University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

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: YEAR TWO

by

Savina M. Woodyard

____________________________________________________________________

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Savina M. Woodyard

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation would not be complete without the guidance, support and
love from my family, friends, and dissertation committee.
I would like to express my sincere love and gratitude towards my parents,
Carmon and LeBaron Woodyard, for constantly believing in me no matter how many
times I doubted myself. Without you, I would have never developed the dedication
and fortitude to complete this process. I sincerely thank you. I would also like to
acknowledge my brothers, Julian Woodyard, Khamisi Woodyard and Ronald
Woodyard, for their support. Thank you for believing in me.
I must also acknowledge my parents’ foundation, my grandparents Marion
and Lyla Woodyard and Orlando and Hortense Atkins, who played a vital role in my
upbringing. Your reassurance, love and commitment to my success are what
motivated me to go this far. From day one, you told me that I was special and that I
would go far. I hope that I have made you proud.
My extended family and friends deserve recognition for their unwavering
encouragement, especially the 13 women with whom I share a special bond. I share
this accomplishment with you. I also thank the love of my life for constantly being a
source of support.
I must express my deepest gratitude towards my dissertation chair, Sylvia G.
Rousseau, for being my guiding light throughout this process. When I felt as though
I had hit a wall, her guidance, caring nature, sensitivity and encouragement helped
me complete my work. When I entered the program, I had hoped to work with her,

iii
and I am blessed to have had that opportunity. She is a source of incredible strength
and a true leader.
I must also acknowledge the members of my dissertation committee. Dr.
Kathy Stowe and Dr. David Marsh have graciously devoted time and energy to
support my journey through this process. I thank them for their patience, feedback
and commitment.
Lastly, I am thankful for the support of my dissertation group members.
Without all of your hard work, this would not be possible. I thank you.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES viii
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Background of Problem 2
Opportunity Gap 12
Educational Partnerships 22
Statement of Problem 28
Purpose of Study 28
Significance of Study 29
Research Questions 30
Limitations 31
Delimitations 31
Definition of Terms 31

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 35
Introduction 35
Educational Partnerships 36
Key Elements Within the Educational Partnership 41
Parental Engagement 57
Conclusion 69

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 71
Introduction 71
Study Design and Research Questions 72
Methods 72
Sampling and Population 74
Instrumentation 77
Research Question Frameworks 79
Data Collection Instruments and Procedures 83
Data Analysis 90
Ethical Considerations 98
Summary 99

v
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 100
Introduction 100
Findings 103
Findings and Analysis: Research Question 1 105
Findings and Analysis: Research Question 1, Sub Question (a) 122
Findings and Analysis: Research Question 1, Sub Question (b) 148
Findings and Analysis: Research Question 2 159

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
170
Introduction 170
Significance of Study 171
Research Questions 172
Major Findings 172
Recommendations 175
Implications 177

REFERENCES 179

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Administrative Interview Protocol 191
Appendix B: Teacher Interview Protocol 195
Appendix C: Classified Personnel Interview Protocol 199
Appendix D: Parent Interview Protocol 203
Appendix E: Community Based Organization Interview Protocol 207
Appendix F: University Stakeholder Protocol 211
Appendix G: Community Member Interview Protocol 215
Appendix H: School Environment Observation Protocol 218
Appendix I: Meeting Observation Protocol 219
Appendix J: Examined Artifacts Protocol 220
Appendix K: List of Pseudonyms 221

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Education Level by Ethnicity (18 years and older) 17
Table 2.1: Synthesis of Specific Concepts Across the Disciplines-Needs for
Organizational Partnerships 40
Table 2.2: Deconstructing Epstein’s Types of Involvement 48
Table 2.3: Synthesis of Concepts-Dewey (2007) and Epstein (2002) 49
Table 2.4: Concepts of Freire’s Dialogical Relationship 52
Table 3.1: School Demographic Data, 2009-10 76
Table 3.2: School Drop Out Rates (2005-06 to 2007-08) 76
Table 3.3: School Achievement Data-API Scores (2005-06 to 2008-09) 77
Table 3.4: Triangulation Using a Variety of Data Collection Instruments 78
Table 3.5: Deconstruction of Parent Involvement Components 82
Table 3.6: Theoretical Frameworks for Research Questions 82
Table 3.7: Data Collection Matrix 84
Table 3.8: Codes Used in Year One and Year Two Studies 94
Table 3.9: Processes and Co-Construction and Dialogue 95
Table 3.10: Barriers to Co-Construction and Dialogical Relationships 95
Table 3.11: Strategies to Co-Construction and Dialogical Relationships 96
Table 3.12: Attributes of Partnership 96
Table 4.1: UEAT Timeline Chart 103
Table 4.2: Summary of Findings for Research Question One 122
Table 4.3: Distribution of Codes 123

vii
Table 4.4: Distribution of Sub-Codes 123
Table 4.5: UEAT Long Term and Short Term Goals 127
Table 4.6: UEAT Transition Goals 129

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Brofenbrenner’s Ecological System and the Educational
Partnership 46
Figure 2.2: Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s Parental Involvement Model 64

Figure 2.3: Revised Parental Involvement Model (First Two Levels) 65

Figure 4.1: UEAT Partners and Mission Statements 102

Figure 4.2: Transformation of UEAT from Year One to Year Two 114

Figure 4.3: Transformation of Dialogic Relationships from Year One to
Year Two 121

ix
ABSTRACT
Community-school-university partnerships represent a new model of urban
education reform that incorporates the overlapping spheres of influence in the
transformation process. Co-constructed relationships between communities, schools
and universities have the potential reshape organizational hierarchy and enable all
partners to develop a new cultural model capable of transforming K-12 urban
schools. This study is the second and third year of one co-constructed community-
school-university partnership that attempted to transform the cultural model of one
urban high school.
The aim of this study is to identify and analyze the extent to which a
community-school-university partnership is able to sustain elements of co-
construction and other ongoing processes that are beneficial to the partnership. Also,
the study will identify the persistent barriers to co-constructions and effective
strategies to overcome those barriers within a community-school-university
partnership. This study expands on the research conducted during the first year of
the partnership’s operation and will offer insight as to the sustainability of the co-
constructed processes between the community-school-university partnership. This
study will also identify the methods in which the community-school-university
partnership can develop a new cultural model for parental engagement in the interest
of school transformation.

1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF STUDY
Introduction
Parent’s socio-economic status and their education are two inextricably
linked factors that play a critical role in a student’s ability to close the opportunity
gap. Historically, African American families have been heavily overrepresented in
the low income, urban landscape; this persistent status stems from the onset of
cultural and socioeconomic segregation in America starting as early as slavery and
persisting through the 20
th
century. Latino families have also had to face persistent
barriers that perpetuate their overrepresentation within the low income, urban
landscape. Within the past fifty years, the Latino population in the United States has
expanded tremendously. According to US Census Data (2010), the Latino
population has increased by 44% between 1990 and 2000. With that expansion, low
income, predominately Latino communities have emerged as a result of persistent
socioeconomic barriers. Thus, African American and Latino families, especially
those dwelling within metropolitan areas, live in community segregation based on
race and socioeconomic class. According to the US Census (2000) and the Kids
Count Data Center (2007), nearly 1 in 5, or 18% of American children live in
poverty. In metropolitan areas, such as Los Angeles, California, there is more need
for concern; the data illuminates that “the poverty rate in L.A. County is higher than
the nation as a whole. Over […] 15% of people in L.A. County are living in
poverty” and the level of children living in poverty is slightly higher than the

2
national average (United Way of Greater Los Angeles, 2010). According to
Matsunaga of the Economic Roundtable (2008), residents of concentrated poverty
neighborhoods in Los Angeles are largely Latino and African American;
consequently, an overrepresentation of African American and Latino children in Los
Angeles is exposed to poverty and its implications.
Oakes and Rogers (2006) note that the United States education system has a
“story of clear and consistent advantages for White and wealthier Americans and
disadvantages for low-income students of color” (p. 7). Thus, the residents of low-
income communities are faced with the challenge of overcoming economic
stagnation and educational adversity (McKinsey & Company, 2009). They have
been the victims of more than a century of neglect, contributing to a “historical debt”
with regards to educational equity (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Furthermore, this
educational inequity has been developed by years of racial, socio-class and gender
stratification throughout American cities (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Consequently,
students residing in low-income, urban communities traditionally attend low
performing primary and secondary institutions and ultimately have lower levels of
academic achievement.
Background of Problem
The aforementioned issues connecting racial segregation, class stratification
and educational inequities did not go unnoticed by the American government,
particularly during the second half of the 20
th
century. During the Civil Rights era,
much attention was focused on eliminating racial inequalities with hopes that the

3
gaps between class and education would bridge themselves. As a result, federal
legislation was implemented to desegregate schools, assist families affected by
poverty and create models for educational accountability (Wirt & Kirst, 2002).
Although the federal government began to play a more centralized role in
educational policy, the implementation of those policies was the responsibility of the
state and local education agencies. However, according to Hochschild and
Scovronick (2003) cities are limited in their power to help these low-performing
institutions due to a lack of resources and capital; they need human capital in the
form of highly qualified teachers and administrators, they need financial capital to
offer competitive pay for “hard to staff teaching” positions, they need social capital
to increase the level of support given to school workers, and they need community
capital to navigate each school community’s unique ecosystem.
Barton and Coley (2009) expand the school level factors that make the
achievement gap persistent; they state that African American and Latino students are
exposed to a “non rigorous” curriculum in high school, and that African Americans
and Latinos have limited presence in advanced/gifted classes. Also, they note how
teacher experience and turnover contributes to perpetuating the achievement gap;
schools with a high concentration of minority students traditionally experience a high
rate of teacher turnover coupled with a low rate of teacher experience. According to
their research,
In 2007, 52 percent of Black and 44 percent of Hispanic eighth graders had a
teacher who left before the school year […and] a full two-thirds of eighth

4
graders who were eligible for the school lunch program had a teacher who
didn’t make it through the school year (p. 14).

They also illuminate that a strong home school connection, specifically with
regards to parent participation, can have a positive affect on student achievement.
Child Trends (1994) notes that teachers of students with highly involved parents tend
to give greater attention to those students; they also tend to identify problems that
might inhibit students learning at earlier stages.
However, the research demonstrates that African American and Latino
parents are less likely to serve on committees or attend school affiliated functions;
for example, in 2003, 74 percent of White students had a parent who attended a
school event, compared with 63 percent and 61 percent, respectively, of African
American and Latino students’ parents. However, it is also important to consider
that participation in these events requires both the engagement of the parent as well
as the school’s willingness to engage the parent.
Parents and Educational Disparities
Although historical educational disparities have played a large role in
perpetuating the low performance of African American and Latino students, one of
the most integral contributors of this cycle is the limited role that the local
stakeholders, such as the family, play in the school setting (Coleman, 1988). As
previously mentioned, power in the development and implementation of educational
policy has transferred from the local and state level to the state and national level. In
this transfer of power, local stakeholders, specifically parents, have become

5
disassociated from the process. African American and Latino parents have a history
of being isolated from the school setting because they exist at the bottom of the
hierarchal structure within both the school and social setting (Lareau & Hovart,
1999; Warren et al., 2009; Martinez-Cosio, 2010). They are distanced from
involvement in the co-construction of policies to increase their child’s academic
achievement. They are considered as lacking the knowledge necessary to improve
their situation; they fall victim to a cultural model in which parents are not seen as
“knowledgeable participants” in the education process (Warren et al., 2009). The
culmination of a history of ethnic and economic stratification, low performing
schools and decreased parental engagement contributes to a new wave of education
reform efforts in which local school stakeholders and local education agencies work
together towards education reform.
In an effort to deal with the paradox between federal academic expectations,
the cycle of “low income-low performing” schools and the growing distance between
parents and the education reform process, stakeholders have turned to educational
partnerships. Within the community-school-university partnerships, various groups
can be involved, such as community based organizations, schools, community
colleges and universities. In these kinds of partnerships, each group brings a variety
of resources and ideas that potentially can be used to ameliorate the problems present
within their respective institutions (Kanter, 1994; Oakes & Rogers, 2006; Davis,
1996). Educational partnerships have the potential to create the forum by which
stakeholders are able to lessen the opportunity gap for underserved traditionally low

6
performing students. Although there are several forms of educational partnerships,
the community-school-university partnership is becoming popular within the urban
setting because it offers key participants an opportunity to share their different forms
of capital (Leiderman et al., 2002). Another attribute of community-school-
university educational partnerships is that it positions urban school stakeholders to
collaborate with one another to redefine the concept of schooling in the urban setting
(Kezar, 2007; Oakes & Rogers, 2006; Epstein, 1996). However, it is important to
note that it is possible to reproduce parental isolation by maintaining hierarchal
structures, neglecting to embrace the different cultures represented, and failing to
define new roles for groups in the partnership; thus it is necessary to ensure that all
members of the partnership are involved in the co-construction process and that the
organization’s goals are met (Leiderman et al., 2002; Sanders, 2008; Martinez-Cosio,
2010; Myers, 1996; Kirschner, 1996).
Within the co-construction process, there is a need for dialogue (Freire,
1970), in which each participant is given a specific role and valued as an equal
partner that has its own capital to contribute to the partnership. In that instance, local
stakeholders are able to discuss students’ needs and the best educational pedagogy to
use in order to procure academic achievement (Davis, 1996). However, parents may
feel hesitant to participate in this dialogue after years of being placed at the bottom
of the hierarchal education reform structure.

7
History of Education Reform Efforts
According to Ladson-Billings (2006), there was a persistent pattern of debt in
the form of educational inequities that affected several groups within the United
States. Even though educational inequities amongst minority groups persist,
educational reform efforts have been aimed at ameliorating these conditions. The
federal government has played a critical role in attempting to ameliorate educational
inequities by creating opportunities for social equity through various forms of
legislation and education reform efforts.
Brown versus Board of Education
The most notable early reform effort came in the form of the 1954 Brown v.
Board of Education Supreme Court case decision, which mandated an end to racial
segregation; this directive was enacted with the hope that diversifying schools would
increase equitable access to quality education (Ravitch, 1983; Williams, 2007;
Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). However, according to O’ Brine et al. (2008), the
attempt to desegregate schools with the decision from Brown v. Board of Education
has been moving “backwards.” Bailey and Dziko (2008) support this assertion by
stating that African American and Latino children are still being denied the
education they need to find meaningful and well paying jobs.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Approximately a decade after the Brown decision, it was discovered that a
more rigorous approach was necessary to ensure educational equity since schools
remained economically stratified. As previously mentioned, economic segregation

8
perpetuated ethnic stratification. Furthermore urban, minority dominated schools
were performing at lower levels than their White counterparts (Alexander &
Alexander, 2009). The creation and implementation of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act from 1965 attached accountability measures to
stakeholders involved in the education process, thus attempting to ensure that
education leaders at the federal, state, local and district levels would help their
constituents attain a certain level of academic achievement, regardless of their
socioeconomic background. Although ESEA’s central focus was an effort to
ameliorate the effects of poverty, it also stressed a need to increase parental
involvement (Ravitch, 1983; Murphy, 1971). However, African American and
Latino students had already suffered the historic negative effects of poverty,
specifically with regards to their poor education and limited resources (Blue &
Collins, 1998). Furthermore, their parents, who were already isolated from the
school setting, continued to have limited involvement.
A Nation At Risk
At the beginning of the 1980s, there was a shift from the focus on
ameliorating the effects of low income on children to increasing the academic
performance of all American students. This shift developed as a direct response to
the technology race during the Cold War; the American education system found
itself competing with international academic institutions. The publication of “A
Nation At Risk” (1983) demonstrated a need for American children to improve
academically; this publication, authored by the National Commission on Excellence

9
in Education, elucidated that American students were underperforming as compared
to students in the global market, specifically within the areas of math and science.
There was no longer a centralized attention on students affected by poverty; instead,
the entire education system needed to be reconstructed in order to be competitive in a
global market. The “A Nation At Risk” also framed educational reform as both a
private and public good, meaning that it could be an asset to an individual as well as
their community in regards to employment and economic mobility. According to
Hochschild and Scovronick (2003), this ignited a need for education policy makers
to sharpen their focus on academic standards and accountability. As a direct
response, colleges and universities began to increase their admissions requirements;
both secondary and post secondary education institutions began to use standardized
assessments as a measurement tool to determine student preparedness for college,
identify remedial needs, categorize advanced student and assist teachers in tracking
student progress over time (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). However, these new
emphases in education did not significantly benefit African American and Latino
students (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Barton & Coley, 2009). According to Wenglinsky
(2004) institutional practices that were accelerated at this time, such as tracking and
remediation, can have a detrimental impact on student academic performance,
specifically African American and Latino students, who were being isolated from
challenging curriculum.

10
Goals 2000
The previously implemented federal academic achievement interventions had
not fully ameliorated the negative effects of ethnic and economic stratification.
Thus, in their flawed performance, it became more evident that schools within low
income areas needed a policy in which there were systematic interventions to ensure
improvement in standardized test scores, graduation and college matriculation rates.
In 1994, the Clinton administration prioritized this intervention strategy in the
form of Goals 2000. According to Epstein (2004), this measure reinforced the
creation of challenging academic standards in defining what students should be able
to do in each subject area. It also required the alignment of policies, specifically in
testing, teacher certification and professional development to meet state curricular
standards. Lastly, it restructured the governance system by which states hold their
local school systems accountable. The Goals 2000 movement also linked categorical
programs such as Title I and bilingual education to specific standards; it recognized
the need to provide specific assistance to schools and families within low-income
areas and allotted funds to implement parental assistance programs as well as
programs to increase school safety and minority-focused civic education. Much like
its predecessors, Goals 2000 was designed specifically to decrease the opportunity
gap by tackling contributors to low performance that were both internal and external
to the school site.

11
No Child Left Behind
Ultimately, the Bush administration created the “No Child Left Behind Act,”
which is the most recent reauthorization of ESEA. It expands on the previous
Improving America’s School Act, in that it urges states to comply with a plethora of
stricter assessments, accountability measures and performance requirements.
According to Epstein (2004), this legislation required states to test all students in
grades 3 through 8 in a variety of content areas; however, the legislation placed a
specific emphasis on reading, math and science. Furthermore, states were required
to developed “adequate yearly progress” objectives that would promote students
becoming proficient in core subjects within twelve years. Also, states had to
participate biennially in a version of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) in order to determine the rigor level of standards and assessments.
In order to ensure that low performing schools would be able to meet their state
mandated performance levels, NCLB also included a section that required that
“highly qualified” teachers and paraprofessionals to be placed in every classroom to
offer additional support to students. Although the task appeared detailed in its
design, it only increased requirements and did not specifically focus on better
pedagogy to improve the academic achievement of low performing students
(Gordon, Kane, & Staiger, 2006).
It is important to note that simply creating education policy does not
necessarily guarantee that the opportunity gap will narrow. According to Oakes et
al. (2006), “the usual approaches to school reform—technical reforms that change

12
rules, structures, and practices—are simply not effacious enough to counter the
multiple forces that maintain that unequal status quo among and within schools” (p.
15). In order to better understand the gaps in effective educational reform (as it
applies to poverty stricken areas), it is necessary to distinguish the difference
between achievement and the opportunity to achieve.
Opportunity Gap
Within education research, there is a focus on closing the achievement gap.
However, it is necessary to recognize that the achievement gap’s origin is rooted in
limited opportunities to achieve.
Achievement Gap versus Opportunity Gap
The difference in academic performance between ethnic minorities and their
White counterparts is oftentimes referred to as the achievement gap (Bailey & Dziko,
2008); this difference in performance is often attributed to differences associated
with inconsistencies in the schooling system as well as limited access to the social
capital necessary to navigate the higher education landscape (Warren et al., 2009).
According to Bailey & Dziko (2008), American public schools are “based on an
outmoded system that was not designed to ensure the success of the wide diversity of
students that are currently enrolled” (p. 2).
Academic achievement can be measured in several different ways; however,
the most common assessment to determine students’ performance is the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Within this national assessment, it is
evident that there are large gaps in performance between Latino and African

13
American students and their White counterparts. According to Ladson-Billings
(2006), in 2005, the gap between Black and Latino fourth graders and their White
counterparts in reading scaled scores was more than 26 points. The difference in
eighth grade reading scores was more than 23 points. The fourth grade mathematics
gap between African American students and their White counterparts was more than
20 points (Education Commission of the States, 2005). The growing disparity in
scores threatens to be a steadily increasing trend that can persist over time.
Although the aforementioned information demonstrates a disparity, the
difference in academic performance between ethnic minorities and their White
counterparts is historic. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) note that prior to the
Brown decision, there was an accepted belief that minority children performed
poorly in school because their development was negatively affected by their social
conditions as well as innate intellectual inferiority, specifically with students of color
(Rothstein, 2004). Thus, there was an accepted belief that students of color suffered
from an intellectual deficit as well as a community deficit; it was accepted that
ethnic minority communities did not have the intellectual capital necessary to be
academically successful. However, researchers soon shifted perspectives and began
to notice it was not the deficit within communities and their inhabitants, but the
differences between communities that contributed to a gap in achievement.
Armor (2006) states that the Brown decision aimed to end legally sanctioned
segregation (de jure segregation); however, there has been an increase in de facto
segregation in both schools and communities following the Brown decision. Thus,

14
the growth of de facto segregation is not a failure of Brown, but instead a social
phenomenon. Consequently, in maintaining the de facto segregated school system,
educational inequities still exist (Oakes & Rogers, 2006).
Rothstein (2004) supports this claim by stating, “The fact that social class
differences are associated with, and probably cause, a big gap in performance does
not mean that, in theory, excellent schools could not offset these differences” (p. 5).
However, failure to build upon these differences has created persistent barriers that
continue to be maintained throughout the decades following the Brown decision.
Ultimately, schools have maintained the same cultural model of parental and
community isolation and neglected to integrate their unique forms of capital into the
school’s culture (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2002; Schein, 1990). As a result, African
American and Latino students are still performing at a lower rate than their White
and Asian counterparts (Rothstein, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Warren et al.,
2009). However, it is important to note that their performance is not a direct
response to their cognitive ability, but rather their access to education and resources
that make them equal to their counterparts (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Thus, it is more
accurate to say that African American and Latino students do not suffer from an
achievement gap, but instead suffer from an opportunity to achieve gap.
Education Debt
Exposure to historical inequities within the education system plays a
significant role in maintaining the opportunity gap. According to Ladson-Billings
(2006), there is a documented legacy of educational inequities in the United States,

15
which have been formed around race, class and gender. In her work, the author
attributes the educational debt to the culmination of four different types of debt,
historical debt, economic debt, socio-political debt and moral debt. With regards to
historical debt, she elucidates the notion that African Americans were not exposed to
formal education until after the Emancipation; however, their exposure to schools
was rarely equal to that of their White counterparts. They oftentimes experienced
shorter school years, especially those dwelling the in the rural South. Their
academics were put on hold in the need for cheap labor. Furthermore, the textbooks
and educational materials placed in African American schools were subpar in
comparison with their White counterparts. With regards to the economic debt,
Ladson-Billings notes how there is a disjunction between the amounts of money
spent per pupil within districts that serve different communities. The historic
educational gap has led to generations of low income, and because schools continue
to provide lesser opportunities to learn, they reproduce this cycle. This information is
directly connected to the aforementioned research regarding physical stagnation
within low-income communities; those who do not have a certain education level
cannot qualify for certain jobs and thus are limited in the places where they reside.
Ladson-Billing’s most compelling assertion regarding the education debt is
linked to the sociopolitical debt, which examines the extent to which ethnic
minorities have been excluded from the civic process. The author takes care to note
that ethnic minorities were formally excluded from the voting process until the
passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, which was intended to address the

16
sociopolitical debt that had accumulated since the nation’s inception. Prior to this
Act, Southern states in particular had adopted numerous illegal practices to exclude
African American voters. However, the sheer disparity in the number of White
voters compared to the number of African American voters or the number of Latino
persons who are qualified to vote has limited both groups to change their status in the
nation’s decision making processes, including their ability to impact education.
Thus, the education debt has not been substantially eradicated.
Families and communities most exposed to the education debt dwell in a
variety of areas, including the low income, urban landscape. Thus, it is necessary to
elucidate the intricacies of low income, urban communities and the perpetuation of
the opportunity gap on its inhabitants.
The Demographic Overview of the Urban Education Landscape
As previously mentioned, approximately 18% of American children live in
poverty. According to US Census Data (2008), 43% of the people living in poverty
have earned less than a high school diploma. To narrow the scope more, the data
also provide information that the two predominant groups dwelling in low-income
metropolitan areas are African Americans and Latinos; evidence of this stratification
is especially prominent within Los Angeles, California. According to the United
Way of Greater Los Angeles, in 2008, 12% of African American and 46% of Latino
adults have attained less than a high school diploma, whereas 7% of White adults
and 14% of Asian/Pacific Islander adults were placed within the same category.

17
These percentages illuminate the disparity between African American and
Latino families in terms of their education level (see Table 1.1). Addressing these
disparities requires more than accountability measures. They require a different
model of schooling that takes multiple factors into consideration.
Table 1.1: Education Level by Ethnicity (18 years and older)
Ethnicity Total
Number (in
thousands)
High
School
Diploma
Bachelors
Degree
Masters
Degree
Professional
Degree
Doctorate
Degree
White 154,603 48,207 30,809 11,606 2,365 1,919
Black 26,363 9,213 3,215 1,078 150 136
Hispanic
(all
ethnicities)
30,286 9,130 2,539 750 189 73
Note: Totals are represented in thousands.
Through the data presented in this table, it is clearly evidenced that African
Americans and Latinos are not attaining a high school diploma at the same rate as
their White counterparts. Furthermore, for those who are able to attain a high school
diploma, there still exists a drastic difference in college graduation rates. The chasm
between the numbers with regards to advanced degrees is even more abysmal. This
information illuminates the gap in educational achievement level for African
American and Latino students and usually illustrates the gap in their parents’
education level as well. Within the school culture, educational attainment level is
considered to be one of the most valuable forms of social capital (Warren et al.,
2009); thus, schools can fall victim to isolating some African American and Latino
parents based on their limited education level. However, school settings could be
more effective in educating students if they recognized the parents’ capital that is
valuable to enriching their children’s educational experience (Coleman, 1988;

18
Warren et al., 2009; Barton, 2004); students can benefit when their parents’ various
forms of capital is embraced and integrated into the school culture in an effort to
promote learning and achievement (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2002; Martinez-Cosio,
2010).
Parental Contributions to Ameliorating the Opportunity Gap
Learning can occur in different socio-cultural spaces and with different forms
of capital (Barton et al., 2004; Vygotsky, 1978; Moll, 1992). Artifacts, rules and
expectations can shape various learning spaces (Bourdeiu, 1977; Barton et al., 2004).
According to Crosnoe (2004), parents and families are a primary source of social
capital for young people, especially in relation to their education. As children move
through the educational system, parents can provide instrumental assistance, impart
information about education and future opportunities, establish and reinforce norms
of expected behavior and achievement, and offer support for the navigation of new
arenas and the experience of both success and failure, all of which foster better
academic functioning (Carbonaro, 1998). However, parents within the low-socio
economic space are often viewed as individuals with limited capital and limited skill
sets that can be transferred to their children. Mehan (1992) asserts that rather than
dismiss the parent’s lack of dominant capital, it is imperative to look at the capital
that each individual brings and how that capital can be activated to achieve a
common goal.
Parents possess a plethora of skills and capital that can be beneficial to both
the school setting and their students (Warren et al., 2009; Rogers et al., 2009;

19
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). Chief amongst these skills are critical thinking
and problem analysis within the social realm (Izzo et al., 1999). Child development
researchers have discovered that these critical thinking skills can be developed from:
(1) direct interactions between the parent and child, and (2) shared cultural norms
and social morays practiced within the child’s social setting (McWayne et al., 2004;
Fantuzzo et al., 2004). However, it is important to note that the critical thinking
skills parents teach are not always viewed as the same skill, or useful skills, within
the school setting (Prep, 2002). There is a disjunction between the skills learned
within the home setting and the academic skills applied within the school setting.
The school neglects to embrace the child’s pre-existing knowledge as valid because
it was not constructed within the conventional school setting (Gupta, 2009; Lantolf,
2009). Schools have a history of neglecting to embrace student’s learning that is
constructed beyond the schools’ boundaries (Moll, 1992).
However, it is important to note that within the home’s learning spaces, there
is not only influence on children’s cognitive development but their behavior as well.
The space that parents create for their children can be used as a tool to enhance both
their child’s academic achievement and their child’s behavior (McNeal, 1999). This
can be seen specifically in children’s coping skills (Brooks et al., 1994); parents set
behavioral expectations for coping by modeling this behavior for their children
(Fedje, 1994). Parents confronting the challenges of limited financial and social
capital also demonstrate the skills of adaptability and critical thinking within their
own coping mechanism; these skills can be directly transferred to their children

20
through the modeling process (Ylven & Granlund, 2009). These skills can be
directly connected to motivation, which is also developed and reinforced by the
parent (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997).
Early childhood development researchers have discovered that a primary
asset that parents give their children is support and motivation, especially at the
elementary levels (Rogers et al., 2009; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001). Early in
children’s schooling, parental involvement tends to be directive and hands on
(Hokoda & Fincham, 1995); however, as children progress through higher grade
levels, and presumably develop cognitive foundations and study skills to support
more autonomy in their school work, parental involvement tends to decline
(McCullough, 2002). Furthermore, the school fails to recognize the positive aspects
of parents’ relationships with their children and the schooling process (Hoover-
Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). As the students progress in age, schools offer limited
opportunities for parents to tap into their skills and capital to be a part of their child’s
learning; parents become spectators to schooling rather than agents of education.
Thus, the school culture plays a critical role in perpetuating the disengagement of
parents from their child’s schooling process. However, it is important to note that
communities, regardless of their socioeconomic status, can be assets to the child’s
development.
Community Contributions to Ameliorating the Opportunity Gap
Parents are a part of the community setting, thus they serve a similar function
in providing the child with support and opportunities for learning (Sanders, 1996).

21
According to Auerbach (2009), family and community engagement are increasingly
viewed as powerful tools for making schools more collaborative. The community
can also have an impact on the student’s academic achievement (Epstein, 1992)
based on the “interlocking histories of the major institutions that socialize and
educate children” (p. 1140-1141). Thus, the community serves as an overlapping
sphere of influence (Epstein, 1992). Although there are several components of the
community that can have a positive influence on a child’s development, there is a
growing body of literature demonstrating a link between church involvement and
academic achievement, specifically for African American students (Blau, 1981;
Brown & Gary, 1991; Freeman, 1986; Sanders, 1998). Research has demonstrated
that through the collaborative support of community-based organizations and
families, students can be supported to academically achieve in spite of
socioeconomic status and some limited forms of capital.
Ultimately, the children of parents who dwell in low socio-economic
communities, or who have limited educational capital, are not necessarily restricted
in their ability to achieve (Warren et al., 2009). Although educational partnerships
can be used to ameliorate the effects of the low academic achieving schools, it is
necessary to take into consideration the varied cultural models within the school
setting. Schools must identify and build upon the educational space developed by
the parents and community as a catalyst to further develop student achievement
(Cosio-Martinez, 2010).

22
Educational Partnerships
Background Information
Partnerships serve as an opportunity for different groups to assemble their
resources and ideologies in order to attain a specific goal for a specific institution.
According to Googins and Rochlin (2000), “Partnerships present the opportunity to
create a formidable, mutually reinforcing system which combines the unique
capabilities and resources of each party to deliver outcomes that surpass one sector
acting in isolation” (p.1). Ultimately, these parties work collaboratively to pool their
different forms of capital and use them as tools for improvement. According to
Gronski and Pigg (2000) collaboration is “an interactive process among individuals
and organizations with diverse expertise and resources, joining together to devise
and execute plans for common goals as well as to generate solutions for complex
problems” (p.783). Through this collaboration, members involved in the partnership
are able to create, implement, evaluate and redesign programs that will help them
attain their goals (Googins & Rochlin, 2000; Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Kezar, 2007).
Within the realm of educational partnerships, the same partnership principles are
applicable.
Educational partnerships emerged as a direct response to the demand to meet
the various needs of a specific school community. Within low performing schools,
increasing student performance on standardized assessments, increasing the
graduation rate, reducing the number of drop outs and increasing student retention
are some of the many factors that contribute to increasing academic achievement.

23
According to Epstein (1987, 2001) students increase their chances at attaining
academic success when the home, school and community work together to support to
students’ learning. She describes this phenomenon as overlapping spheres of
influence working together to support the child. However, in order to ensure
effective collaboration and a successful partnership between these spheres of
influence, Epstein (1995) states that there must be six types of involvement: 1)
parenting- helping all families understand child and adolescent development, and
establishing home environments that support children as students; 2)
communicating- designing and conducting effective two way communications about
school programs and children’s progress; 3) volunteering- recruiting and organizing
help and support for school programs and student activities; 4) decision making-
including parents in school decisions and developing parent leaders; 5) learning at
home- providing information and ideas to families about how to help students at
home with homework and curricular related decisions and activities; and 6)
collaborating with the community- identifying and integrating resources and services
from the community to strengthen and support schools, students and their families.
As previously mentioned, parents and communities carry their own forms of
capital and knowledge that can be brought into the partnership; this knowledge must
be shared amongst members of the partnership and used to attain the common goals.
Community-School-University Partnerships
According to Leiderman et al. (2002), formal partnerships between
universities and community organizations have become an emerging trend since the

24
1990s; one factor that contributes to the growth in this type of partnership is that as
public resources decrease, the social needs of community-based organizations grow
in an effort to address “complex social issues” (p.3). Simultaneously, universities
are seeking ways to emphasize civic involvement and increase service learning
within their institutions (Zlotkowski, 1999); thus, the partnership between the two
parties serves to be mutually beneficial (Kezar, 2007).
Harkavy (1998) expands on the notion of mutual beneficiality; he
conceptualizes school, university and community partnerships as an element that is
critical to building community relations, which ultimately serves as a key element of
educational reform. In his model, the school represents an integral part of the
community; the relationship between school and community is important in the
context of partnerships with universities. Beaumont (1998) further illuminates this
concept by stating, “Partnership participants’ attitudes, resources, and protocols that
are specific to the academic, social and cultural environment of the partnership
determines the degree of effectiveness of collaborative efforts” (p.558). The
aforementioned statement reaffirms Myers’ (1996), Epstein’s (1987) and Sanders’
(1998) assertion that each member of the partnership must be actively involved in the
partnership in order for true collaboration to occur.
However, as previously mentioned, collaboration within an educational
partnership is used as a tool to attain certain goals, traditionally linked to academic
achievement. According to Leiderman et al. (2002) and Kezar (2007), these goals
must be mutually determined. Furthermore, there needs to be a process to select and

25
train people [from the university] who will come into contact with the community
and its residents. Also, the vision needs to be shared and “built on the genuine
excitement and passion for the issues at hand” (Kezar, 2007, p.7). The
aforementioned components contribute to some of the core elements that
characterize effective community, school, and university partnerships. Other
elements include a need to develop strategies that focus on the issues of the
community; those strategies need to be based on an enhanced understanding of the
community’s interests, assets, needs and opportunities. Most importantly, there
needs to be a system of accountability in which all stakeholders are held responsible
for the quality of work that is produced (Leiderman et al., 2002).
Although school, university and community partnerships may have a
fundamental system in place to ensure that goals are met, and that these goals benefit
all members involved, there still exists the problem of sharing control equitably
amongst institutions. Kezar (2007), Osajima (1989), and Blue and Collins (1998)
each note that a major issues that can threaten the productivity of educational
partnerships is the emergence of the top-down of communication and program
design, organizational trust issues and a refusal to recreate a new cultural model for
stakeholders within the partnership setting. In order to eliminate this threat, it is
necessary for schools, communities and universities to engage in the co-construction
process.

26
The Element of Co-Construction Within University, School and Community
Partnerships
When partnerships adhere to the hierarchal, top down communication
approach, they fall into the trap of “depositing” ideas into an organization (Freire,
1970); thus, one member of the partnerships evaluates another member from the
“deficit perspective,” meaning that they have little to no resources to contribute to
the solution of a problem (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002). Freire (1970) expands on this
concept by noting “revolutionary [educational] leaders often fall for the banking line
of planning program content from the top-down” (p.94). Urban schools often fall
into this classification of the “deficit organization;” some universities operate under
the assumption that the urban community and local schools are unaware of the
elements needed in order to improve their conditions and attain their goals. As a
result, urban schools are removed from the dialogue necessary to design and
implement programs that will essentially be used within their setting (Kezar, 2007).
Freire (1970) asserts that it is necessary for “those who have been denied
their primordial right to speak their word to reclaim this right” (p.88). Thus, true
dialogue needs to occur in order to create the co-construction process within the
partnership. He defines dialogue as “an existential necessity [… and] it is an act of
creation” (p.88-89). However, he also asserts that dialogue cannot exist without
profound love for the world and its people, humility, an intense faith in humankind,
hope and critical thinking. Within the setting of the educational partnership, this
requires that all stakeholders, including the local community and school, be

27
considered equal partners and valuable contributors to the partnership (Miller &
Lipton, 2008; Kezar, 2007). Thus, no partner is viewed from the “deficit
perspective;” instead, everyone has a form of capital that they can contribute to the
dialogue, which will ultimately assist in moving towards the attainment of goals.
Bringle and Hatcher (2002) further develop the concept of “rules of
engagement” for co-construction. They assert that it is necessary to develop a
“healthy interdependency” (p. 510) between the school, community and university.
Within that interdependency, there is frequent interaction between parties because
they are consistently working with each other in a variety of arenas (i.e. grant
writing, curriculum development). Through this interaction and participation in
activities, dialogue is fostered and maintained, which plays a vital role in
perpetuating the co-construction process.
However, it is important to recognize that within the educational reform
partnership setting, there are multiple stakeholders that need to be taken into
consideration. Several partnerships make the hasty generalization that having
student, teacher, and administrative involvement at the school level is an accurate
representation of school-stakeholder involvement; in actuality, they are only
collaborating with some stakeholders (Wood & Gray, 1991). However, within urban
educational reform partnerships, parents are often the least represented party
(D’Angelo & Alder, 1991). Community-school-university partnerships should view
parents and communities in the same manner as any other school-site stakeholder;
they are valuable members of the partnership that can contribute their knowledge and

28
resources to attaining the partnership’s goals. Otherwise, they run the risk of
becoming “passive members” of the partnership and are not included in the
dialogical relationship between stakeholders.
Statement of Problem
There has been a history of unequal distribution of power within educational
reform efforts. One condition that contributes to the opportunity gap is the mismatch
between the role of parents and communities in the urban setting and the prevalent
concept of schooling. Although community-school-university partnerships have
been created in an effort to lessen the opportunity gap, schools and universities can
perpetuate the isolation of parents and community members through the continued
use of top down communication, hierarchal relationships and limited dialogue. Each
of the aforementioned factors contributes to the perpetuation of cultural mistrust. In
their quest for education equity, partnerships run the risk of perpetuating parents’
low efficacy with regards to their student’s academic achievement by limiting the co-
constructive process and maintaining restrictive cultural models; this ultimately
disenfranchises them from actively participating in the co-construction, dialogical
process necessary to ensure collaboration of all stakeholders within the partnership.
Purpose of Study
The aim of this study is to identify and analyze the extent to which a
community-school-university partnership is able to sustain elements of co-
construction and other ongoing processes that are beneficial to the partnership. Also,
the study will identify the persistent barriers to co-constructions and effective

29
strategies to overcome those barriers within a community-school-university
partnership. This study expands on the research conducted during the first year of
the partnership’s operation and will offer insight as to the sustainability of the co-
constructed processes between the community-school-university partnership.
Current research demonstrates methods for schools to enhance parental engagement
through parent organizations and the community-school partnership. However,
limited research is available regarding a cultural model for parental engagement in
the community-school-university partnership. Thus, this study will add to the body
of knowledge by identifying the methods in which the community-school-university
partnership can develop a new cultural model for parental engagement in the interest
of school transformation.
Significance of Study
Minority students are more likely to report widespread academic shortfalls
(Johnson, Arumi, & Ott, 2006) and can no longer afford to exist at the bottom of the
educational totem pole. Considerable attention needs to be paid on transforming the
state of urban education, specifically with low performing schools and the students,
parents and communities that are affected by their performance. For each student
that is not successful in the academic realm, it also creates national cause for
concern. According to a report conducted by McKinsey & Company (2006), the
United States lags significantly behind other advanced nations in educational
performance. This gap has economic implications with regards to student
preparedness to enter the workforce and attain meaningful paying jobs that allow for

30
economic self-sufficiency. If successful in increasing student academic
achievement, the community-school-university partnership can positively alter the
aforementioned statistic; it could present a new cultural model for school
transformation projects. Furthermore, it can impact the relationship between parents,
communities, schools and universities with regards to their interactions with one
another and the schooling process. On a local level, this study can impact the
relationships between parents, communities and schools that have a history of
cultural mistrust; it can allow each stakeholder in the partnership to recognize their
role in maintaining the processes essential for co-construction and dialogical
relationships. Also, the study can impact how institutions view parents as
stakeholders in the partnership through an in depth look at how parents feel about
their existing roles in the school transformation process.
Research Questions
1) What evidence of ongoing processes, including co-construction, does a
community-school-university partnership demonstrate as it continues to work
toward school improvement beyond its first year of operation?
1a) What are the barriers that persist in co-constructing and sustaining a
community-school-university partnership created to improve an urban
school?
1b) What effective strategies are in place that demonstrates the ability to
overcome the persistent barriers in community-school-university partnerships
seeking to improve student achievement in an urban school?

31
2) How can the community-school-university partnership influence the
development of a new cultural model leading to parental engagement in the
interest of school transformation?
Limitations
The limitations of the study include time, resources, access to key
stakeholders, and the issues of trust. Collecting data within a six to eight week
period of time may limit the amount of resources and data that are gathered. Access
to key stakeholders may also 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 a strong relationship with stakeholders and gain the trust of all
partners can place constraints on the quality of data collected.
Delimitations
This study represents Year Two of a five-year study of a community-school-
university partnership to research effective strategies in initiating and maintaining
successful partnerships for the purpose of improving the quality of education in
urban schools. This study will focus on one site and, therefore, the ability to
generalize in relation to other sites may be diminished.
Definition of Terms
1. Achievement Gap—A term that has come to be commonly used since the
enactment of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to describe the disparity in
performance that occurs typically between middle-class students (usually White and
Asian) and students of color in high poverty, urban areas.

32
2. Banking—A term derived from Paolo Freire’s seminal work, Pedagogy of the
Oppressed (1970) 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.
3. 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 & Pigg in Miller & Haffner, 2008).
4. 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.
5. 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, as representative
of the aforementioned definition, has a variety of assets as well as liabilities.
However, many of the assets have 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.

33
6. 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).
7. 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 (Freie, 1970).
8. Dialogue—The process of engaging people in exchange of ideas, experiences, and
knowledge for the purpose of creating shared meaning.
9. Funds of Knowledge—The body of knowledge, skills, and assets found within the
home and/or community. 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).
10. 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.
11. Power—The potential for affecting influence and change through decision-
making capabilities and resources.

34
12. Power Relationship—Hierarchical distribution of social, political, and economic
capital that can result in the status of oppressor and oppressed.
13. 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.
14. Urban—A large, densely populated diverse metropolitan area that faces
challenges due to historic barriers, stratified wealth, and power relationships, but has
the potential to draw upon the many untapped and unrecognized assets of the
university, school and community.

35
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
As previously discussed in Chapter One, the purpose of this study is to
examine the process by which communities, schools, and universities are able forge
co-constructed partnerships with one another for the purpose of transforming
schools. Further, this study focuses on the ability of these kinds of partnerships to
create a new cultural model for parental engagement. The partnership will be
examined for its ability to increase parental efficacy on behalf of African American
and Latino students’ academic achievement.
The background information provided in Chapter One elucidates the history
of African American and Latino students’ schooling, specifically within the urban
context. There exists a history of segregated communities based on socio-economic
status and ethnicity; in this history of segregation, there also exists the segregated
school. Historically, there is a connection between low-income communities and
low performing schools. While segregation played a large role in contributing to the
African American and Latino achievement gap, education politics also played a
dynamic role.
Parental involvement in education has been widely recognized as important,
yet urban schools have grown increasingly isolated from the families and
communities they serve (Warren et al., 2009; Barton, 2004; Coleman, 1988). The
longstanding history of educational inequities (Ladson-Billings, 2006), and the

36
continued absence of the school-community connection (Warren et al., 2009),
particularly in urban areas, has contributed to a detrimental limitation of minority
parents’ participation in their child’s education (Warren et al., 2009). However,
educational partnerships have sought to provide the forum by which local school
stakeholders, including parents, are able to lessen the achievement gap for
underserved, traditionally low performing students.
Chapter Two offers a review of literature that demonstrates how educational
partnerships can narrow the opportunity gap for low performing students by
enfranchising parents to expanding their engagement in their child’s schooling; this
creates a new cultural model for parents within the urban education realm. While
there are several forms of educational partnerships, this chapter will examine the
attributes of the community-school-university partnership. It will also explore the
manner in which community-school-university educational partnerships have the
potential to lessen the achievement gap for traditionally underserved students. Next,
the chapter will delve into the factors contributing to low parental engagement.
Lastly, the chapter will address how educational partnerships have the potential to
create a new cultural model for parents and their engagement in their child’s
schooling.
Educational Partnerships
General History and Purpose
Although educational partnerships are increasing in popularity, they are not a
new phenomenon. According to Greene and Tichenor (1999), educational

37
partnerships have been in existence for over 100 years; through their evolution, they
have involved a variety of organizations, including, but not limited to, communities,
schools and members of the higher education community (Benson et al., 2000;
Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Mayfield et al., 1999; Sanders, 2009). Carroll et al. (2002)
elaborates that school-community-university partnerships within the United States
have had a long history and originally focused on generating research and service
projects designed to assist under-resourced people and communities. While the
organizations involved in educational partnerships may vary, their intent and purpose
remains steadfastly focused on addressing fundamental problems within each
respective organization. Community-school-university partnerships, in recent years,
have increased their focus on improving the academic outcomes of students through
a variety of resources made available by the partnership (Leiderman et al., 2002).
Communities, of which parents are an important element, and schools are
attracted to the resources that the university brings, and universities are attracted to
the public exposure of their humanitarian efforts while simultaneously exposing their
students to a new form of learning (Leiderman et al., 2002; Zetlin & McCleod, 1995;
Epstein & Sheldon, 2006). Thus, organizational partnerships are based on a
principle of mutually beneficiality to all parties (Baum, 2000; Miller & Hafner,
2008; Kezar, 2007). In these mutually beneficially relationships, each organization
involved in the educational partnership needs to be sensitive to its counterparts’
unique organizational structures and cultures (Miller & Hafner, 2007) to ensure that
the relationship meets each partner’s expectations and goals.

38
Within the community-school-university partnership that focuses on student
achievement, each stakeholder can potentially benefit from and contribute to the
partnership. The university can offer teachers professional development on best
practices and culturally responsive pedagogy for instructing minority students as
well as developing effective urban leadership (Brothwick et al., 2003; Epstein &
Sanders, 2006). In providing this service, the university benefits by increasing their
exposure to the school’s student population; also, if teachers are successful in
increasing student achievement, the university can potentially increase diversity in its
student body, coming from the partnership school. The community members can
offer insightful information to the university (and school) about their neighborhood,
its population, resources, attributes and needs (Leiderman et al., 2002). Also, the
university can drive advocacy for the community in settings where access is
sometimes denied to community residents (e.g. improved transportation, anti-racism
efforts, loan funds) (Leiderman et al., 2002), thereby helping to improve the quality
of the neighborhood where students reside.
Components, Challenges and Limitations
The partnership is not an antidote for all of the problems that exist within the
complex educational landscape. Baum (2000) expands on this notion regarding
“typical fantasies about partnerships” (p. 234). One prominent “fantasy” with
organizational partnerships is the exaggerated expectation of what the partnership
will be able to accomplish once the partners combine forces. As a result, goals for
the partnership are not clearly established; they become shrouded in metaphorical

39
language rather than effectively communicating the desired end result of the project.
Baum also notes the difference between personal partnerships and organizational
partnerships; whereas personal partnerships are informal and guided by a basic set of
assumptions (i.e. loyalty, personal feelings), organizational partnerships are formal
and developed as a result of planning and deliberation. Thus, the human
relationships and emotions associated with personal partnerships do not necessarily
characterize organizational partnerships; in fact, the same principles and assumptions
as personal partnerships cannot guide or sustain organizational partnerships.
The organizational partnership operates under the rationale that an “entity can
better serve its interests by pooling resources with another that has common
interests” (p. 235); thus, each party must mutually benefit from this alliance in order
for it to flourish. Kanter (1994) expands on this notion by stating that there are eight
“I’s” that need to be developed before a partnership can become a “We”: individual
excellence, importance, interdependence, investment, information, integration,
institutionalization, and integrity. The concepts proposed by Baum (2000), Epstein
(2006), Kezar (2007), Miller and Hafner (2008) and Leiderman et al. (2002) in some
ways mirror Kanter’s set of basic concepts to guide organizational partnerships (see
Table 2.1).

40
Table 2.1: Synthesis of Specific Concepts Across the Disciplines--Needs for
Organizational Partnerships
Kanter (1994) Kezar (2007) Leiderman et al.
(2002)
Context

Concept
Business/Organizational
Partnerships
Educational
Partnerships (School-
University)
Educational
Partnerships
(Community-
University)
Individual
Excellence
o Both partners are
strong and have
something of value to
contribute to the
relationship
o Partners are assigned to
specific roles
o Developing roles
and
responsibilities
for all members
involved in the
partnership
o Eliminating the
hierarchal
structure
o Variety of roles
and based on
each partner’s
capacities and
resources
o Individual goals
based on specific
roles
o Diverse
representation
Importance o The relationship fits
major strategic
objectives of the
partners
o Long term goals in
which relationship
plays a key role
o Mutually
developed long
term goals
o Commitment to
shared values,
goals and
assumptions
o Shared vision,
resources, goals,
rewards and risks
Interdependence o The partners need each
other to accomplish
goals
o Partners begin to
develop working
relationships in order
to accomplish specific
goals
o Development of
a new culture
o Recognize the
ability to achieve
goals through
coordinated
approach
o Peer
relationships
among faculty
and management
and staff of
partner
organizations
Information o Communication is
reasonably open

o Create frequent
and ongoing
communication
o Both formal and
informal
communication
o Shared decision
making and
resource
allocation
o Consistent
communication
regarding
decisions
Integration o Partners develop
linkages and shared
modes of operation
o Partners become
teachers and learners
o Develop clear
policies and roles
o Key element of
creating a new
culture
o Attention to
building the
capacity of all
partner
organizations

41
While the authors may not use the same terminology, similar concepts are
expressed within their respective works. Ultimately, the stakeholders are taking on
formal roles in the organization to ensure that everyone’s needs are being met.
Failure to adopt the abovementioned practices makes the organizational
partnership susceptible to fragmentation and dissolution because an individual
organization opts to live in a “fantasy” and not recognize the importance of each
member’s roles. Although there are similarities in the limitations of organizational
partnerships in the business and educational realm, it is necessary to examine the
pedagogy and critical frameworks that guide a well-implemented educational
partnership, specifically between the community, school and university.
Key Elements Within the Educational Partnership
Theoretical Frameworks Guiding Community-School-University Partnerships
Although the previous sections identified some of the tenets needed to ensure
the effective functioning of an educational partnership, it is important to deconstruct
the theoretical frameworks that guide the community-school-university partnership.
First, it is necessary to include a focus on the student, as the student is one of the
primary beneficiaries of the community-school-university partnership and its
resources (Sanders, 2006; Epstein & Sanders, 2006). According to Ascher (1989),
“The general aim [of the educational partnership] is usually to improve student
academic achievement […] and provide minorities in high school with college
access” (p.187). However, given the history of schooling for minority students, it is
impossible to improve student achievement without transforming the school culture

42
in which their learning takes place. In order to ensure that the partnership is focusing
on school transformation, with students at the center, stakeholders will need to co-
construct a new set of goals and a new action plan to guide their work (Ascher, 1989;
Epstein & Sanders, 2006).
An examination of the partnership’s effectiveness must include a
determination of how well the partnership integrates itself into the student’s
ecological system. It is important to recognize the school as an integral part of the
child’s ecosystem (Dewey, 2007; Brofenbrenner, 1994), since it serves as an agent of
socialization and becomes a part of the student’s social environment; however, other
aspects of influence in the ecosystem need to be considered such as the parents,
community members and their resources. The degree to which the partnership
affects these influences within the ecosystem is critical to understanding the
effectiveness of the partnership. Thus, educational partnerships need to consider the
different layers of the child’s ecological system as they become potential members,
thereby adhering to the previously discussed “interdependence” and “individual
excellence” concepts of the organizational partnership.
It is essential to focus on the concepts on “interdependence” and “individual
excellence” specifically within the educational partnership because it challenges
participants to become involved in different roles and establish meaningful
relationships with one another (Barton, 2004). Thus, stakeholders, such as the
parent, are not irrelevant to the school and its operations, but instead are a necessary
entity that is critical to the life of the students and thus to the vitality of the

43
partnership (Kezar, 2007; Leiderman et al., 2002; Rose, 2008). By participating in
the partnership, the parent can acquire new skills, assume new roles and expand his
or her social capital (Martinez-Cosio, 2010). Also, parents can teach the partnership
about their cultural values and their connection to student academic achievement,
specific areas of growth they feel need to be addressed and their opinions regarding
the relationship between the school and community (Warren et al., 2009; Burton,
2004; Reed et al., 2000). Each party depends on the partnership structure in order to
share these assets. Similarly, the partnership can learn from the parents about the
students it aims to serve; partnerships can build on the capital, skills, knowledge and
resources parents bring to their child’s cognitive and social development (Barton et
al., 2004; Sanders, 1996; Warren et al., 2009; Crosnoe, 2004; Mehan, 1992). By
building upon “individual excellence” and “interdependence,” the different members
of the child’s ecological system are integrated within the partnership.
Brofenbrenner’s Ecological Model
Within Brofenbrenner’s (1990) model, the student comes into contact with
several ecological layers. The microsystem is the layer that is closest to the child
and contains structures in which the child has direct contact. Within the
microsystem, there are various structures, such as the family, school, neighborhood
and supplemental care environments, each of which contains individuals that have
degrees of influence on the child. The relationships between the child and each
structure are bi-directional, meaning that the impact can move towards or away from
the child. Thus, the behaviors of the school, parents, or community can have a direct

44
impact on the child’s behavior, and vice versa. According to Marzano (2007), the
school needs to have a variety of systems in place to interact with the parents,
community and students in order to affect academic achievement in a positive
manner. If a school is equipped with a viable curriculum, sufficient time for student
instruction with an accountability system for monitoring progress and providing
effective feedback to all stakeholders, students will flourish (Marzano, 2007). Thus,
interdependent relationships between the school’s stakeholders (who are
representatives of the child’s microsystem) must be an embedded part of the school’s
culture (Myers, 1995; Moll, 1992; Coleman, 1988). Taking that relationship into
consideration, it is necessary to integrate the microsystem into the educational
partnership, as it incorporates the entities that will most likely have the strongest
influence on the child’s behavior, attitudes, efficacy and achievement.
Although the microsystem has the greatest influence on the child, interactions
with the outer levels of the ecosystem can impact the inner structures.
Brofenbrenner has classified these larger systems as the mesosystem, exosystem and
macrosystem, respectively. Within the mesosystem, there exists a connection
between the structures in the microsystem (i.e. connection between child and parent;
connection between parent and school). The exosystem, however, defines the larger
social system in which the child does not function directly, however is directly
affected by its workings. Structures within the exosystem impact the child’s
development since they interact with one or more of the structures from the child’s
microsystem. A prominent example of the exosystem interacting with the child’s

45
microsystem would be the resources available in the community for students and
their parents, such as libraries and hospitals. According to Swanson (2009), urban
communities are often plagued with limited access to quality public facilities. If
these resources are not available to the community, it can have a negative impact on
residents’ ability to achieve, especially at the academic level. Another example of
the mesosystem would be the local university and its culture and interactions with
the community. It is necessary to note that the child does not have direct
involvement with this system, but it still has an impact on the child’s microsystem,
and thus, shapes the child’s development. The most external layer of the ecosystem
is the macrosystem, which is comprised of cultural values, social morays, norms and
laws. Examples of structures within the macrosystem include state and federal
government agencies and the decisions they make about urban education reform.
Once again, the child most likely does not have direct interaction with this system;
however, the macrosystem has an effect on the manner in which the other ecological
systems are able to perform their duties toward the child. For example, the federal
government and their development and implementation of No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) serves as an example of how the macrosystem can influence the behavior of
the exosystem and its interaction with the child’s mesosystem and microsystem. The
macrosystem provides a framework in which the underlying layers must operate;
however, the manner in which they interact with one another is malleable; members
of the exosystem, mesosystem and microsystem can choose to participate in
educational partnerships in an effort to meet the requirements put in place by the

46
macrosystem. All of these different layers can be connected to the educational
partnership and its function within the child’s ecosystem (see Figure 2.1)
Figure 2.1: Brofenbrenner’s Ecological System and the Educational Partnership

Although he macrosystem is responsible for establishing policies or
guidelines for education reform and academic achievement expectations, the
partnership needs to engage the exosystem, mesosystem and microsystem to work
collaboratively within those guidelines. Thus, members of the child’s microsystem
(parents/community/school), mesosystem (university) and exosystem must be
interactive and instrumental in developing and implementing policy that will directly
affect the student’s progress and academic achievement. They should be engaged
participants of the partnership to better serve the needs of the student.

47
Epstein’s Framework for Involvement
Dewey (2007) recommends that multiple members of the public be involved
in the decision-making process regarding reform efforts; this concept also mirrors
Epstein’s theoretical framework regarding community involvement in educational
partnerships. According to Epstein (2001), the increased involvement of different
members of the child’s environment contributes to increased academic achievement
due to overlapping spheres of influence. The school, home and community working
together to support the student and their learning process increases their chances for
academic success.
Within the realm of the educational partnership, Epstein suggests that
partnerships develop Action Teams for Partnerships, where each of the overlapping
spheres of influence has an opportunity to actively engage and participate in the
functioning of the school. Each Action Team must create an action plan that
incorporates various forms and opportunities for involvement; however, it is
important to note that the action teams share information and work collaboratively
with one another in order to ensure co-construction for their joint and unified action.
Epstein outlines the six types of involvement as being parenting, communicating,
volunteering, learning at home, decision-making and collaborating with the
community (see Table 2.2).

48
Table 2.2: Deconstructing Epstein’s Types of Involvement
Involvement Type Definition
Parenting Helping all families to understand child and adolescent
development and to establish home environments that support
children as students
Communicating Designing and conducting effective two-way communications
about school programs and children’s progress
Volunteering Recruiting and organizing help and support for school programs
and student activities
Learning at home Providing information and ideas to families about how to help
students at home with homework and curricular related decisions
and activities
Decision-making Including parents in school decisions and developing parent leaders
Collaborating with
the community
Identifying and integrating resources and services from the
community to strengthen and support schools, students and their
families

Epstein’s model for different forms of involvement connects directly to
Dewey’s framework regarding the creation of a “revitalized public.” Dewey
emphasizes the need for the public to be inquisitive and consistently evaluate
programs, policies and organizations to measure their effectiveness as it applies to
the public’s well-being. Within the educational partnership, Epstein proposes
actions similar to Dewey’s principles with regards to communication, decision-
making and collaborating with the community (see Table 2.3).

49
Table 2.3: Synthesis of Concepts—Dewey (2007) and Epstein (2002)
Dewey’s Concepts (2007) Epstein’s Concepts (2002)
Engaging those most affected by inequality (in
the education system) requires that meaningful
and sustained relationships be established
between the public and experts. They need to
develop a sense of collective identity and
discover shared interests around which they
might act jointly.
Collaborating with the community
Decision making
In order to have a revitalized public, it is
necessary for individuals to change their role and
become well-informed citizens as a result of the
partnership. The experts must learn that it is
their responsibility to share knowledge with the
public, while simultaneously learning from them.
Parenting
Learning at home
In education reform, there needs to be access to
knowledge and its construction; there is a need to
“restore to the common man that [knowledge]
which…has been embezzled from the common
store”.
Communicating (Co-Construction)

By having a shared vision and goal, members are
able to “construct a story of who they are, what
they do and why they do it” (p. 41). In this
shared development, the groups begin to trust
one another and recognize their individual roles
in the partnership.
Volunteering (Co-Construction)

Support For Epstein’s Framework
Myers (1995) expands on Epstein’s conceptual framework by stating that
educators need to rethink teaching, school and the bridge to close the opportunity
gap. He asserts schools need to be viewed as learning communities or “places of
inquiry” (p.3), where reflection, analysis, knowing, deciding and action take place.
However, he also emphasizes that in order for the school to be a true learning
community, it must conform to three basic characteristics: 1) direct participation of
many more people than the students, teachers, school administrators and traditional
school support staff; 2) differentiation of the roles among all of the participants in the

50
learning community; and 3) everyone is always continuously learning regardless of
her or his role in the education process. Thus, both the “external structure” (Epstein
& Sanders, 2006), such as the home, school, and community are evolving to create a
more fortified “internal structure” (Epstein & Sanders, 2006) in which interpersonal
relationships and exchanges of information are consistently contributing to the
growth and support of the child’s academic success. Epstein’s “external structure” is
similar to Brofenbrenner’s mesosystem in that the school, home and community are
working together. Epstein’s “internal structure” represents Brofenbrenner’s
microsytem in that relationships between the various structures are directly
interacting with the child. Furthermore, in adhering to the characteristics of the
learning community, co-construction and shared learning are taking place and the
educational partnership is working towards reaching their goal of creating a new
cultural model for the school, in which students can achieve academically. Freire’s
(1970) notions of trust, respect and love for the community, which enable dialogic
relationships to occur, can provide a major contribution to the co-construction
process.
It is important to note that both Epstein’s (2006) and Myers (1995) mention a
need for increasing parental engagement within the partnership. Both authors are
specific in asserting that parents’ roles in the education process are not static, but
instead evolving as a direct result of the partnership. Thus, parents are viewed as
critical elements to the partnership as well as beneficiaries (Moll, 1992). This
transforming relationship and role will be expounded upon later in the chapter.

51
Although Epstein and Myers help concretize the elements of successful
partnerships, it is necessary to elucidate the elements of successful university, school
and community partnerships, specifically as they apply to urban, low performing
schools. Although collaboration is key, a critical element is co-construction. In the
co-constructive process, the tenants of “individual excellence” and
“interdependence” are fostered within the partnership.
Co-Construction Within the Partnership
The previous sections have alluded to members of the organizational
partnership working together in order to create common goals and share resources in
order to attain those goals. However, it is important to note that in order for those
ideas to be developed and shared, there is a need for collaboration. According to
Russell and Flynn (2000), collaboration is a continuum, and at the minimum level,
involves two or more units establishing a process of joint decision making. Kezar
(2007) elaborates on this notion by stating that within collaboration, it is necessary
not to undermine the authority and value of a member of the partnership; instead,
each entity must be considered an equal partner that has meaningful knowledge that
can assist the partnership in reaching their determined goals. Freire (1970)
enlightens the notion of collaboration through his definition of dialogue, which can
be a process for collaboration to take place within the partnership. He states that the
essence of dialogue is the word, which contains two dimensions: reflection and
action.

52
In his seminal work on pedagogy, Freire asserts that there can be no
liberation without language to provide counterarguments to the dominant group, who
serve the interest of power. Thus, members of the partnership need an opportunity to
reflect on their own observations, life experiences and the words that they hear from
the oppressed. Through this reflection, they are able to co-construct the true word.
In speaking the true word, they are able to take transformative action towards
reculturing schooling. Ultimately, dialogue is essential for education reform (see
Table 2.4).
Table 2.4: Components of Freire’s Dialogical Relationship
Freire’s (1970) Component Definition
Profound Love for the World Love is the foundation of dialogue and is considered
to be an act of courage. Love demonstrates a
commitment to a cause.
Humility Humility requires all members to be introspective
and recognize their own opportunities for learning
Intense Faith in Human Kind Faith in humankind illustrates an ability to believe
in others; however, this faith is not naïveté.
However, it knows the power of human’s ability to
create and transform has a tendency to be reborn.
Hope Hope is rooted in men’s incompletion; in man’s
search for completion, they demonstrate hope that
they will find the missing component. Inequity and
dehumanization is the cause for hope.
Critical Thinking This is thinking which demonstrates a solidarity
between people and perceives reality as a
transformative process while simultaneously
determining the risks involved

Carroll et al. (2001) and Miller and Hafner (2008) have further clarified this
notion of co-construction by affirming the need to consider the sociocultural
experiences and dynamics of the surrounding community, of which parents are an
integral part. It also requires researchers and practitioners to work as peers in the

53
process of school reform. Furthermore, co-construction mandates that all
stakeholders adopt a culture that discards hierarchal relationships and embraces
everyone as peers. Within the realm of the community-school-university
partnership, it is necessary for each stakeholder to participate in the co-construction
process. However, the stakeholders involved in the partnership may present threat to
the co-constructive process (Leiderman et al., 2002). This process of co-
constructions requires schools and universities to adopt a new cultural model in their
relationship to parents and their communities (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
However, there are many threats to adopting this model.
Threats to Co-Construction within the Educational Partnership
Much as there are limitations within organizational partnerships, there are
threats to the co-constructive process. Each stakeholder, including parents and
communities, can contribute to disrupting co-construction.
Teachers
According to Russell and Flynn (2002), teachers are not familiar with the
collaborative/dialogic process of co-construction, as it is not emphasized heavily
within the cultural model of schooling. Lieberman and Miller (1984) note that there
are two fundamental rules in school settings: be practical and be private. While the
practicality emphasizes the importance of strategies that are transferable into the
classroom, the emphasis on privacy results from the traditional cultural model of
teacher isolation. Lortie (1975) and Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) delve deeper
into this concept by describing the school’s culture as being similar to an egg carton

54
structure wherein inhabitants of each classroom are kept from interacting by the
structure of the environment in which they are placed. While modern movements
have attempted to chip away at this model, Lieberman and Miller (1984) explain that
hesitancy to collaborate is a safety mechanism: privacy maintains teacher autonomy
in the classroom and protects them from embarrassment if their work is not
successful. By maintaining this culture of isolation, teachers have the potential to
disrupt the process of co-construction that the partnership is attempting to create in
order to transform the culture of the school.
School Culture and Setting
Schein (1990) defines culture as:
(a) a pattern of basic assumptions, (b) invented, discovered or developed by a
given group (co-construction), (c) as it learns to cope with its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration, (d) that has worked well enough
to be considered valid and, therefore (e) is to be taught to new members as
the (f) correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems
(p. 111).

This is applicable within the school setting and the way in which the
organization interacts with its various stakeholders, specifically in regards to the
roles those stakeholders posses in the school setting.
According to Sarason (1971) the school’s culture is the very fabric of its
existence; it guides the institution’s principles, functioning and foundation. Thus, if
a school’s culture does not promote the co-constructive process, it limits the
possibility of co-construction occurring. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) and
Fullan (2000) expand on this notion by stating that the schools need to evaluate the

55
cultural models embedded within its setting, as it is reflective of the school’s basic
assumptions. The boundaries that exist between teachers, administrators and
community members, including parents, need to become permeable; they need to
develop dialogic relationships with one another to soften these boundaries. Togneri
(2003) notes that in order to have these types of conversations, school-level
stakeholders need to be vulnerable, acknowledge poor performance and work
collaboratively to develop a system wide approach to improvement. As a result, the
dialogic process becomes a cultural model within the school (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). However, it is important to note that the school must not only
learn how to collaborate within its own setting, but with outside organizations as
well, such as the community it serves (Franse & Siegel, 1987; Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001).
Community Based Organizations
Communities have their own form of capital (Coleman, 1966), specifically
human and social capital. According to Porfeli et al. (2009), community capital has
a powerful influence on schooling. Adolescents who experience favorable social
capital (at the family or community level) are more likely to achieve academic
success and have increased access to financial stability in their future. Community-
based organizations can serve as institutions where children and families can have
access to this capital. Although a part of the community, they may not be a part of
the child’s microsystem in the same manner as parents and neighbors; their direct

56
contact with the student is at times limited. However, the capital and resources they
provide are important to the child’s development.
According to Sanders (2009), community-based organizations have recently
become engaged in educational reform by “confronting” educational bureaucracies;
their general view of the school (both at the local and district level) is one of distrust.
Warren (2005) elaborates on the confrontational community organization as being
one that sometimes exacerbates the difficulties of education reform in that they will
make unreasonable demands and intrusions into the professional sphere of educators.
Sanders and Warren’s assertions demonstrate a lack of trust between community and
school; furthermore, their assertions portray the community as sometimes wanting to
create an inverted hierarchal structure, in which they are in control. This occurs
when there is no shared desire for shared responsibility, but instead, one organization
fighting to dominate. Thus, they perpetuate the hierarchy that needs to be eliminated
and ultimately run the risk of becoming the oppressors themselves (Freire, 1970).
Although community-based organizations can potentially re-create a
hierarchy, they are not the only members of the community-school-university
partnership that can vie for power.
University Culture
The culture of the university can also contribute to the fragmentation of the
co-construction process. Since they are institutions of higher learning, universities
can often be classified as the dominant elite within the partnership setting (Irving &
Hudley, 2005). According to Freire (1970), the dominant elite can fall victim to

57
utilizing the banking concept to encourage passivity. He remarks that “this practice
is incompatible with a truly liberating course of action” (p. 95) and ultimately defies
the notion of co-construction. Instead of all entities working together to create a
shared vision and common goals, there is a top-down communicative approach to the
partnership. In top-down communication, the university is placed at the top of the
hierarchy and ultimately pacifies the school and community’s inhabitants in co-
constructing within the partnership.
Although there can be limitations to co-construction, it is important to note its
purpose within the educational partnership. According to Sanders (2009), the
community-school-university partnership is a reform strategy that calls for co-
construction based in dialogic relationships among students, families, communities
and school and university leaders to achieve school excellence and student success.
While it is easy for universities, school faculty and community-based organizations
to integrate into the partnership model, the family/parent involvement component is
often times viewed as something that needs to be “managed” rather than embraced
(Carter, 2007). Thus, it is imperative to identify the traditional model of parental
engagement, the new ecology of parental engagement and the elements that make it
successful.
Parental Engagement
Traditional Model of Parental Engagement
In the past, parent involvement in the schooling process was confined to that
of participation in parent-teacher organizations and the occasional school site

58
fundraiser (Warren et al., 2009; Barton, 2004). However, within the urban education
reform effort, parent participation needs to take “a clear departure from school-as-
usual formulas in which parents are unwelcome, or viewed as an unwieldy
community element” (Carter, 2007, p.47). In fact, “Most urban schools fail to
engage families broadly and deeply around the education of their children. Precious
few can claim large numbers of parent participating as powerful actors in the school
community” (Warren et al., 2009, p. 2210). According to Barton (2004), parents’
roles and involvement in schools have been understood in terms of “what they do”
and how their behaviors fit (or do not fit) with the goals of the school. However, this
view aligns with the deficit model (Gutman & McLoyd, 2000) and positions parents
as non-empowered subjects that can be manipulated. It fails to take into account the
individual networks and resources that frame participation in scope, focus, and
purpose, nor the unique experiences that frame the parents’ beliefs and forge parental
capital (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Lareau & Horvat, 1999).
Warren et al. (2009) asserts that many of the neighborhoods with families
who are disconnected from public schools often contain strong community-based
organizations with deep roots in the lives of families. Through their engagement
with community-based organizations, parents are able to gain entry into the
education reform process and are attached to a network of activity and influence
(Barton, 2004; Warren et al., 2009; Carter, 2007; Johnson et al., 2007). In order to
fully understand the history of parental engagement in the school, it is helpful to
evaluate it from a variety of theoretical frameworks.

59
Cultural-Historical Activity Theory
Cultural-historical activity theory provides a set of concepts that is useful in
comprehending the multiple interactions and changing contexts in the schools and
classrooms that frame parental engagement (Cole & Engerstrom, 1993; Engerstrom,
2001). This framework centralizes the school within the social context, and
illuminates how social organizations, such as schools and community-based
organizations, are embedded with cultural values. According to Barton et al. (2004),
these values manifest themselves in recurring social practices. The research states
that it is often assumed that parent-school official interactions move parents, teachers
and children towards a shared optimal outcome. However, activity theory
demonstrates that movement toward a shared ideal is enabled and constrained by the
normalized social practices that exist within an organization (Engelstrom, 2001).
Engestrom (2001) expands on this notion in asserting that cultural-historical
activity theory illuminates how social practices and their mediating environments
yield to the unequal distribution of power through differentiated divisions of labor.
Within the school setting, individuals are not positioned equally within networks of
activity (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Barton et al., 2004; Silva & Edwards,
2004). As a result, they do not derive the same kinds of benefits from their
mediating environments (Swartz, 1997). This concept connects directly to the
tenants of successful, co-constructed organizational partnership in which each
individual member has a specific role in the partnership and is interdependent on the
other members and their tasks. It also illuminates a discussion regarding the

60
different forms of capital that are valued within the school setting and how parents
may or may not have direct access to that capital. Not only do parents not have
access to the capital of universities and schools, but the capital that parents do have
is often rejected.
Access to Capital
As members of several overlapping networks, parents have access to a certain
amount of capital. However, it is important to note that parents are a part of
stratified social networks, which places them in competition with other agents for
resources (Bourdieu, 1990). These resources, also known as capitals, can take
various forms, such as economic, social, and cultural capital. Although different in
definition, each of these forms plays a critical role in establishing the culture of a
partnership and can affect parental engagement.
Economic Capital
Economic capital is the most concrete of the four different forms, as it
represents “precise monetary value, income and assets that can be exchanged in the
economic field” (Martinez-Cosio, 2010, p. 286). Schools that are housed in low-
income areas serve a population of people whose access to economic capital may be
limited. According to Bradshaw (2005), limited economic capital can contribute to
the development of a certain culture that can affect individuals and their ability to
perceive themselves as viable, functioning members of society.
Parents’ limited economic capital can also alter the school’s perceptions of
parents; the school can view parents from a deficit perspective in connection to their

61
economic capital. Porfeli et al. (2009) illustrate that schools make the generalization
that communities and families with limited economic capital have little social capital
to offer the school. This assumption is developed through a faulty cause and effect
conceptualization in that communities and families with limited economic capital
exist in poverty solely because of their limited skills and education attainment. In
actuality, there are several factors that contribute to family economic capital, or lack
thereof. Ultimately, families and communities possess forms of capital that can be
beneficial to student academic achievement and positive social development.
Social Capital
Parents dwelling within urban communities may have limited access to
economic capital; however, they are rich in their own forms of cultural and social
capital, whose currency is limited to their immediate surroundings. Social capital
plays a critical role in the discussion regarding parental engagement. Bourdieu
(1986) clarifies the limitations of poor parents’ social capital when he defines it as
“the aggregate of actual or potential resources linked to possession of a durable
network of essentially institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and
recognition” (p. 248). Dika and Singh (2009) elaborate on Bourdeiu’s concept by
stating that it is grounded in theories of social reproduction and symbolic power.
Bourdieu (1986) proposes that the volume of social capital possessed by a person
depends on the size of the network. According to Lin (1999), Bourdieu views social
capital as the investment of the dominant group to maintain and reproduce group
solidarity and preserve the group’s dominant position. If the partnership is to be

62
successful, no group can possess the dominant position (Kezar, 2007). Instead, all
groups need to be equally dominant in the power they possess and share with one
another. As a result, social capital will operate in a circuit, in which all members are
sharing their own individual capital with other members of the group and building a
collaborative network among one another (Leiderman et al., 2002).
Coleman (1988) offers a different concept regarding social capital, stating
that it exists in three forms: (a) level of trust, as evidenced by obligations and
expectations; (b) information channels; and (c) norms and sanctions that promote the
common good over self-interest. According to his research, social capital is inherent
in the structure of relations between and among actors; thus, social networks are
incredibly important. Specifically, Coleman illuminates the role of parental
involvement in developing social capital within the school site. Traditionally,
African American and Latino students and their parents have not been a part of the
dominant group, thus their social capital is limited. This view is supported by
Warren et al. (2009) who asserts that working-class parents often lack the education
and status to “stand up” to school authorities as equals. Within the realm of a co-
constructed, community-school-university partnership in which hierarchal roles have
been diffused, traditionally disengaged parents may have opportunity to build upon
their social capital network while simultaneously adopting a new role in the
development of their child’s education.

63
Cultural Capital
Embedded within the concept of social capital is that of cultural capital,
which can exist in three different states: embodied (dispositions of mind and body),
objectified (cultural goods) and institutionalized (educational qualifications)
(Bourdieu, 1990). Research notes that certain forms of cultural capital are valued
more than others, and each person brings a different form to the field of interaction
(Bourdieu, 1990; Porfeli et al., 2009; Sanders, 2009). However, within the culture of
the school environment, the most valued form of cultural capital is its
institutionalized form, specifically with regards to educational attainment.
However, Fine (1994) elucidates that urban parents find themselves
navigating through “unequal terrain of power relations between [themselves and]
urban educational institutions” (Carter, 2007, p. 46) because schools fail to recognize
the value of cultural capital. According to Mehan et al. (1996) and Knight et al.
(2004), parents’ cultural capital lead them to use different strategies to achieve goals,
especially those in connection with their child’s academic achievement. Yet, schools
need to create stronger links between themselves and families; “it is important to
recognize how families conceptualize schooling and education for their children”
(Knight et al., 2004, p.102). In order to establish this link, schools need to allow
parents to integrate themselves into school culture.
Framework for Parental Engagement
Although there is a wide range of research contributing to the positive effects
of parental engagement, it is important to illuminate the reasons why parents become

64
involved with their child’s school setting. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995,
1997) offer a theoretical model of the parental involvement process (see Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2: Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s Parental Involvement Model

This model of parental involvement seeks to enhance the instances of
parental involvement yet fails to analyze in depth parental motivations and explain
the process of involvement, particularly for poor parents and parents of African
American and Latino children. It recognizes the sociological factors that influence
family-school interactions (Lareau & Hovart, 1999), yet it only provides the
perspective of parents who are already have “freeway access” (Stanton-Salazar,
2001) schooling. Thus, Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) modified the first two

65
levels of the model to further enhance understanding of parental involvement in
ways that the partnership can help facilitate (see Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3: Revised Parental Involvement Model (First Two Levels)

According to Walker et al. (2005), there are several noticeable differences
between the first and second levels of the original and revised models. A key
difference between the models is that the revised model is a more dynamic
representation of the factors that contribute to parental involvement. Ideas originally
placed across levels 1 and 2 are now placed under three overarching constructs at
level 1: parental motivational beliefs, parental perceptions of invitations for

66
involvement and parents’ perceived life context. This model has many elements of a
new cultural model for changing parents’ motivational beliefs, their perceptions of
invitations for involvement with school setting and their perceived life context, as
this model is consistent with the model of co-construction within a community-
school-university partnership.
Parents’ Motivational Beliefs
Dissecting parents’ motivational beliefs as a separate construct is necessary
to analyzing motivation for involvement. According to psychological and
sociological research, individuals’ understanding of their roles is essential to the
productive functioning of the groups to which they belong (Biddle, 1979; Hoover-
Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). These roles include beliefs about one’s own and other
group members’ responsibilities, rights, and obligations; they also include social
expectations and scripts that guide group members’ behavior in various situations
(Biddle, 1979; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Although the familial structure provides the
space for parents to construct their role as parental figures, the school’s interactions
with the parent can expand their role to be an educational leader (Coleman, 1988).
Also, the university can help the school and parents reconceptualize the relationship
of parents to schools by turning the mounds of research on parent efficacy into
action.
Embedded within parents’ motivational beliefs is the construct of parental
self-efficacy. According to Bandura (1986), self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one’s
capability to act in ways that will produce desired outcomes; this has a significant

67
impact on people’s goal selection, effort, persistence and ultimate goal
accomplishment. Walker et al. (2005) claims:
Applied to parental involvement in children’s education, self efficacy theory
suggests that parents’ involvement is influenced, in part, by the outcomes
they expect will follow their actions and their appraisal of their personal
capabilities […] Further, positive self-efficacy also enables more active
conceptualization of one’s parental contributions to the child’s learning (e.g.,
“The school and I have something to contribute to my child’s success”) (p.
93).

Thus, parents can be apprehensive about their performance within a school
setting and whether or not they will be effective.
Parents’ Perceptions of Invitations for Involvement
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (1997) model demonstrates that parents’
perceptions of invitations for involvement derive from three different sources: the
school, the child and the teacher. General school invitations include broad school
activities that convey to the parent that their participation is welcome and useful in
supporting student success (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Walker et al., 2005).
General invitations for parental involvement can also come from the child in
the form of child attributes (e.g. age, child behavior, difficulty or success with
schoolwork, or the child’s valuing parental help; Dauber & Epstein, 1993). Thus,
general child invitations are likely to influence parents’ decisions to be involved,
because they convey a parent need for active involvement (Gronlick et al., 1997;
Gronlick & Slowiaczek, 1994).
Although a rich body of research demonstrates that children’s general
attributes and actions create a context for parent-child interactions (Grolnick et al.,

68
1997), there is a small body of research connecting teacher-parent interactions as a
basis for parental involvement with the school. Epstein (1986, 1991), Epstein and
Van Voorhis (2001) and Hoover-Dempsey et al. (1995) highlight the power of
specific teacher invitations as a motivator for parental involvement. As the
partnership models the process of dialogic relationships to co-construct models of
schooling, they can help parents reconceptualize their invitations for involvement. It
can also help teachers reframe their invitations for parental involvement. Examples
of such invitations include encouraging parent visits to the classroom, which makes
the classroom (and school environment) a place where parents feel welcome.
Each of the aforementioned “invitation constructs” plays a significant role in
developing parent perceptions of invitations for involvement with the school.
However, parents’ perceptions of their own lives are also an essential element
influencing participation.
Parents’ Perceived Life Context
Gettinger & Ocean (1998) claim that parents report lack of time and energy
(e.g. inflexible work schedules) as barriers to their involvement. Other research,
however, has suggested that employment status is not significantly related to
involvement (Smock & McCormick, 1995). According to Balli et al. (1998), there is
mixed evidence about the role of time and energy in parents’ involvement,
depending on the population. Thus, families that experience barriers to involvement
may have variable levels of resources that they can utilize to overcome those
barriers.

69
Parents’ skills and knowledge also affect the level and type of involvement in
their child’s education (Leitch & Tangri, 1998). Lareau (1989) asserts that parents
with little education not only feel less able than their more educated counterparts to
assist their children with homework, they also feel less able to communicate with
teachers and therefore do not belong to the school setting. School culture often
reinforces this feeling of isolation (Coleman, 1988). However, Dauber and Epstein
(1993) present evidence that parents can be productively involved in their child’s
schooling process regardless of educational background when the school culture
actively helps them become involved. The partnership can alter this culture by
modeling the co-constructive process and facilitating dialogic relationships with all
stakeholders. Through this process, both community-based organizations and
universities can play a major role.
Conclusion
The community-school-university partnership has incredible potential to
transform urban education. While each entity within the partnership possesses its
own unique culture (Schein, 1990), it is necessary to embrace those various cultures
in order to develop a new cultural model for urban schooling. One particular cultural
model that needs careful consideration is the role of the parent. Institutionalized
organizational settings, like educational partnerships, can either enhance parental
engagement through a new cultural model or perpetuate the existing cultural model
of isolation. The tighter these spheres are in supporting one another and creating a
context in which schooling is a part of the community, all of these can coalesce in a

70
way so that schools are a part of a community. In order to shift this model, it is
necessary for parents to take into consideration the various constructs by which
parents become involved in their child’s schooling process. The partnership also
needs to consider the implications of limited parental engagement and the threat it
has to achieving the organization’s overarching goals.

71
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
As previously discussed in Chapter One, co-constructed relationships
between communities, schools and universities have the potential to reallocate power
as well as change the cultural model for stakeholders involved in the educational
partnership. While research illuminates the capability of partnerships to offer power
to traditionally disenfranchised stakeholders (Schein, 1990; Leiderman, 2002; Kezar,
2007), little is known about how the community-school-university partnership can
enhance parental engagement and efficacy in their child’s schooling process. This
study can contribute to a gap in the research by identifying the strategies used to
overcome barriers to sustaining co-constructed partnerships and its ability to enhance
parental engagement and efficacy. 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 is aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. What evidence of ongoing processes, including co-construction, does a
community-school-university partnership demonstrate as it continues to work
toward school improvement beyond its first year of operation?

72
a. What are the barriers that persist in co-construction and sustaining a
community-school-university partnership created to improve an urban
school?
b. What effective strategies are in place that demonstrates the ability to
overcome the persistent barriers in community-school-university
partnerships seeking to improve student achievement in an urban
school?
2. How can the community-school-university partnership influence the
development of a new cultural model of parental engagement with schools,
leading to parental efficacy in the interest of their students?
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. The unit of analysis was a community-school-
university partnership.
The use of qualitative methods allowed for critical issues to be examined,
paying close attention to detail, context and quality of implementation (Patton,
1987). A case study was an effective approach to evaluating the community-
school-university partnership and its potential impact on an urban high school,
based on criteria identified in the literature. Creswell (2007) elucidates that case
study research involves the study of an issue within a bounded system during a

73
specific period of time while utilizing multiple sources of information to develop
conclusions.
Throughout the data collection process, the researchers conducted
interviews and observations, as well as reviewed artifacts or documents to
provide a rich body of data. In order to strengthen the validity of the findings,
the researchers used the triangulation method (Patton, 2002). Within this
process, the researchers examined the consistencies and inconsistencies among
the data, as well as the ability of one source to supplement the information
gathered from another (Patton, 2002; Creswell, 2007). The overarching purpose
of the chosen methods for collecting data was to determine the extent to which
stakeholders within the partnership were able to convey knowledge of the
partnership and make known their participation in the partnership. The
researchers were also interested in identifying the various stakeholders’
perceptions of the partnership and its efforts towards parental engagement during
its second year of operation through the lens of various stakeholders.
It is important to note, however, that constraints of time and resources,
investigator bias, generalizability, validity and reliability can limit a case study
(Patton, 2002). In order to minimize the effects of these limitations, triangulation
methods were implemented through the use of multiple sources of data (Patton,
2002; Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 1998).

74
Sampling and Population
Extreme Case Study
A specific case study has been selected because of its extreme or unique
attributes. This particular partnership was chosen because of its unique structure and
potential for transforming schools. It also provided an opportunity to observe a
partnership between two community-based organizations with a history of
involvement in the transformation of urban schools, a high school that elected to
enter an innovation unit geared towards school transformation of a large urban
school district, and a top tier private university with a commitment to urban
education transformation of a large urban school district. The members involved
were Prep High School, Westside University, Grizzly United and City Connections,
all of which formed the partnership called the United Education Action Team. The
partnership is currently in its third year of operation, and the study will examine the
extent to which the university and community-based organizations were working as
partners beyond the first year of the partnership’s operation within the local school
site to promote academic achievement. This study is a follow-up to the research
conducted by a thematic dissertation group of students in the University of Southern
California’s Rossier School of Education regarding the partnership’s progress in one
year toward co-constructing a partnership capable of transforming an urban high
school. This study examined indicators of the partnership’s progress toward creating
a co-constructed model of partnership capable of transforming the same high school.
The study also focused on the degree to which the partnership facilitates parental

75
engagement leading to the development of a new cultural model for parental
engagement in the interest of students.
Purposeful Sampling
Purposeful sampling was used in this study to ensure that the researchers will
have access to an information-rich case, in which they will be able to gain data
critical to the purpose of the research (Patton, 2002). According to Merriam (1998),
“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). Within this case study, there were examples of
extreme or deviant case sampling, which can be a strategy used to ensure an
information-rich case study (Patton, 2002). The process of selecting participants
began with a stratified sampling to ensure that the key stakeholders are equally
represented in the data. The key participants in the study included the school site
principal and assistant principals, teachers, parents and community organization
leaders, and community residents. Snowball or network sampling also occurred
within the study which is a strategy that involves asking each participant, or group of
participants, to refer the researchers to other potential participants (Merriam, 1998).
There were also instances of emergent sampling in which researchers followed new
leads on information gained through fieldwork (Patton, 2002).
School Background
In order to gain a rich understanding of the scope of the task toward
transforming the school and its academic performance, it is necessary to evaluate its

76
data prior to the partnership’s inception and implementation. The tables that follow
describe the school’s demographic and achievement characteristics.
Table 3.1: School Demographic Data, 2009-10
Ethnic/Racial
Subgroup
Enrollment Percent of Total
(School)
Percent of Total
(District)
American Indian 8 0.4% 0.3%
Asian 3 0.1% 3.7%
Pacific Islander 5 0.2% 0.3%
Filipino 5 0.2% 2.2%
Hispanic 674 33.1% 73.2%
African American 1,326 65.0% 10.7%
White 4 0.2% 8.8%
Multiple/No Response 14 0.7% 0.8%
Total 2,039 100% 100%
Source: California Department of Education, 2010
Table 3.2: School Drop Out Rates (2005-06 to 2007-08)
Drop Out Rates 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
School District School District School District One-Year Drop
Out Rate (Grades
9-12) 6.5% 5.0% 11.6% 7.8% 10.1% 6.7%
Schools District School District School District Four-Year Drop
Out Rate (Grades
9-12) 29.2% 25.3% 48.6% 31.7% 41.4% 26.4%
School District School District School District Graduation Rate
56.9% 63.9% 41.0% 67.1% 51.8% 72.4%
Source: California Department of Education, 2010

77
Table 3.3: School Achievement Data-API Scores (2005-06 to 2008-09)
2005-2006
API Score
2006-2007
API Score
2007-2008
API Score
2008-2009
API Score
School 506 525 N/A 545
District 655 662 681 693
Source: California Department of Education, 2010
Through these various sampling methods, the research group was able to gain
a rich body of data that can be used for analysis to respond to the research questions.
Instrumentation
Data collection procedures were interviews, artifacts and observations. Data
were collected beginning in November 2010 and completed in early January 2011.
In order to address issues of validity and reliability, triangulation methods in the
form of data triangulation, investigator triangulation and methodological
triangulation were implemented. According to Patton (2002), “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). These multiple methods include observations,
interviews and the examination of artifacts.
A research cohort consisting of six doctoral candidates, chaired by Sylvia G.
Rousseau, Ed.D convened throughout the fall of 2009 and continued to meet in the
spring and summer of 2010 to develop and refine research questions, theoretical
frameworks for each research questions, a survey instrument, interview and
observation protocols, and methods for analyzing artifacts. Table 3.4 below shows

78
the relationship between the research questions and the instruments that were used to
collect the data.
Table 3.4: Triangulation Using a Variety of Data Collection Instruments

Research Question Artifacts Observations Interviews
1. What evidence of ongoing
processes, including co-
construction, does a community-
school-university partnership
demonstrate as it continues to
work toward school improvement
after its first year of operation?
X X X
1a. What are the barriers that
persist in co-constructing and
sustaining a community-school-
university partnership created to
improve an urban school?
X X X
1b. What are effective strategies in
place that demonstrate the ability
to overcome the persistent barriers
in community-school-university
partnerships seeking to improve
student achievement in an urban
school?
X X X
2. How can the community-
school-university partnership
influence the development of a
new cultural model leading to
parental engagement in the interest
of students?
X X X

79
Research Question Frameworks
Framework for the First Research Question
The first research question asks, “What evidence of ongoing processes,
including co-construction, does a community-school-university partnership
demonstrate as it continues to work toward school transformation beyond its first
year of operation?” The theoretical framework to guide this question is found in a
variety of works. To gain an understanding of the co-construction and dialogical
relationships of the partnership, there is a large emphasis on the work of Freire
(1970). Based on the literature, the principles of co-constructions are essential to a
lasting partnership (Kezar, 2007; Epstein, 1996). There is an emphasis on shared
decision making and the elimination of hierarchal structures within the partnership
model within Freire’s framework. Although there was emerging evidence of these
processes from the previous year’s study, it is necessary to use Freire’s framework to
see if those principles are being sustained. Embedded within Freire’s framework is
Vygotsy’s (1970) principle of sociocultural theory of learning. In this theory, he
purports that learning is socially and culturally situated in the context of everyday
living and work; the generation of knowledge and learning is the result of a dynamic
interaction between individuals, other people, and cultural artifacts, all of which
contribute to social development. Through artifacts (documents), interviews and
observations, the researcher intends to discover the extent to which the process
continued to demonstrate dialogic and reflective co-constructive processes that built
upon the progress made in the previous year. Due to the extensive nature of the

80
process, it warranted the development of two sub-questions, each couched in their
own framework.
Framework for Part a of Question One
The subset of the first research questions asks, “What are the barriers that
persist in co-constructing and sustaining a community-school-university partnership
created to improve an urban school?” Freire’s (1970) work regarding co-
construction played an integral role in developing an understanding of the elements
of the co-constructive relationship. Schein (1990) and Kezar (2007) also
demonstrate how organizational culture can present barriers to co-construction.
Also, it illuminated the barriers to co-construction and how individual groups can
dismantle the co-constructive process.
Framework for Part b of Question One
The second subset of the first research question asks, “What effective
strategies are in place that demonstrate the ability to overcome the persistent barriers
in community-school-university partnerships seeking to improve student
achievement in an urban school?” Freire’s (1970) work was referenced to illuminate
the important role of dialogical relationships in building trust, allowing for
vulnerability and developing a shared vision. Also, Schein’s (1990) framework
regarding the three levels of organizational culture offers a framework in which the
interactions between the partnership stakeholders can be evaluated to ensure that
each culture is being valued and respected within the co-constructive process.

81
Framework for Question Two
The second research question asks, “How can the community-school-
university partnership influence the development of a new cultural model leading to
parental engagement in the interest of school transformation?” The framework for a
new cultural model of parental engagement is a hybrid of two theoretical
frameworks. Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2002) framework for cultural models
within a school setting suggests that parents’ cultural and social capital need to be
taken into consideration in a school’s reculturization process. This assertion is
further supported by the work of Fine (1994) who elucidates that urban parents find
themselves navigating through “an unequal terrain of power relations between
[themselves and] urban educational institutions” (Carter, 2007, p. 46) because
schools fail to recognize the value of their cultural capital. Thus, the Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2002) framework indicates that a new cultural model of parental
engagement would require institutions to value parents’ cultural and social capital.
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997)’s model for parental involvement also
contains key components that are associated with a new cultural model of parental
engagement. According to their framework, organizations also need to take into
consideration: (1) parents’ motivational beliefs; (2) parents’ perceptions of
invitations for involvement from others; and (3) parents’ perceived life context.
Table 3.5 further deconstructs each of these components and its relationship to the
school. Table 3.6 presents the theoretical framework for each of the research
questions.

82
Table 3.5: Deconstruction of Parent Involvement Components
Parent
Engagement
Component
Relationship to School
Parents’
Motivational
Beliefs
Role Construction: Parents need to feel as though they have
a specific role in the organization in which they are fulfilling
a purpose.
Parent Self-Efficacy: Parents need to negotiate their feeling
on whether or not they will be meaningful contributors to an
organization.
Parents’
Perceptions of
Invitations for
Involvement
Perception of School Invitations: Parents will interpret the
extent to which they feel the school has invited them to be
involved in the work of the school.
Perception of Child’s Invitations: Parents will interpret the
extent to which they feel their child has invited them to be
involved in the work of the school.
Perception of Specific Teacher Invitations: Parents will
interpret the extent to which they feel specific teachers have
invited them to be involved in the work of the school.
Parents’
Perceived Life
Context
Self-Perceived Time and Energy: Parents will interpret the
extent to which they feel they have the capacity to devote
time to participating in the work of the school.
Self Perceived Skills and Knowledge: Parents will interpret
the extent to which they feel they have the skills and
intellectual capital necessary to be an effective participant in
the work of the school.

Table 3.6: Theoretical Frameworks for Research Questions
Research Question Theoretical Framework
1. What evidence of ongoing
processes, including co-construction,
does a community-school-university
partnership demonstrate as it continues
to work toward school improvement
beyond its first year of operation?
o Freire (1970)—Dialogical
Relationships
o Vygotsky (1970)—Sociocultural
Learning Theory
o Brofenbrenner (1990)—
Ecological Models
o Kezar (2007)—Sustaining
Educational Partnerships
o Leiderman et al. (2002)—
Sustaining Educational
Partnership

83
Table 3.6, Continued
Research Question Theoretical Framework
1a. What are the barriers that persist in
co-constructing and sustaining a
community-school-university
partnership created to improve an
urban school?
o Freire (1970)—Dialogical
Relationships
o Schein (1990)—Three Levels of
Organizational Culture

1b. What are effective strategies are in
place that demonstrates the ability to
overcome the persistent barriers in
community-school-university
partnerships seeking to improve
student achievement in an urban
school?
o Freire (1970)—Dialogical
Relationship
o Schein (1990)—Three Levels of
Organizational Culture
2. How can the community-school-
university partnership influence the
development of a new cultural
model leading to parental
engagement in the interest of
students?

o Gallimore and Goldenberg
(2002)—School Cultural Models
o Engestrom (2001)—Historical
Activity Theory
o Bourdieu (1990) and Coleman
(1988)—Social Capital and
Networks of Interaction
o Brofenbrenner (1992)—
Ecological Model
o Epstein (1997)—Overlapping
Spheres of Influence

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

84
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 Protocol
Instrument 6: University Stakeholder Interview Protocol
Instrument 7: Community Members-at-Large Interview Protocol
Instrument 8: Meeting Observation Protocol
Instrument 9: Classroom Observation Protocol
Instrument 10: Document Analysis Protocol
Table 3.7 outlines the types of instruments used for data collection and the
number of interviews and observations, where appropriate.
Table 3.7: Data Collection Matrix
Interviews Observations Artifacts Background Data
Board Members (5) Board Meetings (2) UEAT Meeting
Minutes
School Accountability
Report Card (SARC)
School Administrators (3) Administrative Team
Meeting
UEAT Business
Plan
Prep High School Data
Sheet
Teachers/Classified Staff (9) School Site Council
Meeting
Memorandum of
Understanding
Prep High School
API/AYP Reports
Parents (4) Faculty Meeting Strategic Plan
Community-Based Organization
Members (4)
Professional
Developments (2)

School Site
Council Meeting
Minutes

University Partnership Participant
(5)
School Climate
Observation
UEAT Fact Sheet
Community Members-at-Large (3) Ford Foundation
Grant

85
Site Visits
The School District requires that all researchers with the intent of conducting
a study in one of its schools receive written authorization from the district before any
data are collected. The appropriate forms were submitted and approved before data
collection began. Upon receiving approval from the district, the administrator of the
high school and the directors of the CBOs were contacted to arrange the dates for site
visits. At that time, a copy of the proposed study was submitted to the appropriate
personnel in order to clearly communicate the goals and objectives of the study.
Upon receiving approval from the organizational leaders, site visits were scheduled
to take place over a 6-8 week time period between November 2010 and January
2011.
Document Review
Artifacts are highly visible indicators of culture that can include the physical
environment of the organization, its mission and vision, the methods used for
communication, and the behaviors of its members. Documents are also important
not only because of what can be learned directly from them but as “stimulus for
paths of inquiry” that can be gleaned through observation and interviews (Patton,
2002). Documents and artifacts were used to triangulate data (Patton, 2002). The
research team compared the public documents with the observations of the
interactions among the stakeholders. This study reviewed artifacts and documents
associated with the partnership, the partnership’s business plan, the Memorandum of
Understanding between the partnership and the school district, and the Facts Sheet

86
which outlines the contributions made by each network partner towards the
partnership. The research team also sought permission and access to key documents
from the administrative leads or designees of the partnering institutions. Similarly,
the research team used the findings from the first year of research as an artifact.
Prior research as well as records from all stakeholders allowed the current research
team to evaluate processes and how they developed prior to conducting new
research. While analyzing documents and artifacts, the research team was also
cognizant of the following challenges: gaining access to documents, understanding
how and why the documents were produced, determining the accuracy of the
documents, and linking documents with other sources, including interviews and
observations (Miller, 1997).
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. The research team conducted observations
in a variety of settings to gain insight into the cultures of the specific partners and
any evidence of the emerging joint culture as the stakeholders continue their
interactions with one another in the partnership. Cumulatively, the research group
conducted a total of ten observations, however only used five of those observations
for data analysis purposes. These observations included staff development meetings,
School Site Council meetings, partnership board meetings, community visits and ad
hoc meetings. Selection of the actual events were decided by the research team and

87
planned on a master calendar. The research team members responsible for each
observation obtained the meeting agendas and used field notes as a means for
recording observations. These dated accounts contained key information to describe
the event, i.e., attendees, physical setting, activities, and what people said to
demonstrate the “emic perspective” (Fetterman, 1989:30 as cited in Patterson, 2002).
Emic perspective refers to the language and categories used by the people in the
setting being studied, as opposed to the etic approach, which refers to categories
created by researchers based upon their analysis of cultural distinctions (Patton,
2002). The research team was aware of some of the limitations of observations
which include: possibility of the observer affecting the situation being observed;
distortion of data by the selective perception of the researcher; atypical behavior by
participants who know that they are being observed; focus on only external
behaviors; and the limited sample of the activities being observed (Patton, 2002).
Interviews
“The purpose of interviews is to allow [the researchers] to enter into the other
person’s perspective” (Patton, 2002, p. 341). Interviewing is based on the
assumption that the perspective of others is meaningful. The interviews the
researchers conducted enabled them to learn about events, feelings, thoughts, and
intentions that we are not able to observe. The interview questions were designed to
ascertain the interviewee’s attitudes, knowledge of, and experiences with the
partnership. The information contributed a rich body of data about the formation of
the partnership and the resulting attributes within the second and third year of

88
formation. The interview guides for all the different stakeholders contained
essentially the same questions to allow an analysis for consistencies and
inconsistencies in the responses among the various stakeholders. Semi-structured
interviews contained open-ended questions that are flexibly worded to elicit more
varied responses (Merriam, 1998). The format of the semi-structured interview
allowed for flexibility in the way questions are asked. The research group
predetermined interview questions. However, flexibility was given depending on
whether the interviewer felt more than one question had been answered in the
interviewee’s responses. The interviewer had some discretion in adding questions
for clarification or eliminating questions that had already been answered (Patton,
2002).
Careful attention was given to the structure and diction of each question 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 within one; leading questions that may have revealed the researcher’s
bias; or yes-or-no questions that elicited no significant information (Merriam, 1998).
The interview questions also included several probes aimed to help 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. The research group tested the instruments
to ensure interrater reliability.

89
Interviews were conducted with representatives of each stakeholder group
within the partnership. Overall, the research group interviewed a total of twenty-
seven stakeholders. Although this number may seem unwieldy, the advantage of a
thematic dissertation group is that all members shared the responsibility of data
collection. We interviewed three board members from the United Education Action
Team, included the past and current Executive Director as well as current board
members. From Prep High, we interviewed six faculty members, three school
administrators, three counselors, and four parents. Also, within the community at
large, not including the specific organizations within the partnerships, the team
interviewed at least five additional stakeholders, such as community members and
school alumna. In addition, the research team interviewed five Westside University
participants.
Communication and Structure
The research team sought potential interviewees by announcing the purpose
of the study and desire to conduct interviews at specified meetings attended by
potential interviewees, such as Board meetings, faculty meetings, and parent
organization meetings. In order to ensure effective communication, the research
team also inserted flyers in staff members’ mailboxes to inform them of the research
plan and interview schedule. Initial contact with community members was via
telephone or email; their information was shared with the group through snowball
referencing from other interviews. The interviews were conducted in-person and
were digitally recorded with the permission of the interviewees. The researchers also

90
took notes during the interviews to keep track of the responses, identify key phrases
critical for further analysis and document mannerism and gestures that could not be
obtained via audio recording. The notes aided the research team to conceptualize the
data in the transcribed recordings. Each member of the research team was assigned
to collect specific data and worked in dyads to aid in reliability. The interviews were
planned to last 45 to 60 minutes, depending on the depth of the interviewee’s
responses to each question.
Data Analysis
Triangulation
The three primary sources of data regarding the formation of the partnership
enabled the research team to engage in data triangulation (Patton, 2002, p.247) to
increase validity of the findings. Designated researchers contributed their data to the
coded boxes the team co-constructed. The collective data were available to everyone
on the research team. The collection of coded data also enabled the research team to
access a rich pool of data in which one set of data complements or changes one
another.
Having multiple members of a research team allowed the researchers to
engage in investigator triangulation in the study as well. According to Patton
(2002), this process further ensures a thick set of data and opportunities for
researchers to discuss the data they have collected and limits the opportunities for
investigator bias. At least two people participated in collecting specific data, and the

91
research team held each other accountable for accuracy and perceptions embedded in
the data.
Analyzing Interviews
Each researcher transcribed some of their individual recorded interviews to
immerse themselves in the data. The researchers analyzed the interviews through the
lenses of their research questions to determine the feelings, attitudes, and perceptions
on the following:
o the process by which the partnership has sustained its co-constructive
element (i.e. continued dialogical relationship);
o barriers deterring from the co-construction process and strategies to
effectively circumvent those barriers; and
o identifiable attributes of a new cultural model emerging for parental
engagement and increased parental efficacy as stakeholders in the
partnership

The research team compared the levels of involvement and interest among
the various stakeholders and stakeholder groups during the second year of the
partnership. The group was interested in learning to what extent the various
stakeholders felt they had been involved in the co-construction process and a
dialogical relationship with the other stakeholders. The team used this data to
determine whether the co-constructive process and dialogic relationship had
advanced, remained the same or regressed in the second year of the study. The data
collected were compared against the Year One codebook and findings. The
researchers also aimed to analyze and review data that reveal whether barriers
identified in Year One had been eliminated, mitigated or persist. Finally, the
research team analyzed the interview data for responses that identify, in the

92
interviewee’s words, whether there were new attributes, the ones from Year One
remained or whether there were no new identifiable attributes for a new cultural
model of parental engagement and increased parental efficacy as stakeholders. To
facilitate these comparisons, the interview questions were consistent across all
stakeholder interview instruments. To ensure that the Year Two research team had a
basis for comparisons between Year One and Year Two of the partnership, the Year
Two team studied the definitions and descriptions used by the Year One research
group to ensure that they were coding their findings in the same manner as the Year
One research team. For instance, as the Year One team had identified language
consistent with reconstruction, the Year Two team entered data regarding co-
construction based on key words that matched those of the Year One team.
Analyzing Observations
The research team used the previously codified data from the codebook to
analyze the observation data as well. The researchers compared data collected
through the field notes from the observations with the data collected in the interviews
as well as the documents collected. The observations of meetings and classrooms
were analyzed for the contributions they made to answer the research questions. The
research team also looked for behaviors, actions, scenarios, and quotes that indicated
the on-going process of co-construction and sustainment of dialogical relationships.
Within the meeting setting, the research team looked for indicators of co-
construction as well as the presence of parents and the extent to which they were
integrated into the partnership as a stakeholder. Lastly, the research team carefully

93
observed the behaviors of all members of the partnership to see how it may have
impacted parental efficacy with regards to engagement in the partnership. The
research team analyzed the field notes in comparison to the interviews for
consistencies and inconsistencies as responses to the research questions.
Analyzing Documents and Artifacts
According to Miller (cited in Patton, 2001, p. 91), “demystifying institutional
texts is one way of demystifying institutional authority.” The research team
identified parallels between attitudes, actions and behaviors noted in observations
and interviews and compared them to the formal documentation of these events. The
researchers noted evidence in the artifacts of the cultures and actions of each
organization during the partnership’s second year of operation. The team also noted
the content of the partnership’s agenda and meeting minutes, specifically as it applies
to demonstrating evidence of co-construction and parental engagement efforts. The
objective was to identify the degree to which the partnership has developed a new
cultural model for parental engagement, enhanced parental efficacy and sustained the
co-constructive process in its second year of operation. Artifacts were also analyzed
for consistencies and inconsistencies among values, basic assumptions within the
partnership.
Codebook
Based on the data collected from the previous year, the research team was
able to gain access to a codebook that gave all members access to the entire pool of
data. Considering the fact that this study is an expansion on the previously

94
conducted research, there were additions to the codebook, mostly to increase
specificity of the codes, based on the discretion of the research team and its
application to the research questions. Each researcher on the follow-up study added
one new research question that was not a focus in the previous study. In order to
ensure reliability in the continuation of the study on the partnership, the researchers
did not delete any of the original codes. The research team held a joint session with
members from the Year One study team to ensure that they were using the same
definitions for categories of data used by the Year One team. In that session the team
conducted trial runs of inputting data in specific categories to ensure accurate data
entry as well as ensure reliability between researchers on the Year Two research
team. The codes that were utilized by both Year One and Two studies are included
in Table 3.8.
Table 3.8: Codes Used in Year One and Year Two Studies
Processes (P) Barriers (B) Strategies (S) Attributes (A)
PCC:
Co-Construction
BHrch: Hierarchy SCBP: Critical
Bridge Person
ANCM: New
Cultural Model
PD: Dialogue BHst: History SSD: Space for
Dialogue
ASK: Shared
Knowledge
PMSL:
Mutual/Shared
Learning
BLS: Logics-
Scarcity
SSR: Systems of
Representation
ACR: Collaborative
Relationships
BLM: Logics- Merit SH: History ADL: Distributed
Leadership
BLD: Logics- Deficit AT: Trust
BASSC: Absence of
Systems and
Structures for
Communication

BLT: Lack of Trust

95
The purpose of codebook was to create a common database that was made
available to all members of the team. The codes that were created for capturing the
data included the data’s relationship to a combination of factors:
o the process by which the partnership has sustained its co-constructive
element (i.e. continued dialogical relationship);
o barriers deterring from the co-construction process and strategies to
effectively circumvent those barriers; and
o identifiable attributes of a new cultural model emerging for parental
engagement and increased parental efficacy as stakeholders in the
partnership

Analysis for Interviews, Observations and Artifacts
The research team will use the following rubrics to analyze the consistencies
and/or changes between Year One and Year Two data.
Table 3.9: Processes and Co-Construction and Dialogue
Advanced Remained the Same Regressed
Additional evidence of co-
construction beyond what
was found in Year One
study from a minimum of
three sources: a minimum
of three observations or
artifacts demonstrate new
or additional evidence.
Same evidences of co-
construction as Year
One from the majority
of interviewees (fewer
than three cite new
evidence); fewer than
three evidences seen in
the artifacts and
observations
Interviewees are citing
fewer evidences of co-
construction – fewer than
three evidences of same
evidence as Year One in
the interviews,
observations, and artifacts.

Table 3.10: Barriers to Co-Construction and Dialogical Relationships
Persist Mitigated Eliminated New
Same evidences
of the barriers
to co-
construction as
Year One study
A few of the evidences
of the barriers to co-
construction have been
lessened in degree from
Year One Study
All evidences of the
barriers to co-
construction from
Year One of the
study have been
eliminated
Evidences
suggest new
barriers to co-
construction in
addition to Year
One study

96

Table 3.11: Strategies to Co-Construction and Dialogical Relationships
Persisted Strengthened Eliminated New
Same evidences
of the strategies
to co-
construction as
Year One study
Some of the evidences
of the strategies to co-
construction increased
in degree from Year
One Study
All evidences of the
strategies to co-
construction from
Year One of the
study have been
eliminated
Evidences
suggest new
strategies to co-
construction in
addition to Year
One study

Table 3.12: Attributes of Partnership
New Attributes Maintained Attributes No Identifiable
Attributes
There are evidences of new
attributes of a partnership
as compared to Year One
study
The evidences of attributes
remain the same as those
identified in Year One
study
There are no evidences
of identifiable
attributes of the
partnership

Analyzing Interviews
Each researcher transcribed some of their individual recorded interviews to
immerse themselves in the data. The researchers analyzed the interviews through the
lenses of their research questions to determine the feelings, attitudes, and perceptions
on the following:
o the process by which the partnership has sustained its co-constructive
element (i.e. continued dialogical relationship);
o barriers deterring from the co-construction process and strategies to
effectively circumvent those barriers; and
o identifiable attributes of a new cultural model emerging for parental
engagement and increased parental efficacy as stakeholders in the
partnership

The research team compared the levels of involvement and interest among
the various stakeholders and stakeholder groups during the second year of the

97
partnership. The group was interested in learning to what extent the various
stakeholders felt they had been involved in the co-construction process and a
dialogical relationship with the other stakeholders. The team also used this data to
determine whether the co-constructive process and dialogic relationship had
advanced, remained the same or regressed in the second year of the study. The data
collected were compared against the Year One codebook. The researchers also
aimed to analyze and review data that revealed whether barriers identified in Year
One had been eliminated, mitigated or persist. Finally, the research team also
analyzed the interview data for responses that identify, in the interviewee’s words,
whether there were new attributes, the ones from Year One remain or whether there
were no new identifiable attributes for a new cultural model of parental engagement
and increased parental efficacy as stakeholders. To facilitate these comparisons, the
interview questions were consistent across all stakeholder interview instruments.
Analyzing Observations
The research team used the previously codified data from the codebook to
analyze the data. The researchers compared data collected through the field notes
from the observations with the data collected in the interviews as well as the
documents collected. The observations of meetings and classrooms were analyzed
for the contributions they made to answer the research questions. The research team
also looked for behaviors, actions, scenarios, and quotes that indicate the on-going
process of co-construction and sustainment of dialogical relationships. Within the
meeting setting, the research team looked for indicators of co-construction as well as

98
the presence of parents and the extent to which they are integrated into the
partnership as a stakeholder. Lastly, the research team carefully observed the
behaviors of all members of the partnership to see how it impacted parental efficacy
with regards to engagement in the partnership. The research team analyzed the field
notes in comparison to the interviews for consistencies and inconsistencies in
responses to the research questions.
Analyzing Documents and Artifacts
According to Miller (cited in Patton, 2001, p. 91), “demystifying institutional
texts is one way of demystifying institutional authority.” The research team
identified parallels between attitudes, actions and behaviors noted in observations
and interviews and compared them to the formal documentation of these events. The
researchers noted evidence in the artifacts of the cultures and actions of each
organization during the partnership’s second year of operation. The team also
identified the content of the partnership’s agenda and meeting minutes, specifically
as it applied to demonstrating evidence of co-construction and parental engagement
efforts. The objective was to note the degree to which the partnership had developed
a new cultural model for parental engagement, enhanced parental efficacy and
sustained the co-constructive process in its second year of operation. Artifacts were
also analyzed for consistencies and inconsistencies among values, basic assumptions
within the partnership.
Ethical Considerations

99
Due to the nature of the study, careful consideration was 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). The utmost efforts were made to
maintain high ethical standards throughout this study. The research team ensured that
data were collected and analyzed and that the findings disseminated were free from
bias. The rules and regulations as specified by the Westside University Institutional
Review Board (WUIRB) as well as the Institutional Review Board for the “District”
were strictly adhered to in order to ensure that participants are being treated in an
ethical manner.
Summary
This chapter has detailed the methodology that was utilized in this qualitative
study. This case study of a community-school-university partnership included a
variety of data collection methods and instruments to answer the research questions
identifying the on-going processes promoting co-construction. The data collection
methods and instruments also indentified evidence of the barriers that limit co-
construction and the strategies being implemented to overcome those barriers.
Lastly, the data collection methods and instruments were used to determine how the
partnership has influenced the development of a new cultural model for parental
engagement and an increase in parental efficacy as stakeholders in the partnership.

100
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
As mentioned in Chapter One, the purpose of this study is to identify and
analyze the extent to which a community-school-university partnership is able to
sustain elements of co-construction and other ongoing processes that are beneficial to
the partnership during its second year in operation and beyond. The study also aims
to identify the persistent barriers to co-constructions and effective strategies to
overcome those barriers within a community-school-university partnership.
Furthermore, the study seeks to determine the methods by which a community-
school-university partnership is able create a new cultural model leading to parental
engagement in the interest of school transformation. Chapter Two provided the
literature review to make a case for effective processes that can lead to
transformation of schools as well as processes for creating a new cultural model for
increasing parental engagement in the school transformation process. Chapter Three
provided the research methodology for this qualitative case study of a community-
school-university partnership and described the procedures for data collection and
analysis in relation to the posed research questions. This chapter will present the
findings from the study and analyze the findings through the theoretical framework
presented in Chapter Two.

101
Background Information: The Partnership
The United Education Action Team was established in 2008 as a
“collaboration between The District, the City Connections, the Grizzly United, and
the Westside University’s School of Education and other stakeholders” (MOU,
2008). It is important to note that the name of each organization has been changed in
an effort to maintain confidentiality. A list of pseudonyms can be referenced in
Appendix K. Each organization has its own independent mission statement but
joined this educational partnership in an effort to reshape the vision for teaching and
learning within Prep High School and its feeder schools. Figure 4.1 illustrates the
members involved in UEAT as well as each organization’s independent mission
statement.

102
Figure 4.1: UEAT Partners and Mission Statements

The various members of the aforementioned educational partnership entered
into a five-year memorandum of understanding in an effort to guide the
transformation process of the high school based on a set of core beliefs and vision.
The years of operation can be outlined according to the following dates (see Table
4.1).

To continue the vision and
accomplishments of a
former mayor in an effort
to bring together all
fragmented communities
of the city to work as one.
To enable African
American and
other minorities to
secure economic
self-reliance,
parity, power and
civil rights
through advocacy
activities and the
provision of
programs and
services in our
uniquely
diversified city
and region.
The development of human
beings and society as a whole
through the cultivation and
enrichment of the human mind
and spirit.
To develop
literate
students who
are
empowered
with the
knowledge
and skills
necessary to
become
successful
citizens of a
global
society.

103
Table 4.1: UEAT Timeline Chart
Year Number Dates
Year One September 2008-June 2009
Year Two July 2009-July 2010
Year Three August 2010 through data collection
ending in February 2011

The Year Two research group examined the processes by which the
partnership pursued these goals set in Year One and Year Two documents. Like the
Year One research group, it focused on the presence or absence of co-construction as
the overarching process. It also examined the barriers to co-construction, along with
the strategies the partnership used to overcome the barriers. As these were elements
identified in the Year One research study, the Year Two study sought to compare the
presence of these elements in Year Two and beyond with their presence in Year One.
In addition to comparing processes present in Year Two to those present in Year
One, the Year Two research group examined how these processes in partnership
affected the engagement of parents in pursuit of school transformation.
Findings
The findings presented are in direct response to the following research
questions:
1) What evidence of ongoing processes, including co-construction, does a
community-school-university partnership demonstrate as it continues to work
toward school transformation beyond its first year of operation?

104
1a) What are the barriers that persist in co-constructing and sustaining a
community-school-university partnership created to transform an urban
school?
1b) What effective strategies are in place that demonstrate the ability to
overcome the persistent barriers in community-school-university partnerships
seeking to improve student achievement in an urban school?
2) How can the community-school-university partnership influence the
development of a new cultural model leading to parental engagement in the
interest of school transformation?
The data were collected and analyzed in the exploration of these questions,
and the findings were triangulated using interviews, observations and artifacts in
relation to one another in an effort to increase validity. The findings from this study
were compared to the findings of the Year One study to determine whether processes
and strategies for co-construction advanced, regressed or remained the same.
Furthermore, the findings determined the degree to which parents had been involved
in the work of the partnership toward the development of a new cultural model for
parental engagement on behalf of school transformation.

105
Findings and Analysis: Research Question One
The first research question asked:
What evidence of ongoing processes, including co-construction, does a
community-school-university partnership demonstrate as it continues to work toward
school improvement beyond its first year of operation?
Co-Construction Findings
Findings from interviews, artifacts and observations offered the research
team an opportunity to analyze the extent to which the partnership demonstrated the
process of co-construction. According to Freire (1970), when partnerships adhere to
the hierarchal, top down communication approach, they fall into the trap of
depositing ideas into an organization. On the other hand, Kezar (2007) notes that
using the co-constructive model within educational partnerships facilitates the
participation of all stakeholders in developing the guiding principals and decisions of
the organization.
Year One Co-Construction Findings
The artifacts created by the partnership clearly illustrated that the partnership
was designed to implement a culture of co-construction for all stakeholders. For
example, the Prep High School Strategic Plan, a document created by community
members, parents, teachers, administrators and representatives from the Bradley
Foundation, City Connections and Westside University, clearly states that “the
students, staff, parents and community are a community of learners and leaders who

106
work together to create a positive learning environment [for students and a] school
where all students are supported by stakeholders to achieve academic excellence”
(Strategic Plan, 2010). Segments from interviews conducted by the Year Two
research team demonstrated evidence of this process occurring, specifically in the
creation of the small learning communities in Year One of the partnership. Teachers
participated with the Westside University on-site representative in the construction
of the small learning communities and in the teacher selection for each small
learning community. Ms. Espinoza’s interview revealed that a large pool of teachers
participated in a process to develop SLCs, such as the Social Justice and Business
and Entrepreneurial Academy. Dr. Key, a Westside University faculty member who
also served as the Interim Executive Director for UEAT during Year One, guided
teachers and parents in a co-constructive model for creating the SLC framework and
implementing the SLCs. Also, interviews referred to the co-construction that took
place through the Year One Transition Team created to bring together elected
representatives of all stakeholder groups, i.e., teachers, parents, classified staff,
administrators, students and community members, to guide the school in fulfilling its
transition goals. This group met weekly for a full year before disbanding as the start-
up year was over. Minutes from both of these processes indicate weekly meetings of
the SLC Council Transition Team that took place for nearly fifteen months. Sign–in
sheets also revealed a wide spectrum of participants who were engaged in guiding
the work of the partnership’s first year.

107
Year Two Co-Construction Findings
While the small learning communities and the Transition Team provided
evidence of co-construction during Year One, there was a varied degree of co-
construction during the partnership’s second year of operation. The interviews
illuminated that some network partners were more engaged in the co-constructive
process than others during the second year. Mr. Leblue’s interview, conducted in
November 2010, expressed his perspective on the differences in participation among
the organizations when he stated that the Bradley Foundation was an “organization
that was actually doing some of this organic work with the faculty and parents and
community” and that the work of Dr. Key during Year One “was significant because
she believed in co-construction [and the] change that we’ve seen thus far is a
reflection of that work.” On the other hand, he described the City Connections as
“paternalistic” in their practices. As an illustration, he made mention of a meeting
that occurred in summer of 2010, towards the end of the partnership’s second year,
that he viewed as evidence that UEAT was “just a tool of the City Connections.” He
elaborates:
And it looked like what appeared to me, as a take over of the school and so,
you know […] And so I went before the GSEP board, but before I spoke I
listened for about an hour and a half. And I listened to the principal’s report
to the GSEP board and I listened to their response to that report. Now, for an
hour and a half, in my head, I’m sitting here thinking, now they’re getting
ready to take over your school, as a matter of fact, I think they just did it
(Leblue, personal communication, 2010).

108
Leblue’s statement reveals a concern that the City Connections was drifting
away from the process of co-construction with the network partners. Five of the 29
interviews conducted agreed that City Connections’ intentions were grounded in an
effort for school improvement, but the perception even among these five persons was
that they were acting as the chief decision makers about the direction of the
partnership.
Perceptions of the City Connections and its involvement in the co-
constructive process during the partnership’s second year were articulated in another
setting. During an interview in February of 2011, Dr. Singh and Mr. Al from the
Grizzly United disputed that the City Connections participated in the co-constructive
process during Year Two. However, they admitted that the organization was
improving in its efforts to be co-constructive during the third year. Ms. Green, a
staff member of the City Connections, admitted that within the twelve months
[during the partnership’s second year] the co-constructive process had not been
active from her vantage point. However, Ms. Bryant, the principal of Prep High
School, noted in an interview that the City Connections provided valuable technical
assistance to the school in formatting and reproducing materials for their
accreditation process. Additionally, Dr. Key noted that the City Connections gave
support to the school by assisting students with the college admissions process, and
they continued to give the school safety in the “Safe Passage Program” which
allowed students to travel safely to and from school. They also issued mini-grants to
teachers for innovative work and supported the AVID program. Yet, these efforts

109
were mostly originated and implement by the City Connections, not in consultation
with a spectrum of stakeholders in the school. Most conversations were between the
principal and a representative from the City Connections.
A university representative noted that, not only were the occasions and
structures for co-construction with the school diminished in Year Two, but also
network partners were not being co-constructive with one another in Year Two as
they had during Year One. The university representative attributes this loss of focus
on co-construction to the lack of focus on co-construction from the principal and the
Year Two Interim Executive Director. The process lacked leadership:
The principal and the Interim Executive Director ignored much of the work
that had been done in Year One; thus the City Connections followed their
lead or sought to fill the vacuum by just working with the principal to
determine school needs. Also, it is fair to say that the Bradley Foundation
and Westside University also functioned in less of a co-constructive mode in
Year Two because the leadership to facilitate this process was missing. Co-
construction has to be deliberate, operating under a philosophical framework
(University Representative, personal communication, 2011).

The university representative stated that some network partners demonstrated
more co-constructive practices than others when interacting with the school.
However, all network partners moved away from the practice of co-construction
with one another. This limited presence of a co-constructive process in Year Two
will be further elucidated in the discussion of the Year Two research group’s
findings regarding barriers to co-construction.
Out of the 29 interviews conducted, only six interviews stated that the
process of co-construction had occurred during the second year of the partnership.

110
Thirteen interviews stated that the partnership had regressed in co-constructive
practices, but that the third year demonstrated improvement.
Year Three Co-Construction Findings
Although the second year’s data demonstrate a level of regression in co-
constructive practices, the partnership’s third year demonstrates the organization’s
rededication to co-construction. Mr. Diamond’s interview solidified this statement
when he discussed Dr. Key and Dr. Singh and their involvement in writing the Ford
Foundation grant during the partnership’s third year: “…everything that we’ve
written about […] it’s been done very collaboratively between the parties: Dr. Key,
[Singh] and the [other] chairs.” His statement was further supported by an
observation of an informal meeting in February 2011 between Dr. Singh and Mr. Al
representing the Bradley Foundation; Ms. Cosby, a parent; and Mr. Diamond, a
teacher, at a local eatery, in which each stakeholder brought forth their ideas and
concerns as they moved into the upcoming semester.
Furthermore, during an observation of a professional development in Year
Three, guided by Dr. Key representing Westside University, administrators were
challenged to reevaluate their methods for assessment, specifically in regards to
creating rubrics to evaluate student work at both the department and grade level. Ms.
Carriage, who is the new Executive Director for the partnership, was also in
attendance signifying UEAT’s re-connection to the school. It was evident that the
focus was on the direct needs of the school as well as acting on feedback from the
Instructional Leadership Team, made up of lead teachers and department chairs.

111
Administrators noted that in order to create a rubric at the department level and grade
level, there would need to be “input on the crucial things” (Administrative
Professional Development Observation, 2010) assessed within the classroom.
Meeting participants brainstormed possible methods for soliciting teacher feedback
and ideas to identify these “crucial things.” They also identified key teachers who
would be instrumental in moving the process forward. Thus, while teachers were not
directly involved in the administrative meeting, the administrative team recognized a
need for them to be involved and made plans to involve teachers in the process of
creating common rubrics and assessments. Ultimately, the meeting demonstrated the
network partners working together in a co-constructive manner in the interest of
improving the school. To some degree, this was a process taking place between one
network partner and the school; however, the presence and participation of the
UEAT Executive Director indicated that she was attempting to make meaning of this
process on behalf of the partnership.
Dr. Key asserts that the work surrounding the Ford Grant also serves as
evidence of the network partners returning to co-constructive practices in Year
Three. According to her interview, each network partner was key in writing the final
sections of the grant during the 2010-2011 Winter Break:
I was in Austin writing about teachers and students, while Alex was in Los
Angeles writing about parents. When we finished our drafts, we critiqued
one another’s work. Then we sent drafts to Ms. Carriage, the UEAT
Executive Director; Dr. Singh with the Bradley Foundation and Ms. Bryant,
the principal, to receive their input. It was a co-constructive process (Dr.
Key, personal communication, 2011).

112
The professional development observation and Dr. Key’s interview
demonstrate evidence that the network partners are returning to a process of co-
construction with one another during UEAT’s third year. Also, a review of the Ford
Foundation proposal is a co-constructed product that will bring together parents,
teachers, administrators and all of the network partners to pilot the problem-based
learning with two of the school’s small learning communities as pilots for school-
wide implementation. This work is designed to create a new cultural model for the
role of parents and the community in creating a meaningful learning context for
urban youth. In this document, the role of the university in providing professional
development, the role of the City Connections in brokering partnerships with
businesses and community agencies, and the role of the Bradley Foundation in
building parents’ knowledge to be key decision makers will coalesce in a new
cultural model of contextualized learning for the students of Prep. Teachers will
work collaboratively with administrators in a move toward a peer review process of
teacher performance, which breaks new ground in teacher evaluation.
In this model, the cultural and social capital of parents and community will
be valued to establish deeper connections between the school and the community as
a context for student learning. The plan observes Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model
that demonstrates the need for connecting the school to other members of the
ecosystems in the student’s life, i.e. parents, the family, the church, the community,
and institutions like the university, libraries, and political bodies, in order to create
meaningful contexts for learning

113
Summary of Co-Construction Findings
The Year One research team documented that the partnership in Year One
was still trying to understand the process of co-construction, and that it was
emerging within the work of the partnership. Kim, a member of the Year One
research team, stated that although there was foundational knowledge regarding co-
construction, there were still gaps in its implementation throughout all aspects of the
partnership.
While the Year One research team found evidence that co-construction was an
emerging process within the partnership, the Year Two research team’s data suggest
that co-construction had regressed in terms of all network partners participating in
the process. Instead, the findings demonstrate that certain network partners, the
Grizzly United and Westside University, are attempting to maintain the process of
co-construction with Prep High School, its stakeholders and the community.
However, the network partners were not engaged in a process of co-construction
with one another. They had not moved to a stage of mutualism (Baum, 2002) in
which all partners worked together to co-construct a webbed network of resources
and relationships operating on behalf of school transformation. During Year Two,
City Connections continued to support the school with financial and technical
assistance, as well as safety, but did so in a less co-constructive manner. They were
operating in an altruistic relationship with the school. City Connections ultimately
reverted to old practices by identifying needs for the school and taking the steps
necessary to address those concerns. However, they did so with limited consultation

114
with the school, except the principal. Furthermore, the principal was not maintaining
a co-constructive model with the faculty and parents, which further impeded the
process. Based on the data collected from both studies, it can be stated that the
partnership operated in co-constructive mode to a greater degree when the school
had an on-site Executive Director (Year One). However, the research team’s data
demonstrate that all network partners are starting to reacquaint themselves with co-
constructive practices during the third year, due in part to the return of the Year One
Interim Executive Director as a consultant to the work of the partnership and to the
hiring of a new Executive Director who sees herself as working on behalf of all the
network partners. Figure 4.2 illustrates the transformation from Year One to Year
Two.
Figure 4.2: Transformation of UEAT from Year One to Year Two

Dialogue Findings
The level of dialogue taking place is an indicator of the level of co-
construction, as dialogue is a key means by which co-construction can take place. In

115
conjunction with co-construction, the Year Two research team evaluated dialogue as
an ongoing process within the community-school-university partnership. The
interviews, artifacts and observations offered the Year Two research team an
opportunity to analyze the extent to which the partnership was demonstrating the
process of dialogue within the second and third year of the partnership.
Year One and Year Two Dialogue Findings
The UEAT Business Plan (2008) states that the partnership will promote
“structured and informal engagement between the school, parents and the
community” that will require ongoing dialogue to take place between school
stakeholders, parents and community members. In Year Two, the Strategic Plan
(2010) outlines the need for school stakeholders to be involved in a dialogue with
one another in order to improve student academic achievement. For example, it
states that teachers, in each SLC, will collaborate with one another to discuss the
needs of their students and possible interventions. Furthermore, it states that
teachers “will convene workshops to advise parents and students of the planned
programmatic, curricular and instructional strategies for improving the proficiency
levels of all students in their SLC” (Strategic Plan, 2010). Both the Business Plan
and the Strategic Plan mention the need for teachers to engage in a process of
dialogue with one another in order to determine the best interventions and
instructional practices for students to advance; furthermore, both documents
illuminate the need for these strategies to be shared with parents and community
members. Thus, it is evident that the Year One and Year Two documents considered

116
dialogue to be a significant process in guiding the work of the partnership. Dr.
Ballan, interviewed by the Year Two research team, reflected on the history of the
partnership by noting that parents’ inclusion in the dialogue prior to the partnership
led to a demand for accountability, which ultimately led to a break with the local
district and a decision to join the iDesign unit of the District. The parents called the
local district into accountability for what the parents perceived to be the local
district’s neglect of the school. Dr. Ballan stated,
Well, because of the partnership, I think the adults (for those parents that’ve
been involved), I see a transformation. I don't think that those conversations
would have happened if it [weren’t] for the partnership, because before the
partnership, I think […] there was very little focus on Prep academics, and
there was not a focus on professional development […there] was no
accountability for teachers; so we now have a change in that (Dr. Ballan,
personal communication, 2010).

Thus, according to Ballan, the dialogue within the partnership caused a shift
in culture of the school, specifically around teacher roles and responsibilities to
students.
Dr. Grupe, a Westside University faculty member and the former Executive
Director of UEAT, elaborated on this notion of accountability and stated that the
development of the Strategic Plan in Year Two was about stakeholders “using their
words to define very specific and concrete plans for the future of Prep.” He
emphasized the fact that teachers were critical to the process of dialogue in that “they
spoke very eloquently about the needs the school had. They were articulate, powerful
voices of what the re-design should look like.” Dr. Kane, in her interview, stated
that dialogue between Westside University and Prep High School teachers was a key

117
factor in helping them to co-construct a professional development series that focused
on improving teachers’ instructional practices during the first and second year of the
partnership. She noted that some of the conversations referenced in the Strategic
Plan and Business Plan started in Year Two and continued into Year Three. Yet,
these instances seem episodic rather than ongoing, unlike the transition team
meetings that took place weekly for nearly a year and the SLC planning and
implementation meetings that took place for nearly fifteen months.
Year Three Dialogue Findings
Dialogue focused on instruction and academic growth was physically
manifested and observed in a teacher professional development in November of
2010, during Year Three, in which instructors were being challenged to deconstruct
content standards into sets of skills and content knowledge that students would need
in order to achieve mastery of the standard. Within this professional development,
there existed a dialogue among teachers on what methods and skills would be most
effective with their students. Teachers were divided into departments and then
separated into course groups (i.e. World History, American History). Each course
group identified an overarching performance goal, related to literacy, that they would
like for their students to accomplish. They then took that performance goal and
deconstructed it into small skills, each of which could be assessed through the use of
formative assessments. Towards the end of the professional development, the
teachers were designing formative assessments that would measure the extent to
which a student had mastered a certain skill that would be needed to achieve mastery

118
on the standards-based culminating performance task. This event occurred following
meetings between the Westside University on-site representative, the administrative
staff, and the content literacy coach. However, it is important to note that not all
teachers participated in the dialogue.
The research team observed that some teachers were passive participants of
the discussion. Each course group contained approximately four to five teachers. At
least one teacher from each course group withdrew from the conversation or had
minimal participation. The non-participants contributed to the discussion only in
response to a direct question. Within the World History group, there were some
disengaged members, including Mr. Diamond, who offered very little to the
dialogue. Although in his interview with the researchers he expressed a belief in co-
construction, in this instance, he instead was typing on his computer and
occasionally contributed when asked for feedback of ideas from another member of
the group. His behavior during the professional development is in strict contrast
with observations of him in other meetings. For example, during a Ford Grant
meeting, which took place in February of 2011, he was very much involved in the
dialogue regarding the potential use of funds and how the grant would be a benefit to
each SLC on campus. However, the participants of that meeting were different from
those in the professional development; the Ford Grant meeting group contained
members of the partnership who typically promoted dialogue. Each group member
took into consideration the need to ask every person at the table about their feelings
and opinions regarding the various topics of discussion. Thus, there was a level of

119
dialogic accountability within the Ford Grant meeting that was not present in the
professional development. Through this dialogue leading to co-construction, the
team was successful in acquiring the Ford Foundation Grant. It is not clear whether
the action of Mr. Diamond in the professional development was an aberration or his
normal conduct in this kind of setting. In any case, it demonstrated that the teachers
who advocate for dialogue and co-construction might be selective in their
participation. Professional development may be one of the last places where teachers
are willing to participate in a dialogic manner.
Overall, however, according to Dr. Key, during the third year of the
partnership there has been a shift in teacher participation in professional
development:
Teachers are much more participatory in professional development with the
university. [Professional developments] are being conducted during the
school day by subbing teachers out. In these sessions, teachers have
gradually dropped their defensiveness and are participating in mutual
learning. Much of this came about because the university, in Year Three,
brought back an on-site representative who is able to bridge the distance
between teachers and the university. Also, the university came to the school
and asked what kind of professional development they would like to
experience. Westside University is now working with all ninth grade teachers
to understand and implement problem-based learning. The ninth grade
teachers in a recent professional development were all in attendance, making
comments and contributing to the dialogue about engaging students in
problem based learning. In the process of engaging in dialogue they were co-
constructing knowledge about how to engage students in their own learning
(Dr. Key, personal communication, 2011).

Dr. Key’s statement elucidates the teachers’ transition into engaging in more
dialogue within their professional developments. This is consistent with school

120
stakeholders increasing their dialogue with the network partners within UEAT’s
third year.
Summary of Dialogue Findings
The Year One research team discovered that once the transition team was
formed, classified staff and parents had an equal stake in the development of the
partnership. They assert that each stakeholder considered dialogue to be an
important piece to developing relationships within the partnership and there was an
overarching desire for inclusion and equal say for all stakeholders as the partnership
moved into its second year. Evidence of this could be found in the interviews
conducted by the Year One research team. Espinosa, a Year One researcher, notes,
Five of the seven teachers interviewed indicated that the partnership was
providing forums and avenues for participation and inclusion and the ability
to be a part of decision making […and] observation data further demonstrated
that dialogue has been an important elements for teachers to participate in the
work of the partnership.

The Year One research team illuminates that during Year One, all of the
network partners were engaged in a dialogue in an effort to establish common goals
for UEAT.
The Year Two research team’s data suggests overall that the process of
dialogue regressed during the second year of the partnership. There was particularly
a regression in the dialogue amongst the network partners, although dialogue
between the school and university increased. Each of the network partners engaged
in dialogue with school level stakeholders but did so on an individual basis instead of
participating in dialogue as a partnership. Figure 4.3 demonstrates the change in

121
dialogic relationships amongst the network partners. The Year One figure
demonstrates that the network partners were involved in dialogic relationships with
one another. Parents and classified staff were also involved in this dialogic
relationship through their work on the Transition Teams. The Year Two figure
demonstrates that all of the network partners drifted away from being involved in
dialogue with each other. It also illustrates that the Prep parents became integrated
into the dialogue of the partnership as Board members, but were essentially silenced
in this formal role. In the structure of the Transition Team, their voices were integral
to all decisions. The formal acknowledgement did not bring about greater
engagement or strengthen their roles in decision-making. However, the elected
members were not representative of the spectrum of the Prep parent population.
Furthermore, the graphic demonstrates how, during Year Two, the classified staff
became non-participants of dialogue. A deeper analysis of parent engagement will
be discussed in response to research question number two.
Figure 4.3: Transformation of Dialogic Relationships From Year One to Year Two

Parents Classified Parents Classified

122
Mutual/Shared Learning Findings
Although the Year One research team concluded that mutual and shared
learning was a major finding in the process of co-construction, this researcher did not
find distinct elements that reflected mutual and shared learning as separate from
dialogue. Therefore, it is not included as a major fining the Year Two Study.
Summary of Findings for Research Question One: Processes
Table 4.2 presents a summary of findings for the first research question.
Table 4.2: Summary of Findings for Research Question One
Processes Year One Year Two Year Three
Co-Construction Emerging Regressed Re-emerging
Dialogue Emerging Regressed Re-emerging

Findings and Analysis: Research Question One, Sub Question (a)
In addition to identifying the on-going processes within the partnership, the
research group investigated the barriers that can prevent those processes from taking
place. Thus, the first sub-question of research question number one asked about the
barriers that persist in co-constructing and sustaining a community-school-university
partnership. Based on the literature, and the findings from the Year One study, the
Year Two research team organized the barriers into the following categories: (1)
hierarchy; (2) history; (3) logics; (4) absence of systems and structures of
communication; and (5) lack of trust. It is important to note that all of these
indicators, with the exception of “lack of trust,” were previously identified as codes
that were used in the codebook; these codes were useful in classifying transcribed
data from the Year Two study. The new code of “lack of trust” was added to the

123
Year Two codebook because it was a newly emerging trend that was heavily present
in both observations and interviews. Through an analysis of the findings, the
research team discovered that a majority of the coded segments from the
observations, artifacts and interviews were identified as barriers. Furthermore,
within the specific barriers, the most prevalent sub-codes were “absences of systems
and structures for communication,” the “logics” and “lack of trust,” respectively (see
Tables 4.3 and 4.4).
Table 4.3: Distribution of Codes
Code Type Total Codes Percentage of Codes
Processes (P) 125 8%
Barriers (B) 924 63%
Strategies (S) 179 12%
Attributes (A) 245 17%

Table 4.4: Distribution of Sub-Codes
Total Sub-Codes Percentage of Sub-Codes
Barriers (B) 924
BHrch: Hierarchy 134 14%
BHst: History 112 12%
BL: Logics (scarcity,
merit, deficit)
179 19%
BASSC: Absence of
Systems and Structures
for Communication
278 30%
BLT: Lack of Trust 157 18%
Miscellaneous 64 7%

Based on the prevalence of the barrier sub-codes, the research team found it
beneficial to discuss in depth the underlying trends and themes within the Absence of
Systems and Structures for Communication, Logics and Lack of Trust. Within this

124
chapter, there will be an in depth evaluation of the “absence of systems and
structures for communication” and “lack of trust” as they were the most prevalent of
the codes. The Logics code, which was also highly prevalent, was sub divided into
subcategories of scarcity, merit and deficit. However, the interviewees each offered
different perspectives on scarcity, merit and deficit, so there were few consistencies
amongst the codes.
Absence of Systems and Structures for Communication Findings
The interviews, artifacts and observations offered the research team an
opportunity to analyze the extent to which the partnership had an absence of systems
and structures for communication. Within this specific category, there were six
distinguishable trends that emerged: (1) lack of defined goals, expectations, purpose
and vision; (2) undefined roles and responsibilities; (3) underexposure of partnership
(UEAT); (4) lack of methods for disseminating information; (5) limited voices being
heard on the UEAT Board; (6) inconsistency with people, resources and programs;
and (7) lack of transparency. Each of these trends can be supported with evidence
from the interviews, observations and artifacts. This chapter will discuss the first
four trends in detail, as they were the most prevalent.
Lack of defined goals, expectations, purpose and vision
The most common theme was a lack of defined goals, expectations, purpose
and vision. Several stakeholders within the partnership stated that, although the
partnership had attempted to outline their purpose and vision within the business
plan, they had failed to actualize those concepts while attempting to complete the

125
work of the partnership. At the university level, Dr. Kane, a member of UEAT’s
Board, stated that she was “not sure [UEAT has] a complete agreement on what
[they] are and what [they] should be doing.” This sentiment was further supported
with a statement from Dr. Ballan, another member of the Westside University faculty
and participant in the professional development series, who mentioned that the
UEAT goals have been developed mostly in writing; however, those goals had not
been deconstructed into smaller goals that could be attained:
[UEAT’s goal] in a broad sense, is to improve the academic opportunities for
the students at Prep, as well as make the community that surrounds Prep a
safer place for students to get to school […] we still need to understand how
to support [these goals] (Dr. Ballan, personal communication, 2010).

Additionally, former Executive Director, Dr. Grupe, summarized the
partnership as being “loosely coupled.” He elaborated on this idea:
I think one of the pitfalls is that you don’t stipulate how long you’re going to
be around. You need to work against the clock. UEAT needs to be able to
say that five years from now, they’re achievement will be X. They ought to
have a timeline that is respectful of the urgency of the work. My sense is that
UEAT should be thinking in terms of—at least a seven year horizon […] (Dr.
Grupe, personal communication, 2010).

This statement connects with the current Executive Director’s position that
there is not a “central core of organization” within the partnership and that there are
not “a common set of goals.” She further asserted that the partnership “does not
have a strong enough expectation of where [they] can be […],” which ultimately
suggests that there needs to be a more concerted effort on determining the
partnership’s goals in an effort to craft its vision. Dr. Key confirmed that UEAT
helped the school develop specific goals, but had yet to determine goals for itself as a

126
partnership, “which is why the partnership still functions as three separate
organizations.”
In conjunction with university stakeholders, members of the two community-
based organizations echoed the same sentiments regarding a lack of defined goals
and vision. Dr. Singh, of the Bradley Foundation, stated that UEAT had failed to
clearly identify its purpose and structure within the Prep community: “A whole lot
more can be done […] it is a function of us not understanding what our role is going
to legitimately be […]”. Mr. Ali, a former member of the City Connections who
worked with the partnership during its second year, made the following statement:
The partnership needs to explain their roles and responsibilities and their
parameters. […] Some people want the partnership to do everything and a lot
of people approach UEAT and the City Connections with a sugar daddy
mentality. […]There needs to be a clear understanding of the purpose of the
partnership and the parameters of the partnership. UEAT needs to continue
to steward that conversation (Mr. Ali, personal communication, 2010).

He further asserted that “there was no real awareness” of UEAT’s purpose,
role and strengths communicated to the school stakeholders, which attributed to a
distrustful relationship amongst the stakeholders (to be discussed later in the
chapter).
While the interviews overwhelmingly illustrated a need for UEAT to define
its goals, expectations and vision, the diction of the artifacts offer a perspective that
the partnership is clearer about its goals for the school than it is about the goals for
the partnership itself as a key element in helping the school achieve its goals.
According to the UEAT Business Plan (2008), the goal of the partnership is to:

127
Restore a relationship of mutual accountability between the school and
community to ensure that the community is focused on its youth as the most
valued resource for sustaining the quality of life in the community [… and] to
inspire the community to invest their time, resources and caring in the school.

The Business Plan also offers an outline of long-term goals that UEAT aims
to actualize within their five-year partnership (see Table 4.5).
Table 4.5: UEAT Long Term and Short Term Goals
Ongoing Processes and Long Range Goals Long Range End Goals
• All students’ completion of a – g
requirements
• A rigorous standards-based curriculum
for all students
• Parents, community, and businesses
engaged in governance structures that
support high academic achievement
for all students
• Interlocking centers of distributed
leadership include parents, students,
teachers, administrators, and
community organizations
• High literacy for all students
• Successful completion of algebra no
later than end of the 9
th
grade
• Cultivation of a scholar’s identity
among all students
• Support for the health of all students
on a safe, caring and well-equipped
campus
• Recruitment and maintenance of
highly qualified high school teachers
in a community of practice
characterized by continuous adult
learning
• All students entering ninth grade
graduate within four years
• Students graduate competitively eligible
for UC and CSU systems
• Prep High School becomes a California
Distinguished School within five years
• Residents choose Prep High School and
its feeder schools as their first option
• Students graduate from CHS and four-
year colleges, and remain as residents
contributing to the quality of life in the
community
• CHS achieves a culture of scholarship
and service to the community
• Parents and community take on
ownership and responsibility for the
well-being of all its neighborhood
schools

It is important to note that these goals do not specifically speak to UEAT’s
goals as an organization, but instead its desired goals for Prep High Schools.
The Business Plan clearly demonstrates that UEAT has goals for both
ongoing processes as well as the end of the term goals for the partnership. However,
interview participants, who are actively involved in UEAT, insist that the goals and

128
purpose of the partnership are not clearly defined. Thus, there is still a need for
UEAT to create goals as an organization. Observations of the UEAT Board
meetings suggest that there is a disconnect between the original goals for Prep High
School and the current work of the partnership.
The research team noted that the agenda and minutes from the Board
meetings often times focused on logistical matters, such as funding and updates, but
rarely delved into constructing concrete next steps for the partnership to follow in
order to attain the goals outlined in the Business Plan. In fact, there was very little
mention of the aforementioned long-term goals, and instead a focus on transitioning
leadership, opportunities for funding and allocation of fiscal resources. Only in
meetings, during Year Three, has there been a focus on becoming involved in
programs that will move the partnership forward in its quest to attain its long-term
goals.
The content of the Year Two board meetings contributed to a limited
dialogue regarding the goals of the partnership and the work that needs to be done in
order to make sure that the original goals are actualized. Thus, the work of the
partnership could not participate in an iterative process in which they worked
collaboratively in order to accomplish a specific goal and then return to their primary
objectives in order to accomplish another. As a result, the partnership’s goals for
Prep became nebulous to stakeholders because they were not actively working
towards the goals that they had been originally identified in the Business Plan.

129
Summary of Findings for Lack of Defined Goals, Expectations, Purpose and Vision
The Year One research team observed the partnership within their first year
of operation; thus, they observed the partnership transition into their role as a
partnership. In order to ensure that this transition was effective, the partnership had
developed a transition team that had its own specifics goals and vision (see Table
4.6) that would facilitate UEAT in actualizing its long-term goals for Prep.
Table 4.6: UEAT Transition Goals
Transition Goals
• Address WASC recommendations and receive a six year accreditation
• Put 9
th
and 10
th
grade students on track to graduate on time by reducing
the excessive failure rate in core classes
• Create small learning communities to increase personalization of the
high school experience for all students
• Engage students, parents, teachers, administrators and the community in
shaping the culture and goals of the school
• Retain a highly effective faculty committed to the academic
achievement of all students
• Increase enrollment of resident students

Kim, a Year One researcher, notes that the transition team helped to
successfully establish small learning communities as well as addressed some of the
WASC suggestions as outlined in Prep’s WASC Report. She notes that the
partnership was able to accomplish this because the transition team was focused on
ensuring that the transition goals were consistently being taken into consideration
and ultimately shaped the work of the team.
The Year One research team’s findings are consistent with the literature.
According to Kezar (2007) and Liederman et al. (2002), it is essential for successful

130
educational partnerships to establish a common set of goals. Kezar (2007) notes that
educational partnerships need to have mutually developed long-term goals and a
commitment to shared values. UEAT established mutually developed long-term
goals for Prep High School, and they were clearly illustrated in the documents of the
MOU and the Business Plan. Yet the partnership itself has not assessed itself and
developed goals on how it will look in intervals of one, two or five years.
Through an analysis of the observations, interviews and artifacts, the research
team discovered that UEAT has clearly outlined goals, expectations, purpose and
vision for Prep High School. Although a strategic plan was created during the
second year, the network partners have not taken the steps necessary to make sure
that they are channeling their human capital in a way that will be conducive to
meeting their goals. Furthermore, the content of the board meetings does not
demonstrate evidence of the partnership making strategic moves and implementing
processes that would guide UEAT towards accomplishing its end of term goals for
Prep High School and for the partnership itself. Lastly, the partnership has not
developed its own set of goals as an organization, which, according to Liederman et
al. (2002) can lead to the fragmentation of the organization.
Undefined Roles and Responsibilities
The second most common theme was undefined roles and responsibilities
within the partnership. Several stakeholders within the partnership and within the
community noted that UEAT needed to have a greater focus on channeling their
human capital as a means of attaining their goals. Ms. Cosby, a parent who was

131
actively involved in the Friends of Prep and was added to the UEAT Board at the
beginning of Year Three, noted that UEAT was,
a work in progress [… because] the different organizations that are a part of
UEAT could bring more to the table. But it [the partnership] needed to be
enlightened about what they could bring and how they play a vital role in
how Prep rolls out in the next [few years] (Ms. Cosby, personal
communication, 2010).

She also noted that one of the drawbacks of UEAT is that the stakeholders do
not know what their role is which is why she is excited to be a member of the Board.
She feels as though she will be able to redirect the focus of the partnership and play a
new role in engaging stakeholders to help UEAT accomplish its ultimate mission.
During an observation of a UEAT meeting in December of 2010, Cosby was not as
vocal as her interview suggested that she would be. The meeting was 115 minutes
long; however, the parent board members only spoke for a total of five minutes. Of
those five minutes, Cosby spoke for four minutes. Ms. Carriage and Ms. Bryant
mostly dominated the meeting “talk time.” However, Cosby had an opportunity to
be more vocal during the Ford Grant meeting in February 2011, where she was
constantly encouraged to share her opinions and offer feedback about the grant
proposal. The format of the board meeting did not encourage the participation of
parents.
Cosby’s comment that she plans on taking on a new role within the
partnership suggests that there was an absence of that role in the previous year.
Similarly, Dr. Grupe suggested that the partnership needed to “create new angles,
new roles [and] completely shift the ground” in order for the partnership to be

132
successful. He noted that this shift needed to happen during the partnership’s third
year of operation, specifically with regards to classified staff and their participation
in the partnership:
[…] the classified staff could play a really important role in things, like
particularly around the parenting piece. Around parent engagement, I think
that’s where many of these people are the first line of […] offense […]
They’re the people who are actually really good at sort of telemarketing, so to
speak, who will actually be able to talk on the phone and get people engaged
and get them connected to some of the opportunities that may exist in the
school (Dr. Grupe, personal communication, 2010).

When asked why the classified staff was not more involved in the work of the
partnership, Dr. Grupe responded that the partners had not critically delved into the
untapped potential because they were responding to the other needs of the
organization, such as developing a strategic plan for academic success. Once again,
it is important to note that Dr. Grupe is referencing the classified staff and their work
in the partnership during its second year of operation. As previously mentioned, the
classified staff was heavily involved in the work of the partnership during its first
year. Dr. Grupe’s comment suggests that the role of the classified staff disappeared
during the second year.
Ms. Carriage’s observations regarding role clarification are similar to that of
Dr. Grupe’s. She recognizes the fact that the partnership has not had an intense
focus on the role of each partner and the potential assets that they may bring to
UEAT. She states,
I think we still need to do a little bit of role clarification, and I think there’s a
difference even amongst the partners on what the role of a collaborative
should be. Probably, I don't know the history, so I can’t tell you what it used

133
to be and where it is now. I’ll just tell you, as the Executive Director going
around to individual partners, I think it could be tighter. I think what UEAT
has to do is really define its role and its value-added role in this environment
today (Ms. Carriage, personal communication, 2010).

Dr. Chino, a faculty member at Westside University, states that “in order to
go forth, [UEAT needs] to have very clear roles as to what [they] mean by support
and involvement.” Ultimately, Ms. Carriage, Dr. Grupe and Cosby illuminate the
need for UEAT to be more focused on channeling its network partners and
stakeholders as potential human capital that can be placed within new roles to work
for the benefit of the partnership. However, some stakeholders feel as though current
roles need to be more clearly defined, specifically the role of the Executive Director.
Mr. Leblue, a teacher at Prep, noted in an interview with the Year Two
research team that both the interim Executive Director and the Board were
ineffective in the partnership’s second year because they were disconnected with the
reality of the school and the problems that it faced:
Now you can sit up there and have this board meeting and you guys can go
back and forth and feel like you are doing something and feel like you are
engaged in something […] but the reality is if you don't step to the plate now,
and I mean right now, then a few weeks from now, don't bother ‘cause [the
District] will have completed the task (Mr. Leblue, personal communication,
2010).

This statement demonstrates frustration with the Board’s politics, specifically
in meetings, and their failure to manage their role as an asset to the school.
However, Mr. Leblue recognized the fact that the fault could not lie solely with the
Board, but partially with UEAT’s Executive Director. He asserted that the Year Two
Interim Executive Director was “disengaged” and therefore could not fully

134
understand the needs of the school and how to guide the partnership to address those
needs. However, he defends the Year Two Interim Executive Director, to a certain
extent, and states that the “principal should have been reporting what were the major
events happening on the ground at the school […] so both of [them] are derelict in
their responsibilities.”
It is important to note, however, that Leblue’s definition of the
responsibilities for the Executive Director, the Board and the principal are his own
interpretation. Dr. Key asserts that the ambiguity about the Year Two Interim
Executive Director’s role is largely due to the UEAT board’s failure to define the
role. Additionally, the roles and responsibilities of each of the stakeholders are
loosely constructed based on the opinions of those who participate in the partnership.
Thus, it is essential to analyze the artifacts in order to determine whether or not roles
and responsibilities have been clearly defined, or were deliberately left up to
interpretation.
The research team discovered that very few of the artifacts offered a clear
definition of the roles and responsibilities for the stakeholders involved in the
partnership. The UEAT Business Plan mentions the benefit of each of the network
partners yet fails to clearly define their role within the UEAT and how they will
utilize their human capital in the interest of advancing the work of the partnership.

Summary of Findings for Undefined Roles and Responsibilities

135
As previously mentioned, the Year One research team discovered that the
partnership had created a transition team to act as a catalyst in addressing the
immediate needs of the school. Thus, the transition team had a specific role in the
partnership to ensure that certain needs for the school were being met in a timely
manner. It was the transition team’s responsibility to work with the network
partners, the principal and the Executive Director to determine the needs of the
school and to make sure that they were working collaboratively to meet the
partnership’s transition goals. This was also outlined in the Business Plan, which
explicitly states the following:
[A key feature of a reorganized Prep High School will include] strong
distributed leadership within the school. […] Overall, the UEAT will foster a
governance structure supported by a concept of distributed leadership and
mutual accountability. […] The school will create a model of distributed
leadership that includes the ability of each small learning community to
create its internal governance structure to carry out the school’s unified vision
and mission.

Thus, the partnership was moving in the direction of creating distributed
leadership and roles for within the school, but not within the partnership.
Based on an analysis of the artifacts, interviews and observations, UEAT has
not clearly identified the roles and responsibility of each of its network partners nor
has it created set goals for the organization. Furthermore, there are limited
opportunities for stakeholders to have leadership positions within the partnership,
specifically as members of adjunct teams. Although the aforementioned are major
factors that can contribute to stakeholder dissatisfaction and disengagement, the
partnership’s limited presence in the school community can also be a barrier in itself.

136
Underexposure of Partnership
Another common theme was the underexposure of UEAT in the Prep
community. The research team relied heavily on observations of the school site and
surrounding community landmarks in order to determine the extent to which UEAT
had promoted itself to the surrounding public. Based on an observation of the school
site that was conducted on November 30, 2010, there was very little signage around
the school that was connected to UEAT. The only evidence of UEAT was a large
banner at the visitor’s entrance of the school, which stated, “Every child. Every
chance. Every day.” Within the school, there is no UEAT advertising present to
communicate to students or faculty the existence of the partnership. On December 2,
2010, the research team conducted another observation of the school and realized
that the City Connections was conducting a Personal Statement workshop in the
College and Career Center. However, there was no evidence of the event being
publicized in the school. This lack of exposure contributes directly to a limited
knowledge of the partnership, especially to new members of the Prep staff.
Dr. Jones, a new administrator on the Prep team, noted that there was a
separation between UEAT and the school. During his interview, he admitted that he
had limited knowledge about UEAT but knew that they were ultimately present in an
effort to help the school. Mr. Carolina, a special education assistant, stated that the
City Connections was more “visible” in comparison to the other network partners
during the second year of operation. Mr. Ali noted that during the partnership’s
second year, he saw work from both the City Connections and other network

137
partners. Conversely, some stakeholders stated that they had limited exposure to
certain network partners. For example, Mrs. Piedmont, a school faculty member,
made this observation about UEAT as it transitioned from its second to third year:
[…] There’s been no formal introduction. I was still back with Dr. Grupe,
who I understood was on it. But, again, I don't know who this new person is.
So I don’t know who this person is. They [students] surely don’t know who
[he is], nor do the parents (Mrs. Piedmont, personal communication, 2010).

She goes on to assert that no one knows about the Board and the people who
sit on it [other than the parents], stating that she has “no idea who the woman is that
runs it.” Ultimately, she states that UEAT is lacking in innovative advertising for the
partnership and building relationships to increase their exposure. She asserts that
once the partnership promotes itself, school and community stakeholders will better
utilize its resources.
After a careful examination of the artifacts, there is very little mention on
how to increase the exposure of UEAT to the school and community members
throughout the years. Within the Business Plan, there is mention of the social capital
that each network partner contains. For example, it mentions the Bradley
Foundation’s history of garnering trust within the community and its tradition of
“civic engagement” as an asset that will further UEAT’s mission. However, the plan
does not clearly outline steps that the partnership will take in order to increase its
exposure throughout time.
Summary of Findings for Underexposure of Partnership

138
According to the Year One research team, UEAT was beginning to emerge in
their exposure to the school community in the work that they were accomplishing
with the transition team, community meetings and school retreats. According to the
Year One fieldwork matrix, they observed approximately three transition team
meetings, two community wide events and a neighborhood council meeting, all of
which UEAT made a point to have a representative present. According to Dr. Key,
“the transition team met for an entire school year,” which increased their exposure to
the school stakeholders and community members. The exposure of the partnership
depended greatly on the number of meetings and events that were taking place on
and around the Prep community. Their findings are consistent with the literature,
which states that there need to be frequent and consistent forms of communication
between the partnership and the community that it serves (Kezar, 2007). These
communication channels can be both formal and informal (Kezar, 2007), but are
vital to maintaining the partnership’s transparency and exposure.
During Year Two of the partnership, UEAT regressed in its exposure to the
community due to: (1) lack of meetings; (2) limited advertisement; and (3)
diminished relationships with the school stakeholders and local community. Thus,
the partnership was moving away from the best practices identified in the literature
and the practices implemented during Year One of the partnership. However,
towards the end of Year Two and throughout Year Three, the partnership is
gradually re-positioning itself with community members and school stakeholders.
Lack of Communication about Meetings, Activities, and Events

139
The final major theme included in the absence of systems and structures for
communication was the lack of communication about meetings, activities, and
events. Interviews with classified staff, parents, teachers, and administrators
revealed that they felt as though they were not informed about meetings or asked to
participate in these meetings. Ms. Espinoza, a teacher at Prep High School, asserted,
“I myself am very involved, and I’m involved because I make myself involved. I
make it my mission to find those meetings and go to them.” Teachers were not the
only members of the school staff that felt as though there had been a breakdown in
communication between the partnership and the school. According to Dr. Jones, an
administrator at Prep who was present only during the third year of the partnership,
he “hadn’t been told about any meetings” that pertain to UEAT until he inquired
with other school administrative personnel. School site staff said that they
occasionally received information about UEAT meetings in their mailboxes.
According to Ms. Espinoza, during the second year, if the staff did receive
information in their mailboxes, “they [UEAT] would do it the same day, which is
horribly inconvenient.” Based on this statement, during the second year, and at the
beginning of the third year, the partnership limited the pathway of communication to
school staff by not giving advanced notice about meetings; this limited school
stakeholder participation and fragmented the relationship between the school and the
partnership.
All stakeholder groups mentioned that they felt UEAT is not doing a
sufficient job at publicizing and marketing the partnership in order to increase

140
communication during the second year of the partnership. Many members
mentioned knocking on teachers’ doors, knocking on doors in the community,
calling parents, and producing Public Service Announcements in order to
communicate more efficiently and effectively about meetings and activities of the
partnership. Stakeholders also stated that there was no centralized location to check
upcoming events or meeting dates and no systematic way to disseminate
information. Dr. Grupe identifies this as an area of improvement for the partnership;
he notes that in order to keep stakeholders actively involved in the partnership, “they
can’t just be passive recipients of information.” He recognizes the fact that UEAT
has not explored innovative methods of communicating with stakeholders: “The best
technology of the day ought to be used to leverage this conversation in a broader
community.”
Dr. Grupe’s observation about UEAT’s communication efforts coincides with
the research team’s analysis of UEAT Board meeting observations during the third
year. During these meetings, stakeholders repeatedly asked where they could obtain
copies of documents being handed out in meetings, as there were often not enough
copies of documents for the participants in attendance. This information suggests
that there was a lapse in written communication with stakeholders; audience
members were limited in their access to written information during the meetings and
thus did not receive adequate information about the work of the partnership that was
discussed during Board meetings. Thus, there continued to be a gap in
communication between the partnership and the school stakeholders. However,

141
according to the artifacts, stakeholders still had access to this information, but only if
they formally requested it.
The Brown Act, which governs the methods in which the UEAT meetings are
conducted, specifically outlines the manner in which the partnership can disseminate
information to stakeholders. According to this document, the partnership must “treat
documents as public.” While the Brown Act specifically requires the partnership to
“post notices and an agenda for any regular meeting; mail notice at least three days
before regular meetings to those who request it [and] post notice of continued
meetings,” it does not detail a time frame in which they must give documents to the
public in the event that they have limited copies of the document. According to Dr.
Key, the partnership followed the guidelines of the Brown Act (though imperfectly)
during its first year of operation and made sure that information was disseminated to
participants and school stakeholders. However, the partnership has not been
consistent in following the methods of communication, especially in regards to
sharing meeting notes and agendas, as it had during its first year. According to Dr.
Key, copies of the minutes and agendas would be placed in teacher’s boxes during
the partnerships first year of operation. None of the school stakeholders interviewed
mentioned this practice being implemented during the second or third year of the
partnership.
Artifacts examined also revealed an absence of structures for communicating
details about meetings and representation. The MOU and the Business Plan outline
systems for representation, specifically in the Instructional Leadership Team and the

142
Transition Team, but they do not specifically outline methods for communication
between these governing systems. This suggests an absence in communication
structures between stakeholder teams.
Summary of Findings for Lack of Communication about Meetings, Activities, and
Events
The Year One research team made mention of the fact that the partnership
needed more defined structures for communication between stakeholders.
According to Gillenwaters, a member of the Year One research team,
UEAT lacked systems and structures to quickly disseminate information to
members of the various stakeholder groups within the partnership. This
promoted inter-group misunderstanding, and even conflict, between UEAT’s
founding partners and the school and community representatives who were
not a part of that board.

However, the Year One research team did mention that the founding partners
attempted to promote open communication by employing dialogue and co-
construction as processes, “but the absence of systems and structures for
communication impeded their progress.” The research team also concluded that the
limited systems for communication led stakeholders to believe that there was limited
transparency within the partnership.
The Year Two research team’s data illustrate that the partnership still
struggles in establishing effective means of communication between UEAT and the
school stakeholders and community members. As previously mentioned, the
partnership tried to ameliorate this problem by creating newsletters that serve a dual
purpose in promoting the work of the partnership as well as informing the public

143
about upcoming events; yet, the effort is still limited because there was only one
newsletter produced. However, it has been noted that the partnership needs to
develop innovative methods for advertising and communication. Dr. Grupe noted an
absence of innovation during the second year, and Mr. Ali commented that the
partnership needed to treat itself as a brand and rely on new methods other than
newsletters and word of mouth. In an interview conducted by the Year Two research
team with Mr. Gutter, a community member, he made reference to the absence of
outreach programs between the partnership and the Prep community. Also, in an
interview conducted by the Year Two research team with Gonzalez, a parent on the
UEAT board, he also mentioned the need for public meetings, separate from UEAT
meetings, to increase communication between the partnership and the school
stakeholders. He also recommended using flyers in teachers’ mailboxes as a method
for communicating with instructional personnel. Ultimately, the partnership, during
its second year of operation, struggled to establish concrete communication
structures. Thus, the limited communication regarding meetings, activities and
events remained the same as the previous year.
Lack of Trust
The data reveal another commonly coded barrier was a lack of trust. The
Year One Study did not code their “lack of trust” data as a separate code but instead
included it within their other codes. The Year Two research team felt that the topic
was identified so frequently that it merited its own code. Within the interviews,
members from all stakeholder groups repeatedly used words such as mistrust,

144
suspicion, and skepticism. Mr. Ali noted that the lack of trust dynamic was clearly
evident within the partnership’s second year of operation: “[Teachers] don’t trust the
partnership. I think politics is involved in it. You have some teachers that are with
the unions. They’re very vocal because they have those issues.” However, he
mostly attributes the lack of trust to a lack of understanding of the partnership and its
purpose. This assertion aligns closely with the research team observations of the
barriers coded under the lack of trust code. The research team noted a significant
theme emerged regarding motives.
Motives
The most commonly cited example of a lack of trust was related to personal
motives. Some school faculty, classified staff, and parents felt that the partners did
not place the students and the students’ agendas in the forefront. Ms. Shepard was
forthright regarding her concerns with the City Connections and their motive for
participation in the partnership:
We want the City Connections to just tell us what [they’re] doing for the
school. Our biggest downfall here has been honesty. We don’t trust these
people and they don't give us any reason to trust them. And when you don’t
have trust in anything, it’s bound to fail […] I see people, once again, with
their own personal agenda (Ms. Shepard, personal communication, 2010).

Ms. Shepard’s comments illustrate: (1) a history of the school being abused
by outside organizations; (2) a reluctance to trust UEAT to help Prep students reach
its maximum potential; and (3) a persistent bend towards distrust among some
parents that has not been bridged.

145
Dr. Truman, a university participant, also agreed with this feeling and stated
“the students always came third and fourth and fifth.” She was involved in the
partnership during the first year of operation and noticed that stakeholders were very
cynical about why they felt the partners chose to be a part of the partnership. She
suggested that parents and community members felt as though certain network
partners, specifically the City Connections, were going to use the partnership as an
opportunity to push their own organization’s initiatives. Ms. Shepard asserted that
the partners were not necessarily looking at the partnership from the educational
standpoint but instead to create “a model of schools across the nation.” These
statements were supported by Leblue’s comments regarding the City Connections’
push to position themselves as a powerful entity in educational partnerships. Truman
also verified this point, stating that some members of Westside University and the
City Connections were not necessarily there to build alliances to impact the
empowerment of the students, but to build “alliances between organizations for
personal benefit.”
Interestingly, the Bradley Foundation was never mentioned as having ulterior
or negative motives, which aligns with a statement from the Business Plan (2008)
that characterizes the network partner as having “a relationship of trust within the
school and community that is helping stakeholders unify around educating the
community’s youth.”
As evidenced by the data collected from interviews, the City Connections
was questioned the most frequently about their motives for joining and participating

146
in the UEAT partnership. According to a university member, the City Connections
“had a foot in two camps” in that they wanted the school to do well because they
were part of the partnership created to improve the achievement at the school, but
they also expressed an interest in joining the charter school movement by “building
their own school or having their own construct around the UEAT organization so it’s
more like a charter school.” This statement was supported by a teacher who
distrusted the City Connections because he discovered that they had applied for a
School Improvement Grant (SIG) on behalf of the school with little regard to the
controversial expectations that are attached to the money:
Here’s our partner, without any discussion with the stakeholders, writing a
letter of support that would go to the state saying that we want SIG money for
Prep High School High School and basically whatever strings are going to be
attached to it, we’re fine with (Teacher, personal communication, 2010).

A school administrator illuminated the fact that a prominent member of the
City Connections also sits on the National Board of Charter Schools, which adds to
the insecurity people feel about the school being turned into a charter school. Other
stakeholders also stated that they did not care for the way the City Connections
assumed credit for everything that was accomplished within the partnership and that
they consistently put their name first on any publications. Although there seemed to
be a high level of skepticism surrounding the City Connections, they were not the
only network partner subject to scrutiny.
Lack of Trust in Artifacts and Observations

147
It was challenging to identify evidence of lack of trust from the analysis of
documents and artifacts. The MOU and the other documents analyzed by the
research team referred to the strategies that were supposed to build trust, such as co-
construction, transparency, and dialogue. For example, the Strategic Plan explicitly
stated that they would “have a collaborative and transparent process for engaging
and leveraging partners and resources that support Prep High School.”
Unfortunately, the strategies identified in documents were not always translated into
action, as stated by a university participant: “They agreed to certain terms explicitly
and then implicitly everyone went about their way.”
Summary of Findings for Lack of Trust
The concerns regarding the City Connections were identified in Year One
and persisted during Year Two. Dr. Key asserts that the reason for the growth in
mistrust was due to a divergence from co-constructive principals, which made it
appear as though individual network partners were acting out of their own self-
interest versus the benefit of the school and its stakeholders. As previously
mentioned, this divergence from co-constructive practices can be attributed to the
loss of the critical bridge person during the second year to facilitate the network
partners in this process.

Summary of Findings for Research Question 1A: Barriers
Part “A” of Question One asked about the barriers that persist in co-
constructing and sustaining an urban community-school-university partnership

148
beyond its first year of operation. Through an investigation and analysis of the
findings, the research team discovered that the same barriers identified by the Year
One Study persist. Although the same barriers exist, they appear to have increased
in their severity, as evidenced by the frequencies of the codes. The barriers
accounted for 63% of the total codes analyzed by the research team. The data reveal
the most commonly coded barrier was an absence of systems and structures for
communication, which accounted for 32% of the barriers. This theme can be further
divided in the following categories: lack of defined goals, expectations, purpose, and
vision; undefined roles and responsibilities; underexposure of the UEAT Partnership;
lack of methods for disseminating information; inconsistency with people, resources,
and programs; and a lack of transparency. The data reveal the second most
commonly coded barrier was a lack of trust, which accounted for 18% of the
barriers. According to Kezar (2007) and Liederman et al. (2002), lack of trust and
lack of defined goals can contribute to the fragmentation of a partnership and can
serve as a barrier to co-constructive practices. However, there are certain strategies
that can help that partnership overcome these barriers.
Findings and Analysis: Research Question One, Sub Question (b)
In addition to identifying the on-going processes within the partnership, the
research group investigated the effective strategies in place that demonstrate the
ability to overcome the persistent barriers in community-school-university
partnerships seeking to improve student achievement in an urban school. Through
an investigation and analysis of the findings, the research team discovered that the

149
same strategies identified by the Year One Study continue to persist, which include:
(1) systems of representation; (2) the use of a critical bridge person; (3) space for
dialogue; and (4) history. However, the Year Two data portray that there has been a
regression within the strategies of space for dialogue and the use of a critical bridge
person. The Year Two data illustrate that the systems of representation and history
have also regressed. Based on an analysis of the data, the two most prevalent
strategies discussed in the evidence were the systems of representation and the use of
the critical bridge person.
Systems of Representation
The interviews, artifacts, and observations produced a myriad of opinions,
both positive and negative, regarding systems of representation within UEAT. Dr.
Kane, a university representative on the UEAT Board, described the concept of
creating systems of representation during the first year of operation: “If you’re going
to co-construct, you just don’t say that, ‘All right. We’re co-constructing,’ unless…
you have structures. I mean organizational structures for this kind of work to go
forward.” These structures for representation include the Friends of Prep, the Parent
Teacher Student Association, the Transition Team, Small Learning Communities, the
Instructional Leadership team, and the UEAT Board of Directors.

Within the interviews, all stakeholder groups made reference to the
importance of the decision to add parent representatives to the Board of Directors.
Others also stated that it was important that one of the three parents elected is Latino,

150
as many people felt as though the Latino parent voice was absent from the
partnership: “They [Latino Parents] were never at our board meetings, and now they
are. Now we have Mr. Gonzalez, and so that, to me, is an enormous step forward,”
(Dr. Kane, personal communication, 2010). Although the addition of parents was
seen as a benefit by all interviewees, there was contention about the addition of
teachers. Mr. Diamond, a teacher and active UEAT participant, noted “UEAT
doesn’t have a teacher on their board, which is ridiculous.” When asked why he felt
this was an issue, Mr. Diamond elaborated: “It’s been something that’s been brought
up many times, enough for the City Connections to bring their lawyer in and say no
it can’t happen.” Parents and school stakeholders were unclear about why teachers
could not be included on the board when the Memorandum of Understanding states
that the District and UEAT will cooperate to form a council comprised of parents,
community members, and school staff.
Certain stakeholders from Westside University and the CBOs stated that
they felt the representation of parents and teachers was not an accurate depiction of
the larger stakeholder group. Dr. Kane, a university representative, described the
voice of the teachers: “I would say I don’t accept that the people who come all the
time are reflective of all the teachers because we tend to get the Union… That’s the
Union’s view, but I know you don’t represent everyone.” Certain stakeholders
mentioned that the teachers involved represented a certain faction within the school
and that they needed to create systems and structures to diversify the teacher pool of
participants. Similarly, it was noted during the observations that the parents on the

151
Board of Directors were the only parents who were in attendance during the two
Board Meetings observed. Two of the three parents on the board are also members
of the Compensatory Education Advisory Committee (CEAC) and the School Site
Council (SSC), which means that the governing boards associated with the school
are receiving input from the same limited number of parents.
Stakeholders also discussed the involvement of students within the
partnership. Dr. Ballan, a university representative, referred to a student leadership
group that was “involved in doing a survey of what other students thought about
different things, and so that information was supposed to have been presented to
UEAT.” The need for an increase of student voices was also echoed during a UEAT
Board Meeting. During the public comment time, a teacher brought forth a question
about a student becoming a member of the board and the Board President suggested
that the conversation be tabled until the next Board Meeting so that it could be added
as an agenda item (Observation, December 13, 2010).
Another system of representation was the Transition Team. According to the
UEAT Fact Sheet (2009), the Transition Team was created to work on “systems and
structures for effective operation of the school.” This team was created with a
horizontal power dynamic. According to the Business Plan, each stakeholder group
elected their own members to the transition team to represent teachers, students,
parents, community residents, CBOs, classified staff, administrators, and university
staff. This group was responsible for carrying out transition goals identified in the
Business Plan and helped to shape agenda items for board meetings. The transition

152
team was successful during Year One, but was then disbanded due to the fact they
had fulfilled their duties at the end of Year One. Stakeholders from the school,
CBOs, and university mentioned that the termination of the Transition Team was one
of the elements that caused the
[…] tumultuous period of the second year. [It] pretty much broke down in
Year Two, and I’d say we’re struggling on that right now but it hasn’t gotten
back on its tracks entirely and that’s not just UEAT, I mean that’s all of us
(Mr. Diamond, personal communication, 2010).

Another system created for representation was the school retreat held in
February, 2010, which was open to all stakeholder groups. Dr. Grupe, the facilitator
of the retreat, described the purpose of the retreat, “to provide a constructive…
context in which disagreeing parties can have sharper focus on the issues and bring
each other together to have some degree of coordination and focus on the issues.”
Dr. Grupe went on to state that the Board members were not in attendance, because
they felt the presence of the board might inhibit the participation of some
stakeholders. It is important to note that this coordinated system of representation
led to the creation of a tangible document, the Strategic Plan.
Summary of Systems of Representation Findings
The Year One research team reported that stakeholders stated that the
opportunity for inclusion exists but that more participation is needed in order to
ensure that those who are involved are representative of the larger group of
stakeholders. Interviews with parents revealed that they felt there was not a strong
enough voice for Latino parents. Similarly, stakeholders felt that there was a lack of

153
student participation that stemmed from a deficiency of disseminated information
about the partnership to the larger student body and the community. The Year Two
research team felt that the data illustrate that the systems of representation have
regressed. Although there is now a stronger voice for Latino parents, there still is a
limited inclusion of representatives from the larger stakeholder groups. Also, many
of the systems of representation put in place during the first year have ceased to exist
within the second and third year of operation, such as the Transition Team and Small
Learning Community Council.
Critical Bridge Person Findings
In addition to systems of representation, the use of critical bridge person was
a strong strategy used during Year One. According to the literature, the critical
bridge person 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 interviews, artifacts and
observations offered the research team an opportunity to analyze the extent to which
the partnership was continuing the use of a critical bridge person as a strategy to
overcome barriers to co-construction within the partnership. During the data
collection process, the research team had two notable observations of the use of a
critical bridge person, one of which was during a UEAT Meeting on December 13,
2010, in which Dr. Key helped facilitate a dialogue between the different stakeholder
groups present at the meeting. During the meeting, Dr. Key was defending Prep and
its articulation progress in a manner that was well received by the UEAT Board,

154
school representatives and community members present. Dr. Kane’s interview
further affirmed Dr. Key’s role as a critical bridge person:
[…] this is Dr. Key. This is where she came form. Dr. Key understands this.
This is how she believes things will be more effective. She certainly did a lot
in getting structures in place within the school that support that, and has held
people’s feet in the fire about it (Dr. Kane, personal communication, 2010).

Although Dr. Key has served as a critical bridge person, several noted her
absence during the second year. They mentioned that during that time, the critical
bridge person had disappeared.
According to Ms. Espinoza, during its second year of operation, UEAT lost
its critical bridge person:
It was because there wasn’t a connection. [In Year One ] there was
somebody who was there on the ground all the time […] There was a face to
the organization that we don't have right now. We have Ms. Carriage, who
seems fine […] but not present on campus –to the extent that Dr. Key used to
be (Ms. Espinoza, personal communication, 2010).

Espinoza’s statement suggests that in order for a critical bridge person to be
effective, they need to be engaging with all different stakeholders as well as be aware
of the specific needs of the school and the partnership. The critical bridge person
needs to demonstrate a certain level of engagement between the network partners
and the community. Mr. Leblue noted that the level of engagement disappeared with
the Year Two Executive Director: “I like Dr. Grupe. He’s a nice guy. But he just
wasn’t there.” He went on say that Dr. Key was “far more engaged with trying to
bring about some of those changes that needed to happen within the school” in
comparison to the Year Two Executive Director. Furthermore, Leblue asserts that

155
the role of the Executive Director needs to coincide with the definition of the critical
bridge person: “I just think the role of the Executive Director has to be redefined to
some degree that could easily make the executive director that person that you’re
speaking of.”
While Leblue proposes that the critical bridge person be embodied in the role
of the Executive Director, Ms. Cosby believes the critical bridge person needs to
facilitate the process of co-construction, which is something that had disappeared in
Year Two of the partnership. She was apprehensive about UEAT and their concern
for the academic achievement of Prep students. Yet, during its third year, Ms. Cosby
regained a positive perspective: “And when [UEAT] brought Dr. Key back, I knew
they cared about the education that Prep has because she drives this train better than
anybody else.” The aforementioned statements solidify the fact that Dr. Key, during
Year One, served as a critical bridge person, and that role remained vacant during
Year Two of the partnership.
The second notable observation of the use of a critical bridge person was in
the February 10, 2011 observation of a meeting regarding the Ford Grant in which
Dr. Singh, Mr. Al, Ms. Cosby and Mr. Diamond met at a local eatery to discuss the
role UEAT will play in ensuring that the grant will best serve the needs of the
students at Prep. It is important to note that within this meeting, Dr. Singh and Mr.
Al were soliciting the opinions of each of the stakeholders and trying to help them
come to an agreement on the role that the partnership would play in ensuring that the
needs of the grant were met with fidelity. They rarely imposed their own opinions,

156
but rather asked strategic questions that challenged each member of the group to
think about the purpose of the grant and the potential benefits that it could have at
the school. Thus, both Dr. Singh and Mr. Al were key in guiding the co-constructive
process within the partnership as well as facilitating a dialogue around the
partnership’s next steps as it moves forward during its third year. Based on this
evidence, it can be stated that Dr Singh and Mr. Al also served as critical bridge
people within the partnership. This is further supported with evidence from the
Business Plan.
According to the UEAT Business Plan (2008), Dr. Singh was identified as a
critical bridge person because he:
[…] has maintained a two-year presence at Prep High School, helping the
school and community stakeholders assume responsibility for the sustained
and informed efforts necessary to transform the beleaguered schools in their
community. Dr. Singh has a long and distinguished career in bridging
academia and community-based efforts to bring solutions to social and socio-
economic issues.

Mr. Al was also mentioned in the Business Plan (2008) as “a longtime
community and political activist for the bringing resources sorely lacking in urban
communities.” Both gentlemen were identified as having strong ties with the
community as well as the academic, political and social capital necessary to assist
UEAT in navigating the transformation process.
Although the artifacts make mention of both Singh and Al, the interviews
only reference the work of Dr. Singh regarding his role in guiding the co-
constructive process. According to Mr. Diamond, it is “mostly Dr. Key and Dr.

157
Singh doing it [co-construction].” However, within the interviews, Dr. Singh was
not heavily identified as a critical bridge person to the same extent as Dr. Key.
Summary of Critical Bridge Person Findings
The Year Two research team’s observation of Dr. Dr. Key being a critical
bridge person coincides with the findings from the Year One research team, who
clearly identify her in this role as a person who constructs important relationships
between stakeholders in the partnership’s first year of operation. According to
Gillenwaters, a member of the Year One research team, “Dr. Key was very
instrumental in establishing cross-organizational trust among members of UEAT’s
different stakeholder groups. Dr. Key was respected and trusted by members of each
stakeholder group.” The aforementioned mirrors the statements found in the UEAT
Business Plan (2008), which identified her as a critical bridge person during her
tenure as the interim Executive Director. Ms. Bryant, the school’s principal, noted
that Dr. Key “is an educator who knows the LA system and knows the school [Prep],
and so that foundation that they laid in the planning process was pretty well done, so
it was something to build on.” Thus, during the first year of the partnership, Dr. Key
was integral in serving as a critical bridge person.
However, during Year Two, Dr. Key was absent from the partnership and
there was no evidence of anyone replacing her within that role. As a result of this
vacuum, the research team asserts that there was a regression in the use of the role of
the critical bridge person as a strategy to overcome a persisting barrier. Although
the Year Two research team’s data revealed that there was a regression in the use of

158
the role as the critical bridge person, it also demonstrated that the partnership was
starting to reintegrate the use of the critical bridge person as it moves forward into its
third year. Dr. Key has reintegrated herself into the work of the partnership and is
being seen as “the UEAT liaison.”
Additionally, the Year One partnership also identified the Bradley
Foundation as being instrumental in bridging cross-organizational trust; to this
extent, the Year Two research team asserts that the Bradley Foundation’s role as a
critical bridge person remained the same. The data demonstrates that Dr. Singh and
Mr. Al continue to work with the partnership in providing resources and facilitating
discussions regarding the partnership and its role in improving the academic
achievement of students at Prep High School.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1b
Part “B” of Question One asked about the strategies used to overcome
barriers to co-constructing and sustaining an urban community-school-university
partnership beyond its first year of operation. Through an investigation and analysis
of the findings, the research team discovered that the same strategies identified by
the Year One Study continue to persist. Although the same strategies exist, they
appear to have regressed in their utilization during Year Two. The data reveal the
most commonly absent strategies were systems of representation and the use of a
critical bridge person.
Summary of Findings: Research Question 2
The second research question asks:

159
How can the community-school-university partnership influence the
development of a new cultural model leading to parental engagement in the interest
of school transformation?
In order to effectively evaluate this research question, in relation to the
UEAT partnership, it is imperative to complete the following tasks: (1) review the
theoretical framework of a new cultural model of parental engagement as outlined by
the literature; (2) elucidate the history of parental involvement at Prep prior to the
development of UEAT; (3) assess the state of parental engagement during the first
year of the partnership; and (4) evaluate the level of parental engagement in the
partnership during its second year and beyond in comparison to the literature based
cultural framework and in comparison to Year One (and before) parental
engagement. By completing this level of analysis, it will reveal the extent in which
the partnership was able to facilitate, beyond its first year of operation, the
development of a new cultural model of parental engagement contributing to the
transformation of the school.
The theoretical framework established in Chapter Three for a new cultural
model of parental engagement served as a basis for analyzing the data regarding the
extent to which the partnership has influenced the development of a new cultural
model toward transforming the school. This framework is supported by
Brofenbrenner’s (1990) ecological system’s model, which states the importance for a
child’s ecosystem to be integrated with their educational setting. The research team
evaluated whether or not (1) parents’ cultural and social capital were valued

160
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2002), (2) there were invitations for parent involvement,
and (3) parents’ held specific roles within the school that they needed to fulfill for
the school’s transformation (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). However before
delving into an analysis of the partnership’s influence, it is important to construct a
history of parental engagement at Prep High School prior to the development of the
partnership.
History of Parental Engagement Prior to UEAT
Ten of the 29 interviewees, conducted by the current research team, stated
parents served as the impetus for the development of the partnership. Ms. Cosby, a
Prep parent, noted that the Friends of Prep played a significant role in the school’s
decision to join iDesign, which clearly stipulated that the school would be working
with a variety of network partners in an effort to guide school improvement.
Cosby’s statement is further supported by Gillenwaters, a Year One research team
member, whose findings from Year One revealed that the parents’ work towards
transforming Prep preceded the work of the partnership.
Dr. Key’s interview elucidated the rationale behind the parents’ decision to
opt for iDesign versus the District’s improvement intervention. She asserts that the
parents had a certain level of distrust of the District’s ability to transform the school;
they felt that the District was partly culpable for the declined state of the school, thus
it was considered incapable of effectively meeting the needs of the school in its quest
for transformation.

161
However, Key’s interview also illuminates another important factor regarding
parent engagement at Prep during that time period: the need to respond to a crisis
situation. Cosby, a Prep parent; Key, a university stakeholder; and Ms. Shepard, a
Prep parent and staff member, noted that the Friends of Prep was developed in
reaction to the threat and actual temporary loss of its WASC accreditation in 2005 as
well as the schools’ declining academic performance from previous years. Ms.
Carriage, the Executive Director appointed in Year Three, noted that the parents
involved in this group were “advocate parents, who [took] the lead during troubled
times [and] have pushed Prep into taking action on certain things,” such as the choice
to work with a partnership. However, Ms. Carriage fails to mention that the Friends
of Prep was not merely an alliance between Prep parents, but it was a partnership
between teachers and parents, as indicated by the minutes from the Friends of Prep
meetings and interviews with participating teachers. Parents and teachers attended
weekly meetings, going back as far as 2005, to discuss the needs of the school as
well as potential solutions to the school’s ongoing problems. At times, the teachers
and parents would solicit help from the Bradley Foundation to guide their work. The
unique alliance between parents and teachers as part of the Friends of Prep is
noteworthy and demonstrates the beginnings of a new cultural model.

Parental Engagement During Year One
During the first year of the partnership, parents, mainly from the Friends of
Prep, had a dynamic relationship with UEAT; they were being included in the work

162
of the partnership, yet they had no formal representation on its Board. Several
interviewees from board members, university participants, Prep parents and staff
members, noted that it was an ongoing struggle during Year One and Year Two to
get parent representation on the Board. However, during Year One, parents still
played an integral role in the partnership due to their involvement as members of the
transition team elected by their constituents. According to Dr. Key’s interview,
parents were highly involved in guiding the work of the transition team. She noted
that the parent representation on the transition team was not solely limited to parents
who were a part of the Friends of Prep, but others who were not actively involved in
the parent organization. They were key in identifying concerns with the school as
well as developing a clear path on how to ameliorate those concerns.
The Year One research team’s findings regarding parental engagements were
consistent with the statements from the interviews. According to Gillenwaters, a
Year One researcher, the work of the Bradley Foundation helped parents develop
solidarity in their quest for educational reform. The Bradley Foundation also played
a critical role in helping teachers and parents build trust with one another, which
prepared parents to participate in the process of co-construction. Kim, a Year One
researcher, asserts the UEAT 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

163
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 for [the Friends of Prep], Transition Teams, [Parent Teacher
Association], and others.”
Consistencies and Inconsistencies with Theoretical Framework
The realm of parental engagement during the first year of the partnership was
consistent with the theoretical framework constructed by the literature because the
transition team built on the cultural capital of parents and gave them specific roles
under which they could operate in the partnership. Although parents did not have
formal representation on the board, they were highly involved in the work of the
transition team and were heavily present at School Site Council meetings. Their
voices were prominent in making decisions about the future of the school.
Parental Engagement During Year Two
During Year Two, parental engagement in the partnership waned
considerably and suggested those parents’ roles in the school had become invisible.
Fifteen of the 29 persons interviewed by the Year Two research team asserted that
parental engagement was a problem at Prep High School. Mr. Leblue, a veteran
teacher, described parent engagement as “embarrassing,” although he stated that
parents had been active in years prior to the partnership. Mrs. Piedmont, a school
employee, interviewed by the Year Two research team, noted that the main issue
with parents, currently, is that “they are not involved,” in spite of the efforts of the

164
Parent Center. She notes that the parent representation at UEAT meetings, School
Site Council meetings, parent workshops and parent conference nights is “really
low.” Her statements are consistent with the Year Two research team’s observation
of UEAT meetings that took place in January and June of 2010. Only three parents
were present at the January meeting and two parents were present at the June
meeting. However, five parents were present at the retreat in February of 2010.
Several of the interviewees noted that there was a core group of five parents that held
a significant amount of power within the parent group. Ultimately, there was not a
large spectrum of parent representation at meetings during the partnership’s second
year.
Several of the persons interviewed mentioned the different roles parents had
during Year One; however, none of them mentioned the roles that parents had during
the partnership’s second year. Parents were not present on the Instructional
Leadership Team, which evolved from the SLC committees. It is important to note
that parents were involved in SLC committee during Year One, but their role on a
school committee disappeared between Year One and Year Two. They were also not
involved in dialogue surrounding teacher professional development. Additionally,
none of the persons interviewed, including parents, teachers, and administrators,
made mention of parents having a role on decision-making teams at the school; this
suggests the disappearance of the parent role during the second year of the
partnership.

165
Not only did parents’ roles disappear, but their physical presence on campus
events and at meetings was diminished as well. Ms. Shepard, coordinator of the
Parent Center, mentioned the fact that the Parent Center had been moved from the
center of the campus to an isolated location where they have limited contact with
students and visitors; she mentioned the fact that they do not have access to a
landline phone, which limits their pathway of communication. It is noteworthy that
neither the principal nor any of the administrative staff made mention of parents
participating on the English Learner Advisory Council or the Compensatory
Education Advisory Council. Additionally, of the four parents interviewed, none of
them mentioned receiving explicit invitations for involvement in the partnership’s
work for school transformation. Ms. Cosby noted that during the second year of the
partnership, the Friends of Prep’s meetings began to decrease in frequency and
attendance in comparison to previous years. According to Dr. Key and the Year One
research team, these parents were heavily present at UEAT meetings and School Site
Council meetings during the partnership’s first year. However, the Year Two
research team noted minimal parent attendance during the UEAT and School Site
Council meetings during the second year. Parents’ limited presence may be
attributed to the fact that they had limited roles within the school.
Ms. Shepard notes that parent involvement at Prep has been limited because
it is a secondary school. Shepard believes that once a child reaches a certain age,
parents feel less inclined to be involved in the school unless there is a crisis. She
mentions the fact that the Parent Center is spear-heading workshops and other

166
interventions to try and build capacity, but only 15 to 18 parents are in attendance.
Shepard’s interview reveals that parents are being invited to the school to participate
in activities. Yet, the parents’ invitations for participation do not require them to
take on new roles within the school, as they had previously during Year One.
Mr. Leblue notes that parents having a limited role in the school is “a real
tragedy because the parents who would probably would have been engaged that
way” are leaving Prep to enroll their child in charter schools. He states that what is
left at Prep is a large population who are traditionally disengaged and will not speak
up on their own behalf. Mr. Diamond echoes this sentiment in stating that the school
has failed to get parents involved in activities beyond the occasional meeting or
conference night.
In conjunction with the limited presence at the school, parents continued to
have limited presence on the UEAT Board. They were not formally recognized as
members of the Board until the end of the second year of the partnership. Cosby and
Shepard noted that this struggle, which stems from the first year, caused a
fragmentation in the relationship between parents and the partnership. The
relationship worsened when the Board implemented legal limitations that prevented
parents from having representation on the Board. Parents became less trusting of the
partnership’s motives and felt underappreciated considering the fact that they were
the driving force behind the partnership’s development. Thus, it appeared as though
parents’ cultural capital was not valued. The result was that they were not integrated
into the partnership’s effort towards school transformation.

167
Consistencies and Inconsistencies with Theoretical Framework
The realm of parental engagement during Year Two of the partnership is not
consistent with the theoretical framework constructed by the literature because
parent invitations for participation were limited to workshops and meetings. The
data demonstrated no evidence of concrete roles for parents within the school.
Furthermore, they were not offered an opportunity to work with the school in an
effort for transformation until the end of Year Two, in which three were given seats
on the UEAT Board. However, the relationship between parents and the partnership
had been damaged due to the amount of time it took for them to gain representation
on the Board.
Parent Engagement During Year Three
Although there was a regression in the level of parent engagement during
Year Two, there is evidence of parental engagement moving towards a new cultural
model during the partnership’s third year. Three parents have been elected to the
UEAT Board, and they have had some involvement in the early conceptualization of
the Ford Foundation grant. However, it is noteworthy that the spectrum of parental
engagement is still limited. At the end of Year Two, parents were elected to the
UEAT Board. As previously mentioned, this had been a two-year contention
between parents and Board representatives. Ms. Cosby noted that parents felt that
their voices would be better heard once they had representation on the UEAT Board.
However, when the Year Two research team observed a UEAT meeting, the parent
Board members spoke for no more than five minutes of a meeting that was over a 60

168
minutes long. In fact, of the stakeholder groups that were present on the Board, the
parents spoke the least. Furthermore, there were no parents present in the audience,
not even those who were participants of the Friends of Prep.
However, the Ford Foundation grant aims to expand the realm of parent
engagement at Prep High School. According to the grant:
Parent roles will shift from the traditional learner (object) to roles in which
they are respected as sources of knowledge, as participants in implementing
and shaping the problem-based learning model, and as organizers and
advocates for the conditions necessary to enact authentic school reform.
Parent engagement will come to mean a process of co-constructing with other
partners the knowledge and conditions needed to educate students well in an
urban setting. Parents will carry out this role, not only through their
participation in existing school-based governance committees and district-
wide reform efforts, but also through helping teachers and students think
through authentic learning experiences that tap into students’ prior
knowledge and cultural capital.

Funds in the proposal are allocated to parent participation and training,
following a trainer of trainer model. A part-time parent organizer is in the budget.
Also, Dr. Singh’s voluntary role of working with parents in the past has been written
into the budget for an explicit number of hours. Parent roles have been redefined to
act as co-decision makers and participants in students’ presentations of culminating
projects. Thus, it is clear that the partnership, in the future, will incorporate parents
into the school’s transformation process by giving them specific roles on school
decision-making teams. It is important to note, however, that although parents were
not actively engaged in writing, consultations with them are reflected in the grant
proposal, and they are written in as key participants in the future direction of the
school as it moves toward a transformation model. .

169
Summary of Parent Engagement Findings
Prior to the development of the partnership, parents were engaged in moving
the school towards a transformation process; they were reacting to a crisis situation
in terms of diminished test scores and the temporary loss of accreditation. During
the first year of the partnership, parents did not have formal recognition on the
Board, yet they were still engaged through their participation on the Transition
Team. During the second year of the partnership, parents had no formal
representation on the Board, they were not present at meetings in large numbers, nor
did they have roles specified within the school. During the third year of the
partnership, parents gained formal representation on the Board, yet their participation
in school committees remained limited. However, the Ford Foundation grant
demonstrates a movement towards a new cultural model for parental engagement in
the interest of school transformation because parents have formal invitations to work
with the partnership, they are given specific roles to complete within the school and
there is an explicit consideration for their cultural capital.

170
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to identify and analyze the extent to which a
community-school-university partnership is able to sustain elements of co-
construction and other ongoing processes that are beneficial to the partnership during
its second year in operation and beyond. The study also aims to identify the
persistent barriers to co-constructions and effective strategies to overcome those
barriers within a community-school-university partnership. Furthermore, the study
seeks to determine the methods by which a community-school-university partnership
is able create a new cultural model leading to parental engagement in the interest of
school transformation. Chapter Two provided the literature review to make a case
for effective processes that can lead to transformation of schools as well as processes
for creating a new cultural model for increasing parental engagement in the school
transformation process. Chapter Three provided the research methodology for this
qualitative case study of a community-school-university partnership and described
the procedures for data collection and analysis in relation to the posed research
questions. Chapter Four presented the findings from the study and analyzed the
findings through the theoretical framework presented in Chapter Two. This chapter
will summarize the major findings, their implications and then make
recommendations.

171
Significance of Study
Minority students are more likely to report widespread academic shortfalls
(Johnson, Arumi, & Ott, 2006), but they can no longer afford to exist at the bottom
of the educational totem pole. Considerable attention needs to be paid to
transforming the state of urban education, specifically with low performing schools
and the students, parents and communities that are affected by their performance.
Each student that is not successful in the academic realm creates cause for national
concern. According to a report conducted by McKinsey & Company (2006), the
United States lags significantly behind other advanced nations in educational
performance. This gap has economic implications with regards to student
preparedness to enter the workforce and attain meaningful paying jobs that allow for
economic self-sufficiency. If successful in transforming to increase student
academic achievement, the community-school-university partnership can positively
alter the aforementioned statistic; it may be able to create a new cultural model for
school transformation. Furthermore, this new cultural model can impact the
relationship between parents, communities, schools and universities by re-shaping
their interactions with one another and the schooling process. On a local level, this
study can impact the relationships between parents, communities and schools that
have a history of mistrust; it can allow each stakeholder in the partnership to
recognize their role in maintaining the processes essential for co-construction and
dialogical relationships. Also, the study can impact how institutions view parents as

172
stakeholders in the partnership through an in depth look at how parents feel about
their existing roles in the school transformation process.
Research Questions
1) What evidence of ongoing processes, including co-construction, does a
community-school-university partnership demonstrate as it continues to work
toward school improvement beyond its first year of operation?
1a) What are the barriers that persist in co-constructing and sustaining a
community-school-university partnership created to improve an urban
school?
1b) What are effective strategies are in place that demonstrates the ability to
overcome the persistent barriers in community-school-university partnerships
seeking to improve student achievement in an urban school?
2) How can the community-school-university partnership influence the
development of a new cultural model leading to parental engagement in the
interest of school transformation?
Major Findings
Major Findings for Research Question One
The major finding regarding co-construction was that the partnership has
regressed in its co-constructive practices amongst the network partners during the
partnership’s second year. Instead, the network partners, individually, engage in a
process of co-construction with the school, but to a lesser degree than in Year One.
The major finding regarding dialogue is that the network partners had regressed in

173
dialogue with one another yet maintained a certain level of dialogue with the school.
Furthermore, parents and classified staff were removed from the process of dialogue
with the partnership due to a lack of communication structures for them. Although
both co-construction and dialogue regressed, both were re-emerging during the
partnership’s third year. It follows that regression in dialogue would produce
regression in co-construction as dialogue is a means for facilitating co-construction.
Major Findings for Research Sub-Question A
The Year Two research team’s major findings regarding barriers to co-
construction were similar to the Year One research team’s findings; the same barriers
from Year One existed during Year Two, however they were more prevalent during
the partnership’s second year. The most common barriers were an absence of
systems and structures for communication and lack of trust. Within the absence of
systems and structures for communication code, six distinguishable trends emerged
from the data: (1) lack of defined goals, expectations, purpose and vision; (2)
undefined roles and responsibilities; (3) underexposure of partnership (UEAT); (4)
lack of methods for disseminating information; (5) limited voices being heard on the
UEAT Board; (6) inconsistency with people, resources and programs; and (7) lack of
transparency. Within the lack of trust code, one distinguishable trend emerged from
the data, which was a questioning of the personal motives of the network partners.
Major Findings for Research Sub-Question B
The Year Two research team’s major findings regarding strategies to
overcome barriers to co-construction were similar to the Year One research team’s

174
findings. The research team discovered that the same strategies identified by the
Year One team persisted during Year Two; however they regressed in their
utilization during Year Two. The most commonly absent strategies were the
presence of a critical bridge person and systems of representation. This researcher
did not make a separate category for mutual shared learning that the Year One
research team had identified as a key strategy for overcoming barriers to co-
construction and dialogue. Instead, this researcher saw mutual shared learning as
part of the dialogic process.
Major Findings for Research Question Two
This researcher’s major finding regarding the community-school-university’s
influence on the development of a new cultural model leading to parental
engagement in the interest of school transformation is that the partnership is
gradually facilitating the process of creating a new cultural model for parental
engagement. Prior to the development of the partnership, parents served as the
impetus for the school transformation process. During Year One of the partnership,
parents did not have a formal role on the UEAT Board yet were still involved in the
transformation process through their work on the Transition Team. During the
second year of the partnership, parents had no formal representation on the UEAT
Board, a limited presence at UEAT meeting, minimal participation on school
committees and no identified roles on school decision-making teams. Parents’
visibility on campus and in the partnership was diminished. During Year Three,
parents gained formal representation on the Board which is a step towards a new

175
cultural model; however, the parental engagement spectrum and the number of
parents involved in the school is still limited. During Year Three, the partnership is
taking a major step forward in its efforts to expand the parent role through the
planning and funding through the Ford Foundation Grant.
Recommendations
Recommendations for UEAT in its Fourth Year and Beyond:
1. Create an addendum or clause in the MOU that allows for the students,
teachers and classified staff to have a voting representative of some type on
the Board of Directors.
2. The data reveal that the partnership’s underexposure contributes to limited
community involvement. The absence of explicit structures within the
partnership suggests that UEAT needs to create clear pathways of
communication between stakeholders and become more visible in the
community. The Executive Director should be the steward of this exposure
initiative in ensuring that UEAT becomes a brand that is recognized within
the community.
3. Create and communicate clear goals for the partnership by multiple means.
The lack of defined goals leads to stakeholder speculation, which then places
unrealistic expectations on the network partners. Ultimately, placing
unrealistic expectations on the partners serves more as a hindrance to UEAT
than an asset because it makes those who are impacted by the work of the
partnership (i.e. teachers, classified staff) feel as though the partnership is not

176
fulfilling its responsibilities, when in actuality those responsibilities have not
been clearly identified. There may be a mismatch between the expectations
and the goals that they identified.
4. Ensure that the partnership has at least one, and preferably more than one,
critical bridge person. The findings demonstrate that a critical bridge person
is essential in perpetuating the process of co-construction and dialogue
among diverse stakeholders.
5. Create non-traditional forums for parent participation. The research team’s
data, and the literature, demonstrate that parent participation is oftentimes
limited to meetings and conferences focused on student performance. In
order to move towards a new cultural model for parental engagement, parents
need to have formal roles on school level decision-makings teams (i.e.
Instructional Leadership Team, Professional Development Committee, etc)
and informal roles designed by the parents themselves.
6. The network partners need to ensure that they engage in a process of dialogue
with one another and not solely with the school. Thus, they need to
intentionally create structured spaces for dialogue in which they regularly
engage in dialogue with one another. The data collected from the Year Two
research team suggests that the partners moved away from a practice of
dialogue with one another but still maintained a pathway of communication
with the school, although it was not totally co-constructive. Furthermore, the
evidence of mutual/shared learning from the first two years was weak and

177
episodic. There needs to be a formalized structure in which the network
partners and stakeholders can pool their knowledge and channel it towards
the work of the school transformation process.
7. The partnership cannot solely be focused on the school, but they also need to
focus on the partnership itself.
Implications
Implications for Co-Constructed Community-School-University Partnership:
o Although the network partners were still trying to grasp the concept of co-
construction, each partner was able to make their own unique contribution
towards the process of school transformation that is demonstrated by
improved academic results. This connects to the literature (Rochlin, 2000;
Epstein, 2001) that explicitly states that each network partner of an
educational partnership brings their own unique attributes that can play a
significant role in helping the partnership reach its goals.
o Ideally, when the network partners are working together in a co-constructive
manner, it is reasonable to expect greater academic success from the school
because the partnership is employing the use of overlapping spheres of
influence (Epstein, 1997). Although the Year Two research team’s data
suggest that there was a regression in co-constructive practices, the network
partners did have overlapping influence on the improved academic
achievement of the school.

178
o Educational partnerships have the potential to become more meaningful to
the school transformation process because of the multiple resources they
contain; they have the potential to address the needs of schools in an age
where resources are decreasing from public education.
o When parents and teachers unite, they are a powerful force. However, when
relationships become formalized with legalities and policies, parents’ and
teachers’ self-initiated relationships diminish. Thus, formal and legal
restrictions limit alliances that existed prior to the partnership.
o Until the network partners are more committed to the process of co-
construction and dialogue amongst one another, they will continue to operate
within their own separate cultures. If they are fully committed to the process
of co-construction, it will affect the way that the individual partners’
organizations operate.
o Since they did not focus on cultivating the culture of the partnership, they
minimized the intensity of the impact of the partnership on the school and
community.

179
REFERENCES
Alexander, M., Jr. (2009). An exploration of the relationship between student
engagement and academic performance of undergraduate students at a
public historically Black higher education institution in the Southeast.
Retrieved July 1, 2010 from http://www.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/en-
US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2007). Kids Count Data Book. Baltimore, MD:
Author.

Armor, D. J. (2006). "Brown" and Black-White achievement. Academic Questions,
19(2), 40-46.

Ascher, C. (1989). School-college collaborations: A strategy for helping low-income
minorities. Urban Review, 21(3), 181-91.

Auerbach, S. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family
engagement in rrban schools. School Community Journal, 19(1), 9-32.

Balli, S. J., Demo, D. H., & Wedman, J. F. (1998). Family involvement with
children's homework: An intervention in the middle grades. Family
Relations, 47(2), 149-57.

Barton, A. C., Drake, C., Perez, J. G., St. Louis, K., & George, M. (2004). Ecologies
of parental engagement in urban education. Educational Researcher, 33(4),
3-12.

Barton, P. E. & Coley, R. J. (2009). Parsing the Achievement Gap II. Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.

Baum, H.S. (2000). Fantasies and realities in university-community relationships.
Journal of Planning, Education, and Research, 20, 234-246.

Beaumont, J. J. (1998). Administrator and researcher: Conflicting dual roles in
directing a school-university partnership. Urban Education. 32(5), 645-660.

Blau, S. D. (1981). Commentary: Literacy as a form of courage. Journal of Reading,
25(2), 101-05.

Blue, E., & Collins, J. L. (1998). Learning to coconstruct critical learning processes
in an rrban school-university partnership. Urban Education, 32(5), 577-590.

180
Borthwick, A. C., Stirling, T., Nauman, A. D., & Cook, D. L. (2003). Achieving
successful school-university collaboration. Urban Education, 38(3), 330-71.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York,
NY: Greenwood Press.
Bradshaw, T. K. (2006). Theories of poverty and anti-poverty programs in
community development. RPRC Working Paper No. 06-05. Davis, CA:
Human and Community Development Department University of California.

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

Brofenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development.
American Psychologist, 32(7), 513-31.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. International
Encyclopedia of Education, 3(2), 37-43.

Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding
foreign language learner discourse during communicative Tasks. Hispania,
77(2), 262-74.

Brown, D. R., & Gary, L. E. (1991). Religious socialization and educational
attainment among African Americans: An empirical assessment. Journal of
Negro Education. 60(3), 411-26.

California Department of Education. (2009). DataQuest. Retrieved March 1, 2010
from www.dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/

Carbonaro, W. J. (1998). A little help from my friend's parents: Intergenerational
closure and educational outcomes. Sociology of Education, 71(4), 295-313.

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

Carter, J. H. (2007). The challenge of parent engagement in urban small schools
reform. Online Yearbook of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 46-55.

181
Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed
cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 1-46). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.

Creswell (2007). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Crosnoe, R. (2004). Social capital and the interplay of families and schools. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 267-280.

D'Angelo, D. A., & Adler, C. R. (1991). Chapter l: A catalyst for improving parent
involvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(5), 350-54.

Dewey, J. (2007). Democracy and education. Teddington, England: Echo Library.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach.
Helsinki: Orienta- Konsultit.

Engeström, Y. (1990). Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity
theory. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

Engeström, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In
Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on
activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Y. (1999b). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical
perspective. Computer supported cooperative work: The journal of
collaborative computing, 8(1-2), 63-93.

Engeström, Y. (1999c). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of
knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L.
Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Epstein, J. L. & Connors, L. J. (1992). School and family partnerships. Reston, VA:
National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). Teacher attitudes and practices of parent
involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. Baltimore, MD:
Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.

182
Epstein, J.L., and Lee, S. (1995). National patterns of school and family connections
in the middle grades. In B. Ryan, G. Adams, T. Gullotta, R. Weissberg, and
R. Hampton (Eds.), The family-School connection: Theory, research, and
practice (pp. 108-154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Epstein, J. L. & Sanders, M. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for
school, family and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education,
81(2), 81-120.

Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2006). Moving forward: Ideas for research on
school, family and community partnership. In SAGE handbook for research
in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 117-138). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Epstein, J. L. & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes: Teachers’ roles in
designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 181-194.

Epstein, J. L., Williams, K.J., & Jansorn, N.R. (April 2004). Does policy prompt
partnerships? Effects of NCLB on district leadership for family involvement.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.

Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M. A., & Childs, S. (2004). Multiple dimensions
of family involvement and their relations to behavioral and learning
competencies for urban, low-income children. School Psychology Review,
33(4), 467-480.

Fedje, L., & Scoggins, J. (1994). Ma, pa, school folks and kids: Working a
patchwork to a complete "heart." In D. Montgomery (Ed.) Rural
partnerships: Working together. Proceedings of the Annual National
Conference of the American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES).

Fine, Michelle (Ed.). (1994). Chartering urban school reform: Reflections on public
high schools in the midst of change. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.

Franse, S., & Siegel, A. (1987). A Case for collaboratives: Turning around the Bronx
public schools. Urban Review, 19(2), 129-35.
Freeman, M. (Ed.). (1986). Called to act: Stories of child care advocacy in our
churches. New York, NY: Child Advocacy Office, National Council of
Churches.

183
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum
International Publishing Group.

Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of educational reform: Inside; inside/out;
outside/in. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 581-584.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research.
Educational Psychologist,36, 45-56.

Googins, B.K. & Rochlin, S.A. (2000). Creating the partnership society:
Understanding the rhetoric and reality of cross sector partnerships. Business
and Society Review, 105(1), 127-144.

Gordon, R., Kane, T. J., Staiger, D. O. (2006). Identifying effective teachers using
performance on the job. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

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

Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostoleris, N. H. (1997).
Predictors of parent involvement in children's schooling. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 89, 538-548.

Grolnick, W.S., & Slowiaczek, M.L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s
schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model.
Child Development, 65, 237-252.

Gronski, R., and Kenneth Pigg. (2000). University and community collaboration:
experiential learning in human services. Educational Administration
Abstracts, 35(4).

Gupta, A. (2009). Vygotskian perspectives on using dramatic play to enhance
children's development and balance creativity with structure in the early
childhood classroom. Early Child Development and Care, 179(8), 1041-
1054.

Gutman, L. M. & McLoyd, V.C. (2000). Parents’ management of their children’s
education within the home, at school, and in the community: An examination
of African American families living in poverty. The Urban Review, 32, 1-24.

184
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership,
and student reading achievement. Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 527-
550.

Harkavy, I., & Puckett, J. L. (1991). Toward effective university-public school
partnership: An analysis of a contemporary model. Teachers College Record,
92, 556-581.

HB2722 Advisory Committee. (December 2008). A plan to close the acheivement
gap for African American students. Olympia, WA: Washington Office of
Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Henderson, A.T. & Beria, Nancy (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family
is critical to student achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for
Citizens in Education.

Hochschild J. (2003). Rethinking accountability politics. In P.E. Peterson & M.R.
West (Eds.), No child left behind? The politics and practices of
accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Hokoda, A., & Fincham, F. D. (1995). Origins of children's helpless and mastery
achievement patterns in the family. Journal of Educational Psychology.
87(3), 375-85.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Sandler, H.M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s
education: Why does it make a difference? Teacher’s College Record, 97,
310-332.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Sandler, H.M. (1997). Why do parents become involved
in their child’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3-42.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Bassler, O.C., Brissie, J.S. (1992). Parent efficacy, teacher
efficacy, and parent involvement: Explorations in parent-school relations.
Journal of Educational Research, 85, 287-294.

Irving, M. A., & Hudley, C. (2005). Cultural mistrust, academic outcome
expectations, and outcome values among African American adolescent men.
Urban Education, 40(5), 476-496.
Izzo, A. (1999). Parental attitudes toward public school education for deaf students
and issues affecting placement choices. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Point Clear,
Alabama.

185
Johnson, J., Arumi, A., & Ott, A. (2006). How Black and Hispanic families rate
their schools. Public Agenda Reality Check, Issue (2).

Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative advantage: The art of alliances. Harvard
Business Review (July-August): 96-108.

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.

Kirschner, B. W. (1996). From cooperation to collaboration: The changing culture of
a school/university partnership. Theory into Practice, 35(3), 205-13.
Knight, M. G., Norton, N. E. L., Bentley, C. C., & Dixon, I. R. (2004). The power of
Black and Latina/o counterstories: Urban families and college-going
processes. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(1), 99-120.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy.
American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt:
Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7),
3-12.

Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction
and assessment. Language Teaching, 42(3), 355-368.

Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage. New York, NY: Falmer.
Lareau, A., & Hovat, E. M. (1999) Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race,
class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of
Education, 72, 37-53.

Lieberman, A. & Miller, L. (1984). Teachers, their world, and their work:
Implications for school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

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.

186
Leitch, M. L., & Tangri, S. S. (1988). Barriers to home-school collaboration.
Educational Horizons, 66(2), 70-74.
Lin, N. (1999a). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-
51.
Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Martinez-Cosio, M. (2010). Parents' roles in mediating and buffering the
implementation of an urban school reform. Education and Urban Society,
42(3), 283-306.

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2007). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Matsunaga, Michael. (2008). Concentrated poverty in Los Angeles. Los Angeles,
CA: Economic Roundtable.

Mayfield, L., Hellwig, M., & Banks, B. (1999). The Chicago response to urban
problems: Building university-community collaborations. American
Behavioral Scientist. 42(5), 863-75.
McCullough, J.R. (220). Developmental changes in the relationship between parent
involvement in education and children’s academic achievement. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation; Denver, CO: University of Denver.
McKinsey & Company (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap in
America’s schools. Author.

McNeal, R. B., Jr. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential
effectiveness on science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social
Forces, 78(1), 117-44.

McWayne, C., Hampton, V., Fantuzzo, J., Cohen, H. L., & Sekino, Y. (2004). A
multivariate examination of parent involvement and the social and academic
competencies of urban kindergarten children. Psychology in the Schools,
41(3), 363-377.

Mehan, H. (1992). Understanding inequality in schools: The contribution of
interpretive studies. Sociology of Education, 65(1), 1-20.

187
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

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

Moll, L. C. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to
connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(1), 132-41.

Myers, C. B. (1996). University-school collaborations: A need to reconceptualize
schools as professional learning communities instead of partnerships. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York, NY.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (April 1983). A nation at Risk:
The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author

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

O’Brine, C. R. & Kritsonis, W. A. (2008). Segregation through Brown vs. the Board
of Education: A Setback or Landmark Case. National Journal for Publishing
and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 5(1).

Osajima, K. H. (1989). Building school-university partnerships: Subjectivity, power,
and the process of change. Urban Review, 21(2), 111-25.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Porfeli, E., Wang, C., Audette, R., McColl, A., & Algozzine, B. (2009). Influence of
social and community capital on student achievement in a large urban school
district. Education and Urban Society, 42(1), 72-95.
Punamäki, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on
activity theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Reed, R. P., Jones, K. P., Walker, J. M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. V.(2000). Parents'
motivations for involvement in children's education: Testing a theoretical
model. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

188
Rogers, M. A., Theule, J., Ryan, B. A., Adams, G. R., & Keating, L. (2009). Parental
involvement and children's school achievement: Evidence for mediating
processes. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24(1), 34-57.

Rothstein, R. (2004). The achievement gap: A broader picture. Educational
Leadership, 62(3), 40-43.

Russell, J. F., & Flynn, R. B. (2000). Setting the stage for collaboration. Peabody
Journal of Education, 75(3), 1-5.
Sanders, M. G. (1996). Action teams in action: Interviews and observations in three
schools in the Baltimore school-family-community partnership program.
Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR). 1(3), 249-62.

Sanders, M. G. (2008). How parent liaisons can help bridge the home-school gap.
Journal of Educational Research, 101(5), 287-298.

Sarason, S. (1996). Revisiting “the culture of the school and the problem of change.”
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45 (2), 109-
119.

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

Smock, S. M., & McCormick, S. M. (1995). Assessing parents' involvement in their
children's schooling. Journal of Urban Affairs, 17 (4), 395-411.
Sorenson, D. (1998). School-university partnerships: collaboration among
autonomous cultures. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the University
Council for Educational Administration, 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.

Stanton-Salazar, Ricardo D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school
and kin support networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. Williston, VT: Teachers
College Press.

Swanson, C. B. (2009). Cities in crisis: Closing the graduation gap. Bethesda, MD:
Editorial Projects in Education

189

Swartz, O. (1997). Toward critical education in the communication classroom. New
Jersey Journal of Communication. 5(1), 20-29.

Ravich, D. (1983). The troubled crusade: American education, 1945-1980. New
York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Togneri, W. (2003). What Districts Can Do To Improve Instruction and
Achievement in All Schools. State Education Standard, 4(2), 10-15.

United Way of Greater Los Angeles (2010). A Tale of Two Cities. Los Angeles, CA.

US Census Bureau. (2000). US Population Growth. Retrieved August 1, 2010 from
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

Walker, J.M., Wilkins, A.S., Dallaire, J., Sanler, H.M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K.V.
(2005). Parental involvement: Model revision through scale development.
Elementary School Journal. 106(2), 85-104.

Warren, M. R., Hong, S., Rubin, C. H., & Uy, P. S. (2009). Beyond the bake sale: A
community-based relational approach to parent engagement in schools.
Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2209-2254.

Wenglinsky, H. (2004). Closing the racial achievement gap: The role of reforming
instructional practices. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(64).

Wirt, F. & Kirst, M. (2002). The political dynamics of American education.
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Wood, D. and Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(20), 139-162

Ylven, R., & Granlund, M. (2009). Identifying and building on family strength: A
thematic analysis. Infants and Young Children, 22(4), 253-263.

190

Zetlin, A. G., & MacLeod, E. (1995). A school-university partnership working
toward the restructure of an urban school and community. Education and
Urban Society, 27(4), 411-20.

Zlotkowski, E. (1999). Pedagogy and engagement. In Bringle, R. and Duffy, D.
(Eds.), Colleges and universities as citizens (pp. 96-120). Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.

191
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 United
Education Action Team?

1. What is your position and role at Prep High School?
2. How many years have you been an administrator at Prep High School?
3. What has been your experience working with community-based or university
partnerships, especially those focused on school reform?
4. How much do you know about the United Education Action Team
partnership? Do you know its goals?
5. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings with the United Education Action Team or their
representatives?
6. Describe the relationship between parents at Prep high School and the United
Education Action Team? What structures have been created to ensure their
engagement?
7. Do you see the members of the United Education Action Team working
together as one organization? How?
8. I’m going to read to you the definition of co-construction. A process in
which two or more parties engage in an interactive and equitable
relationship to create shared understanding and agreed upon outcomes.

192
After hearing it, please explain to what extent you believe the partnership has
followed a process of co-construction.
9. Provide some examples that there is or is not trust amongst the stakeholders
in the partnership?
10. In what ways has the partnership influenced the culture of the school?
11. Please describe how the school has changed, under the influence of the
partnership, in the way it operates and in the kinds of relationships that have
been developed between students and adults in the school? Have they been
positive, negative or mixed? What are the potential benefits of those changes
(to the school)?
12. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United
Education Action Team? Does the partnership treat the school as a co-
constructor or equal decision maker in its attempt to transform the school?
13. To what degree do you think the network partnership can play a role in
providing a greater support to the quality of teaching and learning at Prep?
Do you have recommendations?
14. To what extent has the partnership impacted teaching and learning at Prep
High School?
15. In what ways have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Prep High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
do you recommend to increase participation?

193
16. In what ways has the classified staff been involved in the work of the
partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the barriers?
What do you recommend to increase participation?
17. In what ways have parents been involved in the partnership to improve Prep
High School? What have been the barriers? What do you recommend to
increase participation?
18. In what ways have the students’ been involved and had participation in the
work of the partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the
barriers? What do you recommend to increase participation?
19. How would you describe United Education Action Team in terms of
characteristic and attributes? What other characteristic/attributes can make it
effective?
20. What challenges have limited or prevented stakeholders from being a part of
the process? (Supplementary Question)
21. 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?
22. Describe any role the partnership has played in adding or enhancing
programs or curriculum at Prep High School that prepares students for
postsecondary options/pathways? Please be specific or give examples. What
further actions can the partnership take?

194
23. What measures have been taken, by the partnership, to improve student
achievement? Please describe to the extent to which each subgroup has been
affected by these measures?
24. What types of programs does the partnership offer to support African
American students in improving academically?
25. Are you aware of religious institutions in the neighborhood that offer
academic programs to support African American children?
26. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.

195
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 United
Education Action Team.

1. What is your position and role at the Prep High School? What do you teach?
2. In which small learning community do you teach?
3. How many years have you been a teacher at Prep High School?
4. 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 United Education Action Team partnership? What are its
goals?
5. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings involving the United Education Action Team or their
representatives?
6. Describe the relationship between parents (and teachers) at Prep High
School and the United Education Action Team? What structures have been
created to ensure their engagement?
7. Do you see the members of the United Education Action Team working
together as one organization? How?
8. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United
Education Action Team?

196
9. I’m going to read to you the definition of co-construction. A process in
which two or more parties engage in an interactive and equitable
relationship to create shared understanding and agreed upon outcomes.
After hearing it, please explain to what extent you believe the partnership has
followed a process of co-construction.
10. Provide some examples that there is or is not trust amongst the stakeholders
in the partnership.
11. In what ways has the partnership influenced the culture of the school?
12. Please describe how the school has changed, under the influence of the
partnership, in the way it operates and in the kinds of relationships that have
been developed between students and adults in the school? Have they been
positive, negative or mixed? What are the potential benefits of those changes
(to the school)?
13. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United
Education Action Team? Does the partnership treat the school as a co-
constructor or equal decision maker in its attempt to transform the school?
14. To what degree do you think the network partnership can play a role in
providing a greater support to the quality of teaching and learning at Prep?
Do you have recommendations?
15. To what extent has the partnership impacted teaching and learning at Prep
High School?

197
16. In what ways have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Prep High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
do you recommend to increase participation?
17. In what ways has the classified staff been involved in the work of the
partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the barriers?
What do you recommend to increase participation?
18. In what ways have parents been involved in the partnership to improve Prep
High School? What have been the barriers? What do you recommend to
increase participation?
19. In what ways have the students’ been involved and had participation in the
work of the partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the
barriers? What do you recommend to increase participation?
20. How would you describe United Education Action Team in terms of
characteristics and attributes? What other characteristic/attributes can make
it effective?
21. What challenges have limited or prevented stakeholders from being a part of
the process? (Supplementary Question)
22. 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?
23. Describe any role the partnership has played in adding or enhancing
programs or curriculum at Prep High School that prepares students for

198
postsecondary options/pathways? Please be specific or give examples. What
further actions can the partnership take?
24. What measures have been taken, by the partnership, to improve student
achievement? Please describe to the extent to which each subgroup has been
affected by these measures?
25. What types of programs are offered and implemented in the classroom to
support the academic improvement of African American students?
26. Are you aware of religious institutions in the neighborhood that offer
academic programs to support African American children?
27. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.

199
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 United
Education Action Team.

1. What is your position and role at the Prep High School?
2. How many years have you been employed at Prep High School?
3. How many years have you worked as a school employee (not specifically
with Prep High School)? What are some of the other schools/districts you
have been employed in?
4. 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 United Education Action Team partnership? What are its
goals?
5. Describe the relationship between parents (and classified staff) at Prep High
School and the United Education Action Team?
6. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings involving the United Education Action Team or their
representatives? What structures have been created here at the school to
include your participation?
7. Do you see the members of the United Education Action Team working
together as one organization? How?

200
8. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United
Education Action Team?
9. I’m going to read to you the definition of co-construction. A process in
which two or more parties engage in an interactive and equitable
relationship to create shared understanding and agreed upon outcomes.
After hearing it, please explain to what extent you believe the partnership has
followed a process of co-construction.
10. Provide some examples that there is or is not trust amongst the stakeholders
in the partnership.
11. In what ways has the partnership influenced the culture of the school?
12. Please describe how the school has changed, under the influence of the
partnership, in the way it operates and in the kinds of relationships that have
been developed between students and adults in the school? Have they been
positive, negative or mixed? What are the potential benefits of those changes
(to the school)?
13. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United
Education Action Team? Does the partnership treat the school as a co-
constructor or equal decision maker in its attempt to transform the school?
14. To what degree do you think the network partnership can play a role in
providing a greater support to the quality of teaching and learning at Prep?
Do you have recommendations?

201
15. To what extent has the partnership impacted teaching and learning at Prep
High School?
16. In what ways have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Prep High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
do you recommend to increase participation?
17. In what ways has the classified staff been involved in the work of the
partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the barriers?
What do you recommend to increase participation?
18. In what ways have parents been involved in the partnership to improve Prep
High School? What have been the barriers? What do you recommend to
increase participation?
19. In what ways have the students’ been involved and had participation in the
work of the partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the
barriers? What do you recommend to increase participation?
20. How would you describe United Education Action Team in terms of
characteristics and attributes? What other characteristic/attributes can make
it effective?
21. What challenges have limited or prevented stakeholders from being a part of
the process? (Supplementary Question)
22. 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?

202
23. Describe any role the partnership has played in adding or enhancing
programs or curriculum at Prep High School that prepares students for
postsecondary options/pathways? Please be specific or give examples. What
further actions can the partnership take?
24. What measures have been taken, by the partnership, to improve student
achievement? Please describe to the extent to which each subgroup has been
affected by these measures?
25. What types of programs are offered and implemented in the classroom to
support the academic improvement of African American students?
26. Are you aware of religious institutions in the neighborhood that offer
academic programs to support African American children?
27. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.

203
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 United
Education Action Team.

1. How are you affiliated with Prep 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 Prep High School community?
2. Have your children attended any other schools within [unnamed district]?
What are those schools?
3. Do you live in the Prep High School attendance area?
4. Are your children a part of the home school or one of the magnet programs at
Prep (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 Prep with your
experience as a parent in any other school?
7. How would you compare your student’s experience here at Prep with your
child’s experience in other schools?
8. Do you see the members of the United Education Action Team working
together as one organization? How?
9. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings with the United Education Action Team or their
representatives? How has your role as a parent at Prep High School changed

204
since the United Education Action Team has become the network partner?
Are you more involved or less involved?
10. What do you think is the extent of parent involvement at Prep High School?
How have parents been involved in the school in the past?
11. What are your recommendations for increased parent involvement at Prep?
What roles would you like to see parents play at the school?
12. I’m going to read to you the definition of co-construction. A process in
which two or more parties engage in an interactive and equitable
relationship to create shared understanding and agreed upon outcomes.
After hearing it, please explain to what extent you believe the partnership has
followed a process of co-construction.
13. Provide some examples that there is or is not trust amongst the stakeholders
in the partnership.
14. In what ways has the partnership influenced the culture of the school?
15. Please describe how the school has changed, under the influence of the
partnership, in the way it operates and in the kinds of relationships that have
been developed between students and adults in the school? Have they been
positive, negative or mixed? What are the potential benefits of those changes
(to the school)?
16. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United
Education Action Team? Does the partnership treat the school as a co-
constructor or equal decision maker in its attempt to transform the school?

205
17. To what degree do you think the network partnership can play a role in
providing a greater support to the quality of teaching and learning at Prep?
Do you have recommendations?
18. To what extent has the partnership impacted teaching and learning at Prep
High School?
19. In what ways have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Prep High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
do you recommend to increase participation?
20. In what ways has the classified staff been involved in the work of the
partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the barriers?
What do you recommend to increase participation?
21. In what ways have parents been involved in the partnership to improve Prep
High School? What have been the barriers? What do you recommend to
increase participation?
22. In what ways have the students’ been involved and had participation in the
work of the partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the
barriers? What do you recommend to increase participation?
23. How would you describe United Education Action Team in terms of
characteristics and attributes? What other characteristic/attributes can make
it effective?
24. What challenges have limited or prevented stakeholders from being a part of
the process? (Supplementary Question)

206
25. 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?
26. Describe any role the partnership has played in adding or enhancing
programs or curriculum at Prep High School that prepares students for
postsecondary options/pathways? Please be specific or give examples. What
further actions can the partnership take?
27. What measures have been taken, by the partnership, to improve student
achievement? Please describe to the extent to which each subgroup has been
affected by these measures?
28. Are you aware of programs offered to support your child’s academic success?
29. Are you or your child(ren) involved in obtaining academic support from
community based organizations? If so, what are they?
30. Does your child participate in any church sponsored programs that support
academic achievement?
31. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.

207
APPENDIX E

COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATION INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

1. What is your position and role in the community?
2. How long have you been a partner with Prep High School and/or the
community based organization? Why did you decide to become a partner
with the school?
3. Have you previously been involved with other community organizations?
4. How and why did you decide which organizations you would join with to
form the United Education Action Team? Describe how your relationship has
developed over the length of your partnership. Describe some of the
successes and challenges and what you have learned from both of them.
5. What do you think are the challenges and strengths of Prep High School?
(supplemental question)
6. What involvement did you have with Prep High School prior to joining the
United Education Action Team?
7. Do you see the members of the United Education Action Team working
together as one organization? How?
8. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings with the United Education Action Team or their
representatives? How has your role as a parent at Prep High School changed
since the United Education Action Team has become the network partner?
Are you more involved or less involved?

208
9. What do you think is the extent of parent involvement at Prep High School?
How have parents been involved in the school in the past?
10. What are your recommendations for increased parent involvement at Prep?
What roles would you like to see parents play at the school?
11. I’m going to read to you the definition of co-construction. A process in
which two or more parties engage in an interactive and equitable
relationship to create shared understanding and agreed upon outcomes.
After hearing it, please explain to what extent you believe the partnership has
followed a process of co-construction.
12. Provide some examples that there is or is not trust amongst the stakeholders
in the partnership.
13. In what ways has the partnership influenced the culture of the school?
14. Please describe how the school has changed, under the influence of the
partnership, in the way it operates and in the kinds of relationships that have
been developed between students and adults in the school? Have they been
positive, negative or mixed? What are the potential benefits of those changes
(to the school)?
15. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United
Education Action Team? Does the partnership treat the school as a co-
constructor or equal decision maker in its attempt to transform the school?

209
16. To what degree do you think the network partnership can play a role in
providing a greater support to the quality of teaching and learning at Prep?
Do you have recommendations?
17. To what extent has the partnership impacted teaching and learning at Prep
High School?
18. In what ways have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Prep High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
do you recommend to increase participation?
19. In what ways has the classified staff been involved in the work of the
partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the barriers?
What do you recommend to increase participation?
20. In what ways have parents been involved in the partnership to improve Prep
High School? What have been the barriers? What do you recommend to
increase participation?
21. In what ways have the students’ been involved and had participation in the
work of the partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the
barriers? What do you recommend to increase participation?
22. How would you describe United Education Action Team in terms of
characteristics and attributes? What other characteristic/attributes can make
it effective?
23. What challenges have limited or prevented stakeholders from being a part of
the process? (Supplementary Question)

210
24. 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?
25. Describe any role the partnership has played in adding or enhancing
programs or curriculum at Prep High School that prepares students for
postsecondary options/pathways? Please be specific or give examples. What
further actions can the partnership take?
26. What measures have been taken, by the partnership, to improve student
achievement? Please describe to the extent to which each subgroup has been
affected by these measures?
27. What types of programs have you established specifically for the academic
success of African American students?
28. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.

211
APPENDIX F

UNIVERSITY STAKEHOLDER PROTOCOL

1. What is your position and role in the university? How long have you been in
that position/role?
2. What do you know about the United Education Action Team and Prep High
School?
3. What other partnerships with K-12 schools have you been involved with?
4. Do you see the members of the United Education Action Team working
together as one organization? How?
5. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings with the United Education Action Team or their
representatives? How has your role as a parent at Prep High School changed
since the United Education Action Team has become the network partner?
Are you more involved or less involved?
6. Based on your observations, what do you think is the extent of parent
involvement at Prep High School? How have parents been involved in the
school in the past?
7. What are your recommendations for increased parent involvement at Prep?
What roles would you like to see parents play at the school?
8. I’m going to read to you the definition of co-construction. A process in
which two or more parties engage in an interactive and equitable
relationship to create shared understanding and agreed upon outcomes.

212
After hearing it, please explain to what extent you believe the partnership has
followed a process of co-construction.
9. Provide some examples that there is or is not trust amongst the stakeholders
in the partnership.
10. In what ways has the partnership influenced the culture of the school?
11. Please describe how the school has changed, under the influence of the
partnership, in the way it operates and in the kinds of relationships that have
been developed between students and adults in the school? Have they been
positive, negative or mixed? What are the potential benefits of those changes
(to the school)?
12. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United
Education Action Team? Does the partnership treat the school as a co-
constructor or equal decision maker in its attempt to transform the school?
13. To what degree do you think the network partnership can play a role in
providing a greater support to the quality of teaching and learning at Prep?
Do you have recommendations?
14. To what extent has the partnership impacted teaching and learning at Prep
High School?
15. In what ways have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Prep High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
do you recommend to increase participation?

213
16. In what ways has the classified staff been involved in the work of the
partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the barriers?
What do you recommend to increase participation?
17. In what ways have parents been involved in the partnership to improve Prep
High School? What have been the barriers? What do you recommend to
increase participation?
18. In what ways have the students’ been involved and had participation in the
work of the partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the
barriers? What do you recommend to increase participation?
19. How would you describe United Education Action Team in terms of
characteristics and attributes? What other characteristic/attributes can make
it effective?
20. What challenges have limited or prevented stakeholders from being a part of
the process? (Supplementary Question)
21. 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?
22. Describe any role the partnership has played in adding or enhancing
programs or curriculum at Prep High School that prepares students for
postsecondary options/pathways? Please be specific or give examples. What
further actions can the partnership take?

214
23. What measures have been taken, by the partnership, to improve student
achievement? Please describe to the extent to which each subgroup has been
affected by these measures?
24. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.

215
APPENDIX G
COMMUNITY MEMBER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
1. How long have you lived in the Prep High School community?
2. What are your perceptions of Prep High School, specifically in regards to their
academics and ability to prepare students for post secondary education?
3. What do you think are the challenges and strengths of Prep High School? What
recommendations would you make to improve the school?
4. What involvement do you have with Prep High School?
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 United Education Action Team partnership? What are its goals?
6. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in any
meetings with the United Education Action Team or their representatives? How
has your role as a community member at Prep High School changed since the
United Education Action Team has become the network partner? Are you more
involved or less involved?
7. Do you see the members of the United Education Action Team working together
as one organization? How?
8. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United Education
Action Team?

216
9. I’m going to read to you the definition of co-construction. A process in which
two or more parties engage in an interactive and equitable relationship to
create shared understanding and agreed upon outcomes. After hearing it,
please explain to what extent you believe the partnership has followed a process
of co-construction.
10. Provide some examples that there is or is not trust amongst the stakeholders in
the partnership.
11. In what ways has the partnership influenced the culture of the school?
12. Please describe how the school has changed, under the influence of the
partnership, in the way it operates and in the kinds of relationships that have been
developed between students and adults in the school? Have they been positive,
negative or mixed? What are the potential benefits of those changes (to the
school)?
13. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United Education
Action Team? Does the partnership treat the school as a co-constructor or equal
decision maker in its attempt to transform the school?
14. To what degree do you think the network partnership can play a role in providing
a greater support to the quality of teaching and learning at Prep? Do you have
recommendations?
15. To what extent has the partnership impacted teaching and learning at Prep High
School?

217
16. In what ways have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve Prep
High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What do you
recommend to increase participation?
17. How would you describe United Education Action Team in terms of
characteristics and attributes? What other characteristic/attributes can make it
effective?
18. What challenges have limited or prevented stakeholders (community members)
from being a part of the process? (Supplementary Question)
19. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.

218
APPENDIX H
SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

Purpose of Activity
Date:

Location:

Participants:
i.e., community members,
school staff, faculty, Students,
administration, parents,
university representatives or
others.

Describe the physical
setting, i.e., facility, well
equipped, location.

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

Evidence of barriers in
communication/interaction,
i.e. power, hierarchical
thinking, cultural logics, tone
in voice, body language,
physical positioning

Strategies to promote a
dialogic culture of co-
constructed knowledge, i.e.,
trust, respect, humility,
reciprocity. (Track talking
time, eye contact, facial
expressions, body language
depending on who they talk
to in the environment)

219
APPENDIX I
MEETING OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

Purpose of Activity

Date:

Location:

Participants:
I.e., community members,
school staff, faculty,
Students, administration,
parents, university
representatives or others.

Describe the physical
setting, i.e., facility, well
equipped, location.

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

Evidence of barriers in
communication/interaction,
i.e. power, hierarchical
thinking, cultural logics

Strategies to promote a
dialogic culture of co-
constructed knowledge,
i.e., trust, respect, humility,
reciprocity.

220
APPENDIX J

EXAMINED ARTIFACTS PROTOCOL

Document What questions the
documents will answer?
Research
Question
Collected

United Education
Action Team

 Meeting
agendas/minutes/
sign-in sheets

 Memorandum of
Understanding

 Alliance Business
Plan

 Partnership Fact
Sheet

School

 CST Data

 Event Calendars

221
APPENDIX K
LIST OF PSEUDONYMS

Pseudonym Title
The United Education
Action Team
Case Study Partnership
City Connections Community-based organization partner
Grizzly United Community-based organization partner
Westside University University partner
Prep High School School partner
Friends of Prep Committee comprised of parents, teachers,
and classified staff members at Prep High
School
University
Dr. Chino Westside University
Dr. Truman Westside University
Dr. Grupe Westside University
Dr. Kane Westside University
Dr. Ballan Westside University
Dr. Key Westside University
Community-based
organization

Ms. Carriage City Connections
Mr. Ali City Connections
Ms. Green City Connections
Mr. Al Grizzly United
Dr. Singh Grizzly United
Community
Mr. Gutter Community Member at Large
Mr. Card Community Member at Large
Mr. Ocean Community Member at Large

222
Parents
Mr. Card Parent
Ms. Cosby Parent
Mr. Gonzalez Parent
Mr. Saise Parent
Ms. Gramercy Parent
School
Mr. Leblue Teacher
Ms. Blumsley School Affiliate
Mr. Diamond Teacher
Ms. Piedmont Faculty
Ms. Pistachew School Counselor
Ms. Espinoza Teacher
Mr. Johnson School Faculty
Ms. Shepard Classified Staff
Mr. Carolina Classified Staff
Dr. Jones School Administrator
Ms. O’Neal School Administrator
Ms. Bryant School Administrator

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Community-school-university partnerships represent a new model of urban education reform that incorporates the overlapping spheres of influence in the transformation process. Co-constructed relationships between communities, schools and universities have the potential reshape organizational hierarchy and enable all partners to develop a new cultural model capable of transforming K-12 urban schools. This study the second and third year of one co-constructed community-school-university partnership that attempted to transform the cultural model of one urban high school.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

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, and university partnerships for urban school transformation

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

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A case study: 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 high-performing, high-poverty urban schools

PDF

Implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high performing, high poverty urban school

PDF

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

PDF

Power-sharing in co-constructed community-school partnerships: examining values, opportunities, and barriers around community engagement in New York City school leadership teams

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Woodyard, Savina M. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/19/2011

Defense Date 03/22/2011

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

Tag co-construction,OAI-PMH Harvest,parental engagement,partnership,transformation,urban school

Place Name California (states), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Rousseau, Sylvia G. (committee chair), Marsh, David D. (committee member), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (committee member)

Creator Email SavinaW@aol.com,savinaw@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3759

Unique identifier UC1338987

Identifier etd-Woodyard-4509 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-467613 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3759 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Woodyard-4509.pdf

Dmrecord 467613

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Woodyard, Savina M.

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