A process for co-constructing community-school-university partnerships to transform an urban high school and widen the post-secondary opportunities for urban youth

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
A PROCESS FOR CO-CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY-SCHOOL-
UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS TO TRANSFORM AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL
AND WIDEN THE POST-SECONDARY OPPORTUNITIES FOR URBAN
YOUTH

by

Nina Denise Wooldridge

______________________________________________________________

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

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Nina Denise Wooldridge
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
God I give you all the glory and thank you for your grace!
It is with a heart of thanksgiving that I express appreciation and gratitude for the
support of the following persons:
Byron and Eileen Wooldridge
Dana Wooldridge
Dr. Damita Miller
Darvesa Perry
Brian Richardson
Dr. Sylvia Rousseau
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………. ii
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………….. iv
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………… v
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study …………………………………………… 1
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature …………………………………………. 29
Chapter Three: Research Methodology …………………………………………. 81
Chapter Four: Findings, Analysis and Discussion ……………………………... 111
Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications ………………………. 173
References ……………………………………………………………………… 199
Appendix A: Administrator Interview Protocol ……………………………….. 206
Appendix B: Teacher Interview Protocol ……………………………………….. 209
Appendix C: Classified Personnel Interview Protocol ………………………… 212
Appendix D: Parent Interview Protocol ……………………………………….. 215
Appendix E: Community-Based Organization Interview Protocol ……………. 219
Appendix F: University Stakeholder Protocol ………………………………….. 222
Appendix G: School Environment Observation Protocol ……………………… 224
Appendix H: Meeting Observation Protocol …………………………………… 225
Appendix I: Examined Artifacts Protocol ……………………………………... 226
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: School Demographics ………………………………………………… 89
Table 2: Data on Student Performance ………………………………………… 90
Table 3: Triangulation Matrix: Triangulation Across Data Collection …………. 93
Instruments

Table 4: Framework for Research Questions from Literature Review ………….. 95
Table 5: Collection of Data for Triangulation ………………………………….. 97
Table 6: Process of Data Analysis ……………………………………………... 107
Table 7: Student Achievement Data: Annual Yearly Progress ………………... 114
v
ABSTRACT
Despite numerous efforts among American public schools to raise student
achievement and widen the higher education trajectory for low-income minority
youth, the reality remains—there are significant gaps in academic performance for
African American students in the K-12 setting which present barriers to
postsecondary success.
Schools alone have not been able to enact successful educational reform in
many urban areas; hence, many institutions are looking to network partners for
assistance. Co-constructed community-school-university partnerships have the
potential to create a new cultural model to improve the quality of education in the K-
12 setting ensuring all students are ready for post-secondary education and the
workforce.
This study sought to examine the process by which a rare community-school-
university partnership was formed for the purpose of transforming a K-12 school in
an urban community. By examining the process by which these three entities worked
to co-construct a partnership of reduced hierarchical power relationships on behalf of
a K-12 school, this study expands the existing body of literature and sheds light on
possible actions for the future. The study includes strategies for co-constructing
partnerships that collectively contribute to school transformation while preventing
and overcoming barriers to partnerships of this nature. As well, this study reveals the
kinds of attributes in a partnership that contribute to the transformation of K-12
schools.
vi
The unit of analysis for this study is the formation of a multifaceted
community-school-university-collaboration in its first year of implementation and
the power dynamics inherent in co-constructing a network partnership of this
magnitude. The findings were analyzed using the core tenets of the co-construction
theoretical framework on dialogic relationships.
The findings suggest that the network partnership in this study is at the early
stages of co-constructing a viable partnership employing strategies to overcome
barriers which have enabled the union to produce many of its desired outcomes. The
attributes emerging from the partnership offer promise for change in the current
school culture.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Inequitable schooling conditions
At the core of the American Dream lies the promise of equal opportunity for
economic advancement for all those who work hard striving to make that dream a
reality. The very foundation of this dream is hope; the threat to this dream is
inequality; a major factor that combats inequality is education. Education has long
been called the “great equalizer,” the gateway out of poverty, and the heart of a
democracy. As early as the 19
th
century Horace Mann (1848) argued that equitable
schooling would be the means by which society would erase the dividing lines
between the “haves” and “have-nots” by promoting fair and equal chances for all
students to advance their positions in society (Oakes & Rogers, 2006). In the 20
th

century, after more than a century of struggle, equitable schooling conditions still
had not been institutionalized in much of the world. In America, Dewey (1927)
argued that the preservation of an egalitarian democracy in society at large is
contingent on challenging the entrenched ideologies that threaten free and public
education. Considering conditions in Brazil, Freire (2003) postulated the concept of
democratic liberating education for the oppressed as a means for the poor to rise out
of economic despair and fight for equality.
The struggle for educational equality in America that would truly provide all
children with the opportunity and means to improve their social conditions regardless
of their point of entry has a long history (Dewey, 1927; Darling-Hammond, 1996;
2
Freire, 1968; Oakes & Rodgers, 2006; Nieto, 1999). Instead of living up to the
promise of equality, schooling in America has widened the disparity between low-
income ethnic minority students of color and higher income Caucasian mainstream
students. An interesting paradox is “the greatest victims of inequality traditionally
have been the most ardent believers of the “American dream” of freedom, liberty,
and equality; it is they who have been in the forefront of the struggles to make the
ideas a reality for everyone” (Nieto, 1999, p. 23). In the midst of America’s public
schools’ most pervasive practices of gate keeping, discrimination, and disregard for
the aspirations of their fastest growing groups of clients—African American and
Latino students—large numbers of these ethnic minority students still wait for the
promise of access to an equitable education. Oakes and Rogers (2007) elaborate on
racial and class disparity, contending that the American educational system continues
to provide advantages to Caucasian upper class students and inequity to lower class
minority students.
A candid look at educational trends in America reveals the persistent and
disproportionate underachievement for minority youth in drop out rates, retention
rates, and graduation rates (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000),
participation in college preparatory coursework (Darling-Hammond, 1996), tracking
(Oakes & Rogers, 2006), and college enrollment (Swail & Perna, 2002). The
underachievement in secondary school for minority youth makes continuing on to
post-secondary education virtually impossible. Even special programs designed to
3
support minority youth only target a small number of “selected” students. Effective
reform strategies need to benefit all students.
Further, those “minority” students who make it to college face similar
challenges getting through college—low college retention rates and degree
attainment gaps are pervasive among minority youth (Gandara, 2002). Conley’s
(2005) research posits that the K-12 educational system fails to distinguish between
making students college eligible—meeting the admissions requirements and being
college ready— and equipping them with the critical thinking skills, knowledge, and
behavior to enter, matriculate, and graduate. As a result, students enter college
under-prepared and drop out prematurely. Tierney and Hagedorn (2002) elaborate on
Conley’s assertion, arguing that the low retention and degree completion rates are
attributable to K-12 schools’ failure to provide students with not only the academic
capital, but the social and cultural capital that sustain students in college until
graduation.
Reform Without Equity is No Longer an Option
Despite numerous efforts to raise student achievement and widen the higher
education trajectory for low-income minority youth, the reality remains—there are
significant gaps in academic performance for African American students in the K-12
setting, which present barriers to postsecondary success. African American students
typically attend urban schools. The pathway from the K-12 institution to college is
broken and not merely in need of repair but rather in need of a complete overhaul to
create the equity and excellence that prepares minority students for college success.
4
A reform strategy in equity that also creates a culture of college success will become
value added in widening the higher educational trajectory for minority youth.
Educational reform, which fails to create equitable schools of excellence with a
commitment to connect, prepare and inspire minority students for college does not
address the corrosion of democracy that comes from neglect of a growing majority in
American society.
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, while highly controversial,
changed K-12 institutions in American schools in two significant ways: first, it
required increased accountability for quality teaching and learning, and second, it
required that the measures of academic performance be reported by sub-groups.
NCLB sheds light on this persistently unresolved educational gap which has negative
implications that not only impact K-12 school setting but the post secondary sector
and, in turn, society as a whole. Changing institutional practices that fail to provide
an equal quality education, which prepares all students for college access and
success, is not an easy undertaking. As Alan Page, a Minnesota Supreme Court
Judge stated, “without preparation, opportunity [to attend college] is an empty
promise” (College Board, 1999).
Equity Reform: A Lens for Social Change
Oakes and Rogers (2006) call for equity reform that originates with and
shapes social arrangements to change power relationships. Anything less is an
exercise in futility. In the 1920’s, Dewey recognized the presence of gross
inequalities in public education as a threat to democracy and sought to reform
5
entrenched values and practices by advocating for social change. According to
Dewey (1897), the acquisition of equality lies in the hands of advocates constructing
environments to provide youth access to the knowledge needed to promote equitable
conditions.
Similarly, Freire (2003) asserted that, “to surmount the situation of
oppression, people must first critically recognize its causes, so that through
transforming action they can create a new situation, one which makes possible the
pursuit of transformation” (p. 47). Dewey realized that public expansion of equal
opportunity must begin in a community dissatisfied with the status quo and
empowered by shared knowledge to revitalize schools into democratic agencies
producing citizens who will in turn revitalize society (Oakes and Rogers, 2006).
This arduous task requires that public citizens and experts participate in social
inquiry to gain knowledge, which can be used to dismantle racist, classist, and elitist
practices and redistribute knowledge and power in schools so that all children benefit
equally from education (Oakes & Rogers, 2006).
Dewey’s (1930) perspective on reform sought to create a sphere of citizens
and experts in a public space where public intelligence on equity reform could
transpire. This organized public sphere empowers stakeholders as it is a space for
dialogue and civic participation where “those most affected by inequity shape policy
through information gathering, exchange, interpretation, and debate” (Oakes &
Rogers, 2006, p. 39). These features of equitable reform provide a lens, which
6
American public schools can use to pursue equity reform that yields the kind of
transformation minority youth and the communities still hope for.
Partnerships En Route to Educational Reform
Nationwide urban districts are inundated with data revealing performance
gaps in academic achievement for minority students. Public schools bear the burden
of the blame from the community for increases in violence and poverty, while the
university expresses dismay regarding the ill preparation of students and the costly
nature of remediation and failure to matriculate. Each entity has sought to form
partnerships with K-12 institutions to “fix” what is broken in schools in order to
foster productive and skilled citizens able to successfully enter the workforce or
college and participate in the competitive global economy (Nieto, 1999).
While separate systems operating within different organizational structures,
both K-12 and post-secondary institutions assert that their goal is to educate and
prepare students to participate in a democratic society (Sallee and Tierney, 2007). A
seamless collaboration between both the K-12 and university systems pooling
resources, knowledge, and expertise to improve academic success and better prepare
students for higher education seems ideal (Sallee and Tierney, 2007). Sirotnik and
Goodlad (1988) posit that school and university partnerships have the power to
create school reform and student success, bringing together “the creators and appliers
of knowledge and lead[ing] to renewal and innovation for both parties” (Kezar,
2007, p. 29). American universities regarded as the most influential, cutting edge
research institutions in the world should be able to support schools in educational
7
reform (Benson & Harkavy, 2003). Preparing students to function in society as
informed, intelligent, and moral citizens requires a collaborative and democratic
educational system” from the K-12 setting to the university (Benson & Harkavy,
2003, p. 113).
Traditional university-school collaborations alone have not adequately
addressed the performance gaps that exist for low-income and minority students in
the K-12 setting. These gaps are also mirrored in post-secondary institutions
(McPherson & Schapiro, 2006). Successful partnerships with an education focus are
measured by two outcomes: increased student achievement and social competence
(Carroll et al., 2001; Davies, 1991). Given these standards, coupled with the vast
disparities which exist for minority students, school-university unions alone have not
proven to be successful yet. Although partnering to create a seamless K-16
trajectory for minority students holds some promise, until the collaborative unions
include the community, they will always operate with limited success (Carroll et al.,
2001). The inclusion of the community as a valued resource is essential to meeting
the challenges that face urban schools where minority students are predominant.
Family and community members are historical pillars of society, and
essential to effective school reform is a comprehensive collaboration in which the
home, school, and community work together (Deck & Deck, 2002). Research
indicates that family and community involvement in schools increases student
achievement (Ballen & Moles, 1994; Dryfoos, 2003; Epstein, 2001; Henderson &
Berla, 1994). Gains in school attendance, higher test scores and grades, an increase
8
in the graduation rate, and greater enrollment in higher education are directly
correlated to the inclusion of family and community in the academic preparation of
the child (Epstein, 2001; Gandara, 2002; Jun & Colyar, 2002). Successful
educational reform in K-12 schools for minority youth leading to higher education
and, in turn, leading to a brighter democratic future, is contingent on the
partnerships’ mobilization of the community to help students succeed (Price, 2008).
The Case for a New Cultural Model
Community-School-University Partnerships
A new cultural model conjoining the community, school, and university in a
collaborative partnership is imperative for effective reform in equity and academic
success in both the K-12 and university setting (Brabeck et al., 2003; Carroll et al.,
2001; Miller & Hafner, 2008). Collaborating to solve the complex social injustices
permeating schools requires that the educational system employ this full network of
support to create community-school-university partnerships. A body of research
supports the belief that reform efforts in the K-12 setting could drastically improve if
partnerships mobilized the community, schools and university as equal partners to
close performance gaps in order to widen the higher education trajectory (Brabeck et
al., 2003; Oakes & Rodgers; 2006; Tierney et al., 2002).
Value Added Through Collaboration
Miller and Hafner (2008) posit that collaboration as an interactive process
among entities that come together out of mutual accord in order to work toward
mutually agreed upon and/or mutually beneficial goals. Each of the entities involved
9
in the collaborative effort possesses diverse expertise and resources, which they then
utilize as appropriate to generate solutions to complex problems. Partnerships thrive
when what is achieved collectively by the union is greater than what could be
accomplished by each entity in isolation (Wildridge et al., 2004). Collaborative
partnerships are mutually beneficial because they have the potential for collectively
improving education and prepare moral and intelligent citizens to advance
democracy. More importantly, added value results from partnerships and is the
means of tangible rewards:
(a) the community benefits from building an educational pathway whereby
the local youth gain the skills and knowledge to revitalize their own
neighborhoods
(b) schools benefit from enacting the kind of transformational teaching and
learning for which society holds them accountable
(c) universities benefit from improving public relationships with agents that
sustain student enrollment and retention (Community-Campus
Partnerships for Health, 2007).
Practices that Lead to Successful Partnerships
Dewey’s (1916) framework for equity reform calls for all stakeholders to sit
alongside one another in community, collaborating and working productively to
resolve issues of social injustice. The real power of collaboration is evident when
independent entities work toward a common goal (Carroll et al., 2001) and engage in
co-construction to make that goal a reality. Co-construction is a process in which two
10
or more parties engage in an interactive and equitable relationships to create shared
knowledge and communally work on agreed upon goals and outcomes (Carroll et al.,
2001; Miller & Hafner, 2008). Collaborations engaged in co-construction use
knowledge gained from mutually shared learning to build something together that
results in agreed upon processes and products. Effective community-school-
university partnerships engaged in a co-construction model enable key stakeholders
to equally participate in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the reform
plan, which leads to sustainable change—increased student achievement and social
competence (Carroll et al., 2001). The co-construction model has transformative
outcomes that empower collaborative relationships to maintain themselves so they
can obtain the goals of the partnership.
Co-constructed relationships among communities, schools, and universities
have the potential for redistributing power, thus enabling all partners to contribute to
the quality of education in urban communities. In co-constructed relationships the
equal distribution of power among all agents creates a new culture of shared
learning, ownership and empowerment. General principles of co-constructed
relationships include respect for the social and cultural dynamics at a school site to
affect change; creating a space for dialogue and systems of equal representation;
valuing the surrounding expertise of the community; honoring the expertise,
knowledge and historical, social, and cultural contexts of the school and community;
and having researchers and practitioners work as peers in all aspects of reform
(Carroll et al., 2001; Goldring & Sims, 2005; Yonezawa et al., 2002).
11
Successful co-constructed partnerships thrive in settings with systems of
representation that engage all stakeholders as equal partners in educational reform.
They perish when stakeholders are excluded as a result of hierarchical power
structures, thereby excluding the coeval nature of the original design (Carroll et al.,
2001). Partnerships with longevity minimize linear governance structures by
creating systems of representation that foster a space for dialogic conversations.
Yonezawa et al., (2002) contends that most partnerships for reform have a direction
that travels in one direction: “active, thoughtful designers to passive, pragmatic
implementers” (p. 163). A linear approach is not an effective model as it perpetuates
perceptions of hierarchical structures and practices. The more effective model is one
in which the momentum of engagement moves in a reciprocal pattern between agents
in dialogic relationships (Yonezawa et al., 2002). Collaborative dialogic
relationships are an effective reform strategy because change comes from all entities
working to shape the partnership, goals, outcomes, and indicators of success.
Hierarchical power structures and perceived privileges are barriers to engagement,
but building constructive collaboration and dialogic relationships is a key strategy to
redistribute power and remove obstacles, which undermine the partnership’s efforts
(Yonezawa et al., 2002).
Core Tenets of Successful Partnerships
Partnerships thrive when collaboration includes mutual trust and respect
formed through collaborative dialogic relationships. Each one is briefly described
below:
12
Mutual Trust and Respect
Collaborative partnerships with strong working relationships equally
distribute power by fostering cultures of mutual respect and trust among all
stakeholders (Decker, 2000; Miller & Hafner, 2008). Partnerships can build
relationships that engender trust by including all stakeholders in shared decision-
making and making all actions transparent. Salient to effective collaboration is
honest communication, transparent decision-making, and consensus building. When
each agent is able to contribute knowledge and expertise, partnerships have the
information needed to accomplish the goals and outcomes of the partnership (Carroll
et al., 2001; Miller & Hafner, 2008; Sallee & Tierney, 2007).
Collaborative Dialogic Relationships
Effective partnerships build collaborative dialogic relationships engaging all
agents in deliberate dialogic inquiry to work collaboratively on a common goal. In
Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire (2003) highlights the value of maintaining an
epistemological curiosity about dialogue engendering engagement, which seeks to
comprehend all aspects of the object of knowledge. Collaborative dialogic
relationships redistribute power among partners by positioning all agents conjoined
in the conversation as equals. Only then are collaborative dialogic relationships able
to emerge where learning awakens the critical aspect of one’s consciousness through
genuine study and inquiry (Freire, 1973). A successful practice employed by
partnerships is to foster collaborative work environments, which capitalize on the
synergy of agents’ knowledge and expertise to make quality decisions from
13
knowledge acquired dialogic relationships engaged in praxis (Carroll et al., 2001;
Freire, 2003; Swalle & Tierney, 2007).
Practices that Prohibit Engagement
Miller and Hafner (2008) assert that many partnerships end prematurely in
mutual frustration because they are unable to overcome obstacles, which prevent
effective engagement. Several barriers hinder the sustainability of university-school-
community partnerships, but the common destructive factor stems from constituents’
inability to build collaborative relationships that distribute power equally among all
agents. Miller and Hafer’s (2008) framework presents a lens with which to examine
the barriers to partnerships as complex and elusive collaborative relationships;
flawed processes; and inequitable power dynamics.
Complex and Elusive
Partnerships, which fail to collaborate, minimize their ability to operate
effectively and to resolve problems. Many partnerships forego building relationships
at the onset because collaboration is a time consuming process that is difficult to
maintain (Carroll et al., 2001; Lawson, 2003). Fostering a collaborative culture is an
evolving, complex venture whose elusive nature must be stewarded and supported in
order to thrive among those engaged in collaborative acts (Carroll et al., 2001;
Lawson, 2003; Miller & Hafner, 2008).
Flawed Process
Miller and Hafner (2008) assert that there are a myriad of barriers to
partnerships, but the absence of structures for communication and an inadequate
14
conceptual design consisting of disconnected programs randomly placed in
institutions is the most ineffective. Instead of uniting diverse groups to collaborate,
programs and partners fail to communicate effectively and ultimately become
divisive, fostering competition among the groups. Partnerships are often short lived
because they have ill conceived and poorly implemented processes that limit open
communication and collaboration (Miller & Hafner, 2008; Peel et al., 2002).
Inequitable Power Dynamics
A common barrier to partnerships is the unequal distribution of power in
relationships as each agent strives to gain control and preserve its place in the power
structure. Typically, most partnerships are built on the principle of what the
powerful can do for the powerless (Miller and Hafner, 2008). Then, as a result of an
uneven balance of power within the relationships, they operate with very little
success (Carroll et al., 2001). A common pattern of hierarchical structures is an
acquiescent mentality among agents in the group because of perceived expertise and
knowledge valued. As a result, a chain of command is instituted whereby the
community yields to the local school district, and the local school district yields to
the university (Carroll et al., 2002; Maurrasse, 2001; McCroskey, 2003).
Power of Partnerships for Reform
Contribution to the Quality Education
A new cultural model of community-school-university partnerships
collaborating in co-constructed dialogic relationships has the potential to create
equitable democratic schools. The real impetus for a new cultural model is to
15
transform schools to increase student achievement and prepare students to get into
and through college. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) posit that new cultural
models can lead to new cultural settings, which in this context will be the formation
of democratic schools and classrooms immersed in dialogic relationships. Through
the collaboration of this tri-partnership model, schools and classrooms can become
co-constructed places of learning characterized by dialogue and collaboration among
all stakeholders.
Institutional Agents and Cultural Brokers
Effective partnerships conjoin a social network of community-school-
university partners who can serve as institutional agents (i.e., cultural broker) to
create successful pathways for students in urban schools to traverse from the K-12
setting to college. The cultural model of supportive and strategic leadership can be
emulated within the school setting among teachers and staff as each one becomes a
institutional agent making knowledge and resources available to ensure that every
student is college ready.
Tri-partnerships can amalgamate expertise, resources, and capital to teach
educators how to advocate on behalf of children and act as institutional agents as a
means to widen the pathway for college for minority youth. According to Carroll et
al., (2001) partnerships are able to improve student performance when entities work
as peers in the process of school reform. Creating a space for dialogue that conjoins
the expertise of the academics and the community to frame and contextualize the
social and cultural challenges allows for shared meaning to occur (Carroll et al,
16
2001). When co-constructed knowledge emerges it empowers the partnership to act
as social agents and create favorable learning conditions for students. Tri-
partnerships can use their expertise to mentor teachers in key areas to create teachers
who in turn become advocates for students, help students negotiate their identities,
and empower student learners in dialogic relationships.
Partnerships to Develop Identities as Scholars
Community-school-university partnerships can facilitate teachers’
understanding of how learning is influenced by a variety of factors in society and
help them work through the barriers that impede academic success. Community-
school-university partnerships can help teachers understand how their perceptions of
children play out in the classroom and foster equitable learning conditions which
empower minority students to redefine themselves as scholars. Neito’s research
(1999) reveals that student identities and perceptions of self as learners can be
refined when there is a strong connection among teachers, schools, and the
community. “Whereas some students come to think of themselves as ‘scholars’
whose futures are tied to further education, others learn that ‘school is not for me’
and reject their schooling as forcefully as their schools excluded them from the
settings that might persuade them otherwise” (Wheelock, 2002, xi).
The role of institutional agents (teacher or primary adult agent in the
classroom) in urban partnerships is to help students develop and refine identities as
learners and scholars. Cummins (1986) posits that as students try to form identities
of self (classroom, peers, home, community), they negotiate multiple contexts to
17
form a scholar identity that will lead to academic achievement and a higher
education trajectory. Community-school-university partnerships can help teachers
understand the social and cultural complexities of teaching and learning in
inequitable conditions.
Effective co-construction in a partnership mandates that each entity bring its
collected knowledge and expertise together to capitalize on the assets of all agents in
order to advance student achievement (Carroll et al., 2001). Each entity in the
partnership has the unique perspective and funds of knowledge, which have
transformative power to positively impact teacher-student relationships. The co-
constructed learning process used within tri-partnerships equips educators with assets
from the community and from the university to support the development of students’
identities. These assets empower teachers to help students negotiate identities as
scholars and thrive in classroom settings that foster co-constructed learning and
dialogic relationships.
Dialogic Classrooms Mirroring Partnership Dialogue
Partnerships that help schools foster dialogic classrooms provide academic
and social freedom that empowers disenfranchised youth long after they leave the
classroom. Dialogic relationships engender power through the unity of praxis—
words of truth conjoined with critical reflection, which lead to transformative action
(Freire, 2003). Education becomes a liberating act when institutional agents seeking
change, create classroom settings where students engage in praxis.
18
Praxis becomes operational for partners when they mobilize resources and
create distributed knowledge that, when acted upon, can empower groups that have
been marginalized by society. A primary focus of effective partnerships would be to
improve teacher-student relationships in the classroom setting by cultivating dialogic
relationships and creating democratic classrooms. Creating a space and culture
engaged in reciprocal dialogical relationships is one way to empower tri-partnerships
to close gaps and improve student achievement.
Urban districts committed to the rhetoric of school mission statements “to
create a college going culture” will be well served by creating community-school-
university partnerships engaged in mutual shared learning via dialogic relationships.
Successful discourse of truth combined with critical reflection enables the co-
construction of a transformative action plan, a practice Freire (2003) refers to as
praxis. In this praxis all agents are invested and committed to its outcome—to
improve public education to create citizens ready to contribute to a democratic
society. When successful, tri-partnerships have the opportunity to transform public
schools and, in essence, change the world.
Statement of the Problem
Partnerships co-constructed in collaborative dialogic relationships are needed
to increase student achievement to improve public education, and prepare all
students for college success. Nationwide, urban districts are inundated with data
revealing performance gaps in academic achievement for minority students. In an
effort to reform schools, many partnerships have forged ahead with the intentions of
19
increasing student achievement and widening the pipeline between K-12 and post-
secondary education. However, despite exhaustive efforts at reform by a variety of
partnerships, many of these partnerships have not been able to maintain alliances.
They fail to sustain themselves through ongoing collaboration and dialogue.
Consequently, they have failed to end the performance gaps that remain among
traditionally underserved students; inequity is still pervasive in urban schools, and
only a few minority students have the skills to get into or through college with
success. Educational equity reform in the K-12 setting could drastically improve if
partnerships mobilized the community, schools and the university as equal partners
to close performance gaps. The educational arena offers limited research on co-
constructed tri-partnerships that yield results as a result of their collaboration; thus
the focus of this study will be to examine how such entities will work together to
create a new cultural model that leads to the transformation of an urban school.
Significance of the Study
In the case of this study, a community made up of a community-based civil
rights organization, a community-based research and service-oriented organization
have joined with a top-tiered private research university and an urban school for the
purpose of transforming the school that is a member of the partnership. This tri-
partnership will co-construct their union, which implies that all participants in the
process make a contribution to conceptualizing what the final goal or product will
look like. It also means that all members are willing to relinquish preconceived
20
notions of what the goal or product is to be to create and design something new with
the power to enact educational reform.
Budding partnerships emerging around the nation will benefit from this study
because it will contribute to the existing body of knowledge detailing processes for
constructing successful alliances designed to increase student achievement in urban
districts for minority youth. In this context, student achievement is defined as an
increase in high school graduation, and college enrollment.
Increasing access to college requires the collaboration of committed people
whose goal is to improve public education by creating schools of equity and
excellence. As the goal is realized, added value can result from improved teacher-
student relationships, dialogic classrooms with high expectations, skilled
practitioners, and an increase in knowledge about college in the community. The
school staff can create college readiness expectation on campus, and community
members can hold students accountable for academic and college success as well. In
this vein, every adult in students’ lives becomes and advocate for higher learning
providing a pathway to typically disenfranchised students. As minority youth
acquire college degrees and jobs in the community they can change the inequitable
structures that exist from not just first-hand experience, but formal knowledge
gleaned as well, empowering them to contribute to a democratic society from both
levels of expertise. This study has the potential to create processes and a viable
reform model for community-school-university partnerships to transform urban
21
schools into institutions of learning that exit students who are college and career
ready to be active members of a democratic society.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore ways to build successful partnerships
that minimize existing quandaries and add to the body of knowledge of how to
promote tri-partnerships between communities, schools and universities. This
research will shed light on how to create sustainable educational partnerships among
all stakeholders to increase student achievement in the K-12 setting and widen the
higher educational trajectory for minority youth. The knowledge gained has the
potential to enable educators seeking equity reform in schools to implement
structures, policies, and practices supported by research. By identifying the core
tenets leading to the success or demise of partnerships, institutions can apply such
knowledge to the development of their community-school-university alliances. The
analysis yielded can be used to improve the quality of partnerships formed at the
onset and make further recommendations applicable to similar schools nationwide. If
the educational community-school-university partnerships in this study conjoin to
meet the desired outcomes of their union, the core tenets can be replicated to
improve the quality of life for students and society, which will revitalize our
democratic society.
22
Research Questions
1. What is a process that enables communities, schools, and universities to
co-construct partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban
schools?
 What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools, and universities that seek to transform
urban schools?
 What are some effective strategies that have the potential for
overcoming barriers in co-constructing partnerships among
communities, schools, and universities for the purpose of
transforming K-12 urban schools?
2. What attributes of a partnership capable of creating a New Cultural
Model in urban schools, result from the process of co-constructing a
Community, Schools, and University partnership with the intent to
transform a K-12 school?
Limitations
The data analysis and findings were limited by (a) the length of time to
conduct the study, (b) the access to key stakeholders, and (c) the comfort and trust of
partners. First, this case study was conducted over a three-month period. Data
collection from the community, school, and university was limited by time
constraints, access to artifacts, and ability to conduct the amount of interviews and
observations desired to accommodate each entity equitably.
23
Second, there are numerous key agents involved in this partnership and
obtaining everyone’s perspective to get a holistic account of the partnership could be
a challenge. Equitable access to each stakeholder could be limited by uncontrolled
factors such as competing schedules, interest in participation and change of roles and
responsibilities.
Finally, some partners might not feel comfortable sharing information with
research students from the university, one of the entities in this budding partnership.
This reluctance might inhibit the interviewee’s responses and desire to openly
communicate with the interviewer. There is a possibility participants’ comments
were biased as they perceive the interviewer was merely acting on behalf of the
university and not in the best interest of the partnership. The thematic dissertation
group had taken a proactive approach to this potential barrier by attending socials
and meetings to build relationships with the stakeholders and inviting key agents to
dissertation classes to share insights and expertise. These practices were aimed at
demystifying the researcher’s presence and role in the work of the partnership.
Delimitations
This case study represents the first of a five-year study by doctoral candidates
to investigate the promising practices of forming a community-school-university
partnership to improve student achievement. This unique tri-partnership conjoins the
knowledge, talents, and expertise of two community based organizations, a top tier-
research university and the local urban high school to create a unified organization,
Great Schools Supported by Partnerships (GSSP). One local school site was chosen
24
to ensure considerable attention could be given to the processes, practices, and
polices of co-constructing a partnership to enact successful school transformation.
Although the partnership was underway before the study began, the growth and
development of this union will offer rich information to make generalizations, which
have the potential to advance the field literature in this area.
Definition of Terms
Achievement Gap: A term that has come to be commonly used since the
enactment of NCLB to describe the disparity in positive student outcomes typically
between middle class students and students of color in high poverty urban areas.
Community: Traditionally defined as a group of people interacting and living
in a common geographic location. Community is also defined as the shared
characteristics, norms, behaviors, identity and cohesiveness of a group sharing
common spaces of interaction. In this study, this term may also refer to community
based organizations, or parents and students in the community, or to other members
of the community.
Co-Construction: A process in which two or more parties engage in an
interactive and equitable relationship to create shared understandings and agreed
upon outcomes. Co-construction moves beyond mere dialogue as parties strive to
build something together that results in agreed upon outcomes (end product or
developed process).
Collaboration: an interactive process among individuals and organizations
who have come together, out of mutual accord, to work towards a mutually agreed
25
upon, and mutually beneficial goal. The individuals and organizations involved in
the collaborative effort each possess diverse expertise and resources which they use
to generate solutions to complex problems.
Critical Bridge Person: A term used by Ostrander (2004) to describe an
individual or individuals who can serve as brokers within university, K-12 school,
and community partners to create new relationships where power is distributed. This
individual has also been referred to in literature as a mediator, social advocate,
institutional agent, mediator, boundary spanner and kingpin.
Cultural Model: A term derived from Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) that
broadly defines cultural models as the “shared mental schema or normative
understanding of how the world works, or ought to work”(p. 47).
Dialogue: a process of engaging people in an exchange of ideas, experiences,
and knowledge for the purpose of creating shared meaning.
Dialogical relationship: The interaction of multiple entities in a context that
is bound by inclusiveness, mutual respect, trust, and the value of the contributions,
knowledge and experiences of others. This type of relationship engages participants
horizontally versus hierarchically and allows the discussants to articulate their
intentions, needs, talents, capacities, and resources without denigration or
domination.
Funds of Knowledge: Seeing the home culture, values, and practices as
valuable assets and as necessary elements to enter into co-constructed dialogic
relationships.
26
Opportunity Gap: A term adopted by those who resist using the term
achievement gap to describe the disparity in student outcomes occurring between
historically oppressed persons due to persistent barriers and inequities in school.
Partnership: A convergence of knowledge, resources, and assets from a
university, K-12 school, and community co-constructed through dialogic
relationships that have the potential to eradicate historic, social, economic, and
political barriers on behalf of urban school transformation.
Power: The potential for effecting influence and change through decision-
making capabilities and resources.
Power Relationship: Hierarchical distribution of social, political, and
economic capital that can result in the status of oppressor and oppressed.
Praxis: Another term derived from Paolo Freire in Pedagogy of the
Oppressed (2003) in which the oppressor must first engage in reflection before S/he
commits to action or activism. Oftentimes it is the crossroads between theory and
practice necessary for educational transformations.
Program Improvement: Program improvement, as defined by the state, is
failing to make annual yearly progress (AYP) in language arts or mathematics either
school-wide or for any numerically significant subgroup for two consecutive years,
or not meeting the targeted academic performance index (API) score (U.S.
Department of Education, 2001).
27
Sociopolitical: involving both social and political factors such as laws,
regulations, policies, and ideologies to explain different contexts, values, histories in
the partnership.
Urban: A large, densely populated diverse metropolitan area that faces
challenges due to historic barriers, stratified wealth, and power relationships, but has
the potential to draw upon the many untapped and unrecognized assets of the
community.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of the study has presented the introduction, the background of the
problem, the statement of the problem, the questions to be answered, the significance
of the study, assumptions and limitations, and the definitions of terms. Chapter 2 is a
review of relevant literature. It addresses the following topics: first, a context that
clarifies the urgency for education transformation to promote equitable learning
conditions for all students; second, a case for partnerships as a means for reform;
third, description of the kinds of partnerships in existence—practices that lead to
success and practices that prohibit engagement; and fourth, a framework from which
partnerships work to build co-constructed dialectic relationships which can provide a
new cultural model that changes the way schools interact with urban youth. Chapter
3 presents the methodology used in the study, including the research design,
population and sampling procedure, and the instruments and how they were
developed. The chapter also addresses information on the validity and reliability of
the methods chosen. Finally, chapter 3 describes the procedures for data collection
28
and the plan for data analysis. Chapter 4 will present the data results of the study.
Chapter 5 discusses and analyzes the results, and finishes by concluding and
presenting recommendations.
29
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
To understand the nature of community-school-university partnerships, four
areas within the research literature will be reviewed: first, a context for education
reform to promote equitable learning conditions; second, a case for partnerships as a
means for reform; third, a description of the kinds of partnerships in existence—
practices that lead to success and practices that prohibit engagement; and fourth, a
framework from which partnerships work to build co-constructed dialectic
relationships that transform teaching-learning relationships in urban schools.
Currently most partnerships that exist in schools conjoin the efforts of two entities
(school-community, community-university, university-school) and have a history of
limited success in closing gaps in student achievement. This review of literature
examines the value of joining all three entities to address inequitable schooling
conditions and raise student achievement for minority youth in urban schools. It also
examines processes for co-constructing partnerships among these three entities in
ways that promote distribution of power marked by mutual trust and respect. While
there are a variety of reasons to form partnerships, the primary focus of this research
is to examine the process by which entities come together to transform the culture of
an urban high school into one of academic excellence that prepares all students for
college.
30
Inequitable Schooling Conditions that Limit Achievement for Minority Youth
In The World is Flat, Friedman (2005) asserts that America’s K-12 public
educational system is not producing enough qualified graduates to enter college and
the workforce. Friedman explains that in order to be competitive globally America
needs a college-educated workforce, further contending that a severely limited
college-educated workforce will plague the American economy in the 21
st
century.
According to Tierney and Hagedorn (2002) in today’s economy, post-secondary
education and degree attainment is the passport into the middle class and stability in
the job market. In generations past, students who did not necessarily perform well in
school could obtain well paying jobs in the manufacturing industry. However, the
loss of America’s industrial base and outsourcing of manufacturing jobs has lessened
possibilities in the job market for students with limited skills and lacking a high
school diploma or college degree (Freidman, 2005; Morrell, 2004). It would seem
logical that, if America’s changing economy necessitates higher education in order to
secure its citizen’s social and economic well being, K-12 institutions have a moral
obligation and economic mandate to examine and remove barriers that limit student
achievement in order to widen the higher educational trajectory.
Over a century ago, Horace Mann (1848) argued that public education would
be the “great equalizer,” that invited all students into an institution of learning. If the
students experienced fair and equal success within the system, they would have a fair
chance to experience the same in life (Oakes, 2007). This notion was echoed in the
20
th
century with the landmark case of Brown vs. Board of Education whose seminal
31
ruling concluded that despite public schools’ efforts to become “great equalizers”
they were “separate and unequal.” Historically, education in America has provided
persistent and overt advantages for Caucasian and financially stable students and
disadvantages for low-income students of color (Oakes et al, 2006). Brown vs. Board
of Education made the case that separate, but unequal practices made it doubtful that
children who had been denied a quality education (1954) could have a reasonably
successful life or make a substantial contribution to a democratic society. Brown vs.
Board of Education provided hope for equitable reform in public education;
however, academic opportunity, equality, and equity in schools for minority youth
remain perniciously absent (Brabeck et al., 2003; Cummins, 1986; McPherson and
Schapiro, 2006; Oakes et al., 2006; Price, 2008; Nieto, 1999; Tierney and Hagedorn,
2002).
A review of the literature asserts the pervasive inequalities in urban public
schools include, but are not limited to, funding; facilities; highly qualified teachers;
culturally responsive curricula; college preparatory programs; rates of attendance;
retention; and graduation (Oakes et al., 2006; McPherson & Schapiro, 2006; Nieto
et. al, 2006; Rousseau, 2007; Tierney et al., 2002). These factors are not merely
small deterrents in the K-12 pathway to academic success for minority students, but
major obstacles that can derail already disenfranchised students from completing
high school and attending college.
32
Preparation and Opportunity Gaps
The College Board indicates that more than any other time in the nation’s
history, minority youth aspire to attend college, but very few minority students
experience college admission, matriculation and degree attainment (McPherson &
Schapiro, 2006). In College Knowledge: What It Really Takes for Students to
Succeed and What We Can Do to Get Them Ready, Conley (2005) posits that college
admission, subsequent retention and degree completion rates are positively affected
by exposure to a high-quality, academically intense high-school curriculum.
Secondary education is an essential springboard to the higher education trajectory.
Students who experience rigorous standards-based curriculum and rich learning
experiences in the K-12 setting acquire the skills and knowledge needed to enter and
persist in postsecondary education. Unfortunately, public schools, particularly urban
schools with high concentrations of students of color, have not yet organized
themselves to become places where all students have equal access to college
preparation and opportunity (Johnson, 2002). Unequal distribution of college
preparatory opportunities to those students who already enjoy the greatest
advantages in society has both individual and social consequences (Weeklock,
2002). In a democratic society, public education institutions are obliged to offer
challenging and equitable learning experiences that ensure all students have access to
and preparation for college (McPherson & Schapiro, 2006).
According to data from College Board’s National Task Force on Minority
Achievement (1999) there are significant enrollment and degree attainment gaps that
33
when studied from the perspective of an equitable society, magnify vast disparities
between racial and socioeconomic groups. Caucasian students are twice as likely to
attend college and obtain a degree as their African American counterparts
(McPherson & Schapiro, 2006). These differences are not limited to academic
achievement, but to a lifetime of opportunities as well. Patterns of achievement
deficits for minority youth begin in elementary school and are magnified in high
school, and, for those limited number of minority youth who attend college, continue
to persist through postsecondary education (Conley, 2005; Johnson, 2002;
McPherson & Schapiro, 2006; Price, 2008).
Perhaps the most significant barriers to higher learning among minority
students are not limited to gaps in achievement and preparation, but in opportunity
gaps as well. Equal opportunity in education leads to higher learning and greater
participation in the benefits of a democratic society (Rothstein, 2004). College is an
investment in one’s future with the potential to offer substantial returns, but many
current K-12 school structures neither promote conditions of equity, nor equality for
minority youth to access higher learning (Jun & Colyar, 2002). Lee (2004) posits
that both equal education and educational equity are fundamental to academic
success as “equity is the process; equality is the result” (as cited in Nieto and Bode,
2008, p. 11). This distinction provides a lens with which to examine how schools
could create equitable schooling conditions to obtain equality for minority youth.
Hart & Germaine-Watts (1996) define equity as “an operational principle for
shaping policies and practices which provide high expectations and appropriate
34
resources so that all students may achieve the same rigorous standards—with
minimal variance due to race, income, language or gender” (p. 20). The promise, of
equal opportunity for all students to attend college, is compromised at many schools
because a vast majority of students are denied access to the rigorous courses that
prepare students for postsecondary education (Oakes & Rogers, 2007).
Consequently, students are not connected to a college curriculum nor prepared to
attend college and successfully matriculate. A network of support to promote equity
and access to higher learning for minority youth is needed to ensure that students’
social standing in society is an act of choice, not of limitations imposed by
institutions employing inequitable practices.
The Case for Partnerships
Current Reform Practices to Combat Oppression
Despite numerous efforts to raise student achievement and expand the higher
educational trajectory for low-income minority students, the reality is that there
remain significant gaps in academic performance for African American students in
the K-12 setting that present barriers to postsecondary success (Tierney et al., 2002;
Oakes & Rogers, 2007; Johnson 2002; Swalle & Tierney, 2007). Partnerships
between the school and university have been forged to resolve gaps in college
preparation, enrollment and degree completion, but current alliances yield minimal
gains for minority youth; hence, more comprehensive approach to college access and
success is needed (Benson et al., 2000; Swail & Perna, 2002). While there is merit in
the partnerships that do exist, they have not removed the persistent barriers for
35
minority youth that college block success—entrance, retention, and degree
attainment. Perhaps the culprit behind the partnerships’ limited success in closing
opportunity gaps stems from how they are structured and the more common model of
operating between two groups (i.e., university and school or school and community)
instead of all three resourceful groups working together toward the same outcome
(Carroll et al., 2001; Miller & Hafner, 2008). Educational reform efforts to close the
existing gaps between high school and college institutions have merely built bridges
to cross the divide, but failed to bridge the gaps (Dean & Levine, 2007). Institutions’
inability to forge a seamless K-16 schooling system, perpetuates the cycle of
inequality in that very few minority students have the opportunity to go to college
and to succeed (Gandara, 2002).
Although partnerships forged between schools and universities to create a
seamless K-16 trajectory for minority students hold promise, unions that include the
community operate with a greater degree of success (Deck, 2000; Oakes & Rogers,
2006; Price, 2008). While the K-12 and higher educational systems share similar
goals, collaboration between schools and universities alone has not adequately
addressed the vast disparities that exist for minority students (Tierney & Hagedorn,
2007). A more effective reform strategy is to include a traditionally neglected
partner—the community, an underappreciated and untapped resource—as an equal
partner (Price, 2008). Epstein’s (2001) research on overlapping spheres of influence
asserts that school, parent, and community involvement is highly correlated to
students’ academic success. Since the goals are of mutual interest to each party,
36
greater accomplishments stem from joining efforts to solve problems. Significant
research demonstrates that academic success is strongly related to parental
involvement at every level and parental support and encouragement is the single
most important predictor of postsecondary educational plans, yet substantial parental
engagement with the school is lacking in most urban schools (Jun & Colyar, 2006).
Dewey (1916) argues that educational institutions are the social center of the
community and their purpose is to complete America’s promise of democracy. In
order to properly engage students in learning, educators must first understand the
cultural backgrounds for the students they serve (Dewey, 1927). The community in
which students (the clients schools serve) reside is a major source of the cultural,
social and cognitive capital with which students enter school. Omission of the
community in partnerships limits the participation of what Dewey (1927) calls the
public sphere, the arena in which experts and citizens engage in social inquiry to
promote participation for those citizens most impacted by social inequality.
Successful educational reform in K-12 schools is contingent upon the partnership’s
ability to mobilize the community to help minority students succeed (Price, 2008).
To successfully lead minority youth to higher education and a brighter democratic
future, traditional alliances between the school and university must be reconfigured
to include the community.
Each entity—the community, school, and university—has strong
contributions to make. Excluding any one of these key agents limits the ability of the
partnership to gather the right perspectives around the table to engage in meaningful
37
dialogue about school reform or transformation. Partnerships forged among all
entities offer an advantage to typically disenfranchised students as the collective
group now has the ability to collaborate on a common goal—academic
achievement—by building upon the expertise of each agent. The university offers
expertise in the union between research/theory and practicum as a lens to refine
instruction and learning (Barbeck et al., 2003; Tierney et. al., 2002). The school
offers expertise in the practices and policies as a lens to restructure the educational
system (Nieto, 1999; Oakes et al., 2006). The community offers expertise in the
cultural and socioeconomic experiences with which students enter the educational
institutions. Consequently, the community is a lens through which to examine how
to improve the teacher/student relationship (Cummins, 1986; Price, 2008).
Partnerships that respect the knowledge and experiences of each agent have the
potential to maximize the effect of the partnership by releasing the partnership’s full
potential to significantly impact student achievement.
A New Cultural Model
Effective Partnerships Lead to Effective Reform
African American children are academically marginalized, encountering
deep-rooted barriers that impede academic success, which in turn thwart efforts to
prepare students for college. From one generation to the next, there lies a vast
discrepancy between rhetoric claiming that American education is closing
opportunity and performance gaps for minority students and the data show this is not
yet evident (Johnson, 2002). With each new reform effort, the expectations may be
38
that minority youth have more equitable access to higher learning, but in truth
educational systems primarily in urban areas are still exclusionary in nature. Every
year the gap widens between those who have access to a rewarding future through
education and those who ultimately will be denied that same opportunity (Gandara,
2002).
A reform strategy gaining momentum in the educational arena is partnerships
between key agents (i.e., school-community, community-university, and university-
school) conjoined for the purpose of closing performance gaps (Erberstein & Miller,
2008). Barabek’s et al., (2003) research examines the positive impact of these
unions that cull together expertise and resources to improve student performance.
Yet limitations to each form of partnership prohibit optimal performance allowing
for only a slight decrease in gaps that warrant attention.
In spite of the limitations, a review of the literature reveals positive aspects of
the types of partnerships at work in school reform such as universities and
communities (Benson et al., 2000; Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Mayfield et al., 1999)
schools and communities (Brabeck et al., 2000) and finally, universities and schools
(Kezar, 2007; McPherson & Schapiro, 2006; Rousseau, 2007; Sallee & Tierney,
2007; Tierney et al., 2002). Despite intensive reform efforts, these traditional
partnerships are limiting. Typically, the partnerships do not include all of the key
stakeholders in the process of reform (Tierney et al., 2002). Partnerships that
synergize the collective efforts of all stakeholders to examine and confront complex
39
issues deeply routed in the infrastructure of schools are key to educational reform
partnering to increase student success (Erberstein & Miller, 2008).
As indicated previously, inequitable schooling conditions for minority youth
begin in the K-12 setting and thwart opportunities for college success, which in turn,
also thwart these students’ full participation in society (Price, 2008). Reform efforts
in the K-12 setting could drastically improve if partnerships mobilized the
community, schools and university as equal partners to close performance gaps
(Brabeck et al., 2003; Tierney et al., 2002). Collaboration at the formation of the
partnerships is essential to fostering the climate for a new cultural model of co-
constructed dialogic relationships that sustain successful partnerships. The real
impetus for focusing on the construction of the relationships is to examine the
promising practices that enable co-constructed dialogic relationships to thrive, which
in turn make it possible to collaborate effectively and conduct the difficult work of
educational reform.
Gallimore and Goldernberg (2001) argue that a deep conceptual analysis of
cultural models helps participating agents in school reform understand how and why
something exists so they can implement effective practices that lead to change in the
school setting. Moreover, Kezar (2007) asserts that reform efforts often struggle
because, in their efforts to change the school, they often fail to address changing the
school culture. More importantly, they seldom focus on deliberately creating a new
culture within the partnership. A new cultural model that seeks to remove barriers
and unproductive practices that inhibit the growth of a college going culture must be
40
derived from an intensive study of the current setting and current models (Kezar,
2007). This redefined cultural model will only emerge from partnerships that bring
together the collective and comprehensive expertise of all stakeholders in the quest
for increased student achievement and success. New kinds of partnerships operating
as catalysts for change are required to revise the cultural models that now exist in
schools (Davies, 1991).
The new cultural model to be examined in this literature review is a
partnership including three agents, the community, the school, and the university,
operating in co-constructed dialogical relationships and redistributing power to
accomplish the goals of the partnership. Documentation of partnerships among all
three of these entities operating in a mode of co-construction is rare (Brabeck et al,
2003), but essential to effective reform.
Co-Constructed Partnerships for School Reform
Examining Each Entity’s Contribution
The Community
In, Ethical Principles Underlying Education, John Dewey (1897) advocates
for the role of a public sphere, in which collaboration exists among experts and
common citizens to challenge issues of inequity. Dewey (1930) believed that the
participation of partners in social inquiry on equal terms, in meaningful dialogue
enabled mutual shared learning to evolve in consideration of multiple aspects of the
problem. This process enables problems to be explored and consequently resolved.
A grassroots reform model calling for citizens to accumulate diverse intellectual
41
capital and organize social movements to combat educational inequalities is a
missing element in the current school reform model (Oakes et al., 2006).
Dewey envisioned schools as powerful institutions of change that can
empower groups that have been marginalized by society (Oakes & Rogers, 2007).
Communities, as producers of goods, experiences, and services, can mobilize
resources and offer insights to schools as to how to access students’ cultural capital
to connect and engage them in learning (Price, 2008). Individually, universities,
schools, and communities, struggle to resolve conditions that deter learning, but
uniting their efforts to resolve critical issues has the potential to create truly effective
schools (Carroll et al, 2000).
A crucial pathway to improve academic achievement for minority youth
necessitates an intensive study of the cultural setting and cultural models that exist in
schools and the community (Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001). Critical to effective
reform is capitalizing on underutilized assets in the community. The community has
unrecognized and underutilized knowledge and experiences with the potential to
foster a culture of academic achievement that not only affirms students’ cultural
identities, but broadens their options to expand and adopt new identities as well
(Nieto, 1999; Oakes & Rogers, 2006). Price (2008) contends, “if an academic
culture is truly to take hold and endure, it must be embedded in the hearts and minds,
in the belief systems and behaviors of youngsters and their families, and in the
organizations that make up their communities” (p. 45). Coleman (1988) asserts that
communities are invaluable agents operating under important norms set within the
42
social infrastructure; they constitute a powerful form of social capital that can be
utilized in partnership with the schools to advance students’ identities as learners,
and in turn college ready scholars. A pervasive norm in the African American
community is the need of students to validate their identity through the eyes of
significant others who confirm or negate their evolving identities (Ogbu, 2004;
Nieto, 1999).
Communities partnered with schools to reinforce the value of education and
the rewards of academic success help revise students’ perceptions of who an
academic scholar can be and the importance of their participation in that arena.
According to Ogbu (1986), there is a disconnect between success in the K-12 setting
and occupational reward later on in life among African American students;
consequently, they are disillusioned with the promise of education alone to improve
their social standing and prosperity. This perception directly impacts a student’s
ability to alter her identity and imagine occupying positions other than their cultural
norms (Cummins 1986; Nieto, 1999; Ogbu, 2004). Communities are in a unique
position to assist both students and institutional agents to change the perceptions of
an academic scholar by echoing the message from schools that academic
achievement matters, is possible, and stands as a viable means to a economic future
(Price, 2008). Partnerships that enlist the community to use its influence, norms, and
capital to forge new collaborations based on a common goal of improving student
achievement have the potential to redefine African American students’ perceptions
of who or what an academic scholar might be in their lives (Cummins, 1986).
43
Price’s (2008) research on community involvement revealed significant gains in
student performance (i.e., improvement in grades and attendance, increase in
registration for college preparatory exams, and rise in inclinations to attend
postsecondary education).
Agents of effective educational reform need to understand a great deal about
the demographic and socio-cultural communities and the families from which
students come (Deck & Deck, 2000). Communities have a wealth of resources to
support schools, students, and educators in the process of reform. Communities have
the potential to serve as mediators between society and the neighborhood school
because they possess specific funds of knowledge and cultural capital which are
pertinent to the social and academic development of students (Deck & Deck, 2000;
Gonzales & Moll, 2002; Nieto, 1999). Because the community members know first
hand the challenges that exist for themselves as well as minority youth, their
involvement in the network of support to address educational concerns and quality of
life issues are essential to providing educators with the knowledge and insight to
effectively teach minority youth (Deck & Deck, 2000). The community offers
invaluable resources to educational reform that are typically not offered in the K-12
setting--religious organizations, local businesses, clubs, citizen associations, civic
organizations and parks (Crowson, 2003). Price (2008) affirms the need to mobilize
community resources to support educational reform as equal partners sending the
message that the community values the success of its youth and is willing to commit
resources, talent, and expertise to keep students motivated to learn.
44
Community and Parents
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) federal law enacted in 2001 mandates
accountability for public schools nationwide to meet specific criteria (i.e., testing
aligned to standards, disaggregating data by subgroups, highly qualified teachers,
and attainment of performance targets). NCLB has also magnified school
performance gaps and heightened awareness for both the parents and community
about how children within particular schools fare and why (Price, 2008). This
legislation signals a growing commitment on behalf of stakeholders to engage in
Dewey’s notion of public spheres, merging expertise and experience between so-
called experts and common citizens to foster social inquiry and civic participation in
exploring all dimensions of the problems that lie in students path to academic
success (Oakes & Rogers, 2006).
Typically, parents and the community members are placed on the periphery
of educational reform with school agents viewing their inclusion as an optional
bonus or even a liability (Price, 2008). But for true educational reform to occur,
partnering to actively involve these agents is vital (Nieto, 1999). According to Oaks
et al., (2006) a social inquiry group of educators and parents from the community
can join academic knowledge with lived experiences and forge a greater
understanding with which to pursue reform. Inclusion of the community in reform
efforts is a strategic move that often yields favorable results as the involvement of
parents and community in decisions affecting education have dramatically improved
student learning and performance (Henderson and Berla, 1995; Nieto, 1999). Many
45
studies found that students with involved parents, no matter what their income or
background, were more likely to earn higher grades and test scores, enroll in higher-
level programs, pass their classes, attend school regularly, have better social skills,
graduate and attend post secondary education (Ballen & Moles, 1994; Epstein, 2001;
Henderson & Berla, 1995; Henderson and Mapp, 2002).
Thus it becomes clear that engaging the community and parents is an
essential part of any strategy to narrow the achievement gap between middle-class
white students and low-income minority students (Henderson and Mapp, 2002). Tri-
partnerships conjoined in co-constructed dialogic relationships can advance
educational reform by building capacity for a network of support for minority youth
to perform well in school and continue into post-secondary education (Henderson
and Mann 2002).
Schools
When Thomas Jefferson conceived our public education system, he knew that
“America’s capacity to survive as a democracy relied on the provision of free public
education…that arms people with an intelligence capable of free and independent
thought” (Darling-Hammond, 1996 p. 5). Although an ideal concept, a long history
of pervasive racial inequality in public schools makes the realization of this goal an
arduous struggle. A monumental attempt to reform education was in the decision
resulting from the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education ruling which contended that
American public schools had to create fair and equitable schooling conditions to
educate all of its children. Dismantling entrenched and erosive practices of social
46
injustice and instituting the promise of equitable public education requires “many
and long steps” [before reaching the] Freedom Road that lies ahead” (Dubois, 1954,
as cited in Oakes and Rogers, 2006).
In The Light In Their Eyes, Sonia Nieto (1999) inquires about the purpose of
education and provides a context for learning and schooling by asking a critical
question: What does it mean to learn, especially as it pertains to schools? Price
(2008) attributes the communities’ perception that the purpose of education is
learning via measurable achievement to the multiple reform efforts to comply with
federal and state mandates (standards, assessments, accountability, sanctions).
Educational practitioners might assert that academic achievement and students’ well
being are the primary goals of public education (Brabeck et al. 2003). Educational
theorists purport that the purpose of the school system for both K-12 is to educate
young people so that they function as informed citizens in a democratic society
(Benson and Harkavy, 2003; Dewey, 1937). Finally, Freire (2003) equates the
purpose of education with an act of liberation, freeing the oppressed and enabling
them to make meaning of the world for themselves. But perhaps W.E.B. Dubois’
(1954) had it right when he said, “of all the civil rights for which the world has
struggled and fought for…the right to learn is undoubtedly the most fundamental”
(Oakes and Rodgers, 2006, p. 23). Similar responses in varying degrees abound;
however, none has been fully implemented in schools, aligning rhetoric with action;
therefore inequitable conditions persist in both educational systems and society.
47
While schools have the potential to enact reform like that described by
Dewey and Du Bois, America’s historical journey toward equitable education has
not yet reached its destination for all students. Oaks et al., (2006), assert that
“education on equal terms” for all students has not yet been achieved. “Put bluntly,
California is unable to educate fully and fairly all its school children, and the
growing population of African American and Latino children bear the brunt of the
state’s terrible schooling inadequacies” (p. 8). A second wave of segregation of
children according to race and social class in schools is evident in such practices as
inflexible tracking, vastly different exposure to curriculum and instruction, and
limited access to college preparation (Nieto, 1999, Oakes & Rogers, 2007). These
gross inequities require that schools undergo an institutional transformation. Using
comprehensive partnership as a reform strategy to achieve a democratic education
system is the next step in this transformation.
Implementing true educational reform that has the goal of turning around
deep-seated and long-term discrimination means that schools must redefine how they
interact with students and the communities they serve (Cummins, 1986). However,
educational reform efforts aimed at reversing widespread patterns of failure for
minority youth in the K-12 setting are historically unsuccessful because the
relationship between schools and communities remain largely unchanged (Cummins,
1986). Effective school reform embraces the community as an equal partner in
creating equitable schooling conditions and in developing and maintaining a
democratic education and society (Dewey 1937; Nieto, 1999).
48
Benson et al., (2002) argue that improving education in these dire times
requires collaboration between academics and practitioners. Yet research indicates
that university-school partnerships in K-12 settings that exclude the community are
precisely the ones yielding minimal results in educational reform (Brabeck et al.,
2003). Nieto (1999), affirms that the involvement of the community in effective
school reform is crucial as it is based on the notion that those most intimately
connected with students need to be meaningfully involved in their education.
To impact students’ learning in a meaningful way educators need social
context because the community and school are inextricably linked; one impacts the
other (Deck & Deck, 2000). Often, when the community and parents reach out to
partner with schools, they meet with resistance. Parents within urban communities
have high aspirations and want to get involved in their children’s education, but
often feel manipulated, intimidated, or ostracized by school institutions (Wong-
Fillmore, 1983). Students’ families and communities can be meaningful partners in
improving learning conditions that capitalize on students’ “funds of knowledge.”
Family and community knowledge helps remove perceptions prevalent in urban
schools that students have deficits that can only be repaired by academics and
practitioners (Gonzales & Moll, 2002; Nieto 1999). Patterns of failure can be
reversed and optimal learning conditions can be promoted when schools dismantle
exclusionary practices and collaborate with the community in educational reform
that actually transforms public schools (Cummins, 1986).
49
Similarly, research by Oakes et al., (2006) affirm the positive outcomes for
learning when parents and community resources are mobilized to foster reciprocal
learning conditions among all stakeholders in a partnership. In this capacity, all
learners are empowered to participate in democratic processes to pursue social
justice inside and outside of the school setting. Oakes et al., (2006) research reminds
schools what they seem to forget—that they are in fact a part of, and accountable to,
the community. The “playing field” in the academic arena is far from level. In fact
schools widen the gulf of disparities between who is granted a “quality education”
and who is denied. While “the idea of equal educational opportunity is a worthy one
to strive for, it is far from realized in practice” (Nieto, 1999, p.72). With these
conditions in place, it is time to abandon adversarial relationships between schools
and communities; public schools are in no position to deny support from the
communities willing to provide support to improve public education.
Universities
Brabeck et al., (2003) assert that equal access and opportunity in all
educational systems is predicated on democratic practices for solving societal
challenges. Educational reform efforts directed at the dire conditions of urban
schools require that universities reexamine their role as a transforming agent in a
democratic society. Schools-community partnerships in urban districts are
increasingly striving to close academic achievement gaps, yet many unions do not
yield significant success (Eberstein & Miller, 2008). American universities, whose
primary mission is to preserve, advance, and transmit knowledge, can help schools
50
and communities resolve educational challenges provided they are appropriately and
creatively employed (Benson et al., 2000). Dewey (1930) believed building capacity
for a democratic educational structure is contingent upon alliances forged in a
unified effort to understand conditions of inequality and act collaboratively to
remove existing barriers . Hence, community-higher education-school partnerships
used as a core strategy for improving school systems pre-K through college have the
potential to transform public schools system-wide in education and equity (Benson &
Harkavy, 2003).
American universities are regarded as the world’s most prominent research
institutions. The power and prestige of some universities stem directly from major
contributions they have made to the field of educational theory and practice (Benson
and Harkavy, 2003). With the publication of NCLB’s disaggregated data, reports
magnifying the struggles of public schools to address the learning needs of minority
youth, parents and the public of urban districts may wonder how the “prestigious”
research conducted in institutions of higher learning serve and advance the
community (Oakes et al., 2006). At one time higher education was a leader in
promoting democracy by fostering knowledge production and research to support
education (Ostrander, 2004). However, over time the role of research in universities
pertinent to civic engagement and societal issues has dwindled and higher learning
institutions have become more socially elite, irrelevant and disconnected from the
community (Barbeck et al, 2003; Benson et al., 2000). Ostrander (2004) posits that
the survival of research universities is contingent upon their ability to increase
51
interactions with the local community and upon making academic research more
relevant to democratic societal issues.
According to McCroskey (2003) the primary role of higher learning
institutions should be to help resolve society’s most troubling civic and social
problems. The conditions of the time call for universities to forego their ivory tower
isolation from the social challenges in urban communities and to participate in civic
engagement by committing resources, research, and expertise to collaborative
partnerships (McCroskey, 2003). Building a tri-partnership among the community,
schools, and university is an effective way for the university to stay connected to the
social, cultural, and economic issues that threaten democracy. Dewey’s (1927)
notion of social inquiry necessitates an organized conversation aligning multiple
dimensions of knowledge to co-construct new knowledge and solve problems in
education. The university, a resource rich institution, could provide research-based
knowledge, while the community could provide knowledge of lived experiences; and
the schools could provide newly acquired knowledge of procedures and policies, as
well as resources and a pool of potentially effective teachers (Benson et. al., 2000;
Nieto, 1999; Ostrander, 2004; Price, 2008); the schools also have the students. When
all of these assets are conjoined, they can produce deep insight to the challenges that
exist, a most important prerequisite for solving them. Public schools belong to all
members of the community; each member of the partnership has a moral
responsibility to collaborate and reform schools together (Benson et al., 2000;
Ostrander, 2004).
52
Institutional reform must occur at the university level, making the resolution
of problems in the American schooling system one of their highest institutional
priorities (Benson and Harkvay, 2003). As the primary shapers of the overall school
system in the United States, universities can join schools and communities in
providing solutions to existing challenges in schools and communities (Benson and
Harvey, 2003, p. 95). Furthermore, universities can assist educators and community
agents in becoming active researchers by inviting all parties to investigate causality
of existing challenges, to examine theory, and to explore solutions that will empower
both the adult agents and students (Sallee and Tierney, 2002).
Universities can increase college readiness and access for underrepresented
youth by attending to the shortage of highly qualified teachers in urban schools
(Rousseau, 2007). Urban districts typically find it difficult to staff schools with
highly qualified teachers who possess the skills to teach diverse students.
Universities can partner with schools and communities to offer professional
development to extend the education of practitioners and become activists in
multicultural education through pedagogy, curriculum, and instructional practice
(Oakes et al., 2006). Oakes’s et al., (2006) research on closing performance gaps in
urban districts sheds light on the ineffective practice of engaging in educational
reform without the commitment of all key agents partnering to obtain the same
educational reform goals. Oakes’s et al., (2006) like Dewey (1937) argue for civic
engagement to create a collaborative space for dialogue to enact school reform.
53
Each of these entities—community, school, and university—has the potential
to make a major contribution to reform by creating the equitable schooling
conditions Mann (1897) asserts will be the “great equalizer” in society and
instituting an educational system that is appropriate to the democratic society Dewey
(1916) envisioned. In spite of the many assets each of these entities brings to the
partnership for an array of reasons, partnerships have not been able to create a model
that successfully conjoins all agents to become equal partners, consenting to the
dialogue that Freire (2003) argues is the only way for collaboration to combat
inequity can occur. To advance educational reform, a new cultural model will have
to emerge partnering the community, schools, and university in co-constructed
dialogical relationships collaborating to increase student achievement and widen the
college trajectory for minority youth.
Attributes of Effective Partnerships
Overcoming Barriers to Promote Engagement
Examining the success and challenges of traditional partnerships—school-
university; school-community; community-university—provides a lens by which to
identify core tenets of an effective partnership. Although there are many indicators
central to what makes a partnership successful, Miller and Hafner’s (2008)
framework lays out important reasons why these unions struggle to be effective and
examines ways to overcome obstacles. Salient in this literature review are the most
significant indicators of successful partnerships attributed to collaboration leading to
co-construction and dialogic relationships and redistributed power. Partnerships
54
thrive when collaboration includes mutual trust and respect, collaborative
relationships, and dialogic relationships that lead to equal power structures. Each of
the indicators will be examined next.
Collaboration and Building Relationships
Traditionally, partnerships tend to emerge out of crisis, policy, mutual
interests or request; nonetheless, successful unions employ collaborative
relationships as a strategy for longevity (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002). In the process of
establishing partnerships, collaborative relationships must be cultivated and
maintained to maximize the agents’ ability to work cooperatively with each other as
equals as the union pursues its intellectual endeavors (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002).
According to Goldring and Sims (2005) collaborative relationships evolve with time
and move through a series of stages: negotiation where expectations are clarified;
commitment where relationships and processes for how to conduct the work are
established; and execution where commitments are carried out. Taking time to
strategically develop collaboration within a partnership is an important proactive
approach. At the onset, productive partnerships are developed collaboratively,
dismantling hierarchical structures to ensure agents regularly engage in the process
of negotiating and clarifying expectations for the union (Goldring and Sims, 2005).
All stakeholders gather out of mutual interest to co-construct a shared vision that
actually works to resolve problems within the schools and in turn the community.
Careful planning to ensure that the strengths of each entity are respected and used
allow partnerships to broker services and leverage resources to address multi-faceted
55
issues in the communities that schools alone, typically operating in silos, have been
unable to solve (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Dryfoos, 2003; Goldring and Sims, 2005).
Providing a quality education for minority youth requires that consideration be given
to several factors (i.e., health, safety, housing, etc.) that have the potential to deter
learning (Dryfoos, 2003). Gaps in student learning can be treated, but will take an
integrated and comprehensive approach among agents who are able to work
collaboratively to improve learning conditions that have the added value of
advancing the well being of children (Brabeck et al., 2003). Budding partnerships
that give significant consideration to solicit the expertise of all stakeholders, foster
collaboration, and examine how to implement services have longevity and produce
favorable gains in performance gaps (Carroll et al., 2001).
Relationships thrive in conditions where partners co-construct a shared
culture of common goals, shared beliefs, and agreed upon governance structures,
(Goldring & Sims, 2005). Bringle and Hatcher (2002) state “partnerships do not have
to be equal in all aspects in order to be acceptable; however, they should be equitable
and fair” (p. 509). Unions thrive when power is equally distributed fairly and perish
when agents become combative in the quest for the upper hand.
The next phase involves commitment among entities where relationships and
processes for how to conduct the work are established (Goldring and Sims, 2005).
The real power of collaboration involves independent entities working together
equitably toward a common goal and making themselves key to building and
sustaining effective tri-partnerships to increase student achievement and social
56
competence (Carroll et al., 2001). Partnerships engaged in the process of co-
construction, a model whereby all key stakeholders equally participate in the design,
implementation, and evaluation of the reform plan, and buy into the process lead to
sustainable change (Carroll et al., 2001). Co-construction as a process for
collaborative reform has commendable transformative outcomes that empower
collaborative relationships to obtain the goals of the partnership.
Once those engaged in collaboration have committed to the task at hand,
entities move into the execution stage where the commitments established are carried
out (Goldring and Sims, 2005). Exchange theory (Rusbult, 1980) posits that mutual
satisfaction among members within a relationship that enables sustainability will
have outcomes that exceed minimal expectations (as cited in Goldring and Sims,
2005). When members of the partnerships see vitality in their work, interpersonal
relationships develop and keep members of the team vested in the work (Bringle and
Hatcher, 2002). As the partners begin to trust the skills, knowledge and expertise of
their team, the collective efforts of each individual contributes to a co-constructed
network of support for disenfranchised youth.
Mutual Trust and Respect
Co-constructed relationships among universities, schools, and communities
have the potential to redistribute power, and enable all partners to contribute equally
within the partnership to improve the quality of education in urban communities.
Mutually beneficial partnerships are advanced by mutual respect and reciprocity,
meaning all agents are collaboratively responsible for obtaining the goals of the
57
partnership (Ballen & Moles, 1994; Carroll et al., 2001). This means that partners
embrace respect as an operational principle capitalizing on each agent’s fund of
knowledge and expertise. The funds of knowledge concept is based on the premise
that, “people are competent and have knowledge, and their life experiences have
given them that knowledge” (Gonzales and Moll, 2008, p. 675). However diverse,
each agent that enters the partnership has funds of knowledge that when conjoined
with other agents has the potential to solve problems that present barriers to learning
and student achievement. Taking time to build rapport among agents to develop
respectful, trusting relationships enables partners to collaborate in ways that are
beneficial to the partnership overall (Kezar, 2007).
Coherence is another operating principal built on trust and respect. It
provides partners with a sense of unity and connectedness based upon a common
understanding of the partnership’s purpose and goals. As well, coherence is
irrelevant without commitment, which implies action and engenders trust. Freire
(2003) asserts that commitment is a dialogic act of bravery because it requires agents
to trust that their words and actions coincide with one another. Partnerships
committed to one another for the purpose of educational reform will suspend
disbelief to trust that the actions of their partners are in the best interest of the
partnership and will work toward the reform mutually agreed upon.
Successful partnerships are contingent upon their foundation in mutual trust
and respect because these qualities promote an ongoing exchange of information
where productivity is maximized. In this setting, the group is able to capitalize on
58
the knowledge, experiences, and expertise of each entity (Ballen & Moles, 1994).
Partnerships that foster a climate where the different perspectives, experiences, and
expertise can be shared and valued within the union enable true collaboration to
occur and be maintained creating real possibilities for change in the community.
Understanding the expertise of each entity and how their perspective contributes to
resolutions requires trust and mutual respect enabling differences to become
strengths (Dryfoos, 2003). Listening to understand the diverse perspectives and the
lens each contributor presents promotes a venue for shared decision making to solve
the intricate layers of the complex problems that arise when trying to close gaps in
student achievement (Miller & Hafner, 2008).
While it is important to honor the opinions of agents who are experts in their
field, equally important is the practice of ideas exchanged equitably giving all agents
the opportunity to offer new insights and ideas (Carroll et al., 2001; Miller & Hafner,
2008). This balance is vital to the life of the partnership. Crucial to sustainable
partnerships is valuing the voices and expertise of all stakeholders and avoiding
ostracizing any entity. Partnerships that value the intellect, experience, and expertise
of all stakeholders will operate together to become powerful agents of change.
Clear Goals and Outcomes
According to Dewey (1916) learning occurs when a community works
collaboratively and productively toward a common goal—to create democratic
spaces for learning to accomplish the desired outcomes of the group. Partnerships
with longevity enable all entities to share responsibility for studying the barriers to
59
student success, to problem-solve to co-construct a strategic plan, and to designing
co-produced outcomes that will enhance the learning and the well being of the most
vulnerable members of society—minority youth (Brabeck et al., 2003). Effective
and sustainable partnerships recognize collaboration and its transformative power to
change failing practices within schools as diverse partners work together to solve
problems in education (Dewey, 1930).
Community-school-university partnerships build capacity to sustain unions
when they share responsibility in co-constructing clear goals and outcomes to
increase student achievement. Henderson & Mapp (2002) assert that the quality of
the relationships directly influences the degree to which partnerships are able to
collaborate and utilize each entity’s resources, expertise, and life experiences to
advance their goals. A concerted effort to view the strengths of each entity as assets,
without viewing the weaknesses of each entity as liabilities, empowers partnership to
set realistic goals and achieve desired outcomes (Miller & Hafner, 2008).
Effective partnerships are dynamic and interactive exerting a high level of
commitment among entities working to accomplish mutual agreed upon goals (Peel
et al, 2002; Miller & Hafner, 2008). At the onset of educational partnerships each
partner enters the coalition with particular interests, expectations, skills and
experiences that must be addressed before any union can be formed or function
efficiently to achieve the desired outcome (Peel et al., 2002). The inability to build
collaborative relationships around common goals produces chaos, false starts,
60
frustration, and ill-conceived solutions to very complex and multifaceted problems
(Peel et al., 2002).
Building Dialogic Relationships
Freire (1973) contends “liberation is a social act…liberating education is a
social process of illumination” (p. 109). In this arena, freedom is obtained from a
functional knowledge of oppression and the humanistic act of liberating the
oppressor, along with oneself. Once liberated, the natural behavior would be to
reverse the oppressive order, but Freire (2003) argues against this cowardly act
contending that the knowledge and power gained from liberation should work to
restore humanity to both parties, yielding a more favorable outcome—the potential
to end the cycle of oppression altogether. In examining the dynamics of oppression,
the dichotomy of oppression becomes apparent:“no one liberates himself by his own
efforts alone, neither is he liberated by others” (Freire, 2003, p. 56). People liberate
one another in collaborative unions using co-constructed knowledge to arrive at a
social understanding and transformative action.
Dialogic conversations are the means by which we achieve the process of
understanding the subject of knowledge for inquiry, allowing critical perceptions to
emerge as members seek the perspective of others to refine their own. Freire (2003)
posits that only when people consent to dialogue can they actually collaborate to
combat and reform oppressive conditions. The vehicle used to liberate the oppressed
is engagement of partners conjoined in collaborative dialogic relationships.
61
Effective partnerships form dialogic relationships in which educators from all
entities in the partnership shape the partnership in which power is equalized. In turn,
agents’ ability to collaborate equally to eradicate inequitable conditions that exist in
public schooling is enhanced. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire highlights the
value of maintaining an epistemological curiosity about dialogue so that, “dialogue is
never an end in itself but a means to develop a better comprehension about the object
of knowledge” (Freire, 2003 p. 18). The essence of a dialogic interaction
redistributes power by positioning all agents engaged in communication as equals;
only under these conditions can dialogic relationships transpire where learning
awakens the critical consciousness through genuine investigation of knowledge and
inquiry (Freire, 2003). Building dialogical relationships within partnerships to co-
construct an understanding of barriers to equality within the “educational landscape”
so they can be removed, will enable school transformation. As agents engage in
dialogue to change inequitable conditions, education can finally become the “great
equalizer” enabling all students to participate optimally within a democratic society.
Unequally distributed power yields two results likely to obstruct
collaboration, the domination of a particular group and the exclusion of the
disenfranchised (Carroll et al., 2001). Dialogic relationships redistribute power by
negating the notion of one agent imputing information into another. Such
relationships do not allow for the mere reception of information to be consumed by
the dominant speaker. Freire (2003) asserts that the essential features of effective
dialogic relationships—humility, faith, hope, and love—provide guidance about how
62
to sustain open, reflective communication that allows truth to emerge and be
discovered in pursuit of transformative actions. Each of these features will be
examined next.
Humility
“Dialogue cannot exist without humility” [and as agents we] “work toward
the common task of learning and acting [dialogue] is broken if the parties or one of
them lacks humanity” (Freire 2003, p. 90). The prime objective of those engaged in
dialogue is to learn and, through the acquisition of knowledge, to position
themselves to use learning to act in pursuit of change. Learning is void if agents act
with arrogance, assuming they know everything and have nothing left to learn, but
rather teach. This behavior is counterproductive, thwarting efforts to engage in new
knowledge and co-constructed understanding to resolve issues that present a threat to
humanity and social justice. Many institutions operate devoid of humanity, assuming
that they have a wealth of knowledge to solve challenges. Yet data on all three
levels of the partnership—community, schools, and university—show gaps in
performance and demonstrate the opportunity for improvement. Hence, only by
exercising humility can agents co-construct real resolutions that work to combat
oppressive conditions and reform educational systems and the community.
Faith in Humankind
"Faith in people is an a priori requirement for dialogue" (Freire 2003, p. 90).
The basic premise of faith is that man acts on what he believes and faith within the
dialogic partnership produces a culture of mutual trust leading participants to a closer
63
partnership in naming and transforming the world. Freire (2003) posits that “trust is
contingent” on words coinciding with actions, “to say one thing and do another—to
take one’s own word lightly—cannot inspire trust” (p. 91). Successful collaborations
are contingent upon mutual trust and faith that each entity is committed to
accomplish agreed upon goals offering service, expertise, knowledge and resources
to advance the partnership and society in general. Moreover, partners have to believe
that each agent is making decisions with the best intentions and operating under the
premise that pursuing transformative actions can make a difference in society to
correct oppressive conditions.
Hope
“Dialogue cannot exist without hope and dialogue cannot be carried on in a
climate of hopelessness” (Freire, 2003, p. 92). If dialogue occurs and participants
believe the discourse is futile, it is merely an exercise in frustration that contributes
to the demise of collaboration (Miller & Hafner, 2008). Essentially, hope sets the
goal and faith is the means to obtain it. Because human nature assumes people act
on their beliefs, a barrier to attainment of desired outcomes from collaboration is the
absence of hope, and the belief that what is sought after is in fact possible. Freire’s
democratic perspective of “problem-posing” education illustrates the dichotomy
between pain and hope as people “develop their power to perceive critically the way
they exist in the world in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not
as a static reality, but as a reality in the process of transformation” (2003, p. 12).
Hope for reform in the process of change is often accompanied with discomfort for
64
some and pain for others, but deep-rooted belief that change is possible instills
purpose, meaning, and drive in the work of the partnership.
Love
"Dialogue cannot exist, however, in the absence of a profound love for the
world and its people" (Freire, 2003, p.89). The greatest act of love is to engage in
genuine inquiry for the purpose of gaining a shared understanding of a problem and
fully committing time, expertise, and resources to solve it. In the collaborative act
of dialogue, love demands a display of reciprocal kindness, acts of courage, and
commitment to the cause of liberating the oppressed. Freire’s contention is that love
and dialogue are one in the same, they are not mutually exclusive, rather two
principles grounded in practice.
Critical Thinking
“True dialogue cannot exist unless the dialoguers engage in critical thinking”
where conscientization is operable (Freire 2003, p. 92). Miller & Hafner (2008)
provide insight on this concept contending, “conscientization essentially entails
bringing to surface the critical consciousness of the people so that they might be
more fully aware of the systems and structures that have forced them to live in
poverty and oppression” (p. 77). Understanding the conditions of oppression is a
critical step in fighting against them, and dialogue that encompasses critical thinking
empowers dialoguers to dismantle erosive oppressive conditions. Subtle conditions
of oppression are often overlooked; real liberation affords a close examination of
65
causality so words spoken in truth met with action can transform the society and the
world (Freire, 2003).
Persistent Barriers to Partnerships
Collaboration is Complex and Elusive
Partnerships that fail to collaborate minimize their ability to operate
efficiently or to rely on the expertise of their peers to offer real resolutions to
problems presented leading to successful outcomes. Many partnerships forego
building collaborative relationships because they are difficult to maintain, time
consuming and depletes resources (Lawson, 2003). Also, fostering a collaborative
culture is a complex venture whose evolving process is elusive in nature because it
must be stewarded and supported in order to thrive among those engaged in
collaborative acts (Lawson, 2003). Because of their elusive and complex nature,
many of these unions are short lived and counter productive (Miller and Hafner,
2008). A simple definition of collaboration is “working together” but the
“articulation of joint activities in social groups always involves power-sharing across
lines of institutional turf, professional status, and personal identity” (Carroll et al.,
2001).
An additional pitfall to collaboration is the failure to address process-oriented
barriers that prohibit communication efforts, which thwart partners’ ability to resolve
conflicts. Deck & Deck, (2000) contend, “a major obstacle to collaboration is that
different agencies may have different definitions of the same problem” (p. 57). These
challenges are exacerbated when leadership, processes, and protocols are not in place
66
to help partners communicate effectively to reach consensus and move forward in
the agreed upon goals and objectives. The inability to resolve conflicts efficiently,
contributes to unproductive behavior and erosion of trust, which ultimately, leads to
a fragmented union and dismantled partnership (Deck & Deck, 2000).
Another barrier to collaborative partners is the tension felt in the struggle of
each entity to maintain power and meet goals that are of particular interest to their
organization. This behavior makes partners skeptical and breeds mistrust making the
possibility of collaboration “contingent” on whether or not what is requested is
beneficial to the agent as opposed to what is in the best interest of the partnership.
Also, a pervasive hindrance to collaboration occurs when entities assert power by
looking after their own interest as opposed to the interest of the partnership.
Perceptions of partners based on stereotypes (i.e., “ivory tower” universities,
“broken” schools and “nagging activist” communities) and hierarchical power
structures make it difficult for agents to collaborate equally (Carroll et al., 2001).
Left unaddressed, these barriers to implementing collaboration actually increase
obstacles to engagement and foster a culture where each entity works in isolation
from one another.
Inadequate Conceptual Design
Critical to the success of partnerships is careful planning and attention to how
they are formed at the onset. According to Peel et al., (2002) in order for the
partnership to withstand tumultuous times the foundation must be clearly established
at the outset. While several common obstacles hinder the productivity of community-
67
school-university partnerships the most significant obstacle to engagement is an ill-
conceived and poorly implemented process (Miller & Hafner, 2008). Unstable
partnerships are a direct result of poor planning from the conception of the union.
Little attention paid to how the partnerships are established, will produce roadblocks
toward collaborative unions, shared decision making and mutually desired outcomes.
(Peel et al., 2002).
Kezar (2007) posits that the lack of consideration for how different
organizational cultures operate present barriers to collaboration that strain
partnerships and lead to their demise. According to Kezar (2007) partners often
enter the union with different goals, diverse perspectives on how to resolve the
problem, and the assumption that structures similar to their individual organizations
exist to pursue the work (i.e., leadership, communication, processes, protocols,
policies, etc). Benson and Harkavy (2003) explain that many partnerships flounder
through the process of forming collaborative interactions because there is no
standard blueprint or road map to follow; consequently, procedures for co-
constructing goals, action plans, indicators of success are absent, leading to false
starts or unreachable goals. Maurresse (2001) identifies the lack of a clear process
on how to pursue desired outcomes and evaluate them as the major cause of strife
leading to the demise of partners’ efforts.
Ostrander (2004) contends that the breakdown in the lines of communication
leads to factions if key bridge persons are unable to mediate tensions that stem from
the pursuit of individual goals as opposed to the goals of the partnership. Finally,
68
research attributes that partnerships’ inability to sustain collaborative unions to
inadequacies in design and implementation resulting in the pursuit of unrealistic
goals (Dean & Levine, 2007; Kezar, 2007), strained relationships (Lawson, 2003;
Peel et al., 2002), and the absence of an action plan with multiple indicators
benchmarking progress toward outcomes (Brabeck et al., 2003; Ballen & Moels
1994; Kezar, 2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008; Peel et al., 2002).
Inequitable Power Dynamics
A barrier to functional partnerships is a perceived imbalance of power
between partners for those undertaking collaborative activities (Wilridge et al.,
2004). If partnerships begin with unequal power structures, those who possess
power at the onset tend to maintain it and reap the benefits, while those in position
with the least power resent their role (Maurrasse, 2001; Wilridge et al., 2004). When
this behavior is exhibited, relationships are derailed and mistrust brews within the
partnership as each entity pursues what is in the best interest of their organization as
opposed to the best interest of the collective partnership. Freire (2003) purports that
this behavior is present in partnerships when each entity does not want to relinquish
power for fear it will lessen their authority or position of value. This dissension
fosters the tendency for entities to become skeptical about the motives of individual
partners pursuing a particular pathway to solve problems. This skepticism holds the
potential to stifle productivity.
A common thread in ineffective partnerships is the presence of hierarchical
structures fostering an acquiescent mentality and uneven balance of power
69
relationships whereby the community yields to the local school district, and the local
school district yields to the university because of perceived expertise and what is
considered valued knowledge (Maurrasse, 2001; McCroskey, 2003). Benson et al.,
(2000) posits that this academic-practitioner divide stems from the false perception
that the didactic nature of universities’ “superior” mentality trumps the reality of
schools’ “inferior” applied practice and the community’s “underappreciated”
practical approach. Partnerships formed without addressing perception barriers will
be short lived. The dichotomy between the ‘ivory tower’ of the university and the
‘trenches’ of the school and community will breed resentment and disharmony which
prohibits agents from building relationships predicated on mutual respect and trust
(Peel et al., 2002; Miller & Hafner, 2008). A paradigm shift from an elitist mentality
to a side-by-side collaborative service model is imperative to build productive
relationships and reach the goals and outcomes of the partnership (Peel et. al., 2002).
Partnerships For A New Cultural Model
A new cultural model of community-school-university partnerships
collaborating in co-constructed dialogic relationships has the potential to create
equitable democratic urban schools that work on behalf of their students (Freire,
2003; Miller & Hafner, 2008). The real impetus for a new cultural model is to
transform schools to increase student achievement and prepare students to get into
and through college. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) posit that new cultural
models can lead to new cultural settings. This has the potential to improve adult-
student relationships and foster democratic settings. Tri-partnerships can mentor
70
teachers and other adults to become advocates for students, help students negotiate
their identities, and promote learning in dialogic relationships (Cummins, 1986;
Freire, 2003; Nieto, 1999).
Social Capital to Empower Learners
Effective partnerships create a social network of institutional agents to forge
a K-12 setting that prepares students academically and socially for college. This
network of agents serves as cultural brokers, creating an information bridge between
school and college to teach minority youth how to access and convert the capital
necessary to succeed in college. Jun and Colyar (2002) suggest that inequitable
conditions in college access, readiness, and success are a consequence of capitalist
structures designed to constrain the mobility of lower class minority youth. The
number of minority students entering college is not comparable to the number of
students obtaining a college degree (Wayne, 2003). These data reflect the fact that
while students might have the academic capital to enter college, they lack the kind of
social and cultural capital that will not only enable students to enter college, but will
evolve to sustain students through college (Tierney & Hagedorn, 2003). The
absence of capital for higher education is particularly consequential for low-income
minority youth who are the first in their family to attend college. These students may
not have exposure to the kind of cultural capital—knowledge of how the system
works—and social capital—access to important social networks—that play such an
important role for middle class students (Gandara, 2002; Perna & Swail, 2002;
71
Yonezawa et al., 2002). This places students at a disadvantage before they even
begin college.
Stanton-Salazar (1997) argues that to level the playing field for the
disenfranchised, the types of social capital and networks that privileged and
empowered middle-class students have need to be in place for minority youth. Social
capital is a valuable resource, derived from relationships with institutional agents,
that offers insight into social structures enabling the capital acquired to produce
benefits and access into the social world (Coleman, 1988; Perna & Swail, 2002;
Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Mainstream students are reared in social networks whereby
the social structures and normative practices of college are habits of mind (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997). However, minority youth have been ostracized from this social
network; therefore they have limited access to capital regarding college access and
opportunity.
The isolation of minorities from particular social networks is a means of
maintaining the social order and conditions for those in power to remain powerful
while those who are powerless remain oppressed (Bourdieu, 1986; Yonezawa et al.,
2002). By marginalizing minority youth in inequitable school conditions, society
reproduces a cycle of achievement and opportunity gaps, more often referred to as
equity gaps, that sustain the status quo and give credence to Bourdieu’s social
reproduction theory (1986). To combat inequality, Bourdieu (1986) offers an
interesting perspective on social capital as a convertible resource and a means of
mobilizing a network of institutional support. It is a means for building relationships
72
that enable those in a position of power to teach those who are not how to access and
manipulate institutional resources for personal advancement. This act liberates the
learners and has transformative power to unsettle the deep-rooted structures of
inequality that exists in schools. In this process the disenfranchised take note of their
role in the social network and engage in dialogue in order to actively participate in
the process of changing it (Dewey; 1937; Bourdieu, 1986; Freire, 2003; Yonezawa et
al., 2002). Partnerships that are aware of these inequities can work to transform the
culture of K-12 settings to empower institutional agents to advocate for change and,
in turn, enable students to act on behalf of their own liberation.
Disenfranchised students need institutional agents to advocate on their behalf
and provide them with the knowledge, tools and resources to navigate through the
educational arena helping them understand the culture of the educational structures
in which they exist (Stanton-Salazar 1997). Tri-partnerships can produce
institutional agents and also help existing institutional agents understand the role of
social capital in students’ academic success. Partnerships can help school agents
consciously teach minority students how to access the covert capital that society
values, yet schools do no teach (Jun & Colyar, 2002; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
A body of research on social network theory finds a high correlation between
the presence of social networks (i.e., schools, families, and communities working
together) in students’ lives and their academic success. Co-constructed partnerships
can be networks that empower a wide spectrum of stakeholders to become
institutional agents for students. Working collectively, each entity within the
73
partnership can provide some types of support structures needed to prepare students
for academic success in the K-12 setting and provide a pathway to college.
Community agents can mentor school agents helping educators understand the socio-
cultural aspects of students’ livelihood. In this vein, educators can design culturally
responsive curriculum and build better student-teacher relationship to engage
students in learning (Freire, 2003; Nieto, 1999). This life experience offered by the
“citizen” to the “expert” in the public sphere will co-construct an understanding of
the social dynamics needed to operate in a partnership to provide minority youth
with a quality education (Dewey, 1937). Universities’ schools of education can help
schools and teachers adopt pedagogies that promote understanding of the social
dynamics involved in ensuring that minority youth have access to a quality
educational experience (Benson et al., 2000).
Research indicates that children with well-developed social networks have
higher student achievement and outcomes (Coleman, 1987; Jun & Colyar; 2003;
Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Social networks with teachers as advocates and brokers are
an integral component of the social capital that improves students’ success in
secondary and post secondary education (Coleman, 1987). Partnerships between a
school, a university and community civil rights organizations present an opportunity
to co-construct a union able enact reform changing the culture of learning in urban
school settings. Tri-partnerships can help teachers understand the social and cultural
complexities of teaching and learning in inequitable conditions and assist educators
in creating structures that help students refine their identities as learners and scholars.
74
Partnerships that manage and redistribute social, cultural, and academic
capital are able to support traditionally underserved students and empower
institutional agents to narrow achievement gaps. The tri-partnership can aid teachers
in building dialogic student-teacher relationships and re-conceptualize the classroom
setting (Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001; Miller & Hafner, 2008). The pre-
condition is that schools, communities and universities need to engage one another in
dialogue and praxis to co-construct culturally relevant and responsive ways to make
social capital accessible to students (Freire, 2003; Miller & Hafner, 2008).
Developing Identities as Scholars to Empower Learners
Partnerships can help teachers understand how learning is influenced by a
variety of factors in society and thus help teachers work through barriers that impede
academic success. The pedagogical research from the university and the lived
experiences of the community are valuable funds of knowledge that need to find
their way into schools through dialogical relationships with the school. From this
co-construction of knowledge, teachers in turn can develop more dialogical
relationships with their students recognizing that student-teacher relationships are the
essence of effective teaching and learning (Cummins, 1986; Nieto & Bode, 2008).
Fundamental to academic success for culturally diverse students is the ability to
negotiate identities as scholars. When students’ self perceptions are affirmed and
extended through their interactions with teachers, they are more likely to engage in
learning; by contrast, when students are not affirmed and feel excluded they are more
likely to become disengaged from the learning environment (Cummins, 1986).
75
A damaging and often erroneous pattern of thought among teachers serving
minority students asserts that students’ apathy stems from lack of academic skills;
consequently, teachers often use the “deficit perspective” when interacting with
students while ignoring the social aspects of the learning experience (Ladson-Billing,
2001; Lipman, 1997). This assumption is often misguided. These issues can be
explored by conjoining citizens, practitioners, and researchers in the process of social
inquiry to gain an understanding of how to address and dismantle disparaging
practices and offer promising practices based on knowledgeable diagnoses co-
constructed within the tri-partnership (Dewey, 1937; Nieto, 1999). Student identities
and perceptions of self as learners can be refined when there is a social network
among teachers, schools, and the community all collaborating to educate students
(Darling-Hammond, 1996; Nieto, 1999).
Dialogic Classrooms Mirroring Partnership Dialogue
Freire (2003) perceives education to be an act of liberation and an
empowering tool informing students of their right to learn and participate within the
democratic system from which society wants to exclude them. Sometimes overtly
and other times covertly, minority youth experience an array of inequitable schooling
conditions that thwart their ability to learn. The structural inequities in schools can
only be alleviated through dialogic conversations within the classroom that mirror
the dialogue within the partnership. Miller and Hafner (2008) assert that community,
school and university engaged in dialogic relationships are powerful because they are
grounded in the needs and perspectives of the people. Addressing deep-rooted
76
misconceptions, problems, and concerns in dialogic conversations enable agents to
name and alter their realities, which can transform their actions (Freire, 2003).
Dialogic learning empowers students to be curious, to question current conditions,
and to solve problems (Freire, 2003). Education becomes liberating when
institutional agents and students seeking change transition from rhetoric to viable
action, in the unity that Freire (1973) calls praxis, where words of truth added to
critical reflection result in transformational action.
According to Freire, (2003) dialogue is an encounter with the people,
engaging them in processes to enact change in the structures and practices that
present barriers to academic achievement for minority youth. Dialogue solicits the
input of all stakeholders keeping the agents informed and willing to contribute their
funds of knowledge to co-construct solutions to communal problems (Carroll et al.,
2001). This is a drastic change from hierarchal governance structures that typically
operate in schools; rather, it is through horizontal dialogic partnerships among all
agents that real change transpires (Miller & Hafner, 2008). The cultural model set by
dialogical and co-constructed relationships among the tri-partnerships is a cultural
model that can be replicated in schools and classrooms in order to improve student
achievement and prepare minority youth for college (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001).
Freire (1973) posits that education is a political act of power and privilege
exercised in decisions of whom and what is taught juxtaposed with notions of for
whom and how teaching transpires in the classroom. Dialogic education is promoted
77
when both the teacher and student engage in a mutual shared learning process using
inquiry to explore knowledge and gain new insights (Freire, 2003; Yonezawa et al.,
2002). This transactional approach to learning empowers to students to co-construct
knowledge, question learning, challenge thinking and extend beliefs (Nieto, 1999).
Dialogic relationships are not predicated on the pseudo premise of learning
that there is a right response, the teacher has it and if you are the student, it is your
only responsibility to regurgitate the right response, ostensibly confirming that
learning has occurred. This practice is entrenched in many urban classrooms,
whereby knowledge is passively accepted by students as it is “an affair of telling and
being told [and not] an active and constructive process” (Dewey, 1916, p. 38). The
traditional approach to instruction prevalent in schools is equivalent to a banking
model whereby teachers deposit information into students for students to regurgitate
upon demand (Freire, 2003). This approach is a flawed practice that devalues
students, treating them as empty vessels waiting to be filled with knowledge and
skills that are often far removed from their cultural experiences (Freire, 2003; Nieto
& Bode, 2008).
Partnerships can use dialogic relationships to help enact a shared
understanding of what teaching and learning means from diverse perspectives—
community, university, and schools. Through dialogic conversations, with the
community and university agents, educators can co-construct culturally relevant
curricula and learn to build interactive relationships with students that empower them
as learners (Nieto, 1999). Also, tri-partnerships can support teachers in creating
78
dialogic classrooms that improve the student-teacher relationships within the
classroom by equalizing power to make learning a reciprocal process.
Research indicates that learning, influenced by an array of social and cultural
factors, is actively constructed in community with others; consequently a key move
in educational reform is to build a classroom culture that honors all students’ right to
learn in a rigorous yet nurturing democratic space (Dewey, 1927; Cummins, 1996;
Nieto, 1999, Vygotsky, 1978). This is also a guiding principle for constructing
partnerships operating in a democratic manner. The fundamental elements to
equitable educational reform are classroom environments characterized by the same
attributes: settings that foster dialogic relationships and are grounded in learning
theory (Freire, 2003; Gutierrez et. al., 1995; Nieto, 1999). Joining the tri-partnership
to examine the relationship among theory, practice, and cultural experiences enables
the construction of a learning centered community within the school and the
classroom. If teacher-student relationships are critical to empowering and advancing
learners, then attention to the setting and space in which learning occurs is key. This
necessitates that partnerships examine the dynamic of teacher-student relationships
in the classroom in order to create a shared space to advance the social interactions
conducive to learning.
Dialogic relationships imply a redistribution of power in the classroom to
create a learning centered environment with equal emphasis on the teacher and
student who are both willful agents in the learning cycle (Freire, 2003; Nieto, 1999).
Partnerships can work collaboratively to highlight the conditions that make it
79
possible for teachers and students to occupy the third space in the classroom.
Gutierrez (1995) research on the third space provides insight on building teacher-
student relationships by creating a place where two scripts intersect creating an
authentic interaction that enables learning to occur. The third space fosters a
constructivist learning community where the emphasis is on learning as opposed to
teaching (Vygotsky, 1978). This is the new cultural model derived from the
partnership that was constructed through dialogue.
The third space is one that is co-constructed by the teacher and student to
create a mutual learning environment, to ensure that conditions for learning are
optimal as the two paths converge (Nieto, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978). Convergence
occurs when teachers seek to establish conditions of learning that honor students’
cultural perspectives utilizing them as building blocks to expand learning and to
create a learning centered classroom that allows learning to flow from the teacher to
student and from the student to teacher (Guitierez, 1995; Freire, 2003, Nieto, 1999).
In order to build healthy relationships with the potential to positively impact
student performance, teachers must value students’ interests, cultures, and life
experiences (Nieto & Bode, 2008). An understanding of students’ lives will enable
teachers to respect students’ “funds of knowledge” and make much more meaningful
and culturally relevant connections in their learning (Gonzales & Moll, 2002).
Democratic classrooms incorporate constructivist theories of learning in dialogical
transactions that see all members of the classroom contributing equally in the
learning cycle that advances the pursuit of knowledge (Nieto & Bode, 2008). In this
80
capacity, democratic classrooms foster settings that honor the funds of knowledge
and cultural capital students bring to school (Nieto & Bode, 2008). Partnerships can
serve as potential resources to assist teachers in re-conceptualizing the classroom.
Teachers need help from families and the community to gain that understanding.
Therefore, teachers can learn from their students, the parents, and the community and
similarly, universities can learn from teachers and the community. Partners have the
potential to model the cultural model that schools and classrooms need to be.
Conclusion
Equitable schooling conditions for all students have long been a goal of
American public schools, but the goal has not yet been met. Nationwide, data is
collected in urban districts presenting the performance and opportunity gaps that are
barriers to college readiness and success for minority youth. Reform efforts are
underway in many urban schools; however, very few yield the desired results—
increased student achievement leading to a wider post-secondary trajectory of
opportunity. Community-school-university partnerships that operate in co-
constructed dialogic relationships may be America’s best hope for successful
educational reform in equity and excellence. Educating students in dialogic
classrooms empowers them to not just fight for their own civil liberties, but also
equips them with the intelligence and capital needed to dismantle inequitable
practices and structures within the public education system. Tri-partnerships, an
innovative reform strategy, engender hope for viable changes in public education
that will one day make the dream America promises a reality.
81
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
As previously stated in Chapter One, the history of educational partnerships
have a pattern of failure often stemming from the unequal distribution of power
among key stakeholders: community members, schools and universities as they
attempt to form and function within a collaborative partnership. Many of the
partnerships that currently exist in schools have not been able to create or sustain
alliances that actually lead to significant changes within the schools’ culture that
result in closing gaps in student achievement. A body of research supports that co-
constructed relationships among communities, schools, and universities have the
potential for redistributing power, thus enabling all partners to contribute to a new
cultural model capable of transforming K-12 urban schools.
Purpose of Study
The aim of this research study is to examine the ways by which community,
school, and university partnerships can be co-constructed for the purpose of
transforming K-12 schools, particularly in urban communities. The complexities of
urban life and the effects of segregation plaguing urban schools today make it
difficult for schools alone to create educational institutions that simultaneously
promote the academic, social and psychological well being of its students. Schools
are increasingly seeking partnerships that help them address the various
nonacademic and academic factors that contribute to students’ ability to succeed in
82
their education. Although some research literature about partnerships exists, the
studies mostly involve partnerships between universities and schools or between
communities and universities. This study is unique in that it involves all three
partners recognized to have the potential for impact on school change.
By examining the process by which these three entities work to co-construct
a partnership of reduced hierarchical power relationships on behalf of a K-12 school,
this study can add to the existing body of knowledge and shed light on possible
actions for the future. The study will identify strategies for forming a partnership that
collectively contribute to school transformation while preventing and overcoming
barriers to a tri-partnership. Additionally, this study seeks to examine the kinds of
attributes that result from a co-constructed community, school, university partnership
created for the transformation of K-12 urban schools. More particularly, this study
will examine the partnership for its possibility to transform the school in the
partnership into a culture of academic success that raises student achievement and
college readiness levels for minority youth. This chapter describes the research
methodology employed for this qualitative case study, explains the research design,
presents the theoretical frameworks, and identifies the procedures for data collection
and analysis.
Research Questions
Merriam (1998) posits that qualitative case studies are particularly effective
when investigating processes in order to understand what happened, why it happened
and what that means for those involved. The research questions crafted to frame the
83
focus of this study center primarily on the organizational process in forming
alliances among partners whose traditional relationships are limited or derailed by
disproportionate distributions of power.
After extensive review of a large body of literature on creating and sustaining
successful partnerships that result in closing gaps in student achievement, a thematic
dissertation group of 10 doctoral candidates, guided by their chair, Sylvia Rousseau,
Ed.D, co-constructed four research questions to study the nature of a tri-partnership,
the problems inherent in forming such unions and effective strategies for overcoming
the barriers that hinder or dismantle partnerships. In order to explore the
organizational processes and attributes that contribute to successful tri-partnerships
this qualitative case study will gather data related to the following research
questions:
1. What is a process that enables communities, schools, and universities to
co-construct partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban
schools?
 What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools, and universities that seek to transform
urban schools?
 What are some effective strategies that have the potential for
overcoming barriers in co-constructing partnerships among
communities, schools, and universities for the purpose of
transforming K-12 urban schools?
84
2. What attributes of a partnership capable of creating a new cultural model
in urban schools, result from the process of co-constructing a
Community, Schools, and University partnership with the intent to
transform a K-12 school?
Research Design
Qualitative research is utilized by researchers who seek to promote a
“philosophical or political perspective that drives a research agenda in the activist
tradition of Freire” (Merriam, 1998, p. 77). Qualitative methods enable the
researcher to observe what conditions are extant, and take into consideration what
one hopes to change for the better. The case study, as an aspect of qualitative
research, has been found to be highly effective in examining the possibilities for
change. McEwan and McEwan (2003) posit that case studies are commonly used to
focus on aspects of organizational change or human behavior. By examining and
recording the behaviors within an identified context, interviewing participants, and
examining artifacts—all through the lens of a theoretical framework, researchers are
able to provide an in-depth description of the unit of analysis. Through the
description, the researcher can identify promising practices leading to the desired
results as well as barriers to the desired outcomes. This type of applied research, in
which practitioners attempt to solve a specific site-based problem, (McEwan and
McEwan, 2003) allows educators to see themselves in studies with comparable
issues and use information gleaned to make changes in their schools.
85
According to Merriam (1998), research “focused on discovery, insight, and
understanding from the perspectives of those being studied offers the greatest
promise of making significant contributions to the knowledge base and practice of
education” (p. 1). Dewey (1930) posits that a problem is that which, “perplexes and
challenges the mind so that it makes belief…uncertain” (p. 13). Hence, the nature of
qualitative research pursues knowledge by examining a problem, investigating the
conditions surrounding that problem, and connecting the problem with literature
from the field; therefore, practitioners can gain insight into why the problem exists
and how those contributing to the field of research could shed light on promising
practices for resolution. By identifying promising practices and attributes of
successful tri-partnerships to achieve viable unions, the study can be replicated
among other institutions, which has the potential to improve the quality of life for
students, who will, in turn, revitalize the community and society as a whole.
Population and Sample
Selection Criteria
This specific university, school, and community partnership was selected for
this study because of the unique features of the partnership. Although several
different university/school, university/community, or school/community partnerships
have come into existence, little is known about partnerships involving all three
entities of the type represented in this case and their potential for transforming
schools. A review of the literature has not revealed extensive research examining the
role of co-constructed dialogic relationships collaborating as equals in a network
86
partnership to enact educational reform. This partnership met the selection criteria
due to the rare opportunity presented to observe a top tier private research university
with a commitment to urban education; a K-12 school that has chosen with the
support of its teachers and parents to enter a newly created innovation unit of the
school district focused on designing new concepts and structures, and community-
based civil rights organizations, one of which has a long history of involvement in
the community where the school of the study is located. This organization and
another advocacy, research community-based organization, have worked to empower
the community and have recently invited the university to join their efforts on behalf
of K-12 transformation. Although the unit of analysis is the partnership, the
participants in this study consisted of stakeholders from all three entities including
principals, teachers, parents, students, university faculty, community leaders, and
other key stakeholders whose involvement was critical to the success of this
university, school, and community partnership. Consequently, each stakeholder was
selected to interview because each agent provides a unique perspective on the
formation, utility, and barometer of success for the partnership. Interviews of key
agents were selected to provide a history of the partnership that was already
underway prior to this study. These interviews were cross referenced with field
observations and a review of documents to validate perceptions or note
discrepancies.
87
Sampling Procedure
Purposeful sampling was used to select a specific partnership that reflects the
rare inclusion of three key partners represented in this partnership: school,
community, and university in an urban setting. Merriam (1998) contends that
purposeful sampling is utilized when the researchers aspire to gain insight and
understand the circumstances of the subject and therefore must employ a select
sample from which one can yield appropriate data. Because of the rare nature of this
kind of partnership, this specific study is considered a special case and can be
classified as an extreme or deviant case sampling because researchers are able to
learn a considerable amount of information about issues of central importance to the
study (Patton, 2000).
The unit of analysis for this case study is the community/school/university
partnership comprising a unique set of partners joined to enact educational reform.
In this case, community based organizations are represented by the Justice League
(JL), a national civil rights organization with a rich history of advocacy and change
and the Obama Foundation (OF), a service-oriented organization known for its quest
for social justice and civil harmony. California University (CU), a Tier 1 private
research university that has received national acclaim for its service learning
programs, community involvement, and commitment to urban education represents
the university participant. Legacy High School (LHS), a historic school in the second
largest school district in the United States, is comprised of the school community—
school staff, parents and community members and represents the district in this
88
partnership. These unique set of partners has formed Greater Educational
Partnership, a non-profit organization, joined to collaborate on the transformation of
one urban high school. This study examined the formation of a multifaceted
community-school-university-collaboration in its first year of implementation and
the power dynamics inherent in co-constructing a network partnership of this
magnitude.
The study selected participants who are most likely to provide the
information needed to understand the process used for forming the partnership. They
include: parents active in the school, especially those who had a history of
involvement with the school. A combination of teachers selected included teachers
who were involved in the co-construction process and teachers who were identified
by those who were actively involved. Non-teaching staff who were actively
involved in the formation of the partnership with in the school were also selected for
interviews for their perspective that is often omitted in studies of schools. Finally,
the researchers sought to know the school’s perspective on the partnership by
interviewing school administrators. For the community perspective, the research
team also selected leaders and staff of the community-based organizations that were
part of the partnership. Community participants in the partnership who were not
associated with the community-based organizations, but who were active in the
partnership formation were selected. The research team also interviewed university
faculty who were aware of the partnership or who had participated in its early
formation.
89
Partners in the Study
School
Of the three organizations in this partnership, the first one to be addressed is
Legacy High School. Legacy High School is located in a large urban area in a 70-
block radius that includes two community-based organizations, the Justice League
and the Obama Foundation. Legacy High School has experienced multiple years of
decline in academic performance and community trust. Listed below are Legacy
High School’s demographics and achievement characteristics that conform to the
criteria commonly used to describe urban schools:

Table 1
School Demographics
2006/2007 Enrollment of 2,314 Students
African American o 64.9%
Hispanic/Latino o 33.8%
Alaskan/Asian/Filipino/Pacific Islander/White o 0.7%
Socio-economically disadvantaged o 60.8%
90
Legacy High School is in year six of program improvement. It is strugglintg
to restore full accreditation that has been in jeopardy for several years. Below is
pertinent data about overall student performance.

Table 2
Data on Student Performance
2006/2007 Annual Performance Index 524
API Expected Growth California: 75
LAUSD: 88
Senior HS: 65
2006/2007 California High School Exit Exam Pass Rate 56%
Disaggregated: ELL CAHSEE Pass Rate 20%
One Year Drop Out Rate 6.5%
Four Year Drop Out Rate 29.2%

Community Based Organizations
The partnership with Legacy High School will be two community-based
organizations, The Justice League and The Obama Foundation. The Justice League
was established in 1921 to secure the civil rights and opportunities of African
Americans by way of “self reliance, parity, power and civil rights through advocacy
activities” (TJL, 2006, p. 7). This organization has made a commitment to revitalize
the community by partnering with Legacy High School, which was targeted for its
disproportionately high number of single parent households, children in foster care,
91
and the prevalence of violent crimes within a 70-block radius of the school.
Similarly, the Obama Foundation was established in 2003 to promote civic
engagement by fostering community based programs confronting pervasive social
and economic issues that contribute to the demise of the community. Both agents
perceive a partnership with Legacy High School as a means to advance their
initiatives and they are committed to working with the local high school to resolve
the issues in the school and the community at large. Also, partnering with the schools
is a coalition of parents and community members who have formed a group to be an
equal voice in reform effort.
University
The third organization in the partnership is a top-tier research university,
California University, whose school of education is committed to strengthening
urban education by partnering with the community. Part of the university’s
commitment to revitalize urban schools and the communities in which they reside is
to commit doctoral candidates to conduct research, as the partnership is planned,
implemented, and nurtured within the school.
Instrumentation
Data Collection
“Qualitative data grow out of three kinds of data collection: (1) in-depth
open-ended interviews; (2) direct observation; and (3) written documents” (Patton,
2001 p. 4). Qualitative inquiry requires that the researcher create multiple measures
to collect and examine data in response to questions derived from significant gaps in
92
the literature on the specified topic. Interviews conducted with relevant stakeholders
in the case study yield responses about people’s perceptions, experiences, and
knowledge, provide data that can be interpreted, and supply in-depth descriptions as
well information about the conditions of the problem at hand.
Observing the stakeholders at work provides field notes about behaviors and
actions that can be studied and analyzed. Finally, documents allow the researcher to
analyze the archived historical aspects of the problem and the processes in place to
resolve the problem. All three of these data collection processes will be used in this
qualitative case study. To enable efficient triangulation of data, the dissertation
group identified multiple sources from which to collect data. The matrix from Table
3 illustrates the relationship between the research questions and the data collection
instruments identifying how and where data was collected to address each research
question.
The research questions above derived by doctoral candidates after an
extensive review of the literature on partnerships provides a lens through which to
study the formation of this unique partnership. Each question is grounded in the
theoretical frameworks explained below.
93

Table 3
Triangulation Matrix: Triangulation Across Data Collection Instruments
Questions
Interview
and Focus
Groups Observations
Artifact
Analysis
Research Question #1: What is a process
that enables communities, schools, and
universities to co-construct partnerships
for the purpose of transforming K-12
urban schools?
X X X
Research Question #1a: What are the
persistent barriers to establishing
partnerships among communities, K-12
schools, and universities that seek to
transform urban school?
X X X
Research Question #1b: What are some
effective strategies that have the potential
for overcoming barriers in co-
constructing partnerships among
communities, schools, and universities
for the purpose of transforming K-12
urban schools?
X X X
Research Question #2: What attributes of
a partnership capable of creating a New
Cultural Model in urban schools, result
from the process of co-constructing a
Community, School, and University
partnership with the intent to transform a
K-12 school?
X X X
94
Framework for the 1
st
Research Questions
The first research question asks, “What is a process that enables
communities, schools, and universities to co-construct partnerships for the purpose
of transforming K-12 urban schools?” This question is grounded in the theoretical
frameworks of Dewey’s (1920) concept for equal engagement of citizens and experts
in equity and education reform; Freire’s (2003) premise that dialogic relationships
empowered stakeholders to enact reform through the unity of praxis; and Carroll et
al., (2001) and Miller and Hafner’s (2008) notion that co-constructed tri-partnerships
have the potential to enact successful K-12 educational reform.
Research Question #1a: What are the persistent barriers to establishing
partnerships among communities, K-12 schools, and universities that seek to
transform an urban school? Carroll et al., (2001) and Miller and Hafner’s (2008)
theories identify the barriers to engagement among community-school-university
partnerships that contribute to a short-lived union and prohibit entities from
accomplishing their goals.
Research Question #1b: What are some effective strategies that have the
potential for overcoming barriers in co-constructing partnerships among
communities, schools, and universities for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban
schools? Freire’s seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2003) provides a
theoretical framework to examine the formation of dialogic relationships among all
partners enabling co-construction to transpire and contribute to the quality of
education in an urban school setting.
95
Framework for the second Research Question
The second research question asks, “What attributes of a partnership that are
capable of creating a new cultural model in urban schools, result from the process of
co-constructing a Community, School, and University partnership with the intent to
transform a K-12 school?” Freire’s (2003) concept of dialogic relationships in
addition to Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) definition of cultural models will
provide a lens through which to identify the types of university, school, and
community partnerships that can create a new cultural model capable of transforming
K-12 schools.

Table 4
Framework for Research Questions from Literature Review
Research Question Framework
Research Question #1: What is a process that enables
communities, schools, and universities to co-construct
partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban schools?
Freire (2003)
Carroll et al.,
(2001)
Research Question #1a: What are the persistent barriers to
establishing partnerships among communities, K-12 schools, and
universities that seek to transform urban school?
Carroll et al.,
(2001)
Miller &
Hafner (2008)
Research Question #1b: What are some effective strategies that
have the potential for overcoming barriers in co-constructing
partnerships among communities, schools, and universities for
the purpose of transforming K-12 urban schools?
Freire (2003)
Carroll et al.,
(2001)
Miller &
Hafner (2008)
Research Question #2: What attributes of a partnership capable
of creating a New Cultural Model in urban schools, result from
the process of co-constructing a Community, School, and
University partnership with the intent to transform a K-12
school?
Freire (2003)
Gallimore and
Goldenberg
(2001)
96
Data collection in a case study is a recursive process. Patton (1990) posits,
“multiple sources of information are sought and used because no single source of
information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive perspective. . .by using a
combination of observations, interviewing, and document analysis, the fieldworker is
able to use data sources to validate and cross-check findings” (p. 244). The
dissertation cohort for this study collaborated to co-construct the development of the
instruments and resource tools for this study. The following instruments designed by
the research cohort, used in the study, and included as appendices in this document
are:
Instrument 1: Administrator Interview Protocol
Instrument 2: Teacher Interview Protocol
Instrument 3: Classified Personnel
Instrument 4: Parent Interview Protocol
Instrument 5: Community-Based Organization Interview Protocol
Instrument 6: University Stakeholder Interview Protocol
Instrument 7: School Environment Observation Protocol
Instrument 8: Meeting Observation Protocol
Instrument 9: Document Analysis Protocol
According to Patton (1990) triangulation across multiple sources of data
enables the researcher to enhance the reliability and validity of the study. The
researchers in this study conducted interviews, carried out observations and reviewed
artifacts or documents to provide a rich and thick body of data. The researchers used
97
triangulation among these sources of data examining the consistencies and
inconsistencies among the different sources of data collected, as well as the ability of
one source to complement or augment the data gathered from another source.

Table 5
Collection of Data for Triangulation
Interview Observations Artifacts
Parents
Total: 6
Partnership Meetings at
the school including
teachers, administrators,
and/or parents
Partnership Business plan
Community Based
Organization
Members
Total: 7
Community visits Minutes from relevant
meetings within each entity
and among the three entities
Community
Members
Total: 4
GEP Memorandum Of
Understanding
University Faculty
Total: 3
GEP Board meetings GEP Event calendars
You Design Staff
Total: 1
Community-based
organization meetings
School Performance Data
(including test scores,
graduation rates, master,
schedule, and demographics),
LHS Teachers
Total: 7
LHS faculty meetings SLC Impact Report
LHS
Administration
Total: 2
School in general
(hallways, quad, athletic
events, etc.)

98
The overall purpose of all methods for collecting data was to access key
sources of information about the process by which the partnership was being formed
and the resulting attributes of the partnership in that process. Key sources to convey
knowledge of the partnership were the people within partnering organizations and
people directly involved or affected by the partnership. The people were able to
clarify their participation in the partnership, and provide information about the
manner in which it is being formed. The researchers were interested in knowing the
different perceptions among the various stakeholders about attributes they believe
characterize the partnership in the first year of its formation.
Artifacts
Collecting data using artifacts or documents helped ground the research in the
context of the problem being studied (Merriam, 1998). Reviewing key documents
helped illuminate pre-existing practices and structures of the GEP partnership prior
to the time the researchers began the study. Documents also provided insight into
the history of the partners, the formation of the union, and engagement. Utilizing
artifacts is beneficial to researchers enabling them to collect rich data in less time
that are not influenced by the presence of the investigator (Merriam, 1998).
Artifacts are highly visible indicators of culture that can include the physical
environment of the organization, the methods used for communication, and the
behaviors of its members. This study reviewed artifacts and documents associated
with the individual partners and the partnership itself.
99
Information from these documents included things that may have taken place
“prior to the study, private exchanges between relevant parties, and/or unstated
goals, decisions, or values” (Patton, 2000, p. 293). Partnership documents and
artifacts were analyzed for background and commitments to the construction of the
partnership. Documents of interest included the MOU between the partnership and
the school district; the partnership’s business plan; minutes from relevant meetings
including partnership board meeting minutes and agendas; event calendars; school
data (including test scores, graduation rates, attendance and demographics), and a
fact sheet that documents all the stakeholders stated contributions to the partnership.
For the most part, public documents were the primary sources; other
documents or artifacts were identified through interviews and observations. The
researchers sought the permission of the participating organizations to gain access to
these documents. Each of the researchers accessed and analyzed the collective body
of quantified data gained from documents in relation to the school, the community,
and the member organizations of the partnership.
Observations
Merriam (1998) states “observation is a major means of collecting data in
qualitative research [as it] offers a firsthand account of the situation under
study…when people cannot or will not discuss the research topic” (p. 111).
Observations of meetings were examined for the group dynamics and provided
insight as to how each of the agents work together to accomplish the goals of the
partnership. Merriam (1998) posits that naturalistic observations enable the
100
researchers to describe the setting and climate of the intensity of interactions of a
group culture. This process of data collection offers the opportunity to develop
follow up questions that can be used in additional interviews to ascertain agents’
perspective and insights about the events.
Observations, according to Merriam (1998), take place in a “natural” setting
and present an in-person encounter with the “phenomenon of interest” as opposed to
the second-hand content of an interview. Observations were conducted in a variety of
settings to gain insight into the cultures of the specific partners and the emerging
culture as the entities interact and encounter one another. These observations
included meetings involving community organizations in their functions independent
of the school, as well as those taking place within the school context or pertaining to
the partnership. Cumulatively, the group of researchers conducted a total of ten
observations involving community-based organizations and parents as members of
the community.
Selection of the events to be observed were based on a master calendar
developed by the dissertation group, along with meeting agendas among the
participants in the study. The network partners were observed in the natural settings
of their organizations as well as in the group setting to examine their interactions,
routines, protocols, procedures, processes, and organizational cultures. Procedures to
record data and take notes were developed by the research team to ensure
consistency and allow for collaboration as pairs of researchers observe. Working in
pairs, both observers scripted their observations that were then compared and
101
discussed following the observation. The observations contributed to the
researcher’s knowledge of the partnership in an unobtrusive manner enabling the
observer to gather data that could be used as reference points for future interviews
(Merriam, 1998).
Interviews
“The purpose of interview is to allow [the researchers] to enter into the other
person’s perspective” (Patton, 2000, p. 341) which enables “individual respondents
to define their world in a unique way” (Merriam, 1998, p. 74). Interviews enabled
the researchers to learn about events (and their meanings) that they were not able to
observe. Interviews were conducted with stakeholders from each entity within the
partnership to gain insight on the perspective of its members as well as the nature of
its work. The thematic dissertation group identified a time line for collecting data in
an unobtrusive semi-structured interview. Persons to be interviewed were informed
of the study through a letter that was circulated where they worked or met regarding
the school. They participated on a voluntary basis with assurance that their identities
would be kept confidential. They were ensured that the content of their interviews
would be kept in a secure place and destroyed after the study was completed.
Collectively in pairs, doctoral students interviewed a total of 27 stakeholders to
discuss the thematic, overarching, and essential questions related to the research
topic. The research questions, interview protocols, interview instruments, and
procedures for data collection co-constructed by the dissertation cohort ensured that
interviews were conducted as smoothly as possible. In addition, members of the
102
cohort designed semi-structured interview questions to solicit in-depth responses
from the interviewee pertinent to their particular area of focus.
Interviews provided insight to social settings, meetings, offices, etc. as well
as what to observe next. From the interviews, it was assumed that patterns would
emerge. The informational data collected from the interviews were juxtaposed with
the observations to confirm or negate what themes and ideas emerged.
Three faculty persons from University’s educational department were
interviewed. These interviews sought the perspectives of the various divisions of the
university interacting with the school. Interviewees associated with Legacy High
School included six parents. Other school-based interviewees included two school
administrators, and seven Legacy High School teachers. The researchers announced
the purpose of the study and their desire to conduct interviews at specified meetings
attended by potential interviewees. Those interested could submit a written consent
to be interviewed in a locked box in the main office of the school or by contacting
the researcher who had provided contact information. The researchers also contacted
potential interviewees based on interest sparked by the observations or leads from
other interviewees. The research team also interviewed four community-at-large
persons. As well, researchers interviewed seven community-based organization
members as their roles and perspectives of the community are of particular interest to
this study. To gain an understanding of the context in which network partners were
asked to take on oversight of specific schools or school clusters, the research team
103
interviewed one person in the You-Design unit of the local district to which the
network partnerships report.
The interviews were in-person, and were digitally recorded with the
permission of the interviewee. The researcher also took notes during the interviews
to keep track of the responses that lead to decisions about eliminating some of the
interview questions. Notes also helped the researcher to contextualize the data in the
transcribed recordings. Each member of the research team was assigned to collect
specific data. Interviews lasted approximately 45 and 60 minutes, depending on the
depth of interviewees’ responses to each question. If the interviewee included
information in some questions that answered other questions included in the
constructed interview, the interviewer eliminated the questions that had already been
answered.
The interview questions were designed to ascertain the interviewees’
attitudes, knowledge of, and experiences with the partnership to contribute to a rich
body of data about the formation of the partnership and the resulting attributes within
the first year of formation. Interview instruments for the different stakeholders
contained essentially the same questions to allow an analysis for consistencies and
inconsistencies in the responses among the various stakeholders.
Data Analysis
Triangulation
As all members of the team of researchers were assigned responsibility for
collecting portions of the data for the case study, the research group constructed a
104
codebook. The codes created for capturing the data included the data’s relationship
to a combination of factors:
• the process by which the partnership was formed
• barriers or strategies to deter or promote the formation of the partnership
• identifiable attributes of the partnership consistent with or inconsistent
with the cultural model of a dialogic, co-constructed partnership
The three main sources of data regarding the formation of the partnership
enabled the researchers to engage in data triangulation (Patton, p. 247) to increase
validity of the findings. Designated researchers deposited their data inside the coded
boxes the team had created. The collective data was made available to all the
researchers. This collection of coded data also enabled the researchers to access a
thick pool of data in which one set of data complements or augment one another.
Multiple members of a research team enabled the researchers to engage in
investigator triangulation in the study as well. This process further ensured a thick
set of data and opportunities for researchers to discuss the data each had collected.
As at least two people participated in collecting specific data, the researchers could
hold one another accountable for accuracy and perceptions embedded in the data.
Analyzing Interviews
The researchers recorded the interviews conducted and transcribed the
interviews verbatim in order to immerse themselves in the data. The researchers
analyzed the interviews through the lens of the research questions to ascertain the
feelings, attitudes, and perceptions of the study’s key concepts: processes to form the
105
partnership, strategies employed to overcome barriers, and the attributes emerging as
a result of the union.
The researchers compared the levels of involvement and interest among the
various stakeholders and stakeholder groups in the process of forming the
partnership. The researcher analyzed the interviews for the “emic perspectives” i.e.,
the extent to which the various stakeholders feel they have been included in the
partnership formation and the degree to which they felt like equal participants. The
researchers analyzed the differences and similarities in what the stakeholders
believed had been barriers to a dialogic co-constructed partnership and what had
been the strategies that had facilitated a dialogic, co-constructed partnership. Finally,
the researchers also analyzed the interview data for responses that identified whether
the interviewees words reflected the attributes that the partnership seemed to have
taken on and the extent to which the interviewees believed these attributes were
helping in the transformation of the school.
Analyzing Observations
The researchers codified in the code book recurring themes that emerged in
the observations. The researchers compared the data collected through the field notes
from the observations with the data collected in the interviews (some of which
involved the same persons) and the documents collected. The observations of
meetings and school classrooms were analyzed for the contributions they made to
answering the three research questions. The researchers looked for actions,
scenarios, and quotes that indicated the process by which the partnership was
106
formed. They looked for indicators in the meetings and environments of the three
partners for dialogic behaviors that demonstrated the co-construction of a new
culture of shared power for the purpose of transforming a school. The researchers
analyzed the field notes in comparison to the interviews conducted, for the purpose
of identifying common themes, as well as consistencies and inconsistencies in terms
of responses to the research questions.
Analyzing Artifacts
The researchers looked for parallels between attitudes, levels of knowledge,
and actions noted in observations and interviews compared to the formal
documentation of these events. The researchers noted evidence of the cultures and
actions of each organization prior to launching the partnership and after launching
the partnership. The researchers noted changes within each organization’s agendas
and meeting minutes before and after launching the partnership. The objective was to
note the degree to which each organization’s prior culture contributes to a new
cultural model within the partnership.
Overall Analysis
Merriam (1998) states, “data analysis is the process of making sense out of
the data” which involves “consolidating, reducing, and interpreting” commentary
from the interviews and observations in order to make meaning. This is an iterative
and recursive process, using the information to derive meaning and later the findings
of the study. Similarly, Creswell (2003) posits that the purpose of data analysis is to
make sense out of text and generate outlines for a generic process in which to
107
conduct careful analysis. Table 6 outlines a process used in the field of qualitative
research to analyze data (Creswell, 2003) and displays the process employed in this
study to make meaning from the findings.

Table 6
Process of Data Analysis
Step
One:
Organize and Prepare
Data For Analysis
 Sorting and arranging the data
 Transcribe the recoded interviews
Step
Two:
Ascertaining a General
Sense
• Reads through all of the data
• Reflect on the overall meaning
• Record general thoughts about data
Step
Three:
Coding Process • Create and label categories
• Organize the information into “chunks”
and categories
Step
Four:
Description • Generate a description of the
setting/people/categories/themes
• Detail rending of information
• Generate themes/categories
• Display multiple perspectives
Step
Five:
Represented • Narrative passage to convey findings
for the analysis
• Detail discussion of themes
• Discussion with interconnecting themes
• Present a process model (grounded in
theory)
Step
Six:
Interpretations • Meaning of the data
• Lessons learned
• Researcher’s personal interpretation
• Meaning derived from comparison of
the findings to literature/theories
108
All data were incorporated into a single case study with one unit of analysis:
the partnership. From the various sources of data in response to the research
questions, the researchers constructed a case record. The case record serves as an aid
to the researchers when a large amount of raw data from interviews, observations
and documents require editing and organization. Researchers evaluated various
forms of computer assisted coding programs to complement their own processes for
coding the data. The group made a collaborative decision regarding the software to
use, Max QDA, ensuring compatibility among the team members’ various means of
collecting data.
After all data were collected and interviews transcribed, researchers used the
Max QDA coding program to organize the data. Data coded underwent a three-way
calibration system among researchers to ensure consistency and accuracy before
being entered into the Max QDA codebook. The Max QDA was organized by the
research questions and served as a resource for all data to be accessed by researchers.
The interview questions for each category of interviewers were essentially the same
so the researchers would be able to note the similarities and differences in the
manner in which the various stakeholders responded to the same questions. The data
were coded by four research questions and calibrated by researchers. Data was re-
coded into sub categories where emerging themes arose, at which time the researcher
began to answer each research question. The findings of data will be presented in
Chapter Four.
109
Ethical Considerations
Careful attention must be paid to the methods used for data collection and
dissemination. Merriam (1998) states, “In qualitative studies, ethical dilemmas are
likely to emerge with regard to the collection of data and in the dissemination of
findings” (p. 213). Utmost efforts to maintain high ethical standards throughout this
study ensured that the data that was collected and analyzed and the findings that are
disseminated are free from bias. The rules and regulations as specified by the
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB) as well as the Institutional
Review Board for the Los Angeles Unified School District were strictly adhered to in
order to ensure that participants were treated in an ethical manner.
Prior to collecting data, the doctoral candidates had to seek permission from
the Institutional Review Board (IRB) by submitting an application for review and
approval. This qualitative research study adheres to all of the rules and regulations
set by California’s IRB guidelines to ensure that all individuals that participated in
this study were treated with respect as evidenced by employing the following:
individuals were informed of the purpose and intent of the study via a consent form,
participation in the study was voluntary, and the responses of the subjects were kept
confidential to ensure the anonymity of participants. All documents (e.g., letter of
intent, consent letters) and data collection instruments (e.g., observations templates,
interview and observation protocols) employed in this research study were reviewed
and approved by the IRB before the study began.
110
Summary
This chapter has detailed the methodology that was utilized in this qualitative
study. This case study of university, school, and community partnerships included a
variety of data collection methods and instruments to answer the research questions
identifying the persistent barriers, strategies to overcome these barriers, and the way
in which new cultural models of these partnerships can facilitate home-school
partnerships to improve the quality of education in urban schools. The following
chapter will present the analysis of the data and detail the findings of this study.
111
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
As stated in Chapter One, the purpose of this study was to examine the
formation of a unique community-school-university partnership utilizing the process
of co-construction to transform a historic urban high school. Chapter Two provided
a review of literature asserting that co-constructed dialogic and collaborative
relationships have the potential to enact successful educational reform and create a
new cultural model in schools. Chapter Three provided the research methodology
and explained how data was collected and analyzed in relation to the research
questions posed. Chapter Four presents the case study findings and an analysis of
these results framed by the theoretical framework discussed in Chapter Three.
This network partnership was selected for a qualitative study because it
reflects a rare inclusion of diverse high profile partners: two community-based
organizations, a university, and a school community working to improve the quality
of education in an urban high school where minority students are predominant. In
this case, community based organizations are represented by the Justice League (JL),
a national civil rights organization with a rich history of advocacy and change and
the Obama Foundation (OF), a service-oriented organization known for its quest for
social justice and civil harmony. California University (CU), a Tier 1 private
research university that has received national acclaim for its service learning
programs, community involvement, and commitment to urban education represents
112
the university participant. Legacy High School (LHS), a historic school in the second
largest school district in the United States, is comprised of the school community—
school staff, parents and community members and represents the district in this
partnership. The unit of analysis for this study is the formation of a multifaceted
community-school-university-collaboration in its first year of implementation and
the power dynamics inherent in co-constructing a network partnership of this
magnitude.
To learn more about the co-construction process, strategies to surmount
barriers that deter collaboration, and the attributes that contribute to transformative
outcomes, this case study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What is a process that enables communities, schools, and universities to
co-construct partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban
schools?
 What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools, and universities that seek to transform
urban schools?
 What are some effective strategies that have the potential for
overcoming barriers in co-constructing partnerships among
communities, schools, and universities for the purpose of
transforming K-12 urban schools?
2. What attributes of a partnership capable of creating a New Cultural
Model in urban schools, result from the process of co-constructing a
113
Community, Schools, and University partnership with the intent to
transform a K-12 school?
Description of the Data Collection Methods
The qualitative findings and results presented in this chapter were derived
from a review of documents to understand the history of the partnership that was
already underway prior to this study; interviews of key stakeholders to ascertain
various perceptions of the partnership; field observations which were cross
referenced with interviews and documents to strengthen the validity of the study.
The study includes 27 individual interviews, 8 observations, and 5 document
analyses all of which produced a rich and thick body of data that are organized to
provide a response to each of the research questions. A team of researchers reviewed,
coded, analyzed, and organized data and constructed a codebook. Data coding
underwent a three-way calibration system among researchers to ensure consistency
and accuracy before being entered into Max QDA, an electronic codebook, a
resource that all researchers could access. To increase reliability, researchers met in
groups regularly to discuss and analyze the data as well as design a coding matrix.
Triangulation was employed among these data sources to strengthen the reliability
and validity of the findings. The presentation of findings begins with a historical
context of the school and partnership followed a by a detailed analysis in response to
each research question.
114
Description of the Case Study School
Nestled at the center of the 70-block radius resides Legacy High School, a
cultural icon of the community, a powerhouse for athletics, a world renowned choir,
and one of the last sites in the district with a predominantly African American
student body. An eclectic mix of working and middle class families constitutes
Legacy’s school community; however, over the last decade, a large number of
students residing in the attendance area have opted to attend charter schools, private
schools or other public schools in the school district, leaving behind a predominately
low-income student body. For the past twenty years, Legacy High School has posted
a historic performance of low student achievement and has not met the federal
mandates of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) placing the school in Program
Improvement status.

Table 7
Student Achievement Data: Annual Yearly Progress
2005 2006 2007
Made Overall AYP Criteria No No No
Participation Rate:
1) English Language Arts No No No
2) Mathematics Yes No No
Percent Proficient:
1) English Language Arts No No No
2) Mathematics No No No
API Indicator Met Yes Yes Yes
Graduation Rate Met No No No
Title I Program SWP SWP SWP
Program Improvement Status PI 5 SAIT
Exited SAIT
PI 5+
115
Legacy High School’s pass rates on the CAHSEE were lower than the overall
district average, and the difference between the school’s pass rate and those of the
nation or state’s pass rate were even more pronounced. In 2007, 186 students did not
receive diplomas as a result of not passing either the English or math portion of the
CAHSEE. Data reported for the California Standards Test indicates that only 16% of
the 1,522 students tested in 2007 were meeting or exceeding the standards in English
Language Arts. As well, a large majority of students continue to score significantly
below proficient on the California Math Standards Tests (CA Department of
Education, 2007).
Legacy High School battles a myriad of other challenges typical of urban
high schools, which contributes to low graduation rates. Data from the district reveal
that Legacy High School has limited gains in attendance, excessive suspensions,
fluctuating enrollment, 54% of the student body residing in foster care, and 76% of
students who qualify for the federal free and reduced lunch program. These are
critical issues that impact learning and academic performance at Legacy High
School. In years past, the district sought to address some of these concerns by
instituting multiple resources and numerous external programs, but the data indicate
they have not resulted in significant changes in students’ academic performance.
Years of being in program improvement, and a lapse in accreditation from the
Western Association for Colleges and Schools (WASC) in 2005, made it
increasingly clear that the district alone would not be able to reform education for
LHS students. Meanwhile, data on innovative partnerships were gaining prominence
116
in the educational arena and with LHS striving to regain full accreditation, the
district embraced a network of support for educational reform. The district instituted
a unique opportunity, You-Design Division, which authorizes the formation of
various network partnerships as a medium for innovative school reform. An
interview from the Director of You Design revealed that the local district realized
that the challenges facing Legacy High School students would have to coalesce with
an array of supports to provide the kind of reform needed to make the “school a
premiere institution of learning prepared not only for high school, but for college and
the work force.”
According to the Memorandum of Understanding, outlining the partnership
between the district and the Greater Educational Partnership (GEP), the network
partnership, seeks to “design and implement new models for public education to
serve the unique needs of certain areas of the district,” including Legacy High
School. In 2007, the vote for the Greater Educational Partnership to be given
oversight of Legacy High School passed and united the expertise of two community-
based organizations, local community members and parents, university and school
faculty as well as. Each entity comprising the GEP offers a rich and diverse
complement of resources to conceptualize the transformation of Legacy High
School. According to the Greater Educational Partnership Business Plan, an alliance
of this magnitude was constituted to equip the school community with “the
knowledge, resources, and services needed to engage in reform and provide guidance
as they make decisions within the conceptual framework co-constructed by GEP.”
117
The research study began several months after the initiation of the partnership
that was in the midst of a process by which the partners were striving to co-construct
a viable network partnership capable of transforming the school. The Greater
Educational Partnership’s commitment to form a partnership bringing together some
unlikely partners—a historic civil rights organization, a social and civic foundation, a
top-tier urban research university, and a high school that was a staple in the
community—involved a great deal of dialogue to figure out what they were co-
constructing and how this co-construction could yield the mutual shared learning
needed to transform Legacy High School.
This case study reveals data gathered from observing agents engaged in
meetings, striving to create a viable network partnership that would foster the
transformation of the school in the study. To facilitate this work, partners began
holding meetings that would advance the transition between the formal partnership
established by the 501 C (3) among the district, community based organizations, and
the university and the informal partnership which extended collaboration to the
school community to include parents, teachers, administrators, and community
members. The early meetings observed were conducted with clear protocols (i.e.,
group norms, agenda, and square seating arrangements, etc.) to facilitate dialogue.
Data from stakeholder interviews revealed that these protocols were co-constructed
by the group to promote a system of equal representation. These meetings provided a
forum for discussion where elected representatives from each entity were present to
convey information and speak on behalf of the stakeholder groups. Over a period of
118
eight observations, researchers observed agents from each entity engaged in dialogue
to design practices, structures, and procedures necessary for a network partnership to
transform Legacy High School.
Addressing the Research Questions
The findings were organized to address the research questions. The first
research question was designed to investigate the process of co-constructing a
partnership, the barriers encountered and the strategies used to overcome them. The
second research question examined the attributes that characterize the partnership
that had the potential for allowing the emergence of a new cultural model.
Research Question: Process of Co-Construction
The first question asks, “What is a process that enables communities,
schools, and universities to co-construct partnerships for the purpose of
transforming K-12 urban schools?” Co-constructed partnerships between
communities, schools, and universities have the potential to yield effective
educational reform and enact a new cultural model for the school. Carroll et al.
(2001) identifies principles of co-construction which exist in varying degrees in the
GEP, emerging at various stages in the process of co-construction:
• Respect for the social and cultural dynamics at a school site
• Value for the surrounding expertise of the community
• Space for dialogue and systems of representation
• Time to build relationships among stakeholders
119
Respect for the social and cultural dynamics at a school site
Vital to the process of co-construction is a shared understanding and respect
for the dynamics of the school site created by soliciting authentic site-practitioner
voices to contribute in developing and enacting the school transformation.. Data
reveal that GEP practices, processes, and activities display a respect for the social
and cultural dynamics at the schools site. The respect is framed in the GEP Business
Plan, which articulates a plan for collaboration among school faculty to create “a
research-informed community of professional learners focused on high-quality
teaching and learning practices.” The Business Plan makes a case for developing a
social and cultural context that promotes student achievement and college readiness
for all students.
The GEP Business Plan states the partnership will “co-construct systems and
structures for governance” to build capacity collaboration, sharing knowledge and
making decisions critical to educational reform. At the request of the school staff and
parents, one of the network partnership’s first co-constructed tasks was to restructure
Legacy High School into “wall-to-wall” small learning communities (SLC). Data
from the SLC Impact Report reveal a key purpose of converting the school to SLC is
“to change the use of time to support a collaborative professional community for
adults as well as a socially and culturally appropriate learning environment for
students.” A community-based organization member reflected that for the past five
years, Legacy had been toiling with the local district to “institute small learning
communities and for the GEP to get this up and running for the school is a testament
120
to what a network partnership can do.” Data from the School SLC Impact Report
reveals that the GEP provided guidance to the school community to develop a system
of governance enabling entities to co-construct the design, implementation, and
evaluation of small learning communities.
Administrators posit that this learning experience of restructuring the school
was invaluable because teachers were able to participate in designing the very same
systems and structures they would be implementing in the school: “[This process]
had a domino effect moving from a principle of practice within the network
partnership to one among Legacy staff and community, and into the classroom.” The
small learning communities cultivated collaborative relationships among teachers
which fostered better student-teacher relationships, and in turn, positive changes in
the classroom. Interviews from teachers revealed that after creating the small
learning communities, their colleagues were more introspective about their
instructional practice and that the “SLC’s have changed the culture of the school to
be highly collaborative… a way of acting that has led to heightened expectations for
teaching and learning.” School faculty interviews revealed that the small learning
communities are highly favored among the faculty as they provide “time for
collaboration and peer support” to focus on standards-based instruction and a viable
curriculum as a means to provide strategic and targeted college readiness for Legacy
students. The appeal of small learning communities reflects the school’s respect for
the social and cultural dynamics in the school.
121
The small learning communities created a venue for teachers to meet
regularly with network partners to share authentic site-practitioner perspectives on
areas of educational reform. Teacher interviews revealed that the collaborations
among partners are practical and productive primarily because they “examine issues
they feel need to be dealt [with]” and changes are made as a result of the interaction.
In a small learning community meeting a request was presented to collaborate with
the California University to address teaching and learning challenges that deter
academic achievement. Several weeks later, this request materialized in a
collaborative Professional Development among the University and high school staff
members partnering in an open forum to discuss effective teaching and learning. This
interaction profiled a learning-centered environment among university and school
staff engaged in reciprocal dialogue as they sought to grapple with theoretical
constructs and instructional practice on topics ranging from motivating reluctant
learners to instructional pedagogy. This process stood in contrast to traditional ways
that universities enter schools prepared to impart knowledge, viewing the school as
the recipient only.
During this professional development collaboration, university staff was
attentive as evident in their taking copious notes to learn about the culture of the
school and students as the school faculty spoke. The university faculty raised
questions during the discussion to clarify concepts and suggested support resources
to help practitioners think through the challenges presented. Throughout the meeting
the university staff appeared to be really interested in working collaboratively as
122
equals using dialogue as a strategy to understand the learning dynamics and consider
research based resolutions as a means for instructional reform. Co-construction was
apparent among partners as concerns were solicited by both parties to become more
familiar with the needs of the students and staff and, through discourse, arrive at
shared knowledge of effective teaching and learning supported by research.
Response to professional development collaboration between teachers and university
faculty was noted as being productive, and faculty members were observed making
recommendations for “these kinds of collaboration among partners to be a regular
practice.”
The Professional Development meeting concluded with suggestions from the
school’s faculty to identify key areas for further inquiry according to the most
pressing needs of teachers and students that could be explored during on-going
collaboration. With respect for the social and cultural dynamics of the school’s
distinctive history, its features and concerns, the University faculty used the
responses of the school staff to identify five areas to impact learning and build small
“research informed” learning communities. Through collaboration, University and
school staff employed co-construction as a process to study the nature of the
challenges facing teaching and learning and to design, implement, and evaluate
resolutions. The next collaborative professional development day between the
University and school site faculty offered teachers and administrators an opportunity
to sign up for learning communities grouped by the topics of interest to them. These
groups were designed to promote further collaboration between researchers
123
(university faculty) and site-based practitioners to remove barriers to student
achievement. The GEP acting as the facilitator, has instituted systems and structures
for governance that enable the stakeholders from each of the three entities to engage
in co-construction with respect for the social and cultural dynamics at the school site.
Yet, these are only beginning steps that will require much more work to secure them
as operative structures for promoting a respect for the social and cultural dynamics at
the school site.
Value for the Surrounding Expertise of the Community
Just as co-construction employs the expertise of the school-site to thrive, it
connotes the inclusion of the social/cultural experiences of the surrounding
community as well. The community has knowledge of students’ socio-cultural needs
and can provide insight that builds on students’ assets as partners, co-construct the
partnership for school transformation. One university professor commented, “a
collaborative relationship between communities and schools has been a missing
dimension in efforts to reform urban schools, as a combination of these assets has the
potential to ameliorate barriers to student achievement and strengthen schools in
their midst.” Incorporating the values, beliefs, and interests of the community and
utilizing them to inform the development of the processes, practices, protocols,
procedures that will govern the union, is a cornerstone of the co-construction
process.
The GEP Business Plan recognizes that the Legacy High School community
has been “working collaboratively to develop an appropriate school design and will
124
continue the collaboration with the school and community” to advance the
transformation of the school. A community based organization member reflects on
the importance of educating the whole child using a comprehensive support system
that brings community values, interests, and actions into the school and partnership
to capitalize on as collaboration moves forward. Data from the SLC Impact Report
reveals the benefits of restructuring the school into small learning communities is
that “it creates the possibility for parents and the community to play a larger role in
helping the school transform itself in ways that are compatible with community and
family assets.” The GEP recognizes the value of the expertise of the surrounding
community to enhance student achievement for urban youth and enact reform
initiatives that support that premise.
A history of failed reform efforts at Legacy High School made the school
hesitant to enter a partnership where a preconceived agenda existed. To ensure that
the collaborative approach was in place, with the support and guidance of the GEP
leadership the school formed an Innovations Transition Team comprised of
representatives from each stakeholder group. The Transition Team became a means
for multiple elected stakeholders to develop a new model that brought the
community to the table to partner with the school. Co-construction implies that all
participants in the process will make a contribution to conceptualizing what the
partnership looks like, as well as the eventual outcomes. This process requires that
each entity bring specific knowledge and expertise to the partnership and through
dialogic and collaborative relationships create a new shared culture.
125
Data from interviews reveal that the transition team is viewed as an
instrumental structure that brings stakeholders together in a way that has maximized
parent and community participation alongside of teachers and administrators
(although student participation has been minimal). It has extended an ongoing
invitation to conversations from which parents and the community members have
been traditionally excluded. Data from the GEP Events Calendar reveal that every
Tuesday, the Transition Team engages representatives from each of the network
partners to co-construct what the partnership should look like in order to accomplish
its goals. In this context, the school itself is also included as a partner, rather than
the mere recipient of the partnership’s work on its behalf. The consensus shared
among community-based organization members is that these meetings are effective
because there is a clear structure in place to discuss the order of business and solicit
responses from each entity before making a decision. Commentary from a
community member captures a shared perception among entities about the value of
the transition team to the co-construction process, “we believe it’s working because
we decide what we need to talk about and work through what we bring up before we
make recommendations to the [GEP] Board.” When asked what characteristics
would increase longevity or make the GEP more effective, the overwhelming
response from the school staff, parents, and community was their inclusion in the
transition team meetings that enabled them to co-construct the role of the partnership
in terms of transforming Legacy High School. Although there are a limited number
of parents involved thus far in the partnership, those who participate expressed an
126
appreciation for the opportunity to engage in dialogue. One parent commented,
“finally [there is] a place here for all of us to come together and make sure that this
school works for its goal to educate our young people.” The general perception of
GEP entities is that they are a work in progress entering a new realm of
collaboration, but the inclusion of all stakeholders in the process of co-constructing
the partnership makes agents hopeful and willing to collaborate.
Space for Dialogue and Systems for Representation
A community member described the process of co-construction as
stakeholders engaging in dialogue as equals utilizing a “harmony of voices with
specialized knowledge” to benefit the partnership and the school. The GEP Business
Plan indicates the partnership would be co-constructed, in order to come to a
consensus about its operating structure, the methods for pursing goals, and the
assessment of performance and productivity. The GEP Board meetings where all
network partners are present are a significant place for dialogue. Although at times
the board meetings can be contentious, they reflect the victories as well as the
tensions of the partnership. In this space, stakeholders discuss the needs of the
partnership and the school. Partners discuss the effective ways to allocate resources,
institute changes and evaluate progress.
The GEP Business Plan, is “to coordinate the multiple efforts taking place in
the school to develop a coherent plan for the school’s transformation. Its function is
to ensure that all plans address the instructional and social needs of Legacy High
School students. This process was expected to lead to the criteria for a governance
127
structure to be implemented at the school.” The GEP transition team has been
working on the development of a system and structure for governance to help the
school to operate effectively. Co-constructing a project of this magnitude requires a
clear sense of the assets each entity brings to the partnership. A functional
knowledge of entities’ expertise and experience builds capital for the partnership that
enables the transition team to use the information to meet its goals.
Data reveal that the school staff, parents, and community are not clear on the
roles and responsibilities of each partner and what specifically each entity could
contribute to advance the goals of the partnership and close gaps in students’
performance. During interviews, one teacher shared, “each partner has their own idea
of what their role is” and identified the problem as not having the opportunity to
“really sit down ahead of time [before the vote] to talk about it.” The idea of a GEP
retreat emerged from the transition team as a means to engage in open dialogue and
improve working relationships. The first item on the agenda at the retreat was to
clarify the roles and responsibilities of each network partner and use the process of
co-construction to discover the potential of the partnership to advance its goals. One
community based organization member’s commentary captures the tenor of the
network partnership’s learning curve on co-construction stating, “the process has to
be mediated and negotiated. It needs to be worked through with thoughtfulness and
intention and in a way that is in line with the our goals and priorities.”
Co-construction is a time consuming process that is inclusive of multiple
voices and perspectives engaged in dialogue as a means to stimulate reflection and
128
yield transformative action. One teacher posits that the retreat was an opportunity for
stakeholders to “take into account the various strengths and assets of each [entity]”
and how those components could work to benefit the partnership. Engaging in a
discussion of this magnitude requires a system for equal representation so that
stakeholders can listen to one another, pursue meaning, and enlarge or change
perceptions. The retreat began by revisiting the stakeholders co-constructed norms
for communication, a strategy to allow for equal representation within the
partnership. In instances where partners perceived co-construction was not operating
efficiently, the norms could be used to hold one another accountable to refine the
process.
The retreat revealed underlying tensions among entities stemming from
preconceived ideas of how the partnership would be “co-constructed” and operate at
Legacy High School. After a variety of perceptions on co-construction were
presented, entities sought to share knowledge, understand the different points of view
and come to agreement on how the partnership would function in and on behalf of
the school. This was an observable turning point in adult interaction as entities
worked as equals to co-construct the future of this unique network partnership. The
network partnership is in the early stages of ensuring the systems in place truly
provide equality in representation.
Time to Build Relationships Among Stakeholders
Salient to the co-construction process are on-going meetings where entities
engage in dialogue to insure that all stakeholders agree on the process for creating a
129
reform model and co-construction process. Data reveal that regular network partner
meetings were an essential component to bringing the collective efforts of
stakeholders together to create a shared knowledge on which entities can draw to
make the necessary changes in the reform process. Interviews from community
based-organization members provide insights about the role of dialogue in the co-
construction process contending “even though you have formal agreements you still
need real face time to meet and talk while engaging in the complex task of co-
constructing [a] partnership.” Another university professor elaborates, saying that
getting a network partner to work as a member of a collective body is, “kind of like
giving birth and GEP has the DNA of all of us but we’re not the same.” It takes time
for entities to understand one another and coalesce in order to pursue educational
transformation.
At a GEP retreat teachers and staff requested that the network partners have a
more visible presence on campus and interact with Legacy High School students and
staff. A community based organization member commented that his busy schedule
does not allow for a consistent presence on campus to send a message and his lack
thereof did not mean that he was not working behind the scenes on behalf of the
partnership (e.g., fundraising and networking). A large number of school staff
appeared to appreciate the explanation, but expressed the value of investing the time
and having a visible presence on campus. At a follow up transition team meeting the
issues was referenced again when another member of the same community based
organization stated “I am trying to engage and get my colleagues on campus, to
130
[build] relationships despite their busy schedules.” That agent began to work with
members of the transition team to calendar dates where the leadership from that
particular community based organization could come to campus, visit classrooms,
have lunch with students and staff, and attend the next transition team meeting.
Providing time to build relationships among stakeholders requires patience because
the desired results are intended to be life-long and transformational.
The GEP is in the process of co-constructing a partnership that utilizes
dialogue to promote collaborative relationships able to overcome barriers to
engagement. The next section will examine the barriers to co-constructing a
partnership encountered by GEP followed by the strategies used to mediate them.
Research Sub-Question 1a: Persistent Barriers
The response to the first research questions provided findings to capture the
principles at work as the Greater Educational Partnership engages in the process of
co-constructing a viable network partnership. To examine the obstacles to co-
constructing a network partnership the first sub-question asks, “What are the
persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among communities, K-12 schools,
and universities that seek to transform urban schools?” Greater Educational
Partnership has encountered an array of challenges in its first year of operation. The
findings presented below reveal the persistent barriers encountered in this union that
have the potential to derail co-construction and a successful partnership. Data reveal
that the most salient barriers to co-construction are a history of mistrust, the absence
131
of systems and structures for communication, and hierarchical power structures.
Each barrier will be explored in the section below.
Persistent Mistrust
Findings from interviews, observations, and artifacts reveal a history of
tension between the local district and the Legacy High School community (the
school staff, parents, and local community members) as a barrier to co-constructing
this partnership. A community member provides insight on why some of the tension
exists with the district. The community member characterized Legacy High School
as a “school in crisis striving to overcome Herculean challenges … [yet it continues
to struggle because] it has been a victim of benign neglect from the district.”
Teachers expressed distain toward the local district contending it has been “a bottle
neck to reform” inundating the school with an array of “disconnected initiatives” and
“random services many of which have been unsuccessful.” Parents share a
comparable perception asserting that the district has allowed the school to be used as
a “magnet” by organizations who have an imperative they want to see happen in
education “using the school to suit their own needs with no real emphasis on what
that means for the students here.” Data collected from interviews from Legacy High
School community reveal that they lack confidence in the districts’ ability to institute
effective reform and have constant speculation of all district policies and practices.
These feelings of distrust, to no fault of the GEP, were carried into the formation of
the network partnership. The school community had not chosen their network
partners; an institution they did not trust—the district, made the selection.
132
Commentary from a teacher presents this dilemma, “we voted for the network
partnership to bring stability, facilitation, and expertise to a situation where it is
lacking. There are real advantages to being connected to these organizations, we
can’t place everything negative at the feet of the network partnership; it’s just a by-
product of the process of how they [the district] brought us together."
Legacy High School was faced with limited options for reform—they could
join the high priority schools where reform would be dictated to the school or they
could join the newly formed innovations division that provided network partners and
actively participate in their own transformation. Interviews revealed that the
network partnership was voted in because the school staff and community believed
the innovative approach would, as one teacher commented, provide an opportunity to
“think outside of the box bringing needed changes to the school.” A parent’s
comment provides additional insight on why the vote passed contending they,
“pounded the pavement in the rain [in order to] break away from local district
control [to address reform issues facing students] from the people who know them
best.” Although local district personnel asserts, “they tried to make it obvious who
the school’s partners would be,” when the school staff and community discovered
the entities that would comprise the network partnership, they were not pleased with
local district’s choice.
Data from interviews expressed the surprise of the school staff, parents and
community when the district selected partners other than the ones with which the
school and community had already established relationships—with the Obama
133
Foundation and another University. The decision to exclude the community and
school staff members from the partner selection process fostered a sense of
powerlessness, as some perceived that “back door deals were made” as the district
made “very conscious and intentional pairings” without providing opportunities for
the school community to express their interests.
Interviews from faculty members confirm teachers’ expectations for a
different partner and likened their “unexpected” and “assigned” partner to being
“stuck in an arranged marriage” that you have to work through because you have no
choice. Interview commentary captures the tension behind what parents perceive to
be the covert actions of the GEP’s formation stating, “the way we found out about
who our network partners would be was through a small article in the back of the LA
Times, California section.” The parents in particular felt disrespected because they
voted for what they perceived would be an innovative approach to educational
reform that would empower them to work in collaborative relationships in which the
participants make decisions together. Commentary from a community member
reveals that being excluded from the selection process of choosing network partners
is not innovative change, but more of the same.
Data from interviews reveal that the network partners were aware of the
tension between the school community and the GEP. A university professor shared
in an interview, that if the school community had been able to select the partners at
least two of the entities would have been different because, “they hoped to partner
with University X, but the chancellor said, ‘no’.” A community-based organization
134
member, shared that the “school community didn’t want us. They wanted [the
Obama Foundation] so the district gave them that as an entrée for us into the school,
but they asked us to take the lead. It’s been a very, very rocky road. Lots of distrust
permeates and manifests itself in lots of different ways in a highly politicized
environment.” Data from interviews with the network partners reveal that as they
learned more about the school community they realized that the vote for the
partnership, “was more a vote not to be under the umbrella of the local district and
less a vote for GEP concepts”.
Lack of transparency and exclusion from the decision making process has
caused a strained relationship between the local district and the school community
yielding feelings of mistrust for going into the network partnership that would be
intensified in the development of the GEP. A history of tension within the district
sporadically united one group in the school community against another of the
network partners; consequently cynicism was pervasive within the school
community every time they tried to collaborate. The inability to resolve conflicts
efficiently and effectively further exacerbates those conflicts, which potentially
leads to a fragmented union or the partnerships’ demise. A barrier to co-construction
emerged early on in the process of forming the GEP, which planted a seed of
mistrust that would grow as the union encountered additional obstacles.
According to the Memorandum of Understanding, in order for the GEP to
enter a formal partnership with Legacy High School they would have to follow
district policy and generate a 501(c) (3) creating a non-profit public benefit
135
corporation. The tension surrounding the draft of this document presented a new
dilemma for the school community—for legal reasons the 501(c) (3) named the
Justice League, the University, and the Obama Foundation as founding partners with
the school; therefore, only members from those entities would be able to sit on the
governing board of the GEP. A university professor speculated that the tension
between the school community and the network partners was based on perceptions of
power as a result of being part of an organization able to occupy a GEP board seat.
She contended that her position on the board does not give her voice any more
weight; “it is equal to any audience member.” That perception is not shared among
the school community. At a GEP Board meeting, six months after the partnership
was underway, school staff, parents, and community members were visibly angry
about their exclusion from being named founding partners as well as excluded from
sitting on the GEP board. These stakeholders expressed frustration from having to
“repeatedly submit requests in writing” to be placed on the board agenda to address
this issue. The GEP Board Chair cited the GEP bylaws and the stipulations of the
501(c) (3) to explain why school staff, parents, and community members could not
occupy board seats at that time, and deferred further discussion on the issue to the
Ad Hoc meeting where expansion of the board could be addressed later. Although
disconcerted, the school staff, community members, and parents were persistent and
requested a copy of the 501(c) (3) for review to inform their discussion in the Ad
Hoc follow up meeting.
136
Parents expressed frustration because they believed their past efforts had
significantly contributed to bringing the partnership to Legacy High School, but their
efforts were not recognized. A parent explained the major obstacles to trust in the
network partnership stems from their “audacity” to exclude them as founding
partners,
I just feel like it's a slap in the face. So many of the parents are upset about
that because we worked so hard and we feel like they just lied to us. When I
think about a partnership, I’m thinking we’re all working on this together. I
know there were some back-door deals made, but still, if parents had not
pushed, we wouldn’t be here.

Data from teacher interviews reveal that there are undercurrents of animosity
among the faculty because the GEP presented the concept of being “equal partners
with the school, yet not one school staff member sits on the board. There’s a greater
burden of responsibility on the school than there is for the GEP because in the end
they can always walk away, but our life is here.” Data from community members
reveal equal frustration with the failed concept of a true network partnership pointing
out that the “vote for GEP happened a little over a year ago and to this date and there
is no board that has representation from all of its stakeholders—that’s a major
challenge to this partnership.” Co-constructing a partnership collaborating for change
is a complicated and ambiguous process that can easily be derailed when met with
repeated obstacles to engagement.
Excluding the school staff, parents, and community members as founding
members of GEP strained relationships among entities, but when the GEP was
perceived to be covertly hiring an Executive Director, strained relationships would
137
soon become contentious. The GEP has an Interim Executive Director, but the
founding board members believed the need to fill this position permanently was
pressing. A university professor shared that California University was “recruiting”
whom they believed to be “a prime candidate for this position” and invited the
community members and teachers to be a part of a preliminary interview panel. The
GEP Business Plan states that the network partners will establish a process of
collaboration among entities to set criteria for hiring, interviewing, and selecting
personnel. Interviews from the school community reveal that they were “appalled”
with what they perceived to be the “blatant disregard for collaboration” as they had
not co-constructed the process nor the criteria for screening multiple candidates.
Data revealed that community members were not even aware “a position was being
advertised.” Parents stated that they felt “blind sided” and as though [the] GEP had
already picked this person…but the ink hadn’t dried on the contract yet so we
[parents] put a stop to that.” This act caused more tension in the partnership.
Teachers contended, “when they [the GEP] do things like this, where decisions are
made at the higher level without us, it keeps making us distrust them more and
more.” Interviews revealed that entities felt that the decision to hire an executive was
not transparent which would cause more speculation among these agents, widening
the divide.
An attempt to rectify this blunder was met with more obstacles that
exacerbated perceptions of mistrust. Per the directive of the GEP Board President, a
draft of the job description for the Executive Director was to be written by an ad hoc
138
sub-committee consisting of the Dean of Education at California University and the
Senior Scholar at the Obama Foundation. The Dean, also a GEP Board member,
presented a draft of the job description at the next GEP Board meeting. The
presentation of the job description was fraught with tension and quickly degenerated
into a discussion on how a document that would directly impact the students, school
staff, and parents daily could have been crafted forgoing the process of co-
construction and on-going dialogue representing the perspectives of all stakeholders.
The Dean provided rationale for the document contending that the draft was just a
starting place and an opportunity for entities to engage in more dialogue about the
job description. Since time was of the essence, she completed the task. The Dean
explained that having a document as a point of departure for conversation so entities
could “tear it apart” would be better than the absence thereof and crafted the draft
knowing that potentially “they [the school community] would go nuts.”
The GEP Board president, apologized for the oversight and explained that the
request merely stemmed from the urgency to “generate a draft that could facilitate
hiring an Executive Director” with the intention to present the draft to the transition
team and community for review. School staff, parents, and community members
expressed discomfort, not for what was done, but with how it was done—employing
a process that negates the co-construction that stakeholders had been trying so hard
to build. A pattern of behavior that excludes the school staff, parents, and
community from the decision making process has made these entities skeptical about
all topics and decisions pertaining to the partnership. As a result it appears as though
139
there are two partnerships operating within the structure of GEP, the network
partners—community-based organizations and the University, and the school
agents—school staff, parents, and community members.
Hierarchical Structures
Another barrier to co-construction that seems to threaten the process of co-
construction is the perception among stakeholders that there is an imbalance of
power operating in the GEP stemming from bureaucracy and hierarchical structures.
Entities believe that the structural constraints imposed by the GEP ostracized some
agents, namely those who do not sit on the GEP Board, from the decision-making
process. According to community members, the partnership started off with
inequality and it has been an uphill battle to reestablish equal footing ever since.
Data from parent interviews reveal that these groups define partner differently. The
GEP has “to understand when you use the word partner, the partner does not come
from the front or from the back. Your partner is on the side with you making
decisions together.” A majority of teacher interviews revealed a perception among
staff that the bureaucratic constraints are just a means to exclude them from the
decision making process which has caused some of their colleagues to “disengage
from the partnership. Teachers don’t feel like an equal partner with an equal voice it.
It’s like someone is out there making the decisions and calling the shots with little
regard for the people on the campus.”
As stakeholders began to co-construct the partnership, another barrier they
encountered was a process of “gravitating toward a bureaucratic business model”
140
that adhered to legal documents to guide the unions development. At a GEP
transition team meeting, the school staff, parents, and community members
expressed disdain with the presentation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
outlining the bylaws and order of operation for the partnership. Community based
members agreed with school agents that, “the document is laced with legal jargon”
making it difficult to understand the content and to participate in the democratic
process of school reform. Over the course of several meetings, teachers, parents, and
community members requested “to go through the MOU line by line” to gain an
understanding of it, but six months into the partnership this collaborative venture had
not occurred. Limited knowledge of what the MOU outlines do not position
stakeholders to contribute their wisdom and engage as equals in processes of co-
construction, dialogue, and mutual shared learning.
An interview with a community-based organization member affirmed that
legalities prevent equal participation from all entities and as a result some agents’
voices are hindered by this restriction, which changes the dynamic of power as
entities engage in collaboration. GEP Board meetings operate under the guidelines
of the Brown Act, where items on the agenda have to be published in advance.
Members of the GEP Board, familiar with this protocol, recognized that for entities
not familiar with this practice it thwarted the “kind of spontaneous discussions with
which the school agents have become accustomed.” In a meeting, the Board’s
president commented “sometimes we’ll [the Board] have to make some hard
decisions to which the public is not always privy to. The legal communication
141
practices for which the partnership is held accountable appeared to agents as
‘oppressive management’ leaving them to feel as though they, traded one master
[local district] for another [GEP].” Stakeholders felt that the power to make
decisions lies in the purview of agents with status who have access to capital and
resources because those persons are the ones sitting on the GEP Board. Many agents
attributed these bureaucratic constraints to be a means to maintain hierarchical power
within GEP making the union appear to be a partnership for the school as opposed to
a partnership with the school.
In interviews, each stakeholder group was asked to present his or her
perspective on the power dynamics and structures operating in the GEP partnership.
Data from interviews reveal that the school community believes GEP is an entity
separate from them and holds the power as GEP participates in a business model
using systems and structures unfamiliar to parents, community members, and school
staff. As well, the school community is bound by legal documents they did not
create (e.g., Memorandum of Understanding and GEP Business Plan). Commentary
from parents captures the school community’s perception that they feel manipulated
into subordinate roles as the hierarchal structures, gleaned from legal documents, are
imposed upon them:
The very first mistake that caused mistrust is when they left the parents out of
the partnership. On a technicality (I don’t care what it was) it still sits very
badly with me because we worked for hours on hours on how to reform this
school. Had the parents of the [Courage Coalition] not gotten together and
said we wanted reform, our partnership as we know it, GEP would not exist.
And what do they do? They form a partnership and leave us completely out
of the loop. That’s not good.
142

By contrast, interviews from the network partners affirm that the school
community has a firm power stance, as they are able to galvanize their union to
collectively “push back,” disengaging from the collaborative process when “they feel
violated.” One university professor explained that there is a perception that “higher
educational institutions have the power and they do not want to share it. In reality
[the school community] has a lot of power, and our ability to be involved is only to
the extent we can persuade them to let us in.” A community based organization
member explained the irony behind the misconception that the power dynamic lies in
their organization, when the Cougar Coalition, empowered before the GEP, is “still
very powerful.” Data from network partners interviews revealed that “the school
community is unforgiving” and the “back lash of making a mistake makes it difficult
to move forward.” Another community based organization member commented that
the school community, “has no problem rejecting resources and services as a means
to push back or exercise influence. It’s like being on an airplane. We have to put the
oxygen mask on adults first and deal with the issues around mistrust. As we work
through those, we can be much more intentional about kids.” The network partners
want GEP to be successful and data reveal that everyone has a different perception of
where the power lies, but all agree that the ramifications for the students or the
institutions if this high profile venture were to fail are huge.
Absence of Systems and Structures For Communication
Another emerging barrier is the absence of systems and structures for
143
communication extending information beyond those who directly participate in the
GEP meetings. Interview responses from the school community attributed “lack of
communication” and “poor outreach” as the major obstacles facing the partnership.
Presently, the GEP is criticized among stakeholders for not having formal structures
to disseminate information and expand participation. At one GEP Board meeting,
parents expressed concerns of alienating the community and requested support to
increase awareness about the partnership via a web page, newsletter, emails, or
distribution of minutes, yet they lacked the systems, structures and resources to
convey information. The inability to effectively disseminate information is a source
of tension for representatives who want to communicate what is happening to
constituents who are unable to attend the meetings.
At a GEP retreat, community members asserted that they needed a “user
friendly website to demystify what’s happening with GEP and Legacy High School.”
Not being able to update the community on the goals, challenges, progress, and
accomplishments of the partnership was expressed as “frustrating” and “keeps our
work in a vacuum.” At a transition team meeting, teachers expressed concern about
a growing divide emerging among their colleagues separating those in favor from
those in opposition to the partnership contending, “most of the resistance [is derived]
from miscommunication and misinformation.” This dichotomy stemmed from the
absence of structures to convey what was actually happening in the partnership as
opposed to what people perceive to be happening in the partnership. The lack of
resources to effectively communicate did not position teacher representatives to
144
share information and engage in dialogue as a means to clarify “breeding
misperception” and “change negative perceptions.” Entities agreed that there is a
“huge problematic void” in written communication, which is detrimental to sharing
the work of the smaller groups with larger groups. Consistent requests for effective
communication revealed that the current systems and structures for communication
are either non-existent or not working to advance the goals of the partnership. School
staff, parents, and community members feel as though they are “left out of the loop”
which has caused these entities to be more skeptical as they try to engage in the co-
construction process.
Another persistent barrier was developing an infrastructure to accommodate
the Greater Educational Partnership that coalesces the knowledge, expertise, and
resources of three separate and unique entities in a school structure that did not exist
before. Interviews reveal that the school community was skeptical about the
partnership and was eager to see more tangible results from the union. One
community-based organization member rationalized the timely nature of the GEP’s
goals by stating that devising a “plan to synergize these entities has been a challenge;
so we have to make it up as we go along.” Developing a rare tri-partnership of this
magnitude to institute the caliber of educational reform needed for Legacy High
School takes time. No model of the unique aspects of this union exists; it has neither
a blue print to follow nor a design pattern to emulate. A university professor
explained that change as an iterative process is often missing those internal systems
and structures which enable it to operate and function as a cohesive unit. These
145
systems and structures often emerge out of need as stakeholders engage in the work.
Trying to co-construct an infrastructure to build capacity for partners to collaborate
while simultaneously developing an external structure so that the partnership can
accomplish the goals of the union is a source of tension for stakeholders.
The absence of pre-established systems and structures for entities to work
among themselves and within the school structure has created perceptions of
organizational incoherence within the GEP partnership. At a transition team
meeting, entities reflected the difficulty of trying to co-construct structures while
trying to meet other goals of the partnership, commenting that it is equivalent to
building a plane and flying it at the same time. Administrators posited that entities
are in a “learning mode” by describing the process of co-construction as being “kind
of sluggish” in producing the outcomes stakeholders were expecting from the
partnership. One community member posited, co-construction is a slow process, but
can be rewarding provided attention is given to “how we design our way forward
mapping out how everyone fits to complement one another’s work.” The GEP
transition team is in the process of building systems and structures to promote
dialogue, but because the method employed is time-consuming not all of the systems
and structures have been developed and put in place. This lack of fully operating
systems and structures have placed limitations on the GEP’s ability to enact on-going
communication as a means to keep entities informed of the partnership’s work and
expand participation.
Teacher interviews posited that there is a “historic situation” of distrust for
146
any reform brought to Legacy High School, so in order to promote “buy in” from the
staff and community, communication will have to be “transparent and provide a
comprehensive understanding of GEP’s plans by getting information out to the
public.” While the GEP strives to build systems and structures for communication,
school staff, parents, and community members consistently agreed that they are
“unclear of the partnership’s goals.” This lack of clarity had entities inquiring about
the roles and responsibilities of the University and community-based organizations,
as they were not meeting the expectations for the school staff, parents and
community members. Division of this nature was magnified at the GEP retreat when
stakeholders requested clarification of the partnership’s goals, roles, and
responsibility as well as documentation “making everything open to the public so
that everyone is aware of what is going on.”
Data reveal that the absence of systems and structures for communication is a
barrier that thwarts participation, collaboration and stifles productivity. Co-
constructing a partnership among diverse entities is a multi-faceted task and
encountering barriers are inherent in the process. Nonetheless, as strategies were
employed, the potential to overcome barriers to communication, cohesion, and
engagement looked promising.
Research Sub-Question 1b: Strategies to Overcome Barriers
The first sub-question presented the barriers to co-construction encountered
thus far. The next sub-questions asks, “What are some effective strategies that have
the potential for overcoming barriers in co-constructing partnerships among
147
communities, schools, and universities for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban
schools?” At some point in time all partnerships experience obstacles to engagement
that hold the potential to dismantle the union or disrupt productivity; however,
partnerships that employ strategies at the outset to overcome barriers sustain
themselves and accomplish the goals of the union. Data from observations and
interviews demonstrated that dialogue had the capacity to mediate barriers and
engage participants in the process of mutual shared learning. Dialogue advanced the
partnership toward relationships that enabled stakeholders to co-construct the
partnership. GEP created a space for dialogue, engendering collaboration and
capitalizing on the skills and knowledge of critical bridge persons, chipped away at
the hierarchical structures and other barriers to engagement. Each strategy will be
explored in the section below.
History
Data from multiple stakeholder interviews revealed that the history of events
prior to the formation of GEP empowered the school community and created a
culture of collaborative relationships among some of the school staff, community
members and parents. The teachers interviewed explained that collaborative
relationships were a reaction to the lapse of accreditation for Legacy High School as
it was “a wake up call that allowed enough attention to be focused on the school to
bring in the resources needed to actually cause change.” Data from teacher
interviews also revealed that the school realized, it alone, could not address all of the
students’ needs and they were open to support. Community members commented
148
that educating Legacy’s students “requires more than just academics,” but rather
“attention to the social and emotional issues that are often a determinant to learning.”
These complex issues warranted a solution model; so Legacy High School staff
reached out to the community for support and formed the Courage Coalition, a
collaboration among school staff, parents, community members and a community-
based organization.
Five years prior to the formation of the GEP, the Courage Coalition worked
under the guidance of the Obama Foundation to “catalyze autonomy” among the
parents and school staff so that they could be empowered and take responsibility for
creating an effective learning environment for Legacy’s students. The Courage
Coalition has met weekly since 2005 and attributes their success to the “degree of
unity and coherence” of their union to a model that maintains a high level of integrity
and honesty.” Administrator interviews revealed that the history of the Obama
Foundation’s “welcomed presence” on campus, as a result of a successful
collaborative relationship with the school staff and parents, “laid the foundation” for
GEP’s ability today to engage in a co-constructed partnership. The history of
successful union via the Courage Coalition gives the GEP some perspective about
the culture of the school and collaborative experiences that they can be build upon.
Uniting all three entities as equal partners in the Greater Educational
Partnership has been a challenge, but an overwhelming response from the school
staff and parents believe that their presence on campus is “very much needed despite
the difficulties encountered thus far.” While the school staff and community
149
members, and parents continuously strive to understand the dynamics of co-
construction as a process to form a viable partnership, past collaborative experiences
made them ready to work in a “strategic alliance among all entities” to meet the
pressing demands of educational reform. While the Business Plan specifies that co-
construction is the means by which the partnership will form, interviews from all
stakeholder groups asserted, “we’re not there yet” which indicates that agents
maintain hope as they engage in the elusive and complex work of collaboration.
The Calendar of Events document for the Great Educational Partnership
revealed on-going opportunities for key stakeholders to meet and discuss issues of
central importance to the partnership as well as the academic performance of
students. When asked what characteristics would increase longevity or make the
GEP more effective, the overwhelming response from interviewees was the inclusion
of all stakeholders in regular meetings that enabled them to co-construct the reform
of Legacy High School. The rosters and minutes from GEP Board meetings,
retreats, small learning communities, and transition team meetings revealed
consistent involvement of stakeholders who have been meeting on a regular basis
since the formation of each group. So despite barriers that have presented obstacles
to engagement, steady attendance indicates that entities trust the process of co-
construction and maintain hope that this union will successfully reform Legacy High
School.
Interviews reveal that when barriers arise, partners are using a reflection on
their history as a pro-active strategy constantly reminding one another about the
150
tumultuous relationship with the local district prior to the GEP. The district’s
inability to help Legacy reform on its own is a common perception shared by all
entities and seemed to be a philosophical underpinning of the partnership that brings
everyone back to a common ground when challenges emerge. A teacher reflecting on
threat of loss of accreditation commented that in order to “cure the institutional
illness [plaguing Legacy] the right people have to be in the room to talk about it. The
process can be painful, but it allows healing to happen and the whole institution
needs to heal.” A university professor explained that Legacy is a high school with
“decades of neglect and is in need of a lot of changes. Change isn’t easy; it’s a lot of
hard work that requires a network of support. Desire isn't everything. [Legacy] didn’t
get this way overnight and won’t get fixed overnight.” Overwhelming responses
from interviews indicate that entities appreciate and believe in co-construction as a
process for effective reform. The GEP partnership regularly engages in dialogue to
co-construct the kind of changes that can bring in real reform.
The GEP has certainly encountered some missteps in its first year of
formation, but they have been resilient resolving potential barriers by co-constructing
solutions as a means not to alienate partners, but to learn from mistakes and move
forward. When entities expressed disdain that they could not be founding members
of the GEP, they engaged in dialogue to explore the possibilities of expanding the
Board to include representatives from all stakeholder groups who were initially
excluded—parents, community members, and school staff. Also, the school staff
and parents were disgruntled with the process to select and hire the Executive
151
Director for GEP, entities collaborated in dialogue and came to consensus that an ad
hoc committee of the transition team would revise the job description and make
recommendations to the board for the hiring criteria. The GEP is learning from its
own history and striving to make decisions that are more inclusive and transparent in
order to strategically remove and avoid barriers to co-constructing a successful
partnership.
Educational equity reform calls for all stakeholders to work alongside one
another in community, genuinely collaborating and working productively to resolve
issues of social injustice and form democratic schools. Interview commentary from
a community member captured this concept as the person reflected on co-
construction, stating, “sometimes it’s helpful to begin with a blank slate. If we need
to build the school from the ground up perhaps we participate in some imagination
exercises where we’re sitting around the table talking about the ideal high schools for
[Legacy students].” Dialogue, a critical component in building collaborative
relationships that yields transformative outcomes will be explored next.
Dialogue
Once entities of the GEP committed to the process of co-construction,
dialogue emerged as a key strategy to build collaborative relationships and mutual
trust enabling entities to accomplish the union’s goals. Their actions conformed to
the tenets of dialogue, which is defined as engaging people in the exchange of ideas,
experience, and knowledge for the purpose of creating shared meaning. It was clear
that co-construction and dialogue are inextricably linked, as the dialogue challenged
152
entities to make meaning from their reality and use knowledge gleaned to execute
necessary changes. As stakeholders participated in this process, collaborative
relationships and trust were cultivated, leading to a partnership capable of pursuing
and enacting reform.
The Greater Educational Partnership is in the process of co-constructing a
partnership that is emerging primarily because entities perceive that dialogue
strengthens and empowers the partnership to remove obstacles that prevent
collaboration. Data collected from interviews revealed that dialogue is the key
strategy working to bridge the divide among entities and build a more cohesive union
of collaborative relationships that are shaping the culture of the partnership and in
turn, the school. Since the formation of the partnership entities have engaged in
dialogue to co-construct what the partnership should and could look like. Although
some entities were initially dissatisfied with the process employed to bring partners
into the network partnership, overall the presence of the GEP is gaining favor as the
partnership evolves. Interviews from the school community reveal perceptions that
the GEP is in the process of becoming a more “approachable entity” as it now
“makes a more intentional effort to consistently extend” an invitation to voice
opinions that are “often respected.” Interviews from the network partners reveal how
powerful dialogue has been to repair relationships observing that as partners engage
in the “manifestation of dialogue” it is “easing the tensions of the past” so that focus
can be on the “real work that lies ahead.” Employing dialogue as a strategy to
overcome a history of strained relationships by engaging in co-constructing a
153
collaborative partnership is working well as it is drastically different from what the
school community encountered when trying to work with the local district.
As a means to evolve from a history of mistrust and strained relationships,
GEP employed the process of co-construction through dialogue in a variety of
meetings—retreats, transition team, and small learning communities. The transition
team in particular, brings stakeholder groups together and data from the interviews
describes them as “collaboration opportunities that are mutually beneficial” where
representatives “really listen” to identify and resolve issues that impact the
partnership and the school. A community member reflected, “dialogue is a powerful
tool that cannot go unrecognized because it facilitates our understanding of the
existing school culture as we create our own.” According to community-based
organizations, GEP’s decision to use dialogue was essential to build relationships
and share knowledge so that, “reform is constructed around actual needs and not
perceived needs of the school.” This reflective practice of dialogue enables entities
to see that they all have parts of the answer and through collaboration they can co-
construct solutions.
Space for Dialogue
A space for dialogue was employed to overcome the perceived power
dynamics and other obstacles to engagement inherent in forming a partnership of this
magnitude. A community based organization member posits, “anytime you try to
establish full and open relationships for reform, hesitation on the part of those
engaged in the process will occur.” Coalescing multiple entities to form one union,
154
the GEP, necessitates that there are sufficient, “avenues to hear different perspectives
and solicit voices equally” to understand the dynamics of the problem and cull all
efforts to resolve it. Consequently, a space for dialogue that provides entities an
arena to grapple with concepts that arise and engage in conversations as a means to
develop solutions is the strategy employed by the GEP to combat communication
challenges and preserve the productivity of the partnership.
The GEP’s Calendar of Events revealed a schedule sequencing quarterly,
monthly, and weekly meeting which provide multiple opportunities for entities to
engage in dialogue. Community members assert, there is space to “make [a positive]
thing happen” as the norms outlining the goals and objectives for the meeting enable
people to “put egos aside and not let personal values interfere with what is good for
the partnership and kids.” The GEP meetings are gaining a reputation among the
school community as being a productive space for “healthy confrontation to generate
solutions as a group.” The GEP meetings are reported as not being dominated by
any one entity, but rather the structure, co-constructed by the group at the outset, is
one that strategically employs the expertise of all entities. At one GEP board
meeting in particular, participants were observed to be displeased with the structure
stating it was, “too confining to express ideas.” Entities took time to refine it by
soliciting ways to enhance communication. Although it took time to develop a
process and come to consensus so that they could employ that method from that
meeting forward, that structure which was developed empowered entities to
collaborate better in that meeting and the ones that followed. A university professor
155
commented that this co-constructed practice, “changed the tenor of adult interaction
making it more civil and respectful” which in turn transformed commentary among
partners to see themselves now as a part of the GEP using the verbiage of “us and
we” as opposed to a separate entity using “you and them.”
In order for dialogue to transpire, stakeholders had to listen to one another in
pursuit of shared meaning that would enlarge or change participant perceptions and
yield transformative outcomes. Data from an observation of a GEP retreat revealed a
consistent pattern synthesized from the responses of each stakeholder group, “if we
can improve communication, internally and externally, we can improve the
partnership.” The retreat gave entities time and space to dialogue and the school
community were able to reveal some of the challenges they have with the network
partnership—feelings of mistrust, lack of transparency in decision-making, and
inadequate structures for communication.
Through dialogue entities were able to listen to the issues presented to arrive
at a shared understanding, which empowered them to co-construct a resolution
generating a document to communicate the progress and changes that the GEP has
implemented at Legacy High School. Shortly after the retreat a GEP Fact Sheet:
Major Contributions and Success at LHS was published accompanied with a Letter
from the GEP Board Chair responding to many of the concerns brought to light by
stakeholders at the retreat. Employing the space for dialogue, empowered partners
address issues and move forward and thus preserve collaborative relationships so that
the partnership can continue to co-construct “great outcomes that will reform Legacy
156
High School and help kids.” The school community is beginning to recognize the
strengths of the network partners and the potential for reform as entities collaborate.
Dialogue has helped entities view this network partnership from an asset model,
which is capable of promoting change as opposed to viewing the partnership from
the deficit model, which stifles productivity.
Critical Bridge Person
An effective strategy to preserve the longevity of partnerships and mediate
barriers that arise is the presence of a critical bridge person, an individual who can
serve as a broker within a partnership to create horizontal relationships where power
is equally distributed among agents. Data from interviews identify the
characteristics of the critical bridge person as someone who is a “boundary spanner,”
“credible agent,” “well connected within their institution” and “understands other
institutions.” These characteristics have been identified in several key persons
whom the stakeholders envision as essential to redistributing power and establishing
equality with the partnership. A community-based organization member whose
history with the school precedes the GEP was identified as a “critical agent [bridge]”
person because he “advocates for change” and was referenced by several
stakeholders as the “social consciousness of the GEP entity.” This community-based
member, also a University professor, was observed in meetings engaging in or
guiding processes of dialogue and mutual shared learning as strategies to mediate
hierarchical structures and establish equal power as a means to build collaborative
relationships.
157
Data from interviews reveal that when the GEP was first voted in, there was a
“vortex of activities” surrounding the presence of these organizations on campus. As
“entities tried to enter the school to pursue their own agendas,” another critical
bridge person from the Obama Foundation emerged and was instrumental to the
process of bringing people together “validating the integrity and good intentions” of
who would become GEP’s Interim Executive Director. Data from an interview with
a community-based member revealed that because the critical bridge person from the
Obama foundation had a rapport and preexisting relationship with the community
and school, he was able to transfer trust and usher in an Interim Executive Director.
This gesture gave her the credibility she would need, according to an interview with
a teacher, to “pick up and move forward swiftly and with ease.” Since then, school
agents and community members have noted a dramatic turn around in the way this
agent works with the school to leverage resources, services, and tap into expertise
among network partners.
One community-based organization member reflected that the Interim
Executive Director was critical in moving GEP forward and was respected by all
institutions because she was a university professor, a former superintendent in the
district, and a resident of the community. She had educated her children in
neighborhood schools, and her husband was a pastor of a church near the residential
area of the school. These professional and personal experiences empowered her with
the kind of capital that could interface with a variety of organizations culling the best
out of each to work in favor of the GEP and educational transformation for Legacy
158
High School. Data reveal a consistent pattern in the interviews from all entities that
in this critical stage of the GEP’s development, if this particular interim Executive
Director were not in that position the partnership would not be operating here today.
An interview with the President of the Courage Coalition identified the Interim
Executive Director as the “face of [the GEP] and the gel that holds all of the network
partners together.”
Redistributing power so that entities interact equally with one another
requires skill. The Interim Executive Director has been observed displaying what
interviews from the school community confirm as “phenomenal leadership” within
the GEP partnership and “her infusion of energy has made a visible change on
campus as she’s talking to a parent, disciplining a kid, and giving a hug to a teacher.”
Personnel from the district office commented in an interview that the “capital [the
Interim Executive Director] brings to the school is like no other, but like any
charismatic leader there is a growing fear of what will happen when she leaves.”
Data from interviews supported that same idea expressing concern among entities
when and if she were to leave the partnership. While there are several persons
identified as critical bridge persons, none was referenced or revered as much as the
Interim Executive Director, which raises the question, “When is a critical bridge
person, too critical to the life and longevity of an institution?” The critical bridge
person commented that the role she played in this partnership is somewhat different
from the one she would have played under different circumstances because of the
urgency created by a short timeline to meet WASC requirements to avoid loss of
159
accreditation. In 2008, Legacy High School regained accreditation from WASC, but
was still facing a series of WASC visits to secure and extend the accreditation.
Mutual Shared Learning
The partnership engaged in the supporting processes of dialogue through
which shared knowledge emerged. The mutual shared learning was a process where
multiple stakeholders were cognitively and socially engaged for the purpose of
creating a shared body of knowledge. GEP is an interesting mix of organizations
coming together to service a school, and according to the Business Plan, in theory, its
design should be a symbiotic relationship where entities are able to blend as well as
flow in and out of one another. One community based organization member stated
that, through the process of mutual shared learning among agents of the GEP, “a
collective ownership of the union and outcomes can occur; there are an inordinate
amount of resources and expertise available to help reform [Legacy High School.]”
Entities of GEP are in the early stages of learning how to collaborate and utilize the
strengths and assets of the network partners. Data from observations reveal a
willingness among entities to participate as stakeholders are immersed in cognitive
processes to obtain knowledge and ask clarifying questions of partners to become
clear on the strengths of the various entitites. They are still learning how all these
assets can benefit the collective partnership.
Through dialogue stakeholders are gaining an understanding and respect for
the GEP’s potential to bring successful educational reform to Legacy High School.
Several stakeholders perceive the GEP as an “agile learning organization”
160
positioning partners to take a comprehensive look at what it takes to move learning
forward within the partnership and in turn the school. One community-based
organization member asserts that partnerships need to be agile in order to sustain
themselves in times of change and use the collective wisdom of the group to grow in
the midst of it. As an organization, the GEP is in the interim stages of capitalizing
on the various entities’ funds of knowledge gleaned from dialogue to pursue
necessary changes and yield transformative outcomes.
Data from interviews reveal that the GEP has been collaborating to create
systems and structures to support a culture of academic success and college readiness
for all students at Legacy High School. During an interview, a counselor shared that
the small learning communities co-constructed by the GEP have provided more
equitable learning experiences and have created a “big impact on making sure
students know they have options after they leave here. We’re coming up with five
statements that characterize a college [readiness] student that we can incorporate in
the 9
th
grade house and continue on to the 10
th
, 11
th
, and 12
th
grade house.” She
explained part of the aim of the small learning communities is to build better student-
teacher relationships to reverse patterns of failure and disinterest in the learning
environment. Data from the SLC Impact Report revealed that teachers are given
time to collaborate on “designing a culturally relevant and rigorous standards-based
curriculum” to make sure that all students have equal access to meeting A-G
requirements and college readiness opportunities as well. The school wide structure
161
of the small learning communities provides a network of support to improve
students’ academic success systemically.
Each entity shared capital to take a comprehensive look at what impacts
student achievement providing insight on effective teaching and learning. Entities
were then able to co-construct a network of support to build greater capacity for
quality instruction and standards based curriculum as a means to ensure students are
college ready, although as quoted by the WASC Visiting Committee, these efforts
are in their infancy stage. Using the collective knowledge of the GEP, entities
designed school-wide college events i.e., focused on building small learning
communities, mentoring support services, materials, etc. instituting systems and
structures to transform the culture of the campus. Through this process the
stakeholders were both constructing knowledge by learning from one another, but
also contesting one another’s prior knowledge.
Community members believe that stakeholders are beginning to understand
each partner’s culture “suspending certainty and entering a space [for dialogue] to
figure out” how to effectively use resources and assets to meet the goals of the
partnership. The school staff, parents, and community members were observed in
the GEP meetings using educational vocabulary and concepts with ease in
conversations about effective teaching and learning practices and the extent to which
they exist in Legacy’s classrooms. In follow up interviews parents and community
members shared that using vocabulary in context empowered them to participate in
conversations as equals and make appropriate decisions based on “really
162
understanding what students and teachers need to be successful.” Parents and
community members stated that they acquired this knowledge from engaging in the
processes of dialogue which fostered mutual shared learning.
Engaging in the process of mutual shared learning empowered entities to co-
construct and ignite reform for Legacy High School teachers—a process that is
attributed to passing a critical test toward regaining full WASC accreditation. While
the GEP has had its challenges, the school staff believes that the partnership is
needed and has been an asset. It was stated “when they [accreditation team] came
out, they saw a different school.” The person went on to say “we’ve [the GEP]
created a door that we can now walk through to go where we need to go as a
community.” Through co-construction, dialogue, and mutual shared learning,
stakeholders are beginning to see themselves as a collective group working on
transformation as opposed to separate entities merely co-existing.
The University professors and community-based organization members are in
the process of helping community members, parents, and school staff see the bigger
picture of the GEP’s impact on educational reform. Through mutual shared learning,
this tri-partnership’s impact on reform is not limited to the school, but has the
potential to affect other aspects of the community as well. The GEP Business Plan
reveals aspirations to take the concepts developed within and for the school and
extend them into the community. This can only occur if the union is successful and
mutual shared learning empowers agents to take capital gained from the partnership
back into individual institutions and the community. A discussion at a GEP meeting
163
asked agents to consider the “scope of their work with the school as its hub to
transform the entire neighborhood into a learning community engaging other
institutions in similar effective processes.” Co-constructing a highly functional
viable tri-partnership is an innovative concept that has the potential to yield
transformative outcomes. As one community-based organization member reflects,
“imagine the dynamic of seeing Legacy get so powerful that it attracts students to it,
but imagine the continued dynamic of now taking that whole learning process to feed
it right back into the community to improve businesses and promote
entrepreneurship.” Data collected from interviews reveal that the Greater
Educational Partnership agents are beginning to understand the larger ramifications
of their work.
Research Question #2: Attributes that Lead to a New Cultural Model
Findings from the first question presented data to reveal important aspects of
the GEP as it is in the process of co-constructing a partnership. The findings also
revealed the barriers encountered and the strategies employed to overcome them.
The findings presented the degree to which the stakeholders engaged in dialogue to
address rising concerns and how through mutual shared learning entities were able to
maintain collaboration. The second question explores the emerging attributes of the
partnership thus far, asking, “What attributes of a partnership are capable of
creating a New Cultural Model in urban schools, result from the process of co-
constructing a Community, Schools, and University partnership with the intent to
transform a K-12 school?”
164
The Greater Educational Partnership (GEP) proposed a new core competency
of building partnerships by bringing together high profile organizations, with their
own distinct identities and cultures, to join a network partnership committed to the
educational reform of an urban high school. One agent described the co-construction
process used to form this tri-partnership as reminiscent of a “Hollywood Model that
begins with an idea. You invite investors, pull together resources to create the
product, broadcast and disseminate it, create residuals, and then entities kind of find
their own way.” While the process of co-construction is an innovative reform model,
its success is measured by characteristics derived from the union that enable entities
to create transformative outcomes. Despite the challenges encountered in the first
year of implementation, the Greater Educational Partnership has produced favorable
attributes that include collaborative relationships and cultivation of institutional
agents, are indicators of a new cultural model that can promote a college going
culture.
Collaborative Relationships
The cultural model set by dialogic collaborative relationships co-constructed
among the tri-partnerships is a cultural model that can be replicated in school settings
to improve student achievement and prepare minority youth for college. One
attribute gained from the network partnership through the process of co-construction
was a number of collaborative relationships among entities who, through dialogue
were striving to achieve the goals of the partnership. The GEP Business Plan
indicates that the “ultimate goal” of the union is to “establish a record of graduating
165
every student” as well as “ensure that each person is prepared to go to college.”
According to the Business Plan, the GEP co-constructed a series of ongoing process
goals for all students ranging from “implementing a rigorous standards-based
curriculum” to “meeting A-G graduation requirements” and engaging network
partners in “shaping the culture and goals of the school.” While the goals were clear,
increased graduation and college readiness rates, existing structures and a historic
presence of significant gaps in academic achievement would require network
partners to cull the skills, knowledge, and expertise of all stakeholders to address the
learning needs in the secondary setting as a means to prepare students for post-
secondary education.
Data from teacher interviews reveal that collaboration is a favorable approach
because there were “certain things we just didn’t have the capacity to do and now the
partners can help us with that—they can open some of the doors we can’t alone.” As
stakeholders engage in the process of collaborative dialogue they are beginning to
trust one another’s expertise and resources to meet the goals of the partnership. Data
from the SLC Impact Report revealed details about the new structure and operating
system by which the school now functions. This report, co-constructed with the GEP,
outlined how network partners and the school community would collaborate to
provide a personalized learning environment to improve student achievement. The
SLC Impact Report was the result of several meetings involving up to 35-40 teachers
at various times working together to achieve a major feat of instituting wall-to-wall
small learning communities as a means of transforming LHS.
166
Data from observations revealed both the school community and network
partners recognize that they are sitting among stakeholders with diverse expertise
and knowledge which could be used to find “the right solutions” to the challenges
that have been facing attempts at reform at Legacy High School for the “last twenty
years or so.” The hope for change in the current conditions of the school and
community are driving agents to the desire to collaborate and co-construct
educational reform. A community based organization member posits, “entities know
what they’re up against; the system is not working to educate students; [there is more
patience among us as we try] and figure this thing out.” Network partners are
beginning to define the nature of the work and what is needed to enact reform so that
stakeholders can build capital to appropriate it where necessary.
Data from the GEP Business Plan, outlines what each entity brings of value
as assets to the collective work of the network partnership to obtain educational
transformation. The community-based organizations bring significant assets in
economics, social equity, and civic harmony (i.e., access to financial resources and
foundations, other community organizations, knowledge of the community, and
opportunities for mentoring and internships). California University, ranked among
the top 1 percent of all universities, brings academic assets to the partnership (i.e.,
subject-specific content knowledge in multiple areas, pedagogical knowledge, and
research in fields that affect the status of public education). The school community,
parents, community members, and teachers’ transformative capital, bring socio
cultural assets to the partnership (i.e., cultural relevance, historical background and
167
community experiences) as well as pedagogical knowledge gained through years of
experience in this particular school.
While each entity within the partnership has its own unique culture, a new-
shared culture was found in the process of co-construction through collaborative
relationships. The GEP Business Plan specifies each entity’s contribution to this
network union, but through the process of dialogue and mutual shared learning, they
have opted to forgo particular interest in an effort to assume the collective interests
of GEP. Entities attribute the process of dialogue reflecting on “alarming data” and
mutual shared learning “walking into meetings not fully understanding the dynamics
of the [Legacy] students and out realizing our struggle” as the reason for this shifting
mentality and greater reliance on one another. The teachers perceive that the
partnership is a “valuable collaboration” that is “enriching the lives of the students
and the school community” because “student achievement is not going to change
unless we have a socio-cultural focus on the child.” Collaborative relationships built
in the partnership are fostering a culture of collaboration among colleagues on
campus, and in turn, they are cultivating better teacher-student relationships. One
teacher posits, “Now I can sit down with students and help them figure out what is
needed. If I can’t help them, I know someone else who can. Before, personally, I
could not do that.” Overall, entities believe that the partnership is mutually
beneficial and trust is growing within their collaborative relationships. Bringing
closure to one of the GEP transition team meetings, the Chair shared his perspective
on the collaborative work of the partnership, “you have to imagine something
168
different and be driven to work toward that goal together, which means everyone is
pulling the wagon together.” With collaborative relationships now in place,
stakeholders are entering the early stages of co-constructing the design and
implementation of systems and structures to bring about effective reform and meet
the college readiness goals of the partnership.
Institutional Agents
Another emerging attribute of the partnership is the cultivation of
institutional agents within each entity that, through collaborative dialogue and
mutual shared learning, is gaining the capital to foster a college readiness culture.
Data from the SLC Impact Report, reveal a benefit of organizing LHS into small
learning communities is to, “ensure equitable access to a rigorous standards-based
curriculum as well as adult agents to ensure that every student graduates prepared for
postsecondary education, meaningful careers, and civic engagement.” As
stakeholders engage in dialogue within the network partnership to define what it
means to be a scholar and what is needed to build capacity to support students, they
position themselves to affirm knowledge in the school setting via the structures,
systems, and programs design for students. Data collected from observations
revealed discussions among agents about effective teaching and learning as it
pertains to closing gaps in students’ academic performance and preparing students
for college. This shared knowledge is helping agents to define “scholarly behavior”
and infiltrating every aspect of the school. An array of adult agents is engaging
169
students in conversations about future college plans inquiring how their behavior as
scholars contributes to the fulfillment of those goals.
This process has also empowered stakeholders to help teachers become
reflective practitioners by considering how they can support students to prepare for
college. A community-based organization member reflecting on the scope of work
needed to transform Legacy High School so that declarations align with data stated,
“ultimately you cannot increase student achievement unless you have a socio-
cultural focus on the child” [in the same vein] “you cannot say you are preparing
students for college and have 60% of the 9
th
grade students failing Algebra.” These
practices are causing stakeholders to take a close look at how to take GEP’s goals
and, according to one university professor, “make them live and breathe on campus.”
Data from interviews reveal teachers providing intervention opportunities for
students who failed Algebra the first semester to make that course up within the
academic school day with the same teacher. Because these teachers have a
preexisting relationship with these students they can build on students’ assets and
refine instruction to improve student achievement. According to the GEP
Accomplishments Data Report, the network partnership co-constructed structures to
facilitate these kinds of interventions that help students meet A-G requirements.
They include small learning communities, a reformed master schedule, a block bell
schedule that enables “students to recover credits and get back on track for
graduation.” GEP appears to be cultivating institutional agents as stakeholders
engaged in the process of co-construction. As well, the network partnership that is
170
emerging is one that can be characterized as making institutional agents available to
transform Legacy High School into a community of scholars.
As agents collaborated on a variety of projects, the network partnership
empowered a cross spectrum of institutional agents to institute change at Legacy
High School by building a college readiness culture and helping students develop
identities as scholars. A review of the [GEP] Major Successes and Contributions
document highlights the tangible outcomes co-constructed by the tri-partnership to
act as agents for transforming Legacy High School:
• School wide plan for promoting a college going culture
• Refined master schedule to recover credits and get back on track for
graduation
• Small Learning Communities with a Focus on College and Career
• Professional Development
• Rigorous Curriculum
• Teaching and Learning
• Professional development for 9
th
grade Algebra teachers
• An array of college readiness opportunities for students-- college
preparatory peer mentoring program
• Expanded relationship with West Los Angeles College, College Summit
for Small Learning Academies and Summer Algebra Institute for College
Readiness.
171
Perhaps the most salient example of a network partnership showcasing the
attributes capable of transforming an urban school occurred when parents used the
capital gained from the collaborative relationships to sponsor a series of Count Down
to College Night events at Legacy High School. Data from observations reveal a
room with stakeholders from each entity, now acting as institutional agents
advocating for change by providing students with the knowledge and developing the
skills necessary to apply for college. In this space information was presented for
consideration and through dialogic collaborative relationships between students and
institutional agents from the community, as well as the school, to assist students in
successfully completing this important task toward entering college. The
collaborative structures utilized in for Count Down to College Night events were
comparable to those employed by the network partnership. A parent reflecting on
that event shared, “It was amazing what we were able to pull off. It was really
successful. We’re going to offer more next year.” The GEP Business Plan, outlines
goals to empower the school community to create systems and structures that are
sustainable after the five-year partnership. A university professor posits, the
longevity of GEP is contingent on its ability to make “deep root involvement” in the
kind of programs, practices, services, systems and structures that become the “fabric
of the school.”
GEP employed the process of co-construction to develop a network
partnership that employed dialogue and mutual shared learning to build collaborative
relationships and in turn cultivating institutional agents to create a college readiness
172
culture at Legacy High School. A college readiness cultural model cultivates the
academic skills, knowledge, aspirations, and behaviors conducive for being college
ready—the ability to get into and through college. Legacy students have aspirations
to go to college, but they have to understand what it means to be a scholar and how
to prepare students for that task. An identity as a scholar is a learned behavior that
has to be taught by persons empowered with knowledge from diverse roles and
experiences that are able to convey that information to students. GEP is engaged in
a process of co-constructing a framework that asserts that a liberating education is
one that acts within the structure to understand it and surmount oppressive conditions
by engaging in the unity of praxis. In praxis words of truth conjoined with critical
reflection lead to transformative actions. Disenfranchised students need institutional
agents to advocate on their behalf and provide them with the knowledge, tools and
resources to navigate through the educational arena helping them understand the
school culture in which they exist. GEP is cultivating institutional agents from each
entity to work collectively to ensure that knowledge, expertise, and resources are
used to nurture scholarly identities among students who graduate from LHS college
and are career ready.
173
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
Literature on innovative school reform purports that civic participation in
collaborative partnerships is gaining prominence in constructing environments that
increase students’ academic success, college readiness, and entry in the workforce
(Carroll et al., 2001, Miller & Hafner, 2008; Sallee & Tierney, 2007). While the
research on educational partnerships is prevalent, little has been written about co-
constructed relationships among community-school-university partnerships and their
potential to create a new cultural model capable of transforming K-12 urban schools.
This study is grounded in the theoretical framework of Freire’s (2003) premise that
dialogic relationships empowered stakeholders to enact reform through the unity of
praxis. As well as Carroll et al., (2001) and Miller and Hafner’s (2008) theories that
co-constructed tri-partnerships have the potential to create a new cultural model in
school reform.
Dismantling entrenched practices of social injustice and instituting the
promise of equitable public education requires a new cultural model for school
transformation. Although America has made some strides in educational reform,
many urban schools across the nation have not yet achieved sustained success; an
innovative reform model offers hope. Community-school-university partnerships
have the potential to create a new cultural model to improve the quality of education
in the K-12 setting ensuring all students are ready for post-secondary education and
174
the workforce. A unique tri-partnership of this magnitude is America’s greatest
chance to transform public education in urban communities, prepare students for
civic engagement in the 21
st
Century, and preserve Democracy.
Summary of the Study
This research study was designed to examine the process by which a rare
community-school-university school partnership came into existence for the purpose
of transforming a K-12 school in an urban community. A co-constructed partnership
implies bringing together diverse entities to consciously enter a collaborative process
to define the nature of its relationships and jointly set the goals for the union. By
examining the process by which these three entities worked to co-construct a
partnership of reduced hierarchical power relationships on behalf of a K-12 school,
this study expanded the existing body of literature and shed light on possible actions
for the future. The study includes strategies for co-constructing partnerships that
collectively contribute to school transformation while preventing and overcoming
barriers to partnerships of this nature. As well, this study reveals the kinds of
attributes in a partnership that contribute to the transformation of K-12 schools.
Summary of Findings
The School’s History
The Greater Educational Partnership is in the process of co-constructing a
network partnership empowering entities to pursue change via dialogic collaborative
relationships. Interviews revealed that Legacy High School had a history of failed
educational reform efforts. The underutilized resources and disconnected services on
175
campus made it difficult to coordinate them to benefit all students. Many programs
failed or were short lived because there was a flawed design process employed at the
outset with minimal collaboration to cull resources, knowledge, and expertise among
outside agents to service students. Consequently, a historic pattern of low student
achievement left the school community with a desire for change, but very little
structure or support to institute successful reform.
Emerging Theme: Co-Construction Flourishes
One of the first emerging themes from the data revealed that the school
community realized what was already in place was not working; they wanted to
move forward, but were struggling. Although the school staff, parents, and
community members’ commentary revealed that reform plans were underway prior
to the presence of the Greater Educational Partnership, the results of those reform
plans on campus after five years of collaboration with only one network partner
(prior to building the GEP) were minimal, although this organization played an
important role in preparing parents and teachers to work together in insisting on
change in the school on behalf of the students. It had given the school a sense of
their right to insist on change, as well as a cultural model of civility and unified
purpose. Data collected from interviews revealed the school community’s desire to
have a stronger presence of parents, greater involvement in school governance, small
learning communities, and a culture of learning that prepared all students for college.
Data collected from interviews, observations, and documents revealed very little or
none of the above in place on campus prior to the GEP collaboration.
176
The Greater Educational Partnership has been on the campus of Legacy High
School for just a little under a year and there are drastic changes in the school
culture, structure, and governance.
• LHS now has a GEP transition team in place designed to co-construct
transformation plans and consider how the partnership will function to
allocate resources and coordinate services on behalf of the school. The
transition team is one of many GEP venues that provide a system and
structure for greater involvement in school governance for parents, school
staff, and community members.
• LHS has wall-to-wall small learning communities, which provide time for
collaboration on effective teaching and learning that is working to prepare
students for academic success in high school and college and build a
culture of caring for students.
• LHS has a master course schedule and a bell schedule more conducive to
improving student achievement and meeting graduation requirements that
prepare students for college.
• Data reveals that GEP has implemented practices with the potential to
transform the culture of LHS as evident in the process of co-construction
used to pursue change.
The GEP initiated transformation of the school, based on respect for the
social and cultural dynamics at the school site and the value of the expertise of the
surrounding community. Agents of GEP are beginning to engage in dialogue as
177
equals in order to make meaning from their circumstances and collaborate on culling
the resources, knowledge and expertise to enact successful educational reform. The
Greater Educational Partnership is in the process of co-constructing systems and
structures to meet the partnership’s goals—increase high school graduation and
college readiness rates.
Emerging Theme: Budding Collaborative Dialogic Relationships
Another emerging theme is that entities are taking time to build collaborative
dialogic relationships within the network partnership. The GEP has exercised a great
deal of patience to build capacity for entities to co-construct the partnership so that
the design and implementation of the school reform plans are based on actual needs
as opposed to perceived needs. The transition team is a space for dialogue that
fosters a culture of learning and shared knowledge as stakeholders grapple with the
complex problems of educating students whose needs are significantly different from
other high schools in the district. Data from interviews revealed that the process of
co-construction has been a slow and challenging process, but imperative to building
capacity for leaning about the utility of the partnership. Data from observations of
stakeholders involved in the process of co-construction revealed agents engaged in
productive dialogue inquiring into: what is needed to make the partnership thrive;
why it is needed; as well as how can the partnership use what is learned to ensure
successful reform. There is a “buy in” process because many of the solutions were
derived in a problem-posing learning model that engages entities in dialogic
relationships to promote change that is transformational and enduring.
178
The GEP is building capacity among all school stakeholders to sustain the
structures, systems, and practices created beyond the life of the partnership. The
process used, co-construction, empowers entities with transferable knowledge that
can be used to leverage resources and enact reform initiatives that arise in the future.
Emerging Theme: Hope in the Process and Partnership
The process of co-constructing this network partnership has not occurred
without challenges. Stakeholders disclosed that, while they are en route to co-
constructing a viable partnership, they are not there yet. But there is hope. The data
collected presents a conflict between what the researcher gleaned from analysis of
documents and what was seen in observations and commentary from interviews.
Interviews reveal that both the school community and network partners are striving
to figure out how to co-construct this partnership. A thorough understanding of the
process of co-construction and stakeholders’ role within it is not clear among all
agents. While some partners are skeptical that they are actually engaged in the co-
construction process, data revealed otherwise. Partners were observed engaged in
dialogue co-constructing new processes, practices, and protocols to facilitate their
work and products of the partnership. A review of artifacts reveals indicators of co-
constructed outcomes derived through dialogic collaborative relationships among
stakeholders of GEP. Stakeholders remain hopeful for this budding union because of
what the partnership has been able to accomplish thus far—collaboration that yields
results. The SLC Impact Report and GEP Accomplishment Facts Sheet reveal an
array of successful collaborations co-constructed by the network partnership.
179
Multiple observations from GEP sponsored events, retreats, and transition team
meetings observed representatives from the network partners participating in the
process of co-construction.
The emerging theme of hope for the future of the partnership signals that
entities are in fact co-constructing a partnership able to yield results, but they are still
operating within a learning curve because it is such a complex process. The chair of
the transition team, captures this dilemma contending, “when WASC came back to
visit they saw a visibly different school. We [GEP] have created a door here now and
together, we can go through it.” In just shy of a year, the GEP partnerships
employing the process of co-construction has made substantial changes; differences
that might not be present today without the network partnership.
Persistent Barriers
Even with the best intentions many partnerships are short lived because they
are unable to overcome the obstacles to engagement that thwart collaboration and
stifle productivity. The most prevalent barrier to co-construction is persistent
mistrust stemming from a history of tension between the local district and the school
community prior to the formation of the GEP. Data collected in interviews revealed
that the school community perceived the local district as the culprit behind failed
reform efforts at Legacy High School and lack of transparency in, and exclusion
from, decision-making processes has caused distrust. As soon as the GEP partners
were named, unbeknownst to the school community, cynicism was transferred from
the district to the network partners. This action forged an alliance between the
180
school staff, parents, and community members who asserted their power to “push
back” against structures and practices employed in GEP from which they felt
excluded (i.e., being a founding partner, hiring the Executive Director of the GEP,
etc). The inability to resolve issues effectively exacerbated them and thus
contributed to unproductive behavior and feelings of distrust. Observations revealed
an emerging faction as entities made overt distinctions in discourse using “us and
we” referring to the school community and “they and them” when referencing the
network partners. The school community appears to be vulnerable to
discouragement, and it is almost as though their focus on past events stifles them
from trusting partners and moving forward. The network partners are in the process
of learning from the school community how to be more proactive by implementing
systems and structures to deal with barriers that arise as opposed to being reactive
when challenges emerge.
Emerging Theme: Limited Communication Presents a Barrier to Co-
Construction
Another emerging barrier is the lack of systems and structures for
communication operating in place at the outset. The GEP encountered challenges as
they were placed in the position to co-construct the partnership to obtain outcomes
for the school while simultaneously trying to co-construct how to operate within the
union. This presented an interesting dilemma—co-construction implies that unions
design systems and structures for use, but entities within the network partnership
expressed the difficulty in doing so and that it is an emerging source of tension in the
181
union. In the same vein, entities expressed the difficulty of trying to work in the
midst of chaos caused by ineffective or absent systems and structures for
communication. These systems and structures are vital to the productivity of the
partnership. Data reveal that inadequate communication structures make it difficult
for entities to convey information to their constituents and clarify, breeding
misperceptions among those who do not directly participate in the GEP meetings.
Emerging Theme: Perceptions of Hierarchical Power Present a Barrier to
Co-Construction
Another obstacle to engagement is the perception of hierarchical power
structures at play within the partnership between the school community and the
network partners. Both groups perceive the other to have the upper hand. The school
community is perceived to have the upper hand because they can “push-back” from
collaboration as a cohesive group making it difficult for GEP to move forward in
enacting its reform initiatives. The network partners are perceived to have the upper
hand because they are assumed to have the more intellectual, financial, and social
capital to leverage power. One of the greatest sources of tension stems from the
legal stipulations of GEP 501 (C) (3), that prohibit the school community agents
from being named as a founding partner and thus are denied a seat on the governing
Board. This action gives weight to the school community’s perception that at times,
the GEP appears to be a partnership operating for the school as opposed to one
partnering with the school. Change is a difficult process to accept, and entities have
182
to be ready to let go of past disappointments so that they can sustain unions and
accomplish the goals of the partnership.
Effective Strategies
In an effort to combat the history of mistrust and broken promises with the
district, the school community sought council with the Obama Foundation and
developed a relationship that would lay the foundation for a successful effort with
the GEP to engage in a co-constructed partnership. Data from interviews reveal that
stakeholders are building on lessons learned from the mistakes of the past and
moving forward to accomplish the goals of the present. The GEP is learning from its
own history and through dialogue engaging agents in praxis, a cathartic process,
stakeholders have been able to move forward and enact change. Through dialogue,
to help entities take a candid look at the issues facing Legacy High School students,
the GEP has engaged in co-construction as a means to equally empower agents in
educational reform.
Data from observations found all entities using educational discourse (i.e.,
co-construct and scaffolding) in context with ease. The GEP intentionally removed
“alienating rhetoric” that typically keeps hierarchal structures in place and limits
participation in the conversation. Effective dialogue among agents occurs when
stakeholders engage in praxis—a process of learning and knowing that equips
entities with an understanding of their reality so that through critical reflection, they
can change it. Dialogue is a collaborative act and therefore, time consuming; a space
for dialogue is essential for effective participation in this process.
183
Data collected revealed that the GEP has created multiple spaces for dialogue
(i.e., small learning communities, retreats, transition team meetings, open forums,
etc.). The space for dialogue referenced the most among partners, was the weekly
transition team meetings with stakeholders representing each entity. The transition
team promoted equality among partners as they shared capital to co-construct what
the partnership should look like and how it should operate on behalf of the school.
Transition team meetings were a pivotal component to engage in the discourse
needed to work through obstacles and overcome them. Within these meetings,
dialogic collaborative relationships were developed as a key strategy to redistribute
power equally among agents to overcome hierarchal structures typical in most
unions. Stakeholders posit that the systems and structures operating in these
meetings (i.e., norms), maximize participation within the partnership and ensuring
agents are not talking at each other, but rather with each other to learn.
Critical Bridge Persons
Another effective strategy employed by the network partnership was the use
of critical bridge persons who were able to serve as in roads to different partners and
create a cohesive union to form the GEP. Data from interviews from stakeholder
groups revealed that LHS has several critical bridge persons in place characterized
by stakeholders as “people who get things done,” “having a great rapport among all
entities,” “persons with integrity,” “advocates for change.” These people have a deep
understanding of the culture and the power structures operating within their
organization or institution and leverage that knowledge to advance the collective
184
goals of the GEP. Interviews identified one kind of key critical bridge persons who
were able to guide the network partners into the school community and extend
credibility to new participants coming in because of pre-existing relationships and a
rapport based on trust. Each partner group has at least one critical bridge person
operating to expand boundaries that enabled the GEP to enter the campus of LHS.
These critical bridge persons are vital to forward the momentum of the partnership.
A university professor reflected on the power of the school community as an impetus
for change as a difficult process, explaining that it is difficult to “get on a campus
and assist in reform without the support of school staff and parents.” Mr. Ball, a
LHS instructional coach, was an essential in road with the school community for the
network partnership. How? Mr. Prince, who had a pre-existing relationship with
parents, was an in road with the parents for the network partnership. Both of these
critical bridge persons were regarded as being the “social consciousness of the GEP”
and instrumental in creating an in road for the the GEP Interim Executive Director.
Stakeholders revealed that the Interim Executive Director was an indispensable sage
whose skills have drastically improved the interaction among adult agents to ensure
that power is equitably distributed within the GEP. The presence of a critical bridge
person in a partnership of this magnitude is vital to building collaborative dialogic
relationships able to co-construction a partnership that gets results.
Co-Constructed Dialogic Relationships
Freire (2003) posits that dialogic relationships empower participants to
educate one another through the mediation of their world, and once stakeholders
185
realized the conditions in which they exist are not a static reality, they are able to co-
construct viable solutions to their complex problems. Data from a university
professor explained that some of the tensions encountered between the network
partners and the school community’s “desire” to transform LHS stem from limited
knowledge of what educational reform truly entails. Dialogue is the process of
knowing and learning, but in order to yield transformative outcomes, mutual shared
learning has to occur. The GEP’s dialogic relationships engender mutual shared
learning through which shared knowledge has emerged enabling the collective union
to obtain substantial outcomes. Many of these outcomes (i.e., small learning
communities, GEP By Laws, student equity to rigorous curriculum, etc.) are at the
interim stage so it is difficult to measure their degree of success thus far. However,
data from interviews revealed that stakeholders have hope and are starting to
recognize the value of the network partnership’s ability to help them enact the reform
initiatives they were unable to implement prior to the GEP. Data revealed that
stakeholders recognize the value of capitalizing on the knowledge, expertise, and
resources of network partners to enact reform by “creating new structures and not
operating under the old ones.” The processes of co-construction, dialogue, and
mutual shared learning has enabled stakeholders to see themselves as a collective
group working on reform as opposed to separate entities merely co-existing.
Attributes for a New Cultural Model
Co-construction necessitates that partners operate in collaborative
relationships as equals to utilize knowledge gained from the union to create
186
something new. Despite the challenges encountered in the first year of
implementation, the GEP has produced favorable attributes, collaborative
relationships and institutional agents. These attributes are laying the foundation to
obtain the goals of the network partnership and transform LHS into an institution that
prepares all students for high school graduation and college readiness.
Data from interviews, observations, and documents revealed that the
collaborative relationships developed in the network partnership have created a
campus wide learning environment. The professional development collaborations
between the network partners and the school community have heightened
expectations for teaching and learning among school staff. GEP has facilitated, in
collaboration with multiple stakeholders, structural changes to LHS (i.e., master
schedule, block schedule, tutorials, small learning communities) to provide equitable
access to rigorous standards based curriculum that meets high school graduation and
college entrance requirements. Converting LHS into small learning communities has
embedded time into the school day to develop a collaborative professional
community for adults as well as socially and culturally appropriate learning
environments for students. Through shared knowledge and collaborative
relationships the GEP has developed a wide range of opportunities for adult
advocates to work together to ensure that every student graduates prepared for
postsecondary education and entry into meaningful careers.

187
Cultivation of Institutional Agents
Data from interviews, observations, and documents revealed that the GEP has
engaged entities in mutual shared learning to grapple with what culturally responsive
teaching and learning means from diverse perspectives—community, university, and
schools. Teachers are in the process of using the shared knowledge gained to build
on the cultural and intellectual assets students bring into the classroom. Teachers,
students’ primary institutional agent, are better able to do this because they are
building on the various sources of expert knowledge coming from the various
network partners to support them in this venture.
Data from interviews reveal that teacher-student relationships have improved,
which has the potential to help students to perceive themselves as scholars among
school agents inside the classroom. Parents and community members, also
institutional agents, have used shared knowledge gained from the GEP collaborations
to provide additional college readiness services for students. The Countdown to
College event, was sponsored by parents, but supported by agents from each
stakeholder group. This action speaks to the potential of the partnership to reinforce
students’ perception of themselves as scholars among agents outside of the
classroom as well. The GEP is an innovative reform model co-constructing a
network partnership with the potential to transform LHS into a premiere institution
of learning that offers students more choices for their future.

188
Conclusions
The Greater Educational Partnership’s presence on the campus of Legacy
High School has been a challenge and a victory. The GEP has been in place a little
under a year and it is too early to measure the degree of success, but after careful
analysis of the data there are several indications that the GEP is co-constructing a
community-school-university partnership with emerging attributes that can
potentially transform Legacy High School. When the network partners collaborate on
tasks as equal partners they produce outcomes; however, when challenges emerge
the feelings of mistrust from the school community resurface causing them to revert
to negative history, thus slowing progress. Instead of working through
disappointment, school community stakeholders become consumed by making it
difficult at times to embrace change and trust in the process to accomplish the work.
The history of tension in the formation of the network partnership reveals that
the GEP was not engaged in co-construction at the outset because the school
community was not involved in designing the model to be employed nor were they
able to choose network partners. These actions significantly impacted the
partnership bringing tension into the union and forming an alliance between the
parents, school staff, and community members who initially perceived the network
partners to be their “new” opposition now replacing the district. The review of
literature reveals tension between the community agents, including parents, and
school agents, as challenges to collaborative reform; however, in this study the
189
course of events served to align community and school agents into a cohesive union
working against the perceived adversary.
Liberating the Oppressed Via Praxis
Freire (2003) postulates that fear of liberation and change among those
engaged in dialogic relationships in the process of reform causes individuals to revert
back to the familiar because it is a source of comfort. In this case, the school
community was willing to try an innovative reform approach providing they could
assume the position of power and operate in familiar systems and structures. When
their perceived “oppressor” presented an unfamiliar reform model, (a network
partnership) and an equally unfamiliar process (co-construction) those changes were
received with cynicism. The very nature of co-construction implies that stakeholders
enter the process foregoing pre-existing expectations to embrace change in
attempting to create something new together. Organizations and institutions must
have the agility for change because it is a difficult process. With insufficient time to
prepare for the nature of changes coming to LHS, the school community met change
with resistance and asserted aggression to exercise power. The GEP, fraught with
tension in the implementation stages, participated in a struggle for power between
network partners and the school community. As the network partners strived to
implement reform, missteps occurred in the process. The school community reacted
by collectively “pushing back” from collaboration, which derails progress.
In order to liberate oppressive conditions stakeholders must engage in the
process of liberating themselves so that through participation they can understand the
190
nature of their conditions and break the cycle. The greatest challenge of the liberated
is not to, in turn, become the oppressors, but rather restore humanity by liberating
their oppressors as well (Freire, 2003). In this case, the district was perceived to be
the oppressor as the school community noted they were a “bottle neck to reform.” In
the initial stages of implementing the partnership, the school community that was
striving for liberation, in fact, became sub-oppressors flexing their power to resist
reform. The oppressed have to be part of their own liberation to break the cycle of
oppression for the greater good of humanity—educational reform.
The GEP has employed the process of co-construction and the sub-processes
of dialogue and mutual shared learning, as a means to build a viable partnership. As
stakeholders engage in these processes and begin to understand how they work, they
are able to design educational reform that is sustainable. The GEP’s co-construction
process is working to help stakeholder groups to leave collaborative unions more
empowered than when they entered them. A key factor responsible for the union’s
ability to co-construct reform has been the active engagement in dialogue that moves
through praxis enabling stakeholders to examine the challenges as they exist, engage
in reflective dialogue that spawns critical thinking and thus leads transforming
actions. The GEP partnership is empowering stakeholders to create a new-shared
culture of equal partners who are mutually beneficial to one another as they enact
reform.

191
Recommendations for GEP: A Learning Entity
It is virtually impossible to construct a partnership of this magnitude without
encountering obstacles to engagement that stifle productivity. The barriers that
emerged in the GEP stem from persistent mistrust. What has engendered this
mistrust is a learned behavior from negative experiences with the district in the past.
As the source of distrust grew, it created a culture of cynicism that carried into the
network partnership between the school community and any entity the school
perceived had ties to the district. The GEP has used the supporting processes of
dialogue and mutual shared learning, which serve as a means to overcome barriers
and resolve conflicts.
Much to the surprise of the school community, the GEP was an innovative
transformation model that has used a different approach to understand and grow
collaborative relationships that are starting to engender trust. While co-constructing
the partnership, dialogue was not utilized as a mere method to engage in superficial
conversations and build shallow relationships. These practices tend to dictate or
prescribe reform. Dialogue was used to build collaborative relationships and through
mutual shared learning educate one another with useful and transferable knowledge.
These practices empowered stakeholders to co-construct transformation.
The kind of transformation the GEP is pursuing—urban high school
transformation—is not likely to occur without the apprenticeship of critical bridge
persons. The critical bridge persons operating in the GEP have been able to
dismantle hierarchical structures and ensure partners that understand the processes
192
used to build the partnership and design its outcomes. These boundary spanners,
have been able to create a bridge among stakeholder groups empowering them with
an understanding of the operating structure, co-construction. When stakeholders felt
co-construction, open dialogue, or shared learning was not in place nor advancing
the collective goals of the partnership, they were able to hold one another
accountable as equals and get back on track. Additionally, the critical bridge persons
identified in the GEP have been instrumental in moving stakeholders to a deeper
functional knowledge of the circumstances warranting reform as a means to forego
apprehension and unite partners to co-construct innovative reform.
The supporting processes of dialogue and mutual shared learning are working
to help stakeholders commit to the partnership and accomplishing its goals. As a
result the GEP is functioning as a learning entity building shared knowledge to co-
construct a partnership with Legacy High School that is working to transform itself.
At this point in the partnership learning is paramount and working to dismantle
disappointments of the past in an effort to pursue an understanding of how to work
collaboratively toward building a future based on commonality of purpose—
educational reform. The network partners in particular are beginning to realize that
reform is contingent on the school community’s prior knowledge as school agents
provide clarity about students’ needs i.e., safety, interests, health, livelihood, etc.
The network partners are learning to be responsive to the school community’s
insight, causing the partnership to reorganize their approach and thus improve the
interaction among stakeholders in the GEP. For instance, the university has plans to
193
use shared knowledge from the school community to better prepare upcoming
teachers and educational leaders to work in urban areas. The community-based
organizations, accustomed to operating on a business model, are revamping their
approach to engage in better working relationships. These adjustments are
developing and possible because of the process employed to enact reform—co-
construction, dialogue, and mutual shared learning.
Recommendations: New Cultural Model
The Greater Educational Partnership’s processes have yielded transferable
attributes that have the potential to move from the network partnership into the
school to improve the learning environment at Legacy High School. By engaging
stakeholders in the design and implementation of reform, the GEP has
• Built collaborative relationships
• Cultivated institutional agents that have directly impacted student-adult
relationships on campus.
• Designed and implemented systems and structures to help students
understand what it means to be a scholar and understand the kinds of
knowledge skills and behaviors conducive to college ready students.
In order for every adult to become advocates for students, stakeholders have
to change their perception of who can be a scholar and what it means to cultivate a
learning environment that prepares all students equitably for high school graduation
and college readiness. The knowledge generated through GEP about students, their
194
communities, and their potential, is leading to a cultural model in which adults are
equipping adult agents to act on behalf of the students in the school.
With this commonality of purpose, the GEP is engendering reform for all
entities involved in the process, and thus empowering stakeholders to widen the
trajectory of liberation among students as they liberate themselves. The collaborative
relationships built within the GEP are helping teachers to cultivate better student-
teacher relationships in the classroom. The capital gleaned from the school staff and
the network partners has enabled parents and community members to reinforce
preparation and support for academic success outside of the classroom. The insight
on student needs, gained from the school community, is working to help network
partners provide the knowledge, services, and resources needed to support viable
reform. The GEP is working to build capacity among entities to enter a space for
dialogue and collaboration and exit empowered to do more. The attributes yielded
from this partnership have positioned a range of adults to be institutional agents
capable of helping students navigate the pathway through high school and into
college with success.
Implications for Policies and Educational Leaders
Collaborative partnerships, whether traditional or innovative, are bound to
encounter challenges, but those unions who have processes and strategies to
overcome barriers are likely to sustain the partnership. Co-construction is a powerful
process in pursuing reform because it is one that empowers stakeholders as equals to
surmount oppressive conditions and meet the goals of the partnership. Dialogic
195
relationships that engage in the process of praxis produce shared knowledge that
empowers entities to enact reform, thus implementing transformative outcomes. It is
essential that dialogic collaborative relationships enter and work all the way through
the process of praxis in order to liberate oppressive conditions within the partnership
and on the school campus. Co-construction employed as a process provides the
foundation for praxis to occur. Praxis offers the greatest chance for effective school
transformation. These processes are not mutually exclusive, but rather dependent on
one another for viable change; so it is imperative that stakeholders have systems and
structures in place that enable this process of co-construction.
This unique tri-partnership was able to cultivate collaborative relationships
that engender trust which enabled hope to thrive among stakeholders as they worked
toward the transformation of one urban high school. Although, there is a great deal
of promise, this union is still very new and has not realized its full potential.
Because this study occurred in the first year of formation, there is limited evidence to
draw upon that would reveal a complete transformation has in fact taken place.
Rather, what can be observed are the beginning steps of an emerging cultural model
where stakeholders are learning from mistakes and persevering to accomplish the
goals set forth by the partnership. As the partnership grows, there are several
indicators that it will thrive provided the union studies and adheres to the principles
of co-construction.

196
Recommendations for the Future
The findings presented in this study in conjunction with literature review on
educational partnerships yield the following implications for future policies and
educational leaders:
• Co-Construct from the Beginning: Partnerships can avoid some tension
when they start the process of co-constructing the partnership at the
outset. This includes allowing stakeholders to express their interest in
who their network partners will be and make all actions transparent
thereafter. Processes for co-construction should be studied from the first
point of entry and employed throughout the partnerships providing each
stakeholder with equal access to knowledge, power, and voice.
• Strategies to Overcome Barriers: Dialogue helps stakeholders work
through emerging barriers as they arise so that they do not linger in the
partnership and cause strained relationships. In order to sustain
collaborative partnerships, stakeholders must explicitly employ strategies
to remove obstacles that surface so they can continue to meet the
partnerships goals. These barriers must be dealt with swiftly; otherwise
they have the potential to become contentious and strained relationships.
• Inclusion of the middle schools whose students matriculate to Legacy
High School. Collaborative partnerships are a complex entity. As the
partnership grows so too will its relationship among existing stakeholders
making it harder for a fourth party to enter the dynamics of the
197
partnership. When co-constructing a partnership of this magnitude it is
preferable for the GEP to include all of the partners at the outset in order
to avoid some of the growing pains initially experienced in the formation
of this partnership. As another entity enters, it has the potential to offset
existing collaborative relationships, which could slow down the process
of co-construction.
• Build Capacity for More Critical Bridge Persons: Critical bridge persons
are a means to dismantle hierarchical structures and ideologies. In doing
so leadership and shared knowledge can be distributed to expand the
work and goals of the partnership. As well, critical bridge persons are
imperative in fostering dialogic relationships that promote trust and
respect, which sustains collaboration.
Recommendations for Further Study
This study examined the formation of a unique community-school-university
partnership co-constructing a union to transform a large urban high school. Because
of the magnitude of this tri-partnership and the nature of its design in the first year of
implementation questions for further inquiry remain:
• As new entities join this partnership, what culture will they enter and
how?
• As new partners emerge, how will entities identify and develop critical
bridge persons?
198
• What are the essential elements and characteristics of an effective critical
bridge person?
• How will entities get the various partners, new and existing, to value the
social and intellectual capital of one another?
The study contributes to the field of research examining the cultivation of
network partnerships employing effective processes to sustain productive unions able
to successfully transform urban schools. Because this study occurred within the first
year of implementation, further research is warranted. The findings presented in this
study suggest that the role of critical bridge persons is vital to the longevity of a
partnership as those agents directly contribute to maximizing collaboration and
distributing power equally among all stakeholders. As this network partnership
moves forward, it will need additional critical bridge persons to build greater
capacity for school transformation. Also, the role of critical bridge persons will be
key to success if, in fact, the partnership expands to include the middle schools
whose students matriculate into Legacy High School. Further inquiry into the role
and growing presence of critical bridge persons has the potential to add to this
research study and expand the existing body of research.
199
REFERENCES
Achieving the promise of authentic community-higher education partnerships:
Community partners speak out! Seattle, WA: Community-Campus
Partnerships For Health, 2007.

Ballen, J. & Moles, O. (1994). School-family partnerships. Strong Families, Strong
Schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Website:
http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/families/strong/sfp.html.

Benson, L., & Harkavy, I. (2003) The role of the American research university in
advancing system-wide educational reform, democratic schooling, and
democracy. In Brabeck, M., Walsh, M., & Latta, R. (Eds.), Meeting at the
Hyphen: Schools Universities-Communities-Professions in Collaboration for
Student Achievement and Well Being (pp.94-116). Chicago: National Society
For The Study of Education.

Benson, L., Harkavy, I., & Puckett, J. (2000). An implementation revolution as a
strategy for fulfilling the democratic promise of university-community
partnerships: Penn-West Philadelphia as an experiment in progress. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 29 (1), 24-45.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). New
York: Greenwood Press.

Brabeck, M. M., Walsh, M. E., & Latta, R. E. (2003). Meeting at the hyphen schools-
universities-communities-professions in collaboration for student
achievement and well being. Chicago, Ill: National Society for the Study of
Education.

Bringle, R.G., & Hatcher, J.A. (2002). Campus-community partnerships: The terms
of engagement. Journal of Social Issues. 58 (3), 503-516.

Camara, Wayne. (2003). College persistence, graduation, and remediation. College
Board Research Notes (RN-19). New York, NY: College Board.

Carroll, G., LaPoint, V., & Tyler, K. (2001). Co-construction: A facilitator for school
reform in school, community and university partnerships. The Journal of
Negro Education, 70(1-2), 38-58.

Coleman, Daniel. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, New
York: Bantam Dell.
200
College Board’s National Taskforce on Minority Achievement. (1999). Reading the
Top: A report of the national task force on minority achievement. New York:
Author.

Conley, D.T. (2005). College knowledge: What it really takes for students to succeed
and what we can do to get them college ready. San Francisco, California:
Jossey-Bass.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crowson, L.R. (2003). Empowerment models for interprofessional collaboration. In
Brabeck, M., Walsh, M., & Latta, R. (Eds.), Meeting at the Hyphen: Schools
Universities-Communities-Professions in Collaboration for Student
Achievement and Well Being (pp.74-93). Chicago: National Society For The
Study of Education.

Cummins, J. (1986) Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention.
Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 18-36.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching:
Research, policy, and practice for democratic education. Educational
Researcher, 25 (6), 5-17.

Davies, D. (1991). Schools reaching out: Family, school, and community partnership
for students’ success. Phi Delta Kaplan, 72, 376-382.

Dean, D., & Levine, A. (2007). Educational reform: toward a K-16 framework.
Journal of Metropolitan Universities, (18), 4, 10-26.

Deck, Larry., & Deck, Virginia. (2000). Engaging families and communities: a
pathway to educational success. National Commission of Educational
Assessment.

Dewey, J. (1897). Ethical principles underlying education. EW, 5, 54-83.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. MW, 11, 41-53.

Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. LW, 2, 235-372.

Dewey, J. (1930). Social change and its human direction. LW, 5, 363-368.

Dewey, J. (1937). Democracy is radical. LW, 11, 296-300.
201
Dryfoos, J.G. (2003). Comprehensive schools. In Brabeck, M., Walsh, M., & Latta,
R. (Eds.), Meeting at the Hyphen: Schools Universities-Communities-
Professions in Collaboration for Student Achievement and Well Being
(pp.140-163). Chicago: National Society For The Study of Education.

Dubois, W.E.B. (1954, May 31). We rejoice in the word…but we must go farther:
W.E.B. Du Bois writes on the school desegregation decision. National
Guardian, 6(32), 5.

Epstein, J. (2001). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing
Educators and Improving Schools (1st ed.). Boulder, Colorado: Westview
Press.

Erbstein, N., & Miller, E. (2008). Partnering with communities to promote students
success: A review of the research. UC Davis school of education for applied
policy in education. April.

Freire, P. (2003). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Freire, P. (1973). Education for a critical consciousness. New York: Continuum.

Friedman, Thomas, L. (2005). The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First
Century. New York, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research.
Educational Psychologist, 36, 45-56.

Gandara, P. (2002). Meeting common goals: Liking K-12 and college interventions.
In Tierney, W. G., & Hagedorn, L. S. Increasing access to college: Extending
possibilities for all students. (pp. 81-104). SUNY series, frontiers in
education. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Goldring, E., & Sims, P. (2005). Modeling creative and courageous school
leadership through district-community-university partnerships. Educational
Policy, 19, 223-249.

Gonzales, N., & Moll, L. (2002). Cruzando El Puente: Building Bridges to Funds
of Knowledge. Educational Policy 2002, 16, 623.

Gutierrez, K., (1995). Unpacking academic discourse. Discourse processes, 19, 21-
37.
202
Haycock, K. (2004). The real value of teachers: If good teachers matter, why don’t
we act like it? Education Trust Thinking K-16, 8 (1) 1-3

Henderson, A. T., & Berla, N., eds. (1994). A New Generation of Evidence: the
Family is Critical to Student Achievement. Washington, DC.: National
Committee for Citizens in Education.

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of
school, family, and community connections on student achievement. ASCD.

Johnson, R.S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure
equity in our schools. California: Corwen Press.

Jun, A., & Colyar, J. (2002). Parental guidance suggested: Family involvement in
college preparation programs. In Tierney, W. G., & Hagedorn, L. S.
Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities for all students. (pp.
195-215). SUNY series, frontiers in education. Albany: State University of
New York Press.

Kezar, A. (2007). A tale of two cultures: Schools and universities in partnership for
school reform and student success, Journal of Metropolitan Universities,
(18), 4, 28-47.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers
in diverse classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawson, A.H. (2003). Pursuing and securing collaboration to improve results. In
Brabeck, M., Walsh, M., & Latta, R. (Eds.), Meeting at the Hyphen: Schools
Universities-Communities-Professions in Collaboration for Student
Achievement and Well Being (pp.45-73). Chicago: National Society For The
Study of Education.

Lee, Enid, “Equity and Equality.” From a keynote speech at the annual Connecticut
NAME Conference, October, 2004.

Lipman, P. (1997). Restructuring in context: A case study of teacher participation
and The dynamics or ideology, race, and power. American Educational
Research Journal, 34 91), 3-37.

Mann, H. (1848). Twelfth annual report of Horace Mann as Secretary of
Massachusetts State Board of Education.

203
Maurrasse, D.J. (2001). Beyond the campus: How colleges and universities form
partnerships with their communities. New York: Rutledge.

Mayfield, L., Hellwig, M., & Banks, B. (1999). The Chicago response to urban
problems: Building university-community collaborations, American
Behavioral Scientist, 42(5), 863-875.

McCrowsky, J. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for higher education. In
Brabeck, M., Walsh, M., & Latta, R. (Eds.), Meeting at the Hyphen: Schools
Universities-Communities-Professions in Collaboration for Student
Achievement and Well Being (pp.117-139). Chicago: National Society For
The Study of Education.

McEwan, K., & McEwan, J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s
not, and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

McPherson, M.S., & Schapiro, O.M. (2006). College access: Opportunity or
privilege? New York: The College Board.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in
Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, P.M., & Hafner, M.M. (2008). Moving toward dialogical collaboration: A
critical examination of a university-school-community partnership.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 66-110.

Morrell, E. (2004). Becoming critical researchers: Literacy and empowerment for
urban Youth. New York: P. Lang.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). NAEP trends in academic
achievement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Nieto, Sonia (1999). The Light in Their Eyes: Creating Multicultural Learning
Communities. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2008). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of
Multicultural education, 5
th
ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Oakes, J., Rogers, J., & Lipton, M. (2006). Learning Power: Organizing for
Education and Justice. Teachers College Press: New York.

Oakes, J., & Rogers, J. (2007). Radical change through radical means: learning
power. Journal of Educational Change, 8, 193-206.
204
Ogbu, J.U. (2004). Collective identity and the burden of “acting white” in black
history, community, and education. The Urban Review, 36(1), 1-35.

Ostrander, S.A. (2004). Democracy, civic participation, and the university: A
comparative study of civic engagement on five campuses. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 74-83.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3
rd
edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Peel, H. A., Peel, B. B., & Baker, M. E. (2002). School/university partnerships: A
viable model. The International Journal of Educational Management. 16 (7),
319-325.

Price, H.B. (2008). Mobilizing the Community to Help Students Succeed.
Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Rousseau, S. (2007). Educational reform: toward a K-16 framework. Journal of
Metropolitan Universities, (18), 4, 48-66.

Sallee, M. W., & Tierney, W. G. (2007). Creating sustainable school-university
partnerships. Metropolitan universities, v. 18, no. 4. Indianapolis IN: Indiana
University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

Shor, I. & Frerie, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming
education. New York: Bergin & Garvey.

Sirotnik, K. A., & Goodlad, J. I. (1988). School-university partnerships in action
concepts, cases, and concerns. New York: Teachers College Press.

Spring, J. (1995). The intersection of cultures: Multicultural education in the United
States. New York: McGraw Hill.

Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational
Review. 67(1). 1-40.

Swail, S.W., & Perna, W.L. (2002). Pre-college outreach programs: A national
Perspective. In Tierney, W. G., & Hagedorn, L. S. Increasing access to
college: Extending possibilities for all students. (pp. 15-34). SUNY series,
frontiers in education. Albany: State University of New York Press.

205
Tierney, W.G., & Hagedorn, S.L. (2002). Increasing access to college: extending
possibilities for all students. State University of New York Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Thought and language. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.

West, C. (1989). The American evasion of philosophy. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.

Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How “untracking” can save American
schools. New York: The New Press.

Wildridge, V., Childs, S., Cawthra, L. and Madge, B. (2004). How to Create
Successful Partnerships – a Review of the Literature, Health Information and
Libraries Journal 21 pp. 3-19.

Wong Filimore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6,323-346.

Yonezawa, S., Jones, M., & Mehan, H. (2002). Partners for preparation:
redistributing social and cultural capital. In Tierney, W. G., & Hagedorn, L.
S. Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities for all students. (pp.
145-166). SUNY series, frontiers in education. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
206
APPENDIX A
ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is
a conversation between the two of us about your experience with the Greater
Educational Partnership.
1. What is your position and role at the Legacy High School?
2. How many years have you been an administrator at Legacy High School?
3. How many years have you worked as an educator?
4. What are some other schools/districts you have been employed in?
5. What has been your experience working with community-based or university
partnerships, especially those focused on school reform?
6. How much do you know about the GEP partnership? Do you know its goals?
7. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join you-Design and take
on a network partner?
8. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings with the Greater Educational Partnership or their
representatives?
9. What do you know about the role of the Obama Foundation, the Justice
League, or the California University, the School of Education?
10. How do you see the members of GEP working together as one organization?
11. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Greater
Educational Partnership?
207
12. Why do you believe/or not believe Legacy High School needed a network
partner?
13. In what ways do you feel the Greater Educational Partnership has benefited
the school or has the potential to benefit the school?
14. What changes have occurred under the partnership? Have they been positive
or negative or mixed? Please explain.
15. Describe the relationship between the administration and GEP up to this
point.
16. To what degree do you think the network partnership can provide greater
support to the quality of teaching and learning at Legacy High School? Do
you have recommendations?
17. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
18. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the
partnership?
19. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Legacy High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
20. How involved has the classified staff been in the work of the partnership to
improve Legacy High School? What have been the barriers?
21. How involved have parents been in the partnership to improve Legacy High
School?
208
22. What has been the level of students’ participation in the work of the
partnership to improve Legacy High School?
23. What structures or opportunities for widespread participation in the
partnership have been created? What are some of the barriers you have seen
or anticipate to the success of this partnership?
24. What characteristics do you think can make the Greater Educational
Partnership effective and increase longevity?
25. What can you do to contribute to the partnership in order to increase student
achievement?
209
APPENDIX B
TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is
a conversation between the two of us about your experience with the Greater
Educational Partnership.
1. What is your position and role at the Legacy High School?
2. How many years have you been a teacher at Legacy High School?
3. How many years have you worked as an educator?
4. What are some other schools/districts you have been employed in?
5. What has been your experience working with community-based or university
partnerships, especially those focused on school reform? How much to you
know about the GEP partnership? What are its goals?
6. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join you-Design and take
on a network partner?
7. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings involving the Greater Educational Partnership or their
representatives?
8. What do you know about the role of the Obama Foundation, the Justice
League, or California University?
9. How do you see the members of the GEP working together as one
organization?
210
10. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Greater
Educational Partnership?
11. Why do you believe/or not believe Legacy High School needed a network
partner?
12. In what ways do you feel the Greater Educational Partnership has benefited
the school or has the potential to benefit the school?
13. What changes have occurred under the partnership? Have they been positive
or negative or mixed? Please explain
14. Describe the relationship between the administration and GEP up to this
point.
15. To what degree do you think the network partnership can provide greater
support to the quality of teaching and learning at Legacy High School? Do
you have recommendations?
16. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
17. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the work of
the partnership to improve Legacy High School?
18. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Legacy High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
19. How involved have parents been in the partnership to improve Legacy High
School?
211
20. What has been the level of students’ participation in the work of the
partnership to improve Legacy High School?
21. What structures or opportunities have been created for widespread
participation in the work of the partnership? What are some of the barriers
you have seen or anticipate to the success of this partnership?
22. What characteristics do you think can make the Greater Educational
Partnership effective and increase longevity?
23. What can you do to contribute to the partnership in order to increase student
achievement?
24. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.
212
APPENDIX C
CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is
a conversation between the two of us about your experience with the Greater
Educational Partnership.
1. What is your position and role at the Legacy High School?
2. How many years have you been employed at Legacy High School?
3. How many years have you worked as a school employee?
4. What are some of the other schools/districts you have been employed in?
5. What has been your experience working with community-based or university
partnerships, especially those focused on school reform? How much to you
know about the GEP partnership? What are its goals?
6. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join you-Design and take
on a network partner?
7. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings involving the Greater Educational Partnership or their
representatives? What structures have been created here at the school to
include your participation?
8. What do you know about the role of the Obama Foundation, the Justice
League, or California University, particularly the School of Education?
9. How do you see the members of the GEP working together as one
organization?
213
10. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Greater
Educational Partnership?
11. Why do you believe/or not believe Legacy High School needed a network
partner?
12. In what ways do you feel the Greater Educational Partnership has benefited
the school or has the potential to benefit the school?
13. What changes have occurred under the partnership? Have they been positive
or negative or mixed? Please explain.
14. Describe the relationship between the administration and GEP up to this
point.
15. To what degree do you think the network partnership can provide greater
support to the quality of teaching and learning at Legacy High School? Do
you have recommendations?
16. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
17. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the work of
the partnership to improve Legacy High School?
18. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Legacy High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
19. How involved has classified staff been in the work of the partnership to
improve Legacy High School? What have been the barriers to their
participation? What are your recommendations to increase their involvement?
214
20. How involved have parents been in the work of the partnership to improve
Legacy High School?
21. What has been the level of students’ participation in the partnership?
22. What structures or opportunities have been created for widespread
participation in the work of the partnership? What are some of the barriers
you have seen or anticipate to the success of this partnership?
23. What characteristics do you think can make the Greater Educational
Partnership effective and increase longevity?
24. What can you do to contribute to the partnership in order to increase student
achievement?
25. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.
215
APPENDIX D
PARENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is
a conversation between the two of us about your experience with the Greater
Educational Partnership.
1. How are you affiliated with Legacy High School? How many years have you
been affiliated with the school? How many more years do you expect to be a
part of the Legacy High School community?
2. Have your children attended any other schools within the district? What are
those schools?
3. Do you live in the Legacy High School attendance area?
4. Are your children a part of the home school or one of the magnet programs at
Legacy High School (Gifted Magnet or Teacher Transition Magnet)?
5. Have your children attended any schools outside of the district?
6. How would you compare your experience as a parent here at Legacy High
School with your experience as a parent in any other school?
7. How would you compare your student’s experience here at Legacy High
School with your child’s experience in other schools?
8. What do you think is the extent of parent involvement at Legacy High
School? How have parents been involved in the school in the past?
9. What are your recommendations for increased parent involvement at Legacy
High School? What roles would you like to see parents play at the school?
216
10. Describe what you know about the Greater Educational Partnership’s
involvement with Legacy High School. What are its goals?
11. How has your role as a parent at Legacy High School changed since the
Greater Educational Partnership has become the network partner? Are you
more involved or less involved?
12. What other types of partnerships, that you are aware of, has Legacy High
School been involved with (i.e. universities, community-based
organizations). Have you ever been an active participant in these
partnerships? How does the Greater Educational Partnership compare to the
other partnerships? What is different about GEP?
13. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join you-Design and take
on a network partner?
14. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings involving the Greater Educational Partnership or their
representatives? What structures have been created here at the school to
include your participation in the work to reform/transform Legacy High
School?
15. What do you know about the role of the Obama Foundation, the Justice
League, or California University?
16. How do you see the members of the GEP working together as one
organization?
217
17. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Greater
Educational Partnership?
18. In what ways do you feel the Greater Educational Partnership has benefited
the school or has the potential to benefit the school?
19. What changes have occurred under the partnership? Have they been positive
or negative or mixed? Please explain.
20. What kind of relationship do you observe between the administration and
GEP up to this point? Please describe.
21. To what degree do you think the network partnership can provide greater
support to the quality of teaching and learning at Legacy High School? Do
you have recommendations?
22. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
23. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the work of
the partnership to improve Legacy High School?
24. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Legacy High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
25. How involved has classified staff been in the work of the partnership to
improve Legacy High School? What have been the barriers to their
participation? What are your recommendations to increase their involvement?
26. What has been the level of students’ participation in the partnership?
218
27. What characteristics do you think can make the Greater Educational
Partnership effective and increase longevity?
28. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.
219
APPENDIX E
COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
1. What is your position and role in the community?
2. How long have you been a partner with Legacy High School? Why did you
decide to become a partner with the school?
3. How and why did you decide which organizations you would join with to
form the Greater Educational Partnership? Describe how your relationship
has developed over the length of your partnership. Describe some of the
successes and challenges and what you have learned from both of them.
4. What do you think are the challenges and strengths of Legacy High School?
5. What involvement did you have with Legacy High School prior to joining the
Greater Educational Partnership?
6. What are GEP’s goals for transforming Legacy High School in the next five
years? What role did the school play in determining those goals?
7. What contribution do you expect your organization to make to the Greater
Educational Partnership in its efforts to transform Legacy High School? Do
you believe your contribution will be enhanced by joining the partnership?
8. Describe the relationship between GEP and teachers at the school. What
structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key stakeholders
in the transformation of Legacy High School? What have been some of the
barriers? How has GEP worked to overcome them?
220
9. Describe the relationship between GEP and parents at Legacy High School.
What structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key
stakeholders in the transformation of Legacy High School? What have been
some of the barriers? How has GEP worked to overcome them?
10. Describe the relationship between GEP and administrators at Legacy High
School. What structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key
stakeholders in the transformation of Legacy High School? What have been
some of the barriers? How has GEP worked to overcome them?
11. Describe the relationship between GEP and students at Legacy High School.
What structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key
stakeholders in the transformation of Legacy High School? What have been
some of the barriers? How has GEP worked to overcome them?
12. Describe ways in which the GEP partners have created a dialogic relationship
in which all partners have equal power. What have you done to diffuse real or
perceived inequalities in power among the partners?
13. What have been the challenges to forming a partnership in which all
members and stakeholders work collaboratively with equal decision making
power?
14. What changes to your organization have occurred or you envision occurring
as a member of GEP?
15. How does the partnership work with the school to ensure that it is an equal
partner, versus a mere recipient of services from GEP?
221
16. How successful do you think the partnership will be in increasing student
achievement at Legacy High School? Explain your answer. What are the
barriers? What are the strategies in place to overcome the barriers?
17. What characteristics and practices does the GEP need to adopt to make the
partnership effective in carrying out its goals and ensuring its longevity?
18. What role does GEP envision for the community as Legacy High School
works to be seen as a viable school option for community residents?
19. When have you felt that your role was an equal member of the partnership?
When have you felt your role was a dominant member of the partnership?
When have you felt that your role or your voice was not respected in the
partnership?
20. Do you have comments that you have not been able to express in response to
the questions asked?
222
APPENDIX F
UNIVERSITY STAKEHOLDER PROTOCOL
1. What is your position and role in the university?
2. What do you know about the Greater Legacy High School Educational
Partnership?
3. What do you know about Legacy High School?
4. What other partnerships with K-12 schools have you been involved with?
5. Describe the meetings in which you have been involved with Legacy High
School, the Justice League, or the Obama Foundation. In your opinion, did
the participants have equal voices in the discussions about transforming
Legacy High School?
6. How receptive have you observed the school staff, teachers, and
administration to be about forming a partnership?
7. Have you ever visited Legacy High School? How long ago? Describe your
impressions?
8. Have you visited Legacy High School since the Greater Educational
Partnership was established?
9. What contribution do you think California University can make to the work
of the Greater Educational Partnership’s efforts to transform Legacy High
School?
10. What personal or professional contribution do you intend to make to the work
of the Greater Educational Partnership?
223
11. What are some strategies that the partnership leaders can employ to dispel the
perception or reality that the university expects to hold greater decision-
making power in the partnership?
12. How do you see this partnership changing or affecting California or the
School of Education?
13. What elements of the professional development school model can the
partnership employ that, you believe, will increase student achievement?
14. Research shows that most partnerships do not last longer than five years.
What do you think is the most significant factor in the failing of these
partnerships? How can the network partners avoid these pitfalls?
15. Do you think incorporating the community more in how students are taught
will increase the longevity of the partnership and its ability to effect positive
change at Legacy High School?
16. When did you feel that your role was a dominant member of the partnership?
When did you feel that your role was an equal participant of the partnership?
224
APPENDIX G
SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Purpose of
Activity

Date/Location
Participants (Circle one)
• Community Members
• School Staff
• Faculty
• Students
• Administration
• Parents
• University Partners
Describe
the physical
setting

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

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

Strategies to
promote a
dialogic culture
of co-constructing
knowledge

What are the
decision-making
patterns (i.e.
during this
activity, between
activities)

225
APPENDIX H
MEETING OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Purpose of
Activity

Date/Location

Participants

(Circle one)
• Community Members
• School Staff
• Faculty
• Students
• Administration
• Parents
• University Partners
Describe
the physical
setting

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

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

Strategies to
promote a
dialogic culture
of co-constructing
knowledge

What are the
decision-making
patterns (i.e.
during this
activity, between
activities)

226
APPENDIX I
EXAMINED ARTIFACTS PROTOCOL
Document What questions the documents
will answer?
Research
Question
Collected
?
GEP Partnership
 Meeting
agendas/minutes/
sign-in sheets
• Action Plan
• Potential and Current
barriers in the formation of
the partnership
• Who the stakeholders are
and to identify interview
candidates
1, 2
 Memorandum of
Understanding
• Mutually agreed upon
goals
• Distribution of power and
responsibilities

1, 2
 GEP Business Plan • Mission and Vision
• Action Plan

1, 2
School
Demographics

 CST Data • API, AYP disaggregated
by demographics,
subgroups, etc.
• Program Improvement
Information
1, 2
 Professional
Development
Plans
• Focus areas, frequency,
schedule
1, 2
 Staff Meeting
Agendas/Minutes
• Time spent in collaboration
• Teacher input
• Weekly focus

1, 2
 Grade Level
Team Meeting
Minutes

• Time spent in collaboration
• Priorities of grade level
reflecting community
expertise or concerns
1,2
227
 District Uniform
Complaint
Information for
Legacy High School
HS

• School Climate
• Parent Satisfaction

1
Parent Involvement

 Parent meeting
agendas,
minutes, sign-in
sheets
 SSC
 Legacy High School
Courage Coalition

• Level of parental
involvement
• Identify involved parents to
interview
• Whether state mandated
committees involving
parents are actually
meeting,
advising, approving school
issues
• Identify parental concerns
particularly with lack of
communication

1, 2
 Parent
Communiqués

• Types of information
disseminated to parents
• Information is translated in
appropriate languages

1,2
 Parent Surveys • School Climate
• Parental concerns

1,2
 Visitor Logs • Parent Volunteers 1

Asset Metadata

Creator Wooldridge, Nina Denise (author)

Core Title A process for co-constructing community-school-university partnerships to transform an urban high school and widen the post-secondary opportunities for urban youth

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/08/2009

Defense Date 05/05/2009

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

Tag co-constructed partnerships,community-school-university partnerships,new cultural model,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

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

Creator Email nwooldridge@collegeboard.org,Wool394@aol.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2335

Unique identifier UC170735

Identifier etd-Wooldridge-3068 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-570529 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2335 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Wooldridge-3068.pdf

Dmrecord 570529

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Wooldridge, Nina Denise

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email uscdl@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Despite numerous efforts among American public schools to raise student achievement and widen the higher education trajectory for low-income minority youth, the reality remains—there are significant gaps in academic performance for African American students in the K-12 setting which present barriers to postsecondary success.