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

Jeffrey S. Kim

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

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Jeffrey S. Kim

ii
DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the Glory and Honor forever.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Like our study on partnerships, the work of completing this doctorate is also one of co-
construction by many stakeholders pouring out their lives, into mine. I am blessed to be a
part of such a noble group. I first want to thank Dr. Jong Dae Kim, my father who went
home to be the Lord December 8
th
, 2006. His exemplary life and service to others has
been a life-long cultural model for me to look up to. I am blessed to have had the support
of such a wonderful father. I am also thankful for my mother Seung Aie Kim, who has
been so supportive throughout the last three years and indeed, all of my life.

I want to thank my children, Charis Alatheia Kim and my second, Adeline Inara Kim
who was born on November 18
th
, 2007 during the program, and our soon-to-be third.
They bring me such joy as I see them growing each day. There were times I had wished I
had more hours in a day, but my hope is this investment will not only benefit me, but
provide a wealth of social capital throughout the lifetime for my family and those whom I
serve.

I would like to thank my wife, Stephanie Kim who also is earning her doctorate alongside
me this year. Who would have thought God would have blessed me with such a perfect
wife and helper? I can not imagine any other. I am where I am because of her.

iv
I also want to thank my church, Gospel Life Mission Church, and my Steering Core
friends: Rev. Pastor Richard Kim, Leonard Kim, Brian Kim, Daniel Paik, and Howard
Lee who together served as a wonderful support to me as we together planted a church. I
thank Thomas Hwang who contributed many hours proof reading this work. I want to
thank Children’s Ministry and the many sisters in Christ, Sandy Song, Joann Song,
Rachel Kim, and my sister Amy Kim (Lee) who on many occasions watched our kids so
that Stephanie and I could work.

I want to thank Rev. Pastor Song and Mrs. Song, my father and mother-in-law. Many a
day did my in-laws come out to USC, pick up our kids, watch them for extended hours,
sometimes days…and consider it joy. I also thank Eunice and Mina Song. Stephanie and
I could not have completed this work had it not been in partnership with them—it would
have been a logistical impossibility.

I also want to thank Rev. Dr. John Chung, president of IEC Trust and wife, Dr. Gloria
Chung, school principal of St. Paul School, whom I served with in Bangalore, India. Had
it not been for their influence in my life, I do not think I would be in education today, a
career that has brought me great joy.

I want to thank my boss, Dr. Kirsten Levitin, Principal of Dale Junior High School, who
has been such a wonderful mentor and encourager. Her philosophy of education has
allowed me to grow in leaps and bounds this year. I couldn’t have imagined a healthier
v
place to be during this time. I also thank all the Lancer Leaders at Dale Junior High
School who have joined me on this journey.

I am thankful to USC and the Rossier School of Education whose preparation far
exceeded my high expectations. I am thankful for all the stakeholders in this study, who
shared a piece of their life with us so that we could document this work and take a step
forward together in education. I am thankful for all nine other members of my cohort. I
have learned a great deal from each one of them, benefiting from their expertise. This
process alone reminds me of the important need to co-construct together and to build
dialogic relationships as we’ve learned through the literature review and seen modeled in
practice with one another and through the partnership. I also want to thank Dr. Anthony
Maddox and Dr. Marsh who have served as a part of my dissertation committee
providing critical feedback. Their guidance and example in life has been instrumental in
my growth.

I want to thank Dr. Sylvia Rousseau. I can’t express how extremely fortunate I feel to
have spent the last three years under her leadership and direction. I now better
understand how a mentor can so impact a student’s life to the extent that they are not the
same person they were prior to meeting. I am not the same person I was. Not only did I
cognitively learn a great deal from Dr. Sylvia Rousseau, but my heart for others has
grown. I am very excited to be a part of her contribution to this world that makes a
vi
difference by impacting our students’ lives, and by extension, the future of this great
country, the United States of America.

Most importantly, I want to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who died for my sins
and through faith in Him gives forgiveness and eternal life with Him. He has blessed me
with an extraordinary life, one that brings joy, and one that I thank him for each day. I
am reminded by His work, the importance of our work, and I continually praise him for
privilege to live each day joyfully as His child.

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x
ABSTRACT xi
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 17
Purpose of the Study 18
Significance of the Study 20
Research Questions 21
Delimitations 21
Limitations 22
Conclusion 23
Definition of Terms 23

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 31
Introduction 31
Multiple Societal Factors Influencing School Performance 34
A New Cultural Model for Partnerships 45
Persistent Barriers to Community, School and University Partnerships 60
Strategies to Overcoming Barriers Among Partnerships 70
Conclusion 82

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 84
Study Design and Research Question 84
Methods 85
Sample and Population 87
Instrumentation 92
Research Question Frameworks 93
Data Collection Instruments and Procedures 96
Data Analysis 103
Ethical Considerations 107

viii
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 108
Background 109
Data Findings 115
Research Question 1: Process 115
Process: Co-Construction 115
Process: Dialogue 121
Process: Mutual Shared Learning 126
Research Question 1a: Barriers to Partnerships 134
Barrier: History 135
Barrier: Hierarchy 143
Barrier: Absence of Systems 151
and Structures for Communication
Research Question 1b: Strategies for Partnerships 155
Strategy: Critical Bridge Person 155
Research Question 2: Attributes of Partnerships 165
Attribute: Collaborative Relationship 165
Summary of Chapter Four 171

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 175
Summary 175
Discussion 178
Recommendations 187

REFERENCES 193

APPENDICES 199
Appendix A: Administrative Interview Protocol 199
Appendix B: Teacher Interview Protocol 202
Appendix C: Classified Personnel Interview Protocol 205
Appendix D: Parent Interview Protocol 208
Appendix E: Community-Based Organization Interview Protocol 211
Appendix F: University Stakeholder Interview Protocol 214
Appendix G: School Environment Observation Protocol 216
Appendix H: Meeting Observation Protocol 217
Appendix I: Examined Artifacts Protocol 218
Appendix J: Pseudonyms 220
Appendix K: Informed Consent Form 222

ix
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Initiative Area Data 91

Table 2: Triangulation of Data Matrix 92

Table 3: Aligning Research Questions and Theoretical Frameworks 94

Table 4: Data Collection Matrix 97

Table 5: Critical Partners in Action Matrix 112

x
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Los Angeles Equity Index 3

Figure 2: A Unique Partnership 111

Figure 3: Process of Co-Constructed Community, School, 114
and University Partnerships for Urban School
Transformation

Figure 4: Co-Constructing with Dialogue for Mutual Learning 115

Figure 5: Barriers to Partnership 135

Figure 6: Community, School, and University Partnership 163

xi
ABSTRACT

This study has examined the first year of an emerging community, school, and
university partnership engaged in a process of co-constructing as a means of transforming
an urban school. This partnership was selected because of the unique opportunity to
observe a top-tier university with a track record and mission of working with the urban
community surrounding it. The university has extended its support of the urban
community by working with a low performing high school, which has chosen with the
support of its teachers and parents to join a newly formed division of a large school
district created to promote school innovation called iDesign. The third arm of this
partnership is a pair of community organizations that have a history of empowering the
African American community to exercise their civil rights by resisting acts of oppression
against their community. All these organizations have come together on behalf of the
transformation of an urban high school. This study has examined the first year of an
emerging partnership in their efforts to transform a K-12 school that has experienced
multiple years of decline in academic performance and community trust. Qualitative data,
collected through 29 interviews, 10 observations, and 3 key documents were analyzed
and organized in a code book to describe important processes and record key issues that
emerged.
The findings from the interviews, observations, and examination of artifacts
indicate that the partnership is engaged in co-construction incorporating dialogue and
mutual learning. Barriers to the process of co-construction have included history,
hierarchy, and absence of systems and structures for communication. The barriers are
xii
formidable but not impenetrable. In a short period of time, less than year, the partners are
already at work to overcome these barriers. Strategies to overcome these barriers have
also been identified including the presence of critical bridge persons. Critical bridge
persons employing the process of co-construction have fostered a place for dialogue and
have facilitated the creation of systems and structures for communication. The formation
of the small learning communities, approval from a visiting WASC committee, and
places of mutual learning and dialogue like the transition teams are evidence of the
process of co-construction at work in spite of the barriers.

1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
When the best leader’s work is done, the people say, “We did it ourselves.” (Lao-Tzu)

Introduction
United States of America has long been recognized for some of the most
prestigious universities in the word, attracting the high performing students from around
the world. Promoting high academic standards have been a part of the nation’s
mission—but not for all students (Front-End Alignment, 1996). Shockingly, students
thousands of miles away often have much greater access to America’s universities than
urban students, who in some cases, live only blocks away (State of LA, 2005).
According to Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), although educational attainment of all
groups has risen, those who have been significantly overrepresented with low academic
achievement have been Blacks, Latinos, and Native-Americans (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001; Yosso, 2005; Ogbu, 1987). Horace Mann, often referred to as the Father of
American Education, had a vision that the modern public school and the universal
schooling of students from all backgrounds would provide unprecedented equal
opportunities for success (Oakes and Rogers, 2006).
Historical Background
Inequity: An Effect of Oppression
At the onset of the industrial revolution in the late 18
th
and early 19
th
century,
immigrants from many parts of the world found work as production-line workers as
2
demand for this kind of work grew. Distinct differences in educational opportunities for
the children of the factory workers and those for the affluent emerged from this era. The
children of immigrants were often times trained through the school system to eventually
supply labor to factories, while children from affluent communities were expected to
prepare for higher education with the eventual intention to manage these factories
(Walker, 2002). There seemed to be an institutionalized fast track for some, while others
were provided fewer skills to access similar opportunities(Rogers and Oaks; 2006).
Today, hundreds of years after Mann, and more than fifty years after Brown vs.
Board of Education, Oakes states, “African American and Latino students are far more
likely to attend schools with fewer opportunities to learn—schools with shortages of
qualified teachers, fewer classes that count for college preparation, and overcrowded
facilities” (Oakes & Rogers, 2006, p. 8). Clearly, schools have not become the great
equalizers and, as a result, continue to remain as Oakes posits—unjust (Yosso, 2005;
Ogbu, 1987; Freire, 2000; Oaks and Rogers, 2006).
Difference in access to education was a means for perpetuating the historic power
gap between the rich and the poor-- whether it be socioeconomic, achievement, or health
related. According to Freire, the oppressed tend to be individuals or groups with the least
amount of power (2000). He used the terms oppressed and oppressors to characterize the
inequities between peasants and the wealthy. These inequities did not exist out of choice,
but rather were the result of a dominant group’s ability to oppress by maintaining
privilege and power for both themselves and their progeny (Freire, 2000).

3
Current Statistics
A study called The State of Black Los Angeles (2005) provided an objective tool
to measure equality comparing a variety of indices between Blacks, Asians, Latinos, and
Whites living in Los Angeles. Six broad topics were reviewed: the Economic Index,
Housing Index, Health Index, Education Index, Criminal Justice Index, and Civic
Engagement Index. This study mapped some of the racial disparities of individuals living
in Los Angeles. Whites living in Los Angeles were used to form the baseline or 1.00 on
the index. Holistically, Blacks scored a .69 on the equity index compared with Whites.
On individual indices, compared to whites, blacks living in Los Angeles scored the
following on the equity index:

Figure 1: Los Angeles Equity Index (State of Black LA, 2005)

4
African Americans in Los Angeles experience the lowest median household
income ($31,905) of all groups while experiencing the highest rate of unemployment
(14%). African Americans living in Los Angeles experience three times the rate of
poverty compared to Whites living in Los Angeles; this contributes to 30% of the “single
person” homelessness and 44% of the homeless being African American families. These
factors are compounded by a lack of access to health care. African Americans
experienced the highest overall death rate, with more than triple the deaths from homicide
and HIV/AIDS and four times the premature deaths as compared to Whites (State of
Black Los Angeles, 2005).
The homicide rates in Los Angeles for Black males is 78 per 100,000 compared
with 6.6 for Whites, juvenile arrests are nearly twice as high for Blacks, and African
Americans are the victims of 56% of all the racially based crimes in LA despite being just
10% of the total population (State of Black LA, 2005, p. 19). The phenomenon of the
underserved does not only exist in prison populations but eerily correlates to the
historically persistent gap in schools when viewing matriculation, discipline, and school
achievement data. While matriculating in the school system, African Americans
experience one-third of all suspensions and are more often referred to the juvenile justice
system, fostering what some call the School-to-Prison pipeline. These statistics are
reflective of an economically, educationally, and psychologically oppressed state of a
people.

5
Persistent Inequities
These persistent inequities challenge the reality of the cherished American creed
that asserts “all men were created equal” and have the opportunity to pursue a better life.
Horace Mann understood this opportunity for a better life to be connected to quality
public education for all. Although the American dream of education has become a reality
for many, Oaks and Rogers (2006) posit that the American dream has been more
advantageous for Americans who are White and have a higher socioeconomic status, and
disadvantageous toward Americans who are of color with a lower socioeconomic status
(Oakes & Rogers, 2006; Yosso, 2005, Ogbu, 1987). Linda Lambert (2002) also
stipulates in her book, Constructivist Leadership, that there continues to be a “persistent
achievement gap between minority and majority students that challenges our long-held
beliefs about education as a social equalizer” (Lambert et. al, 2002, p. 1).
This perplexing challenge is one that will not be easily resolved. Some
researchers claim the problem of the persistent achievement gap is with the parent, home
environment and community (Colman Report, 1966; Walsh and Park-Taylor, 2003).
Other researchers claim that the problem lies with schools, teachers, and administration
(Henderson & Berla, 1994; Marzano, 2001; Carroll, 2008), while even others claim it is
to some degree the university’s lack of engagement in their surrounding communities and
preparation of future teachers (A Nation at Risk, 1983, Sirotnik &Goodlad, 1988, and
Kezar, 2007). Communities, schools, and universities have more commonly worked in
silos attempting to address the achievement gap, a term that has come into use since the
enactment of NCLB to describe the disparity in positive student outcomes typically
6
between middle class students and students of color in high poverty areas (Brabeck,
Walsh, & Latta, 2003; Oaks & Rogers, 2006). Attempts to addressing this achievement
gap have been relentless and varied, but this Hydra can not be fully addressed by
universities, schools, and K-12 schools working in silos. Only by working together in
partnership can these attempts result in sustained progress (Kezar, 2007; Freire, 2000;
Miller, 2007).
Overcoming the problems in schools will take more than just fight (Freire, 2000).
It requires a reframing of the problem. Rather than referring to the achievement gap, this
study intends to use opportunity gap-a term adopted by those who resist using the term
achievement gap to describe the disparity in student outcomes occurring among
historically oppressed persons due to historic barriers and inequities in schools (Ogbu,
1987; Freire, 2000; Oaks & Rogers, 2006). Opportunity gaps tend to exist when one
group exercises power to dominate another group. Freire (2000) refers to these two
groups as the oppressors and oppressed. This oppression, which has the potential of
being invisible to those embedded within the upper strata of this cultural model,
manifests itself quite poignantly the glaring historic, social, economic, and political
inequalities which are often experienced by people of color living in urban communities
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Freire, 2000; Ogbu, 1987). While many attempts have
been made to eliminate these inequalities and their effects, the problem persists partially
due to the continued deficit thinking of those in power about those who have less power
(Freire, 2000; Oaks and Rogers, 2006). Communities lacking economic and political
power are perceived to have few assets that can contribute to their own welfare or
7
ascendency. Schools have typically failed to embrace the funds of knowledge within the
families and communities of students of color and the poor. The North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory (NCREL) states, “When schools develop and implement
strategies for promoting school-family-community partnerships, the result is improved
learning for all students and strengthened schools, families, and communities” (NCREL,
2007, p.1). Sustained change will require a transformation in the way many educators
see the role of families and communities in education.
Community, School, and University Partnerships
Barriers to Partnerships
The term partnerships denotes a variety of meanings ranging from what Sirotnik
and Goodlad (1988) describe as symbolic arrangements, to financial patronage, to
“mutually collaborative arrangements between equal partners working together to meet
self-interests while solving common problems” (1998, viii). Gronski and Pigg define
collaboration within partnerships as an “interactive process” when individuals and their
organizations are able to draw from their diverse resources, pool them to create and
implement common goals, and as well arrive at new solutions for shared problems
(Miller & Hafner, 2008). Unfortunately, many community, school, and university
relationships have not been able to yield positive results and sometimes experience
further “division and hostility” (Mayfield, Hellwig, & Banks, 1999). Among the
plethora of partnerships that have recently formed or are emerging, some show promise
(Sirotnik and Goodlad, 1988); however, the inherent challenges are so difficult that some
attempts at partnerships fail or are abandoned (Brabeck & Latta, 2003). Cultural clashes
8
(Kezar, 2007, Shields, 2005, Miller & Hafner, 2008), power relationships (Carroll, 2002;
Freire, 2000; Miller, 2007; Maurrasse, 2001), and unclear expectations (Baum, 2000;
Miller & Hafner, 2008; Kezar, 2007) between community, school, and university
partnerships can create barriers to partnerships.
Communities, schools, and universities each has its own unique culture. The lack
of understanding among the partners often results in cultural clashes (Miller, 2007;
Corrigan, 2000; Kezar, 2007). Power-based relationships among university, school, and
community partners also results in power-sharing issues as the partners attempt to
establish common goals and activities. Carroll (2002) asserts that the unequal distribution
of power usually results in the domination of one group over another.
This quest for the upper hand in university, school, and community partnerships creates
historically impermeable power struggles that are counter-productive in the pursuit of
educational excellence among urban youth (Oaks & Rogers, 2006; Freire 2000; Carroll,
2002). Finally, power relationships and cultural clashes often lead to unclear
expectations and roles among community, school, and university partnerships. Baum
(2000) has shared that the experience of cooperating with school systems, for some of the
partners, has been found to be “chaotic” and “uncontrollable” (p. 238). Often at the
university, school, and community there is a “hodgepodge” of programs that fail to unite
diverse people and demonstrate relatively little or no communication or real collaboration
(Miller & Hafner, 2008; Kezar, 2007). The deficit view in education has limited the
potential of many of the partners, especially partners who traditionally have less power
(Freire, 2000, Oaks & Rogers, 2007). Cairney (2000) critiques this deficit view and
9
believes that if there are deficiencies, it is because of the educational institutions inability
to “develop student strengths and abilities” (p. 165). Cairney refers to these practices as
educational inadequacy; a factor that widens the opportunity gap in urban schools.
Power relationships oftentimes create a culture of silence among the oppressed.
Freire (2000) makes the point that silence of individuals is often misunderstood as
“ignorance and lethargy.” He goes on further to stipulate that, rather than being
encouraged to participate, the oppressed are kept “submerged” to the point where
“critical awareness and response were practically impossible” (p. 30).
Overcoming barriers
Community, school, and university partnerships that show promise are built on
the belief that there is more that can be accomplished together than by working in silos
(Corrigan, 2000; Miller, 2007; Kezar, 2007). Community, school, and university
partners’ greatest potential lies in building on one another’s strengths while mitigating
one another’s weaknesses. Communities, schools, and universities that have survived
have been able to overcome barriers to partnership by replacing the old cultural model of
partnerships that was built on cultural clashes, power relationships, and unclear
expectations with a new cultural model for partnerships (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001,
Gonzales & Moll, 2002). In order for community, school, and university partnerships to
create a convergence of knowledge, resources, and assets with the potential to eradicate
historic, social, economic, and political behaviors on behalf of urban school
transformation, a new cultural model must be created (Gonzales & Moll, 2002;
Henderson & Berla, 1994; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Gallimore and Goldenberg
10
(2001) advocated for new cultural models within schools, ones that could overcome
barriers found in partnerships and with the potential to create a shared culture, built on
the assets of the partners.
A New Cultural Model for Partnerships: Co-Constructing Dialogic Relationships
A partnership built upon a new cultural model is one which has overcome the
persistent barriers of cultural clashes and power relationships by creating a shared culture
built on the assets of all the partners, including the community with the support of a
critical bridge person employing dialogue to co-construct dialogic relationships. The
most successful cultural models have the potential of improving student outcomes and
building leadership capacity among stakeholders (Miller & Hafner, 2008; Kezar, 2007;
Freire, 2000)
Partnership-friendly environments can be encouraged (Miller, 2007; Kezar, 2007).
Three factors which have been found to build and sustain community, school, and
university partnerships include 1) creating a shared culture (Kezar, 2007; Miller &
Hafner, 2008; Bringle & Hatcher, 2002); 2) building upon assets (Miller, 2007; Cairney,
2000; Sanders, 2001), and 3) finding appropriate stakeholders capable of addressing the
barriers between the entities to serve as bridge persons (Miller, 2007; Kezar 2007; Schein,
1990). A shared culture is built when universities, schools, and communities are able to
forge: a shared visions, goals, and expectations (Kezar, 2007; Miller 2008), shared
inquiry (Wesley & Buysse, 2001; Miller & Hafner, 2008), shared communication
strategies (Kezar, 2007; Miller, 2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008) and shared decision
making processes (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Maurrasse, 2001; Mayfield, Hellwig &
11
Banks, 1999). The barriers are significant and will not be mitigated overnight, but
through extensive “development” and “maintenance” there is a great deal of potential that
partnerships can improve outcomes for students (Miller, 2007).
Co-Constructing Relationships with Dialogue
Co-construction is defined in this study as a process in which two or more parties
engage in an interactive and equitable relationship to create shared understandings and
agreed upon outcomes. These kinds of relationships take into account the many untapped
assets found among partners and are able to build upon the community’s funds of
knowledge. Rather than “supplanting” with experts from the outside, partners humbly
come together to learn from and with one another (Miller & Hafner, 2008, p. 90;
Gonzales & Moll, 2002).
Dialogue seeks to have people engage in the exchange of words, ideas,
experiences, and knowledge to co-construct relationships where people are actively
participating in the creation of shared meaning. Through this process, they engage in
united reflection and inquiry, which can lead to transformative and aligned actions,
including the re-distribution of power. In the context of partnerships, dialogue enables the
capacity and capabilities of universities, schools and communities to be re-awakened
(Freire, 2000). Dialogue is a critical component for this co-construction and the power
redistribution (Lambert, 2002). Kezar (2007) posits that in order for school-university
partnerships to succeed, the individual culture of the school and the individual culture of
the university must create a new “shared” culture built upon a common vision where
responsibilities are shared (p. 29). Kezar further stipulates that successful partnerships
12
involve joint goals, a reliance on one another, joint planning and power sharing. When
relationships are formed in a manner that is “equitable” and “trusting,” partnerships are
stronger (Kezar, 2007). Mayfield (1999) indicates that trust and mutual respect are
central to any partnership.
Dialogic relationship in this study will be defined as the interaction of multiple
entities in the context that is bound by inclusiveness, mutual respect, trust, and the value
of the contributions, knowledge and experience 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 (Freire, 2000; Kezar, 2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008). This framework builds
on Freire’s ideas on education and gives hope to co-construct new cultural models
through a dialogic process that has the potential to create a world that is more beautiful,
democratic, and humane (Freire, 2000).
Dialogic conversations have the potential for redefining, reshaping, mediating,
and making bridges between the differing cultures of community, K-12 school, and
community cultures. These dialogic relationships that form between the community, K-
12 school, and university partners have the potential to co-construct new cultural models
that empower all stakeholders to overcome barriers to student achievement. New models
of communicating, learning, and partnering can occur through dialogic relationships
when facilitated by an individual who can broker relationships. (Miller & Hafner, 2008;
Freire, 2000)

13
Critical Bridge Person
Finally, there exists a need for a bridge person, an individual who understands the
unique cultures of community, school, and university partners and has the ability to
facilitate a shared culture (Kezar, 2007; Miller, 2007; Schein, 1990). Critical bridge
person is a term used by Ostrander (2004) to describe an individual or individuals who
can serve as brokers within university, K-12 school, and community partners to create
new relationships where power is distributed. This individual has also been referred to in
literature as a mediator, social advocate, institutional agent, mediator, boundary spanner
and kingpin. If cultural clashes, power relationships, and unclear expectations are
barriers to the partnership, this bridge person must strive to facilitate a shared culture of
reciprocal learning that allows partners to access the untapped assets found in one another
to build clear expectations and roles. Co-constructing equitable relationships involves
being able to recognize and create the kind of relationships where all entities are able to
incorporate their assets to further the shared cause of the partnership (Kezar, 2007; Scales,
2005; Sanders, 2001).
The literature review has already demonstrated the work that needs to be done in
schools can not be done alone or within silos; however, Kezar (2007) did mention
individuals whom she referred to as boundary-spanners that could facilitate the
communication between entities. Schein (1990) described individuals who could help
reduce anxiety, foster peace, and build trust. Ostrander (2004) referred to these people as
critical bridge people, individuals who were capable of extending themselves beyond the
traditional roles confined to an entity and serving as brokers among university, K-12
14
school, and community partners to create new relationships where power was distributed
(Ostrander, 2004). Although one or even a few critical bridge people can not themselves
create a new cultural model, perhaps critical bridge persons have the potential to jump
start the process of fostering co-constructed dialogic relationships.
The critical bridge person is an individual who is a key stakeholder in the
partnership and one who can understand the interest of the many stakeholders (Kezar,
2007; Schein, 1990; Ostrander, 2004). This person must have the trust of the community
and have the ability to bring together a variety of partners by not only linking individuals,
but by participating in facilitating the co-construction of roles (Kezar, 2007; Miller &
Hafner, 2008; Lambert, 2002). Critical bridge persons have the potential to foster a
shared culture when employing dialogue to co-construct relationships. Freire posits the
dialogue must be built on love for others, faith in people, and express humility and hope.
In doing so, Freire asserts the outcome of this kind of dialogue is one which fosters a
“horizontal relationship of mutual trust between dialoguers…which leads the dialoguers
into every closer partnership in the naming of the world” (Freire, 2000, p. 80). Critical
bridge persons among community, K-12 school, and community partners can facilitate
dialogic relationships that have the potential to contribute to a cultural model of
reciprocal learning within urban communities (Freire, 2000; Lambert, 2002; Miller 2008;
Kezar, 2007). These kinds of co-constructed relationships mediated by a critical bridge
person and built on dialogue among universities, K-12 school, and community partners
have the potential for redistributing power (Freire, 2000; Miller & Hafner, 2008, Kezar,
2007).
15
Constructivist Theory of Learning
Green defines constructivist leadership as ”the reciprocal process that enables
participants in an educational community to construct meaning that leads toward a
common purpose about schooling” (as cited in Lambert, 2002, viii). Linda Lambert
advocates that constructivist practices have the potential to replace hierarchical structures
with a new cultural model of “shared responsibility”. The replacement occurs because
the premise of constructivist practices involves “making meaning” with one another and
the world around them. According to Carroll, this kind of reciprocity builds mutual
respect between the differing cultures of community, K-12 school, and university
partners and has potential that stakeholders will then form “specific and overlapping
responsibilities for student achievement” (Carroll et al, 2001, p. 43). Constructivist
leaders who can foster dialogic relationships and serve as brokers between emerging
university, school, and community partners to co-construct sustained, equitable
relationships have the potential to overcome historic barriers and improve student
outcomes in urban schools.
This reciprocal process is also a democratic process; one which Lambert asserts
has led toward “shared responsibility for school governance, professional growth, and
achievement of agreed-on goals” (Lambert, 2007, p. 23). Lambert posits that
constructivist leadership not only supports the co-constructing of relationships that are
critical for improving student outcomes, but also has the potential for reshaping society.
She asserts “constructivist learning and leading enables its participants to alter the world
around them” but also fosters “the hope that the larger society can indeed be
16
reconstructed” (Lambert, et. al., 2007, p. xviii). Although a case is being constructed to
understand how university, K-12 schools, and community partners can be brought
together through co-constructed, dialogic relationships to transform K-12 schools, there is
a deeper hope that through the transformation of a school, the entire neighborhood and
community will likewise be changed by both this democratic process and positive
outcomes which ensue (Lambert, 2002, Shields, 2005, Freire, 2000).
Many programs continue to inundate urban schools with promises to change
student outcomes; however Corcoran (1998) refers to such gestures as a gamble, stating,
“It is a gamble because in the process of doing so, what may have seemed like a sure bet
can become a substantial wager – sometimes with the appearance of little or no return”(p.
105). What needs to occur is a new “way of being” (Lambert, 2002). This paper
attempts to make a case for a new cultural model; one that uses a dialogic process to co-
construct relationships among communities, K-12 schools, and universities.
Effect of New Kind of Relationship
Urban areas are large, densely populated diverse metropolitan regions that face
challenges due to historic barriers, stratified wealth, and power relationships, but they
have the potential to draw upon the many untapped and unrecognized assets of the
community, school, and university. Past and present inequities are symptoms of a
historic, economic, social and political oppression that has led to the opportunity gap
between the oppressed and the oppressors. Rousseau (2007) states, “The great disparity
now characterized as the ‘achievement gap’ is really a contemporary expression of this
struggle to decide how diverse a nation America wants to be” (p. 63). Partnerships built
17
from a convergence of knowledge, resources, and assets from a university, K-12 school,
and community co-constructed through dialogic relationships have the potential to
eradicate historic, social, economic, and political barriers on behalf of urban school
transformation. Urban schools located in a diverse metropolitan area have the potential
of being hubs that can access both the communities’ funds of knowledge and the social
capital of the best universities and most affluent businesses. This convergence has the
potential to not only reduce the opportunity gap, but to be an opportunity for
reconciliation that allows America to be her true self and serve as an authentic model for
peace around the world (Freire, 2000; Shields, 2005; Lambert, 2002).

Statement of the Problem
Barriers exist in establishing partnerships between university, K-12 schools, and
communities on behalf of K-12 urban school transformation. The quest for the upper
hand in school, community, university partnerships creates a historically impermeable
power struggle that is counter-productive in the pursuit of educational excellence for
urban youth. Dialogue in partnerships that involve universities, urban schools, and
community organizations is often neither co-constructed nor consistent. This results in
partnerships that perpetuate hierarchical rather than co-constructed dialogical
relationships. Although relationships among urban schools, university and community
organizations could do much to improve the state of urban schools, the persistence of
hierarchical relationships and other barriers prevent them from realizing their collective
potential for raising the low academic performance of students in urban schools.
18
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the process for co-constructing
partnerships among community, school, and university partners as a means of
transforming an urban school. Barriers to the process of co-construction and strategies to
overcome will be described as a means for providing rich descriptions of the process by
which the partnership was formed. More particularly, as dialogue and mutual learning
are key elements in the process of co-construction, barriers and strategies to overcome
these two important elements will be described. While studies examining school-
community, community-university, and university-school have been conducted, research
on community, school, and university partnerships--with each having equal power in the
process of co-constructing the partnership--are rare. This partnership was selected
because of the unique opportunity to observe a top-tier university that has a track record
and mission to support the urban community working with a low performing K-12 school
that has chosen with the support of its teachers and parents to join a newly formed
division of a large school district created to promote school innovation. The third arm of
this partnership is a pair of community organizations that have a history of empowering
the African American community to claim their civil rights by resisting acts of
oppression against their community. All these organizations have come together on
behalf of the transformation of an urban high school. This study has examined the first
year of an emerging partnership in their efforts to transform a K-12 school that has
experienced multiple years of decline in academic performance and community trust.
19
Chapter 2 will provide a literature review that examines the co-constructing of
relationships within community, K-12 school, and university partners to overcome
historical barriers and improve the quality of education in urban schools. A historical
background examining power relationships between collaborators will promote
understanding of how the process toward partnership can be challenging and sometimes
derailed. The literature will then proceed to discuss the need for a new cultural model
that has the potential to empower all stakeholders through a dialogic process. Key
stakeholders among the community, K-12 School, and university partners will be
examined to understand their role in brokering partnerships. More particularly, the study
will examine whether critical bridge persons are able to foster dialogic relationships
between community, K-12 school, and university partners that results in a cultural model
of reciprocal learning capable of overcoming historical barriers to improving student
outcomes in urban schools. The aim of this study is to contribute to the body of literature
that puts forth promising practices for building sustainable partnerships between
communities, K-12 schools, and universities on behalf of K-12 transformation, including
the possibility of constructivist leadership. It is hoped that this addition to the body of
literature can help future partnerships put into practice a process for constructing
partnerships that diffuse hierarchical power and release each partner to contribute toward
school transformation. A study of this partnership can contribute to closing the gap in the
literature and provide a viable model that can be replicated or adapted for transforming
K-12 urban schools.

20
Significance of the Study
A shift as fundamental as the invention of the Gutenberg Press is occurring
around the world in a movement that Thomas Friedman calls, the “flatting of the world”.
Due to globalization and the information revolution, the world has in many ways become
flat, making much more competitive the jobs available not only for urban Americans but
for all Americans. Skills that can be duplicated in the United States are sent abroad to
China and India, both developing nations which have been growing at an enormous rate,
many which do the work Americans used to do better and cheaper. When asked what
students need today, Friedman states we need to teach our kids how to learn and “how we
educate our children may prove to be more important than how much we educate them”
(Friedman, 2006, p. 302). Many of our schools are simply “banking” knowledge into
our students (Freire, 2000); some are failing even at that. Students need to see the
relevance of their education beyond the classroom as do teachers, administrators, and
universities that at times stand as ivory towers. Communities and schools often operate
in isolation from one another to the extent that schools seldom include the realities of life
outside the school in the educational schools. This study has the potential to promote a
better understanding of the role of university, school, and community partnerships in
overcoming historic barriers and improving student outcomes. Partnerships between
universities, K-12 schools, and communities offer a window of hope for our urban
students and a great opportunity through our students to continue to build a better future
for our country.
21
Although this study is local, the significance is nationwide—perhaps global.
Increased graduation rates and admission to college will positively affect the community.
Students entering the workforce will be contributing citizens of a democratic society that
help keep America competitive globally in the 21
st
century.

Research Questions
1. What is a process that enables communities, schools, and universities to co-construct
partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12 Schools?
a. What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools and universities that seek to transform urban
schools?
b. What are some effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming
barriers in co-constructing partnerships among communities, schools, and
universities for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban school?
2. What attributes of a partnership capable of creating a new cultural model in urban
schools result from the process of co-constructing a community/school/ university
partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?

Delimitations
This study represents one part 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
22
School of Education at Western Pacific University (WPU) will be partnering with
Freedom High School, the Civic Engagement Foundation (CEF), and the Metropolitan
League’s (ML) change initiative to improve a seventy-block neighborhood community
surrounding Freedom High School in South Los Angeles. This partnership will be
formally known as the Critical Partners in Action or CPIA. This study of one site and the
conditions in which the partnership was and is forming are unique; therefore
generalization or the ability to generalize about other sites in relationship to them may be
constrained.

Limitations
Limitations to this study include time, resources, access to key stakeholders, and
trust issues. This study has a short three-month window to collect data from the
university, school, and community partnership. This may limit the amount of data the
researchers are able to collect through artifacts, observations, and interviews. Access to
key stakeholders can present a challenge as many individuals may have competing
schedules. This process becomes more complicated by rotations, transfers, or changes in
personnel. Partners may not be able to share as freely because of what they feel they can
and should communicate. This may be especially true as many of the individuals in this
study will be leaders within their organizations. It takes time to build trust; thus time
limitations may once again put constraints on building these kinds of relationships. Many
of these factors however have the potential to be mitigated by the relationships the
thematic group has been building by observing and attending community events and
23
dialoging with key stakeholders. Key stakeholders have also been invited to the
thematic group to share insights on their role within university, school, and community
partnership. This process has helped to build a relationship and gain prior knowledge of
the context in which the research is proposed.

Conclusion
This country is increasingly becoming a nation of color; therefore, it can not have
large numbers of its population uneducated and jobless (Rousseau, 2007). The role of
educating the child can not solely be the job of the school; rather it must be one in which
many partners join and work together. An African proverb urges, ”It takes a village to
raise a child.” This proverb reminds us of the immense task of education a child. This
study has the potential to further illuminate how the village (partnership) can improve the
outcomes of our students in urban communities and build today, our leaders of tomorrow.
Rousseau (2007) states that we are at a “critical juncture in American history”.
The implications of equity and positive student achievement for all will not only affect
what place America will hold, but will also “largely determine who America will be” (p.
63).

Definition of Terms
Achievement Gap: A term that has come to commonly be used since the enaction of
NCLB to describe the disparity in positive student outcomes typically between middle
24
class students and students of color in high poverty urban areas(National Commission on
Excellence in Education, 1983). See Opportunity Gap.

Banking: A term derived from Paolo Freire’s seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed
(2003) in which the oppressors ‘bank’ or ‘deposit’ knowledge into the oppressed with no
regard for the knowledge already possessed by the oppressed and the sociocultural
context that informs that knowledge. This instrument of oppression is oftentimes
manifested within power relationships.

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

Co-Construction: A process in which two or more parties engage in an interactive and
equitable relationship to create shared understandings and agreed upon outcomes (Freire,
2000).
25
Constructivist Leadership: A term used by Linda Lambert (2003) to describe the
reciprocal process that enables participants of an educational community to construct
meaning toward a common purpose about schooling.

Critical Bridge Person: A term used by Ostrander (2004) to describe an individual or
individuals who can serve as brokers within university, K-12 school, and community
partners to create new relationships where power is distributed. This individual has also
been referred to in literature as a mediator, social advocate, institutional agent, mediator,
boundary spanner and kingpin.

Critical Partners in Action (CPIA): The partnership between the Metropolitan League,
the Civic Engagement Foundation, Western Pacific University and Freedom High School
is known as the Critical Partners in Action or CPIA. This change initiative has as its
mission to improve a seventy-block neighborhood community in South Los Angeles
surrounding Freedom High School.

Critical Theory: Freire’s (2000) concepts about the role disproportionate access to power
plays in relationships among members of a society and the strength of dialogue to co-
construct relationships.

Cultural Model: Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) define cultural models as a “shared
mental schema” that has evolved over time that describe for individuals “the way things
26
are and should be.” Once these cultural models become a part of the community, they
become so familiar, that they may be “invisible and unnoticed by those who hold them”
(p. 47).

Cultural Model (Old): Power relationships, cultural clashes, and unclear expectations are
barriers which comprise what will be addressed in this study as the “old” cultural model
of university, school, and community partnerships despite the fact that many current
partnerships continue to run in such a fashion. While partners within the “old” cultural
model may have some positive outcomes, often times they can also hinder the process to
transform K-12 schools by utilizing scarce resources, breeding mistrust, and fostering a
sense of learned helplessness. Some aspects of this cultural model are so deeply
embedded into universities, schools, and communities that they may be invisible to those
within it (Miller, 2007; Kezar, 2007).

Cultural Model (New): A partnership that has overcome the partnership barriers of
cultural clashes and power relationships by creating a shared culture built on the assets of
the community with the support of a critical bridge person employing dialogue to co-
construct dialogic relationships. The most successful cultural models have the potential
of improving student outcomes and building leadership capacity among stakeholders
(Miller & Hafner, 2008; Kezar, 2007; Freire, 2000)

27
Culture of Silence: A term used by Freire (2000) to describe an oppressed group of
people, typically with less traditional power, who are seen as lethargic and having very
little to contribute. Oftentimes, this disempowered group may themselves feel
uncomfortable engaging in dialogue, feeling as though they have nothing to contribute.

Dialogue: Seeks to have people engage in the exchange of words, ideas, experiences, and
knowledge to co-construct relationships where people are actively participating in the
creation of shared meaning. Through this process, they engage in united reflection and
inquiry, which can lead to transformative and aligned actions, including the re-
distribution of power. In the context of partnerships, dialogue enables the capacity and
capabilities of universities, schools and communities to be re-awakened (Freire, 2000).

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 (Freire, 2000).

Funds of Knowledge: A term introduced by Gonzales and Moll (2002) that values
seeing the home culture, values, and practices as valuable and needed to enter co-
constructed dialogic relationships.
28
Oppressed: The term oppressed will refer to individuals or groups who have
traditionally been “lower” in the hierarchy of power relationships and thus have been
historically, economically, politically, and socially denied access to opportunities. The
term oppressed has also been referred in the literature as minority, marginalized, student
(Freire, 2000), peasant (Freire, 2000), the dominated, and the colonized (Graff, 2001).

Oppressor: The oppressor refers to individuals or groups based on class and race who
have been traditionally “higher” in the hierarchy of power relationships and have
historically been granted access to social, economic, and political opportunities. The
oppressors have also been referred to in literature as the majority, unmarginalized,
teacher (Freire, 2000), the dominator, and the colonizer (Graff, 2001).

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 (Kezar, 2007; Miller, 2007).

Power: The potential for effecting influence and change through decision-making
capabilities and resources (Freire, 2000).

Power Relationship: Hierarchical distribution of social, political, and economic capital
that can result in the status of oppressor and oppressed (Freire, 2000).
29
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.

Social Capital: The availability of and access to resources and assets within an
environment that serve as highways to improve an individual’s ability to negotiate her
position in the social strata (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).

Sociocultural: A term derived from Vygotsky (1986) where the social and cultural world
strongly influence human interactions, cognitive development in children, and
communication practices among people. Sociocultural factors include socioeconomic
status, ethnicity, level of parental education, family support systems, and students’
relations to discrimination and stereotyping.

Sociopolitical: involving both social and political factors to explain different contexts,
values, histories in the partnership often including laws, regulations, policies, practices,
traditions and ideologies.

Urban: A large, densely populated diverse metropolitan area that face challenges due to
historic barriers, stratified wealth, and power relationships, but have the potential to draw
30
upon the many untapped and unrecognized assets of the university, school, and
community.

Western Pacific University: A tier one university situated in an urban community with a
history and mission to partner with the underserved to improve the quality of life. The
School of Education is serving a key role, brokering the resources of the entire university
on behalf of the partnership for the purpose of K-12 transformation.

31
CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world;
indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. —Margaret Mead

Introduction

As discussed in Chapter 1, the purpose of this study is to investigate the ways
community, school, and university partners can co-construct relationships for the purpose
of improving the academic achievement of students in urban schools. Chapter 2 will
provide a literature review beginning with laying down the context of power and the role
disproportionate access to power plays in relationships among community, school, and
university partners. Although community, school, and university partnerships have a
great deal of potential, many have not been able to yield positive results, and some have
experienced further “division and hostility” among partners (Mayfield, Hellwig, &
Banks, 1999). These inherent challenges are so difficult that some collaborations fail or
are abandoned (Brabeck, Walsh, & Latta, 2003). In response to the barriers, this chapter
will also share strategies for a partnership built on a new cultural model which empowers
all stakeholders by co-constructing relationships through dialogue. Environments which
are more partnership-friendly will be discussed that build upon the assets of each of the
partners. Finally, the chapter will conclude by exploring how critical bridge persons
employing the constructivist theory of learning can broker these co-constructed dialogic
relationships on behalf of urban school transformation.

32
A Brief History of Power in the United States
To explore possibilities for community, school and university partnerships, it is
important to explore the historical context in which they emerge. By the late 18
th
century,
America found herself in a struggle to liberate herself from what many considered to be
an oppressive regime that had attempted to strip the right of people to be equitably
represented in how they were to be governed. History is replete with warnings regarding
misuse of power. Often quoted by historians is the famous phrase by Lord Acton,
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (The phrase finder,
2008). American history reveals a strange irony that a nation that fought for
independence to end the oppression at the hands of the few at the same time commit
actions so tyrannical that the historical repercussions would continue to reverberate and
affect the nation profoundly for centuries(Watkins, 2001). Among the most oppressive
actions is undoubtedly our country’s history in the subjugation of African American men,
women, children, and future progeny under an institutionalized and legal system of
slavery for the profit of those with the power to maintain the privilege. Watkins asserts
the oppression of African Americans provided an accumulation of wealth that was
“unprecedented in human history” (p. 12). This unprecedented accumulation of wealth
did not go to the African American community, many of whom at the time were enslaved,
but rather served as the impetus for further oppressive laws such as the Slave Codes
constructed to prevent enslaved Blacks from liberating themselves. One law made it a
crime to teach slaves to read or write (Appleby et al., 2006). Because of these
compulsory ignorance laws, very few African American slaves at the time were literate.
33
At the time of the Emancipation Proclamation (1863), the illiteracy rate of the African
American population was 93%. Interestingly, despite rulings such as Plessey v.
Ferguson (1896), later deemed unconstitutional, African Americans experienced an
impressive growth of literacy, drastically reducing the illiteracy rate to a remarkable 10%
prior to the landmark Brown v. Board Supreme Court case in 1954 at a time when
separate was considered equal (Graff, 2001). From the history of oppression, Gaff asserts
that the limitations many blacks have faced in education are more an effect than a cause
of their position (Ogbu, 1987; Graff, 2001). Graff further describes the cause as actions
steeped in racism, deficient thinking about African Americans and white hegemony
(Graff, 2001).
This brief recount of history speaks to power and misuse of power to limit access
to education. Watkins states that education has often been romanticized; that it has been
“disconnected from the world of power” (Watkins, 2001, p.10). According to Watkins,
this prior view is in error; he asserts “dominating ideology is a product of dominant
power” (Watkins, 2001, p.9). The word power finds its etymological roots from an
Anglo-French word pouvoir in 1297, defined as “to be able” (dictionary.com, 2008).
Power relationships still exist in education; those who have the power are those who are
able to dictate how relationships are formed. Paulo Freire’s work in the Pedagogy of the
Oppressed is instrumental in helping to frame and understand power relationships in
education and power relationships that emerge, even in partnerships created to ameliorate
some of the persistent inequalities in education (2000). African American, American
Indian and Latino students are still victims of the causes for their limited access to
34
education and their continuing low status in American society. These societal causes can
better be addressed by working in partnership than by working in silos.

Multiple Societal Factors Influencing School Performance
The economic, political, and social disparities in the experience of African
American and other oppressed groups in America have a direct impact on their
opportunities to learn and their academic achievement. Moreover, the condition of the
youth from oppressed communities affects the manner in which they respond to the
school setting. Freire states that because of the helplessness the oppressed experience,
they often times strike out at their own comrades rather than their oppressor, thereby
contributing to the unsafe circumstances in schools. This phenomenon occurs according
to Freire because after the oppressors have stripped a person of all dignity outside of
himself, the last place to defend is his very self against his brother. Ogbu would argue
that the oppositional behavior many youth display toward the school setting is an act of
defense against their perception of schooling as an act of their oppressors to further
subjugate them. Freire, in his description of the peasants, describes the narrative many
urban schools find themselves in. These oppressive conditions in schools and other
experiences within communities of color often precipitate behavior on the part of the
students in those schools that threatens the safety of schools and the neighborhood.
In 2004, African American proficiency in reading and math at the proficient or
advanced level between fourth grade and eleventh grade declined “26% in 4
th
grade to
17% in 11
th
grade” for English and “28% in 4
th
grade to 12% in 11
th
grade” for math
35
(State of Black Los Angeles, 2005, p. 17). The inequities that exist with urban
communities also seem to co-exist within urban schools. Despite the persistence of
African American students who do graduate, as a group there still exists a large disparity
in student outcomes referred in the literature as the achievement gap. The term
achievement gap has come to be commonly used since the enaction of NCLB to describe
the disparity in positive student outcomes typically between middle class students and
students of color in high poverty urban areas; however, this study will more regularly use
the term opportunity gap, which adopted by those who resist the term achievement gap to
describe the disparity in student outcomes between historically oppressed persons
resulting from historic barriers and inequities in school. According to Freire, these kinds
of inequities can be construed as the violent act of an oppressor upon the oppressed
(2000). Community, school, and university partnerships can offer great opportunities for
students to help bridge the opportunity gap (Freire, 2000; Miller, 2007; Kezar, 2007).
Many of these opportunities can be found within the community itself.
A Case for the Role of the Community in Building Partnerships
The Coleman Report in 1966 provided research that learning is affected by more
factors than just the school, but includes a variety of factors including socioeconomic
status, family education level, and safety (Walsh and Park Taylor, 2003). In fact, after
looking at the data from approximately 600,000 students and 60,000 teachers, Coleman
concluded that “the quality of schooling a student receives accounts for only about 10
percent of the variance in student achievement” (Marzano et al., 2001, p.1). After the
Coleman Report was published, some educators questioned the need to improve schools
36
if so little of the disparity could be addressed within schools—if the problem is not with
the school, it must be outside of the school.
The extent to which Coleman attributed causes outside the schools has been
challenged and found to be exaggerated (Marzano, 2001). Although factors outside of
school strongly impact a student, Marzano et al (2001) demonstrated that a 10 percent
variance actually translates to “23 percentile points higher [for students who attend a
“good” school] than the average student’s scores who attends a poor school” (p. 2). Thus,
schools do make a significant impact on student achievement. Coleman’s position has
some merit in that he recognizes that a student’s sociocultural experience does influence
his or her development. A student’s experience in his ecological system does much to
shape the student’s psychology and the set of assets the student presents to the learning
experience in school (Brofenbrenner, 1994). Brofenbrenner’s smallest system,
microsystem, incorporates face-to-face interactions, nested within larger ecosystems.
Each of these systems greatly impacts the development of an individual. Brofenbrenner
cited Epstein’s work to describe Mesosystems, his third of five systems. The purpose of
Epstein’s study was to better understand the developmental impact of parent-teacher
communication and joint decision making upon the child. In this study, students whose
parents were involved in classrooms through joint involvement later exercised greater
initiative upon entering high school and also had higher grades. Brofenbrenner (1994)
stated, “The effects of the family and school process were greater than those attributable
to socioeconomic status or race” (p. 40). Schooling is a part of that ecological system.
37
Brofenbrenner (1994) and Marzano (2001) argue great gains can be produced by the
experience of schooling (2001).
While Coleman makes a case that student outcomes are tied to various societal
factors including family and socioeconomic status, he adopts a deficit view of the
influence of communities of color or the poor. This deficit view of the communities of
the poor or the oppressed has been expressed in systems sometimes referred to as the
‘logics’ of inequality that gird the structure of the educational system and the society that
allow the schools to maintain the status quo (Oaks and Rogers, 2006). In other words,
Coleman attributes poor student outcomes to socioeconomic factors, failing to take into
account the effects of an oppressive culture which often views minorities through a
deficit lens. Oakes and Rogers (2006) posit that creating equitable schools requires the
deconstruction of the norms that hold up practices, values, and beliefs that promote
inequality; among them are the logics of merit, deficit, and scarcity. These logics have a
strong influence on the ways schools respond to or interact with communities of color or
the poor or oppressed. The logic of merit asserts that young students come to school to
compete for advantages based upon their merit manifested by their talent and effort. The
logic of deficit asserts that students from a low socio-economic background and/or
children of color have a deficit. According to the logic of deficit, the problem is with the
background of the student rather than the structure of the educational system. Finally, the
logic of scarcity is the perspective that there are a limited number of good jobs and the
kind of good education needed to obtain those jobs. Oakes and Rogers posit that together,
38
these logics mask the inequities in our educational system (2006). Urban schools do not
need to be seen through the lens of the logics.
Although there are educators who operate within the logics of merit, deficit, and
scarcity, there are also educators who are able to go beyond them and produce high
student outcomes for all students. Marzano posits that a good teacher can have a
“powerful effect on her students—even if the school doesn’t” (2001, p. 2). Clearly,
teaching--especially effective teaching--matters. Haycock (2004) states that students who
are assigned to the most effective teachers for three years in succession compared to three
years in a row of the most ineffective teachers experience a difference in standardized
score up to fifty percentile points (Haycock, 2004). One the other hand, Walsh and Park-
Taylor (2003) posits that if good teaching can be credited with a difference of fifty
percentile points in student achievement, the other half of the credit lies in recognizing
the “substantial nonacademic challenges to achievement and development” (p.8). Yosso
(2005) challenges the deficit view that some have of communities of color and utilizes
critical theory to demonstrate the advantages these communities of color bring from their
homes to the school in spite of the oppressive circumstances surrounding low income
urban students with large concentrations of people of color. Yosso’s view challenges
traditional views on the value of the origin of knowledge. These views also provide an
asset-based lens from which a community, school, and university partnerships can build
within communities of color that are so often ignored for having any assets (Yosso, 2005).

39
Challenging a Deficit View of “People of Color”
Yosso (2005) asserts that the kind of cultural wealth found in the communities of
color often goes unrecognized due to deficit views by the dominant culture or oppressors.
As a result of this deficit thinking, schools work from a deficit lens to help disadvantaged
students who are “ lacking necessary knowledge, social skills, abilities, and social
capital” (Yosso, 2005, p. 70). Yosso (2005) challenges this deficit view and asserts that
people of color have contributed a great deal of cultural wealth to the world--a strength
which often goes unrecognized. Yosso describes cultural wealth as: aspiration capital,
familial capital, social capital, navigational capital, resistant capital, and linguistic capital.
Settings like schools and schools working in partnership with other entities often fail to
acknowledge the merit of these attributes (Yosso, 2005; Oakes & Rogers, 2006; Miller &
Hafner, 2008).
African Americans have exerted a profound influence in Los Angeles; their “faith,
culture, achievements and tribulations have helped the region become a worldwide
symbol of opportunity” (State of LA, 2005 p. 1). African Americans continue to be
leaders in civic participation historically transforming the world by their participation in
the civil rights movement and also within their communities. Yosso and cites Franklin
(2002) who shared about African Americans who gave their time and energy to support
educational institutions, and Jerome Morris (2004) who shared how black people shared
their cultural capital with one another, and Ward’s study that documented black mothers
taught their daughters to resist the dominant culture’s construction of what beauty was.
Yosso asserts that it is important to see the cultural wealth that has the ability “to
40
transform education and empower people of color to utilize assets already abundant in
their communities” (Yosso, 2005, p. 82). Ogbu (1987) also challenges Colman’s view
positing that student achievement is not low because minorities are “culturally deprived”.
Ogbu asserts that minorities come from communities that have viable, rich cultures, but
different from that of the white middle-class structure in America. American culture has
perpetuated hegemonic structures toward people of color that create “cultural
discontinuities” and “cultural conflicts” (Ogbu, 1987, p.313). Ogbu (1987) argues that the
root of poor student outcomes is not cultural differences but oppressive societies; for
example, the Buraku, outcasts in Japan do not do well in Japan where their cultural and
intellectual capital is not valued, yet when they emigrated to another country, where they
escape the stigmas imposed on them in Japan, this outcast group was able to do much
better. The community, school, and university partnership, whose work extends within
and beyond the school walls, is better situated to address such cultural conflicts than the
school alone especially if they are capable of building upon the strengths found within a
community (Yosso, 2005; Oakes and Rogers, 2006; Miller & Hafner, 2008).
Lee (2002) asserted that the achievement gap found in schools has “lifetime
consequences, limiting opportunities for minority students in higher education,
employment, and earning” (Lee, p. 3). While there is validity to this statement, Ogbu
(1987) delves deeper and provides some explanation for why minority groups, especially
the group he calls the unpreferred immigrant, do not see education as a means of upward
mobility. He cites cases where even minorities who excelled academically experienced
inequities. While many white students will share that school is an opportunity for better
41
jobs, minorities in this country have been denied access through a job ceiling. Ogbu
(1987) cites many cases including the settlement with AT&T where equally qualified
candidates were not rewarded equally based upon commensurate ability.
“By denying the minorities to gain entry into the labor force and to
advance according to their educational qualification and ability, and by
denying them adequate rewards for their education in terms of wages,
American society discouraged the minorities from investing time and
effort into pursuit of education and into maximizing their educational
accomplishments.” This discouragement has been cumulative for many
minorities (Ogbu, 1987, p. 321)

Historically Adversarial Relationships between Schools and Communities of Color
A connection exists between the oppressive experiences of people of color within
a community and students of color in urban schools. Ogbu states the distrust on the part
of involuntary minorities such as African Americans in response to their school
experiences is expressed in oppositional behavior by preferring solidarity with one
another versus doing their homework or submitting to peer-pressure. These students
often oppose school rules, are satisfied with average grades, and take less rigorous
coursework (Ogbu, 1987). Ogbu argues that the achievement gap exists because of a
dominant group who controls public education who encourage minorities to give up their
identity “without full reward or assimilation” (Ogbu, 332, 1987). A community, school,
and university partnership has a great potential to ameliorate this kind of oppositional
behavior by building upon, rather than supplanting students and families’ funds of
knowledge. Also, there is great potential in the community and university to partner with
the school in helping students navigate through an oppressive culture and build in them
social capital that incorporates the student’s funds of knowledge from their home and
42
community as the foundation (Yosso, 2005; Oakes & Rogers, 2006; Miller & Hafner,
2008).
While Colman’s work does view education and many living in urban
communities through a deficit lens, the report highlights the powerful effect that families
and communities can have on student outcomes. Walsh and Park-Taylor (2003) posit
that while excellent instruction strongly contributes to positive outcomes, the school,
home, and neighborhood climates also strongly influence those outcomes. Walsh and
Park-Taylor assert that students who do well academically are those who have benefited
from good instruction as well as “positive family and neighborhood environments” (p.
11). In the eyes of many schools, communities of color and the poor do not possess
positive attributes to pass on to their children. Carolyn Shields (2005) explains that many
schools are guilty for pathologizing, a process of “treating differences as deficits” and
placing responsibility for student outcomes on the students’ home culture and SES rather
then the educational system itself (Shields, 2005, p. 112). Hendricks affirms that most
schools have been designed for middle-class White students. Shields (2005) posits that
administrators and school districts can be instrumental in dialoging and collaborating
with the home to understand diverse cultures and reduce barriers to family involvement,
but this has not regularly been done. There exists a need for partnerships between the
community, schools, and university capable of tapping into the funds of knowledge of all
stakeholders, and build upon the assets that are present in the community, school, and
university (Moll, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992; Gonzales & Moll, 2002; Gonzalez, Moll,
Floyd-Tenery, et al, 1993).
43
Some schools are particularly notorious for dropping out students and, according
to a Johns Hopkins study, are referred to as “dropout factories”. The United States spends
on average $23,876 annually on the individual sent to prison compared with $8,701
yearly on a student in K-12 education. A common factor among these “dropout
factories” is the students served—those of African Americans and Hispanics (Carroll,
2008). Robert Gordon, political advisor to John Kerry, stated that the birth of an
individual should not dictate the destiny. Yet, when one examines the demographic data,
great inequities continue to be present across different populations. Gordon further
stipulates, ”Nothing offends democratic ideals more than the fact that a typical African
American 12
th
grader reads at the same level as a typical middle-class or white 8
th
grader.
Nothing is a greater threat to middle-class prosperity than mediocre schools” (as cited in
Schmocker, 2006, p. 3). Many urban students and schools qualify under Freire’s
definition of the oppressed. Seeing similar socially constructed barriers in Brazil, he
referred to them as “crimes against humanity” (Freire, 2000, p. 20).
Many urban schools have been unable to tap the funds of knowledge within the
community in which they reside. Rather a deficit view perpetuates the oppressive
practices of pathologizing students and their community. The research has demonstrated
that partnerships with the community that builds upon the funds of knowledge positively
impacts students. Schools working in partnership with the community and university are
more inclined to see the assets that are present and bridge the gap between the home
culture, school culture, university culture, and the workplace culture. The problem found
within urban schools is one that goes far beyond what schools can do alone. As such,
44
these inequities must be addressed collectively by the schools, universities and the
communities in which they reside. Community, school, and university partnership have a
greater ability to address conditions experienced by students of color and mitigate these
inequities (Moll, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992; Gonzales & Moll, 2002; Gonzalez, Moll,
Floyd-Tenery, et al, 1993). Brofenbrenner (1994) expressed that a student’s experience in
his ecological system does much to shape the student’s psychology and the set of assets
the student presents to the learning experience in schools. Schools, communities, and
universities that are nested within each other on behalf of the student have great potential
to build an ecological system that promotes student achievement. Although Freire (2000)
categorized some schools as oppressive, he did believe in education as liberation. In
order for this liberation to occur, the oppressed needed to be key stakeholders within this
process. Freire stipulates that the voice of the stakeholders must be heard--“To glorify
democracy and silence the people is a farce” (Freire, 2000, p. 91). In order to have
positive results either from educational or political programs, individuals must respect
views held by the people through praxis. Freire makes the point that by engaging in
continuing praxis, people create history and become historical-social beings (2000). He
shares that programs that do not incorporate the views of the people in their actions
“constitute cultural invasion, good intentions notwithstanding” (Freire, 2000, p. 95).
Freire (2000), Shields (2005), and Miller (2008) have argued that dialogic relationships
have the power to co-construct new relationships and cultural models that empower
stakeholders to overcome historic barriers.

45
A New Cultural Model for Partnerships
Background on Partnerships
The term partnerships denotes a variety of meanings ranging from what Sirotnik
and Goodlad (1988) describe as symbolic arrangements, to financial patronage, to
“mutually collaborative arrangements between equal partners working together to meet
self-interests while solving common problems” (viii). Gronski and Pigg define
collaboration within partnerships as an “interactive process” when individuals and their
organizations are able to draw from their diverse resources and pool them together to
create and implement common goals as well as arrive at new solutions for shared
problems (Miller & Hafner, 2008). After three decades of working among partnerships,
Sirotnik and Goodlad stated that the work of school and university partnerships is
powerful and is able to garner resources to address many of the inequities found in urban
communities. Angela Glover Blackwell, founder and president of PolicyLink, stated that
community building among partnerships “has emerged as a promising approach for
securing lasting results and systems change.” She believes building partnerships is an
innovative approach to addressing some of the social and economic disparities in urban
communities (Maurrasse, 2001, p. vii) and schools. When community, school, and
university partners work in collaboration, the partnership had the potential to improve
student outcomes (Miller, 2007; Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988).
Partnerships between the community, school, and university are not new; they
date back to the mid-late 1800s. Universities have been seen as “ivory” towers, places of
learning for the elite, set apart from the community (Kezar, 2007; Sirotnik & Goodlad,
46
1988). The earliest attempts of collaboration include the interaction between universities
and schools at Harvard in 1892 to discuss the role of teachers in schools and the
preparation of teachers within the University. This gathering would later lead to the
establishment of the College Entrance Examination Board in1894. From the
administration of the first administered Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) in 1926, Sirotnik
and Goodlad claim that the relationship between colleges and schools was one of
“domination” where universities had the right “to prescribe what was good for schools
because of superior expertise on the part of college personnel” (p.43).
Although community, school, and university partnership have a great deal of
potential, many community, school, and university relationships have not been able to
yield positive results and sometimes unfortunately experience further “division and
hostility” (Mayfield, Hellwig, & Banks, 1999). The lack of synergy related to the
inability to establish equitable relationships between universities, K-12 schools, and
community partners is a barrier to building partnerships that support schools. Some
relationships within partnerships between the university and the community have been
adversarial. The University of Chicago for example, noting a change in the
demographics of the Hyde Park area of the city, which had formerly been a primarily
White residential neighborhood, began to purchase parcels of land in this area. This
action was taken to “stem the onslaught of blight, a term generally used to indicate
deteriorating buildings and land values but a term steeped in racism. One indicator of
blight was the very presence of racial minorities in neighborhoods” (Mayfield, et all,
1999, p. 866).
47
According to the sociocultural theories of learning, the work of education does
not occur outside of relationships—rather it is a social endeavor (Gonzales & Moll, 2002).
The relationships that impact student outcomes do not only exist between the student and
teacher (Ogbu, 1987; Freire, 2000), but also between the teacher and administrator
(Lambert, 2002), parent and school (Henderson; Freire, 2000), school and community
(Ogbu, 1987), university and school (Sirotnik and Goodlad, 1998; Lambert, 2002),
university and community (Maurrasse, 2001) and among community, school, and
university partners (Kezar, 2007; Miller 2007, Miller & Hafner, 2008). The success of
partnerships depends on the synergy of resources between and among groups; however
often times power relationships derail the process.
Brabeck and Latta posit that there is very little theory or research on this topic of
interprofessional collaboration and that much of the knowledge comes in what they call,
“the doing,” where theory and practice meet at or the hyphen or as Freire (2003) would
say praxis. Despite the lack of research in this area and inherent challenges in building
partnerships, Brabeck and Latta encourage the collaborative work within university,
community, and school partnerships (Brabeck & Latta, 2003).
A New Cultural Model for Partnerships
This study began with the discussion of historic, social, economic, and
educational inequities especially for urban students which have widened the opportunity
gap between what Freire referred to as the oppressors and the oppressed. Community,
school, and university partnerships have the potential of improving student outcomes but
barriers such as cultural clashes, power relationships, and unclear expectations and roles
48
among the entities make this potential less effective. The manner in which this kind of
partnerships operates has been referred to as the old cultural model. If the goal of the
partnership is to create a convergence of knowledge, resources, and assets from a
university, K-12 school, and community that has the potential to eradicate historic, social,
economic, and political barriers on behalf of urban school transformation, then a new
cultural model must be created among the university, school, and community.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) advocated for new cultural models within
schools that would address the “discontinuities between home and school cultures”
contributing to the glaring inequities (p.46). Differences between “norms of behavior,
language usage, and cognitive styles” (p. 46) made it more difficult for ethnic minorities
to participate in what Henderson and Berla (1994) believed created a greater challenge
for students of diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. The structures of the schools’
cultural model were essentially designed with the middle class white student in mind
(Henderson, 1994; Oaks & Rogers, 2006). Gallimore and Goldenberg define cultural
models as a “shared mental schema” that has evolved over time to determine for
individuals “the way things are and should be.” Once these cultural models become a part
of the community, they become so familiar that they may be “invisible and unnoticed by
those who hold them” (p. 47). Some of these factors have made addressing the old
cultural models a challenge. In spite of the challenges, Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001)
postulated that student achievement could be improved in a cultural model that made the
curriculum more “compatible with children’s home cultures” (p.46). Extending
Gallimore and Goldenberg’s postulation, perhaps student achievement could also be
49
enhanced through university, school, and community partnerships if the shared culture
among partners formed a new cultural model that included the home culture of the
community and operated in the shared culture model co-constructed among the partners.
New cultural models are needed to form partnerships that have the potential to
draw from the funds of knowledge of all stakeholders. According to Freire (2000),
partnerships that form based on the cultural norms of the dominant group will continue
the oppression despite offers of goodwill and charity. Avenues must be created to
advocate for the funds of knowledge from all stakeholders, especially among those who
have been traditionally oppressed through either their silence or voices that have never
been heard (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Gonzales and Moll, 2002).
Shields states that, to establish a new cultural model, the leadership must display a
“willingness to recruit parents and community members for school tasks, to listen to other
people’s viewpoints, and to share decision making provides a necessary foundation for all
school-family-community partnerships” (Shields, p. 2, 2005). When looking to co-
construct new models, no individual group between the universities, K-12 schools, and
communities has all the answers as evidenced by many of today’s schools. Each of the
potential partners does have part of the answer. Each has the ability to contribute to the
solutions needed. Thus the process of learning and knowing and making meaning
together becomes critical (Lambert, 2002). Freire would posit that dialogue is not an end
in and of itself but rather an epistemological journey to gain knowledge. It takes courage
and a high regards for others to engage in real dialogue.
Co-Constructing Relationships Among Partners
50
Miller (2007) argues for equitable relationships, relationships in which each entity
shares responsibility and, through their own expertise, encourages and empowers others.
According to Miller (2007), this reciprocal process leads to individuals working together
to create new roles to face the educational inadequacy (Cairney, 2000). Co-constructed
relationships among communities, K-12 schools, and universities have the potential for
redistributing power, thus enabling all partners to contribute to the quality of education in
urban communities (Miller, 2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008; Cairney, 2000; Freire, 2000;
Gonzales & Moll, 2002). Co-construction is defined in this study as a process in which
two or more parties engage in an interactive and equitable relationship to create shared
understandings and agreed upon outcomes. Because these relationships were built
utilizing the community’s funds of knowledge, they require the humility of all entities to
acknowledge communities’ knowledge rather than “supplanting” it with experts from the
outside (Miller & Hafner, 2008, p. 90; Gonzales & Moll, 2002). Involving communities
to enter the dialogue has the potential to access these funds of knowledge.
Gonzales and Moll (2002) provided lessons learned from a Puente program that
was designed to increase enrollment and knowledge of Latino communities to prepare
students for the university. Rather than a prescripted program, Gonzales and Moll
advocated for instruction that connected to the “local histories and community context”
(p. 632), Gonzales and Moll (2002) posit that there are bridges between schools and
universities, among parents, teachers, the school, and community. These bridges allow
an opportunity for understanding between communities and have the potential to bring
together a diverse people toward a common vision. Privileged knowledge that provides
51
access to social and cultural capital is oftentimes difficult for those in urban communities
to access and is especially compounded when stakeholders see the knowledge of students,
parent, and community as deficient. The article emphasizes the potential to capture the
funds of knowledge and utilize the funds of knowledge found within the communities to
improve student outcomes.
Dialogue is a major vehicle to capture and use funds of knowledge from the
community. It is an important tool for building trust and relationships among the entities.
Gonzales and Moll (2002) advocated going into the community as “anthropological
learners to open “up the kind of dialogue between entities that built new bridges to access
the communities funds of knowledge (p. 626). Gonzales and Moll (2002) assert that,
“Teachers as learners, parents as learners, and students as learners can come together
within communities in which learning is mutually educative, co-constructed and jointly
negotiated” (p. 631). This process of co-constructing roles has the potential of addressing
cultural discontinuity and structural inequality while challenging power relationships and
the maintenance of the status quo (Miller; 2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008; Cairney, 2000).
Freire (2000) refers to these kinds of relationships as “horizontal relationships”
because of the equity found among the partners and the effort made to dismantle power
relationships through dialogue. Corrigan ideally likens the relationship between entities
to that of married couples; where each is so in tune with one another’s values that, should
a partner not be present at a meeting, they would be able to speak on behalf of that
organization. This kind of confidence comes from a great deal of time spent in dialogue
building both trust and understanding (Corrigan, 2000).
52
Dialogue Among Partners
The premise of the dialogic process is each individual’s voice has significance—
that conversations are a two-way horizontal conversation rather than the one-way
conversation that traditionally is top-down (Miller & Hafner, 2008). Like Freire’s
example with the peasant and boss, “Until then, he [the oppressed] goes along with the
boss and says,”what can I do? I’m only a peasant” (Freire, p. 2000, p. 61). Often times,
those who are perceived by the group to be the least powerful are also those who wonder
what kind of difference their funds of knowledge can make. Parents and students come
to school feeling powerless in voicing their opinion to bring about school change.
Freire posits that liberation from power relationships can occur through dialogue
in which the “teacher” becomes the “student” and the “student” becomes the “teacher”.
Both partners in the partnership must be able to lend their voices and hear the voices of
one another. Freire states that the cycle of oppression can be broken through praxis, a
process involving the reflection and action of stakeholders upon the world in order to
transform it. When partners participate in this praxis, these dialogic relationships can be
transformative to create a world that is “less ugly, more beautiful, less discriminatory,
more democratic, less dehumanizing, and more humane” (Freire, 2000, p. 25; Shields,
2005; Miller & Hafner, 2008). This process of inquiry is iterative and the goal for
dialogue is not simply to dialogue, but to understand what Freire calls the “true word”
which in essence is both reflection and action. Freire posits that true words have the
ability to “transform the world” (Freire, 2000, p. 87). These kinds of transformative
dialogue go beyond mere diplomacy.
53
When engaging in dialogue, Freire shares that the foundation to dialogue must
include love, humility, faith and hope and that this foundation has the potential of
reconstructing relationships to ones that are more horizontal and can allow for co-
construction of relationships that build mutual trust for overcoming barriers and
transforming the world (Freire, 2000; Shields, 2005; Miller & Hafner, 2008). Shields
also agrees that democratic dialogue has the potential to move beyond the mere exchange
of ideas to shifting power from the unmarginalized to the marginalized (Shields, 2005, p.
19). Not only should the oppressed have a voice, but they should also act as co-
investigators stating, ”investigation itself must likewise be based on reciprocity of action”
(Shields, 2005, p. 107). Individuals are to be partners in the learning process. She
further stipulates that one group can not think for the other even if some views are seen as
superstitious or naïve. Encouraging praxis is the process through which a change process
will occur as individuals do act upon their ideas. “The more educators and the people
investigate people’s thinking, and are thus jointly educated, the more they continue to
investigate” (Shields, 2005, 109).
Employing Dialogue Among Partners
Freire posits the dialogue must be built on love for others, faith in people, and
express humility and hope. In doing so, Freire asserts the outcome of this kind of
dialogue is one which fosters a “horizontal relationship of mutual trust between
dialoguers…which leads the dialoguers into ever closer partnership in the naming of the
world” (Freire, 2000, p. 80; Kezar, 2007; Shields, 2005).
54
Dialogue as Love. Freire believes love is one of the foundations for dialogue.
This “love” according to Freire must not simply be sentimental feeling but rather defined
by acts of “courage and freedom” that “generate other acts of freedom” (Freire, p. 90,
2000). Freire asserts that that it is not love if dialogue is used as a “pretext for
manipulation” (Freire, p. 90, 2000; Shields, 2005). In order to create a shared culture
among partners, the critical bridge person must love the community. This love is a
courageous act: one which seeks to liberate the oppressed from the oppressor and, in the
process, has the potential to free both. Mediating in an environment to overcome historic,
economic, social, and political barriers that have existed in America for over four
centuries is an act of courage. Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King
Jr., are but a few reminders of those who paid the ultimate price for this kind of courage.
Facilitating among partners with the intent to liberate the oppressed means one must
address the cultural clashes, power relationships, and unclear expectations that threaten
the formation of an equitable partnership. This work is not easy for if it does not
“generate other acts of freedom,” it is not love (Freire, 2000, p.90; Shields, 2000). This
kind of dialogue is not only the foundation of university, school, and community
partnerships, but the foundation of a pluralistic democracy. Bryk states,
In writings as ancient as Aristotle, as contemporary as Gadamer,
Habermas, and Arendt, as secular as Dewey, and as religious as Aquinas,
we find strong support for the contention that the survival of a pluralistic
democracy requires a belief that mutual understanding among diverse
parties can be achieved through genuine dialogue and critical encounter.
The first moral principal of a democracy is the passionate commitment of
its citizens to such a discourse (as cited by Shields, p. 289, 2005).

55
Dialogue as Faith. Dialogue also requires faith. Freire posits that a person
entering dialogue must express faith in people. In fact, Freire asserts that this faith is
required even before meeting face-to-face; otherwise this dialogue is a “farce which
inevitably degenerates into paternalistic manipulation” (Freire, 2000, p. 91). Shields
(2005) states that there is a need for a shared language to communicate, and he advocates
for the creation of a “space” through “liberating conversations” that allow the entire
experience of an individual to be a part of the verbal discourse (Shields, 2005) The
critical bridge person must also have faith that these kinds of spaces can exist despite the
inequities in society, problems in school, cultural clashes, power relationships, and
unclear expectations. With faith these barriers can be mediated through dialogue and
foster a new cultural model that creates a shared faith among the partners in ways that
lead to a culture built on the assets of each entity (Freire, 2000).
Dialogue as Humility. Dialogue must also consist of humility, causing the person
to constantly seek to learn, understand, and make meaning with others. The work of the
critical bridge person requires that individuals be able to work hard to understand and
speak the culture of varies entities (Kezar, 2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008). Freire states,
“How can I dialogue if I am closed to—and even offended by—the contribution of
others?” (p. 90). Miller (2008) asserted that with humility, there can be no room for
arrogance and because this critical bridge person is humble, she is able to see many
opportunities in urban communities. She defines urban as 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
56
unrecognized assets of the university, school, and community. She is able to see the
wealth of asset-based resources in the community and community organizations (Cairney,
2000; Miller & Hafner, 2008; Sanders, 2001). She sees and is open to accessing families’
funds of knowledge, opening up a dialogue that builds new bridges to access the
communities’ funds of knowledge. Shields (2005) believes that equitable partnerships
are not homogenous, but rather ones which have a deep respect and intrinsic worth found
within the differing groups. This critical bridge person also knows the work can not be
done alone but hopes, as equitable relationships are built among the partners, that it can
be done together (Shields, 2005).
Dialogue as Hope. Finally, in order to dialogue, the dialoguers must have hope.
Freire (2008) posits dialogue efforts that do not have hope are merely an ”empty and
sterile, bureaucratic and tedious” exercise (Freire, 2000, p.92). This critical bridge
person is able to see the inequities in society, the problem in schools, and the deficit view
that many individuals hold, and yet never gives up on hope for a better future. This
person “takes responsibility for monitoring the collaboration, maintaining communication,
building positive group dynamics, resolving conflicts, ensuring barriers are overcome,
and creating facilitators for moving the partnership forward” (Kezar, 2007, p. 35). These
leaders not only facilitate the development of vision and goals, but also according to
Schein (1990), create trust by bringing peace and calming the anxiety that can come
when change occurs.

57
Stewarding Critical Bridge Persons within Partnerships
New cultural models that have the ability to transform K-12 schools are rarely
created by chance partially because of the enormous effort needed to resist inertia in
addition to the difficulty in changing the status quo of the previously established cultural
model. Yet, if changing the flow of the status quo is what is needed, no one individual
can accomplish this work. The literature review has already demonstrated that the work
that needs to be done in schools can not be done by the school alone or within silos;
however, Kezar (2007) does call attention to individuals whom she referred to as
boundary-spanners that could facilitate the communication between entities. Schein
(1990) points out the individuals that can help reduce anxiety, foster peace, and build
trust. Ostrander (2004) refers to these people as critical bridge people, individuals who
are capable of extending beyond the traditional roles confined to an entity. The critical
bridge person serves as a broker among university, K-12 school, and community partners
to create new relationships where power is distributed (Ostrander, 2004). Although one or
even a few critical bridge people can not themselves create a new cultural model, perhaps
critical bridge persons have the potential to jump start the process of fostering co-
constructed dialogic relationships.
A variety of partnerships has failed because they had no leader who could play
this boundary-spanning role. An example of this can be found in the Working Together
for Student Success program where the director of the office for community relations
failed in this boundary-spanning role by not be able to “maintain communication,
negotiate mutual goals, and build trust” (Kezar, 2007; Miller, 2007). Ostrander (2004)
58
stated bridge persons knew key stakeholders and the community well—that this
individual was also trusted by the community. Sirotnik and Goodlad (1998) called these
bridge people “kingpins,” individuals who had met with various members of the
partnership, knew them individually, and was able to identify common interests within
the partnership. Critical Bridge Persons among university, K-12 school, and community
partners can serve as brokers in supporting individuals in finding their roles within the
partnership and create new relationships where power is distributed.
The bridge person’s role is one that is very much needed, yet because of the old
cultural model in which entities work in silos, creating institutional rewards for such
individuals can oftentimes be a major barrier. The nature of these roles is that the context
is always changing and thus the critical bridge person must be capable of negotiating the
changing cultural settings and facilitating the transformation to the new cultural model
which redistributes power to all. These relationships take time and resources to be built.
When key critical bridge persons migrate, however, collaborations may unravel.
Collaboration is not a once and for all achievement—it must be stewarded, supported and
rewarded (Kezar, 2007). This collaboration is often times a challenge as the practices of
each of the partners have been well entrenched. There is a need to create viable sustained
institutional rewards for these critical bridge people who stand in the gap between
university, school, and community partners (Kezar, 2007). This kind of critical bridge
person, who is able to employ love, faith, humility, and hope must be protected.
In order to have an engaged campus, Miller (2008) states that top administrators
are not only symbolic leaders, but their “demonstrated support for” and “commitment to
59
working with neighborhood communities” are important factors in the sustainability and
creation of partnerships (Miller & Hafner, 2008, p. 72). In order for co-construction to
occur within a school-university and community partnership, Jacquelyn McCroskey
(2003) asserts that the most powerful partner, the university, must be the most flexible to
understand the context for the school and community. For those who are in a position of
power, Miller (2008) posits the onus of responsibility for establishing equal participation
through dialogic relationship is on those who hold traditional leadership opportunities.
At the partnership level, leaders have the potential to set the kind of environment in
which discourse can occur. At the partnership level, critical bridge persons act “as
conveners of diverse groups, facilitators of agenda-setting initiatives, and mediators of
group conflicts” (Miller & Hafner, 2008, p. 72).
On one hand, Firestone and Fisler (2003) cautions “against distributed leadership”
at the beginning of the partnership because the process can be “too chaotic” as the
participants are creating a shared culture and common goals. On the other hand, Kezar
(2007) also notes that these kind of charismatic, transformative bridge persons do play a
leadership role. “While researchers are not trying to encourage hierarchical leadership,
they do note that a charismatic or transformational leader that plays a boundary-spanning
role is particularly important for school and university partnership”(p. 36). On the other
hand, Schein (1990) and Miller (2007) argue that transformative leadership, leadership
from the top, can lead to negative change and resistance from partners. This occurs
because some individuals in the partnership may feel as though this transformative leader
is “dictating” a culture.
60
Schein and Miller argue that it is much better to manage culture which can be
facilitated (Schein,1990; Miller, 2007). Often times those who are least powerful in the
partnership but most powerful in impacting student outcomes are the very ones neglected
in the discourse, yet they can bring about change (Gonzales & Moll, 2002; Henderson &
Burla, 1994). This is one of the reasons Miller (2008) advocates for clear expectations
and roles. Miller (2008) also advocates for the importance of clarifying among the
partners the practices that will take place, the funding that will be utilized, the defined
roles played by all the key stakeholders, and the integrated participation occurring among
the partnership members (Miller & Hafner, 2008).

Persistent Barriers to Community, School, and University Partnerships
The “Old” Cultural Model of Partnerships
Brabeck, Walsh, and Latta make the point that partnerships have barriers--borders
that are not easily crossed. Some of the barriers include “distrust, differing goals, and
problem definition among schools, universities, and communities” (Brabeck and Latta,
2003, p. 2). These inherent challenges are so difficult, some collaborations fail or are
abandoned (p.6). Power relationships, cultural clashes, and unclear expectations are
barriers comprise of what will be called in this study the “old” cultural model of
community, school, and university partnerships despite the fact that many partnerships
continue to run in such a fashion. While partners within the “old” cultural model may
have some positive outcomes, often times these outcomes can also hinder the process to
transform K-12 schools by utilizing scarce resources, breeding mistrust, and fostering a
61
sense of learned helplessness. Some aspects of this cultural model are so deeply
embedded in universities, schools, and communities that they may be invisible to those
within it (Miller, 2007).
Cultural Clashes among Partners
Some of these barriers exist because of a difference in cultures among the entities.
Sirotnik and Goodlad (1998) posit that universities and schools have “distinctive
cultures” which lead to cultural clashes posing some of the most significant challenges to
school-university partnerships. The formation of community, school, and university
partnerships often causes challenges because of the lack of understanding between the
culture of the university, the culture of the school, and the culture of the community.
(Miller, 2007; Corrigan, 2000; Kezar, 2007) The challenges are further augmented by
power relationships further breeding mistrust among the partners.
The unique culture of the community. Community members wish to see change
happen quickly. Community leaders tend to be particularly be concerned about the
holistic lives of each student, and while concerned about academic achievement, they are
also concerned with issues related to safety, opportunities, and other factors that will lead
to immediate change in the everyday performance of students. Often times the university
and sometimes the school culture can be difficult to navigate among members of the
urban community. Community members within partnerships prefer to congregate within
their neighborhoods, and thus it is ideal for the base of operation to be within a highly
visible location within the community (Miller, 2008). Universities and schools regularly
do not accommodate for community members, expecting community members to
62
navigate through a school or the expanse of the university if they “care” enough to
participate (Miller, 2008). Universities and schools also create an e-mail culture in which
those less familiar or lacking access may not be able to participate. Community members
often prefer to meet face-to-face in more equitable settings. (Kezar, 2007) Historic
inequities, differences in culture, power relationships, lack of clear expectations and roles
has bred mistrust and pessimism by the community toward schools and universities,
sometimes creating the greatest barrier which Corrigan cites as “learned helplessness”
(Corrigan, 2000) This view of seeing only the inadequacies of a community is often
referred to as a deficit view.
The unique culture of schools. Schools like the community feel responsible for
immediately responding to student outcomes. Schools are regularly assessed and held
accountable for their practices through standardized testing. The scores from these
assessments often form the basis for whether the school is judged to be high performing
and thus a high quality school. Schools that are underperforming experience great
pressure by the state to improve. Schools are guided by routine behaviors that strive to
avoid major disruptions to the routine. With numerous classes and large class sizes,
teachers spend most of their work day in the classroom with their students. By contrast,
university faculty often have flexibility with scheduling, the routine and demands upon a
teacher do not offer her the same kind of flexibility. Disruptions to the routine are
frowned upon. While the university has goals to create long term change, schools want
to see more speedy change experience frustration by not only having to fulfill all their
school responsibilities, but also having to wade through the university’s process which
63
the school feels is often “cerebral” and ineffective in improving the kind of change that
needs to happen more speedily. As a result, some at the school site feel frustration
because they feel universities have sometimes treated them like “laboratories” oftentimes
offering very little sustainable support. The lack of time provided for teachers in school
to plan and collaborate forms a major barrier to building partnerships (Miller, 2007;
Kezar).
Carolyn Shields (2005) explains that many schools are guilty of pathologizing, a
process of “treating differences as deficits” and placing responsibility for student
outcomes on the student’s home culture and SES rather then the educational system itself
(Shields, 2005, p. 112). Hendricks affirms that most schools have been designed for
middle-class White students. Shields (2005) posits that administrators and school
districts can be instrumental in dialoging and collaborating with the home to understand
diverse cultures and reduce barriers to family involvement, but this has not regularly been
done.
Urban schools are often not designed to build on the strengths of a child and their
community. When professionals work in silos, they often feel the need to fix people;
however Walsh and Park-Taylor posit that while understanding the cause of pathology is
important, so is knowing the assets. Walsh and Park-Taylor provide several insights on
the conditions necessary for learning: school engagement, family stability, strong home-
school relationship, positive school climate, adequate economic status of parents, family
involvement in children’s learning, adequate medical, mental, and physical healthy, and
64
core instructional programs with high standards, qualified teachers, and a rigorous
curriculum (p.22).
Walsh and Park-Taylor (2003) posit on the other hand, that if good teaching can
be attributed to a difference of fifty percentile points in student achievement, the other
half lies in recognizing the “substantial nonacademic challenges to achievement and
development” (p.8). Walsh and Park-Taylor on the other hand asserts that capacity must
be built within the community by utilizing and bringing together the resources from the
community including health workers, social workers, the police etc.. It is through these
kinds of partnerships that non academic student needs are met to improve student
outcomes. Creating these partnerships of professionals which are sustainable and
mutually respectful is very much needed (Walsh and Park-Taylor, 2003). The multi-
faceted complexity of the challenges urban students face is one reason many schools are
not achieving high student outcomes. Schools, universities, and the community can not
work alone in silos the problem is too vast. The challenges must be faced together in
partnership with one another.
The unique culture of universities. Benson and Harkavy state universities are,
“the most influential institutions in the world (p.95). Brabeck and Latta (2003) also
assert that universities can play a key role within the partnership to shape schools and
promote democracy and social justice within the K-16 educational system. Communities,
schools, and universities however, often share differing mission, vision, and values. The
difference between the cultures of these organizations can cause barriers to partnerships
(Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1998; Maurrasse, 2001). Universities bring with them a great
65
wealth of knowledge garnered from research; however often times this knowledge is
considered to be the only source of valid knowledge. Thus, individuals in the university
are often the most empowered to make decisions on behalf of the partnership. The
universities’ drive to advance research has led to a commonly held understanding at
many institutions of higher learning that faculty must either “publish or perish.” As a
result, faculties tend to invest much of their time in research, especially publishable
research. This is such an important priority that faculty members may discourage one
another from getting too involved with service oriented work which is time consuming
and yields the least rewards in many university cultures (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1998). As
a result, oftentimes the universities place research at a premium, then teaching, and if
there is enough time, to be involved in service opportunities. Academia simply does not
reward faculty involvement in partnerships (Ascher & Schwarts, 1989; Gronski & Pigg,
2000).
Universities also tend to involve themselves in practices that are intended to
create long-term change, perhaps even wrestling with the kind of changes that will face
injustices over time. This timeline is often a source of frustration of schools and
communities who would like to see change happen more quickly. This culture shapes the
manner in which universities interact with schools and communities (Miller, 2007; Kezar,
2007).
Subcultures within each entity. Even the compartmentalization of these three
entities--university, school, and community--is still much too simplistic. Miller (2008)
states within the culture of each partnership, there are subcultures; for example, within
66
the university subculture, there are students, administrators, staff, and faculty; within the
school culture, there were parents, staff, students, and administration; and within the
community subculture, there are residents, business, activities, and agencies. Each of
these subcultures has its their own unique culture.
Power Relationships Among Partners
According to Carroll (2002), the division and hostility that Mayfield (1999)
alluded to can happen when the group is ignorant of or does not address the power
relationships that exist among groups. The unequal distribution of power usually results
in the domination of one group over another (2002). Someone always has control of the
relationship, and there is no such thing as a neutral relationship (Freire, 2000; Miller &
Hafner, 2008). Power relationships are hierarchical distributions of social, political, and
economic capital that can result in the status of oppressor and oppressed. Carroll states
that there are always power-sharing issues when articulating joint activities between the
university, school, and community, involving “power sharing across lines of institutional
turf, professional status, and personal identity” (Carroll, et al, 2001, p.41). Moreover,
Miller states that some challenges include “territorialism” and the “presence of
inequitable group power dynamics” (Miller, 2007). The quest for the upper hand in
community, school, and university partnerships creates a historically impermeable power
struggle that is counter-productive in the pursuit of educational excellence on behalf of
urban youth. The inequitable distribution of power is one of the greatest barriers to these
partnerships. (Ascher & Schwarts, 1989; Maurrasse, 2001, Miller & Hafner, 2008)
67
According to Freire, oppressors do not perceive the monopoly they have in
decision making and opportunities. They do not see their status as a privilege.
According to Freire, the oppressors consider their privilege an “inalienable right”
purchased by their “effort” and “courage to take risks. They assume that if others do not
have more, it is because they are incompetent and lazy” (Freire, 2000, p.59; Miller &
Hafner, 2008). The oppressors consider the oppressed to be “ungrateful” and “envious,”
thus “regarded as potential enemies who must be watched” (Freire, 2000, p. 59; Miller
2008). This is all the more reason why those in power must “risk acts of love” (Freire,
2000, p. 50; Miller & Hafner, 2008) rather than offer the “generosity” which leads to
learned helplessness. While these barriers are substantial, there are practices that have
the potential to overcoming these barriers.
One might think the answer to overcoming these power relationships then lies in
giving complete power to those that have been oppressed. In this there must be caution.
Often times those who are oppressed become oppressors. Freire states, ”It is a rare
peasant who once ‘promoted’ to overseer, does not become more of a tyrant toward his
former comrades than the owner himself (Freire, 2000,p. 46). Although this is a caution,
who else besides the oppressed can articulate the oppressive sociocultural context in
which he or she is forced to live? Who else has desire for the change of an oppressive
society than one who has experienced its evils? Short of conceding complete power to
the oppressed, the oppressed play an essential role in freeing themselves from oppression.
Freire offers another cautionary note that oppressors often offer what they
consider “generosity”. Unfortunately, these actions further foster learned helplessness
68
and do not necessarily lead toward positive student outcomes (Corrigan, 2000). In the
quest for equalizing power, some have felt that the answer to educational woes is
spending more money. In response to the 1983 report A Nation at Risk, major reforms
took place to stem the “’rising tide of mediocrity’ in American Education” (Gibulka, p.
viii, 2003). At times, great amounts of money were spent to correct the problem as it was
described in the report. For example, Kansas City spent $11,700 per pupil using these
funds to increase teachers’ salaries, created a United Nations room with the ability to
translate languages, took fields trips to Mexico and Senegal, and improved teacher
student ratios of approximately 13 to 1. What were the results? Ciotti as cited by
Gibulka and Boyd stated, “The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-
white gap did not diminish and there was less, not greater integration.” Rather than
throwing money on the facility, programs, and projects, the authors concluded that what
was necessary was a focus on “fundamental capacity building” (as cited in Gibulka and
Boyd, 2003, p. ix). Schools do need to be better funded; however, spending alone can
not bring about equity. Freire advocates for the kinds of acts that “destroy the causes
which nourish false charity” which is in reality another form of oppression (Freire, 2000,
p. 45). One important factor not mentioned in the Kansas City reform is partnerships,
particularly partnerships between the school and the community or between the
community and the school.
Partnerships Lacking Clear Expectations
Howell Baum (2000) asserts that although university-community partnerships
have the potential to address many community needs, the need is to advocate for more
69
realistic goals versus establishing outcomes that sound like fantasy. The need to create
clear expectations and define outcomes for each group was a priority. Baum expressed
that, in his work with the University of Maryland’s urban community service program,
partners seemed to have an “uncritical enthusiasm” which led to minimizing the
requirements (p. 238). As a result, his experience when cooperating with the school
system was “chaotic” and “uncontrollable” (p. 238). He advocated for a partnership
where there were less ambiguity in relationships and encouraged creating a shared
purpose. Forming partnership and reaching a shared purpose is a challenge. Miller posits
that community, school, and university partnerships are oftentimes like a “hodgepodge”
of programs that fail to unite diverse people and have relatively little or no
communication or real collaboration (Miller & Hafner, 2008; Kezar, 2007). Miller
expresses that overcoming these challenges is complex and difficult, but cites that
nevertheless, flawed processes are commonly employed (Miller & Hafner, 2008).
Banking. Dialogic relationships can only exist among partners when each
participant within the partnership is valued for his or her knowledge and is regularly
contributing to the whole. As important as this process is, it oftentimes does not happen.
According to Freire (2000), education often participates in a practice called “banking.”
Within the context of classrooms, “banking” happens when students are perceived merely
to be “containers,” receptacles into which the teacher places or “banks” knowledge into.
Freire believes that this type of “banking education” is characteristic of oppression and
mirrors oppressive societies (p. 75). Unfortunately, this banking is oftentimes not limited
to classroom but is reflected in community, K-12 school, and university partnerships in
70
which the knowledge of certain members is legitimized by their perceived rank within the
hierarchical power relationship (Freire, 2000; Shields, 2005; Miller & Hafner, 2008).
“Legitimate” knowledge by these oppressors is considered a gift of privilege, and those
who are perceived to have the gift project an air of arrogance upon those who are
perceived to need the help. Thus, even in a desire to be humanitarian, the oppressor
actually dehumanizes individuals they are purportedly helping. Freire (2000) calls this
act “necrophilic” in that it stunts “creative power” (p. 77).
Despite the logic of deficit that govern perceptions of communities of color and
the poor, Brabeck, Walsh, and Latta (2003) assert that communities have great potential
to garner both human and material resources for enhancing learning for the underserved.
Communities, schools, and universities may have a common desire to improve the
opportunities for students but face barriers that challenge the formation of partnership
that have the ability to transform K-12 education and create sustainable change (Miller,
2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008; Kezar, 2007; Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988; Maurrasse, 2001).

Strategies to Overcoming Barriers Among Partnerships
There have been more recently a plethora of emerging partnerships, some of
which show promise (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988). Earlier, a case was made for how
cultural clashes, power relationships, and unclear expectations between university, school,
and community partnerships can create barriers to partnerships. Nevertheless,
partnerships between the community, school, and university form because of the potential
to build on one another’s strengths while mitigating another’s weaknesses. Community,
71
school, and university partnerships are built on the belief that there is more that one can
do together than by working in silos; that there is greater potential to create opportunities
than had they worked alone (Kezar, 2007; Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988; Corrigan, 2000).
Environments can be created which are more partnership-friendly. Past
partnerships provide insights on practices that have the potential to overcome some of the
barriers which have made partnerships such a challenge for many (Kezar, 2007; Miller &
Hafner, 2008). The three factors that will be discussed in this portion of the chapter will
be 1) creating a shared culture (Kezar, 2007; Miller, 2007; Maurrasse, 2001), 2) co-
constructing equitable relationships (Shields, 2005; Freire, 2000; Kezar, 2007) , and 3)
utilizing key stakeholders among the partnership to serve as leaders who bridge the gap
between the entities (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988; Braback, Walsh, and Latta, 2003; Kezar,
2007). The barriers are significant and will not be mitigated easily, but through extensive
“development” and “maintenance,” there is a great deal of potential for what partnerships
can accomplish to improve outcomes for students (Miller, 2007; Brabeck, Walsh, and
Latta, 2003; Sirotnik and Goodlad, 1988).
Building a Shared Culture Among Partners
The literature review had earlier discussed the importance of creating a shared
culture--a culture which required extensive development and maintenance but had the
potential of creating partnership-friendly environments (Miller, 2007). This work might
include creating a shared vision, goals, and expectations (Kezar, 2007; Miller & Hafner,
2008; Shields, 2005), shared inquiry (Wesley and Buysse, 2001), shared communication
plans (Kezar, 2007), shared decision making (Miller & Hafner, 2008; Mayfield, Hellwig
72
& Banks, 1999, Maurrasse, 2001, ) and shared outcomes (Coleman and Hoffer, 1998).
Ideally, these critical bridge persons are aware of the inequities that plague urban schools
(Report on the State of LA, 2005; Freire, 2000; Ogbu, 1987; Oaks & Rogers,2006). The
effective critical bridge person is respected by the oppressed group (Ostrander, 2004) and
perhaps comes from among the oppressed (Freire, 2000). Carolyn Shields mentions
creating “space” through “liberating conversations” that allows the entire experience of
an individual to be a part of the verbal discourse (Shields, 2005). These critical bridge
persons often facilitate the space to co-construct dialogic relationships (Freire, 2000;
Miller & Hafner, 2008). Connecting and communicating involves a shared language.
That may require the formation of new cultural norms that the critical bridge person can
help negotiate among the partners.
Shared vision, goals, and expectations among partners. When communities,
schools, and universities come together, each of them brings with them their own unique
cultures which have the potential for creating barriers and derailing the partnership.
What is needed is a common frame within the partnership for problems and solutions
(Kezar, 2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008). Kezar posits, “For partnerships to succeed, it is
almost as if individual cultures need to be suspended and new ones created that are built
on a shared vision” (p. 29). This shared vision is an essential step in creating a common,
shared culture which has the potential of creating a common frame through which to view
problems and solutions (Kezar, 2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008). When developing goals
among partners, Kezar advocates that efforts need to be made to arrive at joint goals built
upon the shared visions in which expectations are clear. Kezar provides an example of
73
how differing goals can lead to barriers. She states that if a school were to be focusing on
improving the writing of students, and the university were simply focused on mentoring,
intention to work together could be “thwarted” if they did not first discuss their differing
visions. Despite these differing goals, there is the potential to create a shared culture
built on clear expectations and mutual goals; however, sometimes this needed process is
neglected and the potential of synergistic support is diffused. A shared vision and
expectation can be formally documented through memoranda of understandings where
“partnership’s expectations, shared vision, governing arrangements, roles, and financial
commitments” are clearly articulated for all the members of the partnership (p. 37).
These types of arrangements may also include a timeframe for when goals are to be
accomplished.
As previously stated, one of the barriers, is a difference in culture on the time
frame for change. Schools and community members seemed to advocate for more rapid
change while universities preferred longer, more long-lasting change. Shared
expectations can allow for short-term, mid-range, and long-term goals that provide a
roadmap for all partners. In addition to a common vision, goals, and expectations,
individuals must also understand their roles and the roles of one another. When people
are involved in the initial planning and goal setting, they are more inclined to understand
their roles in accomplishing the goal. Collaboration often becomes derailed when the
participants are unclear about their roles in the partnership and the common goals the
partnership is pursuing.
74
Shared inquiry among partners. Within many partnerships, professionals alone
do the research; however, Wesley and Buysse (2001) posit that there is a need to view
parents and the family as partners in the inquiry practices. Within these communities of
practice, parents are regularly provided opportunities to reflect collaboratively through
dialogue to create “common tools, language, images, roles, assumptions, understanding,
and a shared world view” (Wesley and Buysse, 2001, p. 118). In order to create common
goals and expectations, there may be a need to create a joint needs assessment. Miller
advocates not just evaluating the outcomes but also the process including planning and
implementation (Miller & Hafner, 2008). Maurrasse (2002) provided a tool that he used
to evaluate emerging grant funded partnerships. Rather than measuring the outcomes, his
tool measured the process.
Shared communication plan among partners. Kezar (2007) advocates the
creation of “frequent, open, and ongoing communication” among partners (p.38). This
requires the establishment of a communication plan that meets the needs of all partners.
The plan may include distributing common goals, updates, revision based on feedback,
and shared challenges through the medium of newsletters, e-mail updates, group
meetings, and yearly retreats. Kezar also advocates for partners to learn how to listen and
speak to one another with candor to experience an “honest exchange” about problems and
challenges which may include historical, social, economic, and political inequalities
related to race or other issues. Kezar posits that this kind of honest exchange helps to
build trust. In the study by Miller (2008), parents had a difficult time speaking up
possibly due to different discourse patterns. An example from Miller’s (2007) study
75
demonstrated e-mail was not the preferred means of communication by the community
who preferred to meet face-to-face at a local establishment and have a “breakfast
conversation.” Location may also be a part of the communication plan. Often times the
location is designated in a place that is difficult for all partners to meet. According to
Miller (2007), the university may possess organizational barriers that include the
sprawled layout of the university campus which can be difficult and inconvenient for
some to navigate. Many community members prefer to meet in their own community;
this helps to create the feeling that “they’re coming to our house” instead of us “always
going to their house” (Miller & Hafner, 2008, p. 88). Such demonstrations to foster
systems and structure for communication illustrate the desire to truly hear what is being
said among all partners and build trust.
Shared decision making among partners. Miller (2008) posits that decision
making must involve all the key stakeholders and asserts that it helps to foster
“mutuality” (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002, Miller & Hafner, 2008; Maurrasse, 2001,
Mayfield, Hellwig, & Banks, 1999). Miller (2008) goes as far as to posit that if actions
are made in isolation, it is “seriously doubtful” that the interests of all the partners have
been addressed (Miller & Hafner, 2008). Not only must decisions involve key
stakeholders: they must also be mutually agreed upon (Miller & Hafner, 2008; Maurrasse,
2001; Mayfield et al., 1999). Kezar (2007) posits that cultural clashes exist because of
many negative preconceived notions among the partners about one another and a lack of
clear communication. Furthermore, Kezar (2007) advocates for an agreement toward a
“mutual approach for communication” (p. 34). Developing a clear decision-making
76
process, one which encourages joint decision-making builds trust. Trust is often lost in
collaborative efforts when the decision-making process appears not to be mutual, but
rather “capricious” when decisions are made by the “inappropriate” people, or if one
partner appears to be stalling the decision making process by taking an “inordinate
amount of time” (Kezar, 2007). Kezar defines partnerships as a joint reliance upon one
another and joint planning to accomplish common goals through power sharing. These
are essential elements to building a shared culture.
Outcomes from a shared culture among partners. Coleman and Hoffer (1998)
provided insight about the relationship between the community and schools in inner-city
Catholic schools that produce more successful outcomes compared to public schools.
Coleman and Hoffer (1998) asserted that public schools tended to see themselves as
overcoming the deficiencies of their families. On the other hand, parochial schools
tended to see themselves as an extension of families sharing the values which were
mutually supported. As a result, the research demonstrated, that students’ academic
achievement mattered less what type of school one goes to and where, but it is more
dependant on the quality of the relationship between the school and the family. Cummins
shares strategies in this work that enabled the dominated minority to do well if: 1)
language and culture were regarded as important 2) family had the opportunity to be
involved 3) children could access their home language to grow in knowledge 4) educators
could serve as social justice agents for such students rather than referring to them as
problems(Coleman and Hoffer, 1998)
77
Assets-based building for equitable partnership relationships. Partnerships that
have been more successful have been those that have been able to co-construct
relationships to form equitable relationships; partnerships which value the assets
especially of communities and schools which have often been seen from a deficit lens
(Miller, 2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008; Cairney, 2000; Henderson and Berla, 1994). A
part of co-constructing equitable relationships involves being able to recognize and
incorporate the assets of all partners to further the cause of the partnership. Cairney
(2000) criticizes deficit views about urban communities and believes that, if there are
deficiencies in students from these communities, they are largely attributed to the
educational institutions’ inability to “develop student strengths and abilities” (Cairney,
2000, p. 165).
Asset-based opportunities in the community. On the other hand, Miller (2008)
asserts that Asset-Based Building focuses on the strengths of those within the partnership
rather than the weaknesses to build equitable relationships. This process helps each
entity within the partnership to see the assets that others can bring to accomplish the
shared goal. This emphasis on strengths also empowers all the partners, especially those
who have historically been given the least amount of power. According to Miller, assets
may be “physical (land, community gathering places), social (cohesion, volunteers),
spiritual (churches), economic (consumers, entrepreneurs and workers, funding agencies),
or political (voters, advocates, local officials, community leaders)” (Miller & Hafner,
2008, p. 73). Sanders (2001) also provides a list of the many kinds of assets that can be
found within the urban community including: corporations, universities and educational
78
institutions, government and military agencies, health care organizations, faith
organizations, national service and volunteer organizations, senior citizens organizations,
cultural and recreational institutions, other community-based organizations and
individuals in the community.
Asset-based opportunities in schools. Schools can provide an invaluable service
to universities by serving both as places for pre-service teachers to intern and locations
where in-service trainings can be held in partnership with university professional
development schools. They offer the opportunity for universities to participate in centers
for inquiry along with the development of professional development schools. They also
often serve as hubs for community based programs, thus they have the potential of being
interprofessional development schools”(Corrigan, 2000, p. 183) Parents of a school are
also critical to the partnership. A review of sixty-six studies involving family and
student achievement was conducted by Henderson and Berla (1994). They found that
students did better when the family was involved. According to the research, it did not
matter how the parents were involved as long as it was “reasonably well planned,
comprehensive, and long lasting” (p. 15). Involving homes in school produced higher
expectations for students and resulted in higher student outcomes--including grades,
attitude, attendance, fewer placements in special education, higher graduation rates, and
greater access to college--but they also raised the morale of teachers and reputation of the
school within the community. Henderson advocated more for a partnership model where
parents were involved in all aspects of school life including: volunteering, tutoring,
participating in committees, and establishing contact w/ community groups. Henderson
79
and Berla (1994) posits from his work,”It appears that the more programs take on a
‘partnership’ relationship with families, the more successful they are in raising student
achievement to national norms. Why should we be satisfied with any less” (Henderson &
Berla, 1994)? Partnerships must include the community, especially families.
Asset-based opportunities with universities. Universities directly affect schools
and the community by training up the future teachers of the country. In addition,
universities are capable of pulling in a variety of resources, both material and intellection,
to benefit the community. Benson and Harkavy state universities are “the most
influential institutions in the world (p.95). Brabeck and Latta (2003) also assert that
universities can play a key role within the partnership to shape schools and promote
democracy and social justice within the K-16 educational system.
Outcomes from an asset-based lens among partners. When schools work in
partnership with universities and communities, they have the potential of reducing the
opportunity gap. Scales et al.(2005) study involved a survey of 429 students and 76
stakeholders in a diverse urban high school. The results demonstrated that students who
had access to school-business partnership experiences demonstrated more development
assets. This study demonstrated that relationships between urban students and caring
adults in the community led to activating “students’ inner resources for school success”
(Scales et al., 2005, p. 145). The study encourages looking beyond student achievement
and looks more to building citizenry. Strong partnerships give the opportunity to build
more development assets. Developmental assets are “key relationships, opportunities,
80
values, skills, and self-perceptions all young people need to become self-regulating,
responsible, caring and productive” (p. 146) and divided into eight categories of:
• support
• empowerment
• boundaries and expectation
• constructive use of time
• commitment to learning
• positive values
• social competencies
• positive identity

The study found that the community contributed to successfully impacting the lives of
students to foster development assets (Scales et al., 2005). Thus the role of community
often neglected or minimized in partnerships with the university and the schools was a
vital force in student asset development.
Zetlin and MacLeod state that collaboratively involving all partners “builds trust
and mutual respect and enables differences to become strengths” to the common goals set
by the partnership (as cited in Miller & Hafner, 2008, p. 71). Cairney (2000) posits that
while many educational programs claim to involve parents and community within the
partnerships, there needs to be a more rigorous lens to evaluate whether the partnership is
genuinely one that is mutual or one in name only.
Bridge Persons and Partnerships
The literature review had earlier discussed the importance of creating a shared
culture--a culture which required extensive development and maintenance but had the
potential of creating partnership-friendly environments (Miller, 2007). This work might
include creating a shared vision, goals, and expectations (Kezar, 2007; Miller & Hafner,
2008; Shields, 2005), shared inquiry (Wesley and Buysse, 2001), shared communication
81
plans (Kezar, 2007), shared decision making (Miller & Hafner, 2008; Mayfield, Hellwig
& Banks, 1999, Maurrasse, 2001) and shared outcomes (Coleman and Hoffer, 1998).
Ideally, these critical bridge persons are aware of the inequities that plague urban schools
(Report on the State of LA, 2005; Freire, 2000; Ogbu, 1987; Oaks and Rogers, 2006).
The effective critical bridge person is respected by the oppressed group (Ostrander, 2004)
and perhaps comes from among the oppressed (Freire, 2000). Carolyn Shields mentions
creating “space” through “liberating conversations” that allows the entire experience of
an individual to be a part of the verbal discourse (Shields, 2005). These critical bridge
persons often facilitate the space to co-construct dialogic relationships (Freire, 2000;
Miller & Hafner, 2008). Connecting and communicating involves a shared language.
That may require the formation of new cultural norms that the critical bridge person can
help negotiate among the partners.
In Miller’s (2007) study, a partnership was created between the Mountain
University and the neighborhoods on the Westside of Mountain City. This partnership
organization was called Partners for Action. A well respected and well known leader was
appointed for “getting the partnership up off its feet” (Miller, 2007). A group of 30
people from varied groups came together to build a structure and create an action plan.
This kind of person has the potential to be what Kezar (2007) describes as a boundary-
spanner--an individual who is able to cross the traditional boundary of their own culture
and bridge the gap with another entity. Furthermore, Kezar (2007) defines this bridge
person as an individual who understands the culture of multiple communities speaking
both “languages.” This boundary spanner is able to “take responsibility for monitoring
82
the collaboration, maintaining communication, building positive group dynamics,
resolving conflicts, ensuring barriers are overcome, and creating facilitators for moving
the partnership forward” (Kezar, 2007, p. 35). These leaders not only facilitate the
development of vision and goals but also, according to Schein (1990), “create trust” by
bringing peace and calming the anxiety that can come when change occurs (p. 32).

Conclusion
“Children bring more than education needs to a classroom” and no single
profession should bear this collective responsibility (Corrigan, 2000, p. 179).
Universities, schools, and communities working in silos face great challenges in
overcoming historic barriers and improving the quality of education in urban schools.
Partnerships among communities, schools, and universities have the potential to
overcoming many of these challenges. However, the quest for the upper hand in school,
community, university partnerships creates a historically impermeable power struggle
that is counter-productive in the pursuit of educational excellence in urban youth.
Because partnerships have been derailed due to cultural clashes, power relationships, and
unclear expectations, a new cultural model of co-constructing relationship was discussed
that empowered all stakeholders, redistributing power through a dialogic process. The
critical bridge person serves an important role in brokering the relationships between
university, school, and community partners. Gaps in the knowledge continue to remain
and have helped to shape the research questions in Chapter 3.
83
1. What is a process that enables communities, schools, and universities to co-construct
partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12 Schools?
a. What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools and universities that seek to transform urban
schools?
b. What are some effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming
barriers in co-constructing partnerships among communities, schools, and
universities for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban school?
2. What attributes of a partnership capable of creating a New Cultural Model in urban
schools result from the process of co-constructing a community/school/ university
partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?
Chapter 3 constitutes the methodology portion of the dissertation and will provide a
summary on how the data will be collected and analyzed.

84
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Be the change you want to see in the world—Mahatma Gandhi

Introduction
Chapter one introduced the proposition that co-constructed dialogic relationships
among communities, K-12 schools, and universities have the potential for redistributing
power, thus enabling all partners to contribute to the quality of education in urban
communities. Little is known about co-constructing relationships among emerging
community, K-12 school, and university partnerships. Many community, school, and
university relationships have not been able to yield positive results. The literature in
Chapter 2 illustrated that barriers to partnerships include cultural clashes, power
relationships, and unclear expectations/roles. Partnerships that have been more
successful tend to be able to foster a shared culture that builds upon the assets of all the
stakeholders. Critical bridge persons, among other factors, have been shown as essential
in brokering the role among partners by fostering co-constructed dialogical relationships.

Study Design and Research Question
This study contributed to the gap in knowledge about forming these partnerships
by: 1) describing a process that enables, communities, schools, and universities to co-
construct partnership for the purpose of transforming K-12 schools, 2) further defining
factors that act as barriers to effective partnerships on behalf of K-12 schools, 3) sharing
85
strategies that have the potential to enable partners to overcome barriers to build dialogic
relationships with distributed power, 4) and describing some of the attributes found
within a partnership as a result of co-construction. This chapter provides the
methodology employed in this study including theoretical frameworks, study design and
research question, participants and setting, data collection and analysis.
This study aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. What is a process that enables communities, schools, and universities to co-
construct partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban schools?
a. What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools and universities that seek to transform urban
schools?
b. What are some effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming
barriers in co-constructing partnerships among communities, schools, and
universities for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban school?
2. What are the attributes of a partnership capable of creating a new cultural model
in urban schools result from the process of co-constructing a community, school,
university partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?

Methods
The researcher used interviews, observations, and artifacts to bring together a rich
body of data. Different data sources were used to “validate and cross check findings” (as
cited in Merriam, 1998, p. 137). The researcher used triangulation among these sources
86
to strengthen the validity of the findings. In this process the researcher examined the
consistency and inconsistencies among the data, as well as the ability of one source to
complement the information gathered from another source. The overall purpose of all
methods for collecting data was to determine the extent to which people within
partnership organizations and people directly involved with the partnership conveyed
knowledge of the partnership itself, their participation in the partnership, and the manner
in which it was being formed. The researchers were interested in knowing the differing
perceptions among the various stakeholders about attributes they believed characterized
the partnership in the first year of its formation.
This qualitative case study observed a community, school, and university partnership
in an urban community in Southern California for its impact on a K-12 school. The
research questions that framed this study were designed to discover the positive and
negative phenomena present in attempts to construct a partnership intended to impact the
transformation of a specific high school. The qualitative approach was especially
effective in obtaining descriptive data about the dynamics of power relationships that
existed between the community, school, and university.
The unit of analysis was the partnership. Purposeful sampling was used because
this partnership met the criteria of a unique or extreme case. This partnership is
comprised of top-tier urban university, an urban school with a history of low academic
performance, and two community-based organizations, as well as a significant element of
the surrounding community. As part of studying the partnership, the researcher
considered the role of the critical bridge persons to obtain rich data about the process of
87
forming the partnership (Patton, 2002). Multiple sources of data were utilized to
triangulate the information from interviews, observations, and artifacts to establish
“validity, reliability, generalizability and holistic understanding” (Merriam, 1998, p. 204).
Some constraints that existed included the short span of this study which made it
impossible to assess the sustainability of the partnership and its full ability to impact the
school, as well as the constraints in resources to conduct the study (Patton, 2002). The
focus was on the process by which the partnership was being forged.

Sample and Population
Sampling Procedure
This case study was chosen based on the rare opportunity to observe a top-tier
university that had a track record and mission to support the urban community, working
with a low performing urban K-12 school that had chosen, with the support of its teachers
and parents, to join a newly formed division of a large school district created to promote
school innovation. The third arm of this partnership was a pair of community
organizations that had a history of empowering the African American community to
claim their civil rights by resisting acts of oppression against their community. All these
organizations came together to collaborate on behalf of the transformation of an urban
high school. This study qualified for extreme or deviant case sampling, a strategy for
selecting unusual or special cases that are information rich. The unit of analysis for this
case study was the community, school, university partnership. This study examined the
first year of a forming partnership to transform a K-12 school that has experienced
88
multiple years of decline in academic performance and community trust. Purposefully
selecting this one case study allowed the researcher to study this information-rich case in
depth (Patton, 2002).
The participants in this study were teachers, parents, community residents, and
leaders of these university, school, and community organizations that were key
stakeholders not only within their organizations, but within the partnership. The criteria
for selection also included the presence of a bridge leader. The candidates came from a
pool of recognized leaders that were involved in the partnership and were helping to form
the partnership from its inception. It was expected that meeting with these candidates
would also lead to a snowballing pattern that lends itself to identifying critical bridge
persons and other key informants (Patton, 2002). The researcher also identified leaders
who had significant influence on the partnerships and who exhibited the greatest number
of attributes associated with co-constructing partnerships through interviews with key
stakeholders. Patton asserts that such information rich cases are worthy of an in-depth
study (Patton, 2003). In order to better understand the role of the critical bridge person
within partnerships, purposeful sampling was taken from a representative group of
individuals from the university, school, and community-based organizations including
parents, lead teachers, administrators, leadership teams, and directors.
This university, school, and community partnership among the Metropolitan League,
the School of Education at Western Pacific University, the Civic Engagement Foundation,
and Freedom High School is known as Critical Partners in Action, or CPIA.
University
89
Western Pacific University is a tier one research university with a history and
track record of demonstrating a commitment to their surrounding neighborhoods. The
partnership with the university was spear-headed by the School of Education under the
leadership of Professor Simms, with the partnership’s Interim Executive Director who is
also a clinical professor of education at Western Pacific University. She was also joined
by other faculty members both within the School of Education and in partnership with the
other professional schools in the university. These roles increased as the partnerships
developed.
School
Freedom High School is an urban high school in Los Angeles with an API Score
of 524 and Statewide Rank of 1 out of a total possible of 10, as indicated in the 2006-
2007 academic year’s School Accountability Report Card (SARC.) With an enrollment
of 2,314 students, African Americans comprised 65.4% of the student body. The once
homogeneous population of African Americans had become more diverse with 33.0% of
the student body now being Hispanic or Latino. The percent proficient and above was
17.0% in the English-Language Arts, 2.0% in Mathematics, 12.0% in Science, and 8% in
the History-Social Science, with a graduation rate of 56.9%. Freedom High School was
currently under year six of program improvement. In 2007, 733 students were suspended
at a rate almost four times greater than the average school in the Los Angeles Unified
School District. There was a total of 110 teachers, of whom 75.8% were NCLB
compliant (SARC, 2007). The teachers voted to enter a newly formed unit of the school
district for school innovation; 91 were in favor of the move, 23 against, with 9 abstaining
90
(SARC, 2007). A cadre of teachers had also volunteered to be a part of a transition team
designed to build favorable partnerships to reform the school and improve student
outcomes and that had been meeting weekly for this end. The following describes the
school’s demographics and achievement characteristics:
1. 2007 Academic Performance Index (API) 524
2. 1997-2007 API Growth: CA= 75, LAUSD = 88, Freedom High = 65
3. 60.8% Socio-economically disadvantaged (2006)
4. 64.9% African-American
5. 33.8% Hispanic/ Latino
6. 0.7% Alaskan/Asian/ Filipino/ Pacific Islander/ White
7. 0.1% Special Education Enrollment
8. 6.5% One-year dropout rate
9. 29.2% Four-year dropout rate

Community
The Metropolitan League and the Civic Engagement Foundation comprised the
third entity within the partnership. Their mission is to “enable African Americans and
other minorities to secure economic self-reliance, parity, power and civil rights through
advocacy activities and the provision of programs and services in our uniquely diversified
city and region” (2008). Although the Metropolitan League was coined in the June of
1921, the influence and advocacy of Africans Americans in the State of California
reached as far back as prior to California’s admission as a free state of the United States
in 1840. As a result of this legacy, the L.A. Equality Index indicated African American
civic engagement as 1.07—above the 1.0 benchmark (State of Black LA, 2005).
Metropolitan League, focused on advocacy, leadership, and neighborhood change, had
recently committed, in the first of a five year strategic plan, to collaborate with partners
and to provide services that promotes safety, education, healthy, employment, and
91
housing within a 70-block area (LAUL, 2008). The Metropolitan League was very
invested in this work and intended on focusing this pilot around Freedom High School in
the hope that it could serve as a pilot for sustainable change and revitalization of
neighborhoods all across Los Angeles (LAUL, 2008). This 70-block initiative area was
selected because of its strengths and needs. The Metropolitan League joined with the
Civic Engagement Foundation to engage in efforts toward the transformation of the
school.
The Civic Engagement Foundation’s long-term relationship with the school had
empowered the parents to lead the movement for the school to join the newly formed
division of the school district and become part of a network partnership. All these
organizations came together on behalf of the transformation of an urban high school. This
study examined the first year of an emerging partnership in their efforts to transform a K-
12 school that had experienced multiple years of decline in academic performance and
community trust.
Strengths o High homeownership rates in Northern Hyde Park
(over 60%)
o 55% of residents have lived in current home for
more than five years

Needs o 740 families experiencing the unique challenges
found in single-parent households.
o Domestic violence and foster care rates over 200%
of LA average
o Violent crime rate is 250% of LA average
Table 1: Initiative Area Data

92
Instrumentation
Research Question Artifacts Observations Interviews
1. What is a process that enables
communities, schools, and universities to
co-construct partnerships for the purpose
of transforming K-12 Schools?
X X X
1a. What are the persistent barriers to
establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools and
universities that seek to transform urban
schools?
X

X X
1b. What are some effective strategies that
have the potential for overcoming
barriers in co-constructing partnerships
among communities, schools, and
universities for the purpose of
transforming K-12 urban school?
X X X
2. What attributes of a partnership capable
of creating a New Cultural Model in
urban schools result from the process of
co-constructing a community/school/
university partnership with the intent to
transform a K-12 school?
X X X
Table 2: Triangulation of Data Matrix
Data collection procedures included observations, interviews, and artifacts. A
research cohort consisting of ten doctoral candidates, chaired by Sylvia G. Rousseau,
EdD., met throughout the fall of 2007 and continued to meet in the summer and fall of
2008 to develop and refine research questions, theoretical frameworks for each research
question, interview questions and observation protocols. This group also identified
methods for analyzing artifacts. Data were collected within the period beginning in
November 2008 and completed in January 2009. In order to address issues of validity
and reliability, triangulation methods in the form of data triangulation, investigator
triangulation, and methodological triangulation were utilized. “Using multiple methods
93
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).

Research Question Frameworks
The theoretical framework is regularly used to conduct a study (Merriam, 1998). The
major overarching theoretical framework employed in this study was Freire’s critical
theory about disproportionate distribution of power in relationships among members of a
society that lead to the oppressed and oppressors. The second overarching theoretical
framework was the concept of dialogic relationships as a way to build lasting
partnerships. The third theoretical framework used was the constructivist theory of
learning as a lens to better understand the attributes of a partnership that aimed to create a
new cultural model in urban schools from the process of co-constructing a community,
school, and university partnership. This study posited that partnerships leading to this
new kind of model have the potential of overcoming historic barriers to equitable
educational opportunities. This qualitative study strived to answer the following research
questions:

94

Research Question Theoretical Framework
Research Question 1:
What is a process that enables communities,
schools, and universities to co-construct
partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-
12 Schools?
1. Freire (1970)--Critical Theory
2. Freire (1970)—Dialogic
3. Lambert (2001)--Constructivist
Theory of Learning
Research Question #1a:
What are the persistent barriers to establishing
partnerships among communities, K-12 schools
and universities that seek to transform urban
schools?

1. Freire (1970)--Critical Theory

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

1. Freire (1970)--Critical Theory
2. Freire (1970)—Dialogic
3. Lambert (2001)—Constructivist
Theory of learning
Research Question #2:
What attributes of a partnership capable of
creating a new cultural model in urban schools
result from the process of co-constructing a
community/school/ university partnership with
the intent to transform a K-12 school?
1. Freire (1970)--Critical Theory
2. Freire (1970)--Dialogic
3. Lambert (2001)--Constructivist
Theory of Learning
Table 3: Aligning research questions and theoretical frameworks
Framework for the first research question:
The first research question asked, ”What is a process that enables communities,
schools, and universities to co-construct partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-
12 Schools?” The first research sub question asked, “What are the persistent barriers to
establishing partnerships among communities, K-12 schools and universities that seek to
transform urban schools?”
95
Co-construction was defined in this study as a process in which two or more
parties engage in an interactive and equitable relationship to create shared understandings
and agreed upon outcomes. The literature review established that cultural clashes among
the entities, power relationships, and unclear expectations or roles can become barriers
within partnerships. The overarching theoretical frameworks employed in this study for
this research question were Freire’s concepts about the role disproportionate access to
power plays in relationships among members of a society, known as Critical Theory. The
second sub-question asked,”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?”
The second theoretical framework used Paulo Freire’s (1970) concepts about
dialogue toward the creation of dialogic relationships. This framework served as a lens to
examine the role of dialogue in creating the kind of dialogic relationships between
community, K-12 school, and university partners that have the potential to co-construct
new cultural models that empower all stakeholders to overcome barriers to student
achievement. Dialogic relationship in this study was defined as the interaction of
multiple entities in the context that is bound by inclusiveness, mutual respect, trust, and
the value of the contributions, knowledge and experience of others.
Framework for the second research question:
“What attributes of a partnership capable of creating a new cultural model in
urban schools result from the process of co-constructing a community/school/university
partnership with the intent to transform K-12 school?” The final research question was
96
shaped by all three theoretical lenses. The constructivist theory of learning is built upon
both the critical theory and dialogic practices. The constructivist lens examined mutual
learning and those who employ the reciprocal process between the entities using dialogue
to construct a shared culture for working synergistically to impact urban schools.

Data Collection Instruments and Procedures
This section describes the data:
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

97

Interviews Observations Artifacts Demographic/
Background
Data
Parents
Total: 6
Meetings at the school
including teachers,
administrators, and/or
parents
Total: 6
Partnership
business plan
School
demographics
Community
Members-at-
large
Total: 4
Community visits
(A minimum of two
visits by all team
members)
Minutes from
relevant meetings
within each entity
and among the
three entities
School
performance
data
CHS Teachers
Total: 7
3 CHS
administrators
Partnership board
meeting minutes
and agendas.
Community
economic
indicators
USC faculty
Total: 6 - 8
GCEP Board meetings
Total: minimum of 2
Event calendars Community
resources
iDivision Staff
in LAUSD

Total: 1
Community-based
organization meetings
Total: 3
USC faculty meetings
Total: 1
School data
(including test
scores, graduation
rates, attendance
and demographics)

CHS faculty meetings
Total: 2
Community
demographics

School in general
(hallways, quad,
athletic events, etc.
Total: 4 to 6
News articles
District bulletins
and memoranda

Table 4: Data Collection Matrix
Observations
Observations were utilized to examine understand the role of the partnership in
understanding and addressing persistent barriers and observe the partnership’s effort to
co-construct meaning together. These observations, according to Merriam (1998), can
98
also provide insights to assist with the interview to further capture information in a
manner that would yield the most salient information. Observations, according to
Merriam (1998), take place in a “natural” setting and present an in-person encounter with
the “phenomenon of interest” as opposed to the second-hand content of an interview.
The study included observations of the community, school, and university
partners both working within their constituent groups as well as with one another.
Observations to better build a context of the community also included community events,
neighborhood council meetings, and walks through the community. Cumulatively, the
group of researchers conducted a total of eight observations involving community-based
organizations and parents in the role of members of the community. Observations 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 also observed
hallways and large meeting areas in the school to understand the school culture.
Selection of events to be 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 Western Pacific University’s School of Education faculty in their respective
contexts were observed to examine their styles of meeting within their own respective
contexts and within contexts that bring them together. Additionally, the observations
included two Critical Partners in Action board meetings. Observations lasted the length
of the meetings.
The observer used field notes as a means for recording observations. They were
dated and contained key information to describe the event i.e., attendees, physical setting,
99
activities, and what people said to construct demonstrate the “emic perspective”
(Fetterman, 1989:30 as cited in Patterson, 2002), the observers’ reactions, feelings,
insights and reflections on events.
The observations contributed to the researchers’ knowledge of the partnership and
identified areas in which persistent barriers existed. According to Merriam (1998),
observations provide information about the context and therefore they can be used as
reference points for future interviews. Observations of partnership meetings at both the
school site and the community-based organization offices involving any of the entities’
concerns with students were useful to the study. In addition, observations of the transition
team, which consists of community members, parents, teachers, administrators, were
conducted. Observation protocols were generated by the research cohort and closely
aligned to the theoretical frameworks for each research question. Field notes were used to
observe and capture this information, which included the following elements of each
observation: the physical setting, participants, activities and interactions, conversations,
subtle factors that are less obvious, as well as the observer’s own behavior (Merriam,
1998). The role of the observer was that of an objective observer, whereby the observer’s
primarily responsibility is that of information gatherer and not a participant (Merriam,
1998).
Interviews

“The purpose of interviews is to allow [the researchers] to enter into the other
person’s perspective” (Patton, p. 341). Interviews enabled the researchers to learn about
events (and their meanings) that they were not able to observe and were conducted with
100
stakeholders from each category of participants or stakeholders in the partnership.
Interviewees were also selected in part from persons identified through the observations.
Throughout this case study, the researchers adhered to the guidelines and
procedures for ethical conduct in research set forth by the Institutional Review Board
(IRB) for both Western Pacific University and Los Medanos Unified School District.
Participants were assured that this was a voluntary study and at no time would coercive
tactics for participation be yielded. Rather, individuals were asked to volunteer through a
form created by the research team to preserve confidentiality. Additionally, the
researchers obtained written informed consent before beginning any research within any
of the participating organizations.
The collective body of interviews conducted by members of the research team
included seven members from the community-based organizations as the roles and
perspectives of the community are of particular interest in this study. Patton states, “We
interview people to find out from them those things we cannot directly observe” (Patton,
1990, p. 196).
Careful attention was given to the wording of each question so as to ensure that
“what [was] being asked [was] clear to the person being interviewed” (Merriam, 1998, p.
76). Questions to be avoided included multiple questions embedded in one, leading
questions that may have revealed the researcher’s bias, or yes-or-no questions that
elicited no significant information (Merriam, 1998). The interview questions also
included several probes that helped to guide the interview and allowed the researcher to
101
make adjustments throughout the interview (Merriam, 1998). Each interview was
between 45 – 60 minutes in length and all were conducted by the end of January.
The group of interviewees included the chief administrators of the three founding
organizations to the partnership as well as their staffs and their board members.
Three faculty members from Western Pacific University were interviewed. Interviewees
associated with Freedom High School included six parents. Other school-based
interviewees include two school administrators, and seven Freedom High School teachers.
The researchers announced the purpose of the study and their desire to conduct
interviews at specified meetings attended by potential interviewees. Those interested
submitted their written consent to be interviewed by contacting the researcher who
provided contact information. The researchers also contacted potential interviewees
based on interest sparked by the observations or leads from other interviewees.
The research team interviewed four community-at-large persons. They included
community members who were actively involved in the partnership, parents who were
not as involved in the partnership, as well as members of block clubs.
To gain an understanding of the context in which network partners were asked to take
on oversight of specific schools or school clusters, the research team interviewed one
person in the iDesign Division, the unit in the LLUSD to which the network partnerships
report.
The interviews took place in person, and were digitally recorded with the permission
of the interviewee. The researcher also took notes during the interviews to keep track of
the responses and lead to decisions about eliminating some of the interview questions.
102
Notes also helped the researcher contextualize the data in the transcribed recordings.
They also served as a backup in any instance of equipment failure. Each member of the
research team was assigned to collect specific data. Depending on the depth and scope of
the interviewees’ responses to specific questions, the interviewer avoided redundancy by
eliminating some of the questions on the structured interview list. The interview
questions were designed to ascertain the interviewees’ attitudes, knowledge of, and
experiences with the partnership to contribute to a rich body of data about the formation
of the partnership and the resulting attributes within the first year of formation. Interview
instruments for the different stakeholders contained essentially the same questions to
allow an analysis for consistencies and inconsistencies in the responses among the
various stakeholders. Twenty-nine interviews were conducted in this study.
Artifacts
In order to identify the potential barriers to establishing successful partnerships, as
well as discover effective strategies for overcoming these barriers, artifacts from each of
the entities in the partnership were first collected. Artifacts are defined as “symbolic
materials such as writing and signs and nonsymbolic materials such as tools and
furnishings” (LeCompte and Preissle in Merriam, 1998, p. 113). Utilizing artifacts 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 (Merriam, 1998).
103
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
to illuminate the barriers to establishing partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-
12 schools. These documents also provided insight into effective strategies that have the
potential to overcome these barriers.
Information from these documents included things that have taken place prior to
the study, private exchanges between relevant parties, and/or unstated goals, decisions, or
values (Patton, p. 293). Partnership documents and artifacts were analyzed for
background and commitments to the construction of the partnership. Documents of
interest included the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the partnership and
the school district; the partnership’s business plan; minutes from relevant meetings within
each partner organization and among the three partners; partnership board meeting
minutes and agendas; event calendars; school data (including test scores, graduation rates,
attendance and demographics), and news articles.
For the most part, public documents were primary sources; other documents or
artifacts were identified through interviews and observations. The researchers sought the
permission of the participating organizations to gain access to these documents. A
protocol for examining artifacts has been placed in APPENDIX E.

Data Analysis
The process to analyze the data began with a review of the research questions and
to strategizing a plan to organize the data in relationship to the research questions being
104
asked. To increase validity, the research cohort met as a group to both create a common
coding key and to calibrate the coding efforts. The MAXQDA Qualitative Data Analysis
software was used to aggregate all the coded interviews, observations, and artifacts.
Throughout this process, definitions were refined. The purpose of this process was to
increase the reliability of coding. A coding matrix was created from the data to
synthesize key characteristics of each category. The body of data allowed the researchers
to analyze the data and see emerging themes, patterns, and trends among from the
interviews, observations, and artifacts. Similarities and differences among the various
respondents on each of the themes identified in the research question were noted. The
research cohort also proceeded to examine coherence and incoherence among the
respondents as they mined the interviews, observations, and artifacts in an effort to
triangulate the data. A super matrix was created by the cohort to capture key emerging
themes. After reviewing all the data and the manner by which it had been coded in
relation to the research questions, the researcher proceeded to create an outline for
chapter four to detail the findings.
Triangulation
The three main sources of data regarding the formation of the partnership enabled
the researchers to engage in data triangulation (Patton, p. 247) to increase validity of the
findings. Designated researchers deposited their data inside the coded boxes the team
created. The collective data were available to all the researchers. The 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.
105
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 a set of the recorded interviews to immerse
themselves in the data. The researchers analyzed the interviews through the lenses of the
three research questions to ascertain the feelings, attitudes, perceptions on three basic
matters:
• the process by which the partnership is formed, i.e., co-constructed, dialogic
• barriers or strategies to deter or promote the formation of the partnership
• identifiable attributes of the partnership consistent with or inconsistent with the a
cultural model of a dialogic, co-constructed partnership.
Analyzing Observations
The researchers codified in the code book recurring themes that emerged in the
observations. The researchers compared the data collected through the field notes from
the observations with the data collected in the interviews (some of which involve the
same persons) and the documents collected. The observations of meetings and school
classrooms were analyzed for the contributions they made to answering the three research
questions. The researchers looked for actions, scenarios, and quotes that indicated the
process by which the partnership was being formed. They looked for indicators in the
meetings and environments of the three partners of dialogic behaviors that demonstrated
106
the co-construction of a new culture of shared power for the purpose of transforming a
school. The researchers analyzed the field notes in comparison to the interviews for
consistencies and inconsistencies as responses to the research questions.
Analyzing Documents and Artifacts
“Demystifying institutional texts is one way of demystifying institutional
authority” (Miller, cited in Patton, 2001, p. 91). The researchers looked for parallels
between attitudes, levels of knowledge, and actions noted in observations and interviews
compared to the formal documentation of these events. Artifacts were also analyzed for
consistencies and inconsistencies among values and basic assumptions within the three
partners’ organizations.
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.
Data analysis occurred in conjunction with data collection as well as after the
completion of the data collection phase. Field notes collected from observations as well
as notes and audio recordings from the interviews were transcribed. These notes were
then coded and organized into categories guided by the research questions and the
theoretical framework. Any emerging themes were noted and linked to specific research
questions. All data collected were analyzed through the lens of the theoretical
107
frameworks for each research question. The data will then be interpreted and future
implications will be discussed in Chapter five.

Ethical Considerations
Qualitative interviews have the potential according to Merriam (1998) to have
long-term effects that can be characterized as either helpful or harmful. Careful attention
must be made on the part of the research to design questions that are capable of eliciting
the information without disturbing the environment in a negative manner. 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 are collected
and analyzed and findings that are disseminated are free from bias. The rules and
regulations as specified by the Western Pacific University Institutional Review Board
(IRB) as well as the Institutional Review Board for the Los Medanos Unified School
District was strictly adhered to in order to ensure that participants were being treated in
an ethical manner.

108
CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS, ANAYSIS AND DISCUSSION

“We’ve created a door that we can now walk through to get to where we need to go.”
—Mr. Bowles, teacher at Freedom High School

The purpose of this study is to examine a process for co-constructing partnerships
among community, school, and university partners as a means of transforming an urban
high school. This study will examine the persistent barriers to constructing the
partnership and effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming these barriers.
As described in Chapter 3, a qualitative case study approach was used to collect data
from an emerging partnership known as the Critical Partners in Action (CPIA)
comprising two community-based organizations, Metropolitan League (ML), and Civic
Engagement Foundation (CEF), an under-performing urban high school, Freedom High
School, and a tier-one research university, Western Pacific University (WPU). The
researchers in this study conducted 29 interviews with the stakeholders from each of
these groups, observed ten meetings as well as routine activities within the community,
and analyzed three artifacts. Stakeholder groups included the community (community
members and community-based organizations), the school (parents, teachers,
administrators, and classified), and the university (university faculty and administration).
This chapter will present the findings from the study and analyze the findings through the
theoretical framework discussed in chapters 2 and 3.

109
Background
Although community, school, and university partnerships have a great deal of
potential, many have not been able to yield positive results, and some have experienced
further “division and hostility” among partners (Mayfield, Hellwig, & Banks, 1999).
These inherent challenges are so difficult that some collaborations fail or are abandoned.
The literature review has also presented a plethora of more recent partnerships that have
been forming, some of which show promise by overcoming the barriers that often exist
within emerging partnerships. These partnerships as discussed by Miller & Hafner as
well as Brabeck, Walsh & Latta are built on the belief that more can be accomplished
working together in a partnership than by working in silos, and that there is greater
potential to create opportunities than had the individual partners worked alone.
Environments which are more partnership-friendly can be created, with partners building
on one another’s strengths while mitigating one another’s weaknesses.
A Unique Study
While studies examining school-community, community-university, and
university-school partnerships have been conducted, research on community, school, and
university partnerships with each of the three partners having equal power in the process
of co-constructing the partnership is rare, especially studies involving urban communities.
The partnership for this study was selected because of the unique opportunity to observe
a top-tier university that has a track record and mission of working with the surrounding
urban community has chosen to work with a low performing high school that has elected,
with the support of its teachers and parents, to join a newly formed division of a large
110
school district created to promote school innovation. The third arm of this unique
partnership is a pair of community-based organizations that has a history of empowering
the African American community to exercise their civil rights by resisting acts of
oppression against their community. One of the community-based organizations has
incorporated Freedom High School as the hub of a five-year strategic initiative to
collaborate with partners and provide services to promote safety, education, health,
employment, and housing within the 70-block area surrounding the school in this study.
The other community-based organization’s long-term relationship with the school had
developed in parents the empowerment to support the parents to lead the movement for
the school to join the newly formed division of the school district and become part of a
network partnership. This innovation division of the school district, also known as
iDesign, was voted upon by both parents and teachers and has within its charter the
mandate to take on network partners to facilitate in the transformation of identified low-
performing schools.
The mission of iDesign schools is to create a new culture of learning through
“local school empowerment and community collaboration.” Among its goals is to
engage students, parents, educators, and community in the creation of a locally-managed,
collaborative and accountable school. It is the hope of the district that this unique design
will lead to promising practices that can be used to transform not only the school but
schools across the district. This study has examined the first year of an emerging
partnership in their efforts to transform a K-12 school that has experienced multiple years
of decline in academic performance and community trust.
111

Figure 2: A Unique Partnership

This chapter will report and analyze the findings from the interviews,
observations, and examination of artifacts that constituted research data in the study. The
researcher used qualitative descriptions (Patton, 2004) as the means for demonstrating the
process by which this unique set of partners (a historical community-based civil rights
organization, a community-based civil rights organization, a low-performing urban
school, and a private top-tiered research university) co-constructed a partnership formed
to transform the school. Qualitative data, collected through interviews, observations, and
examination of key documents, were organized in a code book to describe important
Community
• History of empowering African
American community to exercise
civil rights. (ML and CEF)
• Hub of Neighborhoods@Work
Initiative to promote w/ partners
safety, education, health,
employment, and housing within
the 70-block area (ML)
• Long-Term relationship w/ the
school had developed in parents
the empowerment to support the
parents to lead the movement for
the school to join the newly
formed division. (CEF)
University
• Top-Tier University w/
a track record and
mission of working with
the surrounding urban
community and has
chosen to work with the
school.
School
• School elected with the
support of parents and
teachers to join a newly
formed division of a large
school district created to
promote school innovation.
• iDesign’s mission is to create
a new culture of learning
through “local school
empowerment and
community collaboration.”
A Unique Partnership: A co-constructed community,
school, and university Partnership for the purpose of urban
school transformation
112
processes and record key issues that emerged. This code book, constructed from the
entire research team’s contributions, became a rich resource with thick data from which
to determine the findings of the study. The findings from this study will describe the
extent to which the partnership was engaged in the process of co-construction,
incorporating dialogue and mutual learning. It will also describe some of the attributes of
the partnership that emerged through its efforts to form the partnership.
Community Based
Organizations (CBO)

K-12 Urban School University
• Civic Engagement
Foundation
o Executive Officers
• Freedom High School
o Teachers
o Administrators
o Classified Staff
•
• Western Pacific
University
o Administrators
o Faculty
• Metropolitan League
o Executive Officers
o Deputy Officers
• Friends of Freedom
o Parents
o Community
members
•

Table 5: Critical Partners in Action Matrix

Describing barriers to the process of co-construction and strategies to overcome
them will be a means for providing a rich body of information about the process by which
the partnership is being formed. More particularly, as dialogue and mutual learning are
key elements in the process of co-construction, strategies to overcome barriers to these
two important elements will be described.
The analysis of the findings is guided by a theoretical framework constructed
from the literature review and a process consistent with Merriam’s (1998) guidelines for
using a qualitative approach to conducing research. The overarching theoretical
113
framework employed in this study is Freire’s critical theory addressing the
disproportionate distribution of power in relationships among members of a society that
leads to the oppressed and oppressors. The second overarching theoretical framework is
the concept of dialogic relationships as a way to build lasting relationships. The third
theoretical framework is the constructivist theory of learning, which was used as a lens to
examine the mutual learning within the partnership.
The findings from the research were reported in response to the research questions
developed by the research team of ten members under the supervision of the committee
chair, in accordance with the literature review and the theoretical framework adopted for
the study.
The partnership boat illustration in Figure 3 helps describe the role of co-
construction in overcoming persistent barriers to reach the partnership’s goal of bringing
about urban school transformation. In this process, the community, school, and
university partnership work together in co-constructing and utilizing strategies that
enable them to paddle through the ever-present undercurrent of history, hierarchy,
absence of communication and structure, and logics. In overcoming the persistent
barriers, a partnership develops attributes that over time represent a new cultural model
for partnerships, one which has the potential to bring about urban school transformation.

114
Figure 3: Process of Co-Constructed Community, School, University Partnerships for Urban School
Transformation

Research Questions
The findings presented were directly related to the following research questions:
1. What is a process that enables communities, schools, and universities to co-construct
partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12 Schools?
a. What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools and universities that seek to transform urban
schools?
b. What are some effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming
barriers in co-constructing partnerships among communities, schools, and
universities for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban school?
115
2. What attributes of a partnership capable of creating a new cultural model in urban
schools result from the process of co-constructing a community/school/ university
partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?

Data Findings
Research Question 1: Process: Co-Construction
Co-construction has been defined as a process by which two or more parties
engage in an interactive and equitable relationship to create shared understandings upon
agreed upon outcomes. Co-constructing is a process to create something new—something
that has not existed before in exactly the same way. A co-constructed partnership implies
that the partners consciously enter a process for defining the nature of their relationship
and for defining the goal of the partnership (Miller & Hafner, 2008, p. 90; Gonzales &
Moll, 2002). Figure 2 describes the process of co-construction as one which incorporates
dialogue for mutual learning.

Figure 4: Co-Constructing with Dialogue for Mutual Learning

116
Findings from Interviews (Process: Co-Construction)
Community and co-construction. CBOs felt there was a great deal of co-
construction emerging. Mr. Wagner, a leader within Metropolitan League shared, “to get
all the stakeholders involved to make that change in a relatively short amount of time, for
me, is absolutely phenomenal.” Some of the accomplishments cited by the CBO include
the process of “galvanizing” student, teacher, staff, and parent support to accomplish the
vote [into iDivision] and also the changes seen in the newly constructed Small Learning
Communities. Mr. Jones, a leader at ML, valued the “capacity-centered approach” as a
way to leverage the resources already present in the community. He further stated, “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.”
School and co-construction. Parents also expressed in the interview that they find
value in co-constructing. Ms. Thomas shared, “It will be a learning process that creates a
great partnership in the end with open communication and transparency, and co-
constructing.” Ms. Ford, a parent shared,” I’m learning these new words…co-
construct….”Parents in the interview expressed interest in seeking to understand the
process of co-construction as a way to be involved with the partnership.
Teachers involved in small learning communities and the transition team had a
much stronger understanding of co-construction. In fact, twenty-five teachers
participated in the co-construction of small learning communities and expressed at the
presentation to the review committee that they felt more engaged in a collaborative
117
process than ever before. Although the majority was in favor of the partnership, many
teachers reported seeing the partnership as a value because they saw the partnership as
bringing them more autonomy. Mr. Nicholas, a teacher, stated, “We couldn’t just vote to
become independent and autonomous.” Some valued the partnership because they saw
CPIA as bringing in more resources to the school. Mr. Matthews shared, “I would
imagine, or I would hope they take into account the various strengths and assets and have
each group focus on their individual strengths and bring that to Freedom High.” One
teacher expressed feeling a need for additional capacity. Ms. Tyler shared, “There were
certain things I think we just didn’t have the capacity to do…so definitely having a
partner was needed….”
School administrators also seemed to be starting to conceptualize what co-
construction was. Ms. Phillip expressed from her experience that some of the teachers
seemed to practice as “silos,” but partnering with other entities offered the opportunity to
engage in the process of co-construction.
University and co-construction. The university faculty interviewed seemed aware
of co-construction and were involved as a part of the process. Professor Riley expressed
that CPIA was a “strong cultural constructing process that is trying to work respectfully
with members of ‘the school’ and that is very healthy…that is an appropriate and good
strategy.”
Findings from Observations and Artifacts (Process: Co-Construction)
Observations from the transition team also seemed to verify that the process of
co-construction was taking place. Meetings included elected stakeholder representatives
118
from all the groups including: classified staff, parents, teachers, administration,
community members, university faculty, and leaders from various community-based
organizations.
The day of a special CPIA board study session was also cited as a day when the
process of co-construction took place. Like transition team meetings, the study session
included all the stakeholders. The meeting was run by an outside neutral facilitator to
remove the possibility of bias toward any one entity, and centered around the single
agenda item of co-construction. Many stakeholders had expressed this meeting as being
landmark in understanding the process of co-construction. Stakeholder representatives
had also attended a series of meetings early in the partnership to shape the partnership’s
business plan which was presented to iDesign and the LLUSD Board for approval.
Findings from the CPIA Business Plan, MOU, and FACT Sheet also confirmed
within the contractual language a goal to co-construct by collaboratively partnering with
entities and stakeholders. In fact, the Business Plan stated one of the goals of the
partnership was to “co-construct with the school complementary systems of school
governance and distributed leadership.” One point of contention that continually arises
however is the current lack of parent membership on the partnership board. Parents are
especially irate because they feel it was their advocacy that allowed Freedom High
School to become a part of iDesign and thus opened the door to the partnership. Many
parents and community members have felt very upset by their omission and have
expressed this lack of inclusion as a “slap in the face.” The transition team however has
been one place where co-construction takes place where elected representatives of each
119
stakeholder group, including parents, are at the table meeting every week to shape the
work on behalf of the school.
Themes Emerging from the Process of Co-Construction
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. They also co-construct what the nature of the partnership will be. In this case, the
community, school, and university are co-constructing the nature of their partnership to
accomplish the agreed upon goal of transforming an underperforming high school.
Overall emerging themes about co-construction were found. Stakeholders were
using the term co-construction. In fact, virtually all the stakeholders valued the process
of co-construction whether they were a part of the community, school or university. One
indicator that this process was at work was that that the term co-construction was in the
vernacular of all stakeholders. There was no absolute clear definition of the process;
however, a foundational level of understanding was present among most stakeholders
with the understanding that co-construction would take time. In general, stakeholders
saw co-construction as a process of learning to work with one another even when the fruit
of the work was not visibly present. Efforts made to better understand co-construction
amongst one another were found to be valuable and most evident in the transition team
meetings and the study session.
According to Freire (2003) partners in a position of power often dictate a plan
amongst oppressors rather than co-construct it through dialogue and mutual learning
120
among all the stakeholders (Freire, 2003). This has not been the case with CPIA. From
the outset, the artifacts, observations and interviews indicate that the process of co-
construction is at work.
The barriers are formidable but not impenetrable. One transition team member
expressed the need for change to occur from top down and from bottom up and shared
that the “process of co-construction takes trust among partners and hope. Co-construction
is filled with triumphs and failures…and that’s where trust comes in. When we meet
glitches we have to trust that we’re working together from a common goal.” When
agreeing upon items, thumbs up and thumbs down are used to reconstruct norms.
Another member elaborated on the process and shared, the ”Co–construction effort
includes everyone as equals at all times,” with everyone participating towards the end
goal.
The process of co-construction did at times have pitfalls. One teacher, Mr.
Bowles, even described the process as “painful.” Oftentimes there is a need to first tear
down the past--a past filled with failed promises and hurts in order to then begin to co-
construct something new. Nevertheless, the process was seen as necessary in order for
the partnership to be healthier. Mr. Bowles also expressed the need to look back and see
how much “territory” had been covered. The group could see the manifestation of
progress through the newly formed Small Learning Communities on campus. According
to Mr. Bowles, even external evaluators like the WASC Visiting Committee expressed
“they saw a different school” from the one they saw in their visit a year ago. Also,
according to the Interim Executive Director of the partnership, at the meeting between the
121
WASC Visiting Committee and the faculty, several members of the faculty were able to
articulate the work they had done together to make a difference in the school. In support
of co-construction, Mr. Bowles alluded to the process as a door. “We’ve created a door
that we can now walk through to get to where we need to go.” Looking back on how the
partnership had come into existence in a short number of months also seemed therapeutic
for many stakeholders. Co-construction seemed like a process more than a destination.
A transition member shared, “Co-construction is a process; it’s not that you are there…it
begins with what we have and then moves forward.” Professor Simms saw CPIA as a
new creation from the assets of all the entities and shared, “CPIA has the DNA of all of
us.”
Process: Dialogue
Dialogue is a process of engaging people in exchange of ideas, experiences, and
knowledge for the purpose of creating shared meaning. It is a key component of the
process of co-construction. Dialogic relationships can only exist among partners when
each participant within the partnership is valued for his or her knowledge and is regularly
contributing to the whole.
Findings from Interviews (Process: Dialogue)
Community and dialogue. Community members value the process of dialogue,
use the term, and feel the process is at work however would like greater opportunities to
dialogue, especially with the leaders of the partnership. One community member advised,
“It’s all about talking with one another, and not talking around one another--complaining
to you, when you don’t have nothing to do with it.”
122
Mr. Wagner, a leader of ML, advocated for “equal voice” from all the
stakeholders and partners and to discuss the benefits to all. He expressed, “One of the
ways to do that [dialogue] in a safe manner is to talk about what you learned, what you
experienced, how to take what you’ve learned and experienced and orient it towards the
environment for the ultimate primary benefit of young people.” Ms. George recognized
that the process has not been smooth but saw the disagreements as “family fighting” and
these “healthy confrontations” as needed to ultimately work itself [themselves] out like
Mr. Wagner articulated to promote high student outcomes.
School and dialogue. Many parents have expressed that they have been listened
to and have had the opportunity to dialogue, but like the overarching process of co-
construction, it was a work in progress. Like community members, parents also
expressed a desire to also dialogue more frequently with all the leaders of the partnership.
Ms. Ford shared, “Even though I have some issues,...we’re seeing some changes and
we’re[parents] having more of a say.” A great deal of affection and occasionally tears,
was displayed by parents at transition team meetings and interviews when describing the
dialogue that occurred between themselves and the interim executive director. Mr.
Madison shared, ”In no moment have I felt that what we say needs to get done is not
being listened to.” Some Latino parents have expressed pleasure in being asked how
Latino parent participation rates could be increased, while others expressed a lack of
focus on Latino students.
Teachers have expressed that mechanisms are in place to foster equality. Mr.
Matthews shared that this process was fostered by not being “exclusionary” but rather
123
very representative. Transparent discussions have been seen as important as a form of
dialogue regarding the equality of voice among stakeholders. Mr. Nicholas, a teacher,
shared, “I think that we’re ahead in the way of dialogic relationships more than many of
the other schools.” School administration have expressed that the dialogue “back and
forth” between partners has been helpful in bringing educators out of their “silos”. Ms.
Phillip, a school administrator, expressed that she valued the Civic Engagement
Foundation because “it’s a grass root organization that finds out what the needs are and
helps you move toward your goals” as opposed to fitting you “into their mold.”
University and dialogue. The University stakeholders also expressed the
importance of equal voices among partners. Learning how to dialogue with the
stakeholders was a work in progress. There is the idea that this dialogue is important to
understanding and shaping the expectations of CPIA. The cultures of a community,
school, and university are very different from one another and can result in cultural
clashes, creating barriers which are difficult to surmount. When facing challenges,
Professor Simms shared, “All you can do is meet and talk and try to understand CPIA.”
Statements like this, demonstrate that dialogue was considered to be critical in the
process of mutual learning and co-construction. Dialogue has occurred in board
meetings; however there were times dialogue outside a formal setting reduced barriers
that existed in a more formal structure. Professor Simms saw the value of informal
dialogue outside of formal structured time, feeling that this “face time” was critical and
made it a point to regularly talk over breakfast. These kinds of informal occasions to
dialogue were commonly held with the transition team members and their representatives.
124
Findings from Observations and Artifacts (Process: Dialogue)
Dialogue also occurred during CPIA board meetings although it was sometimes
restricted by the Brown Act. This Act prevented Board members from responding to
items not previously on the agenda. Although some of the stakeholders were not
represented on the board, these very persons regularly attended Board meetings without
Board status and expressed their views and complaints despite the fact that the Brown
Act created a more restrictive environment. At one transition team meeting, the MOU
was frequently referenced in establishing governance and communication structures;
however, some felt that the Brown Act was difficult to understand. Parents, classified,
and teachers seemed most disagreeable to the Brown Act while those formally recognized
by the partnership, namely CBOs and the University seemed most comfortable with the
Brown Act. Nevertheless, the parents found their own resources to understand the Brown
Act via internet research and discovered simple straightforward definitions that were
shared with one another to help them navigate in compliance with the Brown Act. This
knowledge helped them participate more fully in the dialogue at the Board meetings.
Stakeholders were especially willing to dialogue at transition team meetings, SLCs, and
the Board Study Session. During these meetings there was a great deal of evidence of
dialogue taking place. In these settings, parents felt very empowered to voice their
opinion and other stakeholders listened with respect the contribution from parents.
Opinions from students were also solicited from and the need to better understand the
vantage points of students was expressed.
125
One reason parents may have been so empowered to participate in dialogue may
have been the support they had received from the Civic Engagement Foundation to
navigate through school culture by dialoging with one another and the school. The Civic
Engagement Foundation has invested extensive hours utilizing dialogue to mend bridges
and to encourage participation by helping both parents and teachers understand and build
trust. This kind of empowerment through dialogue is consistent with the MOU between
the partnership and the school district which states, “the parties agree to cooperate in
good faith…communicate openly and honestly, and generally to attempt to avoid disputes
in connection with this MOU.”
Overall Emerging Themes (Process: Dialogue)
Dialogic relationships can only exist among partners when each participant within
the partnership is valued for his or her knowledge and is regularly contributing to the
whole. The literature review described that within oppressive societies, a practice
opposite that of dialogue called “banking” takes place, in which individuals of lesser
power are simply told what to do and think. Dialogue does not regularly happen within
community, school, and university partnerships, but the process of dialogue is happening
(although limited) within CPIA (Freire, 2000; Shields, 2005; Miller & Hafner, 2008).
Overall, the emerging themes for dialogue include the beginnings of relationships
between stakeholders of the partnership which are inclusive and mutually beneficial. Mrs.
Thomas shared that these relationships are “a work in progress.” Nevertheless
stakeholders are according to M. Weaver, “talking with one another” vs. “talking around
one another.” Ms. Smith, a CBO leader shared, “At the end of the day, it is all about
126
relationships” and many of these relationships are being created through regular meetings.
Ms. Tyler shared “so we meet every Tuesday and look at different issues.” Elements of
mutuality and reciprocity are starting to come forth from the dialogue.
The transition team and SLCs have often been cited by many of the stakeholders
as evidence of the partnership at work and the potential of what the partnership can do for
the school. Parents, especially from urban schools often come to school feeling powerless
in voicing their opinion to bring about school change. That is not the case with the parent
representatives of CPIA.
Process: Mutual Shared Learning
Mutual Learning is a process where all entities are cognitively and socially
engaged for the purpose of creating a shared body of knowledge. It is a process in which
the individual culture of the school and the individual culture of the university must
create a new “shared” culture built upon a common vision where responsibilities were
shared.
Findings from Interviews (Process: Mutual Shared Learning)
Community and mutual learning. There is recognition that creating a space for
mutual learning is an important part of the co-construction process. In order for mutual
learning to occur, all partners needed to be open to learning. Ms. Mills a community
member advised, “The main thing that the partners need to do is to be in a learning mode
and I’m not sure that they are. I think suspending certainty and coming with a big dose
of humility and as learners is hard for people to do when they are heads organizations and
they know a lot.” Despite the regular meetings with the stakeholders, 57% of the CBO
127
leaders expressed a lack of knowledge of the day-to-day operations of the school. Ms.
Mills succinctly shared, “What we’re looking for is the harmony of voices with
specialized knowledge.” Community members and parents did display openness to
learning and were interested in learning more about how students learn, their
backgrounds, and how best they could be supported.
Mr. Wagner shared, “it’s [the partnership] a really interesting mix of
organizations to come together for a 501c3. There is a willingness among the
community-based organization respondents and excitement at the possibility of
transforming not only a school, but a community.” Mr. Wagner saw the process of
learning to be so dynamic that it would overflow from the school-site into the community
and transform not only a school but also the community. Mr. Jones, a leader of ML also
expressed the need for regular opportunities for shared learning, “I think they were
almost holding daily meetings for a time--just making sure that all those voices were
heard.”
School and mutual learning. There is evidence through the vocabulary used by
parents that mutual learning is taking place. Words such as dialogue, scaffolding, and co-
construction are a part of the vernacular of parents and have further empowered them to
be engaged with the process of co-constructing a partnership. The parents who were
interviewed felt their voices were important and believed there should be a representation
of parents on the Board because of the assets they [the parents] can bring. Mr. Madison,
a parent shared, “Parents also have to form ‘a quality relationship with the partners’
because we also have to teach.” The local district stakeholder has been impressed by
128
parent participation and expressed amazement at the parent turnout to the breakfast
sponsored in May by Metropolitan League. He acknowledged that the district could not
have had a similar turn out.
Not all the teachers are necessarily at a place where there exists a place of mutual
shared learning. Some expressed wanting a partner to simply provide resources for them
[the school]. Others saw iDesign as an opportunity to gain more autonomy from the local
district. Nevertheless, pockets of mutual learning can be seen within transition team
meetings and through the formation of SLCs. All the teachers cited transition team as a
place where many stakeholders could gather on Tuesdays to express their input, concerns,
and/or recommendations. The desire for more learning has manifested itself that,
although the CPIA MOU, Business Plan, and CPIA fact sheet are in place, along with
minutes from the transition team and other key meetings, all the stakeholders have asked
for clearer expectations, goals, and objectives of the partnership.
SLCs have become the hub of where many of the stakeholders can gather to build
systems and structures to support and impact students. Mr. Matthews, a teacher, shared
that the SLCs were not “exclusionary” but were places where many representatives are
present. Although initially wary, teachers have expressed that CPIA seemed to be
seeking the input and involvement from key stakeholder representatives. The very
formation of SLCs is an indicator of mutual learning at work. Ms. Philip, administrator
at the school, shared, “…these people have been working for five years to get SLCs…we
all got it done…that was a major feat.” The bulk of the work took place in six months
leading up to the opening of the 2008-2009 school year under the apprenticeship of the
129
interim executive directors who guided teachers, counselors, and administrators through a
critical path on which they collectively did the work. The planning process and the
implementation of the process reflected mutual learning between staffs and parents to
create shared knowledge of the school. It demonstrated shared learning between the
interim executive director’s knowledge of how to construct and implement small learning
communities and the faculty’s knowledge of the school to determine specific features of
the SLCs.
Like the administration, the classified staff are also just beginning to understand
the value of mutual learning and are beginning to add their voice. Ms. Grace, a classified
representative, contributed to the Saturday study session with the board and found it to be
helpful in fostering mutual learning so that everyone could work “together toward the
same goal.” The Saturday study session came about during dialogue that occurred during
a transition team meeting in which stakeholders felt that it was necessary for the CPIA
Board to also engage in dialogue around the process of co-construction within CPIA. A
single item agenda around co-construction was arranged so that stakeholders, especially
CPIA Board members, could mutually learn from all the stakeholders.
University and mutual learning. Some members of the university faculty does see
the value in the way the partnership can impact WPU. They also understand that this
means the university must be willing to change and compromise. The goal of the faculty
has been to try and create a mutually beneficial relationship. Professor Walsh expressed
a desire to foster the kind of “research that would benefit both the faculty researcher and
the client.” This demonstrates the willingness of the university to cooperate in a manner
130
that benefits all parties. Despite being very different entities, Professor Simms expressed
the differences as an opportunity to mitigate against weaknesses and build upon strengths.
She conceptualized the partnership as something new by stating “CPIA is not WPU,
WPU is very different. It is kind of like giving birth and CPIA has the DNA of all of us,
but we are not the same.” Other members of the university faculty struggled with the
concept of co-construction. They were ready to offer their expertise to the school and
were frustrated with waiting for the opportunity.
Findings from Observations and Artifacts (Process: Mutual Shared Learning)
Many stakeholders expressed interest or gratitude when a meeting helped to
clarify the role of CPIA. According to attendance records, transition team and resource
committee were well attended by all major stakeholders. These committees met once a
week, every week. These kinds of regular meetings are often unusual in the school
setting and demonstrate the kind of buy-in the stakeholders had with the partnership.
Observations and artifacts confirm that a process for mutual learning had been at
work. Meetings usually involved stakeholder groups from the community, school, and
university. According to the CPIA Fact Sheet, the Civic Engagement Foundation
facilitated in constructing a platform for parents to more fully engage with teachers in
developing the school site plan and participate in the accreditation of the school. Parents
affirmed that Civic Engagement Foundation has been very instrumental in empowering
the parents. The CPIA Fact Sheet also indicated the Metropolitan League made an effort
to incorporate Freedom High School into the Neighborhoods@Work initiative to ensure
that educational efforts were tightly coordinated with safety, health, housing, and
131
employment. The Metropolitan League also invested funds in professional development
for algebra teachers by launching a Summer Algebra Institute for rising 9
th
graders. At
the request of a parent group at Freedom High School, the Metropolitan League also
launched a Countdown to College initiative where community and university
representatives gathered to dialogue with students regarding college admissions. The two
events observed sponsored by Metropolitan League, Hands across Freedom and
Countdown to College, demonstrated in mutual learning building upon the assets found in
the community to help prepare students for college. Leaders from within the community
were enlisted by ML for both of these events.
WPU’s representative on the school site organized and guided a team of teachers,
parents and administrators to develop wall-to-wall learning communities within six
months that received commendation from the WASC Visiting Committee. The interim
executive director, the chief representative of WPU, also helped the school launch the
transition team. Observations at faculty professional development demonstrated that at
general meetings, attendees were often invited into smaller learning groups to facilitate
discussion and interaction. Evaluation forms were distributed at the end of these
professional development sessions for the purpose of receiving feedback to use in future
planning. These kinds of observations are in line with the MOU and Business plan which
incorporate goals for mutual learning.
• The partnership will be based on trust, mutual respect, common educational
objectives and clear accountability
• District and CPIA will cooperate to form a council comprised of parents,
community members and school staff at each school
• Create a collaborative with the District and CPIA to allow maximum freedom and
autonomy permissible by law
132
• Develop new best practices that can be implemented in other areas of the District

The last bullet point seemed to create the expectation that CPIA would transfer their
mutual learning found within the partnership to other local districts.
Overall Emerging Themes (Process: Mutual Shared Learning)
There is evidence of mutual learning among stakeholder groups. This mutual
learning through dialogue is critical to the process of co-construction. While cautious,
most of the stakeholders are hopeful of mutual learning among all the entities. Entities
that have a formal named role in the partnership such as ML, CEF, and WPU are more
inclined to share their resources and have this sharing validated, whereas other
stakeholder groups like community members, parents, teachers, administration, and
classified are seen more as recipients. This second group has not had its resources clearly
identified nor have they been regularly validated. In fact, one can look at the CPIA fact
sheet and see what entities have contributed, but some of the stakeholders who have done
tremendous work remain unacknowledged. Also, the CPIA fact sheet typically
enumerates the work done by an entity to achieve a particular outcome; however there
does not exist an outcome that articulates the collaborative work of two or three partners.
Items stated in this manner which would indicate a deeper level of mutual learning
leading toward co-construction. Collaborative work among partners may have been
involved to produce the items on the fact sheet, but it was not reflected in the language of
the fact sheet.
Efforts are being made to seek a symbiotic relationship. Mr. Wagner shared, “It’s
a really interesting mix of organizations to come together for a 501c3.” As discussed in
133
the literature review, university-school, school-community, community-university
partnerships have existed, but the idea of a community, school, university partnership in
which an urban community and school share equal power as partners with a top-tiered
university is rare. The community-based organizations realize they are not “there” yet
but hope this will change with greater interaction and investment of resources. This
process of creating a place of mutual shared learning is a process that is at the beginning
stage.
This partnership has a great deal of hope and resilience and seems willing to push
forward despite the challenges. In the transition team, stakeholders have expressed that
some things may get worse, but in order to cure what was referred to as an “institutional
illness,” the process must “have the right people in the room and talk about it.” Mr.
Wagner, a leader within a CBO, stated, “The dialogue that may need to happen…is how
can you help me grow. Right? And the other question from the other partners is how can
we help you grow?” This helping you grow and helping me grow culture is mutual
learning at work.
Summary of Findings for Research Question One
The theoretical framework employed to address the first research question was
Freire’s (1970) critical theory, Freire’s notions regarding dialogic relationships, and
Linda Lambert’s constructivist learning theory to examine the extent to which the process
of forming this community, school, university partnership was dialogic and co-
constructed. At a transition team meeting, some teachers continued to refer to the
partnership as “they.” At this point, the interim director of the partnership advocated for a
134
vision that the school is a member of the partnership. She encouraged the use of words
like “we” rather than “them” when talking about the work of the partnership because
Freedom High School “is” a partner in its own transformation. The interim director
shared, ”Co-construction is a process; it’s not that you are there.” This realization was a
defining moment for the partnership.
At the heart of this process is the working definition of partnerships that is being
co-constructed and what that means to each of the existing stakeholders. Based upon the
observations, artifacts, and interviews, it can be concluded that this process is at work in
the beginning stages. Earlier, Mr. Bowles alluded to the process of co-constructing
through mutual learning and dialogue as a door. He shared, “We’ve created a door that
we can walk through to get to where we need to go.” Nevertheless, even with a door,
barriers do exist toward the process of co-constructing a community, school, and
university partnership.

Research Question 1a: Barriers to Partnerships
In chapter 1 and 2, the literature review suggested that many community, school,
and university relationships have not been able to yield positive results and even
sometimes have produced greater “division and hostility” (Mayfield, Hellwig, & Banks,
1999). Cultural clashes (Kezar, 2007; Shields, 2005, Miller & Hafner, 2008), power
relationships (Carroll, 2002; Freire, 2000; Miller, 2007; Maurrasse, 2001), and unclear
expectations (Baum, 2000; Miller & Hafner, 2008; Kezar, 2007) between community,
school, and university partnerships can create barriers to partnerships. Brabeck, Walsh,
135
& Latta (2003) commented that partnerships have barriers: borders that are not easily
crossed. These inherent challenges are so difficult, some collaborations fail or are
abandoned. Key issues utilized to provide descriptive information about barriers to
partnership include: hierarchy, history, logics of scarcity, merit, deficit, and absence of
systems and structures for communication. Each key issue will be discussed to determine
to what extent the interviews, observations, and artifacts demonstrated the following
barriers among each of the stakeholder groups within the partnership. Figure Five
illustrates the persistent barriers to partnerships.

Barrier: History
Although CPIA is a new and emerging partnership with a short history of less
than one year, the entities that shaped the partnerships and the stakeholders who are also
partners have a history with one another as well—some of which continued to serve as
barriers to the formation of the partnership.

Figure 5: Barriers to Partnership
136
Findings from Interviews (Barrier: History)
Community and the barrier of history. Community member’s history with the
partnership began with a relatively low level of trust of leadership in general. Community
members felt as though the school has previously been a product of years of neglect.
They have felt the school was where the district placed poor administrators and displaced
teachers. It was a place where students were steered toward the military rather than
toward college. Community members felt the school has been a place of abundant failed
reform efforts. Parents within the community have been bussing students to other
schools. There was also concern over the low Latino parent participation. Previous
unsuccessful reform efforts were felt to have gone nowhere and the social-emotional
needs of students have not being considered.
One community member referred to this “neglect” of the school as “criminal” and
that this neglect has affected the mindset of [the community] to one of “we can’t do
anything.” Ms. Gordon shared that many of the children within the school come from
single family homes with “either mom or dad in jail” and that there is a certain
percentage of students that “there’s just no helping them.” This experience may have less
to do with the partnership and more with what had preceded the partnership. This
description by the community however provides the context for in which the partnership
began its work.
Five of the seven leaders of community based organizations expressed some kind
of history of marginalization and disenfranchisement of the school and the community.
Mrs. Weaver shared, “Freedom[High School] is definitely the beneficiary of institutional
137
racism…and a victim of benign neglect from the local district.” The two community-
based organizations, CEF and ML have been accepted differently by the school. ML
leader Ms. George expressed that the community is dealing with “trust factors” toward
ML, and Mr. Jones of the same organization shared that there were “herculean
challenges.” He stated that initially there was a great deal of “suspicion and skepticism.”
He shared about a negative experience he initially had where the collaboration was so
absent that even reserving a room for a community meeting was a challenge. Mr. Jones
continued by sharing, that ”the school has been a gem. It has been locked up. It has by
in large been kept away from the community.” Ms. Weaver felt ML has made a great
investment toward partnering with the school, but she expressed what she felt has been a
resistance from some school-site leadership who expressed they didn’t need help. Finally
she stated, “If Freedom [High School] didn’t need any help, why are we having all these
problems with the students?”
CEF on the other hand has been the community-based organization well received
by the parents, having already built a positive history with the school prior to the
partnership. Two parents greatly valued the work of CEF and shared how CEF had built
trust by helping the parents get started. “They came and they educated us; they were the
alphas to this whole organization and, to us, they mean the whole world…So, right now,
it seems like we’re having to fight with what we thought we were getting [the partners]
and what we’re actually dealing with; ‘cause we’ve gotten away from the plan we
actually had.” CEF’s approach has been more of focusing on the Freedom child, who
138
comes from a “history of racism, poverty, social exclusion, and violence” rather than the
bureaucracy that is oftentimes legitimized.
School and barrier of history. Parents of Freedom High School have been
empowered by CEF to better understand how to articulate their voice toward leadership.
This led the parents to lead a campaign toward iDesign. Parents have held a long
standing mistrust of the local district to which the school formerly belonged. Ms. Ford
shared, “Under [the] Local District, it was terrible. They disrespected us parents, and
even the teachers…and they didn’t want to collaborate.” Thus, when the local district
selected ML as a network partner, this parent felt this selection had come through a
“backdoor agreement” that led to immediate distrust of ML. Four of the six parents
interviewed expressed that ML has yet to build trust with the parents. On the other hand,
three of the six parents interviewed expressed strong support of CEF who had been
advocating along with parents even prior to the partnership. The parents interviewed
wanted to ensure that CEF’s participation as a part of the partnership continued.
From the parent’s perspective, initially there has been a lack of understanding
about the process with unclear roles of each entity. Parents have also felt their efforts
have been unrecognized and have felt exclusion due to the lack of communication and
respect felt by a perceived power. Parents felt particularly slighted when their efforts to
advocate for change through iDesign did not result in a position as a founding member of
CPIA. Lack of motivation among some parents has been present because of the
formalities that make it difficult for many to participate. Parents have faced barriers to
voicing their opinions due to various legalities that are found within the formation of the
139
partnership including legal restrictions preventing their voice through the MOU and
Brown Act. Nevertheless, despite these barriers, parents have found amongst themselves
strategies to decode the Brown Act and ensure stakeholder representation at each of the
key venues where the partnership gathers--whether it is board meeting or transition team
meeting.
When voting for iDesign teachers had held a contentious relationship with the
local district and have expressed that selecting iDesign was the lesser of two evils.
There continued to be a contentious relationship with the local districts and the directive
powers they hold. Teachers felt they too do not have an equal say or access for decision
making. They still held the feeling of being excluded from the partnership decision-
making process, which they are unclear about. There seems to be a lack of transparency
about this information. Some teachers have expressed specific negativity about the
district stating that some members have been prejudiced against people of color. Distrust
of the local district seemed to derive from past actions and false promises.
The loss of the WASC accreditation prior to the start of the partnership also
weighed heavily upon the teachers. Teachers have felt a lack of leadership from
administration. Some teachers felt they are unclear about the role of ML and CEF on the
school site and are unclear of their role. Teachers have especially expressed strong
animosity and “apprehension” toward ML. Past disappointment and fear seemed to
manifest itself in suspicion and uncertainty and skepticism by some teachers.
Mr. Carson, a teacher, has described the growth of the partnership as “growing
pains.” He stated that perhaps in the beginning of the partnership, it may have seemed
140
more like a “top-down--CPIA telling them what to do” and a lack of “direct access” to
decision makers within CPIA. Ms. Tyler, another teacher, also expressed being surprised
by the amount of “animosity” her faculty had toward ML. Nevertheless, one teacher
shared that the partnership was preferable to the local district which he expressed was
more a “bottleneck to reform than a facilitator to reform.”
School administrators also expressed that much of the confusion has come
because no one has explained the process to them. Administrators felt as though they
have historically had a lack of decision making on who the partners would be. They also
feel historically, that the local district has been unsupportive of Freedom High School. A
member of the local districted shared, “there are a lot of nay-sayers in this building
[district office] who think once that they are not in control of the school that the school
will go to hell.”
The interviewed classified staff, Ms. Grace, also expressed that she also felt
excluded from the process leading to the selection of the partners. She stated that she felt
the decision to join the partnership had been forced upon them. This classified staff
member felt there is a great deal of politics within LLUSD which is counter-productive.
This classified employee also corroborated opinions of other members of the school
regarding the poor relationship between ML with the school and community.
University and barrier of history. The University has had a reputation of
providing social service to the community, but also realizes that there has been a
precedent of focusing on research over social services. There is recognition that social
service and teaching are important; however, in most instances, tenured faculty do not
141
receive as many points for their teaching and service to the community as they do for
research. Professor Riley shared, “Teaching doesn’t get enough [points for tenure], and
service doesn’t get a lot of points for tenure.” The history of universities has been to do
research, especially at tier one universities; thus even the doctoral programs tend to be
more “university-based and idea-based” but not “action-based.” One university faculty
felt the administrative leadership at the high school is weak and the teachers union creates
barriers toward partnerships. Like the CBOs, the university also expressed that Freedom
High School “didn’t get that way overnight.” The university faculty interviewed seemed
sensitive to the needs of Freedom High School and understood some of the frustration
expressed by parents. Professor Simms shared, “I know that the Friends of Freedom have
expressed frustration because of the feeling that they are responsible for bringing [about]
CPIA, and they feel left out of the CPIA board--whether it has been voiced or has been an
undercurrent.”
Findings from Observations and Artifacts (Barrier: History)
Despite the fact that parents did not have formal representation on the Board of
CPIA, the network partner, they advocated for that representation at every board meeting.
The CPIA MOU states that ML, CEF, and WPU along with “other stakeholders” will be
a part of the partnership working in collaborative effort to benefit children; however, the
formal representation of the “other stakeholders” has yet to be realized by CPIA.
Nevertheless, outside of formal CPIA board meetings, parents were formally represented
in venues such as the transition team meetings where they were actively at work.

142
Overall Emerging Themes (Barrier: History)
Some overall emerging themes arising from barriers of history included some lack
of trust and feelings of lack of support among many of the stakeholders, especially those
outside of parties formally recognized by partnership on the board including: community
members, teachers, parents, classified, and administration. This mistrust may not have
been due to the partnership itself but rather the uneasiness over a number of ineffective
reform efforts through past initiatives. A lack of formal representation on the board
seemed to negatively affect the stakeholders of the school; nevertheless the parents have
shown great ability ensure their voice is heard.
A leader from the district shared, “It [Freedom High School] used to be a very
good neighborhood school where families in that community would send their kids to
that school. The neighborhood families started to feel very uncomfortable that the school
wasn’t very good. So they started sending their kids to private schools and charter
schools because they could afford it, bussing them out here and there. And I think that
the community really feels like they want to make the school, which used to be the heart
and soul of the community, great again.” This last sentiment seemed to be shared by all
the stakeholders who have come together on behalf of transforming Freedom. Progress
was demonstrated in the last year through the formation of a Small Learning Community,
a positive WASC visit, and venues where dialogue is occurring. The school seems to be
overcoming its negative history.

143
Barrier: Hierarchy
Power relationships can form expectations which are often unclear or unrealistic,
thus further breeding mistrust among the partners. This effect can happen when the
partners are ignorant about or do not address the power relationships that exist among
them. There is no such thing as a neutral relationship, meaning one without inherent
power relationships. Power relationships are hierarchical distributions of social, political,
and economic capital that can result in the status of the oppressor versus the oppressed.
(Freire, 200; Shields, 2005; Miller and Hafner, 2008). The matter of power and hierarchy
can become a significant barrier to co-constructed partnerships.
Findings from Interviews (Barrier: Hierarchy)
Community and hierarchy. A great deal of mistrust had existed between the local
district and the “other stakeholders” who have not explicitly been named in the MOU.
Even though parents within the community had a vote to enter iDesign, the selection of
the partners was done without dialogue with community members—this decision made
by the hierarchical power and made one community member feel as though, “I’m going
to be put back in my place.” Ms. Mills shared, “there’s no autonomy if someone is
telling you who your partner is.” The selection of Metropolitan League without dialogue
particularly fostered distrust. One community members expressed that in the past
“leadership” had come and created programs and “once they’ve gotten recognition,
they’ve moved on and they left a mess…or what they left starts to deteriorate because
there’s no support network there to keep it going.”
144
Community Based Organizations expressed that perceptions of equality or
inequality were influenced by role and status of the stakeholder. There seemed to be a
difference in the availability of and access to information and resources based on status.
CBOs placed an emphasis on those in the ‘inner circle’ who were in positions of power.
A great deal of emphasis was given to ‘legal commitments,’ and the areas where the
partners would be held accountable.
All of the CBO leaders expressed that they are “appreciative” and value the
“voices” of the parents and community, but one CBO leader of ML shared that ultimately
the leadership of the partnership must make the decisions and be held accountable to
those decisions. Dialogue has been demonstrated as critical in the process of co-
construction. Three CBO leaders at ML felt that administration of Freedom High School
lacked the kind of visibility and dialogue to clearly communicate with stakeholders thus
hindering the process of co-construction which utilizes dialogue as a vehicle for decision-
making.
Teachers, supported by the Union at Freedom High School were considered by
the community based organizations to have a great deal of power—so much so, that they
felt they could not honestly express feedback. One CBO leader of ML shared, ”You
[teachers] could beat up on us all day long and I can’t say a thing about the things that I
see—That is a power imbalance and not sustainable for a true partnership.” Another CBO
leader of CEF expressed how teachers get their salary from the district and may ask WPU,
“So what authority are you?” This CBO leader had expected that all the funding would
be given in “one lump sum” to the partners. To his dismay, this had not been the case.
145
Mr. Jordan of CEF stated, “Institution to institution there is no respectful
partnership…with WPU, ML, and CEF…there’s a perception that CEF doesn’t really
exist…it has to do with money, it has to do with respect.”
Although there was an expressed value to move to a co-constructed model, Mr.
Jordan still felt the partnership has gravitated toward a “bureaucratic model…not a
dynamic pedagogical model…so we operate more by a legal model which is more
bureaucratic than meeting the needs of the children.” He described people within the
partnership as those “trapped in the box of the school district” and shared that if the
partnership wanted to break outside that box, perhaps they would need “some space to
imagine and maybe to study some other models of engagement that would promote
innovation rather than “state mandated councils,” which in his opinion, do not promote
innovation.
Hierarchy and school. All parents have expressed concern that they would not be
allowed to dialogue with partners because of legal restrictions. One parent expressed that
a “fear” exists in parents that the CPIA board would become like another “mini-district”
where decisions are made without hearing the likes and dislikes of the constituents.
Initially, all the parents felt left out of the decision making process and dictated to. Some
felt as though they had traded one hierarchical relationship (the local district) for another
(CPIA). Ms. Webster stated, “The first mistake they [the partnership] made, the very first
mistake that caused mistrust is when they left the parents out of the partnership.” Various
legalities such as the Brown Act added to parents’ perceptions that it was difficult for
parents to voice themselves. Ms. Webster and Ms. Walker stated that the goals are
146
“vague;” there hasn’t been “complete transparency;” and, as a result, parents have
difficulty trusting the partners. Parents whose involvement spear-headed the movement
into iDesign stated, “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.” One parent expressed “someone else is still sitting in
their ivory covered cottage making decisions for me.”
The parents seemed to attribute most of their frustration, however, to the local
district. Ms. Walker shared we only chose one partner and that was CEF. “The way we
found out about ML was a small article in the back of the LA Times, California
section…we were furious ‘cause we did not vote them on here.” The initial feeling that
parents were not an equal partner caused one parent to assert, “It’s almost like going back
to the Civil Rights Movement when we have to press to make it happen.” Some parents
have not remained silent and have pressed for greater representation. Although Mr.
Madison, parent of Freedom High School, was disconcerted at the fact that parent
involvement on the board had not been accomplished, parent representatives were present
and voiced their opinions at all the key observations including the transition team, school-
site council, and CPIA board meetings. Ms. Johnson shared that more parents need to
speak up. Their voice is “fuerte”, but other parents were described as “afraid, despite
knowing that they have the right…whether it is at the district level or the school, they are
afraid to speak up. You need to break that lack of communication.”
Ms. Johnson also did express she felt some division between the African
American community and the Latino American community. The repetition that the
147
school at one point had been 100% African American and now has growing numbers of
Latinos felt to her as though there existed some “rivalry.” The feeling of rivalry with
Latino parents was not overtly shared by the other stakeholders; however, an emphasis to
include Latino parents seemed absent. One Latino parent did express that the Interim
Executive Director, asked how to increase Latino parent involvement.
Teachers also expressed a contentious relationship with the local district and the
directive powers which they have experienced. They felt as though they did not have an
equal say or access to decision making and had been excluded from the selection of the
partners. Some expressed the school as not being an equal partner and that opportunities
to dialogue with CPIA partners were lacking. Decisions were made top down rather than
working through a process. In fact, it was felt that teachers had very little decision
making ability and teachers felt that students and parents had been excluded. Teachers
also expressed that roles by those in leadership were unclear. Mr. Carson shared,
“There’s the historic situation of, I say whatever I want to say and nobody ever listens.
This idea that administration, whoever they be—new, old whatever—doesn’t take into
account what my feelings and concerns are.” Mr. Carson expressed how an
“undercurrent” exists within the school-site. When people get “nervous or frightened”
“they run to their rooms” or they “grab some of these people who are the undercurrent.”
Ms. Dylan, a teacher, and also a teacher representative of the Union shared, “In
order for you to be an equal partner, you have to have an equal say. And I don’t know if
the majority of the staff or faculty of the school feel that. For example, at the Board
meetings where decisions are being made,…I just don’t think that is happening.” On the
148
other hand, Mr. Wiley, a teacher, shared it just may be that “Some teachers are resistant
to change.” Mr. Nicholas shared that “democracy is messy and we want a
democratically shaped school…There’s an old saying around political circles like any
bureaucracy at some point gets enough pressure put on it that it spits something out that’s
actually worthwhile. And then it spends the next five years trying to kill the thing that it
just spit out and co-opt it back into the bureaucracy.” This may suggest there is a group
of teachers who are in favor of the potential the partnership has to offer, and another
group who represent an undercurrent, as Mr. Carson suggested, who are fearful of change
preferring the status quo.
Classified staff felt as though they were not initially included in talks at the board
meetings and have even used terminology as “second-class citizen.” Classified initially
felt as though CPIA was forced upon them. The barrier of hierarchy existed at Freedom
High School even before the partnership; however, there were early perceptions that
effective strategies were in place to mitigate the hierarchical barriers. These strategies
will be discussed. For instance, classified staff expressed that they have been included
for the first time in selecting administrators and teachers.
University and hierarchy. The University has expressed a traditional role of
research for itself over social services. Some saw the teacher’s union as a major power in
the hierarchical structure. One university faculty shared, “The school has been…just I
think, in my view…has been paralyzed by inappropriate teacher/union problems for a
long time.” University faculty also seemed to be aware of some of the frustration felt by
parents and feelings that their voice has at times been left out.
149
Findings from Observations and Artifacts (Barrier: Hierarchy)
Several stakeholder groups such as parents, community members, and teachers
have not been clearly identified as partners in documents such as the MOU and Business
Plan nor have their efforts been validated by the CPIA Fact sheet. Co-construction has
been hampered by the Brown Act which impedes the process of dialogue. Efforts have
been made however to deconstruct this oppression through dialogue, mutual learning, as
an important features in the process of co-construction. Although efforts have been made
to dialogue as equal partners at the Saturday Study Session, for example, this kind of
events are far and few between. The “formality” of board meetings have made many of
the stakeholders, not represented on the board, express difficulty in sharing their opinions
and ideas. The result is that, without these voices, co-construction has been somewhat
hampered.
Overall Emerging Themes (Barrier: Hierarchy)
Overall Emerging themes for Hierarchy seem to indicate a general distaste for the
local district by the majority of stakeholders including the community members, CEF,
parents, teachers, administrators, and classified. Partners of CPIA were chosen for the
school by the local district without a great deal of input and had initially transferred a
great deal of mistrust from the previous years of “neglect.”
To some stakeholders, decision-making authority within the partnership seemed
to depend upon what status you have and what kind of access you have to recognized
resources. A power imbalance does exist between the members of the partnership and
especially the local district and those who are being served, including the teachers. This
150
has hindered the process of co-construction. Those who are left out include parents,
administrators, and classified. Those who are most marginalized seem to be the students.
There are also bureaucratic and structural constraints such as the MOU and Brown Act
that identify who the partners are, which groups are recognized, and which groups get a
formal voice in decision making.
Power relationships oftentimes create a culture of silence among the oppressed.
That is not the case in this partnership. Even though some of the decisions have been
made without great input by the parents, parents in this partnership have not been silent
and have continued to press toward greater involvement in the decision-making, very
aware of what is occurring.
Ms. George, a leader within a CBO stated, “we have given financial and human
capital contributions…I’m encouraging my entire Neighborhoods@Work team to
participate in resource meetings, transition team meetings, and others…so we have a lot
of human in-kind capital being given on a daily basis to Freedom High.” The community-
based organizations felt very strongly that they could, through their networks, greatly
benefit the school.
Oftentimes, certain members, by their perceived rank within the hierarchical
power relationship, hold ‘legitimate’ knowledge and project an air of arrogance upon
those who need help. Ms. Weaver shared that one of the most important aspects of
communicating with one another included, “letting go of our own egos…and not let[ting]
our own personal values interfere in what’s the best for the whole group” and if conflict
did arise to talk “with one another, and not talk around one another.”
151
Barrier: Absence of Systems and Structures for Communication
Co-constructing a partnership and reaching a shared purpose is a challenge.
Miller posits that community, school, and university partnerships are oftentimes like a
“hodgepodge” of programs that fail to unite diverse people, and have relatively little or
no communication or real collaboration (Miller & Hafner, 2008; Kezar, 2007). Dialogic
relationships can only exist among partners when each participant within the partnership
is valued for his or her knowledge and is regularly contributing to the whole. This
process can be challenged when there is an absence of systems and structures for
communication. Among the analysis of key issues, the barriers of absence of systems
and structures for communication was by far most frequently tagged.
Findings from Interviews (Barrier: Absence of Systems and Communications)
Community and absence of systems and structures for communication. The
community and many of the stakeholders, including the formal partners, seemed to feel
the partnership lacks clear goals and action plans despite the fact that a time table has
been provided in the Business Plan of what progress might look like. Lack of clarity of
one another’s roles seemed to be a great concern. There also seemed to be a lack of
representation felt by community members on the governing boards furthering
exacerbating the feeling of a lack of structure for community members to communicate.
Community based organizations have also felt a lack of clarity and ambiguity as to the
role of each partner; specifically who is doing what, when, and how. When asked
regarding the role of one partner, CBO leaders seemed uncertain as to the specifics.
152
School and absence of systems and structures for communication. Parents had a
desire to engage with CPIA, but have felt excluded from the process at times. One parent
expressed wanting to “get them to sit down to get to know more about each other.” Like
community members, parents also lacked a clear understanding of stakeholder roles.
Some barriers have included language, misinformation, lack of inclusion of parents,
mistrust, no clear articulation of goals or definition of roles, and legalities adding another
layer preventing parents from being involved.
Two teachers expressed feeling a lack of transparency among the partners, and
strained past relationships affected the way the present partnership is seen. Teachers felt
there was no centralized location of information or a formal way to disseminate
information. Weekly minutes from the Small Learning Communities Council and the
Transition Team went out to faculty following the meetings, but it is clear that this is not
enough. There is very little publication or communication about what type of resources
are being offered and by whom. Nevertheless, efforts have been made to document the
work that is being done by the partnership through the recently released CPIA FACT
sheet which highlights the achievement of each of the partners. This document was
created within a month of expressed concerns at a transition team meeting. There is a felt
need for more real-time communication and a reciprocated desire by the partners to
provide these opportunities. The feelings related to an absence of communication may
also have less to do about partnerships and more to do about the general structure of
schools which have historically worked in silos.
153
School administrators, like classified staff, had felt a lack of opportunity to
participate initially when the vote took place to enter iDivision, however, now have
several forums through which to communicate. These forums include the Small Learning
Communities Council and the Transition Team meetings where both of these
stakeholders are invited and welcome.
University and absence of systems and structures for communication
Certain university faculty members have been cited by many stakeholders as
being integral to the partnership; however the university as a whole has experienced an
absence of collective involvement. There seemed to some university leaders a lack of
governance structure, clear definition of iDesign, and misconception on funds for CPIA.
Findings from Observations and Artifacts (Barrier: Absence of Systems and Structures
for Communication)
Suggestions were made to post CPIA board minutes in a timely fashion, but lack
of clarity regarding legalities hampered the process. There were questions at one
transition meeting on how to record proceedings from the meeting, get them approved,
posted, and disseminated to keep everyone in the loop. Transition team meetings greatly
valued the process of co-construction as a means for collaboration toward an equal
partnership. A value in further defining communication through systems and structures
of communication led toward the recommendation of a Saturday CPIA Board Study
Session through which many of the stakeholders expressed was a positive experience. At
a school site meeting after the CPIA Board Study Session, one member expressed co-
construction was not happening. Another school site council member shared, “Saturday
154
is a process [a step towards the process of co-construction], but we’re not there. We need
plenty of those family meetings…we need more meetings if it is not going to be ‘us’ and
‘them’….Family meetings may be once a month until you get to the place where you can
do quarterly, annually, but we are not there yet.” This is an attempt at a structure for
face-to-face communication.
Overall Emerging Themes (Barrier: Absence of Systems and Structures for
Communication)
Overall emerging themes continue to be insufficient communication and
insufficient systems and structure for communication. There seems to be a felt absence
of articulated information regarding roles, goals, mission/plan for the partnership despite
the fact that a CPIA Business Plan and an SLC plan are in place. These documents have
not been made available to everyone.
The process of recruiting parents and community for school tasks and listening to
various points of view to create shared decision making is occurring through various
forums including the transition team meeting and the GCEP study session, but perhaps
not as often as parents, community members, CEF, and the school would like.
Nevertheless, the University and ML felt great efforts have been made to engage in
dialogue.
Location may also be part of the communication concern. There were times
CPIA board meetings were held at the university or ML headquarters. Community
members preferred to meet in their own community at the school and made this
preference known. Changing the board meetings to the school site helped to create the
155
feeling that “they’re coming to our house” instead of us “always going to their house.”
(Miller & Hafner, 2008, p. 88)
A great deal of progress has been made in understanding the need to build
systems and structures for communication, and within the short period of this partnership,
advances have been made to involve all the partners in dialogue and mutual learning.
Research Question 1b: Strategies for Partnerships
In chapter 2, the literature discussed how more recently a plethora of partnerships
have been forming, some of which show promise by overcoming the barriers that often
exist with emerging partnerships. These partnerships are built on the belief that there is
more that organizations can do together than by working in silos--that there is greater
potential to create change than had they worked alone (Corrigan, 2000; Miller, 2007;
Kezar, 2007). Environments can be created that are more partnership-friendly building
on one another’s strengths while mitigating one another’s weaknesses.
Research question 1b seeks to determine if some of the strategies for overcoming
barriers to emerging partnership are evident. Key issues strategies to overcome barriers
to the partnership include: appointment of a critical bridge person, space for dialogue,
systems of representation, and history.
Strategy: Critical Bridge Person
The Critical Bridge Person is a key factor for the distribution of power among the
participants. This individual has also been referred to in literature as a mediator, social
advocate, institutional agent, mediator, boundary spanner and kingpin.

156
Findings from Interviews (Strategy: Critical Bridge Person)
Community and critical bridge person. Of the seven CBO leaders interviewed,
everyone both from ML and CEF expressed an individual who was recognized as CPIA.
Mr. Wagner shared that she, the Interim Executive Director (IED) had won the support of
both community members and teachers. She was responsible for starting up the transition
team, resource coordinating team, as well as leading toward the formation of the SLCs
and the formation of the SLC Council. She was seen by CBO leaders as being “on the
ground.” Ms. George stated, “She’s always creating new systems” for us to work more
effectively with one another and understand each other. Mr. Jorden shared how the IED
was a buffer that kept the partnership from “exploding” and that without her, there would
have been a great deal of “suspension” and “doubt.” Prior to the start of the partnership,
key stakeholders according to Mr. Jordan and Barney transferred their trust to her. Mr.
Jones shared, “She opened the door for all of us to come in,” and Ms. Davis also
expressed that “I have been able to make partnerships and relationships…and co-
construct with stakeholders and leverage resources” with the support of the IED. Ms.
George shared she wished she could just “clone” the IED.
Of the four community members interviewed, all four endorsed the IED as a
critical leader. One community organization leader echoed that the IED worked
“intimately and integrally with teachers on changing the structure from whole school to
small learning communities and on professional development around rigorous teaching
and learning.” She was referred by another community member as a “school change
facilitator” focused on students and impartial. “She doesn’t favor the administration over
157
the students and teachers. She’s all about those students.” Her influence extended
beyond instruction. Ms. Gordon shared, she “called the meeting and it resulted in
increased patrols and supervision of all the area.” One district leader likened her
relationship to key stakeholders as close as family. “She’s like the mommy there; I think
everyone there feels like someone is watching; someone’s taking care of things.”
School and critical bridge person. The IED was mentioned favorably and
endorsed by six of the six parents who were interviewed, seven of the seven teachers
interviewed, two of the two school administrators who were interviewed, and one of one
classified who was interviewed. In other words, she was endorsed by all school
stakeholders. Parents have expressed, “she asks us to come.” Ms. Thomas shared they
say the IED is CPIA, “so I say it’s a positive relationship.” Parents have expressed having
had the opportunity to be involved. Ms. Thomas shared that parents were invited by the
Interim Director and stated, ”She asks us to come.” Parents have also mobilized by
appointing people who will go to CPIA Board meetings and transition team meetings.
This kind of inclusion has increased the approachability of the partnership and
demonstrated to parents the openness to listen and respect the voice of parents.
The issues the parents are concerned about are “brought up and worked out.”
“She didn’t take over, she took part. She made herself approachable to all of us even
though they don’t consider our parent group as ‘status quo.’” When spoken to, Ms.
Thomas shared that IED “respects us. That’s with everybody that she deals with; she has
respect for who they are and what they are.” Ms. Ford shared when we’re at the Board
meetings, I feel that she has our backs too.” She is “big on transparency…so many things
158
weren’t transparent with the local district.” Ms. Webster and Ms. Walker stated they
understood she went far beyond her role as IED, and for them, served as a mentor to
“give us that push that we needed and that guidance we needed to get the school headed
in the right direction” and “training us.” The parents have also credited the IED with
getting the SLCs “off the ground and getting it[them] to run as smoothly as it has[they
have].” Ms. Ford shared “we just love her…we love her”. When asked where co-
constructing was coming from, Ms. Thomas said, “It’s coming from her [IED]. She’s a
co-constructor.” Another parent expressed, “There’s not enough words to describe what
this lady does for us.”
Ms. Tyler, a teacher, shared, “She’s just so extremely knowledgeable.” ”I feel
with the IED, you know, if you talk to her or have a concern or see something that needs
to be done, she does listen and will act upon it.” Mr. Bowels, a teacher, saw her as
“inclusive” yet “discomforting” to people who were used to making decisions. Mr.
Carson saw her as a constant presence, providing accountability for teachers and a
“constant sense of their being looked at and considered.” She brought a “comprehensive
approach to looking at what goes on in the classroom.” The faculty felt the IED was one
that was present, consistent, supportive, and caring—a “beacon of light, hope, and
inspiration.” The IED is seen as helping one teacher claim the freedom to think outside
the box. This teacher was able to cite the instructional lens used by the IED to be
“Freirian, Vygotskian, and socio-cultural approaches to pedagogy.”
Administrators saw the critical bridge persons as people who were able to get
things done, adaptable to their circumstances, focused, organized, and able to bring
159
people together. Mr. Paul, an administrator, shared, “The IED was very instrumental in
getting staff organized and once they were organized then they started to see the value
and benefit, of the work they were doing.” Ms. Phillip, an administrator, shared, “the
IED can pick up the phone and get things done immediately… it [usually] takes months,
even years, for things to change.” “The first thing she asked me is, ‘What is the number
one thing you want to have done?’” I said these people [the school] have been working
for five years to get SLCs. I need to have it done so we can move onto something else.
She worked on that. She got it done.” Like parents and teachers, the classified staff also
saw the “heart” she had for the kids. Ms. Grace described that the work of the IED
wasn’t simply a job. In implementation, she shared, ”They don’t feel that she’s
dictating,” she’s simply there to “to help the children and help the students and to help
the staff.”
University and critical bridge person. The university faculty have respect for the
work being done by the IED. Her leadership was described by Professor Riley as “very
collaborative and constructing.” One professor saw the IED as having a critical role in the
partnership with a strong connection and respect for all stakeholders whether it be parents,
teachers, or community leaders.
Findings from Observations and Artifacts (Strategy: Critical Bridge Person)
At transition team meetings, professional development sessions, the study session,
the IED is regularly cited as being integral and commended for her participation. When a
suggestion was made to hire a permanent executive director, there was a big outcry from
160
parents, teachers, and community members. Stakeholders felt great gain had been made
to establish a culture of dialogue and co-constructions.
When a suggestion was brought to the CPIA Board to recruit a permanent
Executive Director, parents and teachers strongly objected to the process and asked to be
involved. During a brainstorm session at a transition team, the skill sets of an executive
director were described. The following skill sets describe a part of a brainstorm for the
job description of a permanent Executive Director for CPIA which was observed during a
transition team meeting. The skill sets requested by the transition team incorporate many
of the attributes found within a critical bridge person. The IED was also asked by
stakeholders to share with the group what she does.
• Able to bring in capacity through money and resources
• Values the community and willing to get in the streets to build networks
• Goes in and “rolls your sleeves up” with the people you work with
• Constructing new practices upon what was already present
• Meet with people at least 2-3 nights to co-construct
• An effective communicator capable of building coalitions
• The passion and persistence to move forward even when things are tough
• Results driven and a track record of being able to improve achievement, secure
endowments, and embrace diversity
• Love for the students
• Balance interests of all institutions in CPIA
• Demonstrated ability in change management.
• Humble person who sees the “we” not the “I”.
• Capable of building upon the strengths of parents
• Inspirational, Team-Builder, who works together pulling the wagon together; not
the top-down down approach.

Overall Emerging Theme (Strategy: Critical Bridge Person)
Several individuals have been cited as critical to the partnership including
Professor Simms, Dean of the School of Education at Western Pacific University, Ms.
161
Smith and Mr. Wagner, leaders within Metropolitan League along with the President of
Metropolitan League. Mr. Jordan, leader within CEF, and parents Ms. Thomas, Webster,
and Walker were also cited as critical to the partnership. The literature review expressed
a need within emerging partnerships of critical bridge person(s), individual(s) who
understands the unique cultures of the university, school, and community partners and
has the ability to facilitate a shared culture (Kezar, 2007; Miller, 2007; Schein, 1990).
Interviews, artifacts, and observations have identified the Interim Executive Director as
an individual who displayed a great number of such characteristics that would identify
her as a critical bridge person. Kezar (2007) defines this bridge person as an individual
who understands the culture of multiple communities speaking both “languages.” In
addition to serving as clinical faculty at a tier-one university this IED has been a teacher,
school-site administrator, and district level administrator. She also served as an involved
parent within the community adjacent to the community in the study and is recognized as
a community leader with affiliations with a community-based faith-based organization
within the community.
The IED was identified by a teacher as having a pedagogy rooted in Freirian,
Vygotskian, and socio-cultural approaches. This lens allows the IED to see many of the
factors that lead to the status of oppressor and oppressed found in the barriers of history,
hierarchy, and absence of systems and structures. Rather than furthering the practices
that lead to oppression, the IED was able to not “dictate,” but rather serve as a “buffer,”
“impartial” to any one entity, but very protective of students. The IED was not
comfortable with individuals making sole decisions and favored a collaborative process
162
even to “her detriment” as expressed by one teacher. The IED was seen “on the ground”
by all the stakeholders in the day-to-day operations as having a heart for kids, referred by
one parent as “family.” The IED was considered to be beloved by multiple stakeholders.
These leaders not only facilitate the development of vision and goals, but also according
to Schein (1990), “create trust” by bringing peace and calming the anxiety that can come
when change occurs (p. 32). The transparent process by which the IED worked through
dialogue was appreciated. Trust given to a previous leader, was transferred to this IED.
This boundary spanner is able to “take responsibility for monitoring the
collaboration, maintaining communication, building positive group dynamics, resolving
conflicts, ensuring barriers are overcome, and creating facilitators for moving the
partnership forward” (Kezar, 2007, p. 35). The IED was seen as someone who was able
to co-construct and had a track record within a year of facilitating the building of the
small learning community, resource team, and transition team. Her collaborative
approaches were welcome. Many parents positively expressed the initiative of the IED to
“invite” and even “push” parents. The IED was able to organize groups of people,
including teachers and administrators and served as both a mentor and trainer to all the
stakeholders, while moving over at key points when the structure had been created and
turning the leadership over to them.
The partnership tree illustration in Figure 6 helps to describe the role of a
critical bridge person in accessing the assets found in each stakeholder to make a
partnership fruitful and reach its goals. The soil represents the barriers, a reminder of the
oppressive conditions postulated by Freire in his Critical Theory. A critical bridge
163
person engaged in the process of co-construction with community, school, and university
partners can serve as the xylem and phloem of a tree dialoging deep into the funds of
knowledge of each of the partners, bringing to awareness the many assets found in all the
stakeholders. This process of making meaning together fosters mutual learning and
creates a new way of being, as a means to synergize the assets of the partners and build
the kind of attributes that lead toward not only a healthy partnership, but a transformed
school.

Figure 6: Community, School, and University Partnership
164

As this is the first year of the partnership, there is a recognition that something
new is occurring, that requires educators to not work in silos but out of the box in
collaboration with one another. This IED has according to one CBO leader “opened the
door for others to come through.” Now even parents are using the vernacular such as co-
construction and dialogue thereby distributing the vision and eventually the leadership.
Through this process, Mr. Nicholas stated, “I think that we couldn’t have achieved what
we’ve achieved so far without the IED and you know in the form of CPIA there on
campus. ”What scares me is I don’t think we can become overly dependent on her
because I mean she said that she’s interim.”
The IED has expressed that she is just that, interim until a permanent executive
director can be chosen for which the partnership is currently looking towards. Many of
the attributes modeled by the IED have been embedded in the brainstorm search for the
future executive director. This emphasis on the temporary assignment has led to concern
among stakeholders; in others, it has fostered a vigilance to sustain the process of co-
construction and to expect this practice in future leaders who would represent them. The
IED saw her job as building capacity and helping the stakeholders put systems and
structures in place to promote a transformed school. Other critical bridge persons were
found in the community, school, and university, the IED, being the most frequently cited
by the interviews, artifacts, and observations was described for this study.

165
Research Question 2: Attributes of a Partnership
Data was collected and utilized to provide descriptive information about the
attributes include trust, shared knowledge, collaborative relationships, distributed
leadership, and new cultural model.
Attribute: Collaborative Relationship
The literature discussed how collaborative partnerships have great potential to
garner both human and material resources to enhance learning for the underserved. Some
researchers ideally liken the relationship between entities to that of married couples; in
which each is so in tune with the one another’s values that should a representative of one
organization not be present at a meeting, another partner would be able to speak on behalf
of that organization (Corrigan, 2000). Although CPIA does not demonstrate this degree
of mutuality, within a year, they have very quickly formed a collaborative relationship
that has resulted in positive outcomes.
Findings from Interviews (Attributes: Collaborative Relationships)
Community and collaboration. Of the seven CBO leaders, all have expressed that
the initial formation of a collaborative relationship has the potential to transform Freedom
High School. Mr. Jones, a community member has expressed feeling more empowered
seeing the need for collaboration between the community, school, and university as a way
of tapping the families’ home funds of knowledge. He stated, “There’s a culture at home
and if it’s far different from what’s going on in the classroom…” He feels the
partnership needs to come together to understand student needs and be responsive to
them. Mr. Johns recognizes some historically oppressive factors include a system that
166
has been at odds for the past twenty years for “not really educating the students” and he
sees the partnership as a new way of being.
Mr. Wagner, a leader within ML, also saw CPIA in the “business of empowering
group” where “stakeholders of all flavors” would be able to gather together and “leave
empowered” on behalf of contributing to the success of students. A part of the
tremendous opportunity involved creating a space for dialogue amongst stakeholders
where each could agree and disagree—such an environment fosters “critical friendships”
which are necessary to foster the kind of steps to improve student achievement.
Although money was considered to be important, Ms. George of ML also recognized the
kind of “human capital” being poured out by each entity.
Ms. George also saw CPIA changing ML as well, stating, “ML is evolving in this
whole process…sometimes we’re CPIA, and sometimes we’re just ML.” Metrics to the
Neighborhoods@Work found a great deal of “synergy” to the partnership’s goals. Mr.
Jones, another leader in ML, shared that he believed the partnership had greatly increased
the safety of the school due to the relationship that the partnership had with the police.
He felt he “could pick up the phone and call the precinct commander and he could have a
car over there in minutes.” Mr. Jones saw the community as a rich resource for learning
by creating an asset-based map of the strengths found already within the community. He
also saw community service learning projects as an opportunity to engage parents.
Ms. Smith, a community leader within ML, felt a big part of the partnership was
“relationship building.” Ms. Weaver has seen a change over time in the way that parents
saw CPIA over the period of a year. Before representatives from Friends of Freedom
167
used to say, “you guys, you guys, you guys,” and now they are using words like “us” and
“we.” Mr. Wagner felt the ability to “get all the stakeholders involved to make that
change in a relatively short amount of time” was for him, “absolutely phenomenal.”
All the leaders of ML saw a big difference from the previous year. One CBO later stated,
“when I visit[compare] the campus [Freedom High School], that I saw at the end of last
year to the campus I see today, I know why it [the effort to build the partnership] was
worth it.”
For the leadership of ML, they feel this partnership not only has the potential to
transform a school, but the community surrounding the school. Mr. Wagner stated,
“imagine the continued dynamic of now taking that whole learning process and feeding it
right back into the community…encouraging people to improve their business and
entrepreneurship…that’s when you really have a great relationship between the school
and its community.”
School and collaboration. When voting for iDesign, Ms. Thomas saw the
partnership as an opportunity to “do something different and be innovative at the same
time.” She saw this work as an opportunity to work together with teachers, classified,
and students. Ms. Thomas described partners as, “When you use the word partner, the
partner does not come from the front…it does not come from the back. Your partner is
on the side with you—together.” She shared that the interim executive director has been
critical in developing a better relationship between parents, teachers, students, and
community. As a result, the partnership is not “top-down; it’s aligned” and has fostered a
168
“place for us all to come together and make sure that it really works for the goal of the
young people.”
Mr. Madison, a parent of Freedom High School, saw the partnership as a way for
the teacher to not “feel alone in educating children.” This parent felt a place to start
among the teaching faculty at Freedom High School was for teachers to know one
another. The parent shared, “if they don’t even know each other, they can’t help each
other to see how they can help students.” Ms. Ford hoped to see Crenshaw High School
becoming a California Distinguished School by 2012 desiring to participate in
transforming the culture of students to one where students wanted to be “scholars” and
wanted “to go to college.” As the collaboration continues, Ms. Ford expressed feeling
“listened to now.” The interim executive director has done a good deal to make
transparent the process to help stakeholders, especially parents, feel like “equal partners”
allowing the collaborative engine to move forward.
Of the seven teachers interviewed, all seven expressed greater collaboration
between the partnership and school. Mr. Carson, a teacher, shared there is “much more
of a buy-in and acceptance of what’s going on.” Mr. Matthews, a teacher, stated that
CPIA “seems to definitely be seeking the input and involvement from key stakeholder
representatives.” SLCs were indicated by Mr. Matthews as places which were “not
exclusionary”. Mr. Nicholas shared, “It was a very collaborative process where people at
the school were super-hyper engaged in a good way…there’s been a lot of equality.”
School administration greatly valued the approach by CEF. Ms. Phillip, a school
administrator, shared that CEF seemed to “find out what the needs are, and help you
169
move toward your goals, as a opposed to creating goals that you, you know to fit into
their mode.” School administrators, expressed that the formation of the SLCs this year
had been a five year goal of the school site that was realized this year and seen as a
“major feat.”
University and collaboration. Professor Simms, the Dean of the School of
Education at WPU, saw CPIA as a new creation with the DNA of all the partners. She
valued the variety of assets brought to the partnership by each of the partners on behalf of
urban school transformation. One very tangible way that WPU has collaborated included
the in-kind support of staff members along with faculty who used their sabbatical time to
work with the parntership. The partnership with WPU also extended outside of the
School of Education to other schools including the School of Social Work. Teachers saw
the partnership impacting the social welfare of students through WPU’s social work
interns. In addition, WPU provided legal support through a legal consultant.
Findings from Observations and Artifacts (Attributes: Collaborative Relationships)
Collaboration has been an articulated goal of CPIA from the very onset of the
partnership. The CPIA Business Plan explicitly states the following that the partnership
will strive to accomplish:
• Actively generate and support unity of efforts among teachers, parents,
administrators and the community in assuming responsibility for rigorous
teaching, learning, and outstanding citizenship for all community.
• Provide knowledge and services to ensure that the school has appropriate
systems and structures in place to advance the goals adopted in
collaboration with school stakeholders.
• Co-construct with the school complementary systems of school
governance and distributed leadership to include a governance structure
for each small learning community and a small learning communities
governance council to ensure equitable representation of each small
170
learning community in adhering to school-wide policies, conforming to
school-wide vision and administering of resources.

Likewise, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of CPIA states the
partnership was designed as a medium for collaboration between the recognized partners
along with the stakeholders. “Whereas, [CPIA] is a California non-profit public benefit
corporation currently seeking non-profit status under Internal Revenue Code section
501(c) (3), designed as a medium for collaboration between District, the [Metropolitan
League], the [Civic Engagement Foundation], and the [Western Pacific University]
School of Education and other stakeholders…”
A fact sheet was created toward the end of the first year of the partnership served
as a means to reflect on the contributions of each entity. Elements that describe
collaboration on the CPIA Fact Sheet are as follows:
• Integrated school efforts into the Neighborhoods@Work to ensure that
educational efforts were tightly coordinated with safety, health, housing and
employment. (ML)
• Leveraged volunteer faculty participation and community resources to plan
seminars with internationally recognized entrepreneurs and scholars. (CEP)
• Organized and guided team of teachers, parents and administrations to develop
wall-to-wall small learning communities within six months – received
commendations from WASC Visiting Committee (WPU)
• Worked with 64 teachers to maximize the use of Internet technology for project
base learning within Small Learning Communities (CEP)
• Worked with the District, CHS and Partners to successfully to launch the Greater
Crenshaw Educational Partnership (WPU)
• Worked with volunteer faculty and community resources to construct future
classroom projects with Business Academies throughout the United States (e.g.
Oracle Foundation) (CEP)

171
Overall Emerging Themes (Attributes: Collaborative Relationships)
Miller posits that community, school, and university are oftentimes like a
“hodgepodge” of programs that fail to unite diverse people, and have relatively little or
no communication or real collaboration (Miller & Hafner, 2008; Kezar, 2007). CPIA on
the other hand is bringing partners together and uniting stakeholders. The Interim
Executive Director expressed the need to take the models that had been co-constructed
and to see if they work. Co-construction starts with what we have and then moves
forward. The formation of small learning communities and reviews on the previous
WASC accreditation have been evidence of a step forward in this direction. A
representative at the district shared, ”The WASC thing was also big. They got really
good reviews on their WASC accreditation and that, from the perspective from someone
like me who has to kind of do all of that compliance and data, it’s really important to be
able to say.”
Summary of Chapter Four
The purpose of this study was to examine the process for co-constructing
partnerships among community, school, and university partners as a means of
transforming an urban high school. Although community, school, and university
partnerships have a great deal of potential, many have not been able to yield positive
results and some have experienced further “division and hostility” among partners
(Mayfield, Hellwig, & Banks, 1999). This partnership is unique. While studies
examining school-community, community-university, and university-school partnerships
have been conducted, research on community, school, and university partnerships with
172
each of the three partners like the ones in this study having equal power in the process of
co-constructing the partnership are rare. 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. The findings from the interviews, observations, and
examination of artifacts indicate that the partnership is engaged in co-construction
incorporating dialogue and mutual learning. Barriers to this process of co-construction
have included history, hierarchy, and absence of systems and structures for
communications. The process of co-construction through dialogue and mutual learning is
at work, but hampered by decades of history of felt “neglect.”
According to the literature, dialogic conversations have the potential for
redefining, reshaping, mediating, and making bridges between the differing cultures of
community, K-12 school, and university cultures. These bridges are starting to be created
among the stakeholders who are co-constructing a partnership which is demonstrating
characteristics of a new cultural model that empowers all stakeholders to overcome
barriers to student achievement. This kind of collaboration is enhanced through the
facilitation of individuals who are capable of brokering relationships. Trust is often lost
in collaborative efforts when the decision-making process appears not to be mutual.
This seemed to be a major problem with the local district. On the other hand, the
partnership has placed an emphasis on co-construction through dialogue and mutual
learning. This is evidenced by the kinds of collaborative relationships that build upon
one another’s assets while mitigating one another’s weaknesses. This shared knowledge
173
and actions that act upon this shared knowledge build trust. These practices are being
distributed evidenced by stakeholders who see more collaboration and involvement of all
stakeholders. In addition to the IED, several individuals have been cited as critical to the
partnership including Professor Simms, Dean of the School of Education at Western
Pacific University, Ms. Smith and Mr. Wagner, leaders within Metropolitan League
along with the President of Metropolitan League. Mr. Jordan, leader within CEF, and
parents Ms. Thomas, Webster, and Walker were also cited as critical to the partnership.
A New Cultural Model for Partnerships
Ronald Gallimore & Claude Goldenberg (2001) advocated for new cultural
models within schools that would address the “discontinuities between home and school
cultures” that were contributing to the glaring inequities (p.46). Differences between
“norms of behavior, language usage, cognitive styles” (p. 46), made it more difficult for
ethnic minorities, to participate in what Henderson & Berla (1994) believed created a
greater challenge for students of diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. The structures of
the schools’ cultural model were essentially designed with the middle class white student
in mind (Henderson, 1994; Oaks & Rogers, 2006). Gallimore & Goldenberg define
cultural models as a “shared mental schema” that has evolved over time to determine for
individuals “the way things are and should be.” Once these cultural models become a
part of the community, they become so familiar, that they may be “invisible and
unnoticed by those who hold them” (p. 47). Some of these factors have made
addressing the old cultural models a challenge. In spite of the challenges, Gallimore &
Goldenberg (2001) postulated that student achievement could be improved if the
174
curriculum were more “compatible with children’s home cultures” (p.46). Extending
Gallimore & Goldenberg’s postulation, perhaps student achievement could also be
enhanced through university, school, and community partnerships if the shared culture
among partners formed a new cultural model that better reflected the home culture of the
community or the shared culture co-constructed among the partners.
New cultural models are needed to form partnerships that have the potential to
draw from the funds of knowledge of all stakeholders. According to Freire (2000),
partnerships that form based on the cultural norms of the dominant group will continue
the oppression despite offers of goodwill and charity. Avenues must be created to
advocate for the funds of knowledge from all stakeholders, especially among those who
have been traditionally oppressed through either their silence or voices that have never
been heard (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Gonzales & Moll, 2002).

175
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Everyone Learns, Everyone Leads—Linda Lambert

Summary
The literature review in Chapter Two expressed that communities, schools, and
universities working in silos face great challenges in overcoming historic barriers and
improving the quality of education in urban schools. Partnerships among communities,
schools, and universities have the potential of overcoming many of these challenges.
However, the quest for the upper hand in school, community, university partnerships
creates a historically impermeable power struggle that is counter-productive in the pursuit
of educational excellence for urban youth. Dialogue in partnerships that involve
universities, urban schools, and community organizations is often neither co-constructed
nor consistent. This results in partnerships that perpetuate hierarchical rather than co-
constructed dialogical relationships. Although relationships among urban schools,
university and community organizations could do much to improve the state of urban
schools, the persistence of hierarchical relationships and other barriers prevent them from
realizing their collective potential for raising the low academic performance of students
in urban schools.
A Unique Study
Chapter One included the purpose of this study, which was to examine a process
for co-constructing partnerships among community, school, and university partners as a
176
means of transforming an urban school. This study examined the persistent barriers to
constructing a partnership and effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming
barriers. While studies examining school-community, community-university, and
university-school have been conducted, research on community, school, and university
partnerships working toward each having equal power in the process of co-constructing
the partnership are rare.
This partnership was selected because of the unique opportunity to observe a top-
tier university, Western Pacific University, which has a track record and mission of
working with the urban community surrounding it. The university has extended its
support of the urban community by working with a low performing high school, Freedom
High School, who has chosen with the support of its teachers and parents to join a newly
formed division of a large school district created to promote school innovation called
iDesign.
The third arm of this partnership is a pair of community organizations that has a
history of empowering the African American community to exercise their civil rights by
resisting acts of oppression against their community. One of the community-based
organizations, Metropolitan League, has incorporated Freedom High School as the hub of
a five-year strategic initiative to collaborate with partners and provide services to
promote safety, education, health, employment, and housing within the surrounding 70-
block area. Civic Engagement Foundation is the other community-based organization.
Their long-term relationship with the school had developed in parents the empowerment
177
to lead the parents to lead the movement for the school to join the newly formed division
of the school district and become part of a network partnership.
This innovation division also known as iDesign was voted upon by both parents
and teachers and has within its charter the mandate to take on network partners to
facilitate the transformation of the school. The mission of iDesign schools is to create a
new culture of learning through “local school empowerment and community
collaboration.” Among its goals is to engage students, parents, educators, and
community in the creation of a locally-managed, collaborative and accountable school. It
is the hope of LLUSD that this unique design will lead to promising practices that can be
used to transform not only the school in the study, but schools across the district. All
these organizations have come together on behalf of the transformation of an urban high
school. This study has examined the first year of an emerging partnership in their efforts
to transform a high school that has experienced multiple years of decline in academic
performance and community trust.
Research Questions
1. What is a process that enables communities, schools, and universities to co-construct
partnerships for the purpose of transforming K-12 Schools?
a. What are the persistent barriers to establishing partnerships among
communities, K-12 schools and universities that seek to transform urban
schools?
178
b. What are some effective strategies that have the potential for overcoming
barriers in co-constructing partnerships among communities, schools, and
universities for the purpose of transforming K-12 urban school?
2. What attributes of a partnership capable of creating a New Cultural Model in urban
schools result from the process of co-constructing a community/school/ university
partnership with the intent to transform a K-12 school?

Discussion
The findings from this study, using the research questions to guide the data
collection led to a set of findings that can be helpful to other partnerships forming under
circumstances similar to those in this study.
Co-Construction
Overall emerging themes about co-construction were found. Stakeholders were
using the term co-construction whether they were a part of the community, school, or
university. In fact, virtually all the stakeholders valued the process of co-construction
whether they were a part of the community, school or university. One indicator that this
process was at work was that that the term co-construction was in vernacular of all
stakeholders. There was no absolute clear definition of the process; however, a
foundational level of understanding was present among most stakeholders with the
understanding that co-construction would take time. In general, stakeholders saw co-
construction as a process of learning to work with one another even when the fruit of the
work was not visibly present. Efforts made to better understand co-construction among
179
one another were found to be valuable and most evident in the transition team meetings
and the study session.
One transition team member expressed the need for change to occur from top
down and from bottom up and shared that the “process of co-construction takes trust
among partners and hope. Co-construction is filled with triumphs and failures…and that’s
where trust comes in. When we meet glitches we have to trust that we’re working
together from a common goal.” When agreeing upon items, thumbs up and thumbs down
are used to reconstruct norms. Another member elaborated on the process and shared,
“the co–construction effort includes everyone as equals at all times,”with everyone
participating towards the end goal.
This process of co-construction is not one that can be perfectly laid out. The
process of co-construction did at times have pitfalls. One teacher, Mr. Bowles, even
described the process as “painful.” Oftentimes there is a need to first tear down the past--
a past filled with failed promises and hurts in order to then begin to co-construct
something new. Nevertheless, the process was seen as necessary in order for the
partnership to be healthier. Co-construction seemed like a process more than a
destination. A transition member described co-construction is a process beginning with
what we have and then moving forward. The partnership in the process of co-
construction was seen as a new creation from the shared assets of all the entities.
Dialogue is Valued
Dialogue is a process of engaging people in exchange of ideas, experiences, and
knowledge for the purpose of creating shared meaning was found to be a valued
180
component of the process of co-construction. The participants in this study acted on a
strongly held belief that dialogic relationships can only exist among partners when each
participant within the partnership is valued for his or her knowledge and is regularly
contributing to the whole. The parents were the strongest advocates of dialogic
relationships. They fought hard to ensure their presence in dialogue. The classified
representative did the same. Many teachers responded to opportunities to engage in
dialogue with the partners and with other teachers. Their commitment was evidenced by
their long standing commitment to weekly meetings.
Dialogue does not regularly happen within community, school, and university
partnerships, but the process of dialogue is happening (although limited) within CPIA.
Overall, the emerging themes for dialogue include the beginnings of relationships
between stakeholders of the partnership that are inclusive and mutually beneficial. These
relationships are a work in progress. Nevertheless, in the words of one stakeholder, the
stakeholders are “talking with one another” vs. “talking around one another.” Multiple
stakeholders have adopted the view that the work, in the end, is “all about relationships”
and many of these relationships are being created through regular meetings. Weekly
meetings bringing together people in the school and including representatives of the CBO
organization is the means by which collaborative relationships are being formed.
Collaborative discussions and actions on a weekly basis are producing collaborative
relationships.

181
Mutual Learning In Progress
Mutual learning is a process in which all entities are cognitively and socially
engaged for the purpose of creating a shared body of knowledge. There is evidence of
mutual learning among stakeholder groups. This mutual learning through dialogue is
critical to the process of co-construction. While cautious, most of the stakeholders are
hopeful of mutual learning among all the entities. Entities that have a formal role in the
partnership such as ML,CEF, and WPU are more inclined to share their resources and
have this sharing validated, whereas other stakeholder groups like community members,
parents, teachers, administration, and classified had initially been seen more as recipients.
This second group has not had its resources clearly identified. In fact, one can look at the
CPIA fact sheet and see what entities have contributed, but some of the stakeholders who
have done tremendous work remain unveiled. Also, the CPIA fact sheet typically
enumerates the work done by an entity to achieve a particular outcome; however there
does not exist an outcome that indicates the collaborative work of two or three partners
indicating a deeper level of mutual learning leading toward co-construction.
Efforts are being made to seek a symbiotic relationship. Mr. Wagner shared, “It’s
a really interesting mix of organizations to come together for a 501c3.” As discussed in
the literature review, university-school, school-community, community-university
partnerships have existed, but the idea of a community/school/university partnership in
which the community and school share equal power as partners with a top-tiered
university is relatively rare. The community-based organizations realize they are not
“there” yet but hope this will change with greater interaction and investment of resources.
182
This process of creating a place of mutual shared learning is a process that is at the
beginning stage.
This partnership has a great deal of hope and resilience and seems willing to push
forward despite the challenges. In the transition team, stakeholders have expressed that
some things may get worse, but in order to cure what was referred to as an “institutional
illness,” the process must “have the right people in the room and talk about it.” Mr.
Wagner, a leader within a CBO, stated, “The dialogue that may need to happen…is how
can you help me grow. Right? And the other question from the other partners is how can
we help you grow?” This helping you grow and helping me grow culture is mutual
learning at work.
A Work in Progress: Concerns for the Future
The process of co-construction through dialogue and mutual learning is at work,
but hampered by decades of history of felt “neglect.” Great mistrust of the local school
district by community members, parents, teachers, administrators, classified staff, and
CEF has led towards immediate distrust of partners such as ML and WPU. Parents feel
they are one of the key reasons the partnership is in place but feel a sense of injustice that
they are not formally recognized by the partnership. This has created what some feel the
formal organization and its board to be a “bureaucracy’ or a continuance of the
hierarchical legacy left by the local district. Although they feel they are included as
partners within the work of the school, they have not felt this level of inclusion with the
formal structural organization. A hierarchical model is typically non-conducive toward
dialogue of all partners because it does not value each stakeholder’s voice as equal--it
183
inhibits the process of co-construction. Freire asserts even in a desire to be humanitarian,
the oppressor actually dehumanizes individuals they are purportedly helping (Freire,
2000; Shields, 2005; Miller & Hafner, 2008). Nevertheless, the presences of gifts,
financial capital, and resources have not substituted for dialogue and mutual learning.
These are processes that require face-to-face encounters on a regular basis. Three of the
five CBO leaders of ML felt that they had very little day-to-day understanding of what
was happening at the school site. This may indicate the need for a greater number of the
key stakeholders within the partnership to more frequently engage in the day-to-day
aspects of the school site in dialogue and mutual learning.
A hierarchical model typically attempts to “bank” information into the oppressed
and does not value dialogue. Thus there will likely be an absence of systems and
structures for communication especially from those who are lower to those who are
higher. According to Freire (2003) partners in a position of power often dictate a plan
amongst oppressors rather than co-construct through dialogue and mutual learning
among all the stakeholders (Freire, 2003). This has not been the case with CPIA. From
the outset, the artifacts, observations and interviews indicate that the process of co-
construction is at work.
This community, school, and university partnership has demonstrated some of the
barriers of history, hierarchy, and absence of systems of structure and communication.
The barriers are formidable but not impenetrable. In a short period of time, less than year,
the partners are already at work to overcome these barriers. Despite the feelings that the
school has experienced decades of neglect, there has been a great deal of hope found in
184
all stakeholders that this partnership has the ability to transform Freedom. The formation
of the small learning communities, approval from a visiting WASC committee, and the
establishment of places of mutual learning and dialogue like the transition teams are
evidence of the process of co-construction at work in spite of the barriers. Even legal
structures like the Brown Act, a formidable barrier to the process of dialogue, have been
mitigated through the parents educating and empowering one another. Avenues to
bypass some of these hierarchical/ legal structures and create spaces for co-construction
through dialogue and mutual learning have occurred through teams made up of multiple
stakeholders including task forces, the transition team, and even a CPIA Board Meeting
labeled as a single agenda item study session on co-construction.
Mr. Bowles had earlier alluded to the process of co-constructing through mutual
learning and dialogue as a door. He shared, “We’ve created a door that we can walk
through to get to where we need to go.” The process of co-construction among the
partners is beginning to create a new kind of partnership—perhaps a new cultural model,
one in which the partnership through collaboration will be able to build upon one
another’s strengths while mitigating one another’s weaknesses for the purpose of
transforming an urban school. Despite the feelings that the school has experienced
decades of neglect, there has been a great deal of hope found in the majority of
stakeholders that this partnership has the ability to transform Freedom.
The literature review expressed a need within emerging partnerships of critical
bridge person(s), individual(s) who understands the unique cultures of the university,
school, and community partners and has the ability to facilitate a shared culture (Kezar,
185
2007; Miller, 2007; Schein, 1990). Interviews, artifacts, and observations have identified
the Interim Executive Director as an individual who displayed a great number of such
characteristics that would identify her as a critical bridge person. In addition to serving
as clinical faculty at a tier-one university this IED has been a teacher, school-site
administrator, and local district superintendent. She also served as an involved parent
within the community adjacent to the community in the study and is recognized as a
community leader with affiliations with a community-based faith-based organization
within the community. The IED was identified by a teacher as having a pedagogy rooted
in Freirian, Vygotskian, and socio-cultural approaches. This lens allows the IED the
ability to see many of the factors that lead to the status of oppressor and oppressed found
in the barriers of history, hierarchy, and absence of systems and structures. The IED was
seen “on the ground” by all the stakeholders in the day-to-day operations as having a
heart for kids, referred by one parent as “family.” This individual introduced the ideas of
co-construction and dialogue into vernacular use and worked among the stakeholders to
give the terms meaning.
Freire posits that dialogue is built on love for others, faith in people, and expresses
humility, and hope that the outcome fostered is a “horizontal relationship of mutual trust
between dialoguers” (Freire, 2000). The IED was seen as modeling this kind of dialogue.
The IED was seen as someone who was able to co-construct and had a track record
within a year of facilitating the building of the small learning community, resource team,
and transition team. Her collaborative approaches were welcome. Many parents
positively expressed the initiative of the IED to “invite” and even “push” parents. The
186
IED was able to organize groups of people and served as both a mentor and trainer to all
the stakeholders. This IED has according to one CBO leader “opened the door for others
to come through.” These kinds of leaders not only facilitate the development of vision
and goals, but also according to Schein (1990), “create trust” by bringing peace and
calming the anxiety that can come when change occurs (p. 32). The transparent process
by which the IED worked through dialogue was appreciated. Trust given a previous
leader, was transferred to this IED.
The IED has expressed that she is just that--interim until a permanent executive
director can be chosen for whom the partnership is currently looking. Many of the
attributes modeled by the IED have been embedded in the brainstorm search for the
future executive director. This emphasis on the temporary assignment has led to concern
among stakeholders; in others, it has fostered a vigilance to themselves sustain the
process of co-construction and to expect this practice in leaders who would represent
them. The IED saw her job as building capacity and helping the stakeholders put systems
and structures in place to promote a transformed school. Other critical bridge persons
were found in the community, school, and university. The IED, being the most
frequently cited by the interviews, artifacts, and observations was described for this study.
Attributes of a Partnership in Co-Construction
Miller posits that community, school, and university are oftentimes like a
“hodgepodge” of programs that fail to unite diverse people, and have relatively little or
no communication or real collaboration (Miller & Hafner, 2008; Kezar, 2007). CPIA on
the other hand is bringing partners together and uniting stakeholders. The Interim
187
Executive Director expressed the need to take the models that had been co-constructed
and to see if they work. Co-construction starts with what is present and then moves
forward.
Recommendations
This study began with the discussion of historic, social, economic, and
educational inequities, especially for urban students which have widened the opportunity
gap between what Freire referred to as the oppressors and the oppressed. Community,
school, and university partnership have the potential of improving student outcomes but
barriers such as cultural clashes, power relationships, and unclear expectations and roles
among the entities make less effective this potential. The manner in which these kinds of
partnerships operate has been referred to as the old cultural model. If the goal of the
partnership is to create a convergence of knowledge, resources, and assets that has the
potential to eradicate historic, social, economic, and political barriers on behalf of urban
school transformation, a new cultural model must be created among the university,
school, and community.
Creating Institutional Rewards for Critical Bridge Persons
A variety of partnerships have failed because they had no leader who could play
this boundary-spanning role. The bridge person’s role is one that is very much needed,
yet because of the old cultural model in which entities work in silos, oftentimes creating
institutional rewards for such individuals can be a major barrier. The nature of these
roles is that the context is always changing and thus the critical bridge person must be
capable of negotiating the changing cultural models and guiding the transformation to the
188
new cultural model which redistributes power to all. These relationships take time and
resources to be built. When key critical bridge persons migrate, however, collaborations
may unravel. Collaboration is not a once and for all achievement—it must be stewarded
and protected. There is a need to create viable sustained institutional rewards for these
critical bridge people who stand in the gap between university, school, and community
partners. This kind of critical bridge person, who is able to employ dialogue in love, faith,
humility, and hope must be protected (Freire, 2000).
These roles can be protected by valuing them with time and resources. Aligning
their outcomes (job description) to partnership goals also ensures that among competing
demands, partnership goals are prioritized. WPU was able to protect when the IED
position was completely sponsored by the university. Civic Education Foundation was
able to protect when they allocated personnel who would be involved in empowering
parents. Metropolitan League was to protect when their organization’s metrics were
aligned toward student achievement at Freedom High School.
Asset-Based Collaboration
In many low-performing schools, a deficit view is common. Asset-based
collaborations, on the other hand, take into account the many untapped assets found
among partners and the funds of knowledge found within each partner. Rather than
“supplanting” one another’s contribution with experts from the outside, partners humbly
came together to learn from and with one another. This effort to capture and use funds of
knowledge from the community utilizes dialogue as a major vehicle to build trust and a
relationship between the entities. Gonzales & Moll (2002) advocated going into the
189
community as “anthropological learners” to open up the kind of dialogue between entities
that built new bridges to access the communities’ funds of knowledge (p. 626).
Commitment to Dialogue
Dialogue must also consist of humility, causing stakeholders to constantly seek to
learn, understand, and make meaning with others. Stakeholders that were perceived to
have “egos” were very abrasive to the building of collaborations. Freire states, “How can
I dialogue if I am closed to—and even offended by—the contribution of others?” (p. 90).
Stakeholders who employ dialogue with humility are better able to see the wealth of
asset-based resources in the community and community organizations. Equitable
partnerships are not homogenous, but rather ones which have a deep respect and intrinsic
worth found within the differing groups. This partnership is made up of many
stakeholder groups and are beginning to see the assets found within one another.
Mutual Learning for All
In order for mutual learning to occur for all, a clearer process must be articulated
on how dialogue and mutual learning will be documented and distributed to all. An
absence of systems of communication and structures was most frequently cited among all
the identified barriers to co-construction. Documents such as the CPIA Fact Sheet were a
step forward to describing some of the accomplishments of each entity. More such
documents, town hall meetings, technology-based mediums, etc., need to augment the
current work of building systems and structures of communication.
Co-Investigation
190
Freire (2000) would posit that dialogue is not an end in and of itself, but rather an
epistemological journey to gain knowledge. This epistemological journey may have
greater value when joined by multiple stakeholders including those who have not
traditionally been seen as researchers and join in the process of co-investigation. If all
the stakeholders are to be a part of the mutual learning, Shields (2005) states that one
group can not think for the other even if some views are seen as superstitious or naïve.
During the research of this thematic group, many stakeholders expressed interest in the
research itself. Co-investigation with groups not traditionally seen as researches, such as
parents, have been indicated in the recommendations.

Recommendations for Research
Attributes of Critical Bridge Persons within Partnerships
Research that more specifically can describe the attributes of critical bridge persons
within emerging co-constructed community, school, and university partnerships would be
valuable to the work of fostering new cultural models within schools. It would also be
valuable to examine to what degree critical bridge persons are capable in jump starting
the process of co-construction in other stakeholders and if the process results in
distributing leadership. Tandem to this research may also include the kinds of
institutional rewards which facilitate the involvement of such individuals.
Asset-Based Collaborations
A worthwhile study may be investigating how assets are discovered among partners
and then tapped to further co-construct a new cultural model for the purpose of
191
transforming urban schools that build upon strengths, mitigates weakness, and co-
constructs synergy.
Co-Investigations and Partnerships
WPU is completing the first of a five year study of an emerging community, school,
and university partnership. This may be an ideal time to consider other stakeholders as
co-investigators. This researcher believes this transparent process built greater trust
among parents and WPU and would not only lead to richer data but a stronger partnership.
Dialogue to Decision-Making within Partnerships
Dialogue is a practice that was observed in this process, but the process for decision-
making is one that may need to be better articulated. A future study may be helpful in
investigating how decisions can be made more effectively within dialogic partnerships
and how such decisions can be made with more equitable involvement of all the
stakeholders.
Communication and Partnerships
An absence of systems and structures for communication was a barrier frequently
indicated in this study. A future study may be helpful in investigating the kinds of
systems and structures that facilitate and document the work of mutual learning within a
partnership to militate this barrier.

Conclusion
“Children bring more than education needs to a classroom and no single
profession should bear this collective responsibility,” (Corrigan, 2000, p. 179) yet that is
192
oftentimes what happens in schools. Although a case is being constructed to understand
how university, K-12 schools, and community partners can be brought together through
co-constructed, dialogic relationships, to transform K-12 schools, there is a deeper hope
that through the transformation of a school, the entire neighborhood, community, and
university will also be changed.

193
REFERENCES
Au, K. (2006). Culturally Responsive Instruction as a Dimension of New Literacies.
Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://readingonline.org/newliteracies/au/index.html.

Appleby, J., Brinkley, Alan., Broussard, A., McPherson, J., Ritchie, D., and The National
Geographic Society(2006) . Discovering our Past: The American Journey to
World War I. Columbus, Ohio. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Baum, Howard S,. Fantasies and Realities in University-Community Partnerships.
Journal of Planning Education and Research 2000; 20; 234.

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.

Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant Leadership. Boston, Massachusetts:
Harvard Business School 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.

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

California International Studies Project. (2006). California International Studies Project:
A California Subject-Matter Project [Brochure]. : Author.

Carroll, Tom (March 26, 2008). Education Beats Incarceration. Education Week, p. 32.

Coleman, Daniel (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York, New York:
Bantam Dell.

194
Comprehensive Schooling and Interprofessional Collaborations: Theory, Research and
Practice

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

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

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

Dictionary.com. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from dictionary.com Web site:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/power

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

Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2006). Moving Forward: Ideas for Research on School,
Family, and Community Partnerships. In SAGE Handbook for Research in
Education: Engaging Ideas and Enriching Inquiry (pp. 117-138). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

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

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30th Anniversary ed.). New York, NY:
Continuum International Publishing Group.

Friedman, Thomas, L. (2006). The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First
Century. New York, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

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

Garcia, G.E. (2002). Chapter 1 (Introduction). In Student Cultural Diversity:
Understanding and Meeting the Challenge (3
rd
ed.), (pp. 3-39). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Gibulka, J., & Boyd, W. (2003). A Race Against Time: The Crisis in Urban
Schooling.Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
195

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

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

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

Graff, H. (2001). The nineteenth-century origins of our times. In E. Cushman, E. Kintgen,
B. Kroll, M. Rose (Eds). Literacy: A critical sourcebook, (pp. 211-233). Boston:
Bedford/ St. Martins.

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

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

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

Katz, S. R. (1999). Teaching in tensions: Latino immigrant youth, their teachers, and the
structures of schooling. Teachers College Record, 100(4), 809-840.

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

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.

Lambert, Linda (2003). Leadership Capacity for Lasting School Improvement.
Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marable, M. (1992) Black America (Westfield, NJ, Open Media).

196
Maurrasse, David J. (2001). Beyond the campus: How Colleges and Universities Form
Partnerships with Their Communities. New York: Routledge.

Maurrasse, David J. (2002). Higher Education-Community Partnerships:
Assessing progress in the Field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 2002;
31; 131.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miller, 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. & Hafner, M. (2008). “Moving Toward Dialogical Collaboration: A Critical\
Examination of a University-School-Community Partnership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 66-110.

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

Lee, Jaekyung (2002). Racial and Ethnic Achievement Gap Trends: Reversing
the Progress toward Equity? Educational Researcher, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan. –Feb.,
2002), pp. 3-12. Published by the American Educational Research Association:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594304 Accessed: 28/06/2008 23:36
197
The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, D.C.: National Commission on
Excellence in Education.

Oakes, J., & Rogers, J (2006). Learning Power. New York, New York: Teachers College
Press.

Ogbu, John (1987). Variability in Minority School Performance: A Problem in
Search of an Explanation. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 4,
pp. 312-334.

Ormrod, J. (2006). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners 5
th
Edition.
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Pearson Education, Inc.

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

Oxford, R. L. (1997).Constructivism: Shape-shifting, Substance, and Teacher Education
Application. Peabody Journal of Education. 72, 35-66.

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

Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2002). Crucial Conversations
Tools for talking when stakes are high. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

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

Phillips, Donald, T. (1999). Martin Luther King, Jr. On Leadership. New York, New
York: Warner Books.

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

Sanders, Mavis, G. (2001). The Role of “Community” in Comprehensive School,
Family, and Community Partnership Programs. The Elementary School Journal,
Vol. 102, No.1. (Sep., 2001), pp. 19-34.

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

198
Scales, P., Foster, K., Mannes M., Horst ., Pinto, K., and Rutherford, A.(2005). School
Business Partnerships, Development Assets, and Positive Outcomes among Urban
High School Students: A Mixed-Methods Study. Urban Education. 2005; 40; 144.

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

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

Schmocker, Mike (2006). Results Now. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Shields. C. (2000). Learning from Differences: Consideration for Schools as
Communities. The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Blackwell
Publishers. Map USA. Curriculum Inquiry 30:3 (2000)

Shields, C. (2005). Liberating Discourses: Spirituality and Educational Leadership

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

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

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

The Phrase Finder. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/288200.html. Accessed 2008.

Toogood, Granville (1995). The Articulate Executive: Learn to Look, Act, and Sound Like
A Leader. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Watkins, William H. (2001). The White Architects of Black Education. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Wesley, P., & Buysse, V. (2001) Communities of Practice: Expanding
Professional Roles to Promote Reflection and Shared Inquiry. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education. 21(2), Summer 2001.

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

199
APPENDIX A
Administrative Interview Protocol

Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is a
conversation between the two of us about your experience with the Critical Partners in
Action (CPIA).

1. What is your position and role at Freedom High School?
2. How many years have you been an administrator at Freedom High School?
3. How many years have you worked as an educator?
4. What are some other schools/districts where you have been employed?
5. What has been your experience working with community-based or university
partnerships, especially those focused on school reform?
6. How much do you know about the CPIA partnership? Do you know its goals?
7. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join iDesign in LAUSD and
take on a network partner?
8. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have you participated in any
meetings with the Critical Partners in Action or their representatives?
9. What do you know about the role of the Civic Engagement Foundation, the
Metropolitan League, or Western Pacific University, particularly the School of
Education?
10. In what ways have you seen the members of CPIA working together as one
organization?
11. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Critical Partners
in Action?
12. Why do you believe/or not believe Freedom High School needed a network
200
partner?
13. In what ways do you feel the Critical Partners in Action has benefited the school
or has the potential to benefit the school?
14. Describe the relationship between the school administration and CPIA up to this
point.
15. To what degree do you think the network partnership can enhance the quality of
teaching and learning at Freedom High? Do you have recommendations?
16. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
17. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
18. How involved has the classified staff been in the work of the partnership to
improve Freedom High School? What have been the barriers?
19. How involved have parents been in the partnership to improve Freedom High
School?
20. What has been the level of students’ participation in the work of the partnership to
improve Freedom High School?
21. What structures or opportunities for widespread participation in the partnership
have been created? What are some of the barriers you have seen or anticipate to
the success of this partnership?
22. What characteristics do you think can make the Greater Freedom Educational
Partnership effective and increase longevity?
201
23. What can you do to contribute to the partnership in order to increase student
achievement?

202
APPENDIX B
Teacher Interview Protocol

Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is a
conversation between the two of us about your experience with the Greater Freedom
Educational Partnership. Some of your answers to questions may provide information for
more than one question.

1. What is your position and role at Freedom High School?
2. How many years have you been a teacher at Freedom High School?
3. How many years have you worked as an educator?
4. What are some other schools/districts where you have been employed?
5. What has been your experience working with community-based or university
partnerships, especially those focused on school reform? How much to you know
about the CPIA partnership? What are its goals?
6. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join iDesign and take on a
network partner?
7. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in any
meetings involving the Critical Partners in Action or their representatives?
8. What do you know about the role of the Civic Engagement Foundation, the
Metropolitan League, or Western Pacific University, particularly the School of
Education?
9. How have you seen the members of the CPIA working together as one
organization?
10. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Critical Partners
in Action?
203
11. Why do you believe/or not believe Freedom High School needed a network
partner?
12. In what ways do you feel the Critical Partners in Action has benefited the school
or has the potential to benefit the school?
13. Describe the relationship between the school administration and CPIA up to this
point.
14. To what degree do you think the network partnership can enhance the quality of
teaching and learning at Freedom? Do you have recommendations?
15. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
16. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the work of the
partnership to improve Freedom High School?
17. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
18. How involved have parents been in the partnership to improve Freedom High
School?
19. What has been the level of students’ participation in the work of the partnership to
improve Freedom High School?
20. What structures or opportunities have been created for widespread participation in
the work of the partnership? What are some of the barriers you have seen or
anticipate to the success of this partnership?
21. What characteristics do you think can make the Critical Partners in Action
204
effective and increase longevity?
22. What can you do to contribute to the partnership in order to increase student
achievement?
24. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.

205
APPENDIX C
Classified Personnel Interview Protocol

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

1. What is your position and role at Freedom High School?
2. How many years have you been employed at Freedom High School?
3. How many years have you worked as a school employee?
4. What are some of the other schools/districts you have been employed in?
5. What has been your experience working with community-based or university
partnerships, especially those focused on school reform? How much to you know
about the CPIA partnership? What are its goals?
6. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join iDesign and take on a
network partner?
7. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in any
meetings involving the Critical Partners in Action or their representatives? What
structures have been created here at the school to include your participation?
8. What do you know about the role of the Civic Engagement Foundation, the
Metropolitan League, or Western Pacific University, particularly the School of
Education?
9. How do you see the members of the CPIA working together as one organization?
10. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Critical Partners
in Action?
11. Why do you believe/or not believe Freedom High School needed a network
206
partner?
12. In what ways do you feel the Critical Partners in Action 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 CPIA up to this point.
15. To what degree do you think the network partnership can enhance the quality of
teaching and learning at Freedom? Do you have recommendations?
16. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
17. How involved, in your opinion, have the administrators been in the work of the
partnership to improve Freedom High School?
18. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
19. How involved has classified staff been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
are your recommendations to increase their involvement?
20. How involved have parents been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School?
21. What has been the level of students’ participation in the partnership?
22. What structures or opportunities have been created for widespread participation in
the work of the partnership? What are some of the barriers you have seen or
207
anticipate to the success of this partnership?
23. What characteristics do you think can make the Critical Partners in Action
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.

208
APPENDIX D
Parent Interview Protocol

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

1. How are you affiliated with Freedom High school? How many years have you
been affiliated with the school? How many more years do you expect to be a part
of the Freedom High School community?
2. Have your children attended any other schools within LAUSD? What are those
schools?
3. Do you live in the Freedom High School attendance area?
4. Are your children a part of the home school or one of the magnet programs at
Freedom (Gifted Magnet or Teacher Transition Magnet)?
5. Have your children attended any schools outside of the district?
6. How would you compare your experience as a parent here at Freedom with your
experience as a parent in any other school?
7. How would you compare your student’s experience here at Freedom with your
child’s experience in other schools?
8. Describe what you know about the Critical Partners in Action’s involvement with
Freedom High School. What are its goals?
9. What do you think is the extent of parent involvement at Freedom High School?
How have parents been involved in the school in the past? Can parent
involvement through the partnership improve teaching and learning?
10. What are your recommendations for increased parent involvement at Freedom?
209
What roles would you like to see parents play at the school?
11. How has your role as a parent at Freedom High School changed since the Critical
Partners in Action 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 Critical
Partners in Action compare to other partnerships at Freedom in which you have
been involved? What is different about CPIA?
13. Why do you think the parents and teachers voted to join iDesign and take on a
network partner?
14. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in any
meetings involving the Critical Partners in Action or their representatives? What
structures have been created here at the school to include your participation in the
work to reform/transform Freedom High School?
15. What do you know about the role of the Civic Engagement Foundation, the
Metropolitan League, or Western Pacific University, particularly the School of
Education?
16. In what ways have you seen the members of the CPIA working together as one
organization?
17. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the Critical Partners
in Action?
210
18. In what ways do you feel the Critical Partners in Action has benefited the school
or has the potential to benefit the school?
19. What changes have occurred under the partnership? Have they been positive or
negative or mixed? Please explain.
20. What kind of relationship do you observe between the school administration and
CPIA up to this point? Please describe.
21. To what degree do you think the network partnership can provide greater support
to the quality of teaching and learning at Freedom? Do you have
recommendations?
22. How can the network partnership deepen the school’s relationship with the
community?
23. How involved have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation?
24. How involved has classified staff been in the work of the partnership to improve
Freedom High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
are your recommendations to increase their involvement?
25. What has been the level of students’ participation in the partnership?
26. What characteristics do you think can make the Critical Partners in Action
effective and increase longevity?
27. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.

211
APPENDIX E
Community Based Organization Interview Protocol

1. What is your position and role in the community?
2. How long have you been in a partner relationship with Freedom High School?
Why did you decide to become a partner with the school?
3. How and why did your organization decide which organizations it would join
with to form the Critical Partners in Action?
4. Describe some of the successes and challenges and what you have learned from
the other partners.
5. What do you think are the challenges and strengths of Freedom High School?
6. What involvement did you have with Freedom High School prior to joining the
Critical Partners in Action?
7. What are CPIA’s goals for transforming Freedom High School in the next five
years? Who has had the greater role in determining those goals?
8. What contribution do you expect your organization to make to the Greater
Freedom High School Educational Partnership in its efforts to transform Freedom
High School?
9. Do you believe your contribution will be enhanced by joining the partnership?
10. Describe the relationship between CPIA and teachers at the school. What
structures have been created to ensure their engagement as key stakeholders in the
transformation of Freedom High School?
11. What have been some of the barriers?
12. How has CPIA worked to overcome them?
212
13. Describe the relationship between CPIA 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 CPIA worked to overcome them?
14. Describe the relationship between CPIA 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 CPIA worked to overcome them?
15. Describe the relationship between CPIA 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 CPIA worked to overcome them?
16. Describe ways in which the CPIA partners have created a dialogic relationship in
which all partners have equal power. What have you done to diffuse real or
perceived inequalities in power among the partners?
17. What have been the challenges to forming a partnership in which all members and
stakeholders work collaboratively with equal decision-making power?
18. What changes to your organization have occurred or you envision occurring as a
member of CPIA?
19. How does the partnership work with the school to ensure that it is an equal partner,
versus a mere recipient of services from CPIA?
20. How successful do you think the partnership will be in increasing student
213
achievement at Freedom High School? Explain your answer. What are the
barriers? What are the strategies in place to overcome the barriers?
21. What characteristics and practices does the CPIA need to adopt to make the
partnership effective in carrying out its goals and ensuring its longevity?
22. What role does CPIA envision for the community as Freedom High School works
to be seen as a viable school option for community residents?
23. When have you felt that your role was an equal member of the partnership? When
have you felt your role was a dominant member of the partnership? When have
you felt that your role or your voice was not respected in the partnership?
24. Do you have comments that you have not been able to express in response to the
questions asked?

214
APPENDIX F
University Stakeholder Interview Protocol

1. What is your position and role in the university?
2. What do you know about the Critical Partners in Action?
3. What do you know about Freedom High School?
4. What other partnerships with K-12 schools have you been involved with?
5. Describe the meetings in which you have been involved with Freedom High
School, the Metropolitan League, or the Civic Engagement Foundation. In your
opinion, did the participants have equal voices in the discussions about
transforming Freedom High School?
6. How receptive have you observed the school staff, teachers, and administration to
be about forming a partnership?
7. Have you ever visited Freedom High School? How long ago? Describe your
impressions?
8. Have you visited Freedom High School since the Critical Partners in Action was
established?
9. What contribution do you think Western Pacific University or the School of
Education can make to the work of the Critical Partners in Action’s efforts to
transform Freedom High School?
10. What personal or professional contribution do you intend to make to the work of
the Critical Partners in Action?
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
215
power in the partnership?
12. How do you see this partnership changing or affecting Western Pacific University
or the School of Education?
13. What elements of the professional development school model can the partnership
employ that, you believe, will increase student achievement?
14. Research shows that most partnerships do not last longer than five years. What do
you think is the most significant factor in the failing of these partnerships? How
can the network partners avoid these pitfalls?
15. Do you think incorporating the community more in how students are taught will
increase the longevity of the partnership and its ability to effect positive change at
Freedom High School?
16. When did you feel that your role was a dominant member of the partnership?
When did you feel that your role was an equal participant of the partnership?

216
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)

217
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)

218
APPENDIX I
Examined Artifacts Protocol

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

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

1, 2
School
Demographics

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

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

1, 2
 Lesson Plans • Time spent in collaboration 1
219
• Implementation of culturally
relevant pedagogy

 Grade Level
Team Meeting
Minutes

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

• School Climate
• Parent Satisfaction

1
Parent Involvement

 Parent meeting
agendas,
minutes, sign-in
sheets
 SSC
 Friends of Freedom
• Level of parental involvement
• Identify involved parents to
interview
• Whether state mandated
committees involving
parents are actually meeting,
advising, approving school
issues
• Identify parental concerns
particularly with lack of
communication

1, 2
 Parent
Communiques

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

1
 Parent Surveys • School Climate
• Parental concerns

1
 Visitor Logs • Parent Volunteers 1

220
APPENDIX J
Pseudonyms

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

Mr. Jackson President and Chief Executive Officer, Metropolitan
League
Mr. Wagner Chief of Staff, Metropolitan League
Ms. George Chief Neighborhood Officer, Metropolitan League
Mr. Jones Deputy Neighborhood Officer, Safety/Systems &
Housing, Metropolitan League
Ms. Wilson Deputy Neighborhood Officer, Education,
Metropolitan League
Ms. Weaver Deputy Neighborhood Officer, Health, Metropolitan
League
Mr. Jordan Resident Scholar of the Civic Engagement
Foundation
Mr. Barney Community and Political Activist, Civic Engagement
Foundation
Community
Ms. Mills Community Member, Friends of Freedom Committee
Member
Mr. Johns Community Member, Neighborhood Council
Ms. Gordon LAPD Officer
221
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

222
APPENDIX K
Informed Consent Form

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

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

Co-constructed University, School, Community Partnerships

School Staff Informed Consent Form

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

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

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

223
Participate in an interview, which may take from 30-45 minutes to complete. The
interview, with your permission, will be recorded. It will focus on your familiarity and
participation in the Greater [Freedom] Educational Partnership as it works to improve
[Freedom] High School. It will focus on your understanding of how this partnership is
forming for the purpose of improving [Freedom] High School. It will focus on the
various roles that stakeholders play in constructing this partnership. You can still
participate in the research study if you do not wish to be audio/video-taped.

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

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

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

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

You will not receive payment for your participation.

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

224
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.

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

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

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT

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

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

□ I agree to be audio recorded

□ I do not want to be audio recorded

Name of Subject

Signature of Subject Date

225
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

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

Name of Investigator

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

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study has examined the first year of an emerging community, school, and university partnership engaged in a process of co-constructing as a means of transforming an urban school. This partnership was selected because of the unique opportunity to observe a top-tier university with a track record and mission of working with the urban community surrounding it. The university has extended its support of the urban community by working with a low performing high school, which has chosen with the support of its teachers and parents to join a newly formed division of a large school district created to promote school innovation called iDesign. The third arm of this partnership is a pair of community organizations that have a history of empowering the African American community to exercise their civil rights by resisting acts of oppression against their community. All these organizations have come together on behalf of the transformation of an urban high school. This study has examined the first year of an emerging partnership in their efforts to transform a K-12 school that has experienced multiple years of decline in academic performance and community trust. Qualitative data, collected through 29 interviews, 10 observations, and 3 key documents were analyzed and organized in a code book to describe important processes and record key issues that emerged.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Co-constructing community, school 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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A case study: school-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high poverty urban schools

PDF

California urban superintendents and their selection criteria for secondary school principals

PDF

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

PDF

Urban schools that have narrowed the achievement gap: middle school math achievement in an urban setting

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Kim, Jeffrey S. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/09/2009

Defense Date 05/05/2009

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

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

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email jeffreysookim@hotmail.com,kim_je@auhsd.us

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2344

Unique identifier UC1477729

Identifier etd-Kim-3101 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-571054 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2344 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Kim-3101.pdf

Dmrecord 571054

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kim, Jeffrey S.

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