/

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

/

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE ROLE OF CO-CONSTRUCTED COMMUNITY, SCHOOL, AND UNIVERSITY
PARTNERSHIPS IN PROVIDING ADULT AGENTS TO SUPPORT
LEARNER IDENTITIES AMONG URBAN YOUTH

by
Ana Corina Soto Espinoza

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

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Ana Corina Soto Espinoza

ii
Dedication

This work is dedicated to the memory of my son, Michael German Espinoza Morales, for
whom the sun rose on January 29, 1985 and the sun set on June 3, 2008. His courage,
strength, and “Much Love” have been and forever will be the wind beneath my wings.
“Mommy loves you Mikey G.”

iii
Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my friends and colleagues who came before me in a similar
journey – thank you for setting the example and believing in my ability to do the same.
To my colleagues at the Tomás Rivera Policy Institute, I am grateful for the support
during the doctoral journey and for the opportunity to put theory into practice. Un fuerte
abrazo to new and old lifetime friends -- Dr. Laura Hernandez-Flores, Dr. Patricia G.
Sandoval, Dr. Estela Zarate, and Dr. Christina Rivers -- who share the passion for
bettering the lives of young people. ¡Adelante mujer! Thank you to my research partners,
Team Rousseau, for modeling what it is to “share knowledge”, “co-construct” and form
“collaborative relationships” with grace and dignity. I want to thank my chair, Dr. Sylvia
Rousseau, for her mentorship and for bringing to life what a compassionate, committed,
and caring “adult agent” looks like. Also, to Dr. Robert Rueda and Dr. Adrianna Kezar
for their patience and support in my quest to get to that sometimes seemingly elusive
dissertation defense date. Con cariño a Rico, thank you for the laughter that alleviated
stress and the encouraging words that pushed me forward. To Loly, Juanita, Greg, and
Tina, thank you for loving my sons like your own and caring for them when I was in
class or in seclusion writing. To Mikey’s Crew for being there for him when I couldn’t
be. Gracias a mi querida mamá whose strength, perseverance, and tenacity as a business
woman and mother of nine girls have been my inspiration. Your love shines down so
brightly. Above all to my sons, Mikey G. (RIP), Nicolas, and Dominic – my reasons for
being. Thank you for enduring so many days and nights without me; for not only
supporting me, but for taking care of one another. To all, “Much Love.”

iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Abstract ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1
Partnerships 5
Statement of the Problem 18
Significance of the Study 19
Statement of Purpose 19
Research Questions 20
Delimitations of the Study 21
Limitations of the Study 21
Key Terms and Definitions 22

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 25
The Current Situation in Urban Schools 25
History 26
Schools and the Dominant Discourse 27
The Ecology of Youth Identity 30
Partnerships 32
Why Partnerships? 32
Background on Partnerships 33
Types of Partnerships 34
Partnership Stakeholders 37
Communities, Schools, and Universities as Partners 37
A Partnership Process 52
Co-Constructed Relationship 52
The Role of Dialogue in Co-Construction 54
Barriers to Partnerships 57
Strategies for Co-Constructed Relationships 67
The Influence of Partnerships on Urban Youth as Learners 72
Youth Identity 72
The Social Context 73
The Influence of Culture 79
Creating a Shared Culture 82
Aligning Cultures 83
The Influence of Adult Agents 84
Summary 87

v
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 89
Introduction 89
Statement of the Problem 90
Purpose 90
Research Questions 91
The Case Study 92
Sampling and Population 93
Theoretical Frameworks 95
Data Instruments and Collection 98
Data Analysis 106
Ethical Considerations 113
Summary 113

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 115
Introduction 115
Description of Partnership Affiliates 117
Organization of Data 123
Research Questions 125
Data Findings 128
Research Question One: Process 128
Early Perceptions of the Partnership Process of Co-Construction 130
Research Question One (a) 157
Barriers 159
Research Question One (b) 167
Strategies 170
Summary of Findings for Research Question One 178
Research Question Two 180
The Attributes of a Co-Constructed Partnership 180
Summary of Findings 194

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 197
Introduction 197
Summary of the Study 197
Findings 198
Major Findings of Research Question One 198
Major Findings for Research Question One Sub Questions 203
Major Findings of Research Question Two 207
Implications 210
Conclusions and Summary 211
Recommendations 213

REFERENCES 217

vi
APPENDICES 226
Appendix A: Administrator Interview Protocol 226
Appendix B: Teacher Interview Protocol 228
Appendix C: Classified Staff Interview Protocol 231
Appendix D: Parent Interview Protocol 234
Appendix E: Community-Based Organization Interview Protocol 237
Appendix F: University Stakeholder Protocol 240
Appendix G: School Environment Observation Protocol 242
Appendix H: Meeting Observation Protocol 243
Appendix I: Examined Artifacts Protocol 244
Appendix J: Pseudonyms List 245

vii
List of Tables

Table 1: Theoretical Frameworks 98
Table 2: Data Sources 100
Table 3: Data Coding Matrix 107
Table 4: Data Analysis Plan 110
Table 5: Southcity Partnership Affiliates 117
Table 6: Total School Enrollment 118
Table 7: Academic Performance Index (API) 120
Table 8: Data Sources 125
Table 9: Theoretical Frameworks 127

viii
List of Figures

Figure 1: Research Fieldwork Matrix 101
Figure 2: MAX QDA Data Output 109
Figure 3: Racial Demographics 118
Figure 4: A Community, School, and University Partnership 124
Figure 5: Co-Construction Process 130
Figure 6: Barriers to Co-Construction 159

ix
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to examine how a communities, K-12 schools, and
universities can co-construct partnerships in the first year of formation in order to
transform urban schools. This unique study seeks to examine the persistent barriers that
emerge from this type of partnership, as well as the effective strategies, in forming
partnerships among three distinct entities. Further, this study examines the attributes of a
co-constructed dialogic partnership that redistributes power among all partners to foster
the adult agents urban youth need to develop learner identities and improve their
academic performance.
A partnership involving a private research university, community members, and
an urban high school in the Los Angeles area was chosen as the unit of analysis. This
partnership was selected due to the rare opportunity to observe a university that has a
mission to improve the urban education, a K-12 school that has elected through a vote of
its teachers and parents to enter into a new division of the school district focused on
innovation, and community-based organizations (CBOs), one of which has a long history
of advocacy in the community where the school of the study is located. This organization
and another civic advocacy CBO have worked to empower the school community and
have enlisted the university in their efforts on behalf of urban school transformation.
The case study was completed using a qualitative research design. Methods of
data collection included observations, examination of documents and artifacts of the
partnership, and interviews of key stakeholders in the partnership. Within this qualitative

x
case study design, a process of triangulation was incorporated in order to attain reliability
and validity in the data collection process.
CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
The academic underachievement of minority students, in particular those in urban
communities, is an issue long considered critical by educators and policy makers, and one
in need of attention and remediation. Data consistently demonstrate that ethnic minority
students are not performing at the same level as White students (California Postsecondary
Education Commission [CPEC], 2004; Educational Testing Service [ETS] 2007).
Numerous studies (Orfield, 2004; Shore, 2005; Swanson, 2008; Tornatsky, Pachon, &
Torres, 2003; Carnevale & Fry, 2002) have concluded that the high school drop out rates
for the nation’s ethnic and racial minorities, particularly African American and Latino
students, are daunting, and the consequences dire. Nationwide in 2003, the drop out rates
for African American and Latino students were 10.7 percent and 22.1 percent
respectively, as compared to 5.8 percent for non-Hispanic Whites (National Center for
Education Statistics [NCES], 2008). For African American and Latino students who do
graduate, about 50 percent graduate from high school within four years, compared to 79
percent Asian Americans and 72 percent of Whites (Greene & Forster, 2003). Swanson
(2008) in a review of the 50 largest urban cities in the nation, reports that graduation rates
are considerably lower in high schools located in urban areas (p. 1). In addition, Swanson
notes that income distribution is related to the distribution of education attainment in the
areas served by large urban school districts.
The performance scores and subsequent academic achievement rates of minority
students are not comparable to the demographic representation of these students in some
urban schools and communities. Moreover, the increased racial, ethnic, and socio-

2
economic diversity of these schools and communities is not comparably represented in
the college-going rates (ETS, 2007; NCES, 2003; UC/ACCORD, 2006; Policy Alert,
2005). In 2000, more than 65 percent of White high school graduates continued on to
college, compared with 56 percent and 49 percent of African American and Latino
graduates, respectively (NCES, 2003). While significantly represented in the K-12
academic pipeline, African American and Latino students have been and are projected to
be, an under represented student population in higher education.
In California, the drop our rates are staggering. For African American and Latinos
the rates are 41.6 percent and 30.3 percent respectively, as compared to 6 percent for non-
Hispanic Whites (California Department of Education [CDE], July 2007). Among high
school graduates, only 26.5 percent of African American and 23.1 percent of Latino high
school graduates completed college preparatory courses, while 42.2 percent of White and
54.8 percent of Asian Pacific graduates completed the college prep track (CPEC, 2004).
The same students fared slightly better in Los Angeles County where 31.8 percent
African American and 27.9 percent of Latino high school graduates completed the
courses (CPEC, 2004). While there has been an increase in the rates of minority youth
eligible for and admitted to college, the gap in achievement between ethnic groups has
not been closed (CPEC, 2004; Fry, 2002; Gandara, 2005; Swanson, 2008). The data
underscores the “crisis far beyond the imagination of most Americans” (Orfield, 2004, p.
9) that challenges public education in the United States. The message, regrettably, is the
same as the one first delivered by A Nation at Risk (1983), which sounded a nationwide

3
alert to the potential downward spiral of the nation’s social and economic well-being if
the disparities in educational outcomes were not corrected.
Education and Income Potential. The disparity in academic achievement and
educational outcomes has social and economic implications for the broader society. There
is evidence that the pattern of income distribution is strongly related to the pattern of
educational attainment (CPEC, 2004; Swanson, 2008), which lends support to the adage
“the more you learn, the more you earn.” While there are alternate means to earn a living
and to achieve a level of social and economic success outside of formal education, the
normative belief is that education is the chief avenue for providing viable options in
employment and for attaining social and economic mobility in the United States
(Carnevale & Fry, 2000; Haveman & Smeeding, 2006; Mumper, 2003). Mumper (2003)
argues that “higher education may well become the only door to the good life for most
Americans” (p. 116); however, systemic and structural inequities are resulting in an under
educated and unskilled workforce.
Data from the U.S. census bureau consistently demonstrates the higher income
potential for high school graduates versus non graduates (Zarate, 2007). The same holds
true for college graduates versus non college graduates (Fry, 2002). On average, college
graduates experience lower rates of unemployment than high school graduates and are
estimated to earn almost twice as much over a lifetime (The Pell Institute, 2004). A study
by Carnevale & Fry (2000) indicates that if African American and Latinos had the same
distribution of college educated persons as Whites, the nation could fill the college level
jobs that are available or that are being sent overseas. In addition to increased earning

4
potential, postsecondary education can promote greater community and civic
engagement. According to the Pell Institute (2004), college graduates are more likely to
vote. In the 2000 election, 75 percent of college graduates voted compared to 53 percent
of high school graduates, and college graduates (44 percent) were inclined to perform
more volunteer work versus high school graduates (21 percent).
Research has consistently demonstrated that African American and Latino youth
and their families value education and view education as a means toward an improved
quality of life (Carter, 2006; Tornatsky & Lee, 2002; UC ACCORD 2006, 2007).
However, the data on college aspirations and goals is not consistent with the actual
performance and achievement rates of these same students; thus reflecting an
incongruence between what minority youth and their families aspire for and what schools
have done to help them meet those aspirations. The under achievement of African
American and Latino students is a persistent dilemma. The evidence on the increased
social and economic gains from successful completion of high school and postsecondary
education behooves stakeholders to invest resources, assets, and power to launch an
effective and innovative effort to counter the problem. The coordination of resources and
co-constructed relationships through a partnership of multiple stakeholders may serve to
alter the persistent academic underachievement and low educational outcomes of youth in
some urban communities.
Achievement and a Learner Identity. The formation of a learner identity occurs in
multiple social contexts for young people. The ability to develop a view of the self as a
learner and scholar can be particularly challenging for students of color especially for

5
youth in urban communities. Researchers note that learning and academic achievement
for students of color are intricately tied to and reflective of the historical and
contemporary inequality in education (Cummins, 1986; Kao & Tienda, 1998; Nieto,
1999; Yosso, 2005). In addition, a student’s ability to form a learner identity is also
hampered by the skewed perceptions and interpretations of the adults in the student’s
social environment that view students as deficient or lacking in some capacity. This view
or logic of deficit translates the distinct cultural, ethnic, and linguistic characteristics of a
student into an inability, unwillingness, or unmotivated trait of the student (Oakes &
Rogers, 2006). These skewed views dismiss the systemic and structural inadequacies in
education. The formation of a partnership between multiple entities can create a new
cultural model that fosters adult agents to support the ability of urban students’ of color to
form an identity as learners and improve their performance in school.
Partnerships
Despite social, structural, and systemic obstacles, however, some schools,
teachers, and students have achieved at high levels, but they are rare. The persistent
problem of under achievement in urban schools has called on stakeholders from different
entities to enlist in partnerships with other stakeholders vested in improving student
achievement in urban schools. The increase in partnerships between universities, schools,
and communities stems from each entity recognizing that the daunting task of increasing
academic achievement and education outcomes for urban youth cannot be accomplished
by a single enterprise. The need for “fostering partnerships…as a strategy to close the
achievement gap” has been recognized by policymakers, practitioners, and advocates

6
(Erbstein & Miller, 2008). With the urgency to close the gap in academic achievement,
stakeholders such as schools, families, universities, non-profit organizations, faith-based
communities, foundations, and federal, state, and local governments have assumed roles
and responsibilities in the formation of educational partnerships (Carroll, LaPoint, &
Tyler, 2001; Miller, 2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008; Sanders, 2001).
Partnership Stakeholders
Attempts at partnerships to address the problem of academic under achievement
have produced mixed results, depending on the nature of the partnership. Over the years,
most formal partnerships have consisted of bilateral relationship between a school and
one other entity, namely a university or a community organization. A university,
community, and school partnership represents a unique tri-partite effort to combine the
resources and skills of three distinct entities. While building collective strength, the
confluence of multiple stakeholders also brings together the distinct characteristics,
assets, values and behaviors of each, which in turn can mitigate the barriers that impede
the progress and potential of partnerships.
The University
Colleges and universities, in particular those located in urban areas, have been
called on by schools, community organizations, policy makers, parents, and other
advocates, to do more to meet the needs of the schools and communities that surround
them (Riposa, 2003). Throughout history, the university has had to balance between a
mission of a well-rounded “universal” education that met society’s needs, responsive to
its external environment, while concurrently advancing scientific research and generating

7
new knowledge (Maurasse, 2001). The university’s role in partnerships with K-12
schools and community entities is rooted in its history to meet societal needs. As such,
higher education institutions have been pressed to evolve in a manner that is inclusive
and representative of the diversity the schools and communities that surround them
(Riposa, 2003; Mumper, 2003). Many of the schools in urban areas (some with high
caliber colleges and universities as neighbors) post achievement rates well beneath the
performance benchmarks prescribed by the mandates of the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act of 2001. They would benefit from the time, talent, and resources available
from a neighboring higher education institution.
Through civic engagement, colleges and universities have the ability to provide a
multiple array of resources to the community, including schools (Ostrander, 2004).
Research constitutes one major asset that the university can provide to schools and
communities (Mumper, 2003; Haveman & Smeeding, 2006; Maurasse, 2001; Ostrander,
2004; Rousseau, 2007). In addition to research, the university can offer resources that
include: 1) training and preparation of high quality teachers committed to teaching in
urban areas, and 2) college-going programs and relationships with schools that contribute
to the academic and educational aspirations and eligibility of K-12 urban students
(Rousseau, 2007). These are but a few of the many resources a university can provide for
local K-12 schools and their surrounding communities. With these and other resources,
the university is positioned to facilitate engagement and collaboration with other partners
vested in improving academic outcomes for youth in urban communities. However,
universities often assume a position of privileged knowledge and status, which creates a

8
power relationship that is often skewed in favor of the university. These relationships
work to the detriment of other participants in a partnership (Haveman & Smeeding,
2006).
The Schools
The university is not alone in its charge to remediate the disparity in educational
outcomes for youth in some urban communities. As the intended purveyor of learning
and a stakeholder in the education of children, schools are charged with one of the
greatest social undertakings in the United States. However, the quality of education and
level of achievement has been neither equal nor equitable for all children. Schools in
university communities, especially in urban areas, face the problem of persistent student
under-achievement in the midst of mandated academic standards and performance
measures (Shore, 2005; Swanson, 2008; UC/ACCORD, 2007).
The persistent trend of under-achievement for students of color has caused the
discourse on education to cover the spectrum of interests, reasoning, and rationales for
the dilemma. Schools have persisted in their efforts to tend to the issue through a culture
of practice that is focused on action and measurable outcomes (Kezar, 2007). These
efforts have directed resources toward strengthening teacher skills, re-structuring
curriculum, and improving facilities. Although the aforementioned are good steps, the
discourse on education and the achievement of students of color has also included a
culture of power that is present in schools (Cummins, 2001; Oakes & Rogers, 2006). Like
the university, the school can assume a position as power broker. Education scholars
argue that there is a culture of power that often excludes minority students from access to

9
educational resources or opportunities (Delpit, 2006; Nieto, 1999; Cummins, 1986,
2001). This imbalance of power stems from the dominant discourse in schools that is
based on educators’ perceptions of whether students conform to the school’s prescribed
culture (Olitsky, 2006; George & Aronson, 2003). Fortunately, however, some school
leaders, like their university counterparts, have recognized the increased potential to
improve student educational outcomes by drawing on the assets available from the
people, places, and events found in the community (Sanders, 2001, 2007; Epstein &
Sanders, 2006; Epstein, 1995).
The Community
The communities surrounding the schools and the neighboring university are
socially, economically, and culturally diverse, yet, typically, the urban university campus
does not represent the faces and experiences of those who live, work, play and learn near
by. The demographic shifts in urban communities and subsequent changes in the students
seated in the classroom are calling to task the manner in which community stakeholders
are engaged in efforts to reform and transform schooling. Scholars and practitioners
(Carroll, LaPoint & Tyler, 2001; Erbstein & Miller, 2008; Maruasse, 2000; Mayfield &
Lucas, 1999; Mayfield, Hellwig & Banks, 2000; Sanders, 2001) argue that to maximize
the potential of a partnership, there is a need for a process that facilitates greater (and
equal) participation and power sharing with the community. The latter entails a shift in
paradigm from long standing perceptions of the community as a deficit and liability to a
view of the community as rich in knowledge, experiences, and talents (Miller, 2007;
Oakes & Rogers, 2006). The shift from a “little to offer” to a “lots to give” view of the

10
community is part of the transformative potential of a partnership. The community is rich
in the knowledge and experience of its individual residents as well as in the skills and
talents found in civic organizations. There are various forms of capital available in the
community including social capital, cultural capital, academic capital, family capital, and
aspirational capital (Yosso, 2005); however, most of it remains unrecognized and
untapped. The collective assets of individuals and groups in the community are an
important component of the partnership’s ability to create relationships among
stakeholders to engage all forms of capital in the transformation of academic achievement
of students in an urban school.
Co-Constructed Relationships
A co-constructed relationship involves two or more parties engaged and
interacting as equals to create shared understanding and identify agreed upon outcomes.
Co-constructed relationships among schools, communities, and universities have the
potential to produce a new cultural model to redistribute power and to foster the adult
agents urban youth need to develop a learner identity and improve academic
performance. Through a process of co-construction, participants engage in the open
exchange of thought, ideas, opinions, and knowledge to create a shared sense of purpose
for coming together. The assets of each participant are valued and included in the
process. Co-constructed relationships enable the power distribution to be redefined to be
more inclusive of the background and experiences of all partners.
A relationship based on co-construction can facilitate a new cultural model of
collaboration, trust, and equality. Some of the elements of co-constructing relationships

11
include having an understanding and respect for the social and cultural forces that define
each entity (Carroll et al., 2001; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005; Miller & Hafner, 2008).
Dialogue is a key element of co-construction that allows participants to engage openly
and freely in creating shared meaning and power sharing.
The Role of Dialogue in Co-Construction
The process of co-construction involves developing dialogic relationships
between the community, school, and university in order to form strong and effective
partnerships. Relationships among communities, schools and universities formed by
using the Freirean dialogical model provide a foundation for engaging all members of the
partnership in a new kind of cultural model. Dialogical relationships, as derived from
Paolo Freire’s seminal work Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2003), are marked by trust,
respect, love, humility, faith in humankind and critical thinking and are the basis for co-
constructed relationships. Dialogue becomes a horizontal relationship based on equality
and from which mutual trust is created. It is a means by which individuals examine and
learn from their differences through process of inquiry and reflection (Freire, 2003). This
reflection of self in concert with others provides the basis for engaging in dialogue.
Dialogue is necessary in situations where power differentials exist and must be
suspended in order for the participants to learn from each other. Dialogue is where
reflection and action meet to address issues needing to be transformed and humanized
(Freire, 2003). Several scholars emphasize the importance of relationships based on
these elements (Lawson, 2003; Oakes & Rogers, 2007; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005).
Other scholars reference the need for dialogue as a critical component for co-construction

12
and redistributing power (Carroll et al., 2001; Miller & Hafner, 2008). A partnership
intended to have a positive effect on urban youth’s learning seeks to re-define and re-
create the world of learning that has placed youth in some urban communities at a
disadvantaged. The ability to transform an urban school or to “name the world” (Freire,
2003, p. 88) requires dialogue between individuals to be inclusive and open. The process
of co-constructing dialogic relationship among multiple partners summons the resources,
skills, and talents to form a transformative educational partnership. However, the
distinctiveness of multiple entities has the potential to give way to challenges and barriers
within the partnership.
Barriers to Co-Constructed Partnerships

Examining the barriers to establishing co-constructed relationships among
universities, K-12 schools, and communities is important to understanding the merit in
and potential of partnerships. “What is perhaps most challenging is establishing and
maintaining relationships across social, cultural, and economic divides plus the
inequalities of power and resources that seem endemic to these relationships” (Maurasse
(2001) as quoted by Ostrander, 2004, p. 85-86). Issues of power and resource inequalities
related to schools and universities are considered to be one of the largest barriers to co-
constructing relationships in partnerships. Many partnership efforts have documented the
authoritative power of the university in terms of knowledge (Carroll et al., 2001;
Maurrasse, 2001; Mayfield et al., 1999; Ostrander, 2004). While schools are also
perceived as producers of knowledge, the research literature points to the tension in

13
power relations between universities and schools when attempting to form partnerships
(Rubin, 1998; Kezar, 2007; Miller and Hafner, 2008)
Similarly, power struggles also surface between K-12 schools and the community
when the school perceives itself to be the “content expert.” As a result of the view of the
community as lacking in cultural and community wealth, which Oakes & Rogers (2006)
refer to as a cultural logic of deficit, the current notion of power has led to an uneven
distribution of power. As partnerships emerge, the need for a cultural analysis emerges
(Kezar, 2007). The university, school, and community may often coexist in close
proximity but have disparate perceptions about one another derived from their different
cultural orientations (Sallee & Tierney, 2007). These cultural differences make
partnerships complex (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Kezar, 2007). Not only are the tasks and
intended outcomes of improved student academic achievement a seemingly
insurmountable goal, but the process of deciphering roles, responsibilities, and resources
to form a co-constructed partnership can be difficult (Carroll et al., 2001; Erbstein &
Miller, 2008; Maurasse, 2001; Miller & Hafner, 2008).
Strategies for Co-Constructed Partnerships
Partnerships that have contributed to improved quality of education for urban youth,
despite challenges and barriers, have shared valuable knowledge, practices, and strategies
from their experiences. These stakeholders have navigated the complexities of resource
inequalities, power differentials, and mutual collaboration to identify the best ways to
achieve partnership goals that include providing adult agents accessible to students for their
formation of learner identities (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005). Among the approaches cited

14
by research on effective partnerships are dynamic and caring leadership; shared power and
decision making through inclusion and representation; establishing mutually agreed goals;
communication and purposeful planning and organization(Lawson et al., 2007; Miller &
Hafner, 2008 McKoy & Vincent, 2007; Carroll et al., 2001; Sanders, 2007; Sanders, 2001).
The dialogical framework posited by Freire is a key partnership strategy that can facilitate
the aforementioned.
The process of dialogue enables all stakeholders to “name the world” (Freire, 2003,
p. 88) based on their unique social and cultural experiences. Through this naming of the
world, stakeholders construct the meaning, method, and outcomes of the shared work.
The social milieu influences the formation and success of a partnership in the same way a
partnership can influence elements of students’ social milieu to positively impact their
learning outcomes.
A co-constructed dialogical relationship among multiple partners can result in the
formation of trust, respect, collaboration and shared learning among each entity and
within the partnership. The presence of these attributes in a school, community and
university partnership can provide urban youth with valuable resources and assets. One
of the assets that emerge from partnerships based on dialogic relationships of trust,
respect, and shared learning is the adult agents in the partnership. As noted earlier, Nieto
(1999) and Cummins (2001) assert that learning is a social endeavor reflective of the
social and power relations that exist in broader society. Hence, learning can be socially
mediated through relationships with persons, or adult agents in the learner’s social milieu.
Adult agents within the partnership are able to form shared meaning around achievement,

15
learning and youth to allow them to influence young people to see themselves as learners
or to form what Nieto (1999) cites as a “wantable identity” (p. 97). Students need the
guidance and messaging from adult agents that allows them to “want” to identify and
affiliate with school and learning.
The exchange between adult agents and learners is in the form of transmitting
services, resources, and support that can have a positive outcome for the student and is
the basis for Stanton-Salazar’s social capital framework (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). The
concept of social capital involves an exchange and sharing of information that includes
social norms, values, and expected behaviors, which result in greater productivity and
benefits to those engaged in the exchange (Coleman, 1988, Stanton-Salazar, 1997). A
partnership brings together valuable assets in the form of knowledgeable, experienced,
educated, and skilled adults from the community, the school, and the university. As such
these individuals represent the adult agents that can support urban youth in developing a
learner identity.
The Influence of Partnerships on Urban Youth as Learners
The identity of youth is intricately woven into the identities of the adult agents in
their communities (Santrock, 2006). The middle school and high school years are noted
as a period of adolescence and a time of significant cognitive, psychological, physical,
emotional and social development for young people. Scholars note that during this time,
youth form identities simultaneously across multiple social domains including school,
peers, family, neighborhood and argue for the importance of considering the immense
influence of culture and context on learning and achievement of urban youth (Olitsky,

16
2005; Knight, 2003; Nieto, 1999). Bronfenbrenner (1986) asserts that humans develop in
relation to their position within the interdependent systems of family and home, schools,
neighborhoods, communities, and peers groups. These interactions and exchanges place
an individual within a network of ecological systems that influence human development.
As such, the importance of considering the social context for identity development
introduces the role of adults in the social milieu of youth.
Given the social nature of identity formation, which stems from the exchange and
interaction with others, adolescence is a stage of cognitive development where youth are
particularly vulnerable to the views, opinions, and judgments of others (Santrock, 2006;
Aronson, 2006). Emphasis on the influence of culture and the social environment on
youth ‘s development and learning is further supported by the tenets of sociocultural
theory, which is based on the work of Vygotsky (Ormrod, 2006).
The Influence of Adult Agents
The exchanges in the community among parents, teachers, counselors, peers,
neighbors and others provide the basis for the social networks and social relations in
which urban youth are raised and socialized and to which they must adapt (Cummins,
2001; Nieto, 1999). Sanders (2007) posits that the community is the basis for “social
interactions among those within its local boundaries” (p. 38); thus, the interactions
between youth and the adult agents that surround them become a part of the process by
which youth form individual, familial, cultural and social identities. Cummins (2001)
refers to the process as students’ “negotiating identities” (p.2) and posits that the
interactions in the classroom are reflective of the power relations between individuals as

17
well as between groups in the broader society. Research has demonstrated that the
presence of “caring individuals” and “significant adults” (Scales, Foster, Mannes, Horst,
Pinto, & Rutherford, 2005, p. 180) that serve as “personal anchors” (Shore, 2005, p. 12)
can foster resilience and help student navigate their social identities in a manner that is
compatible with one another.
When a student is able to form an identity consistent with the purpose of
schooling and education, and one which is reinforced and validated through the social
interactions with adult agents in the community, the potential for increased academic
achievement is activated (Carter, 2006; Knight, 2003). Adult agents can support a
youth’s potential for a learner’s identity through positive and supportive relationships.
These positive relationships are built on the kind of mutual trust and respect and shared
knowledge that dialogue and co-construction nurture in a partnership. School cultures
characterized by co-constructed dialogical relationships between students and the adults
inside the school and in the community who care about them can provide urban youth
with learner identities.
A New Cultural Model
A new cultural model for urban school transformation can emerge from the co-
constructed dialogical relationships within a partnership. The new way of being allows
stakeholders to determine the best ways to effectively plan and implement the tasks,
roles, and responsibilities of the partnerships activities. This new model allows the
collective knowledge available through each partner to be coordinated and coherent to
create the structures and systems necessary for transforming schools. The model is

18
characterized by mutual respect, trust, collaboration, and hope. These attributes of a
partnership can foster the adult agents that can promote the values of cooperation,
respect, and trust in their interaction with youth (Miller & Hafner, 2008; Splitter, 2006).
The adults surrounding youth in both contexts—the community and the school—can
serve as conduits and brokers of student identities as learners, especially when the
community and the school are enriched by the research and resources made available by
the university as a partner as well.
Statement of the Problem
The disparity in educational outcomes for urban minority youth has been a
pervasive and persistent dilemma for public education in the United States for more than
a century. There is a crisis in public education that threatens democratic and egalitarian
ideals. Children in some urban communities are not learning. They have low performance
rates and their schools have been inadequate in educating them.
Alliances between schools and organizations, universities, or businesses are
documented in the literature. However, the pervasiveness of academic under achievement
reflects the inability of many partnerships, as they are currently established, to come
together and effectively meet the need to transform schools.
While the diversity of partners coming together in a united effort on behalf of
schools is lauded, the same diversity can hinder the progress and potential of these
collaborations. The different perspectives, experiences, assets and resources brought forth
by each partner, unless mediated and integrated effectively, can result in relationships and
dynamics that prevent partnerships from improving the quality of education in urban

19
communities. Not enough is known about partnerships that are co-constructed and
dialogical in nature. Too little is also known about the ability of partnerships to create
adult agents who can have a positive effect on the identity formation of urban youth.
Significance of the Study
The crisis call was sounded in A Nation at Risk (1983), and regrettably it
continues to ring loud. The crisis of achievement and opportunity gaps for students of
color persist, especially for Latino and African American students in urban communities.
They are not graduating from America’s high schools or attaining college degrees.
Neither our schools, communities, nor our nation can any longer afford to have a critical
mass of its people uneducated and unemployed. This study has socio-economic, socio-
cultural, and socio-economic implications at the local, national, and international level.
Identification of the process by which this kind of partnership can be formed will
possibly have a positive effect on students’ academic performance. Young adults
influenced by this kind of partnership can enter the workforce prepared, and become
productive contributors to a democratic society.
This study is important because it will add to the knowledge of university, school,
and community partnerships and the ability of multiple stakeholders to play positive roles
to affect the academic achievement of youth in urban communities.
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this study is to examine a process that can lead to the co-
construction of an effective urban partnership and to explore how a partnership between a
university, community, and school can be facilitated, implemented, and structured to

20
meet the goal of transforming urban schools to produce high academic achievement. This
study will add to the body of knowledge about transforming urban schools. The analysis
will also examine the persistent barriers to partnerships as well as the strategies that have
proven effective in stakeholders overcoming historical and contemporary challenges.
Finally, the study will explore what attributes of a partnership between a university,
community, and school can create a new cultural model that fosters the adult agents
urban youth need as part of learner identity and the transformation of a K-12 school.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study will examine the role of university,
community, and school partnerships in improving the quality of education in urban
communities by addressing the following research questions:
1. What is a process that enables communities, schools, and universities to co-
construct partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban schools?
a. What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools, and universities that seek to transform urban
schools?
b. What are some effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming
barriers in co-constructing partnership of shared power among K-12 schools,
communities, and universities for the purpose of transforming urban schools?
2. What attributes might result from a process of co-constructing a partnership
between communities, K-12 schools, and universities to foster the adult agents

21
urban students need to develop learner identities and thus improve their academic
performance?
Delimitations of the Study
While the unique nature of the study lends itself to valuable insights into the
barriers and strategies of urban partnerships, there is a limitation in only one case study
being examined. The use of only one case study diminishes the generalizability of the
study findings. The contextual factors and conditions in which the partnership was and is
forming are unique. Thus, the ability to generalize about other types of partnerships may
be constrained.
Limitations of the Study
Time constraint is one limitation. The study has a relatively short three-month
time span in which to collect data from each stakeholder in the partnership. The limited
time will affect the amount of relevant data collected through artifacts, observations, and
interviews. In addition, time constraints may inhibit the ability to establish relationships
and communication with the various stakeholders.
The study is further limited by unpredictable access to key stakeholders
participating in the partnership. The individual participants may have competing
schedules, rotating roles and responsibilities, transfers, or changes in personnel. The
individual partners in the study have a history of interaction and collaboration; however,
the unique feature of this partnership in engaging all stakeholders poses challenges in
creating the degree of trust necessary to elicit honest responses from the participants.

22
Some individuals may feel inhibited because of the risk involved in communicating
certain information about other partners involved in the process.
This study represents the first part of a five-year study by the partnership to
research and identify the best practices and strategies for understanding the process and
impact of a university, school, and community partnership to improve the quality of
education in an urban community.
Key Terms and Definitions

Achievement Gap: A term that has come to commonly be used since the enactment of
NCLB to describe the disparity in positive student outcomes typically between middle
class students and students of color in high poverty urban areas.
Adult Agents: A term used in reference to the adults in the social settings, or the spaces
and places where urban youth interact that can serve as conduits or agents that help youth
navigate multiple social identities.
Community: Traditionally defined as a group of people interacting and living in a
common geographic location. Community is also defined as the shared characteristics,
norms, behaviors, identity and cohesiveness of a group sharing common spaces of
interaction. The ‘community’ in this case study is representative of the aforementioned
definition has a variety of assets as well as liabilities. However, many of the assets have
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.
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.

23
Cultural Model: A term derived from Gallimore & Goldenberg (2001) that broadly
defines cultural models as the “shared mental schema or normative understanding of how
the world works, or ought to work” (p. 47).
Dialogue: Dialogue is a process of engaging people in the exchange of ideas,
experiences, and knowledge for the purpose of creating shared meaning (Freire, 2003).
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.
Learner identity: The self perception by a student as capable of constructing knowledge
and developing an affiliation with school and learning.
Mutual Shared Learning: A process in which all entities are cognitively and socially
engaged for the purpose of constructing a shared body of knowledge.
Partnership: A convergence of knowledge, resources, and assets from a university, K-12
school, and community co-constructed through dialogic relationships that have the
potential to eradicate historic, social, economic, and political barriers on behalf of urban
school transformation.
Power: The potential for effecting influence and change through decision-making
capabilities and resources.
Power Sharing: The process of allocating the capabilities, assets, and resources available
in a manner that re-distributes power, or the ability to effect influence and change.

24
Power Relationship: The hierarchical distribution of social, political, and economic
capital that results in the status of oppressor and oppressed.
Sociocultural: A term derived from Vygotsky (1986) where the social and cultural
world strongly influence human interactions, cognitive development in children, and
communication practices among people.
Urban: A large, densely populated diverse metropolitan area that face challenges due to
historic barriers, stratified wealth, and power relationships, but have the potential to draw
upon the many untapped and unrecognized assets of the university, school, and
community.

25
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study is to examine a process, barriers, and strategies of
forming a partnership between multiple stakeholders. The study focuses on a partnership
between a community, school, and university, formed to improve student academic
achievement in an urban school. More specifically, the study will examine what process
the formation of an urban partnership undertakes to achieve its goal of urban school
transformation. The study will also examine the attributes that characterize a co-
constructed partnership and how it can foster the adult agents urban youth need to
develop an identity as learners and improve their academic performance.
In Chapter Two, the study conducts a review of literature on partnerships. The
literature review will focus on research in the area of educational partnerships to examine
the social and historical context for the emergence of these types of partnerships in the
education arena. Specific to this study will be a review of literature on 1) partnerships
between multiple stakeholders, and 2) partnerships with the goal of K-12 urban school
transformation through improved student outcomes. In addition to a review of partnership
literature, this chapter will examine scholarship focused on the sociocultural context of
learning in order to understand the role of the community, particularly adult agents, in
helping urban youth develop a learner identity.
The Current Situation in Urban Schools
In spite of efforts to address the problem of academic underachievement for youth
in urban schools, the problem persists. Students of color, in particular those in urban

26
communities, have the lowest rates of achievement. Multiple factors contribute to the
dismal performance scores and educational outcomes among urban youth. As stated in
chapter one, the performance scores and subsequent academic achievement rates of
minority students are not comparable to the demographic representation of these students
in some urban schools and communities. Many schools in urban areas have as high as
sixty to eighty percent of minority students as the majority. This is especially true of
schools with high Latino and African American student populations.
History
A history of racism and segregation in the United States for racial minorities has
set the landscape for current conditions in America’s educational systems. The historical
accounts of various scholars demonstrate the parallels between the experiences of the
African American and Latino communities in terms of struggles to achieve equality in the
educational system. A report released by The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University
reveals the growth of school segregation in the 1990s (Orfield & Yun, 1999). The report
outlines four important recent trends in school segregation: (1) the American South is
resegregating despite racial integration efforts born of civil rights laws; (2) Latino
students are increasingly becoming more segregated than any other ethnic group; (3)
increasing numbers of African-American and Latino students are enrolling in suburban
schools, but are segregated within these communities; (4) there is increasing diversity
across some American schools with three or more racial groups in many schools in
addition to the increased number of segregated schools. This report demonstrates the
erroneous assumption by policymakers that segregation is in the past and that efforts

27
toward desegregation are no longer necessary. “Thus, knowledge of trends in segregation
and its closely related inequalities are even more crucial now” (Orfield & Yun, 1999).
Resegregation, according to Orfield (2004), is contributing to the growing achievement
gap because of the quality of schooling that minority children of poverty receive in
comparison to white students. Practices of (re)segregation, past and present, are linked to
the failures in educating African American and Latino students. A phenomenon referred
to as “White flight” where Caucasian/Anglo families move out of areas with a growing
presence of non-White residents, has contributed to the prevalence of segregation for
African American and Latino students since the 1960’s (Valencia, Menchaca, & Donato,
2002). Some of the adverse effects include school failure to meet the needs of minority
students, substandard school conditions (poor facilities, overcrowding, under prepared
teachers), low funding, high dropout rates, low achievement test scores, and low college
matriculation (Oakes, Rogers & Lipton, 2006; Valencia et al., 2002; Gandara, 2005).
Oakes and Rogers (2007) also describe the persistent inequalities in urban schooling in
terms of unequal funding provided for adequate school facilities, college going programs,
and highly qualified teachers. They attribute these inequities to power relations in the
political arena and flawed implementation of systemic school reforms. However, there is
also a social context specific to the school environment that works in concert within the
historic and political contexts. Collectively, these contribute to a milieu of factors
detrimental to academic achievement by students of color in some urban schools.
Schools and the Dominant Discourse.
Researchers have cited the dominant discourse in schools as a prohibitive

28
characteristic in the schooling of children and reflective of the power relations and status
hierarchies in society (Cummins, 1986; Nieto, 1999; Olitsky, 2006; Oakes & Rogers,
2007). This dominant discourse represents a philosophical approach to education that
places students in either the ‘have’ or ‘have not’ category of learners. Olitsky (2006)
offers insight into the restrictive nature of the dominant discourse in education in a study
that examined how students position themselves and others relative to learning science.
Through a qualitative study of eighth grade students in an urban school, Olitsky explored
how the dichotomous view of students who “get science” and those who do not poses a
challenge to the development of an identity as science learner. She argues that the
messaging about science knowledge as necessary and “too hard” conveys that there are
special persons who understands science, and there are non-special persons who do not
and cannot understand the subject matter (Olitsky, 2006). Her study revealed that the
manner in which science and science learners were promoted as either college-bound or
not college-bound limited the development of a science learner identity. The promotion
of science as a high status and exclusive subject places constraints on students’
perceptions and beliefs about their possible educational and career paths. Students in the
study expressed frustration and disillusionment with the perception by teachers of
students who “got it” (i.e. science) as those students that could and would be successful
in school. The limited view of students’ abilities and the disregard for culturally relevant
pedagogy serves to dissuade students from engaging in the learning process.
The either/or trajectory has implications for students inside and outside of the
classroom. The categorization lends to whether to students will have access to other

29
school resources and opportunities including college preparatory courses and university
outreach activities. The strict dichotomy of students as either learner or non-learner,
whether in science or other subject area, reflects a discourse that occurs not only in
classrooms and schools, but also within other contexts. A classroom is nested in a
school, which is within a neighborhood, which is part of a school system, which in turn is
situated in a city, all of which can embody notions of “either you is or you ain’t” that may
impede a learner identity for youth in some urban communities. While Olitsky’s study
was limited to a subject-specific domain, the dominant discourse in the science classroom
is reflective of broader power relations where there are students who are deemed as “the
special people who understand”, or meritorious for gaining access to knowledge,
authority, and/or schooling privileges (2006, p. 749). The result from these and other
power and resource inequalities is students deemed ‘not special’ and with little or no
access to the power of knowledge, information, and opportunities, thus, further derailing
the formation of an identity as learner.
The structural disparities and resource inequalities within schools add to the
challenge and limitations for urban youth developing a learner identity (Oakes & Rogers,
2006; Knight, 2000; Olitsky, 2006; Oyserman & Gant, 1995; Kao & Tienda, 1998). The
development of a learner identity by youth is intricately connected to the process of
developing a social identity (Olitsky, 2006). The process of schooling as a social
construct plays a significant role in a young person forming a self-perception as learner
and scholar. Researchers note that students develop motivational beliefs and a disposition
toward academic achievement in part as a consequence of multiple environments

30
including home, community, and school (Olitsky, 2006; Anderman, Anderman &
Griesinger, 1999; Oyserman, Gant & Ager, 1995; Anderman & Maehr, 1994). However,
the prevailing tenets of schools foster an assimilationist ideology and status hierarchies
that alienate urban youth and further deter students from the formation of a learner
identity (Carter, 2006; Quiroz, 1997). Students are perceived and evaluated based on the
level to which they have adapted – or assimilated – into a prescribed normative standard
of learning and achievement. It is within this narrowed lens of student learner that
problems arise. The culturally distinct views, values, and skill sets of students in urban
communities are viewed as deficient, lacking, or oppositional because they do not
conform to prescribed methods and manifestations of learning. There is little
consideration in the dominant discourse on learning of the familial and community
experiences and assets of urban youth. Thus, the dominant discourse in schools positions
students as “in” or “out” of the boundaries of resources, assets, and opportunities
available in schools. Youth are subject to information and messaging in school
dominated by skewed historic and social contexts that discounts the cultural and familial
affiliations that they possess and need. Herein lies the potential of a community, school,
and university partnership to shape the spaces, places, and people urban youth need to
engage in learning.
The Ecology of Youth Identity
Researchers in the sociocultural and social psychology arenas have provided
valuable perspectives to understand the social construction and context of identity
development and the influence of surroundings on the academic achievement of urban

31
youth (Bronfenbrenner, 1986, 1998; Epstein, 1987, 1996, 2001; Aronson, 2004;
Santrock, 2006). These surroundings are, as Bronfenbrenner outlines, the context for the
“processes of progressively more complex interaction between the adolescent and the
persons, objects, and symbols in her or his immediate environment” (Bronfenbrenner,
1998, p. 996). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory of human development
recognizes that humans do not develop in isolation, but instead in relation to their family
and home, schools, neighborhoods, communities, peer groups, and society as a whole.
Bronfenbrenner’s model situates the family as an immediate setting of influence and
posits that the family is a principal context for human development and the affiliated
process of identity development. However, his ecosystems model (1986) reinforces that
the process of development occurs in multiple settings that are not independent of each
other; as noted by the model’s placement of the classroom as another immediate and
influential setting for an individual. Conversely, Bronfenbrenner’s eco-systems
framework places social conditions and cultural values in the outer layer or macro
system that surrounds the individual, thus illustrating the broader and more encompassing
layers of influence in which a person is nested.
The interconnected and overlapping influences of teachers (school), university,
and community on youth development reflects Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory which
places an individual at the center of layered social systems and settings (Santrock, 2006;
Bronfenbrenner, 1986) and holds “that development reflects the influence of several
environmental systems” (Santrock, 2006, p. 48). The university, the school, and the
community represent some of the systems that surround an individual, or more

32
specifically, a student. A partnership can help adults agents within these systems and
settings make important connections and create congruence with one another to help
students navigate socially constructed identities. Adult agents can serve to guide students
as they traverse complex social structures toward the development of an identity as
learner (Scales et al., 2005; Hossler, Schmit, & Vesper, 1999: Ianni, 1996; Olitsky,
2006). Specifically, the development and growth of youth as learners happens to a
significant degree in one setting (classroom), which is nested in others (school system,
community), which are in turn nested in and influenced by others (social conditions,
cultural values, economic status), resulting in layers of influence. For students in some
urban communities, the layers can translate to social, cultural, and physical surroundings
that will either foster and support a perception and belief as a learner or contribute to
affiliations that are counterproductive to the tenets of education (Kowaleski-Jones, 2000;
Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). By convening the entities – school, home, and
community representing the social settings critical to youth development, a partnership
can create an eco-system of influence and learning that is balanced in the values,
expectations, and behaviors shared by the adult agents. This balance in the environment
that surrounds urban youth is critical to the formation of a learner identity and the ability
of a partnership to achieve its goal.
Partnerships
Why Partnerships?
The persistent problem of under achievement by minority youth in urban schools
is pervasive. The situation is so multifaceted that it calls on stakeholders from different

33
entities to enlist in partnerships with other stakeholders vested in improving student
achievement in urban schools. The issues related to academic under achievement are
embedded in socio-economic, sociocultural and socio-political influences of the models
of schooling now in effect (Cummins, 2001; Nieto, 1999; Oakes & Rogers, 2006). These
influences typically have a deficit view of families and communities in low-income urban
areas where people of color are concentrated (Oakes & Rogers, 2006). Educators and
other stakeholders have responded to the call with many initiatives to confront and
remedy the problem of urban education (Baum, 2000; Mayfield, Hellwig & Banks, 1999;
Miller, 2007; Maurasse, 2001; Rubin, 1998; Sandy & Holland, 2006). Efforts to forge
alliances, expand networks, combine resources, and increase capital in communities to
reverse the pattern of underachievement have taken on great importance and greater
value. These efforts include partnerships among multiple entities that are focused on
improving schooling and learning for children (Sanders, 2007; Scales et al., 2005). These
alliances are based on common economic interests in and benefits from a skilled and
educated workforce as well as on shared social and moral obligations to provide equal
opportunities. Universities, K-12 schools, and communities have the potential for playing
a vital role in bringing about positive results in student academic achievement and access
through partnerships that foster the adult agents that students need in school and in the
community.
Background on Partnerships
Attempts at partnerships to address the problem of schooling in America have
produced mixed results, depending on the nature of the partnership. The literature on

34
university, school, and community partnerships (Sanders, 2001; Sandy & Holland, 2006;
Mayfield, 2000; Carroll, La Point, & Tyler, 2001; Mayfield, Hellwig, & Banks, 1999)
reflects varied attempts to build the level of cooperation, collaboration, and power
sharing necessary for achieving the goal of transforming urban education. In addition, to
the multiple types of partnerships, researchers have also cited that there is no one uniform
approach or framework used to insure the success of these partnerships (Baum, 2000;
Mayfield, Hellwig, & Lucas, 1999; McKoy & Vincent, 2007; Miller, 2007; Miller &
Hafner, 2008; Shen, Lu, & Kretovics, 2004). The absence of a prescribed model for
success is particularly relevant to this study and the formation and success of partnerships
that involve more than two stakeholders since documentation of a partnership between
three entities is rare (Brabeck, Walsh & Latta, 2003). The full potential of partnerships
involving the community, school, and university to effect change in the achievement
outcomes of youth in some urban schools will be explored by examining the background,
purpose, and limitations of each entity later in this chapter.
Types of Partnerships
The term “partnership” is widely used and commonly understood to be a
collective and coordinated effort for purposes of achieving an intended outcome
(Sanders, 2001). Educators and other stakeholders have responded to the call for
reversing the trend of academic under achievement with many types of outreach,
engagement, and involvement initiatives manifested in a variety of partnerships (Baum,
2000; Mayfield, Hellwig & Banks, 1999; Miller, 2007; Rubin, 1998; Sandy & Holland,
2006). These partnerships involving a variety of entities are focused on improving

35
schools and raising academic achievement for children. The scope of efforts is
exemplified by The National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) which maintains a
database of over 2,000 schools throughout the country that engage in varying types of
partnerships. The directory includes partnerships between schools, businesses, social
services agencies, civic and advocacy organizations, parent and community associations,
and colleges and universities (Sanders, 2001). There are schools that are engaged in
multiple partnerships simultaneously. The availability of additional resources can
strengthen a school’s ability to meet student needs; however, schools are often rewarded
for the quantity of partnerships they are engaged in as opposed to the quality of
partnerships (Carroll et al., 2001). The latter speaks to the importance not only of who is
a partner but also to how a partner engages to provide support and resources that enhance
schooling outcomes.
The nature of partnerships is also defined by the focus, structure, and goals of
such a collective endeavor. Schools undertake collaborative ventures for a variety of
activities improve student outcomes such as mentoring and tutoring programs in subject
areas, literacy campaigns that include book fairs and mobile outreach in neighborhoods,
health resources including wellness clinics, and parent/family involvement through
workshops and school-based social events (Sanders, 2001; Sanders, 2007). In a study of
443 NNPS schools, Sanders (2001) identified types of partnerships based on who was
involved and what the focus of the activities was. The study also looked at the factors and
obstacles related to the satisfaction and effectiveness of the partnership. The study
showed that 70 percent of school partnership survey respondents reported having at least

36
one school-community partnership activity. Some schools in the sample were often
engaged in multiple types of partnerships simultaneously, depending on the school’s
needs and the resources being made available. A determining factor in satisfaction with
partnership activities and the number of obstacles was the level of district and school
support for the partnership.
In Detroit, an initiative that partnered public schools and businesses as part of a
broader school reform effort resulted in greater teacher access to resources and networks,
greater ownership in schools by parents and community members, and increased career
exposure, support and guidance to students (McLean & Toler-Robinson, 2001). In New
York, a study of 9
th
– 12
th
grade urban Latino and African American students
demonstrated that a school-business partnership was successful in providing an exposure
and connection to the real world through partnership activities (Scales et al., 2005). In
West Oakland, California an initiative between a university, schools and community
businesses, framed by a situated learning model, was able to engage students in an urban
redevelopment project and establish a community of practice “whereby a group of people
work collectively to find answers or solutions to a given problem” (McKoy & Vincent,
2007, p. 390). In the latter example, the partnership model argued that in order for new
members of a group to gain certain values, beliefs, and behavior, they must be guided by
senior partners in the community. Hence, students were viewed as capable agents in the
revitalization process and the value of their every day experience was integrated into the
project outcomes. The model is akin to scaffolding as a learning strategy in the
classroom. Comparably, a community, school, and university partnership can facilitate

37
scaffolding of a learner identity by integrating the adult agents in the community as part
of the school transformation process.
Partnership Stakeholders
Co-constructed partnerships that include the community as an equal partner with
the university and the school can produce a new of model of adult agents to support urban
youth in developing identities focused on learning and high academic achievement.
Urban partnerships join together multiple entities, or stakeholders that are vested in
improving the well being of the community across different domains including education.
A review of the literature demonstrates the positive dimensions of a variety of
partnerships such as university and community (Benson et al., 2000; Bringle & Hatcher,
2002; Mayfield et al., 1999; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005;
Maurasse, 2001), schools and communities (Brabeck et al., 2000; Lawson et al., 2007;
Sanders, 2001), schools and business (Scales et al., 2005; McKoy & Vincent, 2005) and
finally, universities and schools (Kezar, 2007; Rousseau, 2007; Sallee & Tierney, 2007;
Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988; Sorenson, 1998). Documentation of partnerships among three
entities, namely the community, school, and university, is rare (Brabeck et al, 2003), but
vital to meeting the challenges facing our society, especially for the purpose of improving
student educational outcomes in urban schools.
Communities, Schools and Universities as Partners
While a collective of stakeholders may have as a common goal to improve
education for urban youth, each entity brings diverse and distinct social, cultural,
organizational, and historical characteristics to the partnership (Kezar, 2007). These

38
elements can be assets within in each entity; however, these can be limitations when
working in isolation. “Unfortunately, collaboration’s full potential remains untapped
because its unique features, requirements, benefits, and contingencies have not been
described precisely and coherently” (Lawson, 2003, p. 45). The formation of a
community, school, and university partnership is not exempt from the quandary. An
examination of the characteristics and limitations of each entity is helpful in determining
the potential of this type of partnership.
The University
Higher education, in particular the urban university, has increasingly been called
to task on its responsibility to contribute to the proliferation of an informed citizenry, the
preparation of an educated workforce, and the continued social and economic well being
of the nation (Riposa, 2003; Ostrander, 2004; Mumper, 2003). The schools and
communities surrounding universities are socially, economically, and culturally diverse
and reflect changing societal needs; however, the students of these schools and
communities are not represented on the university campuses that are within their
geographic boundaries. Riposa (2003), using the California State University system as a
case to explore the evolving role of the urban university, argues that the institution “must
see itself inexorably connected to its urbanized milieu” (p. 56). Such a paradigm shift
requires the university to redefine its perceptions of the communities around them and to
construct new collaborative and creative approaches to addressing the needs of
increasingly diverse students (Mumper, 2006; Riposa, 2003; Haveman & Smeeding,
2006). These perceptions will need to shift from the community as a deficit and liability

39
to a view of the community as rich in knowledge, experiences, and talents (Kezar, 2007;
Miller, 2007; Oakes & Rogers, 2007).
The University’s History. Throughout its history and evolution as a social
institution, the university has had to balance a mission of “universal” education to meet
changing societal needs with its mission to simultaneously advance scholarly inquiry and
research (Maurasse, 2001). In the past two decades, university civic engagement has re-
emerged as a role for the university due to the growing need for relevance and
responsiveness to its surrounding communities. “University presidents are placing
community partnerships higher on their agendas” (Maurasse, 2001, p.1). Maurasse
(2001) argues that making a contribution to society is an “active process,” in which
research is conducted based on the priorities of the community (2001). Similarly, Miller
& Hafner (2008) note that universities in the United States are undertaking “an agenda of
civic engagement with their neighboring communities” (p. 67). Ostrander (2004) in a
comparative study of civic engagement efforts of five university campuses identified the
need for a new framework of engagement that acknowledges the local factors in
surrounding communities as key to developing the programs and services to meet the
community’s needs. The study found that the university needs to be willing to share
power and resources with local communities and to actively and consistently demonstrate
this intention. The failure by colleges and universities to engage in “addressing the major
issues of the day” including connecting with communities for improved educational
outcomes, reinforces the risk of higher education becoming “socially irrelevant”
(Ostrander, 2004, p. 76). The research reveals the growing impetus to ground academic

40
knowledge in real-world contexts, connect knowledge to practice, form closer
relationships between academics and practitioners, and improve the conditions of local
communities (Kezar, Chambers, and Burkhardt, 2005; Ostrander, 2004).
The Relationship with Schools. According to Mumper (2003), the implications of
policies that have increased the cost of attending public colleges and universities and
restricted access to financial assistance are particularly negative for low income and
disadvantaged students. The author cites that unless higher education accelerates its
efforts to make a college education accessible and available to a growing and
increasingly diverse student population, it will lose the position of a major purveyor of
equal opportunity and social mobility. The disconnect between university admission
policies and the limited ability of K-12 schools to prepare low-income students of color
to meet those requirements is also a barrier (Mumper, 2003; National Center for Public
Policy and Higher Education, 2005). In an analysis of the economic and political factors
that block access to public higher education, Mumper (2003) outlines the steady decline
of higher education’s role in promoting equal opportunity, and challenges all stakeholders
– policy makers, educators, institutions, and business to find ways to reverse the trend
or risk a workforce that is uneducated and ill prepared.
Opportunities to Contribute. In addition to posing a financial burden to students,
families, and communities through increased costs, some universities have fallen short in
sharing the resources available within the institution. The knowledge and expertise of
university faculty are invaluable assets that could be extended to schools through
extended teacher training and professional development (Epstein & Sanders, 2006).

41
Universities can serve as brokers of knowledge through much needed pedagogical and
curriculum training to teachers (Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Epstein, 2008) and help
teachers with “providing personalized leadership with students as a means of
demonstrating care and helping students regain a sense of themselves a valued members
of community” (Adler, 2002, p. 260). The university may conduct research that impacts
educational programs; for example faculty may oversee educational studies that alter K-
12 instruction and curriculum. Also, university students often conduct internships or
other pre service teaching activities in neighborhood schools (Maurasse, 2001; Ostrander,
2004; Rousseau, 2007).
While there are research and teacher preparation resources available from the
university, Rousseau (2007) cites the vital role of the university in partnering with
schools to develop college-going activities that increase students’ college-readiness and
matriculation. The university’s outreach and admissions strategies can be extended to
include enrichment activities that expose students prior to high school to the career and
life possibilities available through higher education. These include tutoring and
mentoring with university students, college access and counseling information, and
partnering for college campus visits to enhance the academic aspirations and preparation
of youth in some urban communities. In this capacity, the university has a role as a broker
of students’ “college knowledge” through greater exposure to and information on the
processes related to college-going (Knight, 2003; Tornatsky, Cutler & Lee, 2002;
Hossler, Schmit & Vesper, 1999; Kao & Tienda, 1998). Thus, given the culture of theory
that dominates higher education (Kezar, 2007); the university’s engagement with schools

42
can have direct and indirect impact on the quality of education in schools and the ability
of urban youth to achieve academic success.
The Culture of Theory. The mission and culture of theory in the university, which
is centered on the research interests and inquiry of academics, can prevent the institution
from making and maintaining the “town and gown” relationships that are beneficial to the
community (Mumper, 2003; Riposa, 2003). The assets that universities in urban
communities are prepared to share may not be readily accepted due to perceptions by
schools and communities of universities as elitist and condescending institutions that are
uninviting and difficult to penetrate and to change (Mayfield, Hellwig & Lucas, 1999).
The cultural perceptions and interpretations of the university by schools and communities
is an important feature in the effort to link multiple entities. Like the university, the
schools and the community have unique ways of being. Each holds a distinct view of the
world based on the shared history, customs, and practices of those that interact within
each context. These cultural orientations are important elements in the process of
forming an effective educational partnership. The differences in culture among each
entity must be recognized and negotiated in order to move forward (Kezar, 2007; Miller,
2007). In addition to the cultural differences in values, attitudes, and behaviors, research
has documented the differences between university and K-12 cultures in the areas of
professional focus, work tempo, rewards, degree of power and autonomy, socialization,
values, and sense of efficacy (Kezar, 2007; Miller, 2007; Carroll et al., 2001). If not
understood and integrated into the process, these differences can create major barriers to
effective partnerships (Kezar, 2007). It is at the intersection of the distinct cultures of

43
practice and inquiry of the school and the university respectively where a relationship
based on mutual trust and respect is important to the partnership process.
Without effort to move beyond the structural and technical elements of a
partnership and more toward a relationship based on trust, respect, and collaboration,
university efforts to work with schools and communities may be thwarted. These
characteristics are necessary to mitigate the negative effects of the differences between
the cultures and practices of the university and the other partners.
The Schools
Universities have placed engagement and collaboration high on the agenda of
institutional priorities and have recognized the need to provide greater connection
between academics and education practitioners, to link knowledge to practice, and to
contribute to the well being of the community (Mumper, 2003; Ostrander, 2004).
However, the conundrum of poor school performance and poor student achievement is
the major issue, but it does not lie solely in the university’s domain. As a major
stakeholder in the education of children, schools are charged with perhaps the greatest
social undertaking of the many for the well being of its citizenry that the United States
still attends to. However, the quality of education and level of achievement has been
neither equal nor equitable for all children. Schools in university communities, especially
in urban areas, face the problem of persistent student under- achievement in the midst of
mandated academic standards and performance measures (Shore, 2005; Swanson, 2008;
UC/ACCORD, 2007).

44
The Challenges to Achievement. There are myriad of factors, both academic and
non academic that influence the nature of schooling and the ability of students to foster
learner identities. Schools in some urban communities are often characterized by large
student enrollment, overcrowding, and are challenged by diminishing resources including
reduced budgets, inadequately prepared teachers, less than rigorous curricula,
substandard facilities, and low parent/community involvement—the same structural
characteristics that place minority students at higher risk for dropping out than other low
achieving students (Gandara, 2005; UC ACCORD, 2007). Researcher also cites the
interdependence of community and neighborhood structures and resources with the
ability of youth to form positive affiliations with schooling (Nieto, 1999; Kowaleski-
Jones, 2005; Leventhal, Brooks, & Gunn, 2000; Stewart, Stewart, & Simons, 2007). A
substantial number of schools have failed to demonstrate academic achievement under
the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and some schools have reached a point of
crisis by losing accreditation and facing possible closure (Education Resource Center,
2005; Orfield, 2004). Despite these challenges, there are urban schools that meet the
challenge and persist in their effort to educate children, serving as a hub for
communication and interaction for parents and families in these neighborhoods.
Administrators and teachers work with parents and other community agents through
after-school and other enrichment programs to provide students with greater opportunities
for academic engagement and success. Ideally, through these efforts and shared norms,
values, and behaviors, schools create a distinct culture of schooling and practice that
establishes student learning as a core value (Sanders, 2001; Kezar, 2007; Miller, 2007)

45
and that validates the community, cultural, and familial orientations of students (Hibert,
2000; Knight, 2003; Oakes, Rogers & Lipton, 2006; Quiroz, 1997).
The Culture of Practice in Schools. Comparable to the university’s culture of
theory, the K-12 environment operates through a culture of practice that focuses on the
applicability and transfer of strategies and processes to the classroom (Kezar, 2007). This
action-oriented focus to the purpose of schooling is one of the assets that a school brings
to a partnership with other entities. In addition, this type of action-oriented culture allows
for the accomplishment of goals and objectives and reflects where the cultures of the
university and the school can meet to ground theoretical knowledge with the practice of
teaching (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988), which in turn can help teachers and other adult
agents broker a learner identity for students. The ability to create a new culture of
learning is centered on a school’s ability to integrate the knowledge and resources
available from both the university and the community into the school in a way that fosters
collaboration, trust, and respect.
Despite the positive outcomes that can result from a culture of practice, K-12
schools can also be resistant to integrating other types of knowledge. Because school,
home, and neighborhood all contribute to academic outcomes (Epstein, 1987; Epstein,
1995; Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Sanders, 2007), many non-academic factors that
influence students must still be addressed. K-12 schools need to work alongside the
university, the community and other professional organizations to help them meet the
non-academic factors related to school and student achievement. The sole emphases on
the practical can sometimes supersede elements of the theoretical that are essential in

46
helping students succeed (Selke, 1996). Universities, as mentioned earlier, can provide
this theoretical knowledge through research. The university’s research role in identifying
non-academic factors and how they affect learning is crucial to the development of the
whole child. Meeting the challenges of non-academic factors alongside cognitive
demands of schooling requires the assistance of more than one stakeholder.
School Performance. While they have been hard pressed to meet the performance
scores prescribed to them, some urban schools have been able to consistently foster
student achievement and make progress to improve their scores (CPEC, 2004). In some
cases, urban schools in resource poor areas with a high percentage of low SES students
have been able to surpass state mandated benchmarks. By undergoing a similar process
as their higher education counterparts, schools are faced with adapting to the needs of a
changing social landscape and the diversity of students in the classroom (Nieto, 1999;
Cummins, 2001; George & Aronson, 2003). Some schools have made progress with
engaging parents and other community stakeholders in the practice of schooling. They
have heightened their efforts to tap into the resources available to them, including better-
prepared teachers, informed counselors, and committed parents to create collaborative
and shared learning environments. Oakes, Rogers & Lipton (2006) vividly illustrate the
transformation of an urban high school in the Los Angeles area in Learning Power:
Organizing for Education and Justice. In a case study narrative, the authors outline how
through a radical process of social inquiry, a school was able to engage students, parents,
teachers, university faculty and community members in critical inquiry around
“information gathering, exchange, interpretation, and debate” (p. 16) amongst all.

47
“Achieving education on “equal terms” requires all groups to speak on “equal terms” in
ways that compel the powerful to account for what they hear” (Oakes, Rogers & Lipton,
2006, p. 16). Other research has also presented examples of school improvement and
cultural transformation through shared learning and co-constructed relationships (Scales
et al., 2005).
Many of the schools challenged with meeting state and federal mandated
performance standards are schools that have sought help through partnerships with higher
educational institutions, businesses, community-based organizations and other enterprises
(Lawson, Claiborne, Hardiman, Austin & Surko, 2007). School leaders, like their
university counterparts, have recognized the increased potential to improve student
educational outcomes by drawing on the assets available from the people, places, and
resources found in the community. However, like their university counterparts, schools
have been challenged to integrate those assets in a manner that is inclusive and
transformative. As noted earlier, the cultural differences among each entity need to be
acknowledged and reconciled in a manner that facilitates the inclusion of all assets and
resources. As noted in Bronfenbrenner’s framework, the classroom or school is a critical
social setting for urban youth (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). As such, schools and the adults
therein have the ability to serve as critical (and cultural) brokers that can convene
neighborhood and community stakeholders, in particular parents and families, in a way
that will help students form a learner identity. By doing so, the school becomes a part of a
[re]distribution of resources and power on behalf of student identity and achievement.

48
The Community
The third entity to emerge as a stakeholder in university, community, and school
partnerships represents a more complex presence. First, the definition of community and
subsequent membership in community are not readily nor consistently agreed upon.
Commonly, a community is defined as an entity with shared interests within a geographic
space; however, the notion of community is not restricted to the physical environment or
the geographic boundaries of an area (Sanders, 2001). A community can be bound by
geography as well as by shared cultures (which in turn can include a wide range of
characteristics), or by shared affiliations, such as kinship networks, professional
associations, economic enterprises, or religious institutions. Yet, the community within
the context of partnerships integrates all of the aforementioned characteristics. The
community is the collection of individuals, families, businesses, community
organizations, social agencies, and schools of a geographic area that provides the social
context for its inhabitants including students. Second, in the course of the interactions and
exchanges that occur in spaces and places of the community, there are varying
perceptions and interpretations of what constitutes membership in the community.
Community membership is subject to whether one’s values, attitudes, and behaviors are
consistent with the perceived social context of the environment, or the community.
A Historical Perspective. Urban communities possess features and characteristics
uniquely their own. The social, economic, political, and demographic landscape of an
urban setting sets a pace for the interactions of individuals. For youth in urban schools,
the “sights and sounds of the street” can sway them toward affiliations that are contrary

49
to the purpose of schooling, learning, and achievement. Depressed economies, unstable
housing, pervasive crime activities, and inadequate safety are known to factor into the
persistent under achievement of youth in urban schools (Gandara, 2005; Orfield, 2004).
Research on neighborhood effects lends support to the role of neighborhood structures
and resources in helping youth develop the skills necessary for diminished risk taking and
greater engagement with school (Stewart, Stewart, & Simons, 2007; Sampson, Morenoff,
& Gannon-Rowley, 2002; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Elliot, Wilson, Huizinga,
Sampson, Elliot, & Rankin, 1996). However, the presence of these factors in some
communities is grounded in the historical and inequitable distribution of power and
access to resources for communities of color (Cummins, 2001; Nieto, 1999; Oakes &
Rogers, 2006). As noted in Chapter One, research indicates high educational aspirations
by Latino and African American youth and their families. Notwithstanding some adverse
socioeconomic conditions, the families and their community neighbors including civic
leaders, business owners, educators, and others, want good schools and equal educational
opportunities for the youth of the urban community. This is not different from parents
and others in suburban or more affluent communities. Yet, there is a dynamic that
integrates a deficit view of the urban community by those with greater access to power
and has hindered the community from fully executing what it can do on behalf of student
achievement.
While the community shares with the university and the school a wish or goal of
student achievement, the perception of the community as “bereft of caring” (Sanders,
2007, p. 38) and void of social and cultural capital can perpetuate conflict with schools,

50
universities, and other institutions that seek to engage the community in a partnership
(DiMaggio, 1982; Oakes & Rogers, 2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008)). The community, as
defined above, possesses a wealth of untapped resources that can be leveraged to improve
schools and education in urban communities. Sanders (2001) notes that the multiple
entities within the community can be engaged to increase opportunities for growth and
achievement of students. There are community organizations, social services agencies,
and civic organizations that can provide services for youth that are often unavailable at
schools. The community is abundant in faith-based businesses and civic organizations as
well as public agencies that oversee local parks and recreation services, and law
enforcement that sponsor youth leagues. In short, the valuable experience, knowledge,
talent, and energy present amongst parents, family, neighbors, business owners, and other
advocates in the community are typically undervalued and over looked. The ability to
integrate the community’s unique ways of being or its “community rhythms” (Kezar,
2007, p. 32), is important to a university, school, and community partnership’s promise
and potential.
The Power of the Community. The community is not absent in the transformative
power of a partnership; however, despite abundant in the potential and power of what
they have to offer, neither families nor community members like universities and schools,
can alone bring about student success in school. The changes in family composition and
demographics combined with increased pressures on working parents, guardians, and
caregivers are proving a challenge to collaboration between families and schools
(Sanders, 2001). Similarly, educators at school sites are challenged by lack of knowledge

51
and understanding of how to engage the community and make effective use of the assets
and resources available (Lawson et al., 2007; Price, 2008). Community groups often
times lack other types of resources available from the university and/or schools; however,
they have valuable insight and knowledge on how to help the community (Mayfield &
Lucas, 2000). Many times, community members who can serve as adult role models and
knowledge facilitators are unsure about where they are able to help and how to access
and navigate the resources of the K-12 schools and universities. The community is often
not afforded the opportunity to convert its human and cultural capital into power to co-
create a new partnership model.
The community encompasses the spaces, places, and people that youth encounter
every day (Sanders, 2001; Epstein & Sanders, 2006). Community adult agents possess
cultural, social and political knowledge of the area and can provide access to key
informants and community leaders such as civic, religious, parent, and business leaders
(Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005). These individuals play an important role in supporting
schools and teachers by defining and articulating shared expectations of young people
with one another and with youth themselves (Carter, 2006; Knight, 2003). A partnership
that includes the community is important because it allows community agents to
recognize ways that their influence is connected to the influence of other social agents
such as the school and the university and the impact of all three on youth identity as
learner (Epstein 1995; Epstein & Sanders, 2006). As with schools, the community is a
critical setting of influence. The assets found in the knowledge and experiences of
members of civic, religious, youth and other community organizations comprise the

52
social, linguistic, familial, academic, and aspirational capital (Yowell, 2000; Yosso,
2005) needed for school, career, and life success. “Any learning a child encounters in
school always has a previous history” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 84). Bringing in the
community with its rhythms and rituals and practices gives access to students’ intellectual
and cultural capital which is the basis for students’ prior knowledge and their ability to
build new knowledge. This culture of shared knowledge and reciprocity is rarely
reflected in the school; however, it is a capable of being created by a community, school,
and university partnership.
A Partnership Process
The stakeholders in a partnership are representatives of organizations, institutions,
and communities whose culture, or “ways of being,” are derived from distinct social
contexts. The result can be an incongruence of cultures and a likelihood of the “clash of
cultures” (Kezar, 2007; Miller, 2007) that often forms a barrier to effective partnerships.
The conflict between cultures calls for a new cultural model of collaboration to
strengthen the assets and resources of each stakeholder, to revitalize collective efforts and
transform schools in urban communities. This new model is one focused on the co-
construction of a dialogical relationship between the university, school, and community
(Carroll et al., 2001; Miller & Hafner, 2007; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000) focused on student
achievement and school transformation.
Co-Constructed Relationships
Few partnerships co-construct relationships that include the communities of urban
schools as partners, yet co-constructed relationships among universities, schools, and

53
communities have the potential for redistributing power, thus enabling all partners to
contribute to the quality of education in urban communities. Much of the research
literature on partnerships emphasizes the importance of building stakeholder relationships
based on mutual respect, effective communication, and trust among other critical factors
(Maurasse, 2001; Mayfield et al., 1999; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000; Ostrander, 2004;
Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005). These types of partnerships
take concerted time, energy and a strong commitment by all partners involved as well as
a strong commitment to the process. Stakeholders perceived to have more power, in the
case of urban partnerships, the university and the school, must approach the process with
a willingness to redistribute their power and resources in a meaningful way. The
university must be willing to share power, decision-making, and material resources with
local communities and schools and demonstrate this willingness by the way the work is
organized and the resources made available (Ostrander, 2004). Similarly schools can
exert a level of power that excludes partners. School administrators and teachers must
reject a view of parents, families and others in the community as unwilling and incapable
of contributing to student and school success (Sanders, 2001; Sanders, 2007). In addition,
partnerships with the community and other entities must be regarded as central to the
mission and practices of the school and not viewed as peripheral or tertiary (Erbstein &
Miller, 2008). Successful partnerships require that the knowledge, expertise, and
experiences of all partners are shared and respected.
The co-construction process among universities, schools, and communities
requires a careful consideration of the social and cultural contexts that frame the

54
partnership and the ensuing relationship building that must occur. These contexts frame
the ways of being or the culture of each partner and define the ability to form
relationships of mutuality and reciprocity. In a study of the Talent Quest program, a
partnership effort between a university and school in Oakland, California, Carroll,
LaPoint, & Tyler (2001) found that a level of effectiveness was achieved as a result of
flexibility on the part of the university representatives to involve representatives to
involve community and business in the program. From the study emerged principles that
are foundational for partnerships to allow power to be redistributed among all
stakeholders, in particular the community. According to Carroll et al. (2001), the co-
construction process includes the following principles: (1) university researchers should
understand and respect the social and cultural forces that will effect change at school
sites; (2) information regarding the community’s values, interests, and activities should
be considered and integrated into the change process that might occur at the school sites;
(3) co-construction requires co-dependence of knowledge, expertise and resources by all
stakeholders; (4) researchers and practitioners must adopt a cultural lens that allows for
all stakeholders’ knowledge and skills to be valued and developed; (5) patience is
required because the desired results are intended to be long term, transformational and
sustainable for all involved in the process. Carroll et al. (2001) further outlined the
factors (to be discussed later in this chapter) that emerge as persistent barriers to the
formation of a partnership involving these three entities.
The Role of Dialogue in Co-Construction
The process of co-construction involves developing dialogic relationships

55
between the community, school, and university in order to form strong and effective
partnerships. These relationships when formed by using the Freirean dialogical model
provide a foundation for engaging all members in a new kind of cultural model. The term
dialogical is derived from Paolo Freire’s seminal work Pedagogy of the Oppressed
(2003). Dialogical relationships, according to Freire, are marked by critical thinking and
inquiry of self and are the basis for co-constructed relationships. Freire (2003) argues that
inclusive dialogue is the basis from which to engender the “liberation” of those
subjugated by a dominant power structure. As such, individuals, or in the case of
partnerships, stakeholders must reflect on the basis from which they approach the
discourse. Those who come from a position of dominance and superiority must abdicate
their status consciousness and approach dialogue as “an act of creation” (Freire, 2003, p.
89). To engage in dialogue is to create a foundation for trust, respect, humility, and
compassion that will give rise to a relationship and a process for taking action. Dialogue
and the relationships heretofore created should not be used as an instrument of
dominance, but instead co-constructed to allow “the united reflection and action of the
dialoguers … addressed to the world which is to be transformed” (Freire, 2003, p. 88).
University, school, and community partnerships must confront the status consciousness
that may thwart their potential to transform the world of academic under achievement of
youth in some urban communities.
The dialogical premise is grounded in the belief that the needs of “the people” are
defined and articulated by the people through inclusion in dialogue. “The people” as cited
in Freire (1970), are those who are victims of the structures, policies, practices, and

56
norms that perpetuate inequality. Thus, in a dialogical relationship, the people must be a
part of a dialogue that identifies and best meets their needs, or “name[s] and alter[s] their
realities” (Miller & Hafner, 2008, p.74). In a study of a university, school, and
community partnership, Miller & Hafner (2008) use the Freirean model to ascertain the
extent to which the planning and implementation of the partnership embodied Freire’s
tenets. The findings reveal that the university was aware of its position of power, thus
accepting “the onus of the university-based UNP participants to reach out to the Westside
residents with humility and openness.” In this partnership, the university used strategies
such as “community conversations” (p. 100) and “a funds of knowledge perspective” to
foster a collaborative process. Likewise, Mayfield, Hellwig, & Banks (1999) in an
overview of a teacher, research, and service partnership initiative by University of Illinois
at Chicago cite lessons learned: 1) a process of working collectively instead of separately
to maximize scarce resources, 2) time and flexibility to get working knowledge of the
other partners, and 3) articulated project design and goals based on “experience with and
insight into the community”. The study further posits that all of the above and other
important elements must be “refined by an ongoing conversation among partners and
participants.” By using the strategies and practices outlined, the partnerships in the study
acknowledge the role of the people in “naming the world” (Freire, 2003, p. 89).
Freire’s reference to “the people” can be translated to the work of urban
partnerships and the need to include community in the process of discussing and
deliberating about what is needed to achieve change. The community as a partner with
the university and the school plays an important role in the co-construction of a different

57
kind of dialogical relationship, a relationship based on the re-distribution of power
necessary to improve education for urban youth. Furthermore, Freire’s notion of dialogue
does not involve tenets centered on organizational and structural constructs, instead
“[f]ounding itself upon love, humility, and faith, dialogue becomes a horizontal
relationship of which mutual trust between dialoguers is the logical consequence” (Freire,
2003, p. 91).The emphasis is on horizontal, instead of vertical, relationships, which
represent traditional hierarchical structures, promotes mutual respect among those
involved in a partnership.
Freire’s dialogical lens provides a framework for partnerships by outlining the
need for each entity to recognize what others have to offer. The framework also provides
for participants to reflect on a status and power tendencies that can disrupt the co-
construction process. The ability to transform an urban school through the particular
assets of each partner, to promote a learner identity in students that embraces the school,
the home and community orientation, and a vision of college, requires dialogue between
stakeholders to be open and inclusive. The process of co-constructing dialogic
relationships among summons the distinct resources, skills, and wisdom of multiple
partners toward an educational transformation. However, the same distinctiveness that
can serve as an asset has the potential to give way to challenges and barriers within the
partnership.
Barriers to Partnerships
The ability of a partnership to validate and integrate the knowledge and
experiences of all partners is critical to trust building, collaboration, and a dialogical

58
relationship (Carroll et al., 2001); however, the cultural lens or logics of each partner also
contributes to barriers in the formation and implementation of a partnership focused on
educational equity (Miller & Hafner, 2007; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000; Oakes & Rogers,
2007).
As with most interactions and exchanges that occur in a social context between
persons or between groups, a university, community and school partnership convenes the
myriad perceptions, views, values, and behaviors of each partner either individually or
collectively. Immersed in their “own ways of being”, agents from each entity bring
preconceived notions and assumptions based on their experiences, both as an individuals
and as members of a broader entity such as the community. The perceptions and
interpretations of individuals from diverse backgrounds is guided by the experiences,
values, and behaviors of the person making the observation and the context – social,
organizational, school, neighborhood, family, or work – in which it occurs. Subsequently,
the process of co-constructing a dialogical relationship in a partnership is characterized
by the complexity and challenges related to creating a new shared culture, or more
simply, a new way of being.
Cultural Logics
For organizations such as those represented by schools, universities, and
community based organizations, the persistence of preconceived notions and biased
assumptions can result in hierarchical thinking. The latter dominates relationships where
one entity perceives another to be unequal in status, position, resources, or power. Oakes
& Rogers (2006) refers to this type of cultural perspective as based on a cultural logic of

59
deficit, whereby the access to social and educational advantages is based on a deficiency
or shortcoming on the part of an individual or group instead of the structural inadequacies
within the education system. In addition to a cultural logic of deficit, Oakes posits the
logic of scarcity and the logic of merit as perspectives that have guided, or misguided the
distribution of resources and led to a lack of power sharing in partnerships. The logic of
merit assumes that access to the benefits of education is dependent on individual talent
and effort in the context of equal opportunity. This logic assumes that all students have an
equal share of resources and opportunities that can be accessed with hard work and
demonstrated talent. The logic of scarcity assumes that there are limited amounts of
quality education and resources available, which in turn can only be distributed based on
the merit of the individual.
The aforementioned cultural logics complement one another and intertwine to
thwart efforts toward school reform and improve education for urban youth. Different
scholars have shown how schooling has integrated the premises of these logics into the
education systems (Oakes & Rogers, 2006; Oakes, Rogers & Lipton, 2007; Quiroz, 1997;
Olitsky, 2006). Schools are charged with providing quality education through the
allocation of adequate facilities, qualified teachers, rigorous and relevant curriculum, and
college readiness. Yet, the logics of merit and deficit can be seen in schools in the sorting
of students into different academic programs and activities, which in turn results in
different learning experiences, access to enrichment opportunities, and different
trajectories for post secondary education and the workforce (Oakes, Rogers & Lipton,
2007).

60
Attempts to build relationships in cultures characterized by the logics of merit and
deficit are thwarted by the preconceived notions partners have about one another. These
perceptions (often erroneous) form the basis for attitudes, values, and behaviors and are
based on the level of knowledge of, exposure to, and experience with one another (Miller,
2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008) The absence of previous interactions and exchanges can
inhibit the full potential and power of the partnership. The literature consistently
references the lack of trust, poor communication, decision-making conflict, conflicting
goals, absence of mutuality and reciprocity, and lack of power sharing as barriers to the
effective implementation of university, community, and school partnerships (Kezar,
2007; Lawson et al., 2007; McKoy & Vincent, 2007; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000; Mayfield,
Hellwig & Banks, 1999; Miller & Hafner, 2008; Carroll et al., 2001; Sanders, 2007;
Sanders, 2001).
The inequitable funding of high poverty schools, limited access to challenging
curricula, poorly trained or unqualified teachers, ineffective parent involvement
strategies, inappropriate use of assessments, and inadequate educational treatments are
among the many ways that schools function within a system framed by the logics of
merit, scarcity, and deficit. The systemic view of schooling as privileged and merit based
is a strong part of the K-12 and university “cultural values” that can manifest in a
partnership. Thus, these three logics are inherently problematic in our society and the
subsequent hierarchical thinking results in inequities in decision making, narrowly
defined role authority, and unequal resource allocation (Oakes & Rogers, 2006), all of

61
which impede the co-construction of a dialogical relationship and create a barrier in a
partnership.
Power
There are multiple factors contributing to the presence of power in the creation of
urban partnerships. Power in and of itself is not bad; however, power becomes a
detrimental factor when it is unequally distributed or used to subjugate others. It is the
unequal distribution of power which research cites as a factor that impedes the successful
implementation of university, school, and community partnerships (Maurasse, 2001;
Miller & Hafner, 2008; Carroll et al., 2001; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005). Suarez-
Balcazar et al. (2005) cite “issues of power and control” among other factors as potential
challenges and threats to partnerships (p. 87). Carroll et al. (2001) in a study of a college
preparation program that partnered a university with surrounding schools, outline that
issues of power arise and “involve power sharing across lines of institutional turf,
professional status, and personal identity” (p. 42). The program’s university and school-
based administrators did not approach the program school site with presumed knowledge
and authority. Instead university staff and school administrators contributed to
developing the instructional plans, curricular activities, and program schedules in a
manner that best suited the student target populations, which were predominately low-
income, urban students. The potential for power struggles was diffused through a
collaboration focused on the ways of being of school and community and the needs of
students.

62
Similarly, Miller (2007) references the “inequitable distributions of power” as the
most pervasive dilemma in partnerships (p. 69). The authors’ make note of the power
differential through an examination of organizational culture and its impact on how
organizations including universities and community groups approach and conduct
business. Using Schein’s model of organizational culture, Miller (2007) delineates how
the three levels of organizational culture – artifacts, values, and underlying assumptions -
- can manifest in partnerships and impede each entity’s ability to collaborate around
shared goals and equal participation.
Researchers and practitioners agree that at the forefront of an effective partnership
is dialogue focused on establishing, fostering, and sustaining trust (Mayfield & Lucas,
2000; Maurasse, 2001; Miller & Hafner, 2008). Freire’s notion of dialogue involves
tenets that are not centered on tenets of organizational structures and practices but instead
are grounded in the belief that humankind is best served if the needs of the people are
defined by the people (Freire, 2003). Miller & Hafner (2008) use Freire’s dialogical
framework as the basis for their work in looking at collaboration between universities and
the community as an interactive process that is mutually dependent on and beneficial to
one another. The authors argue that for dialogue and the actions that follow to be
effective and genuine, they must follow from the tenets grounded in Freire’s regard for
humankind and the “responsibility of those who occupy traditional positions of power to
demonstrate humility when working with those who have suffered the brunt of oppressive
systems and structures” (p.100).

63
The university, either urban or otherwise, is traditionally viewed as the purveyor
of knowledge and learning or significant expertise. Within the halls of academia there are
individuals whose scholarly inquiry and diligent research have resulted in remedies and
solutions to myriad ailments and issues from the metaphysical to the metacognitive. This
expertise is grounded in the normative credential of expert knowledge that is the
university degree and that stems from the essence of an institution of higher education.
The university has long been held as the conduit of knowledge, expert opinion, and
educated reasoning; thus the institution and its affiliates are perceived as possessors of
revered intellectual capital. By virtue of this personification and perception, universities
subsequently become proprietors of a large share of power in a partnership, either
because the power was appropriated by others or assumed by the institution itself. Freire
(2003) in his attributions of a dialogical relationship and the process of “acts of
liberation” would ascribe a greater share of responsibility to the university as a dominant
power holder, however, the task he would argue, is in creating a process that gives equal
voice and power to those that have typically been subjugated and disenfranchised.
Power Sharing. While the burden to equalize educational outcomes for urban
youth should be carried by the agents who have access to assets and resources, the
effectiveness of partnerships depends in large part on power being equally distributed
among all who are vested in the outcomes. Universities, as a result of hierarchical
assumptions and thinking, may approach partnerships with schools and communities as
enterprises about which they possess sole knowledge. Oakes, Rogers & Lipton (2007)
posit that the tenets of this approach to the discourse on educational equity as rooted in

64
cultural logics – the culture of merit, the culture of scarcity or the culture of deficit (p.
158). It is in the latter that universities position their participation. The logic of deficit is
based on the assumption that individuals and organizations such as schools, parent
organizations, and community based organization involved in educational equity reform
are deficient in their ability to contribute to a redistribution of knowledge and
opportunities (Oakes, & Rogers, 2007). The tendency for hierarchical relationships and
thus, the imbalance in power relations, may be mitigated through inquiry, dialogue and
consistent negotiation among partners. While universities are situated in this narrowed
lens, so too can schools and administrators be similarly situated.
Schools and Power. Like their university counterparts, schools also play a role in
perpetuating hierarchical relationships. The challenge of partnerships to actualize their
potential and achieve outcomes is also linked to the narrowed lens of school
administrators and their views of the community. With a perception that schools are their
domain, school educators may not recognize nor integrate into the culture of the school
the knowledge and resources that are present in their communities. Sanders (2007) noted
that educators view communities as “bereft of caring” and therefore may not seek to
integrate the perspectives, experiences, and talents that are available (p.9). However, like
the university’s hierarchical lens, the school’s view of schools and schooling as their
territory also contributes to an imbalance of power. The territorialism can result in
partners neither recognizing nor validating what the other has to offer. This lack of
reciprocity results from an absence of “give and take”, where each partner gives and
receives what the other partners can offer the collective effort. Carroll, LaPoint, & Tyler

65
(2001) make reference to reciprocity as a key element in efforts to bring about changes in
schooling. Reciprocity calls on all stakeholders within partnerships to collaborate and
define their respective roles and responsibilities. It is a process of whereby each entity
comes to recognize what it can give and, in turn, what they can take from collaborating
with other stakeholders to improve student learning. The notion that each partner is the
other’s best resource is an important element in establishing a reciprocal relationship that
is based on “appreciating and respecting the knowledge, skills, capacities, and
experiences” (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005, p.88) that each possesses.
Schools further hierarchical thinking and inequitable power sharing by thwarting
parents’ and community members’ access to schools through unwelcoming and
inhospitable environments. Visitors to a school site may be deterred by the physical and
symbolic barriers presented by fences, limited hours, inflexible staff, and rigid structures.
In addition, the inflexible and inconsistent information mechanisms, coupled with
inadequate second language assistance, form organizational barriers that prevent the
community from being a recipient of and contributor to the resources of the school.
Sanders (2001, 2007) cites that the increase in student performance accountability has
resulted in a fear of public scrutiny by schools, thus leading schools to perpetuate the
imbalance of power with the community. The result is a school constrained by resources
and struggling to meet student performance measures, yet due to the hierarchical nature
of relationships it does not view parent and community engagement as a priority or a
source of valued resources. The co-construction of a dialogical relationship between the

66
community and schools is tied to the ability to recognize the value and importance of the
skills, experiences, and talents of all stakeholders.
Absence of Communication. The aforementioned challenges and resulting unequal
distribution of power are compounded by a lack of communication among stakeholders in
a partnership. Researchers (Kezar, 2007; Carroll et al., 2001; Miller, 2007; Maurasse,
2001; Brabeck et al., 2003; Bringle & Hatcher, 2002) have consistently noted the
importance of communication between partners during all phases of the planning and
implementation. In university, community, and school partnerships, the ground rules for
communication between partners needs to be established from the beginning of the
collaboration and maintained throughout the process. Effective communication facilitates
an understanding of the partnership’s purpose, goals, expectations, and benefits for all
involved and is “critical to building a sustainable partnership as well as developing trust
and respect” (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005, p.89).
In the course of planning and implementing the partnership activities, the
community’s voice is often omitted in the dialogue that is critical to an effective
relationship. If a partnership with the community is to be effective, the community must
be allowed the forum to express and articulate its needs, concerns, knowledge, and skills.
Mayfield and Lucas (2000) argue, “university-community partnerships can encounter
problems because of differences between the two sides in perception, values, goals, and
available resources, among other issues” (p. 173). The schism between the ways of the
university, its business affairs, and how the community gets involved in the decision-
making process about its own future is wide (Mayfield & Lucas, 2000).

67
The presence of hierarchical thinking in communication further thwarts the
equitable distribution of power among partners. The styles, methods, and means of
communication not considerate of the social, cultural, and linguistic characteristics of the
community partner will factor into disdain, resentment, alienation, and mistrust (Carroll
et al., 2001).The imposition of a “we-know-what-we-are-talking-about” approach by
university and school partners will tilt the power scale away from the community. The
imbalance is likely to result in disenfranchisement that will prove yet another challenge
for the partnership to surmount, or worse, result in complete community disengagement,
which may never be recovered. Hence, the difficulties and misunderstandings that result
from poor, inconsistent, and inconsiderate communication can hinder partners’ ability to
establish the requisite level of trust and respect for one another, subsequently hindering
progress and stalling outcomes.
Strategies for Co-Constructed Relationships
The trials and tribulations of partnerships have equally been met with triumphs.
The process of co-constructing dialogical relationships among multiple partners results in
building trust, respect, and shared learning in each entity and in the partnership. Despite
the challenges presented by power differentials, skewed cultural logics, and absent
communication, partnerships forged by universities, schools, and communities have
navigated the complexities of these dynamics to achieve partnership goals, including
providing adult agents accessible to help students form learner identities (Mayfield et al.
1999; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000; Carroll et al. 2001; Suarez-Balcazar et al. 2005; Olitsky,
2006; Lawson et al. 2007). The review of the literature reveals strategies that emerge in

68
the process of convening multiple entities in an enterprise focused on the improved
education and prosperity for urban youth. Freire’s dialogical framework is a key strategy
that partnership’s can use to facilitate the aforementioned.
Dialogue
The strategies for an effective partnership require the partners to establish a base
of mutual understanding and agreement on goals and objectives, understand the
reciprocal value and benefits of all participants in the alliance, and garner collaboration at
all levels. However, the aforementioned must be facilitated through an overarching
strategy around ongoing dialogue. Dialogue is an encounter between men and women “in
order to name the world” (Freire, 2003, p. 88) and speaks to the need of partnerships to
give voice to the community in a manner that allows the community to not only identify
the problems, but to define the solutions and strategies. “The earlier dialogue begins, the
more truly revolutionary will the movement be” (Freire, 2003, p. 128).
Dialogic relationships are based on mutual respect, trust, and effective
communication. Delpit (2006) addresses these aspects of relationships in communicating
across cultures and communities to determine the best approach to the challenges faced
by youth in high poverty or other disadvantaged communities. She cites that all parties to
a dialogue must be able to listen carefully, and those with the most power must take
greater responsibility for initiating the dialogue. The dialogical relationship entails “a
very special kind of listening, listening that requires not only open eyes and ears, but
open hearts and minds… It is not easy, but it is the only way to learn what it might feel
like to be someone else and the only way to start the dialogue” (Delpit, 2006, p. 47). This

69
type of dialogue echoes Freire’s notion of dialogic relationships founded on love,
humility, and faith and provides a framework for examining the attributes and
characteristics of effective partnerships. This kind of dialogue is an essential element as
youth and adults continue to find their identity as they engage in reflection and praxis
together.
Freire’s dialogical lens provides a guide for the task of partnerships with multiple
stakeholders, by providing a voice to those involved in the task or “act of liberation.”
Dialogue in the Freirean model “must not be a situation where some name on behalf of
others” (Freire, 2003, p. 89), but instead, “It is an act of creation” (Freire, 2003, p. 89)
that allows all who are involved to have a voice in naming the reality. It does not
subjugate the culture or ways of being of others, because “to alienate human beings from
their own decision-making is to change them into objects” (Freire, 2005, p. 85). To
engage all stakeholders, in particular the community, whose role and contributions are
often dismissed or denigrated, dialogue must not only be inclusive and validating, but it
also must consist of hope. “Nor yet can dialogue exist without hope” (Freire, 2003, p.
91). It must foster a belief that something will come from cooperative efforts and
collective action, which in turn can effect significant social change (Miller & Hafner,
2008). The dialogic process cannot merely be another “empty and sterile, bureaucratic,
and tedious” encounter (Freire, 2005, p. 92). For a university, school, and community
partnership, the social change is the integration of culturally distinct and culturally rich
entities into a dialogical relationship that transforms schools in urban communities and
provides a culture in which youth can develop learner identities that embrace the cultures

70
of their families and communities. This approach is the basis for a cultural model that
rejects the logics of scarcity, merit, and deficit and instead creates a process that is
inclusive and affirming of the richness of all involved (Oakes & Rogers, 2007).
While the task of community, school, and university partnerships is to create
possibilities that empower communities through the exchange and distribution of power
as characterized by knowledge, information, assets and resources, it is also the task of
partnerships and dialogical relationships to help individuals, more specifically youth, find
their “space and place” in the revitalization process. Herein lays the potential for a
university, school, and community partnership to co-construct dialogical relationships
between institutions, communities, and individuals that transform urban education and
benefit youth.
Collaboration
The literature on partnerships consistently posits the importance and critical role
of collaboration in actualizing partnerships. While the partnership literature looks at the
interaction and exchange between organizations, the literature on collaboration involves
the interaction between individuals within the organizations (Miller & Hafner, 2008). The
latter is a preface to the complexities and dynamics that can arise from interactions
among individuals, given the diverse and divergent views, schema, and experiences of
people. However, it is through the process of reconciling differences that a collective
identity is formed and manifested through shared interests, joint action, and respectful
and inclusive dialogue (Oakes & Rogers, 2007). Partnerships must strive for a
collaborative approach to identifying local needs and build on local resources that will

71
contribute to success. The shared sense of purpose among partners fosters the
collaboration necessary for balanced participation, responsibility and power. Researchers
consistently cite collaboration as central to successful partnerships (Mayfield et al., 1999;
Mayfield & Lucas, 2000; Carroll et al., 2001; Sanders, 2001; Miller & Hafner, 2008). As
a strategy, collaboration entails working as peers, recognizing and integrating the
knowledge and skills of each individual and group, investing the time and patience to
develop relationships of trust and care, and respecting the local context, history, and
cultures of all participants. It forms the basis for the creation of a new culture and new
cultural models which Gallimore & Goldenberg (2001) broadly define as the “shared
mental schema or normative understanding of how the world works, or ought to work”
(p. 47).
The specific reasons or pressure on stakeholders to participate in a partnership are
unique to each entity. The university is pressed to engage as a major contributor to the
democratization of education; the school is compelled by public accountability, and the
community, while traditionally absent or minimally involved in the conversation, must be
engaged as part of a civic renewal and community revitalization process (Mumper, 2006;
McKoy & Vincent, 2007; Sanders, 2001). Despite the varying reasons, the overarching
goal to improve the quality of education for urban youth is common to all partners. The
process of achieving that goal is often met by persistent barriers. Yet, stakeholders can
persist by engaging in dialogue, communication, and collaboration to build relationships
of trust and respect. This kind of interaction can create a cultural model that fosters the
adult agents urban youth need to view themselves as learners and scholars.

72
The Influence of Partnerships on Urban Youth as Learners
The success of partnerships is particularly important for youth in urban
communities as they navigate through the process of defining themselves, their
relationships with others, and their futures in the multiple and often complex and
competing social contexts of their communities. The identity of youth is intricately
woven into the identities of the adult agents in their communities (Santrock, 2007). The
interaction with people, places, and events in the environment is a major influence in the
process of youth developing a sense of self in different social settings (Cummins, 1986;
Cummins, 2001; Santrock, 2007). This process influences the development of thinking
and reasoning abilities, which in turn is a part of how students construct knowledge and
form a view of how the world works and their place in it (Epstein, 1995; Nieto, 1999;
Ormrod, 2006).
Youth Identity
Of particular significance to the academic achievement (or lack thereof) of
students, in particular those in urban schools, is the formation and meaning making of
self that occurs during adolescence. The process of developing an identity in adolescence
was first recognized by Erickson as the most important personality achievement in
lifespan development (Erickson, 1968; Ormrod, 2006). This lifespan period is
characterized as a stage that involves youth identifying, shaping, and forming multiple
personas in an effort to integrate those into a uniquely defined self. In addition to
cognitive processes being in flux and developing, adolescence is also a phase of rapid
physiological and psychosocial change, thus contributing to the complexities of this

73
period (Santrock, 2007).
Adolescence is a developmental period in lifespan development that covers 11 -
18 year old individuals and is often characterized as a time of conflict and crisis
(Santrock, 2007; Garcia Coll & Szalacha, 2004). In addition to changes and growth in
the cognitive, physical, and social abilities during adolescence, young people at this age
are also in the midst of shaping and defining their sense of self (Santrock, 2007). Identity
development at this point involves adolescents deciphering what they have been, who
they are, and who they want to become. Decoding this knowledge and forming
perceptions, beliefs, and images about the self and the future is a persistent and important
cognitive and social dimension of adolescence (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Oyserman,
Gant, & Ager, 1995; Anderman, Anderman, & Griesinger, 1999). Young persons are
undergoing what may be regarded as significant decision-making processes around
identifying, defining, and giving meaning to their existence. These processes are open to
the influences, both positive and negative, of a young person’s environment.
Partnerships between communities, schools and universities constructed through
dialogue, trust, collaboration, and respect can create an environment for youth marked by
these attributes (Carter, 2006; Epstein, 1995).
The Social Context
The school environment is a social context for adolescents. Research indicates
that the transitions from one phase or level of schooling to another can have an impact on
students’ orientation to and performance at the new level (Davis, 2006; Anderman &
Maehr, 1994). The transitions involve psychological, social, and academic adaptations

74
that can be overwhelming (Garcia Coll & Szalacha, 2004). The transition can be
compounded by a school discourse that operates on interpretations of students as either
“learners” or “non-learners” (Olitsky, 2006) or “college-bound” or “not college-bound”
as well as crowded classrooms, under prepared and under paid teachers, and inadequate
facilities (Gandara, 2005). The presence of and access to individuals as role models,
cultural translators, and caring adults plays a role in creating the context in which
students’ sense of self develops. As will be discussed in a section to follow, the
formation of identity and possible selves is a vulnerable time and is heavily influenced by
the social context. Within the context of social environment shaped by a partnership
between a community, school, and university it is possible for youth to develop a
perception of and orientation to the future and form a sense of the possibilities available
to them without abandoning their histories with family and community (Oyserman,
Bybee & Terry, 2006; Oyserman & Fryberg, 2006; Oyserman, Bybee, Terry, & Hart-
Johnson, 2004).
For students, the development of a learner identity is intricately woven with the
identities of adult agents in the community. Scholars have noted that the identity
development process, especially during adolescence, is a time when young people search
for information about themselves and their environments in an attempt to define them and
find meaning (Santrock, 2007; Ormrod, 2006; Newman, 2005; Anderman & Maehr,
1994). More importantly, young people at this point have developed greater cognitive
ability with which to solve problems, make constructive decisions, and make important

75
life choices. As Aronson (2004) notes, “how we make both trivial and important
decisions depends on how we make sense of our social world” (p. 119).
Youth are particularly vulnerable to the views, opinions, and judgments of others.
The formation of a learner identity can be compromised for some urban youth due to
factors in their environment over which they have little or no control. In the quest for
belonging and connectedness tied to identity development, adolescents form affiliations
and associations with groups that they believe will fill the need to be what Splitter (2007)
refers to as, “one among others” (p.272). Splitter (2007) argues that the concept of self is
relational and that in the course of finding definition and meaning to who they are,
students’ are vulnerable to the “influence and power of those around them” (p. 271). And
while the urge to affiliate may be both natural and healthy, the struggle of urban youth to
define themselves within multiple contexts of tensions, pressures, divisions, and
oppositions, can lead them to develop associations or affiliations with individuals that
may be counterproductive or maladaptive (Kowaleski-Jones, 2000). The competent and
caring adult agents fostered by a partnership involving the community can be the cultural
brokers that help students develop a “wantable identity” (Nieto, 1999) affiliated with
school.
Other scholars support the notion of the social context of youth identity, schooling
and learning (Epstein, 1987; Nieto, 1999; Cummins, 2001; Sanders, 2001; Sheldon,
2003). Newman (2005) outlines that “becoming who we are is a complex process
embedded in the larger social structure” that includes the education system (p. 154). He
notes that, after the family, education is the most powerful agent of socialization for

76
individuals. As such, he notes that schools and the agents therein, play a role in
socializing students to adopt traits, values, and behaviors perceived to be socially and
culturally desirable within society. With the power to allocate resources and influence the
type and nature of relationships between teachers and students, a “particular school
system cannot help but influence the types of people they [students] will eventually
become” (Newman, 2005, p. 162). However, Nieto (1999) asserts that the process of
helping students develop an identity of learner should not come at the expense of
discounting a learner’s much needed cultural and familial affiliations. Doing so allows
the dominant discourse of “have” or “have not” found in schools to prevail.
Overlapping Sphere’s of Influence. Epstein’s work (1987; 1996; 2001) on the
overlapping spheres of influence further lends support to the social context of identity
development and learning. The model is drawn from Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
systems model discussed earlier. The framework provides for further and more specific
knowledge of how home, school, and community affect children’s development and
education. Epstein (1995; 2006) argues that schools want students to develop
emotionally, socially, and physically as well as achieve academically, but they have not
been able to fully embrace and harness the assets of families and communities to help
attain those healthy outcomes. Epstein’s research is embedded in yet another context for
influencing youth identity development, learning, and achievement: the promise of
partnerships. Her argument for the development of comprehensive partnership programs
challenges schools to redefine parental involvement to a more inclusive and collaborative
concept of school, family, and community partnerships for purposes of helping student

77
achieve their full potential (Epstein, 1995; Epstein & Sanders, 2006). Epstein (1995)
poses the challenge for “new think” about how students learn and develop through the
schooling years versus “old think” that separates school and students from home and
community. The latter results in teachers working in isolation from other people,
particularly other adult agents that are influential in students’ lives. The “new think”
approach recognizes the connectedness, the interdependence, and the assets of family,
school, and community in helping students achieve academically (Epstein, 1995; Epstein
& Sanders, 2006; Epstein, 2008; Deslandes, 2001) and lends support to the influence of
social settings and adult agents on the development of youth identities. The process of
meaning making is influenced by the interactions and exchanges involving youth that
occur within and across multiple social settings including at home, in schools, with peers,
and in the community, and the process of exploring different social identities is a
necessary and crucial part of reaching adulthood. However, for urban youth the transition
can be tumultuous.
Negotiating Identities. Students in urban communities face challenges from their
environment not confronted by their non-urban peers and these challenges make the
process of defining and forming a sense of self more difficult. There is a multiplicity of
barriers that face urban minority youth in search of stable identities. Cummins’ (1986)
research was seminal in identifying the importance of negotiating identity for minority
students and the role this process plays in the context of learning, schools, and ultimately
of academic achievement (Cummins, 1986; Cummins, 2001). Through case studies of
cultural and linguistic minority children and schooling, Cummins (2001) argued that the

78
lapse in minority student success will not be corrected if the relationship between
educators and minority students is not altered significantly to create student
empowerment. His framework to empower minority students in schools focused on
students’ “having developed a confident cultural identity” (Cummins, 1986, p.23)
through the affirmation and validation of the cultural assets and experiences they bring to
school and to learning. Cummins cited the importance of minority students not being
“made to feel that they have failed because of their own inferiority” (Cummins, 1986, p.
24). The identity of students as learners is intertwined with the relationships formed with
teachers and others in the schooling environment:
Affirmation of identity thus refers to the establishment of the respect and trust
between educators and students that is crucial … Respect and trust imply that
educators listen carefully to their students’ perspectives and learn from their
students. (Cummins, 2001, p. 4)

According to Cummins, minority students like the communities they live and learn in, are
disempowered by the interactions and exchanges with societal institutions that are based
on perceptions that a lack of achievement is due to a lack of responsibility, determination,
effort or ability by the individual. Comparable to cultural logic of deficit (Oakes &
Rogers, 2007), the low level of academic achievement and educational outcomes by
disadvantaged and minority youth is confined to attributes and characteristics of the
person and not attributed to broader social and systemic inadequacies that result in an
imbalance of power and unavailability of assets and resources. Furthermore, Cummins
(2001) argued that minority student success can be attained through power relations
between schools, parents, and the community that are reflective of collaborative power,
which is “power that is created with others” versus coercive power that is “imposed on or

79
exercised over others” (2001, p. 16). The research laid the groundwork for the
inextricable connection between students’ identities and their interactions with adults
who will either serve as cultural translators and brokers of possibilities or serve as the
gatekeepers of normative beliefs, information, and behavior that derail their potential.
Emphasis on the influence of culture and the social environment on youth’s
identity development is further supported by the work of Vygotsky (Vygotsky, 1978;
Ormrod, 2006). Vygotsky viewed a student’s learning development as affected by the
cultures of family, school, community and found that interactions with surrounding
cultural and social agents, such as parents and more competent peers, contributed
significantly to a child's intellectual development (Vygotsky, 1978; Ormrod, 2006). The
formation of a partnership characterized by trust, respect and collaboration can create a
new shared culture that will enhance the presence and availability of key adult agents to
support student learning.
The Influence of Culture
Culture is represented by behaviors learned, shared, and exhibited by a group
(Yosso, 2005, p. 75) and is present amongst those who dwell within a particular
geographic region such as a community, work in an organizational setting like a school or
university, or affiliate with informal or formal groups such as a civic organization
(Miller, 2007; Sandy & Holland, 2006). The shared characteristics manifest through the
norms, values, attitudes and behaviors of members of a group, which in turn create the
culture or what is referred to as the sum total ways of being for that group of people
(Pedersen, 1994). The culture of a group, an organization, or an institution represents

80
“commonly held and relatively stable beliefs, attitudes and values that exist within an
organization” (Miller, 2007, p. 224) and provides the framework, or cultural lens, from
which to approach the tasks for which they are formed. Given the complexity and
uniqueness of persons and organizations and the cultures that define them, there is no one
“correct”, “good”, or “better” culture than another. Instead, Nieto (1999) argues that
“cultures influence one another” (p. 50). In a partnership then, the creation of a new
shared culture must seek to acknowledge the assets that each partner brings. Culture is a
process of construction; “it constructs us and we construct it” (Nieto, 1999, p. 56). Thus it
entails a process of creating and building new ways of being through interaction and
contact with others in our environment that are mutually beneficial.
The presumption of culture as fixed and immutable perpetuates the status quo of
under achievement and poor quality in some urban schools. Schooling in America is
based in a distinct culture that has been established for more than a century (Cummins,
1986; Nieto, 1999; Yosso, 2005). That culture has changed little, despite evidence that it
may not be working for all students. As the demographics of urban schools have shifted,
school cultures have remained static. However, improving the quality of education for
urban youth is contingent on changing cultures and learning new ways of being. Culture
changes and evolves “because human beings change it” (Nieto, 1999, p. 56). As culture
is not static (Kezar, 2007; Miller, 2007; Nieto, 1999), changes to the ways of being or to
a culture, are contingent upon the individuals who participate, interact, and exchange
with one another. The change needed to establish a new cultural model for effective
partnerships must be undertaken by all stakeholder organizations and individuals that are

81
willing to co-construct a dialogical relationship. This relationship and new model is based
on “an intense faith in humankind, faith in their power to make and remake, to create and
re-create” (Freire, 2003, p. 90).
The established culture or “ways of being” are influenced by the resources,
structures and capital that are available to those who share a culture. Cultures can shift
and change. As such, groups, including institutions, organizations, and communities,
despite their differences, can change. In a partnership between distinct entities such as a
university, school, and community, the different ways of being can create incongruence
between the culture of the community, the culture of schooling, and the culture of
universities. The incongruence of these cultures in a student’s learning environment does
not serve the purpose of the partnership or the academic success of urban youth. Instead
of nesting and scaffolding students learning within and across cultures, the partnership
experiences the “cultural clash” that is cited as one of the most significant challenges to
partnerships (Kezar, 2007, p. 29).
The clash of cultures is reflective of the individual or different ways of being of
the stakeholders in a partnership. As noted earlier, these differences are the culture of
practice that defines K-12 schools and the culture of theory that defines the university
(Kezar, 2007). Kezar outlines the cultural differences between schools and universities in
areas such as “work tempo, work focus, rewards, degree of power and autonomy,
socialization, and values” (p. 31). The assumption of similarity between schools and the
university makes it difficult to acknowledge the cultural differences and the need to
engage in dialogue to align those (Kezar, 2007; Miller, 2007; Freire, 2003). In the

82
formation of a community, school, and university partnership, the result is a divide
between the ways in which the university conducts its business, how the school operates,
and how the community gets involved in the decision-making process about its own
future (Mayfield & Lucas, 2000). Hence, the difficulty in creating a new culture that will
foster the adult agents that can positively re-define the educational opportunities and
outcomes for urban youth is exacerbated.
Creating a Shared Culture
The aforementioned cultural differences speak to the importance of the partners
co-constructing a common culture compatible with the culture needed in urban schools
bring about school transformation. In the Tale of Two Cultures, Kezar (2007) lends
support to the process of re-negotiating and re-creating culture in her overview of
university and school partnerships and the influence of culture on their effectiveness. The
convergence of distinct cultures with mutually agreed upon mission and goals allows
universities and schools to create a “new, shared culture” (Kezar, 2007, p.29) that
facilitates the ability to combine knowledge and resources to improve students’
educational outcomes. The creation of a new culture is not a matter of one entity or one
culture, superseding another, but instead involves schools and their partner
organization(s) converging to co-create a new culture, or a way of being that fosters
student learning and student success. The value and subsequent power of a new culture
can be formalized by nesting the cultural wealth of families, peers, neighbors, and
proprietors in the community.

83
The process of reflection or cultural analysis plays a role in the co-construction of
dialogical relationship by calling on partners to examine, acknowledge, and value what
another entity brings to the partnership through an examination of their own biases,
assumptions, and interpretations. Like the inquiry of self posited by Freire (2003), the
cultural analysis is a necessary step in acknowledging that what one brings to a
collaborative effort can contribute to but also deter success. Thus, an urban partnership
that seeks to enlist the participation and collaboration of different stakeholders must be
cognizant of the distinct cultural dimensions and move to integrate new knowledge into a
new shared culture.
Aligning Cultures
The academic underachievement of under represented students in urban
communities can be mitigated through congruence between the culture of schools and the
culture of the community (Cummins, 2001; Nieto, 1999). An essential element in shaping
this new culture is a dialogical relationship among all partners with the community being
a necessary voice in the discourse (Miller & Hafner, 2008; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005;
Carroll et al., 2001). The interaction and exchange between youth and the adult agents in
the community are often at odds with the interaction and exchange youth have with adult
agents in the schools. The ethos and values represented in the day-to-day interactions of
an urban youth’s neighborhood may not be congruent with the established norms and
values of schools and its adult agents including school principals, teachers, and
counselors.

84
The foremost task of an education partnership is to gather those with a vested
interest in improved quality of education and academic achievement of urban youth in a
manner that recognizes, understands, and negotiates the distinct cultures of each entity.
Kezar (2007) in a review of characteristics and challenges to university-school
partnerships posits that a challenge to collaboration lies in the inability to recognize the
distinct cultural dimensions of the university and the school respectively and in the
inability to “negotiate culture” (p. 30). The ability to “create a new, shared culture”
(Kezar, 2007, p. 29) that enables all partners to engage and participate as equal
participants and contributors may be the best suited approach for organizations seeking
collaborative approaches to improving student success. Partnerships can mitigate the
influence of the three cultural logics by convening stakeholders and facilitating a process
of co-construction and dialogue. To deter deficit thinking, a new way of being, or new
shared culture, can be created through shared planning and participation in community-
based events, through rituals and practices that celebrate the talent and achievement of
students, teachers, and parents, and by re-affirming communal caring (Ianni, 1996; Adler,
2002). Through communication and collaboration, partners can help one another
understand and appreciate the perspectives, experiences, and knowledge of the other
partners and nurture the time, patience, and respect needed for long-term benefits (Carroll
et al., 2001). Together, the old ways of being can give way to a new way of being.
The Influence of Adult Agents
As discussed earlier in this chapter, scholars inform our knowledge of the impact
of the culture, processes, and structures of social institutions such as schools and

85
universities on youth identity development. This knowledge is important to the ability of
partnerships to create a new shared culture and strengthen the role of the adult agents
therein. Research has demonstrated the presence of “caring individuals” and “significant
adults” (Scales et al., 2005, p. 180) that serve as “personal anchors” (Shore, 2005, p. 12)
can foster resilience and help students navigate their social identities in a way that is
compatible with one another. In a combination case study and ethnography, Hibert (2000)
examined the social, cultural and education trajectory of young men in an urban high
school deemed “high ability” (p. 92), and “gifted” (p. 95) urban teenagers. He found the
young men had a strong sense of self and inner will that was linked to having “dreams,
goals, and career aspirations” that were connected to who they were as people (p. 107).
Hibert (2000) noted that relationships with “significant adults” (p. 108) and a “caring
adult or mentor” (p. 110) were key aspects of these young men’s belief in their ability to
succeed. While the study was limited to six participants, the narratives of these young
men in an urban high school characteristic of many schools in urban communities
provide a context for understanding how the potential and possibilities for some urban
youth is intricately tied to the people around them. In addition to inner will and belief in
self, Hibert found that an awareness of and sensitivity to the struggles of others, an
appreciation for diversity, a set of dreams, goals, and aspirations, participation in school
or other enrichment programs, and family support as important to students’ developing an
identity affiliated with school, learning, and achievement. He notes that the
aforementioned were infused with strong support from family and non familial adults,
which research on resilience and youth have cited as necessary “personal anchors”

86
(Shore, 2005, p. 12). Hibert’s finding regarding the role of adults in students’ lives is
consistent with early research that cited that caring adult relationships with non parental
adults provide psychosocial support, help build resilience, and serve as a protective factor
in stressful environments (Adler, 2002; Kowaleski-Jones, 2000).
The research is consistent in affirming the role of adult agents in the ability of
urban youth to develop resilience and adaptability and other skills as they negotiate their
social identities including that of a learner identity. That learner identity according to
research is consistently cited as inclusive of an ability to form a view of the self in the
future and to engage in steps and action that move toward that future (Oyserman, Bybee,
& Terry, 2006; Oyserman, Bybee, Terry, & Hart-Johnson, 2004) makes adult agents
critical to forming such a view. Adult agents in all domains of a young person’s
environment can play a part in helping student form possible selves that are congruent
with the purposes of learning. The possible selves of young people include a view of who
they are, what they want to become and what they fear becoming. A university, school,
and community partnership can foster the processes and structures that give students the
skills that will help them transition into becoming their best possible self. A partnership
can provide access to adult agents in multiple contexts to facilitate a young person’s
journey through the spaces and places of their environment (Scales et al., 2005; McKoy
& Vincent, 2005). Partners must assume their role in shifting the social (i.e. power) and
educational inequities so that students’ benefit from a school system that teaches to
“who” they are and not to “what” they are (Nieto, 1999). A co-constructed dialogic
relationship among the “grown ups” in a students’ life can create a new culture of high

87
expectations, shared resources and responsibility, and mutual accountability that
transforms a school.
Summary
In following Freire’s notion of dialogue, it is those in the positions of power that
assume the greater role and responsibility in correcting the imbalances of power. Freire’s
emphasis on dialogue is marked by love, humility, faith in humankind, hope, and critical
thinking and is symbolized by the active committed involvement of those engaged in ”the
cause of liberation” (Freire, 2003, p. 90). In a university, community, and school
partnerships, the cause is the equitable and equal education of youth in an urban
community. With youth as participants, adult agents must gather to increase the
community’s collective efficacy in a manner that will nurture, guide, and support youth
toward positive cognitive and behavioral outcomes. Their role can be vital in the
formation of an identity focused on learning and achievement. Thus, it becomes
particularly important for partnerships to increase the ability of adult agents to assist
urban youth in developing identities focused on aspirations, expectations, and behaviors
that lead to positive academic achievement and educational outcomes.
Given the complexity of adolescent youth identity and the particular nuances
faced by minority urban youth in their quest to define and make meaning of who they are
amidst environmental challenges, it behooves university, community, and school
partnerships to develop the process and strategies that will help all stakeholders create a
new culture of mutual trust and respect, valued experiences, skills, and talents, and shared
power and resources.

88
Partnerships centered on co-construction and dialogical relationships have the
ability to help adult agents assume their role as guides for students in the journey of
identities, roles, and boundaries that they undertake in the quest for defining self and
making meaning of the social worlds they occupy. A university, school, and community
partnership can re-frame the dominant discourse in schools, and alleviate the structural
deficits in neighborhoods to draw on the strengths and resources found in the community,
which include the talents and knowledge of the adults. When dialogical relationships are
fostered and nurtured among all these stakeholders, the shared vision, shared knowledge
and collaboration among adult agents helps urban youth develop the learner identities that
improve their academic performance and facilitate an urban school transformation.

89
CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The review of the literature in Chapter Two focused on the critical role of the
university, community and K-12 urban schools in establishing educational partnerships
and garnering resources to improve academic achievement in urban schools. Moreover,
the literature review identifies some potential barriers and effective strategies to forming
these partnerships. One of the biggest obstacles to these partnerships is the unequal
distribution of power among the three entities as well as within each entity. Co-
constructed relationships among universities, schools, and communities have the
potential for redistributing power, thus enabling all partners to contribute to the quality of
education in urban communities. The research is sparse on the impact of co-constructed
relationships among stakeholders engaged in forging a partnership to improve schools. It
is particularly true in the setting of this unique study that convenes a nationally affiliated
civil rights organization, a community-based advocacy organization, a top-tiered private
research university, and an urban high school as partners. The study’s uniqueness is
enhanced by inclusion of the school as partner with equal voice, and not as the mere
object of study, and by the inclusion of the community as an integral and valued voice in
school transformation.
This study contributed to filling a gap in the research by examining the process
for effective co-construction; identifying the barriers to establishing successful
partnerships; elaborating on the effective strategies for overcoming these barriers; and

90
identifying the attributes that might result in fostering the adult agents urban youth need
to develop learner identities in a school culture resulting from a co-constructed
partnership created to transform the school environment. This chapter describes the
research design, sampling procedures, instrumentation, theoretical frameworks for
addressing the research questions, the data collection procedures, and the data analysis of
the study.
Statement of the Problem
The disparity in educational outcomes for urban minority youth has been a
pervasive and persistent dilemma for public education in the United States for more than
a century. There is a crisis in public education that threatens democratic and egalitarian
ideals. Children in some urban communities are not learning. They have low performance
rates and their schools have been inadequate in educating them. Not enough is known
about partnerships that are co-constructed and dialogical in nature. Too little is also
known about the ability of partnerships to create adult agents who can have a positive
effect on the identity formation of urban youth. This can be an important element in
transforming urban schools.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the process for the formation of a
partnership between a university, community, and school with a goal of transforming an
urban high school. The researcher and author of this study was part of a 10-member
research cohort that designed the study protocols and collected and shared the data from
the study. The study examined whether a co-constructed partnership among a university,

91
community, and school created a new cultural model in which urban youth develop the
learner identities needed for high academic achievement. In analyzing the process of co-
constructing the partnership, the researchers examined the persistent barriers to these
partnerships as well as the strategies that have proven effective in stakeholders
overcoming historical and contemporary challenges for effective partnerships capable of
transforming K-12 urban schools. This study also identified the attributes that emerged
in the attempt to co-construct a partnership and analyzed these attributes for their ability
to foster the kinds of adult agents urban youth need to develop learner identities and
improve their academic performance.
Research Questions

This study collected data central to three research questions. The research
questions that guided the study are:
1. What is a process that enables communities, schools, and universities to co-
construct partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban schools?
a. What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools, and universities that seek to transform urban
schools?
b. What are some effective strategies that have the potential for
overcoming barriers in co-constructing a partnership of shared power
among K-12 schools, communities, and universities for the purpose of
transforming urban schools?

92
2. What attributes might result from a process of co-constructing a partnership
between schools, universities, and community agencies to foster the adult agents
urban students need to develop learner identities and thus improve their academic
performance in school?
The research questions were examined by conducting a qualitative case study of a
partnership involving a high-poverty, low performing urban high school in Southern
California; a tier one research university; and a community-based organization (CBO)
that in multiple ways represents the community or brings the community into the process
of forming the partnership. The theoretical frameworks were adopted from the extensive
literature review on partnerships for school reform or transformation. They provided the
lenses needed for collecting and analyzing the data in relation to the research questions.
The Case Study
The case study design was appropriate for the nature of the study. Case studies
can yield rich descriptive data that can be applied to generate valuable insights (Merriam,
1998). The case study was the most appropriate means for fulfilling the purpose of the
study, which was to examine the process by which partnerships are co-constructed to
transform a low-performing urban high school. The case study approach enables a study
to take an in-depth look at a process in which all stakeholders are continually involved in
“studying their own problems in order to solve those problems” (Patton, 2002, p. 221).
Because the study was action-oriented problem-solving research, the research itself
became part of the next phase of the five-year change process. As Patton cites,

93
“studying information-rich cases yields insights and in-depth understanding rather than
empirical generalizations” (2002, p. 230).
In addition to the advantages in conducting a qualitative case study approach,
there were also some limitations. Merriam (1998) identifies time constraints, investigator
bias, and reliability, validity, and generalizability issues that can complicate the research
process. Time constraints inevitably became a problem in this action-research study.
The data collection process was limited to approximately three months from November
2008 to January 2009. The fact that the partnership process started prior to the research
study group formed was another limitation. Partnership processes and activities had
already taken place when observations and other data collection started. In order to
address these limitations, this study utilized triangulation of multiple data sets, which is
discussed in a later section.
Sampling and Population

Purposeful Sampling
The unit of analysis for this case study was the school/community/university
partnership. The specific case for this study was selected through purposeful sampling.
The case qualified as an extreme or deviant case because of its unique qualities. The
particular partners in this study bring unique attributes. The Southcity Alliance is unique
in that it was established by a nationally known community-based organization, a school-
focused community organization and a top-tier private research university to work with
only one school, Freedom High School, for the single purpose of transforming a school
that has experienced multiple years of decline in academic performance and community

94
trust. The school was in jeopardy of losing its accreditation. The partnership currently
includes: the University of Distinction (UD), the Urban Collaborative (UC), The Equity
Foundation (TEF), and the community of Freedom High School in the Metro School
District. There are unique reasons for each partner’s affiliation with the partnership. The
Urban Collaborative was already engaged in implementing a vision of improving the
quality of life for residents of the community defined as a 70-block area that includes the
school. The effort included a focus on education, safety, health, housing, and
employment. Similarly, the Equity Foundation is a local community advocacy
organization that had been working with the parents and residents in the Freedom area to
promote civic responsibility and parent empowerment.
As Patton (2002) notes, “purposeful, strategic sampling can yield crucial
information about critical cases” (p. 242); thus this sampling qualitative design allowed
for central themes from multiple perspectives to be gathered.
Selection Criteria
The data drew from an extensive pool of participants using purposeful sampling
that included individuals who were ‘participants’ in the planning and implementation of
the partnerships as well as from individuals who assumed the role of ‘observer. To
achieve maximum variation, data came from groups within the school, the community,
and the community organization. Snowballing was applied to expand the pool of
participants beyond those identified early on for their known involvement in the
partnership. The participants in this study consisted of stakeholders from all three entities
including principals, teachers, parents, university faculty, community leaders, and other

95
key stakeholders whose involvement has been critical to the success of this university,
school, and community partnership. The stakeholders were presumed to be a source of
rich thick data that could provide an in-depth description of the partnership. In this case,
exploring the diverse perspectives of all stakeholders ensured a more accurate and
detailed account about the barriers and strategies in the partnership process.
Theoretical Frameworks
Research Question One
The first research question asked, “What is a useful process that enables a
universities, schools, and communities to co-construct partnerships for the purpose of
transforming K-12 urban schools?” It was designed to examine how a partnership can
facilitate a process to engage the assets and resources of all stakeholders in the formation
a distinct entity that reflects all the partners but emerges as something different from any
one of the partners. Through interviews, artifacts, and observations the researchers’ intent
was to discover the extent to which the process was dialogic and reflective of a co-
construction process that builds upon the assets and resources that each partner brings to
the partnership. Paulo Freire’s seminal work Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2003) provided
a theoretical framework by which to understand the nature of dialogical relationships,
which are an essential element in Freire’s contribution to the concept of co-construction.
Subset Questions of Research Question One: The first research question has a
subset of questions that asked, “What are the persistent barriers to establishing
partnerships among universities, K-12 schools, and universities that seek to transform
urban schools?”, and “What are some effective strategies that have the potential for

96
overcoming barriers and co-constructing partnerships of shared power among K-12
schools, communities, and universities for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban
schools?” These questions were intended to identify and describe the barriers that have
historically impeded the potential of urban partnerships. Conversely, the study also
explored the strategies that facilitate the ability of stakeholders to effectively implement a
partnership. Both questions were examined through Freire’s (2003) model of dialogue to
examine how a co-construction dialogical relationship is affected by barriers of power
and hierarchical thinking and how the Freirean premises of trust, respect, humility, and
reciprocity can overcome those barriers. The cultural logics of merit, deficit, and
scarcity (Oakes, 2006) were also used to examine the influence of the differing cultures
of universities, schools, and communities and to look at how culture, or the “ways of
being”, can impede the process and progress of a partnership.
Research Question Two
The second research question asked, “What attributes might result from a process
of co-constructing a partnership between schools, universities, and community agencies
to foster the adult agents urban students need to develop learner identities and thus
improve their academic performance in school?” This study question also used Freire’s
dialogical model to identify the attributes of a partnership capable of transforming an
urban school. The Freirean model provided for an examination of how dialogue through
trust, respect, collaboration, and shared knowledge among stakeholders within the
context of dialogue and mutual shared learning can 1) facilitate the work of an urban

97
partnership and 2) foster the adult agents urban youth need to develop a learner identity
as a means for achieving high academic performance.
This question was also examined through social cultural, social cognitive, and
social psychological frameworks. Cummins (1986; 2001) and Nieto (1999) provided a
framework to examine the underlying influence of culture and power in social contexts
such as schools. In particular Nieto’s work was used to examine the influence of these
factors on the interaction and exchanges between urban youth and adult agents. To
further guide the examination of partnerships and the multiple social settings that
influence urban youth, the second research question used Bronfenbrenner’s theory of
ecological systems (1987) to examine the connectedness and inter dependence of the
social systems and settings in which an individual is nested. An understanding of the
connectedness of the settings and systems in which urban youth are situated and the
impact of these influences on the lives and identity of urban youth is an important lens
through which to examine the impact of the partnership in this study.

98
Table 1: Theoretical Frameworks for Research Questions
Research Questions Theoretical Framework
1. What is a process that enables
communities, schools, and universities
to co-construct partnerships for the
purpose of transforming K-12 urban
schools?

• Freire (2003)
Research Question #1 Subset:

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

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

• Freire (2003)

• Oakes (2006) – Cultural Logics

2: What attributes might result from a
process of co-constructing a
partnership between schools,
universities, and community agencies
to foster the adult agents urban
students need to develop learner
identities and thus improve their
academic performance in school?

• Bronfenbrenner (1987)

• Cummins (1986; 2001)

• Nieto (1999)

Data Instruments and Collection
Data collection procedures included observations, interviews, and artifacts. Data
was collected beginning in early November 2008 and completed in late January 2009. In
order to address issues of validity and reliability, triangulation methods in the form of

99
data triangulation, investigator triangulation, and methodological triangulation were
employed. The use of “multiple methods allow 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).
Data Instruments
The following instruments were developed by the research cohort to record
information from the different data sources and are included as appendices to this
document:
Instrument 1: Administrator Interview Protocol
Instrument 2: Teacher Interview Protocol
Instrument 3: Classified Personnel Interview Protocol
Instrument 4: Parent Interview Protocol
Instrument 5: Community-Based Organization Interview Protocol
Instrument 6: University Stakeholder Interview Protocol
Instrument 7: School Environment Observation Protocol
Instrument 8: Examined Artifacts
Table 2 below shows the relationship between the data instruments used and the
type and number of data sources.

100
Table 2: Data Sources

Interview Group
# of
Interviews

Observation
s
#
Observation
s by
Location

Artifacts

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

Community-
Based
Organization
6 School Site 6 Partnership
Business Plan

Community
Member
4 University
Setting
1 Partnership
Fact Sheet

Parent

6
School-Faculty

7
School-Classified

1
School-
Administrator
2

TOTAL 29 10 3

Given the number of data sources identified, each member of the research team
was assigned to collect specific data. Figure 1 illustrates the Fieldwork Matrix used to
monitor the data collection assignments and tasks of each member of the research team.
The matrix also tracked when the data was transcribed and uploaded to a shared database
management system (discussed later in this chapter). Figure 1 illustrates one page of the
Research Fieldwork Matrix and illustrates the triangulation by data sources and by
researcher.

101
Figure 1 Research Fieldwork Matrix

Observations
Observations, according to Merriam (1998), take place in a “natural” setting and
present an in-person encounter with the “phenomenon of interest” as opposed to the
second-hand content of an interview. Observations were conducted in a variety of
settings to gain insight into the cultures of the specific partners and the emerging culture
as the entities interact and encounter one another. The research group conducted a total
of ten observations that involved members of the community-based organization, the
parents, teachers, and community at large.
Observation protocols were generated by the research cohort and aligned to the
theoretical frameworks for each research question. Field notes were used to observe and
capture this information. Field notes included the following elements of each observation:
the physical setting, participants, activities and interactions, conversations, subtle factors

102
that are less obvious, as well as the observer’s own behavior (Merriam, 1998). The role
of the observer was that of an objective observer, whereby the observer’s primarily
responsibility was that of information gatherer and not a participant (Merriam, 1998).
Observations of the community in general helped provide context about the
community in which the school is located. The researchers attended neighborhood
organization meetings to gain background knowledge of the community culture.
Observations also took place inside the community surrounding the school to get a sense
of the economic, political and social context in which the school exists. The researchers
made two to three visits through the surrounding community to observe the day-to-day
activities and setting of the community. The researchers also observed hallways in the
school to understand the school culture.
Selection of observation events was based on a master calendar developed by the
research group, along with meeting schedules from among the participants in the study.
The team of researchers conducted a total of 10 observations. School teachers and
University of Distinction faculty in their respective contexts were observed to examine
their styles of meeting within their own respective contexts and within contexts that bring
them together. A total of five observations of this type were undertaken by designated
members of the research team. Additionally the observations included two Southcity
Alliance board meetings. Observations lasted the length of the meetings.
Observers from the research group used field notes to record the observations.
The notes were dated, and they contained key information to describe the event i.e.,
attendees, physical setting, activities, what people said to demonstrate the “emic

103
perspective” (Fetterman, 1989:30 as cited in Patterson, 2002) as well as the observers’
reactions, feelings, insights and reflections on events.
The observations contributed to the researchers’ knowledge of the partnership and
identified areas in which persistent barriers exist. According to Merriam (1998),
observations provide information about the context and therefore they can be used as
reference points for future interviews. Observations of partnership meetings at both the
school site and the community-based organization offices involving any of the entities’
concerns with students were useful to the study. In addition, observations of the
partnership team, which consists of community members, parents, teachers, and
administrators, were conducted.
Interviews
In conjunction with observations, interviews with key stakeholders were utilized.
Patton states, “We interview people to find out from them those things we cannot directly
observe” (Patton, 1990, p. 196). “The purpose of interviews is to allow [the researchers]
to enter into the other person’s perspective” (Patton, p. 341). Interviews enabled the
researchers to learn about events (and their meanings) that they did not observe.
Interviews were conducted with stakeholders from each category of participants or
stakeholders in the partnership. Interviewees were also selected in part from persons
identified through the observations.
Throughout this case study, the researchers adhered to the guidelines and
procedures for ethical conduct in research set forth by the University of Distinction and
the school district. Participants were assured that this was a voluntary study, and at no

104
time were coercive tactics for participation used. Rather, individuals were asked to
volunteer through personal contact by designated members of the research team. The first
round of interviewees was persons who had been observed as present in various
meetings. The researchers obtained written informed consent from participants, using a
form that was constructed by the study team before beginning any research within any of
the participating organizations.
The total number of interviews conducted by members of the research team was
twenty nine and included seven members of the community-based organizations and six
members of the community as the roles and perspectives of the community were of
particular interest in this study. Semi-structured interviews contained structured
questions and open-ended questions that were flexibly worded to elicit more varied
responses. “Less structured formats assume that individual respondents define the world
in unique ways” (Merriam, 1998, p. 74).
The format of the semi-structured interview allowed for flexibility in the way
questions were asked and allowed the researcher the option to follow the direction of the
conversation in response to the interviewee’s answers. Careful attention was given to the
wording of each question so as to ensure that “what is being asked is clear to the person
being interviewed” (Merriam, 1998, p. 76). Questions that were avoided included
multiple questions embedded in one, leading questions that revealed the researcher’s bias
or yes-or-no questions that elicited no significant information (Merriam, 1998). The
interview questions included several probes that helped guide the interview and allowed
the researcher to make adjustments throughout the interview (Merriam, 1998). Some of

105
the probing questions were pre-set in anticipation of inadequate responses to questions
posed. Each interview was 45 – 60 minutes in length and was conducted by the end of
January.
The interviews took place in-person, and were recorded with the permission of the
interviewee. The researchers also took notes during the interviews to keep track of the
responses. Notes helped the researcher contextualize the data in the transcribed
recordings. Notes also served as a backup for the one interviewee not recorded.
Depending on the depth and scope of the interviewees’ responses to specific questions,
the interviewer avoided redundancy by eliminating some of the questions on the
structured interview list. The interview questions were designed to ascertain the
interviewees’ attitudes, knowledge of, and experiences with the partnership. Interview
instruments for the different stakeholders contained essentially the same questions, which
allowed an analysis for consistencies and inconsistencies in the responses among the
various stakeholders.
Artifacts
In order to identify the potential barriers to establishing successful partnerships, as
well as discover effective strategies for overcoming these barriers, artifacts related to the
formation of the partnership were collected. Artifacts are defined as “symbolic materials
such as writing and signs and nonsymbolic materials such as tools and furnishings”
(LeCompte & Preissle in Merriam, 1998, p. 113). Utilizing artifacts is beneficial because
many documents are easily accessible and can save the researcher time and effort to
gather rich data in less time (Merriam, 1998). In addition, documents are not influenced

106
by the presence of the investigator, making them less obtrusive than other forms of data
(Merriam, 1998).
Data collected using artifacts or documents helped to ground the research in the
context of the problem being studied (Merriam, 1998). The review of key documents
helped illuminate the barriers to establishing partnerships for the purpose of transforming
K-12 schools. These documents also provided insight into effective strategies that have
the potential to overcome the barriers that emerged within the partnership.
Information from these documents included things that took place prior to the
study, such as meetings between relevant parties, and/or unstated goals, decisions, or
values (Patton, p. 293). Analyzed partnership documents and artifacts provided
information on the background and commitments to the construction of the partnership.
Documents used in the data analysis included the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the partnership and the school district; the partnership’s business plan;
minutes from meetings of the transition team; partnership board meeting minutes and
agendas; event calendars; and school data (including test scores, graduation rates,
attendance and demographics). The documents used as primary resources were public
documents.
Data Analysis
All members of the team of researchers were assigned responsibility for collecting
portions of the data for the case study. To facilitate data collection and shared used of the
data, the research group constructed a code book. The codes created for capturing the
data included the data’s relationship to a combination of factors:

107
• the process by which the partnership is formed, i.e., co-constructed, dialogic
• barriers or strategies to deter or promote the formation of the partnership
• identifiable attributes of the partnership consistent with or inconsistent with a
cultural model of a dialogic, co-constructed partnership.

Table 3 illustrates the codes created to reflect the data collected and their relationship to
key elements of the study’s research questions.
Table 3: Data Coding Matrix

Process Barriers & Strategies Attributes
(P) (B) (S) (A)

Co-Construction
PCC

Dialogue
PD

Mutual Shared
Learning
PMSL

Barrier: Hierarchy
BHrch

Barrier: History
BHst

Barrier: Logics
BL (scarcity, merit
deficit)

Strategy: Absence of Systems
and Structures of
Communication
SH

Strategy: Space for Dialogues
SSD

Strategy: Systems of Representation
SSR

Strategy: Critical Bridge Persons
SCBP

Strategy: History
SH

Trust
AT

Shared Knowledge
ASK

Collaborative
Relationships
ACR

Distributed
Leadership
ADL

New Cultural
Model
NCM

108

Overall Analysis

All data became part of a single case study with one unit of analysis: the
partnership. From the various sources of data in response to the research questions, the
researchers constructed a case record. The case record served as an aid to the researchers
as the large amount of raw data from interviews, observations and documents required
editing and organization.
Researchers evaluated various forms of computer assisted coding programs to
complement their own processes for coding the data. The group made a collaborative
decision to use Max QDA and organized coded data. Two members of the research team
were selected to manage and maintain the coded data. Each of the researchers was
provided with backup copies of the data as well as being made available on the online
data management system. Figure 2 is a sample of the case record generated by the Max
QDA program.

109
Figure 2 Max QDA Data Output

Data analysis took place in conjunction with data collection as well as after the
completion of the data collection phase. Field notes collected from observations as well
as notes and audio recordings from the interviews were transcribed. These notes were
then coded and organized into categories guided by the research questions and the
theoretical frameworks. All data collected were analyzed through the lens of the
theoretical frameworks for each research question. The data was then interpreted and
future implications and recommendations were presented. Table 4 outlines the research
team’s plan for organizing, coding, representing, and interpreting the data collected.

110
Table 4: Data Analysis Plan
STEPS PLAN
1 Organizing and preparing the data by transcribing the interviews and
sorting the information;

2 Reading through all of the data to establish general meaning;
3 Begin the coding process with individual documents, interviews, and
observational data to see if there are emerging themes and/or layers of
complex analysis;
4 Decide on the representation of the narrative possibly comparing
differences among the different stakeholders and groups in the
community;

5 And finally, interpreting the data so as to be able to explain the lessons
learned in the initial phase of the partnership process.

Triangulation

The validity of the findings is increased because the researchers engaged in data
triangulation with the three main sources of data – observations, interviews, and artifacts
-- regarding the formation of the partnership (Patton, p. 247). Designated researchers
recorded and transcribed interview and observation data. The transcriptions were posted
to a shared online data management site established for the study’s data. The site was
organized by data source and contained interview transcriptions, observation notes, and
the primary documents used as artifacts. All members of the research team had access to
the online data site. The collective data was analyzed in relation to the themes outlined in
the data code book. The collection of coded data enabled the researchers to access a
thick pool of data in which one set of data complemented or augmented one another.

111
Analyzing Interviews
The researchers did not use a professional transcriber. As part of data collection
and data sharing, each member of the researcher team conducted the assigned interviews.
The team member then transcribed the interviews verbatim. This process allowed all the
researchers to be immersed in the data. The interviews were analyzed through the lenses
of the first two research questions to ascertain the feelings, attitudes, and perceptions of
interviewees on four basic matters:
• the process by which the partnership is formed, i.e., co-constructed, dialogic
• barriers or strategies to deter or promote the formation of the partnership
• identifiable attributes of the partnership consistent with or inconsistent with the
cultural model to foster adult agents urban youth need to develop learner identities

The researchers compared the levels of involvement and interest among the
various stakeholders and stakeholder groups in the process of forming the partnership.
The researchers wanted to learn from the interviews the extent to which the various
stakeholders felt they had been included in the partnership formation. The researchers
also analyzed the interview data for differences and similarities in what the stakeholders
believed had been barriers to a dialogic co-constructed partnership and what the strategies
that facilitated a dialogic co-constructed partnership were.
Finally, the researchers analyzed the interview data for responses that identified in the
interviewees the attributes that the partnership seems to have taken on and the extent to
which these attributes are helping in the partnership fostering the adult agents urban
youth need to form learner identities. To facilitate these comparisons, the interview
questions were highly consistent across all stakeholder interview instruments. The

112
research team increased the reliability of their coding processes by meeting and
calibrating their coding of some of the same interviews.
Analyzing Observations
The observations at meetings and in the community were analyzed for the
contributions they made to answer the two research questions. The researchers looked
for actions, scenarios, and quotes that indicated the process by which the partnership was
formed. They looked for indicators in the meetings and environments of the three
partners of dialogic behaviors that demonstrated the co-construction of a new shared
culture for the purpose of transforming a school. The researchers analyzed and compared
the field notes to the interviews for consistencies and inconsistencies in responses to the
research questions.
Analyzing Documents and Artifacts

“Demystifying institutional texts is one way of demystifying institutional
authority” (Miller, cited in Patton, 2001, p. 91). The researchers looked for parallels
between attitudes, levels of knowledge, and actions noted in observations and interviews
compared to the formal documentation of these events. The researchers noted evidence
in the artifacts of the cultures and actions of each organization prior to launching the
partnership and after launching the partnership. The researchers noted changes within
each organization’s agendas and meeting minutes before and after launching the
partnership. The objective was to note the degree to which each organization’s prior
culture contributed to or diminished the potential for a new cultural model within the
partnership.

113
Artifacts were also analyzed for consistencies and inconsistencies among values
and basic assumptions within the three partners’ organizations. The data from these
sources and the framework from Freire (2003) and Oakes & Rogers (2006) helped the
researcher identify the barriers that the partnership faced and overcame in order to
develop the attributes of a new cultural model. that could facilitate the presence and role
of adult agents within a partnership to help students form an identity focused on learning
and achievement.
Ethical Considerations
Careful attention 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). Utmost efforts to maintain high ethical standards throughout this study ensured that
data that were collected and analyzed and findings that were disseminated were free from
bias. The rules and regulations as specified by the University Park Institutional Review
Board (UPIRB) as well as the Institutional Review Board for the Los Angeles Unified
School District were strictly adhered to in order to ensure that participants were being
treated in an ethical manner.
Summary

The co-construction of a dialogical relationship among the community, the
school, and the university pools together the knowledge and resources of each respective
group, thereby increasing the chance of successful school transformation. This chapter
has detailed the methodology that was utilized in this qualitative study. This case study of

114
a unique community, school, and university partnership included a variety of data
collection methods and instruments to answer the research questions identifying the
persistent barriers, the strategies to overcome these barriers, and the way in which a new
cultural model of these partnerships can foster the adult agents urban youth need to form
an identity as learner and improve their academic performance Chapter Four presented
the analysis of the data and detailed the findings of this study.

115
CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS

Introduction

This chapter presents the findings from a case study on the formation of a unique
community, school, and university partnership formed for the purpose of transforming an
urban high school. The chapter begins with a brief review of the purpose of the study and
the problem addressed. Next, it will continue by providing background and a description
of the entities involved in the partnership, followed by an overview of how the data will
be organized and analyzed. Then, the chapter introduces the research questions for the
study followed by a presentation of data findings and analysis. It concludes with a brief
summary section of the results of the research study findings, emphasizing the major
patterns and emerging themes found in the data.
The partnership in this case study is in its first year and was formed to address the
persistent low academic achievement of students in the school. In addition to being in the
initial formation stage, the partnership is unique because of the inclusion of the
community and the school itself as key stakeholders in the process of co-constructing a
partnership to improve student achievement in a K-12 urban school. There is sparse
information available on the power of co-constructed dialogic relationships among all
three entities of this type in fostering a successful partnership.
The unit of analysis for this case study is the Southcity Alliance, a partnership
between a community, a low performing urban public high school, and top-tiered
research university (Table 5). The partnership is unique in bringing together three distinct

116
entities for the purpose of improving student achievement at Freedom High School. In
this case, the community is comprised of The Urban Collaborative (UC), a community-
based civil rights organization, and The Equity Foundation (TEF), a community
advocacy organization that joined with the University of Distinction (UD) and Freedom
High School (FHS) for the purpose of transforming the school through an urban
education partnership. Relationships among these types of entities have historically been
hierarchical and inter-woven with levels of mistrust. A history of unequal distribution of
power and the subsequent inability of all stakeholders to engage in constructive dialogue
has created barriers and prevented communities, schools, and universities, especially
those similar to the organizations involved in this partnership, from establishing strong
enduring partnerships that can improve student achievement.
The findings of this study shed light on the potential that these partnerships hold
for ameliorating the disparities and inequalities in urban schools. This knowledge can be
utilized to replicate partnerships in other communities besieged by the same academic
outcomes. Further, this study examines to what extent a dialogic co-constructed
partnership that attempts to redistribute power among all partners can create a cultural
model that fosters the adult agents needed to support a learner identity in urban youth.

117
Table 5: Southcity Partnership Affiliates
Community Based
Organizations (CBO)

K-12 Urban School University
The Equity Foundation
o Executive Officers
Freedom High School
o Teachers
o Administrators
o Classified Staff

University of Distinction
o Administrators
o Faculty
The Social Justice
Collaborative
o Executive Officers
o Deputy Officers
Friends of Freedom
o Parents
o Community
members

Description of the Partnership Affiliates
This section presents a brief description of each of the entities that comprise this
urban education partnership. Each entity brings valuable assets that contribute to high
academic achievement for African-American and Latino youth in urban schools. A brief
overview about each entity’s social, cultural, and historical context is essential to
understanding the process, barriers, strategies, and attributes of a co-constructed
partnership.
The K-12 Urban School
Freedom High School is an urban public school with a large diverse student
population, the majority of whom is African American. Located in an area of South Los
Angeles, the school is in a community with a history of long standing traditions. The
school demographics (Figure 3), based on 2007 data, include: 1269 African-Americans,
666 Latino students, twenty-four students of other ethnicities, 51 percent males, 49
percent females, 334 students classified as English learners, and 335 special need

118
students. The school community is a mix of middle-income and working class families;
54 percent of the students live in foster homes. Seventy-eight percent of the student body
qualifies for the federal free/reduced lunch program.
Figure 3: Racial Demographics

0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Black
Hispanic
Other

Over time, enrollment at Freedom High School has steadily declined. Table 5
shows the decrease in the number of students for each grade level. The total student
enrollment of 3,165 in 2004 to 1,983 in 2007 reflects a decrease of 1,182 or a 37 percent
negative change in the number of students attending Freedom. The proliferation of
problems in academic performance and school leadership contributed to the flight of
students/parent from FHS.
Table 6: Total School Enrollment
School Enrollment 2004 - 2007
Grade Level 9
th
10
th
11
th
12
th
Total
2004-05 1245 781 660 479 3165
2005-06 924 690 492 395 2501
2006-07 792 559 559 391 2301
Fall 2007 721 496 426 340 1983

119
Freedom High School has a long history of community traditions and pride from its
surrounding neighborhood. It has a wealth of resources from its traditions and values,
including committed teachers that have graduated from Freedom and returned to their
community and their alma mater to teach. The parent organization, Friends of Freedom,
also provides an added value to the school’s identity by pressing for high academic
achievement as one part of reclaiming the school’s legacy. The school’s academic
performance as revealed in the achievement data has been a source of great concern
among the community. Many parents became highly involved in the school when they
learned that the school’s accreditation status was in jeopardy. The school lost
accreditation briefly in 2005 but has since regained its accreditation. The accreditation
status currently involves a schedule of visits to the school by the accrediting agency. The
school met designated benchmarks during the agency’s last visit in fall 2008. Since the
accreditation crisis, major efforts focusing on school achievement, including the
formation of the partnership, have been undertaken. The result is some improvement as
indicated by Freedom High School meeting its overall API growth target for 2007. The
African American students and Students with Disabilities subgroups met their target
growth as well in 2007. However, the data show that the English Learners sub-group and
Socio-economically Disadvantaged sub-group scores did not meet the API growth target
during 2006-07 testing, thus reflecting that work is still needed to bring their scores up
(Table 7).

120
Table 7: Academic Performance Index (API)
Academic
Performance
Index
1999
Baseline
2005
Growth
Target
2005
API
Results
2006
Growth
Target
2006
API
Results

2007
Growth
Target
2007
API
Results
School 459 507 505 520 514 521 524
Number Tested 1682 1988 1537
1393
Statewide Rank
(Deciles)
1 1 1

Similar Schools
Rank (Deciles)
5 3 3

Program
Improvement
Yes Yes Yes
Yes
Significant Sub
Groups:

African
American
459 501 505 517 510
515 528
Hispanic or
Latino
452 506 509 521 520
530 523
Socio
Economically
Disadvantaged

458

497

500

512

523

528

523
English
Learners
505 512 502
508 473
Students w/
Disabilities
352 364 337
354 410

Nationally Affiliated Community Based Organization
One of the community-based organizations, the Urban Collaborative (UC), has
been in existence for almost ninety years and is an affiliate of a larger national civil rights
organization. It provides the partnership a long history of advocacy, leadership and
neighborhood change. Its participation in the partnership is part of a new community
building initiative in a 70-block urban area that includes the high school in this study. Its
vision is to improve education, health, housing, employment, and safety in the area,

121
recognizing the interdependence of these core contributors to the overall quality of life
for all citizens of a community. The underlying principle of the UC’s values is that
schools cannot be separated from the socio-economic, political, and cultural context that
surrounds them. As part of their new initiative, the Collaborative provides services to the
partnership, as well as engage in joint fundraising on behalf of community schools.
Community-Based Advocacy Organization
The Equity Foundation is the second community-based organization in the
partnership and has as its guiding principles, social justice and civic harmony. The
Foundation has a long standing history of civic engagement with the local community,
including the area around Freedom High School. The leaders of this organization are
known for creating bridges between the theories of social justice and the practice
necessary to actualize solutions to the social and socio-economic issues affecting
communities. Leaders of the organization have a record of involvement with Freedom
High School that has established a level of trust within the school and the community.
The organization has worked with teachers and parents to understand their roles and help
them feel empowered to assume responsibility for the sustainable reform necessary to
transform their school. These efforts have included meetings with parents and teachers to
discuss issues related to the school’s structure, parent engagement, and teacher pedagogy.
The foundation has sponsored activities such as a Civility Curriculum to inform and
engage the residents in the work of improving the community. Most importantly, this
organization has already established a trustworthy relationship within the school and with

122
the surrounding community, especially parents, based on its work in advocating for urban
youth.
The University
The University of Distinction (UD) is ranked among the top 1 percent of all
colleges and universities in the United States. As highly competitive and selective higher
education institution, it convenes a distinct array of scholars and researchers from around
the world. In 2008, the university ranked 8
th
nationally in undergraduate student
diversity; however, of the approximate 16,000 undergraduates, only 6 percent are African
American and 13 percent Hispanic. The University of Distinction brings valuable assets
in the form of academic knowledge in many fields and has received national acclaim for
its innovative service learning programs. The university also has a reputation for
involvement with neighborhoods and the community. The University of Distinction
comes to this partnership with resources and research around urban education, but the
role as a formal partner with an urban school is new to the institution. The university
comes to the partnership with a desire for deeper understanding of how to reverse the
persistent failure of America’s schools to provide equitable opportunities for students of
color and the poor.
The Partnership: The Southcity Alliance
The Southcity Alliance has convened the entities described above in an alliance
concerned over the quality of education in the Freedom community and to reclaim the
community’s responsibility for its key institutions. The formation of the Alliance was
facilitated by a school reform effort by Metro School District (MSD) that sought to

123
provide decision making and accountability to the school sites. The result was the
creation of Change Design or C-Design, a division of the district that allowed to schools
to join with alternate entities to address the problems of under achievement. For Freedom
High School parents and teachers, the situation was a matter of choice: vote to join the
new division intended to provide autonomy or remain under the purview of the local
district. The latter had a history of contentious community relationships and
disappointing school and student performance, thus providing an impetus for parents and
teachers to vote to join the C-Design and begin the process of forming a community,
school, and university partnership (Figure 4).
The partner organizations have been involved with Freedom High School and/or
the surrounding community in varying degree in the past. The university through its
neighborhood outreach campaigns working with schools and community agencies to
facilitate tutoring and mentoring programs. The community based organizations were
involved through youth development, parent and civic engagement, employment, safety,
and health initiatives with local residents. Recognizing the interdependence between the
quality of life in neighborhoods and the quality of life in schools, each entity has engaged
in the Alliance to build relationship of mutual accountability and shared outcomes. This
partnership now formalizes the relationships and provides an infrastructure for
coordinating programs, resources, and services.
Organization of Data
The findings in this chapter are based on data from interviews, observations, and
artifacts related to the formation of the partnership. A total of 29 interviews were

124
Figure 4: A Community, School, and Community Partnership
conducted with representatives from partnership’s formal partners as well as with parents,
teachers, and community members (Table 8). Data were collected from nine observations
of different settings where attendees included all or some of the stakeholder groups.
Observations took place at the school, at the university, and at community sites. In
addition to interviews and observations, the partnership’s memorandum of understanding

CBO
A long standing
civil rights and
community
advocacy
organization with
relationships
based on service,
engagement and
empowerment to
the residents of
the Freedom area
UNIVERSITY
Top-tier research university with a
mission and record of working with
the surrounding urban community
that has chosen to work with the
CBO and the school.

K-12 SCHOOL
An urban high school with
low academic achievement
that elected to join a new
division of the school
district to create a new
culture of learning through
“local school
empowerment and
community collaboration.”

A Community, School, and University
Partnership for Urban School
Transformation

125
(MOU), the business plan, and documents describing partnership activities were the three
artifacts reviewed and analyzed.
Table 8: Data Sources
Interview
Group
# of
Interviews

Observations
#
Observations
by Location

Artifacts

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

Community-
Based
Organization
6 School Site 6 Partnership
Business Plan

Community
Member
4 University
Setting
1 Partnership
Fact Sheet

Parent

6
School-
Faculty

7
School-
Classified

1
School-
Administrat
or
2

TOTAL

29

10

3

The chapter is organized to present the qualitative data in response to each
research question and the related theoretical frameworks (Table 2). The findings are
followed by a detailed analysis and discussion.
Research Questions
The findings were related to the following research questions:

126
1. What is a process that enables communities, schools, and universities to co-
construct partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban schools?
a. What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools and universities that seek to transform urban
schools?
b. What are some effective strategies that have the potential for
overcoming barriers in co-constructing partnerships among community,
schools, and universities for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban
schools?
2. What attributes might result from a process of co-constructing a partnership
between communities, schools, and universities to foster the adult agents urban
students need to develop learner identities and thus improve their academic
performance in school?
Table 9 outlines the study research questions and the corresponding theoretical
framework used to examine the question.

127
Table 9: Theoretical Frameworks for Research Questions
Research Questions Theoretical Framework
1. What is a process that enables
communities, schools, and universities
to co-construct partnerships for the
purpose of transforming K-12 urban
schools?

• Freire (2003)
Research Question #1 Subset:

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

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

• Freire (2003)

• Oakes (2006) – Cultural Logics

2: What attributes might result from a
process of co-constructing a
partnership between schools,
universities, and community agencies
to foster the adult agents urban
students need to develop learner
identities and thus improve their
academic performance in school?

• Bronfenbrenner (1987)

• Cummins (1999)

• Nieto (1999)

The data were interpreted and analyzed and findings were triangulated using interviews,
observations and artifacts in relation to one another whenever possible. This methodology
served to increase the reliability and validity of the findings. The findings, presented in

128
relation to the research questions for the study, reflect the attitudes, perceptions, and
knowledge among stakeholders related to the following four basic matters:
• the process by which the partnership is formed, i.e., co-constructed, dialogic
• barriers to deter the formation of the partnership
• strategies to promote the formation of the partnership
• the attributes of adult agents within the partnership necessary to help students
develop a learner identity.

The researcher in this study examined the transformative potential of a
partnership between a university, school, and community when each partner is engaged in
dialogue and shared learning as a part of a process of co-construction. Co-construction
was evidenced through the interactions and exchanges between individuals and
stakeholder groups. One type of interaction observed was dialogue as an ongoing process
of co-construction. The process of mutual shared learning was also evident in the
partnership’s formation. Further, the findings demonstrate the persistent barriers faced by
the partners as they worked toward co-construction of the partnership, as well as the
strategies used to overcome the barriers and facilitate the process. Lastly, the findings
reveal attributes of the partnership developed in the process of co-construction that can
foster adult agents urban youth need to help form learner identities.
Data Findings
Research Question One: Process
The first research question asks, “What is a process that enables communities,
schools, and universities to co-construct partnerships for the purpose of transforming
K-12 urban schools?” The literature review in Chapter Two identifies multiple types of
partnerships formed in an effort to improve student and school achievement in urban

129
communities. Many partnerships described in the research literature focus on
relationships between two entities such as school-community, school-business, or
university-community. While the results from these endeavors have been mixed, the
problem of academic under achievement in some urban schools remains the same.
Including an urban community as a key stakeholder in this unique tri-partite partnership
is a distinct feature, given the historical and contemporary tendencies to devalue their
participation and contribution. Further, the school as a key stakeholder and active agent
in its own transformation makes this urban partnership unique.
The literature on a partnership involving multiple stakeholders, in particular the
community, identifies a process of co-construction as one way for the partnership to
achieve its goal. Co-construction is a process in which two or more parties engage in an
interactive and equitable relationship to create shared understandings and agreed upon
outcomes. It entails intentionality. Simply, co-construction is a process to create
something new — something that has not existed before in exactly the same way. The
formation of this type of partnership is a new cultural model for school-community-
university partnership for transforming a school and the process of co-construction is key
to the partnership’s ability to transform the urban high school in this study. A co-
constructed dialogic relationship entails a process of creating new knowledge and a new
shared culture among stakeholders that can provide the foundation for sustaining the
partnership over time (Carroll et al., 2001; Kezar, 2007). However, the bureaucracies
endemic to systems and organizations created barriers during the process of co-
construction in this study. The findings also demonstrate strategies that emerged from a

130
Co-Construction
shared commitment and dedication to the purpose of improving academic achievement at
Freedom High School in spite of the barriers along the way.
A visual representation (Figure 5) helps demonstrate the complexity of the
processes embedded within co-construction. The dialogue that takes place and the mutual
shared learning that evolves are nested within the process of co-constructing or a new
cultural model.
Figure 5

Early Perceptions of the Partnership Process of Co-Construction
Case study data reveal that the partner organizations worked to create a process
that was inclusive of all voices and viewpoints and provided stakeholders with the
opportunity to voice opinions, share concerns, pose questions, and make suggestions, or
as Freire notes, “to name the world” (2003, p. 90); however, deeply embedded existing
cultures or “ways of being” within each entity contributed to stakeholders’ understanding
and perceptions of co-construction.
Dialogue
Mutual
Shared
Learning

131
Interview data reveal that stakeholders used different language to describe co-
construction thus revealing a shared understanding of co-construction in spite of a variety
of words spoken to express the process. Words or phrases such as creating, building,
constructing, leveraging, and working together were evident. The use of phrases such as
these speaks to a foundational understanding among partners of co-construction as a
matter of being able to participate in and contribute collaboratively to the creation of a
new shared culture. This new shared culture reflects the something new that emerges
from a process of co-construction. While stakeholders have diverse social experiences to
draw from, there was a common, understanding of co-construction developing among the
stakeholders and a common understanding of how important it is to the work of the
partnership. This theme of co-construction was revealed in the artifacts of the partnership,
in particular the business plan and MOU. The business plan includes excerpts that
describe how the partnership will be co-constructed by all stakeholders involved in the
partnership. Beginning with the stated mission of the partnership to “actively generate
and support unity of efforts” among all stakeholders, many statements throughout the
document address how all stakeholders will come together in “shaping the culture and
goals of the school.” The transition plan leading to a comprehensive long-range plan for
school transformation includes the ability to co-construct with the school complementary
systems of school governance and distributed leadership.” The Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) on the other hand is not as explicit in its commitment to co-
construction. There are only a few instances where the process of co-construction is
stated or implied in the document with phrases such as “jointly developed.” It is

132
important to note however that while the documents reference or imply co-construction
and provide a reference point for stakeholders, only one of the two documents was co-
constructed with all stakeholders, including parents and teachers. The Business Plan was
developed with representation from parents, teachers, administrators and the founding
partners. It was not the case with the MOU. The latter would prove a point of contention
in subsequent meetings on the goals, roles, and responsibilities of the partnership.
Building on the documents and by engaging in dialogue, the partnership was able
to begin the process of building a unique tri-partite partnership. Stakeholders appear to 1)
share a level of understanding of co-construction as a process that allows individuals to
be equal participants, and 2) acknowledge that the process is ongoing. While there is a
level of shared understanding of co-construction, stakeholders held varying perceptions
of the process based on their respective social and cultural experiences.
Parents Perception of Co-Construction
For some participants, the concept of co-construction was a new one. The notion
of being an equal party to a collective process was a first time experience for some,
especially for parents. Parents expressed optimism and excitement at being part of a
process of co-constructing or creating a new model of engagement for the school.
Parents cited the importance of communication and transparency so that all stakeholders
held shared understanding of what co-construction meant. When Ms. Thomas, a
Freedom High School parent states: “I think it will be a learning process that creates a
great partnership in the end, with open communication and transparency, and co-
constructing,” she provides support for the notion that the work of the partnership is one

133
that involves co-construction. During the same interview, Ms. Thomas indicated that part
of the process of co-construction is listening and learning. She stated “at the same time,
you’re right along side me as I’m doing it. I’m asking you and we’re co-constructing how
this looks.” This is consistent with the partnership literature that stipulates that partners
must engage in a process of shared learning in order to create a new shared culture
(Kezar, 2007).
While parent interview data reveal the willingness of parents to be part of the
process, it also reveals that parents felt frustrated and betrayed by different elements in
the early stages of forming the partnership. Ms. Walker’s comment during a parent
interview revealed that parents did not feel that co-construction was taking place in some
instances:
Had the parents of the CCC not gotten together and said we wanted reform,
our partnership as we know it, Southcity Alliance would not exist. And what
do they do? They form a partnership and leave us completely out of the loop.
That’s not good.

Her comment spoke to steps in the course of forming the partnership where not all
stakeholders, especially parents, were included. These steps include the decisions on the
part of the formal partners, the drafting of the memorandum of understanding (MOU),
and the exclusion of the parent group, Friends of Freedom, in the document as a founding
member of the partnership. During an interview, parents Webster and Walker expressed
sentiments tied to these missteps:
For me it seems like it’s more of a dictatorship. My feelings are, “OK, we
wanted autonomy, we voted on it, we got Innovation. We got that, and then
we were thrown UC, we were thrown [the university]. And we’ve been
collaborative ... but they continue to dictate to us what’s gonna happen.

134
Observations of several partnership meetings are congruent with the parent
interview data. Only a limited number of parents were present in Southcity Alliance
board meetings, transition team meetings, and other meetings that provided a space to
discuss the partnership’s goals and strategies. When parents did attend and participate,
they did not always feel their views were included in the discussion. In an observation of
an Alliance board meeting, a parent wanted to know why the school’s parent coalition
had not been able to insert an agenda item every month. She claimed that the inability to
place an item on the agenda was an attempt to ignore parents’ concerns. Also, parents
questioned why the Board meetings were taking place at the university and not at
Freedom High, which they cited could facilitate greater attendance by parents and
community members. During the same meeting on the UD campus, Ms. Thomas, a
Freedom parent, looked poignantly at the partnerships executive officers and said: “make
time to embrace the community.” Access to the agenda and the location of the Board
meetings were observed as issues of concern for parents and served as evidence to them
of a disregard for the values and best interests of the Freedom community. The process
of co-construction was welcomed and understood by parents as necessary to the work of
the partnership; however, the perception on their part was that words spoken by some
stakeholders were not matching actions.
School Perceptions of Co-Construction
Teachers. Teachers also expressed, albeit cautiously, a level of optimism and
receptiveness toward the partnership and co-construction. “There were certain things I
think we just didn’t have the capacity to do ... so definitely having a partner was needed

135
or having partners was needed”, said Ms. Tyler, a Freedom teacher. Another teacher, Mr.
Bowles said,” [L]ook at the resources that the partnership can provide.” The findings
revealed that school faculty engaged in dialogue and in creating outcomes that benefited
the school, teachers and students. The implementation of the Small Learning
Communities (SLC) and professional development sessions were cited as positive
outcomes of the process of co-construction. Observation and interview data reveal the
level of co-construction that occurred around the SLCs. At a school site council meeting,
a comment was made that school faculty had been engaged in co-construction by meeting
twice a week for six months to formulate the Small Learning Communities for
presentation to the district. Thereafter, school administrators and SLC teachers
collaborated to implement the new instructional model for the start of the school year
While the formation of the SLCs demonstrates how co-construction facilitates the
partnership’s work, the implementation of another change in instruction sheds light on
some of the challenges that emerged. The implementation of a block schedule with a
seventh period, an added period of time to the school schedule, is considered by some as
a positive outcome. As Mr. Carson, a Freedom teacher states during an interview: “we
instituted the period 7 to help provide more opportunities for kids, not only repeat kids, to
help them make up classes, but enrichment classes as well.” While the block 7
implementation reflects a level of co-construction, interview data also reveal discontent
among teachers regarding the process of establishing block 7. This was based primarily
around the issues of decision making input and timing of the decision as well as the
purpose of the additional time. There were teachers that believed the additional time was

136
for collaborative teacher planning instead of a time for additional instruction. An
interview comment by a teacher speaks to the skepticism:
[W]e voted for a 7
th
period schedule, with the idea that for most
teachers the 7
th
period would be an additional collaborative period.
Well, when it came to actually implement it, it turned out most
teachers would have to teach that 7
th
period. And so that builds a
certain amount of distrust or concern about the process. … It’s not
necessarily teachers who don’t feel direct access to [partnership]
decision-making, but they don’t feel access to any decision-
making, whether it be in their SLCs or their magnets or whatever.

Like the parents, teachers also felt excluded in the some of the formation steps of
the partnership. At a meeting of the Alliance board, a draft copy of the job description
that was to be used for recruiting and hiring a new Executive Director was presented to
the membership. A teacher in attendance made a comment that questioned the
inclusiveness of the process that created the job description, which was perceived as an
important document in a critical step of the partnership process. The way that document
was crafted and presented raised the ire of teachers at not being included. In addition,
observational notes of a partnership retreat demonstrate teachers and staff requesting that
the representatives of the CBOs have a more visible presence on campus and interact
more frequently with Freedom High School students and staff. Similar to the parent
comment at a board meeting about making time to embrace the Freedom community,
school staff expressed the value of the CBOs investing time and having a visible presence
on campus. This perception on the part of the parent is consistent with that expressed by
a teacher:
I pick up on this from my colleagues; there is the issue of presence
and impact; you know, “What has [the Alliance] done?” and I

137
think that particularly the Equity Foundation and UC, I don’t think
that they are as visible as [university] and a lot of people on
campus, in order to trust that they are contributing to the campus,
they want to see what is happening.

The partnership’s business plan actually supports this notion when it outlines that
the Alliance’s relationship with Freedom High School “includes a strong daily presence
in the school as members of the school family, not as outsiders exerting oversight only.”
For the school community—parents, teachers, and staff—co-construction involves clearly
articulating intentions and demonstrating them through presence and action. The adage of
“walk the talk” resonated in the feelings shared by the school affiliates.
Classified Staff. The school’s classified staff shared the parents’ and teachers’
view on communication and inclusiveness despite evidence that classified personnel were
not included initially in the partnership formation. Co-construction entails stakeholders or
those vested in the outcome of the collaboration be given the voice and the means to be a
part of the process. The interview data reveal that classified staff was not enlisted in the
partnership process until well after the partnership had been established and the work had
started. Ms. Grace, a classified staff person at Freedom High School, asserts: “I’ve been
fighting for that for a year, trying to get clarity on why they left out staff, classified.
We’re stakeholders, equal stakeholders just like everybody else, but they tend to treat
classified as second-class citizens.” A parent supports this notion of exclusion when
asked during an interview about the involvement of classified staff: “Classified staff?
It’s been a minimal involvement.”
Community Based Organizations (CBOs) Perceptions of Co-Construction
Co-construction, as interpreted by the stakeholders, is focused on a willingness to

138
collaborate and respect the strengths and assets of each stakeholder. The CBOs
acknowledged that each entity has something to contribute to the goal of the partnership.
For the Urban Collaborative (UC), co-construction is reflected in bringing together assets
and contributions by “leveraging resources” as Mr. Wagner, a UC officer, refers to in an
interview. Affiliates of the Urban Collaborative consistently referred to the need to
“leverage resources” as a way of collaborating on and achieving outcomes; however,
there is also evidence of them articulating the need to be conscientious and thoughtful
and not be overbearing or dominating with the other partners. UC affiliates’ comments
during interviews speak to this: “we are here to support that inherent wisdom about what
this community needs” (Cbo3) and “It’s about being here and listening so that when we
do go out ... you’re doing it on behalf of what the school needs.” (Cbo4). Thus, despite
having a particular level of expertise and content knowledge around organizing, planning,
and implementing community-based activities as well as having some material resources,
the Urban Collaborative at minimum articulates a respect and consideration for what
others especially the community has to contribute.
Members of the Equity Foundation expressed similar values when asked about
their reasons for joining the partnership. Having been involved with the school on
different levels, Mr. Jordan explains, “our initial intent was to catalyze some degree of
autonomy among teachers and parents within FHS so that they could be more empowered
to take responsibility for creating a more effective learning environment for their
children.” For the foundation, co-construction entailed empowering important
stakeholders such as parents and teachers by giving them power to determine what the

139
needs of the school and students are. Another comment by Mr. Jordan speaks to the
value of incorporating all stakeholder assets and knowledge: “Not that anyone is looking
for a degree of power over …but I have some respect for you if I am trying to climb a
tree and you have inside knowledge about the tree. I don’t think that is power over you
but I want to respect you for having that knowledge.” There is recognition by both of the
community-based organizations that through inclusion, time, and commitment to respond
to the needs of the school and the community there must be consideration for what each
partner brings. Ms. Smith from the Urban Collaborative speaks to this in a comment
during an interview: “it’s a process that has to be mediated and negotiated…. It has to be
thoughtful.”
While there was acknowledgement and intent toward “thoughtfulness”,
observation data reveal that for the leadership of the Urban Collaborative (UC), the
process of co-constructing with parents and the school was new and somewhat difficult.
As organizations with formal structures and processes, the UC and the university are
challenged with letting go of some rather rigid tenets for doing business. Observation at a
meeting of the Southcity Alliance board provides evidence of this. The meeting was held
on the university campus, a distance from the high school community. Seating was
formal around tables. While there was no specific seating arrangement, the result was that
representatives from the more traditional power brokers – the Urban Collaborative and
the University of Distinction – were seating side by side facing representatives from the
community, teachers, and parents. A key discussion item at the meeting was the crafting
of the job description for hiring the new Southcity Alliance Executive Director, which

140
elicited concern and frustration. At the meeting, Ms. Dylan, a Freedom teacher, indicated
with a tone of discontent that “this document still has not been co-constructed”, as she
raised the document and directed it at the other side of the table. During the course of
prolonged discussion where others expressed similar concern, the chief executive of the
Urban Collaborative reverted to positional (hierarchical) authority to explain how things
worked. He sat upright and spoke in a distinctly authoritative tone. An executive officer
from the University of Distinction also demonstrated a level of positioning when she
outlined that the process for including additional representatives in drafting the job
description was constrained by time and scheduling. The setting provided evidence of
new learning on the part of the CBO and university. For the university, an awareness of
differences in work flow and tempo surfaced. It is possible that the parents, teachers, and
community members may have been more inclined to accept a delay versus being
presented with a document that had not included alternate voices. Both the UC and
university learned that taking and making time to allow more stakeholder participation
was more important than producing a document. In addition, the different work tempos or
perceived deadlines for action among schools, universities, and community groups
appeared to be a difficult challenge for many stakeholders, thus revealing patience as a
required element in the co-construction process.
University’s Perception of Co-Construction
Similarly, the university is cognizant of being one of the contributors, and not the
contributor to the formation of a partnership and the transformation of an urban school.
Interviews with some university representatives demonstrated that they were attempting

141
to respect the social and cultural assets of the community and the school. One critical
representative of the university claimed that the partnership, the Southcity Alliance, “is a
strong cultural constructing process ... that is very healthy, that is an appropriate and
good strategy.”
The university like the Urban Collaborative has substantial resources to
contribute; however it is challenged to be mindful of not overpowering the process by
being dictatorial and imposing. On the other hand, the university was dependent on some
of the monetary resources that the other partners can provide to support the work they
envisioned doing, yet these resources seemed slow in forthcoming. The university found
the slowness to identify monetary resources frustrating. The traditional culture of
hierarchy and power in university settings is one of the challenges for the institution in
this partnership. The co-construction process requires dismissing preconceived notions.
Given its stature and credibility, the university might have proceeded with a more
authoritative and direct voice. Instead there is evidence of the university’s willingness to
be a part of a process of co-construction which Professor Riley, a university faculty
member, described as “trying to work respectfully with members of [Freedom].”
Dialogue: A Facilitator of Co-Construction
Freire (2003) posits that dialogue between individuals must be inclusive and
focused on building trust and respect. One aspect of co-construction is forming dialogic
relationships among the community, school, and university in order to form effective
partnerships. Dialogue is an essential element of the co-construction process and a means
by which to build meaningful relationships based on trust and respect in the partnership.

142
It is a process of engaging people in the exchange of ideas, experiences, and knowledge
for the purpose of creating shared meaning. Dialogue also serves as the forum where
individuals examine and learn from their differences (Freire, 2003). Community
members, teachers, and parents described dialogue in terms of strong relationships,
working together, openness, and the exchange of information. The study data reveal that
partners placed importance on all stakeholders having input into what was the purpose of
the partnership, who was to be involved and how the processes would unfold; however, as
the case with co-construction, the extent to which dialogue and its elements were
perceived to be present varied by stakeholder groups.
CBO Perceptions of Dialogue
The community based organizations the Urban Collaborative and Equity
Foundation – have established relationships with Freedom High School and the
community in different ways; however, it is the first time each has enlisted as a formal
entity in an urban school reform initiative with one another and the university.
The interview data reveal that the CBOs are aware of the need for inclusion and
openness; however, there is evidence of disagreement on whether the dialogue that is
occurring reflects the best interest of the partnership, the school, and the children. Mr.
Wagner of the Urban Collaborative (UC) indicates in an interview, “That’s why the equal
voice piece from all stakeholders and from all partners is what’s required to really talk
about the benefits to all.” Ms. Weaver also with UC adds, “It’s all about talking with one
another, and not talking around one another.” A UC colleague, Mr. Jones, lends support
to that premise in reference to ongoing meetings held by stakeholders as a part of “just

143
making sure that all those voices were heard.” For representatives of the UC, dialogue or
talking with and listening to one another is integral to creating the shared meaning and
equality necessary for the partnership. However, Mr. Jordan, an executive officer of the
Equity Foundation commented during an interview that the partnership is “a work in
progress” and indicated that there has been a level of disrespect and exclusion of the
Foundation that “has to do with money; it has to do with respect …they’ve [the partners]
given me some respect because I have a voice and I will use it, not as a threat but as my
own knowledge base.” His position is supported by a statement by Professor Simms, a
university administrator, in reference to one-on-one discussions, or “face time” between
the partner organizations’ officers: “He (UC executive officer) and I started meeting
every other week for breakfast to really try to understand where each other is coming
from. Mr. Jordan too, but not as much.” The interview data reveals an acknowledgement
by the CBOs that dialogue in the partnership must be inclusive and equitable; however,
there is also evidence of disagreement on the extent to which this was actually taking
place.
Teachers’ Perceptions of Dialogue
Dialogue also facilitated the work of teachers around changes in pedagogy and
instruction at Freedom. These discussions frequently involved interaction between
teachers and the interim executive director, who is a member of the university faculty
although some of the conversation around these changes included discussion and
interaction with other university faculty. The creation of the Small Learning
Communities (SLCs) provide evidence of teachers engaged in dialogue with one another

144
and with university faculty around how to best meet the academic needs of students at
Freedom High School. Planning for this restructuring has taken place consistently every
week since spring of 2008 including the entire summer. The consistent meetings and
participation by teachers and faculty were the mechanisms for the dialogue that is an
important part of the co-construction process. The result was the formation of wall-to-
wall learning communities throughout the school, based on the co-constructed plans of as
many as forty members of the faculty at various times.
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. Mr. Matthews stated that “Southcity seems to definitely be seeking
input and involvement from key stakeholder representatives.” Ms. Tyler, in reference to
weekly meetings held by teachers, said: “We make recommendations … I feel like a lot
of what we recommend, a lot of things that we are doing are things that are being carried
through.” Teachers also referenced the importance of dialogue for building relationships
between partners and for creating positive change in the school. Mr. Nicholas stated:
So one thing that I think Freedom High School has going for it and
has had going for it, is the parents and teachers are already in
relationship with each other in some very powerful and meaningful
ways.
During an interview, Mr. Carson, also a teacher at Freedom shared the following when
asked about the level of teacher involvement:
I think they’ve been involved at different levels. …Their voices
being heard…I think there have been avenues for that. I don’t
know if they’ve been completely successful in having everyone’s
voice heard. I don’t know… But I know throughout the summer
they had meetings; they had the SLC meetings; they had the

145
Transition Team which still exists ... A lot of full staff meetings. Its
like, if you wanted to be involved you could have been. If you
didn’t want to be involved, you didn’t necessarily have to… I don’t
think it’s been shutting people out either.

Observation data further demonstrate that dialogue has been an important element
for teachers to participate in the work of the partnership. The observation of one
professional development session involving the high school faculty and the university
faculty revealed a process that was interactive and inclusive of all participants. While
there was initial skepticism and hesitation as demonstrated by non-verbal expression
(communication) in the session on the part of teachers, those barriers diminished as the
session progressed. Teachers expressed varying concerns including student
procrastination. “[T]hey wait til the last minute” said one teacher, and another teacher
commented that students had “no motivation whatsoever.” Yet another teacher expressed
frustration at the lack of curiosity by students. The comments were attended to by the
university faculty with comments on theories and strategies to help shed new light on
these issues. However, teachers themselves engaged in dialogue and contributed to the
learning by expressing their views and experiences. A young-looking teacher
commented: “I have seen good things happen” and seemingly challenged his colleagues
when he said, “You got to throw down in the classroom”, a reference to the need for
teachers to rise to the occasion and give students their best teaching. Another teacher, Mr.
Williams, contributed to the dialogue and appealed to his colleagues to demonstrate
genuine caring: “They are great kids … they know who cares.” During the exchange, the
university faculty facilitator commended the teachers for engaging in the dialogue taking
place and the exchange of ideas. Teachers’ hesitancy gave way as the concerns, ideas,

146
suggestions, and opinions expressed were not dismissed, but instead were woven in with
the academic expertise of the university faculty and fellow teacher to create a dialogic
process that facilitated shared learning.
Parents’ Perceptions of Dialogue
Parents like teachers also noted the necessity and value in being a part of the
dialogic process to define and co-construct the Southcity Alliance partnership. The
parents’ voice is considered vital to the process and to the partnership’s ability to
transform the school because as Mr. Madison, a father of two Freedom High School
students stated: “I as a parent also know how.” For parents, dialogue seemed to mean an
act of inclusion that values parents’ input in the decision-making process. Mr. Madison
goes on to say:
There’s an openness and that’s what has to happen, openness to
listen, and in no moment have I felt that what we say needs to get
done is not being listened to. And that I think is a good think for
being in a democratic country, where everyone has to listen to
everyone even if you don’t like it.

The latter part of his statement speaks to settings where dialogue took place;
however, participants were cognizant that dialogue did not exclude disagreement or
conflict. For parents, the presence of disagreement was a part of getting clarity and
agreement on the goals, roles and responsibilities tied to the partnership. Ms. Webster’s
comment on what the partnership can do to build dialogic relationships supports the
parents’ view of dialogue needing to be open and inclusive. She said, “Developing trust
and honesty... a willingness to even entertain thoughts of parents, students, community; a
willingness just to be open to ideas other than their own.” In dialogue, the openness

147
places an emphasis on horizontal relationships, not hierarchical relationships. Parents
also repeatedly mentioned how important it is to have an equal say in decision-making.
One parent, Ms. Thomas, says in reference to the relationship among stakeholders that
people have to understand “that it’s not top-down, it’s aligned.” “It’s important when
you say you are a community or a family that everybody in the family plays their roles,
and their voice is being heard,” she explained. For parents, the ability to co-construct a
partnership for change is intimately tied to a dialogic process that is open, inclusive, and
transparent.
University’s Perception of Dialogue
University representatives emphasized the need to continually meet to dialogue to
better understand the important issues affecting the partnership. Professor Simms, a key
university administrator and formal liaison to the partnership, stated during an interview,
“There’s always been an intent on everyone having a voice and be free to express their
opinion” and she adds, “All you can do is meet and talk and try to understand [the]
Southcity Alliance.” For the university, dialogue entailed allowing others to be a part of
the dialogue because as the university administrator pointed out, “the university doesn’t
have any expectations of holding greater decision making power.” However, observation
data from meetings where the processes of selecting founding members or recruiting a
permanent Executive Director reveal that the university is accustomed to engaging in
dialogue as information gathering and not for the purpose of equal decision making.
Dialogue in co-construction requires participants to suspend preconceived notions and
assumptions of power. It must extend beyond being “free to express their opinion”, which

148
the university administrator said is happening, to allowing participants to have a voice in
defining and deciding what needs to happen. For representatives of the university,
building a dialogic relationship for the purpose of sharing power with the community
appeared to be a new experience.
Partnership Process: Mutual/Shared Learning
Although learning is a key element in dialogue, mutual or shared learning
involves a process in which all entities are cognitively and socially engaged for the
purpose of constructing a shared body of knowledge. The findings revealed that the
process of dialogue facilitated new knowledge and learning by the stakeholders as part of
co-construction. Mutual shared learning is created through the exchange of ideas,
opinions, views, and information that results in new knowledge and understandings by
participants as a result of the exchange. In a partnership of diverse and distinct entities
that include the community, the shared learning creates a new shared culture consisting of
shared values, knowledge, experiences, and resources, as well as shared roles and
responsibilities among all partners. The study data reveal that the partnership
stakeholders acknowledged the importance of exchanging information, resources, and
opportunities toward generating new knowledge and learning that would lead to a new
model of school success.
CBO Perceptions of Mutual Shared Learning
The importance of learning is consistently cited by affiliates of the Urban
Collaborative (UC). Respondents acknowledged that everyone had something to gain
and that it was important and that the partnership needed to extend the opportunity for

149
shared learning into the community. There was reference made to shared learning as a
process that involved being open and ready to contribute toward any learning by those
involved. Mr. Wagner’s comment, posed as a question, “How can you help me grow? ....
How can we help you grow?” reflects the importance placed on learning as an important
characteristic of co-constructing the partnership. Mr. Jones, a UC affiliate recognizes the
importance of learning from “the inherent wisdom of constituents and stakeholders who
are most affected—in this case students and parents.” His comment reflects that the
learning cited as necessary is not confined to those individuals who were a part of a
formal entity of the partnership. In reference to his participation in neighborhood
activities, despite not being a resident of the neighborhood, Mr. Jones noted that “I’m
always conscious of respecting the wisdom and opinion of those that are in the
community;” hence reflecting the importance of being open to and accepting of the
experiences and knowledge present in the community. Ms. Smith reinforced the premise
of shared learning when she said: “We always need to be learners. Southcity Alliance
needs to be a learning organization and provide opportunities to learn. There’s a lot more
learning that needs to happen.”
The importance of learning is repeated among affiliates of the community based
organizations (CBOs). The interview data reflect the sentiment that the Southcity
Alliance needs to create a learning community where the community is also the recipient
of knowledge. As Mr. Wagner stated:
I think that [Southcity] needs to help create the entire neighborhood
as a learning community…So I think that it has to promote learning
throughout the community, in whatever space you happen to be in.

150
The providers and recipients of new knowledge generated by and through the
partnership are clearly identified in the comments made by affiliates of the Urban
Collaborative. The university is often referred to as having the greatest expertise and
knowledge in terms of education. As Mr. Wagner, an executive with the UC stated, “we
[UC] don’t have the requisite knowledge and or history to take a look at [the partnership]
at the level that [the university] could.” The university is held in high prestige because of
the expertise and technical assistance it can provide to other stakeholders involved.
During an interview Mr. Jones, a colleague of Mr. Wagner at the UC, spoke of the
university in these terms: “[the university]… because of the expertise and the kind of
technical assistance and direction that the school has at its disposal.” This statement
further reflects the status afforded to the university. However, there is a consciousness to
respect the wisdom of parents and students as well. Mr. Jones acknowledged the
knowledge of others who are not associated with the university by adding, “I heard that
when you really support the inherent wisdom of constituents and stakeholders who are
most affected, in this case students and parents, you probably will get better outcomes.”
Learning from and among all partners is recognized as an important element of the
partnership process. However, the university is seemingly held in unparalleled regard
because of its expert and technical knowledge and it appears to be exempt from mutual
shared learning given the status it is afforded.
Parent Perceptions of Mutual/Shared Learning
Other stakeholders acknowledged the importance of learning by all involved in
the partnership. A comment by Ms. Thomas, a Freedom parent, speaks to the theme of

151
learning and of creating new ways to do things for the purpose of benefiting students:
“there’s a place for all of us to come together and make sure that it really works for the
goal of the young people”. She adds that “I think it will be a learning process that creates
a great partnership in the end.” Similarly, Mr. Madison, whose daughter attends Freedom,
acknowledged the assets of the UC when he said: “That’s where, with their help, we can
support each other to improve.”
There is evidence that parents believe learning is also needed on their part. They
cited the need for and willingness to learn more about education and how to best help
“our kids.” During an interview and in response to how the partnership can help the
school and students, Mr. Madison stated: “Education. Guide us in every aspect of
education and how to improve in everything academically.” Ms. Ford, another Freedom
parent, exemplified the learning by parents when she shared during an interview that “I
am learning all these new words” and makes reference during the interview to learning
new vocabulary such as “co-construct” and “scaffolding.” The new vocabulary was not
merely words to verbalize but reflected a level of knowledge that is now shared between
the parents and the teachers. Parents expressed optimism about the university’s
involvement and its ability to contribute to new learning by others. One parent, Ms.
Walker stated: “there’s only one partner that’s truly an educator and that’s USC.”
There is evidence that while recognizing the value and importance of shared
learning, parents also believed that their knowledge is powerful and able to contribute to
the partnership. Further, parents reiterated that their contributions merit inclusion and
validation. In response to a question on the ability to achieve the partnership’s goals, Mr.

152
Madison cited, “I don’t doubt that all three, [the university], Equity Foundation, Urban
Collaborative can…but I consider that if we say we can do this here for students, I as
parent also know how.” He also stated during the interview, “we can also provide ideas,
right?”, thus speaking to the wisdom of parents and their contribution to the shared
learning. Ms. Johnson spoke to the notion of sharing when she cited, as an example, the
value of parents sharing knowledge with parents through testimonials where “they could
share how [that] experience worked.” Parents had been exposed to and benefited from
the dialogic process and they demonstrated learning; however, the interview data reveals
that there were variations in the level of mutual shared learning among the partnership’s
stakeholders.
Teachers’ Perceptions of Mutual Shared Learning
Similarly, teachers recognized their part in learning about new teaching models
and connecting students’ school and community learning. They acknowledged the
immense opportunity and resource potential from the university and Southcity Alliance.
Teachers also noted however that school administrators could be a part of the shared
learning process by building relationships with teachers and providing greater support.
The findings further showed that stakeholders perceived the university as the one partner
that could contribute to the shared learning that needed to take place. For community
members, as well as teachers, there was agreement that the university’s academic and
intellectual capital would be of immense benefit to the partnership and the school’s
transformation. Teacher Matthews expressed he was “pretty pleased to hear that USC
was getting involved.” Respondents cited the professional development sessions for

153
teachers facilitated by university faculty as well as the presence of other university
personnel on campus helping with counseling and instruction as tangible elements of
what the university is doing to create shared learning among stakeholder groups. As
noted by a teacher, “University of Distinction knows how to do education.” Mr. Carson,
a teacher, noted the resources available “because the University of Distinction had things
to offer that Freedom could take advantage of.” Mr. Bowles, another Freedom teacher,
reiterated the university’s ability to foster shared learning for the entire community when
he talked about how that can be done in collaboration with local ministers:
They may come if somebody else, you know the principal were to
ask, but I think the fact that these people are high profile … [the
university] sets up a workshop, something like that, they know its
going to be a quality kind of thing. It’s accepted and they can take
the lead and set the road for us and pave the way and get buy in,
because that’s …they do a lot of that kind of thing anyway.

Similarly, Mr. Jones from the Urban Collaborative cited the university as the entity most
able to positively impact the others “because of the expertise and the kind of technical
assistance …at its disposal.” These responses provide evidence that other partners did
not question nor doubt the ability of the university to contribute in a positive manner to
the goals of the partnership. There is no interview evidence that points to a perception
that the university has a need for learning, but instead others have something to learn
from the university’s knowledge. Observation data did reveal a need for learning by the
university when concerns were raised at a board meeting about the exclusion of parents,
teachers, and community in crafting the Executive Director job description. The
university’s representative had to stop the process for developing the executive director’s

154
position and include the school’s participation. While the general acceptance of the
university as a partner speaks to its credibility, the university is challenged to maintain a
presence in the partnership as an equal participant and contributor like other stakeholders
and not as the sole possessor of power and intellectual assets that is traditionally assigned
to a prominent university.
University’s Perception of Mutual/Shared Learning
Co-construction requires an interdependence of knowledge, expertise, and
resources by all stakeholders. Mutual and shared learning is an important element in co-
construction process. University faculty discussed the ways in which mutual learning
among the partners has the potential to change the way the university structures its
programs and prepares its students as the university applies what they have learned to
better its programs. Persons in the university who were interviewed acknowledged that
they are in a position to contribute as well as gain from being a partner in the Southcity
Alliance. Professor Simms, a university administrator, spoke to this point during an
interview:
It will help us understand what we can do to prepare people to work
in [Freedom]. What could we do better in preparing Ed.D students to
work in areas like Southcity and to care about other people’s kids and
create a knowledge base to offer schools of education? …. After this,
we will not be the same; if you get involved you won’t come away the
same.
The observation of a professional development session involving university and
school faculty offers an example of the “technical assistance” that the university has to
offer the partnership, specifically the teachers at Freedom High School. During the
session, the goals and format of the session were outlined as what a facilitator termed the

155
“norms of collaboration”, and the facilitators introduced. The teachers were then divided
into smaller learning groups to facilitate discussion and interaction. Through a process of
dialogue, the teachers were invited to share any instructional or student academic
concerns, questions, or challenges they were facing, or as the facilitator indicated,
“anything at all.” After some initial hesitation and further prompting, teachers began to
express concerns about student procrastination, or waiting to the last minute,” and the
challenges of differentiated instruction. There were comments about the gap between
what the school expects and values and what the student experiences outside of the
classroom. They spoke of an incongruence of cultures between teachers and students’
experience. One female teacher stated: “how do I compete with the wad of money he
(student) just made that morning?” There were comments of frustration around student
motivation or the lack thereof. The university faculty then proceeded to provide an
overview of the concept of student motivation, followed up by comments and discussion
among the teachers and university faculty with regard to specific resources and training
the university could provide to the teachers in an effort to better help address this issue.
“I am frustrated. They don’t have curiosity about people, or place, or ideas”, said one
teacher. While the university faculty were the session facilitators, school faculty also
provided feedback and suggestions to their colleagues in comments such as: “you have to
throw down in the classroom”, “nurture them”, and “give them relevance…have a
conversation with them”, and “build their buckets of self esteem”. Throughout the
session, the university faculty allowed the opinions and ideas to emerge. None of what
was expressed was dismissed nor denigrated. The faculty provided examples of

156
instructional strategies and motivational theories that could be helpful to the teachers.
The format of the session allowed the faculties of the university and the school to engage
in dialogue. The teachers became aware of specific strategies that could help improve
their instruction, and the university faculty learned more about the culture of the school
and how it could specifically support the teachers and instruction. The dialogic process
evidenced in this interaction created mutual shared learning by both groups.
An artifact of the partnership further reveals a level of mutual shared learning
taking place among stakeholders. A letter from the Urban Collaborative executive officer
to the Freedom community makes reference to a “Fact Sheet” or compendium of
partnership activities as “the list of accomplishments from the three network partners”
that outlines the “specific contributions to Freedom High School.” The document lists
funding, programs, services and personnel provided by each of the formal partners in
support of students at Freedom and the work of the partnership. The list includes, but is
not limited to, youth leadership training programs and academic enrichment programs by
the Urban Collaborative as well as parent and civic engagement workshops by the Equity
Foundation. The list also includes the investment of human capital by the University of
Distinction where graduate students in social work furthered their own academic
knowledge while helping the school develop an intervention process for at-risk students.
In addition, the university provided release time for two faculty members. One faculty
member served as an instructional coach by working with teachers on the SLCs while
serving as the partnership’s administrator in the first year. The situation afforded the
faculty the opportunity to further their scholarly expertise while promoting learning

157
among school teachers, staff, and parents. The list, while noteworthy, does not make
reference to the role and contribution of parents and community members in any
activities, thus, revealing a presumption of greater influence, value, and power by the
organizational entities.
The shared learning from these activities is derived from the exchange and
interaction between the entities involved in the activity. As an example, the Urban
Collaborative helped coordinate weekly “student discussion groups with the …police
department and city attorney’s office” that facilitated mutual shared learning between the
students, teachers, and law enforcement. Ms. Gordon, a member of the police department,
supported this premise when she stated during an interview that the discussions are
“inside the classroom to discuss the law and provide an understanding of what it is we
(law enforcement) do.” During these discussion sessions, students learned about the
consequences of certain situations involving law enforcement. Ms. Gordon also noted
that she welcomed the sessions as an opportunity to learn about “what the kids are into
these days.” The result of dialogue is the ability to gain greater knowledge and
understanding of the unique wisdom and experience of each stakeholder in the Freedom
community, with each having equal value. The latter fosters the trust and respect that is
the basis for a co-constructed partnership for urban school transformation.
Research Question One (a)
A subset question to the first research question asks, “What are the persistent
barriers to establishing partnerships among communities, K-12 schools, and universities
that seek to transform urban schools?” The findings from the case study data indicate

158
that a process of co-construction facilitated by dialogue and mutual shared learning has
aided the formation of this unique education partnership. The ability of a partnership to
validate and integrate the knowledge and experiences of all partners is critical to building
trust, collaboration, and a dialogical relationship; however, there are social, cultural, and
political elements that give rise to barriers in the formation of an educational partnership.
The study data reveal that barriers related to the historical context of stakeholders, the
presence of hierarchy, and the absence of systems of communication posed a challenge to
the co-construction process. The emergence of these barriers reflects an “old” cultural
model of education partnerships that have proven stagnant and ineffective. However, the
process of co-construction in the formation of the Southcity Alliance was shown to be
more powerful than these barriers. The process has engaged stakeholders through
dialogue and shared learning in surmounting challenges and barriers toward the creation
of new cultural model. The rigidity and constraining feature of the barriers faced in the
partnership can be represented through the rigid linear dimensions of a pyramid (Figure
5) where each barrier builds upon the other to form obstacles to the formation of the
partnership.

159
Figure 6: Barriers to Co-Construction

Barriers
History
People who live, work, and play within the same social and geographic space
create and share a history that becomes a backdrop for future interactions within different
contexts. For the Freedom community and the Southcity Alliance, the shared history
emerged in part as a barrier to the formation of the partnership. The history that surrounds
the Southcity Alliance and the community is rooted in contentious and conflict ridden
relationships between Freedom High School, including parents and community, and the
school district in relation to previous failed school reform efforts. Interview data reveal
that formation of the partnership came at a time when the Freedom community had
grown weary and skeptical because as one CBO affiliate says, “[T]hey’ve seen things
start and fail... more than anyone would care to remember.”
Interviewees from all stakeholder groups made reference to the regrettable history
around Freedom’s poor of achievement vis-à-vis the school district administration and

160
the resulting decline in student enrollment. CBO representatives uniformly acknowledged
that the situation was precarious given that “Freedom has been the victim of benign
neglect by [unnamed] local district”, as noted by Ms. Smith from the Urban
Collaborative. Similarly, Mr. Wagner, also with the UC, acknowledged that “it’s been a
rocky road” for the school and the community. The impact of the contentious relationship
with the local school district administration prior to the vote for the Southcity Alliance
was also expressed by parents and community members. Ms. Ford, a Freedom parent,
says: “Under local district [unnamed], it was terrible. They disrespected us, as parents,
and even the teachers, and they didn’t want to collaborate.” Mr. Carson, a Freedom
teacher, made note of how Freedom was placed in a district with high schools that had
“differing concerns and demographics ... [and] whatever was coming out of local district
[unnamed] wasn’t reflective of what was needed at Freedom High School.” The history
shared by parents, community members, and teachers was one of feeling marginalized,
under valued and disenfranchised by previous school district administrations. A history
of neglect and failure from previous experiences enveloped the new partnership in
feelings of skepticism and mistrust by members of the Freedom community, thus creating
another barrier to their participation in co-constructing dialogic relationships.
Trust
The feelings of mistrust that emerged from being “beneficiaries of institutional
racism” have been transferred to the formation of the new partnership. Ms. Thomas, a
Freedom parent, stated that “we don’t trust each other like we should trust each other.”
Another parent in reference to the Urban Collaborative specifically, asserted, “I feel that

161
they have yet to build a level of trust at the school site.” Ms. George from the UC concurs
during her interview, “Well, the relationship could be much better because I think again
we are dealing with trust factors, like...what do you really want from us?” The latter part
of the statement further reflects the skepticism not only about the partnership as a new
venture overall but also about the involvement of the Urban Collaborative as a formal
partner. While parents, teachers, and community members noted that there had been
involvement by the Equity Foundation in various aspects of the school, the selection of
the Urban Collaborative was met with disdain and resistance by some. This is revealed in
comments by parents who expressed concern about the manner in which they became a
lead partner – through “backdoor deals” and “like sheep in wolves clothing,” said Ms.
Walker during a parent interview. Mistrust was heightened by feelings of deception on
the resources the Alliance and the UC in particular had available. During an interview,
two parents, Ms. Webster and Ms. Walker, shed light on these feelings: “I hear we have
financial problems ‘cause there’s no money.... Supposedly a million dollars was gonna be
allocated.” The presence of limited trust presents challenges to building trust and creating
relationships. Executives with the Equity Foundation cited that “it takes time to build
trust … there’s some suspicion and doubt and I think it will take time to build.” Similarly,
Mr. Wagner from the UC, in response to the interview question, “What have been some
of the barriers?” said, “Yes, there’s some. Establishing trust is very difficult and it’s
going to remain difficult, and I understand why, given the events that have happened over
a number of years.” Thus, there is acknowledgement by two of the three formal partners

162
that building trust, like sustaining dialogue for co-construction, takes time for
stakeholders.
Power and Hierarchy
Issues of power are considered to be one of the largest barriers to co-constructing
relationships in partnerships. Freire (2003) has made the point that participants in
dialogue must relinquish the preconceived notions and perceptions of power that they
may bring into the process. Contemporary researchers cite the unequal distribution of
power as a factor that impedes the successful implementation of partnerships. In a
partnership with multiple partners, power is often granted to those with the majority of
resources, which are traditionally defined as money or access to funding; people in the
form of paid staff or other personnel; and knowledge as represented by formal schooling
and position. In the case of the Southcity Alliance, there are varying levels of power held
by the Urban Collaborative, the University of Distinction, and Freedom High School.
The Freedom community, while abundant in knowledge and resources has not been
perceived as having power nor incorporated into the structures and systems that distribute
authority and decision making.
Study data find that hierarchy exists as a persistent barrier to co-constructing this
partnership. As Ms. Smith from the UC stated, “There is hierarchy in this [partnership]
no matter what others say.” She went on to explain that it is not about power, it is about
resources. She continued to explain that the university has more resources to offer than
the CBOs, and one CBO has more resources to offer than the other CBO, but she never
explained how the other stakeholders have resources to offer. Thus power is viewed as

163
actual resources or access to resources contained within the different entities. Power as
tangible resources is also evident in interview data from other respondents. Teachers and
parents consistently cited the university as having the capacity to influence and impact
the work of the partnership by way of its resources.
The bureaucratic nature of schools, universities and formal organizations can
create the structural constraints to a partnership’s ability to co-construct goals and
achieve outcomes. Two officers of the Equity Foundation asserted in an interview that the
partnership has been shaped by a bureaucratic model that disguises its power in legal
structures and constraints. They also acknowledged that they are not treated as equal
partners because power is often defined in terms of financial resources; “it has to do with
money”, said Mr. Jordan about how the Foundation's role is viewed. The Foundation
critiqued this approach to the partnership as negative, while the UC expressed the view
that these hierarchical structures are inevitable.
An observation of a partnership board meeting revealed how hierarchy can
manifest in unconscious ways. At the meeting, which took place at the University of
Distinction campus, there were members of the Alliance board, transition team, Friends
of Freedom parent group, and community members in attendance. There were no name
plates or other indications of assigned seating. The officers of the partnership board were
among the first to arrive. They took seats side by side on one end of the meeting table. As
other attendees began to arrive, they took seats at the meeting table that were opposite
those of the officers. The result was those individuals with perceived or assumed
positions of power – the university and CBO representatives -- sat on one end of the table

164
while teachers, community members and parents sat on the opposite side. The
stakeholder groups represented at the meeting sat face to face, seemingly divided along
the lines of power and position. The seating arrangement reflected the schism often
created by the presence of power and position in hierarchical structures.
Interviews with teachers and parents also demonstrated a perception that there is
an imbalance of power among the entities, with parents and the school having less power.
Parents interviewed expressed that they did not believe they were “equal partners” in the
partnership. The perceptions were based on their extensive involvement, or as one parent
said, the ability to “hit the bricks”, alongside teachers to insure that C-Design allowed the
school to have voice and decision-making power in joining the partnership. Parents also
shared their discontent at having limited power to choose their partners. Ms. Webster, an
involved Freedom parent, says, “We knew who we picked. We knew our partner was the
Equity Foundation,” however, the effects of hierarchy emerged when it was announced
that the Urban Collaborative and the University of Distinction would be formal partners
as well. In addition to not having power to choose formal partners, parents felt excluded
from key processes of the partnership including the drafting of the MOU, having Friends
of Freedom (the parent group) as a founding member of the Board, and being involved in
all parts of the Executive Director selection process. Every time they keep doing things
like this; this keeps making us distrust them more and more,” said a parent during an
interview.
Teachers echoed many of the responses that parents made regarding hierarchical
processes. They cited that they also did not feel like “equal partners” given the presence

165
of “an outside organization coming in to tell us what to do when we make these
partnerships. The idea that a CBO or university knows more than we do or thinks they
know more than a school site does”, said one teacher. All of these processes reflect
bureaucratic and hierarchical structures that create an imbalance of power. The same is
seen for classified staff that was not included in the vote or in the initial partnership
stages, thus revealing how hierarchy can foster marginalization. Ms. Grace stated during
an interview that classified staff is “treated like a stepchild.” Ms. Webster, a parent, lent
support to this notion when she said: “Classified staff? It’s been a minimal involvement.”
Therefore, according to these interviews, school stakeholders closely identified with
feeling excluded from key processes at the initial formation of the partnership, which
were based on the inherent power differences in hierarchical structures.
The artifacts also reveal hierarchy in the partnership by the way primary legal
documents were created, the language present in these documents, and the stakeholders
included and excluded in these documents. First, the MOU with the school district, a
primary legal document of the partnership, was crafted without the voice of all the
stakeholders. It was developed between the legal representatives of each founding
partner and school district attorneys. The language in the MOU states, “The Board and
[Southcity Alliance] acknowledge and agree that the Board will retain all such authority
under the MOU.” It further states that the Southcity Alliance “shall have power and
authority” to perform its duties and fulfill its obligations. The voice of Freedom
community members and parents were not included in the process of co-constructing the
MOU. Parents, teachers and community members did not view the document until after

166
it had been drafted and signed. At the Southcity Alliance retreat, parents expressed their
disappointment that they were not part of this process.
Absence of Structures and Systems of Communication
The presence of hierarchy and its related power relations as barriers was
exacerbated by the absence of structures and systems of communication. Effective
communication is needed to facilitate an understanding of a partnership’s purpose, goals,
expectations, and benefits for all involved and is “critical to building a sustainable
partnership as well as developing trust and respect” (Suarez-Balcazar et. al., 2005, p.89).
There are forums for communication in place within the partnership. Through
ongoing meetings of the different committees, the transition team, and board meetings,
stakeholders have been able to have face-to-face communication about matters related to
the partnership. However, study data reveal that there is neither consistent well
articulated information available nor systems for distributing information about the
partnership’s goals and progress to date. Ms. Mills, a community member, noted that
“We are really short on anything in writing from Southcity Alliance period.” There is
evidence that others, in particular parents, shared the view that they knew very little about
how Southcity Alliance is to operate as well as the role of each partner. In spite of their
commitment to the goal, respondents were not getting information on the progress or
status of the partnership. Parents cited “I don’t know” and “nobody knows” often, as did
key CBO representatives, community members and some teachers when queried about
their knowledge of the partnership’s activities or the role of particular stakeholders. Mr.
Willis, a community member, stated that “I would like to hear anything from GCEP …

167
what’s the plan?” “They don’t have a lot of communication to anyone”, he adds. The
findings reveal that participants wanted and sought more information about the
partnership. “I just haven’t seen anything in writing .... It’s very, very vague”, added Ms.
Mills in reference to the partnership’s limited communication to the community.
Observation data support the premise that communication within the partnership
was problematic for some of the partners. At the partnership retreat attended by members
of the board, the Transition Team, the parent group, teachers and community members,
there were repeated requests for information on the processes (or lack thereof) that were
under way as well as information on the status of funding for partnership activities for
example. One attendee readily acknowledged he was “confused” by the lack of clarity on
structures for decision making, lack of communication and limited financial resources.
Conversely, artifact data reveal that there were some attempts at communication. One
was the circulation of transition team minutes every week as well as the circulation of
Small Learning Community Council minutes among all SLC representatives. In addition,
notice of all partnership board meetings were posted in the school, along with the
agendas. While there were steps taken to facilitate a level of communication, the
interview and observation data reveal that it was limited. The limited communication
created a void in making connections and building relationships with key stakeholders.
While there was some communication in the form of the face-to-face dialogue, the
absence of systems for consistent and effective communication created a heighten sense
of ambiguity and uncertainty among parents, teaches, and community. This combined

168
with a history of misguided school reform and “benign neglect” has made trust among
stakeholders difficult.
The issue is compounded by the limited involvement of the Latino parent
community of Freedom HS, which was noted by parents, community members and CBO
representatives. The Latino parents that are involved acknowledged the need for greater
participation; however, they also cited the cultural and language needs of Latino parents.
One parent when asked if there is someone who speaks Spanish in the parent center says,
“I don’t know....They’re looking for someone.” Yet an interview with another Spanish-
speaking Latino parent reveals one staff person in the center to “help in all the school
offices.” The availability of a very small number of bilingual staff at the school is further
evidence of how communication is not systemic. The observation of a community event,
Hands Across Freedom, which was intended to highlight Freedom student talent and
demonstrate community caring and support, did not have any Latino or Spanish speaking
presenters. The majority of speakers were African American and predominantly men,
representing a key cultural characteristic of the Freedom community. However, the
absence of the Latino “voice” and representation communicated invisibility and devalued
role of this growing school population by the community. The lapse reveals the need for a
communication system to outreach and engage all members of the Freedom community.
The absence of established systems of communication within the partnership can
potentially thwart participation by key stakeholders and possibly the full potential of the
partnership.

169
While there are barriers that have the potential to derail the successful formation
of the partnership, the commitment and perseverance of the partners is seen in the
strategies they undertake to overcome the barriers. The ongoing presence of dialogue in
the co-construction process allowed stakeholders to reflect on and respond to challenges
in a concerted way.
Research Question One (b)
The first research question has a second subset question that asks: “What are
some effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming barriers in co-
constructing a partnership of shared power among K-12 schools, communities, and
universities for the purpose of transforming urban schools?” The presence of barriers
during the processes of dialogue and shared learning was not enough to deter
stakeholders from persisting in the task of forming a partnership that would benefit the
school and the community. The ongoing process of dialogue among individuals and
entities allowed steps to be taken to mitigate the feelings of mistrust and exclusion felt by
some stakeholders.
The ability to engage in dialogue and shared learning is grounded in the notion of
respect and inclusion of those likely to be affected by change. The Freirean dialogical
model involves the tenet of regard for humankind and the “responsibility of those who
occupy traditional positions of power to demonstrate humility when working with those
who have suffered the brunt of oppressive systems and structures” (Miller & Hafner,
2008, p.100). In spite of historical and organizational barriers, the partners and
stakeholders in the Southcity Alliance have demonstrated a commitment to the

170
partnership’s goal of transforming Freedom High School. This shared sense of purpose is
a factor in stakeholder groups’ willingness and persistence to make the collaboration
effective. Ms. Thomas, a Freedom High School parent, stated: “there’s a place for all of
us to come together and make sure that it really works for the goal of the young people.”
While the same elements that posed challenges in the formation of the partnership were
not powerful enough to shut down the process of co-construction. The stakeholders’
persistence to engage in dialogue and shared learning served as the basis for continuing to
build on strengths and find strategies that would allow the partnership to achieve its goal.
Strategies
History
The stakeholders in this urban partnership have a history of relationships based on
conflict and feelings of neglect by some. The ongoing decline in academic performance,
loss of accreditation, and the subsequent departure of many students and families is a
shared history that stirs feelings of frustration. The shared history made individuals weary
of yet another school reform venture. This shared history contributed to feelings of
suspicion and mistrust on the part of community members and parents in particular.
However, it is that same shared history that also serves as impetus to find ways to insure
the success of the partnership.
Accreditation Status. The timing of the accreditation crisis was consistently cited
as a contributor to a heighten sense of urgency. Mr. Wagner of the Urban Collaborative
referred to the situation as “a wake up call.” Ms. Walker, a Freedom parent, lent credence
to his statement when she stated during an interview: “when the accreditation issue came

171
up, this was an issue that galvanized this community, these parents.” The situation rallied
community members, parents and educators to find a solution. Mr. Johns, a community
member and activist, cited the same thing: “And it was at that point in time when
[Freedom] was about to lose its accreditation, when we had this big furor… it’s like we
got to do something.” The experience with the previous local district administration was
noted as a compelling force in seeking alternatives as well. Ms. Ford, another parent,
noted that “at least we had some say into this versus the other partnership. We didn’t
have a say in that. So that’s why they had to go.” The perceptions of mistreatment and
disrespect by the local district administration made Freedom High School parents and
teachers open to support from community agencies. Parents in particular felt a great sense
of ownership and responsibility for the formation and success of the partnership. One
parent stated during an interview, “Failure is not an option.” Teachers also were open to a
partnership. As one teacher, Ms. Tyler said in an interview, “I think we just didn’t have
the capacity … so definitely having a partner was needed or having partners was
needed.” These comments speak to solidarity with parents’ concern for and commitment
to improving the situation for their children. The shared history around the quality of
education in the Freedom community facilitated a level of openness and willingness by
stakeholders to be a part of the partnership process.
Relationship with the District. The partnership between the community, school,
and university came to fruition from a series of scenarios involving some of the same
entities that were involved with the school before the formation of the Southcity Alliance.
First and foremost is the academic underachievement of students at Freedom High

172
School. Parents and others noted that the school has been “victim of benign neglect” by
the district for a long time. Secondly, the loss of accreditation in 2005 was a process that
was a painful yet an eye opening “wake up call” for many. These scenarios were nested
in discussions taking place at the local school district and mayoral levels. The issue of
failing schools in some urban communities was not lost on anyone affiliated with the
reform efforts at the school district level. The proposed reform that entailed mayoral
control of schools in 2005 failed; however, there were still schools in need of substantive
change. This led to the proposition to re-structure schools to be part of a network of
schools and civic and community agencies that would be independent and autonomous.
The intent was to provide schools with greater local autonomy and authority in managing,
operating, and teaching at the school site.
The notion of autonomy and shared governance is an important feature in parents’
and community members’ responsiveness to the network partner concept. The perception
that there would be school site level authority and accountability provided the impetus for
parents, teachers, and others to actively participate in the voting process that emerged.
The fear of yet another district level reform and the desire to “take back the school” to
have equal voice surfaced as key factors in the vote by parents and teachers in favor of
the new partnership.
Community and School Relationships. The presence of established relationships
between the school and community based organizations is also a shared history that
facilitated the process of engaging in the partnership. According to parents and teachers,
the Equity Foundation had a long standing relationship working around increasing

173
community and parent knowledge and understanding of education systems, structures,
and reform. Ms. Webster, an involved parent, commented: “I believe we wanted change
and prior to us actually voting on the C-Design, we had been in meetings with the Equity
Foundation and we had been structuring what we wanted our school to look like prior to
the opportunity of C-Design.” Ms. George from the Urban Collaborative acknowledged
the Foundation’s history when she commented that “they had already been on the ground
working with parents and teachers and doing things, so they trusted them.” Similarly, the
UC was engaged in community and youth services around safety, health, and
employment that were recognized as important. Their presence allowed individuals at the
high school to have a level of comfort with their participation as a formal partner. These
relationships demonstrated a level of collaboration that emerges from a shared history of
interactions among the partnership entities. The partnership was able to build on these
pre-existing relationships to create a basis for dialogue and shared learning at this point in
the partnership’s formation as well as over time.
Teachers similarly showed openness to the partnership process based on prior
relationships with the Equity Foundation. The shared history of collaboration on some
level lent itself to openness to creating a new shared culture of academic collaboration.
There was some uncertainty around which institution would be the academic partner.
Some thought it would be the larger public research institution in the Los Angeles area.
Nonetheless, the University of Distinction emerged as the university partner and its
history as a long standing, credible, and resource-filled entity did not go unnoticed.
Teachers noted the resources available from the university partners as invaluable.

174
“USC has been magnificent,” according to Mr. Bowles, a teacher at Freedom. A history
of interaction and collaboration between parents and teachers and other entities has
facilitated a willingness to “sit down and listen to one another.”
School and Community Ownership. The feelings of pride and ownership
of the school and the community also emerged as a galvanizing force for
stakeholders. Interview data provides evidence that individuals recall a time in the
school and community’s history as a source of pride and accomplishment.
Comments by community members echo the sentiment of shared pride and
legacy. Mr. Johns stated in an interview:
I think the school has incredible legacy and reputation. There are
people who are all over the country who recognize the school by
name. It doesn’t hurt that it has [a] pretty illustrious alumni. And I
think the community generally has some deep-seated emotional
ties to the school.

A comment by Ms. Ford, a Freedom parent, reflects the same sentiment and shared sense
of history around Freedom High School: “Well, the goal is to transform [Freedom] High
School. I guess it kind of goes back to make it what it used to be. Yeah, there was a time
when [Freedom] was one of the high schools … and so Freedom has this great history.”
She adds: “I feel that since I am a part of this community that it’s important that I make
sure that this school helps our children”, which speaks to the pride in and commitment to
the potential of the school. The Equity Foundation recognized the legacy as well. A
comment during an interview with Mr. Jordan and Mr. Barney reflected the value they
placed on the history of the school and the community: “Many of the parents have been
there, some parents raised children, and now they’re grandparents and they’re still

175
committed to the school. They want, they know what the possibility of that campus is;
they see it.” The parents’ commitment is noted by an Equity Foundation officer as “a
powerful asset” in the partnership process. The dedication and commitment of the school
staff as “people who are here with an expectation of positive outcomes for young people”
according to community member Ms. Mills, factors into the importance of a shared
history. The shared history of what Freedom High School once was and what Freedom
can be, is a characteristic that helps the partnership move forward in spite of the
challenges.
Systems and Structures of Representation
The shared history of pride and ownership in the Freedom community played a
part in the desire for key stakeholders to engage in the partnership process. Another
strategy used in an effort to establish relationships and diffuse barriers is systems of
representation in the partnership. Interview respondents made consistent reference to the
need for creating a space that would allow stakeholders to get information, provide
feedback, share ideas, air grievances, and be a part of the decision making process. As
Ms. Thomas states, “there’s a place for all of us to come together and make sure that it
really works for the goal of the young people.” Similarly, a member of Urban
Collaborative says, “We have to build systems. We have to decide how we are going to
do business.”
The artifacts reveal that a system of representation was a part of the
conceptualization of the partnership. First, the MOU states: “District and Southcity
Alliance (SA) will cooperate to form a council comprised of parents, community

176
members and school staff at each SA School.” Second, the business plan states, as one of
its long-range and on-going process goals, that “Parents, community, and businesses [will
be] engaged in governance structures that support high academic achievement for all
students.” Most importantly, the business plan outlines a preliminary governance
structure that can be altered once the school becomes involved:
The governance structures in place at the end of the first year will
be shaped through a year of transition work that involves the entire
school community.

The establishment of the Transition Team is one of the key systems created. The group
included representatives of every major stakeholder group, including teachers, classified
staff, administrators, parents, community members, and students. Each representative was
elected by its own stakeholder constituency. Although the group does not have a critical
presence of students, it is evidence of how the partnership has made a concerted effort to
establish structures that facilitate the dialogue necessary for co-construction. This group
has made critical decisions and developed important structures and systems to advance
the work of the partnership.
The interview data also reveals how all stakeholders form part of the governance
structure outlined in the business plan in some manner. Interviews with members of the
community-based organizations relay attempts to include all stakeholders in systems of
representation. Mr. Wagner, member of Urban Collaborative claimed, “Southcity
Alliance is still in some sense a frame or a shell but then now it has to have a way of
inviting in various entities, students, classified staff, administrators, parents, community
members, and businesses”, thus acknowledging the necessity of a structure such as the

177
Transition Team to include all other school and community stakeholders beyond the
formal partners. Likewise, community members feel that there is a system of
representation for them, though it is imperfect. “I’ve had total equal voice –as equal as
you’re going to get--definitely”, Ms. Mills asserts. However, Mr. Johns adds during his
interview that the partnership “has to stay community-based” and be mindful in how it
creates structures and systems. Parents acknowledged that everyone cannot be involved
but stressed the need for a participative voice. A parent used the analogy of family to
state the case: “It’s important that when you say you are a community or a family that
everybody in the family plays their roles, and their voice is being heard.” Parents are
represented in various school based structures including the parent coalition, school site
council, and advisory council as well as the various Transition Team subcommittees.
School faculty also attested to the fact that there have been and are opportunities to be
involved especially around the formation of the SLCs. Teachers are also represented in
other partnership structures. Overall, the interviews disclosed that systems of
representation are recognized as an important strategy and they are beginning to form.
However, equal representation in all settings is not apparent such as in the Board of
Directors of Southcity Alliance and the representation of Latino parents in the
partnership’s activities.
Communication. Friere asserts that “Without dialogue there is no communication,
and without communication there can be no true education” (2003, p. 93). The ability to
have both requires a space. The space or spaces for dialogue allows partners to identify
and resolve issues. The formation of systems and structures of representation serve as

178
means of providing the space to promote better communication. The partnership has
established mechanisms for representation and governance in the partnership. The
presence of these is important for facilitating the communication that stakeholders
consistently cited as critical. The persistent response of “I don’t know” or “not sure” in
response to questions on the role of partners or contributions to the partnership represents
the need for increased and more consistent communication among stakeholders. A
teacher noted that “we have a problem with timeliness and information sharing.”
Likewise, a parent asserted, “communication is the barrier.” The communication with and
involvement of Latino parents was consistently cited as important, yet with the exception
of meeting notices translated into Spanish, there was minimal evidence of a concerted
effort to outreach to the school’s Latino community. The partnership recognizes the
importance of representative structures and has put some in place, which can help in
creating a system to promote communication beyond those sitting at the table and allow
more stakeholders to get involved.
Summary of Findings for Research Question One
The data findings reveal that co-construction is a process that can facilitate the
formation of a community, school and community partnership. The process is facilitated
by an ongoing process of dialogue by which mutual shared learning is occurring to
advance the goals of the partnership. The process of co-construction includes many
principles, as stated by Carroll et al. (2001), which are represented in several phases of
the partnership. The crafting of key documents through use of the term co-construct
provided stakeholders with a starting point for defining and understanding the nature of

179
their work. The different perceptions and interpretations as well as some initial
organizational missteps in the process to jointly create a new model for school
transformation revealed that dialogic relationships were an essential component of the
process.
Moreover, the notion of dialogic relationships was used to examine the extent to
which the process of forming this community, school, and university partnership was co-
constructed, involving mutual learning among all stakeholders. Based on the interviews,
observations, and artifacts, the emerging themes indicate that while the initial efforts
toward forming the partnership did not involve a co-constructed dialogic process, the
decision-making process has begun to evolve into a more equitable, co-constructed
process involving dialogue and a forum for mutual learning. In attempting to engage in
the process of co-construction through dialogue and mutual shared learning, key
stakeholders confronted a contentious shared history, hierarchical structures, and the
absence of systems and structures for communication as persistent barriers to the
partnership. However, key stakeholders also employed key strategies to overcome these
persistent barriers. The legacy of the school and the prior work between the Equity
Foundation with parents and teachers of the school both served as strong historical
anchors that has fostered a shared common purpose in and commitment to the work of
the partnership. The founding partners created systems of representation in order to create
a new model of engagement based on equal voice and representation, not hierarchical
structures. The development of small learning communities and the formation of the
Transition Team are some examples of systems and structures for communication and

180
representation of all stakeholders to facilitate more open dialogue. Dialogue that
promotes openness to listen, giving stakeholders an equal voice and promoting mutuality
and respect is being fostered through various mechanisms. The stakeholders in the
partnerships expressed that there were obstacles yet to be overcome and that the process
takes a great deal of time, however, they affirmed their belief in the potential of the
partnership. They further noted the notable worth of engaging in the process of co-
construction, which has resulted in positive changes that will lead to the transformation of
Freedom High School.
Research Question Two
The second research questions asks, “What attributes might result from a process
of co-constructing a partnership between schools, universities, and community agencies
to foster the adult agents urban students need to develop learner identities and thus
improve their academic performance in school?” The findings reveal that through an
ongoing process of dialogue there has been a level of shared learning, which in turn has
facilitated the co-construction process. According to Freire (2003), dialogic relationships
are based on elements of trust, faith, hope, compassion, and love and are must be jointly
created by participants. By engaging in co-construction, the stakeholders in the Southcity
Alliance demonstrate the qualities of caring and compassion that are important to
maintaining the commitment to the work of transforming student achievement at
Freedom High School.
The Attributes of a Co-Constructed Partnership
The co-construction process is characterized by dialogue and mutual shared

181
learning, which in turn result in key attributes emerging that begin to define and give
meaning to the partnership. The study data reveal that commitment, trust and
collaborative relationships are attributes capable of creating a new cultural model in a
partnership among the three entities represented in this partnership. The findings also
indicate that hope is a characteristic that emerged as an element for sustaining the
partnership. The presence of these attributes in a co-constructed dialogic partnership can
foster one of the most needed resources in the transformation of an urban high school
located in a low-income community where the students are mainly students of color –
adult agents. The combination of these attributes can create a cultural model in which
adult agents can emerge to support students’ development of a learner identity. Adult
agents emerging from this kind of partnership can serve as personal anchors for urban
youth who must navigate multiple, often conflicting, social identities, while also
cultivating identities as learners. A partnership among a community, school, and
university with the attributes of commitment, hope, trust, and collaborative relationships
can provide the human capital urban youth need to see themselves as co-constructors of
knowledge with their teachers, members of their community and with one another.
Commitment
The interview data supports the level of commitment and caring that has been co-
constructed in the formation of the partnership. As Ms. Ford, a Freedom parent said
during an interview, “We’re making a commitment to our kids and the community; so
we’re going to push to make this happen.” Ms. Webster said, “I anticipate being a part of
CHS until the changes are made and met.” Mr. Jordan from the Equity Foundation lent

182
support to the commitment of those involved when he said, “there is a commonality of
purpose that says we are connected together.” Similarly, Mr. Wagner from the Urban
Collaborative stated, “I feel very confident that we have three committed institutions that
are not going away.” His colleague, Ms. Weaver, supported the premise in her interview
comments, “Urban Collaborative is there for the long haul. We’re about change; change
for the kids ... we’re here to make change for these kids so they can be successful.” In a
joint interview with Mr. Jordan and Mr. Barney of the Equity Foundation, Mr. Jordan
commented that “it takes a good deal of sincerity and willingness to want to teach a child
who is so undermined and compromised in terms of foster care, and group homes, and
poverty, and anger and rage. And to want to commit oneself to teaching that child is an
extraordinary strength.” Mr. Johns, a community member, makes clear who stands at the
center of the work: “And it’s really not all about me, or you know, one individual
somewhere else. It’s all about making sure that those students reach their goals.”
The commitment of teachers is demonstrated in the work they put into the
formation of the Small Learning Communities. Meetings took place every week in spring
2008 and through the summer in preparation for the start of the new school year in
September 2008. The dedication to the SLCs and other instructional changes including
professional development with UD faculty and integrating block 7 is reflected in Ms.
Wiley’s comment regarding the 9
th
grade academy that “they [students] are aware of what
it is we’re trying to do – that we really, really want them to succeed and that we want
them to enjoy school.” Mr. Carson’s comment speaks further to the shared concern for
students that holds the partnership together: “And the whole goal is to create, to really

183
embrace the children, to know they all can succeed to whatever the best their ability is.”
Ms. Weaver of the UC reflecting on an observation of a parent group meetings says,
”[T]hey’ve finally bought into it and this is for our children and the sense of our
children.” The care and concern for students stood at the center of the commitment by
community members, parents and teachers.
Observation data also supports the commitment by individuals and entities that
has been deepened in the process to form co-constructed dialogic relationships. The
process has created a new shared culture. Observation of the Hands Across Freedom
event attended by Freedom parents, teachers, administrators, civic and law enforcement
leaders, and community members demonstrated the shared concern for students. There
were also representatives of the founding partners – the University of Distinction, the
Urban Collaborative and the Equity Foundation – in attendance; thus revealing a shared
commitment to demonstrate to Freedom students that the community cares and supports
them. The dedication and commitment to students and the work of the partnership was
noted in observation notes of the partnership retreat when during discussion of the
qualities needed in the new Executive Director, it was noted that the person have “love
for our students, all students.” Observation of a college readiness event for Freedom
students further reveals the commitment by parents, teachers and the community. The
event took place on two weekday evenings and one Saturday and brought together
volunteers from diverse backgrounds to assist students in the college application process.
Approximately 30 volunteers were present. That these events and other partnership

184
activities such as the partnership retreat and other governance meetings took place on
Saturdays and evenings speaks to the commitment by stakeholders to the goals as well.
Trust
The research literature on partnerships emphasizes the importance of building
relationships based on mutual respect, effective communication, and trust among many
other critical factors. As previously stated, trust is a key element in dialogic relationships
according to Freire (2003). The data reflected the premise of trust as one of the strongest
attributes of the partnership to create a new cultural model.
Interview responses from the Equity Foundation affiliates, the teachers, and the
parents themselves indicate that the Foundation engaged in its own form of dialogic
relationships and trust building when it set about having meetings and discussions with
parents around their children’s schooling. The Foundation also shared knowledge with
parents around the vote for the C-Design and the formation of the Southcity Alliance.
Ms. Ford, a parent said during an interview, “they are the ones that we trust the most, or
that I trust the most, but I think the parents, most of the parents that are involved, trust the
most.” Thus, through dialogue and shared learning, a relationship of trust was built. In a
similar vein, trust has been established between the university, the parents, and the
teachers. In demonstrating commitment through actions, the university has secured a
level of trust among key stakeholders. Mr. Matthews, a Freedom teacher, stated during an
interview, “I’m definitely aware of UD’s involvement.” In a joint interview, Ms. Webster
and Ms. Walker, make reference to this trust:
University of Distinction has proven to us that they will spin hula
hoops here for us at Freedom. So that level of trust has been

185
established because we have a tangible. We have [Doyle]. We have
the social workers on campus doing work. We see work that’s
being done.

The trust established between one of the CBOs, the university, the parents and the
teachers characterizes an important attribute of the partnership.
Hope. Trust as a prominent attribute of a co-constructed partnership is closely tied
to the sense of hope in the partnership’s ability to effect the change needed at Freedom
High School. Freire defines dialogic relationships as marked by love, humility, faith in
humankind, hope, and critical thinking, and writes that “Nor yet can dialogue exist
without hope” (2003, p. 90). According to Miller & Hafner (2008), the dialogical lens
includes “hope that better conditions can be achieved” (p. 77). Therefore, part of forming
dialogic relationships is the link between hope and trust. Hope is the basis for engaging
in the ongoing process of dialogue and reflects the trust that through collective reflection
and action a situation can be changed. As noted by Cornell West, “without hope there can
be no future” (as cited in Miller & Hafner, 2008, p. 77).
The interview data reveal that a sense of hope is a powerful attribute in sustaining
the time, energy, and effort of all stakeholders in the partnership. Ms. Ford, a Freedom
parent stated in an interview, “Hope is big. I think if we have hope, you can feel like
you’re gonna have success and that’s what we need here.” Another parent comment
speaks to “a feeling of hope. And as I said even though there may be issues, there still is
this feeling of hope and I think that these kids are beginning to see that people care about
them.” Mr. Wagner of the UC reinforces the power of hope in concert with other
elements: “And there’s hope and hope strengthened by hard work and good old fashioned

186
knowledge, and caring is going to go a long way in this process.” His colleague Mr.
Jones also asserted that there seems to be “a greater sense of hope.” The observation of
the Countdown to College event provided a glimpse of the hope that interviewees
referred to. The radiant smiles and glimmering eyes by members of the parent group and
UC representatives who collaborated to plan the event were evidence of the joy and
promise in the ability of adults who care about the students to come together to work on
behalf of students’ aspirations. One member of the parent group commented that “it was
good to have such experienced volunteers present – people who have experience doing
what the kids were trying to do.” Through the hope that is felt and expressed by the
partners and other stakeholders, along with trust and common purpose, the partnership
can foster the adult agents needed to help students focus on academic achievement.
For young people, hope is essential to imagining, to envisioning who they can be
in the future. It is a part of forming possible selves. Students’ possible selves include
what they are at present, what they fear becoming, and what they hope to become
(Markus & Nurius, 1986; Oyserman, 2000). Observation data reveal that hope is a
condition of the partnership’s ability to foster adult agents. During a professional
development session with teachers, a comment by a university faculty member serving as
facilitator spoke to the role of adult agents in nurturing students’ possible selves. He said
to the group of educators, “It is our responsibility to show them the possibilities.” A
school administrator present added: “we need to help them identify the future and what
you need to get it.” A teacher at the session beseeched his colleagues to “fill their
buckets of self esteem” in an effort to demonstrate the caring that youth need. While the

187
session was between the faculty of the university and the school, the notion of conveying
hope and demonstrating caring can extend to other adult agents found in students’
learning environment including home and community. The demonstration of caring and
hope was also evident at a large community event that the flyer promoted as a
“community call for healing.” The event, Hands across Freedom, was attended by at
least 300 members of the community, school, and university. The gathering celebrated
the school and its surrounding community by inviting guest speakers, showcasing student
talent, and highlighting the positive accomplishments of Freedom students and the
community. Community leaders and the audience displayed immense pride for the
school and through spoken words of love, pride, and support, conveyed the hope for and
commitment to its future. The gathering served to convene adults from the diverse
cultural settings of home, school, and community and create congruence in expectations
and hope among all three partners. This event and the words spoken by various
community members provided evidence of a community rallying as adult agents to the
youth of their community to inspire the youth to adopt identities of feeling valued,
capable, and hopeful. A community member’s comment during an interview reveals a
how hope as an attribute of a co-constructed dialogic partnership can guide adult agents
to create a new shared culture: “I think Freedom students have limitless potential and I
really think that all of the adults have limitless potential.”
Critical Bridge Person(s). An important element of trust that surfaces in the study
data is the role that one individual can play in fostering trust among other individuals and
entities. The interview data reveal the presence and vital role of a critical bridge person

188
in fostering trust. Stakeholders consistently cited the role of two individuals that engaged
in dialogue as a means of building trust. A school administrator says “’Cause Doyle cares
for these kids and it shows.... It’s a relationship with the staff and the kids and it always
shows and everyone feels [the] caring.” Ms. Thomas, a parent said in relation to the
presence of a key individual: “Doyle didn’t take over, Doyle took part. She made herself
approachable to all of us… [Doyle] respects us … has respect for who they are and what
they are.” Doyle’s ability to engender trust through respect and caring was observed at
one of the partnership board meetings where during a discussion period, teachers and
parents expressed concerns tinged with a tone of contempt. Doyle, seated opposite these
attendees, listened attentively and affirmed the comments shared. She did not interrupt
nor dismiss what was being said. In her responses, Doyle provided information to help
individuals better understand how co-construction works. As she spoke, there were heads
nodding in affirmation. Postures became a little more relaxed and facial expressions less
tense. “When the decision is made, all voices have been heard”, Doyle stated, re-assuring
attendees that what others have to say is important to the partnership’s work. The
exchange compelled one member of the research team to make a written note: “When
Doyle speaks, people listen.”
The sentiments were the same for the trust developed between parents and the
Equity Foundation, where Mr. Jordan also emerges as a critical bridge person in building
trust among stakeholders especially the parents and the school. A community member in
reference to the work of the Equity Foundation with parents spoke of “the patience…
because they know what we’re up against.... they’ve really given the parents a lot of

189
help.” With patience and compassion, Mr. Jordan engaged the parents and community
members in conversation around their civic responsibilities and rights in meeting the
needs of their children.
Collaborative Relationships
The literature on partnerships consistently outlines the importance and critical role
of collaboration in actualizing partnerships. Researchers consistently cite collaboration as
central to successful partnerships (Mayfield et al., 1999; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000;
Carroll, LaPoint & Tyler, 2001; Sanders, 2001; Miller & Hafner, 2008). It forms the
basis for creating the new ways of being that are inherent in a new cultural model, which
Gallimore & Goldenberg (2001) broadly define as the “shared mental schema or
normative understanding of how the world works, or ought to work” (p. 47). While
there are differences in how collaboration manifests itself, the concept of collaboration is
defined in the data and appears to be a strong attribute of the partnership to create a new
cultural model.
The analysis of artifacts revealed that collaboration is outlined as an expectation
and outcome of the partnership. The memorandum of understanding (MOU) states that
the intent is to create a collaborative between the school district and the Southcity
Alliance, and it outlines the Urban Collaborative, Equity Foundation, and University of
Distinction as the primary entities expected to “collaborate” with other entities in the
partnership. The word “collaborate” appears at least twenty times throughout the legal
document in an effort to define a key element of the partnership. Whereas the MOU
states the intentionality and legalities around the formation of partnership, the document

190
does not clearly articulate the nature of collaborative relationship, or what the
collaboration should look like for the stakeholders. The partnership’s Business Plan does
provide a clearer picture of how these collaborative relationships are envisioned. For
example, the document names the collaborative relationships with K-12 schools, parents
and the community, faculty and administration, and parents of English learners. The
language in the Business Plan is more specific as to what is meant by collaboration, with
whom and with defined outcomes. It makes reference to the partnership as “a
transformational organization committed to bringing civility of processes and
sustainability of resources to developing a dynamic collaboration among teachers, parents
and community stakeholders.” The business plan lists collaboration within the outline of
transitional and long-term goals with language such as: “generate and support unity of
efforts among teachers, parents, administrators and the community” and to “[e]ngage
students, parents, teachers, administrators and the community in shaping the culture and
goals of the school.” The business plan also delineates the primary concern and focus of
the partnership as “a fierce advocate for urban students” and the “[c]ultivation of a
scholar’s identity among all students.”
Examples of Collaboration
The Fact Sheet distributed by the Alliance does not use the term “collaboration”
specifically; however, the document identifies the nature of collaboration that has taken
place in the partnership to date. It outlines activities, programs, and services that
different partnership entities have worked on with other entities to produce tangible
benefits to the students, the school, and the community. The list includes leadership and

191
scholarship student activities by the Urban Collaborative (UC), parent and teacher
workshops by the Equity Foundation, and personnel commitments by the university to
name a few. The fact sheet like the business plan more so than the MOU reveal
collaboration as important characteristic of the partnerships both as a concept and as a
practice. Both clearly demonstrate how collaboration with commonality of purpose can
provide students with the structures, support and agents that will foster their ability to
engage in school and develop a learner identity. Observation data also reveals how
collaborative relationships emerged as an attribute of the partnership. The Countdown to
College event had more than 30 school and community volunteers assisted students with
college applications. The event was a collaboration of the parent group, Friends of
Freedom, and the UC’s education committee. Similarly, the Hands across Freedom event
organized through the lead efforts of the UC, brought together school, business,
community, university and civic entities to demonstrate support and caring for students.
These events further demonstrate that shared commitment, effort, and focus on the needs
of students facilitated the work of the partnership.
Interview data reveal that collaboration for stakeholders implied working
together, creating networks and leveraging resources; all for the purpose of creating a
partnership that will provide students with the structures and agents to help them form a
learner identity. During an interview, Mr. Johns, an active member of the Freedom
community reflected, “How can it all be put together to benefit and make sure that those
students reach their goals? … It’s all about making sure that those students reach their
goals.” He added that to do so involves:

192
You know the collaboration, everybody working their part and
each one bringing some resources to the table … And so it has to
be a collaboration between teachers and parents to understand what
the children’s needs are first.

The need for collaboration is not confined to issues related to schooling and instruction,
but is also tied to other elements in the environment. Evidence of the benefit of
collaborative relationships is provided by Ms. Gordon, a member of the law enforcement
community, in her comments regarding an incident at Freedom High School that posed a
threat to the safety of the school and the surrounding community. She says that
“[T]hrough meetings with different entities, the city attorney’s office, the LAPD, the
school staff – all working together”, there was immediate attention and response to the
issue. She adds, “We all became one. We came together as a team.” This reflects how
through collaborative relationships versus working in isolation and independent of one
another, adult agents can be responsive to the needs of students both inside and outside
the school.
Parents and teachers also spoke to collaboration as essential to the work of
helping the students and Freedom High School. Ms. Ford explains, “We’re trying to
change the culture and to me, to change the culture means we are all in this and we all
work together. That’s what my vision was, that we would all work together.” Mr.
Madison speaks to the same concept: “It’s an interaction that involves everyone. There
has to be a part for everyone,” During a transition team meeting, parents also emphasized
the importance of collaboration through a new concept called UCMAR—Understanding,
Collaboration, Monitoring, Accountability, and Reporting. The process of co-
construction engaged parents in dialogue to create shared knowledge and shared meaning

193
toward a new shared culture. Collaboration as an essential feature of the partnership is
also cited by teachers’ comments during interviews: “we need each other” (Sf5) and
“[it’s] much more of a collaborative thing now than it was” (Sf2). A comment by a
teacher during a professional development session made reference to the need for
collaboration among adult agents on convincing students of the value and importance of
learning; he said, “we’ve gotta really win the argument with students about “why does
what I’m learning matter?” His comment speaks to the importance of collaborative
relationships to the creation of a new shared culture of through a co-constructed dialogic
relationship.
Culture and Collaboration
The importance of collaboration within the partnership and the role of adult
agents can be tied to the influence of culture and the social environment on learning the
tenets of socio-cultural theory, which draws heavily on the works of Vygotsky.
Vygotsky found that interactions with surrounding cultures such as the school,
community and home and with social agents, such as parents and more competent peers,
contributed significantly to a child's intellectual development (Vygotsky, 1978; Ormrod,
2006).
Mr. Johns conveys the presence of culture during an interview when he spoke to
the factors that may be contributing to students’ poor school performance. “[B]ecause
there is a culture at home that is far different than what’s going on in the classroom.” His
reference to a home culture that is different from a school culture speaks to how adult
agents need to collaborate to function as cultural translators between the home, the

194
school, and the community. The adult agents within each entity need to be the bridge for
what the student needs to navigate effectively from one culture to another because urban
youth, like all humans do not develop in isolation. Instead they are part of an ecology of
systems represented by the family, home, schools, neighborhoods, communities, peer
groups and society as a whole (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). As one educator notes “these
children don’t operate on an island.” The individuals or adults agents can make
connections with one another and begin to create a new shared culture that forms a
congruence of home, school, and community cultures, power sharing, and shared
expectations that can help students develop an identity as learner.
Partnership stakeholders both individual and group represent agents of cultural
and social systems, and through a shared sense of hope, trust and collaboration can be the
role models, cultural translators, and caring adults that are important to a learner identity
among urban youth. The partnership can reveal attributes of hope, trust, and collaboration
that foster the adult agents that demonstrate caring and have a shared concern and
commitment to meeting students’ needs. As collaborators, adult agents can help scaffold
the knowledge and resilience for students to develop a learner identity among multiple
social identities and not feel excluded, denigrated, or threatened for any of them. The
process of co-construction in a community, school, and university partnership has the
potential to create a new shared culture of high expectations, mutual trust, respect, and
caring for youth in the community.
Summary of Findings
The process of co-construction among multiple partners can solicit the collective

195
strength, skills, and talents of all entities involved toward the goal of improved student
learning and achievement in urban schools. A co-constructing process is facilitated by
ongoing dialogue that is inclusive and open to the views, wisdom and experiences of all
participants. The dialogic process fosters mutual shared learning among partners that
leads to shared knowledge and helps to build critical relationships within the partnership.
Co-constructed dialogic relationships, while facilitated by dialogue and shared learning,
also face historical and contemporary barriers that impede the effective implementation
of a partnership of this type. Absence of communication, mistrust, and hierarchical power
can pose challenges to the partnership. Despite the challenges that arise, stakeholders
engage in strategies that allow them to continue with the process of co-construction. The
shared history of the Freedom community is a strength and a strategy that facilitated
stakeholders coming together and persisting in dialogue. Systems of representation
through governance structures, committees, and other work groups also facilitated a level
of communication and collaboration among partners.
The co-construction process in this community, school, and university partnership
brought together distinct and diverse entities for the purpose transforming an urban public
school. In the course of maintaining dialogue, creating shared meaning and forming
strategies to overcome persistent barriers, the partnership became characterized by
attributes important to the work of improving student outcomes. The process revealed
that commitment, trust, and collaborative relationships were important features of the
partnership’s ability to foster adult agents urban youth need. In addition, hope emerged as

196
an attribute that could galvanize the partnership’s adult agents toward a shared common
purpose of helping urban youth achieve.

197
CHAPTER FIVE

FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND IMPLICATIONS

Introduction

This chapter will provide a summary of the study, a review of the findings,
conclusions, implications, and recommendations for future research. The summary of the
study will provide an overview from the perspective of the theoretical framework used
for the study, including a review of the problem and the type of information collected to
address the research questions. The section on findings will be presented consistently
with the findings presented in Chapter Four, highlighting patterns and themes found in
the data. The conclusions are based on an analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of the data
findings in relation to the study’s research questions. The implications presented in this
chapter will outline the meaning these findings have for partnerships in future. Finally,
the chapter provides recommendations of practical suggestions regarding issues that were
noted in this study. Finally, the last section describes recommendations for future
research since this study is only based on the first year of a partnership forming and has
at least four more years ahead of possible research.
Summary of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the ways communities, K-12 schools,
and universities can co-construct partnerships to transform urban schools. More
specifically, the study was conducted to explore ways these partnerships can foster the
kinds of adult agents students in urban schools need. The following research questions
guided the processes of gathering data about the partnership in the study:

198
1. What is a process that enables community, K-12 school, and university to co-
construct partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban schools?
What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among community,
K-12 schools, and university on behalf of K-12 urban school transformation?
What are some effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming
barriers in co-constructing partnerships among community, K-12 schools, and
university for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban schools?
2. What attributes might result from a process of co-constructing a partnership
between communities, K-12 schools, and universities to foster the adult agents urban
students need to develop learner identities and thus improve their academic performance?
Findings

Major Findings for Research Question One

The first research question asked: What is a process that enables community, K-
12 school, and university to co-construct partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-
12 urban schools?
Co-construction at Work
The data findings described in Chapter Four reveal that a process of co-
construction has been undertaken by the stakeholders and partners in the formation of
this community, school and community partnership. The Southcity Alliance has begun to
co-construct the partnership to transform Freedom High School by engaging in dialogue
and mutual shared learning. The findings further reveal that dialogue is an important on-

199
going mechanism through which the partners are able to facilitate shared knowledge and
communication to advance the goals of the partnership.
Addressing Different Perceptions of Co-Construction
The findings reveal that key documents crafted early in the partnership integrated
the term co-construct throughout the documents. These documents provided
stakeholders with a starting point for defining and understanding the nature of their work.
There was a basic understanding of co-construction as characterized by working together,
building and creating something new. However, the data reveals that perceptions of what
it meant to work together or to engage in co-construction varied by stakeholder group.
The process of co-construction involved work to arrive at a common understanding of the
term.
For parents and community members working together entailed persistent and
consistent communication on all matters of the partnership. The community and the
parents viewed co-construction as a process involving time and commitment toward
jointly defining the partnership and jointly deciding what steps or activities were to be
undertaken. This perception often conflicted with the formal and legal structures as well
as the accountability measures required for a non-profit organization entering a
relationship with the school district. Consideration for the parents’ values, interests, and
activities was not apparent in an analysis of the MOU written early in the formal
formation of the partnership. It was partially addressed in the partnership’s Business
Plan; however, as dialogue and mutual shared learning began to occur, the university and
the Urban Collaborative became aware of parents’ views and values and attempted to

200
negotiate them through the process of co-constructing the Alliance. Representatives of
the partnering organizations also brought with them different organizational cultures that
produced early conflicts. Much of the first year’s co-construction process involved
reconciling these conflicts. Building understanding and respect for the reciprocal value of
each partner’s assets, interests, and wisdom was an important element of the co-
construction process. This process took time.
Time and Patience
Taking time and demonstrating commitment over time was a key element in
building critical relationships of trust and reciprocity and consistent with the literature
(Mayfield et al., 1999; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000). Patience is also one of the qualities
required for co-construction to take place, according to Carroll et al. (2001). The
differences in the cultures of practice characteristic of schools and the culture of theory
prominent in universities, as well as the varied cultural contexts of the community,
challenged the partnership process. As noted by Kezar (2007), there is an assumption of
similarity between the entities in a partnership that dismisses any consideration or
acknowledgement of cultural differences and results in a cultural clash. The cultural clash
that emerged at various points in the Southcity Alliance’s formation phase revealed the
need for the cultural differences to be negotiated and mediated in order to progress.
Allowing time and patience to develop dialogic relationships helped partners learn about
one another’s way of being, including one another’s knowledge, expertise, behavior, and
resources. Time and patience also enabled all stakeholders to recognize and engage in

201
mutual learning about the value of the interdependence of knowledge, expertise, and
resources offered in the partnership.
The interview, observation, and artifact data indicate that while the beginning
steps toward forming the partnership evolved over time into a co-constructed process.
The processes of planned inclusion and distributed decision-making in settings that
brought a range of stakeholders together multiple times over time has begun to evolve
into a more equitable, co-constructed process involving dialogue and a forum for mutual
shared learning.
The interview and observational data demonstrate that the Urban Collaborative
and the university grew increasingly mindful and respectful of the social and cultural
context within the community and at the school site. The importance of recognizing these
contexts is cited consistently in the partnership literature (Brabeck et al., 2003; Bringle &
Hatcher, 2002; Carroll et al., 2001; Epstein, 1995; Kezar, 2007; Suarez-Balcazar, 2005;
Lawson et al., 2007; Scales, 2005; Miller, 2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008). The relationship
that the Equity Foundation already developed with the school through a five-year history
of working with teachers and parents increasingly became the model for all partners.
Although the partners started the partnership with this commitment through the
partnership’s business plan, their understanding of what this commitment meant was a
major part of their learning. All founding partners clearly expressed their willingness to
assist Freedom High School in meeting the goal of increased student academic
achievement and school performance. This mutual goal and mutual commitment to
students held the partnership together. However, the process of setting mutual goals and

202
sustaining commitment was difficult. The history of discontent and mistrust with the
previous local district administration and missteps in establishing representation on the
board produced fractious times. Yet, the shared mutual goal to transform the school
sustained the partners. The presence of mutuality in the partnership was consistent with
the research literature that states mutual goals and outcomes as critical to the success of
partnerships (Kezar, 2007; Scales, et al., 2005; Carroll et al., 2001; Mayfield et al., 1999;
Mayfield & Lucas, 2000; Sanders, 2001). Understanding the social and cultural dynamics
among the many stakeholders at the school site, also took time and patience in multiple
dialogic settings that took place at frequent regularly scheduled intervals throughout the
first year of the partnership. One of the most influential processes was the formation of
wall-to-wall small learning communities and the transition team, involving teachers,
parents, administrators, and classified staff, who previously had felt disrespected by
teachers and administrators. As the external partners observed these processes taking
place, they developed greater respect for the ability of the school to participate as an
equal partner in its own transformation. The school had begun to demonstrate what Freire
(2003) cites as the oppressed participating in their own liberation.
The dialogic process facilitated mutual learning on the part of all stakeholders.
The university contributed to the instructional and pedagogical knowledge of teachers.
Parents learned about and were empowered by knowledge of school and organizational
structures and how to be a part of those processes. Parents also learned about the legal
and policy nuances of formal organizations. The dialogue that took place provided a
space for parents and the schools to interact with the university and the CBOs and

203
increased their ability to work with and trust the formal partners. The dialogic process
and mutual learning enabled stakeholders of the partnership to persist in the interest of
school transformation.
Major Findings for Research Question One Sub-Questions
The first sub-question of research question one asks, “What are the persistent
barriers to establishing partnerships among community, K-12 schools, and university on
behalf of K-12 urban school transformation?” The second sub-question asks, “What are
some effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming barriers in co-
constructing partnerships among community, K-12 schools, and university for the
purpose of transforming K-12 urban schools?” The data findings demonstrated that
there were three persistent barriers that emerged among other barriers when stakeholders
attempted to co-construct the partnership. These barriers reflect tenets of an old cultural
model of partnerships that are incompatible with the issues and needs of urban education.
However, the partners in the Southcity Alliance were able to surmount the barriers
through ongoing dialogue and mutual shared learning. This allowed the stakeholders to
persist in the co-construction process and create strategies to overcome the barriers. The
process enabled them to continue on a path toward creating “something new.”
Persistent Barriers
The history surrounding Freedom High School, the local district, and the
community emerged in part as a barrier to the formation of the partnership. The
contentious and conflict ridden history between Freedom High School (including parents
and community) and the school district around past inequities and exclusion played a role

204
in shaping the initial stages of forming the partnership. The skepticism that came from a
history of neglect and failure enveloped the new partnership and created mistrust by
members of the Freedom community, thus creating another barrier to their participation
in co-constructing dialogic relationships. Mistrust emerged as a barrier within the context
of this shared history of neglect and disrespect. The emergence of the historical context
as a barrier fits within the research literature’s assertion that there are multiple contexts
including historical that factor into the formation, implementation and effectiveness of
partnerships (Brabeck et al., 2003; Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Carroll et al., 2001; Epstein,
1995; Kezar, 2007; Suarez-Balcazar, 2005; Lawson et al., 2007; Scales, 2005; Miller,
2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008). That shared negative experiences by a significant
stakeholder group were articulated reveals the importance of time and patience not only
to engage in and sustain dialogue for co-construction but also to build trust.
The data findings reveal that feelings of mistrust were exacerbated by perceptions
by stakeholders, especially parents, of hierarchical structures that sought to dominate the
partnership. The presence of these hierarchical structures and subsequent manifestations
of power were seen in the drafting of the MOU, the designation of founding members,
and the process for recruiting and the first efforts toward hiring a permanent Executive
Director, where parents and community members were not included. As noted earlier,
parents and community members viewed co-construction as being equal participants in
all matters of the partnership, which would facilitate power sharing. The findings reveal
that one of the CBO, the Urban Collaborative, and the university needed to re-position
themselves as equal participants and not as power players. This constituted a learning

205
experience for the CBO and university partners, as well as a learning experience for the
parents and school faculty.
The mistrust, skepticism and power imbalances were further aggravated by an
absence of systems of communication. Virtually all interviewed stakeholders stated that
there was an absence of systems and structures for communication with all stakeholders
within and outside of the Southcity Alliance and which researchers have demonstrated to
be paramount to a successful partnership (Brabeck et al., 2003; Bringle & Hatcher, 2002;
Carroll et al., 2001; Epstein, 1995; Kezar, 2007; Suarez-Balcazar, 2005; Lawson et al.,
2007; Scales, 2005; Miller, 2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008; Mayfield et al., 1999; Mayfield
& Lucas, 2001). There were forums for communication in place within the partnership
such as the transition team meetings, the board meetings, and various subcommittee
meetings. However, study data reveal that, while these mechanisms allowed for face-to-
face communication, spaces or mechanisms that would facilitate information sharing and
communication on the partnership’s goals and activities with those outside of these
meetings were limited. The partnership lacked the needed personnel to facilitate these
communications in a systemic manner. The findings also reveal a significant gap in
communication strategies to engage the growing Latino parent community of Freedom
High School.
Persistent Strategies
The limited systems for communication was to a degree offset by the ongoing
dialogue and shared learning that the partners persisted in as part of the co-construction
process. By remaining constant in dialogue, the partnership stakeholders sustained

206
Freire’s (2003) premise that “dialogue...is an act of creation” (p. 89) and maintained a
course to create strategies to address and overcome barriers. The dialogic process in co-
construction was instrumental to the partnership pushing forward and developing other
important strategies to overcome the challenges that arose. While there was a history that
fostered feelings of skepticism and mistrust, that same history became a rallying cry for
parents, community and others to resume their role and responsibility in the well being of
their children. The review of the literature reveals that the historical context is important
to understanding how barriers can emerge in the course of forming and implementing a
partnership (Carroll et al., 2001; Epstein, 1995; Kezar, 2007; Suarez-Balcazar, 2005;
Lawson et al., 2007; Scales, 2005; Miller, 2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008; Mayfield et al.,
1999; Mayfield & Lucas, 2001). However, the shared history of a partnership, such as the
one among the Alliance stakeholders, was used as a strategy to establish and sustain
commitment is not highlighted in the literature. For the Southcity Alliance, the
accreditation issue, relations with the local district, and declining student achievement
were the impetus to become a part of the solution. The Freedom community also shares a
history of pride and legacy around the school. Interviews revealed that the parents
engaged in the co-construction of the partnership were the same parents who had met
weekly for the past five years with the Equity Foundation trying to address the problems
they had seen much earlier in the school. Their persistence was a positive element in the
school’s history. The data findings reveal a deep sense of loyalty and dedication to what
the school once was and what it could become once again. These parents often expressed
their love of the children as their motivation for persisting in building this partnership.

207
The presence of this shared history facilitated the willingness and commitment to co-
construction that parents and community members have shown.
The participation by parents, community members, teachers, and other stakeholders has
been garnered through systems of representation. Interview respondents made consistent
reference to the need for creating a space that would allow a wider span of stakeholders
to get information, provide feedback, share ideas, air grievances, and be a part of the
decision making process. The dialogic process requires participants to have a voice to
name the world as part of the transformation process. The data findings reveal that the
partnership sought to facilitate this through different forums for discussion and decision
making. The school, with the assistance of the Interim Executive Director, who was a
representative of the university, initiated a transition team that included representatives of
all stakeholders elected by their own constituents. This team served as a key strategy to
overcome the perceptions of power, feelings of mistrust, and breakdown any notions of
exclusion in the partnership. Representatives of faculty, staff and parents also had
opportunities to collaborate in dialogic relationships in the formation of the Small
Learning Communities Council which essentially restructured the school.
The process of mutual shared learning facilitated by dialogue in multiple settings
permitted all stakeholders to use the history predating the partnership and the history
made in the formation of the partnership to learn about the assets of the school and the
community and how those need to be integrated into the work of the partnership.
Major Findings for Research Question Two
The second research question asks, “What attributes might result from a process

208
of co-constructing a partnership between communities, K-12 schools, and universities to
foster the adult agents urban students need to develop learner identities and thus improve
their academic performance?” The co-construction process in a partnership is
characterized by dialogue and mutual shared learning. In turn, the partnership becomes
defined by key attributes that emerge and give meaning to the partnership through the
process of co-construction. The data findings reveal that attributes of commitment, trust
and collaborative relationships and love for the children came to characterize the
partnership. The findings also indicate that hope is an attribute of the partnership and its
ability to achieve its goal.
Interview and observation data reveal that stakeholders are committed to the work
of the partnership. That commitment is voiced consistently by all stakeholders. The
shared history and the shared concern for the well being of the students and the school
stems from a love and caring that is articulated and demonstrated by stakeholders in
various settings such as community events. The formation of the SLCs reflects a
significant commitment on the part of teachers and the university faculty that assisted in
the process. The work of parents and community members to become a part of the
partnership also speaks to the commitment they hold. The community and parents
stepped up to claim their responsibility for the children of their community.
Trust, according to Freire, is a key element in dialogic relationships (2003). The
data findings show that trust was one of the strongest attributes of the partnership that
emerged through the process of co-construction. Although this trust is still fragile, the
stakeholders have had to display trust to move forward. This is an important attribute for

209
creating a new cultural model that fosters adult agents. The literature supports the need
for flexibility, transparency, and inclusion in order to build trust (Carroll et al., 2001;
Epstein, 1995; Kezar, 2007; Suarez-Balcazar, 2005; Lawson et al., 2007; Scales, 2005;
Miller, 2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008). Stakeholders in the Southcity partnership
simultaneously acknowledged the tenuousness of the trust among partners while citing
the need for time and patience to build that trust. The dialogic process in co-construction
requires that participants be open and honest. In that process, trust emerged.
The trust building among partners is helped by the presence of critical bridge
persons. These are individuals in the partnership that proactively and respectfully engage
the knowledge and assets of all participants. These critical bridge persons facilitated
difficult conversations and demonstrated a respect for all stakeholders. These persons
were found in each organization. The data findings strongly support the attributes of love,
compassion, and respect demonstrated by these key persons in the partnership. Their
influence influenced the dialogue among the stakeholders and influenced the
relationships that emerged. The ability to forgo hierarchy and distribute power marked
the manner by which the critical bridge persons guided the work of the partnership during
its formative phase.
Collaborative relationships were also found to be a positive attribute in the
partnership. The data reveal many instances where collaborative relationships were
fostered and became a key attribute capable of transforming Freedom High School.
Successful collaborative relationship among some entities served as a cultural model
adopted by other collaborative relationships within the network partnership to develop.

210
This model of collaboration was based on a shared love for the children in the school that
was repeatedly stated and demonstrated by stakeholders. This commitment and
collaboration follows another one of Freire’s (2003) tenets of dialogical relationships –
love. “Because love is an act of courage, not of fear, love is commitment to others...the
act of love is commitment to their cause” (p. 89).
The growing ability of stakeholders to collaborate and build bridges of
cooperation and communication out of the shared love for the children can provide the
adult agents inside and outside the school that urban youth need to navigate multiple
social identities. The shared knowledge among a community, school, and university with
the attributes of commitment, hope, trust, and collaborative relationships can provide the
human capital urban youth need to see themselves as co-constructors of knowledge with
their teachers and with one another. The power of dialogue and mutual shared learning in
co-construction can replace an “old” cultural model with a cultural model that is new and
more powerful in the lives of urban youth.
Implications
• Time and patience are essential to the co-construction process between the kinds of
partners in this partnership, especially when the school is viewed as a partner, not a
recipient of services. These elements are also essential when entities perceived to be
more powerful than others come together to build a partnership. Time and patience
spent in working through the conflicts and distrust can result in trust and long lasting
relationships. Attempts to rush the process for the sake of expediency or efficiency
can derail the process.

211
• Organizations coming together to form partnerships need to learn about one another’s
histories and cultures. Stakeholders’ prior experiences and cultural models can either
facilitate or derail the process of co-construction.
• Schools must be partners, not recipients of services, in a partnership. Previous
attempts to “help” schools out by providing goods and resources yield limited results.
Schools have to be engaged as partners in their own transformation. The parents and
faculty of this school made that clear.
• Critical bridge persons who are able to cross borders among the stakeholders provide
an essential role of bringing parties together and ensuring that they all are true
participants in the process. Critical bridge persons can model and facilitate the
dialogic process and the mutual learning. They also can facilitate distributed
leadership by bringing together people with various skills and knowledge. Critical
bridge persons can bring participants back to the table around the common cause
when friction and conflict arise.
• Frequent and predictable times and spaces for dialogue, with processes that invite all
voices are essential to co-construction. These are the spaces where trust, respect and
ways of being together are developed.
• Multiple adult agents playing a range of roles around common goals and operating in
a shared culture forged through the co-construction process can emerge on behalf of
students.
Conclusions and Summary
Urban education is in need of substantive (and swift) changes. The nation can no

212
longer afford to ignore lessons from failed attempts at improving the academic
achievement of urban youth, in particular African American and Latino youth. The nation
must come to embrace these youth as essential to a healthy national future. Instead of
placing the blame on schools, or on the parents, all key stakeholders, including parents,
community members, and universities must acknowledge and invest in one another’s
assets and determine how each entity can pool its resources for the benefit of urban
schools and the students served. Co-constructed dialogic relationships among the
community, K-12 school, and university hold great potential as a cultural model for
facing and surmounting this monumental challenge, which no one entity working in
isolation has been able to accomplish.
Co-constructed dialogic relationships, while facilitated by dialogue and shared
learning, face historical and contemporary barriers that impede the effective
implementation of a partnership of this type. Absence of communication, mistrust, and
hierarchical power can pose challenges to the partnership. Despite the challenges that
arise, stakeholders can engage in strategies that allow them to continue with the process
of co-construction. The shared history of the Freedom community was turned into a
strength and a strategy that facilitated stakeholders coming together and persisting in
dialogue. Systems of representation through governance structures, committees, and other
work groups also facilitated a space for dialogue, a level of communication and
collaboration among partners.
The co-construction process in this community, school, and university partnership
brought together distinct and diverse entities for the purpose of transforming an urban

213
public school. In the course of maintaining dialogue, creating shared meaning and
forming strategies to overcome persistent barriers, the partnership became characterized
by attributes important to the work of improving student outcomes. The process revealed
that commitment, trust, collaborative relationships and love for the children were
important features of the partnership’s ability to foster adult agents urban youth need. In
addition, hope emerged as an attribute that could galvanize the partnership’s adult agents
toward a shared common purpose of helping urban youth achieve.
Recommendations
The Southcity Alliance has only been in place for about one year. It remains to be
seen what the level of success will occur over the five years of the partnership. As with
any collaboration, there will be additional challenges in the path to achieve its goal of
transforming Freedom High School. However, careful analysis of the data reveals
indicators that the Alliance is co-constructing a community, K-12 school, and university
partnership with emerging attributes of trust, hope, and collaborative relationships that
can foster adult agents necessary to students developing identities as learners and the
transformation of schools. The supporting processes in co-construction, dialogue and
mutual shared learning, are working to help stakeholders commit to the partnership and
accomplish their goals. The data findings and review of the literature lead to a set of
recommendations that need to be addressed if the partnership is to be successful:
Develop Systems and Structures for Communication
• Although there are various systems of representation in place and spaces for
dialogue have been created as a result of the barriers in the partnership, greater

214
and more effective communication with all stakeholders is necessary. Information
sharing must extend beyond those present in meetings or activities of the
partnership.
• The work of Southcity Alliance and Freedom High School needs to be
communicated to the broader community regularly and consistently. A unified
messaging campaign that includes regular newsletter or bulletin to students’
homes, postings in local businesses, distribution in churches, and publication in
community newspapers will provide the necessary information but also highlight
the progress and achievements of Freedom. The communication will re-build the
pride and legacy of the school so that community residents will begin to send their
children to FHS and feel proud about this jewel.
• Further efforts must also be made to include the student voice. They must be
given the opportunity to name the world. After all it is their world that is to be
transformed. Students’ voice will help determine the needs of students as well as
the valuable contributions they bring to the partnership. Allow students to develop
the youth component of the aforementioned campaign. After all, youth speak
directly and loudest to youth.
• The system of communication needs to address the needs of the Latino parent
community and create dialogic relationships with them. As demographics changes
continue in the area, the partnership needs to address how to best meet the
expectations of Latino parents and their children in this partnership. The

215
Alliance must begin to dialogue about what barriers of communication and
representation exist for these two groups in contributing to the partnership.
Foster the Adult Agents.
• The presence of adult agents in a student’s immediate learning environment
including the school, home, and community can provide role modeling and
messaging that supports a young person’s view of him/herself as learner. The
cultural logics that fault youth for academic shortcomings in school must give
way to a community of adult agents that is focused on respect for students, their
identities, their families, and their community and is supportive of school and
learning.
• Consistent with the tenets of effective partnerships, the relationship between
youth and adult agents in the community and elsewhere must be characterized by
the mutual respect, trust, and collaboration developed in the co-construction of the
partnership where each recognizes and contributes to the knowledge, potential,
and assets of the other.
As cited previously in this study, the community cannot be absent in the creation
of a new culture to transform an urban school. Community adult agents include civic,
religious, business and parent leaders that hold vast amounts of social, cultural, familial
and ancestral capital that can be invested into the capital that students need to build new
knowledge, form positive affiliations with school and develop an identity as learner.
These individuals play an important role in supporting teachers by defining and
articulating shared high expectations of young people with one another and with youth

216
themselves. The community is important because it provides adult agents whose
influence can be connected to the influence of other social agents such as the school and
the university.
The power and impact of social agents extends to the adult agents fostered and
empowered by a partnership made up of communities, schools and universities created to
transform urban schools. They can help urban youth form the learner identity that can
lead to academic achievement and their full potential. Many resident parents who could
serve in this role have taken their children to other schools instead of remaining in the
community and helping to transform the school. Their absence is having a negative
effect on the school. The actions of the CBOs are bringing together professionals and
informal community leaders who need a forum to participate in the revitalization of the
community. As the school was once the flagship of the community, taking interest in the
students of the school today can re-create the community strength needed to provide the
interwoven ecological system that nurtures the youth as learners and contributors to the
health of the entire community. For instance carefully crafted opportunities for service
learning, integrated with the school curriculum under the mentorship of community
members can be a transforming influence on youth in the school and the community.

217
REFERENCES

Adler, N. (2002). Interpretations of the meaning of care: Creating caring relationships in
urban middle school classrooms, Urban Education, 37, 241-266.

Anderman, E.M., Anderman, L.H., & Griesinger, T. (1999). The relation of present and
possible academic selves during early adolescence to grade point average and
achievement goals. The Elementary School Journal, 100(1), 3-17.

Anderman, E.M. & Maehr, M.L., (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades.
Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 287-309.

Aronson, E. (2007). The Social Animal. 10
th
Edition, New York: Worth Publishers.

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

Boardman, J.D. & Robert, S.A. (2000). Neighborhood socioeconomic status and
perceptions of self-efficacy, Sociological Perspectives, 43(1), 117-136.

Brabeck, M., Walsh, M., & Latta, R. (2003). Meeting at the Hyphen: Schools
Universities-Communities-Professions in Collaboration for Student Achievement
and Well Being. Chicago: National Society For The Study of Education.

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

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the human family as a context for human
development: Research perspectives, Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723 –
742.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In
W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R.M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 993-1028).
New York: Wiley.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Carnevale, A. & Fry, R. (2002). The demographic window of opportunity: College access
and diversity in the new century. In D. E. Heller (Ed.) Condition of access: Higher
education for lower income studetnts. Westport, CT: American Council on
Education/Praeger.

218
California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2004, February). Educational and
demographic profile: Los angeles county. Sacramento, California.

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

Carter, P.L. (2006). Straddling boundaries: Identity, culture, and school. Sociology of
Education, 79, 304-328.

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

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

Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowerment in a Diverse
Society (2
nd
Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: California Association for Bilingual
Education.

Davis, H.A. (2006). Exploring the contexts of relationship quality between middle school
students and teachers. The Elementary School Journal 106(3), 193-223.

Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York:
The New Press.

Deslandes, R. A vision of home-school-partnerships: Three complementary conceptual
frameworks. Paper presented at European Research Network about Parents in
Education Conference, (2001).

DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural capital and success: The impact of status culture of U.S.
high school students, American Sociological Review, 47, 189-201.

Education Resource Center (2005, April). Cities in crisis: A special analytic report on
high school graduation. Bethesda, MD: Christopher Swanson.

Elliott, D., Wilson, W., Huizinga, D., Sampson, R., Elliott, A., & Rankin, B. (1996). The
effects of neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent development. Journal of
Crime and Delinquency, 33, 389-426.

219
Epstein, J.L. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school partnerships: Teacher practices
and parent involvement. In K. Hurrelman, F. Kaufmann, & F. Losel (Ed.), Social
Intervention: Potential and constraints (pp. 121-136. New York: DeGruyter.

Epstein, J. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we
share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712.

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

Epstein, J. & Sheldon, S. (2006). Moving forward: Ideas for research on school, family,
and community partnerships. In SAGE Handbook for research in education:
Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
2006.

Epstein, J. (2008, February). Improving family and community involvement in secondary
schools, Principal Leadership, 9-12.

Erbstein, N. & Miller, E., Partnering with Communities to Promote Student Success: A
Review of the Research, Center for Applied Policy in Education, University of
California, Davis. April 2008.

Erickson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton.

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

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

Garcia Coll, C., & Szalacha, L.A. (2004). The multiple contexts of middle childhood. The
Future of Children, 14(2), 80-97.

George, P., & Aronson, R. (2003, March). How do educators’ cultural belief systems
affect underserved students’ pursuit of postsecondary education? Honolulu, HI:
Resources for Education and Learning.

Greene, J., & Forster, G. (2003). Public high school graduates and college readiness rates
in the United States. New York: The Manhattan Institute.

Haveman, R. & Smeeding, T. (2006). The role of higher education in social mobility. The
Future of Children, 16(2), 125-150.

220
Hibert, T. (2000). Defining belief in self: Intelligent young men in an urban high school,
Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(2), 91-114.

Hossler, D., Schmit, J., and Vesper, N. (1999). Going to College: How Social, Economic,
and Educational Factors Influence the Decisions Students Make. Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ianni, F.A. (1996). The caring community as a context for joining youth needs and
program services, The Journal of Negro Education, 65(1), 71-91.

Kao, G. (2000). Group images and possible selves among adolescents: Linking
stereotypes to expectations by race and ethnicity, Sociological Forum, 15(3),
407-430.

Kao, G., & Tienda, M. (1998). Educational aspirations of minority youth, American
Journal of Education, 106(3), 349-384.

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

Kezar, A., T. Chambers, and J. Burkhardt., eds. (2005). Higher education for the public
good. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knight, M. (2003). Through urban youth’s eyes: Negotiating K-16 policies, practices, and
their futures. Educational Policy, (17)5, 531-557.

Knight, M., Norton, N., Bentley, C. & Dixon, I. (2004). The power of black and latino/a
counterstories: Urban families and college-going processes, Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 3(1), 99-120.

Knox, M., Funk, J., Elliot, R., Greene, E. (2000). Gender differences in adolescents’
possible selves. Youth Society, 31(3), 287-309.

Kowaleski-Jones, L. (2000). Staying out of trouble: Community resources and problem
behavior among high risk adolescents. Journal of Family and Marriage, 62(2),
449-464.

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

221
Lawson, H.A., Claiborne, N., Hardiman, E., Austin, S., & Surko, M. (2007). Deriving
theories of change successful community development partnerships for youth:
Implications for school improvement, American Journal of Education, 114, 1-40.

Leventhal, T. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of
neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological
Bulletin, 126(2), 309-337.

Long, J.F., Shinichi, M., Harper, B., Knoblauch, D., & Murpy, P.K. (2007). Academic
motivation and achievement among urban adolescents, Urban Education, 42(3),
196-222.

Maurasse, D.J. (2001). Higher education/community partnerships: Assessing progress in
the field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 131-139.

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

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

McKoy, D. & Vincent, J. (2007). Engaging schools in urban revitalization: The Y-PLAN
(youth—plan, learn, act now!). Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26,
389-403.

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

Miller, P. M. (2007). “Getting on the balcony to see the patterns on the dance floor
below”: Considering organizational culture in a university-school-community
collaboration, Journal of School Leadership, 17, 222-245.

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

Mumper, M. (2003). The declining role of public higher education in promoting equal
opportunity. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
Higher Education in the Twenty First Century, 585, 97-117.

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2005, November). Policy Alert.
San Jose, California.

222
National Survey of Latinos: Education, (2004, January). Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser
Family Foundation.

Nieto, Sonia, The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities,
Teachers College Press, New York, 1999.

Oakes, J., Rogers, J. & Lipton, M.. Learning power: Organizing for education
and justice. Teachers College Press: New York, 2006.

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

Olitsky, S. (2006). Structure, agency, and the development of students’ identities as
learners, Culture, Science, and Education, 1, 745-766.

Orfield, G. (2004). Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Orfield, Gary and Yun, John (1999). Resegregation in American Schools. Civil Rights
Project, Harvard University.
http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/deseg/Resegregation_American_S
chools99.pdf (retrieved 6/28/08).

Ormrod, J.E. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners (5
th
Edition). Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.

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

Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., Terry, K., Hart-Johnson, T. (2004). Possible selves as
roadmaps. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 130-149.

Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., Terry, K. (2006). Possible selves and academic outcomes:
How and when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91(1), 188-204.

Oyserman, D., & Fryberg, S.A. (2006). The possible selves of diverse adolescents:
Content and function across gender, race, and national origin. In C. Dunkel & J.
Kerpelman (Eds), Possible selves: Theory, research, and application (pp. 17-39).
Huntington, YY: Nova.

223
Oyserman, D., Gant, L., & Ager, L. (1995). A socially contextualized model of african
american identity: Possible selves and school persistence, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1216-1232.

Pedersen, P., (1994). A Handbook for Developing Multicultural Awareness. (2
nd
Edition).
American Counseling Association , Alexandria, VA.

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

Quiroz, P. The “Silencing” of the Lambs: How Latino Students Lose Their “Voice” in
School, JSRI Working Paper #31, The Julian Samora Research Institute,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1997.

Relave, N. & Deich, S. A Guide to Successful Public-Private Partnerships for Youth
Programs. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, 2007.
http://www.financeproject.org/Publications. Retrieved March 10, 2008.

Rodriguez, J.L., Bustamante-Jones, E., Pang, V. & Park, C.D. (2004). Promoting
academic achievement and identity development among diverse high school
students, The High School Journal, 87(3), 44-53.

Rogers, J., Terriquez, V., Valladares, S., & Oakes, J. (2006). California Educational
Opportunity: Roadblocks to College. University of California: Los Angeles, CA:
Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access (IDEA).

Rousseau, S. (2007). Education reform: Toward a k-16 framework, Journal of
Metropolitan Universities, (18)4, 28-47.

Rubin, V., (1998). The role of universities in community-building initiatives. Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 17(4), 302-311.

Sampson, R., Morenoff, J.D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing “neighborhood
effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of
Sociology, 28, 443-478.

Sanders, M.G. (2001). The role of “community” in comprehensive community, family,
and school partnerships. The Elementary School Journal, 102 (1), 19-34.

224
Sanders, M. (2007, October). Transforming boundaries. Principal Leadership, 8(2),
38-42.
Sandy, M. & Holland, B. (2006). Different worlds and common ground: Community
partner perspectives on campus-community partnerships, Michigan Journal of
Community Service Learning, 30-43.

Santrock, J. W. (2007) Lifespan Development. 11
th
edition New York: McGraw Hill.

Scales, P.C., Foster, K., Mannes, M., Horst, M., Pinto, K. and Rutherford, A. (2005).
School-business partnerships, developmental assets, and positive outcomes
among urban high school students: A mixed methods study. Urban Education, 40,
144-189.

Seidman, E., Yoshikawa, H., Roberts, A., Chesir-Teran, D., Allen, L, Friedman, J.L., &
Aber, J.L., Structural and experiential neighborhood contexts, developmental
stage, and antisocial behavior among urban adolescents in poverty. Development
and Psychopathology, 10, 259-281.

Selke, M. (1996). Cultural analysis of school-university partnerships: Assessing
dynamics and potential outcomes. Paper presented at the annual AACTE
conference in Chicago, IL.

Shore, R. (2005). Kids Count: Reducing the High School Dropout Rate, Baltimore, MD;
Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Sirotnik, K., & Goodlad, J. (1988). School-University Partnerships in Action. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Sorenson, D. (1998). School-university partnerships: Collaboration among autonomous
cultures. St. Louis, MO: Annual Meeting of the University Council for
Educational Administration. ERIC Document Reproductive Service No.
ED429064.
Splitter, L.J. (2007). Do the groups to which I belong make me me?: Reflections on
community and identity. Theory and Research in Education, 5, 261-279.

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

225
Stewart, E.B., Stewart, E.A., & Simons, R.I., (2007). The effect of neighborhood context
on the college aspirations of African American adolescents, American
Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 896-919.

Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Harper, G. W., & Lewis, R. (2005). An interactive and contextual
model of community-university collaborations for research and action, Health
Education and Behavior, 32(1), 84-101.

Teranishi, R., Allen, W., & Solorzano, D. (2004). Opportunity at the crossroads: Racial
inequality, school segregation, and higher education in california, Teachers
College Record, 106(11), 2224-2245.

United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Students Whose Parents Did Not Go To College: Post Secondary Access,
Persistence, and Attainment, Susan Choy. Washington D.C: 2001.

University of California (2007, November). African American Educational Opportunity
Report. Los Angeles, CA: Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access
(IDEA).

Valencia, R., Menchaca, M., and Donato, R. (2002). Segregation, Desegregation, and
Integration of Chicano Students: Old and New Realities. In R. Valencia, Chicano
School Failure and Success: Past, Present, and Future (Second Edition), (Ed.),
83-99, 104-109.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between Learning and Development. In Mind in
Society. (Trans. M. Cole). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 79-91.

Wilcox, S. (1998). Finding community, forming identity: Exploring the role of youth
programs serving blacks and latinos. The Institute for Urban and Minority
Education, Teachers College, New York.

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

Yowell, C. (2000). Possible selves and future orientation: Exploring hopes and fears of
latino boys and girls. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 20(3), 245-280.

Zarate, E., Latino Education in California. Presentation at Tomas Rivera Policy Institute
Education Conference: Long Beach, CA., October 15, 2007

226
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 Southcity Alliance?

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

227
11. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Southcity
Alliance? Why do you believe/or not believe Freedom High School needed a
network partner?
12. In what ways do you feel the Southcity Alliance has benefited the school or has
the potential to benefit the school?
13. What changes have occurred under the partnership? Have they been positive or
negative or mixed? Please explain.
14. Describe the relationship between the administration and Southcity Alliance up to
this point.
15. To what degree do you think the network partnership can provide greater support
to the quality of teaching and learning at Freedom? Do you have
recommendations?
16. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
17. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the partnership?
18. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
19. How involved has the classified staff been in the work of the partnership to
improve Freedom High School? What have been the barriers?
20. How involved have parents been in the partnership to improve Freedom High
School?
21. What has been the level of students’ participation in the work of the partnership to

228
improve Freedom High School?
22. What structures or opportunities for widespread participation in the partnership
have been created? What are some of the barriers you have seen or anticipate to
the success of this partnership?
23. What characteristics do you think can make the Greater Freedom Educational
Partnership effective and increase longevity?
24. What can you do to contribute to the partnership in order to increase student
achievement?

229
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 Southcity Alliance.

1. What is your position and role at the Freedom High School?
2. How many years have you been a teacher at Freedom High School?
3. How many years have you worked as an educator?
4. What are some other schools/districts you have been employed in?
5. What has been your experience working with community-based or university
partnerships, especially those focused on school reform? How much to you know
about the Southcity Alliance partnership? What are its goals?
6. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join C-Design and take on a
network partner?
7. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in any
meetings involving the Southcity Alliance or their representatives?
8. What do you know about the role of the Equity Foundation, the Urban
Collaborative, or the University of Distinction?
9. How do you see the members of the Southcity Alliance working together as one
organization?
10. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Southcity
Alliance?
11. Why do you believe/or not believe Freedom High School needed a network
partner?

230
12. In what ways do you feel the Southcity Alliance has benefited the school or has
the potential to benefit the school?
13. What changes have occurred under the partnership? Have they been positive or
negative or mixed? Please explain.
14. Describe the relationship between the administration and the Southcity Alliance
up to this point.
15. To what degree do you think the network partnership can provide greater support
to the quality of teaching and learning at Freedom? Do you have
recommendations?
16. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
17. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the work of the
partnership to improve Freedom High School?
18. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
19. How involved have parents been in the partnership to improve Freedom High
School?
20. What has been the level of students’ participation in the work of the partnership
to improve Freedom High School?
21. What structures or opportunities have been created for widespread participation
in the work of the partnership? What are some of the barriers you have seen or
anticipate to the success of this partnership?

231
22. What characteristics do you think can make the Southcity Alliance effective and
increase longevity?
23. What can you do to contribute to the partnership in order to increase student
achievement?
24. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.

232
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 Southcity Alliance

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

233
11. Why do you believe/or not believe Freedom High School needed a network
partner?
12. In what ways do you feel the Southcity Alliance has benefited the school or has
the potential to benefit the school?
13. What changes have occurred under the partnership? Have they been positive or
negative or mixed? Please explain.
14. Describe the relationship between the administration and Southcity Alliance
up to this point.
15. To what degree do you think the network partnership can provide greater support
to the quality of teaching and learning at Freedom? Do you have
recommendations?
16. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
17. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the work of the
partnership to improve Freedom High School?
18. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
19. How involved has classified staff been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
are your recommendations to increase their involvement?
20. How involved have parents been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School?

234
21. What has been the level of students’ participation in the partnership?
22. What structures or opportunities have been created for widespread participation in
the work of the partnership? What are some of the barriers you have seen or
anticipate to the success of this partnership?
23. What characteristics do you think can make the Southcity Alliance effective and
increase longevity?
24. What can you do to contribute to the partnership in order to increase student
achievement?
25. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.

235
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 Southcity Alliance

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

236
11. How has your role as a parent at Freedom High School changed since the
Southcity Alliance has become the network partner? Are you more involved or
less involved?
12. What other types of partnerships, that you are aware of, has Freedom High School
been involved with (i.e. universities, community-based organizations)? Have you
ever been an active participant in these partnerships? How does the Southcity
Alliance compare to the other partnerships? What is different about Southcity
Alliance?
13. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join PDU and take on a
network partner?
14. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in any
meetings involving the Southcity Alliance or their representatives? What
structures have been created here at the school to include your participation in
the work to reform/transform Freedom High School?
15. What do you know about the role of the Equity Foundation, the Urban
Collaborative, or the University of Distinction, particularly its dept of education?
16. How do you see the members of the Southcity Alliance working together as one
organization?
17. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Southcity
Alliance? In what ways do you feel the Alliance has benefited the school or has
the potential to benefit the school?

237
18. What changes have occurred under the partnership? Have they been positive or
negative or mixed? Please explain.
19. What kind of relationship do you observe between the administration and
Southcity Alliance up to this point? Please describe.
20. To what degree do you think the network partnership can provide greater support
to the quality of teaching and learning at Freedom? Do you have
recommendations?
21. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
22. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the work of the
partnership to improve Freedom High School?
23. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
24. How involved has classified staff been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
are your recommendations to increase their involvement?
25. What has been the level of students’ participation in the partnership?
26. What characteristics do you think can make the Southcity Alliance effective and
increase longevity?
27. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.

238
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 Freedom High School? Why did you
decide to become a partner with the school?
3. How and why did you decide which organizations you would join with to form
the Southcity Alliance? Describe how your relationship has developed over the
length of your partnership. Describe some of the successes and challenges and
what you have learned from both of them.
4. What do you think are the challenges and strengths of Freedom High School?
5. What involvement did you have with Freedom High School prior to joining the
Alliance?
6. What are Southcity Alliance goals for transforming Freedom High School in the
next five years? What role did the school play in determining those goals?
7. What contribution do you expect your organization to make to the Southcity
Alliance in its efforts to transform Freedom High School? Do you believe your
contribution will be enhanced by joining the partnership?
8. Describe the relationship between Southcity Alliance and teachers at the school.
What structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key stakeholders
in the transformation of Freedom High School? What have been some of the
barriers? How has Southcity Alliance worked to overcome them?
9. Describe the relationship between Southcity Alliance and parents at Freedom

239
High School. What structures have been created to ensure their engagement as
key stakeholders in the transformation of Freedom High School? What have been
some of the barriers? How has Southcity Alliance worked to overcome them?
10. Describe the relationship between Southcity Alliance ensure their engagement as
key stakeholders in the transformation of Freedom High School? What have been
some of the barriers? How has Southcity Alliance worked to overcome them?
11. Describe the relationship between Southcity Alliance and students at Freedom
High School. What structures have been created to ensure their engagement as
key stakeholders in the transformation of Freedom High School? What have been
some of the barriers? How has Southcity Alliance worked to overcome them?
12. Describe ways in which the Southcity Alliance partners have created a dialogic
relationship in which all partners have equal power. What have you done to
diffuse real or perceived inequalities in power among the partners?
13. What have been the challenges to forming a partnership in which all members
and stakeholders work collaboratively with equal decision making power?
14. What changes to your organization have occurred or you envision occurring
as a member of Southcity Alliance?
15. How does the partnership work with the school to ensure that it is an equal
partner, versus a mere recipient of services from Southcity Alliance?
16. How successful do you think the partnership will be in increasing student
achievement at Freedom High School? Explain your answer. What are the
barriers? What are the strategies in place to overcome the barriers?

240
17. What characteristics and practices does the Southcity Alliance need to adopt to
make the partnership effective in carrying out its goals and ensuring its longevity?
18. What role does Southcity Alliance envision for the community as Freedom High
School works to be seen as a viable school option for community residents?
19. When have you felt that your role was an equal member of the partnership?
When have you felt your role was a dominant member of the partnership? When
have you felt that your role or your voice was not respected in the partnership?
20. Do you have comments that you have not been able to express in response to
the questions asked?

241
APPENDIX F

University Stakeholder Protocol

1. What is your position and role in the university?
2. What do you know about the Southcity Alliance?
3. What do you know about Freedom High School?
4. What other partnerships with K-12 schools have you been involved with?
5. Describe the meetings in which you have been involved with Freedom High
School, the Southcity Alliance, and other partners. In your opinion, did the
participants have equal voices in the discussions about transforming Freedom
High School?
6. How receptive have you observed the school staff, teachers, and administration
to be about forming a partnership?
7. Have you ever visited Freedom High School? How long ago? Describe your
impressions?
8. Have you visited Freedom High School since the Southcity Alliance was
established?
9. What contribution do you think UD can make to the work of the Alliance to
transform Freedom High School?
10. What personal or professional contribution do you intend to make to the work of
the Southcity Alliance?
11. What are some strategies that the partnership leaders can employ to dispel the
perception or reality that the university expects to hold greater decision-making

242
power in the partnership?
12. How do you see this partnership changing or affecting University of Distinction?
13. What elements of the professional development school model can the partnership
employ that, you believe, will increase student achievement?
14. Research shows that most partnerships do not last longer than five years. What do
you think is the most significant factor in the failing of these partnerships? How
can the network partners avoid these pitfalls?
15. Do you think incorporating the community more in how students are taught will
increase the longevity of the partnership and its ability to effect positive change
at Freedom High School?
16. When did you feel that your role was a dominant member of the partnership?
When did you feel that your role was an equal participant of the partnership?

243
APPENDIX G
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

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

244
APPENDIX H
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.

245
APPENDIX I

Examined Artifacts Protocol

Document What questions the documents
will answer?
Research
Question
Collected

Southcity Alliance
Meeting
agendas/minute
s/
sign-in sheets
• Action Plan
• Potential and current barriers
in the formation of the
partnership
• Who the stakeholders are and
to identify interview
candidates

1, 2
Memorandum
of
Understanding
• Mutually agreed upon goals
• Distribution of power and
responsibilities
• Degree of stakeholder
participation

1, 2
Alliance
Business Plan
• Mission and Vision
• Strategic Plan
• Goals
• Stated intentions

1, 2
Partnership Fact
Sheet
• Types of resources by
stakeholder
• Various strategies to meet
goals
• Degree of collaboration
1,2
School

CST Data

• API, AYP disaggregated by
demographics, subgroups, etc.
• Program Improvement
Information
1, 2
Event Calendars • School climate
• Focus of activities, i.e.
academic, enrichment, athletic
1, 2

246
APPENDIX J
List of Pseudonyms
Pseudonym Title
The Southcity Alliance Case Study
Urban Collaborative Community-based organization partner
Equity Foundation Community-based organization partner
University of Distinction University partner
Freedom High School School partner
Friends of Freedom Committee comprised of parents, teachers, and
classified staff members at Freedom High School
Metro School District Large urban school district
University
Professor Walsh Clinical Professor, University of Distinction
Professor Riley Professor of Education, University of Distinction
Professor Simms Dean, School of Education, University of
Distinction
Dr. Doyle Clinical Professor, University of Distinction
Interim Executive Director, Southcity Alliance
Community-based
organization

Mr. Jackson President and Chief Executive Officer, Urban
Collaborative
Mr. Wagner Chief of Staff, Urban Collaborative
Ms. George Chief Neighborhood Officer, Urban Collaborative
Mr. Jones Deputy Neighborhood Officer, Safety/Systems &
Housing, Urban Collaborative
Ms. Smith Deputy Neighborhood Officer, Education, Urban
Collaborative
Ms. Weaver Deputy Neighborhood Officer, Health, Urban
Collaborative
Mr. Jordan Resident Scholar, Equity Foundation
Mr. Barney Community and Political Activist, Equity
Foundation
Community
Ms. Mills Community Member, Friends of Freedom
Committee
Mr. Johns Community Member, Neighborhood Council

247
Ms. Gordon LAPD Officer
Mr. Willis Community Member, El Camino Unified School
District Employee
School
Ms. Thomas Parent, Friends of Freedom Committee Member
Ms. Webster Parent, Friends of Freedom Vice-President,
Transition Team member
Ms. Walker Parent, Parent/Teacher/Student Association
President, Transition Team member
Mr. Madison Parent, ELAC Member
Ms. Johnson Parent, ELAC Member
Ms. Ford Classified Staff, Friends of Freedom Treasurer,
Transition Team member
Mr. Bowles Teacher Advisor, Transition Team member
Mr. Carson Social Studies coach, Freedom High School
Mr. Matthews English Teacher, Freedom High School
Ms. Dylan Science Teacher, Senior Advisor, Freedom High
School
Ms. Wiley 9
th
Grade Academy Counselor, Freedom High
School
Ms. Tyler Math Teacher, Transition Team member,
Freedom High School
Mr. Nicholas Social Studies Teacher, Union representative
during partnership construction, Freedom High
School
Ms. Grace Classified staff member, ASB advisor, Freedom
High School
Ms. Phillip Principal, Freedom High School
Mr. Paul Former Assistant Principal, Freedom High School

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine how a communities, K-12 schools, and universities can co-construct partnerships in the first year of formation in order to transform urban schools. This unique study seeks to examine the persistent barriers that emerge from this type of partnership, as well as the effective strategies, in forming partnerships among three distinct entities. Further, this study examines the attributes of a co-constructed dialogic partnership that redistributes power among all partners to foster the adult agents urban youth need to develop learner identities and improve their academic performance.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

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: Year two

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

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

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

Self-determination among adult Chinese English language learners: the relationship among perceived autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and engagement

PDF

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

PDF

The search for transformative agents: the counter-institutional positioning of faculty and staff at an elite university

PDF

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

PDF

Three essays on the high school to community college STEM pathway

PDF

Organizational structures and systems in high-performing, high-poverty urban schools: the construct of race and teacher expectations as mediating factors in student achievement

PDF

Making sense of trusteeship: examining the construction of roles among public higher education governing boards

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of secondary school principals in the support of English language learners