recognizing the importance of community value, parent
engagement continued to be limited, which might be attributable to parents feeling that their
contributions are not valued. While school professionals reported that they work to engage
parents, they stated that they do not understand why many parents still are disengaged. The
following section will provide a detailed examination of how low parent involvement served as a
barrier to forming relationships between schools and families. See Table 11 for a list of barriers.
70
Table 11
List of Barriers by Participant
Participant Barriers
Sally Need more time to develop partnerships
Not everyone has same vision
Bill Low level of parent engagement
Angela Low level of parent engagement
Jennifer Community members may not have a stake in the school
Sandra Differences in language
Parents not feeling valued or respected
Jill Low level of parent engagement
Differences in language/culture
Transportation issues with subway/bus
Henry Need more time to develop partnerships
Not everyone has shared vision.
Not everyone has same vision.
Ryan Need everyone to understand history of community
Melissa Lack of funding for projects
Low community engagement
Five participants indicated that low family and community engagement can serve as a
barrier to partnership development between schools and communities. Participants cited that
there are challenges with activating parents and community members. When asked why they
believe engagement to be low, one participant stated, “I don’t know, I wish I knew,” and another
stated, “I wish I knew how to get them here.”
School Alpha participants described their school community as warm and welcoming,
and all interviewees communicated a value around community. Sally, the school leader,
described how the mission changed to emphasize relationships and discussed how she activated
all stakeholders to engage with the school in the revision of the school’s mission. However, Jill,
the parent coordinator at School Alpha, stated that some parents still do not know what is
happening in the school. Regarding her involvement with the SLT, Jill stated that “some of them
71
just don’t really know. They don’t know what the SLT is. They don’t know that even if you’re
not part of the SLT, you could still join.” Jill further stated that as school professionals, “we have
to put ourselves more out there.” She also said that “some people coming into the community
may see kids around. I want them to know, like, there is a school, and the name or the campus is
here.”
Bill, a teacher at School Alpha, stated, “I don’t know what the disconnect is. It’s really
difficult to get parents to come into the school, and I don’t know if that’s across the board or if
that’s just been at our school.” Sandra, the PTA President at School Alpha, also described low
engagement with parents but believes in parents’ willingness to engage, stating that “parents
want to help, core parents want to help, then the majority of parents don’t know how to take that
step forward.” Sandra further stated that she believes that parents lack agency. She stated,
I think we have to come to them on a personal level saying, you know, we’re here to help
you. You know, you’re a parent, so you don’t have to prove anything to us. You love
your child, and you want to help your child. That’s all we need. Like, it doesn’t matter
what you do for living. It doesn’t matter what language you speak. Doesn’t matter if
English is not your first language. We’re here … together for the children. So, that
common goal has to be enough, and it has to be strong enough that we get those parents
in. Because I think those parents are very hesitant. Because they feel like they’re less in
some way or that they can’t contribute.
Parents who do not perceive their contributions as valuable are less likely to actively participate
in school activities. In such cases, the school might mistakenly interpret their lack of
involvement as a lack of parental care and concern. These negative perceptions can ultimately
erode trust and further discourage parental engagement.
72
Melissa, the CBO leader, stated that she believes it is her role to activate all community
members for maximum engagement. In her role, she works with local businesses, the police
precinct, community members, and schools to provide holistic support. She stated that in order
for “real change to happen, everyone has to be involved, and that’s really what it is all about.
You have to activate them, and then you have whole city agencies responsible, too.” Activating
and mobilizing people for change can lead to parents and community members feeling more
valued and respected. Respect and value breed more engagement and the potential for shared
power between schools and communities.
Summary of Findings
This study explored school and community members’ values and beliefs around powersharing as well as the opportunities and barriers associated with developing such a culture.
Focused on the SLTs of two secondary schools in Brooklyn, NY, the purpose of the study was to
understand how schools and communities build strong partnerships with one another in service
of the health of the whole community. This qualitative study consisted of semi-structured
interviews with nine participants, all of whom serve on their school’s leadership team. I
identified participants based on snowball sampling and interviewed them over Zoom.
Consistent with the school-community literature, these findings highlight relationship
building and trust as necessary for partnership. Additionally, participants acknowledged that the
value for community is a pre-condition for partnership and, ultimately, shared decision-making
authority. All nine participants indicated that their value for community stemmed from their
upbringing, connection to the community, and access to strong mentors. Both school
professionals and community members held strong beliefs around the positive value for
73
community engagement and chose to run for a seat on their respective SLTs because of these
strong beliefs in community voice and collaboration.
The strongest opportunities related to the development of integrated support for all key
stakeholders as well as the generation of increased value and respect on the part of community
members, particularly parents. Low parent involvement, especially in School Alpha, served as
the largest barrier to partnership development with shared decision-making authority. This low
parent involvement can be attributed to parents not feeling that their contributions are
meaningful or valuable. The findings from this study demonstrates that valuing the individual
and their contributions is crucial for developing partnerships with shared decision-making
authority. The question, then, becomes how to generate value for community in all key
stakeholders of a school community and how to create sustainable practices that promote
collaboration in the long term. The next chapter will present a discussion of the findings, along
with recommendations for practice and areas for future research.
74
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to examine how both school professionals and community
members develop a culture of power-sharing in their school communities. This study focused on
the values and beliefs of the members of two SLTs in two secondary schools in Brooklyn, New
York, as well as the opportunities and barriers that emerge when developing a strong partnership
with shared decision-making authority. The following research questions guided this study:
1. What are the values and beliefs of SLT members around power-sharing between the
school and the community?
2. What are the opportunities and challenges associated with developing a culture of
power-sharing between school and community?
This chapter will provide a discussion of the findings in the context of the literature on
building strong school-community partnerships, particularly in marginalized communities. The
chapter provides recommendations for practice, the study’s limitations and delimitations, and
implications for future research. It also describes the connections to J. L. Epstein’s (1992) parent
involvement framework.
Discussion of Findings
Analysis of the data gathered from a series of nine semi-structured interviews with school
professionals and community leaders who are members of their respective SLTs validated some
of the opportunities and barriers described in the literature. Findings also indicated that despite
an expressed value for community and an expressed commitment to creating opportunities for
school-community engagement, parent engagement was suboptimal, particularly in School
Alpha. The following section will include a discussion of the findings followed by a thematic
correlation of findings to J. L. Epstein’s (1992) parent involvement framework.
75
Values and Beliefs of SLT Members about Power Sharing
There was unanimous sentiment among the nine SLT participants that their value for
community stemmed from personal connections with the community, their roles as parents, and
access to strong mentorship. Research on fostering the importance of community reveals that
such values are not necessarily innate and that fundamental to the role of a school leader is
championing the significance of community involvement to the broader school community.
Furthermore, the literature indicates that leadership preparation programs are the primary vehicle
to embed this value (Bettez & Hytten, 2013; Celoria, 2016; J. Epstein, 2016; Maier et al., 2017;
Theoharis, 2008).
All nine participants highlighted the importance of building relationships as a
fundamental element for the development of partnerships, emphasizing the establishment of trust
and recognizing mutual needs as essential for effective collaboration. This observation aligns
with the prevailing themes in school-community partnership research as well as the foundational
concepts in the literature on parental engagement (J. Epstein, 2016; Henderson & Mapp, 2002;
Maier et al., 2017; Noguera, 2011).
Participants consistently spoke about their efforts to forge connections with parents and
community stakeholders and their commitment to grasping the needs of these groups. However,
despite the recognition of understanding each other’s needs and examples of these attempts, the
actual involvement of parents and the broader community was minimal, especially in the context
of School Alpha, suggesting a possible discrepancy between the participants’ stated beliefs and
their actual practices. This finding has significant implications for how schools can
operationalize their belief systems into concrete policies, systems, and structures that promote
76
collaboration between schools and communities and will be prominent in the proposed
recommendations.
Culture of Power-Sharing: Opportunities and Challenges
Participant data indicated that school-community partnerships lead to comprehensive and
integrated support for all key stakeholders and that this support can lead to increased engagement
and new learning opportunities for all involved. Students receive academic, social, and emotional
support through these strong partnerships, leading to stronger achievement and overall wellness.
These findings are well supported in the literature and address this study’s purpose. Schools that
have strong relationships and shared decision-making with communities lead to better outcomes
for students, including their social-emotional well-being (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2006;
Dryfoos, 1993; J. Epstein, 2016; Goldberg et al., 2019; Hill & Craft, 2003; Maier et al., 2017;
Wilder, 2014).
Study participants also described how students whose social-emotional needs are met can
focus on academic subjects and can make contributions to their community through internships
and volunteering. Additionally, participants described new learning opportunities through
community engagement and how these learning opportunities contributed to civic engagement
and community stewardship. Families and communities whose needs are met can also contribute
to the greater learning of the community (J. Epstein, 2016; Hill & Craft, 2003; Maier et al., 2017;
Wilder, 2014).
Six participants indicated that strong school-community partnerships can help to generate
value and respect for community members. Students, families, and communities feel respected
and heard when their contributions are valued. Parent engagement literature aligns with this
finding, particularly the work of Eccles and Harold (1993) and Henderson (2007), who stated
77
that parents have a personal sense of efficacy and want their children to succeed. This finding is
also consistent with the work of Yosso (2005) and Acevedo and Solórzano (2021), who found
that communities of color have wealth that can be leveraged and activated in service of the
greater school community.
The generation of value and respect for community and their contributions through
collaboration is a critical finding that has significance for school transformation. If schools can
generate value for key stakeholder contribution through partnership and shared decision-making
authority, the devastating effects of poverty, family instability, social isolation, biased thinking,
and marginalization can be minimized. Student achievement, student behavior and attitudes, and
health outcomes can improve, and families and communities can thrive. It becomes essential, not
optional, to engage in deliberate efforts to generate value for the community and to establish
systems and frameworks that support collaboration.
The majority of study participants indicated that low family and community engagement
has been the most prominent barrier to partnership development between their school and the
community they serve. Despite attempts to communicate and reach all community members,
participants reported low parent and community involvement in their schools, particularly in
School Alpha. Participants shared that they were unsure about the methods to break through this
barrier. One participant conveyed the notion that parents might feel undervalued and disregarded,
while others expressed skepticism about parents being aware of the events within their school.
This includes the knowledge of monthly SLT meetings, which are open for anyone to attend. The
literature confirms that low parent involvement is a significant barrier to partnership
development and that schools must actively work to generate value for stakeholder contribution,
particularly parents and families (J. L. Epstein, 1992; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995;
78
Hornby & Lafaele, 2011; Noguera, 2011; Williams & Stallworth, 1984). The literature also
describes structural inequities resulting from school segregation and slavery as root causes of
lack of involvement (J. Epstein, 2016; Noguera, 2011; Rothstein, 2015; Yosso, 2005).
The gap between the high importance study participants place on community and the
subsequent low engagement levels prompts further inquiry into the influence and principles of
their school leaders and how these principles are messaged. It also calls for an examination of
their schools’ culture and climate, theory of action, and associated organizational frameworks
that could facilitate or hinder cooperative efforts and the broader perspectives and beliefs of their
stakeholders regarding collaboration between schools and their communities. It also suggests that
a governing body, such as the SLT, may not be sufficient alone to ensure that all voices are
represented, valued, and heard.
Given the existing power disparities between schools and their communities, research
points to the necessity for schools to take the initiative in understanding and determining the
approaches to address such gaps (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; J. Epstein, 2016; Hoover-Dempsey &
Sandler, 1995; Ishimaru et al., 2016). For this reason, the following recommendation section will
focus on how schools can address the barriers that exist in cultivating strong school-community
partnerships where decision authority is shared.
Recommendation for Practice
The following section outlines recommendations for practice based on the study’s key
findings. The three recommendations stem from participants’ experiences and build on the
existing SLT structure, the dedicated professional learning times set aside for family and
community engagement, and the current evaluation systems implemented in NYC schools. The
three recommendations are to develop practitioner development programs to include school-
79
community collaboration as a key competency of a school leader’s role, create options for the
education and training of faculty and staff on the value of partnership, and to cultivate, develop,
and nurture individuals who are already embedded in the community to work in schools.
The first two recommendations aim to address the disparities in the study’s findings
between the professed importance of community involvement and the low levels of parent and
community engagement and the third recommendation aims to leverage the expertise and value
that already exists in members of marginalized communities. If implemented, these suggestions
can provide pathways for inculcating a greater sense of community value, can educate schools on
the benefits of school-community collaboration and effective partnership techniques, and can
cultivate a higher level of trust between schools and communities, ultimately leading to increased
value for the contributions of all stakeholders.
Recommendation 1: Develop Practitioner Development Programs to Include SchoolCommunity Collaboration as a Core Competency for the School Leader Role
The data from participants indicated a lack of specialized training for educational leaders
in engaging with school communities. The research suggests that leadership programs should
educate school leaders about community collaboration. Theoharis (2008) argued for a leadership
model grounded in social justice that necessitates community engagement. Brown (2004a,
2004b) emphasized the need for such programs to provide opportunities for educators to reflect
on their values and beliefs, and J. Epstein (2016) contended that leadership programs should
equip educators with the ability to establish systems and frameworks that facilitate community
collaboration. Benefits of these programs include giving school leaders the conceptual and
procedural knowledge to examine, address, and dismantle beliefs, policies, procedures, and
structures that lead to inequity and concurrently develop the policies, systems, and structures that
80
promote equity, inclusion, and collaboration (Celoria, 2016; Hughes, 2019). The
recommendation is to embed community collaboration as a core competency in educational
leadership development programs.
Building on the recommendation by the NYC Chancellor of Schools to engage families
to be partners, district leaders should utilize professional time to cultivate beliefs around
community value and provide leaders with the procedural knowledge to build policies, systems,
and structures that support community partnerships. Schools can initiate Pilot programs if a
school leader indicates an expressed value for community, and mentors skilled in community
partnership can be assigned to school leaders to support their development in this competency
and to facilitate on-the-spot problem-solving and reflection (Hughes, 2019). This study’s
outcomes support this approach, highlighting the importance of mentorship in nurturing a sense
of community value.
Progress monitoring is essential to understand the effects of this targeted professional
development around community value and community collaboration. District leaders can
conduct non-evaluative, regular check-ins with school leaders to assess progress toward
community collaboration. The insights gained from these check-ins can then inform curriculum
modifications, and leaders can share the knowledge acquired with other districts. When regular
practice integrates these insights, existing evaluative models can be utilized to assess impact.
Recommendation 2: Explore Options for the Education and Training of Faculty on the
Value for Partnership Using Existing Professional Development Time
Given the substantial benefits of forging strong school-community ties and the significant
influence of educators and staff in nurturing relationships with families, it is important to educate
school professionals about the importance of partnerships and effective strategies for community
81
engagement for whole-school change. The recommendation is to utilize existing professional
development time to educate teachers on the complexities of marginalized communities and
effective outreach strategies that promote collaboration with families and communities.
The literature on school-community partnerships aligns with this approach, indicating
that the value for community can be taught and that engaging with families and community
should be considered a core competency of a teacher’s role (Auerbach, 2010; Brown, 2004a,
2004b; Capper et al., 2006; Celoria, 2016; Diem & Carpenter, 2012; J. Epstein, 2016; Mapp &
Bergman, 2021). J. Epstein (2016) stated that educators enter schools unprepared to work with a
diverse group of students, families, and communities and that preparation programs should
include components related to partnership development to address this unpreparedness. The
author further contended that just like teaching content in a preparation program such as math,
science, or policy, all educators should learn how to work with students and families, including
understanding their needs and how to address them (J. Epstein, 2016). Mapp and Bergman
(2021) indicated that professional development for teachers should shift mindsets around family
and community engagement and described educators directly interacting with families as
essential to shifting perspectives. They also recommended follow-up sessions after professional
development programs to facilitate the integration of new perspectives into established routines
and procedures.
The current chancellor of schools expanded teachers’ roles to include parent outreach as a
core responsibility. This designated time can be utilized to educate teachers on the complexities
of marginalized communities and provide them with effective outreach strategies that promote
collaboration with families and communities. Dedicated school professionals such as guidance
counselors and parent and community engagement liaisons can be leveraged to conduct check-in
82
sessions with teachers between professional development sessions and learning opportunities can
include both school professionals and community members. This new learning can be shared
more broadly with the school community and integrated into new policies, systems, and
structures that promote school-community collaboration. Existing evaluative frameworks can be
utilized to assess progress and impact.
Recommendation 3: Cultivate, Develop, and Nurture Community Members to Work in
Schools.
In addition to building capacity with school leaders, faculty, and staff, schools should
also focus on developing the skills and contributions of certain community members who already
possess strong ties and a commitment to the broader community. Participant data indicated that
both school leaders made concerted efforts to develop individuals who had personal connections
to the community in which the school was situated. Angela, Sandra, Jill, Ryan, and Melissa
described how school leaders Sally and Henry specifically hired them because of their personal
connection to the community and their value for community contribution. While the literature is
nascent in this area, this study’s data indicated that having personal connections to the
community informed value.
Because the new chancellor of schools has prioritized family and community
engagement, school districts have introduced new roles that focus on parent and family
engagement. Community coordinator, community leader, and parent coordinator roles emphasize
the priority for schools to engage with communities and build on the value and expertise that
exists in broader school communities. As school leaders develop their own value for community
and build systems and structures to support collaboration, identifying and nurturing community
members to work collaboratively towards school goals will become an embedded behavior.
83
Similarly, at the district level, as superintendents prioritize family and community engagement,
they will be able to emphasize the need to leverage the value for partnership and expertise that
community members bring to school improvement.
Thematic Correlation with Parent Involvement Framework
I utilized J. L. Epstein’s (1992) parent involvement framework as a lens through which to
examine the value for community and the forms of family and community involvement present
in School Alpha and School Beta. In this study, many of this framework’s elements emerged in
participant interviews. All nine participants described the origins of their value for community
and how this value served as the basis for relationship-building with the community. Participants
also described how they built these relationships on trust and understanding of each other’s
needs. Integrated support surfaced as an opportunity for power-sharing and participants
described lack of parent involvement as the most significant barrier to power-sharing, stemming
from parents not feeling valued or respected for their contributions.
Most importantly, data from this study indicated that it is the acknowledgment of the
individual and the value for their contribution that must be sustained over time to maintain
channels for shared decision-making authority and that these channels must be institutionalized
in the culture by both the school and community. For example, J. L. Epstein (1992) suggested
that there must be linkages made between students’ valuable learning experiences in the
community and the school curricula, including lessons that build on students’ non-school skills
and talents, to inculcate the value of school-based learning in community environments.
Participant data reinforced this value. As noted earlier, Melissa stated that community
involvement develops civic engagement and stewardship in students.
84
J. Epstein (2016) also described how effective communication is necessary to support
school community engagement and the need to expand community activities to involve students
and families. Related challenges include helping students understand how community partners
support their school and engaging students as volunteers in their schools and communities. The
author also noted that when these efforts are well implemented, the knowledge base for families
and communities increases relative to school resources and programs, resulting in students
achieving their potential (J. Epstein, 2016). Community services that are well coordinated also
mitigate risk factors related to students’ social-emotional well-being.
Finally, while J. L. Epstein’s (1992) six types of involvement create a comprehensive
program of partnerships in schools, it is the challenges related to implementation that must be
met for programs to be successful. The quality of the design, implementation, and content of the
involvement activities affects the ability to effectively implement programs and services. Some
participants genuinely indicated that despite their attempts to involve parents, there was a lack of
response, leaving them at a loss for ways to establish a relationship with them. This suggests that
school professionals need examples of effective methods for parent engagement, including both
content and implementation. J. L. Epstein also suggests that community partnership should not
be intended only toward the outcome of improved academic performance, but rather, community
involvement should be seen as serving the holistic health and well-being of both students and
schools alike. Data from this study reaffirmed this finding as well.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study took place across two NYC SLTs that serve two schools in Brooklyn. Each
school has a unique profile, as does the community it serves. Given the study’s qualitative
85
research lens, the findings are not generalizable to other schools and communities, but they do
provide an adaptable framework for similar inquiries in other spaces.
Study limitations primarily involve the current state of the SLTs at these two schools. For
example, participants in both schools indicated that their first SLT meeting had not been
scheduled as of the end of September 2023. Schools also indicated that there were challenges
with communication and logistics, but in some cases, there was no established value for these
convenings. While there is a mandate for SLTs to include appointed community members, their
involvement is often minimized. Additionally, there is no formal oversight of the convening of
SLT meetings, making it difficult to ensure that school leaders hold these meetings on a regular
basis.
Study delimitations involve my position as a leadership coach and facilitator. It is central
to my position and intent within the school to optimize the efficiency and impact of the SLTs on
school-community partnerships. When organizing the interviews, this goal may have impacted
how school leadership and community advocates value the SLTs.
Recommendation for Future Research
Additional research is needed to further explore the values, beliefs and partnership efforts
between schools and the communities they serve. There are two recommendations for future
research stemming from this study. The two recommendations are a district-wide qualitative
study that deploys this protocol and adapting this study protocol to include focus groups with
various members of a school community. An immediate opportunity for further research
involves the redeployment of this study protocol across a district of NYC schools with SLT
members, both school professionals and community members. Generally, districts comprise
anywhere from 20 to 25 schools and are under the leadership of one superintendent. Examining
86
the current state of these schools’ partnership efforts, including their values and beliefs, can yield
broader insight into the need to develop a culture of partnership. Salient themes that emerged
from this study can aid in developing appropriate interventions, including but not limited to
professional development opportunities suggested by this study.
Second, this study protocol can be adapted to incorporate focus groups consisting of an
SLT’s members. A focus group of SLT members from various schools in a district can provide a
deeper understanding of the extent and nature of collaborative decision-making processes. The
members could share insights gained from these focus groups across the district, along with best
practices around collaboration. Additionally, focus groups comprised only of parents and only of
students can help to further understand their values and beliefs around partnership development.
Conclusion
This study examined the values and beliefs of the members of two school leadership
teams in Brooklyn and the process by which school professionals and community members share
decision-making authority. It also explored the opportunities and barriers to partnership
development. Based on the findings identified through data collection and analysis, I proposed
context-specific recommendations and used J. L. Epstein’s (1992) six types of parent
involvement framework to conceptualize and explore this problem of practice. Figure 2 is a
visual representation of the findings.
87
Figure 2
Visual Representation of Findings
The literature reinforced many of this study’s findings, particularly around how schoolcommunity partnerships lead to the holistic well-being of the entire school community and how
collaboration and shared decision-making can generate an increased sense of value for the
individual and their contributions. However, a notable finding was that, despite recognizing the
importance of community and efforts to involve them, parent engagement remained low. The
assets within a community may not be fully understood or leveraged, and the potential for
88
complete engagement, including power-sharing, may not be fully actualized. This suggests that
the value for school-community collaboration, which is mainly cultivated by the SLT and its
members, should also be cultivated across members of the broader school community. It also
suggests that all members of a school community should have knowledge of specific strategies
and practices around effective community engagement.
89
References
Acevedo, N., & Solórzano, D. G. (2021). An overview of community cultural wealth toward a
protective factor against racism. Urban Education, 58(1), 1470–1488.
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New
Press.
Anderson-Butcher, D., Stetler, E. G., & Midle, T. (2006). A case for expanded schoolcommunity partnerships in support of positive youth development. Children & Schools,
28, 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/28.3.155
Auerbach, S. (2010). Beyond coffee with the principal: Toward leadership for authentic school–
family partnerships. Journal of School Leadership, 20(6), 728–757.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461002000603
Baines, L. (2006). Does Horace Mann still matter? Educational Horizons, 84(4), 268–273.
Baker, T. L., Wise, J., Kelley, G., & Skiba, R. J. (2016). Identifying barriers: Creating solutions
to improve family engagement. School Community Journal, 26(2), 161–184.
Barton, A., Ershadi, M., & Winthrop, R. (2021). Understanding the connection between familyschool engagement and education system transformation. Center for Universal Education
at Brookings.
Becker, S. O., Hornung, E., & Woessmann, L. (2011). Education and catch-up in the industrial
revolution. American Economic Journal. Macroeconomics, 3(3), 92–126.
https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.3.3.92
Benson, L., Harkavy, I., Johanek, M. C., & Puckett, J. (2009). The enduring appeal of
community schools. American Educator, 33(2), 22–47.
https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/209
90
Bettez, S. C., & Hytten, K. (2013). Community building in social justice work: A critical
approach. Educational Studies, 49(1), 45–66.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2012.749478
Brown, K. M. (2004a). Assessing preservice leaders’ beliefs, attitudes, and values regarding
issues of diversity, social justice, and equity: A review of existing measures. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 37(4), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680490518948
Brown, K. M. (2004b). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative
framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 77–110.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03259147
Brunner, C. C. (1998). The legacy of disconnection between the public schools and their
communities: Suggestions for policy. Educational Policy, 12(3), 244–266.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904898012003002
Bryk, A. S. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 23–30.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009100705
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell
Sage Foundation. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7758/9781610440967
Capper, C., Theoharis, G., & Sebastian, J. (2006). Toward a framework for preparing leaders for
social justice. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(3), 209–224.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230610664814
Carreón, G. P., Drake, C., & Barton, A. C. (2005). The importance of presence: Immigrant
parents’ school engagement experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3),
465–498. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042003465
91
Celoria, D. (2016). The preparation of inclusive social justice education leaders. Educational
Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 27, 199–219.
Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., & Yonk, R.
(1966). Equality of educational opportunity. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Office of Education.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist policies. University of
Chicago Legal Forum, 1, 139–167
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, D. J. (2016). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. SAGE.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1991). Involving parents in the schools: A process of empowerment.
American journal of Education, 100(1), 20-46.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (2004). Involving Latino families in schools: Raising student achievement
through home-school partnerships. Corwin Press.
Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Pedagogy and power in educating other people’s
children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298.
Dewey, J. (1902). The school as social center. The Elementary School Teacher, 3(2), 73–86.
https://doi.org/10.1086/453152
Diem, S., & Carpenter, B. W. (2012). Social justice and leadership preparation: Developing a
transformative curriculum. Planning and Changing, 43(1/2), 96–112.
Dryfoos, J. G. (1993). Schools as places for health, mental health, and social services. Teachers
College Record, 94(3), 540–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819309400313
92
Dyrness, A. (2009). Cultural exclusion and critique in the era of good intentions: Using
participatory research to transform parent roles in urban school reform. Social Justice,
36(4 (118), 36–53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29768560
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1993). Parent-school involvement during the early adolescent
years. Teachers College Record, 94(3), 568–587.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819309400311
Epstein, J. (2016). School, family, and community partnerships, student economy edition:
Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429493133
Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices and
parent involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, F.-X. Kaufmann, & F. Lösel (Eds.), Social
intervention: Potential and constraints (pp. 121–136). Walter De Gruyter.
Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships (Report No. 6). Center on Families,
Schools, and Children’s Learning.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A metaanalysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009048817385
Fine, M. (1993). [Ap]parent involvement: Reflections on parents, power, and urban public
schools. Teachers College Record, 94(4), 682–710.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819309400402
Glass, M. A. (2016). “A series of blunders and broken promises”: I.S. 201 as a turning point
[Blog post]. Gotham Center for New York History. http://www.gothamcenter.org/blog/aseries-of-blunders-and-broken-promises-is-201-as-a-turning-point
93
Goldberg, J. M., Sklad, M., Elfrink, T. R., Schreurs, K. M. G., Bohlmeijer, E. T., & Clarke, A.
M. (2019). Effectiveness of interventions adopting a whole school approach to enhancing
social and emotional development: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 34, 755–782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-018-0406-9
Grissom, J. A., Mitani, H., & Woo, D. S. (2019). Principal preparation programs and principal
outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(1), 73–115.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18785865
Gutman, M. (2019). 8. Intermediate school 201: Race, space, and modern architecture in Harlem.
In A. Erickson & E. Morrell (Eds.), Educating Harlem: A century of schooling and
resistance in a Black community (pp. 183–209). Columbia University Press.
https://doi.org/10.7312/eric18220-011
Hackman, H. (2005). Five essential components for social justice education. Equity & Excellence
in Education, 38(2), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680590935034
Henderson, A. T. (2007). Beyond the bake sale: The essential guide to family-school
partnerships. New Press.
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family,
and community connections on student achievement. Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory.
Hill, N. E., & Craft, S. A. (2003). Parent-school involvement and school performance: Mediated
pathways among socioeconomically comparable African American and Euro-American
families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.95.1.74
94
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education:
Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310–331.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819509700202
Hornby, G., & Lafaele, R. (2011). Barriers to parental involvement in education: An explanatory
model. Educational Review, 63(1), 37–52.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2010.488049
Hughes, T. (2019). Mentoring school leaders through cultural conflict. Research in Educational
Administration & Leadership, 4(3), 591–622. https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2019.3.6
Isaacs, C. S. (2014). Inside Ocean-Hill Brownsville: A teacher’s education, 1968–1969. SUNY
Press.
Ishimaru, A. M., Torres, K. E., Salvador, J. E., Lott, J., II, Williams, D. M. C., & Tran, C.
(2016). Reinforcing deficit, journeying toward equity: Cultural brokering in family
engagement initiatives. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 850–882.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216657178
Jeynes, W. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement
programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706–742.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912445643
Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority
children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202–218.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124502239392
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban
elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237–269.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085905274540
95
Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary
school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82–110.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085906293818
Jeynes, W. H. (2015). A meta-analysis: The relationship between father involvement and student
academic achievement. Urban Education, 50(4), 387–423.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914525789
Jeynes, W. H. (2017). A meta-analysis: The relationship between parental involvement and
Latino student outcomes. Education and Urban Society, 49(1), 4–28.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124516630596
Johnson, R. C. (2011). Long-run impacts of school desegregation & school quality on adult
attainments (NBER Working Papers 16664). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Johnston, W. R., Engberg, J., Opper, I. M., Sontag-Padilla, L. M., & Xenakis, L. (2020).
Illustrating the promise of community schools: An assessment of the impact of the New
York City Community Schools Initiative. RAND Corporation.
Kaestle, C. (1983). Pillars of the republic: Common schools and American society, 1780–1860.
Hill and Wang.
Khanal, S. (2021). Reflexivity over caste and gender: Disrupting researcher’s bias beliefs and
habitus. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education: QSE, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2021.2003896
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2020). The history and evolution of public education in the U.S.
Center on Education Policy.
96
Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class and
cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72(1), 37–53.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2673185
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2003). The essential conversation: What parents and teachers can learn
about each other. Random House.
Lawson, M. A. (2003). School–family relations in context: Parent and teacher perceptions of
parent involvement. Urban Education, 38(1), 77–133.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085902238687
Lewis, A. E., & Diamond, J. B. (2017). Despite the best intentions: How racial inequality thrives
in good schools. Oxford University Press.
Lohmann, M. J., Hathcote, A. R., & Hogan, K. A. (2018). Addressing the barriers to familyschool collaboration: A brief review of the literature and recommendations. International
Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 10(1), 26–32.
https://doi.org/10.20489/intjecse.454424
Maier, A., Daniel, J., Oakes, J., & Lam, L. (2017). Community schools as an effective school
improvement strategy: A review of the evidence. Learning Policy Institute.
Mapp, K., & Bergman, E. (2021). Embracing a new normal: Toward a more liberatory
approach to family engagement. Carnegie Corporation of New York.
McGrail, K. R. (1977). New York City school decentralization: The respective powers of the
City Board of Education and the Community School Boards. The Fordham Urban Law
Journal, 5, 239–278.
Mediratta, K., Shah, S., & McAlister, S. (2009). Community organizing for strong schools:
Strategies and successes. Harvard Education Press.
97
Meier, D. (2002). In schools we trust: Creating communities of learning in an era of testing and
standardization. Beacon Press.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Neem, J. N. (2017). Democracy’s schools: The rise of public education in America. Johns
Hopkins University Press. https://doi.org/10.56021/9781421423203
Noguera, P. A. (2001). Transforming urban schools through investments in the social capital of
parents. In S. Saegert, J. P. Thompson, & M. R. Warren (Eds.), Social capital in poor
communities (pp. 189–212). Russell Sage Foundation
Noguera, P. A. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public
education. Teachers College Press.
Noguera, P. A. (2011). A broader and bolder approach uses education to break the cycle of
poverty. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(3), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109300303
Olivos, E. (2006). The power of parents: A critical perspective of bicultural parent involvement
in public schools. Peter Lang Publishing.
Organizing Engagement. (2023). Framework of six types of involvement.
https://organizingengagement.org/models/framework-of-six-types-of-involvement/
Orr, M., & Rogers, J. (2011). Public engagement for public education: Joining forces to
revitalize democracy and equalize schools. Stanford University Press.
Patrikakou, E. N., Weissberg, R. P., Redding, S., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2005). School-family
partnerships: Fostering children’s school success. Teachers College Press.
Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
98
Podair, J. E. (2002). The strike that changed New York: Blacks, Whites, and the Ocean Hill–
Brownsville crisis. Yale University Press.
Reardon, S. F., & Owens, A. (2014). 60 years after “Brown”: Trends and consequences of school
segregation. Annual Review of Sociology, 40(1), 199–218.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043152
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to
close the black-white achievement gap. Economic Policy Institute.
Rothstein, R. (2015). The racial achievement gap, segregated schools, and segregated
neighborhoods: A constitutional insult. Race and Social Problems, 7(1), 21–30.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-014-9134-1
Sheldon, S. B. (2007). Improving student attendance with school, family, and community
partnerships. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 267–275
https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.5.267-275
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2004). Getting students to school: Using family and community
involvement to reduce chronic absenteeism. School Community Journal, 14(2).
Smith, J., Wohlstetter, P., Kuzin, C. A., & De Pedro, K. (2011). Parent involvement in urban
charter schools: New strategies for increasing participation. School Community Journal,
21(1), 71–94. http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Solomon, R. P. (2002). School leaders and antiracism: Overcoming pedagogical and political
obstacles. Journal of School Leadership, 12(2), 174–197.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460201200205
99
Stefanski, A., Valli, L., & Jacobson, R. (2016). Beyond involvement and engagement: The role
of the family in school–community partnerships. School Community Journal, 26(2), 135–
160.
Theoharis, G. (2008). At every turn: The resistance that principals face in their pursuit of equity
and justice. Journal of School Leadership, 18(3), 303–343.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460801800304
Uslaner, E. M. (2012). Measuring generalized trust: In defense of the standard question. In F.
Lyon, G. Möllering, & M. Saunders (Eds.), Handbook of research methods on trust (72–
84). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring.
State University of New York Press.
Waanders, C., Mendez, J. L., & Downer, J. T. (2007). Parent characteristics, economic stress,
and neighborhood context as predictors of parent involvement in preschool children’s
education. Journal of School Psychology, 45(6), 619–636.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.07.003
Wacquant, L. (2002). Taking Bourdieu into the field. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 46, 180–
186.
Wilder, S. (2014). Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: A meta-synthesis,
Educational Review, 66(3), 377–397, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.780009
Wilkerson, I. (2020). Caste: The origins of our discontents. Random House.
Williams, D., & Stallworth, J. (1984). Parent involvement in education projects. Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory.
100
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006
Zervas, T. G. (2017). Finding a balance in education: Immigration, diversity, and schooling in
urban America, 1880-1900. Athens Journal of Education, 4(1), 77–84.
https://doi.org/10.30958/aje.4-1-5
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 1
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 1
Interview Protocol 1: Professional
members of SLT: Principal, AP, teacher leader,
union representative
Potential probe concepts RQs
addressed
Community
involvement
domains
Tell me about your experience as an educator. Accessing self-awareness. Icebreaker TYPE 2,5,6
Why did you choose to become an educator?
How did your interest develop?
Values (If there is no value for collaboration,
then might be more challenges/barriers for
community members)
Icebreaker TYPE 2,5,6
How do you perceive the relationship between
the school and the community?
How, if at all, is community important? To what
extent, if at all, is collaboration important?
What is the school leader’s value around
community?
1 TYPE
1,2,3,4,5,6
What role, if at all, should community members
play in shaping the school’s vision, goals, and
policies?
Is the community important in making critical
school decisions?
1 TYPE
1,2,3,4,5,6
What strategies do you employ to ensure diverse
voices are represented in the decision-making
process?
How do you ensure equity of voice? 1 TYPE
1,2,3,4,5,6
What type of preparation, if any, have you
received to help you build school-community
partnerships?
Did the school leader get prepared for
collaboration or was this an inherent value?
1,2 TYPE 2,3,5,6
Can you provide an example of a decision made
using a collaborative approach between the
school and the community? How, if at all, did
this decision impact the school and the
community?
Example of school gains 2 TYPE 5,6
101
Interview Protocol 1: Professional
members of SLT: Principal, AP, teacher leader,
union representative
Potential probe concepts RQs
addressed
Community
involvement
domains
What are some of the impediments, if any, that
you face in building school-community
partnerships? How, if at all, have you
attempted to address them?
Are these structural challenges?
Is there community agency?
2 TYPE
1,2,3,4,5,6
What areas need the most attention in building
school-community partnerships? How are
those communicated, if at all?
What specific elements provide attention? 2 TYPE
1,2,3,4,5,6
What, if any, district/community/school
supports are in place to build a
school/community partnership?
Describe these supports 1, 2 TYPE
1,2,3,4,5,6
What are some key ways in which the school
and the community can mutually benefit from
engaging in power-sharing practices?
1,2 TYPE
1,2,3,4,5,6
What, if any, have been some of the changes or
improvements that have resulted from a
culture of power-sharing?
Positive gains 1,2 TYPE
1,2,3,4,5,6
If you were to design a program on building
school-community partnerships, what would
be some of the more vital concepts to include?
Power-sharing in action. Awareness-building on
why it’s important—no one can do it alone;
Articulating personal vision as a relationship
builder through conflict.
2 TYPE
1,2,3,4,5,6
10
2
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 2
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 2
Interview Protocol 2: Community Members
CBO Leaders, PTA President, parents, other
community members
Potential Probe Concepts RQs
Addressed
Community
Involvement
Domains
What is your experience being involved in the
field of education?
How did you get connected to the school? 1 TYPE 1,2,3,4,6
How, if at all, did your interest in education
develop into active school-community
involvement?
What is important to you? What are your
values? Did the SLT afford you the
opportunity to get involved?
1 TYPE
1,2,3,4,5,6
Can you describe your experience as an SLT
member at this school?
Speaks to collaboration, shared decisionmaking
2 TYPE
1,2,3,4,5,6
Why, if at all, do you feel it is important for the
school to engage the community?
What are your perceptions around
school/community engagement?
1 TYPE
1,2,3,4,5,6
How, if at all, can community involvement
benefit school practice?
Describe examples of positive school gains
resulting from community involvement. What
is the level of commitment for involvement to
result in gains?
1 TYPE
1,2,3,4,5,6
Can you provide an example of a decision made
using a collaborative approach between the
school and the community? How, if at all, did
this decision impact the school and
community?
Examples of school gains 2 TYPE
5,6
Describe the barriers, if any, that have emerged
through this school-community partnership.
How do you feel this group was prepared to
address these challenges/barriers?
2 TYPE 2,5,6
10
3
What areas need the most attention in building
school-community partnerships? How are
those communicated, if at all?
What are the areas in which you would like to
develop this partnership?
2 TYPE
2,5,6
What, if any, district/community/school
supports are in place to build a
school/community partnership?
Describe these supports 1,2 TYPE
1 2,3,4,5,6
If you were to design a school-community
partner development experience, how would
you build it to best determine and address
school-community needs?
What does the school need most from
community? What does the community need
most from school?
1,2 TYPE
1,2,3,4,5,6
10
4
105
Appendix C: Community Involvement Domains Legend
The following are Joyce Epstein’s six types of involvement.
Type 1: Parenting involvement occurs when family practices and home environments
support children as students and when schools understand their children’s families.
Type 2: Communicating involvement occurs when educators, students, and families
design effective forms of school-to-home and home-to-school communications.
Type 3: Volunteering involvement occurs when educators, students, and families recruit
and organize parent help and support and count parents as an audience for student activities.
Type 4: Learning at home involvement occurs when information, ideas, or training are
provided to educate families about how they can help students at home with homework and other
curriculum-related activities, decisions, and planning.
Type 5: Decision-making involvement occurs when schools include parents in school
decisions and develop parent leaders and representatives.
Type 6: Collaborating with the community involvement occurs when community
services, resources, and partners are integrated into the educational process to “strengthen school
programs, family practices, and student learning and development” (Organizing Engagement.
2023, para. 19).
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Co-constructing community, school and university partnerships for urban school transformation: Year two
PDF
Co-constructing community, school, university partnerships for urban school transformation: Year two
PDF
Father engagement in the child welfare system: a promising practice study
PDF
Leadership matters: the role of urban school principals as transformational leaders in influencing parent engagement to disrupt educational inequities
PDF
The impact of campus climate on community college student motivation
PDF
School culture and its impact on PBIS implementation
PDF
Bridging the employment gap for students of color: evaluating the effectiveness of internship programs and the level of engagement from employers
PDF
An unlikely partnership: engaging diasporas as stakeholders to international development donors
PDF
An unlikely partnership: engaging diasporas as stakeholders to international development donors
PDF
Building capacity to increase community member involvement at a clinical and translational science award (CTSA)
PDF
Co-constructing community, school, and university partnerships for urban school transformation
PDF
Student engagement: a quantitative analysis on aspects that are predictive of engagement
PDF
Donor affinity, engagement, and giving: reframing the student and alumni experience at California community colleges
PDF
Urban elementary school leaders as catalysts for culturally responsive engagement: re-imagining parental and family engagement post-COVID 19
PDF
Transforming the leadership table: a critical narrative study of the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in higher education leadership
PDF
Raising tenure: a case study of fundraiser retention in higher education
PDF
Integrating the industry sector in STEM learning ecosystems: a multicase study
PDF
Developing partnerships between education providers and Fortune 500 companies to increase the utilization of tuition assistance and quality digital education: an innovation study
PDF
Workforce system collaboration
PDF
Co-constructing community, school, and university partnerships for urban school transformation
Asset Metadata
Creator
Gupta, Kavita
(author)
Core Title
Power-sharing in co-constructed community-school partnerships: examining values, opportunities, and barriers around community engagement in New York City school leadership teams
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2023-12
Publication Date
12/21/2023
Defense Date
12/11/2023
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
collaborative school partnerships,OAI-PMH Harvest,parent engagement,school leadership teams,school-community partnerships
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Stowe, Kathy (
committee chair
), Malloy, Courtney (
committee member
), Tobey, Patricia (
committee member
)
Creator Email
gupta26@yahoo.com,kavitagu@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113797516
Unique identifier
UC113797516
Identifier
etd-GuptaKavit-12579.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-GuptaKavit-12579
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Gupta, Kavita
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20231221-usctheses-batch-1117
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
collaborative school partnerships
parent engagement
school leadership teams
school-community partnerships