Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Co-constructing community, school, university partnerships for urban school transformation: Year two
(USC Thesis Other)
Co-constructing community, school, university partnerships for urban school transformation: Year two
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
CO-CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY, SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY
PARTNERSHIPS FOR URBAN SCHOOL TRANSFORMATION: YEAR TWO
by
Allison Noel Rief
__________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2011
Copyright 2011 Allison Noel Rief
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to Mary Summers Lewis, my beloved and greatly
missed grandmother. The extreme compassion and dedication you showed towards
all of your students and their families across the world have been an inspiration for
my own career. I hope I have made you proud.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my dissertation chair, Dr.
Sylvia G. Rousseau, for her vision, wisdom, and enthusiasm throughout this process.
Her outstanding dedication, compassion, and patience are embodied throughout all
her endeavors, and I am grateful for the opportunity to work with her.
I must acknowledge the members of my dissertation committee. Dr. David
Marsh and Dr. Kathy Stowe have graciously given their time and expertise to
support me throughout my dissertation. I thank them for their contributions and
stimulating conversations surrounding my work.
I would also like to acknowledge the tremendous support provided by my
dissertation group- Savina, Shuntell, Richard, Gerald, and Artist. Their support,
laughter, and shared tears over our early-morning emails will not be forgotten!
I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to my family, my colleagues at
Virginia Road, and my friends for helping me through this process; I could not have
done it without all of you! Thank you to my sister Carrie, who is an amazing
sounding board for my ideas. Thank you to my mom and dad for always believing in
me and supporting me as I accomplish my goals. Finally, I am indebted to my
husband Marty, who has the magical ability to make me smile!
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vii
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Problem 1
Partnerships 10
Statement of the Problem 18
Purpose of the Study 20
Importance of the Study 21
Limitations 22
Delimitations 22
Definitions 23
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 27
Introduction 27
Historical Context of Education Legislation 27
Current Issues Surrounding Segregation 32
Achievement/Opportunity Gap 36
Partnerships 45
Educational Partnerships as a Solution 48
Community-School-University Partnerships 51
Persisting Barriers to Partnerships 64
Strategies for Effective Partnerships 69
Partnerships to Redefine Cultural Models 75
Strategies for Effective Teachers 78
Conclusions 81
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 83
Study Design and Research Questions 83
Methods 84
Sampling and Population 85
Instrumentation 89
Research Question Frameworks 91
Data Collection, Instruments, and Procedures 94
v
Data Analysis 101
Ethical Considerations 108
Summary 108
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION 110
Introduction 110
Background Information: The Partnership 111
Findings 112
Research Question One: Ongoing Processes 114
Research Question One, Part A: Barriers 135
Research Question One, Part B: Strategies 163
Research Question Two: Attributes 175
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS 197
Introduction 197
Summary of the Study 198
Purpose of the Study 198
Significance of the Study 199
Summary of Findings 199
Implications 207
Recommendations for UEAT in its Fourth Year and Beyond 210
Recommendations for Further Study 211
REFERENCES 213
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Administrative Interview Protocol 226
Appendix B: Teacher Interview Protocol 230
Appendix C: Classified Personnel Interview Protocol 234
Appendix D: Parent Interview Protocol 238
Appendix E: Community Based Organization Interview Protocol 242
Appendix F: University Stakeholder Protocol 246
Appendix G: Community Member Interview Protocol 251
Appendix H: School Environment Observation Protocol 254
Appendix I: Meeting Observation Protocol 255
Appendix J: Examined Artifacts Protocol 256
Appendix K: List of Pseudonyms 257
Appendix L: Sample from the Codebook 259
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Degree Attainment by Race, 2008 3
Table 2.1: Strengths and Weaknesses of Different Motives 48
Table 2.2: Differences in Culture of Schools and Universities 66
Table 3.1: School Demographic Data 88
Table 3.2: School Drop-Out Rates (2005-06 to 2007-08) 88
Table 3.3: School Achievement Data-API Scores (2005-06 to 2008-09) 89
Table 3.4: Triangulation Using a Variety of Data Collection Instruments 90
Table 3.5: Theoretical Frameworks for Research Questions 94
Table 3.6: Data Collection Matrix 95
Table 3.7: Codes Used in Year One and Year Two Studies 106
Table 3.8: Processes and Co-Construction and Dialogue 107
Table 3.9: Barriers to Co-Construction and Dialogical Relationships 107
Table 3.10: Strategies to Co-Construction and Dialogical Relationships 107
Table 3.11: Attributes of Partnership 108
Table 4.1: California Standards Test Trends: English Language Arts 188
Table 4.2: College Readiness 189
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1: UEAT Partners and Mission Statements 111
Figure 4.2: Transformation of GCEP from Year One to Year Two 122
Figure 4.3: Transformation of Dialogic Relationships from Year One to
Year Two 129
Figure 4.4: Shared Learning vs. Mutual Learning (Desired Model) 134
viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze the extent to which a
community, school, and university partnership is able to sustain elements of co-
construction for the purpose of transforming an urban high school. This partnership,
which is in its third year of a five-year planned existence, was chosen for its unique
ability to bring together two community-based organizations with a history of social
justice and advocacy within the local community: a low-performing urban high
school and a top-tier research university with a mission for service within the urban
community. This qualitative case study sought to identify the processes that enable
community, school, and university partnerships to maintain co-construction, the
persistent barriers that threaten to derail the partnership, as well as effective
strategies to overcome the barriers. This study also sought to determine whether the
processes by which a community-school-university partnership in an urban school
can facilitate and support a new cultural model for the role of teachers in promoting
high academic achievement for African American and Latino students.
The results from this study show that co-construction is being maintained
through dialogue and mutual shared learning. Barriers to this partnership included
an absence of systems and structures for communication, lack of trust, and
hierarchical structures. Some effective strategies for overcoming barriers included
systems of representation and the use of a critical bridge person. Although the
partnership experienced uneven progress in its first two years with some signs of
renewed strength in its third year, the community, school, university partnership was
ix
found to have an overall positive impact on the school, particularly on the culture of
the teachers within the school. Attributes found among the teachers include a
rigorous academic focus, targeted professional development, increased dialogue
among themselves, collaboration, and a funds of knowledge approach. These
attributes contributed to a school culture with an increased emphasis on academics to
promote high academic achievement for African American and Latino students, who
are the two prominent ethnic groups in the school.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
The globalization and the proliferation of specialized and advanced
knowledge have created the climate for the current era of accountability and high
stakes education testing in the United States. With this emphasis, the nation must
question whether our national schooling system is adequately preparing all students
to be productive members of the political, economic, academic and social realms of
our future society, “America’s future depends on high levels of intellectual and
social capital that enable workers of vastly diverse backgrounds to work together to
make life-enriching meaning from rapidly expanding knowledge” (Rousseau, 2007,
p.49).
Before the future needs of our society can be adequately fulfilled, one must
first consider the past and present educational results. The roots of what the nation is
experiencing now were created in the past. The stakes of education are getting more
demanding with globalization and increased emphasis on technology, yet the nation
has still been unable to rectify the discrepancies between the equity of the nation’s
youth. Unfortunately, data consistently demonstrates that the academic achievement
of students is largely dependent upon ethnicity, socio-economic status, and
urbanicity of high school (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2009;
Nichols, 2005; Swanson, 2008). High school drop-out rates for the nation’s ethnic
minorities are staggeringly higher than those of white students: African American
2
8.4%, Latino 21.4%, and White 5.3% (NCES, 2007). The drop-out rates for
California’s high school students also follows the same trend: African American 6.5
%, Latino 4.8%, and White 2.3% (NCES, 2006). Drop-out rates can also be
analyzed based upon the family income quartile, which shows that 16.7% of students
who are in the lowest income quartile drop out as compared to only 3.2% of students
in the highest income quartile (NCES, 2007).
The trends that show the disproportionate performance based upon ethnicity,
socio-economic status, and parent’s educational attainment can also be viewed with
college-aged students. Of the students enrolled in postsecondary education, 7.2% of
White students are enrolled in remedial reading, as compared to 24.1% and 20.3% of
African American and Latino students, respectively (NCES, 2000). On the other end
of the data, 64.4% of White students took no remedial classes compared to 38.3% of
African Americans and 36.8% of Latinos (NCES, 2000). Students who went to
urban schools were more likely to take remedial math and reading courses in college
than students who were in suburban schools (NCES, 2000). Students who were from
the highest socioeconomic quintile were less likely to take remedial classes (24.8%)
than the students from the lowest socioeconomic quintile (63.2%). Similarly,
students whose family income was in the highest quartile were 23.2% more likely to
enroll in a postsecondary program than those in the lowest quartile. Degree
attainment also varied based upon race, as shown in Table 1.1.
3
Table 1.1: Degree Attainment by Race, 2008
Degree Earned White African American Latino
High School
Diploma
93.7% 87.5% 68.3%
Some College 67.1% 51.0% 35.9%
Bachelor’s Degree 37.1% 20.4% 12.4%
Master’s Degree 8.2% 4.4% 2.0%
Source: NCES, 2009
Parental education also was a factor in enrollment in postsecondary
education. Students’ whose parents have a bachelor’s degree or higher were 34.9%
more likely to go to college than students whose parents received a high school
diploma or dropped out (NCES, 2009).
As evidenced by the data represented, there is a great need for investigations
into ways in which to make schooling more equitable. There is a clear profile of
characteristics that are associated with educational success, including being White,
attending a suburban school, being part of the higher socioeconomic group, and
having parents who have a degree(s) in postsecondary education, which are identities
that are currently valued by the Nation’s school systems (Bennett, 2001). However,
these are generally traits that students have no control over; they are either inherited
or imposed on the student. The significance of these characteristics is produced by
society and is therefore manifested in education. Conversely, these attributes do not
determine if or how a child can learn, but are imposed and maintained by the cultural
model of our educational system and society in general (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001). The mismatch between students and the cultural model of schools highlights
that the needs of a significant population are not being met, therefore hindering the
4
success of these students. This population is expanding daily and can no longer be
thought of as the minority, but instead it is the majority (Rousseau, 2007).
History of Educational Reforms
Several of the characteristics that are associated with the trends of scholarly
success are not attributes that can be changed or determined by the individual
students. Instead of trying to change the students, reform must seek to change the
institutional and societal norms, policies, and structures that influence students’
academic achievement (Schutz, 2006). One major reform in the 20
th
century that
sought to make education more equitable was the case of Brown v. Board of
Education (1954) in which “separate but equal” was ruled unconstitutional and
schools were mandated to desegregate (Ladson-Billings, 2006). However, the equal
terms called for in Brown are not evident in today’s schools which are more racially
segregated than they were over 50 years ago (Oakes & Rogers, 2007). Recent data
show that 68.8% of African American students and 74.8% of Latino students attend
schools that are 50-100% minority schools. When looking at predominantly
minority schools (90-100%), the student population is 35.0% for African Americans
and 35.4% for Latinos (Orfield & Yun, 1999).
The mid-to-late 1950’s was a continuation of what had been set up by Brown
as well as fueled by Sputnik. During this time of the Cold War and Sputnik, we saw
the end of John Dewey’s progressive education and the findings of the Educational
Policy Commission’s report, Education for All American Children (1951). In this
report, the Commission suggested that programs for secondary schools be built upon
5
the “important needs of youth,” which included a curriculum of “functional
experiences in the practical arts, family living, civic participation, and a focus on the
general tracks” (Bybee, 1997, p. 3). Once the Soviets propelled Sputnik into orbit,
critics and the American populace alike felt that this type of curriculum would not
serve to assert America’s dominance in the global perspective. A curriculum that
emphasized conceptual mathematical problem solving and scientific inquiry was
introduced and went on to be funded by the National Defense Education Act
(NDEA) in 1958 (Bybee, 1997). Although the intentions for the NDEA were to
reclaim America’s superiority in science and math, the effects were not long lasting.
According to the 2007 results of the Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS), U.S. fourth graders were outscored by five other
industrialized countries in math and seven countries in science, whereas the eighth
graders were outscored by five countries in math and 10 countries in science
(TIMSS, 2007).
The next major reform effort was the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) of 1965. Considered the most expansive federal education bill to date,
this was a major part of President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” Johnson
believed that education was vital to children’s ability to be productive. This bill
created a modification in the government’s role in education, which allowed the
policy making to shift from the exclusive domain of the state and local governments
to now include the federal government. ESEA has five major titles, including Title I,
“which provides funding and guidelines for educating educationally disadvantaged
6
children” (National Archives). Over 80% of the monies within ESEA went to Title I
programs.
The release of the 1983 report A Nation at Risk (National Commission on
Excellence in Education, April 1983) announced to the nation that our educational
system was spiraling downward. The report concluded that this generation of
students would not even approach the same level of education, literacy, and
economic attainment as their parents did, which was considered a first in the nation’s
history. The report clearly stated the underachievement of the nation’s educational
pursuits:
The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a
rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a
people. What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur--others
are matching and surpassing our educational attainments (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, April 1983).
Although the report was written over 25 years ago, the nation has yet to live
up to the recommendations suggested which has caused continued concern with
educational outcomes. In fact, the same issues were revisited by the National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future in 1996.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was amended in 2001
to create the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB is based upon increased
flexibility and local control, increased options for parents, emphasis on effective
teachers, and stronger accountability for results (Reese, 2004). Great controversy
has been created over NCLB and its mandates. NCLB requires the individual states
to define adequate yearly progress (AYP) for schools and school districts. AYP is
7
determined based upon assessments in English language arts and math. Any schools
receiving Title I funds that do not make their AYP goals for two consecutive years
are required to develop a two year plan for improvement. Schools that remain in
program improvement may be dealt numerous sanctions that include allowing
students to transfer to a better performing school in the district, administrative
takeover, and a reapplication of the teaching staff. Although there is great
controversy over NCLB, it is important to note that the federal act has been
instrumental in revealing the significant opportunity gap between African American
and Latino students and their Asian and White counterparts (Stecher et al., 2003).
Similarly, NCLB has renewed an emphasis on student and teacher standards and
accountability in education.
Achievement/Opportunity Gap
Community-school-university partnerships have the potential to overcome
the effects of historical educational reform efforts that have typically lead to the
perpetuation of the status quo. The inequality of educational outcomes for urban
minority students has been a persistent and pervasive crisis for public education in
the United States. Despite efforts to reform education, there remains an enormous
gap between minority students in low-income urban communities and their White
and Asian counterparts in more affluent communities, which is often referred to as
the achievement gap. This term is aligned with a deficit theory that places the blame
upon the low-income students of color who are underperformers in school. A more
positive term that does not “blame the victim” is the opportunity gap (Alfinio, 2007;
8
Foley, 2005). Instead of pointing out deficits, this notion points out differences
which attributes “minority underachievement to discontinuities between home and
school cultures, for example, language, values, behavioral expectations, and so
forth… not to deficiencies in the child” (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001, p. 46). The
cultural dissonance experienced by minority students could be mitigated by
knowledge about the culture of power and the codes for participation, such as
“discourse patterns, interactional styles, and spoken and written language codes of
this culture” (Delpit, 1988).
Another lens to view the opportunity gap can be through the framework of
Bourdieu’s concept of social capital, which emphasizes the inequalities in the
amounts of capital individuals are able to obtain. This may be determined by the fit
between a person’s habitus and their field. Habitus can be defined as one’s way of
thinking and acting based upon their past experiences and social training (Lareau,
2001). A field can be considered a system of social relations at the micro or macro
level (Lareau & Horvat, 1999). When a person’s habitus is consistent with his/her
field he/she enjoys a social advantage. Minority students often experience a
disadvantage between their habitus and the field of schooling, whereas middle-class,
European American students experience a social advantage because their way of
“knowing, preferring, and experiencing a lifestyle” is congruent with the culture that
is dominant within most American schools (Lee & Bowen, 2006, p. 198). These
students are on “pathways of privilege and power” due to their access to and
opportunity within mainstream education (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 4).
9
There is a need to change the mismatch between the habitus of students and
the field of schooling in hopes of ameliorating the opportunity gap (Lee & Bowen,
2006; Marsh, 2006). This can either be done by augmenting the knowledge of the
students or it can be done through the reculturation of those who work in education.
Fullan (as cited in Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001) defines reculturation as
changing the “norms, behaviors, language, expectations, and modes of interaction
among the people who work in schools” (p. 46). An attempt to change the culture of
schools is an important task, especially when considering that 76.5% of all urban
public school students are from ethnic groups other than European American and
that the teaching force can be considered primarily European American (Au, 2002;
Murtadha-Watts, 1998; Sleeter, 2000-2001). Many have found that schools of
education have done little to address the mismatch between the culture of the student
and the culture of the school, “teacher education departments have been extremely
successful at what they do: reproduce mainstream values and knowledge, maintain
hegemonic competition and hierarchicalization, and assimilate or devaluate
differences” (Yeo, 1997, p. 132).
There are other cultural and economic conditions within the schooling system
that amplify the opportunity gap. There is a shortage of high-quality teachers within
the urban school system due to distributional inequalities of the hiring of teachers
(Haycock, 1998; Peske & Haycock, 2006; Oakes & Rogers, 2007; Wenglinsky,
2000). Many urban school districts have disproportionally high rates of unsafe and
overcrowded facilities, and curricula that do not adequately prepare the students for
10
college requirements (Oakes & Rogers, 2007). Similarly, many teachers lack the
cultural competence to teach diverse youth and often see students’ backgrounds as a
deficit instead of a resource (Bennett, 2001; Hollins & Guzman, 2005; Murtadha-
Watts, 1998; Schutz, 2006). When combined, these issues exacerbate the
opportunity gap for minority students in urban schools.
Partnerships
Partnerships are a possible solution for ameliorating the opportunity gap and
changing reform efforts that typically provide continued benefit of the dominant
class and the perpetuation of the status quo (Miller & Haffner, 2008). The persistent
problem of underachievement in urban schools, which can be manifested in high
drop-out rates and under-representation of Black and Latino youth in post-secondary
institutions (Knight et al., 2004), has created a need for different stakeholders to
come together to produce work in the public interest that has direct relevance to the
broader community (Mayfield & Lucas, 2000). Partnerships are profound in that the
stakeholders are helping to create a program that is destined for their own use
(Freire, 1970; Miller & Haffner, 2008), as opposed to reform that is predetermined
and imposed by others, such as the state or national government. Partnerships have
proven to produce tangible and beneficial results, including the following: increase
in college going rates (Bringle et al., 2009; Collins et al., 2009; Kezar, 2007; Knight
et al., 2004); stronger school persistence and higher retention (Kezar, 2007; Sanders,
2001); increase in academic achievement and student test scores (Bringle et al.,
2009; Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Epstein & Sheldon, 2006; Hill & Taylor, 2004;
11
Kezar, 2007; Sanders, 2001); strengthening of social capital (Hill & Taylor, 2004;
Lee & Bowen, 2006; Oakes & Rogers, 2007; Sanders, 2001); enhancement of the
attitudes towards academic subjects of parents, teachers, and students (Sanders,
2001); better attendance (Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Epstein & Sheldon 2006;
Sanders, 2001); and improved teacher pedagogical knowledge and skills (Kezar,
2007).
The creation of partnerships has become more common in the 21
st
century.
The use of partnerships can be seen in new federal policies such as No Child Left
Behind, which mandates that schools, districts, and states communicate effectively
with parents and involve families in their children’s education (No Child Left Behind
Act, 2001). Similarly, many key education reform groups, such as the Interstate
New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), the National Council
for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), and the Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) are beginning to encourage coursework on
partnerships. These courses include comprehensive and practical knowledge of
school, family, and community partnerships which the previously mentioned reform
groups deem as necessary for adequate preparation in the teaching field (Epstein &
Sanders, 2006). Although the use of partnerships has not been mandated in
legislation, the educational community is asserting the benefits of the experiences
associated with partnerships. In a survey of 161 schools, colleges, and departments
of educations (SCDE), leaders believed that partnership skills were important,
12
required by accreditation organizations, and preferred by those hiring new teachers
(Epstein & Sanders, 2006).
Partnership Stakeholders
There are numerous types of partnerships and each includes varied
stakeholders, such as the federal, state, and local governments; schools; families;
communities; universities; non-profit organizations; businesses; foundations, and
faith-based communities (Carroll, LaPoint, & Tyler, 2001; Miller & Hafner, 2008;
Sanders, 2001). Although there are many different possible combinations of
stakeholders, most partnerships form a bilateral relationship between a school and
another entity, most commonly the community/family or a university (Epstein &
Sheldon, 2006).
The Community and the School
There is a large body of research that has studied the effects of school and
community partnerships. Many educational researchers and theorists state that
learning takes place through a social interaction (Bandura, 1996; Moll et al., 1992;
Vygotsky, 1970); therefore children learn and grow at home, at school, and in the
community (Epstein & Sheldon, 2006). This interaction is what Epstein (1995,
2001) refers to as overlapping spheres of influence, which posits that students learn
more when parents, educators, and community members work together to support
student learning as well as development (Epstein & Sheldon, 2006). These spheres
can either be drawn together or pulled apart based on the philosophies, backgrounds,
and actions of the three entities. The spheres of influence are similar to
13
Bronfenbrenner’s (1993) notion of an ecological model of development, which
describes an environment from the perspective of a developing person. This is
broken down into microsystems, mesosytems, exosystems, macrosystems, and
chronosystems which aid in the development of each child (Bronfenbrenner, 1993).
Lee and Bowen (2006) also refer to the primary microsystems of the home and
school and how the interactions between these can lead to higher achievement and
other indicators of school success. Studies have shown that “students did better in
school when the important people in their lives at home, at school, and in the
community had common goals and played collaborative, complementary, and
supportive roles” (Epstein & Sheldon, 2006, p. 119).
The interest of the community and family, specifically parents, has strong
connections to academic achievement. Participation in a partnership has shown to
build parents’ social capital therefore allowing them to be better equipped to assist
their children in school-related activities (Lee & Bowen, 2006; Epstein & Sheldon,
2006; Schutz, 2006). Social capital is derived from Bourdieu’s theory of social
reproduction (1977) and Coleman’s work on rational action (1988), which Stanton-
Salazar (1997) defines as “Relationships with institutional agents, and the networks
that weave these relationships into units” (p. 8). Social capital can be viewed as the
amount and quality of middle-class forms of social support in a student’s
interpersonal network. This implies that there are structural variations within these
networks based upon a person’s social class and status, which translates into
“differential access to highly valued institutionalized resources, opportunities, and
14
privileges” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 5). Social capital within a school can range
from understanding how to help a child with their homework to the necessary
courses needed to apply for college. Parental and school partnerships have the
ability to build social capital for students, which is particularly important for urban
minority students (Sanders, 2001; Hill & Taylor, 2004; Oakes & Rogers, 2007; Lee
& Bowen, 2006).
The School and the University
There is a palpable connection between universities and P-12 schools, which
when considered jointly, can be viewed as the schooling system for the nation.
Benson and Harkavy (2003) highlight the importance of this connection, “The
schooling system functions as the core and strategic subsystem of modern
information societies. More than any other sub-system, education influences the
functioning of the social system as a whole and has the greatest direct and indirect
effects” (p. 95). Due to the power of this relationship, many educational leaders seek
to combine the dual systems into one prekindergarten through grade 16 organization
(Rousseau, 2007; Benson & Harkavy, 2003). Urban schools typically have frequent
changes consisting of conflicting reform efforts, policy churn, and high turn-over
rates and they lack the capacity and resources to achieve sustained institutional
change (Schutz, 2006). Through partnerships with universities, urban school
districts not only augment their knowledge base, but they also can gain power and
human, material, and financial resources (Benson & Harkavy, 2003; Carroll et al.,
2002; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000). The reforms created by the marriage of these
15
institutions are very powerful because “they bring together the creators and appliers
of knowledge and lead to renewal and innovation for both partners” (Kezar, 2007, p.
29).
Equity theory is an important conjecture when considering the university
system and schools in partnership. Bringle et al. (2009) state that relationships are
considered satisfying when outcomes are perceived as proportionate to inputs and
those ratios are similar, even when the inputs and outcomes are unequal. In equity
theory, all members benefit from the relationship. Universities may be the power
and resource-rich entity, but they also gain benefits from working with schools. For
example, universities are able to conduct research, train new teachers in professional
development schools, and link theory with practice when they enter into
relationships with schools (Benson & Harkavy, 2003; Carroll, 2002).
The Community, School, and University
As history will evidence, most formal partnerships have been between a
school and one other entity, the university or the community. This paper will focus
its research on the tripartite effort of partnerships between the community, school,
and university that represent what Carroll, LaPoint, and Tyler (2001) have
characterized as “one of the most effective proven strategies to provide human,
material, and financial resources to improve student academic and social
competence” in under-resourced urban public schools (p. 38). While combining the
resources and collective strength of all three distinct entities, a new cultural model
can be created that has the potential to transform schools in which the social,
16
physical, emotional and academic needs of every student are coordinated and
developed.
Co-Construction
When considering the creation of new partnerships, the idea of co-
construction is a key tenet. Co-construction involves stakeholders working together
as equals to create shared understanding and mutually created goals and outcomes.
This type of work requires that members consider the “attitudes, resources, and
protocols that are specific to the academic, social and cultural environments” of all
stakeholders (Carroll, LaPoint, & Tyler, 2001, p. 39). By taking into consideration
the social and cultural dynamics of the institutions and the experiences and dynamics
of the surrounding community and its members, co-constructed partnerships enable
their stakeholders to work to overcome barriers that typically hinder partnerships:
lack of trust, inequitable power dynamics, poor communication, differing
organizational cultures, and lack of mutuality (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Carroll, La
Point, & Tyler, 2001; Kezar, 2007; Maurrasse, 2002; Miller & Hafner, 2008;
Sanders, 2001; Schutz, 2006).
The Role of Dialogue in Co-Construction
The term dialogic is derived from Paolo Freire’s seminal work Pedagogy of
the Oppressed (1970, 2009). Freire asserts that dialogic relationships are marked by
trust, respect, love, humility, faith in humankind, and critical thinking, which in turn,
can serve as the basis for co-constructed relationships. The downfall of numerous
partnerships can be related to hierarchical power dynamics that distort the trust and
17
participation of its stakeholders. When looking through a Freirean lens, dialogue
“becomes a horizontal relationship of which mutual trust between dialoguers is the
logical consequence” (Freire, 2009, p. 91). In this sense, dialogue can be used as a
means for liberation and advancement (Freire, 2009; Miller & Hafner, 2008).
Dialogue may lead to liberation by bringing together different people to speak about
their own views, rather than imposing others “preoccupations, doubts, hopes, and
fears” on each other; and acting upon these ideas (Freire, 2009, p. 96). Liberation is
an important concept when considering the aims of many urban community-school-
university partnerships that seek to overhaul the established societal structures that
advocate traditional reform efforts that essentially perpetuate the status quo (Delpit,
1988; Miller & Hafner, 2008).
The Co-Construction of New Cultural Models
The creation and continuation of successful partnerships often requires the
members to create a new cultural model. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) define
cultural models as the “shared mental schema or normative understandings of how
the world works, or ought to work. The concept incorporates behavioral (activity) as
well as cognitive and affective components” (p. 47). Universities, schools,
communities, and families all have pre-existing cultural models that are enacted in
the cultural settings in which they interact. For a co-constructed dialogic partnership
to develop there is a need for these individual cultures and their models to be
suspended and a new one created (Lemma, Ferrara, & Leone, 1998). Elements that
aid in the creation of a new culture include a boundary-spanner convener, shared
18
vision, intensive planning, vehicles for communication, clear policies, and evaluation
(Kezar, 2007). The creation of a new cultural model is a time consuming and
difficult process that must consider the relationships that exist at both the micro and
macro level. The macro level refers to the varying cultures between the school,
university, and community. The micro level includes the varying differences that
exist within the school, university, and community (Firestone & Fisler, 2002). This
creation of a new cultural model will aid partners in the creation of collective
knowledge and structures that are essential for the transformation of urban under-
resourced schools.
Statement of the Problem
The inequality of educational outcomes for urban minority students has been
a persistent and pervasive crisis for public education in the United States.
Historically, school reform efforts have done little to improve the academic
achievement of African American and Latino students in the nation’s public schools.
Instead, they tend to maintain the status quo in which white middle class and a large
percentage of Asian students continue to achieve at significantly higher rates than
African American and Latino students. The historical effects of educational reform
have created and amplified the opportunity gap for urban minority students.
Community-school-university partnerships have the potential to overcome the effects
of historical educational reform efforts that have typically led to the perpetuation of
the status quo. The creation of partnerships to overcome educational problems is not
a new concept; in fact, many partnerships have been created and dissolved without
19
achieving the goal for which they were originally created. The reasons for
partnership failure are diverse. One common problem is the inability to bridge the
different cultural backgrounds and models of the stakeholders and their diverse
cultural frames of reference. Another dilemma that plagues partnerships in the urban
setting is inequitable power dynamics and the wielding of power to define the terms
of engagement and the structures in which they exist. Partnerships have also been
unsuccessful due to a lack of collaboration and dialogue which prohibits the creation
of mutually agreed upon goals and evaluation standards, which therefore prohibits
the sustainability of the partnerships.
While there is a large volume of work that highlights the multifaceted issues
surrounding partnerships, there have been successful models which guide the
creation of community-school-university partnerships. Co-construction can be an
essential foundation for successful partnerships. Co-construction requires that all
members create their knowledge base together while acknowledging and valuing the
social and cultural experiences of each other. Similarly, the use of intentional and
structured dialogue allows stakeholders to co-construct the purposes, roles, and
mutually agreed upon goals of the partnerships. Another factor which may
determine the success of community-school-university partnerships is the use of the
specialized knowledge about the specific student demographics of the community,
which requires the inclusion of the members of the community within and outside of
the school. Freire (2009) stated that political and education reform often failed
because “their authors designed them according to their own personal views of
20
reality, never once taking into account (except as mere objects of their actions) the
men-in-a-situation to whom their program was ostensibly directed” (p. 94).
Community-school-university partnerships provide a context that has the potential to
unite the unique perspectives, assets, and experiences of all stakeholders through the
hierarchical sharing of power and creation of common goals to actualize the potential
of urban minority students.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the co-construction of a community-
school-university partnership as it seeks to transform an urban school and produce
higher student academic achievement. The study’s findings will address persisting
barriers to partnerships in their efforts to reform and transform P-12 schools, as well
as the strategies that have proved successful for overcoming these barriers. The
study will explore conditions that have caused the opportunity gap for urban students
and solutions for ameliorating these issues through an improved form of teacher
development and the creation of a new cultural model.
Research Questions
The role of the university, community, and schools in partnership to improve
the quality of urban education is the focus of the following research questions:
1. What evidence of ongoing processes, including co-construction, does a
community-school-university partnership demonstrate as it continues to work
toward school improvement after its first year of operation?
21
a. What are the barriers that persist in co-constructing and sustaining a
community-school-university partnership created to improve an urban
school?
b. What effective strategies are in place that demonstrates the ability to
overcome the persistent barriers in community-school-university
partnerships seeking to improve student achievement in an urban
school?
2. What attributes of a community, school, and university partnership in an
urban school can facilitate and support a new cultural model for the role of
teachers in promoting high academic achievement for African American and
Latino students?
Importance of the Study
As the minority population of our nation becomes the majority, there is a
need for the dissolution of the opportunity gap in order to ensure that the greater part
of American students are educated and go on to be employed and productive
members of our global society. Creating a successful partnership among the
community, school, and university will serve as a model for similar partnerships that
seek to accomplish comparable tasks. These types of partnerships are unique in that
they seek the union of three distinct stakeholders, and the knowledge gained from
this tripartite effort will increase the knowledge base on partnerships that typically
only deal with two different entities. These partnerships seek to break down barriers
22
that exist within the isolated education field and drive educational reform in a
positive direction.
Limitations
The limitations of this study include time, access to key stakeholders, and the
degree of trust present in the relationship. This study has a three month span in
which to collect relevant data from the community, school, and university
stakeholders. Limited time will affect the number of artifacts, observations, and
interviews collected for analysis. Access to key stakeholders may also be limited
within the study due to competing schedules, responsibilities, transfers, and/or
changes in personnel within the stakeholder groups. Limited access may also lead to
the research team relying on limited perspectives. Due to the short time frame for
data collection, there may also be issues of trust. Some individuals may be inhibited
due to a perceived risk involved in communicating certain information about other
partners or their own agencies.
Delimitations
This study represents year three of a five-year study of a community-school-
university partnership to research effective strategies in sustaining successful
partnerships for the purpose of improving the quality of education in urban schools.
The School of Education at Westside University, in partnership with Prep High
School, Grizzly United, and City Connections will collaborate to improve the 70-
block neighborhood community surrounding Prep High School in Los Angeles. This
partnership will be formally known as the United Education Action Team (UEAT).
23
While the unique nature of the study lends itself to valuable insights into the barriers
and strategies of urban partnerships, there is a limitation in that there is only one case
study being examined. This will limit the ability to generalize the study’s findings in
relation to other sites.
Definitions
1. Achievement Gap: A term that has come to commonly be used since the
enactment of No Child Left Behind to describe the disparity in positive student
outcomes, typically between middle class students and students of color in high
poverty urban areas.
2. Banking Concept: A term derived from Paulo 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 socio-cultural context that informs that knowledge. This instrument of
oppression is oftentimes manifested within power relationships.
3. 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.
4. Community: Traditionally defined as a group of people interacting and living in a
common geographic location. Community is also defined as the shared
characteristics, norms, behaviors, identity and cohesiveness of a group sharing
common spaces of interaction. The ‘community’ in this case study, as representative
of the aforementioned definition, has a variety of assets as well as liabilities.
24
However, many of the assets have remained. In this study, this term may also refer to
community-based organizations, or parents and students in the community, or to
other members of the community.
5. Critical Bridge Person: A term used by Ostrander to describe an individual or
individuals who can serve as brokers within university, K-12 schools, and
community partners who can help create new relationships where power is
distributed. This type of individual has also been referred to in the literature as a
mediator, social advocate, institutional agent, convener, and boundary spanner.
6. Cultural Capital: First articulated in 1973 by Pierre Bourdieu; cultural capital acts
as a social relation within a system of exchange that includes social assets and the
accumulated cultural knowledge that might promote power, or mobility beyond
economic means.
7. Cultural Model: Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) broadly define cultural models
as the “shared mental schema or normative understanding of how the world works,
or ought to work” (47).
8. Dialogic 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 them to articulate their intentions,
needs, talents, capacities, and resources without denigration or domination.
25
9. Education Debt: Achievement disparities or “deficits” that have occurred
particularly between African American and Latino children and their white
counterparts as a result of the persisting achievement gap in the United States.
10. Funds of Knowledge: Defined by Moll (1995) as historically accumulated and
culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or
individual functioning and well-being.
11. Mutual Shared Learning: A process in which all entities are cognitively and
socially engaged for the purpose of constructing a shared body of knowledge.
12. Opportunity Gap: A term adopted by those who resist using the term
achievement gap to describe the disparity in student outcomes occurring between
historically oppressed persons due to historic barriers and inequities in school
quality.
13. Overlapping Spheres: Epstein (1995, 2001) states that student learning and
development is supported through the interaction of members from the important
spheres in a student’s life: parents, educators, and community members.
14. Partnership: A convergence of knowledge, resources, and assets from a
university, K-12 school, and community co-constructed through dialogic
relationships that has the potential to eradicate historic, social, economic, and
political barriers on behalf of urban school transformation.
15. Persisting Barriers: Obstructions to the co-construction process of building and
sustaining community-school-university partnerships in their effort to improve
26
schools; often focusing a myriad of ways to emphasize differences rather than the
common goals of the partnership.
16. Power: The potential for affecting influence and change through decision-
making capabilities and resources.
17. Power Relationships: Hierarchical distribution of social, political, and economic
capital that can result in the status of oppressor and oppressed.
18. Praxis: Derived from Paolo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2009) in which
the oppressor must first engage in reflection before she/he can commit to action or
activism. Typically this is the crossroads between theory and practice necessary for
educational reform.
19. Social Capital: The availability of, and access to, resources and assets within an
environment that can serve as paths to improving an individual’s ability to negotiate
his/her position in the social strata.
20. Urban: A large, densely populated diverse metropolitan area that faces
challenges due to historic barriers, stratified wealth, and power relationships; but
have the potential to draw upon the many untapped and unrecognized assets of the
university, school, and community.
27
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to investigate the ways in which a community-
school-university partnership can be constructed and maintained in order to generate
positive change and create a new cultural model for transforming an urban school.
Chapter One provided background for the need for equitable learning opportunities
for minority students as well as an overview of partnerships as the conduit for
positive change in urban P-12 schooling. Chapter Two will cover historical as well
as current legislation in the context of education in order to highlight the repeated
legacy of exclusion and unequal treatment of children of color, which has created the
conditions for the achievement gap. The nation’s current model of education and the
conditions it has created for urban minority students needs to be changed in order to
provide opportunities to overcome the achievement gap. One possible solution is
community-school-university partnerships that seek to overcome the history of
educational depravity and deficit theories through co-construction, dialogue, and
shared power. The distinct cultures, purposes, and resources involved in this type of
partnership can serve as a conduit of a new cultural model for schools.
Historical Context of Education Legislation
The long struggle against segregation, and the legislation that accompanied it,
provides understanding about how the past continues to affect African American and
Latino students in the present. The schooling system of America has deep roots
28
within the legislation surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, and Westminster v.
Mendez are landmark cases setting the context for current issues affecting African
American and Latino students. They demonstrate the historical struggle to overcome
school segregation based on color, which still plagues American schools in the
twenty-first century.
Plessy v. Ferguson
Plessy created a legal precedent for rigid segregation that was not previously
a strict custom or tradition (Oberst, 1973). In this case, the Supreme Court
constitutionalized the state enactment of racial prejudice and set forth the idea of
“separate but equal” (Bernstein, 1963), which stood in stark contrast with the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution that sought to enforce absolute equality
of African Americans and Whites before the law (Oberst, 1973). Plessy allowed
states to enforce separate accommodations on public transportation and thus became
the precedent for the separate but equal doctrine in education and other aspects in
society (Foley, 2005),
Brown v. Board of Education- 1954
The landmark Brown v. Board of Education court decision had a major
impact on reversing the effects of the Plessy decision. However, the beginning of
the fight against Plessy can be seen in early law cases that mostly dealt with
inequality of professional and graduate education for African Americans in
Oklahoma, Texas, and Missouri. Other cases like Gaines v. Canada (1938) and
29
Sweatt v. Painter (1950) made major assaults on the separate but equal doctrine.
These cases led to Brown v. Board of Education (1954) in which the Supreme Court
ruled that segregated primary education was unequal and the separate but equal
clause was overruled (Oberst, 1973). Brown used the expert testimony of social
scientists and the discipline of sociology to make a case against segregation and the
psychological effect of segregation upon school children (Bernstein, 1963; Oberst,
1973).
Latino Law Precedents
Between the time of Plessy and Brown, there were also numerous education
related cases that dealt with the plight of Latino students. These cases are
significantly different in that Latinos were fighting against de facto segregation
whereas African Americans were fighting against de jure segregation (Foley, 2005).
These cases were also different because the defendants frequently did not try to fight
against the immoral precedents of separate but equal, instead they sought to say that
Latinos were not included in Plessy because they should be considered white and
therefore not be segregated like African Americans and other minority groups
(Bernstein, 2007; Foley, 2005; Montoya, 2001; Rochmes, 2007). In spite of the
significant differences in the reasoning behind measures taken against African
Americans and Latinos, the effects were the same. These two ethnic groups were
segregated from White students and they remain highly segregated even in 2011.
The cases of Del Rio Independent School District v. Salvatierra (1930),
Westminster School District v. Mendez (1946), and Delgado v. Bastrop Independent
30
School District (1948) show the plight of the Latinos against Plessy. In these cases,
the parents did not question the quality of instruction nor the conditions of the
separate school house; instead they filed suit against the districts’ policies of
separating the Latino students from their Anglo counterparts (Foley, 2005). The
districts claimed that the segregation was not based upon the race or the color of the
students, but asserted they were separated due to their English language deficiency,
their frequent absences due to the harvesting of crops, and their lack of American
cultures and values (Foley, 2005; Montoya, 2001; Rochmes, 2007). When these
traits were combined, it made the Latino students more greatly “retarded” than the
Anglo students (Foley, 2005). These court cases ruled in favor of the school districts
and defined the practice as pedagogically motivated segregation, in which it was
appropriate to segregate students as long as it was based upon impartial linguistic
grounds (Montoya, 2001; Rochmes, 2007), therefore allowing segregation as a
means for providing for the particular needs of the students (Rochmes, 2007).
The Westminster School District v. Mendez case in California was significant
for several reasons: it was the first use of the Fourteenth Amendment to overturn
widespread segregation of a minority group (Bernstein, 2007); it was filed in the
Federal Court (Bernstein, 2007); there was widespread collaborative multiracial
activism within this case, including Jewish and Anglo American civil rights
attorneys, American Jewish Congress, National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, Japanese American Citizens League, American Civil Liberties
Union, and National Lawyers Guild (Bernstein, 2007); and the key attorney,
31
Thurgood Marshall, went on to be the lead attorney for the Brown case and was later
appointed as a Supreme Court Justice (Bernstein, 2007). The Mendez case did not
rule that segregation under Plessy was illegal, but instead asserted that there was no
law in California that mandated the segregation of Latinos (Foley, 2005). California
law classified students by the “great races”: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negro, Indian,
and Asiatic (Foley, 2005). Latinos were considered to be part of the Caucasoid race
and therefore could not be segregated from other Anglo students. This case was also
a key factor in California Governor Warren’s signing of a bill repealing the legal
segregation of Native American and Asian-origin students in 1947, thereby
eliminating school segregation in California (Bernstein, 2007). Mendez was also
significant in that precedent was set for the arguments presented in Brown.
Integration
The Brown case may have called for the end of racial segregation in schools,
but it was not until Brown II (1955) when the court mandated desegregation of
schools with “all deliberate speed” (Ogletree, 2005). One way in which school
districts attempted to skirt the issue of integration was to integrate Latinos and
African Americans while leaving Anglo white students separate (Foley, 2005;
Montoya, 2001). The parents in the Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School
District (1968) case found this practice to be unjust, but school officials claimed that
Latinos were considered the ‘other white,’ as was the precedent set in Salvatierra
and Mendez, and therefore they were following Brown II’s mandate to desegregate
White and Black students (Foley, 2005; Montoya, 2001; Rochmes, 2007). This
32
practice was stopped in 1970 when the judge in Cisneros ruled that Latinos were an
“identifiable, ethnic minority group” and therefore they could not be categorized as
White students to meet the desegregation mandate (Foley, 2005; Montoya, 2001;
Rochmes, 2007). This was also the first time that the Brown decision was used to
apply to Latino students (Foley, 2005).
Current Issues Surrounding Segregation
The nation’s educational system is still separate, but, contrary to Plessy,
unequal. Although education in the United States has progressed greatly from the
times of Plessy, inequality is “endemic to the logic of our society and to the roles
schools play in it” (Oakes & Rogers, 2007, p. 196). Present day segregation is a
major consideration for school reform because research shows that resources accrue
to schools where White students predominate (Carey, 2004; Kozol, 2005; Oakes &
Rogers, 2007). The current system of education, according to No Child Left Behind,
holds African American and Latino students accountable for the same outcomes as
White children. This accountability is based on a false assumption of equality in
schooling opportunities. However, history is replete with cases of inequality and
injustices, and the effects of these injustices have been experienced by these students
for more than a century. To overcome the achievement gap, the system of schools
and the cultures that permeate them need to be changed. One possible vehicle for
change can be seen in community-school-university partnerships that seek to
promote academic achievement for African American and Latino students by
33
challenging cultural and political norms while seeking structural and practical
change (Oakes & Rogers, 2007).
As recently as 1970, in Crawford v. Board of Education of the City of Los
Angeles, the Supreme Court found that the Los Angeles Unified School District was
substantially segregated (Montoya, 2001). The Supreme Court stated that it did not
matter if it was de facto or de jure segregation, what mattered was that there was an
obvious situation of unequal education for Latino and African American students
which resulted from the presence of racial isolation (Montoya, 2001). Similarly, in
1973, the Supreme Court in Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado
extended desegregation requirements to Northern and Western cities that had a
history of fostering segregation (Orfield & Yun, 1999). Ironically, the south and
other areas in the country that were formerly de jure segregation states were the first
and easiest to desegregate due to their explicit segregation laws that could be
challenged; the states that were experiencing de facto segregation required more
effort to desegregate (Orfield & Yun, 1999).
Many school districts across the country are finding that they too have
basically re-segregated their students, especially in the nation’s large urban areas
(Orfield & Yun, 1999). Currently the racial composition in the nation’s schools is
rapidly changing and many schools have three or more racial groups, with the
exception of Whites who tend to remain in majority White schools (Orfield & Yun,
1999). While minority groups are becoming more integrated within minority
schools, White and Asian students are not typically part of this integration.
34
Segregation of minority groups is also strongly related to class. In schools with a
majority of non-White students, there is concentrated poverty; in schools with a
majority of White students, there is a high proportion of middle-class students
(Orfield & Yun, 1999). While no one can assure that sending minority students to
integrated schools will ensure a high quality education, studies have shown that
Black and Latino students in racially desegregated schools are generally in schools
with higher levels of average academic achievement (Orfield & Yun, 1999).
Unfortunately, resegregation of minority students has also come about
through legislation that has ended desegregation requirements. In cases such as
Milliken v. Bradley, Milliken v. Bradley II, Board of Education of Oklahoma City v.
Dowell, Freeman v. Pitts, and Missouri v. Jenkins, the courts ruled for desegregation
plans to be dismantled (Orfield & Yun, 1999). Therefore, local school districts are
protected by law to allow the continuation of racially isolated schools so long as
lawyers cannot prove that the school boards had the intention to discriminate against
students (Orfield & Yun, 1999). The racial isolation of minority students and the
conditions that surround this isolation are detrimental to their academic achievement
(Bankston & Caldas, 1996).
The findings of Bankston and Caldas (1996) highlight that segregation and
the conditions that accompany it had a stronger determination of students’ success
than their own personal traits and characteristics. This signals the need for
comprehensive change within the culture of schools and the processes and systems
of schools. Community-school-university partnerships can be a mechanism to seek
35
out and disrupt inequalities, challenge cultural and political norms, and struggle to
create structural and practical change in order to achieve more equitable educational
opportunity (Bankston & Caldas, 1996; Oakes & Rogers, 2007).
Language Exposure
Another issue surrounding the segregation of minority groups is the language
barrier for students whose primary language is not English. Based upon the national
statistics, the average Latino student is in a school with 52.5% Latino students
(Orfield & Yun, 1999). This proportion increases greatly when looking at isolated
regions in the country. In the West, where Latinos are the dominant minority group,
77% of Latinos are in predominantly minority schools (Orfield & Yun, 1999). The
average Latino student is typically in a school in which there is a very high
proportion of Spanish speaking students and a lower proportion of fluent English
speakers (Orfield & Yun, 1999). In order for schooling to be more just, the culture
of the school and the curriculum should be designed for the assets of the Latino
population and to ensure greater exposure to English among their peers as well as
teachers. The heightened segregation of Latino students is not the case for other
non-English speaking minority students; based on national statistics, the average
Asian student is in a school with 46.9% White students, 12.1% African Americans,
18.5% Latinos, and only 21.8% Asians (Orfield & Yun, 1999). As based on the data,
Asian students have more interaction with students who have less linguistic isolation
and are more likely to have a higher degree of integration with students outside their
own ethnic group, which aids in their academic success (Orfield & Yun, 1999).
36
The data demonstrate that for English language learners, such as Latinos,
there needs to be a change within the cultural models of schools in order to prevent
the systemic underachievement of the students in these schools. Collier (1995)
suggests that a central factor in second language acquisition in schools relates to
socio-cultural processes; “all of the surrounding social and cultural processes
occurring through everyday life within the student's past, present, and future, in all
contexts- home, school, community, and the broader society” can influence students’
achievement in school (p. 2). Community-school-university partnerships may be one
conduit for change by seeking to unite the processes and contexts of language
learners’ lives both inside and outside the school context, while positively affecting
academic achievement through the creation of a socio-culturally supportive
environment. The role of partnerships will be discussed in further detail later in this
chapter.
Achievement/Opportunity Gap
Definition and History
The notion of the achievement gap has been researched and defined by social
psychologists, sociolinguists, multicultural educators, curriculum theorist, teacher
educators, and numerous other professionals. There are multiple definitions for the
terms and equally many explanations for why the gap exists; however, it cannot be
fully understood without an understanding of the long-lasting effects of inequalities
produced by imposed segregation. The National Governors’ Association (2005)
defines achievement gap as a matter of race and class, an issue of academic
37
achievement disparities that persists between minority and disadvantaged students
and their white counterparts. The usage of the term achievement gap became
commonplace with the creation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation in
2001. NCLB requires states to set the same performance targets for children from
economically disadvantaged families, with disabilities, with limited English
proficiency, and from all major ethnic and racial groups. Through the disaggregation
of data of all subgroups, it is evident that students from minority groups and those
who reside in low-income urban areas are not performing as well as their Caucasian,
Asian, and suburban counterparts, which is considered the achievement gap.
Ladson-Billings (2006) refers not to the achievement gap, but instead likens
the disparity in achievement to the national debt, which she defines as the amount by
which an entity’s spending exceeds income over a particular amount of time, which
is one year when referring to the national deficit. She goes on to define the national
debt as the sum of all “previously incurred annual federal deficits” (Ladson-Billings,
2006, p. 4). It is important to note that even in years when the national deficit does
not increase, the nation still pays interest on its national debt, which therefore
increases every year. Ladson-Billings (2006) suggests that the term “achievement
gap” is limiting in that it focuses on only one year. She believes that the more
appropriate term to be applied is an education debt, for which its effects have been
growing exponentially over the last century. Although Ladson-Billings includes
financial support in her term “national debt,” she is also using it as a way to say the
38
nation has never kept its promises, or its obligations, to African American and Latino
students.
Although the term achievement gap is most frequently cited, perhaps the term
opportunity gap (Winerman, 2004) is more closely related to Ladson-Billings’
(2006) philosophy behind the educational debt and the current cultural model of
schooling. The opportunity gap highlights the actual conditions and history of
minority students in American schools. As evidenced by the legislation and
education reform acts mentioned previously, there has been a significant denial of
the right to an education and a disregard for the Fourteenth Amendment for minority
students, particularly African Americans and Latinos. The current model of
schooling is still affected by the system that created slavery, segregation, and a dual
educational program for “Whites” and “Others.” System after system has been built
upon the deficit view of minority students. Oakes and Rogers (2007) point out that,
“Inequality is endemic to the logic of our society and to the roles schools play in it”
(p. 196). In order to overcome the endemic inequalities, action is needed to change
the current model of schools and address the societal norms and politics that continue
to privilege the status quo (Oakes & Rogers, 2007). One possible solution to
changing the cultural model of schooling is the creation and maintenance of
partnerships. The unique structure of community-school-university partnerships
seeks to overcome flawed assumptions, deficit theory, unequal resources, and low
quality teaching that currently plagues urban schools. This particular merit of
partnerships will be discussed in further detail later in this chapter.
39
Flawed Assumptions
Whereas Ladson-Billings (2006) compares the concept of the achievement
gap to the national debt, other researchers connect the achievement gap to the
multiple flawed assumptions surrounding educational equality. These assumptions
include the notion that the nation’s schools can be made equal through working
within the current educational system exclusively (Oakes & Rogers, 2007).
Similarly, another assumption that fuels the achievement gap is that educational
inequities can be addressed by the same historically failed attempts to improve the
knowledge or skill of the students who are engulfed by the achievement gap (Oakes
& Rogers, 2007). This notion assumes that the gap is created by the knowledge that
the students are lacking as opposed to looking at the structural, financial, and
opportunity inequities as well as the assumptions associated with the race and/or
socioeconomic status of the students (Delpit, 1998; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001;
Schutz, 2006). This assumption also places the blame on the students who are not
achieving, therefore linking this to the ideology of the American Dream, which
assumes success is based on merit. Merit can be viewed as a combination of innate
abilities, including a positive attitude, high moral character and integrity, and
working hard (McNamee & Miller, 2004). This type of thinking is akin to the myth
of American meritocracy, which posits that wealth, income, and education are
decided based upon effort (Shultz, 2006). Success and failure, in this sense, are
determined by the individual, “Since equality of opportunity is believed to be given,
it is assumed that individuals are responsible for their own failure and are, therefore,
40
made to feel that they have failed because of their own inferiority” (Cummins, 1986,
pp. 23-24). Individuals who are deeply affected by generations of segregation and
imposed poverty are left feeling that they have failed due to their own inferiority
without realizing that the nation’s educational system has a variety of non-merit
factors that suppress the effects of merit and create barriers to individual mobility
and success (Delpit, 1988; Schutz, 2006). McNamee and Miller (2004) refer to the
forces that keep people in the places they already occupy, regardless of their merit,
as “social gravity” (p. 5). Co-constructed community-school-university partnerships
have the potential to dispel the notion of social gravity and to make visible the non-
merit factors that prohibit success for urban youth in order to create a new cultural
model that constructs solutions for increased student achievement.
Logic of Scarcity, Merit, and Deficit
Oakes and Rogers (2007) present three prevailing logics that lead to
inequality in education attributable to social gravity: logic of scarcity, logic of merit,
and the logic of deficit. The logic of scarcity implies that our society has limited
investments that can be afforded in public education; therefore quality schooling is
not able to keep up with the ever-expanding school population or the demands of the
current century (Oakes & Rogers, 2007). The logic of merit assumes that since there
are limited educational resources (logic of scarcity), students must compete for these
opportunities. There is an assumption that students are all competing under a system
of equal opportunity and are rewarded with new opportunities dependent upon the
degree to which they deserve them (Oakes & Rogers, 2007). The opposite of the
41
logic of merit is the logic of deficit, which assumes that those who do not succeed
are limited by their own “cultural, situational, and individual deficits” that schooling
cannot fix (Oakes & Rogers, 2007, p. 196). The deficits are viewed as the students’
own limitations and not the result of limiting structures within the educational
system.
The logic of merit, deficit, and scarcity are also compelling factors when
considering the creation and maintenance of partnerships, specifically in regards to
power. The logic of scarcity may lead to individual stakeholder groups viewing
resources as limited, which in turn can create issues of distrust (Maurrasse, 2002;
Miller & Hafner, 2008). While the logic of scarcity exists between the stakeholder
groups, it can also exist within them. For example, schools have multiple levels of
groups acting under the logic of scarcity and competing for power. Power is seen as
existing in a limited quantity, which must be fought over instead of shared (Schultz,
2006). The community may also be divided based on issues of scarcity, competing
for things such as economic resources, political representation, and special interests
(Schutz, 2006).
Banking Form of Education
Another contributor to the opportunity gap is the flawed ways in which
teachers deliver content. Freire (2009) posits that education is “suffering from
narration sickness” in which teachers do no more than narrate material for students to
absorb (p. 71). Freire (2009) also asserts that education for those who are
oppressed- who in the case of education are minority, urban and/or low
42
socioeconomic status students- lacks creativity, does not seek to transform
individuals, nor does it build knowledge. Instead, according to Freire (2009),
education is viewed as the act of depositing: the teacher can be viewed as the
depositor of information, and the student is only responsible for receiving, filing, and
storing the deposits. The banking concept of education does not allow for inquiry on
the part of the student (Freire, 2009). Community-school-university partnerships
targeting the pedagogy of teachers have the potential to change the ways in which
teachers interact with their students and their families in order to promote
transformative learning.
Deficit Theory
The negative effects of educational banking can also be connected to the
deficit theory that educators may hold about their minority students. Deficit theory,
which contributes to the achievement gap, can be viewed as a manifestation of
historical and systemic conditions rooted in discrimination. The devaluation of
minority students is an example of how the American society and its system of
schooling are structured to prevent “equality of educational opportunity and
outcome” (Au, 1998, p. 302). Deficit thinking attributes the poor academic
performance of minority students to students and their families’ lack of normative
cultural knowledge and/or skills, the supposed devaluation of education by minority
families, and a lack of support by parents (Yosso, 2005). In a study that surveyed
teachers in an underperforming urban high school, 64% agreed with the statement, “I
believe that parents or guardians are largely to blame for students’ low achievement”
43
(Thompson, Warren & Carter, 2004). Educators tend to overlook parents’ high
expectations for their children because the parents do not interact with the schools in
the same manner as middle-class white parents (Bratlinger, Majd-Jabbari, & Guskin,
1996). Deficit thinking often creates bias in the ways teachers teach and the
construction of low expectations for minority students (Schutz, 2006). Similarly, the
lessons teachers create often do not include high level critical thinking skills
(Warburton & Torff, 2005). Partnerships can seek to alter the deficit perspective
about low-income, minority students by working with the community and parents to
change the culture of the school, while valuing the different perspectives of all
members of the school community.
Inferior Resources
Disparate access to financial resources is a limiting factor for education. The
greatest financial disparities are evident when comparing urban schools to their
suburban counterparts (Carey, 2004). These disparities translate to limited
opportunities for students in urban school. For example, Chicago public schools
spend about $8,482 annually per pupil. These schools are 87% African American
and Latino. Nearby Highland Park, which has a 90% White population, spends
roughly $17, 291 per pupil (Kozol, 2005). Urban schools are also known to have
higher rates of unqualified teachers, overcrowded facilities, and lack classes that
prepare students for college acceptance (Oakes & Rogers, 2007). Another limiting
resource within urban schools is the limited presence of a teaching force that
resembles the students within the schools. Individuals who are in the field of work
44
are primarily European American, female, and monolingual (Murtadha-Watts, 1998).
Typical candidates for teacher education programs also share similar characteristics:
White, middle class monolingual females who have grown up in suburban areas,
traveled very little beyond a 100-mile radius of home, attended a local college or
university, and hope to teach average, middle class children in a similar community
to the one in which they grew up (Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). The
matter of inferior resources is another factor that community-school-university
partnerships may be able to mitigate.
Teacher Ineffectiveness
Teacher ineffectiveness is another concern related to the achievement gap.
Poor students, minority students, and low-performing students- the characteristics
that describe urban school populations- are far more likely to have teachers that are
uncertified, inexperienced, poorly educated, and under-performing (Carey, 2004;
Darling-Hammond et al, 2005; Haycock, 1998). Numerous research reports,
including the Report of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future, have stated that the single most important influence on students’ education is
their access to a qualified teacher (NCTAF, 1996; Cochran-Smith, 2001; Darling-
Hammond, 2000). A University of Tennessee research group found that students in
classes with effective teachers for three years in a row outperformed comparable
student assigned to less effective teachers three years in a row by over 50 percentile
points on a hundred point scale (Carey, 2004). Similarly, the effects of teachers are
long lived for both positive and negative achievement, as highlighted by a study that
45
showed fifth grade students’ performance continued to be affected by their third
grade teacher (Haycock, 1998).
Effective teachers may be determined by a combination of factors, including
strong verbal and math skills, mastery of content knowledge with a major or minor in
the field in which they are teaching, experience, and strong pedagogical skills
(Haycock, 1998; Peske & Haycock, 2006). In high poverty schools, students are
assigned to novice teachers twice as often as children in low poverty schools (Peske
& Haycock, 2006). Data also show that one in three core academic classes in high
poverty schools are taught by out-of-field teachers, as opposed to one in five classes
in low-poverty schools (Jerald, 2002). Although schools may not have the final
decision about who they hire, partnerships involving communities, schools, and
universities can seek to change the ways in which teachers are trained, mentored, and
provided support.
Partnerships
Before exploring the aspects of community-school-university partnerships, it
is important to describe elements and characteristics of partnerships in general.
Partnerships can be broadly defined as groups coming together based upon
overlapping interests that converge on the aim of improving conditions (Baum,
2000). They typically address their own best interests and produce greater outcomes
than any one organization could achieve (Bringle et al., 2009; Maurrasse, 2002).
According to Kezar (2007), networks are not partnerships because they do not
necessarily have shared goals, and they are not deliberately designed. They are more
46
a function of people getting together informally to exchange ideas or information
(Kezar, 2007). With cooperative arrangements, people do work together and share
information, but they are not partnerships because they have independent goals based
upon their needs, and they do not fundamentally alter their work (Kezar, 2007).
While some partnerships are content with functioning in a transactional
relationships, which can be defined as a group that accomplishes bounded tasks;
others seek to be transformative in their nature, which implies that the partnerships
do not simply attempt to accomplish their goals, but instead seek to transform all
members of the group (Bringle et al., 2009).
Power in Partnerships
There are numerous theories which describe different ways in which
partnerships are defined. Equity theory posits that equity and satisfaction are gained
when the outcomes are perceived as proportionate to inputs regardless of equality of
the outcomes (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Bringle et al., 2009). For a relationship to
be equitable, the outputs must be fitting in regards to the contributions made by
different members. This can be considered the antithesis to asymmetrical helping
relationships, in which one group gives while the other group only receives (Bringle
et al., 2009). This theory is closely linked to dependency theory, which is the degree
to which a group’s outcomes would suffer if the relationship were to end (Bringle &
Hatcher, 2002). Within dependency theory there is a principle of least interest,
which asserts that the party with the least interest in the relationship has the most
power because they will not lose as much if the relationship were to end. The group
47
that has the most interest in the relationship often has the most to lose within the
affiliation; therefore they have the least amount of power (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002).
Stages of Partnerships
As there are divergent types of partnerships, there are also different stages
and reasons for partnerships. Baum (2000) states that there are three stages in
partnership development: altruism, exchange, and mutualism. In altruism, one group
gives to another group for the sole purpose of undertaking a moral act in which the
act itself is the reward (Baum, 2000). In the exchange stage, one group gives to the
other something that serves its interests and vice versa (Baum, 2000). Mutualism,
which builds upon the first two stages, occurs when both groups come together to
develop and serve their common interests (Baum, 2000). An example of a
mutualistic partnership would be a school and a community center working together
to convert a deserted parking lot into a park for the students and other community
members to share.
Motives for Partnerships
Whereas Baum (2000) defines partnerships based upon a continuum of
stages, Batson, Ahmad, and Tsang (2002) define partnerships based upon the
motives by which they were created: egoism, altruism, collectivism, and principlism.
Egoism suggests that the participants are only undergoing the act in order to increase
their own welfare; altruism implies the increase of the welfare of one or more
individuals, not just oneself; collectivism seeks to increase the welfare of a collective
or group of people; and principlism is an action which is conducted in order to
48
uphold a moral principle (Batson, Ahmad, & Tsang, 2002). There are strengths and
weaknesses of these different motives, which are portrayed in Table 2.1
Table 2.1: Strengths and Weaknesses of Different Motives
Motive Strength(s) Weakness(es)
Egoism
Many forms, easily
produced, powerful
Fickle in that the
common good is only an
unintended consequence
of self-interest
Altruism
Powerful, may generalize
to group of which other is
a member
May be limited to
individuals for whom
empathy is felt; increased
good for the larger
community is an
unintended consequence
Collectivism
Powerful, directly focused
on the common good
May be limited to the
collective in which the
person is a member
(creates an us versus
them dichotomy)
Principlism
Directed toward universal
and impartial good
Often seems weak;
vulnerable to moral
exclusion, moral
disengagement, or moral
hypocrisy
Educational Partnerships as a Solution
The historical effects of segregation, the resegregation of America’s minority
and high poverty students, and the opportunity gap are issues that are plaguing our
current educational system. Community-school-university partnerships have the
potential to overcome the effects of historical educational reform efforts that have
typically led to the perpetuation of the status quo. Urban partnerships seek to
overcome these existing problems while aiding in the creation of educational equity.
49
Ecological Models
Although partnerships are diverse in their goals and implementation, many
share the same theoretical base. Partnerships created for addressing the issues
related to the widespread underperformance of African American and Latino
students in American schools can benefit from understanding theories on human
development, and more specifically ecological models, which Bronfenbrenner
introduced in the 1970s. Epstein (1995) extends the notion of ecological models as a
premise for her concept of overlapping spheres of influence, which has a direct
connection to partnerships. This theory states that students learn more when parents,
educators, and community members work together to support student learning and
development (Epstein, 2001). Students are placed within the center of this model as
the internal structure, serving as the main reason for the interaction of all the other
members. The external structure, which includes the home, school, and community,
can be pulled together or pushed apart depending upon the philosophies and actions
of the members (Epstein & Sheldon, 2006). Lee and Bowen (2006) also refer to the
primary microsystems of the home and school and how the interactions between
these can lead to higher achievement and other indicators of school success.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1993) ecological model of development describes an
environment from the perspective of a child’s development. This environment is
comprised of a set of nested structures that move from the innermost to outermost
levels: microsystems, mesosytems, exosystems, macrosystems, and chronosystems.
The microsystem is a set of activities and relationships that the person has direct
50
contact within his or her own immediate environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1993). The
mesosytem is comprised of the linkages between two or more of the developing
person’s settings (Bronfenbrenner, 1993). This structure highlights the importance
of interactions between elements, such as school and home, working together to
create a coherent context for the child’s development (Hill & Taylor, 2004; Sanders,
2001). The next level is the exosystem, which includes the linkages between two or
more settings, of which at least one of the settings does not contain the developing
person, but which the influences affect the person (Bronfenbrenner, 1993). For
children, this would include the relationship between their family and a parent’s job.
The macrosytem includes the mico-, meso-, and exosystems characteristic of a given
culture (Bronfenbrenner, 1993). The chronosystem includes changes in the
characteristics of the developing person over time as well as the changes in the
environment across historical time in which the person resides (Bronfenbrenner,
1993). Partnerships seek to bring together the multiple environments of a developing
person in order to support learning and development.
The notions of an ecological model and overlapping spheres of influence are
important in relation to partnerships in that they support the needs of people who
seek to work together for a goal that may not be achievable for individual entities
(Benson & Harkavy, 2003; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000; Sanders, 2001; Schutz, 2006).
Studies have shown that “students did better in school when the important people in
their lives at home, at school, and in the community had common goals and played
51
collaborative, complementary, and supportive roles” (Epstein & Sheldon, 2006, p.
119).
Constructivism
Another theoretical framework that is useful when trying to understand the
need for partnerships in education is social constructivist learning. Partnerships
provide the context in which learning can take place through social interaction.
Vygotsky (as cited in Durkin, 1995, p. 369) maintains that "any function in the
cultural development appears twice, or on two planes. First it appears on the social
plane, and then on the psychological plane.” In this sense, new knowledge is created
through guided collaboration with others, which is a primary goal of partnerships.
Similarly, partnerships can also be connected to what Gutierrez (2008) refers to as a
third space, a place where “teacher and student scripts- the formal and informal, the
official and unofficial spaces of the learning environment- intersect, creating the
potential for authentic interaction and a shift in the social organization of learning
and what counts as knowledge” (p. 150). By bringing the expertise of the
partnership stakeholders together, partnerships attempt, with varying success, to
construct new knowledge through social interaction that builds upon the joint
knowledge of all members. This kind of interaction can be termed as co-
construction.
Community-School-University Partnerships
Although there are numerous theories, stages, and types of partnerships, this
research project is focused on partnerships that are composed of communities,
52
schools, and universities. There is a plethora of research regarding bilateral
relationships between two of the three previous mentioned stakeholders, most
commonly between a school and another entity (Epstein & Sheldon, 2006); but new
research is exploring the interaction between all three members.
Community
Definition and Purposes
Communities are a strong component to partnerships created to transform
schools, and can be considered as including parents, members living in the
neighborhood, business owners, and/or leaders and members within community
based organizations (Sanders, 2001). In simple terms, community may refer to a
condition in which people are sharing something with each other (Schutz, 2006), or a
group of people who have something in common and are engaged with one another
in a benevolent fashion (Gold, 2005). Community may refer to a geographic
boundary of a neighborhood (Sanders, 2001), or it may refer to the interactions that
take place on the social plane within or beyond local boundaries (Nettles, 1991).
Brow (1990) defines community as a sense of belonging together which combines
both a “feeling of solidarity and an understanding of shared identity” (p. 1).
Community can be defined through its etymology, which is derived from Latin,
munus, which meanings include duty, gift, and sacrifice (McGinnis, House, &
Jordan, 1999).
The term community is often associated with positive valance in almost all
contexts in which it is used and carries a much more emotional resonance than other
53
utilitarian terms, such as group, nation, or society (Amit & Rapport, 2002; Williams,
1976). Community can also be an ambiguous term in that it is too vague (Amit &
Rapport, 2002), it is rarely subject to critical scrutiny (Watts, 2000), it asserts a false
notion of homogeneity (Agrawal, 2005), and is based upon an assumption that there
is a single definition for who and what community is (Miller & Hafner, 2008).
Positive Attributes of Communities
Within the literature of partnerships operating in relation to schools, the term
community can be conceptualized as parental involvement, community development,
community education, community collaboration, and community empowerment
(Sanders, 2001). Epstein and Sanders (2006) define six types of community and
familial involvement in partnerships: parenting, communicating, volunteering,
learning at home, decision making, and collaborating. Within partnerships, the most
common connections to the community involve businesses/corporations,
government/military organizations, service organizations, churches/faith
organizations, libraries, national service/volunteer organizations, health
clinics/healthcare, senior citizen organizations, health/recreation organizations, and
child welfare agencies (Sanders, 2001). Common activities within these community
services include mentoring, tutoring, job shadowing/training, contextual learning,
service learning classes, and academic enrichment (Miller & Hafner, 2008; Sanders,
2001). Similarly, community partnerships often include the provision of monetary
resources, equipment, and supplies (Sanders, 2001).
54
Yosso (2005) describes the community cultural wealth of African Americans
and Latinos as an “array of knowledge, skills, abilities and contacts possessed and
utilized by Communities of Color” (p. 77). Six examples of community cultural
wealth include aspirational, navigational, social, linguistic, familial, and resistant
capital. Aspirational capital refers to the ability to sustain hopes for the future while
facing real and/or perceived barriers (Yosso, 2005). Linguistic capital includes the
“intellectual and social skills gained through communication experiences in more
than one language and/or style” (Yosso, 2005, p. 78). For the African American
population this may take the form of the storytelling tradition (Yosso, 2005),
symbolic chorus (Morrison, 1984), and oral histories (Yosso, 2005). Literary
elements that are common within African American written and oral language are
circumlocution, metaphor/imagery, irony, rhythmic fluency, puns, double entendre,
and the manipulation of language for artistic merit (Lee, 1995; Smitherman, 1998).
Other linguistic qualities that are unique to African American vernacular are
signifying, the Dozens, sounding, and marking (Lee, 1995). For Latinos, this may
include consejos, which is nurturing advice and moral lessons (Villenas & Moreno,
2001), teachings in cuentos/stories and dichos/proverbs (Yosso, 2005). Storytelling,
which is a significant form of linguistic capital for both African American and Latino
students, provides a rich set of literacy skills including memorization, attention to
detail, dramatic pauses, comedic timing, facial affect, vocal tone, volume, rhythm
and rhyme (Yosso, 2005). By understanding the cultural background and linguistic
forms of a community and seeking ways in which to incorporate them into
55
schooling, partnerships may be able to change the deficit thinking that permeates
many urban schools.
Another form of community cultural wealth is familial capital, which refers
to the cultural knowledge created and nurtured by the family (Yosso, 2005). In this
context, family is used to describe kinship, which includes immediate and extended
family members both living and those that are deceased (Yosso, 2005). Familial
capital can describe a sense of community history, memory, and cultural intuition;
and includes lessons of caring, coping, and providing education (Auerbach, 2004;
Delgado Bernal, 2002; Lopez, 2003). This is often referred to as funds of knowledge
(Gonzalez et al., 1995), which describes the richness of family and community
“resources, including knowledge and skills and labor, that enhance the household’s
ability to survive and thrive” (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992, p. 133). This
is in strict contrast with deficit views of minorities and the pedagogy of poverty
which does not build upon the experiences of African American and Latino children
and undervalues their knowledge (Delpit, 1995; Murtadha-Watts, 1998; Schutz,
2006).
Social capital is another form of community cultural capital and can be
described as networks of people, community resources, peer groups, and social
contacts (Yosso, 2005). Stanton-Salazar (1997) defines social capital as
relationships with institutional agents and the networks that merge these
relationships into units. These units provide both instrumental and emotional
support in order to aid in the navigation of institutions (Stanton-Salazar, 2001).
56
Social capital is employed to gain such elements of education, employment, health
care, and legal aid (Yosso, 2005). Information that individuals gain through these
institutions is then given back to others within their social network. The historical
roots of this tradition can be seen in mutual aid societies which aided enslaved
African Americans and other immigrants in their maintenance of social networks
(Stevenson, 1996). Minority families are often viewed by society as lacking in social
capital because their habitus, which is defined as ideologies and practices created
over time, does not match with the field, which is defined as a site in which different
groups compete for power (Bourdieu, 1990; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). This
mismatch between the social capital of minority families and that of the society of
power creates the need for navigational and resistant capital.
Navigational capital is the skill needed to navigate through social institutions,
and more specifically, institutions that were not created with minority access in mind
(Yosso, 2005). Navigational capital refers to both individual agency as well as the
ability of social networks to maneuver throughout systems such as schools,
universities, employment, health care, and the judiciary (Yosso, 2005). Resistant
capital is also closely related to navigational capital in that it refers to the knowledge
and skills that are fostered through “oppositional behavior that challenges inequality”
(Yosso, 2005, p. 80). This notion is closely connected to Freire’s (2009) concept of
praxis, which is the combination of reflection and action upon the world in order to
liberate the oppressed. To resist inequality within structures, one must be able to
recognize that there is a culture of power within these structures, what the rules are
57
that govern the culture of power, and that acquiring power can be made easier
through the knowledge about the rules governing the culture of power (Delpit, 1988).
Freire’s critical consciousness coupled with the recognition of and understanding
about the structural nature of injustice, enables community members to be better able
to resist and transform such structures (Delpit, 1988; Freire, 2009; Schutz, 2006).
Negative Components of Communities
Although there are numerous positive aspects of communities, there are also
negative characteristics that need to be addressed. Community involvement may be
limited due to the current expanded demands and inflexibility of the workplace
(Heath & McLaughlin, 1987). Another limiting factor is the changing demographics
of the family unit, which may translate into single family households or more adult
members leaving the house to work (Heath & McLaughlin, 1987; Hill & Taylor,
2004). Parents from low socioeconomic backgrounds also have barriers to
community involvement due to a lack of resources, transportation, and the stress of
living in a high poverty area (Hill & Taylor, 2004). Similarly, a limiting factor in
community activism is that there is a lack of what John Dewey (1927) termed
“public intelligence,” the ability to confront dominant cultural norms and sustained
inequitable structures, which stems from an absence of a robust public sphere where
people of the community come together to work through problems and set forth in
action (Oakes & Rogers, 2007). Although Dewey’s work is critiquing the beginning
to mid part of last century, the same issues are still plaguing communities that are
seeking to unite. Recent literature shows that communities have difficulty in
58
organizing and sustaining participation and they are not well organized to use
finances when supplied from outside resources (Baum, 2000). Similarly,
underserved communities often lack the skill level and social networks to be able to
gain access to large bureaucracies that are typical within universities, schools, and
government (Mayfield & Lucas, 2000). There is also the continual problem of
defining what a community is and who is part of each community (Amit & Rapport,
2002).
School
Historical Perspectives and Purposes
Before exploring the ways in which schools can participate within
partnerships, it is essential to define the purpose of schools as well as identify both
positive and negative aspects of schooling in the United States. The current system
of schooling within the United States is very powerful in that it functions as “the core
and strategic subsystem of modern information societies” (Benson & Harkavy,
2003). John Dewey (1937) stated that America’s public school system was founded
under the name of “equality of opportunity for all, independent of birth, economic
status, race, creed, or color” (p. 474). Another forefather of American education,
Horace Mann, sought to make education universal, free, practical and within the
reach of the masses, while supporting the aims of social efficiency, civic virtue, and
character (Wimpey, 1959). The purpose of education within the United States is
continually changing and varies across constituents. One way in which to organize
59
the purposes is to look at different philosophies of education, which include
perennialism, essentialism, progressivism, and reconstructivism.
A perennialistic education includes: (1) the promotion of humankind’s
continuing search for the universal and timeless truth; (2) focus on ideas and the
cultivation of human rationality and the intellect; and (3) stimulating students to
think thoughtfully and critically about significant ideas (Hutchins, n.d.).
Essentialism is founded on the idea that there is a set of essential knowledge and
skills that productive citizens should have, which is to be transmitted to students in a
systematic and disciplined manner (Bagley, n.d.). The key tenets behind
progressivism include: (1) children’s natural interests are the starting point of
education; (2) students become members of society by participating in socially useful
work; (3) education should teach children to think intelligently and independently;
(4) the students and the teacher should plan curriculum jointly; and (5) students learn
best what they practice and live (Kilpatrick, n.d.). Reconstructivism emphasizes
civic debate while aiding students to acquire the ability to challenge opinions and
value statements as well as the skills needed to debate about and create change in
current issues within their communities (White, Scotter, Haroonian, & Davis, n.d.).
In order for partnerships to work successfully with schools, it is important to
understand the way in which the school is organized and to which philosophy it
prescribes. Similarly, partnerships need to understand which framework they are
aligned with and communicate this to the school in which they work.
60
Negative Components of Schools
There are also negative aspects that need to be considered by partnerships
that are seeking to include schools as a stakeholder group. Urban schools in
particular lack the capacity to achieve sustained school reform on their own (Schutz,
2006), which may be a result of their continual “policy churn” that is caused by
frequent administrative change and high turnover rates (Hess, 1998). Research has
also shown that urban schools lack institutional change yet they are inundated with
numerous small and often contradicting reform acts (Schutz, 2006). Similarly,
attention is often focused upon individual programs or reforms while the success of
the overall school is neglected (Carroll, LaPoint, & Tyler, 2001). These various
minimal reforms cause little sustained change and are often overlooked by teachers
who continue to teach as they did in the past (Eisner, 2003). Piecemeal or
individualized reform has not worked in the past, which highlights the need for
institutional change that may be created through the participation in a partnership.
Another issue with America’s schools relates to the culture of the school.
Schools often erect barriers between themselves and the outside world (Schutz,
2006). Teaching has also become very individualistic because teachers work in
settings that resemble “egg crate ecology” and spend most of their time away from
other professionals (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). This may also be caused by
schools’ fear of public scrutiny (Sanders, 2001). Teachers are also very territorial
towards their professional turf and have difficulties sharing resources and
information (Sanders, 2001). Part of this territorialism may be caused by the lack of
61
training and coursework in ways in which teachers can learn to deal with families
and other constituency groups outside of the school. Epstein and Sanders (2006), in
their research on preparation of educators, found that no states require a full course
on family or community involvement for teacher education and that there is a limited
amount of coursework for dealing with families or the community in which schools
reside. The creation of and continued involvement in partnerships may be one way
in which to change the culture of schools by seeking venues for teachers to interact
with each other on a regular basis as well as bringing the community and other
“outside” constituencies into the school environment.
University
Definition and Purposes
The philosophy and mission of higher education can be described through
two lenses: the epistemological and political (Brubacher, 1978). The
epistemological view refers to the seeking of knowledge for knowledge’s sake,
regardless of the bearing it has on the world or on humanity (Nichols, 1990). The
political philosophy of higher education gives the expertise found in universities and
colleges a practical significance and application towards solving complex problems
within society (Nichols, 1990). Brubacher (1978) stated that institutions of higher
learning serve three principal functions: to transmit higher learning, to expand its
limits, and to put its result at the public’s service. Similarly, universities and
colleges seek to provide education, research, and resources for society. Universities
also are charged with ensuring that their services and products are matched with the
62
needs of society while competing for and marketing towards the student consumer
(Nichols, 1990). While the missions of each institution are unique, they typically
change according to the societal needs of the time (Maurrasse, 2002). Civic
engagement is often included in the mission statements of higher education, which
highlights the responsibility of institutions not only to advance knowledge but also
benefit human welfare (Benson, Harkavy, & Puckett, 2000).
Positive Attributes of Universities
The university system is often described as powerful in regards to status and
a resource rich local institution (Benson & Harkavy, 2003; Harkavy & Hartley,
2009; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000). Economically speaking, universities often
contribute significantly to the local economic picture through the spending of the
university itself and its employees and students (Nichols, 1990). With over half of
all higher education institutions located inside or immediately outside urban areas
(Hahn, Coonerty, & Peaslee, 2003), higher education may be very well positioned to
improve the conditions of poor and disenfranchised communities (Maurrasse, 2002).
The economic resources of a university are also connected to basic and applied
research. Basic research projects in science, engineering, and manufacturing as well
as applied research projects involve cooperative efforts between higher education,
the private sector, and the government; which often leads to increases in the local
economy (Nichols, 1990).
If the nation’s educational system is described as the strategic subsystem of
America’s society, then the university can be considered the primary shaper and
63
controller of the overall system (Benson & Harkavy, 2003). Many universities have
a component of social responsibility written into their mission statements and are
based upon interplay between teaching, research, and service (Maurrasse, 2002), and
are therefore in the position to work closely with the surrounding community, which
includes local schools. Universities can affect local schools by their ability to train
incoming teachers, providing the opportunity for advanced degrees for teachers,
supplying teacher resource materials, dispersing student teachers, creating programs
for local schools, and using the expertise of faculty to assist and partner with schools
on various needs and matters (Benson & Harkavy, 2003; Nichols, 1990; Rousseau,
2007; Schutz, 2006)).
Negative Components of Universities
Although universities may be located within a community, they are not
typically part of that community and have been reported to keep the community at
arms length (Schutz, 2006). Similarly, academia is very inaccessible to those who
are not its members, which isolates it from the public sphere. High rates of
remediation and low graduation rates for minority students demonstrate that
universities are inaccessible to large urban populations (Collins et al., 2009). Also,
the disconnect between the university and its surrounding community may be caused
by the university’s status (Kirschner, Dickinson, & Blosser, 1996) and its governing
relationships which can be considered elitist and hierarchical (Benson, Harkavy, &
Puckett, 2000). Although universities have the resources and allocations needed to
create sustainable change, they cannot accomplish it without the agreement of other
64
stakeholders, such as schools and the communities in which they are immersed
(Johnston-Parsons, 1997). Differences between cultures need to be addressed and
negotiated in order for sustainable change to occur (Kezar, 2007). Negative
components of universities are often illuminated when they attempt to partner with
other stakeholders, which will be elaborated fully in the following section on
persistent barriers within partnerships.
Persisting Barriers to Partnerships
Community-school-university partnerships have the potential to overcome
the effects of historical educational reform efforts that have typically led to the
perpetuation of the status quo. However, the full potential of partnerships is not
always met and they commonly are dissolved before making any significant
accomplishments. In a recent study conducted on over 400 schools across the United
States who are part of the National Network of Partnerships Schools (NNPS),
Sanders (2001) reported the most common obstacles cited by the members:
insufficient participation (30%), time (24%), identifying community partners (12%),
inadequate leadership (8%), funding (8%), communication (6%), and insufficient
focus (3%). Kezar (2007) reported differing goals, lack of trust, and poor
communication as significant factors in the dissolution of partnerships. The reasons
for partnership failure are diverse and multifaceted.
Cultural Backgrounds and Models
One of the most cited reasons for the dissolution of partnerships is differing
organizational cultures that have very distinct models for collaborative work (Kezar,
65
2007). Stakeholders within the community, schools, and universities often come
from distinctly different backgrounds and have different frames of reference (Miller
& Hafner, 2008). One example of this can be seen in the deficit thinking
demonstrated in the way social researchers and policy makers are preoccupied with
needs and problems, whereas communities are often driven by more positive
components (Miller & Hafner, 2008). Community members often find it difficult to
access the large bureaucracies within the context of schools and universities
(Mayfield & Lucas, 2000). Similarly, communities also find it tough to affect the
ways in which universities conduct activities, thereby requiring community members
to change in order to fit into the culture of the university (Mayfield & Lucas, 2000).
A strong factor in the ability of partnerships to be maintained deals with the
understanding of the differences not only between stakeholders but also within each
stakeholder group. This can be referred to as micropolitics, which “recognizes
divergence of interests, multiple sources of power, and the potential for or presence
of conflict” (Firestone & Fisler, 2002, p. 481). The cultural differences and politics
that operate at the micro level are often overlooked, yet they are frequently proven to
be more important than global differences between the stakeholder groups (Firestone
& Fisler, 2002).
Another factor that leads to the dismantling of partnerships relates to the
ways in which knowledge is created (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002). Universities are
committed to professional knowledge that is supported by research and a theoretical
base (Kezar, 2007; Kirschner, Dickinson, & Blosser, 1996). Schools and
66
communities, on the other hand, follow a culture of practice and practicality, in that
they base their knowledge on experience and what they believe has worked in the
past (Kezar, 2007; Kirschner, Dickinson, & Blosser, 1996). Universities also tend to
function under an expert model, in which relationships are often elitist and
hierarchical (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002). Conversely, communities are more likely to
function in participatory, cooperative, and democratic models (Bringle & Hatcher,
2002).
The differing cultures of schools and universities are often overlooked due to
an assumption of similarity since they are both from the education field, which often
causes issues within partnerships that include these two distinct groups (Sorenson,
1998). Schools and universities are more likely to address differing culture
dynamics when they are collaborating with the government, outside businesses, and
even university faculty outside the schools of education (Kezar, 2007). The
following table, based on the research of Kezar (2007), highlights some of the key
differences between the culture of schools and the culture of universities.
Table 2.2: Differences in Culture of Schools and Universities
Schools Universities
Culture of practice Culture of theory
Practicality Theory reins over practicality
Rapid pace/immediacy Time to read and reflect
Highly structured work Autonomy and independence/ Individualistic
socialization process
Rewarded for community
involvement
Not rewarded for community involvement in
tenure
Immediate concrete solutions Value ideas brought forth in basic research
(not action orientated)
67
Inequitable Power Dynamics
An influential factor on the success of partnerships has to do with the sharing
of power and the ways in which power exists within the structure of the partnership.
People with privilege, which in this case can be considered the universities, often
tend to dominate settings in which they collaborate with others (Schutz, 2006).
Many studies document that the university is often in control of the power due to
their social, financial, and political resources (Miller & Hafner, 2008). Power is not
frequently discussed among stakeholders, but it is subtly involved in almost all
aspects of partnerships, including which topics are discussed, who is allowed to
participate, and to what degree (Miller & Hafner, 2008). Universities typically
ensure that their engagement with communities and schools takes place within the
structures that they create and direct (Shutz, 2006). Universities are able to drive the
agenda because they are seen as being more powerful (Maurrasse, 2002).
Universities are also seen as having privileged knowledge that breeds its own
status and asserts itself at the top of the power hierarchy (Kirshner, Dickinson, &
Blosser, 1996). The community is often seen on the other end of the hierarchy and is
viewed as a client receiving a service from the other more privileged stakeholders
rather than collaborators seeking mutual support and empowerment (Schutz, 2006).
In fact, universities often treat communities as “pockets of needs, laboratories for
experimentation, or passive recipients of expertise” (Bringle, Games, & Malloy,
1999, p. 9). This may instill a sense of discomfort and intimidation for community
members within partnerships (Miller & Hafner, 2008). University members also
68
tend to dominate power relations and professional status at school sites (Carroll,
LaPoint, & Tyler, 2001).
Maintenance of Routines and Structures
There are numerous issues regarding the day-to-day maintenance of
partnerships, their routines, and governing structures. Research has shown that
partnerships often have a hodgepodge of programs (Miller & Hafner, 2008), take on
too many projects which causes effort to be spread too thin (Baum, 2000), efforts are
commonly disjointed (Maurrasse, 2002), and often focus on the individual programs
instead of the overall purpose of the partnership (Carroll, LaPoint, & Tyler, 2001).
Criticism is also found in regards to the lack of systemic collaboration between
departments within universities and/or schools (Miller & Hafner, 2008). Many
partnerships also attempt to use distributed leadership, but this often creates different
interest groups with multiple goals (Kezar, 2007). Numerous studies have also
found that partnerships are unable to succeed because there is a lack of trust between
members (Baum, 2000; Kezar, 2007), unclear definitions of roles and responsibilities
(Carroll, LaPoint, & Tyler, 2002; Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Mayfield & Lucas, 2000;
Schutz, 2006), poorly defined goals (Kezar, 2007; Sanders, 2001), and poor
communication between stakeholders (Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Kezar, 2007;
Sanders, 2001). One final issue is related to time. Members of partnerships are
often participating on top of their primary jobs and find it difficult to devote the
amount of time needed to produce the wanted results (Baum, 2000; Epstein &
Sanders, 2006; Maurrasse, 2002; Sanders, 2001).
69
Strategies for Effective Partnerships
While there is a large volume of work that highlights the multifaceted issues
surrounding partnerships, there have been successful models for which to guide the
creation of community-school-university partnerships. Co-construction can be an
essential foundation for successful partnerships. Similarly, the use of intentional and
structured dialogue allows stakeholders to co-construct the purposes, roles, and
mutually agreed upon goals of the partnerships. Another factor which may
determine the success of community-school-university partnerships is the use of the
specialized knowledge about the specific student demographics of the community,
which requires the inclusion of the members of the community within and outside of
the school. Community-school-university partnerships provide a context that has the
potential to unite the unique perspectives, assets, and experiences of all stakeholders
through the hierarchical sharing of power and creation of common goals to actualize
the potential of urban minority students.
Co-Construction
Co-construction can be defined as learners making sense of the world by
“combining prior knowledge with new experiences in order for learners to be
responsible for constructing their own understandings” (Toll et al., 2004, p. 165).
This means rejecting the banking form of education, in which the teacher deposits
knowledge to the students (Freire, 2009); and instead seeking for students to “think,
discuss, demonstrate, and evaluate learning” (Toll et al., 2004, p. 165). Within the
70
context of community-school-university partnerships, Carroll, LaPoint, and Tyler
(2001) delineate general principles within the co-construction process:
1. University researchers need to be aware of and respect the social and cultural
dynamics at school sites that will affect program development,
implementation, and evaluation.
2. The social and cultural experiences and dynamics of the surrounding
community need to be taken into consideration, which means that the values,
interests, and activities of the community are influential in decision making.
3. All stakeholders must work as peers in the process of comprehensive school
reform. Each partner brings specific areas of expertise while understanding
that no one knows the exact formula for success.
4. Hierarchical thinking, pre-conceived approaches, and negative stereotypes
need to be discarded while a new processes are developed that acknowledge
the skills and knowledge of all members.
5. Co-construction is a time consuming endeavor that is intended to produce
results that are life long and transformative for all stakeholders involved in
the process. (Carroll, LaPoint, & Tyler, 2001, p. 44-45)
Co-construction also requires that there is devolution of power, which
Benson and Harkavy (2003) refer to as the deliberate dispersion of initiative both
downward and outward through the system as a way to counter against hierarchical
and centralized power. Miller and Hafner (2008) similarly describe this notion as
mutuality, in which there is a shift from an unequal distribution of power to shared
71
access to power. In a move away from hierarchical power, stakeholders seek ways
in which to create horizontal power sharing, which can be seen in the concepts of
reciprocity and democratic processes. A partnership that is guided by reciprocity
requires all collaborating stakeholders to have specific and overlapping
responsibilities in order to accomplish mutually created goals (Carroll, LaPoint, &
Tyler, 2001). Democratic processes require all stakeholders to focus on the differing
interests, methods, and ideologies between stakeholders while creating mutual
respect for all (Carroll, LaPoint, & Tyler, 2001).
In their Talent Quest Model case study of co-construction, Carroll, LaPoint,
and Tyler (2001) identified areas that benefitted from co-construction, which
include: clarify goals/objectives; conduct needs assessment; tailor evaluation
framework; collect baseline data; prioritize implementation components; develop
process for components implementation; actual implementing of components;
ongoing assessment and evaluation; feedback loop to implementation process;
strategies and materials; and disseminate information/finding. If stakeholders are
able to be informed and participate in the co-construction process, then they have a
better chance at attaining their overarching goals (Carroll, LaPoint, & Tyler, 2001).
Carroll, LaPoint, and Tyler (2001) also found many drawbacks to the co-
construction model. This type of partnership requires significant amounts of time to
develop, implement, and create change (Carroll, LaPoint, & Tyler, 2001). Another
factor that can hinder co-construction is ineffective stakeholder communication
which often negates the efforts to overcome traditional hierarchical power structures
72
(Carroll, LaPoint, & Tyler, 2001). Another challenge is “understanding,
appreciating, and facilitating differing stakeholders’ talents” (Carroll, LaPoint, &
Tyler, 2001, p. 53). Another drawback is the inability to overcome the modus
operandi of schools in crisis, which is to be reactive as opposed to proactive, which
makes it difficult to strategically plan and implement positive outcomes (Carroll,
LaPoint, & Tyler, 2001). Successful co-construction requires people to overcome
inertia and their fear of conducting business in new ways in order to create
sustainable change.
Dialogue
The concept and importance of dialogue can be seen in the works of Paulo
Freire (2009), who stated that “Dialogue, as the encounter of those addressed to the
common task of learning and acting, is broken if the parties (or one of them) lack
humility” (p. 90). According to Freire (2009), dialogic relationships are marked by
love, humility, faith in humankind, hope, and critical thinking. Freire (2009) also
stated that dialogue can create horizontal relationships of mutual trust, and that trust
can only exist if members’ words coincide with their actions. In this way, dialogue
serves as means for liberation and advancement based upon the needs and
perspectives of the people involved (Freire, 2009). Dialogue seeks to overhaul
traditional societal structures and reforms that typically perpetuate the status quo and
lead to the benefit of the dominant class (Miller & Hafner, 2008). Through the
emphasis on horizontal relationships, dialogue promotes mutual respect for all
entities involved in the partnership. Oakes and Rogers (2007) also suggest the
73
importance of dialogue through participatory social inquiry in which all stakeholders
are able to engage in dialogue freely within a public site to encourage a joint decision
making and collective vision.
Freire’s words serve as a summation of the importance of dialogue and
communication within the research on partnerships. Dialogue, in this sense, can
focus around the creation and maintenance of sound processes, which includes:
articulating procedures in which all members decide how, when, and why things
happen (Miller & Hafner, 2008); clearly defining roles to ensure accountability
(Miller & Hafner, 2008); developing “clear, mutually derived, and attainable goals
and a shared vision” (Kezar, 2007, p. 35); and creating communication plans that
designate vehicles for communication and the frequency of which communication
will take place (Kezar, 2007). Another key factor in dialogue is the notion of trust
(Maurrasse, 2002). In order for trust to exist between stakeholders, all stakeholders
need to have an accurate vision of their own self-awareness and believe in full
disclosure (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002). Full disclosure may include a clear sense of
identity and purpose, procedures, and resources (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002).
Dialogue and communication can also serve as tools for people to learn about
and understand differences between one another and their stakeholder groups.
Johnston-Parsons (1997) states that differences brought forth in dialogue “nurture
critique in learning” (p. 9). So while many people may view differences as a
negative issue, Johnston-Parsons (1997) suggests that differences can lead to growth
and learning that help partners evolve communally. Jean Piaget (1985) defines the
74
cognitive growth that results from discontinuity and discrepancy as disequilibrium.
When a person is confronted with diversity and complexity, his/her own mindset
experiences disequilibrium, which can lead to growth. This growth is particularly
strong when stakeholders are willing to continually engage in dialogue into the
multiple layers of their differences (Johnston-Parsons, 1997).
Specialized Knowledge of the Stakeholders
One of the key factors that determine the success of community-school-
university partnerships is the joint knowledge created by and about the stakeholders
within the partnerships. This can be done by taking a funds of knowledge approach,
in which the identity of the group is built from past experiences and strengths of the
group, rather than supplanting the collectivity with outside knowledge (Gonzalez et
al., 1995; Miller & Hafner, 2008; Moll et al., 1992). For community-school-
university partnerships this means immersion into the community and basing
strategies on community voiced needs and assets (Miller & Hafner, 2008; Sanders,
2001). This too requires intensive planning and evaluation which delineates how and
when partners can best work together and determines their successes (Kezar, 2007).
Bringle and Hatcher (2002) identify three components for describing a close
relationship between partners, which include: frequency of interaction; diversity of
interaction, which signifies different types of activities; and the strength of influence
on the other parties’ decisions, plans, and goals. Strength of influence also includes
“interdependency, bi-lateral influence, and consensual decision making” (Bringle &
Hatcher, 2002, p. 509).
75
The success created between and amongst stakeholders in partnerships is also
determined by the leadership of the partnership. As stated previously, power within
successful partnership is not hierarchical but rather horizontal and distributed among
members (Benson & Harkavy, 2003; Kezar, 2007; Miller & Hafner, 2008).
However, research has shown the need for leadership, which may take the form of
mediators or facilitators (Miller & Hafner, 2008); co-chairs (Miller & Hafner, 2008);
or advisory boards (Kezar, 2007). Whatever form the leadership takes, it is
important that the leader/leaders are seen as fulfilling a boundary-spanner role in
which they are able to be a link between the different communities in order to create
a new culture (Firestone & Fisler, 2002; Kezar, 2007). This person must be able to
relate to all groups and aid in helping the different groups to understand each other
(Kezar, 2007).
Partnerships to Redefine Cultural Models
Participants in co-constructed community-school-university partnerships attempt
to create transformative models of urban education in which neighborhoods, universities,
and schools work together to create more equitable outcomes for students in urban
communities (Carroll et al., 2002; Miller & Hafner, 2008). The collaboration of the
community, school, and university can result in the creation of cultural models for
teaching and learning that empower African-American and Latino students in urban
communities. However, creating a more just educational system requires structural
and ideological changes within schools. The culture of the community-school-
university partnership, which is created with dialogue, co-construction, and the
76
specialized knowledge of stakeholders, can support the change within the school
culture. New cultural models can be created and sustained through the use of
resources that are present in partnerships, such as specialized knowledge, community
culture, university research and personnel, financial resources, and the commitment
of a group of people dedicated to their mutual interest.
A key objective set forth by many urban community-school-university
partnerships attempting to transform schools is to positively affect students’
academic achievement. One key factor in creating student achievement is the
cultural model of schools and the role of the teacher within that model. Before
exploring the role of teachers and teacher development, it is necessary to explore the
ideas of culture, organizational culture, and cultural models. Schein (1990) defines
organizational culture as:
a pattern of basic assumptions, invented, discovered, or developed by a
given group, as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation
and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered
valid and, therefore is to be taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (p. 111).
In this sense, culture is seen as a way in which an organization survives; what
members do to reduce dissonance while functioning in alignment with each other.
Once an organizational culture has been created, patterns of thinking, feeling, and
behaving become stable (Schein, 1990). The idea of an organizational culture is also
very similar to Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) cultural model, which refers to
the shared thinking and understanding of how the world works. The realm in which
organizational culture or cultural models occur is called the cultural setting
77
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001), which can be defined as whenever two or more
individuals come together to accomplish a goal over time.
Culture of Schools
The culture of a school often controls the ways in which teachers and other
staff act and interact within the cultural setting. Many studies have shown that most
beginning teachers “allow the school culture to dictate their pedagogical practice”
even if it is in direct conflict with what they have learned within their teacher
preparation programs (Maloch et al., 2003, p. 435). Similarly, the socialization of
new-to-the-site teachers by existing school personnel often reveals that teachers
“forego their own conceptions, attitudes, and behaviors for the more accepted
conceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of the society, in this case the classroom and
school” (Wilson & Readence, 1993, p. 222). As the new teachers turn away from
their learning from their teacher education programs and/or past experiences, they
begin to replicate the existing school cultures because many new relationships
provide “immediate support in how to fit into the school culture” (Maloch et al.,
2003, p. 446). Submitting to the existing school culture does not necessarily imply
negativity; however, when looking at underperforming urban schools, this may
signify that the existing school culture has not created an environment conducive to
success.
Organizational culture, cultural models, and cultural settings are both
constrained and enabled by the ecological framework in which they reside.
Gallimore & Goldenberg (2001) state that “what is possible in a given ecology may
78
determine what settings we can construct and sustain and what cultural models have
evolved” (p. 48). To make this comment clear, consider the context of schooling
and the notion of reflection. Most educators believe that reflection is an essential
component to successful practice, but time constraints and scheduling issues may
prevent the construction of settings that would sustain this positive cultural model.
Partnerships may be a force for transforming the culture within the schools, which
may result in a more positive cultural model for teachers and teacher effectiveness.
Strategies for Effective Teachers
Many of the same strategies that were identified for effective partnerships can
also be considered for the creation of a positive school culture for teachers and
teacher development. These themes include dialogue, co-construction, and
collaboration.
Dialogue
Partnerships based in co-construction and dialogue can change the culture for
teachers to make it more possible for teachers to engage in dialogue, thus allowing
for the formation of learning-communities that in turn provide guidance and call
attention to various aspects of teaching that can be missed when teachers are working
independently (Maloch et al., 2003). Dialogue between individuals is not simply a
discussion but a social interaction between two or more individuals that is focused on
“tools and artifacts connected with practice” (Oakes et al., 2002, p.229). It is
through dialogue, a social practice, that the teachers can become more
knowledgeable about their practice. Lave (1996) believes that identity development
79
through knowledge attainment is a social practice where “who you are becoming
shapes crucially and fundamentally what you ‘know’ ” (p. 57). By questioning one
another’s beliefs, teacher participants will deconstruct and reconstruct knowledge
and “mak[e] sense of existing practice” (Oakes et al., 2002, p. 229).
When knowledge and practice are discussed in a dialogic relationship,
teachers may be “more able to access and alter the subjective substratum—a
substratum that has been modeled variously as beliefs, emotions, personal theories,
identity and personal practical knowledge—that underpins and shapes her practice”
(Penlington, 2008, p. 1305). By accessing the subjective lens teachers can re-
internalize the theories that they have learned and then they can conceptualize how
the theories can be applied. Following Vygotsky’s two planes concept, dialogic
discussion enables participating teachers to “mediate between more than one
perspective: a self-perspective and an other-perspective” (Penlington, 2008, p.
1305). By engaging in dialogic discussion, teacher participants will be forced to
first reach a level which Jean Piaget refers to as disequilibrium, and then continue to
develop understanding through the assimilation and accommodation of new ideas
(London, 1988). If enough teachers are able to reach a stage of cognitive dislocation,
then they may be able to change the ways in which they teach as well as the ways in
which the school is run; therefore creating a new school culture.
Collaboration and Constructivism
Collaboration occurs when educators discuss theory and motivation behind
the design, planning, teaching, and assessing of lessons which are all mediated by
80
continual and purposeful reflection (Moreillon, 2008). When combined, these
aspects create a teacher who is supported not just in pedagogy but also has the ability
to design and plan lessons and partake in reflective practice. The benefits of
collaboration include transfer of knowledge, better coordination, better involvement,
and higher job satisfaction (Corcoran & Silander, 2009). It is ultimately an ability to
learn, encourage, and share resources while reflecting on learning and instructional
practices in a professional manner. Collaboration is often overlooked in the isolating
nature of the school setting. The cellular structure of teaching limits the time
teachers spend with other professionals (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001), as does the
fragmented school day and the physically separate classrooms and buildings
(Gallego, 2001). The isolated and individual activity of teaching should be altered to
include a balance of action, observation, evaluation, and reflection (Warburton &
Torff, 2005).
In essence, collaboration can help a teacher connect what they know with
what they should be able to do (Darling-Hammond & Loewenberg-Ball, 1999). A
constructivist approach calls for the activation of prior knowledge as well as the
ability to trigger cognitive processes to operate that knowledge (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001). This is helping a teacher bridge the seemingly never-ending
struggle between theory and practice, episteme and phronesis (Loughran, 2007).
Collaboration can also lead to increased teacher empowerment and leadership across
various disciplines while creating and maintaining a sense of responsibility and
accountability in daily lesson planning. Constructivism involves individuals who
81
create their own understanding through the interaction of their prior knowledge,
beliefs, ideas, events, and activities in which they have come in contact (Abdal-
Haqq, 1998). Furthermore, constructivist learning activities include active
engagement, inquiry, problem solving, and collaboration with others (Abdal- Haqq,
1998).
Conclusions
The history of education legislation and reform in America portrays the
reality that “inequality is endemic to the logic of our society and to the roles schools
play in it” (Oakes & Rogers, 2007, p. 196). Through the significant denial of the
right to an equitable education and the Fourteenth Amendment, minority students
have experienced an exponential growth of disparity between their academic
achievement and that of their middle-class White counterparts. This huge disparity
cannot be attributed to an absence of merit or lack of effort, but to imposed
educational inopportunity created by cultural and political norms of the nation’s
current cultural model of schools. That model includes flawed assumptions, deficit
theory, inferior resources, and a disproportionate number of ineffective teachers.
Creating a more just educational system requires structural and ideological changes
within schools.
Community-school-university partnerships have the ability to overcome the
historical effects of segregation, the perpetuation of the status quo, and disparate
educational opportunities while seeking to create educational equity. Participants in
co-constructed community-school-university partnerships attempt to create
82
transformative models of urban education in which neighborhoods, universities, and
schools work together to create more equitable outcomes for students in urban
communities (Carroll et al., 2002; Miller & Hafner, 2008). Co-construction is an
essential element which includes understanding the cultural and social dynamics of all
stakeholders, and is based upon democratic notions including the devolution of power
and the creation of trust, mutuality, and reciprocity. Co-construction is facilitated
through dialogue. Dialogue facilitates shared understandings among stakeholders that
are based upon each partner’s specialized knowledge and skills. Through dialogue,
praxis occurs as stakeholders reflect upon their world and as they work to transform it.
The collaboration of the community, school, and university can result in the creation of
cultural models for teaching and learning that empower African-American and Latino
students in urban communities.
83
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
As previously discussed in Chapter One, co-constructed relationships
between communities, schools, and universities have the potential to reallocate
power as well as change the cultural model for stakeholders involved in the
educational partnership. While research illuminates the capability of partnerships to
offer power to traditionally disenfranchised stakeholders, little is known about how
the community-school-university partnership can affect change in the cultural
models of schools with specific regard to teachers. This study contributes to a gap in
the research by identifying the barriers to establishing successful partnerships as well
as effective strategies for overcoming these barriers. This chapter describes the
research design, sampling procedures, instrumentation, frameworks, data collection
and data analysis of the study.
Study Design and Research Questions
This study is aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. What evidence of ongoing processes, including co-construction, does a
community, school, and university partnership demonstrate as it continues to
work toward school improvement after its first year of operation?
a. What are the barriers that persist in co-constructing and sustaining a
community-school-university partnership created to improve an urban
school?
84
b. What effective strategies are in place that demonstrates the ability to
overcome the persistent barriers in community-school-university
partnerships seeking to improve student achievement in an urban
school?
2. What attributes of a community, school, and university partnership in an
urban school can facilitate and support a new cultural model for the role of
teachers in promoting high academic achievement for African American and
Latino students?
Methods
The research questions were examined through a qualitative case study of a
partnership involving a university, a school, and community based organizations
(CBOs) in an urban community. The unit of analysis was a community-university-
school partnership. The use of qualitative methods allowed for critical issues to be
examined, paying close attention to detail, context, and quality of implementation
(Patton, 1987, p. 29). A case study was an effective approach to evaluating the
community-school-university partnership and its potential impact on an urban high
school, based on criteria identified in the literature. Creswell (2007) elucidates that
case study research involves the study of an issue within a bounded system during a
specific period of time while utilizing multiple sources of information to develop
conclusions.
Throughout the data collection process, the researchers conducted interviews
and observations, as well as reviewed artifacts and documents to provide a rich body
85
of data. In order to strengthen the validity of the findings, the researchers used the
triangulation method (Patton, 2002). Within this process, the researchers examined
the consistencies and inconsistencies among the data, as well as the ability of one
source to complement or contradict the information gathered from another source
(Creswell, 2007; Patton, 2002). The overarching purpose of the chosen methods for
collecting data was to determine the extent to which stakeholders within the
partnership were able to convey knowledge of the partnership and make known their
participation in the partnership. The researchers were also interested in identifying
the various perceptions of the partnership and its efforts towards altering the culture
of the school and its teachers after its first year of operation through the lens of
various stakeholders.
It is important to note, however, that constraints of time and resources,
investigator bias, generalizability, validity, and reliability can limit a case study
(Patton, 2002). In order to minimize the effects of these limitations, triangulation
methods were implemented through the use of multiple sources of data (Creswell,
2007; Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002).
Sampling and Population
Extreme Case Study
A specific case study has been selected because of its extreme or unique
attributes. This particular partnership was chosen because of its unique structure and
potential for transforming schools. It also provided an opportunity to observe a
partnership between two community-based organizations with a history of
86
involvement in the transformation of urban communities; a high school that elected
to enter an innovation unit of a large urban school district geared towards school
transformation; and a top tier private university with a commitment to urban
education. The members involved were Prep High School, Westside University,
Grizzly United and City Connections, all of which form the partnership called the
United Education Action Team. The partnership is currently in its third year of
operation, and the study examined the extent to which the university and community-
based organizations were working as partners beyond the first year of the
partnership’s operation within the local school site to promote transformation of the
school to produce high academic achievement. This study is a follow-up to the
research conducted by a thematic dissertation group of students in the University of
Southern California’s Rossier School of Education regarding the partnership’s
progress in one year toward co-constructing a partnership capable of transforming an
urban high school. This study examined indicators of the partnership’s progress
toward creating a co-constructed model of partnership capable of transforming the
same high school. A major focus was on the degree to which the partnership was
able to facilitate the creation and maintenance of a new cultural model for the school
and its teachers.
Purposeful Sampling
Purposeful sampling was used in this study to ensure that the researchers had
access to an information rich case, in which they were able to gain data critical to the
purpose of the research (Patton, 2002). According to Merriam (1998), “purposeful
87
sampling is based on the assumption that the investigator wants to discover,
understand and gain insight and therefore must select a sample from which the most
can be learned” (p.61). Within this case study, there were examples of extreme or
deviant case sampling, which was a strategy used to ensure an information rich case
study (Patton, 2002). The process of selecting participants began with a stratified
sampling to ensure that the key stakeholders were equally represented in the data.
The key participants in the study included the school site principal and assistant
principals, teachers, parents, community organization leaders, and community
residents. Snowball or network sampling also occurred within the study, which was a
strategy that involved asking each participant, or group of participants, to refer the
researchers to other potential participants (Merriam, 1998). There were also
instances of emergent sampling in which the researchers followed new leads on
information gained through fieldwork (Patton, 2002).
School Background
In order to gain a rich understanding of the history of the school and its
academic performance, it was necessary to evaluate its data prior to the partnership’s
inception and implementation. The tables that follow describe the school’s
demographic and achievement characteristics, which highlight the importance of the
goal of the partnership which seeks to improve the academic achievement of urban
youth.
88
Table 3.1: School Demographic Data, 2009-10
Ethnic/Racial
Subgroup
School
Enrollment
Percent of Total
(School)
Percent of
Total (District)
American Indian 8 0.4% 0.3%
Asian 3 0.1% 3.7%
Pacific Islander 5 0.2% 0.3%
Filipino 5 0.2% 2.2%
Hispanic 674 33.1% 73.2%
African American 1,326 65.0% 10.7%
White 4 0.2% 8.8%
Multiple/No Response 14 0.7% 0.8%
Total 2,039 100% 100%
Source: California Department of Education, 2010
Table 3.2: School Drop-Out Rates (2005-06 to 2007-08)
Drop Out Rates 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
One-Year Drop
Out Rate (Grades
9-12)
School District School District School District
6.5% 5.0% 11.6% 7.8% 10.1% 6.7%
Four-Year Drop
Out Rate (Grades
9-12)
Schools District School District School District
29.2% 25.3% 48.6% 31.7% 41.4% 26.4%
Graduation Rate School District School District School District
56.9% 63.9% 41.0% 67.1% 51.8% 72.4%
Source: California Department of Education, 2010
89
Table 3.3: School Achievement Data-API Scores (2005-06 to 2008-09)
2005-2006
API Score
2006-2007
API Score
2007-2008
API Score
2008-2009
API Score
School 506 525 N/A 545
District 655 662 681 693
Source: California Department of Education, 2010
Through these various sampling methods, the research group was able to gain
a rich body of data that was used for analysis to respond to the research questions.
Instrumentation
Data collection procedures included interviews, artifacts and observations.
Data were collected beginning in November 2010 and completed in January 2011.
In order to address issues of validity and reliability, triangulation methods in the
form of data triangulation, investigator triangulation, and methodological
triangulation were implemented. According to Brewer and Hunter (2002), “using
multiple methods allows inquiry into a research question with an ‘arsenal of
methods’ that have non-overlapping weaknesses in addition to their complementary
strengths” (as cited in Patton, 2002, p. 248).
A research cohort consisting of six doctoral candidates, chaired by Sylvia G.
Rousseau, Ed.D, convened throughout the fall of 2009 and continued to meet in the
spring and summer of 2010 to develop and refine research questions, theoretical
frameworks for each research question, a survey instrument, interview and
observation protocols, and methods for analyzing artifacts. Table 3.4 below shows
90
the relationship between the research questions and the instruments that were used to
collect the data.
Table 3.4: Triangulation Using a Variety of Data Collection Instruments
Research Question Artifacts Observations Interviews
1. What evidence of ongoing
processes, including co-
construction, does a
community-school-university
partnership demonstrate as it
continues to work toward
school improvement after its
first year of operation?
X X X
1a. What are the barriers that
persist in co-constructing and
sustaining a community-school-
university partnership created
to improve an urban school?
X X X
1b. What are effective
strategies are in place that
demonstrates the ability to
overcome the persistent barriers
in community-school-
university partnerships seeking
to improve student achievement
in an urban school?
X X X
2. What attributes of a
community, school, and
university partnership in an
urban school can facilitate and
support a new cultural model
for the role of teachers in
promoting high academic
achievement for African
American and Latino students?
X X X
91
Research Question Frameworks
Framework for First Research Question
The first research question asks, “What evidence of ongoing processes,
including co-construction, does a community-school-university partnership
demonstrate as it continues to work toward school improvement after its first year of
operation?” The theoretical framework to guide this question was found in a variety
of works. To gain understanding of the co-construction and dialogical relationships
of the partnership, there was a large emphasis on the work of Freire (2009). His
work was directly connected to the research question in that his theories regarding
co-construction and dialogical relationships have been found to be key elements in
the partnership model and essential to lasting partnerships (Epstein, 1995, 2001;
Kezar, 2007). There was an emphasis on shared decision making and the elimination
of hierarchal structures within the partnership model and Freire’s framework;
although there was emerging evidence of these processes from the previous year’s
study (Gillenwaters, 2009; Kim, 2009), it was necessary to use Freire’s framework
(2009) to see if those principles were being sustained. Embedded within Freire’s
framework is Vygotsy’s (1970) principle of sociocultural theory of learning. In this
theory, he purported that learning is socially and culturally situated in context of
everyday living and work; the generation of knowledge and learning is the result of a
dynamic interaction between individuals, other people, and cultural artifacts, all of
which contribute to social development. Through artifacts (documents), interviews,
and observations the researchers intended to discover the extent to which the process
92
continued to demonstrate dialogic and reflective co-constructive processes that built
upon the progress described in the previous study. Due to the extensive nature of the
process, it warranted the development of two sub-questions, each couched in their
own framework.
Framework for “part a” of question one
The subset of the first research questions asks, “What are the barriers that
persist in co-constructing and sustaining a community-school-university partnership
created to improve an urban school?” Freire’s (1970, 2009) work regarding co-
construction played an integral role in developing an understanding of the elements
of the co-constructive relationship. Contributing to the unique design of the
educational partnership, however, is the work of Adrianna Kezar (2007) and her
description of shared stakeholder involvement in the partnership and their
participation in the co-constructive process.
Framework for “part b” of question one
The second subset of the first research question asks, “What effective
strategies are in place that demonstrates the ability to overcome the persistent
barriers in community-school-university partnerships seeking to improve student
achievement in an urban school?” Freire’s (1970, 2009) work was referenced to
illuminate the important role of dialogical relationships in building trust, allowing for
vulnerability and developing a shared vision. Also, Schein’s (1990) framework
regarding the three levels of organizational culture offered a framework in which the
interactions between the partnership stakeholders were evaluated to ensure that each
93
culture was being valued and respected within the co-constructive process.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1993) ecological model and Epstein’s (1995) overlapping spheres
of influence also guided the definition of stakeholders and their classification within
various systems surrounding the urban school student. Continued dialogic
relationships between members of the different ecosystems can be a critical element
in the co-constructive process as well as the sustainability of an educational
partnership.
Framework for Second Research Question
The second research question asks, “What attributes of a community, school,
and university partnership in an urban school can facilitate and support a new
cultural model for the role of teachers in promoting high academic achievement for
African American and Latino students?” In order to acquire an understanding of
cultural models within the school, it was necessary to look at Gallimore and
Goldenberg’s (2002) work on cultural models and settings and its connection to
Bourdieu’s (1990) social capital theory. Similarly, the notion of the logic of scarcity,
logic of merit, and the logic of deficits (Oakes & Rogers, 2007) can be used to
understand the current cultural model of schooling and the deficits it produces for
minority students. Through the observations, artifacts (documents) and interviews,
the research aimed to evaluate the existing cultural model for teachers within the
partnership and school and how closely it followed the research based on teacher
effectiveness by Darling-Hammond (2000) and Haycock (1998).
94
Table 3.5: Theoretical Frameworks for Research Questions
Research Question Theoretical Framework
1. What evidence of ongoing
processes, including co-construction,
does a community-school-university
partnership demonstrate as it continues
to work toward school improvement
after its first year of operation?
o Freire (1970)—Dialogical
Relationships
o Vygotsky (1970)—Sociocultural
Learning Theory
1a. What are the barriers that persist in
co-constructing and sustaining a
community-school-university
partnership created to improve an
urban school?
o Freire (1970)—Dialogical
Relationships
o Kezar (2007)—Sustaining
Educational Partnerships
1b. What effective strategies are in
place that demonstrates the ability to
overcome the persistent barriers in
community-school-university
partnerships seeking to improve
student achievement in an urban
school?
o Freire (1970)—Dialogical
Relationship
o Schein (1990)—Three Levels of
Organizational Culture
2. What attributes of a community,
school, and university partnership in an
urban school can facilitate and support
a new cultural model for the role of
teachers in promoting high academic
achievement for African American and
Latino students?
o Gallimore and Goldenberg
(2002)—School Cultural Models
o Bourdieu (1990)—Social Capital
and Networks of Interaction
o Darling-Hammond (2000) and
Haycock (1998)—Teacher
Effectiveness
o Oakes and Rogers (2007)—
Prevailing Logics
o Bronfenbrenner (1990)—
Ecological Models
o Epstein (1995) —Spheres of
Influence
Data Collection, Instruments, and Procedures
This section describes the data collection instruments and the procedures that
were utilized to collect data for analysis.
95
Data Collection Instruments
The following instruments were designed by the research cohort and are
included as appendices in this document:
Instrument A: Administrator Interview Protocol
Instrument B: Teacher Interview Protocol
Instrument C: Classified Personnel Interview Protocol
Instrument D: Parent Interview Protocol
Instrument E: Community-Based Organization Protocol
Instrument F: University Stakeholder Interview Protocol
Instrument G: Community Members-at-Large Interview Protocol
Instrument H: School Environment Observation Protocol
Instrument I: Meeting Observation Protocol
Instrument J: Examined Artifact Protocol
Table 3.6: Data Collection Matrix
Interviews Observations Artifacts Background
Data
Board Members (5) Board Meetings
(2)
UEAT Meeting
Minutes
School
Accountability
Report Card
(SARC)
School
Administrators (3)
Administrative
Team Meeting
UEAT Business
Plan
Prep High
School Data
Sheet
Teachers/Classified
Staff (9)
School Site
Council Meeting
Memorandum of
Understanding
Prep High
School API/AYP
Reports
Parents (4) Faculty Meeting Strategic Plan
Community-Based
Organization
Members (4)
Professional
Developments (2)
School Site
Council Meeting
Minutes
96
Table 3.6, Continued
Interviews Observations Artifacts Background
Data
University
Partnership
Participant (5)
School Climate
Observation
UEAT Fact Sheet
Community
Members-at-Large
(3)
Ford Foundation
Grant
Site Visits
The School District requires that all researchers with the intent of conducting
a study in one of its schools receive written authorization from the district before any
data are collected. The appropriate forms were submitted and approved before data
collection began. After receiving approval from the district, the administrator of the
high school and the directors of the CBOs were contacted to arrange the dates for site
visits. The researchers made direct contact with the university faculty who were
interviewed. At that time, a copy of the proposed study was submitted to the
appropriate personnel in order to clearly communicate the goals and objectives of the
study. After receiving approval from the organizational leaders, site visits were
scheduled and conducted over an eight week time period between November 2010
and January 2011.
Document Review
Artifacts are highly visible indicators of culture that can include the physical
environment of the organization, the methods used for communication, and the
behaviors of its members. Documents are also important not only because of what
97
can be learned directly from them but as “stimulus for paths of inquiry” that can be
gleaned through observation and interviews (Patton, 2002). Documents and artifacts
may also be used to triangulate data (Patton, 2002). The research team compared the
public documents with the observations of the interactions among the stakeholders.
The research team also reviewed artifacts and documents associated with the
partnership, including the partnership’s Business Plan, the Memorandum of
Understanding between the partnership and the school district, and the Facts Sheet
which outlines the contributions made by each network partner towards the
partnership. The research team also sought permission and access to key documents
from the administrative leads and designees of the partnering institutions. Similarly,
the research team used the findings from the first year of research as an artifact.
Prior research as well as records from all stakeholders allowed the current research
team to evaluate processes and how they developed prior to conducting new
research. While analyzing documents and artifacts, the research team was cognizant
of the following challenges: gaining access to documents, understanding how and
why the documents were produced, determining the accuracy of the documents, and
linking documents with other sources, including interviews and observations.
Observations
Observations, according to Merriam (1998), take place in a “natural” setting
and present an in-person encounter with the “phenomenon of interest” as opposed to
the second-hand content of an interview. The research team conducted observations
in a variety of settings to gain insight into the cultures of the specific partners and to
98
gather evidence of the emerging joint culture as the stakeholders continue their
interactions with one another in the partnership. Cumulatively, the research group
conducted a total of 10 observations. These observations included staff development
meetings, School Site Council meetings, community outreach events, school based
outreach meetings, partnership board meetings, partnership retreat, community
council meetings, and ad hoc meetings. Selection of the events were decided by the
research team and planned on a master calendar. The members responsible for each
observation obtained the meeting agendas and used field notes as a means for
recording observations. These dated accounts contain key information to describe the
event, i.e., attendees, physical setting, activities, and what people said to demonstrate
the “emic perspective” (Fetterman, 1989:30 as cited in Patterson, 2002). Emic
perspective refers to the language and categories used by the people in the setting
being studied, as opposed to the etic approach, which refers to categories created by
researchers based upon their analysis of cultural distinctions (Patton, 2002). The
research team was aware of some of the limitations of observations, which include:
possibility of the observer affecting the situation being observed; distortion of data
by the selective perception of the researcher; atypical behavior by participants who
know that they are being observed; focus on only external behaviors; and the limited
sample of the activities being observed (Patton, 2002).
Interviews
“The purpose of interviews is to allow [the researchers] to enter into the other
person’s perspective” (Patton, 2002, p. 341). Interviewing is based on the
99
assumption that the perspective of others is meaningful. The interviews the
researchers conducted enabled us to learn about events, feelings, thoughts, and
intentions that we were not able to observe. The interview questions were designed
to ascertain the interviewee’s attitudes, knowledge of, and experiences with the
partnership. The information contributed a rich body of data about the formation of
the partnership and the resulting attributes within the second and third year of
formation. The interview guides for all the different stakeholders essentially contain
the same questions to allow an analysis for consistencies and inconsistencies in the
responses among the various stakeholders. These semi-structured interviews
contained more open-ended questions that were flexibly worded to elicit more varied
responses (Merriam, 1998). The format of the semi-structured interview allowed for
flexibility in the way questions were asked. Although the research group
predetermined the interview questions, flexibility was given depending on whether
the interviewer felt that more than one question had been answered in the
interviewees’ responses. The interviewer also had discretion in adding questions for
clarification or eliminating questions that had already been answered (Patton, 2002).
Careful attention was given to the structure and diction of each question so as
to ensure that “what [was] being asked [was] clear to the person being interviewed”
(Merriam, 1998, p. 76). Questions that were avoided included: multiple questions
embedded within one; leading questions that may have revealed the researcher’s
bias; or yes-or-no questions that elicited no significant information (Merriam, 1998).
The interview questions also included several probes aimed to help to guide the
100
interview and allow the researcher to make adjustments throughout the interview
(Merriam, 1998). Some of the probing questions were pre-set, in anticipation of
inadequate responses to questions posed.
Interviews were conducted with representatives of each stakeholder group
within the partnership. Overall, the research group interviewed a total of 27
stakeholders. Although this amount may seem unwieldy, the advantage of a thematic
dissertation group is that the responsibilities were shared by all members. We
interviewed five of the active board members from the United Education Action
Team, four members from the community-based organizations, and three members
from the community-at-large. From Prep High, we interviewed six faculty members,
three school administrators, three classified staff, and four parents/grandparents.
This particular study emphasized the interviews with teachers and administrators
within the school due to its particular emphasis on school culture and teacher
effectiveness. Also, within the community at large, not including the specific
organizations within the partnerships, the team interviewed two additional
stakeholders. In addition, the research team interviewed five Westside University
participants.
Communication and Structure
The research team sought out potential interviewees by announcing the
purpose of the study and desire to conduct interviews at specified meetings attended
by potential interviewees, including Board meetings, faculty meetings, and parent
organization meetings. In order to ensure effective communication, the research
101
team also inserted flyers in staff members’ mailboxes to inform them of the research
plan and interview schedule. Community members were contacted via community
meetings, telephone, and email. The researchers also contacted potential
interviewees based on interest sparked by observations or leads from other
interviewees. The interviews took place in-person and were digitally recorded with
the permission of the interviewees. The researchers also took notes during the
interviews to keep track of the responses, identify key phrases critical for further
analysis, and document mannerisms and gestures that could not be obtained via
audio recording. The notes aided the research team to conceptualize the data in the
transcribed recordings. Each member of the research team was assigned to collect
specific data and worked in dyads to aid in reliability. Most of the interviews lasted
45 to 60 minutes, depending on the depth of the interviewee’s responses to each
question.
Data Analysis
Triangulation
The three primary sources of data regarding the formation of the partnership
enabled the research team to engage in data triangulation to increase validity of the
findings (Patton, 2002). The collective data was available to everyone on the
research team. The collection of coded data enabled the research team to access a
rich pool of data in which one set of data complements and/or challenges one
another.
102
Having multiple members of a research team allowed the researchers to
engage in investigator triangulation as well. According to Patton (2002), this
process further ensures a thick set of data and opportunities for researchers to discuss
the data they have collected and limits the opportunities for investigator bias. At
least two people participated in collecting each specific data set, and the researcher
team held each other accountable for accuracy and perceptions embedded in the data.
Analyzing Interviews
Each researcher transcribed some of their individual recorded interviews to
immerse themselves in the data. The researchers analyzed the interviews through the
lenses of their research questions to determine the feelings, attitudes, and perceptions
on the following:
o the process by which the partnership has sustained its co-constructive
element (i.e. continued dialogical relationship)
o barriers deterring from the co-construction process and strategies to
effectively circumvent those barriers
o identifiable attributes of a new cultural model emerging for teachers
The research team compared the levels of involvement and interest among
the various stakeholders and stakeholder groups during the second and third year of
the partnership. The group was interested in learning to what extent the various
stakeholders feel they have been involved in the co-construction process and a
dialogical relationship with the other stakeholders. The team used these data to
determine whether the co-constructive process and dialogic relationship has
advanced, remained the same, or regressed compared to the first year of the study.
The data collected was coded by the same definitions or descriptions as the Year One
103
study to determine the placement of data in specific categories. The data were then
compared against the Year One codebook. The researchers analyzed and reviewed
data that revealed whether indicators of co-construction identified in the Year One
study were still present and to what degree. Also, the Year Two research team
analyzed the data they collected to determine whether barriers identified in Year One
have been eliminated, mitigated, or persist. Finally, the research team also analyzed
the interview data for responses that indicated whether the attributes identified in the
Year One study remain, if there are new attributes, or if there are no new identifiable
attributes for a new cultural model for the school and specifically teachers. To
facilitate these comparisons, the interview questions were consistent across all
stakeholder interview instruments. Further, the terms and their definitions
determined by the Year One research team were used for coding data collected by
the Year Two team.
Analyzing Observations
The research team used the previously codified data from the code book to
analyze the recurring themes that emerged in the observations. The researchers
compared data collected through the field notes from the observations with the data
collected in the interviews as well as the documents collected. The observations of
meetings and classrooms were analyzed for the contributions they made to answer
the research questions. The research team also looked for behaviors, actions,
scenarios, and quotes that indicated the on-going process of co-construction and
sustainment of dialogical relationships. Within the meeting setting, the research
104
team looked for indicators of co-construction as well as the presence of all
stakeholders and the extent to which they were integrated into the partnership.
Lastly, the research team carefully observed the behaviors of the members of the
partnership to see how they impacted the cultural model for the school and more
specifically for the teachers. The research team analyzed the field notes in
comparison to the interviews for consistencies and inconsistencies as responses to
the research questions. Again, the Year Two researchers used terms created by the
Year One research group to codify data from the observations to ensure that
comparisons were accurate.
Analyzing Documents and Artifacts
According to Miller (cited in Patton, 2001, p. 91), “demystifying institutional
texts is one way of demystifying institutional authority.” The researcher team
identified parallels between attitudes, actions, and behaviors noted in observations
and interviews and compared them to the formal documentation of these events. The
researchers noted evidence in the artifacts of the cultures and actions of each
organization during the partnership’s third year of operation. The team noted the
content of the partnership’s agenda and meeting minutes, specifically as it applied to
demonstrating evidence of co-construction and teacher engagement efforts. The
objective was to note the degree to which the partnership has advanced a new
cultural model for teacher effectiveness beyond what the Year One research team
identified and how this has affected student achievement. Artifacts were also
105
analyzed for consistencies and inconsistencies among values and basic assumptions
within the partnership.
Codebook
The research team was able to gain access to the codebook and all the data
that were collected by the Year One study. As this study is an expansion on the
previously conducted research, additions to the codebook occurred, based on the
research team’s efforts to answer the research questions which were extensions of
the research questions asked by the Year One research team. To ensure a valid basis
for comparisons between the Year One and the Year Two studies, the Year Two
researchers used definitions of terms used by the Year One team for coding data as a
basis for entering new data into the Year Two researcher’s code book. In order to
ensure reliability in the continuation of the study on the partnership, the researchers
did not delete any of the original codes created by the Year One research team. The
research team held a joint session with members from the Year One study team to
ensure that they were using the same definitions for categories of data used by the
Year One team. In that session the team conducted trial runs of inputting data in
specific categories to ensure accurate data entry from Year One to Year Two of the
study as well as ensure reliability between researchers on the Year Two research
team. The codes that were utilized by both Year One and Two studies are included
in Table 3.7.
106
Table 3.7: Codes Used in Year One and Year Two Studies
Processes (P) Barriers (B) Strategies (S)
PCC:
Co-Construction
BHrch: Hierarchy SCBP: Critical Bridge
Person
PD: Dialogue BHst: History SSD: Space for
Dialogue
PMSL: Mutual/Shared
Learning
BLS: Logics- Scarcity SSR: Systems of
Representation
BLM: Logics- Merit SH: History
BLD: Logics- Deficit
BASSC: Absence of
Systems and Structures for
Communication
BLT: Lack of Trust
The codes that have been created for capturing the data included the data’s
relationship to a combination of factors:
o the process by which the partnership has sustained its co-constructive
element (i.e. continued dialogical relationship)
o barriers deterring from the co-construction process and strategies to
effectively circumvent those barriers
o identifiable attributes of a new cultural model emerging for teacher
effectiveness
In addition to research question #1, which was an extension of Year One
research team’s research question #1, each researcher in the follow-up study added
one new research question unique to the Year Two study.
Analysis for Interviews, Observations, and Artifacts
The research team used the following rubrics to analyze the consistencies
and/or changes between Year One and Year Two data.
107
Table 3.8: Processes and Co-Construction and Dialogue
Advanced Remained the Same Regressed
Additional evidence of
co-construction beyond
what was found in Year
One study from a
minimum of three
sources; a minimum of
three observations or
artifacts demonstrate
new or additional
evidence.
Same evidences of co-
construction as Year One
from the majority of
interviewees (fewer than
three cite new evidence);
fewer than three evidences
seen in the artifacts and
observations
Interviewees are
citing fewer evidences
of co-construction –
fewer than three
evidences of same
evidence as Year One
in the interviews,
observations, and
artifacts.
Table 3.9: Barriers to Co-Construction and Dialogical Relationships
Persist Mitigated Eliminated New
Same evidences
of the barriers to
co-construction
as Year One
study
A few of the
evidences of the
barriers to co-
construction have
been lessened in
degree from Year
One Study
All evidences of the
barriers to co-
construction from
Year One of the
study have been
eliminated
Evidences
suggest new
barriers to co-
construction in
addition to Year
One study
Table 3.10: Strategies to Co-Construction and Dialogical Relationships
Persisted Strengthened Eliminated New
Same evidences
of the strategies
to co-
construction as
Year One study
Some of the
evidences of the
strategies to co-
construction
increased in degree
from Year One
Study
All evidences of the
strategies to co-
construction from
Year One of the
study have been
eliminated
Evidences
suggest new
strategies to co-
construction in
addition to Year
One study
108
Table 3.11: Attributes of Partnership
New Attributes Maintained Attributes No Identifiable
Attributes
There are evidences of
new attributes of a
partnership as
compared to Year One
study
The evidences of attributes
remain the same as those
identified in Year One study
There are no evidences
of identifiable attributes
of the partnership
Ethical Considerations
Due to the nature of the study, careful consideration must be paid to the
methods used for data collection and dissemination. Merriam (1998) states, “In
qualitative studies, ethical dilemmas are likely to emerge with regard to the
collection of data and in the dissemination of findings” (p. 213). The utmost efforts
were made to maintain high ethical standards throughout this study; the research
team ensured that data was collected and analyzed and that the findings disseminated
are free from bias. The rules and regulations as specified by the Westside University
Institutional Review Board (WUIRB) as well as the Institutional Review Board for
the “District” were strictly adhered to in order to ensure that participants were treated
in an ethical manner.
Summary
This chapter has detailed the methodology that was utilized in this qualitative
study. This case study of a community-school-university partnership included a
variety of data collection methods and instruments to answer the research questions
identifying the on-going processes promoting co-construction. The data collection
methods and instruments also identified evidence of the barriers that limit co-
109
construction and the strategies being implemented to overcome those barriers.
Lastly, the data collection methods and instruments were used to determine how the
partnership has influenced the development of a new cultural model for teachers and
teacher effectiveness.
110
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
As mentioned in Chapter One, the purpose of this study is to identify and
analyze the extent to which a community-school-university partnership is able to
sustain elements of co-construction and other ongoing processes that are beneficial to
the partnership during its second and third year in operation. The study also aims to
identify the persistent barriers to co-construction and effective strategies to overcome
those barriers within a community-school-university partnership. The study seeks to
determine whether the processes by which a community-school-university
partnership in an urban school can facilitate and support a new cultural model for the
role of teachers in promoting high academic achievement for African American and
Latino students. Chapter Two provided the literature review to make a case for the
impact of co-constructed dialogic relationships in creating a new cultural model in
schools and specifically for teachers attempting to promote high academic
achievement for urban students. Chapter Three provided the research methodology
for this qualitative case study of a community-school-university partnership and
illuminated the procedures for data collection and analysis in relation to the posed
research questions. This chapter will present the findings from the study and analyze
the findings through the theoretical framework presented in Chapter Two.
111
Background Information: The Partnership
The United Education Action Team Partnership is constructed of four
organizations: Prep High School, Grizzly United, Westside University, and City
Connections. It is important to note that the name of each organization has been
changed in an effort to maintain confidentiality. A list of pseudonyms can be
referenced in Appendix K. Each organization has its own independent mission
statement, but joined this educational partnership in an effort to collaboratively
reshape the vision for teaching and learning within Prep High School and its feeder
schools in the community. Figure 4.1 illustrates the members involved in UEAT as
well as each organization’s independent mission statement.
Figure 4.1: UEAT Partners and Mission Statements
To continue the vision and
accomplishments of
[Community Advocate X] in
an effort to bring together all
fragmented communities of
Los Angeles to work as one.
To enable African American
and other minorities to
secure economic self-
reliance, parity, power and
civil rights through
advocacy activities and the
provision of programs and
services in our uniquely
diversified city and region.
The development of human
beings and society as a whole
through the cultivation and
enrichment of the human mind
and spirit.
To develop
literate students
who are
empowered with
the knowledge
and skills
necessary to
become
successful
citizens of a
global society.
112
The various members of the aforementioned educational partnership entered
into a five-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in an effort to guide the
transformation process of the high school by creating a set of core beliefs and vision.
The MOU, created at the initiation of the partnership, established the legal conditions
for the partnership. The Strategic Plan, which was created in the second year of the
partnership, declared that:
The students, staff, parents, and community are a community of learners and
leaders, who work together to create: (1) a positive collaborative learning
environment; (2) a place where all students can do and learn through daily
class attendance; (3) a school where all students are supported by all
stakeholders to achieve academic excellence; and (4) a supportive place to
study and learn (Strategic Plan, 2010).
These core beliefs shaped the partnership’s vision, which is “to be recognized
locally and nationally as a model of collaboration among teachers, parents,
administrators and the community dedicated to maximizing the educational, social-
emotional development and civic engagement of [their] students” (Strategic Plan,
2010).
Findings
The findings presented are in direct response to the following research
questions.
113
Research Questions
1) What evidence of ongoing processes, including co-construction, does a
community, school, and university partnership demonstrate as it continues to
work toward school improvement beyond its first year of operation?
a. What are the barriers that persist in co-constructing and sustaining a
community-school-university partnership created to improve an urban
school?
b. What are effective strategies are in place that demonstrates the ability
to overcome the persistent barriers in community-school-university
partnerships seeking to improve student achievement in an urban
school?
2) What attributes of a community, school, and university partnership in an
urban school can facilitate and support a new cultural model for the role of
teachers in promoting high academic achievement for African American and
Latino students?
The data were collected and analyzed in the exploration of these questions
and the findings were triangulated using interviews, observations, and artifacts in
relation to one another in an effort to increase validity. The findings from this study
were also compared against the findings of the Year One study to see if processes
and strategies for co-construction advanced, regressed or remained the same. The
study examined the extent to which new attributes had developed, disappeared or
reemerged. The findings determined whether the processes used to maintain the
114
partnership have led to the development of a new cultural model that promotes new
roles for teachers in promoting the achievement of African American and Latino
students who constitute 99% of the student enrollment in the school.
Research Question One: Ongoing Processes
The first research question queried the ongoing processes that were
demonstrated in a community-school-university partnership as it continues to work
towards school transformation after its first year in operation. Through an
investigation and analysis of the findings, the research team discovered that the same
strategies identified by the Year One Study continue to persist, which include: (1)
co-construction, (2) dialogue, and (3) mutual shared learning. However, the Year
Two data portray that there has been a regression within the extent to which
processes of co-construction and dialogue were practiced. The Year Two data
illustrate that the level of mutual shared learning amongst most stakeholder groups
has remained the same with little progress from Year One. The processes, including
co-construction, dialogue, and mutual shared learning, accounted for 8% of the total
codes analyzed by the research team.
Co-Construction Findings
The interviews conducted by the research team highlighted various evidences
of co-construction taking place within the UEAT Partnership. Ms. Green, a
community-based organization member, described the process of co-construction in
her interview,
115
I have seen it be more of a joint process of mutual engagement towards a
goal. I think it’s a challenge to attain that goal, and I think I’ve seen more
specific incidents of it as opposed to an ongoing modus operandi… And I
think it’s because we’re still – all the players – are still learning it. But I
have seen it at work (Ms. Green, personal communication, 2010).
Dr. Grupe, a university participant, also echoed the idea that co-construction
is a learning process, and the process of learning to co-construct is just as important
as the outcomes that develop from the process. Dr. Grupe went on to explain this
process:
Learning for lots of people in this environment is a new tension… Co-
construction enables people to have to fight with themselves around
learning a new skill. There’s tension in that… It’s a good tension.
There’s a point in time at which the very de-stabilization that you
offer in and of itself is part of the co-constructive process. The fact
that you are destabilizing the old culture while you build a new one is
actually a good thing. It’s a healthy thing (Dr. Grupe, personal
communication, 2010).
The tension that emerges in developing a co-constructed relationship is
apparent within the literature. Carroll, LaPoint, and Tyler (2001) suggest that
successful co-construction requires people to overcome their fears of interacting in
new ways so that they can create sustainable change. Similarly, this process also
requires a significant amount of time to develop (Carroll, LaPoint, & Tyler (2001).
From the data gleaned from interviews, it was evident that stakeholders did not feel
that this process was taking place before the creation of the UEAT Partnership. A
university participant pointed out that,
If a partnership causes people to even come together and talk about and be
upset about [and] to think about these things that are very important, then
there’s certain value in it, and I think these conversations were not going on
before UEAT” (Dr. Ballan, personal communication, 2010).
116
While many agree that co-construction is still being developed within the
partnership, stakeholders from the community-based organizations, the school, and
the university all mentioned concrete evidences of structures and actions that resulted
from co-construction. One major element recalled in the interviews of the Year Two
study was the creation of small learning communities (SLCs) and SLC governance
board. Ms. Espinoza stated that teachers co-constructed the themes and the
governing frameworks for the SLCs alongside representatives from Westside
University and the school site (Interview, 2010). The governance board for the SLCs
has now transitioned into the Instructional Leadership Team and is made up of SLC
lead teachers and the department chairs. Another element that was a result of co-
construction was the creation of a Transition Team. This team was created to ensure
that the transition goals –set by the partnership in its formation – were met in the first
year. It was made up of representatives of each stakeholder group elected by their
constituents. Members included teachers, administrators, parents, students,
community and CBOs representatives. The transition team met weekly to take input
from their constituents and to report the actions of the transition team toward
meeting UEAT’s first year goals. The participation of the stakeholders within the
creation of the SLCs and the transition team is significant with regards to the
findings in literature, which states that co-constructed entities are profound in that
stakeholders are helping to create a program that is designed for their own use
(Freire, 1970; Miller & Haffner, 2008).
117
Evidence of a design for co-constructed culture was also found within the
artifacts studied by the research team. Within the UEAT’s Business Plan, the vision
describes the actions of the partnership as a “dynamic collaboration among teachers,
parents and community stakeholders.” This was also reiterated in Prep High
School’s Strategic Plan, a document created by parents, teachers, administrators,
community members, and representatives from City Connections, Westside
University, and Grizzly United during the second year of the partnership. This
document states that “the students, staff, parents and community are a community of
learners and leaders who work together to create a positive learning environment [for
students and a] school where all students are supported by stakeholders to achieve
academic excellence” (Strategic Plan, 2009). These statements about co-
construction are delineated in actual actions in the Business Plan, which states that
various governance teams were created in order to seek input and co-construct
implementation plans. These governance teams include the following: (1) individual
SLC governance committees; (2) a SLC council representing all SLCs; (3) a
curriculum council representing all curriculum departments; (4) a Transition Team to
coordinate major transformational actions within the first year; and (5) a multi-
stakeholder group (parents, teachers, community, and students).
Co-construction was still evident within observations conducted by the Year
Two research team, specifically those that included trainings and professional
development. One example was an administrative meeting, in which Dr. Key from
Westside University, administrators from Prep High School, and the Executive
118
Director of the UEAT were observed discussing the direct needs of the school as
well as reporting on feedback that they had received from the Instructional
Leadership Team. The members discussed the idea of creating a rubric at the
department level and grade level that would first require the “input on the crucial
things” to be assessed within the classroom. Throughout the observation it was
noted that all members contributed to the discussion without any member dominating
the conversation. Similarly, it was evident that the members were listening to each
other because they often paraphrased what another member contributed before they
offered their own input.
Although co-construction was evident within observations, artifacts, and
interviews, it must be noted that certain network partners were considered to be more
engaged in the co-construction process than others, as evidenced by data collected
during interviews. Some stakeholders within the school, university, and select CBOs
referred to the split that has emerged in years two and three between the entities of
the UEAT Partnership, which often distinguished Westside University and Grizzly
United from City Connections in the minds of the interviewees. Mr. Leblue, a
teacher at Prep High School, described Dr. Singh and Grizzly United as “actually
doing some of this organic work with the faculty and parents and community,” and
Dr. Key from Westside University as “significant because she believed in co-
construction [and the] change that we’ve seen thus far is a reflection of that work.”
Another teacher, Mr. Diamond, described City Connections and the UEAT Board as
“top down, more corporate, more administrative, bureaucratic.” He went on to say
119
that City Connections has made decisions without consultation of the larger group
and that they don’t “understand the impact that it has on people’s views and
perceptions.”
The split amongst stakeholders in regards to co-construction can also be seen
in the work that was conducted in order to apply for a Ford Foundation Grant. Dr.
Key guided select teachers and members from Grizzly United through
conceptualizing the proposal, and they jointly co-constructed a workable document
that was based upon the founding principles of the UEAT Partnership. Mr. Diamond
felt that,
The grant is very much based on the ideas that are embedded in the original
business plan and in many ways is a hope that we can begin to sort of
leverage things back in that direction in terms of how UEAT is understanding
its work (Mr. Diamond, personal communication, 2010).
His statement was further supported by an observation of an informal
meeting between Dr. Singh [Grizzly United], Mr. Al [Grizzly United], Ms. Cosby
[parent] and Mr. Diamond [teacher], in which there was an open discussion about
their suggestions and concerns for structuring the grant proposal. When the
proposed grant was brought to City Connections for their input, Mr. Diamond was
met with resistance and the response “why don’t you let our grant writer write it?”
This statement was indicative of a non-co-constructive approach to getting things
accomplished.
Within the interviews, City Connections was repeatedly described as not
being fully engaged in the co-constructive process. Dr. Singh and Mr. Al, both from
120
Grizzly United, outwardly negated notions that City Connections were participants in
co-construction. They both felt that members from City Connections had their own
agendas and did their work without consultation with others. Ms. Bryant, a school
administrator, revealed that although City Connections did take part in the co-
construction of materials for the school’s accreditation process, their help often was
manifested in the form of offering financial resources. Interviewees from all
stakeholder groups echoed this statement by listing financial resources that City
Connections contributed or programs that they led. These data are backed up by the
Fact Sheet, created in 2009, which lists ninety different contributions made by the
UEAT Partnership, of which fifty-three were credited to City Connections. While
these efforts are substantial, they do not signify that City Connections is taking part
in co-construction.
This perception of City Connections was further corroborated by Mr. Ali, a
member of City Connections. He described the process for the creation of the UEAT
newsletter. When he was asked if the document was co-constructed by the partners,
he replied,
I wouldn’t say co-constructed. I think we had it drafted, we told Westside
that we're doing a newsletter. We want to profile the work that you've done
and so this is what we've done. Would you like this put in the newsletter and
they consented so that's how it was arranged. She [the person] wanted to
hurry up and do it which was a bad idea (Mr. Ali, personal communication,
2010).
When the data is looked at as a whole, it portrays that although City
Connections is heavily invested in the work of the partnership, they are not fully
121
functioning under the principles of co-construction. Instead, they are acting in more
of an asymmetrical relationship with the school, a relationship in which one gives
and the other receives (Bringle et al., 2009). It must also be noted that these findings
parallel the literature that states that groups with financial resources tend to dominate
settings in which they collaborate with others (Schutz, 2006).
Consistencies and Inconsistencies with Year One Findings
The Year One research team documented that the process of co-construction
was emerging by the end of the first year. Kim (2009) stated that although there was
foundational knowledge and understanding of co-construction, it had not managed to
permeate all aspects of the UEAT Partnership. The Year Two research team’s
findings demonstrated a regression in the co-constructive process based on
interviews and observations cited here. It is important, however, to note that
according to the interviews, one of the network partners regressed in their co-
constructive practices more than the others. Year Two data demonstrate the
development of the “two faces of UEAT” (Leblue, 2010). Through the triangulation
process described in this chapter, it is evident that Grizzly United and Westside
University were attempting to maintain the co-constructive movement within the
partnership. City Connections, although heavily invested in the partnership, was not
included in the description of co-constructive network partners. This regression in
co-construction will be further explained in the discussion of the research group’s
findings within the barriers section. Other evidence of regression in the co-
construction processes is that that, although Westside University and Grizzly United
122
each were co-constructing with the school, they were not necessarily co-constructing
with each other or City Connections. In fact, there is little evidence of any of the key
network partners co-constructing with one another except individually with the
school. The findings regarding co-construction amongst the different network
partners are demonstrated in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2: Transformation of UEAT from Year One to Year Two
Dialogue Findings
As a facilitator of co-construction, dialogue was also identified as an ongoing
process demonstrated in the UEAT partnership as it continues to work towards
school transformation. The interviews were a major source of data to analyze the
scope to which the partnership was demonstrating the process of dialogue. Dr. Kane
stated that Westside University and the teachers and administrators at Prep High
School relied heavily on dialogue in order to create a series of professional
development sessions that would match the needs and interests of the teaching staff.
123
Once the professional development sessions were started, there was a continuous
dialogue taking place between the school site and the University, which revealed that
when the teachers were not completely satisfied with the professional development
offered, the team reconvened and changed their plans to accommodate the expressed
needs of the teachers. Dr. Chino stated,
Oh yes, the plans have changed… it was a discussion about focusing on
writing and so we wrote up all this stuff about writing and now we’re going
to go back to problem based learning, so that’s kind of still tentative (Dr.
Chino, personal communication, 2010).
This flexibility shows that there is an open dialogue between University and
school participants, and that the teachers and their opinions are being valued. The
University was praised by Mr. Ali, a community-based organization member, who
stated that “they are more grass roots in their approach. They do workshops with the
teachers so that they can be acquainted with the issues that exist on the campus.”
Interviews also revealed that parents and community members were invited
to a few events to participate within the dialogue of the partnership. Dr. Grupe, a
University participant and a previous Executive Director of UEAT, described the
purpose of a UEAT Partnership retreat:
But the idea of building a kind of a space within which people could
actually sort of advance the conversation, could get out on the table
what the issues and blockages regarding work was really quite
powerful and that’s what made me want to do it. To say the
community has got to have a way of being part of this orchestra,
school has to have a way of being part of the orchestra and oftentimes
these interests compete, but you can still create a pretty thoughtful
and engaged body of people if you can get them to have a clear and
well organized conversation about the work and that was really the
attempt of the retreat (Dr. Grupe, personal communication, 2010).
124
It is important to note that the retreat included teachers, administrators,
school classified staff, parents, community members, university representatives, and
community-based organization members. Dr. Ballan, a university stakeholder,
praised Grizzly United for putting forth the effort of creating a forum for open
dialogue with the parents:
They spent time with actually going through a transformation, inquiry or
questioning the parents and getting a lot of things out about what they felt
about things, and I think it helped to form identities in ways that they have
today about understanding why Prep is the way it is (Dr. Ballan, personal
communication, 2010).
Dr. Singh, from Grizzly United, went on to stress the importance of creating
space for dialogue between families and the school in order to create opportunities
that are not typically available for urban minority students. Evidence of this dialogic
event included constructing a method and platform for parents to fully engage and
participate with teachers in developing a school’s site plan and in accreditation as
well as sessions dedicated to define the parents’ educational aspirations for their
children and home-based methods to aid in their work (Fact Sheet, 2009). The
problem is that this was an isolated event in Year Two. The interviews revealed no
other events in Year Two that provided similar opportunities for all stakeholders to
engage in this kind of dialogue. The importance of dialogue between parents and
other stakeholders was a significant finding within the literature, which stated that
dialogue is a means to restructure traditional societal structures that typically
perpetuate the status quo (Miller & Hafner, 2008).
125
Within the artifacts the research team analyzed, there were clear structures
put in place to facilitate dialogue. The Strategic Plan mentions how teachers, in a
specific SLC, will collaborate with one another to discuss the needs of their students
and possible interventions. Additionally, The Strategic Plan (2010) states that
teachers “will convene workshops to advise parents and students of the planned
programmatic, curricular and instructional strategies for improving the proficiency
levels of all students in their SLC.” The UEAT Business Plan (2008) also makes
numerous references to vehicles that were put in place to allow for dialogue, such as
small learning communities which allow “time and support for teachers to learn and
plan together.” Although numerous and frequent opportunities for this kind of
dialogue occurred in Year One through the weekly Transition Team meetings and
the weekly meetings of the Small Learning Communities Council, these
opportunities were infrequent and episodic in Year Two. The importance of
structures to sustain dialogue is stressed in the literature on dialogue. The literature
also asserts that dialogue encourages joint decision making and collective vision
(Oakes & Rogers, 2007). Joint decision making and developing a collective vision
can be considered processes leading to co-constructing school transformation for a
new model of schooling.
There was also evidence of dialogue taking place within observations
conducted by the Year Two research team. During a professional development
observation, it was noted that the larger group of participants was broken down into
two smaller groups in order to allow for more discussion. The smaller groups then
126
re-convened and had an open discussion within the larger group. Dialogue was also
observed within a teacher professional development in which instructors were being
challenged to deconstruct power standards into sets of skills and content knowledge
that students would need to know in order to achieve mastery of the standard. This
emphasis had been collectively identified after a university representative guided the
school through analyzing their data that indicated literacy was still a challenge to the
school’s academic progress. Within this professional development, there existed a
dialogue between teachers on what methods and skills would be most effective with
their students. However, it is important to note that not all teachers participated in
the dialogue, but instead a few were observed engaged in off task behavior such as
talking on the phone and grading papers. One member actually left the meeting in
order to print out standards and never returned. This observation made clear that
dialogue was still present as a process within the school, but it was not fully
established as a process embraced by all stakeholders within the school.
Although the observations of Year Two and beyond provided evidence of an
ongoing process of dialogue, there were indications of limitations on this process
occurring within multiple settings and amongst all stakeholder groups. Dialogue was
most evident within professional development and meetings of selected members
associated with UEAT, such as the meetings concerning the creation of the Ford
Grant that was mentioned previously. Dialogue was observed the least in the UEAT
Board Meetings due to restrictions from the Brown Act, which will be discussed in
greater detail within the barriers section of the research team’s findings.
127
Consistencies and Inconsistencies with Year One Findings
The Year One research team discovered that parents and classified staff felt
as though their voices were not being heard in some of the dialogue of the
partnership and that there was room for growth. The parents and the classified staff
participated heavily in the Transition Team, but not in the formal structure of the
UEAT Board. Additionally, each stakeholder considered dialogue to be an important
piece to developing relationships within the partnership. Hernandez-Flores (2010)
noted that throughout there was an overarching expression of the desire for inclusion
and equal say for all stakeholders.
The Year Two research team’s data suggests that the process of dialogue has
remained the same in the fact that opportunities for dialogue are still being created,
but some stakeholders are included more than other. For instance, classified staff
was not integrated into the dialogue of Year Two; there continues to be a large focus
on teachers and representatives from Westside University and Grizzly United as
participants in the dialogue. In Year Three, the parent voice gained representation in
the formal structure of the Board of Directors, but their weekly participation in the
Transition Team waned after Year One when the Transition Team disbanded. There
was a lack of literature that described the phenomenon of diminishing participation
as the partnership was formalized and under legal regulations, which necessitates
further study. The Year Two evidence also suggests that there is a breakdown in
dialogue with respect to the network partners. One reason the partners did not
engage in dialogue in Year One and Two has to do with the limited number of board
128
members and the restrictions of the Brown Act that prohibits board members from
talking to one another except in publicized public meetings. Whereas the Year One
team’s data suggested that all stakeholders were involved in the process of dialogue
through structures created for dialogue outside the structure of the Board, the Year
Two team found little data to illustrate dialogue taking place between City
Connection, Grizzly United, and Westside University except in the monthly board
meetings, which are highly structured and limit dialogue. Whereas there is
significant evidence of each of the partners dialoguing directly with the school, there
is little evidence that the partners engaged in dialogue among one another. In that
sense, there seems to be a regression in dialogue amongst the network partners.
Figure 4.3 demonstrates the change in dialogic relationships within the partnership
from Year One to the Year Two Study, taking care to identify key stakeholders that
were either involved or removed from the dialogue.
129
Figure 4.3: Transformation of Dialogic Relationships from Year One to Year Two
Year One Year Two
Mutual Shared Learning Findings
Along with co-construction and dialogue, mutual shared learning was also
identified as an ongoing process demonstrated in the UEAT partnership as it
continues to work towards school transformation. One major factor concerning the
maintenance of mutual shared learning is evidenced by the professional development
sessions conducted by Westside University in Year Three. Dr. Chino, one of the
University faculty providing professional development, discussed the dual pathways
of learning between Westside University and members at Prep High School. Not
only are the groups co-constructing the agendas for the professional development,
but the University faculty is likewise shadowing sets of students in order to learn
about their specific needs so that the professional development can better target the
Parents Classified
Parents
Classified
130
population. In this instance, the university veered from its usual position of
dispenser of knowledge or knowledge expert to learn from students, which indicates
the value the university placed on the school and students in order to understand its
role with the school.
The interview data also portray the ways in which City Connections was
actively taking part in shared learning, but no two-way learning. Ms. Cosby, a
parent, stated that City Connections trained a parent coalition and co-implemented a
session on writing personal statements for college applications during the second
year of the UEAT Partnership. The following year, the parent coalition was able to
conduct the same workshop on their own, based upon the knowledge they had gained
from working with City Connections. Also, City Connections representative Mr.
Ali, was praised by many school site stakeholders for his ground level work with
parents and students. Dr. Jones, an administrator at the school, pointed out that
although Mr. Ali is not an educator, he is able to ascertain what the students need
and then works with them to attain it, “He is here. He is working hard. He’s
working with the students. You can tell in what he’s doing that he’s really here, not
to push the City Connections’ agenda, but to help the students of Prep.” As Mr. Ali
learns from and about the kids, he is better able to serve as their advocate.
There were numerous references to the concepts of mutual shared learning
within the documents and artifacts analyzed by the research team. According to the
Business Plan (2008), within teaching and learning relationships, time will be
provided for “teachers to meet, collaborate, and learn from one another.” The
131
Business Plan (2008) also refers to assisting “the school in developing mutually
accountable relationships with parents and other members of the school community.”
Similarly, the UEAT Partnership Fact Sheet (2009) states that City Connections
“fostered mutual shared learning by developing and coordinating a college
preparatory Peer Mentoring Program” in which the students can aid each other in
college-readiness knowledge. The Strategic Plan (2010) also makes many references
to mutual shared learning, such as to “significantly increase instructional rigor and
relevancy through the implementation of a comprehensive and intentional
professional development and teacher observation and support programs.” The
frequency of reference to mutual shared learning within the documents analyzed
clearly shows that the partnership values mutual shared learning as a process for
maintaining co-construction.
Observational data also revealed evidence of mutual shared learning. Mutual
shared learning was observed during a personal statement and financial aid workshop
in the College and Career Center hosted by City Connections in which parents and
students were sharing with one another the knowledge they had gained from City
Connections about financial aid. Mutual shared learning was also evident during an
administrative professional development session between school site administrators
and Dr. Key, a university stakeholder. In this session, the university stakeholder
listened to the teachers, administrators and coordinators within the school about their
concerns and suggestions for more effective instruments to promote formative
assessments that would provide appropriate feedback to students to advance their
132
learning. Only after listening did the university stakeholder offer some suggestions
for working with teachers to develop these instruments. The university stakeholder
and the school stakeholders spent approximately two hours negotiating the activities
that would occur in professional development to fulfill their objective. Similarly,
during the professional development session that ensured, teachers worked together
to create a rubric to evaluate student work within specific subject areas.
Consistencies and Inconsistencies with Year One Findings
The Year One research team reported that although learning and cognitive
engagement was evident, mutual shared learning was only beginning to emerge
within the partnership. The team defined mutual shared learning as “a process in
which all entities are cognitively and socially engaged for the purpose of
constructing a shared body of knowledge” (Flores, 2009). They expressed the
learning that was taking place as shared learning, but not yet mutually shared
learning, in which all members were learning from each other (Espinosa, 2009).
They identified teachers and Westside University participants as being in the process
of developing a relationship based upon mutual shared learning.
Based on an analysis of the Year Two team’s data, the mutual shared learning
between teachers and university members has advanced in comparison to the Year
One study based on the information about professional development reported within
interviews, observations, and documents. The relationship is considered mutual in
that the university, although providing a service to the school, is also learning about
the school, its students, and their needs of the teachers and administrators. The
133
university is also respecting the intellectual and cultural capital the teachers and
students have to offer. However, there is still limited evidence of mutual shared
learning amongst all the stakeholders, especially including community members and
parents. It is important to note that the research team is differentiating between
shared learning and mutual shared learning. Within shared learning, one constituent
would be considered the teacher and the other would be the student. Within mutual
shared learning, both constituents would have opportunities to be both the teacher
and the student. In this sense, the Year Two research team believes that mutual
shared learning is beginning to emerge between certain stakeholders, but not all;
therefore in consideration of all stakeholders’ roles, the process of mutual learning
amongst stakeholders has remained the same from the previous year. Figure 4.4
demonstrates the process of shared learning within the partnership. It also illustrates
the difference between shared learning and mutual learning. Except for the
relationship between the university and the school, the arrows in the illustration are
only going in one direction due to the fact that the information is being passed on
from one stakeholder to another. If mutual learning were taking place, stakeholders
would be learning from one another and the arrows would reflect that mutual
exchange.
134
Figure 4.4: Shared Learning vs. Mutual Learning (Desired Model)
Shared Learning (Year Two and Three) Mutual Learning (Desired)
Summary of Findings Research Question One
Through an investigation and analysis of the findings, the research team
discovered that the same processes identified by the Year One Study persist, which
include (1) co-construction, (2) dialogue, and (3) mutual shared learning were still in
use in Years Two and Three. However, the Year Two data portray that there has
been a regression within the processes of co-construction and dialogue for some of
the stakeholder groups. There was a limited amount of co-construction taking place
between all organizations involved in the partnership. Interview data demonstrates
that Westside University and Grizzly United were mostly involved in maintaining a
process of co-construction with Prep High School, while City Connections waned in
their co-constructive practices. The Year Two data illustrate that the mutual shared
learning amongst most stakeholder groups has remained the same except for
Westside University, whose mutual shared learning with the school only increased.
135
This one exception did not rise to the level of advancement of mutual shared
learning. Significant data suggest that little mutual shared learning is taking place
among all stakeholder groups, but mutually shared learning is beginning to emerge
between teachers and university participants.
Research Question One, Part A: Barriers
Part “A” of Question One asked about the barriers that persist in co-
constructing and sustaining an urban community-school-university partnership in its
second year of operation. Through an investigation and analysis of the findings, the
research team discovered that the same barriers identified by the Year One Study
persist. The barriers identified in Year One are hierarchy, history, logic of scarcity,
logic of merit, logic of deficit, absence of systems and structures for communication,
and lack of trust. Although the same barriers exist, they appear to have increased in
their severity, as evidenced by the frequencies of the codes.
In the Year One Study, the barriers were described as mostly evident in the
initiation of the partnership and were lessened as the year progressed. In this current
study, which analyzed the second and third year of the partnership, the barriers
seemed to rise to a new level and remained unmitigated for an entire year. The
barriers accounted for 63% of the total codes analyzed by the research team. The
most significant barriers identified by the data, in order of frequency, are: (1)
absence of systems and structures for communication; (2) lack of trust; and (3)
hierarchical structures. The logic of scarcity, merit, and deficit as well as barriers
136
associated with history were minimally identified and therefore did not necessitate
discussion.
Absence of Systems and Structures for Communication
The data from interviews, artifacts, and observations reveal the most
commonly coded barrier was an absence of systems and structures for
communication, which accounted for 32% of the barriers. Based upon interviews,
observations, and artifacts, the research team was able to glean reoccurring themes
within the overarching theme of absence of systems and structures for
communication. These themes can be further divided in the following categories: (1)
lack of defined goals, expectations, purpose, and vision; (2) undefined roles and
responsibilities; (3) underexposure of the UEAT Partnership; (4) lack of methods for
disseminating information; (5) inconsistency with people, resources, and programs;
and (6) a lack of transparency.
Lack of Defined Goals, Expectations, Purpose, and Vision
The most common category in the theme of absence of systems and
structures for communication was the theme of lack of defined goals, expectations,
purpose, and vision. All interviewees among the stakeholder groups made reference
to this issue within their interviews. Mr. Diamond, a teacher at the school, stated,
One of the problems has been an incredible lack of clarity around the goals,
in fact real contradictions between the first year of UEAT and the second
year of UEAT and now flowing into the third year. Depending on when you
would talk to someone, I think you would get a different take on goals (Mr.
Diamond, personal communication, 2010).
137
The lack of clarity around goals and vision has led stakeholders to believe
that there had not been much accomplished by the partnership, which can be further
evidenced by Ms. Piedmont, a school faculty member, “But there has not been a real
success marker for achievement.” Interviews from all stakeholder groups
highlighted the confusion about what the partnership has already accomplished, what
they hoped to accomplish, and how it planned to achieve those accomplishments,
which can be seen in a statement by Ms. Shepard, “They make a lot of decisions
outside of the school and then they are brought in without any discussion, which has
been a sore spot. We never know what they are doing.” Mr. Ali, a community-
based organization member, offered a suggestion to ameliorate this problem, “They
need to do a thorough needs-assessment to see whether or not you are adequate,
resourceful to go the distance and not just walk by fate.” A lack of clarity
surrounding goals and expectations was also a common theme within the literature,
which stated that (1) differing organizational cultures have different models for
collaboration, often leading to poor communication between stakeholders (Epstein &
Sanders, 2006; Kezar, 2007; Sanders 2001), and (2) partnerships typically have
poorly defined goals (Kezar, 2007; Sanders, 2001).
The lack of clarity of goals and expectations was also evident when the
artifacts and observations were analyzed. The UEAT Business Plan clearly states the
mission of the partnership is “to 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 students in our
138
community.” However, the documents analyzed do not specify how and when the
goals will be accomplished, who will be responsible for these actions, nor do they
include any mapped changes for goals that were not accomplished.
Undefined Roles and Responsibilities
An unclear definition of roles and responsibilities was a common theme
within the literature (Carroll, LaPoint, & Tyler, 2002; Epstein & Sanders, 2006;
Mayfield & Lucas, 2000; Schutz, 2006) and was found within the Year Two study as
the second most common barrier, which was mentioned frequently by all stakeholder
groups. Ms. Carriage, a community-based organization member, stated that,
We still need to do a little bit of role clarification, and I think there’s a
difference even amongst the partners on what the role of a collaborative
should be… I think there are different interpretations of what the
collaborative should be doing and there are different interpretations of pacing
those activities (Ms. Carriage, personal communication, 2010).
The lack of defined roles was evident between partner groups as well as
within them. Westside University has numerous departments/schools working
within the partnership: the School of Education, the school of Social Work, the
Business School, and the Engineering School. Based on the interviews, it was clear
that some stakeholders felt that university representatives may not be aware of the
other university groups working within the partnership and at Prep High School. A
teacher, Mr. Leblue, stated “we’ve got a partnership with the business school that I
think the School of Ed didn’t know much about.”
The artifacts reviewed by the research team did little to elucidate the roles
and responsibilities for the stakeholders involved in the partnership. The Business
139
Plan describes the background of Westside University, City Connections, and
Grizzly United, but does little to explain their individual responsibilities. Similarly,
the language used is rather vague, “The United Education Action Team Partnership’s
relationship to Prep High School includes direct services, consultation, collaboration,
oversight, and accountability” (Business Plan, 2008, p. 15). The documents lack
clearly defined roles and little co-construction took place to arrive at common
understanding of these respective roles.
Underexposure of the UEAT Partnership
While taking notes at a School Site Council Meeting, the researchers were
asked by a teacher what they were doing at the meeting. They explained
that they were conducting research on the UEAT Partnership. The teacher
then replied, “I have never heard of that before, but I’m not surprised
because there are so many different people coming in and out of the school
it is impossible to keep track of.”
Vignette from a School Site Council Meeting
Another prominent barrier was the limited overall exposure of the UEAT
Partnership on the school site, within the community, and amongst the parents. An
administrator at the school site, Ms. O’Neal, stated, “I do not know very much. I
have not been given any information or met with any members of the UEAT.” She
had been working with a University representative, Dr. Key, on professional
development, but she was unaware of Dr. Key’s relationship with the partnerships,
particularly with Westside University, which signifies that the partnership is lacking
in its exposure. Mr. Diamond, a teacher who has been very involved in UEAT from
its inception, clearly defined the lack of exposure:
140
There are student leaders who know what UEAT is and some teachers who
know a fair amount about it and some parents who know a fair amount about
it and then a lot of people who still really aren’t sure what UEAT is (Mr.
Diamond, personal communication, 2010).
The partnership itself remains fairly unknown to a majority of the stakeholder
groups and the board that runs the partnership is an even larger enigma. A school
faculty member, Ms. Piedmont, stated “no one really knew about the board, about
the people who sit on the board. It’s even a mystery. I have no idea who the woman
is now that runs it.”
Another common thread in the interviews is that the stakeholders are only
exposed to the partners of UEAT in separate episodic events. A classified staff
member, Mr. Carolina, stated that “it’s like the City Connections does this and the
Grizzly United is doing this, Westside School of Education is doing this.” This
opinion was reiterated by a teacher, Mr. Leblue, when he referred to the partnership
being “broken up into three partners. It is not seen as UEAT.” There is a lack of a
unified visual presence of the partnership on the school site. Similarly, the
interviews revealed that the students had very little visual contact with the
partnership and therefore did not understand their goals or roles within the school. A
school administrator, Dr. Jones, stated, “it’s hard to measure [the partnership’s] level
of influence because if you are going to come and speak at a expectations assembly,
but the students never see you again, what’s your level of influence?” Episodic
actions and lack of cohesion between groups was also a common theme within the
literature (Miller & Hafner, 2008).
141
Observations of the school site also proved that there was a lack of exposure
to the UEAT partnership. It was observed that there are only two signs/postings
about UEAT around the large campus. Similarly, events that were conducted by
UEAT partners were not advertised as being presented as a UEAT event. For
example, City Connections presented a college application workshop in the
counseling center, but they did not make a clear statement connecting this service to
the UEAT Partnership. Similarly, there were no signs or information sheets
advertising this event.
Within the artifacts analyzed, there was very little mention of systemic ways
in which to increase UEAT’s exposure on campus and within the community. It
appears that the partnership assumed that the actions undertaken by the individual
partners would be considered communal efforts of the UEAT Partnership. For
example, the UEAT Fact Sheet listed contributions made at Prep High School with
each entry followed by the stakeholder group that was responsible for the success,
thereby separating the partnership stakeholders into factions. Similarly, the Business
Plan refers to the history of the individual stakeholders, such as City Connections
who has “Eighty plus years of eradicating barriers to educational, economic, and
social equity provides a resource for understanding and eradicating the barriers that
school districts alone cannot eradicate” (Business Plan, 2008, p. 10). Although this
history is definitely a benefit, it does not address how the history of the individual
partnership will lead to the current and future exposure of the UEAT Partnership as a
whole. This information was also paralleled by the literature regarding partnerships,
142
which reports that efforts are commonly disjointed (Maurrasse, 2002), and they often
focus on the individual programs instead of the overall purpose of the partnership
(Carroll, LaPoint, & Tyler, 2002).
Lack of Communication about Meetings, Activities, and Events
The final major theme was the lack of communication about meetings,
activities, and events. Interviews with classified staff, parents, teachers, and
administrators revealed that they felt they were not informed about meetings or
asked to participate in these meetings. Ms. Espinoza, a teacher at Prep High School,
asserted, “I myself am very involved, and I’m involved because I make myself
involved. I make it my mission to find those meetings and go to them.” This feeling
was echoed by others who stressed that they only knew about the UEAT meetings if
they actively searched out the information for themselves rather than the partnership
being proactive about advertising their meetings. School site staff said that they
occasionally received information about UEAT meetings in their mailboxes during
the first year, but that was often the same day as the meetings which prohibited many
stakeholders from attending. In years two and three, the partnership stopped putting
notices in mailboxes and instead posted information on their website. All
stakeholder groups mentioned that they felt UEAT is not doing a sufficient job at
publicizing and marketing the partnership in order to increase communication.
Many members mentioned the need for UEAT members knocking on teachers’
doors, knocking on doors in the community, calling parents, and producing Public
Service Announcements in order to communicate more efficiently and effectively
143
about meetings and activities of the partnership. Stakeholders also stated that there
was no centralized location to check upcoming events or meeting dates and no
systematic way to disseminate information.
Data from artifacts and observations also indicated a lack of systems for
communications. The Brown Act, which governs the ways in which the UEAT
meetings are conducted, contains rules for the methods used to disseminate
information and the timeliness of information such as meeting agendas and minutes.
The Brown Act states that the entity must “post notice and an agenda” for any
regular meeting and that notices must be mailed to “those who request it” three days
before the meeting. The Board has interpreted these rules by posting their agendas
solely on the Board’s website but not posting announcements in any other manner,
such as in teacher’s mailboxes. In Year One, notices were posted in the main office
in the school and on teachers’ mailboxes, but this practice was not continued in Year
Two and Three. So although UEAT met the technical requirements of the Brown
Act, they did not exercise additional efforts to cross the divide between the Board
and the stakeholders. Observations of two UEAT Board meetings also revealed that
stakeholders repeatedly asked where they could obtain copies of documents being
handed out in meetings as there were often not enough copies of documents for the
participants in attendance. The MOU and the Business Plan do outline systems for
representation; however they do not specifically outline structures for
communication within these governing systems. In Year One, stakeholders defined
their own roles through the Transition Team and the Small Learning Communities
144
Council. When these structures went away, the absence of new explicit structures
described in artifacts may indicate that the creation of systems and structures for
communication was not a high priority for the governing board of UEAT.
Inconsistencies with People, Activities, and Events
Prep High School has numerous programs, resources, and personnel that are
in flux. This led to inconsistencies, such as six principals over the past five years,
which often disrupted the forward progress of the partnership and the work on the
school site. Ms. O’Neal, a school administrator, stated,
Every time there is a leadership change, everything is thrown away and we
start all over again. Everything is reinvented. There is no effort at analyzing
what has been done before and building on the successes or working parts…
They need to analyze what went right and what went wrong but a new
person, new program discards all previous effort (Ms. O’Neal, personal
communication, 2010).
This opinion was also echoed by a parent, Ms. Cosby, who in frustration
indicated “I know they’ve started and stopped so many things that I lose track.” This
lack of consistency is affecting the outcomes and goals of the partnership which
include the improvement of student achievement and the betterment of teaching
practice. A classified staff member, Mr. Johnson, responded that he did not know if
students were learning more or if the teachers were teaching better because
“everybody is pretty much in a wonderland. They’re wondering whether this is
going to be done or that’s going to be done. It’s hard to be firm with anything
because there are so many changes.” Inconsistencies were very apparent during the
second year of the partnership, which one teacher, Mr. Diamond, referred to as a
145
“story of structures ending or collapsing.” These disappearing structures included
the transition team and a critical bridge person who had been on the school site on a
daily basis in Year One. The inconsistencies with people and programs are a
common theme in literature concerned with partnerships. Miller and Hafner (2008)
found that partnerships often have a “hodgepodge” of programs, which leads to their
efforts being disjointed and spread too thin (Baum, 2000; Maurrasse, 2002).
Lack of Transparency
The interviews also identified that stakeholders felt that there was a lack of
transparency surrounding the partnership. Mr. Ali, a community-based organization
member, felt that “there needs to be a little bit more transparency so that the school
doesn’t feel like they’re being taken advantage of.” A lack of transparency appeared
to foster feelings of distrust and alienation, as stated by a school staff member,
“There has to be a consistent transparent approach to what’s going on, and not
hidden agendas and things like that.” Transparency was a large issue in regards to
financial issues, as stated by a classified school employee Ms. Shepard,
We’ve asked many times for say a financial statement. We’re a public entity
so it’s not hard to find out what kind of money we have, where it goes and
how it’s spent. We know nothing about their financial makeup (Ms. Shepard,
personal communication, 2010).
The lack of transparency in regards to finances was also found in the
artifacts. There were no available forms that substantiated how funds have been
spent. However, at the December 13, 2010 UEAT Board Meeting, a document was
supplied that listed the cost projections and use of funds for the 2011 budget.
146
Consistencies and Inconsistencies with Year One Findings
The Year One research team found that the absence of systems and structures
for communication “contributed to the lack of communication and clarity with regard
to roles, goals, mission, and direction of the partnership” (Kim, 2009). Similarly,
there was no systematic structure for disseminating information to all stakeholders
within a timely fashion and the lack of transparency led to feelings of mistrust
(Hernandez-Flores, 2009). The Year Two research team found the same barriers
within systems and structures persisted into the second and third year of the
partnership. The barriers included: (1) lack of defined goals, expectations, purpose,
and vision; (2) undefined roles and responsibilities; (3) lack of methods for
disseminating information; and (4) a lack of transparency. The barriers within the
heading of systems of structures for communication expanded within Year Two and
Three to include (1) underexposure of the UEAT Partnership, and (2) inconsistency
with people, resources, and programs.
Lack of Trust
The data reveal the second most commonly coded barrier was a lack of trust,
which accounted for 18% of the barriers. Within the literature concerning
partnership, lack of trust was commonly cited as a reason for the dissolution of
partnerships (Baum, 2000; Kezar, 2007). The Year One Study did not code their
“lack of trust” data as a separate code but instead included it within their other codes.
The Year Two research team felt that the topic was identified so frequently that it
merited its own code. Within the interviews, members from all stakeholder groups
147
repeatedly used words such as mistrust, suspicion, and skepticism. Lack of trust was
also very evident when analyzed by the pronouns people used when they talked. The
use of “I” and “them” far outweighed the use of “us” and “we.” When the research
team looked at the barriers coded with lack of trust, two significant themes emerged:
(1) motives, and (2) the feelings of being acted upon.
Motives
The most commonly cited example of a lack of trust was related to
perceptions of personal motives. Some school faculty, classified staff, and parents
felt that the partners did not place the students and the students’ agendas in the
forefront. Dr. Truman, a university participant, also agreed with this perception and
stated that “the students always came third and fourth and fifth.” Stakeholders were
very cynical about why they felt the partners chose to be a part of the partnership.
Dr. Grupe portrayed how opinions regarding motives led to feelings of distrust,
specifically the work conducted by City Connections:
It felt motivated by a different set of interests that were, if you will, more
self-serving and as a result people began to misunderstand and/or be
completely convinced that their interest didn’t match the interest of the rest of
the organization (Dr. Grupe, personal communication, 2010).
Ms. Shepard, who is a parent and a classified staff member, asserted that the
partners were not necessarily looking at the partnership from the standpoint of
helping the school and the students but instead to create “a model of schools across
the nation.” Dr. Truman also verified this point, stating that some members of
Westside University and City Connections were not necessarily there to build
148
alliances to impact the empowerment of the students, but to build “alliances between
organizations for personal benefit.”
As evidenced by the data collected from interviews, the motives for joining
and participating in the UEAT Partnership of City Connections were questioned the
most frequently. Dr. Grupe, a university member, stated that he felt City
Connections “had a foot in two camps” in that they wanted the school to do well
because City Connections was part of the partnership created to improve the
achievement at the school, but they also expressed an interest in joining the charter
school movement by “building their own school or having their own construct
around the UEAT organization so it’s more like a charter school.” This statement
was corroborated by a teacher who distrusted City Connections because he found out
that they had applied for a School Improvement Grant (SIG) on behalf of the school
with little regard to the controversial expectations that are attached to the money:
Here’s our partner, without any discussion with the stakeholders, writing a
letter of support that would go to the state saying that we want SIG money for
Prep High School and basically whatever strings are going to be attached to
it, we’re fine with (Teacher, personal communication, 2010).
A school administrator, Ms. Bryant, pointed out that this same person sits on
the National Board of Charter Schools, which adds to the distrust people feel that the
school is being turned into a charter school without their consent or participation in
the decision making. Three stakeholders also stated that they did not care for the
way City Connections was claiming credit for everything that was accomplished and
that they consistently put their name first and foremost on any publications. This
149
finding is consistent with the literature on partnerships that also indicates mistrust
was commonly born out of stakeholders questioning each other’s motives for joining
partnerships, which often led to deficit thinking among the partners (Miller &
Hafner, 2008; Schutz, 2006).
Westside University, although not nearly to the same extent as City
Connections, was also questioned by stakeholders for their motives within the
partnership. Dr. Truman, a member of the Westside University faculty, felt that the
university may have entered into the partnership because it was the first time that
they,
…really had access to a high school environment and when it comes to data
and research on these types of urban communities which the University says
it serves, it would be advantageous for the University to be a part of
something like this (Dr. Truman, personal communication, 2010).
A stakeholder from City Connections and a school site administrator also
displayed distrust in the University partners because they felt that the members from
the School of Education viewed themselves as the only experts when it came to
teaching and education.
Acted Upon
The second trend within the lack of trust data is the feeling that the school,
teachers, community members, and parents are being acted upon instead of being
consulted. This was made evident by the comments made by members from all
stakeholder groups regarding the fact that the parents were excluded from the UEAT
Board for the first two years of operation and that the teachers still do not have
150
representation on the Board. School Site members also registered that there was a
huge lack of trust in some of the partners because although school members were
allowed to vote on whether or not to enter into the partnership, they were not allowed
to vote on who would be the partners with the school; instead, the partners were
chosen by some other entity within the school district. Interviews reveal this same
sense of exclusionary tactics in the way the new principal at Prep High School and
the new Executive Director (ED) of the UEAT partnership were selected. Ms.
Espinoza, a teacher, stated that the school had a committee to interview principal
candidates and that UEAT members had also organized a committee to interview
possible candidates for the ED position, but the jobs were not filled by the people
chosen by the committees. It was later revealed that the UEAT Board of Directors
held their own interviews and their chosen candidates were the ones put into the
positions. This lack of regard for the opinions of the larger stakeholder group made
members, such as Ms. Espinoza, distrustful, “We’re just using the word ‘reform’ and
‘co-construction’ and ‘democratic ideal’- we’re just tossing those words around like
they’re nothing. They’re meaningless here.” This statement was triangulated by
other teachers and a university participant who expressed that the actions conducted
by the partnership were often in conflict with their founding ideals. However, it
must be noted that although the Board of Directors did not agree with the hiring
committee, they did take their opinions into account. Dr. Key stated that sometimes
the school members confused participation with “complete autonomy to prevail over
all other partners in making decisions. They fall victim to the same things they
151
accuse the other partners of doing.” Regardless of the differing opinions, it is clear
that this situation bred feelings of mistrust and that the process did not demonstrate
dialogue and co-construction.
Teachers, classified staff, two parents, and one administrator also felt that the
school was often the last to find out about decisions made and actions taken by the
UEAT Partnership. There were multiple statements from parents and school
staff/faculty that they have never had the opportunity to see any of the grants that
were being written on behalf of the school by the partner, nor did they feel that the
partnership knew the school, students, and the staff well enough to be making
decisions for them. Ms. Shepard, a parent and a classified staff member described
this feeling:
Stop being poverty pimps, [and] because you write grants that we don’t know
anything about and you get- we don’t even know how much. They just wrote
a grant for a garden project, they’ve never been in our garden in their life
(Ms. Shepard, personal communication, 2010).
This comment expressed a lack of trust of City Connections for writing a
garden grant on behalf of the school. City Connections was also implicated in
attempting to gain funding through a School Improvement Grant without seeking the
opinion of other partnership stakeholders.
The MOU and the other documents analyzed by the research team referred to
the strategies that were supposed to build trust, such as co-construction,
transparency, and dialogue. For example, the Strategic Plan stated that they would
“Have a collaborative and transparent process for engaging and leveraging partners
152
and resources that support Prep High School.” Unfortunately, what was put down in
documents was not always what was carried out in action, as stated by a University
participant, Dr. Truman, “They agreed to certain terms explicitly and then implicitly
everyone went about their way.” However, it is important to note that the Ford
Foundation Grant, which was written during the third year of the partnership, has
reintegrated the co-construction principles that were established within the first year
of the partnership. This document was co-constructed by representative parents,
teachers, community members, and university personnel and is based upon the
concept of “co-constructing knowledge at every juncture in the ecosystems that
surround the student – parent-to-child, student-to-teacher, teacher-to-parent, student-
to-community, community-to-school” (Ford Foundation Grant, 2010). It also returns
to the principles of building upon the social and cultural capital of the community
and parents as means for creating a nurturing and rigorous, but also relevant, culture
of schooling for the two predominant ethnic groups in the school: African Americans
and Latinos. Funding for the first year of the grant is dedicated to professional
development and learning opportunities for teachers, community members, students
and parents. Each is valued as a contributor to the knowledge needed to transform
the school into a place where scholarship and academic rigor are valued.
Observations at the school site and within board meetings also demonstrated
a lack of trust among the stakeholders. During an administrative professional
development, one school administrator was talking in a very elevated voice and
appeared extremely dissatisfied with the conversation he was having with a UEAT
153
representative. After this conversation, he did not talk for the rest of the meeting and
left visibly upset. Similarly, during a UEAT Board Meeting, the board Chairman
continually asked other presenting stakeholders, including the Executive Director
and the principal, to present the data they were using in order to qualify their
statements. They in turn became very frustrated, and the line of communication was
inhibited. It must be noted that within the literature, co-construction is portrayed as a
rather muddled and frustrating process which causes disequilibrium within its
participants. However, the literature affirms that it is these feelings of disequilibrium
that lead to the new cognitive growth needed to create sustainable change (Piaget,
1985).
Consistencies and Inconsistencies with Year One Findings
The Year One research team, as stated previously, did not code “lack of trust”
separately, but instead wove this data throughout the other barriers. Lack of trust
was mentioned within the following topics: (1) decision making without the input of
all stakeholder parties; (2) motives; (3) ambiguities about roles, goals, missions, and
direction; (4) lack of transparency; and (5) the history of the actions of the individual
stakeholders before they entered the partnership (Kim, 2009). The Year Two
research team found that the frequency of statements concerning feelings of mistrust
necessitated creating a separate code for lack of trust, which accounted for nearly
11% of the total codes. This team found that the previously mentioned themes were
still associated with a lack of trust, with the exclusion of the “effects of history.”
154
The current data also reveal that the school site stakeholders’ feelings of being “acted
upon” is a new emerging element of a lack of trust.
Hierarchical Structures
The data reveal the third most commonly coded barrier was hierarchical
structures, which accounted for 16% of the overall barriers. The coded data did not
reveal dominant subcategories within hierarchical structures, but instead was
centrally focused on the notion that the partnership operates in a top-down nature and
has different interest groups that wield varying degrees of power. Hierarchies were
evident between stakeholder groups as well as within them. Over one third of the
interviewees use either the word “paternalistic” and/or “bureaucratic” to describe
aspects of the partnership.
The following excerpt from the interview with University faculty member Dr.
Truman clearly describes the struggle for power and authority between stakeholder
groups with the UEAT partnership, which was echoed by members from all
stakeholder groups interviewed:
I observed that the [UEAT] community is several little fiefdoms,
several kingdoms in which certain people have power and were
reluctant to release the power that they had over their kingdom, were
not really willing to say ok I’m going to put my hoe in, I’m going to
put my rake in, you put your printer in. Let’s see what we have,
codify it and then figure out the best way to reuse what we already
have and restructure what we already have. They weren’t willing to
do that because everyone felt like they were going to use power, and
honestly, it was a little corrupt as can be expected with all eroding
systems, you are going to find corruption there and I feel that those
people who were benefiting from the corruption were reluctant to let
go of those rights (Dr. Truman, personal communication, 2010).
155
Each stakeholder group described the other groups, with the exception of
Grizzly United, as having power and resources that they did not want to relinquish
for the greater good of the partnership. The hierarchical structure of the partnership
may be a result of the struggle for power. However, it is interesting to note that,
according to an interviewee who asked to remain anonymous, there is limited
evidence of Grizzly United’s contribution to the partnership since the partnership
began, although they were the most prominent in their work with the school before
the partnership began. Perhaps the formal structure of the partnership has
diminished their role possibly as a result of having less power within the hierarchy.
This finding was not supported by the literature and bears more research.
Hierarchical Structures Between Stakeholder Groups
The data show that members from the school, university, and one
community-based organization considered power to be aligned within a top-down
hierarchical structure. The powerful entities were considered City Connections, the
UEAT Board of Directors, the School District, and Westside University. City
Connections, one of the community-based organizations, was repeatedly described as
being the head of the hierarchy. Mr. Diamond, a teacher at Prep High School who
has been a UEAT member since its inception stated, “There’s a split within UEAT,
there’s the City Connections which sort of administratively and politically runs the
show in many ways and [whose CEO] is the president of the UEAT board.”
Following down the hierarchy, the next most powerful group is the UEAT Board of
Directors. Actions of the Board, which include the appointment of the new school
156
principal and the executive director, demonstrate that the Board holds more power
than the other stakeholder groups. This might be acceptable to the stakeholders if the
Board, at the time it made these decisions, had parents, students, and/or teachers as
members of the board, as this would demonstrate principles of representation.
School faculty and some parents feel as though the board appears to seek their input,
but this is just part of their “dog-and-pony show” rather than a true interest in their
opinions. The large school district that oversees Prep High School was also part of
the powerful upper echelon of the partnership. The district was involved in choosing
the partners that were to be involved in the partnership without any say from the
school faculty or parents. Ms. Shepard, a parent and staff member, stated “We were
not asked who we wanted as our lead partners. They were chosen for us as if we
didn’t have enough sense to go out and find partners on our own.” Westside
University was also considered part of the hierarchical structure. As stated by Mr.
Leblue, a teacher and active participant within UEAT, “And UEAT, is now just
what? Tool of City Connections or subject of university research, what is it?” It
must also be noted that the entities that are considered to be on the top half of the
hierarchy are also viewed as the most resource rich, which was also a common theme
within the literature (Schutz, 2006; Miller & Hafner, 2008).
The less powerful entities of the hierarchy were considered the staff and
faculty of Prep High School, parents, and Grizzly United. Stakeholders of Prep High
School and the parents repeatedly stated that they were not considered part of the
actual partnership. Mr. Leblue was asked in an interview if he felt the school was
157
seen as a partner, he replied “No, I’s saying UEAT: Westside University, Grizzly
United, and the City Connections.” While he did not feel that Prep High School was
even considered part of the partnership, other stakeholders did acknowledge that the
school was a partner in UEAT, but agreed that they were not seen as an equal
partner. Dr. Grupe, a university participant, described the power of the school and
where it fits in terms of equality, “but equal suggests that there’s some sort of
balance here, and I don’t know that we’ve even thought about or conceptualized this
[the school] as an equal other than on paper.” However, it was found that the Interim
Executive Director in Year One continually reminded the school that it was an equal
partner and tried to help them function from this mindset. Ms. Green, an employee
at one of the community-based organizations, stated that the school was not an equal
partner, but instead they were “dependent” upon the partnership because they lacked
the financial resources that other stakeholder groups maintained. Mr. Johnson, a
classified staff member at the school, finds it unacceptable that the school is not in
the “driver’s seat” of the partnership because “other people don’t have as much to
lose if the program is not successful, so they can make rash commitments and not
necessarily suffer the consequences.” According to the literature, communities and
schools are often the least affluent in terms of resources, and are typically viewed as
clients receiving a service from the other more privileged stakeholders rather than
collaborators seeking mutual support and empowerment (Schutz, 2006). However, it
is important to note that a few stakeholders from Westside University and City
Connections did refer to Prep High School as holding some power over the
158
partnership. The school was described as insular and closed off, which gave them,
according to Mr. Green, the power to “block progress or resources.” Similarly,
according to the MOU (2008), the school retains the power to vote its way out of the
partnership.
There was little mention of the parents and students as being powerful within
the partnership’s hierarchy. Dr. Truman, a university faculty member, stated that she
felt the partnership was “very hierarchical. I think they were blatant in their disregard
for students and parents.” Parent representatives were very frustrated and angry
because of their lack of power; they felt that they were the driving power behind
getting the school into the new i-Design Division in the district, which led to the
formation of the UEAT partnership. However, in Year Three, parents felt that they
had more power than they previously had now that they have three representatives on
the Board of Directors. The final stakeholder group to be included is Grizzly
United. Although the Director of Grizzly United sits on the Board, the data show
minimal mention of this group in regards to power.
Hierarchical Structures within Stakeholder Groups
The data demonstrate overwhelmingly that there was a hierarchical structure
evident across the partnership which led to differing levels of power. The data also
reveal that there were differing factions within the stakeholder groups. The school
representatives, who may have had the most contact with the different stakeholder
groups as they came in contact with the school site, felt that the partnership was
bifurcated in its intentions and use of power, as Mr. Diamond points out,
159
I think it’s a split personality… so the things that tend to be influenced by the
UEAT Board and City Connections are top down. The things that tend to be
driven by and influenced by Dr. Key [Westside University] and Dr. Singh
[Grizzly United] tend to be much more collaborative (Mr. Diamond, personal
communication, 2010).
Other descriptors of City Connections and the Board of Directors included
the following: top-down, corporate, administrative, bureaucratic, and ignorant.
Descriptors of Dr. Key and Dr. Singh included the following: committed, co-
constructive, dialogical, and inclusive. These comments all came from school site
stakeholder and two university participants.
The power amongst the parents and students was also referred to as
unbalanced. For example, Ms. Carriage, a member of a community-based
organization, felt that a select group of parents “built a coalition that doesn’t let other
parents in. So you’ve got a parent group that basically—everyone says this—there
are five parents that run everything.” Dr. Grupe also reiterated this point by stating
that those parents who are involved are the ones who have the social capital to be
involved, and the involved parents do not necessarily seek out ways to get other
parents involved. The power and/or capital in regards to students were often
dependent upon their academic abilities. Mr. Johnson, a classified staff member,
stated that the gifted students and the students in the magnet program are more
involved. This statement was corroborated by a student representative group that
was created by City Connections to report findings about the opinions of the overall
student population. The group of students was similar to the group described by Mr.
Johnson.
160
Hierarchical structures were apparent within the artifacts analyzed by the
research team. The Business Plan, created in Year One, listed the founding members
of the UEAT Partnership as City Connections, Grizzly United, and Westside
University while leaving out the school and its representatives. The UEAT Fact
Sheet, created in Year Two, listed the mentoring and professional development that
Westside University would provide to the school but did not acknowledge that the
teachers would have any decisions within the choice of topics or the manner in
which they were presented. The Fact Sheet also did not include ways in which the
university and the school could co-construct their knowledge together or identify
mutual shared learning that could take place when both educational entities came
together with their unique expertise. However, in Year Three, this relationship
changed to be more co-constructed and open to mutual shared learning. The MOU
also listed the UEAT Board of Directors as retaining all the authority of the
partnership.
Hierarchical structures were also apparent in the observations conducted by
the research team, particularly at the UEAT Board Meetings, which can be described
by the following vignette:
Board members are seated at the front and center of the room, separated by
all other members in attendance. The board parents and the principal are
sitting at the ends of the long table of board representatives, far ways from
the Board President who sits in the center. There is a small group of
teachers, four in total, sitting in a group at the back of the room. The non-
board parents and students, who were at the School Site Council meeting
prior to the UEAT meeting, all leave before the UEAT meeting begins.
Non-board members from City Connections are sitting in the front, close to
the board members.
161
Parents, teachers, and community members appeared frustrated during the
UEAT Board Meetings in Year Three due to their inability to freely voice their
opinions which were restricted under the regulations of the Brown Act, which only
allowed for limited time of public comment. During the two observed board
meetings in Year Three, it was noted that the meetings were run in a very
bureaucratic and hierarchical way. The board controlled the flow of the meetings
and spoke throughout the agenda. The board chairman also decided when discussion
should be stopped even though it was apparent that other stakeholders wanted the
conversation to continue. The UEAT Board chairman spoke as an aggressive and
dominant force throughout the meeting by leading the discussions, moving the
agenda, and challenging other board members, the school, and the UEAT Executive
Director. For example, within the two observed board meetings, the chairman stated
that there was no time for public comment at the end of the meetings due to the fact
that the meetings were running long. Similarly, the board members only allowed
non-board members, three in total, to speak when called upon by a board member or
to address an issue or question presented by the board members. On December 13,
2010, the UEAT Board Meeting lasted 115 minutes. Of that time, the board
members spoke for 96 minutes. A stakeholder from Westside University, who was
on the actual agenda, spoke for 16 minutes. Non-agenda, non-board members spoke
for a total of three minutes. It must also be noted that only two out of the three
parents on the board spoke at the board meeting for a total of five minutes. The
162
board members sat separated from those attending the meeting. There were no
students or non-board member parents in attendance.
Consistencies and Inconsistencies with Year One Findings
The Year One research team reported that the parents and school stakeholders
perceived themselves as having the least amount of power within the partnership due
to the fact that they did not choose the partners or the director and that they did not
have their own member on the board (Hernandez-Flores, 2009). Teachers also
reported that they felt like the school was being treated as an “object” rather than a
“subject” (Hernandez-Flores, 2009). Similarly, the parents, teachers, and community
members reported that the partnership was run like a bureaucracy which entailed
structural constraints that “prevented all stakeholders from having their voices heard
in the decision-making process” (Kim, 2009). The Year Two research team found
that the same hierarchical barriers persist within the second and third year of the
partnership, revealing that the certain aspects of the partnership are operated in a top-
down manner and that different interest groups wield varying degrees of power.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1A: Barriers
Part “A” of Question One asked about the barriers that persist in co-
constructing and sustaining an urban community-school-university partnership
beyond its first year of operation. Through an investigation and analysis of the
findings, the research team discovered that the same barriers identified by the Year
One Study persist. Although the same barriers exist, they appear to have increased
in their severity, as evidenced by the frequencies of the codes. The barriers
163
accounted for 63% of the total codes analyzed by the research team. The data reveal
the most commonly coded barrier was an absence of systems and structures for
communication, which accounted for 32% of the barriers. This theme was further
divided in the following categories: lack of defined goals, expectations, purpose, and
vision; undefined roles and responsibilities; underexposure of the UEAT Partnership;
lack of methods for disseminating information; inconsistency with people, resources,
and programs; and a lack of transparency. The data reveal the second most
commonly coded barrier was a lack of trust, which accounted for 18% of the
barriers. When the research team looked at the barriers coded with lack of trust, two
significant themes emerged: motives and the feelings of being acted upon. The data
reveal the third most commonly coded barrier was hierarchical structures, which
accounted for 16% of the overall barriers. The coded data did not reveal dominant
subcategories within hierarchical structures, but instead was centrally focused on the
notion that the partnership operates in a top-down nature and has different interest
groups that wield varying degrees of power.
Research Question One, Part B: Strategies
Part “B” of Question One asked about the effective strategies in place that
demonstrate the ability to overcome the persistent barriers in co-constructing and
sustaining an urban community-school-university partnership in its second year of
operation. Through an investigation and analysis of the findings, the research team
discovered that the same strategies identified by the Year One Study persist, which
include: (1) systems of representation; (2) critical bridge person; (3) space for
164
dialogue; and (4) history. However, the Year Two data portray that there has been a
regression within the strategies of space for dialogue, systems of representation, and
the critical bridge person. The Year Two data illustrate that history has remained
the same. The strategies accounted for 12% of the total codes analyzed by the
research team. Based on an analysis of the data, the two most prevalent strategies
discussed were the systems of representation and the use of the critical bridge
person.
Systems of Representation
The interviews, artifacts, and observations produced a myriad of opinions,
both positive and negative, regarding systems of representation within the UEAT
Partnership. Dr. Kane, a university representative on the Board of Directors,
described the concept of creating systems of representation, “If you’re going to co-
construct, you just don’t say that, ‘All right. We’re co-constructing,’ unless… you
have structures. I mean organizational structures for this kind of work to go
forward.” These structures for representation include Parents of Prep, the Parent
Teacher Student Association, the Transition Team, Small Learning Communities, the
Instructional Leadership team, and the UEAT Board of Directors. Systems of
representation were regarded as extremely important within the literature because
they support the needs of people who seek to work together for a goal that may not
be achievable for individual entities (Benson & Harkavy, 2003; Mayfield & Lucas,
2000; Sanders, 2001; Schutz, 2006).
165
Within the interviews, all stakeholder groups made reference to the
importance of the decision to add parent representatives to the UEAT Board of
Directors. Others also stated that it was important that one of the three parents
elected is Latino, as many people felt there was a lack of input from Latino Parents,
“They [Latino Parents] were never at our board meetings, and now they are. Now
we have Mr. Gonzalez, and so that, to me, is an enormous step forward,” (Dr. Kane,
personal communication, 2010). Although the addition of parents was seen as a
benefit by all interviewees, there was contention about the addition of teachers. Mr.
Diamond, a teacher and active UEAT member stated, “UEAT doesn’t have a teacher
on their board, which is ridiculous.” When asked why he felt this was an issue, he
stated, “It’s been something that’s been brought up many times, enough for City
Connections to bring their lawyer in and say no it can’t happen.” Parents and school
stakeholders were unclear about why teachers could not be included on the board
when the Memorandum of Understanding (2008) states that the District and UEAT
will cooperate to form a council comprised of parents, community members, and
school staff.
Select stakeholders from Westside University and the CBOs stated that they
felt the representation of parents and teachers at meetings was not an accurate
depiction of the larger stakeholder group. Dr. Kane, a university representative,
described the voice of the teachers, “I would say I don’t accept that the people who
come all the time are reflective of all the teachers because we tend to get the
Union… [T]hat’s the Union’s view, but I know you don’t represent everyone.”
166
Select stakeholders from the CBOs, university, and school administrative team
mentioned that the teachers involved represented a certain faction within the school
and that they need to create systems and structures to diversify the teacher pool of
participants. Similarly, it was noted during the observations that the parents on the
Board of Directors were the only parents who were in attendance during the two
Board Meetings observed. Two of the three parents on the board are also members
of the Compensatory Education Advisory Committee (CEAC) and the School Site
Council (SSC), which means that the governing boards associated with the school
are receiving input from the same limited number of parents. Ms. Bryant, an
administrator at the school site, implied that the parents and the classified staff
associated with UEAT are prohibiting other members from their stakeholder groups
to participate, “We have a few people that are very, very vocal. And they kind of
scare away, it’s almost like the parents, they kind of scare away the people who are
not so vocal.”
Stakeholders also discussed the involvement of students within the
partnership. Dr. Ballan, a university representative, referred to a student leadership
group that was “involved in doing a survey of what other students thought about
different things, and so that information was supposed to have been presented to
UEAT.” The need to increase the student voice was also echoed during a UEAT
Board Meeting. During the public comment time, a teacher brought forth a question
about placing a student on the board and the Board President suggested that the
conversation be tabled until the next Board Meeting so that it could be added as an
167
agenda item. So although there is not currently a structure in place to ensure the
inclusion of student voices, there appears to be discussion and action moving
towards the amelioration of this situation, specifically through an elected student
representative on the UEAT Board of Directors.
Another system of representation was the Transition Team, which was in
existence in Year One only. According to the UEAT Fact Sheet (2009), the
Transition Team was created to work on “systems and structures for effective
operation of the school.” According to the Business Plan (2008), each stakeholder
group elected their own members to the transition team to represent teachers,
students, parents, community residents, CBOs, classified staff, administrators, and
Westside University staff. This group was responsible for carrying out transition
goals identified in the Business Plan and to “coordinate the multiple efforts taking
place in the school to develop one coherent plan for the school’s future. Its function
is to ensure that all plans address the instructional, social, and psychological needs of
the students” (Business Plan, 2008). The transition team was successful during Year
One, but was then disbanded because the “transition” was no longer taking place.
The UEAT Business Plan (2008) stated that the transition team was to “coordinate
major transformational actions within the first year.” However, stakeholders from
the school, CBOs, and university mentioned that the termination of the Transition
Team was one of the elements that caused the partnership to regress in Year Two,
“[It] pretty much broke down in Year Two and I’d say we’re struggling on that right
now but it hasn’t gotten back on its tracks entirely and that’s not just UEAT, I mean
168
that’s all of us” (Mr. Diamond, personal communication, 2010). Mr. Diamond also
referred to a new, informally created transition team made up of himself, Dr. Key,
Ms. Bryant, and Ms. Carriage who will continue to have conversations and to
collaborate in order to keep from “sliding back into some of the turmoil that had
happened last year.”
Another system created for representation was the retreat called for creating a
strategic plan that took place at the retreat held in Year Two. This retreat was open
to all stakeholder groups. Dr. Grupe, the facilitator of the retreat, described the
purpose of the retreat, “to provide a constructive… context in which disagreeing
parties can have sharper focus on the issues and bring each other together to have
some degree of coordination and focus on the issues.” Dr. Grupe went on to state
that the Board members were not in attendance, because they felt the presence of the
board might inhibit the participation of some stakeholders. It is important to note
that this coordinated system of representation led to the creation of a tangible
document, the Strategic Plan. This document was co-constructed by all participants
through the following procedure:
In small groups, the network partners and school stakeholders evaluated
specific goals for the high school.
Through dialogue, they broke the large goals into small goals and created
benchmarks and dates to achieve the goals.
The small groups reconvened as a whole and shared their findings and came
to an agreement about the goals.
169
The co-construction of the Strategic Plan was important because it was able
to bring together some of the stakeholder groups. This can be considered s strong
system of representation for the students, which Epstein (2001) refers to as
“overlapping spheres of influence” which includes parents, educators, and
community members.
Consistencies and Inconsistencies with Year One Findings
The Year One research team reported that stakeholders stated that the
opportunity for inclusion exists but that more participation is needed in order to
ensure that those who are involved are representative of the larger group of
stakeholders (Kim, 2009). Interviews with parents revealed that they felt there was
not a strong enough voice for Latino parents (Hernandez-Flores, 2009). Similarly,
stakeholders felt that there was a lack of student participation which stemmed from a
deficiency of disseminated information about the partnership to the larger student
body and the community (Kim, 2009).
The Year Two research team felt that the data illustrate that the systems of
representation have regressed. Although there is now a somewhat stronger voice for
Latino parents, their participation is still limited as observed in school meetings and
on the partnership Board. Also, many of the systems of representation put in place
during the first year have ceased to exist within the second and third year of
operation, such as the Transition Team and Small Learning Community Council.
170
Critical Bridge Person
The interviews, artifacts, and observations presented information about the
extent to which the partnership was continuing the use of a critical bridge person as a
strategy to overcome barriers within the partnership. The data of this subset revealed
that it was particularly important to look at the role of the critical bridge person(s)
over the course of the three years of existence of the UEAT Partnership. The
creation of the role of the critical bridge person was found in artifacts analyzed by
the research team. The Business Plan, created at the initiation of the partnership in
2008, stated that the founding members would include “The Executive Director of
UEAT as an ex-officio member of the board (a position currently filled by Dr. Key,
Interim Executive Director).” The critical bridge person was also referred to in the
UEAT Fact Sheet (2009), in which Westside University
…assigned and supported faculty member Dr. Key to work daily at Prep
High School and has assumed major responsibility for the significant
progress the school has made, from identifying goals to the Western
Associations of Schools and Colleges accreditation site visit.
In Year Three of the partnership, stakeholder groups continually made
reference to the first year of the partnership and the work that Dr. Key was able to
accomplish under the full time position of a critical bridge person, also known as the
Interim Executive Director of UEAT. University representative, Dr. Ballan, stated,
They were really, really different ways of looking at this problem; you think
everybody would be on board…So, it was really all these different
perspectives… but I think she [Dr. Key] had really gotten it up to a
momentum where it was actually people listening to each other (Dr. Ballan,
personal communication, 2010).
171
This was echoed by a teacher, Ms. Espinoza, “There was somebody who was
there on the ground all the time… There was a face to the organization.” An
administrator, Ms. Bryant, described the unique abilities Dr. Key had, “she had
experience as a principal, so she was the executive director, co-constructor of the
partnership, and the principal, basically.” As to the effect that her abilities had on
the partnership:
I think her presence brings about a sort of reassurance that it will work
although there are some entities that are very, very opposed to her even being
on campus because they are frightened by the fact that we might come
together (Ms. Bryant, personal communication, 2010).
The impact of Dr. Key was crucial in the advancement of the partnership.
She was a link between the different stakeholder groups, she was able to relate to all
the groups, and she had the ability to aid the different groups in understanding each
other, which, according to the literature, are all key elements to the role of a critical
bridge person (Firestone & Fisler, 2002; Kezar, 2007).
During the second year of the partnership, Dr. Key, who was the Interim
Executive Director, was replaced by Dr. Grupe as the new Executive Director.
Within the interviews, it was stated that Dr. Grupe, within the second year of the
partnership, was responsible for creating the master schedule along with Dr. Key, in
charge of conducting the Retreat at Westside University, and oversaw the creation of
the Strategic Plan. However, it must be noted that most references to Dr. Grupe
within the interviews portrayed him as being less effective than Dr. Key as a critical
bridge person. Mr. Leblue, a teacher, stated,
172
And I knew then, when they hired him [Dr. Grupe] as an executive director
that he was not, that he was going to be almost the antithesis of Dr. Key… I
like Dr. Grupe. He’s a nice guy. But he just wasn’t there (Mr. Leblue,
personal communication, 2010).
Other teachers and CBO members were also skeptical of the work that was
done under his leadership, “The Business Plan got lost when Dr. Grupe came in…
The UEAT Board started making a Strategic Plan that didn’t really, they said that it
was based on the Business Plan and a whole bunch of other things but it just wasn’t
obvious how those connections were being met” (Mr. Diamond, personal
communication, 2010).
Now, within the third year of the partnership, there are a few different people
taking on the role of a critical bridge person. One is the new Executive Director, Ms.
Carriage. Neither the artifacts analyzed nor the interviews made much reference to
actions carried out by Ms. Carriage. However, an observation of the Administrative
Leadership Team meeting revealed Ms. Carriage as an integral member participating
in the meeting. Similarly, during a UEAT Board Meeting, she spent over twenty
minutes describing data about students at Prep High School, ways in which UEAT
can meet the needs of the current students, budget allocations, and goals for the rest
of the 2010-2011 school year. However, interviews revealed that some stakeholders
felt that she was not a prominent figure on the school campus, “We have Ms.
Carriage, who seems fine, friendly, open, gregarious, charming, all those things, but
not present on the campus… to the extent that Dr. Key used to be, which is a
problem” (Interview, Ms. Espinoza, 2010). Teachers and classified staff also
173
expressed that the ED of the partnership should have an office at the school site
rather than off campus at the office of City Connections.
As the third year of the partnership progressed, the role of the ED has been
transformed, separating it from the role of the critical bridge person, but this shift has
not been communicated well to the stakeholders, specifically at the school site. With
a diminished role at the school site, the ED is now considered to be in charge of
raising funds and awareness about the UEAT Partnership. It is significant to note
that Dr. Key was just recently brought back to the Prep High School campus and has
assumed the role of critical bridge person, while Ms. Carriage was released to work
more outside of the school parameters. Stakeholders including parents, teachers,
classified staff, and select CBOs expressed hope in her return, “And when they
brought Dr. Key back, I knew they cared about the education that Crenshaw has
because she drives this train better than anybody else” (Ms. Cosby, personal
communication, 2010).
Consistencies and Inconsistencies with the Year One Study
Within the research from the Year One study, it was evident that Dr. Key was
seen as a strong and prominent critical bridge person. Her effectiveness spawned
from her ability to engage all different stakeholders at the school site and within the
UEAT Partnership, as well as create trust amongst partners. Her intricate knowledge
of the school, its students, and their needs also served as an invaluable resource that
drove the work of the partnership forward (Gillenwaters, 2009). Although there was
a regression of the role of a critical bridge person within the second and into the third
174
year of the partnership, there is evidence within the third year that demonstrates the
critical bridge person’s role has re-emerged. There is hope amongst stakeholders
that the role of the critical bridge person may be elevated back to the status it held
during the first year of the partnership now that Dr. Key has returned as a daily on-
site member. However, based on the research conducted so far, the research team
has concluded that the role of the critical bridge person has regressed from Year
One.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1B: Strategies
Part “B” of Question One asked about the effective strategies in place that
demonstrate the ability to overcome the persistent barriers in co-constructing and
sustaining an urban community-school-university partnership in its second and third
year of operation. Through an investigation and analysis of the findings, the research
team discovered that the same strategies identified by the Year One Study persist,
and these strategies, with the exception of history, have regressed. The two most
prevalent strategies discussed in the evidence were the systems of representation and
the use of the critical bridge person. In regards to the role of a critical bridge person,
there was a regression within the second year and the beginning of the third year of
the partnership, but there is evidence within the end of the third year that
demonstrates the critical bridge person’s role has begun to return to the elevated
status it held during the first year of the partnership. Therefore, the research team
has concluded that the role of the critical bridge person overall has regressed since
Year One of the study in spite of its seeming re-emergence in year three.
175
Research Question Two: Attributes
The second research question asked about the attributes of a community,
school, and university partnership in an urban school that can facilitate and support a
new cultural model for the role of teachers in promoting high academic achievement
for African American and Latino students. The interviews, observations, and
artifacts provided a plethora of information about the culture of the school, teachers,
and students. This section will analyze the perceptions of the participants involved
in the partnership, the specific outcomes that have resulted from the partnership, as
well as the proposed actions that will take place in the coming year in regards to
teaching and learning. It is important to note that the data do not include actual
observations of classroom instruction due to the limitations imposed by the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the school district.
Culture at the School Site
The interviews and observations served as the main source of data for
creating a vision about the existent culture at Prep High School. Ms. Carriage, the
current Executive Director of the UEAT Partnership, described her overall feeling
about the school:
I think the school doesn’t really have a good understanding of what it can be.
I think it’s been beaten down a lot, in a sense… and it doesn’t have a culture
of learning. There’s just not the culture of learning and excellence that I
think we aspire the school to be (Ms. Carriage, personal communication,
2010).
This idea was echoed by Dr. Grupe when he stated that the community
surrounding Prep High School “won’t send their children to Prep because they don’t
176
believe it is rigorous enough.” These statements could be substantiated by the lack
of Academic Performance Index (API) scores from the 2007-2008 school year, in
which there was an insufficient number of students who took the California
Standards Test (CST). This perceived lack of rigorous academic achievement is
addressed in the Business Plan (2008) in the form of a long-range end goal, “Prep
High School achieves a culture of scholarship and service to the community.”
There is an interesting dynamic revolving around the culture of the school
and the mindset of teachers in that they both shape each other- the culture of the
school is created by the perspectives of the teachers and the perspective of the
teachers is shaped by the culture of the school. Dr. Chino describes this process:
Nobody has studied the socialization process. What is the dynamic,
apart from the administration, that goes on in that school where
teachers are allowed to or feel that they should have to take on this
demeanor that either negates the qualities of the kids as learners or
enhances their own paralysis as teachers by diminishing, that’s a more
important issue, by diminishing the kids that they’re working with
(Dr. Chino, personal communication, 2010).
This paralysis of the teaching force was echoed by Dr. Ballan, who stated,
“it’s really the culture there, and it’s like making sense of the failure from day in and
day out comes in a very strange way, in which now it’s almost [like] they sabotage to
maintain it.” This concept can be related to the literature concerning cultural models
and organization culture. Schein (1990) defines organizational culture as,
A pattern of basic assumptions, invented, discovered, or developed by a
given group, as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and
internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and,
therefore is to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive,
think, and feel in relation to those problems (p. 111).
177
In this sense, the school’s lack of academic culture may have been created
out of teachers’ sense of survival. This way of thinking has become stable, and
would require significant changes in order to create a new culture.
Although aspects of the data reveal that there is not currently an
achievement-based focus within the school, other data reveal that academic rigor has
been in the process of developing over the three years of the existence of the UEAT
Partnership. Dr. Truman described the transformation of the school environment:
There were some teachers there who were a disgrace to the institution of
teaching and how they had been allowed to say in there for ten and fifteen
years, I don’t know… They were hiding because the administrators were
doing their own thing; everyone was hiding in the confusion. It was very,
very easy to obscure themselves and become opaque when nothing is
working correctly. Dr. Key brought in this idea of transparency… and now
they’re being evaluated. Now there are certain standards that they have to
live up to, not just the district standards, but I’m saying standards of how we
teach and what we do at Prep High School (Dr. Truman, personal
communication, 2010)
This statement is important because it signifies an ideological change within
the culture of the school. Dr. Ballan also referred to the change in mindset held by
members at the school site:
At least now you have a more focused thing of saying ‘Well, let’s look at the
academic achievement. Let’s look at what the teachers are doing. Let’s look
at what parents are doing,’ and I think they didn’t have any structure before
to ask those questions (Dr. Ballan, personal communication, 2010).
This change can be revealed within data concerning the school. Within the
2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years, the school tested a significant amount of
students, and their API increased twenty-two points and twenty points, respectively
178
(School Report Card, 2010). Similarly, administrators and Dr. Key feel that the
creation of the small learning communities (SLCs) has led to teachers taking more
responsibility for their students, and lead teachers within the SLCs have assumed
leadership roles. There has also been a significant increase in the graduation rate and
a decrease in the drop-out rate. The data reveal that there are other tangible
evidences that match this change in the ideology, which will be discussed in a
subsequent section.
Culture of the Teachers
There was a large range of opinions regarding the involvement of the
teachers that aided in the creation of the culture of Prep High School. Dr. Grupe
stated that he felt the teachers,
…spoke very eloquently about the needs that the school had. They were
articulate, powerful voices of what the re-design should look like… I found
the teachers to be in large pretty heavily invested in the building of a new
Prep (Dr. Grupe, personal communication, 2010).
However, this statement could be juxtaposed by opinions from other
stakeholders and observations. For example, the research team observed two board
meetings of which there were fewer than five teachers in attendance at both
meetings. Dr. Chino, a university representative working on professional
development, stated that there were varying levels of support amongst the teachers as
well as different intentions behind their participation,
…from people who want to go, from people who don’t want to go, people
who feel they have to go, they’ll be punished if they don’t go, people who
have to go because they feel their colleagues don’t see them, so there’s all
different reasons (Dr. Chino, personal communication, 2010).
179
The varying levels of teacher participation were also evident within an
observation of a teacher professional development in November of 2010, during
which teachers were asked to deconstruct content standards. The larger group was
broken down into groups of four or five people based on course topics. While it was
found that the overall productivity level was high, there was at least one member of
each group who was a passive participant. These participants would only contribute
in response to a direct question and they spent time on the phone, texting, and/or on
the computer.
The varying levels of teacher participation may also be affected by the
cultural setting of the school. Dr. Chino referred to this as the social learning of the
school:
I think that the people that were there were struggling between wanting to be
immersed in it [professional development] and then wanting to pull away
from it because that was what the social learning was. The other thing that I
think was very common was a certain, what’s a good word for it, almost a
parading among teachers, ‘Well you know I’ve been in the school a really
long time and this is the way I see it,’ a kind of identity crises of the teachers,
a search for their identity in a way that is absolutely counterproductive to
really being a professional (Dr. Chino, personal communication, 2010).
The social learning of the school, according to the literature, often controls
the ways in which teachers and other staff act, in that they “forego their own
conceptions, attitudes, and behaviors for the more accepted conceptions, attitudes,
and behaviors of the society, in this case the classroom and school” (Wilson &
Readence, 1993, p. 222). The lack of involvement from some of the teachers may be
stemming from the social learning of the school, as was addressed by a teacher, Mr.
180
Leblue. He feels that although the impact of the professional development is
growing and making improvements, other teachers,
…see it as coming down from on high, I do think that. We are somewhere in
the middle, they are kind of leaning toward the ‘we could use more of that,’
but it hasn’t swung the pendulum in that direction (Mr. Leblue, personal
communication, 2010).
Another university professional development liaison, Dr. Ballan, felt that
teacher involvement in the professional development was too lenient in that it was
left up to the teacher to participate if “they want to.” The social learning of the
school may provide an explanation for the range in involvement of teachers as
described by the aforementioned interviews, which imply that there is a select group
of teachers working with the partnership in an attempt to create stronger learning
experiences for their students. However, according to the interviews, there remains a
significant group of teachers who prefer to work against the remolding of the culture
of the school. The perception of varying levels of teacher involvement might also
stem from whether or not the teachers felt that they were involved in the process of
co-constructing their own professional development. Dr. Chino stated that the topics
were jointly chosen by the teachers, principal, and the input put forth in the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) Accreditation Review.
Deficit Perspectives
Four university stakeholders, two school administrators, a community
member, and a community-based organization representative referred to the
perceived deficit mindset that pervaded the teaching force within Prep High School.
181
Dr. Kane stated, “Far too many teachers [are] still saying it’s the kids’ fault. They’re
not doing well? It’s the kids’ fault and the parents’ fault. Not me.” Observers stated
that some teachers portrayed the low achievement of the students as a result of the
students’ deficits, as opposed to the lack of effectiveness exhibited by the teachers.
Dr. Chino also referred to the ways in which certain teachers disassociated their role
in the underachievement of the students:
When somebody says to you the kids are gambling in the hallway, I don’t
hold the kids responsible, I hold the teachers responsible. So they were
utilizing the kids as a basis of not being able to do their work (Dr. Chino,
personal communication, 2010).
Administrators within the school site also felt that some teachers were
making excuses for low achievement based upon the students’ poor behavior. In an
administrative professional development, it was observed that the administrators
were brainstorming ways to counteract this issue by creating ways to mitigate
behavior through rich, cognitive, and engaging tasks. The deficit mindset of select
teachers at the school site can be connected to the literature concerning the
achievement gap, which asserts that low student achievement is caused by the
deficits of the students as opposed to the structural, financial, and opportunity
inequities (Delpit, 1998; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Schutz, 2006).
According to Dr. Truman, the deficit mindset of select teachers led to an
apathetic attitude among some of the students:
They’re both feeding each other, especially when there was a pervasive
attitude about the students that said they don’t care, they’re not worthy,
they’re not smart, they don’t deserve… So if that is the mentality and mindset
182
of the instructor, then what am I going to expect from the student (Dr.
Truman, personal communication, 2010)?
A community member also stated that he felt like the parents are not
informed about their children’s academic progress, which is caused by the teachers’
dislike of their students, “My kid comes home and tells me what you [the teacher]
said and what you call him and how you treat him in class. In other words, my kid
gives me a progress report on you” (Mr. Saise, personal communication, 2010).
The data also report that some teachers held a deficit viewpoint about select
entities in the UEAT Partnership that were involved in conducting professional
development and providing other services. A university professor reported that she
had a conversation with one of the school-site administrators about teacher buy-in.
The administrator said to her, “One of the big issues is that teachers are hesitant,
because they don’t think you or any of these teachers [professors from Westside]
ever taught in an urban school” (Dr. Ballan, personal communication, 2010). Dr.
Ballan did not understand why the teachers would assume the professors had a lack
of experience, “It’s this whole distrust. Every one of us in that group has taught in
urban schools. I taught over on the east side. I went to Prep High School myself and
live in this area.” This distrust of outside forces was also evidenced by a teacher
who did not understand why UEAT brought in an outside consultant to oversee the
vertical integration model with elementary and middle schools, “We really just
could’ve done it ourselves if they had just – if they just gave us the space to sit down,
we could’ve done something” (Ms. Espinoza, personal communication, 2010). A
183
community-based organization member also stated that the teachers looked at her
organization as a deficit because it was not grounded in the educational world:
Because education is a specialized field of expertise, there’s sometimes a
tendency to say, ‘We know this. We’re the experts and specialists in this.’
So I think sometimes that can work against some of the new ideas and the
progress and the change (Ms. Green, personal communication, 2010).
Teacher Ability
It is logical to assume that at a very large school, such as Prep High School,
there are teachers of varying degrees of teaching ability or performance. It is
important to note that the ability of the teachers is being judged based upon other
people’s perceptions rather than classroom observations, due to the limitations of this
study. Ms. Bryant, an administrator at Prep, stated that when the administrative team
conducted evaluations of teachers, they found that a “large number of them [were]
below satisfactory, something like fifteen.” Dr. Ballan described the teaching
situation before the UEAT partnership was rooted within the school:
It was like a big party of failure that was going on, and not to say there was
not pockets of the success that teachers were having in the midst of all this. It
was really amazing. In spite of that, there were teachers in their classrooms
doing some awesome things with certain students (Dr. Ballan, personal
communication, 2010).
Dr. Grupe also identified a core group of teachers, whose work is not often
showcased:
One of the things that’s happening in the classroom, particularly in some of
the best classrooms is there’s an enormous scholarship that’s happening
there. We don’t capitalize on that. We’ve got some incredibly bright, some
incredibly highly research oriented teaching and teachers. We don’t harness
that so there’s no place to go for scholarly representation of the work that’s
happening in that classroom (Dr. Grupe, personal communication, 2010).
184
The teachers who are responsible for the high levels of scholarship are now
being identified within the school; administrators as well as UEAT representatives
are trying to “actually tap into peoples’ talents” (Ms. Bryant, personal
communication, 2010), which will be discussed in a subsequent section.
Professional Development Focus
Professional development of teachers and school staff is needed in order to be
in compliance with the UEAT Partnership mission statement, which states, “The
mission of the United Education Action Team Partnership (UEAT) is to 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 students in our community.” Benchmarks in the
Business Plan (2000) for measuring success of the partnership include increases
within the following: (1) four-year graduation rates; (2) completion of A-G
coursework; (3) graduates enrolled in two- or four-year colleges; (4) Proficient and
Advanced rates in English Language Arts and Mathematics; and (5) quality of
teaching.
The Strategic Plan, a document that was jointly created by parents, staff, and
stakeholders from UEAT, identifies numerous ways in which to improve teaching
and learning within Prep High School. These efforts include the following:
Support high quality standards-based instruction and conducts ongoing
teacher generated research based professional development for all
stakeholder groups;
185
Significantly increase instructional rigor and relevancy through the
implementation of a comprehensive and intentional professional development
and teacher observation and support program;
Each SLC will develop and submit a comprehensive plan for peer-to-peer
coaching, review and monitoring;
Interdisciplinary teams, consisting of all school-site stakeholders, will
collaborate to explore and implement a variety of research-based instructional
strategies tailored to the learning styles of all students, with a particular
emphasis on students designated as ELL or Special Education;
Connect SLC Leads, Department Chairs, and faculty with faculty, research
and clinical supports from the Westside School of Education, in order to
strengthen teacher practice and content delivery; and,
Teachers will be supported through ongoing classroom visits, observations
and evaluations.
Evidence of professional development was also included within the UEAT
Partnership Fact Sheet, which included the following:
Examined and evaluated the existing instructional program and its fit with the
student population;
Facilitated and funded professional development for assisting Prep High
School with developing a school-wide plan for promoting a college going
culture;
Invested in professional development in algebra for teachers in the Ninth
Grade Academy;
Provided mentoring for the principal and administrative team;
Supported five faculty who are in dialogue with Prep High School faculty to
shape in-depth professional development;
Worked with coaches and department chairs to develop a process for
providing rigorous standards-based instruction for all students; and,
186
Worked with mathematics coaches and teachers to provide intensive on-site
mathematics professional development and to analyze key factors affecting
students’ low performance in algebra.
Since the creation of the UEAT Partnership, there has been a large focus on
elements of professional development that had the intent of creating rigorous
teaching and learning. Examples of professional development over Year One and
Year Two of the partnership included, but are not limited to, the following: (1)
standards based instruction by analyzing the standards; (2) using Bloom’s
Taxonomy; (3) implementing research practices; (4) creating caring relationships
with students; (5) determining key standards; (6) understanding how to read
AYP/API score reports; (7) how to read the School Report Card; (8) data driven
instruction; (9) constructivist learning theory; and (10) socio-cultural embedded
teaching and pedagogy.
The focus and delivery of professional development shifted within the third
year of the UEAT Partnership. At the beginning of the 2010 school year, the
professional development team from Westside University organized their themes
around relevant and problem-based pedagogy, which was further broken down
within the categories of English Language Learning, math, and special education.
However, there was a shift in which the teachers, according to Dr. Chino, requested
more of a focus on writing, which was then switched back to problem-based
pedagogy. The Westside University professional development liaisons are now
working specifically with the Ninth Grade Academy in an effort to integrate the
emphasis on writing requested by the teachers and the emphasis on problem based
187
learning. All of this work is intended to increase students’ capacity to be on track at
each grade level in order to graduate within four years. Within the Academy, they
are each working with two teachers at a time in order to “stay away from the group
process and to work… in a small cohort to get to know them well. If we can change
a few and help a few then it will have a ripple effect over time, hopefully” (Dr.
Chino, personal communication, 2010).
The Year Two research team saw evidence of focused professional
development during their observations in Year Three. A social science professional
development was conducted on the themes of standards-based instruction,
assessment, and direct instruction. Similarly, during an administrative leadership
professional development, the members were discussing ways in which to scaffold
teachers through using standards-based instruction, reading and unpacking standards,
and using data to drive decision making. At this meeting, the administrators were
also working towards scripting the process of looking at student work and fine-
tuning a protocol that meets the needs of the teachers at their current level(s) of
readiness so that they may be able to create their own rubrics to evaluate student
work. These themes were consistent with the elements on the California Standards
Test which is the means by which students demonstrate proficiency on key standards
that make up the California curriculum for all students.
Outcomes
One of the overall intentions of the UEAT Partnership is to increase the
achievement of the Prep High School students through intentional and systematic
188
professional development of teachers. However, it must be noted that while there is
a correlation between student achievement and the partnership, this does not imply
causation.
One major outcome that has affected student achievement was the creation of
the Ninth Grade Academy, which was one of the small learning communities created
in the first year of the partnership. The academy was created with the intent to
ensure that all students would be on track to graduate starting within their freshman
year (Strategic Plan, 2009). This academy has been the main recipient of the
professional development conducted by Westside University. Student CST scores
have increased over the first two years within the UEAT Partnership. Table 4.1
shows the improvements made by the class that started off high school in the Ninth
Grade Academy.
Table 4.1: California Standards Test Trends: English Language Arts
By Grade Change in Proficient
& Advanced
Change in Below Basic
& Far Below Basic
2008-
09
2009-
10
CHANGE 2008-
09
2009-
10
CHANGE
GRADE 9 19.4% 21.7% +2.3 51.0% 48.9% -2.1
GRADE 10 14.9% 24.5% +9.6 55.4% 39.1% -16.3
Similarly, the data show that there has been an increase in the number of
students who are taking and completing classes for the California A-G requirements
for college readiness. There is a drastic change between the ninth- and tenth-graders
who were enrolled in the Ninth Grade Academy compared to the eleventh- and
189
twelfth-graders who did not have the benefit of the academy, as evidenced by Table
4.2.
Table 4.2: College Readiness
GRADE in 2009-10 % Taking A-G
Courses
% A-G with C or
Above
9
th
Grade
77.1% 27.5%
10
th
Grade
74.9% 16.3%
11
th
Grade
44.4% 11.8%
12
th
Grade
38.2% 13.4%
Although professional development was a focus within the Ninth Grade
Academy, it was not the sole reason for the increase in student achievement. The
ninth grade math and English teachers consented to teach sections A and B of
algebra and English at the same time during the second semester to ensure that
students who failed section A first semester could recover their credits before they
completed ninth grade. This increased the number of student who exited ninth grade
on track to graduate in four years.
Although the largest growth in regards to test scores and college readiness
can be seen within the groups that have passed through the Ninth Grade Academy,
there is also evidence that all students are benefitting from the influence of the small
learning communities (SLCs). The SLCs were created “for the purpose of
developing a more personalized learning environment to ensure that students are
supported socially, academically, and emotionally to fulfill their potential” (Ford
190
Foundation Grant, 2010). This is accomplished by each SLC having their own
contiguous space on campus with their own lead teacher, counselor, and site
administrator. According to Dr. Key, the teachers share the same small group of
students within their own SLC, which allows them to get to know their students
better, to enhance the differentiation of their instruction to better meet the needs of
their students, and to plan collaboratively with other teachers. Similarly, Mr.
Diamond stated that he felt,
The move to SLCs has allowed for a more interest based approach to
curriculum and to opportunities outside the school which I think all kids
respond to…particularly African American students [for whom] there’s a
particular thirst for how things are relevant” (Mr. Diamond, personal
communication, 2010).
Other teachers also stated that they believe the interest based curriculum of
the SLCs is particularly important to African American and Latino students, which
are the majority of the student population at Prep High School. Similarly, a parent
noted the change within the students since the creation of the SLCs, “Students want
to be in school and not out of school.” These opinions can be substantiated by the
increase in graduation rates by 20.7 percentage points over the past three years as
well as the decrease in drop-out rates by 19.8 percentage points (CDE, 2010). Some
of the momentum surrounding the SLCs was interrupted in Year Two, but teachers
are insisting on a refocus on this structure in Year Three. The SLCs and their
concept of interest based learning can be connected to findings in the literature
concerning funds of knowledge (Gonzalez et al., 1995), which describes the richness
of family and community resources that students bring to school. This is in strict
191
contrast with deficit views of minorities and the pedagogy of poverty which does not
build upon the experiences of African American and Latino children and undervalues
their knowledge (Delpit, 1995; Murtadha-Watts, 1998; Schutz, 2006).
Another major outcome that has been prompted by the UEAT Partnership is
the Master Schedule of Prep High School. Under reform efforts spearheaded by Dr.
Key, the school changed its schedule from 55-minute classes to a block schedule to
increase instructional time and to provide additional class periods for credit recovery
(Fact Sheet, 2009). The master schedule was co-constructed with the teachers to
reflect the schools’ goals and philosophy as expressed in documents including the
Business plan and the Strategic Plan. The majority of teachers favored a block
schedule which gave teachers more time to co-construct knowledge with students
rather than trying to pour it in or “deposit it” in students’ heads (Freire, 2009). The
new block schedule was described as:
facilitating the implementation of pedagogy based on constructivist, socio-
cognitive, and socio-cultural theories of learning that call upon students to
function as active co-constructors of knowledge in a socio-cultural
environment that requires cooperation, collaboration and higher order
thinking to solve problems; and,
reallocating school instructional minutes to include additional periods in the
school day which gave students greater opportunities to recover credits (due
to a large “fail” rate in the past) and to graduate within 4 years and meet A-G
requirements set by the University of California and California State
University for four-year college admission.
Dr. Truman discussed the benefit of this added period in that it provided,
“…different ways to allow the students to not only recover their credits but
also do concurrent community college enrollment which would get them
prepared and push them towards the pipeline that everyone says is now when
192
it comes to underserved communities” (Dr. Truman, Personal Conversation,
2010).
Adjunct professors from a local college came in to teach Mexican-American
Studies, Spanish, African-American History, Painting, and Art; topics chosen based
upon student interest.
Planned Action
The attributes of Prep High School and its teachers have been in flux over the
past three years of its existence with the United Education Action Team Partnership.
Prior to the relationship with the partnership, the school was described as lacking a
rigorous academic focus, as evidenced by low CST scores, poor graduation rates, and
high drop-out rates. As the relationship with the partnership continues, there has
been a focus on teacher professional development, which is associated with a
positive change in student outcomes, including the following:
One year gain of 23 % in the number of students graduating in four years;
increase in number of students exiting 9
th
grade on track to graduate in four
years;
47 point gain in API scores over a two-year period;
19% reduction in suspensions;
10.3% decrease in the truancy rate;
15% decrease in the crime rate in the area surrounding the school;
California English Development Test (CELDT) score increased by 11 %
(from 42 % to 53 %) and exceeds the LAUSD score by 3 %, a key
assessment factor in students being reclassified to Fluent English Proficiency
(RFEP);
193
Successful 2010 Western Association for Accreditation of Schools and
Colleges (WASC) visit resulting in a six-year accreditation pending a one-
day visit in 2012;
The number of students exiting ninth grade on track to graduate in four years
grew by 19 percentage points (from 44 % to 63 %); and,
Proficiency and Advanced in English/Language Arts grew from 18.8 % to
21.1% (for Latino students it increased from 19.9% to 26.4 %).
Although there have been significant challenges within the work of the
partnership, it is obvious that there has also been substantial outcomes. In order to
ensure that a positive trend continues, members from CBOs, teachers, administrators,
and university participants have jointly co-constructed a Ford Foundation Grant that
was approved and slated to begin in May 2011. This document is significant because
it takes into account the current skills and abilities of the teachers in order to project
ways in which teachers, through working with each other, community members, and
university stakeholders, can tailor their instruction in order to better prepare their
students for work in the next generation. The grant is focused on professional
development within the small learning communities, and will include a twelve month
period of planning to:
Strengthen their own content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and
in-depth understanding of the California Content Standards, as well as the
Common Core Standards, and the 21st Century Workplace Skills. (provided by
Dr. Key and Dr. Singh);
Learn about students’ cultures, family traditions, and their lives inside and
outside the school setting (professional development provided by Dr. Singh,
City Connections staff, and parents);
Deepen their capacity to implement culturally responsive pedagogy based in
constructivist, socio-cognitive and socio-cultural theories of learning
194
(professional development by Dr. Singh, Dr. Kay, and other Westside
University faculty);
Plan interdisciplinary standards-aligned problem-based units of study and
culminating tasks, accompanied by appropriate formative and summative
assessments to understand students’ patterns of learning (led by Prep teacher
instructional leaders, Dr. Key and other Westside faculty, School District X
staff);
Analyze data related to the academic performance of the students in their
respective SLCs, i.e., attendance, grades, course-taking patterns, reading,
writing and numeracy performance on standardized tests and student work
produced in response to standards-based assignments and teacher-developed
assessments. (Selected Prep faculty, Westside faculty, and School District X
staff);
Analyze pertinent community data to identify both the assets and challenges
within the community, i.e., number and types of community-based
organizations, number and types of businesses in the community, crime rates
and trends, housing, employment, family stability, etc. (in collaboration with
City Connection data jointly collected and analyzed in collaboration with the
another local CBO and university researchers);
Redesign Back-to-School Night and Parent Conferencing events as structured
reciprocal learning experiences in which the school and parents share
knowledge and expectations to form partnerships in educating the student (Prep
principal and lead teachers, assisted by Dr. Singh and Westside faculty);
Form teacher-parent relationships within SLCs that allow parents to be partners
in supporting students’ social and academic development (facilitated by
principal, co-administrators, and SLC lead teachers, building on the structure
that allows students to have the same teachers two to three years in succession);
and,
Build partnerships with local businesses, agencies, corporations, and CBOs for
financial, human and knowledge resources (UEAT Executive Director, City
Connections, Junior Achievement and Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship
(FTE), and the Coalition for Education Justice (CEJ)).
The professional development plan delineated by the grant, which includes
dialogue, reflection, and collaboration, is also supported by findings within the
195
literature. The ability for teachers to engage in dialogue allows for the formation of
learning-communities that in turn provide guidance and call attention to various
aspects of teaching that can be missed when working independently (Maloch et al.,
2003). It is through dialogue, a social practice, that the teachers can become more
knowledgeable about their practice. Lave (1996) believes that identity development
through knowledge attainment is a social practice where “who you are becoming
shapes crucially and fundamentally what you ‘know’” (p. 57). By questioning one
another’s beliefs, teacher participants will deconstruct and reconstruct knowledge
and “mak[e] sense of existing practice” (Oakes et al., 2002, p. 229). Similarly,
collaboration occurs when educators discuss theory and motivation behind the
design, planning, teaching, and assessing of lessons which are all mediated by
continual and purposeful reflection (Moreillon, 2008). The isolated and individual
activity of teaching should be altered to include a balance of action, observation,
evaluation, and reflection (Warburton & Torff, 2005). In essence, collaboration can
help a teacher connect what they know with what they should be able to do (Darling-
Hammond & Loewenberg-Ball, 1999).
Summary
The second research question asked about the attributes of a community,
school, and university partnership in an urban school that can facilitate and support a
new cultural model for the role of teachers in promoting high academic achievement
for African American and Latino students. These attributes include a rigorous
academic focus, targeted professional development, dialogue, collaboration, and a
196
funds of knowledge approach. Based upon data from the interviews, observations,
and artifacts, it is apparent that the UEAT Partnership has had a positive influence on
the Prep High School and its teachers, as evidenced by the growth in student
achievement, the significant revamping of teacher professional development, and the
changes to the overall school culture.
197
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
As mentioned in Chapter One, the purpose of this study is to identify and
analyze the extent to which a community-school-university partnership is able to
sustain elements of co-construction and other ongoing processes that are beneficial to
the partnership, during its second and third year in operation. The study also aims to
identify the persistent barriers to co-construction and effective strategies to overcome
those barriers within a community-school-university partnership. The study seeks to
determine the processes by which a community-school-university partnership in an
urban school can facilitate and support a new cultural model for the role of teachers
in promoting high academic achievement for African American and Latino students.
Chapter Two provided the literature review to make a case for the impact of co-
constructed dialogic relationships in creating a new cultural model in schools and
specifically for teachers attempting to promote high academic achievement for urban
students. Chapter Three provided the research methodology for this qualitative case
study of a community-school-university partnership and illuminated the procedures
for data collection and analysis in relation to the posed research questions. Chapter
Four presented the findings from the study and analyzed the findings through the
theoretical framework presented in Chapter Two. This chapter will provide a
summary of the study, the purpose of the study, the significance of the study, a
198
summary of findings, conclusions, implications, and recommendations for future
research.
Summary of the Study
The inequality of educational outcomes for urban minority students has been
a persistent and pervasive crisis for public education in the United States.
Historically, school reform efforts have done little to improve the academic
achievement of African American and Latino students in the nation’s public schools.
Community-school-university partnerships have the potential to overcome the effects
of historical educational reform efforts that have typically led to the perpetuation of
the status quo. Co-construction can be an essential foundation for successful
partnerships because it requires that all members create their knowledge base
together while acknowledging and valuing the social and cultural experiences of
each other. Similarly, the use of intentional and structured dialogue allows
stakeholders to co-construct the purposes, roles, and mutually agreed upon goals of
the partnerships. Community-school-university partnerships provide a context that
has the potential to unite the unique perspectives, assets, and experiences of all
stakeholders through the sharing of power and creation of common goals to actualize
the potential of urban minority students.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the co-construction of a
community-school-university partnership as it seeks to transform an urban school
and produce higher student academic achievement. The study’s findings addressed
199
persisting barriers to a partnership in its efforts to reform and transform an urban
school, as well as the strategies that have proved successful for overcoming these
barriers. The study explored conditions for an improved form of teacher
development and the creation of a new cultural model in an effort to overcome the
opportunity gap for urban minority students. This study was based upon the second
and third year of the partnership and follow up research that was conducted on the
first year of the study.
Significance of the Study
This study is significant in its potential to transform urban schools through
the creation of a new cultural model founded upon the ideals of co-construction,
dialogue, and mutual-shared learning. Creating a successful partnership among the
community, school, and university will serve as a model for similar partnerships that
seek to accomplish comparable tasks. This type of partnership is unique in that it
seeks the union of three distinct stakeholders: (1) a low performing urban high
school; (2) two community-based organizations which focus on civil rights advocacy
and civic engagement; and (3) a top-tier research university. The knowledge gained
from this tripartite effort will increase the knowledge base about partnerships that
typically only deal with two different entities.
Summary of Findings
Major Findings for Research Question One: What evidence of ongoing processes,
including co-construction, does a community-school-university partnership
200
demonstrate as it continues to work toward school improvement after its first year of
operation?
Through an investigation and analysis of the findings, the research team
discovered that the same processes identified by the Year One Study persist, which
include: (1) co-construction; (2) dialogue; and (3) mutual shared learning. However,
the Year Two data portray that there has been a regression within the processes of
co-construction and dialogue for some of the stakeholder groups. The Year Two
data illustrate that the mutual shared learning amongst most stakeholder groups has
remained the same as Year One in that it continues to be an emerging attribute. The
only relationship that seemed to advance the concept of mutual shared learning is the
university in relation to the school. The Year One research team reported that
although there was a growing understanding of co-construction by all members and
that it was clearly stated within founding documents, it had yet to permeate all
aspects of the partnership. The Year Two research team found that co-construction
was more closely connected to the actions of Westside University and Grizzly
United in relation to the school. Although City Connections appeared to be the most
involved stakeholder group within the partnership in Year Two and Three based
upon their contributed time and resources, there was little evidence of City
Connections participating in co-construction.
In regards to dialogue, Year One’s data suggested that all stakeholders were
involved in the process of dialogue on a regular basis through structures such as the
weekly Transition Team and SLC Council meetings that went on throughout the
201
entire year. The Year Two team has little data to illustrate dialogue taking place
between City Connection, Grizzly United, and Westside University. There is some
evidence of the partners dialoguing directly with the school, but they do not seem to
have an open pathway for dialogue among their groups. In that sense, there seems to
be a regression in dialogue amongst the network partners.
The Year One research team reported that although learning and cognitive
engagement was evident, mutual shared learning was only beginning to emerge
within the partnership. They expressed the learning that was taking place as shared
learning, but not yet mutually shared learning, in which all members were learning
from each other. They did, however, identify teachers and Westside University
participants as being in the process of developing a relationship based upon mutual
shared learning. Based on an analysis of the Year Two team’s data, the mutual
shared learning between teachers and university members has advanced in relation to
professional development compared to the Year One study based on the information
reported within interviews, and found in observations and documents. However,
there is still limited evidence of mutual shared learning involving all the
stakeholders, especially community members and parents. In this sense, the research
team believes that mutual shared learning is beginning to emerge, but a true
understanding of mutual shared learning as a two-way process is still at the same
level it was in Year One, therefore it has remained the same.
202
Major Findings for Research Question One A: What are the barriers that persist in
co-constructing and sustaining a community-school-university partnership created to
improve an urban school?
Through an investigation and analysis of the findings, the research team
discovered that the same barriers identified by the Year One Study persist; which
include hierarchy, history, logic of scarcity, logic of merit, logic of deficit, absence
of systems and structures for communication, and lack of trust. Although the same
barriers exist, they appear to have increased in their severity, as evidenced by the
frequencies of the codes. The most significant barriers identified by the data, in
order of frequency, are: (1) absence of systems and structures for communication; (2)
lack of trust; and (3) hierarchical structures. The Year One and Year Two research
teams found the existence of the same barriers within systems and structures for
communication, including: (1) lack of defined goals, expectations, purpose, and
vision; (2) undefined roles and responsibilities; (3) lack of methods for disseminating
information; and (4) a lack of transparency. The barriers in Year Two and Three of
the partnership expanded to also include: (1) underexposure of the UEAT
Partnership, and (2) inconsistency with people, resources, and programs.
The Year One research team did not code “lack of trust” separately but
instead wove this data throughout the other barriers. The frequency of data
concerning lack of trust necessitated the Year Two research team to create its own
code within the barriers. Lack of trust data were broken down into the subcategories
of motives and feelings of being acted upon. The data reveal that all stakeholder
203
groups were questioning the motives behind each other’s interest and participation
within the partnership. The data also reveal that the school, teachers, community
members, and parents felt as though they had become an object of other
stakeholder’s actions, as opposed to being considered an active participant. The lack
of trust within Year Three of the partnership was also in response to the dissolving of
systems of structures for dialogue and distributed leadership roles within Year Two
of the partnership.
The Year One research team reported that the parents and school members
perceived themselves as having the least amount of power within the partnership due
to the fact that they did not choose the partners or the director and that they did not
have their own member on the board. Similarly, the parents, teachers, and
community members reported that the partnership was run like a bureaucracy which
entailed structural constraints that limited stakeholder voice, specifically within the
decision-making process. The Year Two research team found that the same
hierarchical barriers persist within the second and third year of the partnership,
revealing that the certain aspects of the partnership are operated in a top-down
manner and that different interest groups wield varying degrees of power.
Major Findings for Research Question One B: What effective strategies are in place
that demonstrates the ability to overcome the persistent barriers in community-
school-university partnerships seeking to improve student achievement in an urban
school?
204
Through an investigation and analysis of the findings, the research team
discovered that the same strategies identified by the Year One Study persist, which
include: (1) systems of representation; (2) critical bridge person; (3) space for
dialogue; and (4) history. However, the Year Two data portray that there has been a
regression within the strategies of space for dialogue, systems of representation, and
the critical bridge person. The Year Two data illustrate that history has remained
the same. Based on an analysis of the data, the two most prevalent strategies
discussed in the evidence were the systems of representation and the use of the
critical bridge person. The Year One research team reported that stakeholders stated
that the opportunity for inclusion existed due to systems of representation, but that
more participation was needed in order to ensure that those who are involved are
representative of the larger group of stakeholders. The Year Two research team felt
that the data illustrate that the systems of representation have regressed in that there
is still a limited inclusion of representatives from the larger stakeholder groups,
which restricts the flow of dialogue and diminishes the ability to co-construct. The
frequency of events that involve all stakeholder groups is sporadic and episodic in
nature, specifically including parents and community members. Also, many of the
systems of representation put in place during the first year have ceased to exist
within the second and third year of operation, such as the Transition Team and Small
Learning Community Council that provided an avenue for parent and teacher
involvement.
205
Within the research from the Year One study, it was evident there was a
strong and prominent critical bridge person who was able to engage all different
stakeholders at the school site and within the UEAT Partnership as well as create
trust amongst partners. These abilities stemmed out of the critical bridge person’s
knowledge of the school, its students, and their needs. The Year Two research team
found that there was a regression of the role of the critical bridge person within the
second and into the third year of the partnership, but that there is evidence within the
third year that demonstrates the critical bridge person’s role has re-emerged. There
is hope amongst stakeholders that the role of the critical bridge person may be
elevated back to the status it held during the first year of the partnership. However,
based on the research conducted, the research team believes that the role of the
critical bridge person has regressed from Year One.
Major Findings for Research Question Two: What attributes of a community, school,
and university partnership in an urban school can facilitate and support a new
cultural model for the role of teachers in promoting high academic achievement for
African American and Latino students?
This research question was a new element in the Year Two study; therefore it
does not have data to compare to the findings from the Year One research team. It
was found that the several attributes, including a rigorous academic focus, targeted
professional development, dialogue, collaboration, and a funds of knowledge
approach, were able to promote high academic achievement for African American
and Latino students. Based upon data from the interviews, observations, and
206
artifacts, it is apparent that the UEAT Partnership has had a positive influence on the
Prep High School and its teachers, as evidenced by the growth in student
achievement, the significant revamping of teacher professional development, and the
changes to the overall school culture. Although the influence of the partnership
cannot prove causation for the academic growth, the focus of the professional
development, the artifacts, and the observations demonstrate that the teachers,
administrators, and university stakeholders were very focused upon the academic
needs and progress of the students. The researchers also found that there are
significant structures in place for the future to ensure the continued improvement of
student achievement through the joint efforts of the parents, community, teachers,
administrators, community-based organizations, and university support providers as
they work collaboratively to co-construct reform efforts.
Conclusions
The inequality of educational outcomes for urban minority students can no
longer continue unmitigated. Historical school reform efforts have done little to
improve the academic achievement of African American and Latino students in the
nation’s public schools, which has created and amplified the opportunity gap for
urban minority students. Community-school-university partnerships have the
potential to overcome these effects by jointly investing their knowledge, expertise,
and resources for the benefit of all underserved children. The joint efforts of all
stakeholders may be able to produce outcomes that have not previously been
possible by their individualized efforts.
207
As evidenced by the literature and the findings in the data, there are
numerous challenges and benefits associated with community, school, and university
partnerships. Building the foundation of the partnership based upon the tenets of co-
construction, dialogue, and mutual-shared learning requires a significant amount of
time and effort from all stakeholders. Although there are numerous barriers within
the process of co-constructing partnerships, there are also strategies that can
overcome those barriers or allow the partnership to survive the barriers. Currently,
the barriers and processes can be thought of as the opposite ends of a balance.
Throughout the three years of the existence of the UEAT Partnership, the balance
has tipped in both directions allowing, at times, for the barriers to override the
processes as well as the processes to overcome the barriers. However, the important
factor is not necessarily the outcomes; but processes by which the stakeholders are
continuing to come together to co-construct a learning and teacher environment that
better meets the needs of the students.
Implications
Based upon the research and the literature, co-construction continues to
emerge as a viable and recommended process for creating and maintaining a
community-school-university partnership. Even when implementation is weak,
holding onto the concept and pursuing it provides stabilization of the partnership.
However, the partnership needs stakeholders who really understand co-construction
and are committed to it to because it is easily lost and difficult to regain. Freire
(2009) asserts that co-construction is best maintained through dialogue, mutual
208
respect and trust. These elements are possible and necessary for the success of co-
constructed partnerships.
There are several strong barriers that can hinder the success of co-constructed
partnerships. Hierarchy is a re-occurring barrier that seems to always emerge in
some form. Hierarchy amongst and between stakeholder groups appears to be nearly
impossible to do away with, but possible to mitigate. It is hard for strong stakeholder
groups, with their own mission statements and motives, money, and resources, to act
as a co-constructing partner. If their own organization cultures do not feature co-
construction, it is hard for the partners to adopt co-constructive behavior within the
partnerships. Similarly, community-school-university partnerships need to
continually overcome barriers to including parents, community, and schools as equal
partners within the partnership rather than an object of the partnership.
From the study of this particular partnership, there are indicators that the
cultural model of the school can shift to a greater academic focus that results in
increased student academic performance. The partnership can help schools become
more focused on ways to promote student learning. Although the partners aren’t
necessarily working as one unit, the capital that each partner brings can have a
positive impact on the culture of the school. In this study, the partners worked
directly with the school, rather than with one another; therefore, it remains to be seen
whether the impact is greater when the partners work together in a co-constructive
process. This study also showed that the partnership was able to alter the cultural
model of the school by positively affecting the cultural setting in which teachers
209
shaped their roles. This was mainly achieved through the creation of Small Learning
Communities, which allowed teachers to attain new leadership roles, increased
accountability between teachers through peer mentoring, increased teachers’
accountability for their students, and allowed the teachers to get to know their
students better while teaching from a funds of knowledge approach.
The success of the partnership will depend on how willing the stakeholder
groups are to struggle with working towards their joint mission statement in a co-
constructed way. Barriers to co-construction are often fueled by a lack of systems
and structures for communication, which can also lead to a lack of trust. Trust, like
co-construction, is very easy to lose and difficult to regain. However, there are
strategies that are possible to overcome barriers. A critical bridge person, who is
able to connect with, relate to, and dialogue amongst all stakeholder groups is
absolutely necessary to overcome these barriers. This person would ideally be
consistent over the life of the partnership or until the partnership has gotten through
the typical stages of altruism and exchange, and have entered mutualism (Baum,
2000) and should be chosen carefully based upon input from all constituent groups.
The critical bridge person is important towards ensuring that there are systems of
representation that include all stakeholder groups. Systems that are based upon a
regular schedule and consistent over time are needed to sustain dialogue among the
groups.
210
Recommendations for UEAT in its Fourth Year and Beyond
Based upon the findings from the Year One and Year Two research studies,
as well as the implications listed previously, the following recommendations are
suggested for the future maintenance of the United Education Action Team
partnership.
1. Revisit and clearly communicate short- and long-term goals for the
partnership and reevaluate these goals on a regular basis. These goals must
also include roles and responsibilities for stakeholders. Representatives from
all stakeholder groups should be involved in this process and must report
back to their own constituent group to ensure that the goals and expectations
are aligned.
2. Change the Memorandum of Understanding so that teachers, classified staff,
and students have voting representation on the UEAT Board of Directors.
The data show a lack of trust resulted from the exclusion of these members,
which is also hindering co-construction and dialogue amongst stakeholder
groups.
3. The partnership needs to create structured systems to ensure regularly
maintained pathways for communication. The data collected by the Year
Two research team demonstrate that systems put in place to ensure dialogue
during Year One of the partnership were eliminated, which severely limited
communication between stakeholder groups. The partnership also needs to
create structured spaces for dialogue, which includes a centralized location in
which all stakeholders can locate meeting times, documents, and meeting
minutes.
4. Community involvement was limited throughout the first three years of the
partnership. The absence of explicit structures for engaging in dialogue with
the community has hindered the partnership’s ability to expand to include the
local feeder schools for Prep High School, which was listed as a goal within
the Business Plan. The partnership needs to assign a steward, which could be
the Executive Director, to create a stronger connection with the community
and increase the visibility of the partnership.
5. Maintain the role of a consistent and stable critical bridge person that is
supported by all stakeholder groups within the partnership. The research
211
demonstrates that when the role of critical bridge person was unfilled, co-
construction, dialogue, and mutual-shared learning were affected.
6. The partnership needs to seek out ways in which it can focus on the needs of
the partnership and move beyond focusing all efforts on the school.
Currently, the partnership has centralized its work on the school. If the
partnership is going to expand to include other schools as well as serve as a
model example of community-school-university partnerships, it must also
emphasize the development of the partnership.
Recommendations for Further Study
The implications of this study yield many opportunities for future research of
the UEAT Partnership. First, it is important to note that the Memorandum of
Understanding for the UEAT Partnership states that the partnership will last for at
least five years. As this is only the third year of the study, further research is
necessary to determine if the partnership is able to accomplish the goals set forth in
the MOU and the Business Plan. Second, the critical bridge person’s role was just
reinstated as a full-time position on the school campus. Further research is deemed
necessary to see if this person is able to help the partnership overcome the barriers
that have heightened in degree while this role was unfulfilled. Third, the partnership
has just been awarded funding on the Ford Foundation Grant that they co-
constructed during the third year. Further research is needed to follow up on the
progress set forth in this grant. Fourth, within the MOU, it states that the UEAT
Partnership will increase to include elementary and middle schools. As this has not
yet taken place, research will be needed to study the effects of the growth of the
partnership. Fifth, the study showed that as the partnership was formalized and
became restricted by legal regulations, there was a diminishment in the involvement
212
of parents and one community-based organization. There was little in the literature
to describe this phenomenon, which merits further research.
The following recommendations are for further study in community, school, and
university partnerships:
Examine long-term changes in teacher practice within the classroom as
teachers engage in community, school, and university partnerships;
Examine the ways in which community, school, and university partnerships
can affect change within teacher education programs that prepare new
teachers to work in urban schools;
Examine the effects of partnerships that seek to bring students’ and their
families’ funds of knowledge into classroom learning;
Identify ways to examine the correlation between heightened student
achievement and a school culture that encourages co-construction among
teachers in processes marked by dialogue and mutual shared learning; and,
Observe to what extent the individual partner organizations in a partnership
change their cultures as they advance toward a culture of co-construction in
the partnership.
213
REFERENCES
Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Constructivism in teacher education: Considerations for
those who would link practice to theory. Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.
Agrawal, A. (2005). Environmentality: Community, intimate government, and the
making of environmental subjects in Kumaon, India. Current Anthropology,
46, 161-190.
Alfinio, F. (2007). Examining disparities in mathematics education: Achievement
gap or opportunity gap? The High School Journal, 91(1), 29-42.
Amit, V. & Rapport, N. (2002). The trouble with community: Anthropological
reflections on movement, identity and collectivity. London, England: Pluto.
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, L. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives.
New York, NY: Longman.
Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students
of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 297-319.
Au, K. H. (2002). Communities of practice: Engagement, imagination, and
alignment in research on teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
53, 222-227.
Auerbach, S. (2004). From moral supporters to struggling advocates:
Reconceptualizing parent involvement through the experience of Latino
families. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Bagley, W. C. (n.d.). The case for essentialism in education. In F. W. Parkay, G.
Hass, & E. J. Anctil (Eds.), Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing
quality educational programs (pp. 32-35). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-
efficacy. Developmental Psychologist, 25, 729-735.
Bankston, C. & Caldas, S. J. (1996). Majority African American schools and social
injustice: The influence of de facto segregation on academic achievement.
Social Forces, 75(2), 535-555.
214
Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., & Tsang, J. (2002). Four motives for community
involvement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 429-445.
Baum, H. S. (2000). Fantasies and realities in university-community partnerships.
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20, 234-246.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of
Educational Research, 71(2), 171-217.
Bennett, C. I. (2002). Enhancing ethnic diversity at a Big Ten university through
Project TEAM: A case study in teacher education. Educational Researcher,
31(2), 21-29.
Benson, L. & Harkavy, I. (2003). The role of the American research university in
advancing system-wide education reform, democratic schooling, and
democracy. In M. M. Brabeck, M. E. Walsh, & R. E. Latta (2003). Meeting
at the hyphen: Schools-universities-communities-professions in collaboration
for student achievement and well being (pp. 94-116). Chicago, IL: National
Society for the Study of Education.
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, 24-45.
Bernstein, B. J. (1963). Plessy v. Ferguson: Conservative sociological jurisprudence.
The Journal of Negro History, 48(3), 196-205.
Bernstein, S. (2007). From California to the nation: Rethinking the history of 20
th
century U.S. civil rights struggles through Mexican American and multiracial
Lens. Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 18, 87-95.
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel &
A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and ideology in education (pp. 487-511). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). In other words: Essays towards a reflective sociology.
Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology.
Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
215
Brantlinger, E., Majd-Jabbari, M., & Guskin, S. L. (1996). Self-interest and liberal
educational discourse: How ideology works for middle-class mothers.
American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 571-597.
Bringle, R. G., Games, R., & Malloy, E. A. (1999). Colleges and universities as
citizens. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2002). Campus-community partnerships: The terms
of engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 503-516.
Bringle, R. G., Officer, S. D. H., Grim, J., & Hatcher, A. (2009). George Washington
Community High School: Analysis of a partnership network. New Directions
for Youth Development, 2009(122), 41-60
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology
of childhood. Child Development, 45(1), 1-5.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development.
American Psychology, 32, 515-531.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of human development: Experiments by
nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In M.
Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (2nd
ed., pp. 37-43). New York, NY: Freeman.
Brow, J. (1990). Notes on community, hegemony, and the uses of the past.
Anthropological Quarterly, 63, 1-5.
Brubacher, J. (1978). On the philosophy of higher education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). The Sputnik era: Why is this educational reform different from
all other reforms? Paper presented at symposium, Reflecting on Sputnik:
Linking the Past, Present, and Future of Educational Reform, 4 October,
Washington, D.C.
California Department of Education. (2009). DataQuest. Retrieved March 1, 2010
from www.dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
216
Carey, K. (2004). The real value of teachers: Using new information about teacher
effectiveness to close the achievement gap. Thinking K-16, 8(1), 3-32.
Carroll, G., LaPoint, V., & Tyler, K. (2001). Co-construction: A facilitator for school
reform in school, community, and university partnerships. The Journal of
Negro Education, 70(1/2), 38-58.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). Constructing outcomes in teacher education: Policy,
practice and pitfalls. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(11).
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94(S), 95-120.
Collier, V. P. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school. Directions in
Language & Education, 1(4), 1-10.
Collins, D. E., Weinbaum, A. T., Ramon, G., & Vaughan, D. (2009). Laying the
groundwork: The constant gardening of community-university-school
partnerships for postsecondary access and success. Journal of Hispanic
Higher Education, 8(4), 394-417.
Corcoran, T, & Silander, M. (2009). Instruction in high schools: The evidence and
the challenge. The Future of Children, 19(1), 157-183.
Creswell, J. W. (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.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).
Darling-Hammond, L., Loewenberg-Ball, D. (1999). Teaching for high standards:
What policymakers need to know and be able to do. In J. B. Hunt (Ed.),
Implementing academic standards: Papers commissioned by the National
Education Goals Panel (pp.D1-D39). Darby, PA: Diane Pub Co.
Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Vasquez Heilig, J. (2005).
Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, teach
for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
13(42), 1-28.
217
Delgado Bernal, D. (2002). Critical race theory, LatCrit theory and critical race-
gendered epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and
creators of knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 105-126.
Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280-298.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New
York, NY: New Press.
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York, NY: Henry Holt &
Company.
Dewey, J. (1937). Education and social change. Bulletin of the American Association
of University Professors, 23(6), 472-474.
Durkin, K. (1995). Developmental social psychology: From infancy to old age.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Eisner, E. W. (2003). Questionable assumptions about schooling. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 84(9), 648-657.
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/Family/Community partnerships: Caring for the
children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712.
Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing
educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators
for school, family, and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of
Education, 81(2), 81-120.
Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2006). Moving forward: Ideas for research on
school, family, and community partnerships. In SAGE Handbook for
Research in Education: Engaging Ideas and Enriching Inquiry (pp. 117-138).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Firestone, W., & Fisler, J. (2002). Politics, community, and leadership in a school-
university partnership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(4), 449-
493.
Foley, N. (2005). Over the rainbow: Hernandez v. Texas, Brown v. Board of
Education, and black v. brown. Chicano-Latino Law Review, 25, 139-152.
218
Freire, P. (2009). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Gallego, M. (2001). Is experience the best teacher? The potential of coupling
classroom and community-based field experiences. Journal of Teacher
Education, 52(4), 312-325.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research.
Educational Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.
Gold, A. G. (2005). Conceptualizing community: Anthropological reflections.
Syracuse, NY: Collaborative Initiative for Research Ethics in Environmental
Health.
González, N., Moll, L. C., Tenery, M. F., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzales, R., &
Amanti, C. (1995). Funds of knowledge for teaching in Latino households.
Urban Education, 29(4), 443-470.
Green, D. O., (2004). Affirmative action, conflict, and the University of Michigan:
An insider’s perspective. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the
American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Gutierrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space.
Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 148–164.
Hahn, A., with Coonerty, C., & Peaslee, L. (2003). Colleges and universities as
economic anchors: Profiles of promising practices. Waltham, MA: Brandeis
University, Heller Graduate School of Social Policy and Management,
Institute for Sustainable Development/Center for Youth and Communities
and POLICYLINK.
Harkavy, I., & Hartley, M. (2009). University-school-community partnerships for
youth development and democratic renewal. New Directions for Youth
Development, 122, 7-18.
Haycock, L. (1998). Good teaching matters… a lot. Thinking K-16, 3(2), 3-14.
Heath, S. B., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). A child resource policy: Moving beyond
dependence on school and family. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 576-580.
Hess, F. M. (1998). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
219
Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children’s
academic achievement: Pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 13(4), 161-164.
Hollins, E. R., & Torres Guzman, M. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for
diverse populations. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.) Studying
teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on research and teacher
education (pp. 477-548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Hutchins, R. M. (n.d.). The organization and subject-matter of general education. In
F. W. Parkay, G. Hass, & E. J. Anctil (Eds.) Curriculum leadership:
Readings for developing quality educational programs (pp. 29-32). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Jerald, C. D. (2002). All Talk, No Action: Putting an End to Out-of-Field Teaching.
Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
Johnston-Parsons, M. (1997). Contradictions in collaboration: New thinking on
school/university partnerships. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Kezar, A. (2007). A tale of two cultures: Schools and universities in partnership for
school reform and student success. Journal of Metropolitan Universities,
18(4), 28-47.
Kilpatrick, W. H. (n.d.). The case for progressivism in education. In F. W. Parkay, G.
Hass, & E. J. Anctil (Eds.) Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing
quality educational programs (pp. 36-39). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kirschner, B. W., Dickinson, R., & Blosser, C. (1996). From cooperation to
collaboration: The changing culture of a school/university partnership.
Theory into Practice, 35(3), 205-213.
Knight, M. G., Norton, N. E. L., Bentley, C. C., & Dixon, I. R. (2004). The power of
Black and Latina/o counterstories: Urban families and college-going
processes. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(1), 99-120.
Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in
America. New York, NY: Crown Publishing.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the educational debt:
Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7),
3-12.
220
Lareau, A. (2001). Linking Bourdieu’s concept of capital to the broader field: The
case of family-school relationships. In B. J. Biddle (Ed.), Social class,
poverty, and education: Policy and practice (pp.77-100). New York, NY:
Routledge/Falmer.
Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion:
Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of
Education, 72, 37-53.
Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3,
149-164.
Lee, C. D. (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African
American high school students skills in literary interpretation. Reading
Research Quarterly, 30(4), 608-630.
Lee, J., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the
achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational
Research Journal, 43(2), 193-218.
Lemma, P., Ferrara, M., & Leone, L. (1998). Learnings from sharing our cultures:
Stories from school-university partners. Action in Teacher Education, 19(4),
1-13.
London, C. (1988). A Piagetian constructivist perspective on curriculum
development. Reading Improvement, 27, 82-95.
Lopez, G. (2003). Parental involvement as racialized performance. In G. Lopez & L.
Parker (Eds.), Interrogating racism in qualitative research methodology (pp.
71-95). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Loughran, J. (2007). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding
teaching and learning about teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.
Maloch, B., Flint, A. S., Eldridge, D., Harmon, J., Loven, R., Fine, J. C., et al.
(2003). Understandings, beliefs, and reported decision making of first-year
teachers from different reading teacher preparation programs. The
Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 431-457.
Marsh, J. (2006). Popular culture in the literacy curriculum: A Bourdieuan analysis.
Reading Research Quarterly, 41(2), 160-174.
221
Maurrasse, D. J. (2001). Beyond the campus: How colleges and universities form
partnerships with their communities. New York, NY: Routledge.
Maurrasse, D. J. (2002). Higher education-community partnerships: Assessing
progress in the field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 131-213.
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), 173-184.
McGinnis, M. V., House, F., & Jordan, W. (1999). Bioregional restoration: Re-
establishing an ecology of shared identity. In Michael Vincent McGinnis
(Ed.), Bioregionalism (pp. 205-222). New York, NY: Routledge.
McNamee, S. J., Miller, R. K. (2004). The meritocracy myth. Sociation Today, 2(1),
1-12.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, P. M. & Hafner, M. M. (2008). Moving toward dialogical collaboration: A
critical examination of a university school community partnership.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 66-110.
Moll, L. C., 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.
Montoya, M. E. (2001). A brief history of Chicana/o school segregation: One
rationale for affirmative action. Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 2(2), 159-
172.
Moreillon, J. (2007). Two heads are better than one: The factors influencing
preservice classroom teachers' understanding and practice of classroom-
library collaboration. Into the Center of the Curriculum: Conference
Proceedings of the Treasure Mountain Research Retreat #13, Reno, NV.
Spring, TX: LMC Source.
Morris, J. (1999). A pillar of strength: An African-American school’s communal
bonds with families and community since Brown. Urban Education, 33(5),
584-605.
222
Morrison, T. (1984). Rootedness: The ancestor as foundation. In M. Evans (Ed.),
Black women writers (1950-1980): A critical evaluation (pp. 339-345). New
York, NY: Doubleday.
Murtadha-Watts, K. (1998). Teacher education in urban school-based, multiagency
collaboratives. Urban Education, 32(5), 616-631.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (April 1983). A nation at Risk:
The imperative for educational reform. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from
www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters
most: Teaching for America’s future. New York, NY: Author.
National Governors’ Association. (2005). Closing the achievement gap. Retrieved
April 14, 2010, from http://www.subnet.nga.org/educlear/achievement/
Nettles, S. M. (1991). Community involvement and disadvantaged students: A
review. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 379-406.
Nichols, D. (1990). University-Community relations. Springfield, IL: Charles C
Thomas.
Oakes, J., Franke, M.L., Quartz, K.H., & Rogers, J. (2002). Research for high-
quality urban teaching: defining it, developing it, assessing it. Journal of
Teacher Education, 53(3), 228-234.
Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New
Haven, CT: Yale Press.
Oakes, J., & Rogers, J. (2007). Radical change through radical means: Learning
power. Journal of Educational Change, 8(3), 193-206.
Oberst, P. (1973). The strange career of Plessy v. Ferguson. Arizona Law Review, 15,
389-418.
O’Conner, C. (2002). Black women beating the odds from one generation to the
next: How the changing dynamics of constraint and opportunity affect the
process of educational resilience. American Educational Research Journal,
39(4), 855-903.
Orfield, G., & Yun, J. T. (1999). Resegregation in American schools. Cambridge,
MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.
223
Penlington, C. (2008). Dialogue as a catalyst for teacher change: A conceptual
analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of
Research and Studies, 24(5), 1304-1316.
Peske, H., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority
students are shortchanged on teacher quality. A report and recommendations
by the Education Trust. Education Trust, 1-18.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of
intellectual development. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Reese, S. (2004). The highly qualified teacher under NCLB. Techniques: Connecting
Education & Careers, 79(8), 33-35.
Rochmes, D. A. (2007). Blinded by the white: Latino school desegregation and the
insidious allure of whiteness. Texas Hispanic Journal of Law and Policy, 13,
7-22.
Rousseau, S. (2007). Educational reform: Toward a K-16 framework. Journal of
Metropolitan Universities, 18(4), 48-66.
Sanders, M. G. (2001). The role of “community” in comprehensive school, family,
and community partnership programs. The Elementary School Journal,
102(1), 19-34.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119.
Schutz, A. (2006). Home is a prison in the global city: The tragic failure of school-
based community engagement strategies. Review of Educational Research,
76(4), 691-743.
Sleeter, C. E. (2000-2001). Epistemological diversity in research on preservice
teacher preparation for historically underserved children. Review of Research
in Education, 25, 209-250.
Smitherman, G. (1998). Word from the hood: The lexicon of African-American
vernacular English. In S. S. Mufwene, J.R. Rickford, G. Baily, & J. Baugh
(Eds.), African American English: Structure, history and use (pp. 203-225).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Sorenson, D. (1998). School-university partnerships: Collaboration among
autonomous cultures. St. Louis, MO: Annual Meeting of the University
Council for Educational Administration.
224
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational
Review, 67(1), 1-40.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin
support networks of US-Mexican youth. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child
left behind. Retrieved February 11, 2010, from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/white_papers/WP138/WP138.pdf.
Stevenson, B. (1996). Life in Black and White: Family and community in the slave
south. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Swanson, C.B. (2008). Cities in crisis: A special analytic report on high school
graduation. Bethesda, MA: Editorial Projects in Education Research Center.
www.americaspromise.org/uploadedFiles/AmericasPromiseAlliance/Dropout
_Crisis/SWANSONCitiesInCrisis040108.pdf
Thompson, G. L., Warren, S., & Carter, L. (2004). It’s not my fault: Predicting high
school teachers who blame parents and students for students' low
achievement. High School Journal, 87(3), 5-15.
Toll, C. A., Nierstheimer, S. L., Lenski, S. L., & Kolloff, P. B. (2004). Washing our
students clean: Internal conflicts in response to teacher’s beliefs and
practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(2), 164-176.
Villenas, S. & Moreno, M. (2001). To valerse por si misma between race, capitalism,
and patriarchy: Latina mother-daughter pedagogies in North Carolina.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(3), 671-687.
Warburton, E. & Torff, B. (2005). The effects of perceived learner advantages on
teacher’s beliefs about critical thinking activities. Journal of Teacher
Education, 56, 24-33.
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into
discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, N.J.: Education Testing Service.
225
White, W. E., Van Scotter, R., Haroonian, M. H., & Davis, J. E. (n.d.). Democracy at
risk. In F. W. Parkay, G. Hass, & E. J. Anctil (Eds.) Curriculum leadership:
Readings for developing quality educational programs (pp. 25-29). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research
on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on
inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 130-178.
Williams, R. (1976). Keywords. London: Fontana Press.
Wilson, E. K., Readence, J. E. (1993). Preservice elementary teachers’ perspectives
and practice of social studies: the influence of methods instruction and the
cooperating teacher. Journal of Research and Development in Education,
26(4), 222-231.
Wimpey, J. A. (1959). After one hundred years: Horace Mann’s influence in today’s
schools. The Phi Delta Kappan, 40(5), 206-208.
Winerman, L. (2004). Studying the opportunity gap. Monitor, 35(8), 64.
Yeo, F. (1997). Teacher preparation and inner-city schools: Sustaining educational
failure. The Urban Review, 29(2), 127-143.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical theory discussion of
community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.
Zetlin, A. G. & Macleod, E. (1995). A school-university partnership working toward
the restructure of an urban school and community. Education and Urban
Society, 27(4), 411-420.
226
APPENDIX A
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is
a conversation between the two of us about your experience with the United
Education Action Team?
1. What is your position and role at Prep High School?
2. How many years have you been an administrator at Prep High School?
3. What has been your experience working with community-based or university
partnerships, especially those focused on school reform?
4. How much do you know about the United Education Action Team
partnership? Do you know its goals?
5. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings with the United Education Action Team or their
representatives?
6. Describe the relationship between parents at Prep high School and the United
Education Action Team? What structures have been created to ensure their
engagement?
7. Do you see the members of the United Education Action Team working
together as one organization? How?
8. I’m going to read to you the definition of co-construction. A process in
which two or more parties engage in an interactive and equitable
relationship to create shared understanding and agreed upon outcomes.
227
After hearing it, please explain to what extent you believe the partnership has
followed a process of co-construction.
9. Provide some examples that there is or is not trust amongst the stakeholders
in the partnership?
10. In what ways has the partnership influenced the culture of the school?
11. Please describe how the school has changed, under the influence of the
partnership, in the way it operates and in the kinds of relationships that have
been developed between students and adults in the school? Have they been
positive, negative or mixed? What are the potential benefits of those changes
(to the school)?
12. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United
Education Action Team? Does the partnership treat the school as a co-
constructor or equal decision maker in its attempt to transform the school?
13. To what degree do you think the network partnership can play a role in
providing a greater support to the quality of teaching and learning at Prep?
Do you have recommendations?
14. To what extent has the partnership impacted teaching and learning at Prep
High School?
15. In what ways have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Prep High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
do you recommend to increase participation?
228
16. In what ways has the classified staff been involved in the work of the
partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the barriers?
What do you recommend to increase participation?
17. In what ways have parents been involved in the partnership to improve Prep
High School? What have been the barriers? What do you recommend to
increase participation?
18. In what ways have the students’ been involved and had participation in the
work of the partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the
barriers? What do you recommend to increase participation?
19. How would you describe United Education Action Team in terms of
characteristic and attributes? What other characteristic/attributes can make it
effective?
20. What challenges have limited or prevented stakeholders from being a part of
the process? (Supplementary Question)
21. Research shows that most partnerships do not last longer than five years.
What do you think is the most significant factor in the failing of these
partnerships? How can the network partners avoid these pitfalls?
22. Describe any role the partnership has played in adding or enhancing
programs or curriculum at Prep High School that prepares students for
postsecondary options/pathways? Please be specific or give examples. What
further actions can the partnership take?
229
23. What measures have been taken, by the partnership, to improve student
achievement? Please describe to the extent to which each subgroup has been
affected by these measures?
24. What types of programs does the partnership offer to support African
American students in improving academically?
25. Are you aware of religious institutions in the neighborhood that offer
academic programs to support African American children?
26. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.
230
APPENDIX B
TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is
a conversation between the two of us about your experience with the United
Education Action Team.
1. What is your position and role at the Prep High School? What do you teach?
2. In which small learning community do you teach?
3. How many years have you been a teacher at Prep High School?
4. What has been your experience working with community-based or university
partnerships, especially those focused on school reform? How much to you
know about the United Education Action Team partnership? What are its
goals?
5. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings involving the United Education Action Team or their
representatives?
6. Describe the relationship between parents (and teachers) at Prep High
School and the United Education Action Team? What structures have been
created to ensure their engagement?
7. Do you see the members of the United Education Action Team working
together as one organization? How?
8. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United
Education Action Team?
231
9. I’m going to read to you the definition of co-construction. A process in
which two or more parties engage in an interactive and equitable
relationship to create shared understanding and agreed upon outcomes.
After hearing it, please explain to what extent you believe the partnership has
followed a process of co-construction.
10. Provide some examples that there is or is not trust amongst the stakeholders
in the partnership.
11. In what ways has the partnership influenced the culture of the school?
12. Please describe how the school has changed, under the influence of the
partnership, in the way it operates and in the kinds of relationships that have
been developed between students and adults in the school? Have they been
positive, negative or mixed? What are the potential benefits of those changes
(to the school)?
13. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United
Education Action Team? Does the partnership treat the school as a co-
constructor or equal decision maker in its attempt to transform the school?
14. To what degree do you think the network partnership can play a role in
providing a greater support to the quality of teaching and learning at Prep?
Do you have recommendations?
15. To what extent has the partnership impacted teaching and learning at Prep
High School?
232
16. In what ways have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Prep High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
do you recommend to increase participation?
17. In what ways has the classified staff been involved in the work of the
partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the barriers?
What do you recommend to increase participation?
18. In what ways have parents been involved in the partnership to improve Prep
High School? What have been the barriers? What do you recommend to
increase participation?
19. In what ways have the students’ been involved and had participation in the
work of the partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the
barriers? What do you recommend to increase participation?
20. How would you describe United Education Action Team in terms of
characteristics and attributes? What other characteristic/attributes can make
it effective?
21. What challenges have limited or prevented stakeholders from being a part of
the process? (Supplementary Question)
22. Research shows that most partnerships do not last longer than five years.
What do you think is the most significant factor in the failing of these
partnerships? How can the network partners avoid these pitfalls?
23. Describe any role the partnership has played in adding or enhancing
programs or curriculum at Prep High School that prepares students for
233
postsecondary options/pathways? Please be specific or give examples. What
further actions can the partnership take?
24. What measures have been taken, by the partnership, to improve student
achievement? Please describe to the extent to which each subgroup has been
affected by these measures?
25. What types of programs are offered and implemented in the classroom to
support the academic improvement of African American students?
26. Are you aware of religious institutions in the neighborhood that offer
academic programs to support African American children?
27. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.
234
APPENDIX C
CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is
a conversation between the two of us about your experience with the United
Education Action Team.
1. What is your position and role at the Prep High School?
2. How many years have you been employed at Prep High School?
3. How many years have you worked as a school employee (not specifically
with Prep High School)? What are some of the other schools/districts you
have been employed in?
4. What has been your experience working with community-based or university
partnerships, especially those focused on school reform? How much to you
know about the United Education Action Team partnership? What are its
goals?
5. Describe the relationship between parents (and classified staff) at Prep High
School and the United Education Action Team?
6. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings involving the United Education Action Team or their
representatives? What structures have been created here at the school to
include your participation?
7. Do you see the members of the United Education Action Team working
together as one organization? How?
235
8. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United
Education Action Team?
9. I’m going to read to you the definition of co-construction. A process in
which two or more parties engage in an interactive and equitable
relationship to create shared understanding and agreed upon outcomes.
After hearing it, please explain to what extent you believe the partnership has
followed a process of co-construction.
10. Provide some examples that there is or is not trust amongst the stakeholders
in the partnership.
11. In what ways has the partnership influenced the culture of the school?
12. Please describe how the school has changed, under the influence of the
partnership, in the way it operates and in the kinds of relationships that have
been developed between students and adults in the school? Have they been
positive, negative or mixed? What are the potential benefits of those changes
(to the school)?
13. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United
Education Action Team? Does the partnership treat the school as a co-
constructor or equal decision maker in its attempt to transform the school?
14. To what degree do you think the network partnership can play a role in
providing a greater support to the quality of teaching and learning at Prep?
Do you have recommendations?
236
15. To what extent has the partnership impacted teaching and learning at Prep
High School?
16. In what ways have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Prep High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
do you recommend to increase participation?
17. In what ways has the classified staff been involved in the work of the
partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the barriers?
What do you recommend to increase participation?
18. In what ways have parents been involved in the partnership to improve Prep
High School? What have been the barriers? What do you recommend to
increase participation?
19. In what ways have the students’ been involved and had participation in the
work of the partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the
barriers? What do you recommend to increase participation?
20. How would you describe United Education Action Team in terms of
characteristics and attributes? What other characteristic/attributes can make
it effective?
21. What challenges have limited or prevented stakeholders from being a part of
the process? (Supplementary Question)
22. Research shows that most partnerships do not last longer than five years.
What do you think is the most significant factor in the failing of these
partnerships? How can the network partners avoid these pitfalls?
237
23. Describe any role the partnership has played in adding or enhancing
programs or curriculum at Prep High School that prepares students for
postsecondary options/pathways? Please be specific or give examples. What
further actions can the partnership take?
24. What measures have been taken, by the partnership, to improve student
achievement? Please describe to the extent to which each subgroup has been
affected by these measures?
25. What types of programs are offered and implemented in the classroom to
support the academic improvement of African American students?
26. Are you aware of religious institutions in the neighborhood that offer
academic programs to support African American children?
27. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.
238
APPENDIX D
PARENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Introduction: Although I have a set of questions here, I may not ask them all. This is
a conversation between the two of us about your experience with the United
Education Action Team.
1. How are you affiliated with Prep High school? How many years have you
been affiliated with the school? How many more years do you expect to be a
part of the Prep High School community?
2. Have your children attended any other schools within [unnamed district]?
What are those schools?
3. Do you live in the Prep High School attendance area?
4. Are your children a part of the home school or one of the magnet programs at
Prep (Gifted Magnet or Teacher Transition Magnet)?
5. Have your children attended any schools outside of the district?
6. How would you compare your experience as a parent here at Prep with your
experience as a parent in any other school?
7. How would you compare your student’s experience here at Prep with your
child’s experience in other schools?
8. Do you see the members of the United Education Action Team working
together as one organization? How?
9. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings with the United Education Action Team or their
representatives? How has your role as a parent at Prep High School changed
239
since the United Education Action Team has become the network partner?
Are you more involved or less involved?
10. What do you think is the extent of parent involvement at Prep High School?
How have parents been involved in the school in the past?
11. What are your recommendations for increased parent involvement at Prep?
What roles would you like to see parents play at the school?
12. I’m going to read to you the definition of co-construction. A process in
which two or more parties engage in an interactive and equitable
relationship to create shared understanding and agreed upon outcomes.
After hearing it, please explain to what extent you believe the partnership has
followed a process of co-construction.
13. Provide some examples that there is or is not trust amongst the stakeholders
in the partnership.
14. In what ways has the partnership influenced the culture of the school?
15. Please describe how the school has changed, under the influence of the
partnership, in the way it operates and in the kinds of relationships that have
been developed between students and adults in the school? Have they been
positive, negative or mixed? What are the potential benefits of those changes
(to the school)?
16. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United
Education Action Team? Does the partnership treat the school as a co-
constructor or equal decision maker in its attempt to transform the school?
240
17. To what degree do you think the network partnership can play a role in
providing a greater support to the quality of teaching and learning at Prep?
Do you have recommendations?
18. To what extent has the partnership impacted teaching and learning at Prep
High School?
19. In what ways have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Prep High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
do you recommend to increase participation?
20. In what ways has the classified staff been involved in the work of the
partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the barriers?
What do you recommend to increase participation?
21. In what ways have parents been involved in the partnership to improve Prep
High School? What have been the barriers? What do you recommend to
increase participation?
22. In what ways have the students’ been involved and had participation in the
work of the partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the
barriers? What do you recommend to increase participation?
23. How would you describe United Education Action Team in terms of
characteristics and attributes? What other characteristic/attributes can make
it effective?
24. What challenges have limited or prevented stakeholders from being a part of
the process? (Supplementary Question)
241
25. Research shows that most partnerships do not last longer than five years.
What do you think is the most significant factor in the failing of these
partnerships? How can the network partners avoid these pitfalls?
26. Describe any role the partnership has played in adding or enhancing
programs or curriculum at Prep High School that prepares students for
postsecondary options/pathways? Please be specific or give examples. What
further actions can the partnership take?
27. What measures have been taken, by the partnership, to improve student
achievement? Please describe to the extent to which each subgroup has been
affected by these measures?
28. Are you aware of programs offered to support your child’s academic success?
29. Are you or your child(ren) involved in obtaining academic support from
community based organizations? If so, what are they?
30. Does your child participate in any church sponsored programs that support
academic achievement?
31. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.
242
APPENDIX E
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATION INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
1. What is your position and role in the community?
2. How long have you been a partner with Prep High School and/or the
community based organization? Why did you decide to become a partner
with the school?
3. Have you previously been involved with other community organizations?
4. How and why did you decide which organizations you would join with to
form the United Education Action Team? Describe how your relationship has
developed over the length of your partnership. Describe some of the
successes and challenges and what you have learned from both of them.
5. What do you think are the challenges and strengths of Prep High School?
(supplemental question)
6. What involvement did you have with Prep High School prior to joining the
United Education Action Team?
7. Do you see the members of the United Education Action Team working
together as one organization? How?
8. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings with the United Education Action Team or their
representatives? How has your role as a parent at Prep High School changed
since the United Education Action Team has become the network partner?
Are you more involved or less involved?
243
9. What do you think is the extent of parent involvement at Prep High School?
How have parents been involved in the school in the past?
10. What are your recommendations for increased parent involvement at Prep?
What roles would you like to see parents play at the school?
11. I’m going to read to you the definition of co-construction. A process in
which two or more parties engage in an interactive and equitable
relationship to create shared understanding and agreed upon outcomes.
After hearing it, please explain to what extent you believe the partnership has
followed a process of co-construction.
12. Provide some examples that there is or is not trust amongst the stakeholders
in the partnership.
13. In what ways has the partnership influenced the culture of the school?
14. Please describe how the school has changed, under the influence of the
partnership, in the way it operates and in the kinds of relationships that have
been developed between students and adults in the school? Have they been
positive, negative or mixed? What are the potential benefits of those changes
(to the school)?
15. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United
Education Action Team? Does the partnership treat the school as a co-
constructor or equal decision maker in its attempt to transform the school?
244
16. To what degree do you think the network partnership can play a role in
providing a greater support to the quality of teaching and learning at Prep?
Do you have recommendations?
17. To what extent has the partnership impacted teaching and learning at Prep
High School?
18. In what ways have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Prep High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
do you recommend to increase participation?
19. In what ways has the classified staff been involved in the work of the
partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the barriers?
What do you recommend to increase participation?
20. In what ways have parents been involved in the partnership to improve Prep
High School? What have been the barriers? What do you recommend to
increase participation?
21. In what ways have the students’ been involved and had participation in the
work of the partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the
barriers? What do you recommend to increase participation?
22. How would you describe United Education Action Team in terms of
characteristics and attributes? What other characteristic/attributes can make
it effective?
23. What challenges have limited or prevented stakeholders from being a part of
the process? (Supplementary Question)
245
24. Research shows that most partnerships do not last longer than five years.
What do you think is the most significant factor in the failing of these
partnerships? How can the network partners avoid these pitfalls?
25. Describe any role the partnership has played in adding or enhancing
programs or curriculum at Prep High School that prepares students for
postsecondary options/pathways? Please be specific or give examples. What
further actions can the partnership take?
26. What measures have been taken, by the partnership, to improve student
achievement? Please describe to the extent to which each subgroup has been
affected by these measures?
27. What types of programs have you established specifically for the academic
success of African American students?
28. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.
246
APPENDIX F
UNIVERSITY STAKEHOLDER PROTOCOL
1. What is your position and role in the university? How long have you been in
that position/role?
2. What do you know about the United Education Action Team and Prep High
School?
3. What other partnerships with K-12 schools have you been involved with?
4. Do you see the members of the United Education Action Team working
together as one organization? How?
5. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in
any meetings with the United Education Action Team or their
representatives? How has your role as a parent at Prep High School changed
since the United Education Action Team has become the network partner?
Are you more involved or less involved?
6. Based on your observations, what do you think is the extent of parent
involvement at Prep High School? How have parents been involved in the
school in the past?
7. What are your recommendations for increased parent involvement at Prep?
What roles would you like to see parents play at the school?
8. I’m going to read to you the definition of co-construction. A process in
which two or more parties engage in an interactive and equitable
relationship to create shared understanding and agreed upon outcomes.
247
After hearing it, please explain to what extent you believe the partnership has
followed a process of co-construction.
9. Provide some examples that there is or is not trust amongst the stakeholders
in the partnership.
10. In what ways has the partnership influenced the culture of the school?
11. Please describe how the school has changed, under the influence of the
partnership, in the way it operates and in the kinds of relationships that have
been developed between students and adults in the school? Have they been
positive, negative or mixed? What are the potential benefits of those changes
(to the school)?
12. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United
Education Action Team? Does the partnership treat the school as a co-
constructor or equal decision maker in its attempt to transform the school?
13. To what degree do you think the network partnership can play a role in
providing a greater support to the quality of teaching and learning at Prep?
Do you have recommendations?
14. To what extent has the partnership impacted teaching and learning at Prep
High School?
15. In what ways have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve
Prep High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What
do you recommend to increase participation?
248
16. In what ways has the classified staff been involved in the work of the
partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the barriers?
What do you recommend to increase participation?
17. In what ways have parents been involved in the partnership to improve Prep
High School? What have been the barriers? What do you recommend to
increase participation?
18. In what ways have the students’ been involved and had participation in the
work of the partnership to improve Prep High School? What have been the
barriers? What do you recommend to increase participation?
19. How would you describe United Education Action Team in terms of
characteristics and attributes? What other characteristic/attributes can make
it effective?
20. What challenges have limited or prevented stakeholders from being a part of
the process? (Supplementary Question)
21. Research shows that most partnerships do not last longer than five years.
What do you think is the most significant factor in the failing of these
partnerships? How can the network partners avoid these pitfalls?
22. Describe any role the partnership has played in adding or enhancing
programs or curriculum at Prep High School that prepares students for
postsecondary options/pathways? Please be specific or give examples. What
further actions can the partnership take?
249
23. What measures have been taken, by the partnership, to improve student
achievement? Please describe to the extent to which each subgroup has been
affected by these measures?
24. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.
Additional Questions That May Be Useful…
25. Describe the meetings in which you have been involved with Prep High
School, the United Education Action Team, and other partners. In your
opinion, did the participants have equal voices in the discussions about
transforming Prep High School?
26. How receptive have you observed the school staff, teachers, and
administration to be about forming a partnership?
27. Have you ever visited Prep High School? How long ago? Describe your
impressions?
28. Have you visited Prep High School since the United Education Action Team
was established?
29. To what extent have you been asked to participate or participated in Prep
High School?
30. What contribution do you think Westside University can make to the work of
the United Education Action Team to transform Prep High School?
31. What personal or professional contributions have you made or intend to make
to the work of the United Education Action Team?
250
32. What are some strategies that the partnership leaders can employ to dispel the
perception or reality that the university expects to hold greater decision-
making power in the partnership?
33. What do you know about the goals of the United Education Action Team?
34. How do you see this partnership changing or affecting Westside University?
35. What elements of the professional development school model can the
partnership 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?
36. employ that, you believe, will increase student achievement?
37. What role can the community play in determining how students are taught to
effect positive change at Prep High School?
38. Was there a point at which you felt that your role was dominant in the
partnership? When did you feel that your role was an equal participant of the
partnership?
39. In what ways do you feel the United Education Action Team has benefited
the school or has the potential to benefit the school?
251
APPENDIX G
COMMUNITY MEMBER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
1. How long have you lived in the Prep High School community?
2. What are your perceptions of Prep High School, specifically in regards to their
academics and ability to prepare students for post secondary education?
3. What do you think are the challenges and strengths of Prep High School? What
recommendations would you make to improve the school?
4. What involvement do you have with Prep High School?
5. What has been your experience working with community-based or university
partnerships, especially those focused on school reform? How much to you know
about the United Education Action Team partnership? What are its goals?
6. To what extent have you been asked to participate, or have participated in any
meetings with the United Education Action Team or their representatives? How
has your role as a community member at Prep High School changed since the
United Education Action Team has become the network partner? Are you more
involved or less involved?
7. Do you see the members of the United Education Action Team working together
as one organization? How?
8. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United Education
Action Team?
9. I’m going to read to you the definition of co-construction. A process in which
two or more parties engage in an interactive and equitable relationship to
252
create shared understanding and agreed upon outcomes. After hearing it,
please explain to what extent you believe the partnership has followed a process
of co-construction.
10. Provide some examples that there is or is not trust amongst the stakeholders in
the partnership.
11. In what ways has the partnership influenced the culture of the school?
12. Please describe how the school has changed, under the influence of the
partnership, in the way it operates and in the kinds of relationships that have been
developed between students and adults in the school? Have they been positive,
negative or mixed? What are the potential benefits of those changes (to the
school)?
13. To what degree do you feel the school is an equal partner in the United Education
Action Team? Does the partnership treat the school as a co-constructor or equal
decision maker in its attempt to transform the school?
14. To what degree do you think the network partnership can play a role in providing
a greater support to the quality of teaching and learning at Prep? Do you have
recommendations?
15. To what extent has the partnership impacted teaching and learning at Prep High
School?
16. In what ways have teachers been in the work of the partnership to improve Prep
High School? What have been the barriers to their participation? What do you
recommend to increase participation?
253
17. How would you describe United Education Action Team in terms of
characteristics and attributes? What other characteristic/attributes can make it
effective?
18. What challenges have limited or prevented stakeholders (community members)
from being a part of the process? (Supplementary Question)
19. Please share any comments that my questions did not allow you to make.
254
APPENDIX H
SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Purpose of Activity
Date:
Location:
Participants:
I.e., community members,
school staff, faculty,
Students, administration,
parents, university
representatives or others.
Describe the physical
setting, i.e., facility, well
equipped, location.
Describe the climate,
dynamics, i.e., power
relationships, dominant
talkers, respectful
listening, roles played by
different parties or
stakeholders.
Evidence of barriers in
communication/interaction,
i.e. power, hierarchical
thinking, cultural logics.
Strategies to promote a
dialogic culture of co-
constructed knowledge, i.e.,
trust, respect, humility,
reciprocity.
255
APPENDIX I
MEETING OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Purpose of Activity
Date:
Location:
Participants:
I.e., community members,
school staff, faculty,
Students, administration,
parents, university
representatives or others.
Describe the physical
setting, i.e., facility, well
equipped, location.
Describe the climate,
dynamics, i.e., power
relationships, dominant
talkers, respectful
listening, roles played by
different parties or
stakeholders.
Evidence of barriers in
communication/interaction,
i.e. power, hierarchical
thinking, cultural logics
Strategies to promote a
dialogic culture of co-
constructed knowledge,
i.e., trust, respect, humility,
reciprocity.
256
APPENDIX J
EXAMINED ARTIFACTS PROTOCOL
Document What questions the
documents will
answer?
Research
Question
Collected
United Education Action
Team
Meeting
agendas/minutes/
sign-in sheets
Memorandum of
Understanding
Alliance Business
Plan
Partnership Fact
Sheet
School
CST Data
Event Calendars
257
APPENDIX K
LIST OF PSEUDONYMS
Pseudonym Title
The United Education Action
Team
Case Study Partnership
City Connections Community-based organization partner
Grizzly United Community-based organization partner
Westside University University partner
Prep High School School partner
Friends of Prep Committee comprised of parents, teachers, and
classified staff members at Prep High School
University
Dr. Chino Westside University
Dr. Truman Westside University
Dr. Grupe Westside University
Dr. Kane Westside University
Dr. Ballan Westside University
Dr. Key Westside University
Community-based
organization
Ms. Carriage City Connections
Mr. Ali City Connections
Ms. Green City Connections
Mr. Al Grizzly United
Dr. Singh Grizzly United
Community
Mr. Gutter Community Member at Large
Mr. Card Community Member at Large
Mr. Ocean Community Member at Large
258
Parents
Mr. Card Parent
Ms. Cosby Parent
Mr. Gonzalez Parent
Mr. Saise Parent
Ms. Gramercy Parent
School
Mr. Leblue Teacher
Ms. Blumsley School Affiliate
Mr. Diamond Teacher
Ms. Piedmont Faculty
Ms. Pistachew School Counselor
Ms. Garcia Teacher
Mr. Johnson School Faculty
Ms. Shepard Classified Staff
Mr. Carolina Classified Staff
Dr. Jones School Administrator
Ms. O’Neal School Administrator
Ms. Bryant School Administrator
259
APPENDIX L
SAMPLE FROM THE CODEBOOK
Dr. Kane B\BHrch Now there are still political things that I
don’t think it has anything to do with the
co-construction within the school, though,
what’s going on. I mean the political
things going on in board meetings now.
Dr. Kane B\BHrch I really don’t, because the district is going
through changes. You’ve got a new
superintendent coming in. Let’s see, since
I’ve been here, _____ superintendent, and
it’s our third in less than two years. You
know, you can’t have that instability.
Dr. Kane B\BHrch We’ve got a board election coming up in
March for members so that’s going to cause
instability.
Dr. Kane B\BHrch We might have indicators that it’s working
well, but it might be that the district says,
“No. We’re not wanted there anymore.”
Ms. O’Neal B\BHrch I have not been here long enough (just
started this year at Prep). From what I have
seen there has not been enough interaction
between GCEP and the Crenshaw staff
Ms. O’Neal B\BHrch Another challenge is the pre-existing
culture at Prep. Many of the groups come
with good intentions but are not aware or
recognize what effective changes need to
be made to move Prep forward and to
provide an effective educational
environment. These groups or persons
want to keep everything status quo so that
they can maintain their control or power.
They do not know that thing can be better.
Dr. Jones B\BHrch Interviewer: To what degree do you feel
that the school is an equal partner in
UEAT?
Dr. Jones: I don’t.
Dr. Jones B\BHrch So I don’t see it as an equal partnership
Abstract (if available)
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: Year two
PDF
Co-constructing community, school and university partnerships for urban school transformation
PDF
Co-constructing community, school, and university partnerships for urban school transformation
PDF
Co-constructing community, school, university partnerships for urban school transformation
PDF
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-constructed community, school, and university partnerships for K-12 school reform
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
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
School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lesson from a high performing high poverty urban elementary school
PDF
School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing high-poverty urban schools
PDF
Power-sharing in co-constructed community-school partnerships: examining values, opportunities, and barriers around community engagement in New York City school leadership teams
PDF
Implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high performing, high poverty urban schools
PDF
School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from a high-performing, high-poverty urban school
PDF
Closing the achievement gap: breakthrough in the urban high school
PDF
Effective factors of high performing urban high schools: a case study
PDF
School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high-poverty urban schools
Asset Metadata
Creator
Rief, Allison Noel
(author)
Core Title
Co-constructing community, school, university partnerships for urban school transformation: Year two
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/15/2011
Defense Date
03/22/2011
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
co-construction,community-school-university partnerships,Dialogue,education,mutual-shared learning,OAI-PMH Harvest,school reform,teacher effectiveness,urban school partnerships,urban schooling
Place Name
California
(states),
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Rousseau, Sylvia G. (
committee chair
), Marsh, David D. (
committee member
), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (
committee member
)
Creator Email
alirief@gmail.com,riefa@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3748
Unique identifier
UC1226515
Identifier
etd-Rief-4493 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-449280 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3748 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Rief-4493.pdf
Dmrecord
449280
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Rief, Allison Noel
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
Tags
co-construction
community-school-university partnerships
education
mutual-shared learning
school reform
teacher effectiveness
urban school partnerships
urban schooling