University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

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

by

Laura Hernandez

_________________________________________________________________

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 Laura Hernandez
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to those who have genuinely committed their lives to
restoring social justice in urban schools, to those who started this difficult work
before me, and those who will continue to do the work after me.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my students at Oaks Middle School as the source of my
inspiration for this work and my colleagues there for their support at the beginning of
my writing. I would also like to thank my colleagues at MLA Partner Schools,
especially my teammates Evelyn and Carlos for supporting me at the very end of my
work. My co-research partners, Team Rousseau, you made me understand “shared
knowledge” and “collaborative relationships” at a much deeper level. To my chair,
Sylvia Rousseau, I am forever grateful for teaching me about the courage it takes to
put children and their families always first above all else. To my hermanas, Susana
y Maribel, thank you for always believing in my academic journey. I can’t wait to
see both of you follow your dreams as well. Mamí y Papí, sin el apoyo y amor de los
dos, nunca hubiera logrado esta meta. Siempre serán los mejores maestros de mi
educación. And most of all, the love of my life, my husband Gustavo, thank you for
your loving patience and belief in the importance of my work. Without you by my
side, my work would be incomplete.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ………………………………………………………………………. ii
Acknowledgments ………………………………………………………………. iii
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………….. v
List of Figures …………………………………………………………………… vi
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………. vii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ………………………………………….. 1
Chapter Two: Literature Review ………………………………………………... 28
Chapter Three: Research Methodology ………………………………………… 78
Chapter Four: Findings, Analysis and Discussion …………………………….. 103
Chapter Five: Findings, Conclusions, and Implications ………………………. 171
References …………………………………………………………………….. 184
Appendix A: Administrator Interview Protocol ………………………………. 193
Appendix B: Teacher Interview Protocol ……………………………………... 196
Appendix C: Classified Personnel Interview Protocol ………………………… 199
Appendix D: Parent Interview Protocol ………………………………………. 202
Appendix E: Community-Based Organization Interview Protocol …………… 206
Appendix F: University Stakeholder Protocol ………………………………... 209
Appendix G: School Environment Observation Protocol …………………….. 211
Appendix H: Meeting Observation Protocol ………………………………….. 212
Appendix I: Examined Artifacts Protocol ……………………………………... 213
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. School Achievement Data …………………………………………….. 85
Table 2. Triangulation Using a Variety of Data Collection Instruments ……….. 87
Table 3. Theoretical Frameworks for Research Questions ……………………… 90
Table 4. Data Sources …………………………………………………………… 91
Table 5. Academic Performance Index (API) ………………………………….. 110
Table 6. List of Pseudonyms ………………………………………………….... 113
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Racial Demographics …………………………………………………. 84
Figure 2. Social Demographics …………………………………………………. 85
Figure 3. Co-construction Process ……………………………………………... 116

vii
ABSTRACT
The primary purpose of this study is to examine the ways community, K-12
schools, and university partnerships can co-construct relationships within their first
year of formation in order to contribute to reframing the nation’s educational agenda
to improve the quality of education in urban schools. This study examines to what
extent dialogic co-constructed partnerships that redistribute power among all partners
can provide a cultural model for transforming urban schools to promote high
academic performance for students of color in urban schools. This unique study
seeks to examine the barriers, and the effective strategies to overcome them, in
forming relationships of equal status among communities-K-12 schools-universities.
A partnership involving a specific research university, community members,
and an urban high school in Los Angeles was chosen as the unit of analysis. This
partnership was selected due to the rare opportunity of being able to observe a
private, urban research university that has a mission to support the urban community;
a K-12 school that has chosen, with the support of its teachers and parents, to go into
a special unit of a school district focused on developing innovative concepts and
structures; and two 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 an advocacy, research CBO have worked to empower the
community and have recently invited the university to join their efforts on behalf of
K-12 transformation.
viii
The case study was completed using a qualitative research design. Methods
of data collection included observations, interviews and document analysis with a
rich representation of stakeholders involved in the partnership.

1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Increased globalization and the rapid advance of specialized knowledge
presents an alarming challenge to America’s future when a large sector of the
population remains uneducated. A large percentage of American high-school
dropouts contribute to higher poverty rates, increased crime, and an endless array of
societal issues growing each day. Statistics reveal that Latinos and African
Americans make up a large percentage of this population (United Way, 2005).
However, the neglected story in these statistics is the history of oppression these
minority groups have encountered in our educational system. Our nation’s
negligence in addressing issues of diversity in schooling is something we must now
confront. “Our nation is now facing the results from a history of under-educating its
minority population that will become the majority population by the middle of the
century” (Rousseau, 2007). It is time to reframe the nation’s educational agenda by
exploring alternative and viable solutions to these societal problems.
One unexplored route in addressing these critical national concerns is the
potential that partnerships among communities, K-12 schools, and universities hold
for impacting the nation’s educational agenda. This study will provide a brief
historical and political context describing inequalities in our educational system.
The researcher will then provide a brief overview of past attempts at building these
partnerships. This review will include the various processes used in forming
partnerships, the barriers they have encountered and the strategies used to overcome
2
the barriers. The researcher will explore the extensive potential of partnerships when
the partners are engaged in a process of co-constructing their relationships in ways
that defuse hierarchical power relationships among the partners. The literature
review will include various theories that promote a co-construction process,
especially when the community and the targeted school itself play equal roles as
partners in transforming schools. Finally, this study will conclude by examining the
positive attributes that result from partnerships that have engaged in a co-
construction process.
Reframing “Reform”
The stages of change in school reform in high poverty and high-minority
schools have become common rhetoric in educational and public policy circles.
Beginning with the Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) ruling to end segregation,
the Sputnik educational reform era of the 1950’s to improve mathematics and
science education in response to the Cold War, and the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 to provide assistance for children in poverty, the
current political climate is influenced by historical attempts at educational reform.
The release of A Nation at Risk in 1983 eventually led to the federal implementation
of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, which has now mandated
accountability measures in every public school. NCLB has mandated quality
teaching and learning and ensuring that every sub-group of students meets high
standards of achievement (Edsource, 2005). Although much controversy currently
surrounds this federal act and its various approaches to implementation, NCLB has
3
been instrumental in revealing the enormous opportunity gap among African
American/ Latino students and their Asian and White counterparts (Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004; Stecher et al., 2003).
Closing the Opportunity Gap
Despite these historical and current attempts at educational reform, the
enormous challenge of closing the growing academic opportunity gap persists.
Certainly the implementation of state standards has led to overall improvement in
American students’ performance, but it has not closed the opportunity gap between
students of color in low-income urban communities and their peers in more affluent
communities. If the implementation of state standards to improve the quality of
teaching and learning is part of the equation in closing the opportunity gap, it is
apparent that other factors must be considered as well (Walsh & Park-Taylor, 2003).
Darling-Hammond (2000) puts forth the proposition that we can reduce the
opportunity gap between students of lower and higher socioeconomic status by at
least half if we improve teacher quality and classroom instruction. It is also
important to note that extensive nonacademic factors to achievement and
development confront many of our nation’s students. The neighborhood, home, and
school climates in which the student develops contribute to academic achievement
and their well-being. Parental engagement (Carreon et al., 2005, Clark, 1993, Price,
2008) and the community (volunteer civic, social groups, community-based
organizations, etc.) can all offer resources that help motivate student achievement
(Price, 2008). Engaging parents and community members as partners in our
4
educational system can have an enormous positive impact in student achievement.
However, the terms of engagement must be based on co-constructed partnerships
shaped by dialogue and mutual shared learning among all stakeholders in order to
truly overcome past attempts at reform in our educational system. Demands to
improve classroom instruction and the need to address nonacademic factors affecting
America’s students require consideration in conjunction with one another, not as
separate goals.
An array of academic and non-academic factors influences urban youth.
These factors are socio-political, socio-cultural, and socio-economic. The shortage
of high quality teachers in urban schools is to some degree due to distributional
inequities in the hiring of teachers (Carey, 2004; Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003;
Haycock, 1998; Peske & Haycock, 2006). Thus, it is a socio-political and socio-
economic matter. Another factor to consider is the issue of the growing gap between
teachers and diverse students (Au, 2002; Sleeter, 2000-01). Many teachers lack the
cultural competence to teach diverse youth (Bennett, 2001; Hollins & Guzman,
2005; Sleeter, 2001). This dissonance is a manifestation of the unresolved
sociocultural issues that continue to plague American society. Challenges in teacher
quality in under-resourced schools exacerbate other non-academic problems in urban
schools. Brabeck, Walsh, and Latta (2003) indicate that there are factors outside of
the school setting, which affect student learning as well. Brooks-Gunn and Duncan
(1997) examine the relationship between income poverty and child outcomes in
several domains. Their research reveals that there are five pathways through which
5
poverty operates: health and nutrition, home environment, parental interactions with
children, parental mental health, and neighborhood conditions. Yet, it is also
important to note that many communities mitigate these circumstances by tapping
into resources lodged in their own communities (Price, 2008). Furthermore, the
current political landscape, as well as past political decisions, has had debilitating
effects on urban youth. Brown versus Board of Education has been largely ignored
because today African American and Latino students attend schools that are as
racially segregated as they were in 1954 (Oakes & Rogers, 2007; Orfield & Yun,
1999).
Equitable access to high quality teachers, college preparation, culturally
responsive curriculum, and bilingual pedagogies has failed to become a reality
despite some significant attempts at educational reform efforts. Limited
representation in universities of students from low-income backgrounds and first-
generation college families, the absence of equity pedagogy in school curricula, and
the passage of “English Only” immersion programs in schools are but a few
examples of continuing inequities in schools affecting African American and Latino
students among whom high drop-out rates continue to climb (Oakes & Rogers, 2006;
Cordero-Guzman, 2005).
Educational reform has failed to produce positive academic outcomes for
African American and Latino students. This failed reform has resulted in powerful
descriptions of how these students have fared in education and has been used as
“empirical evidence” for the deficit-laden descriptions of these students (Montero-
6
Sieburth, 2005). The effects of some of these deficit-focused reforms have
contributed to linking African Americans and Latinos to education in negative ways.
The kind of educational reform needed for African American and Latino students is
tied up in the socio-political, socio-economic, and socio-cultural milieu in which
they exist (MacDonald & Monkman, 2005; Tejeda & Gutierrez, 2005). Failure to
focus on these factors is the fundamental problem with public education for all
students. Addressing this problem requires the engagement of communities,
universities, and schools in different kinds of relationships than the typical kind of
partnerships among these partners.
Community, School, University Partnerships
The role of the universities, K-12 schools, and communities in the socio-
political, socio-economic, and socio-cultural milieu has partially contributed to these
dismal outcomes in student achievement. Each of these organizations has attempted
to solve the problems related to low academic performance among students of color
in isolation or in flawed relationships with one another. For instance, the major
disconnect between theory and practice has been well documented by many
researchers although the disconnect is perceived differently by each of these entities
(Benson et al., 2000; Brabeck et al., 2003; Johnston-Parsons, 1997; Mayfield &
Lucas, 2000; Ostrander, 2004). According to Maurrasse (2001), institutional agents
of the university perceive their role as primary producers of knowledge, generating
new ideas through research and teaching. Historically, universities have altered their
missions to meet societal demands both globally and in their surrounding
7
communities (Maurrasse, 2001). However, K-12 schools and their surrounding
communities have not witnessed nor necessarily benefited from the implementation
of the university’s generated knowledge (Benson et al., 2000; Johnston-Parsons,
1997; Maurrasse, 2001). Additionally, K-12 schools are often merely the objects of
these partnerships rather than these schools being equal partners or subjects in the
partnership. One cannot ignore the importance of subjectivity in the process of
transforming K-12 schools (Freire, 2003). On the other hand, K-12 urban educators
are often overwhelmed with the daily demands of teaching and have limited time to
meet with university partners (Sallee & Tierney, 2007) and parents and/or
community members (Sanders, 2001). The lack of time and commitment that
educators have to devote to partnerships presents challenges for all stakeholders
(Miller, 2007; Sanders & Harvey, 2002). Community members are often left out of
critical decision-making as a result of these disparate cultural orientations in each
entity (Carreon et al., 2005; Delpit, 2006; Oakes & Rogers, 2006).
Partnerships among universities, K-12 schools, and communities have the
potential to address both non-academic and academic factors negatively affecting
African American and Latino youth in disenfranchised communities although there
have been minimal attempts at forming partnerships among all three entities to
achieve better educational outcomes for urban youth (Brabeck et al., 2003; Miller,
2007). There has been some documentation of different varieties of partnerships
between these entities such as university and community partnerships (Benson et al.,
2000; Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Mayfield et al., 1999; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000;
8
Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005; Maurrasse, 2001) partnerships between schools and
communities (Brabeck et al., 2000; Sanders, 2001) and finally, partnerships between
universities and schools (Johnston-Parsons, 1997; Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988).
However, there have only been a few documented case studies of attempts to create
partnerships among all three entities (Brabeck et al, 2003; Miller, 2007; Miller &
Hafner, 2008). The partnership among the university, community, and K-12 schools,
in which each entity holds valuable resources to transform schools on behalf of urban
youth, is critical. Standing alone, these entities’ individual assets cannot influence
educational reform to its full potential. In collaboration with one another, these
entities have the potential to intensify the effects of their individual assets (Sallee &
Tierney, 2007). University research faculty, K-12 schools, and community
stakeholders all have equal responsibility and means for creating equity in our
educational system.
Barriers to Partnerships
Examining the barriers to establishing co-constructed relationships among the
universities, K-12 schools, and communities is vital to understanding the merit in
partnerships. Issues of power and resource inequalities are considered to be one of
the largest barriers to co-constructing relationships in partnerships. As alluded to
earlier, the role of the university has traditionally been perceived as prestigious and
elite. Universities are generally perceived as the primary producers of knowledge.
In fact, many partnership attempts have documented the authoritative power of the
university in terms of knowledge (Benson et al., 2000; Mayfield et al., 1999; Bringle
9
& Hatcher, 2002; Maurrasse, 2001; Ostrander, 2004). “Often, amid claims of
equality, university participants possess social, financial, and political resources that
allow them to dominate most aspects of collaborative relationships” (Miller &
Hafner, 2008). While schools are also perceived as producers of knowledge, the
research literature points out the tensions in power relations between universities and
schools when attempting to form partnerships (Johnston-Parsons, 1997). Similarly,
tensions also exist between K-12 schools and the community when the school
perceives itself to hold superior knowledge to the community, especially parents.
The entity in this partnership that has not generally been perceived as a possessor of
knowledge is the community, particularly the urban community. The logic of deficit
in our society has influenced our constructs of knowledge and what is valued as true
knowledge (Oakes & Rogers, 2007). “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” (Maurrasse, 2001 as quoted by Ostrander, 2004, p. 85-86). As a result
of these constructs, the current notion of power and the value of possessing it has led
to an uneven distribution of it. When attempting to form partnerships, K-12 schools
and communities enter with these perceptions. As partnerships emerge, there is
painful organizational learning that must also take place (Benson et al., 2000). The
university, school, and community may often coexist in close proximity but have
disparate perceptions about each other derived from their different cultural
10
orientations (Sallee & Tierney, 2007). These cultural differences make partnerships
complex (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Kezar, 2007).
Logics of scarcity, merit, and deficit
Oakes et al. (2006) provide a theoretical framework by which to understand
the barriers in partnerships. Oakes and Rogers (2007) coin the terms logic of
scarcity, merit, and deficit to discuss the current inequalities in our educational
system for children of color living in high poverty. The logic of scarcity assumes that
there are only limited amounts of quality education and resources available for all.
The logic of merit assumes that students compete for the benefits of school with their
effort and talents in the context of equal opportunity. Finally, the logic of deficit
assumes that schools cannot change the deficits inherent in low-income children,
children of color, and their families. Furthermore, the logic of deficit assumes that
these students and their families do not get the type of social advantages they need
because of their deficits. This logic does not acknowledge the structural problems in
the educational system as causes of the social disadvantages. Oakes and Rogers
(2007) argue that these “logics” prohibit us from truly attaining educational reform.
“Together, these three narratives make it difficult for Americans to see that
inequality is the result of flawed policies and structures rather than attributes that
adhere to individual children and their families” (p. 196). Once stakeholders
understand how these logics influence the educational setting, they can then make
viable decisions to change educational policies and structures.
11
When attempting to form partnerships among universities, schools, and
communities, competing power relations will inevitably emerge among these three
macroscopic entities. The logic of merit, deficit, and scarcity may influence the way
each partner competes for power or acquiesces to it. Within the logic of scarcity,
resources provided by each entity might be perceived as limited and unequally
distributed. The competitive nature in entities exists within a flawed merit-based
system and deficit-laden assumptions about students of color and their families
(Flores, 2005; Oakes & Rogers, 2006; Valencia, 1997). Moreover, competing power
relations also exist between microscopic groups in this broader partnership
framework. Unequal distribution of power and resources exist within the university
setting where university faculty tend to operate under a hierarchical system.
Schools, although more democratic in their organizational structure, also have
multiple levels of competing power groups (administration, faculty, staff, students)
operating under the logic of scarcity. The community also has different factions that
often compete for political representation and economic resources (Hoffman, 2006;
Rocha, 2006; Rodrigues, 2005; Vaca, 2004). These community groups are often
divided by special interests, political and/or religious affiliations, and racial identity,
among other social divides. Power relations under these “logics” permeate all
hierarchical boundaries and perpetuate each other.
Co-constructed Relationships
Part of the task in exploring the possibility of forming partnerships includes
understanding the barriers like the logics of scarcity, merit, and deficit that make
12
partnerships difficult and then exploring effective strategies that can make these
types of partnerships a possibility. One of those strategies, according to the literature
review, is to apply a model of co-constructing relationships (Carroll et al., 2001).
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. Co-constructed relationships enable the
power distribution to change and be redefined to be more inclusive of K-12 schools
and parents as partners, not objects of the partnership. Some of the processes
involved in co-constructing relationships include an understanding and respect for
the sociopolitical, socio-economic, and the socio-cultural forces that will affect
change at school sites, valuing the community input, and valuing co-dependence of
knowledge among others (Bueschel & Poetter, 2007; Carroll et al., 2001; Goldring &
Sims, 2005). For example, Bueschel and Poetter (2007) discuss the importance of
establishing study circles among all stakeholders, especially community members, to
co-construct learning about community concerns and developing action plans to
witness positive student achievement outcomes. The process involves developing
trusting relationships and dialogue skills where listening and suspending judgments
are critical factors in gaining the community’s input. Co-constructed relationships
debunk the logic of merit, deficit, and scarcity by changing the way partners
approach schooling. The values of meritocracy that constitute the university and K-
12 culture can be displaced when all partners understand and change the historical
patterns and current socio-cultural context of inequalities in schools and flawed
13
educational reform. Valuing the community’s resources and knowledge as part of
the co-construction process also discounts the logic of deficit that often shapes
perceptions of students of color and their families. The mission and goals of the
partnership can be framed to include the assets of all the partners, especially the
community so as to ameliorate the inequality of resources inherent in the logic of
scarcity. Those that are perceived to have the most power, the universities and K-12
schools, need to be able to redistribute power and resources to parents and
community members in a meaningful way. Many scholars support the notion of co-
constructed relationships as an effective strategy to establish meaningful partnerships
(Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Carroll et al., 2001).
One aspect of these co-constructed relationships is forming dialogic
relationships among the university, K-12 schools, and communities in order to form
strong and effective partnerships. The term dialogic is derived from Paolo Freire’s
seminal work Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2003). Dialogic relationships, according
to Freire, are marked by love, humility, faith in humankind, hope, and critical
thinking and are the basis for co-constructed relationships. Dialogue becomes a
horizontal relationship based on equality where mutual trust is born. It is a means by
which individuals examine and learn from their differences (Freire, 2003; Johnston
& Thomas, 1997). Dialogue is necessary in situations where power differentials
exist and must be suspended in order for the participants to learn from one another.
Dialogue is the encounter of praxis, where theory (reflection) and action meet to
address issues needing to be transformed and humanized (Freire, 2003). Several
14
scholars emphasize the importance of relationships based on these elements (Bringle
& Hatcher, 2002; Johnston & Thomas, 1997; Lawson, 2003; Oakes & Rogers, 2007;
Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005). Scholars reference the need for dialogue as a critical
component for co-construction and redistributing power (Lambert, 2002; Miller &
Hafner, 2008).
New Cultural Models
Partnerships co-constructed through dialogic relationships among the
university, school, and community can serve as a cultural model for engaging the
African-American and Latino communities to prepare urban students for higher
education. The Freirean dialogical lens lends itself to reframing cultural models
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). In this case, these necessary dialogical
relationships among the macro level partners (universities, schools, and
communities) serve as a cultural model for other types of necessary partnerships
between different groups in the micro level (Kezar, 2007). One unexplored barrier to
partnerships found in the review of the literature is the potential of interethnic
conflict in communities rooted in the logics of merit, scarcity, and deficit. Recent
research has found that there is a high level of political competition between African-
Americans and Latinos (Hoffman, 2006; Rocha, 2006; Rodrigues, 2005; Vaca,
2004). One of the areas in which political competition has been most prevalent is in
education (Hoffman, 2006). The conflict generated within these communities
through the influence of the logics of merit, scarcity, and deficit on low-income
communities of color, may explain in part why these communities lack the collective
15
power to enter relationships with schools and universities as a collectively powerful
entity. Since the unity of the African-American and Latino community is essential to
the academic advancement of both African American and Latino students, it is
essential that these relationships are explored and instituted using the Freirian
dialogical framework. Dialogue is a means by which differences are examined and
learned from (Johnston and Thomas, 1997). Dialogic relationships can engage
participants openly and freely in order to create a collective vision (Oakes & Rogers,
2007). Cultural and political differences will inevitably exist between these two
groups. However, if dialogical relationships lead to a new cultural model through
the partnership forming process, building alliances and a collective vision between
these two community groups becomes a possibility (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Freire,
2003; Johnston & Thomas, 1997; Lawson, 2003; Oakes & Rogers, 2007; Suarez-
Balcazar et al., 2005). A dialogic relationship is a key attribute for lasting co-
constructed partnerships that hold high potential for transforming schools. It is a
cultural model needed for a new way of thinking about how partnerships can work
on behalf of schools.
The unity of the African American and Latino communities is a crucial factor
in the success of partnerships among the university, K-12 schools, and communities.
Without collective vision and goals in the community, K-12 schools and universities
will continue to hold disproportionate power over communities. Addressing the
shortage of highly qualified teachers in urban schools and the under-representation of
African-American and Latino students in higher education are two areas where these
16
communities can unite in common ground. Through dialogic relationships, these
two communities have the potential of engaging universities and K-12 schools in
dialogue that is mutually beneficial for African American and Latino students.
The unequal distribution of power among universities, K-12 schools, and
communities has historically left out the African American and Latino communities
in the educational reform dialogue. Yet these communities share similar assets as
well as challenges for ensuring that African American and Latino youth experience
equitable opportunities in education. “The assets are often lodged in such building
blocks for regeneration as gifted individuals, local businesses, citizens’ associations,
financial institutions, religious organizations, the police, libraries, parks, and
schools” (McKnight & Kretzman, 1996 as quoted by Crowson, 2003). Mobilized
communities can become the greatest untapped resource to promote academic
achievement in minority youth (Price, 2008). Rousseau (2007) makes a case for
establishing two goals to meet the challenges facing these two communities:
confronting shortages of qualified and effective teachers in urban schools and
making college a national priority for all students.
The alliance between the African-American and Latino communities,
working in co-constructed partnerships with universities and schools will specifically
help redefine the current discussion on teacher quality in schools and universities to
support learning for the students whose performance continues to fall behind their
White and Asian peers. These community members have unexplored funds of
knowledge to contribute to the transformation of schools. Gonzalez et al. (1993)
17
describe the way in which parents, as members of the community and the school, can
be drawn into the process of co-constructing pedagogical knowledge through the
validation of household knowledge. In this vein, Oakes and Rogers (2006) provide a
rich description on parents’ fused inquiry and action as they have sought to secure
better schooling for their children. As parents used their funds of knowledge to
partner with a local research university, they also accessed and co-constructed
knowledge about how to improve the quality of education for their children. Active
participation by parents like these fostered a sense of collective identity for all
partners engaged in the process.
Delpit (2006) posits that members of poor communities must be allowed to
participate fully in the discussion of what kind of instruction is in their children’s
best interest. Good teaching is not defined in the same way in all communities; it
varies across different cultural communities (Delpit, 2006). Current research defines
good teaching by certain measurable inputs such as strong verbal and math skills,
deep content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and certification status (Darling-
Hammond, 2000; Haycock, 1998; Wenglinsky, 2000). According to Delpit (2006), in
many African American communities, effective teaching is defined as the ability of
teachers to show how much they care by controlling the class, revealing personal
power, forming meaningful interpersonal relationships with their students,
demonstrating high expectations, and incorporating African American interactional
styles in their teaching. Equally important, pasión (passion) y coraje (courage, rage,
anger, or indignation) are two dimensions of teaching that are valued in the Latino
18
community and can be learned from Latino/a students and their families (Grinberg et
al., 2005). Pasión y coraje are two emotions that are equally valued with cognition,
and are forms of resistance, transgression, and transformation in the Latino
community. These collective perspectives, or funds of knowledge provided by the
African American and Latino communities can alter educational reform for children
of color living in high poverty.
Shortages of high quality teachers capable of implementing effective
pedagogy with African American and Latino students in urban schools contribute
directly to the low college-going rates of African American and Latino youth
(Rousseau, 2007). As much as we need partnerships between universities and K-12
schools to make these goals a priority, communities must also be actively involved
and united in co-constructing these national priorities. Partnerships involving all
three of these key entities can allow all voices to emerge through dialogic
relationships. Forming dialogic relationships at the macro level (university, K-12
schools, and community) serves as a cultural model for dialogic relationships at the
micro level (between the African American and Latino community and their schools)
in order to reframe the dialogue on teachers’ role in transforming urban schools.
Problem Statement
A history of unequal distribution of power and the resulting inability of all
stakeholders to engage in constructive processes for ending the huge education
disparities in America’s schooling has created barriers and prevented universities,
schools, and communities from establishing strong partnerships that can transform
19
schools to improve student achievement. Particularly absent has been the kind of
partnerships capable of ensuring high quality of teaching in urban in K-12 schools.
Disparate cultural orientations and hierarchical power relationships among
universities, schools, and communities have been characterized by the logics of
scarcity, merit, and deficit producing a history of mistrust, tensions, and resource
inequality for African American and Latino urban youth. The logics of scarcity,
merit, and deficit in society can negatively impact the way each partner initiates the
partnership. The quest for the upper hand by one or more partners in school,
community, and university partnerships creates a historically impermeable power
struggle that is counter-productive in the pursuit of educational excellence for urban
youth. A consequence of this persistence of hierarchical relationships has been the
inability to actualize the potential of partnerships that include the community. These
hierarchical relationships have been characterized by communications that are
neither co-constructed nor dialogic in nature. These many barriers have made it
challenging to establish the kinds of partnerships needed to transform urban schools.
Furthermore, the lack of dialogic relationships has made it difficult to explore the
full potential of partnerships in addressing educational reform issues.
Significance of the Study
There is a crisis in this nation when the most diverse and rapidly growing
populations are failing at an alarming rate to graduate from America’s high schools,
or attain a college degree. The nation can no longer afford to have significant masses
of its people uneducated and unemployed. Every student who does not succeed in
20
school and fails to graduate creates a negative scenario for our nation’s future. This
study has socio-economic, socio-cultural, and socio-economic implications at the
local, national, and international level. If successful, this partnership will positively
affect students by increasing the number of students who graduate and attend
college, enter the workforce, and become citizens of a democratic society, and
ultimately improve their social productivity. Creating a successful co-constructed
partnership among the community, K-12 school, and university will serve as a model
for other similar partnerships that hope to improve student academic achievement.
Aligning resources and assets from all stakeholders in a co-constructed partnership
has the potential to drive educational reform into a positive direction that will be
based on positive outcomes for urban students of color. Communities, K-12 schools,
and universities will no longer work in isolation, but will see the merit in forming co-
constructed partnerships with each other. This in turn, may motivate citizens to
return to their communities and give back rather than contribute to the further
deterioration of their communities.
Purpose of the Study
The goal of this research study is to explore the ways university, K-12
schools, and community partnerships can co-construct relationships in order to
reframe the nation’s educational agenda to improve the quality of education in urban
schools. One specific possibility of this type of partnership is to ensure quality
teaching is pervasive in urban schools in order to increase access to higher education
for African American and Latino youth. Each partner lacks the ability to accomplish
21
this work in isolation due to the numerous academic and nonacademic factors that
contribute to students’ development. The neighborhood, home, and school climates
in which the student develops contribute to their academic achievement. Parental
engagement and the community can offer resources that help promote student
achievement (Price, 2008). Much of the research on partnerships is limited to two
partners, often excluding the community as an equal partner. Research demonstrates
the deficit view educational institutions have toward communities where African
Americans and Latinos predominate. In many cases, K-12 schools are treated as
objects instead of subjects in determining the measures needed to transform urban
schools. The purpose of this study is unique as it seeks to examine the barriers and
effective strategies in forming partnerships among all three entities universities-K-
12-schools-communities in relationships of equal status. Limited information is
known about the power of co-constructed relationships in fostering successful
partnerships among all three entities to benefit schools. The findings of this study
will shed light on the possibilities that these co-constructed partnerships hold for
ameliorating the disparities and inequalities in urban schools. This knowledge can
be utilized and perhaps replicated to establish partnerships in other communities.
Further, this study examines to what extent dialogic co-constructed partnerships that
redistribute power among all partners can provide a cultural model for transforming
urban schools to promote high academic performance for students of color in urban
schools.
22
Research Questions
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 of a partnership capable of creating a new cultural model in
urban schools result from the process of co-constructing a community,
school, and university partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?
Limitations
The data analysis and findings of this study were limited by (a) the amount of
time available to conduct this study, (b) the access and number of key stakeholders
who agreed to volunteer in interviews, surveys, and observations, (c) the degree of
trust present in relationships between partners.
First, this study had a short three-month span in which to collect relevant data
from the university, school, and community partnership. Limited time inevitably
affected the amount of artifacts, observations, and interviews collected for analysis.
Second, limited access to key stakeholders presented a challenge in getting
the perspective of all the partners involved. Individual partners sometimes had
23
competing schedules, rotating roles and responsibilities, transfers, or changes in
personnel.
Third, partners sometimes experienced trust issues with one another and may
not have been able to share information freely during interviews or observations.
Some individuals may have been inhibited because of the risk involved in
communicating certain information about other partners involved in the process.
This may have been especially true as many of the individuals in this study are/were
leaders within their organizations. It takes time to build trust; thus time limitations
may once again have put constraints on building these kinds of relationships. Many
of these factors however, may have been mitigated by the extended time the thematic
group had spent building relationships informally by observing and attending
community events and engaging in dialogue with key stakeholders. Key
stakeholders had also been invited to the thematic group to share insights on their
role within university, school, and community partnership. This process had helped
to build relationships and gain prior knowledge of the context in which the research
was proposed.
Delimitations
This study examined a portion of the first year of a five-year study by the
partnership to research promising practices to understand the process and impact of
university, school, and community partnerships in an urban community to improve
student outcomes. The Freirian School of Education at the University of Change
will be partnering with Freedom High School, the Equity Foundation, and the
24
Southcity League’s Neighborhood@Work change initiative to improve a 70-block
neighborhood community surrounding Freedom High School of Park City Heights in
Southcity. This partnership will be formally known as the Greater Freedom
Educational Partnership or GFEP. This is a study of one site, and the conditions in
which the partnership was and is forming are unique. Therefore, the ability to
generalize about other types of partnerships may be constrained.
Definition of Terms
Achievement Gap: A term that has come to be commonly used since the
enactment of NCLB to describe the disparity in positive student outcomes typically
between middle class students and students of color in high poverty urban areas.
Community: Traditionally defined as a group of people interacting and living
in a common geographic location. Community is also defined as the shared
characteristics, norms, behaviors, identity and cohesiveness of a group sharing
common spaces of interaction. In this study, this term may also refer to community
based organizations, or parents and students in the community, or to other members
of the community.
Co-Construction: A process to create something new—something that has
not existed before in exactly the same way. Although the concept of partnerships in
general is not new, each partnership has its own unique features. A co-constructed
partnership implies that the partners consciously enter a process for defining the
nature of their relationship and for defining the goal of the partnership. In this case,
a community made up of a community-based civil rights organization, a community-
25
based research and service-oriented organization have joined with a top-tiered
private research university and an urban school for the purpose of transforming the
school that is a member of the partnership. Co-construction implies that all
participants in the process make a contribution to conceptualizing what the final goal
or product will look like. It also means that all members are willing to relinquish
preconceived notions of what the goal or product is to be.
Cultural Model: A term derived from Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) that
broadly defines cultural models as the “shared mental schema or normative
understanding of how the world works, or ought to work” (p. 47).
Dialogue: a process of engaging people in exchange of ideas, experiences,
and knowledge for the purpose of creating shared meaning.
Dialogical relationship: The interaction of multiple entities in a context that
is bound by inclusiveness, mutual respect, trust, and the value of the contributions,
knowledge and experiences of others. This type of relationship engages participants
horizontally versus hierarchically and allows the discussants to articulate their
intentions, needs, talents, capacities, and resources without denigration or
domination.
Funds of Knowledge: Seeing the home culture, values, and practices as
valuable assets and necessary to enter co-constructed dialogic relationships.
Mutual Shared Learning: A process in which all entities are cognitively and
socially engaged for the purpose of constructing a shared body of knowledge.
26
Opportunity Gap: A term adopted by those who resist using the term
achievement gap to describe the disparity in student outcomes occurring between
historically oppressed persons due to persistent barriers and inequities in school.
Partnership: A convergence of knowledge, resources, and assets from a
university, K-12 school, and community co-constructed through dialogic
relationships that have the potential to eradicate historic, social, economic, and
political barriers on behalf of urban school transformation.
Power: The potential for effecting influence and change through decision-
making capabilities and resources.
Power Relationship: Hierarchical distribution of social, political, and
economic capital that can result in the status of oppressor and oppressed.
Praxis: Another term derived from Paolo Freire in Pedagogy of the
Oppressed (2003) in which the oppressor must first engage in reflection before
he/she commits to action or activism. Oftentimes it is the crossroads between theory
and practice necessary for educational transformations.
Program Improvement: Program improvement, as defined by the state, is
failing to make annual yearly progress (AYP) in language arts or mathematics either
school-wide or for any numerically significant subgroup for two consecutive years,
or not meeting the targeted academic performance index (API) score (U.S.
Department of Education, 2001).
27
Sociocultural: A term derived from Vygotsky (1986) where the social and
cultural world strongly influences human interactions, cognitive development in
children, and communication practices among people.
Sociopolitical: involving both social and political factors such as laws,
regulations, policies, and ideologies to explain different contexts, values, histories in
the partnership.
Urban: A large, densely populated diverse metropolitan area that faces
challenges due to historic barriers, stratified wealth, and power relationships, but has
the potential to draw upon the many untapped and unrecognized assets of the
community.
28
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The advantages to be gained from university-school-community partnerships
have been well documented (Benson et al., 2000; Brabeck et al., 2003; Bringle &
Hatcher, 2002; Johnston-Parsons, 1997; Maurrasse, 2001; Mayfield et al., 1999;
Mayfield & Lucas, 2000; Ostrander, 2004; Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988; Suarez-
Balcazar et al., 2005). However, less has been written about the barriers and
strategies to successful partnerships in urban areas. One of the challenges to forming
and sustaining partnerships is that each entity in the partnership has a different set of
cultural values and expectations that inform how it approaches the partnership
process (Kezar, 2007; Selke, 1996). Research universities, for example, find
themselves highly involved in generating new knowledge and theory without
significant application of theory to real-life practice (Johnston-Parsons, 1997;
Maurrasse, 2001; Selke, 1996). K-12 schools, on the other hand, often make
decisions based on external policy pressure and immediate circumstances while
tending to undermine the usefulness of research and theory (Sirotnik & Goodlad,
1988; Johnston-Parsons, 1997; Selke, 1996). Urban communities also enter these
partnerships with their own sets of values, which are largely defined by their
accustomed ways of generating their own knowledge and solving problems (Bringle
& Hatcher, 2002; Price, 2008). The literature review for this study identified cases
in which universities, K-12 schools, and communities have worked to bridge the
29
theory versus practice gap and build relationships despite these cultural
organizational differences.
This study will explore the process of co-constructing partnerships among the
community, K-12 schools, and university. It will then explore the barriers and
strategies to effective partnerships in an urban setting in order to make accessible to
the community a rich body of interdisciplinary research that can contribute to the
transformation of urban schools. It will begin by providing a brief historical
overview of inequities in education with a particular focus on how this history still
influences schooling in America. A discussion will follow on how partnerships
among the university, K-12 schools, and community can improve teachers’ role as a
key strategy for improving schools’ ability to provide equitable educational
opportunities for all students. Finally, the study will explore the barriers and
strategies affecting these three entities’ ability to form effective partnerships that
have the ability to transform schools on behalf of all students.
Historical and Political Context
The history of schooling in the United States is filled with many reform
efforts, but they have not made a significant difference for low-income students of
color (Oakes et al., 2006; Stephen, 1980; Valencia et al., 2002). Many researchers
have pointed out the failure of policies and past educational reform acts throughout
the history of American education that were proclaimed to be acts for equality in
schools (Oakes et al., 2006; Pedraza & Rivera, 2005). Some of these proclamations
of reform made as early as the 19
th
century, include Horace Mann’s notion that
30
public schools are places where diverse children can come together and have
equitable opportunities for academic achievement, better quality of life, and as a
result, contribute to the advancement of democracy (Oakes et al., 2006). Similarly,
John Dewey’s vision for social democracy included educational opportunity and
civil rights for all (Oakes & Rogers, 2006). Unfortunately, these values about the
role of education have not been upheld in the nation’s attempts to be a democratic
society; schools are as racially segregated in 2009 as they were before the Civil
Rights Act (Brown vs. Board of Education) called for racial desegregation of our
schools (Oakes et al., 2006; Orfield & Yun, 1999; Valencia et al., 2002).
Patterns of Inequality.
Different scholars have traced the role of race in education through a socio-
historical lens. Stephan (1980) offers critically constructed knowledge about history
that informs our understanding of race relations in the U.S. He explains that the
concept of race was developed in the context of the slave institution—the plantation
system. The denial of education and subordination under this forced labor system
created negative stereotypes of “laziness and ignorance” associated with African
Americans. As imported labor became scarce, slave owners depended on slave
children to continue the work of their ancestors. This led to denial of access to a
formal education for African Americans in order to sustain the labor system.
Teaching slaves to read and write was deemed a criminal act. From the Civil War
until World War I, Stephen argues that the nature of race changed from a
paternalistic construct to a competitive one when African Americans began
31
competing with poor Whites for jobs. The doctrine of “separate but equal” became
law with Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. Then World War I created limited
opportunities in the North for African Americans, which led to great migration
patterns from the South. The notion of “separate but equal” was not upheld as racial
discrimination spread widely in the South and the dual school system was certainly
separate and definitely unequal. “In the South the average expenditure for White
children was $44, but for Blacks it was only $13” (Stephan, 1980, p. 8). Five
separate court cases eventually led to the decision in Brown v. The Board of
Education in 1954, which attempted to end the “separate but equal” doctrine in
public education (MacDonald & Monkman, 2005). Stephen (1980) describes Chief
Justice Earl Warren’s decision as one that dispelled the doctrine of “separate but
equal” and clearly defined segregation practices as inherently unequal.
In spite of the victory that the ruling in Brown v. The Board of Education
represented, there were negative consequences for African Americans in the actual
implementation of the basic tenets of Brown v. The Board of Education. Stephen
states that over 1,000 African American teachers in five southern states lost their
jobs between 1968 and 1971. More than 5,000 White teachers were hired during the
same time period. African American students were bused out of their communities
because schools that previously belonged to these communities were shut down. In
cities like Los Angeles, Whites opposed desegregation because they believed that
their neighborhood schools would be destroyed (Stephen, 1980). This reaction later
intensified a pattern of white flight from urban areas. Although Stephen does not
32
chronicle the discussion on re-segregation in later decades, he and other scholars
conclude that desegregation in the 1970s and beyond led to many contentious
attitudes in public education across the United States (Oakes & Rogers, 2006;
Orfield & Yun, 1999; Schofield, 1991).
Other scholars offer critical perspectives on the developments of segregation
for Mexican American students in the historical context of economic, societal, and
political pressures. According to Gonzalez (1990) several factors contributed to
increased segregation of children of Mexican descent after 1900. These include
Anglo xenophobia caused by the rapid influx of Mexican Americans, especially after
the 1910 Mexican Revolution; residential segregation; and a political economy that
provided substandard schooling for the agricultural workforce. MacDonald and
Monkman (2005) contend that unlike the rigid, de jure segregation of African
Americans, Mexican children experienced de facto segregation with Anglo school
administrators who employed vague and unwritten justifications to place Mexican
children in separate classrooms or schools away from Anglo peers. Gonzalez (1990)
explains that segregation was justified based on the perception that Mexican children
held deficient English language skills; lacked intelligence, based on test scores; and
practiced deficient personal hygiene. Compulsory school attendance laws were
ignored for children of Mexican-origin in order to sustain the agricultural
southwestern economy (MacDonald & Monkman, 2005). Among those who did
attend school, 85% attended segregated schools in the 1930s and expenditures and
resources overwhelmingly favored Anglo schools (Gonzalez, 1990; Donato, 1997).
33
Scholars also provide a historical account of court cases that tried to
dismantle segregation and racist sentiment towards Mexican-origin students in the
educational system. The first case against segregation brought to the courts was
Independent School District v. Salvatierra (1930/31), which challenged segregation
of Mexican children and paved the way for more successful lawsuits (MacDonald &
Monkman, 2005). Shortly after, Roberto Alvarez v. Lemon Grove (1931)
successfully secured the right for the integration of Mexican American children into
White schools. Valencia et al. (2002) indicate that scholars at the national level did
not always recognize the struggle for desegregation for Mexican Americans.
Choosing to ignore these struggles resulted in flawed educational policies for
Mexican American children. In fact, Mexican American students had to justify their
minority status in many court cases in order to benefit from the Brown v. The Board
of Education decision (MacDonald & Monkman, 2005). Mexican American
students were classified as “other White” instead of “Indian” to justify mixing
African Americans and Mexican Americans in the same “desegregated schools.”
Ethnic identity issues have affected legal interpretations of many cases throughout
the history of Mexican Americans.
Through a combined effort by different civil rights organizations and political
leaders, reforms challenged educational inequities in the 1960s and 1970s. “The
efforts of individuals and collective action put an end to the most blatant
discriminatory practices of the segregation era” (MacDonald & Monkman, 2005, p.
69). Despite these efforts, educational inequities persisted.
34
Current Inequalities
Historical patterns of racism and segregation in the United States for racial
minorities have 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 noteworthy report
released by The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University reveals the growth of
school segregation in the 1990s (Orfield & Yun, 1999). It reported four important
recent trends in school segregation: (1) the American South was resegregating
despite racial integration efforts spurred by civil rights laws; (2) Latino students were
increasingly becoming more segregated than any other ethnic group; (3) increasing
numbers of African-American and Latino students were enrolling in suburban
schools, but were segregated within these communities; (4) there was 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, as
recent as the 1990s, demonstrates the faulty assumption by policymakers that
segregation is in the past and that efforts 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 (2001), 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
35
failures in educating African American and Latino students. Segregation for African
American and Latino students is more prevalent now than in the 1960s due to White
flight (Valencia et al., 2002). Some of the adverse effects include school failure to
meet the needs of African American and Latino urban youth, substandard school
conditions (poor facilities, overcrowding, abundance of beginning teachers), low
funding, high dropout rates, low achievement test scores, and low college
matriculation (Oakes & Rogers, 2006; Valencia et al., 2002). 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 political opposition and
flawed implementation of programmatic reforms. MacDonald and Monkman (2005)
charge that some of the political tensions against the Latino population in California
are caused by measures targeted against immigrants. Some of these tensions include
the English-only movement, Proposition 227, and the elimination of Affirmative
Action in university systems affecting both Latinos and African Americans.
Teacher quality
Persistent inequalities in the educational system perpetuate the disparities in
student performance, and a particular area in which these inequalities persist is
related to teacher quality. Addressing this issue will help in ending these inequalities
in urban schools. Defining good teaching in concrete terms is a necessary step to
make educational reform meaningful and effective in the hands of educators,
policymakers and community members.
36
Unexplored Possibilities
The idea of including communities as partners in partnerships between
universities and K-12 schools will fill a significant gap in the complex strategies
required for partnerships to maximize the possibilities of improving student
achievement (Price, 2008). Current educational reform has not completely explored
the full potential of community participation in addressing educational inequities,
despite past attempts. Historically, these inequities have not been scrutinized with
the active participation of community members.
Historically, civil rights organizations such as the NAACP (National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People) and LULAC (League of United
Latin American Citizens), have been influential in creating a more integrated and
diverse society (Mercado & Santamaria, 2005) with a strong focus on schooling as a
major factor. These organizations represent the interests of the community and their
students; however there are impediments to building and sustaining communities
across racial and ideological boundaries among the groups these organizations
represent, even among people who have a shared vision. The long history of
struggle predating the civil rights movement and beyond has juxtaposed the African
American and Latino communities’ efforts to mitigate the effects of historical
segregation, discrimination. A decade before Brown v. Board of Education, Mexican
Americans were locally successful in eliminating segregation in the Mendez et al. v.
Westminster School District of Orange County, California (1946) with the help of
African American attorney, Thurgood Marshall (MacDonald & Monkman, 2005).
37
The success of this case is symbolic of the collaborative efforts between the African
American and Latino communities that date back to the period of slavery when
Mexico welcomed runaway slaves. This relationship also dates back to Mexico’s
battles for independence in which African Americans played a major role. Mercado
and Santamaria (2005) conclude, “opportunities for ethnic groups to develop
competence, skill, and proficiency in inter-/intraethnic dialogue need to be valued,
created, sought after, and maximized (p. 39). The African American and Latino
communities share common ground in addressing the pervasive inequities of teacher
quality in urban schools and the pursuit of higher education for their children. These
collaborative efforts can best be brokered through partnerships among the university,
K-12 schools, and communities. The collective experiences and assets from these
ethnic groups united with the efforts of universities and P-12 schools creates new
possibilities for transforming education to function equitably on behalf of African
American and Latino students.
Why partnerships?
The effects of pervasive inequalities in the nation’s educational system on the
larger society are monumental. They require the attention of multiple stakeholders.
Universities, K-12 schools, and communities can each play a vital role in bringing
about positive results in student academic achievement and access to higher
education through measures that include the guarantee of high quality teachers. Each
entity can bring about these results by pooling its resources and expertise (Brabeck et
al., 2003). Different scholars reveal that teacher quality is highly correlated with high
38
student achievement (Carey, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Haycock, 1998;
Wenglinsky, 2000). The university’s role in preparing high quality teachers, the K-
12 schools’ role in hiring and sustaining a high quality teaching force, and the
community’s role in ensuring that these factors exist for their children are all ways in
which partnerships can address educational inequities. Each entity in this process
has a distinct purpose, valuable assets, and unique resources. However, each entity
also has 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).
A review of the research 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; Maurrasse, 2001) schools and communities (Brabeck et al.,
2000; Henderson et al., 1994; Lawson et al., 2007; Sanders, 2001) and finally,
universities and schools (Johnston-Parsons, 1997; Kezar, 2007; Rousseau, 2007;
Sallee & Tierney, 2007; Selke, 1996; Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988; Sorenson, 1998).
Documentation of partnerships among all three of these entities is (Brabeck et al,
2003), but vital to meeting the challenges facing our society, especially for the
purpose of improving teacher quality in urban schools. The full potential of these
partnerships to effect change in the quality of teacher performance in urban schools
is described by examining the purpose, assets, and limitations of each entity.
39
The University’s Role
The university’s changing purpose
In order to understand the university’s role and vision in partnerships, it is
important to address its changing mission throughout history. Various scholars have
traced the historical purpose of the university (Benson et al., 2000; Maurrasse, 2001;
Sallee & Tierney, 2007). The purpose of the university, often embedded in its
institutional mission, can change according to societal needs and historical contexts
(Maurrasse, 2001; Sallee & Tierney, 2007). Maurrasse explains the evolution of the
role of the university by referring to some key figures (2001). According to John
Henry Newman’s seminal work originally published in 1873, The Idea of a
University, Maurrasse explains, “a university education is not professional or
vocational, rather it expands one’s outlook and capacity for social and civic
interaction” (p. 13). Although a sense of responsibility for society’s ills and the
surrounding environment began to emerge, university educators did not always seek
to engage with those in their surrounding communities (Sallee & Tierney, 2007).
Instead, scientific research began to dominate the university landscape. A competing
purpose for higher education began to flourish with George Washington and his call
to advance scientific research (Maurrasse, 2001). In 1796, George Washington
called for a Board of Agriculture to encourage experimentation, which eventually led
to legislation that established experiment stations. Major wars, such as World War
II, caused the federal government to rely heavily on scientific expertise. The
movement towards scientific research was dominated by powerful peripheral
40
interests and eventually drove an increased amount of funding to the university.
Throughout history, the development of the university’s mission has had to balance a
well-rounded “universal” education to meet societal needs and respond to its external
environment with simultaneously advancing scientific research (Maurrasse, 2001).
The university’s mission to engage in partnerships with K-12 schools and
community members is rooted in its history to meet societal needs.
Current research demonstrates that the importance of community interaction
with the university is rooted in John Dewey’s principles of democratic civic
engagement (Benson et al., 2000; Brabeck et al., 2003; Johnston-Parsons, 1997;
Maurrasse, 2001; Oakes & Rogers, 2007; Ostrander, 2004). In the past two decades,
university civic engagement has re-emerged as a significant 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” (Maurrasse, 2001, p.1). Thus, there has been a growing impetus to
ground academic 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). Maurrasse argues that making a contribution to society is an “active process,”
in which research is conducted based on the priorities of the community (2001).
This philosophy is akin to John Dewey’s concept of “participatory action research”
and the importance of civic engagement (Maurrasse, 2001; Oakes, 2007; Ostrander,
2004).
41
Ostrander identifies four different components to civic engagement: student
learning, curriculum transformation, community-defined priorities, and knowledge
production (2004). Increasing college access for underrepresented youth and
addressing teacher quality shortage in urban areas are two areas in which universities
can become actively engaged (Rousseau, 2007). Benson et al. argue that the
university has a responsibility to implement and advance knowledge and human
welfare (2000). When universities embrace civic engagement as part of their
mission and agenda, they are able to prioritize balancing research with teaching and
service.
University resources
Through civic engagement, universities have the ability to provide a wide
array of resources for the community (Ostrander, 2004). Research constitutes one
major asset that the university can provide to schools and communities (Benson et
al., 2000; Brabeck et al., 2003; Maurrasse, 2001; Ostrander, 2004; Rousseau, 2007).
Two other major resources, as identified by Rousseau, are preparing high quality
teachers committed to teaching in urban areas and fostering college-focused
relationships with K-12 students in order to increase college matriculation for urban
students (2007). These are but a few of the many resources a university can provide
for local K-12 schools and their surrounding communities.
University limitations
Although universities have a vast amount of resources to offer K-12 schools
and their communities, they cannot accomplish sustainable change without the
42
agreement of partners (Johnston-Parsons, 1997). Differences in culture among each
entity must be negotiated (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Kezar, 2007). Some studies
have 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; Selke, 1996; Sorenson,
1998). If not understood, these differences can create major barriers to partnerships
(Kezar, 2007). The university also differs from the community in terms of goals,
assets, and resources (Price, 2008). Community members often perceive universities
as elite and anti-democratic, thus creating a distance antithetical to the formation of a
collective vision between the two partners (Benson & Harkavy, 2003). These
barriers to partnerships will be elaborated further in a later section.
The Role of K-12 public schools
The purpose of K-12 public schooling
The goals and priorities of K-12 schooling have evolved throughout
American history and have been a source of debate among educators. Su (1992)
documented several “schools of thought” in a compelling study examining views
held by American teacher education students and teacher educators regarding the
appropriate function of schooling in a pluralistic society. These “schools of thought”
include: (1) The conservative view: schools ought to produce educated people to
help maintain order and stability in the economic, social, and political structure of
society; (2) The progressive or child-centered view: schools should focus on students
as individuals, helping them expand their interests and abilities; (3) The liberal view:
43
schools must teach students to be conscious of societal concerns, social purposes,
and human conditions, and to think constructively to participate in improving
society; (4) The radical view: schools need to educate students to challenge
injustices in society and join with others in reconstructing and transforming the
existing status quo into a more just and equitable society. Similarly, in A Study of
Schooling, Goodlad (1984) and his associates declared specific goals for American
public schools as defined by state and local boards of education and various
commissions. These can be synthesized into academic, vocational, personal, social,
civic, and cultural goals. Schooling and its role in social and cultural change have
been an area of concern for many scholars (Apple, 2004; MacDonald & Monkman,
2005). Schools can be tools of social reproduction, replicating inequities in society,
tools of assimilation into mainstream society, or loci of change wherein inequities
are challenged and altered (MacDonald & Monkman, 2005).
Certainly, community members have also taken a stance as to what the
purpose of schooling ought to be. Delpit (2006) carefully challenges “liberal” and
“conservative” assumptions about what type of education is best for children of color
living in high poverty areas. She argues that there is a “culture of power” made up
of codes or rules for participating in that culture and marginalized students ought to
be told explicitly what the rules of that culture are. “[Parents] want to ensure that the
school provides their children with discourse patterns, interactional styles, and
spoken and written language codes that will allow them success in the larger society”
(Delpit, 2006, p. 29). Other advocates in the community have also addressed their
44
concerns about the current crisis in education, especially the crisis concerning
students of color in high poverty areas (Oakes & Rogers, 2006; Price, 2008). Hugh
Price, former president of the National Urban League, believes that schools ought to
adequately prepare students for academic achievement, address the dropout and
disengagement crisis, and prepare students for higher education (2008). The
discourse on purposes of K-12 schooling has undoubtedly been defined by a wide
spectrum of interests. Hence, what is needed is “a clear articulation of the goals,
substance, length and breadth of the schooling deemed necessary; and a fresh
commitment to both excellence and equity and how these can be forwarded
simultaneously” by all stakeholders (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988, p. 9). Informed
dialogue among all different sectors of society is a necessity.
K-12 resources
K-12 schools offer a variety of resources that are distinct to their culture of
practice. These resources include an action-oriented and collaborative culture,
quality teachers, and school leaders with knowledge about schools. The action-
oriented culture of K-12 schools provides opportunities to ground theory with
practice (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988). In K-12 schools, strategies developed need to
be transferable to classroom activities because teachers value immediate and
concrete solutions (Kezar, 2007; Selke, 1996). This type of action-oriented culture
allows for the accomplishment of goals and visions. When a collaborative culture is
developed within the action-oriented culture, the benefits are substantial for
partnerships. Teachers can develop collaborative skills with administrators, parents,
45
community members, and university researchers. Thus, the contemporary movement
towards professional learning communities in K-12 settings is another valuable asset
of K-12 schools (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Grossman et al., 2001; Little, 2002;
Wilson & Berne, 1999). Professional learning communities prevent the culture of
schooling from keeping the “closed-door” policy and instead, promote the “open for
view” culture necessary for successful partnerships (Selke, 1996).
A focus on high quality teachers as a means of transforming schools is
appropriate. High quality teachers are the most significant resource K-12 schools
can offer (Carey, 2004; Haycock, 1998). Studies have shown that effective teachers
are the single most important factors in improving student academic achievement
(Carey, 2004). Administrators and teachers’ knowledge of schools are major sources
for learning about issues confronting students (Sallee & Tierney, 2007). Effective
teaching schoolwide provided by high quality teachers has the ability to transform
schools. University and community members cannot succeed in promoting academic
achievement without high quality teachers and leaders in urban K-12 schools (Garza
et al., 2006).
K-12 limitations
Although the quality of teaching is the most significant factor in transforming
schools, it is also one of the areas in need of greatest improvement in K-12 urban
schools. Haycock (1998) points out that there are too many unqualified teachers
teaching minorities and students of poverty. These students are usually assigned to
inexperienced teachers and/or teachers with weak background knowledge in their
46
subject matter. Although these measures of teacher quality are still inconclusive,
Darling-Hammond’s (2000) research has consistently shed light on the correlation of
these teacher qualities (strong verbal and math skills, deep content knowledge,
pedagogical knowledge, and certification status) to student achievement. The most
effective teachers are teaching “better-off white students” rather than low-income,
minority students (Carey, 2004). A report released by the Education Trust stated that
students of color in high poverty schools do not underachieve in school just because
they enter behind, but, also because schools shortchange them with the biggest
resource—quality teachers (Peske & Haycock, 2006).
Schools do not have the adequate resources to help students of color living in
poverty without assistance from other organizations or agencies (Dryfoos, 2003;
Lawson, 2003; Price, 2008; Rousseau, 2007;Sallee & Tierney, 2007). According to
Lawson (2003), teachers report that they cannot make great progress with children
and youth challenged by poverty, unsafe neighborhoods, parental unemployment,
and family stress. Further, he states that teachers often complain about the low
parent involvement in their child’s education (2003). Because school, home, and
neighborhood all contribute to academic outcomes (Walsh & Park-Taylor, 2003),
many non-academic factors that influence students must still be addressed. K-12
schools need to work alongside the community and other professional organizations
to help them meet the non-academic factors in schools. Meeting the challenges of
non-academic factors alongside cognitive demands of schooling requires the
assistance of more than one stakeholder.
47
Despite the positive outcomes that can result from a culture of practice, K-12
schools can also miss or dismiss the importance of other types of knowledge. Pure
emphases on the practical can sometimes supersede elements of the theoretical that
are essential in 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. Also, the university has multiple
resources through its various professional schools and departments for providing
direct services to schools in academic, as well as the non-academic areas.
Similarly, communities can also offer different types of knowledge.
Unfortunately, one of the greatest limitations for K-12 schools is not knowing how to
tap into resources in the community. Gonzalez & Moll (2002) emphasize the funds
of knowledge located in the community and family households that can contribute to
student academic outcomes. The concept of “funds of knowledge” is based on the
premise that people are competent and knowledgeable, and that their life experiences
have given them valuable knowledge. Their research demonstrates that schools need
to learn how to tap into these funds of knowledge in students’ households and
communities (Gonzalez & Moll, 2002). Without knowledge grounded in theory and
knowledge of the community’s funds of knowledge, K-12 urban schools are
essentially limited in their perspective on how to help children succeed.
Finally, K-12 schools are also constrained by time (Kezar, 2007; Selke,
1996). Universities, as mentioned earlier, can provide a wide array of resources to
48
schools. One of those resources is flexibility with time. Universities have flexibility
in their daily schedules to engage in research and reflection alongside schools and
communities. Unlike universities, traditional K-12 structures have time constraints,
which prevent them from engaging in research and reflective practice (Selke, 1996).
The Community’s Role
The community’s purpose
Urban communities play a major role in student academic achievement
(Brabeck et al., 2000; Henderson et al., 1994; Lawson et al., 2007; Price, 2008;
Sanders, 2001). The families, community organizations, and other elements in the
social environment that exist in the lives of students define the community.
Henderson et al. (1994) provide different studies that reveal the positive influence
families can play in promoting academic achievement. Families can provide
learning environments, such as daily family routines, monitoring out-of-school
activities, modeling the value of learning, self-discipline, and hard work among
many other strategies (Henderson et al., 1994). Parental involvement must move
beyond the home and into the school as well (Henderson et al., 1994; Price, 2008).
Research studies demonstrate that parents’ role must extend as teachers, supporters,
advocates, and decision-makers (Henderson et al., 1994; Oakes & Rogers, 2006).
These roles are best manifested in partnerships with schools and universities
(Henderson et al., 1994). As parent influence declines in the adolescent years,
students turn to their peers and social structures and the role of other community
members becomes increasingly important (Price, 2008). Businesses, national service
49
organizations, after school and mentorship programs can all have a positive influence
on children (Henderson et al., 1994; Lawson et al., 2007; Price, 2008; Sanders,
2001).
Community resources
The community, as defined above, has an extraordinary amount of untapped
resources that can help students succeed. Substantial research supports the fact that
parental involvement at home and school is highly correlated with high student
academic achievement (Henderson et al., 1994; Price, 2008). Some of these
outcomes include higher grades and test scores, better attendance and homework
completion rates, fewer special education placements, positive attitudes and
behavior, higher graduation rates, and greater enrollment in higher education
(Henderson et al., 1994). Similarly, community organizations and other community
members can provide many services for youth that are often unavailable at schools
(Crowson, 2003; Lawson et al., 2007; Price, 2008; Sanders, 2001). Crowson (2003)
identifies a rich set of assets the community offers. “The assets are often lodged in
such building blocks for regeneration as gifted individuals, local businesses, citizens’
associations, financial institutions, religious organizations, the police, libraries,
parks, and schools” (McKnight & Kretzman, 1996 as quoted by Crowson, 2003).
Price (2008) advocates that these community resources and organizations must be
mobilized in order to promote high academic achievement for students of color in
urban areas. He provides examples of communities providing rituals and recognition
events such as parades, achievement month, and community-based honor societies to
50
motivate students (Price, 2008). Students are influenced both negatively and
positively by environments beyond their home and schools (Price, 2008). Families
and community members can create positive environments for students to motivate
and support them to succeed.
Community limitations
Although powerful in their combined resources, neither families nor
community members can work alone in helping students succeed. Changing family
demographics and increasing demands of the professional workplace are barriers that
families and schools must learn to work with (Sanders, 2001). Oftentimes however,
school leaders are not prepared to understand how communities’ assets and resources
can be incorporated into partnerships (Lawson et al., 2007; Price, 2008). Positive
learning environments can be created at home and in the community, but positive
attitudes towards school can sometimes be discouraged at school by teachers’
attitudes toward their students, their families and their communities. These attitudes
lead to structural barriers to academic success (Henderson et al., 1994).
Community groups have great insights and knowledge on how to help the
community, but oftentimes lack other types of resources provided by the university
and/or schools (Mayfield & Lucas, 2000). Many times, community members are
unsure about how to navigate the resources of the K-12 schools and universities.
When parents enter schools as traditional sources of involvement, they often enter
with limited power to define their roles or actions (Fine, 1993). She points out that
in some cases, community members do not know how to reach the right people or
51
shift the university’s attention toward community-based discussions. Parents might
be involved as supporters, but might not know how to become advocates and
decision-makers especially when school cultures are not welcoming (Henderson et
al., 1994). An important study conducted by Carreon et al. (2005) on parental
engagement at school settings illustrates this point. The authors report on the stories
of three working-class immigrant parents and their efforts to be involved in their
children’s formal schooling. The three parents, Celia, Pablo, and Isabel (all names
are pseudonyms), manifest different types of engagement orientations in both formal
and informal spaces. Celia, for example, anchors her school engagement on the
following resources: “her hopes and expectations for school experiences; critical
awareness of her position in school and society; resilience; emotional and
educational support from her community; and reliance on a close, trusting
relationship with individual teachers” (p. 493). Pablo anchors his school-related
engagement on his: “critique of his own experiences of discrimination; valuing of
cultural knowledge; resilience; emotional and educational support from his
community; close, trusting relationships with some teachers” (p. 493). Isabel used
nontraditional formal spaces to engage with schools differently: “she drew upon the
research project in the study to gain ‘how-to’ knowledge and build a social support
network; however, she is also afraid to call those in power on any injustices for fear
it will cause more harm than good” (p. 493). Their experiences reveal differences in
the ways they participate and are encouraged and discouraged to participate by
school officials.
52
Interdependence, Shared Vision, and Collective Identity
Partnerships among the university, K-12 schools, and communities make
sense. There are many resources each entity can provide in significantly altering the
inequities with teacher quality in our educational system. Partnerships can provide
valuable resources that the whole child needs (Murray & Weissbourd, 2003).
Lawson (2003) has identified a powerful set of factors in forming partnerships,
which can reinforce the merit in pursuing such a difficult task. These factors
include: interdependent working relationships, collective action, shared resources,
shared collective identity, unity of purpose, shared language, shared responsibility
and accountability, and inclusion of relevant stakeholders among many others. It is
necessary to explore why such positive outcomes have not been undertaken thus far.
Persistent Barriers to Partnerships
Although there is merit in brokering the collective assets of different partners
to improve urban communities and their schools, a review of the literature indicates
multiple barriers to achieving these outcomes. Johnston-Parsons (1997) provides a
framework to understand some of these barriers. The research describes three
different types of tensions that create barriers to partnerships: tensions in
collaboration, structures, and developments. Likewise, Suarez-Balcazar et al. (2005)
warn against different types of challenges and threats to partnerships. Among these
challenges are issues of power, resource inequality and conflicts of interest. Oakes et
al. (2006) offer a theoretical framework by which to understand these barriers in
what they call the logics of our society.
53
Issues of power and resource inequality
Traditionally, the role of the university and the knowledge it has produced
has been held at higher prestige and value than others according to Johnston-Parsons
(1997). “No doubt the ‘power position of the university meant that some ideas
carried more ‘authority’ than others” (p. 10). A brief historical perspective on the
changing role of the university allows us to witness how it gained its status as
primary generator of knowledge. Benson and Harkavy (2003) argue that there have
been three attempts to revolutionize the university. The first revolution was in the
late 19
th
century when the U.S. adapted the German model of schooling at Johns
Hopkins in 1876 and the first research university was established. The second
revolution occurred in 1945 with Vannevar Bush’s search to produce an
entrepreneurial university based on scientific research in response to the Cold War.
Finally, the third revolution began fairly recently in 1989 with the emergence of the
“democratic cosmopolitan civic university” after the end of the Cold War and fall of
the Berlin Wall. The democratic cosmopolitan university emerged as a response to
the embarrassing contradiction between its growing status as an elite institution and
the decline of U.S. cities (Benson & Harkavy, 2003).
The university’s role in shaping the socioeconomic circumstances of its
surrounding communities defined its power and control over them. Maurrasse
(2001) explains the harsh effects of gentrification and how it was often supported by
university policies. He argues that corporate companies moved to suburbia creating
unemployment in urban areas. The capital flight in urban areas led to increased
54
social isolation for poor communities. Finding themselves in geographic proximity
to these neighborhoods, some universities discovered and vested interest in
revitalizing these communities. The University of Chicago’s effort is one case in
point. Two studies identify the university’s effort to ameliorate the surrounding
community’s unemployment issues and the university’s obstacles to accomplish such
efforts. Mayfield and Lucas (2000) examine the results of the University of Illinois
at Chicago Hiring and Purchasing Program. Its goals were to improve the
employment possibilities for community residents by changing the university’s
hiring policies. The efforts generated paltry outcomes because of the complexity of
university policies. Similarly, the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC)
Neighborhood Initiative was not an easy project. Mayfield, Hellwig, and Banks
(1999) closely examine why it was so difficult for the University of Chicago to form
a partnership with its surrounding community. Their research found that tensions
were rooted in a historical political struggle. Although the outcome of the UIC
Neighborhood initiative proved to be beneficial for the university and the
community, tensions arose in the process of collaboration (Mayfield et al., 1999). As
the university opened its doors to the masses and not just the elite, they needed more
space. As a result, the university took space from its surrounding community
through real estate development. “Gentrification fueled by universities has tended to
displace neighborhood residents and make it increasingly clear to these communities
that they are unwanted in their own backyards” (Maurrasse, 2001, p. 21). As
55
demonstrated, the university’s power and control over its surrounding community led
to the mistrust between community and university partners.
Given the shifting roles of the university shaped by historical and
socioeconomic factors, current research literature calls into question the emerging
missions of research universities in relation to their surrounding local communities.
Maurrasse argues that often communities were treated as “lab experiments,” instead
of directly benefiting from the university’s research (2001). The university’s interest
in civic engagement is sometimes rooted in charity rather than social justice, which
only makes the university more isolated and less accessible to those it must engage
(Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Maurrasse, 2001). Meaningful partnerships related to K-
12 reform require that the university recognize they are part of the problem as they
currently operate. They must begin to change their own exclusionary institutional
culture (Benson et al., 2000) so that K-12 schools and community members can
participate in generating mutually beneficial knowledge.
Conflicts of interest
As already alluded to, partnerships become difficult when each entity holds
different values and interests. Goals and objectives about outcomes in the
partnership may be inherently different (Suarez-Balcazar, 2005). Bringle and
Hatcher also point out that partnerships are difficult because there are cultural
differences between the entities (2002). As explained earlier, Kezar (2007)
elaborates on these differences as she explains the “culture of practice” that defines
K-12 schools and the “culture of theory” that defines universities. Kezar discusses
56
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). Kezar continues to point out that the goals of schools, as defined by
their culture of practice, are to develop strategies that are transferable to classroom
activities. Universities value more generalizable knowledge over context-based
practices (Kezar, 2007). Likewise, 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). There is a great divide between the ways the university conducts its
business and how the community gets involved in the decision-making process about
its own future (Mayfield & Lucas, 2000). The UIC Hiring and Purchasing Program
described by Mayfield and Lucas is a case in point (2000). The objective of the
project was to set up a process for the university to hire community residents and
award purchasing contracts to businesses in the community, but because of the legal
and bureaucratic complexity of university policies, the project produced meager
results. Although the project was not successful, it provides valuable insights to
learn from. Community and university partners came to realize the level of
commitment necessary to achieve the outcomes they sought. Relationships were
developed and strengthened when community partners saw some parts of the
university sympathetic with their goals. Each side of the partnership needs to
understand exactly how important the goals are to each other and to respect their
importance (Mayfield & Lucas, 2000).
57
Logic of merit, deficit, and scarcity
One of the largest obstacles to establishing partnerships among universities,
K-12 schools, and communities on behalf of K-12 urban school transformation are
the logics operating in our society, which influence each entity. Oakes and Rogers
(2006 & 2007) provide a theoretical framework for thinking about partnerships in the
context of inequality in our schools and flawed educational reform. They argue that
the logic of merit, deficit, and scarcity frame how people approach schooling. The
logic of merit assumes that students compete for the benefits of school with their
effort and talents in the context of equal opportunity. The logic of deficit assumes
that schools cannot change the cultural, situational, and individual deficits inherent in
low-income children, children of color, and their families. Furthermore, the logic of
deficit assumes that these students and their families do not get the type of social
advantages they need because of their deficits instead of the structural problems in
the educational system. Finally, the logic of scarcity assumes that there are only
limited amounts of quality education and resources available for all.
Together, these logics can be used as a way to analyze barriers to forming
partnerships. As stated earlier, each entity operates under different cultural values
that must be understood before attempting to form a partnership. The logic of merit
assumes that schools provide equal opportunities for all children to learn. As
described earlier, however, schools have become increasingly segregated for African
American and Latino students since the 1970s and do not provide equal opportunities
in segregated schools located in urban areas. Oakes et al. (2006) point out that
58
schools are expected to prepare students for a differentiated workforce. “That means
schools are expected to sort students into different programs, providing different
learning experiences in preparation for very different and unequal places in the
nation’s economy” (p. 159). According to Gonzalez (2005) economically
disadvantaged student do not receive sufficient learning opportunities to meet high
expectations of performance and knowledge set up by standards-based reform.
Inequitable funding of high poverty schools, little access to challenging curricula,
poorly trained or unqualified teachers, ineffective parent involvement strategies,
inappropriate use of assessments, and inappropriate educational treatments are
among the many ways that schools operate under a flawed meritocracy system.
Equal opportunities to learn are not given to students under these conditions. The
ideology of meritocracy is a strong part of the K-12 and university “cultural values”
that community partners will have to confront. The elimination of affirmative action
programs in university systems assumes that these inequalities do not exist for
students of color in high poverty schools. These “cultural values” present the
greatest barriers for community members because institutional agents in universities
and K-12 schools have the power to dictate a culture of so-called meritocracy.
The logic of deficit is implicit in some of the missions and goals of these
partnerships. For example, Lawson (2003) argues that one major goal in securing
partnerships is to improve results in schools. He describes children of poverty in
need of assistance from community resources when they suffer from causes of
delinquency, school-related problems, substance abuse, and mental health
59
challenges. Further, he explains that professionals serving the family talk about
problems they must solve for families. Likewise, Walsh and Park-Taylor (2003)
claim that non-academic factors such as “poor nutrition, unsafe sex, drug and alcohol
abuse, familial and community violence, teenage pregnancy and parenting, and
inadequate job skills” are good reasons to form partnerships. When partnerships
form under the premise that students and their communities are “at risk” of failure,
they are operating under the deficit logic. Some partnerships narrow their focus on
the failure of students and their families, that they must be “rescued” instead of
acknowledging the wealth of knowledge they can bring to the partnership as well
(Mayfield & Lucas, 2000). The university and school’s intent to form partnerships
with their communities must not be rooted in charity, but rather in social justice
(Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Maurrasse, 2001), the exercise of altering differences in
power and access to knowledge into a more equitable condition.
Different scholars have traced the effects of using the deficit logic against
students of color living in high poverty (Flores, 2005; Oakes & Rogers, 2006;
Valencia, 1997). The persistence of the “achievement gap” is another example of
how the media and politicians attribute students’ low academic achievement to
deficits in their cognitive abilities (Oakes & Rogers, 2006). The current attention to
the achievement gap instead of the opportunity gap focuses all “failings” on children
and their families instead of flawed structures and policies. Flores (2005) illustrates
how Spanish-speaking children have been depicted from a linguistic and cultural
deficit view and how these “deficiencies” came to be considered a “problem” to
60
educators. The logic of deficit complements the logic of merit when access to higher
education is denied to underrepresented students based on their “deficiencies of
merit” in K-12 schools.
Finally, the logic of scarcity as Oakes et al. (2006) argue, deeply influences
every sector of society. The structure of the labor market, as affected by global
capitalism, means that only some students will achieve the highest standards to
compete in the global economy. This logic has penetrated the way universities
conduct their business, consciously making a political decision not to expand access
to higher education in the face of increased demands (Haveman & Speeding, 2006).
“The pool of qualified youth is far greater than the number admitted and enrolled;
hence America's top colleges could enroll more moderate and low-income students
without lowering their selection standards” (p. 125). This stance on the part of the
university is part of its exercise of disproportionate power. It dictates how K-12
schools have to function. Access or lack of access to Advance Placement classes,
high quality teachers, and A-G requirements in high schools greatly determine access
to higher education. Schools and communities find themselves competing for access
to limited educational opportunities in higher education. “Their competition for
increasingly scarce, high-quality public school opportunities is fiercer than ever, both
aided by and reflected in policies encouraging parental choice” (Oakes et al., 2006,
p. 162). Thus, these three logics are inherently problematic in our society and are
largely determined by the disproportionate power of the university that shapes the
functions of schools and communities.
61
Interethnic conflict in the community
As explained by previous historical accounts, socioeconomic and
sociopolitical factors, including the logics in our society, continue to affect both
African Americans and Latinos. The disproportionate power of the university over
K-12 schools filters down to the community level and creates conflict among those
competing for scarce resources. A major gap in the literature that could possibly
contribute to the demise of partnerships is the unexplored effect existing partnerships
between K-12 schools and universities have on the relationships between the African
American and Latino communities. The effects are cyclical. Because of the conflict
generated within these communities through the influence of the logics of merit,
scarcity, and deficit on low-income communities of color, their communities lack the
collective power to enter relationships with schools and universities as a collectively
powerful entity. When discussing the community’s role in partnerships, often times
the community is defined as the citizens of a particular neighborhood, parents,
community-based organizations, and/or a combination of all three. Yet, within these
groups lie different interests and cultural values as well. Therefore, it is important to
explore the relationships that exist within the community.
Kezar (2007) discusses the importance of examining the values, conflict, and
goals at the micro level. She argues that institutional cultures are complex and
examining culture at the macro level (partnerships among the university, schools,
and community) often conceals many of the cultural differences that operate at the
micro level among particular subgroups (African American and Latino
62
communities). Cultural differences and politics that operate at the micro level are
often more significant for partners to understand rather than macro level differences
(Firestone & Fisler, 2002; Kezar, 2007).
It is important to explore the politics that exist between the African
American and Latino communities as a significant factor affecting the outcomes of
partnerships. A growing body of research reveals the tensions and conflicts that
exist between these ethnic communities (Hoffman, 2006; Rocha, 2006; Rodrigues,
2005; Vaca, 2004). Several scholars have noted the changing racial population
dynamics in urban neighborhoods, especially between the African American and
Latino communities. Vaca’s (2004) work documents the tensions that have arisen
between African American and Latino communities in the past thirty years,
especially in urban areas. It provides a different perspective to the civil rights
movement, where there are differences in their struggle for full citizenship. In fact,
the logic of scarcity is pervasive in this narrative where each group is competing for
similar jobs and educational resources. “Of all the arenas of struggle, certainly the
fight for political power is in the heavyweight division. Political success brings
access to the corridors of power, and access to power leads to economic
opportunities” (p. xi).
The logic of scarcity in our educational system divides ethnic minorities by
forcing them to compete for resources in education. Access to education determines
economic, employment, and political power in communities. Thus, the dynamics of
power distribution within these two groups can work as a barrier towards educational
63
reform. Hoffman (2006) uses Oakland as a case study to analyze inter-minority
attitudes and conflict in a multiracial setting. He explores the relations among
African Americans, Latinos, and Asians in terms of conflict or coexistence in daily
community life and competition for jobs, particularly in the school system. The
logic of scarcity explains this case study further. Hoffman found that while relations
were generally peaceful, but distant, in the neighborhoods of Oakland, they were
often hostile in school settings due to conflict over jobs and authority. Finally,
Rodrigues (2005) examines Latino attitudes toward other Latinos and African
Americans and African American attitudes toward Latinos to measure feelings of
solidarity, prejudice, and stereotypes in different urban environments. She argues
that coalitions are influenced by these attitudes, especially with public policy issues
in which both groups have much at stake. It is apparent that interethnic conflict can
become a barrier to partnerships so long as the logics of our society continue to
persist. Conflicts within communities can eliminate their participation in
partnerships with K-12 schools and universities.
While some scholars argue that there are tensions between African
Americans and Latino groups resulting from political competition, especially in
education, another partnership case study illustrates a counterview. Mayfield et al.
(1999) provide a historical background of a case in university-community
collaboration in Chicago and its future development. As racial diversity increased
over time, racial groups resided close together and built strong ties even as
neighborhoods changed due to White flight caused by university expansion.
64
Community organizations emerged from these groups and had strong influence on
conditions and policies in their neighborhood. These groups found it necessary to be
united because the University of Chicago would later try and take space from its
surrounding community through real estate development. The university tried to buy
parcels of land and attached “racially restrictive covenants to redevelopment plans”
(p. 866). Eventually, the African American and Latino community elected
Chicago’s first African American mayor, Harold Washington, to end racial
gentrification. Therefore, in this case, the alliance of racial minorities was
considered beneficial when the political struggle against the university existed.
Overcoming Barriers
Co-constructed Relationships
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. Much of the research literature on
partnerships emphasize the importance of building relationships based on mutual
respect, effective communication, and trust among many other critical factors
(Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Brabeck et al., 2003; Johnston-Parsons, 1997; Maurrasse,
2001; Mayfield et al., 1999; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000; Ostrander, 2004; Sirotnik &
Goodlad, 1988; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2005). These types of partnerships take time,
energy and a strong commitment on the behalf of all partners involved in the process.
Those that are perceived to have the most power need to be able to redistribute their
power and resources in a meaningful way. All entities must be willing to share
65
power, decision-making, and material resources with local communities and schools
and show it by the way the work is organized (Ostrander, 2004).
The co-construction process among universities, schools, and communities
requires a careful consideration of the social and cultural contexts. In fact, the nature
of co-construction is defined by the socio-cultural and socio-political context of a
relationship. These contexts largely define the possibility of forming positive
relationships. According to Carroll et al. (2001), the co-construction process
includes several principles: (1) university researchers should understand and respect
the social and cultural forces that will affect change at school sites; (2) information
regarding the community’s values, interests, and activities should be considered and
used as part of 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 unique mind set that
allows for all stakeholders’ knowledge and skills to be valued and given the
opportunity to develop; (5) patience is required because desired results are intended
to be life long and transformational for all involved in the process. These general
principles are foundational in many of the partnership models and allow for power
redistribution among all stakeholders.
Other scholars inform our understanding of co-constructed relationships as
well. Bringle & Hatcher (2002) shed light on the nature of university-community
partnerships. They use the analogy of romantic relationships and friendships in order
to explore the dynamics of these “multiple dyadic” relationships that are formed.
66
When initiating a relationship, there must be accurate self-awareness,
communication, and self-disclosure. In order to develop and maintain the
relationship, a certain degree of monitoring, interdependency, joint outcomes, and
affirmations must exist. Bueschel and Poetter (2007) describe a similar process noted
by forming study circles with members of the university, K-12 schools, and the
community. The idea was to engage diverse community leaders through dialogue to
provide more learning opportunities for youth. The process of engaging the
community required a shift in culture from authoritative rule to greater self-
governance where school administrators had to suspend their roles as “experts” and
listen to the concerns of community members in their study circle (Bueschel &
Poetter, 2007). Finally, dissolution might be an attractive alternative if the
relationship results in unexpected change in outcomes. The nature of the
relationships formed through this process conforms to the principles of co-
constructed relationships defined earlier. “Successful campus-community
partnerships must find ways to preserve the integrity of each partner and, at the same
time, honor the purpose of the relationship and the growth of each party” (Bringle &
Hatcher, 2002, p. 513).
Another university strategy that has been used to co-construct relationships
with K-12 schools and communities is the implementation of service learning.
Although it has some paternalistic implications because the university dictates the
terms of service, service learning can be beneficial for all partners if many of the co-
construction principles are involved when initiating this strategy. Bringle and
67
Hatcher conclude that service learning provides the most meaningful way to build
partnerships (2002). Service learning has an array of benefits for all stakeholders
because it embodies the mission of higher education; it leads to civic engagement
that can improve scholarship; it involves everyone in solving community issues; it
values community agency professionals as co-educators, and requires on-going
dialogue to ensure successful implementation. However, it is important to be aware
of its hierarchical implications. The benefits of service learning are usually skewed
towards the university. Many universities have adopted service learning as a way to
initiate co-constructed relationships with their surrounding communities (Benson et
al., 2000; Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Ostrander, 2004).
Dialogic Relationships
The co-construction process entails dialogic relationships as an essential
element to the formation of university, school, and community partnerships. Paulo
Freire’s seminal work Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2003) provides a theoretical
framework by which to understand the nature of these dialogical relationships.
Freire defines dialogic relationships as marked by love, humility, faith in
humankind, hope, and critical thinking. “Founding 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). This definition becomes
a lens by which to explain the essential relationship dynamics among the university,
school, and community. It is vital to the understanding of these dialogic
relationships that these principles become the center of the communication process
68
among the three entities. Trust, a key element in forming a relationship, cannot be
earned without Freire’s guiding principles. Similarly, Freire’s emphasis on
horizontal relationships instead of vertical relationships promotes mutual respect for
one another and the importance of redistributing power among all three entities. In
essence, horizontal relationships are based on equitable power distribution, and
vertical relationships, on the other hand, are based on hierarchical power relations.
Johnston-Parsons (1997) provides a way of thinking about dialogue in
relation to partnerships that is also similar to Freire’s concept of dialogic
relationships. Dialogue is a means by which people examine and learn from their
differences. “Differences kept in tension in a dialogue nurture critique and learning”
(p. 9). In other words, it is important to move away from the idea that differences
are potentially conflicting, but rather, differences between individuals can be
productive and result in mutual learning. They explain the importance of
distinguishing a dialogue from a discussion. Discussions are generally goal-oriented
and their purpose is often to persuade others. With dialogue, on the other hand,
participants gain insight, and learning occurs; participants “suspend” their roles,
assumptions, and judgments. Dialogue is necessary in situations where power
differentials exist and must be suspended in order to learn from each other.
Johnston-Parsons offers a Deweyan reading of dialogue to help understand the
concept in terms of power and democracy (1997). “[In dialogue] we are trying to
interrogate the privilege and power inherent in our conversations and relationships.
Dialogue, like democracy, is enhanced by continual vigilance into the layers of our
69
differences, not just those at the surface” (p. 17-18). Oakes and Rogers (2007) also
advocate for this type of dialogue to occur when they make a case for a public site
for participatory social inquiry where everyone can engage in dialogue openly and
freely and involve everyone in decision-making in order to create a collective vision.
The elements of dialogic relationships are implicit in many different types of
partnership models described by scholars. Using the analogy of romantic
relationships and friendships, Bringle & Hatcher (2002) allude to the type of close
bond based on love that is necessary to sustain relationships. Lawson (2003) also
describes a developmental progression for collaboration: connecting and
communicating, cooperation, coordination, community building, and contracting.
Similarly, Suarez-Balcazar et al. (2005) define the different elements necessary to
carry out meaningful partnerships. All components of their partnership model
influence one another, depending on the factors or circumstances in the setting.
These components include: trust and mutual respect, adequate communication,
respect for diversity, culture of learning, respect for culture of the setting, and
developing an action agenda. These components are not very different from Freire’s
dialogic principles.
Thus, dialogic relationships among the university, school, and community
can serve as a cultural model for engaging the African-American and Latino
communities to prepare urban students for higher education. The Freirean dialogical
lens lends itself to reframing cultural models. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001)
broadly define cultural models as the “shared mental schema or normative
70
understanding of how the world works, or ought to work”(p. 47). In this case, these
necessary dialogical relationships among all three partners serve as cultural models
for other types of necessary partnerships between different groups. Interethnic
conflict, as discussed earlier, may arise as a barrier to partnerships. The unity of the
African-American and Latino communities is a critical force in the success of
partnerships among the university, K-12 schools, and communities. Without
collective vision and goals in their shared communities, the university and K-12
schools will continue to hold disproportionate power over communities. Addressing
the shortage of highly qualified teachers in urban schools and the under-
representation of African-American and Latino students in higher education are two
areas where these communities can unite in common ground. Through dialogic
relationships, these two communities have the potential of engaging in dialogue that
is mutually beneficial for African American and Latino students.
Building Alliances in the Community
The alliance between the African-American and Latino communities will
help redefine the current discussion on teachers’ role that supports learning for their
children whose performance continues to fall behind their White and Asian peers.
The current state of “segregation” in our schools, as described by Orfield and Yun
(1999), has created major inequalities for both African-American and Latino
students. One of those major inequalities includes the quality of teachers in urban
schools, which directly influences the possibilities for students to access higher
education (Rousseau, 2007). Co-constructed relationships among the university, K-
71
12 schools, and united communities can contribute to the discussion of these specific
inequalities. An analysis of how community members participate in the dialogue
about what is needed in teachers’ role poses merit in this discussion.
Teacher Quality
Dialogic relationships among the university, K-12 schools, and communities
can play a significant role in improving teacher quality in urban schools. Thus far,
the current dialogue on teacher quality has only included the knowledge generated
by K-12 educators and university researchers. However, several scholars have
documented the community’s perspective and voice on the teacher quality discussion
(Delpit, 2006; Genzuk, 1999; Gonzalez et al., 1993; Gonzalez & Moll, 2002; Oakes
& Rogers, 2006). Delpit (2006) suggests that members of poor communities must be
allowed to participate fully in the discussion of the kind of instruction that is in their
children’s best interest. More specifically, the African-American and Latino
communities’ perspectives are a critical part of the discussion in regards to teacher
quality in urban settings and access to the college-bound trajectory for these students.
Current Discussion on Teacher Quality
Teacher quality is now the focus of policy analysis in which NCLB requires a
“highly qualified teacher” in every classroom (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003).
The research conducted by Darling-Hammond (2000), Haycock (1998), and
Wenglinsky (2000) all identify different inputs that make a difference in teachers’
classroom performance and student learning outcomes. Some of these inputs include
strong verbal and math skills, deep content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and
72
certification status. These scholars reveal that teacher quality, as defined by these
inputs, is highly correlated with high student achievement (Carey, 2004; Darling-
Hammond, 2000; Haycock, 1998; Wenglinsky, 2000).
The concern with teacher quality has been driven by increasing recognition,
supported by growing research evidence, of how important teachers are to student
learning. Evidence provided by Darling-Hammond and Sykes (2003) demonstrate
the need for federal, state, and local programs to support local school districts in
strengthening their teaching force especially in urban communities. Their research
describes the role that NCLB legislation plays in teacher preparation, assessment,
and retention. The evidence they found dispels some misconceptions about the
teacher labor market and provides some exemplary state mandates and local districts
that have made significant progress in changing the nature of the teaching force.
One of the biggest misconceptions about the teacher labor market is the false
notion that there is an overall shortage of qualified teachers. Instead, what we do
have are distributional inequities in the hiring of unqualified teachers (Carey, 2004;
Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003; Haycock, 1998; Peske & Haycock, 2006). The
attraction to teach in more affluent districts is directly related to the funding
distribution. “In most states, the wealthiest districts have revenues and expenditures
per pupil that are two or three times those of the poorest districts.” (Darling-
Hammond & Sykes, 2003, p. 18). Under-funded districts spend the least, even
though they usually have greater needs to meet. These inequities translate into low
quality teaching in urban schools.
73
Another factor to consider in the discussion of teacher quality in urban
schools is the issue of the growing gap between the backgrounds of teachers and
those of diverse student populations (Au, 2002; Sleeter, 2000-01). Sleeter
demonstrates that the teacher population does not reflect the changing demographics
in our schools with a majority of the teaching force being white, middle-class
females (2000-01). Sleeter identifies tools to measure teacher attitudes and found
that white teachers and the belief system they bring to education are marked by an
unawareness of inequities in education and cultural differences. Furthermore, Au’s
(2002) analysis of the cultural gap existing between Hawaiian students and their
teachers uses empirical evidence to demonstrate how this cultural gap has a negative
effect on student learning. Studies similar to Au’s study (2002) explore the effects of
teacher beliefs on perceived learner advantages. Warburton and Torff’s research
suggests that low-advantage learners may receive less critical thinking activities in
schools as a result of their teachers’ beliefs and perceptions, which hinders their
academic performance (2005). Similarly, Hollins and Guzman (2005) researched
teacher candidates’ predispositions with diversity in a teacher preparation program
and found that their experiences with diversity were limited and had influenced their
beliefs. As a result, teacher candidates lacked self-efficacy to teach in diverse
settings.
Current educational reform efforts cannot ignore these flawed policies and
the disparities they have created. Historically, there have been patterns of inclusion
for some and exclusion for others and the denial of learning opportunities, thus
74
creating an opportunity gap among African American/ Latino students and their
White peers. One must examine the lack of learning opportunities in the current
educational system by considering teachers’ role in urban schools among other
elements of substandard schooling for students of color living in high poverty. The
possibility of partnerships among universities, K-12 schools, and community
members must be explored as a viable solution to these educational inequities.
Redefining the Current Discussion on Teacher Quality
Dialogic relationships are based on mutual respect, effective communication,
and trust. Delpit (2006) addresses these aspects of relationships in communicating
across cultures and communities to determine what is best for students of color living
in high poverty. She claims that all sides need to be able to listen carefully, and
those with the most power usually in the majority, must take greater responsibility
for initiating the dialogue. “To do so takes a very special kind of listening, listening
that requires not only open eyes and ears, but open hearts and minds. /To put our
beliefs on hold is to cease to exist as ourselves for a moment…[Listening] 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” (p. 47). This type of dialogue echoes Freire’s notion
of dialogic relationships founded on love, humility, and faith. Dialogue is necessary
in situations where power differentials exist and must be suspended in order to learn
from each other.
These dialogic relationships are strengthened when university researchers and
K-12 educators suspend their understanding about teacher effectiveness and listen to
75
the community’s conversation about this topic. As stated earlier, defining good
teaching is a complex task but critical for educational reform. Delpit (2006) asserts
that good teaching is not thought of in the same way in all communities; it varies
across different cultural communities. Current research defines good teaching by
certain measurable inputs such as strong verbal and math skills, deep content
knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and certification status (Darling-Hammond,
2000; Haycock, 1998; Wenglinsky, 2000). Delpit (2006) explains that teachers of
color define good teaching not just by the ability to transfer content knowledge, but
the ability to form relationships between themselves and their students. Research
indicates that children of color value the social aspects of a learning environment
more than “mainstream” children (Delpit, 2006). Therefore, good teaching can be
thought of differently for students of color than white students. This does not
suggest that deep content pedagogical knowledge is not important for teachers who
teach students of color. It only implies the value of learning as a social endeavor for
students of color (Vygotsky, 1997). According to Delpit (2006), in many African
American communities, effective teachers are expected to show how much they care
by controlling the class, revealing personal power, forming meaningful interpersonal
relationships with their students, demonstrating high expectations, and incorporating
African American interactional styles in their teaching. She demonstrated similar
findings with the Native American community where a teacher used her emotional
affiliation with her students as a discipline strategy instead of resorting to the power
rooted in her role as an authority figure.
76
While educators learn to listen and learn from the community through
dialogical relationships, community members can also demonstrate the learning
power of K-12 culture by actively questioning policies and decisions affecting their
children. Oakes and Rogers (2006) provide a rich description on how parents fused
inquiry and action as they sought to secure better schooling for their children.
Parents partnered with a local research university and began to access and co-
construct knowledge about how to improve the quality of education for their
children. “For example, they learned about the state’s content standards, the
pedagogies most likely to help students meet those standards, assessment and the
web of reporting and rhetoric around accountability…” (p. 115). This partnership
led to active participation at their children’s school, although not always welcome
the way they had hoped for, because they were disrupting the traditional balance of
power between the school and community. Active participation by parents like these
fostered a sense of collective identity for all partners engaged in the process.
Conclusion
Clearly, the community’s role in improving schooling for their children in
relationship with the university and K-12 schools must be explored further. Co-
constructed partnerships among the university, K-12 schools, and community can
have a larger impact on educational reform than each of them working in isolation.
Universities can initiate dialogic relationships with K-12 educators and community
members to ensure teacher quality in a myriad of ways. These might include, but are
not limited to inviting parents to teacher education programs as educators to educate
77
teacher interns about their role and requiring teacher interns to engage in
ethnographic studies in urban communities as part of their credentialing
requirements. Similarly, K-12 schools can co-construct relationships with parents to
ensure teacher quality by inviting parents as educators to professional development
workshops and accepting their role as vital decision-makers. When dialogical
relationships are fostered and nurtured among all these stakeholders, the
interdependence, shared vision, and collective identity can ensure significant
educational reform on behalf of high poverty students of color in urban schools.
This study will investigate the process of co-constructing partnerships and the
barriers and strategies to effective partnerships. It will also seek to explore how
dialogical relationships among the university, K-12 schools, and community can
collectively improve teachers’ role in transforming urban schools.
78
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The literature review in Chapter Two focused on the critical role of the
university, community and K-12 urban schools in establishing partnerships and
garnering resources for 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 and within each entity as well. Co-constructed relationships
among universities, schools, and communities have the potential for redistributing
power, thus enabling all partners to contribute to the quality of education in urban
communities. Little is known about the impact of co-constructed relationships
among the particular partners of this unique study that includes a historical civil
rights organization, an urban research organization, a top-tiered private research
university, and an underperforming school as a partner, not a mere object of study
within the partnership.
Purpose
This study is designed to provide new knowledge about efforts to co-
construct a partnership among this particular community, urban school, and private
research university created to improve the quality of education in a specific urban
high school. Limited information is known about the power of co-constructed
relationships in fostering successful partnerships among all three entities to benefit
79
schools. Each partner cannot accomplish this work in isolation due to the various
academic and nonacademic factors that influence students’ development; however,
there are multiple assets that all stakeholders can offer students by working in
collaboration with one another. The purpose of this study is to reveal the barriers
that hinder the formation of co-constructed, dialogic relationships among all
stakeholders within the community, urban high school, and university partnership.
Strategies that prove successful in eliminating institutional hierarchies and nurturing
dialogic relationships among stakeholders will also be examined. Further, this study
examines to what extent a dialogic co-constructed partnership that redistributes
power among all partners can provide a new cultural model for addressing issues
related to urban school transformation. More particularly, this study will examine
the partnership for its possibility to transform the school in the partnership to raise
the academic achievement of African American and Latino youth. This chapter
describes the research methodology employed for the present study, explains the
research design, sampling procedures, instrumentation, theoretical frameworks that
frame the research questions, data collection and data analysis of the study.
Research Questions
This qualitative case study searched for answers to the following research
questions:
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?
80
 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 of a partnership capable of creating a new cultural model in
urban schools result from the process of co-constructing a community,
school, and university partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?
Methods
The researchers addressed the research questions by conducting a qualitative
case study of a partnership involving a specific research university, community
members, and an urban high school in Los Angeles as the unit of analysis. The
qualitative case study approach was used in this study for several reasons. As the
majority of the research questions that frame this study focus on the contextual
factors influencing the development of partnerships, such as persisting barriers to
establishing partnerships and difficulties in co-constructing partnerships, the case
study approach was the best match for this type of action-oriented inquiry. As Patton
claims, “studying information-rich cases yields insights and in-depth understanding
rather than empirical generalizations” (2002, p. 230). Case studies can yield rich
descriptive data that can be applied to generating valuable insights (Merriam, 1998).
In this case, exploring the diverse perspectives of all stakeholders ensured a more
81
accurate and detailed account about the barriers and strategies in the partnership
process. The uniqueness of this study also lends itself to using a qualitative inquiry
approach. Because the study was action-oriented problem-solving research, the
research itself was part of the change process (Pattton, 2002).
The researcher conducted interviews; carried out observations and reviewed
artifacts to provide a rich and thick body of data. Patton (2002) states that
observations, artifacts, and interviews are all qualitative data sources. Observations
contextualize data, capturing human interactions. Artifact analysis can provide
factual data for background information or evidence to support observation and
interview data. Documents and other artifacts can provide insight into previous
events and background data. Interviews are key pieces of data, providing “depth,
detail, and individual meaning” (Patton, 2002, p. 20).
The researchers used triangulation among these sources of data to strengthen
the validity of the findings. The triangulation of data increased the internal validity
of all three measures by using all sources as checks and balances against one another
(Merriam, 1998). The overall purpose of all methods for collecting data was to
access key sources of information about the process by which the partnership was
being formed and the resulting attributes of the partnership in that process. Key
sources to convey knowledge of the partnership were the people within the
partnership organizations and people directly involved or affected by the partnership.
The people involved were able to clarify their participation in the partnership and
provide information about the manner in which it was being formed for the purpose
82
of transforming an urban high school. The researchers were interested in knowing
the different perceptions among the various stakeholders about attributes they
believe characterize the partnership in the first year of its formation. The researchers
were also interested in knowing how individuals viewed their own roles or the role
of their organization in the partnership.
Sample and Population
Selection Criteria
This partnership was selected due to the rare opportunity to observe a
university that has a mission to support the urban community, a K-12 school that has
chosen with the support of its teachers and parents to go into a special unit of the
District focused on new concepts and structures, and community-based civil rights
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
advocacy, research CBO have worked to empower the community and have recently
invited the university to join their efforts on behalf of K-12 transformation. Although
several different university/school, university/community, or school/community
partnerships have come into existence, little is known about partnerships involving
three entities like the ones found in this partnership. Neither has prior research
examined closely a co-constructed relationship focused on diffusing hierarchical
power among the unique set of partners in this study for the purpose of transforming
schools.
83
Sampling Procedure
Purposeful sampling was used to select a specific partnership that reflects the
rare inclusion of the three key partners represented in this partnership: community,
school, and university in an urban setting. “Purposeful, strategic sampling can yield
crucial information about critical cases” (Patton, 2002, p. 242). It qualifies for
extreme or deviant case sampling as a strategy for selecting unusual or special cases
that are information rich. Purposeful sampling was used to ensure the selection of an
information-rich case. Patton (2002) states, “The logic and power of purposeful
sampling lie in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich
cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central
importance to the purpose of the inquiry” (p. 230).
The unit of analysis for this case study is the community/school/university
partnership comprising a unique set of partners. The study examined the first year of
forming this partnership created to transform a K-12 school that has experienced
multiple years of decline in community trust and academic performance. Yet, this
school was seeking an expanded role in making its own decision about transforming
the school.
The community is largely represented by a longstanding nationally affiliated
community-based organization and a community-based research organization that
works with urban schools to transform their culture for teaching and learning. This
partnership also involves a top-tier private research university that is situated in a
highly urbanized area of the city. This unique set of partners has attempted to form a
84
non-profit organization for the single purpose of transforming an urban school. The
Greater Freedom Educational Partnership (GFEP), unlike other network partners in
the District, has opted to work with only one school and it has included the
community. Also, unique to this study, the partners have included the school as a
partner (subject), not an object of its work.
The figures that follow describe the school’s demographics and achievement
characteristics:

Figure 1. Racial Demographics
85
Table 1. School Achievement Data

API
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
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
458 497 500 512 523 528 523
English Learners 505 512 502 508 473
Students w/ Disabilities 352 364 337 354 410

Figure 2. Social Demographics
86
Observations at the school site and the surrounding community facilitated
emerging sampling, taking advantage of opportunities to follow new leads and
allowing the sample to expand during fieldwork (Patton, 2002). Sampling of
politically important events led to interviews with the school site principal,
department chairs, and parents as a means to gain entry and acceptance into the
school culture. As a result, a series of interviews with key teachers and parents at the
school site, as well as interviews with faculty at the university and community
leaders, was conducted.
Instrumentation
Data collection procedures included observations, interviews, and artifacts.
Data was collected beginning in November and completed in January. In order to
address issues of validity and reliability, methods in the form of data triangulation
and investigator triangulation were utilized. Triangulated data included artifacts,
observations, and interviews, which were then analyzed by ten different researchers.
“Using multiple methods allows inquiry into a research question with ‘an arsenal of
methods that have non-overlapping weaknesses in addition to their complementary
strengths’” (Brewer and Hunter in Patton, 2002, p. 248).
A thematic research cohort consisting of ten doctoral candidates, chaired by
Sylvia G. Rousseau, Ed.D., met throughout the fall of 2007 and continued to meet in
the summer of 2008 to develop and refine research questions, theoretical frameworks
for each research question, interview and observation protocols, and methods for
87
analyzing artifacts. Table 2 below shows the relationship between the research
questions and the instruments that were used to collect the data.

Table 2. Triangulation Using a Variety of Data Collection Instruments

Interviews Observations Artifacts
Research Question #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?

Background Information X X
Research Question #1a: What are the persistent
barriers to establishing partnerships among
community, K-12 schools, and university on
behalf of K-12 urban school transformation?
X X X
Research Question #1b: 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?
X X X
Research Question #2: What attributes of a
partnership capable of creating a new cultural
model in urban schools result from the process of
co-constructing a community, school, and
university partnership with the intent to transform
a K-12 school?
X X X
88
Research Question Theoretical Frameworks
Framework for first research question
The first research question asks, “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?” This primary research question is grounded in
the theoretical framework discussed in Chapter Two. It was created with the premise
that co-constructed dialogic relationships are part of a continuous process that are
subject to ongoing flux. Through interviews, artifacts, and observations the
researcher’s intent was to discover the extent to which the process was dialogic and
reflective of a co-construction process that builds upon the funds of knowledge that
each partner brings to the partnership. The process shed light on the two sub-
questions, which ask, “What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships
among community, K-12 schools, and university on behalf of K-12 urban school
transformation?” This research question was created based on the literature review
that unequal distributions of power, resource inequalities, conflicts of interest, and
the logics of merit, scarcity, and deficit can all exist as major barriers to the
partnership. 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?” Chapter Two identified the strength of co-constructed relationships
among communities, schools, and universities to fulfill the potential of redistributing
power, thus enabling all partners to contribute to the quality of education in urban
89
communities. The co-construction process entails dialogic relationships as an
essential element to the formation of university, school, and community partnerships.
Paulo Freire’s seminal work Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) provides a
theoretical framework by which to understand the nature of these dialogical
relationships. Dialogical relationships based on mutual respect, common goals,
vision, and trust are key elements to overcoming barriers.
The primary research question and its related sub-questions are grounded in a
theoretical framework developed through the literature review in Chapter Two. The
review of the literature has found that uneven distribution of power is one of the key
barriers to forming and sustaining meaningful partnerships. However, Oakes et al.
(2006) offer a theoretical framework by which to understand barriers to partnerships
in what they call the logics of our society. The logic of merit, deficit, and scarcity
offer a perspective for thinking about partnerships in the context of inequality in
American society and schools and flawed educational reform. Oakes and Rogers
(2007) argue that the logic of merit, deficit, and scarcity frame how people approach
schooling, particularly in urban areas.
Framework for the second research question
The second research question asks, “What attributes of a partnership capable
of creating a new cultural model in urban schools result from the process of co-
constructing a community, school, and university partnership with the intent to
transform a K-12 school?” Freire’s (1970) concept of dialogic relationships in
addition to Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) definition of cultural models
90
provides a lens through which to identify the types of university, school, and
community partnerships that can create a new cultural model capable of transforming
K-12 schools.

Table 3. Theoretical Frameworks for Research Questions

Research Question Theoretical
Framework
Research Question #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?
• Freire (1970) —
Dialogue
Research Question #1a: What are the persistent barriers
to establishing partnerships among community, K-12
schools, and university on behalf of K-12 urban school
transformation?
• Oakes & Rogers
(2007) — Logic of
merit, scarcity, and
deficit
Research Question #1b: What are some effective
strategies that have the potential for 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?
• Freire (1970) —
Dialogue
Research Question #2: What attributes of a partnership
capable of creating a new cultural model in urban schools
result from the process of co-constructing a community,
school, and university partnership with the intent to
transform a K-12 school?
• Freire (1970) —
Dialogue
• Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001)
— Cultural Models
91
Data Collection Instruments and Procedures
Data Collection Instruments
The following instruments were designed by the research cohort and are
included as appendices in this document:
Instrument 1: Administrator Interview Protocol
Instrument 2: Teacher Interview Protocol
Instrument 3: Parent Interview Protocol
Instrument 4: Community-Based Organization Interview Protocol
Instrument 5: University Stakeholder Interview Protocol
Instrument 6: Classroom Observation Protocol
Instrument 7: Meeting Observation Protocol
Instrument 8: Document Analysis Protocol

Table 4. Data Sources

Interviews Observations Artifacts
Parents
Total: 6
Meetings at the school including teachers,
administrators, and/or parents
Total: 6
Partnership business
plan
Community
Members-at-large
Total: 2
Community visits
(A minimum of two visits by all team
members)
MOU between
partnership and district
Teachers
Total: 6
2 administrators
GCEP Board meetings
Total: minimum of 2
Fact Sheet
University of Change
faculty
Total: 3
Community-based organization meetings
Total: 4

You-Division Staff in
LAUSD
Total: 1
School in general (hallways, quad, athletic
events, etc.
Total: 2

92
Observations
Observations, according to Merriam (1998), take place in a “natural” setting
and present an in-person encounter with the “phenomenon of interest” as opposed to
the second-hand content of an interview. Observations were conducted in a variety of
settings to gain insight into the cultures of the specific partners and the emerging
culture as the entities interacted and encountered one another. These observations
included meetings involving community organizations in their functions independent
of the school, as well as those taking place within the school context or pertaining to
the partnership. Cumulatively, the group of researchers conducted a total of ten
observations involving community-based organizations and parents in the role of
members of the community.
Observations of the community in general helped provide context about the
community in which the school is located. The researchers attended neighborhood
council 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 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 events that were observed was based on a master calendar
developed by the dissertation group, along with meeting agendas among the
participants in the study. K-12 teachers and University faculty in their respective
93
contexts were observed to examine their styles of meeting within contexts that bring
them together. Designated members of the team of researchers conducted a total of
five observations. Additionally, the observations included two Greater Freedom
Educational Partnership board meetings. Observations lasted the length of the
meetings. The observer used field notes as a means for recording observations.
They were dated and contain key information to describe the event, i.e., attendees,
physical setting, activities, what people say to demonstrate the “emic perspective”
(Fetterman, 1989:30 as cited in Patterson, 2002), the observers’ reactions, feelings,
insights and reflections on events.
The observations contributed to the researchers’ knowledge of the partnership
and identified areas in which persistent barriers 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 transition team, which consists of elective community members, parents,
teachers, administrators, were conducted. Observation protocols were generated by
the research cohort and closely aligned to the theoretical frameworks for each
research question. Field notes were used to observe and capture this information.
Field notes included the following elements of each observation: the physical setting,
participants, activities and interactions, conversations, subtle factors that are less
obvious, as well as the observer’s own behavior (Merriam, 1998). The role of the
94
observer was that of an objective observer, whereby the observer’s primary
responsibility was that of information gatherer and not a participant (Merriam, 1998).
Interviews
“The purpose of interviews is to allow [the researchers] to enter into the other
person’s perspective” (Patton, p. 341). Interviews enable the researchers to learn
about events (and their meanings) that they were not able to observe. Interviews
were conducted with stakeholders from each category of participants or stakeholders
in the partnership. Interviewees were also selected in part from persons identified
through the observations.
Throughout this case study, the researchers adhered to the guidelines and
procedures for ethical conduct in research set forth by the University of Change and
the Los Angeles Unified School District. Participants were assured that this was a
voluntary study, and at no time were coercive tactics for participation used. The
researchers obtained written informed consent before beginning any research within
any of the participating organizations.
The collective body of interviews conducted by members of the research
team included seven members from the community-based organizations as the roles
and perspectives of the community are of particular interest in this study. Semi-
structured interviews were used because they contain specific, as well as open-ended
questions that are flexibly worded to elicit more varied responses. “Less structured
formats assume that individual respondents define the world in unique ways”
(Merriam, 1998, p. 74). The format of the semi-structured interview allowed for
95
flexibility in the way questions were asked and allowed the researcher to have the
option to follow the direction of the conversation in response to the interviewee’s
answers. Interviewers had flexibility in the way questions were asked, the order in
which they were asked, or decisions to omit some questions if they were answered in
the interviewees’ responses to questions already asked. 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 may have
revealed the researcher’s bias, or yes-or-no questions that elicit no significant
information (Merriam, 1998). The interview questions also included several probes,
as well as more than one way to seek the same information to help guide the
interview and allow the researcher to make adjustments throughout the interview
(Merriam, 1998). Some of the probing questions were pre-set in anticipation of
inadequate responses to questions posed. Each interview was between 45 – 90
minutes in length and was conducted by the end of January.
Interviews included the chief administrators of the three founding
organizations to the partnerships as well as their staffs and their board members.
Three persons from the University of Change that were interviewed were faculty in
the Freirian School of Education. Interviewees associated with Freedom High
School community included six parents. School-based interviewees included two
school administrators, and six Freedom High School teachers. Prior to conducting
any interviews, the researchers announced at specified meetings attended by
96
potential interviewees the purpose of the study and their desire to conduct interviews.
The researchers contacted potential interviewees based on interest sparked by the
observations or leads from other interviewees. The research team interviewed two
community-at-large persons. They included members of the Neighborhood Council
and active members of the community. To gain an understanding of the context in
which network partners were asked to take on oversight of specific schools or school
clusters, the research team interviewed one person in the You-Design Division, the
unit in the LAUSD to which the network partnerships report.
Artifacts
In order to identify the potential barriers to establishing successful
partnerships, as well as discover effective strategies for overcoming these barriers,
artifacts from each of the entities in the partnership were collected. Artifacts are
defined as “symbolic materials such as writing and signs and non-symbolic materials
such as tools and furnishings” (LeCompte and 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 by the presence of the investigator,
making them less obtrusive than other forms of data such as interviews and
observations (Merriam, 1998).
Collecting data using artifacts or documents helped to ground the research in
the context of the problem being studied (Merriam, 1998). Looking at key
documents helped illuminate pre-existing and current barriers to establishing
97
partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12 schools. These documents also
provided insight into effective strategies that have the potential to overcome these
barriers.
Information from these documents may include things that have taken place
prior to the study, private exchanges between relevant parties, and/or unstated goals,
decisions, or values (Patton, p. 293). Partnership documents and artifacts were
analyzed for background and commitments to the construction of the partnership.
Documents of interest included the MOU between the partnership and the school
district; business plan; and a fact sheet that documents all the stakeholders’ stated
successes and/or contributions to the partnership.
For the most part, public documents were primary sources; other documents
or artifacts were identified through interviews and observations. The researchers
sought the permission of the participating organizations to gain access to these
documents.
Data Analysis
As all members of the team of researchers were assigned responsibility for
collecting portions of the data for the case study, the research group constructed a
codebook that gave all members access to the entire pool of data. The codes created
for capturing the data included the data’s relationship to a combination of factors:
• the process by which the partnership was formed, i.e., co-constructed,
dialogic
• barriers or strategies to deter or promote the formation of the partnership
98
• identifiable attributes of the partnership consistent with or inconsistent with
the cultural model of a dialogic, co-constructed partnership.
Triangulation
The three main sources of data regarding the formation of the partnership
enabled the researchers to engage in data triangulation (Patton, p. 247) to increase
the validity of the findings. Designated researchers deposited their data inside the
coded boxes the team had created through a process in which the team calibrated the
criteria for each category. The collective data was available to all the researchers
who analyzed it for the consistencies and inconsistencies among the various sources
of data. This collection of coded data also enabled the researchers to access a thick
pool of data in which one set of data complemented or augmented one another.
Multiple members of a research team enabled the researchers to engage in
investigator triangulation in the study as well. This process further ensured a thick
set of data and opportunities for researchers to discuss the data each had collected.
As at least two people participated in collecting specific data, the researchers held
one another accountable for accuracy and perceptions embedded in the data.
Analyzing Interviews
The researchers each transcribed and translated from Spanish to English
(when necessary) some of their own recorded interviews to immerse themselves in
the data. The researchers analyzed the interviews through the lenses of the three
research questions to ascertain the feelings, attitudes, and perceptions. The
researchers compared the levels of involvement and interest among the various
99
stakeholders and stakeholder groups in the process of forming the partnership. The
researcher learned from the interviews the extent to which the various stakeholders
felt they were included as equal partners in the partnership formation. The
researchers also analyzed the interview data differences and similarities in what the
stakeholders believed had been barriers to a dialogic co-constructed partnership and
what had been the strategies that had facilitated a dialogic, co-constructed
partnership. Finally, the researchers also 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 the interviewees believe these attributes are helping
in the transformation of the school. To facilitate these comparisons, the interview
questions were highly consistent across all stakeholder interview instruments.
The research team increased the reliability of their coding processes by
meeting and calibrating their coding of some of the same interviews.
Analyzing Observations
The researchers codified in the code book recurring themes that emerged in
the observations. The researchers compared the data collected through the field notes
from the observations with the data collected in the interviews (some of which
involved the same persons) and the documents collected. The observations of
meetings were analyzed for the contributions they made to answer the three research
questions. The researchers looked for actions, scenarios, and quotes that indicated
the process by which the partnership was being formed. They looked for indicators
in the meetings and environments of the three partners of dialogic behaviors that
100
demonstrated the co-construction of a new culture for the purpose of transforming a
school. The researchers then analyzed the field notes from the observations in
comparison to the interviews conducted, for the purpose of identifying common
themes, as well as consistencies and inconsistencies as responses to the research
questions.
Analyzing Documents and Artifacts
“Demystifying institutional texts is one way of demystifying institutional
authority” (Miller, cited in Patton, 2001, p. 91). The researchers looked for parallels
between attitudes, levels of knowledge, and actions noted in observations and
interviews compared to the formal documentation of these events. The researchers
noted evidence in the artifacts of the cultures and actions of each organization prior
to launching the partnership and after launching the partnership. The researchers
noted changes within each organization’s agendas and meeting minutes before and
after launching the partnership. The objective was to note the degree to which each
organization’s prior culture contributed to or created a barrier to the formation of a
new cultural model within the partnership.
Overall Analysis
All data were part of a single case study (p. 447) with one unit of analysis:
the partnership. From the various sources of data in response to the research
questions, the researchers constructed a case record. The case record served as an aid
to the researchers when a large amount of raw data from interviews, observations
and documents required editing and organization.
101
Researchers evaluated various forms of computer assisted coding programs to
complement their own processes for coding the data. The group made a collaborative
decision regarding the software to ensure compatibility among the team members’
various means of collecting data. The interview questions for each category of
interviewers were essentially the same so the researcher would be able to note the
similarities and differences in the manner in which the various stakeholders
responded to the same questions. Each of the researchers also made backup copies of
the data.
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
This chapter has detailed the methodology that was utilized in this qualitative
study. This case study of a unique community, school, and university partnership
included a variety of data collection methods and instruments to answer the research
102
questions identifying the persistent barriers, strategies to overcome these barriers,
and the way in which new cultural models of these partnerships can reframe
perceptions of the teacher role in transforming urban schools. The following chapter
will present the analysis of the data and detail the findings of this study.
103
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
This chapter presents findings from a unique qualitative case study of a
community, K-12 urban school, and research university partnership in its first year of
formation. The chapter will begin with a brief review of the purpose of the study and
the problem addressed. Next, it will continue by providing an overview of how the
data will be organized and analyzed along with a brief description of the various
respondents’ characteristics. Then, it will introduce the research questions for the
study followed by a presentation of data findings and analysis. It will conclude 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 purpose of this study is to examine the barriers as well as the effective
strategies in forming a unique partnership in relationships of equal status among a
community represented by two influential community based organizations, an urban
high school on the verge of losing its accreditation, and a top-tiered research
university located in a highly urbanized community. The unit of analysis for this
study is the formation of community, school, and university partnership in its first
year of implementation. Relationships among these kinds of entities have
historically been hierarchical. A history of unequal distribution of power and the
resulting inability of all stakeholders to engage in constructive dialogue has created
barriers and prevented communities, schools, and universities, especially those with
104
characteristics like those involved in this partnership, from establishing strong
enduring partnerships that can improve student achievement. Difficulty in including
the community as an equal partner in partnerships involving communities,
universities and K-12 schools reflects the historically persistent power struggle that
has prevented these partnerships from actualizing their full potential. The findings of
this study will shed light on the possibilities for these partnerships when they engage
in a purposeful process of co-construction to ameliorate the disparities and
inequalities in urban schools. This knowledge derived from this study can be
utilized and perhaps replicated to establish partnerships in other urban communities.
Further, this study examines to what extent a dialogic co-constructed partnership that
redistributes power among all partners can provide a cultural model for partnerships
formed to transform urban schools.
Organization of Data Analysis
The findings in this chapter are based on data from interviews, observations,
and artifacts to inform the research questions. Triangulation was employed among
these three data sources to strengthen the validity and reliability of the data findings.
A total of twenty-seven interviews were conducted with parents, community
members, school faculty, and university members to determine the various
perceptions of the partnership. Researchers also conducted ten field observations of
community events and key meetings where all or some stakeholders were present to
cross-reference the validity of interviews and artifacts. Along with field
observations, three artifacts are reviewed and analyzed to shed light on the legal and
105
historical underpinnings of the partnership. This researcher was part of a team of ten
researchers who reviewed, coded, analyzed, and organized the data. Their collective
efforts resulted in a codebook that contains a rich and thick body of data accessible
to all members of the team. Researchers calibrated the data to ensure accuracy and
consistency before entering the data into an electronic codebook, using the Max
QDA system. The researchers met consistently in groups to discuss and analyze data
and design a coding matrix as a way to increase validity and reliability.
The researcher in this study explored the extensive potential of partnerships
when each partner is engaged with one another and stakeholders in a process of co-
constructing their relationships in ways that defuse hierarchical power among the
partners. The findings describe a process by which a unique set of community,
school, and university partners work to co-construct a partnership for the purpose of
transforming an urban high school. The discussion begins by exploring the extent to
which co-construction is evident as a process in the partnership. It then discusses
how dialogue and mutual shared learning are two components of co-construction
that appeared in varying degrees in the findings. Next, the data analysis describes
how hierarchical structures, absence of systems and structures for communication,
and the logics of our society appeared as persistent barriers to co-construction. The
data reveals that systems of representation, a space for dialogue, and history are
some effective strategies employed to overcome the aforementioned persistent
barriers in the partnership. Finally, this qualitative study also examines the attributes
106
capable of creating a new cultural model that results from partnerships attempts at a
co-construction process.
Presentation of Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents
There are unique characteristics that make-up this partnership. Each entity
contributes valuable assets to promote high academic achievement for African-
American and Latino youth in urban schools. A brief overview about each entity’s
social, cultural, and historical orientation is essential to understanding the process,
barriers, strategies, and attributes of a co-constructed partnership.
The Community
As one of the three entities forming the partnership, the community’s identity
is defined somewhat differently in the data findings than in the review of the
literature. In the review of the literature, community-based organizations and parents
are included in the definition of community. However, the data findings identify
only the two community-based organizations and three other community members
who are not affiliated with the CBOs as the community. Community-based
organizations considered themselves to be the community since they are affiliated
with the community in the projects and planning in which they are engaged. The
data align the participating parents of Freedom High School more closely with the
school than the community. This study will focus on the community-based
organizations as the community and parents as part of Freedom High School’s
identity.
107
Equity Foundation
One of the guiding visions held by one of the CBO’s is that of social justice
and civic harmony. Their history is marked by civic engagement. Leaders of the
organization have had a strong historical presence at Freedom High School, helping
the teachers and parents feel empowered to assume responsibility for the sustainable
reform necessary to transform their schools. Leaders of this organization are known
for bridging the theory/research and practice gap necessary to bring solutions to
social and socio-economic issues. Most importantly, this organization has already
established a trustworthy relationship within the school and with the surrounding
community, especially parents, based on its work in advocating for urban youth.
Southcity League
As described in the business plan, the other community-based organization
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 initiative in a 70-block urban area that includes the high school presented in this
study. Its vision is to improve education, health, housing, employment, and safety,
recognizing the interdependence of these core contributors to the overall quality of
life for all citizens of a community. The underlying principle of the CBO’s set of
values is that the function of schools cannot be separated from the socio-economic,
political, and cultural influences that surround them. As part of their new initiative,
108
the CBO will provide services to the partnership, as well as engage in joint
fundraising on behalf of community schools.
Surrounding Community
The community members outside these two CBOs chosen to be interviewed
included neighborhood residents, members of the Neighborhood Council and other
community organizations, as well as members of the city’s police department and
school district. Each of them defined the extent of their role in the partnership in
their interviews and will be defined accordingly when describing them in
relationship to the study findings.
Parents
The majority of parents interviewed formed part of an official parent
coalition at the school. Most of these parents closely identify with the school and
recognize their empowerment as a result of working with the Equity Foundation. Out
of the six parents interviewed, four are African-American and two are Latino. Only
one parent did not identify herself as part of the school’s formal parent coalition.
Freedom High School
Freedom High School has a long history of tradition and pride in its
surrounding neighborhood. It brings a wealth of resources from these traditions and
values, including committed teachers who have graduated from the same high school
and returned to their community to teach. The parent organization also provides an
added value to the school’s identity, always striving to ensure that high academic
achievement remains as one of its long-standing traditions. The school
109
demographics, based on 2007 data, include: 1269 African-Americans, 666 Latino
students, twenty-four students of other ethnicities, 51% males, 49% females, 334
students classified as English learners, and 335 special need students. Although the
school community is a mix of middle-income and working class families, 54% of the
students live in foster homes. Seventy-eight percent of the student body qualifies for
the federal free/reduced lunch program.
The school’s achievement data has been a source of great concern among the
community. Many parents became strongly involved in the school when they
learned of the possibility that the school’s accreditation status was in jeopardy.
Other parents, including a substantial number of the middle class families, chose to
enroll their students in charter schools, private schools, or neighboring public
schools. Since then, major efforts to focus on school achievement, including the
formation of the partnership, have been established. Freedom High School met its
overall API growth target for 2007. The African American and Students with
Disabilities subgroups met their target growth as well in 2007. The data show that
significant work still needs to be done on behalf of all students, but especially to
address the needs of the English Learners sub-group and Socio-economically
Disadvantaged sub-group, whose scores did not meet the API growth target during
2006-07 testing (CA Department of Education, 2007).
110
Table 5. Academic Performance Index (API)

API
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
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
458 497 500 512 523 528 523
English Learners 505 512 502 508 473
Students w/
Disabilities
352 364 337 354 410

The University of Change
The University of Change is ranked among the top 1 percent of all colleges
and universities. It brings academic assets in many fields and a record of service to
the community. The university has received national acclaim for its innovative
service learning programs and community involvement. The University of Change
comes to this partnership with a large body of experience and research around urban
issues and education, but it also comes with a desire for deeper understanding of the
root causes for the persistent failure of America’s schools to provide equitable
opportunities for students of color and the poor. The university’s paricipation in the
111
partnership is part of its continuing process of understanding its role as an urban
university.
The Greater Freedom Educational Partnership (GFEP)
The harsh realities of low student performance and the threat to its
accreditation status caused Freedom High School to consider other viable
alternatives in transforming the school. During this time, the school district was
seeking a network of support systems for under-performing schools. As a result, the
district instituted the You-Design Division, which authorizes the formation of
various network partnerships for the sole purpose of innovative school reform. It
was under this You-Design Division, that the school district formulated and signed
an MOU with the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership, formalized as a 501(c)
(3), non-profit entity.
The Greater Freedom Educational Partnership has united members of the
Southcity League, Equity Foundation, University of Change, Freedom High School,
and parents in an alliance concerned over the quality of life in the community and to
reclaim the community’s responsibility for its key institutions. Understanding the
urgent need for interdependence between the quality of life in neighborhoods and the
quality of life in schools, GFEP intends to forge a relationship of mutual
accountability between the school district and the community. Many members of
GFEP had already been involved with Freedom High School and/or the surrounding
community to some degree in the past. This partnership now formalizes the
relationships and provides an infrastructure for coordinated service.
112
This study presents the process of two different types of partnerships working
to become one partnership through co-construction. The formal and legally binding
wing of the partnership was formalized by the creation of a 501C(3) organization,
the signing of an MOU, and the creation of a board of directors made up of the CEOs
and university Dean representing the three founding organizations. They held the
legal and fiduciary responsibility for the partnership. The informal partnership
developed at the school site. It was comprised of stakeholders, whose long term
investment in the school and dissatisfaction with the school’s demise preceded the
MOU. Through a process of co-construction, these two groups made progress toward
becoming one unified organization.
The data findings presented in this study are a result of observing many
meetings created for the formation of GFEP. Many GFEP board meetings allowed
the researchers to observe board members, teacher representatives, parent
representatives, and other school/community representatives vested in the decisions
affecting Freedom High School. All of these meetings included an agenda, minutes
taking, and adhered to Roberts Rule of Order. The researchers also observed other
meetings resulting from GFEP’s systems of representation. For example, the
Transition Team, made up of representatives elected by each stakeholder group, held
weekly meetings in order to create a space for dialogue about decisions affecting the
partnership’s work with the school. Representatives from each stakeholder group
were present at most of these meetings. Over a period of three months, the
researcher observed increased participation by all stakeholders except by student
113
representatives and Latino parent representatives. Other spaces for dialogue
included the Small Learning Communities meetings and the Resource Coordinating
Team that met weekly.

Table 6. List of Pseudonyms

Pseudonym Title
Greater Freedom Educational
Partnership
Case Study
Southcity League Community-based organization partner
Equity Foundation Community-based organization partner
University of Change, Freirian
School of Education
University partner
Freedom High School School partner
Friends of Freedom Committee comprised of parents, teachers, and classified
staff members at Freedom High School
University
Professor Walsh Clinical Professor, Univ. of Change
Professor Riley Professor of Education, Univ. of Change
Dean Simms Dean, School of Education, Univ. of Change
Dr. Reynolds Clinical Professor, Univ. of Change
Interim Executive Director, Partnership for Community
Empowerment
Community-based organization
Mr. Jackson President and Chief Executive Officer, Southcity League
Mr. Wagner Chief of Staff, Southcity League
Ms. George Chief Neighborhood Officer, Southcity League
Mr. Jones Deputy Neighborhood Officer, Safety/Systems & Housing,
Southcity League
Ms. Smith Deputy Neighborhood Officer, Education, Southcity League
Ms. Weaver Deputy Neighborhood Officer, Health, Southcity League
Mr. Jordan Resident Scholar of the Equity Foundation
Mr. Barney Community and Political Activist, Equity Foundation
114
Table 6, continued

Community
Ms. Mills Community Member, Friends of Freedom Committee Member
Mr. Johns Community Member, Neighborhood Council
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

Research Questions
The findings presented are directly related to the following two research
questions:
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?
115
 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 of a partnership capable of creating a new cultural model in
urban schools result from the process of co-constructing a community,
school, and university partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?
Analysis of Data
Research Question 1: Process
The first research question asks, “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?” A review of the literature describes co-
construction as a process that enables partnerships to exist for the purpose of
transforming urban schools. Dialogic relationships and mutual shared learning are
necessary elements of the co-construction process. Data findings reveal variations of
these elements in relation to co-construction and the degree to which co-construction
has taken place since the initial formation of the partnership. A visual representation
helps demonstrate the complexity of the processes supporting co-construction:
116

Figure 3. Co-construction Process

Co-construction
Co-construction is a process of creating something new—something that has
not existed before in exactly the same way. In this case, a community made up of a
community-based civil rights organization, a community-based research and activist-
oriented organization have joined with a top-tiered private research university and an
urban school for the purpose of transforming the school that is a member of the
partnership. As noted in Chapter Two by Carroll et al. (2001), the co-construction
process includes several principles: (1) understanding and respect for the social and
cultural forces that will affect change at school sites; (2) consideration for
information regarding the community’s values, interests; (3) patience, as the desired
results are intended to be life long and transformational for all involved emerge in
the process. Thus, a co-constructed partnership implies that the partners consciously
117
enter a process for defining the nature of their relationship and for defining the goal
of the partnership. Co-construction implies that all participants in the process make
a contribution to conceptualizing the final goal or product. It also means that all
members are willing to relinquish or modify preconceived notions of what the goal
or product is to be.
Documents created from the beginning of the partnership provide evidence
that the concept of co-construction evolved from the initial formation of the
partnership. Members of GFEP, such as representatives of Southcity League, Equity
Foundation, University of Change, and Freedom High School, created documents to
describe the nature of the partnership, goals, and mission. 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
in the academic achievement of students, many statements throughout the document
include 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 to include:
 a governance structure for each small learning community
 a small learning communities governance council to ensure equitable
representation of each small learning community in adhering to
118
school-wide policies conforming to a school-wide vision and
administering of resources
 a single School Site Council as a decision making body constituted
according to the California Education Code
 an established role of the principal in collaboration with the governing
bodies described above.

On the other hand, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is not as
explicit in its co-construction language throughout the document. There are only a
few instances where the process of co-construction is stated or implied in the
document. Phrases such as “jointly developed” only appear twice in the entire
document. A document produced later in the partnership entitled the “Fact Sheet”
includes all the major accomplishments and contributions of different stakeholders at
the school site. These stakeholders included only the two community-based
organizations and the university. The major accomplishments and contributions of
the greater surrounding community members, parents, and school staff at the school
site are not included in the Fact Sheet. Neither the MOU nor the Fact Sheet
documents were ever co-constructed with all stakeholders, especially parents and
teachers. It is important to note, however, that representatives from a range of
stakeholder representatives constructed the business plan, and legal representatives
from the founding members of the GFEP board constructed the MOU.
119
Respect for the social and cultural dynamics at a school site
Interviews with various stakeholders demonstrate varying degrees of respect
and understanding for the social and cultural dynamics at the school site. Interviews
with different representatives of CBOs demonstrate a certain degree of
understanding and respect for the community and the school site. Mr. Jordan and
Mr. Barney, as members of the Equity Foundation, acknowledge the fact that the
school site is often undermined and not given the proper respect it deserves. Mr.
Jordan asserts, “We have spent all this time…the parents of the children…the parents
and the teachers don’t understand the contents of the MOU.” According to Mr.
Jordan, not taking the time to explain the contents of the MOU to representative
parents and teachers in GFEP is interpreted as a form of disrespect for their
contribution to the partnership. Additionally, when asked to describe the strengths of
the school site, Mr. Jordan commends the teachers’ commitment and extraordinary
willingness to teach under difficult social circumstances. Mr. Jordan and Mr. Barney
also recognize the tremendous commitment of parents in getting involved at the
school site and referenced earlier attempts at helping them accomplish their terms of
engagement. Mr. Jordan recognizes parents and teachers as part of the greatest
strength of the school since before the partnership emerged. He states, “the biggest
[success] is to see the teachers and the parents begin to experience some degree of
empowerment and, begin to develop strategies that would allow the school to
become accredited and that would allow the school to begin to develop a more
positive atmosphere for the children.” These two members of the Equity Foundation
120
demonstrate great respect for those involved at the school site committed to
improving the education of students.
Members of the Southcity League also demonstrated respect for the social
and cultural dynamics at the school site. When asked about her role in engaging
teachers at the school site, Ms. Smith responded that she had attended the SLC
meetings to understand the needs of teachers and students. She describes her role as
“leveraging to support” the need of teachers in their SLC. Similarly, Mr. Wagner
also describes the SLCs as a strong asset of the school. He explains that the SLCs’
ability to get all stakeholders involved “shows the interest in the community and sets
the bar for those who wish to engage in this project.”
Without respect and understanding for the social and cultural dynamics at the
school site, the process of co-construction among all stakeholders will encounter
barriers. Interviews with some university representatives demonstrated that they
were attempting to respect the social and cultural forces affecting change at the
school site. One critical representative of the university claimed that forming the
partnership, GFEP, “is a strong cultural constructing process that is trying to work
respectfully with members of Freedom High and that is very healthy…that is an
appropriate and good strategy.” One university member claimed that it was
important to “work respectfully with members of Freedom High School.” These
perspectives are only representative of two out of three members interviewed. It is
important to note, however, that according to an interview with Professor Riley,
many more university researchers were originally supposed to be involved in the
121
partnership. Three more university researchers declined to be interviewed. In his
interview, Professor Riley pointed out that only one university representative truly
became the leader and deeply involved in the partnership.
Consideration for the community’s values, interest, and activities
Co-construction needs the expertise of the school-site in order to succeed, but
it also needs the inclusion of the social/cultural experiences of the surrounding
community as well. In this case, it is important to note that although parents closely
identify with the schools site, their values and activities must also be examined in
relationship to the greater surrounding community that they also represent.
Interviews with different community members, parents, and CBO representatives
reflect different values, interests, and activities. The community members and
parents expressed a need for local autonomy at the school site, to build a school
culture that prepares students for college and giving back to their communities, and a
strong role for parents to be key decision-makers at the school site level. Members
of the Equity Foundation expressed similar values when asked about their reasons
for joining the partnership. 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.” Southcity League members expressed value in
collaborating with all partners to bring together or “leverage resources” in a manner
that contributes to solutions. Members of Southcity League believe that the
responsibility for creating change at the school site should not lie in the hands of one
122
group of individuals, but everyone in the community must take responsibility.
Southcity League did not indicate that local autonomy for the school and granting
decision-making power only to parents were the main interests or goals of the
partnership. Instead, members of Southcity League emphasized the strengths and
assets generated when all stakeholders participate in decision-making and leveraging
resources for students at Freedom High School.
An analysis of the artifacts reveals that some of the community’s values,
interests, and activities are included in the business plan, MOU, and the fact sheet.
The community-based organizations have a formal partnership with the school
district and university under the formal contract in the MOU. The MOU clearly
states that the contract is between GFEP and the school district. The Equity
Foundation, Southcity League, and University of Change no longer function as
independent organizations, but as one organization with representative from each. It
defines GFEP as the Southcity League, the Equity Foundation, the University of
Change Freirian School of Education, “and other stakeholders to address public
education improvement in historically underserved areas.” The phrase “other
stakeholders” is ambiguous and left open for interpretation. Parents’ roles and
values are not stated as clearly in the MOU. None of the formalized parent coalition
groups are mentioned in the MOU. The value of local autonomy and parents’ ability
to engage in decision-making at the school site expressed by parents is not stated in
the language of the MOU. The MOU states, “The intent of this MOU is to create a
collaborative between District and GFEP and to allow GFEP the maximum freedom
123
and autonomy permissible by law.” This language could be interpreted as the
understanding that parents and the school are part of GFEP. The business plan,
however, does state the importance of engaging students, parents, teachers,
administrators, and the community in shaping the culture and goals of the school as
one of the partnership’s transition goals. The fact sheet states that the Equity
Foundation assisted Freedom High School parents with “addressing an updated
means for their participation in and support of their children’s school-based
development.”
Observations of several partnership meetings are not entirely in congruence
with the data found in the business plan and fact sheet. Representatives of both
CBOs were included in many of the partnership meetings, but only a limited number
and scope of parents were present in Board meetings, transition team meetings, and
other meetings that provided a space to discuss goals. Only some parents and
community members participated in these meetings and when they did, parents and
some community members did not always feel their views were included in the
discussion. In an observation of a GFEP board meeting, a parent wanted to know
why the parent organization group had not been able to insert an agenda item every
month. She claimed that the parents’ views were being ignored when parents wanted
to discuss something that was not on the agenda. Also, parents questioned why these
Board meeting were not taking place at Freedom High School instead of the
university. Access to the agenda and the location of the Board meetings were
observed as issues of concern for parents and serve as evidence that the values,
124
interests, and activities of the complete community were not always considered, at
least in the initial phases of the partnership.
Time to Build Relationships
Finally, the process of co-construction requires enough time to build
relationships among all stakeholders. Patience is required to accomplish the desired
results, as they are intended to be life long and transformational for all involved in
the process (Carroll et al., 2001). Contents of the Business Plan include transitional
goals, long-range and ongoing process goals, and long-range end goals to
demonstrate that many of the changes cannot occur over night; they require time. In
fact, it is recognized that the work done for the past two years by the Equity
Foundation “has provided a substantive framework for communal solidarity and
civility of processes to engage in the work that lies ahead.” Findings from the
interviews reveal that all stakeholders are in the initial steps of trying to co-construct
the partnership for the benefit of urban school transformation. There is foundational
knowledge and understanding of co-construction for some of the stakeholders.
Community members try to define the nature of their relationship to others in the
partnership and have begun to conceptualize what the goals of the partnership should
be. In an interview with a community organizer not formally part of either CBO,
Mr. Johns explains:
It’s all about making sure that those students reach their goals and so
whatever we bring in together, I think you know, once the vision is clear and
we take it step by step, we’ll see the results at a later date.

125
Mr. Johns understands the value of having different CBOs, the university, parents,
community members, and members of the FHS community come together for a
common purpose. However, Mr. Johns also acknowledges that such a monumental
task will take time.
Similarly, interviews from community based-organization members provide
insights about the role of patience in the co-construction process stating “even
though you have formal agreements you still need real face time to meet and talk”
while engaging in the complex task of co-constructing a partnership. Another
university professor elaborates, saying that getting a network partner to work as a
member of a collective body is, “kind of like giving birth and GFEP has the DNA of
all of us but we’re not the same.” It takes time for entities to understand one another
in order to pursue educational transformation.
Fieldwork notes from observations of meetings are congruent with the
interview data. Based on the topics discussed in different meetings, there seems to
be a consensus that many of the changes will take time and that the relationships
with different stakeholders will also grow as the partnership flourishes.
Observational notes of a GFEP retreat demonstrate teachers and staff requesting that
the network partners have a more visible presence on campus and interact with
Freedom High School students and staff. A member of the Southcity League
commented that much of his work was behind the scenes on behalf of the
partnership. School staff expressed the value of investing the time and having a
visible presence on campus. At a follow up transition team meeting the issue was
126
referenced again when Southcity League member, Ms. Smith stated “I am trying to
engage and get my colleagues on campus, to [build] relationships despite their busy
schedules”. Ms. Davis began to work with members of the transition team to
calendar dates where the leadership from the Southcity League could come to
campus, visit classrooms, have lunch with students and staff, and attend the next
transition team meeting. The different work tempos of schools and community-
based organizations appear to be a difficult challenge for many stakeholders and
therefore patience is a required element in the co-construction process.
Various stakeholder representatives that took part in co-constructing the
Business Plan have a clear vision of what the partnership must accomplish in five
years and therefore understand that patience is a key element in the process. The
business plan defines specific areas to measure success:
• 4-year graduation rates
• Completion of A-G course work with a grade of C or better
• Graduates enrolled in 2- or 4-year colleges
• Proficiency and Advanced rates in English language arts and mathematics
• 10
th
graders on track to graduate
• Quality of teaching
• School climate
• Parent and student engagement
127
None of these areas can be addressed quickly, but require patience from all
stakeholders. Understanding one another’s assets and how these assets can help
accomplish the vision of GFEP is where time is of the essence.
Dialogue
One aspect of co-constructed relationships is forming dialogic relationships
among the university, K-12 schools, and communities in order to form effective
partnerships. Dialogue is defined as a process of engaging people in the exchange of
ideas, experiences, and knowledge for the purpose of creating shared meaning.
Dialogue becomes a horizontal relationship based on equality where mutual trust is
born. It is a means by which individuals examine and learn from their differences
(Freire, 2003; Johnston & Thomas, 1997).
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. Community members, administrators, teachers, and parents described
dialogue in terms of strong relationships, working together, openness, and the
sharing of information. A member of the Equity Foundation indicates that dialogue
is necessary in order to build relationships in the process of forming the partnership
so that all key stakeholders can understand the needs of the school. Similarly, one
school administrator saw the benefit of dialogue in developing relationships with one
another, especially between teachers and students to bring about positive change.
Teachers also saw dialogue as a mechanism for creating equality among the
stakeholders, thus fostering good relationships and connections. Mr. Nicholas
128
commented, “I think that in many ways [the school] is ahead of the others, in terms
of even having really clear transparent discussions about the need for equality and
beginning the conversations about mechanisms to create that equality. I think that
[we’re ahead of] many of the other schools.” Teachers saw evidence of dialogue
making a positive impact as network partners were able to sit down and listen to
parents and teachers include their voice on issues pertaining to the school. Parents
also saw dialogue as an act of inclusion and respect, valuing the parents’ input in the
decision-making process. Mr. Madison says:
There’s openness and that’s what has to happen, openness to listen, and in no
moment have I felt that what we say needs to get done is not being listened to
and that’s a good thing for being in a democratic country where everyone has
to listen to everyone even if you don’t like it. Something good comes out
when you listen.

The importance of inclusion and having an equal voice is another critical
component of dialogue to ensure that all are engaged in the exchange of ideas,
experiences, and knowledge. Inclusion and equal say emerged as a theme in the
interview data with CBOs, parents, teachers, school administrators, and university
members. In many interviews with CBOs, the need to involve everyone in the
process of participating in decision-making was emphasized with many participants.
Mr. Wagner, member of the Southcity League explains one of the challenges of the
partnership is for all stakeholders to work collaboratively with equal decision-
making power. He emphasizes the importance that all stakeholders have an equal
voice through dialogue. “So that’s why the equal voice piece from all stakeholders
and from all partners, [is] what’s required is to really talk about the benefits to all.”
129
The emphasis is placed on horizontal relationships when dialogue occurs, 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 partnership with other 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,”
Ms. Thomas explains.
Teachers also identify inclusion and equality as a critical element of the
partnership process. A teacher describes GFEP as, “definitely seeking the input and
involvement from key stakeholder representatives.” School administrators also
emphasized the merit in including all stakeholders in the process. A school
administrator claimed how critical it is to include parents and teachers in the process
of identifying goals for students. One administrator states, “In my opinion, the
support that can come is if [the network providers] sit down with the key people and
work out. Do some backward planning as a whole, —not just GFEP backwards
planning, but include the teachers, as well as our parents. Starting with the ultimate
goals of where we want to go and start working backwards as to how do we get
there, what steps needs to be taken…” As shown, stakeholders believe that dialogue
is a means by which to co-construct the goals and vision of GFEP.
Mutual Shared Learning
Although learning is a key element in dialogue, mutual shared learning
involves a process in which all entities are cognitively and socially engaged for the
130
purpose of constructing a shared body of knowledge. The interview findings
demonstrate that there is evidence of stakeholder shared learning, but not a lot of
evidence in mutual shared learning among all entities. Various groups have different
degrees of willingness to participate in a process of mutual shared learning.
The importance of learning is repeated often among all CBOs. Some believe
that GFEP needs to create a learning community where the community is the
recipient of knowledge. Mr. Wagner states, “I think GFEP 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.” Who
the recipients of knowledge should be and who are the providers of knowledge are
clearly defined by many comments reiterated by CBOs. The university is often
referred to as having the greatest expertise and knowledge in terms of education.
Mr. Jones, member of the Southchity League states, “we 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 at a high prestige because of the expertise
and technical assistance it can provide to other stakeholders involved. However,
there is a consciousness to respect the wisdom of parents and students as well. In his
interview, Mr. Jones later acknowledged the knowledge of others who are not
associated with the university, “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.” According to CBOs, shared
learning is an important aspect of the partnership process.
131
Mutual shared learning is an important component by which to arrive at a co-
constructed partnership. An element of co-construction requires co-dependence of
knowledge, expertise and resources by all stakeholders (Carroll et al., 2001). The
business plan states the necessary co-dependence by certain stakeholders. It states:
Key persons with knowledge and expertise (including the leading universities
in the area) will interact with the school as part of the school’s operations to
facilitate informed decisions and implementation of the targeted change that
it requires. GFEP will also provide knowledge and services to ensure that the
school has the appropriate systems and structures in place to advance the
goals adopted in collaboration with school stakeholders.

It never explicitly states the knowledge that can be provided by the school,
community members, or parents (unless it is assumed that these stakeholders are part
of GFEP). However, the findings in the interview data with many stakeholders did
reveal the importance of co-dependence in knowledge, expertise, and resources.
Interviews with school faculty did reveal the need for a partnership in order to garner
expertise, knowledge, and resources. A teacher explains:
There were certain things I think we (the school) just didn’t have the capacity
to do…so definitely having a partner was needed or having partners was
needed.

The need for institutional support from various stakeholders is an important part of
the partnership according to some school faculty. Furthermore, recognizing the
various strengths and assets of each partner also came up as a critical part in the
partnership. The CBO representatives felt it was important to “really support the
inherent wisdom of constituents and stakeholders who are most affected, in this case
students and parents” in order to get better outcomes. Parents expressed the value of
132
learning from other partners. One particular parent emphasized how valuable it was
to learn academic words such as “co-constructing” and “scaffolding” to understand
how teachers could improve their teaching. In this case, parents see the value of co-
constructing new knowledge about students’ academic needs. Community members
highlighted all the resources that the university and CBOs could bring to the school
site. A community organizer, Mr. Johns states, “…and that’s what’s so nice to have
so many minds in this project because there’s expertise that you can draw on.”
Another community member, Ms. Mills adds, “…I think what we’re looking for is
the harmony of voices with specialized knowledge.” Similarly, all the
representatives of CBOs that were interviewed felt it was important to leverage
resources in the community that the school can benefit from.
The Southcity League acknowledges that each entity has something to
contribute to the partnership goals. For them, to co-construct is to collaborate and
bring together or “leverage resources” in a manner that contributes to solutions. It
appears that they bring a particular level of expertise and content knowledge around
organizing, planning, and implementing yet are thoughtful and conscious of not
being over-bearing or dominant. Out of all the stakeholders interviewed, community
members and CBOs recognized the greatest value in mutual shared learning,
resources, and expertise.
In the observational data, there is some evidence that teachers and university
members are taking steps to engage in mutual learning. In a staff development
meeting with representatives of the university, teachers’ input was solicited to
133
provide a launching point for discussion. Teachers were asked to express their
instruction-related questions or general concerns about teaching and they identified
student motivation as being an issue. It is important to note that teachers actually
responded to other teachers with recommendations for promoting greater motivation
among students. The university faculty then proceeded to provide an overview of
the concept of student motivation, followed up by comments and discussion among
the teachers and university faculty with regard to specific resources and training the
university could provide to the teachers in an effort to better help address this issue.
The teachers engaged in the exchange of ideas and it was evident that teachers were
there to learn, but it was not clear that university faculty were there to learn.
Therefore, evidence of mutual shared learning is limited in this observation.
Summary of Findings for Research Question One
Dialogue was a means by which stakeholders participated in the process of
co-construction and mutual shared learning was a product of this process according
to the data findings. The process of co-construction includes many principles, which
are represented in several phases of the partnership. Among these evident in the data
include:
• Respect for the social and cultural dynamics at a school site
• Consideration for the community’s values, interest, and activities
• Time to Build Relationships
This community, school, university partnership was analyzed for its dialogic and co-
construction processes, producing mutual learning among all stakeholders. Based on
134
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. The development of small learning communities and the formation of the
Transition Team are some examples of systems and structures for communication
and representation of all stakeholders to facilitate more open dialogue and create
processes that involve input from all partners. Dialogue that promotes openness to
listen, giving stakeholders an equal voice and promoting mutuality and respect is
being fostered through various meetings and events. Although all stakeholders
expressed that there were obstacles yet to be overcome and that the process takes a
great deal of time, they affirmed their belief in the potential of the partnership and
the worthwhile effort of engaging in the process of co-construction that have resulted
in positive changes that could not have been accomplished otherwise.
Research Sub-Questions: Barriers & Strategies
The first sub-question asks, “What are the persistent barriers to establishing
partnerships among community, K-12 schools, and university on behalf of K-12
urban school transformation? Many barriers emerged in the literature review, but
only a few persistent barriers emerged at each phase of the partnership in the data
findings. One of the pre-existing barriers present before the partnership had a chance
to develop was hierarchy. As the different entities tried to forge a process of co-
135
construction, they encountered other persistent barriers such as absence of systems
and structures for communication and the logics of our society.
The second sub-question asks, “What are some effective strategies that have
the potential for overcoming barriers in co-constructing partnerships among
communities, schools, and universities for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban
schools?” Once again, a review of the literature confirmed some strategies
recommended from past partnerships, but not necessarily in direct relationship to the
process and barriers found in this case study. The findings in this study reveal that
systems of representation, space for dialogue, and building on the history of the
partnership were key strategies employed to overcome the aforementioned barriers in
this partnership.
Persistent Barrier to Co-Construction: Hierarchy
Consistent with the research literature, issues of power were present as one of
the largest barriers to co-constructing relationships in the partnership. A close
analysis of the artifacts, interviews, and observations finds that hierarchical
structures existed as one of the most persistent barrier to co-constructing this
partnership.
The artifacts provide evidence of hierarchy in the way primary legal
documents were created, the language present in these documents, and the
stakeholders who were included and excluded in these documents. First, a primary
legal document, the MOU was crafted without the voice of all the stakeholders
involved in the partnership. It was developed between the legal representatives of
136
each founding partner and school district attorneys. The language in the MOU states,
“the Board and [GFEP] acknowledge and agree that the Board will retain all such
authority under the MOU.” This states the presumption of a hierarchical structure in
the partnership. Furthermore, it states that GFEP “shall have power and authority” in
performing its duties and fulfilling its obligations in accordance with federal and
State law. This language reflects the tension between legal accountabilities and the
process of co-constructing partnerships in ways to equalize power distribution. If not
all stakeholders were involved in co-constructing the legal document, it is difficult
for all members of GFEP to truly understand their power, but more importantly,
question whether they have any power in the partnerships. Once the legal document
was created, representatives of each founding partner did not take the initiative to
explain the document to all key stakeholders who became increasingly involved in
the partnership. The voices of the community members surrounding Freedom High
School and the parents were not included in the process of co-constructing the MOU.
According to observations of a GFEP retreat, parents were not part of this initial
process as many stated that they had no awareness of the content in the MOU. The
business plan, on the other hand, was constructed in a series of meetings involving
representatives from nearly all of the stakeholder groups. Although the creation of
the Business Plan was more inclusive of key stakeholders, some sections are not as
inclusive of other community members’ contributions. In a section describing the
assets of GFEP, only the assets of the university and the two community-based
organizations are mentioned. A full description of the assets inherent in the
137
community and with the parents is not part of this legal document. Furthermore, the
Business Plan outlines the organizational structures and staff members in a
hierarchical fashion naming the heads of organizations (university and CBO) as the
founding members of the partnership. Doing so suggests an exclusion of all the
previous groundwork parents had done in partnership with one of the CBOs, which
created the foundation for the partnership.
Interviews with different stakeholders reveal different perceptions about
power and hierarchy in the partnership. University faculty did reference their power
over other stakeholders when asked about the equality of the partnership. One
faculty member, Professor Walsh states that he believes the reality is that the
university expects to have greater decision- making power in the partnership. In
other interviews with university faculty, there was a certain degree of authority in
decision-making that was referenced often in their attitudes and language. For
example, university faculty explained that not many university researchers became
involved in the partnership because there is not too much value placed on
community-based action research at the university level. Funding is limited for
university faculty who decide to undertake this type of research. Also, an interview
with a different university leader, Professor Simms reveals her belief that the
university deserves much of the credit in helping the school site achieve success in
its first year. There is an attitude that, without the university’s help, “the school
would have no success.” An interview with Professor Riley provides some context
138
for Professor Simms’ statement. Professor Riley describes three phases of how the
partnership was formalized with the university.
First, the university was approached by Southcity League to evaluate the
progress of the partnership with Freedom High School. Then, after learning about
Southcity’s League initiative to target housing, employment, education, safety, and
health, the university became excited over the possibility of partnering with other
schools within the university in order to help with the initiative. The university then
became focused on the education component in partnership with Southcity League.
That is how Freedom High School was introduced as a focus in the university’s
partnership with the Southcity League. Professor Riley’s perspective shed light on
some of the other faculty’s attitudes toward the school and how they engaged the
FHS in co-constructing reform. In his interview, Professor Riley also disputed the
assumption that the university is an elite institution that holds power over schools.
He argued that schools have more power over the university because they have the
choice (decision-making power) to not accept the university’s influence. Therefore,
the perception of power and authority were defined differently among the university
faculty members themselves.
There are also differences between the community-based organizations in
their perceptions about power and hierarchy in the partnership. In one interview, a
member of the Southcity League acknowledged the hierarchy inherent in the
partnership. Ms. Smith claimed, “There is hierarchy in this [partnership] no matter
what others say.” When asked to elaborate on what is meant by this inevitable
139
hierarchy in the partnership, Ms. Smith explained 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. As
stated earlier in the review of the literature, hierarchical structures are formed when
decision-making power determines access to resources. Therefore, power in this
case, is closely linked to perceptions about access to resources.
Members of the Equity Foundation also claim that there is power embedded
in the partnership in the form of bureaucracy. Two members interviewed from this
CBO claim that a bureaucratic operational model that disguises its power in legal
terms has shaped the partnership. Members of the Equity Foundations express the
view that they are not treated as equal partners because power is often defined in
terms of financial resources. Thus, the key difference between the Southcity League
and the Equity Foundations involved in the partnership is how much power and
influence each has in terms of financial resources and legal influence. Southcity
League believes that these hierarchical structures are inevitable, while the other CBO
critiques them as a negative approach to the partnership. They both acknowledge
that the formation of the partnership is grounded on hierarchical structures.
Interviews with teachers and parents definitely demonstrate a perception that
there is an imbalance of power among the entities where parents and the school have
the least amount of power. Virtually every parent interviewed said they did not think
they were “equal partners” in the partnership. Many of their beliefs were founded on
140
the groundwork they had created at the school alongside the teachers to ensure that
the school had autonomy and local decision-making power. They had worked
closely with the Equity Foundation to regain control of their school against the local
district. Once this autonomy was granted, parents and teachers explained that they
did not have decision-making power to choose their partners. Once their partners—
the university and the Southcity League—were “assigned,” parents held a perception
that they were excluded from many processes and the decision-making that should
have involved all stakeholders. Among the many processes, the parents and teachers
perceived that they were excluded from creating the MOU, business plan, choosing
their partners, holding membership on the Board, and being involved in the process
of selecting an Executive Director of GFEP. In regards to the business plan, parents
did not consider that a parent representative in co-constructing the business plan was
equal to full participation by more parents. All of these processes could be deemed
part of the bureaucracy in a hierarchical structure. Strong statements against this
hierarchical structure were made, such as:
We did away with one level of management, which was our local district who
were really oppressive, and it seems to me as a parent—I see it as if we
traded one master for another. And, that’s not where I’m at; that’s not where
I want to be.

Teachers echoed many of the responses that parents made in regards to the
hierarchical structures in the formation of the partnership. Teachers also stated that
they did not feel like “equal partners” because they felt the strong presence of an
141
external power approaching the school as an object, rather than a subject in the
partnership. A teacher explains,
Sometimes there’s some trepidation 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 think they know more than a school site
does [and] comes in and tries to make change…

Teachers and parents emphasized the fact that students had also been excluded from
participation in co-constructing the partnership. They expressed the need to be more
engaged in the process and what they have to say needs to be heard. Therefore,
according to these interviews, teachers and parents closely identified with feeling
excluded from the partnership process at the initial formation of it. These feelings
were based on the inherent power differences in hierarchical structures.
The observational data are congruent with all of the different stakeholders’
interview data. In a meeting where school staff, parents, community members, and a
university representative came together to discuss the role of the Executive Director
in the partnership, members of the school site and the community (not CBO
members) agreed that they did not want to follow a hierarchical model in the
partnership. A teacher expressed that they do not want to go back to an older model
of superintendent, director, principal and that is why they all elected to be part of a
vote for local autonomy. In a similar meeting with similar attendees, the distinction
was made between the formality of Board meetings where not everyone felt
welcome and respected, and those held at the school site where more members of the
school and the community were present. Finally, in a Board meeting where a draft
142
of the job description for the Executive Director was presented, parents and
community members were not pleased with the decision on who was selected to
write the job description. They felt that the process should have been more inclusive
of all the stakeholders. In the mode of listening and co-construction, the Board
accepted an ad-hoc committee created by the school transition team to be part of the
process. The observational data here are examples of the strong power dynamics in
place during these meetings among all the stakeholders and how hierarchical
structures in the initial formation of the partnership manifest these power dynamics.
The founding partners had assumed hierarchical roles when formalizing the
inception of GFEP, but as the partnership began to be more inclusive of other
representative members such as teachers and parents, these hierarchical roles were
called into question and modified.
Key Strategy to Overcome Hierarchy: Systems of Representation
One of the key strategies employed to overcome the hierarchical structures
embedded in the initial phase of forming the partnership was to create systems of
representation in the partnership. One of those key systems created was the
Transition Team, which included representatives of every major stakeholder group,
elected by their own constituents. The representatives include teachers, classified
staff, administrators, parents, community members, and students.
The artifacts reveal an attempt at the idea of forming this system of
representation in the partnership. Beginning with the MOU, it states: “District and
GFEP will cooperate to form a council comprised of parents, community members
143
and school staff at each GFEP School.” 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 governance structure will resemble the following (not yet determined by
the school):

• Individual SLC governance committees
• An SLC council representing all SLCs
• A curriculum council representing all curriculum departments
• A Transition Team to coordinate major transformational actions within
the first year
• A multi-stakeholder group (parents, teachers, community, and students)
now in place known as the Parent Coalition

The intent of the business plan was to create a roadmap by which to outline how the
school will function in the partnership. The formation of the Transition Team, as
stated in the business plan, was to create some initial steps toward adopting a model
of distributed leadership and mutual accountability to govern the school through its
transition year and beyond.
The interview data also reveal how all stakeholders form part of this
governance structure outlined in the business plan to some extent or another. In
interviews with members of the community-based organizations, they related their
attempts to include parents, teachers, and students in systems of representation.
Creating these systems of representation, such as the Transition Team, appeared to
144
be a strategy to get work done, but partners still need to learn how to engage all
stakeholders in the process of co-construction. Mr. Wagner, a member of Southcity
League claims, “GFEP 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.” Mr. Wagner explains that the
Transition Team is a necessary structure to get all the founding partners and
members oriented to each other, but now has the task of learning how to include all
other school and community stakeholders. 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 claims. Parent
representatives and CBOs agree that everyone cannot be involved but stakeholder
groups can be represented in parent organizations and school site council. They
agreed that the current university representative is a great leader in ensuring that
everyone is involved. School faculty also attested to the fact that there are
opportunities to be involved and there are representatives present in the partnership.
Overall, the interviews disclosed that there appear to be systems of representation
beginning to form. However, equal representation in all settings is not apparent. It
is not present in the Board of Directors of GFEP and the representation of Latino
parents in the partnership.
Observational data confirm what the interview and artifact data demonstrate
in relation to systems of representation. Transition team meetings met weekly where
all members of major stakeholder groups were represented. As a result of the
145
parents’ and transition team’s persistence, they had a powerful role in re-shaping the
recruitment and selection of GFEP’s Executive Director. Their participation has
delayed the partnership, but their views are highly represented in the final product.
The process for selection of the executive director is an example of co-construction,
in which the desires of the parents and teachers prevailed over those of the founding
partners. GFEP board meetings did not provide equal representation for all
stakeholders, but the discussion of having more representation there was certainly
part of the agenda at every meeting. School site council meetings also represented
parents and many members of the school community.
Persistent Barrier to Dialogue: Absence of Systems & Structures for
Communication
Amidst the presence of dialogue as a vehicle for co-constructing the
partnership, one persistent barrier in facilitating dialogue was the absence of systems
and structures for communication. Although the MOU and business plan outline
systems for representation, they do not explicitly state the structures for
communication within these governing structures. The interviews and observational
data exhibit a great deal of evidence that the barrier to dialogue was the absence of
systems and structures for communication.
One of the overarching emerging themes in the interview data with all of the
stakeholders was the lack of communication and transparency that has existed since
the formation of the partnership. Interviewed community members and teachers
made the point that GFEP has not been discussed or explained to the larger
146
community or with all of the school site staff in general at the very least. Teachers
and classified staff explained that there was no school-wide system of
communication, centralized location of information, or formal way to disseminate
information about the progress of the partnership. They felt that there was no
communication about what type of resources were being offered and by whom.
Community members discussed in detail some of the ways that GFEP could have
improved communication such as sharing the minutes of the GFEP and Transition
Team meetings and updating the website. Similarly, parents expressed that the
network providers lacked strong communication skills and transparency because
parents were still trying to understand the intention of their partners. Ms. Webster
stated:
Communication has been the barrier, and I’m starting to wonder if there’s a
reason for the barriers and for the lack of communication because of the way
things have been done. If there’s a reason why—I mean, for the life of me, I
can’t understand how the school hasn’t had an assembly for the children to
get them to understand what GFEP is.

Teachers addressed the fact that there was a strong need for dialogue with the school
in order to assess the needs of students. Lack of communication also appeared as
misinformation in many cases. Parents often stated that they were not being given
accurate information about decisions taking place in the partnership. Teachers
responded that misinformation often took place when information was interpreted
differently depending on the source. Each of the structures created for dialogue
published minutes on a fairly regular basis and inserted them in teacher and staff
mailboxes, but this was not considered an effective means of communication.
147
Interviews with CBOs echoed these claims about lack of communication when they
often referenced the fact that “more engagement” was necessary to communicate
with everyone.
Another theme that emerged as a barrier to dialogue was the absence of
articulated information regarding roles, goals, mission, and plans for the partnership.
Although the roles, goals, mission, and plan for the partnership are clearly outlined
in the business plan, many stakeholders did not have access to this plan immediately
or time to dialogue about it until many of these tensions had already formed in the
partnership. Community members were unsatisfied with the following elements of
the partnership:
• No consensus on the goals and the action plan of the partnership
• A timeline for progress not explained sufficiently
• No mapping of change or pacing
• No sense of analysis and synthesis
• No understanding of one another’s roles
Parents also felt there were no clear definition of roles for partners and no clear
articulation of goals. They also expressed not being able to easily overcome many
language barriers. Teachers claimed that there was no structure in place to create
clarity about these roles inside and outside the school. CBOs expressed that
everyone’s roles were too ambiguous and not well defined. “I don’t know” or
“nobody knows” came up often when asking about the roles of all the partners.
Administrators echoed the fact that it was still unclear on what had been
148
accomplished since the formation of the partnership. Other data sources revealed
otherwise. Key members of GFEP felt that the goals, mission, and roles were clearly
stated in the business plan. It is clear that not everyone was clear on the roles,
especially those not directly involved in co-constructing the business plan.
Observational data expose many of these frustrations with ambiguity about
roles and expectations with each of the partners. In one meeting, a suggestion is
made to post the meeting notes and minutes so that stakeholders can be informed of
key issues arising in the partnership. In another meeting, the need to look for better
vehicles of communication was an important topic discussed to help with these
frustrations. One person was observed to express that good communication requires
active listening with humility, asking questions, and dialogue. Although people are
invited to participate and voice their opinion, not everyone felt that they were always
welcome or respected for voicing their sentiments and beliefs. The need for better
communication came up in almost every meeting that was observed.
Key Strategy to Overcome Absence of Systems & Structures for
Communication: Space for Dialogue
As already alluded to in the observational and interview data, good
communication requires dialogue, but most importantly, a space for it. The space for
dialogue allows partners to identify and resolve issues. This space is an initial
strategy that can promote better systems and structures for communication.
The artifacts do include some documentation of the need for space for
dialogue. The MOU states that GFEP “shall comply with the applicable open
149
meeting laws including, without limitation, the Brown Act and Greene Act.” The
Brown Act became a source of contention in some meetings, according to the
observational data, but also became a strategy by which to create a space for
dialogue about what systems were or were not in place to communicate effectively
with all members of key stakeholder groups. Again, the business plan also promotes
different spaces for dialogue to take place such as the Transition Team, GFEP
meetings, and School Site Council meetings among many others previously stated.
The GFEP Fact Sheet provides more instances on how the partnership created spaces
for dialogue as the partnership evolved. One CBO assisted in launching weekly
“Days of Dialogue” with student discussion groups and the city’s Police Department
and City Attorney’s Office. It also hosted the First Tuesday Meet and Greet for
parents, staff, administrators, and teachers as a space for dialogue. Minutes from the
Small Learning Communities Council, involving as many as 30 members, indicate it
was another place for dialogue to restructure the school. The meetings were open to
everyone every Monday and some Tuesdays from March to June. Then it met four
or five days a week during the summer. When school resumed it continued to meet
every Monday after school. The interim executive director guided the school to
develop a Transition Team that has worked on systems and structures for effective
operation and transformation of the school. All of these spaces were created as a
result of efforts by stakeholders who knew about the absence of systems and
structures for communication.
150
The interviews with key stakeholders resemble the artifact data. Members of
CBOs shared that there is a space to attempt to collaborate, dialogue, and resolve
issues, yet they believed that more opportunities to dialogue equally were needed.
They believe that the space needs to operate with a more transparent design and
process. A community member, Ms. Mills, shared that there are many forums for
engagement that work to promote equality among stakeholders and provide
opportunities for change, yet time to “just sit down and listen” to one another is a
necessary investment. Parents also felt that there are opportunities to dialogue, yet
stakeholders need to be more receptive to new ideas and perspectives. They believe
that more parents, especially Latino parents and students, are necessary in the space
for dialogue. Administrators shared that the space for dialogue does exist, but they
question whether or not the right kinds of conversations are occurring. University
representatives feel that the space for dialogue has begun to provide the university
faculty with an understanding of what is needed to benefit both the research faculty
and the school.
Observational data are in congruence with the artifact and interview data.
Creating a space for dialogue is a necessary strategy employed to overcome the
absence of systems and structures for communication. When miscommunication
began to take hold of the partnership dynamics, members of the Transition Team felt
it was necessary to have a retreat facilitated by a neutral person to create a space of
dialogue based on understanding of each other’s differences, listening, and learning.
The purpose, as stated by a member, was to navigate through the organizational
151
cultures and communication process. Many issues were clarified during that space
that had been ignored at the beginning of the partnership. Additionally, the transition
team members were expected to hold meetings with their constituent groups to share
with them the work of the transition team and to get feedback from the constituents.
This was part of the system of representation that did result in more participation
from groups like the classified staff and the parents. The teacher and student
representatives were less diligent in reporting back to their constituents and in
bringing items from their constituents to the transition team.
Persistent Barrier in Mutual Shared Learning: Logic of Deficit & Scarcity
Given the fact that the partnership is at an early stage of development, there
are still some attitudes and belief systems among the partners that must be examined.
The interview data identifies some perspectives that are deficit-laden about youth
and their families, despite the fact that the business plan critiques them. Moreover,
the lack of information about the strengths of Freedom High School’s students and
their families in the interview data provides the researcher with enough evidence that
stakeholders are still operating within the logic of deficit. The interview data also
reveal some points of view about the scarcity of resources that exist, despite the fact
that many partners are joined together to merge assets for the benefit of transforming
Freedom High School. Additionally, there was not enough evidence provided that
any of the stakeholders believed in a merit-based system within the context of the
partnership.
152
The logics of our society often blame students and their communities for their
failure to attain academic achievement due to deficits that are inherent in their
culture (Oakes & Rogers, 2007). The business plan critiques this deficit-laden
notion about students and their families by blaming existing structures, curricula, and
policies in urban school districts as part of the main problem for failing students of
color. It describes how the culture of school is often “incompatible with, or hostile
to” the culture of students and their families. It states:
America’s uncomfortable history with people of color has led to deficit-laden
beliefs about their capacity to perform rigorous academic tasks. Those beliefs
are demonstrated in urban districts’ heavy emphasis on intervention and
remediation.

Clearly, the business plan operates under a framework that recognizes the root of
opportunity gaps between students of color in urban schools and those with some
privileges in the educational system. Nevertheless, the business plan, as stated
earlier, was not co-constructed by all stakeholders to reflect the extent of problems in
the existing structures, curricula, and policies in urban schools from the perspectives
of multiple stakeholders. Further, there have not been enough opportunities to
discuss and study the business plan as a way to learn about its implications for school
transformation. Similarly, the absence of parents as identified stakeholders in the
MOU plan carry deficit-laden implications about the value of knowledge these
families can or cannot contribute to co-constructing the foundation of the
partnership.
153
As a result of neglecting to co-construct the MOU to closely examine the
implications of deficit-laden perspectives critiqued in the business plan, many
stakeholders had not had the opportunity to fully participate in mutual shared
learning, as indicated before constructing this document. Some of the school faculty
emerged as holding these deficit-laden beliefs about students. There were references
to students arriving to school “with a lot of needs” and limited knowledge and
parents often contributing to these academic issues. A school faculty member, Ms.
Tyler explains that schools struggle because of issues outside of education. “I think
the district just looked at you to teach the students the academics and not worry
about these other issues, not understanding that these issues, a lot of times get in the
way of being able to teach the kids…” These “issues” often refer to the deficits in
communities (e.g. neighborhood conditions, single-family homes, low parent
education, etc.) as explanations for students’ low academic performance.
One member of Southcity League also held these beliefs about the
community. Ms. George felt that GFEPs goals were not addressing the child as a
whole by looking at how health, employment, housing, and safety influence the
child. In reference to “others’ narrow perspective,” Ms. George felt that the other
partners “need to know more and be in tune about what is happening around the
school to be effective with these kids.” Ms. George explains how the community
can be “helped”:
154
You need to be plugged into, you know, what families are unemployed and
what families can get employed…and what families have health issues…and
what families are in gangs…and not in gangs…and foster kids—all of these
are social systems…

The deficit perspective towards the surrounding community also appeared towards
other members of the partnership in the interview data. One interviewed university
faculty also held beliefs that the school site faculty did not have enough knowledge
to improve student achievement and “wouldn’t have recognized what they needed to
do” without the university’s help. These perspectives and deficit-laden attitudes can
act as barriers to mutual shared learning. Although some of the debilitating
circumstances in the community and among students did exist, little
acknowledgement was expressed in the interviews among teachers about the funds of
knowledge held by students and their families. From their perspectives, schools were
seen to have limited capacity to be important contributors to the learning of all the
partners. What is not stated in the data is just as critical as what is stated, especially
when it comes to describing different stakeholders’ perceptions about students and
their families.
In their interviews, both Southcity League and the Equity Foundation were
asked to describe the challenges and strengths of Freedom High School. Only one
person interviewed out of these two groups had more to say about the strengths of
the school, students, and their families than the challenges. Mr. Jones explained how
many people like to focus on the problems, such as gang violence and school safety,
but no one is talking about the “incredible wealth and assets” the school has to offer.
155
Other CBO members mentioned the fact that the school’s legacy and strong parent
group are two assets in the partnership, but no interviewed member went into detail
to describe how these two assets can contribute to the learning in the partnership. In
fact, all three university members were asked whether they thought incorporating the
community more in how students are taught will increase the longevity of the
partnership and its ability to effect positive change at the school. Two of the three
respondents did not see much potential in incorporating the community’s funds of
knowledge in discussions about teaching and learning. Professor Walsh answered,
“Greater Community involvement is a double edge sword. I don’t know if that will
work.” Likewise, Professor Simms responded: “I think [community involvement is]
important. It’s not going to change the classroom. It’s important for the partnership,
but not in the classroom. They know what they want for their kids. If they don’t buy
into the partnership it wont’ be an effective partnership.” These perspectives are a
barrier to mutual learning if certain key stakeholders do not value the funds of
knowledge of all stakeholders in the partnership.
Furthermore, the interview data captures the idea that some stakeholders
sense there is still a scarcity of resources, despite the fact that partnerships tend to
offer more resources provided by each partner. Parents really emphasized the lack of
resources offered at the school and by some of the community-based organizations.
They often felt that some of the partners could offer more resources, or at least some
that were visible. In reference to these resources, community-based organizations
felt that human and social capital were resources that they could offer in addition to
156
financial resources. However, they too, felt that there was “only so much to go
around.” The sense that there is a scarcity of resources may be born from the failure
of the partners to take the time to learn about each other’s resources since the
beginning. Teachers also expressed a sense that resources were scarce within the
context of the partnership because of GFEP’s the lack of transparency at the
beginning of the partnership. One teacher, Ms. Dylan expressed:
Because again, I think, when you look at some of our partners, if you look at
what resources the school has received since the partnership vs. prior to the
partnership, I don’t know if that list it would be very impressive based on
some of the things that were happening before the partnership was formed.

Ms. Dylan’s perception of scarcity in resources since the partnership was formalized
is limited due to lack of communication provided by GFEP. As an active and
resourceful teacher, she also did not believe that teachers’ assets were recognized in
the partnership due to the lack of communication, therefore feeding the logic of
scarcity by many stakeholders.
Observational data confirmed these beliefs as observations of interactions
during meetings focused mainly on deficits of the school, students, and their
families. Limited students and parents were actively part of many of the meetings to
represent the assets of these two groups in the partnership. Limited involvement by
these two groups may also strengthen any considerations that the parents and
students do not yet see themselves as full contributors to the partnership.
157
Key Strategy to Overcome Logic of Deficit & Scarcity: History
There is a strong history that precedes and influences the dynamics of the
partnership, which despite the current logics in the partnership, demonstrates itself to
be a strong force and strategy to overcome such barriers. The artifacts, interviews,
and observational data are all in congruence in terms of this history and the
foundation it has provided for the partnership to develop and flourish.
The work of both community-based organizations before the partnership was
formed has heavily influenced it in a positive manner. The business plan highlights
some of these accomplishments. For example, the work that the Equity Foundation
has been doing in the school for the past two years has provided a framework for
“communal solidarity and civility of processes to engage in the work that lies
ahead.” A history of mistrust arose as a barrier as a result of the hierarchical
structures in place at the beginning of the partnership; however, the relationship that
Equity Foundation had already established based on trust within the school and
community, helped other stakeholders to realize that patience and relationships based
on trust were necessary factors for the success of the partnership. An interview with
Ms. George explains this particular historical piece between parents and the Equity
Foundation:
Now, I believe then [the university] was approached after that and then it was
thought that the stakeholders in the school, meaning the parents, who had
worked closely with the [Equity] Foundation really suggested that [the]
Foundation be a part of the network partnership because they had already
been on the ground working with parents and teachers and doing things so
they trusted them--And trust is a big part of this relationship.

158
Southcity League also has a rich national history of serving the community and had
established initiatives to help the community surrounding the school. It brought to
the partnership, “a rich history of advocacy, leadership, and neighborhood change”
as it states in the business plan. An interview with Ms. George provides details of
how they envision their initiative: “It’s a holistic view of changing a neighborhood
and really writing into our strategic plan of changing a neighborhood one home at a
time, of one life at a time, and we really do see this holistic approach as a joint
effort….” The CBO also provides a framework for understanding the partnership
that is built on this history that seeks to eradicate educational, economic, and social
equity barriers.
Along with the work predating the partnership, both CBOs have significantly
contributed to the current work of the partnership, which now offers a historically
documented piece in the partnership’s fact sheet. The Equity Foundation has
“invested extensive hours mending bridges and encouraging participation and
helping both parents and teachers understand and build trust” with the other partners.
The Equity Foundation offers intellectual and leadership resources, which have
helped bridge the gap of trust, hierarchy, communication, and logics of deficit and
scarcity in the partnership. Similarly, Southcity League offers major contributions
documented in the historical Fact Sheet. Among these include, providing six
Freedom High School students sponsorship to attend a conference in Washington
D.C., providing students access to tutoring at a family literacy and youth training
center, and providing students scholarships. These contributions have the potential
159
of changing the parents’ and teachers’ perceptions of scarcity in resources in the
partnership. They also have the potential of highlighting the assets in students and
their families by celebrating many of their accomplishments. These contributions
form a history in the partnership that helped build trust and mitigate the logic of
deficit and scarcity in all stakeholders.
The strong historical legacy of Freedom High School has also provided
incentives for all partners to join together in alliance for the purpose of transforming
their school. In their interviews, members of the Equity Foundation state how
impressed they are by the work and commitment of parents at the school. They
state:
I mean, I’m very impressed by the parents who have committed to that
campus. That’s a very—that’s a powerful asset. Many of the parents have
been there, some parents have raised children, and now they’re grandparents
and they’re still committed to the school. They want…they know what the
possibility of that campus is—they see it. They want to be a change maker on
that campus, and that’s impressive. And it certainly has inspired us [to do]
many of the things we’ve done.

Southcity League also reinforces this legacy in their interviews. Mr. Jones
emphasizes the strength of Freedom High School in saying:
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.

According to interviews with community members, the timing of the WASC
accreditation crisis pulled community members together to try and search for a
solution model together. Parents also expressed a great sense of pride for their
160
community and school along with ownership and responsibility for ensuring reform
took place with the partnership. Observations of community events demonstrate a
nurturing of pride for the school, students, and surrounding community. A large
community event, at least 300 in attendance held at the school in early November,
Hands Across Freedom, celebrated the school and its surrounding community by
inviting guest speakers, showcasing student talent, and highlighting the positive
accomplishments in the community. Community leaders and the audience displayed
much pride for the school and the surrounding community and the hope for its future.
Similarly, monthly meetings held at the Southcity League Headquarters known as
the Freedom Collaborative brought together many representatives from the
community to asset map, problem solve, and nurture the pride in the community.
Many positive school changes, which have resulted from the partnership’s
efforts to co-construct, are now part of the partnership’s existing history. Interviews
with teachers, counselors, administrators, and parents highlight some of these
historical accomplishments with co-constructing small learning communities by
meeting two to four times a week from March, 2008 to September, 2008. Many
stakeholders worked together to design the SLCs, defined roles, led other teachers in
making room changes, and more. In addition, members of the Freedom High School
community also recognized the benefits of professional development provided by the
university in helping to create a space of mutual shared learning. Also, after much
controversy surrounding the job description and selection process for the Executive
Director for the partnership, all stakeholders ultimately began to dialogue and co-
161
construct the position. Many of these accomplishments are now part of the
partnership’s history of success in transforming Freedom High School.
Summary of Findings for Sub-questions
In attempting to engage in the process of co-construction through dialogue
and mutual shared learning, key stakeholders confronted hierarchical structures,
absence of systems and structures for communication, and the logics of scarcity and
deficit as persistent barriers to the partnership. However, key stakeholders also
employed key strategies to overcome these persistent barriers. The founding
partners created systems of representation, such as the Transition Team, in order to
create a new cultural model based on equal representation, not hierarchical
structures. Further, as the partnership evolved, members of the Transition Team and
GFEP emphasized the importance of creating several spaces for dialogue, such as
SLC meetings, parent meetings, and retreats with all stakeholders in order to
overcome the absence of systems and structures for communication. 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 by which all
stakeholders began to learn about the school and community assets rather than focus
on the scarcity of resources and deficit-laden perceptions about students and their
families.
Research Question 2: Attributes
The second research question asks, “What attributes of a partnership capable
of creating a new cultural model in urban schools result from the process of co-
162
constructing a community, school, and university partnership with the intent to
transform a K-12 school?” Early indicators of dialogic relationships among the
community, school, and university served as precursors to a cultural model for
engaging the African American and Latino communities to prepare students for
academic achievement. When dialogue and mutual shared learning become part of
the co-construction process, the data reveal that trust and collaborative relationships
are two attributes capable of creating a new cultural model in the partnership among
all three entities.
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. Trust is a key element in dialogic relationships according
to Freire (2003), and came to be recognized as one of the strongest attributes capable
of creating a new cultural model in the data.
When hierarchical structures were the pre-existing barrier at the initial
formation of the partnership and key stakeholders employed systems of
representation to overcome this barrier, trust became a positive attribute captured in
the data. As stated earlier, one of the key lessons in attempting to co-construct
dialogic relationships was one provided by the Equity Foundation who had built a
relationship based on trust with parents. This relationship became a part of a new
cultural model of which other partners began to take heed and tried to develop as the
partnership began to flourish. As such, it is stated in the business plan and MOU as
163
an important attribute that would help the partnership develop. The MOU states that
the partnership desires to create an educational program that will utilize the
educational services provided by the partnership, which will be “based on trust…” In
their interview, members of the Equity Foundation recognized that it takes time to
build trust in relationships. Interviews with members of the Southcity League also
recognized the time it took to build trust and feel that after the systems of
representation and space for dialogue were established, trust was beginning to
emerge. Ms. Davis states: “I have turned [partners’ perceptions] around by doing
what I say I am going to do. I’ve had relationships turn around.”
Hope
Trust, as one of the key attributes found in the data, is closely tied to a sense
of hope that the partnership will succeed. Freire defines dialogic relationships as
marked by love, humility, faith in humankind, hope, and critical thinking. Therefore,
part of forming these dialogic relationships is the link between hope and trust. As
members of the partnership started to gain trust of one another, hope began to build
that the partnership will succeed despite its many barriers and challenges. There is
trust that the partnership will benefit the school and its surrounding community.
Interviews with community members evoke this sense of hope and trust for the
future of the partnership. Ms. Mills says, “We have community organizations that
have the leadership structure and the resources to be able to accomplish what the
parents have asked for.” A sense of hope also appeared in the interviews with
parents. One parent, Ms. Ford says, “I think if we have hope, you can feel like
164
you’re gonna have success and that’s what we need here. One classified staff and
two members of the school faculty also emphasized hopefulness and trust that the
partnership would prove successful for all key stakeholders, especially students.
Much of this hope and trust was built on recognizing some of the milestones in the
partnership, such as the creation of successful SLCs and the critical dialogue and
mutual shared learning that has begun to take place among all key stakeholders.
Respect and Transparency
Along with trust as a positive attribute, respect and transparency is another
key element that is closely tied to trust according to the data. Interviews with
parents demonstrate that trust is based on the respect an individual has shown for
another. Four out of the six parents expressed how much mutual respect they had for
certain partners and therefore trust in those individuals. Certain members of the
university gained respect and trust from parents based on their work at the school
site. A parent, Ms. Webster explains that the university has proven to the parents
and school that they will do whatever it takes for the school to succeed. Ms. Webster
says, “so that level of trust has been established because we have a tangible, we have
[a university leader]. We have the [university’s] social workers on campus doing
work; we see work that’s being done.” Another parent, Ms. Walker, emphasized that
developing trust and honesty is a critical attribute for the partnership to succeed.
“Developing transparency, a willingness to even entertain thoughts of parents,
students, community; a willingness just to be open to ideas other than their own.”
Observational data does support the interview data in many instances. For example,
165
some of the initial mistrust between parents and other partners shown in the
interviews was beginning to fade in observations of some of the later meetings. The
fact that the parent organization recently approached the Southcity League about
some resources for students, indicates a level of trust and an example of the various
groups providing needed resources (more than available independently) to achieve
agreed upon goals.
Collaborative Relationships
Lawson (2003) describes the concept of collaboration as a developmental
progression. It begins with connecting and communicating, cooperation,
coordination, community building, and contracting (2003). The nature and concept
of collaboration is loosely defined in the data, yet appears to be a strong attribute
capable of creating a new cultural model in the partnership. The artifact data clearly
identify collaboration as an expectation of the partnership. Almost all interviewed
stakeholders use the term and emphasize the importance of collaborative
relationships, but also appear to use collaboration as a means to co-construct the
goals of the partnership. Observational data are no exception; they demonstrate that
collaborative relationships, as an attribute, are product of the co-construction process
beginning to emerge in the partnership. Perhaps the most salient example of the
partnership showcasing collaboration as an attribute occurred when parents used the
social capital gained from the collaborative relationships to sponsor a series of Count
Down to College Night events at Freedom High School. Data from observations
reveal representatives from each stakeholder group, now acting as student advocates
166
by providing students with the knowledge and skills necessary to apply for college.
The collaborative structures utilized for Count Down to College Night events were
comparable to those employed by the network partnership.
The expectation to collaborate is clearly outlined in the MOU and business
plan. The MOU begins by stating that its intent is to create a collaborative between
the school district and GFEP. The school district and GFEP are the two main entities
expected to “collaborate” with other entities in the partnership. The word
“collaborate” appears at least twenty times throughout the legal document, thus
setting the intent of the partnership. Whereas the MOU states the legal
responsibilities to collaborate in the partnership without clearly defining the nature of
these collaborative relationships, the Business Plan begins to explore how these
collaborative relationships are envisioned. For example, it names the collaborative
relationships to be 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 collaborating and with whom. Furthermore, the
business plan describes the purpose for these collaborative relationships with clearly
defined outcomes. It states the following educational priorities to be addressed in the
analysis of school data:
• Collaborates with the school to identify indicators of school progress;
• Collaborates with the school to engage in ongoing self-study to assess its
performance;
• Collaborates with other partners to provide strategic and targeted college
readiness in support to CHS students;

167
The fact sheet further defines the nature of collaboration that has taken place in the
partnership thus far. However, it does not use the terminology “collaboration” as
much as the MOU and the business plan. Instead, it defines the concept by
describing how different entities have “worked with” each other and coordinated
their efforts, for a common purpose. For example:
• The Southcity League worked with the police department to “create safe
passage routes for students and additional coverage in peak periods.”
• The Equity Foundation worked with “64 teachers to maximize the use of
Internet technology for project base learning within the Small Learning
Communities.”
• The University of Change “worked with a team of school personnel and
outside agencies to create coherent approaches for supporting students’
psychological needs.”

These three artifacts represent how the collaboration concept has evolved since the
beginning of the partnership and also the fact that collaborative relationships have
always been an expected attribute of the partnership that would yield positive results
for urban youth.
All interviewed stakeholders emphasized the importance of collaborative
relationships and used the term as an attribute that supports co-construction.
Members of both CBOs articulate their belief in the merits of “getting everyone
involved.” They believe that they can “leverage resources” from the community,
such as LAPD and build capacity for the school. They emphasize that collaboration
is a way to build capacity, knowledge, and the nation. A new cultural model began
to emerge when expressing the benefits of working together and where the language
changes from “you guys” to “we.” One CBO defines the partnership as a “new
168
circle that we’re forming.” The community members at large also express the
importance of collaboration as a feeling of coming together as “one team.”
Community members especially describe the importance of collaboration between
teachers and parents to transform students into academic achievers. All six parents
interviewed conceptualize collaboration similarly and envision the partnership as one
entity, emphasizing the importance of the community in the 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.” A new cultural model is certainly a result of collaborative
relationships beginning to form as a salient attribute of the partnership.
Six faculty and two administrators also acknowledged the benefits of
collaborative relationships with the community and university at the school, while
three university respondents and one classified staff had limited responses regarding
collaboration. One teacher, Mr. Carson, states that the school culture is more
collaborative now than before the partnership. Mr. Carson expresses that GFEP “has
definitely, in my experience, showed me the value that community, parents and other
partnerships have to offer to enrich the lives of the students and the school
community.” Teachers also noted other examples of collaboration with the
development of small learning communities. Administrators explained that the
collaboration between teachers has helped them foster better relationships with
students. An administrator, Mr. Paul explains, “Teachers are developing
relationships with one another and better relationships with students, that they work
169
with. So it’s brought about some positive changes in the classroom and that’s always
been a very difficult stronghold.”
Administrators also point out the benefits of collaborating with the university
as university leaders have been instrumental in helping teachers develop their SLCs
and teaching practices. Interviewed university faculty and classified staff at
Freedom High School did not necessarily state the merit of collaborative
relationships in as much detail as the aforementioned stakeholders. University
faculty did, however, stress the importance and value of the other partners’ work.
Observational data also emphasize that collaborative relationships are emerging in
the partnership as an attribute of co-construction and capable of creating a new
cultural model.
Patience is a companion to collaborative relationships. It is recognized by
stakeholders in the partnership as a necessary element of co-construction because it
takes time to develop and learn among all entities. In an observation of a meeting,
one stakeholder asserted that collaboration requires patience and can often times be a
frustrating process. The participant is observed saying, “Collaboration is sometimes
painful and takes time. You see it happening in your students over time as you act as
facilitators. This is a difficult process for faculty because it is something they are not
used to. It is time-consuming and frustrating, but something we are going to get used
to and get better at.” During a transition team meeting, parents also emphasized the
importance of collaboration with the new concept called UCMAR—Understanding,
Collaboration, Monitoring, Accountability, and Reporting—as the attributes of the
170
transition team. All stakeholders learned and co-constructed this new process in
meetings. This time-consuming process also took place as participants collaborated
to create the job description for the new executive director position. Every
stakeholder contributed to co-constructing the qualities this new leader of the
partnership needed to possess.
Summary of Research Question Two
Trust and collaborative relationships are two attributes of a co-constructed
partnership capable of creating a new cultural model for engaging all partners in a
partnership. They are particularly valuable in attempts to bring African American
and Latino communities to prepare students for higher education. Trust among all
partners is a necessary attribute for the partnership to succeed. Collaborative
relationships are also defined as a positive attribute in the partnership capable of
transforming Freedom High School. Successful collaborative relationship among
some entities served as a cultural model for other collaborative relationships within
the network partnership. These two attributes are critical for creating a cultural
model capable of transforming Freedom High School because co-construction cannot
succeed without these two elements in place as the findings under persistent barriers
have revealed.
171
CHAPTER FIVE
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, 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 within the context 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 what was found in the data in direct response to the
research questions. The implications stated in this chapter will indicate practical
suggestions regarding issues that arose in this study and, most importantly, how to
make these suggestions happen. Finally, the last section describes recommendations
for future research since this study is only based on the first year of a partnership that
is just forming and has at least four more years ahead of possible research.
Summary of the Study
Currently, the U.S. is in the midst of the greatest economic crisis facing the
nation since the Great Depression. Economic hardships are affecting every sector of
society, but especially schools in high poverty, urban areas. Unfortunately, these
urban public schools have been neglected far too long even before the nation’s
economy took a downturn. A history of racial segregation and other systemic
172
inequities have permeated the educational landscape, despite numerous attempts at
educational reform. What the nation faces now is a state of emergency in urban
schools where at an alarming rate the most diverse and rapidly growing populations
are not graduating from America’s high schools or pursuing a college degree.
The high drop out rate and low college-going rate of Latino and African
American urban youth deserves the attention of all stakeholders. Recent research has
addressed these concerns by suggesting that partnerships with these K-12 schools are
essential for urban school transformation. The scope in research on the nature of
these partnerships varies from university-school partnerships to community-school
partnerships. Less is known about the nature of community, K-12 school, and
university partnerships, thus the purpose for this unique study. What is known about
these types of partnerships, through a review of the literature, is that a history of
unequal distribution of power and the resulting inability of all stakeholders to engage
in constructive dialogue has created barriers and prevented universities, schools, and
communities from establishing strong partnerships that can improve student
achievement. A review of the research literature finds that hierarchical power
relationships among universities, schools, and communities have been characterized
by the logics of scarcity, merit, and deficit producing a history of mistrust, tensions,
and resource inequality.
The purpose of this study was to explore the ways community, K-12 schools,
and university partnerships can co-construct relationships in order to transform low-
173
performing urban schools. More specifically, answers to the following research
questions was pursued:
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 of a partnership capable of creating a new cultural model in
urban schools result from the process of co-constructing a community,
school, and university partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?

The theoretical framework for the first research question and its related sub-
questions was based on Paulo Freire’s seminal work Pedagogy of the Oppressed
(1970). His work helped the researcher understand the nature of dialogical
relationships, which are based on mutual respect, common goals, vision, and trust.
Furthermore, Oakes et al. (2006) offer a theoretical framework by which to
understand barriers to partnerships in what they call the logics of our society. The
logic of merit, deficit, and scarcity offer a perspective for thinking about partnerships
in the context of inequality in American society, schools, and flawed educational
174
reform. The theoretical framework for the second research question is also based on
Freire’s (1970) concept of dialogic relationships. In addition, Gallimore and
Goldenberg’s (2001) definition of cultural models offered a lens by which to identify
the types of university, school, and community partnerships that can create a new
cultural model capable of transforming K-12 schools.
Multiple data were collected to gather a clear perspective on the unit of
analysis: the community, K-12 school, and university partnership. This unique case
study included a historical civil rights organization, an urban research and activist-
oriented organization, a top-tiered private research university, and the school as a
partner, not a mere object of study within the partnership. Interviews from multiple
stakeholders, including parents, community members, school personnel, university
representatives, and members of formal community-based organizations were
gathered and triangulated against observations and artifacts to ascertain reliability
and validity. Overall, there were twenty-seven interviews, eight observational field
notes, and three artifacts collected in this unique case study.
Findings
The major findings are summarized within the context of the two research
questions of this study.
175
Major Findings for Research Question One: 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?
The findings described in Chapter Four reveal that the community, K-12
school, and university in this study have begun to co-construct the partnership,
GFEP, through the process of dialogue and mutual shared learning. Each phase of
the partnership within its first year demonstrates the evolution of co-construction as
defined by these principles:
• Respect for the social and cultural dynamics at a school site
• Consideration for the community’s values, interest, and activities
• Time to Build Relationship
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 shared learning. In order to reach a point where co-construction began to
take place, several of the principles aforementioned above had to occur. The
interview and observational data demonstrate that both CBOs and the university
greatly respect the social and cultural dynamics at the school site and want to assist
Freedom High School in reaching their goals towards academic achievement.
Understanding these social and cultural dynamics at the school site, of course, took
time. Mutual shared learning needed to occur in order for these external entities to
176
truly respect and understand the dynamics at Freedom High School. Consideration
for the parents’ values, interests, and activities was not apparent in an analysis of the
MOU prior to the partnership developing. However, as dialogue and mutual shared
learning began to occur, the university and the Southcity League began to become
aware of parents’ values and tried to negotiate them through the process of co-
constructing GFEP’s goals and actions. The process of negotiating one another’s
values was based on mutual respect, common goals, visions, and trust.
The process of co-constructing these goals and understanding one another’s
values and interests took time, as already suggested. Patience is one of the qualities
required for co-construction to take place. Allowing time to develop dialogic
relationships ensured that partners learned from one another’s knowledge, expertise,
resources. The data demonstrate that the stakeholders are developing trust in one
another. Time also allowed for all stakeholders to realize and learn about the
strength in co-dependence of knowledge, expertise, and resources offered in the
partnership. Again, these important developments would not have been
accomplished without meaningful dialogic relationships and mutual shared learning
as part of the co-construction process.
Major Findings for Barriers & Strategies in the Partnership
The data findings demonstrated that there were three persistent barriers to
overcome among many other barriers as stakeholders attempted to co-construct the
partnership. However, the findings also reveal that there were key strategies
employed to overcome these barriers throughout the evolution of the partnership.
177
The first persistent barrier, hierarchical structures, existed before GFEP had
an opportunity to develop. A review of the literature had emphasized the persistence
of hierarchical relationships in partnerships among the community, K-12 school, and
university where the community is often excluded from key decision-making
practices. The findings did indeed reveal traces of these hierarchical structures
through the creation of the MOU and selected Board members to act as founding
partners of GFEP without the input of parents or teachers. Notwithstanding, the
hierarchical structure created in this case included the university and one CBO
perceived as holding power over Freedom High School and the parents. As a result
of these perceptions, the notion of power and the value of possessing it, led to strong
mistrust among the partners. In the initial stages of creating the partnership, the
school and parents entered with perceptions that the university and one of the CBOs
held all the power. These perceptions had the potential for derailing the partnership.
In response to this threat, members of GFEP felt it was critical to create systems of
representation, such as the Transition Team, as a key strategy to overcome these
perceptions of unequal power and hierarchical structures in the partnership.
Once these systems of representation were established, painful organizational
learning took place. Virtually all interviewed stakeholders stated that there was an
absence of systems and structures for communication with all stakeholders within
and outside GFEP. A space for dialogue was described, as part of the dialogic co-
construction process as a necessary strategy to overcome the absence of
communication. New ways of listening and understanding one another’s perceptions
178
became an important characteristic of how stakeholders decided to engage in
dialogue.
Once dialogue began to emerge and manifest itself as part of the co-
construction process, stakeholders were also observed to still carry the logic of
deficit and scarcity. Multiple stakeholders held the logic of deficit that is embedded
in how society perceives urban schools. Although the data did not explicitly find
statements in interviews that treated students and families with deficits, the data,
except in a few cases, were void of statements where students and their families were
described as possessing rich assets to bring to the partnership. The logic of scarcity,
which mainly characterized the attitudes and beliefs of parents and teachers about the
ability of GFEP to provide resources to the school, changed once they learned about
the multiple resources provided by the network partners. The process of mutual
shared learning permitted all stakeholders to use the history predating the partnership
and the history made during the early stages of developing the partnership to learn
about the school and community assets rather than focus on scarcity of resources and
deficit-laden perceptions about students and their families.
Attributes of a partnership capable of creating a new cultural model in urban
schools
The findings related to the process, barriers, and strategies in a co-constructed
partnership, reveal trust and collaborative relationships as two attributes capable of
creating a new cultural model for urban school transformation. Trust, according to
the data, was a critical attribute necessary for all stakeholders to develop with one
179
another before the partnership was able to move forward. It was also found that trust
was closely tied to hope in the future of the partnership and respect for each other.
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
for other collaborative relationships within the network partnership to develop.
Conclusions
Urban school reform can no longer afford to ignore lessons from past failed
attempts at improving the academic achievement of African American and Latino
youth. Instead of placing the blame on schools, all key stakeholders, including
parents, community members, and universities must invest in learning about one
another’s assets and how each entity can cull their resources for the benefit of urban
youth. Co-constructing dialogic relationships among the community, K-12 school,
and university holds great potential for achieving this monumental challenge, which
not one entity has been able to accomplish alone.
As demonstrated in the literature review and findings in the data, co-
constructed partnerships present many challenges and benefits to K-12 school
transformation. While all partners are attempting to co-construct the goals of the
partnership through the process of dialogue and mutual shared learning, there have
been some persistent barriers along the way. However, partners took part in
developing some key strategies to overcome these barriers and have begun to find
180
ways in which students at Freedom High School could achieve and adult agents
could enable their success. Systems of representation, such as the Transition Team,
were created to overcome perceptions of unequal power in hierarchical structures
created by legal documents at the initial formation of the partnership. Even though
the systems of representation were created, key stakeholders confronted yet another
major barrier to co-construction. The absence of systems and structures for
communication became a reality for everyone actively involved in the partnership,
including, those stakeholders merely observing externally. The process of co-
construction, at this point, required a space for dialogue, where the importance of
dialogic relationships was created. At this point in the partnership, these dialogic
relationships still need many more opportunities to be nurtured and developed. More
dialogue that includes a broader spectrum of participants is necessary in order to
learn from one another and dispel notions of deficit and scarcity in the partnership.
Once stakeholders realize that their own logics of deficit and scarcity is really an
obstacle, they can make viable decisions to change educational policies and
structures. Bridging the gap between theory and practice must be an essential goal of
this partnership. GFEP still has work to do to become a learning organization and
provide opportunities to learn for students and all stakeholders.
Implications
The Greater Freedom Educational Partnership has only been in place a little
under a year and it is yet too early to determine the degree of success the partnership
will accomplish in five years. However, after careful analysis of the data there are
181
several indicators that GFEP is co-constructing a community, K-12 school, and
university partnership with emerging attributes that can potentially transform
Freedom High School. 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 literature review and findings presented in this
unique case study render the following implications for all stakeholders interested in
ensuring that this partnership proves successful:
 Develop Systems and Structures for Communication: Although various
systems of representation and spaces for dialogue have been created as a
result of the barriers in the partnership, better communication with all
stakeholders is necessary. Better communication about what GFEP is doing
needs to be broadcast in the broader community so that community residents
will begin to send their children to FHS and feel proud about this jewel and
legacy in their community. Further efforts must also be made to include
students’ voice and Latino parents in the partnership and create dialogic
relationships with them. Members of GFEP must begin to dialogue about
what barriers of communication exist for these two groups in contributing to
the partnership. Students’ voice will help determine the needs of students as
well as the valuable contributions they bring to the partnership. Likewise, as
changing demographics in the area continue to rise, GFEP needs to address
how best to meet the expectations of Latino parents and their children in this
partnership.
182
 Addressing Teacher Quality: As systems and structures are put into place,
GFEP can focus on instruction and learning through the process of dialogue
and mutual shared learning. GFEP has to co-construct what effective
teaching and learning looks like and how each stakeholder can support it.
The university must not only be willing to provide an array of opportunities
for professional development at the school site for teachers, but also for
parents, and CBO members. The university must also be willing to engage
these stakeholders’ funds of knowledge to inform their own practice and
research. Inviting these stakeholders as valued educators to the university,
such as in teacher education programs, will inevitably help improve the
quality of teaching of future teachers and inspire new teachers to commit to
urban school transformation. CBO members can leverage resources in the
community and help mobilize parents and broader community members to
begin to define good teaching for their community.
Future Research
The implications of this study yield many opportunities for future research.
First, it is important to consider what types of systems and structures for
communication were created past the first year of the partnership to address the
concerns of all stakeholders. Since this barrier proved to be the most persistent
barrier in the partnership according to the data findings, it would benefit all current
stakeholders and future partnerships to understand the scope of the barrier as the
partnership developed and how co-constructed, dialogic relationships helped mitigate
183
this barrier. Furthermore, since the purpose and goal of this partnership is to
transform K-12 urban schools, it is imperative that further research address and
monitor the improvement of academic outcomes for African American and Latino
students in both quantitative and qualitative studies. The business plan defines
specific areas to measure success:
• 4-year graduation rates
• Completion of A-G course work with a grade of C or better
• Graduates enrolled in 2- or 4-year colleges
• Proficiency and Advanced rates in English language arts and mathematics
• 10
th
graders on track to graduate
• Quality of teaching
• School climate
• Parent and student engagement
All of these areas must be closely monitored and examined in future research, but
especially in relationship to how the process of dialogue and mutual shared learning
in co-constructing the partnership enabled these outcomes or did not.
184
REFERENCES
Apple, M. (2004). Ideology and Curriculum (3rd Edition), New York: Rutledge
Farmer.

Au, K. H. (2002). Communities of Practice: Engagement, Imagination, and
Alignment in Research on Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53: 222 – 227.

Bauman, Robert. (2007). The Black power and Chicano movements in the poverty
wars in Los Angeles. Journal of Urban History 33.2 (277(19). Expanded
Academic ASAP. Gale. University of Southern California. Retrieved June 21,
2008.

Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of
Educational Research, 71(2), 171-217.

Benson, L., Harkavy, I., & Puckett, J. (2000). An Implementation Revolution as a
Strategy for Fulfilling the Democratic Promise of University-Community
Partnerships: Penn-West Philadelphia as an Experiment in Progress.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 29 (1), 24-45.

Blossfeld, H. & Shavit, Y., (1993). Persisting barriers. In Y. Shavit & H. Blossfeld
(Eds.), Persistent Inequality. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press.

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.

Brooks-Gunn, J. & Duncan, G.J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The
Future of Children, 7, 55-71.

Bueschell, E. & Poetter, T. (2007). Community engagement as catalyst for change
in school-university partnerships. Catalyst for Change, 35(1), 22-25.

Carey, K. (2004). The real value of teachers: Using new information about teacher
effectiveness to close the achievement gap. Education Trust: Thinking K-16,
8 (1), 3-33.
185
Carreon G., Drake, C., Barton, A. (2005). The importance of presence: Immigrant
parent’s school engagement experiences. American Educational Research
Journal, 42, 465- 498.

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.

Clark, R.M., (1993). Homework-Focused Parenting Practices That Positively Affect
Student Achievement. Eds. Henderson, A.T., Berla, N. (1994) In The Family
is Critical to Student Achievement.

Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and
practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in
Education, 24, 249-304.

Cordero-Guzman, H.R. (2005). Latinos and Education: A Statistical Portrait. In
Pedraza, P. and Rivera, M. (Eds.), LatinoEducation: An Agenda for
Community Action Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.

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

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

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review
of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 4-41.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy
for education: The right way to meet the ‘highly qualified teacher’ challenge.
Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11 (33).
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n33/.

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

Donato, R. (1997). The other struggle for equal schools: Mexican Americans
during the Civil Rights era. Albany: State University Press of New York.
186
Dryfoos, J.G. (2003). Comprehensive Schools. In Brabeck, M., Walsh, M., & Latta,
R. (eds.). Meeting at the Hyphen: Schools Universities-Communities-
Professions in Collaboration for Student Achievement and Well Being.
Chicago: National Society For The Study of Education.

Edsource, Inc. (2005, June). The state’s official measures of school performance.
Retrieved July, 2008, from
http://www.edsource.org/pdf/perfmeasguide05.pdf.

Fine, M. (1993). [Ap]parent involvement: Reflections on parents, power, and urban
public schools. Teachers College Record, 94, 683-710.

Firestone, W., and J. Fisler. (2002). Politics, community, and leadership in a school-
university partnership. Educational Administration Quarterly 38 (4): 449-
493.

Flores, B. M. (2005). The Intellectual Presence of the Deficit View of Spanish-
Speaking Children in the Educational Literature During the 20
th
Century. In
Pedraza, P. and Rivera, M. (Eds.), Latino Education: An Agenda for
Community Action Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.

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.

Garza, E., Barnett, B., Merchant, B., Shoho, A., and Smith, P. (2006). The Urban
School Leaders Collaborative: A school-university partnership emphasizing
instructional leadership and student and community assets. University of
Texas at San Antonio, (1), 14-30.

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

Gonzalez, G. (1990). Chicano education in the era of segregation. Philadelphia:
The Balch Institute Press, and London and Toronto: Associated University
Presses.

187
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L.C., Floyd-Tenery, M., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzalez, R.,
and Amanti, C. (1993). Teacher Research Funds of Knowledge: Learning
From Households. University of California, Berkeley: Center for Research
On Education, Diversity & Excellence. NCRCDSLL Educational Practice
Reports.

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

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A Place Called School. New York: McGraw Hill.

Grossman, P.; Winegburg, S.; and Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of
teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942-1012.

Haveman, R. and Smeeding, T. (2006). The Role of Higher Education in Social
Mobility. In The Future of Children, 16 (2). Opportunity in America. 125-
150.

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

Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters… A lot. Thinking K-16, 3(2), 3-14.

Haycock, K. (2004). The real value of teachers: If good teachers matter, why don’t
we act like it? Education Trust Thinking K-16, 8 (1) 1-3.

Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability.
USCUrban Ed. Los Angeles: University of Southern California: Rossier
School of Education.

Hoffman, Jonathan (2006). Neighborhood change and interminority relations in a
multiracial context. United States -- California: University of California,
Berkeley. Publication Number: AAT 3253897.

Hollins, E. R. and Torres Guzman, M. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for
diverse populations in Studying Teacher Education: The report of the AERA
Panel on Research and Teacher Education, M. Cochran-Smith and K. M.
Zeichner, Eds. (Pp. 477-548). Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.

Johnston-Parsons, M. (1997). Contradictions in collaboration new thinking on
school/university partnerships. New York: Teachers College Press.
188
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.

Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). The effectiveness of "Teach for America"
and other under- certified teachers on student academic achievement: A case
of harmful public policy, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(37).
Retrieved 7/3/08 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n37/.

Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D. P., Cooper, J. E., Lambert, M. D., Gardner,
M. E., et al. (2002). The Constructivist Leader (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.

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.

Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice:
Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 18, 917-946.

MacDonald, V., and Monkman, K., L. (2005). Setting the Context: Historical
Perspectives on Latino/a Education. In Pedraza, P. and Rivera, M. (Eds.),
Latino Education: An Agenda for Community Action Research. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Maurrasse, David J. (2001). Beyond the campus: How Colleges and Universities
Form Partnerships with Their Communities. New York: Routledge.

Maurasse, D.J. (2002). 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.
189
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).

Mercado, C.I., Johnson-Santamaria, L. (2005). A New Vision for Latino/a
Education: A Comparative Perspective on Research Agendas. In Pedraza, P.
and Rivera, M. (Eds.), Latino Education: An Agenda for Community Action
Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

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

Miller, Peter. (2007). “Getting on the Balcony to See the Patterns on the Dance
Floor Below”: Considering Organization Culture in a University-School-
Community Collaboration. Journal of School Leadership, 17(March), 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.

Moll, L. C. (1992). Bilingual classroom and community analysis: Some recent
trends. Educational Rearcher, 21(2), 20-24.

Montero-Sieburth, M. (2005). Explanatory Models of Latino Education During the
Reform Movement of the 1980s. In Pedraza, P. and Rivera, M. (Eds.), Latino
Education: An Agenda for Community Action Research. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Murray, J. & Weissbourd, R. (2003). Focusing on Core Academic Outcomes: A
Key to Successful School-Community Partnerships. 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.

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

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

190
Orfield, Gary and Yun, John (1999). Resegregation in American Schools. Civil
Rights Project, Harvard University.
http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/deseg/Resegregation_Americ
an_Schools99.pdf (retrieved 6/28/08).

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

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

Pedraza, P., & Rivera, M. (2005). Latino Education: An Agenda for Community
Action Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Peske, H. & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority
students are shortchanged on teacher quality. A report and recommendations
by the Education Trust. Education Trust. 1-18.

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

Rocha, Rene Rolando (2006). Black/Brown cooperation and conflict in the
education policymaking process. United States -- Texas: Texas A&M
University. Publication Number: AAT 3231662.

Rodrigues, Helena Alves (2005). Building bridges or blockades? Latinos and
coalitions with African-Americans. United States -- Iowa: The University of
Iowa. Publication Number: AAT 3184748.

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

Sallee, M. and Tierney, W.G. (2007). Building School-University Partnerships. In
Creating Sustainable School-University Partnerships, Journal of Metropolitan
Universities, (18)4.

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

191
Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of
Principal leadership for school-community collaboration. Teachers College
Record, 104 (7), 1345-1368.

Schofield, Janet Ward. (1991). School Desegregation and Intergroup Relations: A
Review of the Literature. Review of Research in Education, 17(1), 335-409.

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

Sirotnik, K., & Goodlad, J. (1988). School-University Partnerships in Action.New
York: Teachers College Press.

Sleeter, C. (2001) Preparing Teachers for Diverse Schools. Journal of Teacher
Education. Vol. 52, No. 2, 94-106.

Sleeter, C. E. (2000-2001). Epistemological diversity in research on preservice
teacher preparation for historically underserved children. Review of Research
in Education, 25, 209-250.

Sorenson, D. (1998). School-university partnerships: Collaboration among
autonomous cultures. St. Louis, MO: Annual Meeting of the University
Council for Educational Administration. ERIC Document Reproductive
Service No. ED429064.

Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child
behind. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/white_papers/WP138/WP138.pdf.

Stephan, W. G. (1980). A Brief Overview of School Desegregation. In W. G.
Stephan, and J. R. Feagin. (Eds.), School Desegregation. (pp. 3-23.), New
York: Pleum Press.

Su, Justine Z. X. (1992). What Schools Are for: An Analysis of Findings from a US
National Study. Springer Stable: International Review of Education 38(2).
133-153 URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3444649 Retrieved: 20/07/2008
14:19.

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.
192
Tejeda, C. and Gutierrez, K.D. (2005). Fighting the Backlash: Decolonizing
Perspectives and Pedagogies in Neocolonial Times. In Pedraza, P. and
Rivera, M. (Eds.), Latino Education: An Agenda for Community Action
Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Vaca, N. (2004). The Presumed Alliance: The Unspoken Conflict Between Latinos
and Blacks and What it Means for America. New York: Harper Collins
Publishers.

Valencia, R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and
practice. Washington, D.C: Falmer Press.

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.

Walsh, M.E. and Park-Taylor, J. (2003). Comprehensive Schooling and
Interprofessional Collaboration: Theory, Research, and Practice. In 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.

Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into
discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, N.J.: Education Testing Service.
Retrieved 7/14/08 http://www.ets.org/research/pic

Wilson, S. M. and Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of
professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary
professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-209.
193
APPENDIX A
ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is
a conversation between the two of us about your experience with the Greater
Freedom Educational Partnership.

1. What is your position and role at the 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 GFEP partnership? Do you know its
goals?
7. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join You-Design and take
on a network partner?
8. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings with the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership or their
representatives?
9. What do you know about the role of the Equity Foundation, the Southcity
League, or the University of Change, particularly the Freirian School of
Education?
10. How do you see the members of GFEP working together as one
organization?
194
11. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Greater
Freedom Educational Partnership?
12. Why do you believe/or not believe Freedom High School needed a network
partner?
13. In what ways do you feel the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership has
benefited the school or has the potential to benefit the school?
14. What changes have occurred under the partnership? Have they been positive
or negative or mixed? Please explain.
15. Describe the relationship between the administration and GFEP up to this
point.
16. To what degree do you think the network partnership can provide greater
support to the quality of teaching and learning at Freedom? Do you have
recommendations?
17. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
18. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the
partnership?
19. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
20. How involved has the classified staff been in the work of the partnership to
improve Freedom High School? What have been the barriers?
195
21. How involved have parents been in the partnership to improve Freedom High
School?
22. What has been the level of students’ participation in the work of the
partnership to improve Freedom High School?
23. What structures or opportunities for widespread participation in the
partnership have been created? What are some of the barriers you have seen
or anticipate to the success of this partnership?
24. What characteristics do you think can make the Greater Freedom Educational
Partnership effective and increase longevity?
25. What can you do to contribute to the partnership in order to increase student
achievement?
196
APPENDIX B
TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is
a conversation between the two of us about your experience with the Greater
Freedom Educational Partnership.

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 GFEP partnership? What are its goals?
6. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join You-Design and take
on a network partner?
7. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings involving the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership or their
representatives?
8. What do you know about the role of the Tom and Ethel Bradley Foundation,
the Southcity League, or the University of Change, particularly the Freirian
School of Education?
9. How do you see the members of the GFEP working together as one
organization?
197
10. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Greater
Freedom Educational Partnership?
11. Why do you believe/or not believe Freedom High School needed a network
partner?
12. In what ways do you feel the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership has
benefited the school or has the potential to benefit the school?
13. What changes have occurred under the partnership? Have they been positive
or negative or mixed? Please explain
14. Describe the relationship between the administration and GFEP up to this
point.
15. To what degree do you think the network partnership can 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?
198
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?
22. What characteristics do you think can make the Greater Freedom Educational
Partnership effective and increase longevity?
23. What can you do to contribute to the partnership in order to increase student
achievement?
24. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.
199
APPENDIX C
CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is
a conversation between the two of us about your experience with the Greater
Freedom Educational Partnership.

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 GFEP partnership? What are its goals?
6. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join You-Design and take
on a network partner?
7. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings involving the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership or their
representatives? What structures have been created here at the school to
include your participation?
8. What do you know about the role of the Equity Foundation, the Southcity
League, or the University of Change, particularly the Freirian School of
Education?
9. How do you see the members of the GFEP working together as one
organization?
200
10. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Greater
Freedom Educational Partnership?
11. Why do you believe/or not believe Freedom High School needed a network
partner?
12. In what ways do you feel the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership has
benefited the school or has the potential to benefit the school?
13. What changes have occurred under the partnership? Have they been positive
or negative or mixed? Please explain.
14. Describe the relationship between the administration and GFEP up to this
point.
15. To what degree do you think the network partnership can 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?
201
20. How involved have parents been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School?
21. What has been the level of students’ participation in the partnership?
22. What structures or opportunities have been created for widespread
participation in the work of the partnership? What are some of the barriers
you have seen or anticipate to the success of this partnership?
23. What characteristics do you think can make the Greater Freedom Educational
Partnership effective and increase longevity?
24. What can you do to contribute to the partnership in order to increase student
achievement?
25. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.
202
APPENDIX D
PARENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is
a conversation between the two of us about your experience with the Greater
Freedom Educational Partnership.

1. How are you affiliated with Freedom High school? How many years have
you been affiliated with the school? How many more years do you expect to
be a part of the Freedom High School community?
2. Have your children attended any other schools within LAUSD? What are
those schools?
3. Do you live in the Freedom High School attendance area?
4. Are your children a part of the home school or one of the magnet programs at
Freedom (Gifted Magnet or Teacher Transition Magnet)?
5. Have your children attended any schools outside of the district?
6. How would you compare your experience as a parent here at Freedom with
your experience as a parent in any other school?
7. How would you compare your student’s experience here at Freedom with
your child’s experience in other schools?
8. 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?
203
10. Describe what you know about the Greater Freedom Educational
Partnership’s involvement with Freedom High School. What are its goals?
11. How has your role as a parent at Freedom High School changed since the
Greater Freedom Educational Partnership has become the network partner?
Are you more involved or less involved?
12. What other types of partnerships, that you are aware of, has Freedom High
School been involved with (i.e. universities, community-based
organizations). Have you ever been an active participant in these
partnerships? How does the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership
compare to the other partnerships? What is different about GFEP?
13. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join You-Design and take
on a network partner?
14. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings involving the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership or their
representatives? What structures have been created here at the school to
include your participation in the work to reform/transform Freedom High
School?
15. What do you know about the role of the Tom and Ethel Bradley Foundation,
the Southcity League, or the University of Change, particularly the Freirian
School of Education?
16. How do you see the members of the GFEP working together as one
organization?
204
17. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Greater
Freedom Educational Partnership?
18. In what ways do you feel the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership has
benefited the school or has the potential to benefit the school?
19. What changes have occurred under the partnership? Have they been positive
or negative or mixed? Please explain.
20. What kind of relationship do you observe between the administration and
GFEP up to this point? Please describe.
21. To what degree do you think the network partnership can provide greater
support to the quality of teaching and learning at Freedom? Do you have
recommendations?
22. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
23. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the work of
the partnership to improve Freedom High School?
24. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
25. How involved has classified staff been in the work of the partnership to
improve Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their
participation? What are your recommendations to increase their involvement?
26. What has been the level of students’ participation in the partnership?
205
27. What characteristics do you think can make the Greater Freedom Educational
Partnership effective and increase longevity?
28. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.
206
APPENDIX E
COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
(Southcity League and Equity Foundation)
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 Greater Freedom Educational Partnership? Describe how your
relationship has developed over the length of your partnership. Describe
some of the successes and challenges and what you have learned from both of
them.
4. What do you think are the challenges and strengths of Freedom High School?
5. What involvement did you have with Freedom High School prior to joining
the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership?
6. What are GFEP’s 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 Greater
Freedom High School Educational Partnership in its efforts to transform
Freedom High School? Do you believe your contribution will be enhanced by
joining the partnership?
207
8. Describe the relationship between GFEP and teachers at the school. What
structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key stakeholders
in the transformation of Freedom High School? What have been some of the
barriers? How has GFEP worked to overcome them?
9. Describe the relationship between GFEP and parents at Freedom High
School. What structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key
stakeholders in the transformation of Freedom High School? What have been
some of the barriers? How has GFEP worked to overcome them?
10. Describe the relationship between GFEP and administrators at Freedom High
School. What structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key
stakeholders in the transformation of Freedom High School? What have been
some of the barriers? How has GFEP worked to overcome them?
11. Describe the relationship between GFEP and students at Freedom High
School. What structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key
stakeholders in the transformation of Freedom High School? What have been
some of the barriers? How has GFEP worked to overcome them?
12. Describe ways in which the GFEP partners have created a dialogic
relationship in which all partners have equal power. What have you done to
diffuse real or perceived inequalities in power among the partners?
13. What have been the challenges to forming a partnership in which all
members and stakeholders work collaboratively with equal decision making
power?
208
14. What changes to your organization have occurred or you envision occurring
as a member of GFEP?
15. How does the partnership work with the school to ensure that it is an equal
partner, versus a mere recipient of services from GFEP?
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?
17. What characteristics and practices does the GFEP need to adopt to make the
partnership effective in carrying out its goals and ensuring its longevity?
18. What role does GFEP 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?
209
APPENDIX F
UNIVERSITY STAKEHOLDER PROTOCOL
1. What is your position and role in the university?
2. What do you know about the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership?
3. What do you know about Freedom High School?
4. What other partnerships with K-12 schools have you been involved with?
5. Describe the meetings in which you have been involved with Freedom High
School, the Southcity League, or the Equity Foundation. In your opinion, did
the participants have equal voices in the discussions about transforming
Freedom High School?
6. How receptive have you observed the school staff, teachers, and
administration to be about forming a partnership?
7. Have you ever visited Freedom High School? How long ago? Describe your
impressions?
8. Have you visited Freedom High School since the Greater Freedom
Educational Partnership was established?
9. What contribution do you think USC or the Freirian School of Education can
make to the work of the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership’s efforts to
transform Freedom High School?
10. What personal or professional contribution do you intend to make to the work
of the Greater Freedom Educational Partnership?
210
11. What are some strategies that the partnership leaders can employ to dispel the
perception or reality that the university expects to hold greater decision-
making power in the partnership?
12. How do you see this partnership changing or affecting USC or the Freirian
School of Education?
13. What elements of the professional development school model can the
partnership employ that, you believe, will increase student achievement?
14. Research shows that most partnerships do not last longer than five years.
What do you think is the most significant factor in the failing of these
partnerships? How can the network partners avoid these pitfalls?
15. Do you think incorporating the community more in how students are taught
will increase the longevity of the partnership and its ability to effect positive
change at Freedom High School?
16. When did you feel that your role was a dominant member of the partnership?
When did you feel that your role was an equal participant of the partnership?
211
APPENDIX G
SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Purpose of Activity
Date/Location
Participants (Circle one)
• Community Members
• School Staff
• Faculty
• Students
• Administration
• Parents
• University Partners
Describe the physical setting
Describe
• the culture &
climate, dynamics,
i.e., power
relationships,
dominant talkers,
respectful
listening,
roles played by
different
parties or
stakeholders

Evidence of barriers in
communication/ interaction
Circle all that apply:
conceptual pragmatic attitudinal professional
Strategies to promote a
dialogic culture of co-
constructing knowledge

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

212
APPENDIX H
MEETING OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Purpose of Activity
Date/Location
Participants (Circle one)
• Community Members
• School Staff
• Faculty
• Students
• Administration
• Parents
• University Partners
Describe the physical setting
Describe
• the culture &
climate, dynamics,
i.e., power
relationships,
dominant talkers,
respectful
listening,
roles played by
different
parties or
stakeholders

Evidence of barriers in
communication/ interaction
Circle all that apply:
conceptual pragmatic attitudinal professional
Strategies to promote a
dialogic culture of co-
constructing knowledge

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

213
APPENDIX I
EXAMINED ARTIFACTS PROTOCOL
Document What questions the documents
will answer?
Research
Question
Collected
?
GFEP Partnership
 Meeting
agendas/minutes/
sign-in sheets
• Action Plan
• Potential and Current
barriers in the formation of
the partnership
• Who the stakeholders are
and to identify interview
candidates
1, 2 yes
 Memorandum of
Understanding
• Mutually agreed upon goals
• Distribution of power and
responsibilities
1, 2 yes
 GFEP Business Plan • Mission and Vision
• Action Plan
1, 2 yes
School
Demographics

 Staff List (including
teachers and support
staff)
• Experience
• Credentials
• Grade Levels
• Years at Freedom HS
1
 CST Data • API, AYP disaggregated by
demographics, subgroups,
etc.
• Program Improvement
Information
1, 2 yes
 Professional
Development
Plans
• Focus areas, frequency,
schedule
1, 2
 Staff Meeting
Agendas/Minutes
• Time spent in collaboration
• Teacher input
• Weekly focus
1, 2
 Lesson Plans • Time spent in collaboration
• Implementation of
culturally
relevant pedagogy
1
214
 Grade Level
Team Meeting
Minutes

• Time spent in collaboration
• Priorities of grade level
reflecting community
expertise or concerns
1
 District Uniform
Complaint
Information for
Freedom HS
• School Climate
• Parent Satisfaction
1
Parent Involvement
 Parent meeting
agendas,
minutes, sign-in
sheets
 SSC
 Freedom
Cougar Coalition
• Level of parental
involvement
• Identify involved parents to
interview
• Whether state mandated
committees involving
parents are actually
meeting, advising,
approving school issues
• Identify parental concerns
particularly with lack of
communication
1, 2
 Parent
Communiques

• Types of information
disseminated to parents
• Information is translated in
appropriate languages
1
 Parent Surveys • School Climate
• Parental concerns
1
 Visitor Logs • Parent Volunteers 1

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The primary purpose of this study is to examine the ways community, K-12 schools, and university partnerships can co-construct relationships within their first year of formation in order to contribute to reframing the nation’s educational agenda to improve the quality of education in urban schools. This study examines to what extent dialogic co-constructed partnerships that redistribute power among all partners can provide a cultural model for transforming urban schools to promote high academic performance for students of color in urban schools. This unique study seeks to examine the barriers, and the effective strategies to overcome them, in forming relationships of equal status among communities-K-12 schools-universities.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Improved math achievement in an urban high school: a case study of a high school in the Vista Unified School District

PDF

Making the connection: The California urban superintendent and parent and community involvement

PDF

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

PDF

Traditional and nontraditional urban school superintendents in the age of accountability

PDF

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

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

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Hernandez, Laura (author)

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

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/18/2009

Defense Date 05/05/2009

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

Tag African-American,co-construction,Community,cultural model,dialogic,K-12 schools,Latino,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,partnerships,school reform,Teacher Education,teacher quality,University

Place Name Los Angeles (city or populated place)

Language English

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

Creator Email lbhflores@yahoo.com,lhflores@mlapartnerschools.org

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2375

Unique identifier UC1181387

Identifier etd-Hernandez-3057 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-568624 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2375 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Hernandez-3057.pdf

Dmrecord 568624

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hernandez, Laura

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu