University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content CO-CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY, SCHOOL, AND UNIVERSITY
PARTNERSHIPS FOR URBAN SCHOOL TRANSFORMATION

by

Stephanie J. Kim

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 Stephanie J. Kim

ii
DEDICATION

First and foremost, my sincerest gratitude goes to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,
without whom this journey would not have been possible. Thank you for loving me,
redeeming me, and blessing me to be Your ambassador and witness in this world.

This dissertation is dedicated to my children,
Charis Alatheia Kim, Adeline Inara Kim, and my soon-to-be third.
Thank you for being so patient and understanding of all the times when mom was too
busy to play, always asking for five more minutes of quiet time to study. Though it was a
sacrifice, my hope is that this journey will have not only made me a better educator but a
better role model and example for you, my family, as I pave the way for you and help you
realize there is nothing you cannot accomplish with the Lord’s help. I love you dearly and
know that I could not have done this without you being in my corner.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ for His many
blessings upon my life. It has been by His grace alone that I have been given my
heavenly calling to be His child and my earthly calling to be a light in the field of
education. Great God, You are worthy of all my praise. Take my life and let it be
consecrated Lord, to Thee.
To my husband and fellow graduate, Jeff Kim, for your unwavering belief and
support of me and my untapped potential. Thank you for always pushing me harder and
farther than I think I am capable, and for always dreaming big dreams and working hard
to fulfill them. It has been such a blessing to see God using us together and allowing us to
be partners in so many different areas. I know I don’t say this as often as I should, but I
thank you and appreciate you so much for the man you are and the greater man you are
becoming every day. I love you and can’t wait to see what new doors become opened and
what new opportunities unfold in the coming years.
To my children, Charis, Adeline, and our third little one who is on the way, I am
so thankful that I can be your mom and experience the sheer joy and excitement of
watching you learn new things and grow every day. Thank you for loving me despite my
shortcomings, and never running out of hugs and kisses to encourage me when I am
feeling exhausted. It is my prayer that mom and dad’s example can cultivate the social,
spiritual, and academic capital necessary for you to also dream big and believe that
nothing is impossible with God.
iv
To my family, my mother and father, Elaine and Philip Song, and my sisters,
Mina and Eunice, for the many years of sacrifice to support me in this endeavor. Thank
you for always being willing to do whatever it takes to help me accomplish my goals, and
doing so without a word of complaint and seeking no reward in return. Without your
support it would have not only been physically and logistically impossible to complete
this process, but mentally and emotionally impossible as well. I hope I can continue to
make you proud as I use this experience to make a difference.
To my in-laws, my mother-in-law, Seung Aie Kim, my sister-in-law, Amy Lee,
and my brother-in-law, Howard Lee, for also making a great contribution to my
education and training by providing endless encouragement and support, late-night
babysitting, and warm meals to nourish us during those many days and nights of writing
and studying. Thank you for believing that this was worth the sacrifice, and believing in
us to know both Jeff and I could get through this together.
To my church family at Gospel Life Mission Church, and especially our Anaheim
Family Group. Thank you for your many prayers and words of encouragement to help us
finish strong. You have all become an extension of our family, and I hope we can
continue to run this race together and encourage one another on toward love and good
deeds. A very special thanks to Aimee Zo Kim, Joann Song, Rachel Kim, and Sandy
Song, whose many days and nights of babysitting our kids made it possible for me to
attend class, host meetings, and have uninterrupted time to write and gather my thoughts.
You may think you were just spending time with the kids, but you were really doing so
much more. Thank you for loving our family in this way.
v
To Rev. Dr. Y. John Chung and his wife, Gloria Chung, President of IEC Trust in
Bangalore, India. Thank you for the very first opportunity to become immersed in
education, and for allowing me to see the transformative power of educating the whole
child and its potential to impact not only the life of the student, but his family,
community, and ultimately society. Your example of reckless abandon for the total
evangelization of India and the neighboring countries, and your utilization of education
as a means to help meet not only the academic and social, but the spiritual needs of a
community fostered in me a vision and calling that I have seen increase over time. Thank
you for your faithfulness and service to the Lord and His people, and for taking the time
to mentor and train a young college student, believing in faith that God would make her
into someone who could be usable and useful to the Master.
To my Dissertation Committee Members, Dr. Dennis Hocevar, Dr. David Marsh,
and Dr. Anthony Maddox. Thank you for sharing your valuable experience and insight to
make my study the best that it could be. Each one of your unique perspectives and
expertise served to provide me with another lens with which to examine and improve my
work. Thank you for taking the time to provide rich feedback and be involved in this
process with me.
To the parents, teachers, staff, and community of Freedom High School and the
partners of GFEP. Thank you for taking the time to share your stories and to allow me the
honor of documenting a small part of the transforming work that is taking place at
Freedom High. It is my hope that the process of co-construction continues to allow for
greater and richer dialogue and mutual learning for the benefit of all stakeholders and that
vi
the new culture that is emerging within the partnership will serve as a powerful model for
other such partnerships throughout the nation. Once again, thank you for sharing a part of
your lives with me and showing me what matters most to you.
To my Thematic Dissertation Cohort, affectionately named Team Rousseau.
Thank you to all of you for your spirit of collaboration, willingness to go the extra mile,
and for making this challenging process more enjoyable and definitely memorable. From
co-constructing the funnel down sentences, to the completion of our coding matrix and
the writing of our final chapters, you have shown me what it means to work together and
bring together the strengths of each individual to accomplish what could not have been
done alone. Thank you, Michelle Avila, Phaidra Crayton, Corina Espinoza, Jamila
Gillenwaters, Laura Hernandez-Flores, Joshua Watson, Michelle Woods, Nina
Wooldridge, and my husband, Jeff Kim, for exemplifying what a true partnership can
look like. I hope that in our many years in education, we will take this experience and be
our own critical bridge persons in the places where we serve for the benefit of all
students.
And last, but by no means least, to Dr. Sylvia G. Rousseau, who has proven to be
so much more than a dissertation chair, but a role model, mentor, mother, and coach
throughout these past three years. Thank you alone does not do justice to how grateful I
am for having had the privilege to work with you and learn from you. When I first
entered the Ed.D program, my prayer was that I would find a female mentor who I could
look to as a role model for me throughout this journey. My prayer was answered the day I
walked into your Diversity course—and this beyond my expectations. Thank you for
vii
pouring your life into everything that you do, and speaking volumes, even in your
silence. Thank you for pushing me beyond what I thought I could do or understand, and
for never giving us the easy way out but allowing us the time to think and understand for
ourselves. Your wisdom, passion, compassion, and integrity are an inspiration.

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xi
ABSTRACT xii
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 16
Purpose of the Study 17
Significance of the Study 18
Research Questions 19
Limitations 19
Delimitations 20
Definition of Terms 20

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 24
Introduction 24
University, School, Community Partnerships 25
Barriers in Partnerships 31
Overcoming Barriers 36
University, School, Community Partnerships as 46
a New Cultural Model for Home-School Partnerships
Conclusion 52

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 54
Study Design and Research Questions 54
Methods 55
Sample and Population 57
Instrumentation 59
Research Question Frameworks 61
Data Collection Instruments and Procedures 64
Data Analysis 73
Ethical Considerations 77
Summary 78

ix
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION 79
Introduction 79
Research Questions 79
Background 81
Data Findings 85
Research Question 1: Process 87
Summary of Findings for Research Question One 102
Research Sub-Question A: Barriers 103
Summary of Findings for Research Sub-Question 1A 114
Research Sub-Question B: Strategies 116
Summary of Findings for Research Sub-Question 1B 125
Research Question 2: Attributes 126
Summary of Findings for Research Question Two 134
Summary of Chapter Four 135

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 137
Introduction 137
Overview of the Study 137
Findings 139
Conclusions 144
Recommendations 146

REFERENCES 149

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Administrative Interview Protocol 155
Appendix B: Teacher Interview Protocol 158
Appendix C: Classified Personnel Interview Protocol 161
Appendix D: Parent Interview Protocol 164
Appendix E: Community-Based Organization Interview Protocol 167
Appendix F: University Stakeholder Interview Protocol 170
Appendix G: School Environment Observation Protocol 172
Appendix H: Meeting Observation Protocol 173
Appendix I: Examined Artifacts Protocol 174
Appendix J: Pseudonyms 176
Appendix K: Informed Consent Form 178

x
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: School Demographic Data 58

Table 2: School Drop Out Rates 58

Table 3: School Achievement Data 59

Table 4: Triangulation Using a Variety of Data Collection Instruments 60

Table 5: Theoretical Frameworks for Research Questions 63

Table 6: Data Collection Matrix 65

Table 7: Theoretical Framework: Relation to Findings 85

Table 8: Interviews, Observations, and Artifacts Data Table 86

Table 9: Pseudonyms: Greater Freedom Educational Partnership 86
(GFEP) Partners

xi
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Co-Constructing with Dialogue for Mutual Learning 88

Figure 2: Barriers to Partnership 103

Figure 3: Strategies to Overcome the Barriers to Partnership 116

Figure 4: Attributes of a Co-Constructed Community, School, 126
University Partnership

xii
ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the first year of a five-year emerging
community, school, and university partnership engaged in the process of co-construction
for the purpose of transforming a K-12 school. This partnership was selected for its
uniqueness in bringing together a pair of community-based organizations with a long-
standing history of advocacy and social justice within the community, a low-performing
urban high school, and a top-tier private research university with a record of service
within the urban community. The research questions in this study focused on a process
that enables partnerships among communities, schools, and universities to be co-
constructed, the persistent barriers to establishing these partnerships, some effective
strategies to overcome the barriers, and the attributes of a partnership that result from a
co-constructed partnership among communities, schools, and universities for the purpose
of urban school transformation. Results from the qualitative case study indicated that the
partnership is engaged in the process of co-construction through dialogue and mutual
learning. Barriers to this process of co-construction included history, hierarchy, and the
absence of systems and structures for communication. Some effective strategies that have
been employed to overcome these barriers have included space for dialogue and systems
of representation. In the span of less than a year, the partnership has also begun to
demonstrate key attributes such as collaborative relationships, trust, mutual respect, and
stakeholder confidence.

1
CHAPTER ONE

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Introduction
The many faces of school reform have been prompted by our nation’s various
attempts to improve the quality of education for all students in order to ensure a future
generation of individuals who are able to compete nationally and globally. From the Civil
Rights Movement in the 1950’s to the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), efforts have been made to provide equal education opportunities to all students,
regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. The release of the 1983 report A
Nation at Risk awakened the nation to the reality of our nation’s underachievement in
educational pursuits when compared to the achievement of other nations (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Still faced with underachievement,
especially among students of color in urban schools, the federal government enacted the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), calling for greater accountability and
establishing high standards to ensure teacher competence and student achievement.
NCLB has ushered in the age of accountability in which schools and teachers are
increasingly being held responsible for producing positive outcomes with all students. “In
the media, in public policy debates, and within the profession of teaching and teacher
education itself, there is unprecedented emphasis on accountability, results, and
outcomes, or at a fundamental level, what connection the public has a right to expect
among teaching, schooling, and student learning” (Cochran-Smith, 2001, p. 2).

2
Background of the Problem
Inequality in Schools
With the landmark case of Brown v. the Board of Education in 1954, schools were
mandated to desegregate, and “separate but equal” was ruled unconstitutional. However,
more than half a century later, the reality in today’s schools demonstrates that there has
been little progress in providing equity and access to all students to improve their quality
of education. Students in high-poverty, high-minority schools continue to struggle to
meet current standards. The current state of schools exemplifies a “separate and unequal”
state of education for students of color (Oakes & Rogers, 2007, p. 195). Horace Mann’s
vision of schools as “great equalizers” has not been realized. “Brown’s call for education
‘on equal terms’ is largely ignored, and today, African American and Latino students in
most parts of the country attend public schools that are as racially segregated as they
were in 1954” (Oakes & Rogers, 2007, p. 194). The inequities in resources in these
segregated schools, such as facilities, qualified teachers, and materials contribute to
discrepancies in student outcomes. As such, the achievement gap continues to widen, and
students in urban schools continue to struggle to meet standards and be successful.
Though efforts at school reform have been ongoing for more than fifty years, students in
high-poverty, high-minority schools continue to struggle to meet standards for success.

The Achievement Gap
The achievement gap, defined as the “disparity in academic performance between
groups of students,” is often used to describe the disparity in the performance among
3
African-American and Latino students as opposed to their White counterparts as well as
students of low socio-economic status versus more affluent students (edweek.org, 2004).
The National Governors’ Association states that the achievement gap is “a matter of race
and class. Across the U.S. a gap in academic achievement persists between minority and
disadvantaged students and their white counterparts” (2005). Data collected from the
2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicates that a gap of more
than 26 points in reading scaled scores existed between Black and Latino fourth graders
and their White counterparts while a gap of more than 20 points in mathematics was
recorded (Education Commission of the States, 2005). Eighth grade reading scores
showed a 23-point difference, and mathematics scores differed by more than 26 points. In
addition to scores from standardized tests, a comparison of dropout rates, enrollment in
honors or advanced placement courses, and rates of college and graduate school
acceptances also demonstrate this disparity.
Ladson-Billings (2006) asserts that while the focus has been on closing the
achievement gap, a new movement must take place to decrease the “education debt” (p.
5). Comparing the concepts of “national deficit” and “national debt” to the achievement
gap and the education gap, respectively, Ladson-Billings argues that the achievement
gap, like the national deficit, focuses on the disparities of student achievement over a
specific period of time whereas the education debt looks at the accumulation of deficits in
the nation’s obligation to create equitable opportunities to learn over time (p. 4). By
examining the historical, economic, sociopolitical, and moral debts that have contributed
to this education debt, Ladson-Billings details the underlying factors that have resulted in
4
an achievement gap. The historical debt details the educational inequities that have
persisted in our nation’s history surrounding issues of race, class, and gender. The
economic debt refers to funding disparities that exist between schools that serve
predominantly White students and that of schools serving students of color. In addition, it
describes the high rates of unemployment and job discrimination that have kept some
groups from advancing economically. The sociopolitical debt highlights how
communities of minorities have been left out of the civic process and inadequately
represented. Finally, the moral debt reflects upon what our nation knows to be right and
whether or not we act upon what we know. It refers to the social responsibility that the
nation has to provide quality education to all students (Ladson-Billings, 2006).

Partnerships for School Reform
In order to address the widening achievement gap, partnerships have been formed
between schools and universities, schools and communities, universities and
communities, and universities, schools, and communities in the hope of bringing together
the expertise of each partner for the purpose of effecting educational change. The
potential of these partnerships to improve schools is promising. Sirotnik and Goodlad
(1988) posit that school and university partnerships have the power to create school
reform and student success because they bring together “the creators and appliers of
knowledge and lead to renewal and innovation for both parties” (Kezar, 2007, p. 29).
Partnerships have the potential to pool the resources and expertise of each entity with the
ultimate goal of benefiting students (Sallee & Tierney, 2007). And while schools,
5
universities and communities are distinct systems with their own goals and purposes, they
ultimately can come together under the common goal of improving education for students
(Sallee & Tierney, 2007). The ideal partnership is characterized by mutual benefits to
schools, universities, and communities. Schools benefit from learning about current
research methods, universities benefit by learning about schools’ practices that will
inform their teacher education programs, and communities benefit as teachers,
administrators, and university faculty learn to work better with those outside the
classroom (Stevens, 1999). A successful partnership that is mutually beneficial for all
parties is established as each partner seeks to understand the distinct culture of the other,
and efforts are made to work toward the creation of a new, shared culture (Kezar, 2007).
A shared culture based on a co-constructed, dialogic relationship can help stakeholders
guard against the many challenges to its existence and overcome the common barriers to
successful partnerships. Public education is the beneficiary of these partnerships.

University, School, Community Partnerships
Co-constructed relationships among universities, K-12 schools, and communities
have the potential for redistributing power, thus enabling all partners to contribute to the
quality of education in urban communities. In order for these partnerships to be
successful, they must be built upon mutual respect and trust in which all parties recognize
the others’ areas of strength and expertise (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Mayfield & Lucas,
2000; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005; Sallee & Tierney, 2007). Building this kind of
relationship involves not merely cooperation but a mindset of collaboration. Kirschner,
6
Dickinson, & Blosser (1996) distinguish between cooperation and collaboration stating
that cooperation involves working together for a common purpose but each with its own
separate agenda whereas collaboration is a “joint intellectual effort” (p. 206).
Collaboration in the form of co-construction allows for all members of the partnership to
contribute their unique knowledge and expertise and develop strategies collectively to
improve student outcomes. Richmond (1996) posits that successful partnerships exist
when what is achieved together is greater than what is accomplished individually (p.
217).
Creating and maintaining partnerships between universities, schools, and
communities involves several other key components that facilitate its success. In order
for true collaboration to take place, effective communication becomes a priority. From
the beginning stages, each member of the partnership must clearly articulate its vision,
goals, roles and expectations for the partnership. Because each entity in the partnership
has its own established culture and norms, establishing effective communication
strategies can minimize possible misunderstandings and ambiguities that can hinder the
work being done. “[A] shared set of rules governing language as well as goals must be
developed, and respect for differences in perspective and values must be maintained. The
authenticity and value of collaboration lie in the ability of participants to communicate
effectively across their different cultures” (Richmond, 1996, p. 217). Learning each
organization’s preferred style of communication conveys an attitude of respect and is
critical to establishing trust. Developing mutual respect and trust among all stakeholders
takes time and begins in becoming familiar with the setting and culture of each member
7
(Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005, p. 88). Another component of successful partnerships
involves respect for the culture of the setting and the community in which the partnership
will exist. Recognizing organizations as “complex social systems” and understanding that
each has its own set of norms, traditions, and expertise will help to better facilitate
relationships among all parties (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005, p. 91).
Partnerships that involve true collaboration are not naturally established when
organizations begin working together. Differences that exist within and among each
organization make partnerships difficult to establish and maintain. The process of
building partnerships involves overcoming barriers that hinder the work of collaboration.
Ensuring that this work takes root and results in success requires active engagement from
all stakeholders. Carroll et al. (2001) assert that barriers to co-construction include
inadequate time devoted to the task, gaps in stakeholder communication, and a lack of
understanding, valuing and facilitating different stakeholders’ talents. In order for co-
construction to take place, key stakeholders need to buy into the process for clear
acknowledgement of the problems, as well as ongoing analysis and assessment of the
activities of the implementation team members (Carroll et al., 2001).
In addition, issues surrounding roles, responsibilities, power sharing, and
sustainability can hinder the success of partnerships and interfere with school reform
efforts (Carroll et al., 2001). Universities frequently claim to possess all the knowledge
and often attempt to enter communities to “fix” the problems in schools and
communities. “Too often universities venture into communities like a bull in a china
shop. [They] posture [themselves] as ‘know-it-alls,’ having all the expertise that
8
communities need and [determined to apply] it with little or no regard for the history and
culture of communities. This is a recipe for a bad marriage” (Wilson, p. 20). While the
goal of most researchers is to discover new knowledge and publish their research in order
to gain recognition within academic communities, the goal of schools is to improve
student outcomes (Carroll et al., 2001). Schools and communities often demonstrate
distrust toward universities, seeing that their goals and agendas differ from their own, and
are therefore hesitant to work with these organizations in fear that schools will not have a
voice (Carroll et al., 2001). What has typically been characterized by mistrust and
hesitation can be transformed by the formation of new kinds of partnerships that have the
potential to facilitate collaboration and mutual benefit for each entity. Partnerships
between universities and schools can generate useful research if school-based partners are
invited to engage in the process as partners rather than subjects to be studied. Successful
collaborations call for both university researchers and school-based stakeholders to bring
their particular knowledge and skills to the partnership (Carroll et al., 2001). Rather than
viewing their different kinds of knowledge as a deficit, utilizing each entity’s particular
area of expertise and unique knowledge will enhance the work of the partnership as each
member’s culture is valued and included. Richmond (1996) asserts that individuals bring
several different kinds of knowledge to a partnership, and the differences in these
individuals’ organizational cultures cause value on specific kinds of knowledge to be
granted above that of others. The challenge in partnerships, then, is “to understand the
cultures of the various players and to foster a sense of belonging, regardless of the
cultures involved” (Richmond, 1996, p. 217).
9
In addition to differing agendas and roles, power relationships derail the
possibilities for these three entities to work together and make collaboration more
challenging (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005). While the term collaboration means ‘working
together,’ the articulation of joint activities in social groups always involves
power-sharing issues. Partnerships among school-based educators,
family members, and researchers involve power sharing across lines
of institutional turf, professional status, and personal identity. When
power is unequally distributed, collaboration is likely to result in
domination of a particular group. (Carroll et al., 2001, p. 42)

And because these power relationships exist among stakeholders and create barriers to
collaboration, the means by which these partnerships can overcome these barriers is to
engage in a process of deliberately co-constructing relationships by facilitating ongoing
dialogue to build a solid partnership.

The Process of Co-construction
Co-construction in partnerships involves understanding the social and cultural
contexts of each stakeholder’s organization and requires all participants to work together
as peers to find solutions to improving schools (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005). To
facilitate this co-construction, each organization brings its specific knowledge and
expertise and works together with the other organizations to create agreed upon change
(Carroll et al., 2001; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005). By working toward this form of
equitable communication among all parties, trust is developed because each entity sees
itself as having an equal voice, with a move away from hierarchical relationships that
devalue one over the other. Partnerships that encourage dialogue are able to build
10
relationships that allow each stakeholder to contribute to the work of change. Freire
(1970) asserts that trust is established by dialogue. “Dialogue is a dimension of
communication quality that keeps communicators more focused on mutuality and
relationship than on self interest, more concerned with discovering than disclosing, more
interested in access than in domination” (Kent & Taylor, 2001, p. 30).
Recognizing the unique body of knowledge that each partner brings to the
partnership broadens the scope of the work that can be accomplished as each member
contributes to the whole. Engaging in dialogue “involves an effort to recognize the value
of the other—to see him/her as an end and not merely as a means to achieving a desired
goal” (Kent & Taylor, 2001, p. 22). Oakes and Lipton (2002) state that three dimensions
of community organizing include developing relationships through the creation of social
capital, building understanding by engaging in dialogue, and working together on specific
objectives and thereby creating an activist community (p. 399). When the university,
school, and community engage in meaningful dialogue that recognizes the value of the
other, each partner is strengthened and ultimately, schools benefit.

Home-School Partnerships
Successful university, school, community partnerships based on mutual respect
for each partner’s expertise can facilitate the ongoing dialogue between homes and
schools. The research is extensive on the positive impact of parent involvement in
impacting student achievement. Henderson and Mapp (2002) examined 51 studies on the
impact of parent and community involvement on student achievement and found a
11
positive relationship between family involvement and its benefits to students regardless
of socioeconomic status, race, or educational backgrounds of families. The research
revealed that families of all backgrounds and cultures were involved, in some way, in
supporting their children’s education (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Six types of parent
involvement were identified for grades 8 and 12 including: parenting, communicating,
supporting school, learning at home, decision-making, and collaborating with community
(Henderson & Mapp, 2002). The studies also demonstrated that all families have
resources that can be tapped into in order to enrich students’ learning in schools. In
addition, Miretzky (2004) states that “social trust,” measured by the types of quality
relationships in a school, has a significant impact on school improvement. When parents
are valued, they are more willing to contribute and become a part of the school culture. In
the same way, students who understand that parents and teachers are communicating with
one another also begin to work harder. Schools with this high level of social trust
continue to demonstrate improved student achievement (Miretzky, 2004, p. 817). Teacher
outreach to parents is positively correlated to consistent gains in student performance in
both reading and math. Parent workshops related to helping students at home were
positively linked to improvements in reading and math scores, and schools with
successful partnership programs demonstrated significant gains on state tests (Henderson
& Mapp, 2002).
Historically, however, the educational system has favored the white, middle-class
families who possess the social and cultural capital to better navigate schools (Henderson
& Mapp, 2002). By contrast, families of minority students have been seen as lacking in
12
assets, and schools have operated from a deficit view of the family and community’s
contribution to the learning of students (Gonzalez et al., 1993; Yosso, 2005; Cairney,
2000). Much in the same way that partnerships in the past have been characterized by
hierarchical relationships (Carroll et al., 2001), schools have all too often created unequal
power relationships with communities, which have in turn created unequal power
relationships among teachers and parents (Yosso, 2005). This current cultural model in
schools has placed higher value on the social and cultural capital found in schools and
have failed to recognize the rich social and cultural capital of families and communities
(Yosso, 2005).
The new cultural model of co-constructed relationships among universities,
schools, and communities has the potential to create new cultural models in schools by
transforming the schools’ definition of learning from that of the school teaching
communities and teachers filling students’ minds with knowledge to one in which
schools, communities, teachers, and students construct knowledge together by tapping
into the unique knowledge and experience of each entity. The process of co-construction
will redefine learning as a process that involves both the school and the community or the
teacher and the students, engaging in dialogue to construct meaning together, the one
learning from the other. And although the parent and community’s contribution to the
success of students has been often overlooked, the co-constructed relationships between
universities, schools, and communities can create new cultural models where each
partner’s expertise and unique contribution will be valued and utilized for urban school
transformation. These new cultural models of partnerships will help schools create new
13
cultural models that foster dialogic relationships between homes and schools, thus
allowing families and communities to have an equal voice and to contribute to the quality
of education in schools.

New Cultural Models
These dialogic relationships between universities, schools, and communities can,
by the nature of their partnership, create new cultural models in which teachers respect
and access the family’s funds of knowledge resulting in improved student outcomes for
urban students. As each entity in the partnership co-constructs knowledge through
dialogue and values the unique knowledge and expertise of each stakeholder, a new
culture of co-construction is created that will transform teachers’ understandings of the
process of learning through dialogic and constructivist practices. As teachers begin to see
the added value of co-constructing knowledge, they will come into contact with the
knowledge generated by families and communities which influences the knowledge
students bring to the learning environment. Recognition and incorporation of this
knowledge into the classroom has the potential to create culturally relevant and
responsive teaching and learning, which research (Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Au,
2006) has demonstrated to correlate with students’ academic achievement. This
recognition of the community’s assets and resources, in the form of funds of knowledge,
has the potential to change the way in which teachers and students interact in the
classroom as both teachers and students become learners, mutually benefiting from one
another’s contribution to the learning environment.
14
Funds of knowledge are defined as “historically accumulated and culturally
developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual
functioning” (Moll et al., 1992, p. 133). Historically, cultural models in schools have
operated from a deficit model which views minority students as having little to contribute
to classroom learning because of their limited access to the culture that predominates in
the school setting. Prior to the 1954 Supreme Court decision of Brown v. the Board of
Education, “[the] consensus at the time was that minority children, in particular African
Americans, did poorly in school because their development was negatively affected by
social conditions” in their communities and homes (Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001, p.
46). Moll et al. (1992) and Gonzalez et al. (1993) assert that school cultures must be
transformed in order to debunk the pervasive notion of working-class minority
households as lacking worthwhile knowledge and experiences. Instead, schools need to
reassess the homes of students as being rich in funds of knowledge that represent a
variety of valuable resources for educational change. Moll et al. (1992) conducted a study
in which teachers worked alongside university researchers to enter homes and engage in
dialogue to access the family’s funds of knowledge in order to inform their teaching
practices. The dialogue that took place in those homes between teachers and parents
contributed to positive changes in the teachers’ perceptions of the value of family
participation and changed their perspective to understand the importance of teachers also
being learners and accessing the valuable resources that are within the community
(Gonzalez et al., 1993).
15
Creating new cultural models requires dialogue if transformation and liberation
are to take place. Freire (1970) asserts that the essence of dialogue is the word—within
which are contained the two dimensions of reflection and action (p. 87). Dialogue that is
necessary to change existing cultural models and replace them with a new model in
which the family is made a valued participant in the students’ learning experience
requires dialogue between teachers and families that demonstrates humility and a
willingness to learn from one another (Freire, 1970, p. 90). These new cultural models
can change the culture of schools, empowering all students to gain social capital that will
allow them to receive institutional support and to access resources that will help them
achieve academically (Coleman, 1988). Stanton-Salazar (1995) defines social capital as
“social relationships from which an individual is potentially able to derive institutional
support, particularly support that includes the delivery of knowledge-based resources…”
(p. 119). While existing cultural models can perpetuate the social inequalities that exist
among students to hinder some from gaining access to valuable school resources and
personnel, new cultural models involving dialogic relationships can develop mutual trust
and respect between teachers and parents (Freire, 1970, p. 91).
Co-constructed partnerships among communities, schools, and universities have
the potential to influence the creation of a new cultural model in the school by the way in
which dialogue can allow for all partners to contribute their unique knowledge and
valuable assets to the work of the partnership. As the community, school, and university
all engage in dialogue for the purpose of co-construction, the nature of partnerships is
transformed from that of hierarchical relationships to that of collaboration, where each
16
entity is valued for their contribution and each is actively engaged in learning from one
another. This cultural model of co-constructed dialogic relationships among
communities, schools, and universities can therefore facilitate the creation of a new
cultural model within the school, thus contributing to the transformation of urban schools.

Statement of the Problem
A history of unequal distribution of power has created barriers and prevented
universities, schools, and communities from establishing partnerships to improve K-12
schools. Power relationships among universities, schools, and communities have been
characterized by mistrust, hierarchical tensions, rigidity among partners, and varying
agendas and cultures. As a result university, community and school partnerships have had
limited impact on the disparate academic achievement and educational outcomes among
urban youth in comparison to their White and Asian-American counterparts.
Historically, universities have looked down on the work of schools and teachers and have
viewed their role in partnerships as that of the experts bringing their expertise to help
schools (Dean & Levine, 2007). Schools have, in turn, viewed universities as “ivory
towers” that merely focus on theoretical knowledge and are far removed from the
practical application of knowledge in a real-world context (Sorenson, 1998). The
community has often been disregarded as having anything of value to contribute to these
partnerships, ignoring the rich cultural capital and funds of knowledge that exist within
homes and communities. Communities and parents, have in turn, created barriers of
mistrust toward universities and learned helplessness with regard to schools that have
17
made efforts at collaboration more difficult. These historic patterns of interaction have
made attempts at creating partnerships for school change a great challenge. The quest for
the upper hand by one or more parties in school, community, university partnerships
creates a historically impermeable power struggle that is counter-productive in the pursuit
of educational excellence for urban youth. A consequence of the persistence of
hierarchical relationships has been the inability to actualize the potential of these
partnerships. These hierarchical relationships have been characterized by
communications that are neither dialogic nor co-constructed among these partners. Such
barriers have made it challenging to establish the kinds of partnerships needed to
transform urban schools.

Purpose of the Study
The aim of this research study is to explore the ways university, school, and
community partnerships can be co-constructed for the purpose of improving the quality
of education in schools located in urban communities. Schools do not have the ability to
accomplish this work alone due to the various non school-based factors that contribute to
students’ inability to succeed. Research into partnerships exists in the literature, but these
studies involve only partnerships between universities and schools or between
communities and universities. This study is unique in that it involves all three partners:
universities, schools, and communities. Little is known about the power of co-constructed
relationships in fostering successful partnerships among these three entities to benefit
schools. In addition, this study will add to the body of knowledge by identifying the
18
barriers to creating these partnerships and examining successful strategies to overcome
these barriers. Adding to the body of knowledge about these partnerships’ ability to
foster home-school relationships has the potential for raising the academic performance
of urban students.

Significance of the Study
This nation is increasingly becoming a nation of color that constitutes a large
portion of the population that is not graduating from our schools. Rousseau (2007) states,
“Our nation is now facing the results from a history of under-educating its minority
population that will become the majority population by the middle of the century” (p. 50).
We as a nation can no longer afford to have the masses of our people uneducated and
unemployed. Every student who does not succeed in school and graduate creates a bleak
scenario for our nation’s future. Likewise, every student who graduates and goes on to
live a more productive life alters that scenario for our nation’s future. This study has
sociological, economic, and societal ramifications that can be transferred at the local,
national, and international level. If successful, this partnership will positively affect
students, increasing the number of students who graduate and attend college, enter the
work force, and become citizens of democratic society, and ultimately improving their
social productivity. In addition, it will provide a new cultural model for educating the
youth of urban schools. This partnership can therefore serve as a model for other similar
communities throughout the nation and the world, creating redistributed power
relationships on behalf of school reform.
19
Research Questions
The following research question will guide this study:
1. What is a process that enables communities, schools, and universities to co-construct
partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban schools?
a. What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools, and universities on behalf of K-12 urban school
transformation?
b. What are some effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming
barriers in co-constructing partnerships among communities, K-12 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/school/university
partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?

Limitations
The limitations of the study include time, resources, access to key stakeholders,
and issues of trust. Collecting data within a six to eight week time period may limit the
amount of resources and data that are gathered. Access to key stakeholders may present a
challenge due to scheduling conflicts, changes in personnel, or limited time to meet with
individuals. Issues of trust due to the lack of time to build strong rapport with
stakeholders and gain the trust of all partners can put constraints on the quality of data
collected. In addition, a lack of trust among stakeholders may prevent individuals from
20
sharing freely and honestly about the partnership and the relationships between
organizations. However, these factors will be mitigated by informal visits, the analysis of
documents and artifacts to gain an understanding of the context and background of the
partnership, as well as the awareness of the unique factors and history that are allowing
all partners to collaborate for the purpose of urban school transformation.

Delimitations
This study represents year one of a five-year study of a university, school,
community partnership to research effective strategies in initiating and maintaining
successful partnerships for the purpose of improving the quality of education in urban
schools. The School of Education at Western Pacific University, in partnership with
Freedom High School, the Metropolitan League’s Neighborhoods Initiative, and the
Civic Engagement Foundation will collaborate to improve the 70-block neighborhood
community surrounding Freedom High School in Los Angeles. This partnership will be
formally known as the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership (GFEP). This study will
focus on one site and therefore the ability to generalize in relation to other sites may be
diminished.

Definition of Terms
Achievement Gap—A term that has come to be commonly used since the enaction of the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to describe the disparity in performance that occurs
21
typically between middle-class students and students of color in high poverty, urban
areas.
Banking—A term derived from Paolo Freire’s seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed
(2003) in which the oppressors ‘bank’ or ‘deposit’ knowledge into the oppressed with no
regard for the knowledge already possessed by the oppressed and the sociocultural
context that informs that knowledge. This instrument of oppression is oftentimes
manifested within power relationships.

Collaboration—An interactive process among individuals and organizations that have
come together of mutual accord to work towards a mutually agreed upon and mutually
beneficial goal. Each individual and organization involved in the collaborative effort
possesses diverse expertise and resources which they use to generate solutions to
complex problems (Gronski and Pigg in Miller and Haffner, 2008).

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.

Community—Traditionally defined as a group of people interacting and living in a
common geographic location. Community is also defined as the shared characteristics,
norms, behaviors, identity and cohesiveness of a group sharing common spaces of
interaction. The ‘community’ in this case study is representative of the aforementioned
definition has a variety of assets as well as liabilities. However, many of the assets have
22
been untapped. This term may also refer to community based organizations, or parents
and students in the community, or to other members of the community.

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

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

Dialogue—The process of engaging people in exchange of ideas, experiences, and
knowledge for the purpose of creating shared meaning.

Funds of Knowledge—The body of knowledge, skills, and assets found within the home
and/or community that is necessary to enter co-constructed dialogic relationships. Moll et
al. (1992) define funds of knowledge as the “historically accumulated and culturally
developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual
functioning and well-being” (p. 133)

23
Partnership—A convergence of knowledge, resources, and assets from a university, K-12
school, and community co-constructed through dialogic relationships that has the
potential to eradicate historic, social, economic, and political barriers on behalf of urban
school transformation.

Power—The potential for affecting 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.

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

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

24
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction
As discussed in chapter one, the purpose of this study is to explore the ways in
which university, school and community partnerships can be co-constructed for urban
school transformation. With chapter one providing the background regarding the
formation of university, school, community partnerships, the following is a review of the
literature among some of these entities and their impact on urban school transformation.
This chapter begins with a look at university, school, and community partnerships, the
distinct cultures of each entity, and the barriers that prevent these organizations from
establishing and maintaining successful partnerships to improve student learning. Next,
the chapter explores the role of co-constructed university, school, and community
partnerships in creating a shared culture, thus establishing a new cultural model for
collaboration. Finally, the chapter will examine how the new cultural model of the
university, school, and community partnership can facilitate new cultural models within
schools which foster dialogic relationships between home and school and can access the
family’s funds of knowledge for the purpose of improved student outcomes. New cultural
models open the possibility for new cultural settings that address the needs of students of
color in mainly urban schools.

25
University, School, Community Partnerships
Partnerships in education are not a new concept. Educational partnerships
between universities and schools have been in existence for more than 100 years (Greene
and Tichenor, 1999). Partnerships in the form of university/school (Johnston-Parsons,
1997; Sallee & Tierney, 2007; Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988), school/community (Brabeck et
al., 2000), university/community (Benson et al., 2000; Bringle & Hatcher, 2002;
Mayfield et al., 1999; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005; Maurrasse,
2001) and university/school/community partnerships have been in existence and have
served schools in a variety of capacities (Peel, Peel, & Baker, 2002; Carroll, LaPoint, &
Tyler, 2001). However, many of these partnerships were formed but quickly faded away
as new programs were introduced to take their place. Peel et al. (2002) posit that these
partnerships failed to thrive because they sought to provide merely temporary solutions to
very complex problems (p. 319).
Partnerships also face many challenges in collaboration due to the unique
organizational cultures of each entity. Miller (2007) defines culture as a set of processes
by which members of an organization identify themselves based on shared values,
beliefs, and assumptions. Schein (1990) views culture as a pattern of basic assumptions
that an organization has developed in an effort to solve problems both internally and
externally. Because these processes have been seen as valid, they are then taught to new
members as the way to think and perceive reality. In an effort to analyze the complexity
of an organization’s culture, Schein (1990) identifies three levels of organizational
culture: (1) artifacts, (2) values, and (3) basic underlying assumptions. Artifacts are the
26
most visible indicators of culture and can include the physical environment of the
organization, the methods used for communication, and the behaviors of its members.
Values refer to the organizations’ perceptions of reality and strategies in dealing with it,
revealing what is at the organization’s core (Schein, 1990). Basic underlying assumptions
are the deepest level of an organization’s culture and “serve as unstated theories of action
for organizations” (Miller, 2007, p. 225).
Universities, schools and communities each have their own embodiment of
culture in the form of artifacts, values, and basic underlying assumptions (Schein, 1990).
And while these three entities can participate in the formation of a partnership with the
common goal of improving education, the differences in culture among these partners can
contribute to barriers and challenges when these entities attempt to work in collaboration
with one another (Kezar, 2007; Sorenson, 1998; Stevens, 1999). Sirotnik and Goodlad
(1988) assert that a cultural clash is one of the most significant challenges in creating and
maintaining school-university partnerships.

The Culture of the University
The culture of the university differs greatly from that of schools and communities
(Goodlad, 1993). Historically, universities have served the purpose of “fostering
democracy and citizen participation and providing social value” through education and
knowledge production (Ostrander, 2004, p. 77). Universities have access to a variety of
political, financial, academic, and social resources that allow them to be positioned in
places of power and influence in the community (Miller & Hafner, 2008). Of the variety
27
of resources that universities possess, research represents one of the major assets that
universities can provide to both schools and universities (Brabeck et al., 2003, Ostrander,
2004, Maurrasse, 2001). As research is such a large part of the culture of universities,
their focus tends to be more on theory and generating new knowledge (Johnston-Parsons,
1997; Maurrasse, 2001; Kezar, 2007). Universities value research, autonomy, and high
academic standards (Sorenson, 1998), and faculty members’ productivity and
achievements are largely measured by scholarship and publications (Miller, 2007;
Stevens, 1999; Kezar, 2007). For this reason, university faculty are often constrained in
their ability to engage in partnerships with schools and communities as the reward
systems of universities do not place value on civic engagement in the tenure and
promotion process (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988). The use of time for universities also
differs from that of schools and communities in that faculty members have more
flexibility in time to read, engage in thoughtful inquiry and reflection, and are not
constrained to a large degree by outside factors (Stevens, 1999; Kezar, 2007; Goodlad,
1993). Action is viewed from a more long range perspective as opposed to quick action
that are often emphasized in schools and the community (Miller, 2007; Kezar, 2007). The
physical environment of the university represents its more individualized culture as the
physical structures of the campus are typically organized in ways that isolate different
departments from one another, and the accessibility of faculty members at consistent an
predictable times in centralized locations differs from that of schools in which faculty and
staff are available at consistent times as set by the school schedule (Miller, 2007). In
addition, faculty are generally isolated from one another, as emphasis is placed on
28
individual research and teaching (Miller, 2007; Sorenson, 1998). University faculty also
typically have greater autonomy and independence than that of K-12 teachers (Kezar,
2007; Goodlad, 1993).

The Culture of the School
While university cultures are characterized by their focus on theory, the culture of
schools is often described as one that focuses on practice, with an emphasis on student
achievement and development at its core (Miller, 2007; Kezar, 2007). Schools, through a
culture of practice, generate their own expert knowledge that is different from that of
universities (Kezar, 2007). Teachers’ work environment is highly structured and
dependent upon school schedules. Rewards differ among schools and universities, with
teachers’ rewards being more in the form of intrinsic rewards and university faculty
rewards being more in the form of extrinsic recognition through publications (Stevens,
1999). Reward systems tend to favor collective action in schools (Kezar, 2007). The
meaning of time differs among universities and schools, with schools having a greater
sense of immediacy in taking action as dictated by external policies, community
influences, and immediate circumstances (Miller, 2007; Johnston-Parsons, 1997; Kezar,
2007). High-stakes accountability policies often place constraints on the level of
involvement schools can engage in with universities and community organizations
(Miller, 2007).

29
The Culture of the Community
The culture of communities also differs from that of schools and universities.
Contrary to the widely held deficit perspective about urban communities, communities
possess assets and strengths in the form of diversity and funds of knowledge in addition
to rich resources found in community-based organizations (CBOs) that are often
overlooked by schools and universities (Yosso, 2005; Gonzalez and Moll, 2002; Moll et
al., 1992; Liederman, Furco, Zapf, & Goss, 2002). These community assets can be of
benefit to schools (Yosso, 2005; Liederman et al., 2002). In addition, communities offer
schools and universities opportunities to apply theory and practice in the context of the
real world and to engage in civic, political, and philanthropic activities (Liederman et al.,
2002). Utilizing Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a conceptual framework, Yosso (2005)
asserts that utilizing the assets found in communities of color are full of resources and
multiple strengths which schools can draw upon to transform the way students of color
learn. She defines Critical Race Theory in education as “a theoretical and analytical
framework that challenges the ways race and racism impact educational structures,
practices, and discourses” (Yosso, 2005, p. 74). In examining the community’s assets
from the theoretical framework of Critical Race Theory, Yosso (2005) identifies six
forms of capital that she calls community cultural wealth found in the community that has
the potential to transform the process of schooling. Community cultural wealth is defined
as “an array of knowledge, skills, abilities, and contacts possessed and utilized by
communities of color to survive and resist macro and micro-forms of oppression” (Yosso,
2005, p. 77). The six forms of capital that constitute the community cultural wealth
30
include: (1) aspirational capital, (2) navigational capital, (3) social capital, (4) linguistic
capital, (5) familial capital, and (6) resistant capital (Yosso, 2005). Aspirational capital is
the resiliency to maintain expectations and goals for the future, even in the face of
barriers and difficulties. This capital nurtures a “culture of possibility” where individuals
within the community are encouraged to imagine the possibilities beyond the current
situation, even if there are no objective means to reach those goals (Yosso, 2005).
Navigational capital is the skill needed to navigate various social institutions and to
maneuver through “structures of inequality permeated by racism” (Yosso, 2005). Social
capital refers to the social networks and resources that allow an individual to negotiate his
position in the social strata. Linguistic capital encompasses both the intellectual and
social skills that are gained by learning to communicate in more than one language or
communication style (Yosso, 2005). Linguistic capital holds the view that students of
color enter schools with multiple language and communication skills that can serve as
assets, allowing them to draw on a variety of communication styles to suit different
audiences (Yosso, 2005). Familial capital refers to “cultural knowledge nurtured among
familia (kin) that carry a sense of community history, memory and cultural intuition”
(Yosso, 2005, p. 79). This form of capital includes a broader understanding of kinship to
include extended family, friends, and community and acknowledges the importance of
communal bonds and funds of knowledge within communities of color (Yosso, 2005).
Resistant capital refers to the cultural knowledge of the structures of racism and the skills
that parents of color teach their children to challenge these inequalities and change the
established oppressive structures (Yosso, 2005).
31
Barriers in Partnerships
The many distinguishing characteristics of each of the partners’ cultures make the
work of establishing university, community, and school partnerships a challenge,
presenting barriers that often hinder their work of transforming schools (Miller & Hafner,
2008). The differences in culture contribute to differing goals and expectations, lack of
trust, poor communication, and power relationships that make the work of collaboration a
difficult and tenuous process.

Conflicts of Interest
Partnerships also face barriers when true collaboration does not take place due to
each partner’s own differing goals and expectations as well as conflicts of interest
(Kirschner et al., 1996, Peel et al., 2002, Carroll et al., 2001; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005;
Lockwood, 1996; Sallee & Tierney, 2007; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000). These differences in
expected outcomes and roles and responsibilities of each partner make collaboration less
effective and result in distrust between stakeholders (Weiss, 1995; Carroll et al., 2001;
Sallee & Tierney, 2007; Ferman & Hill, 2004). Finding common ground among various
stakeholders with different perspectives can be a challenging and complex process
(Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005). Failing to recognize the differences in goals and failing to
work intentionally through them for the purpose of creating common goals and building
consensus can often hinder the longevity of the partnership (Barringer and Harrison,
2000; Lockwood, 1996). Kirschner, Dickinson, & Blosser (1996) make the distinction
between cooperation and collaboration, defining collaboration as a “joint intellectual
32
effort” whereas cooperation is seen as the act of working together for a common purpose,
Differences in culture among universities, schools, and communities can contribute to
differences with regard to values, goals, perceptions, and assumptions, making
collaboration a more challenging task (Kezar, 2007; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000).
Ferman and Hill (2004) identify three overlapping agendas that universities bring
to partnerships: (1) individual, (2) professional, and (3) institutional. The individual
agendas of university faculty may include social justice, politics, intellectual interest,
desire for research data, and pedagogical goals (Ferman & Hill, 2004). Professional
agendas are largely shaped by the realities of faculty members’ positions and areas of
discipline. Professional responsibilities with regard to tenure and promotion often shape
how and to what extent university faculty can engage in partnerships (Ferman & Hill,
2004).
Community agendas for engaging in partnership may include gaining access to
resources and networks as well as increasing legitimacy through association with
institutions of higher education (Ferman & Hill, 2004). Schools may become involved in
the partnership to better improve teacher quality through training and professional
development, to increase access to college for students of color, to gain access to
networks and resources, and to build instructional capacity (Kirschenbaum & Reagan,
2001; Rousseau, 2007). Each partner may then enter into the partnership with these
varying goals and expectations that may create conflict when working toward a common
goal. Differing priorities may prevent each entity from working together collaboratively,
33
especially if an organization has priorities that may be different from that of other
partners.

Poor Communication
Communication is perhaps one of the most essential elements to a successful
partnership. Lack of clear communication with all partners can quickly dissolve the
efforts of the partnership (Kezar, 2007; Barringer and Harrison, 2000; Lockwood, 1996;
Corrigan, 2000). Problems with communication often hinder the work of partnerships and
create issues of distrust among partners. Communication is closely tied with the
organization’s culture (Kezar, 2007). The organizations’ own unique communication
patterns are influenced by factors within its culture such as ethnicity, technology, and
geographic region (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005). Failure to understand and respect the
culture of each partner can often result in miscommunication and lack of trust, which can
lead to further breakdown in communication (Kezar, 2007). “The inability to comprehend
one another’s language causes cultural miscommunication that all too frequently results
in the rupture of the nascent partnership” (Sallee & Tierney, 2007, p. 6). Each
organization has a preferred style or method of communication, and it is necessary for
partners to respect and establish a mutual approach in order to ensure that clear
communication occurs (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005). An organization’s preferred style
of communication may be in the form of face-to-face contact, phone conferences, e-mail
messaging, and letter writing (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005). The preferred style of
communication for one organization may differ from that of the other members of the
34
partnership, causing potential gaps in communication and creating opportunities for
miscommunication and frustration among the partners. Poor communication has also
contributed to inequities among stakeholders’ status and power, thus perpetuating power
relationships and lack of trust. The use of jargon that is specific to an organization, as in
the case of university faculty using academic jargon when communicating with other
stakeholders, can create hierarchical relationships that fail to recognize each partner as
having equal status within the partnership (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005; Carroll et al.,
2001).

Issues of Power
An unequal distribution of power contributes to a persistent barrier in establishing
partnerships and creates hierarchical relationships that do not recognize and value the
assets of each partner (Carroll et al., 2001; Oakes & Lipton, 2002; Wiewel & Lieber,
1998; Suarez-Balcazar, Harper, & Lewis, 2005; Miller & Hafner, 2008). “Partnerships
among school-based educators, family members, and researchers involve power sharing
across lines of institutional turf, professional status, and personal identity. When power is
unequally distributed, collaboration is likely to result in domination of a particular group”
(Carroll et al., 2001, p. 42). Power relationships emerge as each entity seeks to assert
itself, rather than co-construct roles and expectations. Universities often assert their
power over schools and communities, some claiming to possess all the knowledge that is
of value, and often enter communities and schools to “fix” their problems (Maurrasse,
2001). In addition, universities often possess a variety of social, financial, and political
35
resources that give them a perceived advantage over schools and communities (Miller &
Hafner, 2008). Schools create power relationships with communities and parents as they
devalue the family’s contribution to student learning and create an unwelcoming
environment for community and parent participation within school life (Yosso, 2005).
These historical power struggles leave communities disempowered and result in mistrust
and resistance on the part of communities to engaging in collaborative work with
universities and schools (Maurrasse, 2001).

Lack of Trust
In addition to issues of power and poor communication, failure to understand and
value the distinct cultures of each entity in the partnership can result in a lack of trust
(Kezar, 2007). This lack of trust stems from a partner doubting the other’s intentions or
lacking confidence in the other partners’ ability to contribute to the success of the
partnership (Bridges and Husbands, 1996; Lockwood, 1996; Kezar, 2007). Issues of
power can also result in a lack of trust. Trust can be especially fragile if there have been
previous problems of isolation, stereotypes, or poor history among the partners (Kezar,
2007). In many instances, communities have felt a high level of distrust toward
universities because of the “persistent experience of having their reality reinterpreted,
devalued, ignored, or otherwise disrespected” (Ferman & Hill, 2004, p. 248). Schools
have also felt a level of distrust toward universities, feeling treated as “laboratories” for
university research with little benefit to schools (McCall et al., 1995).

36
Overcoming Barriers
Despite the many barriers that exist to creating successful partnerships, viable
models that demonstrate the impact partnerships can have in transforming schools do
exist. The literature identifies several key components of successful partnerships
including shared culture (Kezar, 2007; Lemma, Ferrara, & Leone, 1998); leadership
(Ostrander, 2004; Peel et al., 2002); respect and trust (Peel et al., 2002, Bringle &
Hatcher, 2002; Mayfield, Hellwig, & Banks, 1999; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000; Suarez-
Balcazar et al., 2005); collaboration and open communication (Peel et al., 2002; Suarez-
Balcazar et al., 2005); and respect for the culture of the setting and the unique expertise
of each partner (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005; Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Mayfield et al.,
1999). These characteristics are discussed in more detail in the following section.
These key components of successful partnerships have the potential to transform
the way universities, schools, and communities collaborate when they come together
within a culture that promotes these characteristics. And while the differences in culture
among universities, schools, and communities have contributed to barriers that have
prevented these entities from working together effectively, the formation of a new
cultural model, in which all partners engage in co-construction and dialogue, can change
the nature of schools and schooling (Kezar, 2007; Stevens, 1999; Freire, 1970).

37
Overcoming Barriers through a New Cultural Model of Co-Constructed Dialogic
Relationships
The literature identifies barriers that have kept each entity from working together
collaboratively. When these barriers are present, the relationships among the partners are
neither dialogic nor co-constructed; thus they derail the full possibilities of partnerships.
A new cultural model of co-constructed dialogic relationships has the potential to help
these entities broker the collective assets of each entity and overcome the persistent
barriers to partnerships. Co-constructed dialogic relationships among universities,
schools, and communities can create a shared culture and vision; provide strategies for
effective communication; redistribute power; and promote mutuality, respect, and trust,
thus resulting in partnerships that have the potential to transform schools.

The Power of Dialogue to Create a Shared Culture and Vision
In order for a partnership to be successful, the individual cultures of each entity
must be put aside to create a new culture based on a shared vision (Stevens, 1999; Kezar,
2007). While each entity may enter the partnership with its own distinct culture, when
they join together in collaboration, a new, shared culture is created (Kezar, 2007). This
new culture needs to be co-constructed, and time must be devoted to reflection,
collaboration, clarifying goals, and building relationships (Lemma, Ferrara, & Leone,
1998). “For partnerships to succeed, it is almost as if individual cultures need to be
suspended and a new one created that is built upon a shared vision” (Lemma, Ferrara, and
Leone, 1998, p. 9). This shared vision is shaped by establishing clear expectations and
38
goals that are developed collectively by all stakeholders (Lockwood, 1996; Kezar, 2007).
It is important for all partners to jointly agree upon strategies to confront problems and
devise solutions (Kezar, 2007).
The process of co-construction can foster the creation of a shared culture and
vision and requires commitment and buy-in from all stakeholders (Carroll et al., 2001).
Carroll et al. (2001) identify five general principles of co-construction with regard to
partnerships: (1) co-construction requires university researchers to understand the culture
and social contexts of the school and its influences on program development and
implementation, (2) co-construction also takes into account the social and cultural
dynamics of the community, (3) co-construction involves all partners as peers in the
process of school reform, with each entity bringing its own expertise to construct
knowledge that is contextualized to the culture of all stakeholders, (4) co-construction
requires each stakeholder to adopt a new mind-set that discards negative stereotypes and
assumptions, past hierarchical thinking, and pre-conceived approaches of how to solve
problems, (5) co-construction requires patience as it is a time-consuming process, and
desired results may not immediately be evident.

The Power of Dialogue to Promote Effective Communication
Open communication provides opportunities for input and informed decision-
making by all members of the partnership. In order for partners to develop a shared
vision, to maintain consistency in implementation of desired goals, and to develop
collaborative relationships, each stakeholder must learn to adapt their communication
39
style to suit the preferred style of communication of each partner using an agreed upon
vehicle of communication such as newsletters, e-mail, and partnership meetings (Suarez-
Balcazar et al., 2005; Richmond, 1996; Kezar, 2007). Consistent, clear communication
utilizing effective communication methods can ensure that all stakeholders are staying
informed and are being given opportunities to provide input (Suarez-Balcazar et al.,
2005). By developing positive communication patterns, stakeholders can successfully
build trust, set common goals, and engage in effective collaboration (Kezar, 2007).
Communication, in the form of dialogue, established through mutual respect for each
stakeholder, will contribute to the deconstructing of power relationships and facilitate
partnerships of true collaboration (Kent & Taylor, 2002). Clear communication also
entails listening carefully to the needs of each partner and avoiding jargon that may not
be understood by other stakeholders (Suarez-Balcazar, 2005). This can prevent potential
misunderstanding and miscommunication that can lead to a breakdown in the
relationships among all the partners.
Dialogue is an effective means to prevent miscommunication and facilitate open
and honest communication among all stakeholders. In order for university, school, and
community partnerships to be co-constructed, all partners must engage in dialogue to co-
construct knowledge and make meaning collaboratively. Dialogue promotes effective
communication because it values the other partners as having something worthwhile to
contribute to the conversation (Kent & Taylor, 2002). Communication from this
perspective has the potential to break down barriers of distrust and allow all partners to
be vulnerable in speaking openly with one another (Kent & Taylor, 2002).
40
The Power of Dialogue to Redistribute Power
Social change requires all partners to co-construct new meanings of equity and
meritocracy, supporting the creating of these new meanings by even the most
disadvantaged who were previously denied the opportunity to be a part of this process
(Oakes & Lipton, 2002). Sustainable equity reform can only occur when educators and
community members work together to develop strategies to overcome the barriers that
prevent them from working together and creating change (Oakes & Lipton, 2002; Tilly,
1984; Stall & Stoecker, 1997). Participating in a social movement involves engaging in a
struggle to redistribute power and create more equitable conditions between parties. This
also involves the creation of new norms and changing pre-existing structures (Oakes &
Lipton, 2002; Della Porta & Diani, 1999). Oakes & Lipton (2002) discuss the role of
community organizing as a means of co-construction, allowing for the redistribution of
power and the empowerment of all stakeholders to enact social change. They define
community organizing as “the work that occurs in local settings to empower individuals,
build relationships, and create action for social change (p. 397).
The nature of dialogic relationships seeks to break down hierarchical structures
and distribute power among all partners. Freire articulates several characteristics of
dialogic relationships that redistribute power. He states that dialogue cannot exist without
love, hope, faith, humility, and critical thinking (1970). In order for dialogic relationships
to be liberating, Freire contends that they must possess a profound love for the world and
those in it (1970). “If I do not love the world—if I do not love life—if I do not love
people—I cannot enter into dialogue” (Freire, 1970, p. 90). It is from this love that
41
liberating dialogue can emerge. Secondly, dialogue cannot exist without hope. It does not
flourish where the culture is hopeless. Those engaged in dialogue must believe that their
efforts will bring about liberation and transformation. Without this hope, nothing can be
accomplished (Freire, 1970). Another characteristic of dialogic relationships is faith.
Dialogue requires faith in mankind and in the power it has to create change and become
more fully human. “Dialogue further requires an intense faith in humankind, faith in their
power to make and remake, to create and re-create, faith in their vocation to be more fully
human (which is not the privilege of an elite, but the birthright of all)” (p. 90). Dialogue
must also come from a place of humility. If one or more parties engaged in dialogue lack
humility, true learning and action can no longer take place (Freire, 1970). Finally,
dialogue must engage its participants in critical thinking. Critical thinking helps facilitate
dialogue that, in turn, allows for communication, resulting ultimately in true education
(Freire, 1970). The presence of all of these components in dialogic relationships can
redistribute power and create a relationship of shared power rather than hierarchical
relationships where each entity seeks to dominate the others within the partnership.
“Founding itself upon love, humility, and faith, dialogue becomes a horizontal
relationship of which mutual trust between the dialoguers is the logical consequence”
Freire, 1970, p. 91).

The Power of Dialogue to Foster Mutuality, Respect, and Trust
Respect and trust signify a deep commitment to promoting collaborative
relationships that empower all stakeholders. Meaningful partnerships bring together the
42
university’s research-based knowledge, the school’s experience-based knowledge, and
the community’s cultural wealth and capital (Lemma, Ferrara, & Leone, 1998; Yosso,
2005). Each entity should view its expertise as a means to encourage and empower the
partnership (Lemma, Ferrara, & Leone, 1998). Trust can be maintained if all key
stakeholders are invited to provide input on decisions that affect the partnership and
efforts are made to develop relationships of reciprocity and mutuality (Kezar, 2007;
Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988).
Kent & Taylor (2002) describe dialogue as “one of the most ethical forms of
communication” and “one of the central means of separating truth from falsehood” (p.
22). Theologian Martin Buber, who is considered to be the father of the modern concept
of dialogue, asserts that engaging in dialogue “involves an effort to recognize the value of
the other—to see him/her as an end and not merely as a means to achieving a desired
goal” (p. 22). According to Buber, dialogue involves reciprocity, mutuality, involvement,
and openness (Kent & Taylor, 2002).
In their article, “Toward a Dialogic Theory of Public Relations,” Kent & Taylor
(2002) identify five main tenets of dialogue: mutuality, propinquity, empathy, risk, and
commitment. Mutuality is the inclusion or collaborative orientation of those engaging in
dialogue. It also refers to the “spirit of mutual equality” (p. 25). Dialogue is a process
whereby two entities seek to understand each other and consider the other’s point of
view. Mutuality also entails avoiding struggles for power or attempts to manipulate or
subvert the other for one’s own benefit (Kent & Taylor, 2002). Propinquity refers to a
relationship orientation that is based on a type of rhetorical exchange. Within this
43
orientation are three key components. The first component, immediacy of presence, deals
with communication about issues that is done in the present rather than after decisions
have been made. In this way, all parties are communicating in a shared space. The
second, temporal flow, describes communication that is rooted in the past, present, and
future, meaning that it is understood to be relational and fluid. The third component is
engagement, or active participation among all parties (Kent & Taylor, 2002). Empathy
describes an environment of support and trust that is needed in order for dialogue to
occur. Dialogue can flourish in an environment where participation is both encouraged
and facilitated, meetings and materials are accessible to interested participants, and
opportunities to voice concerns and ideas are encouraged (Kent & Taylor, 2002). Even
those whose ideas may be different or contrary to the views of the organization must still
be given an opportunity to be heard (Kent & Taylor, 2002). Dialogue also involves risk.
When parties engage in dialogue, they face some potential risks. This is because dialogue
involves sharing information that makes participants vulnerable. However, it is through
this vulnerability that relationships and trust can be established and growth can take place
(Kent & Taylor, 2002). The final tenet of dialogue is commitment. This involves
commitment to genuineness and authenticity as well as commitment to conversation and
interpretation. When participants engage in dialogue that is genuine and authentic, it can
mutually benefit all parties (Kent & Taylor, 2002). Dialogue must result from a
commitment to the conversation, which means all efforts are made to work toward
common understandings rather than exploit each other’s weaknesses (Kent & Taylor,
2002). Finally, commitment to interpretation necessitates efforts to speak in a manner that
44
will allow for clarity and minimize misunderstandings while trying to understand and
value the positions, beliefs, and ideas of other parties (Kent & Taylor, 2002). The unique
characteristic of dialogue is its focus on developing a relationship that is centered on
respect for each party. It has the potential for deconstructing power relationships and
allowing participants to communicate as peers. “Dialogue is a dimension of
communication quality that keeps communicators more focused on mutuality and
relationship than on self interest, more concerned with discovering than disclosing, more
interested in access than in domination” (Kent & Taylor, 2002, p. 30).

Leadership
Visionary leadership, based upon knowledge and needs of the partnership, can
help to bridge the culture gaps between partners. Leadership in the partnership in the
form of a liaison, boundary spanner (Kezar, 2007), or critical bridge person (Ostrander,
2004) can serve an important role in fostering dialogue as one who is familiar with the
culture and context of each partner (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988; Stevens, 1999; Kezar,
2007; Ostrander, 2004). The liaison can help facilitate collaboration, foster positive group
interactions, and maintain communication among all parties (Kezar, 2007; Stevens, 1999;
Firestone & Fisler, 2002). Leadership plays a critical role in the early stages of the
partnership as the liaison can encourage individuals to participate and engage in the work
of the partnership (Kezar, 2007). Firestone and Fisler (2002) pose two questions with
regard to leadership in partnerships: (1) Who should provide it? and (2) What leadership
work must be done? While not advocating for hierarchical leadership, they caution
45
against distributed leadership in the early stages of the partnership as it can create a sense
of chaos if too many voices are competing to be heard at a time when focused effort must
be placed into creating a shared culture with common goals (Firestone & Fisler, 2002).
They describe an alternative perspective of leadership, called transactional or
transformational leadership and the role of the boundary spanner in demonstrating this
kind of leadership to bring all partners together and create the conditions in which
dialogue can occur (Kent & Taylor, 2002; Firestone & Fisler, 2002). Transactional
leadership encourages exchange between stakeholders as well as engaging in work
collectively. Transformational leadership extends transactional leadership to include the
purpose of the exchange among stakeholders to change the culture of the organization or
partnership (Firestone & Fisler, 2002; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). The role of
the boundary spanner or critical bridge person is to provide such leadership with the goal
of bringing people together in such a way as to promote dialogue and open
communication in order to create collective solutions and foster collaboration (Firestone
& Fisler, 2002; Kezar, 2007).
Universities, schools, and communities engaged in co-constructed dialogic
relationships have the potential to overcome persistent barriers in partnerships by
transforming the distinct cultures of each entity into a new cultural model that brings
together the assets of each partner for the purpose of transforming schools. These co-
constructed partnerships can also facilitate new cultural models for schools and homes.

46
University, School, Community Partnerships as a New Cultural
Model for Home-School Partnerships
Many of the persistent barriers that prevent universities, schools, and communities
from effectively collaborating together also contribute to the lack of collaboration among
schools and their communities (Tood & Higgins, 1998; Christenson, 2003; Sanders,
2001). Schools have often related to families, communities, and students from a deficit
cultural model in which families and communities have been overlooked as having
resources that can serve as assets for schools (Gonzalez et al., 1993; Yosso, 2005;
Cairney, 2000). By reshaping the culture of university, school, and community
partnerships from that of hierarchical relationships based on power to one in which all
partners are valued and actively engaged in the change process, these partnerships can
facilitate new cultural models in schools. These new cultural models can encourage
schools to also shift from hierarchical power relationships between the school and the
community, teachers and parents, and teachers and students to relationships that foster
collaboration and dialogue (Cairney, 2000) marked by respect and trust.

Cultural Models in Schools
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) state that cultural models have significant
implications for improving student achievement, particularly for minority students. They
define cultural models as “shared mental schema or normative understandings of how the
world works, or ought to work” (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001, p. 47). These models
that are often invisible and unnoticed, develop gradually, and are derived from the
47
accumulation of collective information and shared experiences (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001).

Current Cultural Model of Schools
The current cultural model of education places the school administrator and
teacher as the chief, if not only, sources of knowledge of value about teaching and
learning, as well as school culture (Moll et al., 1992; Gonzalez & Moll, 2002; Freire,
1970). This model gives minimal acknowledgement to community and parent knowledge
about educating the youth in schools. Few opportunities exist for co-construction of the
school culture or operation. Freire (1970) terms this model the “banking concept of
education” and describes its oppressive and dehumanizing effects on students (p. 71). The
banking concept of education assigns the teacher to the role of “depositing” the
knowledge deemed appropriate by the school system into students as if they are mere
empty vessels, passively waiting to be filled. It presupposes that teachers and school
districts know what is best for students while students and their parents know nothing
(Freire, 1970). In contrast to Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning, in which the
knowledge or assets the student possesses are viewed as coming from the home and
community cultural models, as well as the school, the banking concept of education
presumes that the home and community culture have no assets on which the school can
build learning for its students. Turning students into “receptacles” to be “filled” by the
teacher with knowledge that is disconnected and irrelevant to the student’s own
48
experiences fails to value the student’s contribution to the learning process and rather
makes them passive recipients of knowledge (Freire, 1970).

Creating New Cultural Models in Schools through Dialogic Relationships
New cultural models developed by co-constructed university, school, and
community partnerships have the potential to create of new cultural models in home-
school partnerships. As each entity engages in co-construction and dialogue with multiple
stakeholders to form a partnership designed to improve the quality of education in
schools, a new, shared culture that recognizes, values, and accesses the assets of the
students’ community and home culture emerges. This cultural model can transform
schools and change the relationships among universities, schools, and communities.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) ecological models of human development identifies a
students’ development within the context of five main systems of relationships within his
environment: the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, the macrosystem, and the
chronosystem. The microsystem is defined as the immediate environment in which close
interactions occur such as parent-child interactions. The mesosystem consists of the links
between two or more settings in which the student interacts such as the relations between
home and school. Exosystems are the links between two or more settings that indirectly
influence the settings in which the student develops such as the home and the parent’s
workplace. Macrosystems are the “overarching pattern of micro-, meso-, and exosystems
characteristic of a given culture or subculture” and can refer to belief systems, customs,
and bodies of knowledge (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Chronosystems refer to changes or
49
consistencies of the student and his environment over time such as changes in family
structure, socioeconomic status, and place of residence. Within these models of human
development, Bronfenbrenner asserts that as a student develops, his interaction within
these systems becomes more complex and has the potential to help or hinder his
development. Therefore, the student’s relationships within the microsystem must be
positively nurtured in order to create pathways to explore the other environments and
systems. New cultural models of dialogic relationships created within co-constructed
partnerships among communities, schools, and universities have the potential for
strengthening students’ interactions within the microsystem and equip them with the tools
they need to navigate the other systems by facilitating these positive interactions between
students and teachers, parents, and the community.
In order to create a new cultural model, Freire (1970) asserts that education must
transform the current teacher-student relationship into one in which both take on the role
of teacher and student, working together to co-construct the teaching and learning model.
The means by which this will be accomplished is by engaging in critical thinking,
building a partnership of mutual learning from one another (Freire, 1970). Liberating
education cannot take place by the mere transference of information from teacher to
student; instead, teacher and student must teach and learn through the process of dialogue
that results in both parties taking responsibility for academic growth in the school (Freire,
1970). A cultural model of dialogic relationships among the teachers, in which teachers
co-construct knowledge, can serve as a new cultural model for the entire school, making
the co-construction of knowledge between teachers and students possible.
50
Dialogue, then, becomes a significant agent through which liberating education
can take place, allowing all parties to engage in acts of cognition and critical thinking for
the purpose of unveiling reality (Freire, 1970). The role of the educator in this cultural
model is to co-construct with students the conditions and settings in which this kind of
dialogue can occur (Freire, 1970). Freire (1970) asserts that the banking concept of
education is derived from the power struggle between those who he refers to as the
oppressed and the oppressors. In the banking model, students as well as parents and
communities are seen as the oppressed, often seen as having little or nothing to contribute
to the learning process. The oppressor, referring to teachers and schools, are seen as
having all the knowledge and assets that must then be transferred to the student, parent,
or community. This creates a power relationship, creating a hierarchy of those who
possess knowledge and those who do not. Freire (1970) states that this imbalance of
power is an act of dehumanization, preventing the oppressed from truly liberating
themselves and becoming more fully human. Therefore, the means by which the
oppressed can liberate themselves and create for themselves a new reality is through
dialogue. Dialogue is an encounter between parties and must take place within a context
where each is seen and treated as an equal. Those who have been prevented from
speaking must first reclaim their right to speak before they can engage in true dialogue
with another. In the same way, those who have oppressed others and taken away their
right to speak must cease acts of oppression before they can begin to dialogue in a
manner that brings about liberation (Freire, 1970).

51
Creating New Cultural Models that Access the Family’s Funds of Knowledge
A new cultural model that transforms the teacher-student relationship is one in
which the teacher apprentices the student through co-constructing knowledge together.
This is a process that allows the student to bring the collective assets of the family and
community into the classroom as a valuable resource for learning. It is an essential means
by which teachers are able to identify students’ Zones of Proximal Development
(Vygotsky, 1978). This co-construction process can be accomplished through dialogic
relationships in which schools and homes as well as teachers and students can learn from
one another and redefine the learning from a banking model to that of co-construction
through dialogue (Freire, 1970). Dialogue that includes the community, in collaboration
with the school and the university, is a process by which schools can overcome past
barriers that have prevented them from partnering with homes and communities (Yosso,
2005; Cairney, 2000).

Funds of Knowledge
From a new cultural model of dialogic relationships that recognizes the many
assets students bring to the classroom, teachers can engage students as valuable
contributors to the learning process. Student assets that have the potential to add value to
the learning environment of the school and classroom are often found in the family and
community’s funds of knowledge. Moll, Amanti, Neff, and Gonzalez (1992) use the term
“funds of knowledge” to describe the “historically accumulated and culturally developed
bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and
52
well-being” (p. 133). Gonzalez and Moll (2002) argue the value of accessing a student’s
funds of knowledge, stating that the more a student can see the connection between her
existing knowledge derived from the home and community and the new knowledge
constructed in the classroom, the more interest and motivation is generated within the
student. Dialogic teacher-student relationships have the potential of connecting the
classroom to the home culture of students from which to draw to engage students and
make learning meaningful. When teachers fail to make use of these types of knowledge,
students receive the subtle message that they have nothing to offer to the learning
process. They do not see themselves as active learners capable of constructing
knowledge in collaboration with their teachers. They consent to a banking model by
default; therefore negatively impacting the decisions they make. “Because the knowledge
that is privileged is external to their own communities, the construction of knowledge can
be seen by adolescents as inscribed within communities other than their own” (Gonzalez
& Moll, 2002, p. 624).

Conclusion
The potential for university, school, and community partnerships based on co-
constructed dialogic relationships is great. While each entity within the partnership has its
own unique culture, embodied in artifacts, values, and basic assumptions (Schein, 1990),
a new, shared culture can be created through dialogue and co-construction. Brokering the
assets of each partner through joint collaboration in partnerships can overcome persistent,
historical barriers that have kept these entities from working together effectively on
53
behalf of urban school transformation. Examining the culture of each entity using
Schein’s three levels of organizational culture, defining cultural models using
Goldenberg and Gallimore, and recreating cultural models through Freire’s notion of
dialogue has generated the theoretical framework to guide this study. The literature
review in this chapter has served to synthesize the research that exists on partnerships and
identify gaps in the literature about the merit and potential of university, school, and
community partnerships in transforming education in urban communities by creating new
cultural models of co-construction and dialogue.
Chapter three will discuss the research design including the methodology,
participants, data collection procedures and the data analysis procedures that will be used
to answer the research questions identified in Chapter one.

54
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

As previously discussed in Chapter One, co-constructed relationships among
universities, schools, and communities have the potential for redistributing power, thus
enabling all partners to contribute to the quality of education in urban communities. Little
is known about the impact of co-constructed relationships among these partners engaged
in forging a partnership to improve schools. This study contributed to a gap in the
research by identifying the barriers to establishing successful partnerships to improve
urban schools; also identifying effective strategies for overcoming these barriers; and
examining attributes that emerge from the process. This chapter describes the research
design, sampling procedures, instrumentation, frameworks, data collection and data
analysis of the study.
Study Design and Research Questions
This study aimed to answer 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?
a. What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools, and universities on behalf of K-12 urban
school transformation?
b. What are some effective strategies that have the potential for
overcoming barriers in co-constructing partnerships among
55
communities, K-12 schools, and universities for the purpose of
transforming K-12 urban schools?
3. 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/university
partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?

Methods
The research questions were examined through a qualitative case study of a
partnership involving a university, school, and community-based organizations (CBOs)
in an urban community in Los Angeles. The study examined the impact of the university
and community-based organizations working as partners with the school to promote
academic achievement. The use of qualitative methods allowed for issues to be examined
in-depth, paying close attention to detail and context (Patton, 2002, p. 227). A case study
was an effective approach to studying the process in forming a university, school,
community partnership and its potential impact on a K-12 urban school, based on
predictors identified in the literature. Merriam (1998) identifies a case study as an
effective research design when studying processes. Creswell et al. (2007) state that case
study research involves an investigator studying a bounded system or several systems
over a period of time using in-depth data collection methods and multiple sources of
information.
56
The unit of analysis was the partnership, which included all key stakeholders such
as administrators, teachers, parents, university faculty, leaders in community-based
organizations, and other community leaders.
The researchers conducted interviews; carried out observations and reviewed
artifacts or documents to provide a rich and thick body of data. The researchers used
triangulation among these sources of data to strengthen the validity of the findings. In this
process the researchers examined the consistency and inconsistencies among the data, as
well as the ability of one source to complement the information gathered from another
source. The overall purpose of all methods for collecting data was to determine the
extent to which people within partnership organizations and people directly involved in
the partnership could convey knowledge of the partnership, their participation in the
partnership, and the manner in which it was being formed for the purpose of transforming
Freedom High School. The researchers were interested in knowing the different
perceptions among the various stakeholders about attributes they believed characterized
the partnership in the first year of its formation.
Time and resource constraints, investigator bias, as well as issues of
generalizability, validity, and reliability can limit a case study. In order to minimize the
effects of these limitations, triangulation methods were put into place through the use of
multiple sources of data.

57
Sample and Population
Sampling Procedure
The unit of analysis for this case study was the school/community/university
partnership. Purposeful sampling was used in this study to ensure the selection of a
information-rich case. Patton (2002) states, “The logic and power of purposeful sampling
lie in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those
from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of
the inquiry” (p. 230). Merriam (1998) states, “Purposeful sampling is based on the
assumption that the investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain insight and
therefore must select a sample from which the most can be learned (Merriam, 1998, p.
61). This sample qualified for extreme or deviant case sampling that is a strategy for
selecting unusual or special cases that are information rich.
Opportunistic or emergent sampling, snowball or chain sampling also took place.
In addition, observations at the school site facilitated emergent sampling, taking
advantage of opportunities to follow new leads and allowing the sample to expand during
fieldwork (Patton, 2002). Sampling of politically important opportunities involved
interviews with the school site principal, department chairs, and parents as a means to
gain entry and acceptance into the school culture. Patton (2002) describes sampling
politically important cases as “a strategy for trying to increase the usefulness and
relevance of information where resources permit the study of only a limited number of
cases” (p. 241). Sampling politically important cases also provided the initial contact with
possible key informants that allowed for snowball sampling. As a result, a series of
58
interviews with key teachers and parents at the school site as well as interviews with
faculty at the university and community leaders were conducted.
The study examined the first year of forming this partnership to transform a K-12
school that has experienced multiple years of decline in academic performance and
community trust. Freedom High School was unique in that it was in a partnership with a
nationally known community-based organization, a school-focused community
organization and a top-tier private research university joining together for the single
purpose of transforming a school. The Greater Freedom Educational Partnership was
unique in that it had opted to work with only one school and it included the community,
represented by two community-based advocacy organizations as key partners.
The tables that follow describe the school’s demographics and achievement
characteristics:
Table 1: School Demographic Data
Ethnic/Racial Subgroup % of Student
Population
African-American 64.9%
Hispanic/Latino 33.8%
Alaskan/Asian/Filipino/Pacific
Islander/White
0.7%
Socio-Economically Disadvantaged 60.8%
Special Education 0.17%

Table 2: School Drop Out Rates
Drop Out Rates %
One-year Drop Out Rate 6.5%
Four-year Drop Out Rate 29.2%
59
Table 3: School Achievement Data

Instrumentation
Data collection procedures included observations, interviews, and artifacts. Data
was collected beginning in November and completed in January. In order to address
issues of validity and reliability, triangulation methods in the form of data triangulation,
investigator triangulation, and methodological triangulation were utilized. “Using
multiple methods allows inquiry into a research question with ‘an arsenal of methods that
have non-overlapping weaknesses in addition to their complementary strengths’” (Brewer
and Hunter in Patton, 2002, p. 248).
A research cohort consisting of ten doctoral candidates, chaired by Sylvia G.
Rousseau, Ed.D., met throughout the fall of 2007 and continued to meet in the summer of
2008 to develop and refine research questions, theoretical frameworks for each research
question, a survey instrument, interview and observation protocols, and methods for
analyzing artifacts. Table 1 below shows the relationship between the research questions
and the instruments that were used to collect the data.

1997-2007 API
Growth
CA LAUSD Freedom
High School
75 88 65
2007 Academic
Performance Index
(API)
524
60
Table 4: Triangulation Using a Variety of Data Collection Instruments
Research Question Artifacts Observations Interviews
1. What is a process that enables
communities, schools, and universities
to co-construct partnerships for the
purpose of transforming K-12 Schools?
X X X
1a. What are the persistent barriers to
establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools and
universities that seek to transform urban
schools?
X

X X
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 school?
X X X
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/
university partnership with the intent to
transform a K-12 school?
X X X

Purposeful sampling was used in this study to ensure the selection of an
information-rich case. Patton (2002) states, “The logic and power of purposeful sampling
lie in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those
from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of
the inquiry” (p. 230). Merriam (1998) states, “Purposeful sampling is based on the
assumption that the investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain insight and
therefore must select a sample from which the most can be learned (p. 61). Opportunistic
or emergent sampling, snowball or chain sampling also took place. In addition,
observations at the school site facilitated emergent sampling, taking advantage of
61
opportunities to follow new leads and allowing the sample to expand during fieldwork
(Patton, 2002). Sampling of politically important opportunities involved interviews with
the school site principal, department chairs, and parents as a means to gain entry and
acceptance into the school culture. Patton (2002) describes sampling politically important
cases as “a strategy for trying to increase the usefulness and relevance of information
where resources permit the study of only a limited number of cases” (p. 241). Sampling
politically important cases also provided the initial contact with possible key informants
that allowed for snowball sampling. As a result, a series of interviews with key teachers
and parents at the school site as well as interviews with faculty at the university and
community leaders were conducted.

Research Question Frameworks
Framework for the first research question
The first research question asked, “What is a process that enables communities,
schools, and universities to co-construct partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-
12 urban schools?” The theoretical framework was the work of Freire (1970) regarding
dialogic relationships. It was rooted in Vygotsky’s (1970) sociocultural theories of
learning. Through interviews, documents (artifacts) and observations the researcher
intended to discover the extent to which the process was dialogic and reflective of a co-
construction process that built upon the funds of knowledge that each partner brought to
the partnership. The process shed light on the two sub-questions, which asked “What are
the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among communities, K-12 schools, and
62
universities on behalf of K-12 urban school transformation?” This primary research
question was grounded in the theoretical framework discussed in Chapter Two.
A review of the literature identified the differing cultures of universities, schools,
and communities as one significant barrier that contributed to the many other barriers in
creating and maintaining partnerships. Schein’s (1990) definition or the three levels of
organizational culture, artifacts, values, and basic underlying assumptions, served as the
theoretical framework for identifying the barriers within each organization that may
hinder the work of creating and maintaining successful university, school, and
community partnerships on behalf of urban school transformation. Schein (1990)
emphasizes the need to distinguish between each of the levels of organizational culture as
a means to understand the deeper, more complex aspects of each partner’s culture and
how these differences can affect the partnership’s ability to collaborate and transform
schools. The instruments developed for this study were analyzed through Schein’s three
levels of culture in order to better understand the persistent barriers in university, school,
and community partnerships.

Framework for part b of question one
This subset of the first research question asked, “What are some effective
strategies that have the potential for overcoming barriers in co-constructing partnerships
among communities, K-12 schools, and universities for the purpose of transforming K-12
urban schools?” Chapter Two identified co-constructed relationships among universities,
schools, and communities as having the potential to redistribute power, thus enabling all
63
partners to contribute to the quality of education in urban communities. Paulo Freire’s
work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) provided the theoretical framework for
understanding and examining how co-construction takes place among all entities in the
partnership through dialogue and the nature of dialogic relationships. Dialogic
relationships are an essential element in the co-construction process as universities,
schools, and communities engage in dialogue to build trust, develop a shared vision, and
establish trust in order to overcome barriers.

Framework for the second research question
Freire’s (1970) concept of dialogic relationships in addition to Gallimore and
Goldenberg’s (2001) definition of cultural models provided the 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 5: Theoretical Frameworks for Research Questions
Research Question Theoretical 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 (1970)—Dialogue

Research Question #1a:
What are the persistent barriers to establishing
partnerships among communities, K-12 schools,
and universities on behalf of K-12 urban school
transformation?

Schein (1990)—Three
Levels of Organizational
Culture

64
Research Question #1b:
What are some effective strategies that have the
potential for overcoming barriers in co-
constructing partnerships among communities,
K-12 schools, and universities for the purpose of
transforming K-12 urban schools?

Freire (1970)—Dialogue

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/university partnership with
the intent to transform a K-12 school?

Freire (1970)—Dialogue

Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001)—
Cultural Models
Table 5: Theoretical Frameworks for Research Questions, continued

Data Collection Instruments and Procedures
This section describes the data collection instruments and the procedures that
were utilized to collect data for analysis.

Data Collection Instruments
The following instruments were designed by the research cohort and are included
as appendices in this document:
Instrument 1: Administrator Interview Protocol
Instrument 2: Teacher Interview Protocol
Instrument 3: Classified Personnel Interview Protocol
Instrument 4: Parent Interview Protocol
Instrument 5: Community-Based Organization Interview Protocol
Instrument 6: University Stakeholder Interview Protocol
Instrument 7: Classroom Observation Protocol
65
Instrument 8: Meeting Observation Protocol
Instrument 9: Document Analysis Protocol

Table 6: Data Collection Matrix
Interviews Observations Artifacts Background
Data
Parents
Total: 8 – 10
Meetings at the school
including teachers,
administrators, and/or
parents
Total: 8 - 10
Partnership
business plan
School
demographics
Community
Members-at-
large
Total: 4 – 6
Community visits
(A minimum of two
visits by all team
members)
Minutes from
relevant
meetings
within each
entity and
among the
three entities
School
performance
data
CHS
Teachers
Total: 6 – 8
3 CHS
administrator
s
Classrooms
Observations
Total: 10
Partnership
board meeting
minutes and
agendas.
Community
economic
indicators
WPU faculty
Total: 6 - 8
GCEP Board meetings
Total: minimum of 2
Event calendars Community
resources
iDivision
Staff in
LAUSD

Total: 2 – 3
Community-based
organization meetings
Total: 6 – 8
WPU faculty meetings
Total: 1 or 2
School data
(including test
scores,
graduation
rates,
attendance and
demographics)

CHS faculty meetings
Total: 2
Community
demographics

School in general
(hallways, quad, athletic
events, etc.)
Total: 4 to 6
News articles

66
Observations
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 interacted and encountered 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 eight
observations involving community-based organizations and parents in the role of
members of the community.
Observations of the community in general helped provide context about the
community in which the school is located. The researchers attended neighborhood
organization meetings to gain background knowledge of the community culture.
Observations also took place inside the community surrounding the school to get a sense
of the economic, political and social context in which the school exists. The researchers
observed meeting areas and hallways in the school to understand the school culture.
Selection of 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.
K-12 teachers and Western Pacific University School of Education faculty in their
respective contexts were observed to examine their styles of meeting within their own
respective contexts and within contexts that bring them together. A total of two
67
observations of this type took place and were conducted by designated members of the
team of researchers. Additionally the observations included two Greater Freedom
Educational Partnership board meetings. Observations lasted the length of the meetings.
The observer used field notes as a means for recording observations. They were
dated and contained key information to describe the event i.e., attendees, physical setting,
activities, what people said to demonstrate the “emic perspective” (Fetterman, 1989:30 as
cited in Patterson, 2002), the observers’ reactions, feelings, insights and reflections on
events.
The observations contributed to the researchers’ knowledge of the partnership
and identified areas in which persistent barriers existed. According to Merriam (1998),
observations provide information about the context and therefore they can be used as
reference points for future interviews. Observations of partnership meetings at both the
school site and the community-based organization offices involving any of the entities’
concerns with students were useful to the study. In addition, observations of the transition
team, which consists of community members, parents, teachers, administrators, were
conducted. Observation protocols were generated by the research cohort and closely
aligned to the theoretical frameworks for each research question. Field notes were used to
observe and capture this information. Field notes included the following elements of each
observation: the physical setting, participants, activities and interactions, conversations,
subtle factors that are less obvious, as well as the observer’s own behavior (Merriam,
1998). The role of the observer was that of an objective observer, whereby the observer’s
68
primarily responsibility was that of information gatherer and not a participant (Merriam,
1998).

Interviews
“The purpose of interviews is to allow [the researchers] to enter into the other
person’s perspective” (Patton, p. 341). 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 category of participants or stakeholders in the
partnership. Interviewees were also selected in part from persons identified through the
observations.
Throughout this case study, the researchers adhered to the guidelines and
procedures for ethical conduct in research set forth by the Institutional Review Board
(IRB) for Western Pacific University and the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Participants were assured that this was a voluntary study, and at no time were coercive
tactics for participation yielded. Rather, individuals were asked to volunteer through a
form and placed in a locked box inside the school or in other places arranged between the
participating institution and the researcher to preserve confidentiality.
Additionally, the researchers obtained written informed consent before beginning
any research within any of the participating organizations. The collective body of
interviews conducted by members of the research team included six members from the
community-based organizations as the roles and perspectives of the community were of
particular interest in this study. In conjunction with observations, interviews with key
69
stakeholders were also utilized. Patton states, “We interview people to find out from them
those things we cannot directly observe” (Patton, 1990, p. 196). Semi-structured
interviews contain more open-ended questions that are flexibly worded to elicit more
varied responses. “Less structured formats assume that individual respondents define the
world in unique ways” (Merriam, 1998, p. 74). The format of the semi-structured
interview allowed for flexibility in the way questions are asked and allowed the
researcher to have the option to follow the direction of the conversation in response to the
interviewee’s answers. Interview questions were predetermined, but flexibility was given
in the way questions were asked, in what order they were asked, or if any questions were
added or omitted, according to the discretion of the researcher. Careful attention was
given to the wording of each question so as to ensure that “what [was] being asked [was]
clear to the person being interviewed” (Merriam, 1998, p. 76).
Questions to be avoided included multiple questions embedded in one, leading
questions that may reveal the researcher’s bias, or yes-or-no questions that elicit no
significant information (Merriam, 1998). The interview questions also included several
probes that helped to guide the interview and allowed the researcher to make adjustments
throughout the interview (Merriam, 1998). Some of the probing questions were pre-set in
anticipation of inadequate responses to questions posed. An interview guide was used to
organize interview questions and included some highly structured questions arranged in a
predetermined order, less structured topics to be covered, open-ended questions, probes,
as well as topics that may be explored as they apply to the specific context and situation
70
of each interview (Merriam, 1998). Each interview was 45 – 60 minutes in length and
was conducted by the end of January.
This group of interviewees included the chief administrators of the three founding
organizations to the partnerships as well as their staffs and their board members.
Three faculty persons from Western Pacific University were interviewed. All of these
interviewees were faculty in the School of Education.
Interviewees associated with Freedom High School included six parents. Other
school-based interviewees include 3 school administrators, and 7 Freedom 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
submitted their written consent to be interviewed by contacting the researcher who
provided contact information. The researchers also contacted potential interviewees
based on interest sparked by the observations or leads from other interviewees.
The research team interviewed 4 community-at-large persons. They included
parents who have chosen not to send their students to Freedom High School, as well as
members of block clubs.
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 interviewed one
person in the iDesign Division, the unit in the LAUSD to which the network partnerships
report.
The interviews took place in-person, and were digitally recorded with the
permission of the interviewee. The researcher also took notes during the interviews to
71
keep track of the responses and lead to decisions about eliminating some of the interview
questions. Notes also helped the researcher contextualize the data in the transcribed
recordings. They also served as a backup in any instance of equipment failure. Each
member of the research team was assigned to collect specific data. (Note the distribution
chart in the Appendices.) Depending on the depth and scope of the interviewees’
responses to specific questions, the interviewer avoided redundancy by eliminating some
of the questions on the structured interview list. 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.

Artifacts
In order to identify the potential barriers to establishing successful partnerships, as
well as discover effective strategies for overcoming these barriers, artifacts from each of
the entities in the partnership were first collected. Artifacts are defined as “symbolic
materials such as writing and signs and nonsymbolic materials such as tools and
furnishings” (LeCompte and Preissle in Merriam, 1998, p. 113). Utilizing artifacts was
beneficial because many documents were easily accessible and saved the researcher time
and effort to gather rich data in less time (Merriam, 1998). In addition, documents are not
72
influenced by the presence of the investigator, making them less obtrusive than other
forms of data (Merriam, 1998).
Collecting data using artifacts or documents helped to ground the research in the
context of the problem being studied (Merriam, 1998). Looking at key documents helped
illuminate the barriers to establishing partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12
schools. These documents also provided insight into effective strategies that have the
potential to overcome these barriers.
Information from these documents included things that have taken place prior to
the study, private exchanges between relevant parties, and/or unstated goals, decisions, or
values (Patton, 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 within each partner
organization and among the three partners; partnership board meeting minutes and
agendas; event calendars; school data (including test scores, graduation rates, attendance
and demographics), and news articles.
For the most part, public documents were 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.

73
Data Analysis
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 code
book that gave all members access to the entire pool of data.
The codes created for capturing the data included the data’s relationship to a
combination of factors:
• the process by which the partnership is formed, i.e., co-constructed, dialogic
• 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.

Triangulation
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
created. The collective data was available to all the researchers who analyzed for
consistencies and inconsistencies among the various sources of data. 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 held one another
accountable for accuracy and perceptions embedded in the data.

74
Analyzing Interviews
The researchers each transcribed some of their own recorded interviews to
immerse themselves in the data. The researchers analyzed the interviews through the
lenses of the three research questions to ascertain the feelings, attitudes, perceptions on
three basic matters:
• the process by which the partnership is formed, i.e., co-constructed, dialogic
• barriers or strategies to deter or promote the formation of the partnership
• identifiable attributes of the partnership consistent with or inconsistent with the a
cultural model of a dialogic, co-constructed partnership.

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 wanted to learn from the interviews the extent to which the various
stakeholders felt they had been included in the partnership formation. The researchers
also analyzed the interview data differences and similarities in what the stakeholders
believed had been barriers to a dialogic co-constructed partnership and what have been
the strategies that have facilitated a dialogic, co-constructed partnership. Finally, the
researchers also analyzed the interview data for responses that identified in the
interviewees’ words 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. To facilitate these comparisons, the interview questions
were highly consistent across all stakeholder interview instruments.

75
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 involve 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 being formed. They looked for indicators in the
meetings and environments of the three partners of 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 for
consistencies and inconsistencies as responses to the research questions.

Analyzing Documents and Artifacts
“Demystifying institutional texts is one way of demystifying institutional
authority” (Miller, cited in Patton, 2001, p. 91). 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
in the artifacts 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
76
partnership. The objective was to note the degree to which each organization’s prior
culture contributed to a new cultural model within the partnership.
Artifacts were also analyzed for consistencies and inconsistencies among values
and basic assumptions within the three partners’ organizations. Using these data and this
framework from Schein (1990) helped the researcher identify the assets and the barriers
to a partnership that conformed to Gallimore’s and Goldenberg’s attributes of a cultural
model.

Overall Analysis
All data were part of a single case study (p. 447) 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 served as an aid to the researchers
when a large amount of raw data from interviews, observations and documents required
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 ensure compatibility among the team members’
various means of collecting data. The interview questions for each category of
interviewers were essentially the same so the researcher was able to note the similarities
and differences in the manner in which the various stakeholders responded to the same
questions. Each of the researchers also made backup copies of the data.
77
Data analysis occurred in conjunction with data collection as well as after the
completion of the data collection phase. Field notes collected from observations as well
as notes and audio recordings from the interviews were transcribed. These notes were
then coded and organized into categories guided by the research questions and the
theoretical framework. Any emerging themes were noted and linked to specific research
questions. All data collected were analyzed through the lens of the theoretical
frameworks for each research question. The data was then interpreted and future
implications were discussed.

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
data that was collected and analyzed and findings that were disseminated were free from
bias. The rules and regulations as specified by the Western Pacific University
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 being treated in an ethical manner.

78
Summary
This chapter has detailed the methodology that was utilized in this qualitative
study. This case study of a community, school, and university partnership 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.

79
CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
As stated in chapter one, the purpose of the study is to examine the ways in which
a co-constructed community, school and university partnership has the potential for
transforming a school. Chapter two provided the literature review to make a case for
impact of co-constructed dialogic relationships in creating a new cultural model in
schools. Chapter three provided the research methodology for this qualitative case study
of a community, school, and university partnership as well as made known how the data
would be collected and analyzed in relation to the research questions posed. This chapter
will present the findings from the study and analyze the findings through the theoretical
framework discussed in chapter two.
Research Questions
The findings presented were directly 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?
a. What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools, and universities on behalf of K-12 urban school
transformation?
b. What are some effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming
barriers in co-constructing partnerships among communities, K-12 schools,
and universities for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban schools?
80
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/university
partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?
A qualitative case study approach was used to collect data from an emerging
partnership involving a community, school, and university. The unit of analysis for this
study is the partnership. The community refers to two community-based organizations, a
civil rights organization and a service-oriented organization, as well as members of the
community surrounding the school. The school refers to a low-performing urban school
and is comprised of the parents, students, teachers, school administrators, and classified
staff. The university is a top-tiered private research university in an urbanized area. Data
in the form of 29 interviews, 8 observations, and 3 artifacts were collected from the
stakeholder groups within the partnership. A team of researchers gathered the data and
constructed a Code Book from which all members were able to access the pool of data
collected. Data were analyzed and findings were triangulated through the use of these
three data sources. This methodology was employed to increase the reliability and
validity of the data findings. The findings represent data from year one of a five-year
study involving an emerging partnership with the intent of transforming an urban school.
These findings, presented by their relationship to each of the research questions, are
followed by a detailed analysis and discussion.

81
Background
The Partners
The partnership in this study was selected for its unique characteristics involving
a university, two community-based organizations, and one urban high school with all
partners engaging in the process of co-construction with the goal of transforming a K-12
school. Western Pacific University (WPU), a top-tier university with a record of service
within the urban community brings its large body of experience and issues around urban
issues. Faculty members from Western Pacific University’s School of Education have
worked closely with the school to address issues unique to urban schools. The partnership
also includes two community-based organizations: the Metropolitan League (ML), whose
reputation as an advocate for civil rights has distinguished it within the community, and
the Civic Engagement Foundation (CEF), whose commitment to social justice and civic
harmony have allowed it to make an impact in the community by combining scholarship
with civic engagement. The Metropolitan League has incorporated Freedom High School
into its five-year strategic initiative to provide services in the areas of health, safety,
education, housing, and employment to the surrounding 70-block neighborhood of the
community. The Civic Engagement Foundation’s longstanding relationship with the
parents of Freedom High School empowered the parents to lead the movement that the
empowered the school to decide to join a newly formed division of the school district
called iDesign and bring together the network partners. The third entity in the
partnership is Freedom High School (FHS), a low-performing urban high school in the
Los Angeles Unified School District. Western Pacific University, the Metropolitan
82
League, and the Civic Engagement Foundation have formed the Greater Freedom
Educational Partnership (GFEP), which is an independent 501(c)3 organization that
serves as the network partner for Freedom High School under LAUSD’s iDesign.

iDesign
The decision to join iDesign was brought about by the vote of the parents and
teachers of Freedom High School in an effort to increase student achievement and
improve student outcomes. Under iDesign, schools would be able to take on external
network partners outside of the local district to help facilitate a change process. “The
theory of change underlying the creation of iDesign Schools is that decentralization of
authority and responsibility closer to the school sites creates mechanisms for sharing
practices and adding the right accountabilities to monitor success.” The mission of
iDesign schools is as follows:
• Improve student achievement and graduation rates by re-thinking how school
districts serve and support their schools
• Improve student achievement and graduation rates by nurturing partnerships with
civic institutions
• Improve student achievement and graduation rates by holding our partners and
schools accountable through clear, transparent metrics
• Improve student achievement and graduation rates by documenting and
disseminating successful practices

Meeting Environment
A total of ten meetings were observed which included GFEP Board Meetings,
Transition Team meetings and staff development meetings. The Board Meetings for the
partnership included members of the board, teachers, classified staff, school
83
administrators, parents, and members of the community as well as community-based
organizations. These meetings were very formal in their format and included meeting
agendas and specific protocols for discussion of various topics guided by the
requirements of the Brown Act. Individuals were given opportunities to address the board
and comment on specific items on the agenda, but emphasis was placed more on board
members presenting the agenda items and informing those in attendance of next steps.
Public comments were left to the end of the meeting, often times limiting the amount of
feedback and comments that could be shared during the meeting. After the Brown Act
was instituted, the Board was legally prevented from responding to public comments
unless they addressed an item already on the agenda. This formalization of the board put
severe limitations on the communication between the GFEP board and the stakeholders in
the partnership.
The GFEP Study Session, which was called in response to several stakeholders’
concerns about the need to discuss the partnership’s direction and increase transparency
and trust among all entities, began to shift the atmosphere of the partnership meetings by
creating a forum that had the potential to engage more stakeholders in the dialogue
process and better facilitate the co-construction of the partnership. During this retreat,
members from all stakeholder groups were able to interact with one another in small
groups and discuss and define the process of co-construction within the partnership,
express members’ initial expectations of the partnership, members’ current perceptions of
what the partnership looked like, and what members hoped it would move toward.
84
Unlike the formal board meetings, the transition team meetings provided more
opportunities for all stakeholders to interact and engage in dialogue around important
issues within the partnership. All stakeholder groups were represented in these meetings
and although these meetings also had agendas, they were not under the same legal
constraints as the board meetings. The transition team meetings allowed more flexibility
for various attendees to voice their opinions or concerns regarding specific issues.
Without the formal constraints of the Brown Act, stakeholders were better able to speak
freely and initiate dialogue, thus providing an environment more conducive for co-
construction. Other meetings that took place at the school site, such as the School Site
Council, the Friends of Freedom (FOF), and Small Learning Communities (SLC) were
less formal but more dialogic and equitable with regard to participation and access among
all stakeholders. These meetings were less hierarchical in format and allowed for more
equal voice among all the participants. These various meeting observations revealed two
parallel structures operating as part of the partnership—the more formal partnership as
characterized by the independent 501(c)3 organization, GFEP, consisting of the
Metropolitan League, Civic Engagement Foundation, and Western Pacific University,
and the less formal school-based partnership consisting of the parents, teachers,
administrators, classified staff, and community members of Freedom High School.

85
Data Findings
Table 7: Theoretical Framework: Relation to Findings
Research Question Theoretical
Framework
Data Findings
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
(1970)—
Dialogue

• Co-construction
• Dialogue
• Mutual Learning
Research Question #1a:
What are the persistent barriers to
establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools, and
universities on behalf of K-12 urban
school transformation?

• Schein
(1990)—
Three Levels
of
Organization
al Culture

• History
• Hierarchy
• Absence of
Systems and
Structures for
Communication
Research Question #1b:
What are some effective strategies that
have the potential for overcoming
barriers in co-constructing partnerships
among communities, K-12 schools, and
universities for the purpose of
transforming K-12 urban schools?

• Freire
(1970)—
Dialogue

• Space for
Dialogue
• Systems of
Representation
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/university
partnership with the intent to transform
a K-12 school?

• Freire
(1970)—
Dialogue

• Gallimore
and
Goldenberg
(2001)—
Cultural
Models
• Collaborative
Relationships
• Collaborative
Relationships as
New Cultural
Model of Parent-
Community-
School
Partnerships

86
Table 8: Interviews, Observation, and Artifacts Data Table

Interviews
# of
Interview
s

Observations
#
Observations
by Location

Artifacts

University
Faculty
3 Community
Based
3 Memorandum
of
Understanding
(MOU)
Community-
Based
Organization
6 School Site 6 Partnership
Business Plan

Community
Member
4 University
Setting
1 Partnership
Fact Sheet

Parent

6
School-
Faculty

7
School-
Classified

1
School-
Administrator

2
TOTAL 29 10 3

Table 9: Pseudonyms: Greater Freedom Educational Partnership (GFEP) Partners
Community Based
Organizations (CBO)
K-12 Urban School University
Civic Engagement Foundation
(CEF)
o Executive Officers
Freedom High School
(FHS)
o Teachers
o Administrators
o Classified Staff

Western Pacific
University (WPU)
o Administrators
o Faculty
Metropolitan League (ML)
o Executive Officers
o Deputy Officers
Friends of Freedom
(FOF)
o Parents
o Community
members

(An extended pseudonym table is provided in the Appendices)
87
Research Question 1: Process
Community, school, university partnerships are not new to education. This
partnership, however, is unique in that key members are aware of the pitfalls of previous
partnerships and are attempting to avoid them. Stakeholders are intentionally employing
the process of co-construction as a means to mitigate the persistent barriers that have
contributed to the failure of previous partnerships, thus creating a new cultural model for
partnerships. The partnership is also unique in the characteristics and resources found
among the organizations that have come together to form the partnership.
The first research question asked, “What is a process that enables communities,
schools, and universities to to co-construct partnerships for the purpose of transforming
K-12 urban schools?” In order to answer this first question, data in the form of
interviews, artifacts, and observations were collected, specifically examining the process
of co-construction characterized by dialogue and mutual shared learning and the extent to
which this process was at work in the formation of this partnership. As discussed in
chapter two, Freire (1970) identifies co-constructed dialogic relationships as a pathway
toward liberation, having the potential to create a liberating cultural model within a
community, school, and university partnership.

88
Co-construction

Co-constructing is a process to create something new—something that has not
existed before in exactly the same way. A co-constructed partnership implies that the
partners consciously enter a process for defining the nature of their relationship and for
defining the goal of the partnership.
In this case study, a community-based civil rights organization, a community-
based research and service-oriented organization, both representing the community, have
joined with a top-tiered private research university located in a highly urbanized area and
a low-performing urban school for the purpose of transforming the school that is itself a
member of the partnership. Co-construction implies that all participants in the process
will make a contribution to conceptualizing what the partnership itself looks like, as well
as what the final goal or product will look like. It also means that all members are
willing to relinquish preconceived notions as the partnership is formed. At the same time,
this process requires each stakeholder group to bring its specific knowledge and expertise
to the partnership while working together in collaboration to create a new, shared culture.

Figure 1: Co-Constructing with Dialogue for Mutual Learning

89

Findings in the interviews. The data from interviews revealed an overall feeling
among stakeholders that they are still trying to understand the process of co-construction
and apply it in the work of the partnership. A foundational knowledge and understanding
of co-construction was emerging, but the practice of co-constructing throughout all
aspects of the partnership was still lacking. Community members, parents, school
administration, and classified staff all stated that co-construction, as they understand it, is
a process that takes time. Ms. Thomas, a parent, stated that this process has the potential
to create a strong partnership. “I think it will be a learning process that creates a great
partnership in the end, with open communication and transparency and co-constructing.”
In addition, she identified co-construction as a process that involves dialogue. “You’re
right alongside me as I’m doing it. I’m asking you and we’re co-constructing how this
looks.” And although it was not happening to the degree that the parents had first
conceived it, they acknowledged that some evidence of emerging co-construction was in
fact taking place among the partners.
Community members discussed co-construction as a process that allows
“everyone’s voice to be heard” and that encourages each partner to bring their specific
resources to the table to benefit the students and school. Ms. Mills described it as “the
harmony of voices with specialized knowledge.”
A member of the Metropolitan League described the process of co-construction as
tapping “the inherent wisdom of constituents and stakeholders” as well as leveraging
resources on behalf of the school. Ms. Smith stated, “I am trying to engage and get my
90
colleagues on campus to find the relationships and co-construct despite the other things
that are going on.”
Teachers did not seem to have as much of a conceptualization of co-construction.
Three teachers expressed that their expectation from the partnership was one of more
autonomy and the partners being more of a resource to the school. Mr. Matthews,
however, recognized co-construction as a means to “take into account the various
strengths and assets and have each group focus on their individual strengths and bring
that to [the school].”
School administration described co-construction as a process to create new
systems and structures for the partnership. Ms. Phillip stated, “[The partners] are learning
as they go and they’re creating rules as they go.” She cited a meeting between the
teachers and university faculty as an important example of the potential of the co-
construction process to create positive change. “You don’t know what an infuse of energy
that was for our staff, to have that level of educators, come out and speak to them, but not
just speak, but to have a dialogue, back and forth, which also got them out of their little
silo…”
Three university faculty members identified the critical bridge person, or liaison
who is familiar with the context and culture of each of the entities, as having played a
significant role in shaping the culture of the partnership to reflect the co-construction
process. Professor Simms stated, “The whole notion of co-construction, [the critical
bridge person] is modeling that and [she] wants to do it too.”

91
Findings in the observations and artifacts. The observations revealed that all
stakeholders saw the value and necessity of engaging in the process of co-construction to
move the partnership forward successfully. During meetings, stakeholders made an effort
to co-construct norms for communication, means for dissemination of information, and
strategies to allow for equal voices within the partnership. The terminology was also used
regularly within meetings, with many stakeholders referencing co-construction in their
dialogue with one another. In instances where stakeholders felt co-construction was not
taking place, they held one another accountable for ensuring that all members had the
opportunity to let their voices be heard. Individuals understood that co-construction is a
process that takes time and that it involves collaboration and ongoing participation among
all stakeholders. It was expressed at a meeting that “Co-construction implies that we
create/build new structures and not operate under the old ones.”
The GFEP Fact Sheet revealed nine specific areas in which co-construction was
taking place within the partnership, citing efforts among partners to work collaboratively
to co-construct various systems, structures, goals, and plans to increase the effectiveness
of the partnership’s reform efforts at the school site. Some examples included:
• Assisted [Freedom] High School parents with addressing an updated means for
their participation in and support of their children’s school-based development
• Collaborated with the Business Academy to retrain SLC leaders and teach how to
assess the needs and challenges of the incoming [Freedom] student
• Developed and launched the Pre-K-12 Collaborative to advocate on behalf and
leverage resources in support of [Freedom] High School and the elementary and
middle schools in the [FHS] family of schools
• Organized and guided teams of teachers, parents, and administrators to develop
wall-to-wall small learning communities within six months—received
commendations from the WASC visiting committee

92
The partnership’s business plan included goals to “engage students, parents,
teachers, administrators and the community in shaping the culture and goals of the
school” as well as “coordinate the multiple efforts taking place in the school to develop
one coherent plan for the school’s future.” The Memorandum of Understanding also
indicated areas in which the partnership is expected to work to co-construct various
processes for accountability and evaluation of the partnership. These areas included:
• The process for such accounting shall be jointly developed and included in the
Process and Procedures Manual (p. 18)
• [GFEP and GFEP schools] may jointly develop metrics and methods for
evaluating School Site Administrators…(p. 20)

Dialogue
Dialogue is a key element of co-construction, allowing stakeholders to work
toward an equitable form of communication that builds trust among all parties. Dialogue
involves a process of engaging people in an exchange of ideas, experiences, and
knowledge for the purpose of creating shared meaning. Freire (1970) asserts that dialogue
can be a vehicle for transforming a culture, engaging all participants as equal and valued
participants in the transformation process. Dialogue promotes mutuality in relationships
among all stakeholders and allows all members to contribute to the work of change by
encouraging praxis, referring to a process of action and reflection. By encouraging
dialogue connected to action, individuals can act upon their ideas that were drawn from
the dialogue that has taken place among the stakeholders. This tight connection between
dialogue and action is akin to praxis which Freire describes as an important element of
change.
93
Findings in the Interviews. Community members described dialogue in terms of
strong relationships, working together, openness, and the sharing of information. Ms.
Mills stated, “We were trying to create a space and to get them to sit down to get to know
more about each other.” Teachers, school administration, and community-based
organizations all expressed the importance of building a relationship from which dialogue
could flow.
Two parents saw dialogue as an invitation to voice their opinions, allowing them
to have a say and contribute to the discussion. They saw dialogue as an act of inclusion
and respect, valuing the parents’ input in the decision-making process. They described
past events and decisions in which dialogue did not take place and they felt excluded
from major decisions within the partnership, but they also cited specific efforts being
made to ensure that the lines of communication stay open and dialogue is fostered among
all stakeholders. Ms. Ford stated, “Even though I have some issues, [but yet] I feel like,
yeah…we’re seeing some changes and we’re having more of a say.” Mr. Madison added,
“There’s openness and that’s what has to happen, openness to listen, and in no moment
have I felt that what we say needs to get done is not being listened to and that’s a good
thing for being in a democratic country where everyone has to listen to everyone even if
you don’t like it. We have to listen to the opinion of others. Something good comes out
when you listen.”
The teachers felt the partnership engaged in the process of dialogue through the
sharing of concerns, asking for their input and involvement, and in allowing them to
participate in the conversation. Three teachers saw evidence of dialogue as a mechanism
94
for creating equality among the stakeholders and allowed for all members to be
transparent and open in their communication, thus fostering good relationships and
connections. Mr. Nicholas commented, “I think that in many ways [the school] is ahead
of the others, in terms of even having really clear transparent discussions about the need
for equality and beginning the conversations about mechanisms to create that equality. I
think that [we’re ahead of] many of the other schools.” Four teachers saw evidence of
dialogue making a positive impact as partners were able to sit down and discuss and
clarify expectations of the partnership. They also expressed that the practice of dialogue
begun within the partnership has been put into practice in other aspects of the school,
such as the School Site Council and Small Learning Communities (SLCs). Mr. Matthews
stated, “GFEP seems to definitely be seeking the input and involvement from key
stakeholder representatives. You know, the SLC meetings, they are not exclusionary.
They are including representatives from the different SLCs and magnets to try to move
this thing forward.”
School administration expressed that engaging in dialogue allowed teachers to
develop relationships with fellow teachers as well as their students, resulting in better
outcomes in the classroom. Mr. Paul stated, “[The] teachers are developing relationships
with one another and better relationship with students that they work with. So it’s brought
about some positive changes in the classroom and that’s always been a very difficult
stronghold.”
Community-based organizations described dialogue as a process in which
participants come together to hear one another and where all stakeholders are given an
95
equal voice. Ms. Smith of the Metropolitan League commented, “Its really about
relationship building and hearing the needs of the schools.” In an effort to build
relationships, Ms. Weaver stated, “It’s all about talking with one another, and not talking
around one another.” Mr. Jordan and Mr. Barney from the Civic Engagement Foundation
emphasized the need for dialogue around knowing the school and community. They
stated, “We just began [to question] about two meetings ago about the need to have
dialogue and discourse on understanding the Freedom High School child and parent and
family.”
One university faculty member emphasized the need to continually meet to
dialogue to better understand the important issues affecting the partnership. Professor
Simms added, “All you can do is meet and talk and try to understand GFEP.”
Classified staff emphasized the importance of dialogue in exchanging ideas while
working toward the same goal. The need for dialogue was underscored particularly by the
classified staff who felt they had been treated as “second-citizens” and “the stepchild”
due to their exclusion from the vote for innovation. Ms. Grace stated, “[They] have not
involved the classified staff in many things [that are] going on [with the
partnership]…They have not tried to work them into the program.” However, the ongoing
efforts by the stakeholders to engage in open communication and dialogue contributed to
a significant shift in the classified staff’s feelings about inclusion in the partnership.

Findings in the observations and artifacts. Evidence of dialogue was present in
the meetings as teachers, parents, community members, and university faculty were able
96
to exchange ideas, state their opinions and ideas, and allow their voices to be heard.
Parents organized a “Countdown to College” event in which parents, students, teachers,
university faculty, and community-based organizations were able to dialogue about
college admissions and help to foster a college-going culture at the school. University
faculty and teachers met together to have a dialogue around how resources from the
School of Education could be best brought into the school. Teachers were willing to
listen, share their ideas and concerns; university faculty were able to respond and make
suggestions; and participants were willing to exchange ideas about how the partnership
could strengthen and enhance the efforts of the school staff. On another occasion, a
special study session consisting of all stakeholder groups met to have a dialogue about
the co-construction of the partnership, expectations, norms for communication, and to
learn how to navigate the differing organizational cultures of each partner. Stakeholders
were seen affirming the dialogue that was taking place within these meetings, as those
participating were able to share their thoughts and concerns with others in the group.
The Memorandum of Understanding did not refer to dialogue as a process
specifically to be employed by all stakeholders. Instead it merely stated that parties agree
to communicate openly and honestly with no specific description of how this was to take
place. The GFEP fact sheet revealed some successes within the partnership with regard to
the partners’ efforts to dialogue. These successes included:
• Assisted in launch of weekly Days of Dialogue student discussion groups with the
Los Angeles Police Department and City Attorney’s Office
• Guided the school to develop a Transition Team that has worked on systems and
structures for effective operation of the school
• Invested extensive hours mending bridges and encouraging participation and
helping both parents and teachers understand and build trust
97
Mutual Learning
Mutual learning is a process where all entities are cognitively and socially
engaged for the purpose of creating a shared body of knowledge. In order for the
partnership to be successful in transforming a school, it was important for all stakeholders
to operate from a common body of shared knowledge. Mutual learning takes place when
this common body of knowledge is co-constructed through dialogue, as each partner
learns from one another, each sharing his unique body of knowledge and contributing to
the whole. As the community, school, and university engage in this active learning
process, the shared body of knowledge expands and each partner benefits.

Findings in the interviews. Community members acknowledged that there is
potential for mutual learning to occur and that the partnership is just beginning to engage
in this process but they also stated that they are not quite there yet. Identifying a space for
dialogue in which this type of mutual learning could take place is needed. Two
community members stated that in order for mutual learning to occur, all partners needed
to be open to learning. Ms. Mills added, “The main thing that the partners need to do is to
be in a learning mode and I’m not sure that they are. I think suspending certainty and
coming with a big dose of humility and as learners is hard for people to do when they are
heads of organizations and they know a lot.”
Interviews with parents revealed that mutual learning was taking place as
evidenced by parents’ use of vocabulary common to other stakeholders, such as
“scaffolding” and “co-construction.” Three parents felt a strong sense of inclusion in that
98
they felt they demonstrated a concerted effort to bring other parents to the table. They
attributed this in part to the efforts of the critical bridge person in enabling them to
become involved in the learning process. And although there is a small group of parents,
they felt that they are very involved in the work of the partnership. Ms. Thomas stated
that not everyone could be involved but that a representative of the group is necessary.
“So we have to be conscious about who we involve and the things that we do to make
sure that nobody gets offended. And you can’t put everybody in it, but you can put a
representative from that group to be able to share information.”
The teachers spoke about mutual learning taking place between the teachers and
the university faculty, identifying the university as a partner that had distinguished itself
from the other partners in contributing significantly to the learning process within the
partnership. All the teachers interviewed made references to the university’s contribution
in providing resources in the form of professional developments as well the critical
bridge person, both of which have helped the school to function in a more comprehensive
manner. Mr. Carson stated that the day of dialogue between the school faculty and the
university professors provided more clarity with regard to how the partnership could be
mutually beneficial to all partners. “[During the meeting], it became a little more clear
[what the partnership] could offer, where [Western Pacific University] had things to offer
that [Freedom High] could take advantage of and that [Freedom High] had that [Western
Pacific University] would want to play a part in.” Mr. Bowles also felt that the
university’s reputation and standing within the community attracted more involvement
from the surrounding community members. “I think the fact that [Western Pacific
99
University is] high profile,…[the community knows] it’s going to be a quality kind of
thing…[The university] can take the lead and set the road for us and pave the way and get
buy in, because [they] do a lot of that kind of thing anyway.”
Three members of the Metropolitan League saw mutual learning beginning to
take place and emphasized the importance of learning and seeking out knowledge to
GFEP. Mr. Wagner stated, “I think [the partnership] needs to help create the entire
neighborhood as a learning community. And in particular, you learn in between the
spaces. So you’ll expect learning to take place in churches, families, and schools,
libraries, places like that.” Those interviewed stated that they are not there yet but see the
potential for this to occur. Mr. Jones expressed it as being a “symbiotic relationship.”
One university faculty member discussed the ways in which mutual learning
among the partners has the potential to change the way the university structures its
programs and prepares its students as the university applies what they have learned to
better its programs. Professor Simms stated, “The MFT program and Math for America
will come back and share with us and it will change us…It will help us understand what
we can do to prepare people to work [at the school]…After this, we will not be the same.
If you get involved you won’t come away the same.”

Findings in the observations and artifacts. Observations of meetings
demonstrated that mutual learning was taking place as participants, who were first
hesitant, showed more willingness to participate and add to the body of knowledge of the
group. In a staff development meeting, teachers’ input was solicited to provide a
100
launching point for discussion. Teachers were asked to express their instruction-related
questions or general concerns about teaching. The teachers identified student motivation
as being an issue needing to be discussed. The university faculty then proceeded to
provide an overview of the concept of student motivation, followed up by comments and
discussion among the teachers and university faculty with regard to specific resources
and training the university could provide to the teachers in an effort to better help address
this issue. The teachers engaged in the exchange of ideas with the university faculty, and
as a result, both groups learned from one another. The teachers became aware of specific
strategies that could help improve their instruction, and the university faculty learned
more about the culture of the school and the ways in which it could specifically support
the teachers and students.
In other observations, mutual learning was hindered due to the formality of the
meeting setting in which the guidelines of the Brown Act caused parents to feel they are
excluded from the discussion. This, the parents felt, was because the stakeholders did not
first engage in a process of mutual learning to discuss these major documents and explain
them to all stakeholders to provide greater understanding of various processes within the
partnership. The Brown Act set up certain restrictions with regard to how meeting
agendas are created, information is disseminated, and how communication takes place
within the board. These guidelines had not been clearly explained to the parents, and so
when the Brown Act was mentioned at times when the parents were seeking greater and
more open communication with the board, they felt these formalities were setting up
unnecessary restrictions and impeding transparency and dialogue. In addition, they felt
101
that the partnership needed to create opportunities for the parents and other stakeholders
to learn more about these formalities and become educated about these documents in
order to be able to participate in the conversation. In response to these sentiments, a
representative from one community-based organization suggested that stakeholders who
were interested in learning about the Brown Act read an abridged version of the
document and also offered to create a summary of the main points of the Brown Act. It
was then suggested by a community member that all stakeholders take a proactive
approach in educating themselves about the Brown Act so as to be informed rather than
depend solely on information provided by the members of the board, which could be a
skewed interpretation.
Only one of the artifacts examined made reference to mutual learning. Neither the
Memorandum of Understanding nor the Business Plan mentioned mutual learning as a
goal of the partnership. The GFEP Fact Sheet, however, listed progress made by the
partnership to engage in mutual learning. One example included the community-based
organization’s effort to create a platform for parents to engage and participate with
teachers in the development of the school’s site plan and in the accreditation process.
Other evidence of mutual learning included the artifact’s mention of the creation of small
learning communities at the school site as well as the integration of the school’s efforts
into a reform initiative targeting on a 70-block area surrounding the school around issues
of safety, housing, health, education, and employment.

102
Summary of Findings for Research Question One
The theoretical framework employed to shed light on the first research question
was Freire’s (1970) notion of dialogic relationships and was used to examine the extent to
which the process of forming this community, school, university partnership was dialogic
and co-constructed, involving mutual learning among all stakeholders. Based on the
interviews, observations, and artifacts, the emerging themes indicate that, while the initial
efforts toward forming the partnership did not involve a co-constructed dialogic process,
the decision-making process had begun to evolve into a more equitable, co-constructed
process involving dialogue and a forum for mutual learning. Systems and structures for
communication and representation of all stakeholders have helped to facilitate more open
dialogue and efforts at creating processes that involve input from all partners. Key
examples of these structures include the small learning communities and the Transition
Team. Dialogue that promotes an openness to listen, in addition to the development of
collaborative relationships, giving stakeholders an equal voice and promoting mutuality
and respect is being fostered through various meetings and events such as the Transition
Team meetings, School Site Council meetings, small learning communities, professional
development days, and other community events. Although all stakeholders expressed that
there were hurdles yet to be overcome and that the process takes a great deal of time, they
affirmed their belief in the potential of the partnership and the worthwhile effort of
engaging in the process of co-construction that have resulted in positive changes that
could not have been accomplished otherwise. Ms. Ford acknowledged, “As I said before,
I think that [the partnership] has given us a feeling of hope. And I said even though there
103
may be issues, there still is this feeling of hope… Hope is big…I think if we have hope,
you can feel like you’re [going to] have success and that’s what we need here.”

Research Sub-Question A: Barriers
The first sub-question to research question one asks, “What are the persistent
barriers to establishing partnerships among communities, K-12 schools, and universities
on behalf of K-12 urban school transformation?” Schein’s three levels of organizational
culture: (1) artifacts, (2) values, and (3) basic underlying assumptions, helped to explain
how the differences in the culture of a community, school, and university create
persistent barriers to the success of a partnership among these entities. Artifacts, or the
visible indicators of an organization’s culture, included documents that helped to identify
the values held by each stakeholder group. Interviews with key stakeholders allowed a
more in-depth analysis of the underlying assumptions that influenced perceptions,
processes, and behavior of all entities within the partnership.

Figure 2: Barriers to Partnership

104
History
Findings in the interviews. Some aspects of the history preceding the formation
of the partnership emerged as a persistent barrier to the co-construction of this
partnership. A history of failed reform efforts, years of neglect, and frequent
administrative changes were among some of the historical patterns that created low levels
of trust among community members. A significant finding was the reference to a history
of mistrust with the local district by a majority of the stakeholders, including parents,
teachers, school administration, and community members. Four out of six parents and 1
community member felt greatly disrespected by the local district, having been excluded
in decision making processes and being perceived as lacking knowledge about the needs
of the school and its students. Ms. Ford stated, “Under [the local district], it was terrible.
They disrespected us, as parents, and even the teachers…and they didn’t want to
collaborate.” The teachers and school administrators made repeated references to the
district’s history of operating from a top-down model, dictating to the school what reform
initiatives should be adopted. School administrators stated that historically it has been felt
that the local district has been unsupportive of the school. All the teachers interviewed
expressed a history of a contentious relationship with the local district and strained past
relationships with entities coming in to reform the school that created feelings of mistrust
and polarized many faculty members. This mistrust stems from past actions and false
promises made by other reform efforts. They felt that there was a history of exclusion in
which they had not been listened to. Unclear communication and the absence of systems
to communicate and be heard also contributed to these historic barriers.
105
To combat the history of mistrust and broken promises with the district, the
parents made efforts to empower themselves and become involved with the school. As a
result, the parents felt that their history of active engagement within the school and their
efforts to bring about change contributed significantly to the formation of the partnership
through the i-Design vote. However, their inability to become founding members on the
board of GFEP created a perception of exclusion from the partnership and contributed to
feelings of mistrust. Ms. Ford stated, “…when I think about a partnership, I’m thinking
we’re all working on this together and especially when you’re talking about founding
members, in my mind, we should be considered founding members because we pushed
this…if the parents had not pushed, we wouldn’t be here.” In addition, a history of a lack
of communication and transparency have posed barriers to the success of the partnership
because parents feel excluded from the decision-making process and from truly
understanding the work that is being done within the partnership.
All the members of the Metropolitan League expressed a history of
marginalization and disenfranchisement of the school and the community, as well as fear
and skepticism based on past experiences that have resulted in little or no improvement at
the school site. A history of mistrust also exists due to the use, and misuse, of authority
and power by the local district and other “investors” in the school. Ms. Wilson stated that
the district was “hostile to the school.” Historically, relationships have lacked the
connection, continuity, and shared meaning that are necessary for true collaboration.
All the university faculty members who were interviewed described a historic
lack of sustainability of reform due to frequent change in leadership. A history of neglect
106
and high turnover among leaders has contributed to the lack of significant change at the
school site.
Classified staff has felt excluded from all major decision-making opportunities
throughout the formation of the partnership. They feel that their exclusion from the vote
and other important meetings at the start of the process has created historic barriers of
mistrust among classified staff members.

Findings from the observations and artifacts. Observations revealed a history of
frustration with the local district for decisions that were made on behalf of the school
without significant input from the school and community, which ultimately led to the
choice to enter innovation. Teachers expressed that they do not wish to return to the older
model of the top-down, hierarchical relationship with the district. A “waiting and
watching” stance was taken by many teachers during a staff development meeting, many
choosing to be disengaged from the discussion, reflecting the history of past failed reform
efforts at the school site. The parents were a lot more actively engaged in asking
questions and learning as much as they could about the partnership, as well as holding the
partners accountable for decisions made. Parents, teachers, and community members
were continually advocating for their having access to meeting minutes and agendas and
other crucial documents in a timely fashion so as to ensure transparency and open
communication among all partners.
The only artifact to make any reference to the history of the partnership was the
Business Plan, which identified the need to examine the “historic and current systems and
107
structures” that have contributed to the ineffectiveness of the school due to the collective
failure of the school, district, and community to address the needs of the students.

Hierarchy
Hierarchy emerges as another persistent barrier in establishing a co-constructed
community, school, and university partnership. An unequal distribution of power results
in hierarchical relationships that do not recognize and value the assets of each partner.
These power relationships emerge as each entity seeks to assert itself rather than co-
construct roles and expectations within the partnership.

Findings in the interviews. Community members, parents, teachers, school
administrators, and classified staff all cited a lack of equal voice or power related to not
having had a say in who the partners in the partnership would be. In addition, these
stakeholders expressed feeling dictated to rather than seen as equal partners. Interviews
with four out of six parents revealed mistrust with the partnership for its lack of
transparency and unclear goals. Ms. Walker stated, “I think, the understanding is unclear.
Here at the school site, our understanding is that we’re equal, and to me, GFEP’s
understanding is ‘You’re under us, we’re [going to] make these decisions about what
happens here at the school site’.” These parents had felt that they would have more
autonomy by separating from the local district to join this partnership. However, when
they were not given a choice with regard to who their partners would be, this created
feelings of mistrust. Ms. Webster and Ms. Walker stated, “We did away with one level of
108
management, which was our local district, who were really oppressive. And it seems to
me as a parent, I see it as if we traded one master for another. And that’s not where I’m
at; that’s not where I want to be.” In addition, a school site organization highly
representative of parents felt excluded from the partnership because they felt their efforts
greatly influenced the formation of the partnership and yet they were not given equal
representation as a founding member. Various legalities and bureaucratic and structural
constraints have prevented parents from having an equal voice in the decision-making
process and have created feelings of mistrust and a hierarchical relationship. This feeling
was prominent early in the process, but four parents revealed that efforts to create
systems of representation and structures for dialogue and collaboration have helped to
foster an emerging sense of trust among the parents as they see potential for change. Ms.
Ford stated, “We needed to create hope here. I feel like there’s hope now. Even though I
have some issues, but yet I feel like, yeah…we’re seeing some changes and we’re having
more of a say.”
All the teachers interviewed also expressed hierarchy as a barrier to the success of
the partnership. Rather than achieving the autonomy that they desired through the
partnership, they felt the school is not an equal partner because it does not have equal say
and access to decision-making. All the teachers made reference to the process as having
been more top-down than equal and co-constructed, with students, teachers, and parents
excluded from participation. All the teachers also spoke of the strained relationship with
the local district as having served as a catalyst for the faculty to want greater autonomy.
Ms. Tyler felt the partnership was not equal because the partners outside the school,
109
although they seemed to hold more power, did not have as much burden of responsibility
as the school. She stated, “I feel like it’s a greater burden on the school than it is on the
partners because the partners in the end can always walk away. Those of us who are at
the school who really feel our life is here we can’t just walk away from this…” From her
perspective, the school has the most to gain or lose depending on the success of the
partnership, making it imperative for the school to be treated as an equal partner.
Two members of the Metropolitan League recognized that other stakeholder
groups perceived them to be one of the entities to possess the power and influence within
the partnership. They expressed that the availability of and access to information and
resources, or the lack thereof, contributes to the power imbalance among stakeholders.
The decision-making power was seen as closely tied to the status level or resources
available from the stakeholder. Ms. Wilson stated, “It really is about resources. Some
organizations have more resources than others.” Contrary to the view of the teachers, the
community-based organization focused on civil rights believed that it was not the school
but the organization that had the most to lose if the partnership failed. Ms. Wilson
commented, “If this venture were to fail, [our organization] has a lot to lose. I don’t think
that anyone thinks about it that way. Teachers can go to another school; there are no
ramifications, but for a CBO that took this risk…it definitely is a risk.”
All the school administrators who were interviewed felt that the partnership was
formed at the district level, with a lack of decision-making power with regard to the
selection of partners. In addition, they expressed a feeling that the process lacked
representation of students, classified, and administrative staff within the partnership.
110
Classified staff expressed a clear power imbalance when they were left out of the vote for
i-Design. In addition, they felt that they were excluded from meetings and treated as
“second-class citizens,” not having an equal voice within the partnership or decision-
making power.
One university faculty member revealed barriers of hierarchy with regard to the
school’s power to exclude other influences from entering the school. While the university
may be able to develop various kinds of programs to improve student achievement and
provide assistance to the school, the university faculty member felt that the ultimate
decision-making power rested with the teachers and staff at the school, who had the
ability to accept or reject the programs being offered. Another hierarchical barrier to
participation in the partnership included the culture of the university, which often places
research over social service, limiting faculty members’ abilities to be fully engaged in the
work of the partnership due to tenure requirements and other university responsibilities.

Findings in the observations and artifacts. The formalities that exist within some
of the partnership meetings created perceptions of hierarchy among stakeholders.
Regulations and guidelines under the Brown Act have served to create a divide among
stakeholders because parents, teachers, and community feel they do not have the
opportunity to voice themselves freely within board meetings due to the guidelines that
must be adhered to under the Brown Act. Some expressed an absence of a collaborative
spirit in the meetings. With regard to decision-making power, it was expressed in a
meeting that the district has not yet relinquished authority to the partnership and so
111
accountability to the district may interrupt the co-construction process. In addition, there
was a strong suggestion that decisions were being made up high, in a top-down model
with some levels of isolation.
The examined artifacts also revealed various top-down decision-making processes
and confirmed what stakeholders discussed in their interviews. The GFEP Fact Sheet
listed the university as having provided mentoring for the school’s principal and
administrative team without acknowledging the mutual learning that could take place as
partners co-construct together and learn from one another’s unique knowledge and
experience. The partnership’s business plan listed the founding members of GFEP as the
two community-based organizations and the university and did not include
representatives from the school, the parents or the community. The Memorandum of
Understanding places the GFEP Board as having all authority under the MOU. “[The
partnership], in performing its duties and fulfilling its obligations under this MOU, shall
have power and authority, consistent with federal and state law…” (p. 2).

Absence of Systems and Structures for Communication
Another persistent barrier in the co-construction of a partnership is the absence of
systems and structures for communication. Lack of clear communication among partners
can quickly dissolve the efforts and hinder the work of the partnership as well as create
feelings of mistrust among partners. Poor communication has also contributed to
inequities among stakeholders’ status and power, thus perpetuating relationships of
unequal power and lack of trust. The use of jargon that is specific to an organization and
112
not shared among all stakeholders can also create hierarchical relationships that fail to
recognize each partner as having equal status within the partnership (Suarez-Balcazar et
al., 2005; Carroll et al., 2001).

Findings in the interviews. Community members, parents, teachers, community-
based organizations, school administration, and classified staff all felt that the partnership
lacked a consensus regarding goals and action plans as well as understanding of various
stakeholders’ roles. In addition, each stakeholder group expressed a lack of systems of
communication to clearly articulate what was being accomplished within the partnership.
This lack of clear communication has led some stakeholders to feel there is a lack of
transparency and honesty, which has produced feelings of mistrust. Ms. Webster and Ms.
Walker expressed, “We know who [the partners are, but] their goals are vague. There
hasn’t been complete transparency on their part to the point where parents can trust
them.” Community members, parents, and teachers stated that having no centralized
location for information as well as a method for disseminating information such as
meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and other important documents in a timely fashion
has limited their ability to fully be engaged in the partnership because they are not aware
of what is happening. Ms. Tyler stated that “[ongoing] reflection and communication is
really important…and documenting successes, documenting failures and figuring out
[how we are] going to fix that, documenting everything, making it very open and public
so that everyone is aware of it…what’s going on [is necessary].” This lack of access to
information has resulted in stakeholders feeling they are not truly equal partners within
113
the partnership as some have access to up-to-date information and others do not. Mr.
Nicholas commented about the problems that can result from a lack of communication.
“[We have to] find better ways to communicate in real time or almost real time…because
as you guys know, [a] mole hill can suddenly become a mountain when there’s a
breakdown in communication.”
University faculty discussed the absence of collective involvement that would
strengthen the partnership. A faculty member also expressed that there was a lack of clear
definition with regard to innovation and what it means for the partnership. Professor
Simms stated that a comment she often hears from various stakeholders in the university
is “nothing is happening.”
School administration and classified staff spoke of their exclusion from the voting
process to establish the partnership. Classified staff emphasized a lack of clarity with
regard to what is being done in the partnership as well as a feeling that they were being
ignored, having little or no voice and limited opportunities to communicate and be
involved in the partnership unless they created those opportunities for themselves. Ms.
Grace stated, “I’ve been fighting for that for a year trying to get clarity on why they left
out staff… um, classified. We’re stakeholders, equal stakeholders, just like everybody
else but they tend to treat classified as second-class citizens in the Board. Period.”

Findings in the observations and artifacts. A lack of systems for communication
was evident in meetings observed. Formalities such as the Brown Act placed constraints
on the timeliness and method used to disseminate meeting agendas and minutes as well as
114
the process used to document the work being accomplished within the partnership. A
teacher expressed that there seems to be a separation between what is happening in the
partnership and what people know is happening. Various stakeholders expressed a need
to clearly communicate what is being done in the partnership in order to build trust rather
than contribute to mistrust. Others suggested the definition of communication, process,
and systems for co-constructing and collaboration of an equal partnership. The absence of
these structures has created feelings of exclusion among some of the stakeholders, and
they feel left out of the conversation and decision-making process. This has contributed
to roles being defined, goals being set, and decisions being made without their input and
without dialogue or co-construction.
The examined artifacts do not directly address the absence of systems and
structures for communication within the partnership, but this omission from the
partnership’s documents may indicate that the creation of these structures and systems is
not a high priority for the partnership.

Summary of Findings for Research Sub-Question 1A
The history of the partnership reveals the overall feelings of a lack of clarity and
trust among all stakeholders due to past decisions that have been made without the input
of all parties. A pattern of top-down decision-making that failed to respect and value the
contribution of all stakeholders has led to feelings of mistrust, creating barriers to the
success of the partnership.
115
Hierarchical barriers caused parents, teachers, community members, school
administrators, and classified staff to express that they did not have a say in who the
partners would be, but rather that the partners were chosen for them. Parents, teachers,
and community members expressed that the bureaucracy involved in the partnership
created structural constraints that prevent all stakeholders from having their voices heard
in the decision-making process.
The absence of systems and structures for communication contributed to the lack
of communication and clarity with regard to roles, goals, mission, and direction of the
partnership. The dearth of written communication systems appeared to be a major
problem within the partnership, creating barriers to co-construction, as stakeholders felt
uninformed about what was taking place within the partnership. All stakeholders
expressed there being much ambiguity in several areas within the partnership, many
being unable to articulate clearly the goals of the partnership, the role of each of the
entities, and the work that has been done to this point. In addition, many stakeholders
stated that the lack of communication has led to their feeling of a lack of transparency
among all the partners, which has contributed to ongoing feelings of mistrust.

116
Research Sub-Question B: Strategies
The second sub-question to research question one asked, “What are some
effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming barriers in co-constructing
partnerships among communities, K-12 schools, and universities for the purpose of
transforming K-12 urban schools?”

Space for Dialogue
Findings in the interviews. One community member described specific examples
where space for dialogue had been created through the partnership. She stated that there
are forums for engagement to promote equality among stakeholders that facilitate the
change process. However, she stated that it requires time spent “just sitting down and
listening” to one another.
Two parents also expressed that there have been opportunities to dialogue, yet
they felt that the board needed to be more receptive to new ideas and perspectives, and
one of the ways to promote this would be to have equal representation of all stakeholder
Figure 3: Strategies to Overcome the Barriers to Partnership
• Hierarchy
• History
• Absence of Systems
and Structures for
Communication
BARRIERS BARRIERS
STRATEGI STRATEGIES ES
117
groups on the board. Ms. Ford stated, “It seems to me that if you’re talking about a
school, you need to have the people that are…committed and involved in that school. So
those people, I think, need to be on that Board, and then you [can] bring in the other
people that you normally have, but you don't’ leave [those closely involved at the school]
out because they’re very important.” All the parents interviewed also felt a need for
greater transparency and open communication to broaden the scope of the work of the
partnership and to disseminate this information more widely, beyond those who attend
the meetings. Mr. Madison stated, “I consider that if we improve communication, we can
improve participation. We have to know what is being done. Maybe only the people who
are participating know about it. After that, I don’t know…Communication is everything.”
The parents also spoke of the critical bridge person’s essential role in mobilizing the
group and helping to improve the quality and quantity of participation among all
stakeholders. A component that all parents felt was missing from the space for dialogue
was participation from parents and students. Ms. Ford suggested creating a student forum
to better inform and involve students in the partnership. “I think we need to do a forum or
something where [the students]…can come in and maybe we can talk. The GFEP team
can talk to them and explain some things to them.”
Three teachers stated that the partnership has provided room for them to share
ideas, perspectives, and to dialogue. Mr. Carson stated, “I think there’s a lot more
committee meetings and informative meetings that you can go to. A lot more opportunity
for feedback than there has been in the past…so in terms of that level of access for the
sharing of concerns and information…those exist and in much greater stakes.” Ms. Tyler
118
expressed that the teachers have had opportunities to voice their concerns but that the
need to create a system of communication is imperative in order to maximize the
opportunities to resolve issues. “So access is important…again that communication piece,
that constant dialogue. Understanding: What are the expectations? What have we
accomplished so far? [What] have we accomplished so far? What is it we still need to
work on?” And although there is a space for dialogue to resolve issues and to address the
needs of students, Mr. Carson felt that parents and students needed to be more involved
in this dialogue.
Members of both community-based organizations stated that a space exists to
collaborate, dialogue and resolve issues but more opportunities must be created for all
stakeholders to dialogue in an equitable manner. Mr. Wagner of the Metropolitan League
stated, “[You have to] keep listening to people and providing communication accounts
for folks. And everybody will be able to weigh in. And put your ego aside [to] make sure
things happen.” Ms. George of the Metropolitan League referred to creating a space for
dialogue as “being able to, in a healthy forum, agree and disagree and come out with a
great outcome that is going to help these kids. So that’s how we’ll overcome the
barriers…by working together and having healthy confrontation and coming up with
solutions as a group.”
One university faculty member stated that the space for dialogue created during a
day of dialogue between the teachers of Freedom High School and the faculty of Western
Pacific University’s School of Education has provided them with an understanding of
what is needed in the partnership that has the potential to benefit both the research faculty
119
and the client. In addition, the space for dialogue has provided them with the opportunity
to get to know the stakeholders and attempt to truly understand the culture in which they
are trying to operate. Professor Walsh stated, “The best part about the meetings was that
we did get to know the players and understand [Freedom High School] much better.”
One school administrator agreed that a space for dialogue exists but questioned
whether or not the right kinds of conversations were occurring. “I’ve been asked to
participate in the GFEP board meetings, from over the summer to [the] present. There
were some meetings initially, that occurred at [the] district level as opposed to the school
site level, and with teachers, as opposed to the administration, or jointly. That’s been my
experience.” Another administrator expressed that while the local district had not taken
the time to find out what was needed at the school to benefit students, the partnership had
created space for dialogue that helped to more accurately address the issues at the school
site. One specific reference was made to the success of the day of dialogue between the
teachers and the university faculty. Mr. Paul stated that although there has been some
difficulty in creating a forum to engage in the kind of effective dialogue to resolve issues,
he believed that they partnership was moving in a direction that will allow them to be
more successful.
Classified Staff shared a perspective that was very different from the other
stakeholders. They felt that not everyone was invited to participate in the dialogue in the
beginning; however, the partners were working to resolve some of these issues now. Ms.
Grace stated, “I think they just needed to hear us ‘cause I don’t think they really
understood…They thought we were just complaining and it’s not really complaining. We
120
really weren’t attacking them or complaining. We just wanted them to listen and
understand and communicate.”

Findings in the observations and artifacts. Collaborative meetings, small learning
communities, transition team meetings, staff development, study sessions, and committee
meetings facilitated the creation of spaces for dialogue in which stakeholders had
opportunities to interact and exchange ideas, share concerns, develop systems and clarify
processes. Weekly meetings of the Small Learning Communities Council took place for
over a year, providing a space for dialogue among counselors, administrators, and lead
teachers, allowing them to come together to shape the small learning communities.
Stakeholder input was encouraged in these meetings and attendees were able to be open
and share freely. More formal meetings such as board meetings did not always facilitate
this space for dialogue due to constraints with regard to legalities and protocol; however,
parents, teachers, community members, and school administration voiced their concerns,
thus prompting more opportunities and space for dialogue to be created. Parents’
concerns about their voices not being heard in formal settings led to another space for
dialogue—a Saturday retreat in which the stakeholders clarified roles and discussed the
process of co-construction.
The GFEP Fact Sheet identified areas in which the partnership had facilitated the
creation of spaces for dialogue. The Transition Team, made up of elected representatives
from each stakeholder group, provided the forum for all key stakeholder groups to come
together and create systems and structures leading to the transformation of the school.
121
Other events such as the Days of Dialogue student discussion groups with the Los
Angeles Police Department and City Attorney’s Office and the First Tuesday Meet and
Greet for parents, staff, administrators, and teachers helped to encourage dialogue among
the partners. The GFEP Business plan also identified the Transition Team as the first step
toward adopting a model of distributed leadership and mutual accountability to aid in the
school’s transformation. The Memorandum of Understanding made mention of having
open meetings where all parties agree to communicate in an open and honest manner.

Systems of Representation
Findings in the interviews. Two community members felt that they have a system
of representation. And although the system is not perfect, they felt that they have a voice.
They also expressed that they felt they hold some power within the partnership because
they can speak up if there is something they disagree with. Mr. Johns stated, “If at all,
there are any political aspirations outside of making sure students achieve what they need
to achieve in the classroom, it’s going to fail miserably because right now parents aren’t
tolerating it anymore.”
Four out of six parents felt the partnership had given them more opportunities to
be involved as opposed to their previous relationship with the local district. Two parents
made mention of the critical bridge person’s efforts to invite the parents and include them
in important meetings for the partnership. Three parents interviewed felt that the parents
had been proactive in seeking out the changes they wanted to see take place at the school,
which meant getting involved and allowing their voices to be heard. They felt that their
122
effort to get involved allowed for systems of representation to be created such as the
Friends of Freedom, the Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA), and the Transition
Team. Even though these efforts to be represented within the partnership had been
undertaken by the parents, one parent felt that there needed to be more representation of
Latino parents in the meetings. Another parent expressed that the partnership could also
make more effort to involve students by creating student forums where students could get
to know the partners, ask questions, and share their input. In addition, one parent felt that
stakeholder representation was still lacking on the Board. Despite these shortcomings,
Ms. Ford felt the partnership had still been successful in allowing stakeholders to be
heard and to contribute to the change efforts at the school.
We were able to push for some of the things that we want here at this
school. We have an opportunity to truly make some change here, and
GFEP is giving us that, the opportunity to make change—the opportunity
to make this school accountable to the stakeholders and to the community.
I think that we still have a lot more say into what’s happening at this
school. As I said before, I think that [the partnership] has given us a
feeling of hope. And I said even though there may be issues, there still is
this feeling of hope, and I think that these kids are beginning to see that
people care about them.

Two teachers expressed that the opportunity for inclusion exists, but more teacher
participation is needed, as those who are involved are not always representative of the
group. All the teachers have felt a greater sense of inclusion because of established
structures that have been put in place to receive resources, both human and material.
Representation with regard to interaction with the critical bridge person has been
extensive and a collaborative effort is being made to create more opportunities for
involvement and engagement.
123
Two members of the Metropolitan League identified the creation of small
learning communities as a system of representation at the school site while systems for
representation within the partnership were described more as attempts by the community-
based organizations to include parents, teachers, and students in the process. Mr. Jones of
the Metropolitan League stated, “I think there is a real sense that we have to promote and
project this sort of united front and be united in our approach to the community.”
Members of the Metropolitan League seemed to identify systems of representation as a
strategy to get the work done. Mr. Wagner added, “GFEP is still in some sense a frame or
a shell but then now that has to have a way of inviting in various entities, students,
classified staff, certificated staff, administrators, parents, and community members, and
businesses.”
Classified staff asserted that their involvement in the partnership has been a direct
result of their own effort to get involved and allow their voice to be heard. Ms. Grace
commented that “we’ve been working hard to make sure that Classified won’t be left out
of any more decision-making here at [Freedom] High School…Anything that we have
done we have basically stepped out and done on our own.” The classified staff
representative, more than other stakeholder representatives, fulfilled the process of
communicating to the transition team the concerns of the classified staff and also
communicating to the classified staff the discussions that took place in the transition team
meetings. The role of representatives within the partnership included maintaining a two-
way flow of information and knowledge between the representative’s constituents and the
committees on which the representative served.
124
Findings in the observations and artifacts. Whenever possible, stakeholders were
given opportunities to provide input and feedback regarding the partnership. Efforts to
ensure representation from all stakeholders were present in the formation of the transition
team and continued in their meetings in which representatives from all stakeholder
groups were present and contributed to the discussion and decision-making process.
Meeting agenda items often included tasks to create systems and structures for effective
and timely communication, collaboration, and decision-making, all with the intent of
working with representation from all stakeholder groups. Some systems of representation
that were still lacking included student participation within the partnership as well as a
need to inform the larger student body and community about who the partners were, what
the goals of the partnership included, and the progress that has been made thus far.
The GFEP Fact Sheet identified efforts made within the partnership to ensure that
all stakeholder groups were being represented. Some of these efforts included assisting
parents with “addressing an updated means for their participation in and support of their
children’s school-based development”, creating a “platform for parents to fully engage
and participate with teachers in developing a school site’s plan and in accreditation”,
guiding the school to develop a Transition Team, creating relationships with local
community colleges to provide greater access to college for students, and supporting
“parent groups and associations by assigning staff to attend meetings with active
participation and support including [Friends of Freedom], Transition Teams, [Parent
Teacher Association], and others).”
125
The Business Plan cited the creation of small learning communities governance
committees, an SLC council representing all SLCs, a curriculum council representing all
curriculum departments, the Transition Team, and the Friends of Freedom group
consisting of parents, teachers, community, and students as evidence of the established
systems of representation within the partnership.
The Memorandum of Understanding makes mention of representation within the
partnership as being made up of the district and the partnership cooperating to “form a
council comprised of parents, community members and school staff at each GFEP
School.”

Summary of Findings for Research Sub-Question 1B
The strategies employed to overcome the barriers to co-construction included
space for dialogue and systems of representation. Emerging themes among all
stakeholder groups included an overall feeling that the partnership was opening up more
space for dialogue among stakeholders. Various stakeholder groups felt, however, that
the partnership could improve in its ability to allow more stakeholders equal voice in the
dialogue. All stakeholder groups acknowledged to some degree the positive impact of the
partnership’s ability to create more systems of representation for all stakeholders. The
efforts to include all stakeholder groups have proven to be effective in overcoming some
of the negative history between the school and the local district and have given
stakeholders hope as to the impact of the partnership in transforming the school.

126
Research Question 2: Attributes
The second research question asked, “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/university partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?”

Collaborative Relationships
As stakeholders engage in the process of co-construction through dialogue and
mutual learning, a new cultural model is emerging in which all members of the
partnership are valued for their unique expertise, experience, and knowledge that can be
brought together for a common purpose. This new cultural model facilitates the formation
of collaborative relationships in which all stakeholders engage in the work of urban
school transformation by brokering the assets of each partner.

Findings in the interviews. Three out of four community members who were
interviewed identified areas in which the partnership had been successful in developing
Figure 4: Attributes of a Co-Constructed Community, School, University Partnership
127
collaborative relationships both among the partners as well as with other outside
organizations. Mr. Johns expressed that the partners were working in collaboration with
one another, each entity bringing its own resources to the table. He described the partners
as having knowledge of the educational system that was helpful to parents who are not as
aware of what occurs at the school site level. “And so, when [the] teachers,
administrators, [directors], personnel or people who have been in the business of
education for a long time [come in and say], ‘okay, just relax, we’re going to do it like
this, step by step by step’, I think that type of commitment and dedication and willingness
to teach someone are some of the qualities and characteristics that I see throughout [the
GFEP] collaboration.”
Four out of six parents who were interviewed attributed much of the work of
building collaborative relationships to the critical bridge person. Ms. Thomas
emphasized, “[the critical bridge person] didn’t take over; she took part.” In addition, she
stated that the partnership was beginning to move in a direction in which it is “not top-
down, it’s aligned. And I know principals and administrators, people have their place, but
there’s a place for all of us to come together and make sure that it really works for the
goal of the young people.” Two parents stated that the partnership was working toward
changing the culture of the school, and they felt that this process necessitates
collaboration. Ms. Ford stated, “[We’re] trying to change the culture and to me, to change
the culture means we are all in this and we all work together.”
Six out of seven teachers who were interviewed attributed the partnership to
having been successful in fostering more collaboration. Mr. Carson felt that the
128
partnership’s goals involved bringing together the school and the community by bringing
the resources found in the community into the school. He identified the resources
provided through Western Pacific University that included the critical bridge person and
social work interns from the School of Social Work as having had a very positive impact
at the school. He emphasized the critical bridge person’s effort to make the work
collaborative as having been an effective strategy to create more buy-in among the
teachers and staff. Ms. Dylan stated, “[The partnership] has definitely, in my experience,
showed me the value that community, parents and other partnerships have to offer to
enrich the lives of the students and the school community.” Three teachers stated that the
work that has taken place through the partnership has been a collaborative effort,
involving a group effort among all stakeholders. Another teacher stated that collaborative
relationships were being built through the small learning communities that had been
developed through the support and facilitation of the partnership.
Two members of the Metropolitan League saw their organization’s contribution to
the partnership in the form of financial resources that have helped to bring in other
resources to the school to build collaborative relationships. In addition, they felt that their
neighborhood initiative, working alongside the partnership, has helped to forge strong
collaborative relationships with outside organizations such as the Los Angeles Police
Department and the California Highway Patrol. They saw the strength of the
Metropolitan League’s ability to leverage resources on behalf of the school as playing a
significant role in establishing collaborative relationships between the community and the
school. Mr. Jones stated that the Metropolitan League’s “legacy and history and
129
credibility to develop the kinds of partnerships like [Western Pacific University] has
benefited the school by helping teachers “think about curriculum, development, and how
to change administrative processes.” Ms. Wilson commented that these collaborative
relationships have been brought about through relationship building and hearing the
needs of the school. In addition, to allow these collaborative relationships to flourish, she
felt that “capacity building has to happen, knowledge building and nation building has to
happen.” Ms. Weaver noticed how the partnership had been able to build a spirit of
collaboration as she saw parents who used to say “you guys, you guys, you guys” were
now using words like “us” and “we”.
Professor Simms of Western Pacific University identified several individuals
from the university who were on site at the school to collaborate with teachers and staff.
She stated that the work of collaboration within the partnership has been a priority and
that a lot of time has been devoted to this work. She added, “[GFEP] is not [Western
Pacific University]. [WPU] is very different. It is kind of like giving birth and [GFEP]
has the DNA of all of us, but we are not the same.”
Both school administrators who were interviewed identified the critical bridge
person as having played a strong guiding role, mentoring and building a spirit of
collaboration among teachers, administrators, and staff. Mr. Paul stated, “I think [the
critical bridge person], being in education, knows what good teaching is and…she has
strategies to help bring that about, and I think with her personality and her ability to bring
people together [she can] help them work together.” Ms. Phillip commented on how the
130
partnership could build these collaborative relationships stating, “when I first heard about
the partnership and who was involved, I thought, ‘what a great potential’.”
Ms. Grace, a classified staff member, identified the critical bridge person as
having played a significant role in building collaborative relationships within the
partnership. When asked what characteristics of the critical bridge person allowed her to
be effective in building these relationships, she replied, “Her heart. [She] cares for these
kids and it shows. [It is] not just a job for her. [It’s] a relationship with the staff and the
kids and it always shows and everyone feels her caring. And that’s what makes it work.
They don’t feel that she’s just dictating. [She’s] there to help the children and help the
students and to help the staff.”

Findings in the observations and artifacts. Observations revealed several
emerging patterns of collaboration and the building up of collaborative relationships. An
observation of a community sponsored “Countdown to College” event demonstrated the
positive effects of collaborative relationships among stakeholders in the partnership. Over
30 volunteers from the community, community-based organizations, university, and
school came together to assist students from Freedom High School with completing and
submitting their college applications and writing personal statements in addition to
providing general advice and encouragement to students and their families. Participation
from the parents and teachers of Freedom High School as well as collaboration with the
Metropolitan League helped to empower students. At a Transition Team meeting,
stakeholders expressed that though they felt the previously held Study Session would be
131
about analyzing documents, it turned out to be an opportunity to understand whether or
not the stakeholders were being collaborative. A member of the transition team stated that
collaboration is sometimes painful and takes time. “You see it happening in your students
over time as you act as facilitators. This is a difficult process for faculty because it is
something they are not used to. It is time-consuming and frustrating, but something we
are going to get used to and get better at.” At this same meeting, stakeholders worked
collaboratively to co-construct the job description for the partnership’s Executive
Director position. Some of the discussion points included:
• An individual who has demonstrated leadership in instruction
• An individual who understands systems and structures
• An individual with a track record of demonstrated ability and a background in
urban education
• An individual who values the community and can build networks
• An individual who believes in co-construction through dialogue
• An individual who is an effective communicator
• An individual who can build capacity
• An individual with vision
• An individual with passion and persistence who can move forward

The GFEP Fact Sheet listed many of the successes of the partnership in building
collaborative relationships. Some of these collaborative relationships included developing
and launching a Pre-K-12 Collaborative to advocate on behalf of and leverage resources
for Freedom High School and its feeder schools, expanding relationships with community
colleges to offer students access to a wider range of coursework for college credit,
working closely with coaches and department chairs at the school site to develop a
process for developing rigorous standards-based instruction for all students, and working
in collaboration with the Los Angeles Police Department to ensure safe passage for
132
students and reduce crime in the areas surrounding the school. The GFEP Business Plan
speaks extensively about collaboration within the partnership. Some of its goals include:
• Long-term collaborative relationships with K-12 schools to build communities of
practice that enable teachers and communities to build the educational
experiences all students deserve.
• Mutually accountable relationships with parents and other members of the school
community
• Opportunities for all students to interact with teachers in meaningful teacher-
student relationships
• Collaborative relationships with parents and the community, including
community-based resources
Collaboration among faculty and administration to create a research-informed
community of learners focused on high quality teaching and learning for all
students;

The Memorandum of Understanding identified the partners as engaged in a collaborative
relationship to benefit the students of the district. It also mentions repeatedly the role of
GFEP in working collaboratively with the school and the district to provide resources,
professional development, training, as well as develop processes for working together.

Collaborative Relationships as a New Cultural Model for Home-School Partnerships
As stated in Chapter 2, many of the barriers that have prevented universities,
schools, and communities from effectively collaborating together have also contributed to
the lack of collaboration among schools and communities (Tood & Higgins, 1998;
Christenson, 2003; Sanders, 2001). As the partners engage in co-construction through
dialogue and mutual learning, a new cultural model of partnership is created that has the
potential to reshape the way teachers, parents, and students interact with one another.
This new cultural model of parent-community-school partnerships transforms the role of
the teacher-student relationship and engages all parties in dialogue to co-construct
133
knowledge together by bringing together the collective assets of the family and
community into the classroom as a valuable resources for learning. In this cultural model,
teachers and parents can form collaborative relationships where parents are empowered
to take an active role in the students’ learning by contributing their funds of knowledge.
Moll et al. (1992) define funds of knowledge as “historically accumulated and culturally
developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual
functioning and well-being” (p. 133). This new cultural model allows parents to
contribute to the teacher’s knowledge and, at the same time, allows teachers to contribute
to the parents’ knowledge. This process of mutual learning is a direct result of the mutual
learning that is taking place throughout the partnership, as teachers, parents, students, and
communities learn from one another.
The collaborative relationships that have resulted through the work of the
partnership have the facilitated the emergence of a new cultural model of home-school
partnerships where teachers and parents are forging more collaborative relationships to
benefit students. Mr. Nicholas, a teacher at Freedom High School, stated, “[One] thing
that I think [Freedom High] has going for it and has had going for it is the parents and
teachers are already in relationship with each other in some very powerful and
meaningful ways, through the [Friends of Freedom], and a few other committees and
structures and pieces of work. So I [see] parents and teachers already being connected to
each other.” To reiterate the words of Ms. Dylan, a teacher, the partnership has “showed
me the value that community, parents and other partnerships have to offer to enrich the
134
lives of the students and the school community.” Mr. Johns, a community member,
added:
[It] has to be a collaboration between teachers and parents to understand
what the children’s needs are first and foremost [as well as] the children’s
learning habits because there’s a culture at home that if it’s far different
than what’s going on in the classroom, [they will not be receptive] either
way. And so I think, first and foremost if we go back to that it’ll be a lot
easier for students to start transforming into achievers, academic
achievers.

Ms. Thomas, a parent, spoke of the power of these collaborative relationships in
transforming the culture of a school. “If you have parents and community working with
you, the growth of the school and the improvement of the surrounding of the school will
change its culture and the development of how the school looks.”

Summary of Findings for Research Question 2
The interviews, observations, and artifacts all confirm the emergence of
collaborative relationships of mutual learning as an attribute of the partnership. All
stakeholder groups identified collaboration and collaborative relationships among the
partners as having had a positive impact on not only the school but in empowering
stakeholders to contribute to the co-construction of this partnership. This empowerment
was particularly evident among parents who have strengthened their sense of ownership
and involvement in the school and its students. The collaborative relationships that have
resulted as a result of the co-construction of the partnership have the potential to create
new cultural models of the relationship between home and school, allowing teachers,
students, and parents to bring together their funds of knowledge and engage in the
135
process of mutual learning, working in collaboration with one another, for the purpose of
increasing student achievement. As a result, parents and teachers develop mutual respect
for one another’s knowledge.

Summary
This chapter examined the findings and analyzed the data for this study. The
researcher included data from observations, artifacts, and interviews to present the
findings. The data collected and analyzed showed evidence in answering the research
questions posed in this study. A description of the process of co-construction in forming a
community, school, university partnership was provided by examining the way in which
dialogue and mutual learning allowed for co-construction to take place. In addition, the
persistent barriers of history, hierarchy, and the absence of systems and structures for
communication that can hinder the co-construction process were examined. Next, the
strategies used to overcome these barriers were presented. These strategies included
creating a space for dialogue as well as systems of representation. Finally, the attributes
of the partnership capable of creating a new cultural model were identified. The attributes
identified in this study were collaborative relationships and the collaborative relationships
that result in new cultural models of parent-community-school partnerships that tap the
family’s funds of knowledge and engage teachers and parents in a process of mutual
learning to benefit students in the classroom. The discussion then linked these findings to
the current body of knowledge presented in chapter two through the examination of data
136
using the theoretical framework. The next chapter presents the summary, conclusions,
and future recommendations.

137
CHAPTER FIVE

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction
Chapter one posited that co-constructed relationships among universities, K-12
schools, and communities have the potential for redistributing power, thus enabling all
partners to contribute to the quality of education in urban communities. The literature
identified persistent barriers that have prevented partnerships from fully realizing their
potential. These barriers included history, hierarchy, and the absence of systems and
structures for communication. Strategies to overcome these barriers were also found in
the literature, and included space for dialogue and systems of representation. A
community, school, and university partnership, co-constructed through the strategies of
dialogue and mutual learning to overcome the barriers is a cultural model rarely seen in
these kinds of partnerships. The model is marked with the attribute of collaborative
relationships that works to engages all stakeholders and broker the assets of each partner
for the purpose of urban school transformation.

Overview of the Study
Statement of the Problem
The literature identified several barriers to co-constructed dialogic relationships
that have prevented communities, schools, and universities from establishing partnerships
to improve K-12 schools. These barriers included a history of unequal distribution of
power, the absence of effective systems for communication, and feelings of mistrust
138
created by these power relationships. These historic patterns of interactions among
communities, schools, and universities, which have been characterized by communication
that has been neither co-constructed nor dialogic, have failed to value the expertise and
unique value of each entity. This failure has limited the potential of these partnerships to
broker the assets of each partner for the purpose of urban school transformation.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine how university, school, and community
partnerships can be co-constructed for the purpose of improving the quality of education
in urban schools. This was a unique study that included a top-tier research university; two
community-based organizations with a strong history of civic engagement and civil rights
advocacy; and a low performing urban high school partnering together for the purpose of
transforming the school. The study added to the body of knowledge about the impact of
co-constructed community, school, and university partnerships on K-12 urban school
transformation.

Significance of the Study
This study is significant in its potential to transform urban schools by creating
new cultural models of community, school, and university partnerships characterized by
co-constructed dialogic relationships. The potential is great for this new cultural model of
partnerships to reshape the way in which students, parents, teachers, community
members, community-based organizations, and universities interact with one another to
139
positively impact schools. This model of community, school, and university partnerships
can serve as a model for other similar communities, providing valuable insights on the
power of co-constructed dialogic relationships in transforming schools and educating
urban youth.

Research Questions
The research questions that guided this study are as follows:
1. What is a process that enables communities, schools, and universities to co-construct
partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban schools?
a. What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among communities,
K-12 schools, and universities on behalf of K-12 urban school transformation?
b. What are some effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming barriers
in co-constructing partnerships among communities, K-12 schools, and
universities for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban schools?
4. 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/university
partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?

Findings
Major Findings for Research Question One: What is a process that enables communities,
schools, and universities to co-construct partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-
12 urban schools?
140
The literature review identified co-constructed dialogic relationships as a means
of creating a liberating cultural model of community, school, and university partnerships.
Utilizing Freire’s concepts of co-construction (1970) as a theoretical framework to
answer the first research question, the data revealed that co-construction which is
employed through dialogue and mutual learning, had begun to take place within this
partnership after initial efforts in forming the partnership failed to utilize this process.
Efforts to increase dialogue and mutual learning among all the stakeholders have given
all stakeholders hope that the partnership can be co-constructed, with more entities
having an equal voice and decision-making power within the partnership for the purposes
of transforming the school. The creation of systems of structures for communication and
representation has been a tangible means by which more stakeholders feel included in the
co-construction process. And although barriers to co-construction still exist, the power of
dialogue and mutual learning have emerged as a source of hope to all stakeholders,
highlighting the great potential of this partnership to impact and transform the school and
community.

Major Findings for Research Sub-Question A: What are the persistent barriers to
establishing partnerships among communities, K-12 schools, and universities on behalf
of K-12 urban school transformation?
The history of the partnership revealed past decisions that were not co-constructed
among all stakeholders. These decisions that were made early in the partnership’s
formation contributed to feelings of mistrust, particularly on the part of teachers, parents,
141
and community members, and increased these partners’ perceptions of hierarchical
relationships that were excluding them from having a voice within the partnership.
Feelings of a lack of clarity within the partnership were also found to varying degrees
among all stakeholders.
Another persistent barrier to the co-construction of the partnership was the
perception of hierarchical relationships among stakeholders that caused parents, teachers,
community members, school administrators, and classified staff to feel that they were not
equal partners and that they did not have an equal voice within the partnership. The
bureaucracy within the partnership also contributed to these feelings of power
relationships as parents, teachers, and community members felt constrained in the way in
which they could voice themselves within the partnership.
The absence of systems and structures for communication resulted in a lack of
communication and clarity, creating a major roadblock in the partnership as parents and
community members felt a lack of transparency among the partners, which continued to
fuel their feelings of mistrust. The dearth of written communication within the
partnership contributed to ambiguity among the stakeholders with regard to the
partnership’s goals, mission, and progress. These feeling were most intense around the
school’s relationship with the formal structure of the board. Because the school-based
relationships were less restricted by the legal mandates imposed on the board and the
meetings took place weekly among different groups of stakeholders, feelings of mistrust
were less intense. Feelings of inclusion and equal status in decision making were
expressed frequently in relation to the school setting versus feeling expressed about
142
participation in the board meetings. Thus the partnership faced the danger of division
between the school (with whom the parents identified) and the formal GFEP network
partners.

Major Findings for Research Sub-Question 1B: What are some effective strategies that
have the potential for overcoming barriers in co-constructing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools, and universities for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban
schools?
In order to overcome the persistent barriers of history, hierarchy, and the absence
of systems and structures for communication, the partnership created space for dialogue
and systems of representation. These strategies helped to change perceptions among all
stakeholders, giving them greater faith in the co-construction process that the partnership
was making efforts to employ by encouraging and opening up more spaces for dialogue
and including the input of all stakeholders. These efforts have been effective in
countering some of the negative history that had occurred prior to forming the partnership
and persisted early in the partnership. These efforts have begun to build trust among the
parents, teachers, school administrators, and community members.
In addition, the creation of systems of representation that includes all stakeholder
groups has been another effective strategy in overcoming the barriers of history and
hierarchy, giving all stakeholders avenues to voice their concerns and be active in the
decision-making processes of the partnership.

143
Major Findings for 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/university partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?
Collaborative relationships of mutual learning have emerged as an attribute of the
partnership, making a positive impact on not only the school but also the community and
the organizations that have become involved. All stakeholders identified, to some degree,
the partnership as having increased the level of collaboration among the partners as well
as created new relationships with outside organizations and agencies on behalf of the
school. As a result, the stakeholders have felt a greater sense of empowerment and
contribution to the work of the partnership. This feeling was most prevalent among the
parents who have increased their level of participation and gained confidence in
becoming active change agents in the school and community. These collaborative
relationships that are being fostered within the partnership also have the potential for
creating a new cultural model of home-community-school partnerships, encouraging
mutual learning among students, teachers, parents, and the community, as all parties work
collaboratively to improve student achievement by valuing and building on the
contributions of each partner toward transformation of the school to promote student
learning.
Other attributes that have emerged within the partnership as a result of the process
of co-construction include trust, mutual respect, and stakeholder confidence. Greater trust
has been built among stakeholders as more of them have been invited into spaces of
dialogue and as they have been given avenues to voice themselves and be more actively
144
engaged in the decision-making process. As mutual learning has begun to take place to a
greater degree among the partners, mutual respect for the unique knowledge and
expertise of each stakeholder group has also developed. Mutual respect has also grown
through greater efforts at collaboration, as stakeholders have come together and engaged
in the co-construction process by contributing their resources and knowledge to build
upon one another’s strengths to benefit the school and community. This effort at co-
construction and involvement among the partners has greatly increased stakeholders’
confidence in not only their contribution to the partnership but the potential of the
partnership to impact the school and community with sustainable change. These
perceptions differ, however, in relation to school-based partnerships versus the formal
structure of the partnership manifested mainly in GFEP board meetings, although the
tome of the board meetings is becoming less combative and confrontational.

Conclusions
The process of co-construction that employs dialogue and fuels mutual learning
has the potential to facilitate the creation of a new cultural model of community, school,
and university partnerships. As evidenced in this study, GFEP, in its first year of a five-
year partnership, has been able to significantly overcome the persistent barriers of
history, hierarchy, and the absence of systems and structures for communication to some
degree. As stakeholders have come together and created systems for representation and
space for dialogue, greater trust has been built and some of the negative history has been
replaced with stakeholders’ confidence in the potential of this partnership to make an
145
impact at the school by giving all stakeholders an equitable means to contribute to the
work of the partnership. Although the process of co-construction takes time, it is allowing
all stakeholders to have the opportunity for greater input and voice with regard to the
decisions and direction of the partnership. Co-construction also builds upon the assets of
all partners, increasing mutual respect for the value and contribution of all stakeholders
within the partnership. These attributes of collaborative relationships, trust, mutual
respect, and confidence that result from a co-constructed partnership have the potential to
create a new cultural model capable of transforming urban schools. This is consistent
with the literature that identifies many of these same attributes as being key components
of successful partnerships (Peel et al., 2002; Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Mayfield, Hellwig,
& Banks, 1999; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005). These
community, school, and university partnerships, once characterized by hierarchical
relationships in which the university provided the expert knowledge and solutions to help
schools and communities, would do well to draw upon the knowledge and assets of all
partners, engaging in the process of co-construction through dialogue and mutual learning
to transform the way in which urban schools educate its students.
Community, school, and university partnerships that are co-constructed through
dialogue have the potential to create a new cultural model of partnerships that is
characterized by mutual learning and collaborative relationships and maximize the assets
of all partners. This new cultural model can then influence and facilitate other new
cultural models of partnerships such partnerships among parents, the community, and the
school. This new cultural model of parent-community-school partnerships has the
146
potential to transform the way students, and likewise teachers, parents, and the
community, learn by replacing the current banking model of education (Freire, 1970),
which places the teacher at the center as one who holds the knowledge that must be
transferred to students, with a model of co-construction through mutual learning and
dialogue where teachers, students, parents, and the community actively engage in the
learning process together and learn from one another. By helping to alter the teacher-
student relationship, these new cultural models of partnerships can reshape teachers’
perspectives on the value of cultural capital and the family’s funds of knowledge in
improving student learning, thereby creating new cultural settings in the classroom, as
teachers interact with students in such a way as to co-construct knowledge through
dialogue where both parties engage in the process of mutual learning. In addition to the
creation of new cultural settings in the classroom, these new cultural models of
partnerships can facilitate the creation of new cultural settings in the home that empower
parents to become more actively involved in their child’s learning by allowing them to
see the value of their funds of knowledge in contributing to the process of mutual
learning.

Recommendations
Recommendations for New Partnerships
The following are recommendations for new partnerships in the beginning phases
of their formation:
147
• Goals and Expectations—Early in the relationships, engage all stakeholders in
ongoing open dialogue to discuss their expectations and what they would like the
partnership to accomplish in addition to the goals and vision of the partnership,
• Asset-Based Model—Create dialogue around the unique assets and attributes of
all stakeholder groups to build mutual respect for all partners and focus on assets
rather than deficit views. This is especially important in relation to the school that
is often seen as the object of reform efforts instead of a subject (Freire, 1970).
• Establishing Norms—Co-construct stakeholder norms, including norms for
communication, decision-making,
• Systems and Structures for Communication—Co-construct systems and structures
for communication—when, how often, and in what manner information about the
partnership will be disseminated to stakeholders and the general public,
• Systems of Representation—Co-construct the process of implementing systems of
representation to ensure all key stakeholder groups are being represented within
the partnership. The role of representatives will be to maintain a two-way flow of
information and knowledge between the representative’s constituents and the
committees on which they serve.

Recommendations for Further Study
The following are recommendations for further study in community, school, and
university partnerships:
148
• Examine the impact of community, school, and university partnerships on
reshaping and restructuring teacher education programs to better meet the needs
of urban schools,
• Examine the extent to which community, school, and university partnerships can
create a new cultural model of parent-community-school partnerships that can
facilitate new cultural settings in the classroom,
• Examine the partnership’s influence in reshaping teacher’s views on the value of
the family’s funds of knowledge and the value of accessing the community’s
cultural capital to improve student motivation and learning,
• Examine the partnership’s influence in empowering parents to create new cultural
settings in the home that help decode the family’s funds of knowledge to better
access social capital.

149
REFERENCES

Au, K. (2006). Culturally Responsive Instruction as a Dimension of New Literacies.
Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://readingonline.org/newliteracies/au/index.html.

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.

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.

Bronfenbrenner, U. Ecological Models of Human Development. In International
Encyclopedia of Education. 3 (2), 37-43.

Cairney, T. (2000). Beyond the Classroom Walls: The Rediscovery of the Family and
Community as Partners in Education. Educational Review, 52 (2), 163-174.

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.

Christenson, S. L. (2003). The Family-School Partnership: An Opportunity to Promote
the Learning Competence of All Students. School Psychology Quarterly , 18 (4),
454-482.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). Constructing outcomes in teacher education: Policy, practice
and pitfalls. The Education Policy Analysis archives, Vol. 9 (11), 1-30.

Corrigan, D. (2000). The Changing Role of Schools and Higher Education Institutions
with Respect to Community-Based Interagency Collaboration and
Interprofessional Partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education , 75 (3), 176-195.

Creswell (2007). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Dean and Levine (2007). What’s Missing: Why Foundations and Policy Analysts are
Impatient with the Pace of School-College Reform. Metropolitan Universities: An
International Forum , 1-27.
150
Della Porta, D. & Diani, M. (1999). Social movements: An introduction. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.

Education Week. (2004, September 10). Achievement Gap. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from
edweek.org Web Site: http://www.edweek.org/rc/issues/achievement-
gap/?print=1

Ferman, B., & Hill, T. (2004). The Challenges of Agenda Conflict in Higher-Education-
Community Research Partnerships: Views from the Community Side. Journal of
Urban Affairs , 26 (2), 241-257.

Firestone, W. A., & Fisler, J. L. (2002). Politics, Community, and Leadership in a
School-University Partnership. Educational Administration Quarterly , 38 (4),
449-493.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum International
Publishing Group.

Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing Cultural Models and Settings to
Connect Minority Achievement and School Improvement Research. Educaitonal
Psychologist, 36, 45-56.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for Culturally Responsive Teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53(2), 106-116.

Gonzalez, N., & Moll, L. C. (2002). Cruzando el Puente: Building Bridges to Funds of
Knowledge. Educational Policy, 16(4), 623-641.

Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., Floyd-Tenery, M., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzales, R., et al.
(1993). Teacher Research on Funds of Knowledge: Learning from Households
(EPR06). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and
Second Language Learning.

Goodlad, J. 1993. School-university partnerships and partner schools. Educational
Policy 7:24-39.

Greene, P. & Tichenor, M. (1999). Partnerships on a collaborative continuum.
Contemporary Education, 70 (4), 13-19.

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education,
33(3), 329-351.

151
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,
family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Johnson-Parsons, M. (1997). Contradictions in collaboration: New thinking on
school/university partnerships. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2001). Toward a Dialogic Theory of Public Relations. Public
Relations Review, 28, 21-37.

Kezar, A. (2007). A Tale of Two Cultures: Schools and Universities in Partnership for
School Reform and Student Success. Metropolitan Universities: An International
Forum , 28-47.

Kirschenbaum, H. & Reagan, C. (2001). Univeristy and urban school partnerships: An
analysis of 57 collaborations between a university and city school district. Urban
Education, 36, 479-504.

Kirschner, B. W., Dickinson, R. , & Blosser, C. (1996). From cooperation to
collaboration: The changing culture of a school/university partnership. Theory
Into Practice, 35(3), 205-214.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt:
Understanding Achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-
12.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.
American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Leiderman, S., Furco, A., Zapf, J., & Goss, M. (2002). Building Partnerships with
College Campuses: Community Perspectives. The Council of Independent
Colleges. Washington, D.C.: Consortium for the Advancement of Private Higher
Education's Engaging Communities and Campuses Grant Program.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing
times. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Lemma, P., Ferrara, M., & Leone, L. (1998). Learning from Sharing Cultures: Stories
from School-University Partners. Action in Teacher Education , 19 (4), 1-13.

Lockwood, A. T. (1996). School-Community Collaboration. New Leaders for
Tomorrow's Schools , 2 (1), 1-32.

152
Maurrasse, D. J. (2001). Beyond the campus: How colleges and universities form
partnerships with their communities. New York: Routledge.

Maslowski, R. (2006). A review of inventories for diagnosing school culture. Journal of
Educational Administration, 44(1), 6-35.

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

Mayfield, L., & Lucas, E.P. (2000). Mutual awareness, mutual respect: The community
and the university interact. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and
Research. 5(1).

McCall, R.B., Groark, C.J., Strauss, M.S., & Johnson, C.N. (1995). The University of
Pittsburgh Office of Child Development-An experiment in promoting
interdisciplinary applied human development. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 16, 593-612.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, P. (2004). University-community partnerships as dialogue: A critical examination
of university/neighborhood partners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Miller, P. (2005). Dialogue facilitating collaboration: A critical perspective for the
evaluation of university-school-community partnerships. Journal of School Public
Relations, 26, 20-31.

Miller, P. (2006). Striving for mutual collaboration: The case of Mountain University and
the Westside. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 9(2), 1-10.

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

Miretzky, D. (2004). The communication requirements of democratic schools: Parent-
teacher perspectives on their relationships. Teachers College Record, 106 (4),
814-851.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for
Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms.
Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.

153
The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, D.C.: National Commission on
Excellence in Education.

Nelson-Barber, S. (1999). A better education for every child: The dilemma for teachers
of culturally and linguistically diverse students. Including Culturally and
Linguistically Diverse Students in Standards-Based Reform: A report on
McREL’s Diversity Roundtable

Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (2002). Struggling for educational equity in diverse communities:
School reform as social movement. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 383-406.

Oakes, J., & Rogers, J. (2007). Radical change through radical means: learning power.
Journal of Educational Change. 8, 193-206

Ostrander, S. (2004). Democracy, civic participation, and the university: A comparative
study of civic engagement on five campuses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly. 33 (1), 74-93.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

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.

Richmond, G. (1996). University/school partnerships: Bridging the culture gap. Theory
into Practice, 35 (3), 214-218.

Rousseau, S. (2007). Educational Reform: Toward a K-16 Framework. Metropolitan
Universities: An International Forum, p. 48-

Sanders, M.G. & Harvey, A. (2001). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal
leadership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104
(7), 1345-1368.

Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45 (2), 109-119.

Schein, E. H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational
Dynamics, 22(2), 40-52.

Sheldon, S.B. (2003). Linking school-family-community partnerships in urban
elementary schools to student achievement on state tests. The Urban Review, 35
(2), 149-165.
154
Sirotnik, K. A., & Goodlad, J. I. (1988). School-university partnerships in action
concepts, cases, and concerns. New York: Teachers College Press.

Sleeter, C. E. (2000-2001). Epistemological Diversity in Research on Preservice Teacher
Preparation for Historically Underserved Children. Review of Research in
Education, 25, 209-250.

Sorenson, D. (1998). School-University Partnerships: Collaboration Among Autonomous
Cultures. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, (pp. 1-
19). St. Louis, MO.

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

Stevens, D. D. (1999). The Ideal, Real and Surreal in School-University Partnerships:
Reflections of a Boundary Spanner. Teaching and Teacher Education , 15, 287-
299.

Suarez-Balcazar Y, Harper GW, & Lewis R. (2005). An interactive and contextual model
of community-university collaborations for research and action. Health Education
& Behavior : the Official Publication of the Society for Public Health Education.
32 (1), 84-101.

Tilly, C. (1984). Social movements and national politics In C. Bright & S. Harding (eds),
Statemaking and Social Movements: Essays in Theory and History. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, as cited in S. Stall & R. Stoecker, “Community
Organizing or Organizing Community? Gender and the Craft of Empowerment”,
A COMM-ORG Working Paper, November 1997 (http://comm-org.utoledo.edu).

Todd, E. S. & Higgins, S. (1998). Powerlessness in professional and parent partnerships.
British Journal of Sociology of Education. 19 (2), 227-236.

Weiss, A. R. (1995). The School-community connection. New Schools, New
Communities, 12 (1), 5-11.

Wiewel, W. & Lieber, M. (1998). Goal achievement, relationship-building, and
incrementalism: The challenges of university-community partnerships. Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 17, 291-301.

Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 27 (139), 139-162.

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of
community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8 (1), 69-91.
155
APPENDIX A
Administrative Interview Protocol

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

1. What is your position and role at Freedom High School?
2. How many years have you been an administrator at Freedom High School?
3. How many years have you worked as an educator?
4. What are some other schools/districts where you have been employed?
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 GFEP partnership? Do you know its goals?
7. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join iDesign in LAUSD and
take on a network partner?
8. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have you participated in any
meetings with the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership or their
representatives?
9. What do you know about the role of the Civic Engagement Foundation, the
Metropolitan League, or Western Pacific University, particularly the School of
Education?
10. In what ways have you seen the members of GFEP working together as one
organization?
11. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Greater Freedom
Educational Partnership?
156
12. Why do you believe/or not believe Freedom High School needed a network
partner?
13. In what ways do you feel the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership has
benefited the school or has the potential to benefit the school?
14. Describe the relationship between the school administration and GFEP up to this
point.
15. To what degree do you think the network partnership can enhance the quality of
teaching and learning at Freedom High? Do you have recommendations?
16. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
17. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
18. How involved has the classified staff been in the work of the partnership to
improve Freedom High School? What have been the barriers?
19. How involved have parents been in the partnership to improve Freedom High
School?
20. What has been the level of students’ participation in the work of the partnership to
improve Freedom High School?
21. 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?
22. What characteristics do you think can make the Greater Freedom Educational
157
Partnership effective and increase longevity?
23. What can you do to contribute to the partnership in order to increase student
achievement?

158
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 Freedom
Educational Partnership. Some of your answers to questions may provide information for
more than one question.

1. What is your position and role at Freedom High School?
2. How many years have you been a teacher at Freedom High School?
3. How many years have you worked as an educator?
4. What are some other schools/districts where you have been employed?
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 GFEP partnership? What are its goals?
6. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join iDesign 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 Freedom Educational Partnership or their
representatives?
8. What do you know about the role of the Civic Engagement Foundation, the
Metropolitan League, or Western Pacific University, particularly the School of
Education?
9. How have you seen the members of the GFEP working together as one
organization?
10. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Greater Freedom
159
Educational Partnership?
11. Why do you believe/or not believe Freedom High School needed a network
partner?
12. In what ways do you feel the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership has
benefited the school or has the potential to benefit the school?
13. Describe the relationship between the school administration and GFEP up to this
point.
14. To what degree do you think the network partnership can enhance the quality of
teaching and learning at Freedom? Do you have recommendations?
15. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
16. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the work of the
partnership to improve Freedom High School?
17. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
18. How involved have parents been in the partnership to improve Freedom High
School?
19. What has been the level of students’ participation in the work of the partnership to
improve Freedom High School?
20. 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?
160
21. What characteristics do you think can make the Greater Freedom Educational
Partnership effective and increase longevity?
22. 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.

161
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 Freedom
Educational Partnership.

1. What is your position and role at Freedom High School?
2. How many years have you been employed at Freedom High School?
3. How many years have you worked as a school employee?
4. What are some of the other schools/districts you have been employed in?
5. What has been your experience working with community-based or university
partnerships, especially those focused on school reform? How much to you know
about the GFEP partnership? What are its goals?
6. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join iDesign 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 Freedom Educational Partnership or their
representatives? What structures have been created here at the school to include
your participation?
8. What do you know about the role of the Civic Engagement Foundation, the
Metropolitan League, or Western Pacific University, particularly the School of
Education?
9. How do you see the members of the GFEP working together as one organization?
10. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Greater Freedom
Educational Partnership?
162
11. Why do you believe/or not believe Freedom High School needed a network
partner?
12. In what ways do you feel the Greater Freedom 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 GFEP up to this point.
15. To what degree do you think the network partnership can enhance the quality of
teaching and learning at Freedom? Do you have recommendations?
16. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
17. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the work of the
partnership to improve Freedom High School?
18. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
19. How involved has classified staff been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
are your recommendations to increase their involvement?
20. How involved have parents been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School?
21. What has been the level of students’ participation in the partnership?
22. What structures or opportunities have been created for widespread participation in
163
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 Freedom 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.

164
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 Freedom
Educational Partnership.

1. How are you affiliated with Freedom High school? How many years have you
been affiliated with the school? How many more years do you expect to be a part
of the Freedom High School community?
2. Have your children attended any other schools within LAUSD? What are those
schools?
3. Do you live in the Freedom High School attendance area?
4. Are your children a part of the home school or one of the magnet programs at
Freedom (Gifted Magnet or Teacher Transition Magnet)?
5. Have your children attended any schools outside of the district?
6. How would you compare your experience as a parent here at Freedom with your
experience as a parent in any other school?
7. How would you compare your student’s experience here at Freedom with your
child’s experience in other schools?
8. Describe what you know about the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership’s
involvement with Freedom High School. What are its goals?
9. What do you think is the extent of parent involvement at Freedom High School?
How have parents been involved in the school in the past? Can parent
involvement through the partnership improve teaching and learning?
10. What are your recommendations for increased parent involvement at Freedom?
165
What roles would you like to see parents play at the school?
11. How has your role as a parent at Freedom High School changed since the Greater
Freedom Educational Partnership has become the network partner? Are you more
involved or less involved?
12. What other types of partnerships, that you are aware of, has Freedom High School
been involved with (i.e. universities, community-based organizations). Have you
ever been an active participant in these partnerships? How does the Greater
Freedom Educational Partnership compare to other partnerships at Freedom in
which you have been involved? What is different about GFEP?
13. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join iDesign 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 Freedom Educational Partnership or their
representatives? What structures have been created here at the school to include
your participation in the work to reform/transform Freedom High School?
15. What do you know about the role of the Civic Engagement Foundation, the
Metropolitan League, or Western Pacific University, particularly the School of
Education?
16. In what ways have you seen the members of the GFEP working together as one
organization?
17. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Greater Freedom
Educational Partnership?
166
18. In what ways do you feel the Greater Freedom 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 school administration and
GFEP up to this point? Please describe.
21. To what degree do you think the network partnership can provide greater support
to the quality of teaching and learning at Freedom? Do you have
recommendations?
22. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
23. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
24. How involved has classified staff been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
are your recommendations to increase their involvement?
25. What has been the level of students’ participation in the partnership?
26. What characteristics do you think can make the Greater Freedom Educational
Partnership effective and increase longevity?
27. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.

167
APPENDIX E
Community Based Organization Interview Protocol

1. What is your position and role in the community?
2. How long have you been in a partner relationship with Freedom High School?
Why did you decide to become a partner with the school?
3. How and why did your organization decide which organizations it would join
with to form the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership?
4. Describe some of the successes and challenges and what you have learned from
the other partners.
5. What do you think are the challenges and strengths of Freedom High School?
6. What involvement did you have with Freedom High School prior to joining the
Greater Freedom Educational Partnership?
7. What are GFEP’s goals for transforming Freedom High School in the next five
years? Who has had the greater role in determining those goals?
8. What contribution do you expect your organization to make to the Greater
Freedom High School Educational Partnership in its efforts to transform Freedom
High School?
9. Do you believe your contribution will be enhanced by joining the partnership?
10. Describe the relationship between GFEP and teachers at the school. What
structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key stakeholders in the
transformation of Freedom High School?
11. What have been some of the barriers?
12. How has GFEP worked to overcome them?
168
13. Describe the relationship between GFEP and parents at Freedom High School.
What structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key stakeholders
in the transformation of Freedom High School? What have been some of the
barriers? How has GFEP worked to overcome them?
14. Describe the relationship between GFEP and administrators at Freedom High
School. What structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key
stakeholders in the transformation of Freedom High School? What have been
some of the barriers? How has GFEP worked to overcome them?
15. Describe the relationship between GFEP and students at Freedom High School.
What structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key stakeholders
in the transformation of Freedom High School? What have been some of the
barriers? How has GFEP worked to overcome them?
16. Describe ways in which the GFEP 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?
17. What have been the challenges to forming a partnership in which all members and
stakeholders work collaboratively with equal decision-making power?
18. What changes to your organization have occurred or you envision occurring as a
member of GFEP?
19. How does the partnership work with the school to ensure that it is an equal
partner, versus a mere recipient of services from GFEP?
20. How successful do you think the partnership will be in increasing student
169
achievement at Freedom High School? Explain your answer. What are the
barriers? What are the strategies in place to overcome the barriers?
21. What characteristics and practices does the GFEP need to adopt to make the
partnership effective in carrying out its goals and ensuring its longevity?
22. What role does GFEP envision for the community as Freedom High School works
to be seen as a viable school option for community residents?
23. 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?
24. Do you have comments that you have not been able to express in response to the
questions asked?

170
APPENDIX F
University Stakeholder Interview Protocol

1. What is your position and role in the university?
2. What do you know about the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership?
3. What do you know about Freedom High School?
4. What other partnerships with K-12 schools have you been involved with?
5. Describe the meetings in which you have been involved with Freedom High
School, the Metropolitan League, or the Civic Engagement Foundation. In your
opinion, did the participants have equal voices in the discussions about
transforming Freedom High School?
6. How receptive have you observed the school staff, teachers, and administration to
be about forming a partnership?
7. Have you ever visited Freedom High School? How long ago? Describe your
impressions?
8. Have you visited Freedom High School since the Greater Freedom Educational
Partnership was established?
9. What contribution do you think Western Pacific University or the School of
Education can make to the work of the Greater Freedom Educational
Partnership’s efforts to transform Freedom High School?
10. What personal or professional contribution do you intend to make to the work of
the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership?
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
171
power in the partnership?
12. How do you see this partnership changing or affecting Western Pacific University
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
Freedom High School?
16. When did you feel that your role was a dominant member of the partnership?
When did you feel that your role was an equal participant of the partnership?

172
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)

173
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)

174
APPENDIX I
Examined Artifacts Protocol

Document What questions the documents
will answer?
Research
Question
Collected
?
GCEP 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
 GFEP Business
Plan
• Mission and Vision
• Action Plan

1, 2
School
Demographics

 Staff List
(including
teachers and
support staff)
• Experience
• Credentials
• Grade Levels
• Years at Freedom HS

1
 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/Minute
• Time spent in collaboration
• Teacher input
1, 2
175
s • Weekly focus

 Lesson Plans • Time spent in collaboration
• Implementation of culturally
relevant pedagogy

1
 Grade Level
Team Meeting
Minutes

• Time spent in collaboration
• Priorities of grade level
reflecting community
expertise or concerns
1
 District Uniform
Complaint
Information for
Freedom HS

• School Climate
• Parent Satisfaction

1
Parent Involvement

 Parent meeting
agendas,
minutes, sign-in
sheets
 SSC
 Friends of
Freedom
• 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
Communiques

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

1
 Parent Surveys • School Climate
• Parental concerns

1
 Visitor Logs • Parent Volunteers 1

176
APPENDIX J
Pseudonyms

Pseudonym Title
Greater Freedom Educational
Partnership (GFEP)
Case Study
Metropolitan League (ML) Community-based organization partner
Civic Engagement Foundation
(CEF)
Community-based organization partner
Western Pacific University
(WPU)
University partner
Freedom High School School partner
Friends of Freedom Committee comprised of parents, teachers, and
classified staff members at Freedom High
School
University
Professor Walsh Clinical Professor, Western Pacific Univ.
Professor Riley Professor of Education, Western Pacific Univ.
Dean Simms Dean, School of Education, Western Pacific Univ.
Critical Bridge Person Clinical Professor, Western Pacific Univ.
Interim Executive Director, Partnership for
Community Empowerment
Community-based
organization

Mr. Jackson President and Chief Executive Officer,
Metropolitan League
Mr. Wagner Chief of Staff, Metropolitan League
Ms. George Chief Neighborhood Officer, Metropolitan League
Mr. Jones Deputy Neighborhood Officer, Safety/Systems &
Housing, Metropolitan League
Ms. Wilson Deputy Neighborhood Officer, Education,
Metropolitan League
Ms. Weaver Deputy Neighborhood Officer, Health,
Metropolitan League
Mr. Jordan Resident Scholar of the Civic Engagement
Foundation
Mr. Barney Community and Political Activist, Civic
Engagement Foundation
Community
Ms. Mills Community Member, Friends of Freedom
Committee Member
Mr. Johns Community Member, Neighborhood Council
Ms. Gordon LAPD Officer
177
Mr. Willis Community Member, El Camino Unified School
District Employee
School
Ms. Thomas Parent, Friends of Freedom Committee Member
Ms. Webster Parent, Friends of Freedom Vice-President,
Transition Team member
Ms. Walker Parent, Parent/Teacher/Student Association
President, Transition Team member
Mr. Madison Parent, ELAC Member
Ms. Johnson Parent, ELAC Member
Ms. Ford Classified Staff, Friends of Freedom Treasurer,
Transition Team member

Mr. Bowles Teacher Advisor, Transition Team member
Mr. Carson Social Studies coach, Freedom High School
Mr. Matthews English Teacher, Freedom High School
Ms. Dylan Science Teacher, Senior Advisor, Freedom High
School
Ms. Wiley 9
th
Grade Academy Counselor, Freedom High
School
Ms. Tyler Math Teacher, Transition Team member, Freedom
High School
Mr. Nicholas Social Studies Teacher, Union representative
during partnership construction, Freedom High
School
Ms. Grace Classified staff member, ASB advisor, Freedom
High School
Ms. Phillip Principal, Freedom High School
Mr. Paul Former Assistant Principal, Freedom High School

178
APPENDIX K
Informed Consent Form

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

************************************************************************
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Co-constructed University, School, Community Partnerships

School Staff Informed Consent Form

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Michelle Avila, Phaidra
Crayton, Corina Espinosa, Jamila Gillenwaters, Laura Hernandez-Flores, Jeffrey Kim,
Stephanie Kim, Juanita Rainey-Woods, Joshua Watson, Nina Wooldridge, Co-
Investigators and Sylvia Rousseau, Ed.D., Principal Investigator and Faculty Advisor
from the School of Education at the Western Pacific University. This study is being
conducted by a thematic dissertation team investigating the process of co-constructing a
university, school, and community partnership. You were selected as a possible
participant in this study based on your status as a stakeholder in a university, school, and
community partnership. Your participation is voluntary. You are advised to read the
information below, and ask questions about any aspect of your participation that you do
not understand, before deciding whether to participate. After carefully reading this
consent form, if you decide to participate, please sign this form and return it to me. You
will receive a copy of this form as well.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study will look at how a university, school, and community partnership is formed in
order to improve a K-12 urban school in your neighborhood. It will examine how
relationships are formed between the Metropolitan League, the Civic Engagement
Foundation, the I-Design division of LAUSD, the Western Pacific University (WPU),
and [Freedom] High School in a manner where all stakeholders are equal partners. The
partnership will acknowledge and draw upon a variety of knowledge coming from all
stakeholders (i.e., the community, parents, students, faculty, and community-based
organizations). Lessons learned from this specific partnership can help future
partnerships designed to improve schools.

PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following things:

179
Participate in an interview, which may take from 30-45 minutes to complete. The
interview, with your permission, will be recorded. It will focus on your familiarity and
participation in the Greater [Freedom] Educational Partnership as it works to improve
[Freedom] High School. It will focus on your understanding of how this partnership is
forming for the purpose of improving [Freedom] High School. It will focus on the
various roles that stakeholders play in constructing this partnership. You can still
participate in the research study if you do not wish to be audio/video-taped.

In addition to interviews, the researcher will also conduct field observations of key sites
where the partnership or its influence is at work, including school classrooms, faculty
meetings, campus activities, as well as community meetings and events.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
If at any point you are uncomfortable with any of the questions posed, you may choose
not to answer them. You will not be identified in any part of the interview or its findings.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not benefit from your participation in this research study. However, it is hoped
that the results may contribute to the existing knowledge base of best practices in urban
schools. These results may also provide insight into practices and strategies that may
prove successful in other university, schools, and community partnerships which in turn
may benefit the students at those schools.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

You will not receive payment for your participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that you make available during the interview and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law. When the results of the research are published or discussed in
conferences for educational purposes, no information will be included that would reveal
your identity. Audio recordings will be stored in a secure and locked location in the
home of the investigator and destroyed one year after the completion of the study. You
can still participate in the research study if you do not wish to be audio/video-taped. You
have the right to review and/or edit your transcript in the presence of the investigator. All
data will be coded, stored, and secured in the home of the investigator. Only the
investigators will have access to the data. The data will be stored for three years after the
study has been completed and then destroyed.

180
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research team
to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research staff can
not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research Advancement, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-
1695, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Dr.
Sylvia Rousseau at sroussea@usc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT

I understand the procedures described above, and I understand fully the rights of a
potential subject in a research study involving people as subjects. My questions have
been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been
given a copy of this form.

You can still participate in the research study if you do not wish to be audio/video-taped
or photographed as part of the research procedures.

□ I agree to be audio recorded

□ I do not want to be audio recorded

Name of Subject

Signature of Subject Date

181
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the subject and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely
consents to participate.

Name of Investigator

Signature of Investigator Date (must be the same as subject’s)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the first year of a five-year emerging community, school, and university partnership engaged in the process of co-construction for the purpose of transforming a K-12 school. This partnership was selected for its uniqueness in bringing together a pair of community-based organizations with a long-standing history of advocacy and social justice within the community, a low-performing urban high school, and a top-tier private research university with a record of service within the urban community. The research questions in this study focused on a process that enables partnerships among communities, schools, and universities to be co-constructed, the persistent barriers to establishing these partnerships, some effective strategies to overcome the barriers, and the attributes of a partnership that result from a co-constructed partnership among communities, schools, and universities for the purpose of urban school transformation. Results from the qualitative case study indicated that the partnership is engaged in the process of co-construction through dialogue and mutual learning. Barriers to this process of co-construction included history, hierarchy, and the absence of systems and structures for communication. Some effective strategies that have been employed to overcome these barriers have included space for dialogue and systems of representation. In the span of less than a year, the partnership has also begun to demonstrate key attributes such as collaborative relationships, trust, mutual respect, and stakeholder confidence.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Co-constructing community, school, university partnerships for urban school transformation: Year two

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

Co-constructed community, school, and university partnerships for K-12 school reform

PDF

The role of co-constructed community, school, and university partnerships in providing adult agents to support learner identities among urban youth

PDF

Year two study of a community, school, and university partnership for urban school transformation in providing pathways to post secondary opportunities for urban youth in the 21st century

PDF

The relationship between ethnicity, self-efficacy, and beliefs about diversity to instructional and transformational leadership practices of urban school principals

PDF

Improving and sustaining math achievement in urban high schools: a case study of a southern California high school

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing high-poverty urban schools

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from a high-performing, high-poverty urban school

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lesson from a high performing high poverty urban elementary school

PDF

Organizational systems school leaders implement to facilitate effective classroom instruction in urban schools: a case study

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high-poverty urban schools

PDF

Integration of STEM and gardening for urban elementary youth

Asset Metadata

Creator Kim, Stephanie J. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2009-08

Publication Date 07/10/2009

Defense Date 05/05/2009

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

Tag co-construction,Community,dialogic,Dialogue,OAI-PMH Harvest,partnerships,School,University,urban school

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email kimsteph@usc.edu,stephaniesong@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2348

Unique identifier UC199238

Identifier etd-Kim-3100 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-569599 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2348 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Kim-3100.pdf

Dmrecord 569599

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kim, Stephanie J.

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 cisadmin@lib.usc.edu