Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be ... · ed 481 606. author title....

ED 481 606

AUTHOR

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCYPUB DATE

NOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

UD 035 913

Hirota, Janice M.; Jacobs, Lauren E.Vital Voices: Building Constituencies for Public SchoolReform.

Academy for Educational Development, Washington, DC.; ChicagoUniv., IL. Chapin Hall Center for Children.Ford Foundation, New York, NY.2003-00-00111p.

Academy for Educational Development, 100 Fifth Avenue, NewYork, NY 10011. Tel: 212-243-1110; Web site:http://www.aed.org/ses.

Reports Evaluative (142)

EDRS Price MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.Case Studies; Change Strategies; Community Cooperation;*Community Involvement; Diversity; *Educational Change;Elementary Secondary Education; Governance; Politics ofEducation; Power Structure; *Public Schools*Constituency Development; *Reform Efforts

This report explores the insights and experiences ofactivists who build strong constituencies to reform public schools. Itpresents data from a 2-year study involving the seven primary constituencyand coalition building grantees of the Ford Foundation's ConstituencyBuilding for Public School Reform Initiative. Data were collected from 14diverse local sites. Part I reports on the participants' views of their work;their goals, strategies, and challenges; and their achievements. Chaptersinclude an introduction that discusses public school reform in historicalcontext a'hd constituency building for public school reform; (2) "Goals,Principles, and Challenges of Constituency Building"; and (3) "Role andImpact of Constituency Building for School Reform" (e.g., creating politicalwill and holding public education institutions accountable and changingroles, relationships, and power dynamics) . Part II describes the major tasksof constituency building and includes the following: (4) "Defining theTerritory"; (5) "Fostering Collective Action" (e.g., developing a sense of.collectivity and promoting local leadership); (6) "Building onDiversity" (e.g., bridging diversity and adding value and workingstrategically with diversity); (7) "Addressing Inside/OutsideDynamics" (e.g., definitions of insiders and outsiders and commoncharacteristics of inside/outside work); (8) "Shifting Power" (e.g., buildingrelationships for shared power and broadening the power base throughcoalitions); and (9) "Meeting Organizational Challenges" (e.g., interplay ofprinciples and operations and the role of national and regionalorganizations) . Throughout the report, case studies illustrate constituencybuilding and reform work. (Contains 63 references.) (SM)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the ori inal document.

1

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

Altdi (ICJ

TO THE rbucArronALeng URCINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

E.

AIL

a

2

All

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educations., Research and improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

Iiir<is document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it

0 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy

BEST CoPY AVAILABLE

Copyright 2003 by the Academy for Educational Development and Chapin HallCenter for Children

Copies of this report and the accompanying executive summary are available free fromthe Academy for Educational Development, 100 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011.The documents also are available in PDF format at www.aed.org/scs (see publications)and at www.chapin.uchicago.edu.

Vital Y.icesBuilding Constituencies for Public School eform

Janice M. Hirota Lauren E. JacobsChapin Hall Center for Academy for Educational

Children at the University Developmentof Chicago

eport to the Ford Foundation4

AC KNOWLED GMENTS

e are pleased to acknowledge the many peo-ple who took part in the creation of thisreport. First among them are the 21 study

participants, listed below, who participated in discussionsand interviews throughout the two-year study and care-fully commented on earlier versions of the report. We aregrateful to them for sharing their expertise and insightsshaped over many years of work in building constituen-cies for quality, equitable schools for all children.

Janice Petrovich, Director of Education, Sexuality,Religion at the Ford Foundation, conceived of anddirected the Constituency Building for Public SchoolReform Initiative. A major feature of the initiative wasto share knowledge and experiences among participantsand with the broader field. This report is part of theeffort to learn from the initiative's grantees and theircolleagues. We are grateful for the Foundation's supportand for her substantive input.

Jean Thomases worked alongside us throughout thestudy to articulate the questions that would stimulate

discussion and to analyze the many perspectives weheard. During the writing process, she demonstratedthe value of a critical friend. Her considerable experi-ence and insight helped shape this work in manyimportant ways.

Ray Valdivieso and Sandy Weinbaum at theAcademy for Educational Development; PrudenceBrown at Chapin Hall Center for Children at theUniversity of Chicago; and Norma Rollins, a consultantto the Ford Foundation, provided input and supportthroughout the study. Frances Segura and Kaey Petersonat AED handled the administrative tasks. MarilynGittell and Clarence Stone admirably filled the role ofexpert readers. They brought critical, knowledgeable per-spectives to an earlier draft and generously shared com-ments and queries with us. Their feedback helped honethe report. Geoff Camphire, Susan Gillespie, and MinaHabibi at KSA-Plus Communications used their keeneditorial eyes and design sense in transforming the draftreport into a book.

Study Participants*

Tom Bradbury, Charlotte-Mecklenburg EducationFoundation, NC

Kelly Allin Butler, Parents for Public Schools,Jackson, MS

Mary Filardo, 21st Century School Fund,Washington, DC

Joan First, National Coalition of Advocates forStudents, Boston, MA

Cynthia Guyer, Portland Public Schools Foundation,Pordand, OR

Anne C. Hallett, Cross City Campaign for UrbanSchool Reform, Chicago, IL

Joe Higgs, The Metropolitan Organization, Houston, TX

Carrie Laughlin, Interfaith Education Fund, Austin, TX

Charles Lindsay, Parents for Public Schools, Jackson, MS

Aurelio Montemayor, Intercultural DevelopmentResearch Association, San Antonio, TX

Laurie Olsen, California Tomorrow, Oakland, CA

Wendy Puriefoy, Public Education Network,Washington, DC

Cathy Reilly, Senior High Alliance of Principals,Presidents, and Educators, Washington, DC

Claudia Santamaria, T.A. Brown ElementarySchool, Austin, TX

Robert F. Sexton, Prichard Committee for AcademicExcellence and Parent Leadership Associates,Lexington, KY

Amina Shahid-El, Parents for Public Schools,Fountain, NC

Rochelle Nichols Solomon, Philadelphia EducationFund, Philadelphia, PA

Madeline Talbott, Chicago ACORN, Chicago, IL

Lutricia Woods, Prichard Committee for AcademicExcellence, Pineville, KY; Parent LeadershipAssociates, Lexington, KY

Jerald Woody, Sr., Washington Parent Group Fund,Washington, DC

Connie Wright, Center for ProfessionalCollaboration, Cumberland Gap, TN

*Affiliations at the time of the study

5 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword i

Part I: OverviewChapter 1: Introduction 3

Public School Reform in Historical Context 4

Challenges To Achieving Quality, Equitable Public Education 4

Constituency Building for Public School Reform 5

The Ford Foundation's Constituency Building for Public School Reform Initiative 6

The Constituency Building Study 7

The Report 8

Chapter 2: Goals, Principles, and Challenges of Constituency Building 11

Long-Term Constituency-Building Goals for Public School Reform 11

Underlying Principles of Constituency Building for School Reform 13

Challenges To Building Constituencies for Public School Reform 14

Chapter 3: Role and Impact of Constituency Building for School Reform 17

Building Understanding and a Sense of Shared Interest in Quality, Equitable Schools 17

Creating Political Will and Holding Public Education Institutions Accountable 21

Changing Roles, Relationships, and Power Dynamics 24

The Context for the Work: School Reform and Communities 28

Part II: The WorkChapter 4: Defining the Territory 33

Chapter 5: Fostering Collective Action 37

From Individual to Member of a Group 38

Developing a Sense of Collectivity 40

Using Data 43

Developing "Stayers" 45

Promoting Local Leadership 46

Chapter 6: Building on Diversity 49

Practicing Inclusion: The Broad Range of "Diversity" 49

Bridging Diversity and Adding Value 51

Working Strategically with Diversity 53

The Challenge of Achieving Equitable Participation 55

6

Chapter 7: Addressing Inside/Outside Dynamics 57

Definitions of Insiders and Outsiders 58

Reasons To Bridge the Inside/Outside Divide in Education 59

Common Characteristics of Inside/Outside Work 60

Challenges of Inside/Outside Work 62

Chapter 8: Shifting Power 67

Building Relationships for Shared Power 68

Relating to the Powers That Be: Principals as One Example 70

Broadening the Power Base through Coalitions 73

Asserting Individual Rights 76

Establishing New Governance Policies 77

Chapter 9: Meeting Organizational Challenges 81

Interplay of Principles and Operations 81

Constant Change, Experimentation, and Renewal 82

The Role of National and Regional Organizations 86

Part III: ConclusionChapter 10: Conclusion 93

AppendicesAppendix A: Profiles of Participating Organizations 97

Appendix B: Notes on the Study Design 107

Appendix C: Bibliography 109

Copies of this report and the accompanying executive summary are available free from the Academy forEducational Development, 100 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011. The documents also are available inPDF format at www.aed.org/scs (see publications) and at www.chapin.uchicago.edu.

FOREWORD

1n 1995, the Ford Foundation launched theConstituency Building for Public School ReformInitiative. The initiative was grounded in a

research-based conclusion: For school reform to occur,reach significant scale, and be sustained over time, aninformed and mobilized public is required. During theearly 1990s, many promising initiatives to reformschools failed to take hold because school leadershipchanged and each successive leader brought in a reform"du jour." Even court orders, such as those requiringlocalities to reform their school finance systems, wereonly unevenly implemented. Research has demonstratedthat the presence of a well-informed, mobilized public,able to hold institutions accountable, typically made thedifference in identifying appropriate interventions andensuring their successful implementation. Given thiscontext, the Constituency Building for Public SchoolReform Initiative was developed at the Foundation withthe goal of increasing civic capacity and engagement topromote high-quality education for all students. Thepremise was that for educational policy to be effective,the public needs solid data on what works (research);effective dissemination of that information (communi-cations); and organizations that can connect people,establish consensus, and mobilize them to act (con-stituency building). Grants for the Ford Foundation ini-tiative supported all three kinds of activities and soughtways to network participants to promote greater impact.

In the decade before the Foundation launched theinitiative, the President, governors, and corporate CEOshad become increasingly convinced that "programmatictinkering" had not led to sustainable reforms of suffi-cient scale. New education reform alternatives werebeing developed, including "break the mold" schoolmodels, curriculum standards, market models of educa-tion reform, and the increasing implementation of high-stakes tests. For example, in 1993 Ambassador WalterAnnenberg committed $500 million to create "break themold" schools that could inspire the transformation ofother public schools. This announcement was made onthe White House lawn at the invitation of PresidentGeorge Herbert Walker Bush, a self-proclaimed "edu-cation president." Political leaders joined with corporateleaders in summit meetings to discuss ways to improve

public schools, and governors identified education astheir priority arenas for policy change.

The movement to create standards for what childrenshould learn went into full swing in the 1990s, andmany donors supported those initiatives. Efforts to pri-vatize service delivery for public schools were growing ata fast pace as a way to increase efficiency and decreasecost. For-profit public schools were created. The privatesector and even the military were becoming popularsources of new educational leaders and teachers. Charterschools were becoming part of the discussion about pub-lic school improvement and they also won their setof supporters among the funding community. Somedonors backed more deliberate plans to privatize educa-tion by supporting voucher strategies as a way to createcompetition in the public school system. Meanwhile,the educational achievement lag of racial/ethnic minoritystudents, poor students, and those living in the innercities or in the rural areas grew during the 1990s. Therewas growing evidence that segregation was increasingaround the country.

In sum, the education reform focus that began in the1990s, and continues to this day, centers largely ondesigning mechanisms to increase administrative effi-ciency and standards, create school models to demon-strate good practice, and spur competition betweenschools to create an incentive for improvement. Thesereforms envision schools as products in an educationalmarketplace where students and parents are consumers.This change model can be summarized roughly as fol-lows: New "products" (new models) created according toexacting standards are needed to spur imitation. Charterschools and vouchers provide students and parents, asconsumers, with the ability to choose between schools.As a result, schools seek to improve in order to competefor students. Finally, testing provides the quality controlin this paradigm of reform.

The Ford Foundation's interest in helping to createexcellent public schools is coupled with a social justiceagenda that promotes an equitable education system.Equity and social justice are central to all of the fieldsand geographic locations in which the Foundationworks. Much of Foundation grant making in education

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

aims to help people at the margins of society gain accessto high-quality schools and colleges. The Foundation'sultimate goal in the field of education is thus to helpcreate the conditions for vibrant and equitable demo-cratic societies. This means seeking to foster a well-educated citizenry capable of holding public institutionsaccountable to the common good. This approach aims tomaximize the democratic process by which communitiesare linked to schools as a way of ensuring that excellentschools are available for all, not just some, students. Avital strategy for making education more equitable andeffective, and fulfilling the promise of democracy, entailsbuilding well-informed constituencies for reform.

The Foundation seeks to invest in systemic solutionsthat hold the promise of large-scale change. In the fieldof education, Foundation funds support projects thatseek to improve schools both from the "inside," throughbetter-trained teachers, principals, and superintendents,and from the "outside," through activities to establish asupportive environment surrounding schools. Fundssupport efforts to train a new generation of leaders andscholars who can effectively chart their societies' futures.The Constituency Building for Public School ReformInitiative represents a significant part of the Foundation'sinvestments in understanding and supporting policiesand practices that help all children achieve, and in pro-moting public support for public schools. These invest-ments aim to help create a supportive environment foreducation through policies that promote equity andexcellence and a well-informed public that can mobilizeto ensure that these objectives are met and sustained.This initiative was premised on the understanding thateducational systems can and should seek to achieveboth excellence and equity.

From the onset, the initiative sought to maximizelearning. Grantee convenings were an important way toinform and enhance their developing work. Researchfindings have been published in journals, presented atconferences, posted on Web sites, and discussed in printand visual media. A book containing the results of sup-ported research is due to be published by TeachersCollege Press in 2004. Another publication (The Donors'Education Collaborative: Strategies for Systemic School

Reform) was produced by Chapin Hall Center forChildren at the University of Chicago to document

lessons gleaned from a New York-based Foundationinvestment in support of building constituencies for pub-lic school reform. The majority of grantees created Webpages and some established listservs as ways to sharewhat they were learning and inform the public abouteducation issues.

This publication represents an example of the FordFoundation's investment in efforts to build knowledgeabout effective school reform. Through a grant to theAcademy for Educational Development and the ChapinHall Center, Foundation grantees and affiliates spentsubstantial time discussing their strategies, successes,and challenges in working to create civic capacity forpublic school reform. These organizations, which haverealized strong achievements, share a common aspirationof excellent public schools for all children. Throughout,they demonstrate the critical importance of buildingknowledgeable, active constituencies in catalyzing andsustaining meaningful change. Although their modesof work vary, the research process surfaced significantcommonalities in their strategies and outcomes. I believethis is because all of these organizations seek to bringthe public into public schools and thus to strengthenour democratic system, which relies on effective citizenparticipation.

As this publication goes to print, the world is stillreeling from the aftermath of the events of September11, 2001. Our nation has embarked on a war that hascreated enormous demands on public resources. Statesare strapped for funds and school budgets are feelingthe crunch. A well-informed and engaged public issorely needed to set public priorities that strengthen ourdemocracy. Those interested in the complex and diffi-cult work of engaging citizens should find much to gainfrom the collective learning summarized in this report.

Janice PetrovichDirector of Education, Sexuality, Religion

The Ford Foundation

BESTCOPYAVAILABLE

Vital Voices: Building Constituencies for Public School Reform

Part I

Overview

10

CHAPTER ONE I

Introduction

public schools represent a central institution in thelives of families and communities in America.Many people say that public schools per se, good

or poor, are essential for the practice of democracy.At the least, these schools play a pivotal role in theeconomic strength of the country. In addition, as oursociety becomes not only more complex but also morefragmented, schools, along with few other institutions,can provide common ground, cutting across racial, class,ethnic, language, immigrant, and other social groupingsand bringing people together around a common purpose.

This report explores and builds on the experiencesand insights of activists who build strong constituenciesto reform public schools. These activists aim to engageand support parents, community members, educators,businesspeople, and others in creating school systemsthat provide quality, equitable education for all children.

In joining constituency-building and educationreform efforts, these study participants forge strategiesthat deepen and promote both. The core tenets of theirwork are:

All children can learn to high standards. Thisassertion specifically includes those who often areill-served by public education, such as those whoare poor, immigrant, English language learners, ormembers of racial and ethnic minorities.

Communities bear both the right and the respon-sibility to foster and protect quality, equitable edu-cational opportunities for their children.

A democratic society provides the tools for con-stituents to participate in shaping, monitoring,and sustaining the policies and practices of themajor public institutions that affect the lives ofcommunities, families, and individuals. Thesetools include the rights of assembly, representa-tion, freedom of speech, and access to informa-tion, and the use of the courts as well as theballot.

Never before have public education reformers, aswell as many educators, legislators, and policymakers,set a goal as high as quality, equitable education for allchildren. Moreover, never before have educationactivists, communities, and others linked the accom-plishment of such aims with an insistence on the jointauthority and responsibility of professional educators,policymakers, communities, students, and parents toparticipate together in deciding on the policies andpractices necessary to meet those aims. This insistencerequires meaningful roles for and accountability fromall stakeholder groups.

Striving for EquityA common legal definition of educational equity is equal access to the full range ofquality programs and provision of the services needed to succeed in those programs.Study discussions reveal that participants' concept of equity includes equal access andneeded services, but goes beyond these basics to encompass two other areas as well.The first is equality of voice, in which all students and their families can participatefully in decision-making. The second area encompasses educational content and teach-ing methods that reflect the diverse backgrounds, needs, and interests of students.

Introduction

BESTCOPYAVAILABLE

11

Public School Reform inHistorical ContextAmericans always have called on public education tohelp realize their images of their country. Reform ofeducation and reform of the larger society have beenintertwined from the start. Americans have expectedpublic schools to take center stage in educating formerslaves, integrating immigrant children into society,fighting racism and segregation, reducing poverty, pro-moting public health, and building strong communities.In a parallel way, public education has been relied uponto help meet the challenges of shifting demographics,developing technologies, emerging global competitors,and changing world ecologies. Yet despite the signifi-cant alignment between the ambitious goals Americanshave for their education system and those they have fortheir society, efforts to meet these objectives often havebeen incomplete and only partially successful.

In the introduction to their edited volumeReconstructing the Common Good in Public Education:Coping with Intractable American Dilemmas, LarryCuban and Dorothy Shipps make the point that, withthe start of public education, "Americans expected thattheir public schools the common school as it wasinitially called would build citizens, cultivate themoral and social development of individual students,and bind diverse groups into one nation."' The childrenwho attended early public schools were a selected lot.Nevertheless, these expectations continued to resonateover time, even as schools became more inclusive. In themid-1800s, the authors find that public school goalscontinued to include developing basic literacy, strength-ening moral character, and building responsible citizens.Then, in the late 1800s, with the end of the Civil War,public education encountered "the monumental task oftransforming four million ex-slaves into literate citizens.In ex-Confederate states, the federal government pro-vided free public schooling for millions of black chil-dren and adults, thus forging linkages for the first timebetween federal action and locally controlled schoolsand between race and citizenship. Again, education andthe common good were assumed to be closely linked.This experiment ... lasted only a decade, leaving theissues of a federal role in schooling and educating poor,minority children unaddressed for another century."'

Early in the 20th century, Cuban and Shipps argue,public schools were expected to help meet the needs ofan industrial economy, fostering the growth of vocationaleducation, as well as to help resolve the social needs of anation now home to immigrants from many differentcountries. "[M]ore than before, public schools wereexpected to Americanize newcomers and produce voca-tionally skilled graduates who could fill skilled jobs inthe industrial workforce." Late in the century, bothschools and society faced seemingly relentless "hard-core problems of poverty, social stratification, and racialinequities ... ." Moreover, basic literacy was no longerenough in the technologically changed workplace.Students graduated but without the skills necessary tofind satisfying jobs, and schools could not meet thedemand for qualified workers. By the 1980s, a growingfear that the United States was losing ground in theworld economy "fuel[ed] wave after wave of unrelentingcriticism of schools."'

With the turn of the century, there has been increas-ing pressure for schools to provide quality education,underscored by the move toward setting high standardsagainst which every child will be measured. Despite thechallenges of ensuring high-quality teaching, equitableopportunity to learn, meaningful standards, and fairmeans of assessment, many educators and public schooladvocates, although not all, view the standards move-ment as a chance to promote excellence in education.At the same time, many people favor privatization andspecialized responses, such as vouchers, for-profitschools, and charter schools, to meet the demand foreducational excellence. Still, extending the observationof Cuban and Shipps, "the popular commitment topublic schooling, albeit eroded and brittle, remainsdurable."'

Challenges To Achieving Quality,Equitable Public EducationThe public school activists who participated in the cur-rent study share ambitious aims and multiple chal-lenges. Undeniably, for many children and in manyneighborhoods, both rural and urban, schools are notmeeting basic educational needs. Visibly deterioratedschool facilities, lack of up-to-date learning tools, over-crowded classrooms, too few qualified teachers, growingdisenchantment with the promise of public education,

12


and the highly politicized and often divisive arenaswithin which education policies are decided compriseonly the most obvious troubles plaguing public educa-tion. By high school, regular attendance is problematicand dropout rates are high in many places. Too manyyoung people leave school with little preparation formeaningful and productive roles in our highly complex,bureaucratic, and technologically advanced society.

In addition, schools carry perhaps an even greaterburden in the modern era than in the past. Childrenand youth in the United States, as a group, increasinglycome from immigrant families and diverse racial, socio-cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. Moreover, they livein a society where the gap is growing between the topand bottom economic classes, the number of manufac-turing and other traditional blue-collar jobs is decreas-ing, the population is aging, and technology is rapidlychanging the occupational landscape. Many of publicschools' most poorly served children come from low-income and racial and ethnic minority families; some ofthese children spend their entire educational careers inchronically failing schools. All participants in the studyrecognize the inequities of public education as it ispracticed today. Some of these activists bring a particu-lar equity lens to their constituency-building and publicschool reform work, addressing the urgent educationalneeds of African American, Latino, and other ill-servedpopulations.

In this context, teachers, principals, and educationpolicymakers often feel beleaguered and blamed, strug-gling to offer educational opportunities but without thefacilities, tools, fiscal backing, and other supports neces-sary. At times, schools turn in on themselves, establish-ing and defending a closed arena against their critics.Yet, study participants argue, it is not just educatorswho must take responsibility for schools; these pivotalinstitutions are and must be products of their commu-nities. This means, as Michele Cahill asserts, that the"definition of the school as a critical institution in thelife of the community" must be reshaped to include thepublic parents and other family and communitymembers in essential ways.' Such inclusion mustoccur even as the aims for public schools are pushedever higher, as advocates, educators, community mem-bers, policymakers, and others increasingly demandeducational excellence and equity for all children.

Introduction

Constituency Building forPublic School ReformA growing number of public school advocates, funders,researchers, and scholars seek to further deep and sus-tainable school reform by fostering the meaningful par-ticipation of stakeholders in shaping education policy; bysupporting links between schools and their communities;and by framing school reform within broad social, eco-nomic, and political contexts. These approaches build onthe conviction that only the participation of all stakehold-ers in education decision-making will ensure sustained,systemic, and widespread reform. Only such participationwill ensure representation and acknowledgment of theexperiences and needs of all children in policy decisions.This is especially so for those who traditionally have beenunderrepresented those living in poverty, members ofracial and ethnic minorities, English language learners,immigrants, and others. Central to such work is con-stituency building helping to engage and bring con-stituencies to the policy table, developing the capacity ofindividuals and communities to undertake significantroles, and working to ensure the legitimacy and credibilityof all groups with a stake in public education.

Historically, school reform efforts have not takeninto account the larger roles of schools in their commu-nities, let alone worked to engage the many groups withan interest in education. Instead, school reform typicallyhas focused on creating change within schools, and to agreat extent many current efforts continue this focus.Yet even within this limited scope, reform efforts oftenhave been unable to address all relevant issues simulta-neously, trying, for example, "to alter the behavior ofprofessionals without doing very much about the struc-tures in which they work, or ... concentrat[ing] onstructural reforms with little attention to the interests ofthe professionals who work within the system."6 Asanother social analyst points out, since the mid-1980ssuch efforts have focused on standards, teachers'salaries, teaching, curriculum, governance, and assess-ment, but never on connecting school reform withsocial trends, changing demographics, and other com-munity developments.' Still others argue that "[i]vorytower reform efforts" to improve education generally aredoomed from the start because they neglect the factthat "[e]ducation policy is conceived, modified, andenacted in the political arena."'

3BEST COPY AVAILABLE

The groups and individuals who participated in thisstudy believe that active and meaningful participationof broad constituencies is essential for relevant, effec-tive, equitable, and sustainable reform. Research bearsthis out. In 1998, for example, Marilyn Gittell explaineddifferences in efforts to decentralize decision-makingin New York City in 1967 and Chicago in 1989 "as aproduct of the ability of city stakeholders to coalesceand advance their interests at the state level."' InChicago, community organizations took the lead in"initiating and sustaining coalition politics," engaging"traditional civic groups, political officials, and the busi-ness establishment as activist partners in the reformagend.a."" Tlais effort resultecl in state-legislated, electedlocal school councils, composed of parents, teachers, andcommunity representatives, with the authority to hireprincipals, allocate budgets, and design school improve-ment plans. In contrast, despite mayoral, gubernatorial,and philanthropic support for decentralization in NewYork City, union opposition and lack of grassroots sup-port resulted in far weaker legislation and elected dis-trict school boards that were empowered only to hirethe school superintendent.

Even when reform has been mandated legislativelyor judicially, constituency building has played a criticalrole by involving informed stakeholders as participants,supporters, watchdogs, and monitors. Thus, during themore than 10 years of implementing the KentuckyEducation Reform Act, an important aspect of thePrichard Committee's work has been building andmaintaining knowledge, engagement, and supportamong parents, community members, residents, busi-nesspeople, journalists, and policymakers. Moreover,there are indications that reforms stemming from judi-cial and legislative mandates are less likely to succeedwithout the continuous push and support of engagedconstituencies. In a comparative study of four schooldistricts under court order to dismantle tracking, KevinWelner finds that political mobilization is necessary totranslate such mandates into school change." In anotherinstance, Michael Rebell and Robert Hughes review therepercussions of school-desegregation and fiscal-equitycourt rulings, finding that constituent involvementis critical to shaping and implementing effectiveremedies."

The Ford Foundation's ConstituencyBuilding for Public School ReformInitiativeThe Ford Foundation's Constituency Building forPublic School Reform Initiative aimed to create lastingsystemic change through the responsible activity ofpublic education's multiple stakeholders. The initiative,begun in 1995 as a five-year program, brought togetherthree components of reform work coalition and con-stituency building, policy research and evaluation, andpublic information and communications in an effortto engage, inform, and involve the broad range of edu-cation stakeholders in the policymaking process.Many of these constituencies have been routinelyexcluded from meaningful participation in educationdecision-making.

The initiative supported work in the three compo-nent areas. Grantees in the initiative's policy researchand evaluation component collect, evaluate, and analyzedata regarding the outcomes of school-reform policiesand practices. Grantees in the public information andcommunications component aim to inform the publicbroadly about educational policies and practices, andstimulate stakeholder involvement in improving publiceducation. Finally, grantees at the center of the initia-tive, in the constituency- and coalition-building category,operate at the grassroots, state, and national levels toengage parents, educators, business leaders, and othercommunity members in efforts to reform public educa-tion policy and practice.

Throughout the initiative, the foundation providedall grantees with opportunities to interact, share knowl-edge, and support each other's efforts. For example,twice a year the foundation hosted convenings at whichgrantees learned about each other's work; heard researchreports as well as updates on litigation for schoolfinance equity; participated in technical assistance activ-ities; and discussed and debated topics such as high-stakes testing, standards-based education, and publicengagement strategies. The meetings allowed granteesto interact with peers from across the country, fromrural as well as urban areas, and from across disciplinesand approaches to constituency building. One result ofthe initiative has been ongoing exchange among

14


grantees and organizations, as participants continue toshare information; act as advisors, resources, conferenceparticipants, and board members; and collaborate injoint undertakings. This kind of informed practice,drawing on research, advocacy, constituency-building,and communications perspectives, serves to sharpen theaims and strategies of each discipline while fostering anational network of activist colleagues.

The Constituency Building StudyThe Academy for Educational Development andChapin Hall Center for Children at the University ofChicago worked with the seven primary constituency-and coalition-building grantees of the initiative.Although this group represents a small portion ofschool reform activists across the country, the membersmay be considered among the leading constituency

builders for school reform. The two-year researchendeavor, which began in early 1999, provided a forumwhere reformers could share and examine their collec-tive knowledge of, experience with, and insights intothe work of building, mobilizing, and sustaining con-stituency engagement. Participating grantees largelynational, regional, or statewide organizations thatprovide centralized support for local organizationsincluded Cross City Campaign for Urban SchoolReform, the Interfaith Education Fund, the NationalCoalition of Advocates for Students, Parents for PublicSchools, the Prichard Committee for AcademicExcellence, the Public Education Network, and the21st Century School Fund.

Primary data collection was conducted through ateam composed of, along with the researchers, one rep-resentative from each of the seven initiative grantees

Constituency Building Study: Study Team Members

Ford Foundation CBPSIU grantees and affiliates(grantees in italics)

Representatives

Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform, Chicago, ILChicago ACORN, Chicago, ILPhiladelphia Education Fund, Philadelphia, PA

Anne C. HallettMadeline TalbottRochelle Nichols Solomon

Interfaith Education Fund, Austin, TXAustin Interfaith, Austin, TXThe Metropolitan Organization, Houston, TX

Carrie LaughlinClaudia SantamariaJoe Higgs

National Coalition of Advocates for Students, Boston, MACalifornia Tomorrow, Oakland, CAIntercultural Development Research Association, San Antonio, TX

Joan FirstLaurie OlsenAurelio Montemayor

Parents for Public Schools, Jackson, MSParents for Public Schools Rural Initiative, Fountain, NCParents for Public Schools of Jackson, Jackson, MS

Kelly Allin ButlerAmina Shahid-ElCharles Lindsay

Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence, Lexington, KYPrichard Committee for Academic Excellence, Pineville, KYCenter for Professional Collaboration, Cumberland Gap, TN

Robert F. SextonLutricia WoodsConnie Wright

Public Education Network, Washington, DCCharlotte-Mecklenburg Education Foundation, Charlotte, NCPortland Public Schools Foundation, Portland, OR

Wendy PuriefoyTom BradburyCynthia Guyer

21st Century School Fund, Washington, DCSenior High Alliance of Principals, Presidents, and Educators,

Washington, DCWashington Parent Group Fund, Washington, DC

Pt V

Mary FilardoCathy Reilly

Jerald Woody, Sr.

eil

Introduction BESTCOPYAVAILABLE

and one representative from each of 14 local sites (eachgrantee selected two affiliated sites). As can be seen,these 21 representatives work in diverse places, throughdifferent kinds of organizations, on various publicschool issues, and with a range of constituents. Yet allstrive to build strong constituencies for school reform.Collectively, they have experience in rural and urbanareas in California, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky,Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon,Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington, D.C.They act in a variety of settings from school districtswith reform-oriented, parent-friendly administrationsto districts that discount parent engagement and pro-pose to dismantle local school councils and with aspectrum of stakeholders, including parents, teachers,principals, community members, business leaders, cityand state officials, and teacher union members. Theorganizations for which these constituency builderswork range in size from groups with no paid staff tothose with multimillion dollar budgets. One group wasformed three years ago; another just celebrated its 27thyear. Collectively, the study team had hundreds of yearsof school reform experience in a wide variety of stake-holder roles, including those of parent; educator; organ-izer; advocate; convener; parent trainer/coach;researcher; and director of a local, state, or nationalorganization.

The Constituency Building Study aimed to developan overview of the landscape of constituency buildingits approaches, achievements, challenges, and lessonsgrounded in practitioners' experiences and insights. Toaccomplish this, the study created venues for dialogueamong peers about the issues of building constituenciesand derived lessons from the exchange and one-on-oneinterviews. The study was not designed to develop con-sensus among participants, nor to assess particular prac-

.-tices or goals. Instead, discussions were geared to bringto light often-unarticulated assumptions and expecta-tions, differing as well as shared strategies and goals,and unexpected challenges and responses." Throughthe study, the researchers hope to help stimulate a broadconversation about constituency building for schoolreform and to further understanding in the field.'

The RepoutThe report identifies pivotal values, tasks, and chal-lenges of constituency building, as well as some of themany promising approaches and accomplishments ofparticipants. The analysis is based primarily on partici-pants' experiences and insights; at the same time, itlooks across individual statements to identify largercommonalities and differences that mark the work. Inaddition, the researchers draw on the growing body ofliterature on the topic to help place the work of thesepractitioners in a meaningful context.

The report has three major parts. The first framesthe study's findings and explores the role, values, impor-tance, and impact of constituency building as part ofschool reform. The second part focuses on the majoraspects of constituency-building work, including criticaltasks, issues, strategies, and challenges. Throughout thetext, study participants emphasize efforts to help con-stituents develop and exercise their power to make qual-ity, equitable schools. Chapter 8, entitled "ShiftingPower," describes strategies for changing power rela-tionships and interactions, building on earlier discus-sions in "Fostering Collective Action" (Chapter 5),"Building on Diversity" (Chapter 6), and "AddressingInside/Outside Dynamics" (Chapter 7). The report con-cludes by highlighting some of the main issues and les-sons of constituency building. Woven into the text areexamples of promising school reform/constituency-building practices and accomplishments, along withparticipants' analyses of what makes for effective con-stituency building. Although these accounts are just afew of the many shared over the course of the study,they illustrate the broad reach of constimency-buildingactivity in shaping policy and practice at the state,district, school, and classroom levels regarding issuessuch as standards, governance, funding, facilities, andcurriculum.

16


' Cuban, Larry, and Dorothy Shipps, eds., Reconstructing theCommon Good in Education: Coping with Intractable American

Dilemmas, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000, p. 1.

2 Cuban and Shipps, pp. 2-3.

3 Cuban and Shipps, pp. 3-4.

" Cuban and Shipps, p. 4.

5 Cahill, Michele, Schools and Community Partnerships: Reforming

Schools, Revitalizing Communities, a Schools and CommunityWorking Paper, Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban SchoolReform, 1996, p.

6 Katz, Michael B., Improving Poor People: The Welfare State, the

"Underclass," and Urban Schools as History, Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press, 1995, p. 122.

7 Shirley, Dennis, Community Organizing for Urban School Reform,

Austin, TX: University of Texas, 1997, p. 2.

8 Gittell, Marilyn, and Laura McKenna, "Introduction: The Endsand the Means in Education Policy." in Gittell, Marilyn J., ed.,Strategies for School Equity: Creating Productive Schools in a Just

Society, New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press,1998, p. 2.

Gittell, Marilyn, "School Reform in New York and Chicago:Revisiting the Ecology of Local Games," in Strategies for SchoolEquity: Creating Productive Schools in a Just Society, p. 147.

10 Gittell, School Reform, p. 151.

11 Welner, Kevin G., Legal Rights, Local Wrongs: When Community

Control Collides with Educational Equity, Albany, NY: SUNYPress, 2001.

12 Rebell, Michael A., and Robert L. Hughes, "Efficacy andEngagement: The Remedies Problem Posed by Sheff V. O'Neilland Proposed Solution," in Connecticut Law Review, University ofConnecticut, 29:3 (spring 1997), pp. 1154,1156.

13 Appendix B describes the aims, methodology, and challenges ofthe study itself.

14 The year 2002 marked the publication of a number of studies,supported in part by the Ford Foundation, that variously examine,map, and make a case for the practices and role of constituency-building and organizing efforts in effecting public school reform.In addition to the present study, these studies include Chapin HallCenter for Children's six-year evaluation of the Donors' EducationCollaborative's Initiative to create systemic reform of public edu-cation in New York City. See Janice Hirota, Robin Jacobowitz, andPrudence Brown, The Donors' Education Collaborative: Strategies for

Systemic School Reform, Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children,2000, which analyzes projects' constituency-building and policywork after four years of implementation. The report is availablefrom Chapin Hall Center for Children, 1313 E. 60th St., Chicago,IL 60637 and on its Web site at www.chapin.uchicago.edu.

JI

'''`j

Introduction

Cross City Campaign's Indicators Project on EducationOrganizing examines the roles and results of community organiz-ing in reforming schools and explores indices of success in educa-tion organizing. See Gold, Eva, and Elaine Simon (Research forAction), and Chris Brown (Cross City Campaign for UrbanSchool Reform), Successful Community Organizing for School

Reform, part of a series entitled Strong Neighborhoods, StrongSchools: The Indicators Project on Education Organizing, Chicago:

Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform, 2002. Thereport is available from Cross City Campaign for Urban SchoolReform, 407 S. Dearborn, Ste. 1500, Chicago, IL 60605 and onits Web site at www.crosscity.org.

The Institute for Education and Social Policy at New YorkUniversity, California Tomorrow, Designs for Change, andSouthern Echo conducted a study to examine the methods andapproaches of 66 community groups organizing to improveschools in eight sites across the country. See Mediratta, Kavitha,Norm Fruchter, and Anne C. Lewis, Organizing for SchoolReform: How Communities are Finding Their Voice and Reclaiming

Their Public Schools, New York: Institute for Education and SocialPolicy, 2002. The report is available from the Institute forEducation and Social Policy, 726 Broadway, 5th Fl., New York,NY 10003 and on its Web site at www.nyu.eduliesp.

17 BESTCOPYAMLABLE

CHAPTER TWO

Goals, Principles, and Challenges ofConstituency Building

Constituency building, simply put, aims to helpconstituents make their voices heard in theinstitutional policy decisions and practices that

affect their lives. It seeks to leverage influence in thesocial, economic, and political spheres of communitylife. Social reform efforts have engaged relevant publicsthroughout American history, as in the various policy-reform efforts of early settlement-house workers,temperance marchers, and suffragettes, as well as themobilization of mass constituencies by labor unionistsand civil-rights activists. Constituency building is delib-erately inclusive in its strategies; it may entail activitiesthat range from informing, involving, and gaining thesupport of organizations and individuals regarding aparticular issue to long-term, intensive communityorganizing around multiple issues. Participants in thisstudy view constituency building as an approach thatcan be and is used by advocates across the politicalspectrum, including those with goals very different fromtheir own.

Yet certain distinctions mark the constituency-building work of the public school advocates featured inthis study. These activists see this work not only as acentral strategy of their reform efforts, but as the frame-work that defines those efforts. For them, constituencybuilding, with its faith in and reliance upon democraticassumptions and processes, reflects a commitment tothe right and responsibility of communities to definethe common good and work together to achieve it. Inthe context of education reform, constituency buildingsupports communities' efforts to participate actively inshaping the goals, practices, and policies of theirschools. Therefore, it means building local individualand organizational capacity, fostering local leadership,engaging constituents poorly served by schools, andnurturing the will to take responsibility for educatingall children in the commun4

The research reveals that study participants sharea set of core goals, adhere to certain principles, and

Goals, Principles, and Challenges of Constituency Building

encounter similar challenges. This chapter exploresthese common elements that shape the meaning of con-stituency building among these public school reformers.Chapter 4 explores points of departure differences inapproaches within these parameters.

Long-Term Constituency-Building Goalsfor Public School ReformOverarching goals for study participants reflect theimperative of educating the nation's children to highstandards, the deep conviction that constituents andcommunities must take active and ongoing roles inmeeting that educational challenge, and a great faith indemocratic practices and the power of organized action.These goals include the following:

Goal: Equitable, Quality Educationfor All ChildrenStudy participants strive for equitable public education,and they define equity broadly (see page 3). For studyparticipants and many others involved in educationreform, constituency building especially calls for helpingto raise the voices of those who traditionally have notbeen part of education discussions and decisions.Frequently these are low-income, minority, immigrant,or non-English-speaking families whose children attendill-served, low-achieving schools. Some of the organiza-tions involved in the study view constituency buildingand school reform mainly through an equity lens. Thismeans, as the director of a statewide organization pointsout, "the nature of this work ... is focused on the voicesof specific excluded communities." Study team membersassert that these constituents' meaningful participationis key to achieving reform of and accountability amongchronically failing schools.

For other study participants, "silent" stakeholdersalso may include, depending on local circumstances,other parents and community members who have littlesay in school governance or budgetary matters; employ-ers with little input about educational needs; educators


with little control over classroom scheduling, curricu-lum, or teaching methods; and students with no partici-pation in creating or implementing school rules. The"public" in public schools means that all those with astake in education are recognized as necessary and legit-imate participants in ensuring equitable, quality publicschools for all children. But for such engagement tohappen, study participants acknowledge the importanceof building constituencies with the knowledge and skillsnecessary to advance reform efforts.

Goal: Deep, Sustained, Ongoing ReformMany children across the country lack quality publicschooling. For far-reaching and sustainable reform tohappen, knowledgeable observers of public educationincluding advocates, elected officials, school administra-tors, researchers, and participants in this study say itmust involve concerned constituents who act as watch-dogs, advocates, monitors, and, as the head of a nationaleducation organization calls them, "active witnesses."Yet, for a variety of reasons, parents, students, businessleaders, religious leaders, and other community mem-bers often do not take on such roles, especially as indi-viduals. Even if a person, working alone, does take upthe call, she is unlikely to set off change, at least at thesystemic level.

Study participants help build the capacity of localconstituents to take on these critical roles, create net-works of constituents who can act in concert, and fosterlocal organizations and organizational alliances thatinstitutionalize such participation. Constituency build-ing is essential to reform for a number of reasons.Large, bureaucratic, and often intractable school sys-tems, particularly in urban areas, often move towardchange only when prodded by organized advocates.Even strong leaders within education systems need con-stituents who can raise red flags when, for example,educational policy is hampered by narrow interests,budgetary constraints, or overreliance on standardizedtest results as measures of success.

At the same time, forces work against constituentengagement. Many school systems do not regularlyshare information about important issues such as assess-ment and placement practices, curricular decisions,achievement measures and rogress, and- budgetarydecisions. The limited availability of data undermines

meaningful participation. Moreover, many schools do notgather and analyze data in ways that would illuminateteaching and learning gaps, such as by disaggregatingstudent achievement and promotion data. Still, parentsand other community members often attribute profes-sional expertise to schools and education personnel, anattribution that can underscore the class, racial, educa-tional, and cultural differences between parents andeducators. A common sense of isolation, a lack of accessto school information, and the challenge of maneuver-ing within complex school bureaucracies and bewilder-ing regulations represent enormous obstacles to con-stituent engagement. The situation leaves parentsand even educators with little credibility or leveragein decision-making, whether at the classroom, localschool, or systemic level. As a result, these constituentsfrequently leave decisions to policymakers, educationstaff, and elected officials, relinquishing their right andresponsibility to help shape public education.

Study participants assert two basic, complementaryassumptions. First, they contend that education mustbe a matter of public concern and engagement that goesfar beyond public funding. Input from family and com-munity members, businesspeople, and others oftenconsidered "outsiders" by education policymakers is,

in fact, key to highlighting students' strengths andneeds, pointing to systemic gaps and failures, bringingneeded perspectives to governance, and linking commu-nities with their schools. Constituents who are notemployed by the school system are essential for assess-ing, demanding accountability from, and working withthe system. Second, study participants say that commu-nities bear responsibility for their public institutions.Failings in public education do not fall solely on theshoulders of professional educators and bureaucrats.Rather, communities must step forward to reclaim theirschools and the education they provide.

Goal: Democracy in PracticeStudy participants are committed to supporting con-stituent voices by using "the tools that a democraticsystem makes available ... [including] free speech, free-dom of assembly, representative government, and manylocal laws and regulations that give us access to meet-ings in public, information, and decision-making." Byenacting the values of participatory democracy, engaged

9


constituents demand a voice in and acceptresponsibility for public education.

An additional goal is to build constituencyin ways that foster involvement in educationdecision-making, respect for diversity, develop-ment of local capacity and leadership, equityof opportunity, and democratic processes. Combiningsuch values and challenges with organizational mission,reformers develop particular strategies and approachesfor redressing specific issues. Part II of this report dis-cusses some strategies and dilemmas in constituencybuilding. Some study participants explicitly envisioncommunities where residents ultimately extend theirknowledge, skills, and leadership beyond education toother public institutions.

"The important part of voice is that it is only

possible in a democratic system."

The director of a national organization

Underlyi g Principles of ConstituencyBuilding for School ReformAlthough study participants may use different frame-works and strategies, they share certain underlying prin-ciples. For example, a constituency builder may focus onan excluded population, such as a racial, ethnic, or lan-guage minority, or may seek to connect various socialgroups. In either instance, the effort includes an empha-sis on developing and supporting local leaders. Similarly,the effort involves analyses of and efforts to shift powerdynamics, as well as a tight focus on local issues, rela-tionships, organizations, and networks. These themes areelaborated briefly below and more fully in chapters 5-8of this report.

Principle: Developing Local Capacityand LeadershipLocal capacity building is vital to enabling local con-stituencies and organizations to seize new roles andexert influence in the education arena. Constituencybuilding increases civic capacity when reformers aimto build individual and organizational knowledge andanalytic ability, develop skills, support local leadership,and foster democratic participation and accountability.In school reform efforts, this means building capacity todeal with often complex school issues such as budgets,building codes, and academic standards; interact suc-cessffilly with school administrators and other policy-makers; persuade others to support reform; and makedecisions about reform plans and action strategies.

Increasingly, constituency building for public schoolreform also means intentionally building and strength-ening mutually beneficial links between schools andtheir communities. Stakeholder capacity, initially builtwithin the education arena, may eventually addressother policy areas and public institutions as well.

Principle: Grounding the Work inLocal Issues and OrganizationsStudy participants assert that constituency building,especially among parents and other community mem-bers, must be rooted locally, within arenas where trustand a sense of common purpose can be developedthrough face-to-face relationships, identification of localconcerns, and joint action. This work can occur in vari-ous settings: within a local network of parents focusedon reform in a particular school, within a group oforganized immigrant community members, among par-ents and educators working together at the district levelto define a vision for the school system, or among resi-dents from across a state battling for increased educa-tion resources. In all instances, the web of local leaders,issues, and relationships not only provides the contextfor involving, training, and sustaining engagement, butalso provides the means of promoting ongoing reform.For study participants, this network is most effectivewhen it is developed through a local group independentof the school system, although often with support froma regional, state, or national organization.

Principle: Changing Roles and RelationshipsStudy participants help develop networks that cantake on public roles and exert influence in the institu-tions and decisions that affect their communities.This work is political because it seeks to open upthe decision-making process, enlarge the circle ofdecision-makers, establish legitimacy for excludedgroups, demand accountability, and reframe issues ofdebate. Study participants have helped bring newconstituencies including parents, community


13

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

members, business representatives, teachers, and oth-ers to the decision-making table, supported con-stituents in assuming new public roles, demystifiedthe use of data, and examined the political contexts ofeducation. For all study participants, an intrinsic prin-ciple of constituency building is to shift relationshipsand power dynamics in decision-making, accountabil-ity, and the establishment of education policies andpractices. For organizations with an equity perspec-tive, the heart of the effort is "to change the exclu-sionary nature of public education," as one study par-ticipant observed.

Challenges To Building Constituenciesfor Public School ReformStudy group discussions and interviews reveal thatactivists typically encounter several challenges. Inmany ways, the kind of constituency building thatstudy participants undertake with its faith in dem-ocratic processes and its aim to change power dynam-ics goes against the grain of contemporary socialtrends and deep-rooted practices. By invoking one setof traditional values, principally equity, inclusiveness,and the common good, these activists often comeup against another set of equally orthodox values,including individualism, freedom of choice, and mar-ketplace mechanisms. The work of constituencybuilding bringing together neighbors who areunacquainted, creating and supporting networks,defining common interests reflects the pervasivereality of a fragmented, stratified, highly bureaucra-tized, individualistic, and competitive society. Inaddition, social contexts are constantlychanging, a fact starkly documented inthe 2000 U.S. Census. Together, contem-porary trends, conflicting values, andchanging social contexts pose large andcomplex challenges briefly outlinedbelow for constituency builders.

Challenge: Finding Common Ground in aHighly Fragmented SocietyStudy participants' work focuses largely on fostering asense of connection and mutual interest among con-stituents. These reformers work with and across groupsof various races, ethnicities, cultures, income levels, lan-guages, generations, religions, neighborhoods, and occu-pations. Yet it can be difficult to link individuals,whether within a group or across groups. At times,activists find it difficult to bring together people who arefrom similar ethnic communities but affiliated with dif-ferent public schools. At other times, forging connec-tions between parents and teachers in the local school,where parents are regarded as outsiders and teachersinsiders, is a stumbling block. In still other situations,uniting local leaders from different ethnic, cultural, andlanguage groups is the challenge. Public education canprovide an arena of shared concerns, but even here,problems, goals, and solutions often are defined differ-ently, even among neighbors. A challenge for all studyparticipants, whether working within or across socialgroupings, is to develop mechanisms that can help indi-viduals connect. For constituency builders workingacross racial, class-based, ethnic, and other social groups,another challenge is to help constituents bridge socialdivides. In both instances, activists help constituents findcommon ground where joint action is possible.

Challenge: Linking Personal Experienceto Systemic PerspectivesMany study participants emphasize the value of broad-ening constituents' perspectives on schools, shifting

"There's a lot of strength to be drawn from the

sense of collectivity. It allows you to go from

a sense that you're a failure and something's

wrong with your child to it being a problem

with the school."

The head of a national organization

21


from personal to systemic frameworks. Such a shiftmeans defining problems as the system's failures ratherthan one's own failures. This work involves identifying,analyzing, and building on the experiences andperspectives of many individuals. It also entails fosteringthe ability to see local (classroom- or school-based)issues within larger frameworks (clusterwide or sys-temwide). It also can mean making global policy issues,such as vouchers, relevant and understandable to indi-viduals locally.

Challenge: Promoting Joint Action in aSociety That Values IndividualismTo build constituency, individuals must be able to jointogether for the common good. Reformers work to bringpeople together; foster a sense of common concerns,goals, and understandings; and provide arenas for jointendeavors. Such efforts may focus on members of a par-ticular racial or ethnic group in a community, parents andteachers in a school, or parents from poorly servedneighborhoods. For example, an organization may sup-port a handful of concerned teachers who collaborate toarticulate and address their perception of the curricu-lum's failure to meet the needs of their school's manyLatino students. Another organization may engage resi-dents from across a city in a process to define the kind ofschool system they want. A basic challenge in this worklies in developing a perceived link between individual pri-orities and the common weal, a connection that oftenmust be built from scratch in a society that emphasizesindividualism, competition, and personal gain.

Challenge: Developing MechanismsThat Foster Learning and ActionConstituency builders try to create mechanisms that canhelp parents, community members, teachers, students,and others develop systemic perspectives and worktoward common goods. Such mechanisms includingmeetings, trainings, study and discussion sessions, infor-mation dissemination, mentoring, and action research

can foster recognition of shared concerns, definitionof central issues, and development and implementationof joint action. Successful mechanisms open the possi-bility of sustained constituent engagement, even as par-ticular individuals and organizations come and go.

Challenge: Maintaining Focuswithin Changing Social ContextsConstituency builders work to stay focused on reformgoals while dealing with the complexities of changingsocial, economic, and political contexts. In part becauseschools are at the center of American society and, asdiscussed earlier, shoulder many expectations, study par-ticipants find their work affected by many factors.These include rapidly changing demographics, suchas increasingly diverse student bodies, the growth ofsingle-parent families, and an aging population. Suchshifts require schools to respond with appropriatecapacities and resources. But reformers also must knowhow to build constituencies among changing popula-tions. Other significant trends include increasingdemands that public schools teach all students to highstandards; a widespread reliance on high-stakes testingto validate student achievement; and a turn by many toprivatized solutions to underachieving schools, includ-ing rising interest in vouchers, for-profit educationcompanies, private education, and home schooling,which could narrow the share of the population with adirect, vested interest in public education. Amidst theseand other factors, including changing economic andpolitical climate, reformers must balance the need toact strategically, responding to opportunities and chal-lenges, while also keeping clear goals in mind.


1522

Signs of ImpactThe ultimate goals of the constituency builders who participated in this study arefar-reaching: equitable, quality public education for all children; deep, sustained,and ongoing reform of public education; and democracy in practice. As study par-ticipants work toward these goals, they and the constituencies they support achievechanges that immediately benefit students and communities. Following is a smallsampling of these achievements, each a milestone in a long journey, not a finaldestination. In some cases, constituency building was the sole or main strategyemployed; in others, it was a vital component in an effort including other methods,such as professional advocacy or litigation. Each is described in more detail withinthis chapter. (Note: The Ford Foundation's Constituency Building for Public SchoolReform Initiative did not fund lobbying or litigation.)

Statewide, comprehensive, standards-based reform that resulted in improvedacademic performance at every grade level and increased high school graduationrates (Kentucky)

Collaboration among the community, the private sector, and the school systemto build a new elementary school building designed to support a dual-languageacquisition program (Washington, D.C.)

Improved teacher recruitment and development of a teacher retention programfor low-income neighborhood schools (Chicago, Illinois)

A $5 million rehabilitation of a high school (Chicago, Illinois)

Block scheduling and curricular changes resulting in improvements in studentgrades, credit accrual, and English language literacy (Salinas, California)

Establishment of structures and training for school-based management teams(Jackson, Mississippi)

Passage of a $75 million public schools bondmeasure, accompanied by development ofa five-year vision and strategic plan for dis-trictwide reform (Portland, Oregon)

Annual allocations of $2.5 million foreducationally oriented after-schoolprograms designed by teamsof educators and parents(Houston, Texas)

BESTCOPYAVAILABLE 1

1


CHAPTER THREE I

Role and Impact of ConstituencyBuilding for School Reform

Whether they trained as teachers or lawyers,whether they worked previously as journal-ists or foundation directors, all study partic-

ipants see constituency building as essential to achievingquality, equitable public education systems. This chap-ter explores that conviction: Why is constituency buildingvital for achieving public school reform? Following thischapter, Part II of the report examines in detail howconstituency builders work toward such a powerfulresult.

As participants describe their work, it becomes clearthat constituency building contributes to at least threemain objectives. Although the terminology variesamong groups, activists generally aim to achieve theseinterrelated objectives:

Build understanding and a sense of shared interestin quality, equitable schools.

Create political will and hold public educationinstitutions accountable.

Change roles, relationships, and power dynamics.

All three objectives are political in nature. They con-cern who has power and how they use it to shape edu-cation. Participants have helped constituents examinethe political context of public education, assess whomakes decisions and who has influence currently, andidentify and use their own power, whether that is thepower to vote, to influence others through speech anddemonstrations, or to change their own practices.

In the day-to-day work of constituency building,the three objectives are inextricably interwoven; anyone task, such as a training or demonstration, mightcontribute to meeting all three objectives. This chapter,however, unravels the three to examine how each con-tributes to the overarching goals of reform. Nonetheless,participants note that each constituency-building effortdiscussed had to build understanding, create politicalwill, and change power dynamics important gains inthemselves to achieve particular reform goals.

Role and Impact of Constituency Building for School Reform

Throughout the chapter, examples illustrate how theobjectives serve as critical steps toward creating quality,equitable schools. The examples also demonstrate howconstituency building for reform can be effective inmany settings, from rural states to large cities, and inplaces where support from officials ranges from zero tosubstantial. Sample efforts show a range of impacts,extending from classroom practice to district and statepolicy, and addressing major reform issues, such as stan-dards, accountability, governance, funding, facilities, andcurricula. Each example is extracted from a work inprogress, an ongoing effort to reform a system. In eachcase, constituency building was a vital element in thecomplex dynamics that produced change.

These efforts make up only a small part of currentwork to build reform constituencies and illustrate justa few of the changes that such efforts help achieve inmany communities around the country. Some of thegroups involved received support directly from the FordFoundation's Constituency Building for Public SchoolReform (CBPSR) Initiative. Others are members ofregional or national networks or coalitions that receivedCBPSR Initiative funding. For example, the CBPSRInitiative supported the Interfaith Education Fund,which in turn provided assistance to local groups,including Austin Interfaith and the MetropolitanOrganization of Houston.

Building Understanding and aSense of Shared Interest inQuality, Equitable SchoolsStudy participants seek to expand stakeholders'understanding of the education system, their experi-ences in that system, and their ability to effect change.Constituents' broadened perspectives enable them toidentify common interests and work together toimprove education.

All participants provide information, training, andforums to help people view their experiences in light of

24

school systems' policies and patterns of practice. Forinstance, participants describe parents who initiallythink that their children's academic difficulties are theirfault or are due to a particular teacher or principal.Sharing their stories with others, parents learn to iden-tify patterns and systemic factors that shape their chil-dren's education. Organizers in Austin, Texas, helpedparents and teachers understand the relationshipsbetween district policies and what children experiencein the classroom, as well as the ways decisions are madein the system.

Austin, Texas In fall 1999, a team of a dozen par-

ents and teachers at TA. Brown Elementary School,

a member of the Alliance Schools Project, began

asking questions about bilingual education. Why

were bilingual education classes so often taught by

substitutes? Why did the school library lack Spanish-

language books? What was the district's philosophy

for bilingual education? With support from AustinInterfaith, an Industrial Areas Foundation affiliate,

the team joined with parents and teachers from

other district schools who shared their concerns.

They held a series of "public actions" involving hun-

dreds of people. At each of these meetings, parents

presented their views and questions and asked the

district's deputy superintendent for bilingual educa-tion to commit to working with them.

Within one year, the effort achieved results: a pub-

lished statement of philosophy, outlining clear goalsfor the district's bilingual and English as a second

language programs; a new book purchasing policy,

expanding the pool of vendors to include thosewith a greater selection of Spanish-language books;

a requirement that each bilingual education studentbe provided with two copies of each textbook, one

in English and one in Spanish; an intensive English

and native-language literacy program for middle

school students; and a higher priority on recruitingbilingual teachers.

As constituents understand the system better, con-stituency builders try to raise their expectations and boosttheir confidence in their ability to effect change. Onelocal constituency builder notes, "Our parents had beenconditioned to accept the status quo, that ... because I live

in this side of town, this is the best that I can get." Studyparticipants aim to raise expectations by providing com-parative school data, educating constituents about theirlegal rights, teaching about strategies used elsewhere toimprove schools, and providing information about andvisits to innovative schools. In Houston, Texas, organizershelped parents and teachers not only envision new pro-grams, but also see themselves as people who could holdpublic institutions accountable.

Houston, Texas When organizers from The

Metropolitan Organization (TMO), an IndustrialAreas Foundation affiliate, met with parents in1996, many voiced concerns about what their chil-

dren were doing after school. Eighty of those par-

ents, from diverse neighborhoods, backgrounds, and

races, collaborated with principals and teachers to

research after-school programs in other cities and

discuss possible programs for their Houston schools.

As they discovered how children learn in after-school programs, parents also developed more

sophisticated expectations of their schools. In a

year, parents held nine meetings, with 165 to 1,000

people attending each, to ask city council members

and other elected officials to approve and fund anew plan for after-school programs. They won a

pilot program for 11 schools. In each school, parents

and educators designed activities tailored to meettheir children's specific needs.

By 2001, the Houston city council allocation for

these after-school programs had reached $2.5 mil-

lion, with more than 100 institutions, most of them

schools, receiving funds. TMO parents continued to

work with schools to help design and implementquality after-school enrichment programs.

In building understanding of the public educationsystem, study participants say they struggle to do twothings simultaneously:

1) defend public schools as institutions that are vitalto democracy, can serve all children well, and canimprove; and

2) call attention to the need to address severe educa-tional inequities and inadequacies.

25


Without efforts in the former category, voters willbe less willing to invest in public schools; parents will bemore likely to turn to private schools, or in cities, moveto suburbs with better-funded schools; and policymak-ers will be more inclined to consider privatization.Without the latter, many mainly poor children will con-tinue to attend under-resourced and poorly performingschools. Permanent, independent constituency-buildingorganizations play a key role in raising awareness aboutthese issues. As outsiders, they have the credibility topoint out what is right in schools and the freedom topoint out what is wrong. The independence andearly achievements of the Portland (Oregon) PublicSchools Foundation, a member of the Public EducationNetwork, have enabled it to convene a wide spectrumof stakeholders to confront longstanding inequities.

Portland, Oregon Eighty-five percent ofPortland's children attend public schools, far more

than in than most cities. In the early 1990s, budget

cuts resulting from a state property tax cap threat-ened the quality of the city's schools, even as the

state legislature called for world-class public educa-tion. When a second round of budget cuts reached

$25 million in 7996, school and community leaders

formed the Portland Public Schools Foundation,

an independent, citywide organization. The founda-

tion's first initiative was to organize a 30,000-person "March for our Schools," the largest demon-

stration in Oregon's history.

That year, the foundation raised $10 million in eightweeks, breaking all nonprofit fundraising records in

Portland and enabling the district to bring back 200of the 425 laid-off teachers and librarians.

As parents, businesspeople, and civic leaders became

involved in the funding issue, they also grew aware

of the need for school improvement As Foundation

Director Cynthia Guyer states, "Once you feel like

you have been part of leveraging millions of dollars

for your school system, it makes you think about

your investment, and the school reform/improve-ment agenda becomes the next set of questions you

are engaged in." Recognizing that continued support

for the city's public schools depended on addressing

longstanding problems, including a stark achieve-

ment gap between white and African American.apci

Latino students, the foundation partnered with theboard of education and the superintendent to initi-ate a year long, community-based strategic planning

process. Three hundred and fifty school and commu-

nity leaders struggled with questions of school

accountability and equity, and 2,000 others partici-pated in focus groups, surveys, and community

forums. The school board adopted the resulting plan

in June 2000, and a task force of parent, community,

school, and city government leaders is working on

ways to close the achievement gap, including the use

of data for continuous improvement and a school

accountability system.

Besides broadening awareness of the school sys-

tem's assets and challenges, the inclusive process

built community commitment to the system and ashared vision of systemwide improvement. In 1999,

the foundation led a successful campaign for a his-

toric $75 million bond measure for the city'sschools. With 50 percent voter turnout required topass any tax measure in Oregon and a history of

low turnout for primaries, passage demanded large-

scale mobilization of parents, educators, and com-

munity members. Fifty-one percent of the elec-torate voted, and the bond measure passed with 63

percent of the vote.

Constituency builders emphasize the need to movebeyond agreement about problems to formulation ofclear goals and plans for change. One study membernotes, "There is an assumption that if we share a con-cern, we share the vision for the solution, too." Yet par-ticipants' experiences prove this assumption to be false.For this reason, constituency builders facilitate jointgoal setting and planning through a range of mecha-nisms, from small group discussions to massive forums.

Many participants build coalitions as a way todevelop shared frameworks and consensus on goalsand strategies for reform. In doing so, they face thechallenges of bringing diverse groups together andmaintaining focus and agreement over the long haul.In The Color of School Reform: Race, Politics, and theChallenge of Urban Education, Jeffrey Henig and col-leagues argue that school reform coalitions are even morechallenging than joint action in many other arenas:

Role and Impact of Constituency Building for School Reform19

26

Building sustainable coalitions for systemicschool reform is much harder than building part-nerships for downtown development partlybecause the payoffs are less immediate, tangible,divisible, and assured. It is harder, too, becausethe alternatives to working collectively to solvethe problem are well-established and well-known: personal exit to suburbs, private schools,or school-specific solutions; corporate exit to sub-urbs, in-house training, or personnel recruitmentfrom other areas; political leaders' option to focuson other issues.'

In Kentucky, the Prichard Committee for AcademicExcellence, as an independent citizens group, was ableto overcome these obstacles to guide and build supportfor fiindamental systemic reform.

Kentucky' Prior to reform, Kentucky's education

system was recognized widely as one of the worst

in the country. Massive constituency building, ledby the Prichard Committee, contributed both to theKentucky Supreme Court's willingness to order

groundbreaking changes and to the legislature's

passage of the Kentucky Education Reform Act

(KERA). The committee's 7984 statewide town forum

one of many activities illustrates the enor-mous scale of the group's work: 20,000 Kentuckians

participated in the televised forum, 6,000 individ-ual comments were recorded, and 15,000 written

statements were submitted. The committee helped

build a state-level coalition to develop consensus

among educators' associations, the Congress of

Parents and Teachers, the Kentucky Chamber of

Commerce, and other groups, each of which worked

with its members to further reform. In addition, thecommittee reached out to community-based organ-izations to stimulate public concern and facilitatelocal discussions among parents, teachers, business-

people, and other stakeholders.

Enacted in 1990, KERA reduced the resource gap

among school districts and established school-based

decision-making and comprehensive standards-

based reform, including a school accountability sys-

tem with student performance standards andassessment KERA also increased professional devel-

opment for teachers, introduced new preschool and

^t,1 20

elementary school programs, and created school-

based family resource and youth services centers.

Multiple measures show dramatic impact in thefirst decade of KERA implementation. By 1999,

Kentucky ranked 30th among states, up from 42nd,

in high school graduation rates. Kentucky has risen

from 42nd place to 30th in per-pupil spending, from

41st to 30th in pupil-teacher ratios, and from 38thto 30th in teacher salaries. Three in four at-risk 4-

year-olds now attend preschool programs. Kentucky

assessment results reveal improvements at every

grade level. The 1998 National Assessment for

Educational Progress shows Kentucky's reading and

math scores increasing significantly compared to

other states, with Kentucky passing the average

score in reading and nearing it in math and science.

Ten years after the passage of KERA, as reform

efforts continue to challenge power structures anddaily practice, the Prichard Committee helps hold

the statewide reform coalition together. To deepenlocal implementation, committee workshops teach200 parents a year how to lead parent-educator

dialogues on reform, use data to improve schools,

and make school-based decision-making effective.

Study participants strive to expand individuals' per-ceptions and abilities as well as develop a shared senseof commonality and capacity to work together. Somegroups, such as the Public Education Network and thePrichard Committee, try to build collective capacityamong all stakeholders, enabling individuals and organ-izations to work collectively across differences in areassuch as role, race, language, and income level. Onenational organization director sees the purpose of con-stituency building as "bridging these groups, who areinclined to be very insulated themselves." ClarenceStone and other researchers with the Civic Capacityand Urban Education Project, which has examinedschool reform in 11 cities, argue that reform cannotsucceed unless constituents shift to a shared frameworkbeyond "the limited concerns of particular groupsbusiness leaders with economy and efficiency, parentswith the opportunities available to their own children,educators with salary and professional prerogatives."'

Other groups, such as California Tomorrow and theNational Coalition of Advocates for Students, whose

27


work is described below, try to build collective capacityand a sense of unity within particular communitieswhose children have been excluded from quality educa-tion. A statewide group's director contrasts thisapproach to broader civic capacity building:

In a system in which African American andLatino children, poor children, and immigrantsare systemically tracked to inferior educations,some of the organizations are specifically aboutraising the voices of those communities toaddress the racism in the system. There may bealliance and coalition building in that workbetween various excluded communities, betweenthose in the schools and those in the communitywho care about this agenda but the heart of itis to change the exclusionary nature of publiceducation.

Efforts to develop a shared understanding andframework for reform are challenging partly because ofthe complex relationships among schools, communities,and larger social and economic trends. Reform discus-sions tend to raise fundamental questions, not onlyabout public education, but also about societal issues.Study participants note that equity-oriented reforms, inparticular, challenge society to grapple with the wayspeople see their communities and country as well astheir schools. For example, a participant who works inmultiple sites points out that addressing immigrant stu-dent education invokes larger questions: "There's noconversation about the language of instruction withoutit being about how we are responding politically toimmigration."

Creating Political Will and Holding PublicEducation Institutions AccountableNumerous studies document obstacles to educationreform, including various pressures to retain the statusquo: the bureaucratic tendency toward inertia, profes-sional interests in protecting jobs and job conditions,and pressure from parents concerned that change mightmean that valuable resources are taken away from theirchildren. Paul Hill, Christine Campbell, and JamesHarvey assert in It Takes a City that "leadership must

come, strongly and for a long time, from outside thesystem."' In Building Civic Capacity, Clarence Stoneand colleagues conclude that, although many reformefforts have been initiated, they have not been broadenough or sustained enough to have lasting impact. "Yetthere are variations among the cities we studied," theynote, "and more extensive efforts are associated with ahigher level of civic mobilization."'

Study participants' experiences show how outsideorganizations and constituents can exert and sustainpressure for reform independently. Although mostactivists develop working relationships with at leastsome supportive district or state staff, their independ-ent status enables them to challenge policy positions,present new ideas, and exert pressure on the system inways their counterparts within the system cannot. Asthe evaluation of the Donors' Education CollaborativeInitiative in New York City shows and the current studyaffirms, independent groups use "overlapping and mutu-ally supportive strategies to develop political will." Thesemethods include:

m

building visible constituencies to motivate andlegitimize a reform effort,

generating media attention, and

developing constituent access to and credibilitywith policymakers and senior administrators.'

Study participants' achievements show that con-stituency building can help change schools; moreover,all participants argue that it is necessary to improveeducation of under-served children, particularly chil-dren of color and poor children. Poor children are con-centrated in districts and schools that lack adequateresources, including funding, qualified teachers, strongeducational leaders, facilities, and technology Improvingeducation for those children depends, in part, on reallo-cation of resources, either within the education systemor from other sources. Because allocation of publicresources is determined largely by elected officials,within constitutional boundaries, study participants andother constituency builders seek to create political pres-sure for equitable allocation.

Their various orientations whether, as discussedabove, they seek to build capacity across groups or


21 28

mainly within excluded communities are reflectedin their strategies for building political pressure. Somestudy participants believe that systemic change requirescreating, among the general public, a sense of sharedresponsibility for the education of all children. A direc-tor of a national organization says:

If we are to give poor and minority children inAmerica the opportunity they both need anddeserve, we must join the isolated interests andconcerns of Americans into a common andshared cause to build a movement not unlikethe civil rights movement of the 1960s. ... Thepoint is that when the rest of the nation beganto consider Birmingham's problem and Selma'sproblem as its problem, the civil rights movementwas infiised with the energy and resources of theentire nation.'

Other study participants take a different lesson fromthe civil rights movement: "We walked into this workwith a background in civil rights and with everythingthat that implies about having had to rely on the courtsto insist that people change. ... There is not a sharedpublic will to really address issues of racism and equity."These constituency builders try to create political willsolely or mainly by building capacity within AfricanAmerican, Latino, low-income, immigrant, and otherpoorly served communities to advocate for their chil-dren. One participant asserts that, particularly regardingequity issues, efforts to obtain universal support can becounterproductive: "[W]hen people emphasize thegeneric 'all students' kind of language in an attempt tobring more and more people in and get agreements ...it ends up masking the level of specificity and under-standing about issues of equity that are necessary toreally deal with them."

In addition to building capacity among excludedgroups to press for change, some organizations also useother advocacy strategies, including litigation, to bringabout policy change where political support or momen-tum is lacking. (While constituency building is supportedby the Ford Foundation's initiative, litigation is not.) InFlorida, for instance, families sued the state to establishclear rights for English language learners. The LULACet al. v. State Board of Education suit and resultingconsent decree not only forced the establishment of

22

equitable state policy, but also created a sense ofentitlement among English language learners' families.Constituency-building efforts then built on those gains.

29

Florida Since 7990, hundreds of Latino, Asian,

and other immigrant parents have been working tohold schools and districts accountable for recogniz-

ing the legal rights of limited English proficient (LEP)

students, as established previously in the LULAC

et al. v. State Board of Education consent decree.

The consent decree requires public schools to pro-

vide LEP students with comprehensible instruction,

full access to school programs, translations of key

school documents into the language of the home,

and interpretation at parent meetings.

Central to this effort are clusters of language-minority parents and community-organization staffmembers from around the state who meet regularlyto exchange information and develop leadership,

policy analysis, and other skills needed to monitor

school and district compliance with the consentdecree. With support from the National Coalitionof Advocates for Students (NCAS) and the Multi-

cultural Education and Training Association, each

member of these leadership groups heads a local

parent network, often linking immigrants frommany countries. When these local networks gather

for joint sessions, meetings are held in the first lan-

guages of participating parents, including Spanish,

Haitian Kreyol, and various Asian languages. NCAS

also supports development of advocacy skills by

providing network members with translated infor-mation and communicating with them by e-mailand telephone.

Each local group provides a point of access for

immigrants to school policymaking and challenges

the system to respond to constituents' needs, thus

performing functions necessary for citizen partici-pation in school policy.'

As a result of these efforts, counties with skilledbilingual parent advocates generally have stronger

district and school LEP Parent Leadership Councils

and better implementation of the consent decree's

provisions than ever before. These parents and fam-

ily members, empowered with new leadership skills


and access to information, represent importantresources for other LEP parents, often accompany-

ing them to school meetings to resolve problems

that threaten their child's school success.

For reform to succeed, constituents must exert polit-ical will at many levels, from national and state levels toindividual schools and classrooms. Study participantshelp constituents act at all levels. Moreover, sustainingreform demands not just initial will, but demandingaccountability through years, even decades, of imple-mentation. Study participants emphasize their roles inmaintaining public vigilance, sustaining reformalliances, and bringing new political leaders on board.Scholars affirm that role. Discussing the roles of com-munity groups in ensuring continuity in reform processesin Texas, Illinois, and Kentucky, Marilyn Gittell states:"The longevity of these groups serves as a critical linkbetween officials, prevents policy from veering offcourse, and establishes a long-term, reliable source ofinformation for the public."' Analyzing political chal-lenges and conditions necessary for systemic reform,Susan Fuhrman points to the effectiveness of independ-ent groups such as the Prichard Committee in main-taining coherence over time:

They address the problems of fragmentation,overemphasis on election, policy overload andspecialization by uniting representatives acrossfragmented policy arenas and outliving changesin political leadership. Such structures promoteconsensus on a reform agenda that mitigatesagainst political tendencies to veer off in newdirections.'

In Washington, D.C., the 21st Century SchoolFund has combined efforts at school and district levelsto generate and sustain the will for capital improve-ments and the institutional capacity to carry them out,even during the 1990s, a time of political upheaval inthe city.

Washington, D.C. Until 1998, some of Oyster

Elementary School's classes were held in hallways

and stairwells and portable classrooms that had

exceeded their life expectancy. The overcrowded

building, built in 7926, had inadequate bathrooms

and a roof that leaked with every rain. Moreover,


23

the school's facilities did not support the curriculum.

The dual-language acquisition program, in which all

students learn all subjects in Spanish and English,

requires two teachers per classroom and sufficient

space for concurrent instruction. Oyster lacked that

space. Oyster parents joined forces and developed a

plan to recapture the significant land value of the

school site to generate funds. The 21st Century

School Fund, formed by a handful of concerned par-

ents, led the charge in creating a public-private part-

nership to modernize the school and advocate for

capital improvements throughout the district

Fueled by broad participation among Oyster's eco-

nomically, racially, culturally, and linguistically

diverse families, the Oyster School-Community

Council and Local School Restructuring Team worked

for over nine years to achieve their goals. Parents

educated officials and navigated the system's bureau-

cracy. Committees of parents and educators drew up

educational specifications that described the space

requirements for a new school. They kept pressure on

the district through three mayors, four superintend-

ents, four different governance structures, four direc-

tors of facilities and seven project managers, two

Board of Education votes, three City Council votes,

two Request for Proposal processes, and uncounted

administrative steps.

The results of these efforts have been notable.

Oyster students moved to a temporary school loca-tion in fall 1998, when construction began, and they

entered the new Oyster School in September 2001.

The success of the Oyster community, the 21st

Century School Fund, and the public-private part-

nership demonstrates to similarly under-served com-

munities that they can obtain better schools. The

dilapidated state of Oyster's original facilities is not

unusual for the District of Columbia. Community

groups across the city have joined the 27st Century

School Fund in holding the school district account-

able for developing and implementing a Master

Facilities Plan that supports quality education. They

also have generated sufficient political will for an

increase of hundreds of millions of dollars in the cap-

ital budget

30

Changing Roles, Relationships,and Power DynamicsIn addition to the many activities described earlier, con-stituency builders work to expand how individuals seetheir roles in schools and help them take on new rolesand form new relationships. Constituency buildersalso try to broaden participation in governance structuresand support constituents' use of democratic and constitu-tional tools to exert pressure for change. For example,Eva Gold and Diane Brown found, in evaluatingPhiladelphia's Alliance Organizing Project (AOP): "AOPorganizing provides parents with an expanded view oftheir roles in schools and helps them to redefine theirresponsibilities to their children's education." Study par-ticipants describe helping other constituents reshape theirroles, as well. For instance, Portland Public SchoolsFoundation brought community groups, businesses, localpoliticians, and higher education representatives into thestrategic planning process, along with parents and educa-tors. In Washington, D.C., the 21st Century SchoolFund created a new model of public-private collaborationfor improving school facilities and, in the process, spurreda private firm to develop a new group within the firm towork on schools development.

Study participants describe part of their task as help-ing constituents see themselves as legitimate advocates

not just for their children's education, but for a bettereducation system. NCAS provides parent leaders withbusiness cards and stipends to foster a sense of legitimacyand membership in a common effort. The perceivedstatus is particularly important among immigrant par-ents, some of whom come from cultures with relativelyrigid social distinctions.

Although study participants vary in the strategiesthey use to help constituents take on new roles, all agreethat contact with other leaders and ongoing mentoringare essential. Constituency-building groups oftensupport peer networks, such as the InterculturalDevelopment Research Association's (IDRA) parentleadership network in San Antonio and the AllianceSchools Project's principals network in Austin. Studyparticipants point out that ongoing support is particu-larly important for immigrants from countries wherespeaking out for change may not only be unacceptableculturally, but also dangerous.

Many study members structure opportunities forconstituents to take on new roles first in low-key situa-tions with extensive support. In Kentucky, parents par-ticipating in the Commonwealth Institute for ParentLeadership formulate school improvement projects thatthey implement after they conclude training. In design-ing projects, parents use the same assessment and plan-

Power DynamicsParticipants seek to change power dynamics in many ways, including:

Changing who has authority to make decisions, for example by establishing local schoolcouncils that include parents and teachers and that have the authority to hire the principaland allocate funds.

Supporting constituents in exercising new decision-making authority, for example by provid-ing training to parents on local school councils so they can effectively assert their positions.

Increasing and diversifying input for decisions, for example by holding public meetings wherecommunity members share their views with officials and the media.

Increasing public awareness of decisions and who makes them.

Helping teachers exercise their ability to change their own practice and to be an exampleto others.

Providing forums for students to describe their experiences and expectations.

BESTCOPY AVAILABLE S. i... 31Vital Voices: Building Constituencies for Public School Reform

ning process that the state requires schools to use tocomplete consolidated plans. Thus, the projects buildparents' capacity to participate in educational planningwhile placing them in active roles. Some parents havenoted that their increased knowledge of consolidatedplanning caused school staff to see them in a new light,as valuable resources.

Study participants emphasize the need for safeplaces where people can reassess their roles and, as oneput it, "begin to know each other and themselves differ-ently, away from a setting which can be filled with ten-sion." The need for this type of interaction extends toeducators as well as parents and community members,particularly in low-performing schools where conversa-tion is most often absent. Outside organizations canprovide safe places and act as conveners and facilitators.In Salinas, California, a group called CaliforniaTomorrow (CT) provided a forum where committedindividuals (termed "sparks" by CT) could collaborate toaddress the lack of quality education for immigrant stu-dents and English language learners. The independentorganization fostered sparks' sense of legitimacy andshared purpose, enabling them to confront potentiallydivisive equity issues. As a statewide group with nationalconnections, CT linked sparks with innovative schoolsand educational resources outside Salinas, reframed theeducational equity issue within a broader political con-text, coached sparks in their new roles, and developed astrategy for expanding and institutionalizing reforms.

Salinas, California' In 1994, when California

Tomorrow began working with Alisal High School,

the school had an engaged staff, many special proj-

ects, and a strong commitment to bilingual educa-

tion. Nonetheless, student achievement lagged and

discipline problems abounded. CT assembled a

planning group of equity-oriented Alisal teachers,administrators, and counselors to identify andaddress the school's equity and achievement issues.

To help focus the group's efforts, CT helped stu-

dents put together a panel to voice their concerns.

Responding to these concerns, the planning group

created a block schedule that enabled students to

work more intensively on fewer subjects and

allowed teachers to work more closely with fewer


25

students each day. The weekly schedule included a

tutorial period (to provide needed academic sup-

port); a mixed-grade, mixed-language proficiency

enrichment period (to improve intergroup rela-tions); and common planning time (to foster collab-oration and peer support among teachers). Even

during a year of teacher contract tensions, the pro-posed schedule won support from 92 percent of thestaff A new discipline policy and program alsowent into effect

With the new schedule and discipline policy in

place, Alisal teachers turned to instruction. CT sup-

ported teachers' efforts to use school data, studentinterviews, and other research to develop a change

strategy. Lacking the principal's support, a core

group of 10 teachers independently created and

piloted an accelerated literacy program for ninth-grade English language learners. The teachers then

spread their vision by writing and disseminating

newsletters, inviting others to visit their classrooms,holding evening meetings with parents, and con-

ducting teacher and community training.

The schoolwide changes resulted in immediate

measured improvements in grades, credit accrual,

student involvement in clubs, and reduced discipli-

nary referrals. In addition, an independent evalua-tion showed that the new literacy approach paidoff for students in improved English language skills

and increased access to other academic subjects.

The teacher team won the superintendent's backing

and now has a supportive principal. The accelerated

literacy approach developed by the team has

become part of a common repertoire of strategies

that all teachers use at Alisal.

Many constituency builders work to build theunderstanding and trust necessary for stakeholders toaccept each other in new roles and collaborate. Thiswork entails overcoming what participants call "the cul-ture of blame" and defensiveness that permeate manyschools, making it difficult to discuss problems orsuggest solutions.

Many study participants cite the challenge of bring-ing together "inside" and "outside" constituencies, that

32

"I went to school for two years to learn what it

takes to be a principal. ... Every time a parent

comes into your office, every time a teacher

comes into your office, you take that notepad

out, and you document, and you dot your l's and

cross your T's. It is two years of that very bureau-

cratic role that we are taught. ... It was not until

the training I did with [the constituency-building

group], that I began asking, 'Were we creating

the space for parents to come in and dialogue in

an honest way about our school?'

A principal working with an organizing group

is, those employed by or already considered legitimateby the school system and those whose work is viewedas external to the district. Participants say that inside-outside relationships must be nurtured to sustainreform, particularly in urban areas where superintend-ent, principal, and teacher turnover rates are high. Oneactivist who supports work in multiple sites asserts: "Ifyou build a core leadership base that includes a group ofstaff, a group of parents, and neighboring institutions,and if it's really been a cultural change and not just acharismatic principal, then that [reform] will hold."

As a multi-issue organization, Chicago ACORN(Association of Community Organizations for ReformNow) has used a health care issue as an opportunity tohelp parents develop new skills and to promote family-educator relationships. Joint work on the issue builttrust and communication among families, educators,and ACORN staff. These new relationships have beencritical not only for families raising educational issues at

school, but also for parents and school staffcooperating to leverage change at the dis-trict level.

Chicago, Illinois ACORN members,

mostly parents, approached Mason

and Hughes elementary schools in

Chicago's North Lawndale community

in 1999 with a proposal to work

together to enroll all eligible childrenin KidCare, a free public health insur-

ance program. With the principals' per-mission, the parents began by engaging

teachers in shaping the campaign strat-

egy. The collaborative effort eventuallyenrolled 80 percent of students inKidCare the highest proportion ofany school in Chicago and produced

a model for effective outreach.

At the same time, some of the parents

were participating in CommunityOrganizing for School Reformers, a

training program developed by ACORN

and Cross City Campaign for Urban

School Reform. Parents in the program

wondered how they could influenceclassroom instruction and eventually focused on

teacher recruitment and retention. When they toldthe schools' principals that they wanted to expand

the relationship, the principals welcomed their ini-tiative. The parents ran an ad in local papers and

Education Week soliciting applicants for teachingopenings. They learned how to judge resumes and

role-played candidate interviews. A parent-faculty

collaborative formulated questions for candidates,and parents conducted initial interviews. As a

result, parents succeeded in hiring two teachers for

Mason Elementary School. In the process, the par-

ents learned how attracting and retaining teachersare related to the school's vision, plan, professional

development program, and resources.

ACORN members at other schools also began

working on teacher recruitment and retention.

Viewing their schools through the eyes of a

33BESTCOPYAVAILABLE


prospective teacher, parents identified conditions

that made teaching and learning difficult Forinstance, Harper High School could not recruit a sci-

ence teacher because it had no operating science

laboratories. Parents and educators tackled the bar-

riers. More than 400 parents and residents in the

West Englewood neighborhood met with Chicago

Public Schools' chief operating officer to demand

working science labs and other needed improve-

ments. Their efforts won a $5 million rehabilitationprogram for Harper, including new science labs.

Parents and educators also are mulling improve-

ments in professional development and school cul-

ture. They realize that an active parent communitymakes the school attractive to teachers they want

to recruit and retain.

The parents also have investigated the discrepancy

between teachers' qualifications in low-income,low-performing schools and those in the system's

elite schools. Parents took on systemic issues con-

tributing to the discrepancy, including differencesamong schools' resources and the effects of dis-

trictwide accountability measures. Three hundred

parents launched a campaign that entailed releas-

ing a study of instructional inequities and going enmasse to board of education meetings and district

offices to demand recruitment of qualified teachersfor low-performing schools. The parents won a

commitment from the board of education's chair-

man to hire more teachers than ever before, and

they are collaborating with the district's humanresources department to design a teacher retention

program that will be piloted at some ACORNneighborhood schools.

ACORN parents' work illustrates not only relation-ship building but also how constituents can exercisetheir constitutional rights to free speech and freeassembly. In many cases, constituents combine collabo-ration and accountability strategies to exert pressure andchange power dynamics. For instance, ACORN mem-bers built collaborative relationships with school staff,but also published a study documenting the district'sinequitable distribution of resources and staged largedemonstrations to put pressure on policymakers.


Study participants assert it is critical to institutional-ize expanded roles and relationships so they outlastparticular leaders and situations. Many constituencybuilders focus on changing governance structures, partic-ularly at the school and district levels. Study participantssay these efforts must include ongoing support for parentand community participation. Parents for Public Schoolsof Jackson, Mississippi, illustrates how constituency-building groups can provide ongoing support as previouslyuninvolved stakeholders take seats at the table.

Jackson, Mississippi Beginning in 1995, the local

chapter of Parents for Public Schools (PPS) has advo-

cated site-based management as a vital strategy for

raising the achievement of all students. Parents suc-

cessfully advocated for and worked with a districtcommittee to write a site-based management policy.

Enacted by the school board in 1999, the policy

requires each school to form a site council made up

of parents, teachers, classified staff, the principal,

and another community member. Each council is

responsible for creating and monitoring implemen-

tation of a data-driven School Improvement Plan,reviewing and making recommendations for the

school budget, and selecting, in cooperation with

the superintendent, the school's principal.

In 1999, with funding from the Ford Foundation's

Collaborating for Education Reform Initiative,

Jackson PPS began the Ask for More Collaborative,

which seeks to raise student achievement, beginning

with Jackson's lowest-performing feeder system

(one high school and the two middle and seven ele-

mentary schools that send students to it). The Ask

for More partners schools, community organiza-

tions, families, and the local college's principals

institute have developed and delivered extensive

training for school site councils that emphasizes

analyzing school data, including student test scores,

to identify achievement gaps and creating plans toimprove outcomes for all students. It also addresses

how to hold productive meetings, what it means toserve as a representative on a site council, and how

to understand school budgets. The district has

adopted the Ask for More curriculum as the sitegovernance training for the district

34

As a result of the training, site coun-cils in the10 targeted schools have

focused attention on achievementgaps and the need for specific types

of professional development Over200 teachers and all 10 principals

have participated in professional

development focused on reading,

writing, and mathematics. The col-

laborative's work has resulted in improved reading

and math scores, increased parent participation on

school governance councils, and greater teacher

participation in professional development

"You can't declare democracy and then disband. To

enable people to participate in democracy, some

people need specific help to come to the table."

A national director

The Context for the Work:School Reform and CommunitiesAs the examples in this chapter illustrate, study partici-pants employ a variety of methods, often simultaneously,to achieve the three objectives examined in this chapter:

Build understanding and a sense of shared interestin quality, equitable schools.

NI Create political will and hold public educationinstitutions accountable.

III Change roles, relationships, and power dynamics.

In working toward these objectives, constituencybuilders enhance the capacity of individuals, organiza-tions, and communities to address longstanding inequitiesand inadequacies in education. Of course, more thanenhanced constituent capacity and activism are needed toensure quality, equitable public education, but participants'experiences demonstrate that constituency building ispowerful partly because it can generate other necessaryelements of reform. For instance, adequate funding isessential to quality, equitable schools, yet it often is lack-ing, particularly in low-income and minority communi-ties. Strong constituencies can generate the political willfor adequate funding, as they have in Portland, Kentucky,New York, and elsewhere. Study participants have helpedconstituents press for and implement critical reforms, suchas improved facilities in the District of Columbia, appro-priate textbooks in Austin, qualified teachers in Chicago,and teacher-led professional development and collabora-tion in Salinas, to name just a few.

28

Although study participants' work focuses on con-stituency building for public school reform, it takes placein the context of communities and society, which oftenincreases the challenge. For example, as noted inChapter 2, the highly fragmented nature of Americansociety and the value it places on individualism heightenthe challenge of building a sense of shared interests andcapacity to work together in new ways. Moreover, fami-lies' expectations of schools and their roles in schoolsare shaped by not only their educational experiences,but also their experiences with other public institutions,their overall sense of how well their community's needsare being met, and the efficacy of previous efforts toimprove services or guarantee their rights. Particularlyin low-income and minority communities, this contextadds to the challenge of raising constituents' expecta-tions of schools and their roles in the education system.

Part II of the report explores how study participantsbuild strong constituencies for reform in the face ofthese and other challenges. Each chapter examines aparticular aspect of the work, from building capacity forcollective action to changing power dynamics. Takentogether, the activities analyzed in Part II constitute theways constituency builders reach their three objectivesand, thus, help bring about quality, equitable publicschools for all children.

BESTCOPYAVAILABLE

35


Henig, Jeffrey, et al, The Color of School Reform: Race, Politics, and

the Challenge of Urban Education, Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1999, p. 279.

Impact data are drawn from Gaining Ground: Hard Work and HighExpectations for Kentucky Schools, Lexington, KY: Prichard

Committee for Academic Excellence, 1999. Among the numerousstudies documenting the key role of the Prichard Committee inKentucky reform are two pieces published by the Consortium forPolicy Research in Education: Adams, Jacob E., Jr., The PrichardCommittee for Academic Excellence: Credible Advocacy for Kentucky

Schools, 1993, and Fuhrman, Susan, Politics and Systemic Education

Reform, 1994.

3 Stone, Clarence, "Civic Capacity and Urban School Reform," inChanging Urban Education, ed. Clarence Stone, Lawrence, KS:University Press of Kansas, 1998, p. 258. See also Henig, TheColor of School Reform.

4 Hill, Paul T., Christine Campbell, and James Harvey, It Takes aCity: Getting Serious about Urban School Reform, Washington, DC:

Brookings Institute Press, 2000, p.107.

5 Stone, Clarence N., et al., Building Civic Capacity: The Politics ofReforming Urban Schools, Lawrence, KS: University Press ofKansas, 2001, p. 140. See also Kozol, Jonathan, Savage Inequalities:Children in America's Schools, New York: Crown Publishers, 1991.Rogers, David, 110 Livingston Street, New York: Random House,1968, quoted in Katz, Michael B., School Reform: Past and Present,Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1971, pp. 268-276. Gittell,Marilyn J., ed., Strategies for School Equity: Creating Productive

Schools in a Just Society, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,1998. Mirel, Jeffrey, The Rise and Fall of an Urban School System:

Detroit, 1907-81,2nd ed., Ann Arbor, MI: University ofMichigan Press, 1999.

6 Hirota, Janice, Robin Jacobowitz, and Prudence Brown, TheDonors' Education Collaborative: Strategies for Systemic School

Reform, Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at theUniversity of Chicago, 2000, p. 20.

7 Puriefoy, Wendy D., in Connections 8:1 (winter 2001),Washington, DC: Public Education Network, p. 5.

8 For identification of the key functions of citizen organizations, seeGittell, Marilyn J., Limits to Citizen Participation: The Decline ofCommunity Organizations, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications,1980.

9 Gittell, Marilyn J., "Engaging the Community," in Strategies for

School Equity: Creating Productive Schools in a Just Society, ed. Marilyn

J. Gittell, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998, p. 179.

1° Fuhrman, p. 4.

" Gold, Eva, and Diane Brown, A Report to the Alliance OrganizingProject on its Work with Parents, Philadelphia: Research for Action,1998, p. 15.

12 The description draws heavily from Olsen, Laurie, et al., IgnitingChange for Immigrant Students: Portraits of Three High Schools,

Oakland, CA: California Tomorrow, 1999.


29

BESTCOPYAVMLABLE

36

Part II

The Work

CHAPTER FOUR

Defining the Territory

Certain basic organizational decisions underpinand inform reform campaigns. Sometimes thesedecisions are inherent in the mission and phi-

losophy of the organization and, as such, infuse all itsefforts. For example, Parents for Public Schools' con-stituency building among parents is such a decision. Inother instances, particular circumstances may determinestrategic decisions. In Texas, the historic link betweenthe Intercultural Development Research Associationand Edgewood Independent School District in SanAntonio partly prompted the association to target thearea for parent leadership development. This chapterlooks briefly at the common decisions that shape orga-nizational starting points and set the stage for coretasks of constituency building, which are discussed inthe following chapters.

A note of clarification: Analysis in this and the fol-lowing chapters proceeds as if constituency building andreform efforts occur in a linear, developmental fashion.However, given the complex and shifting political, his-torical, and social contexts of this work, social changepractitioners assert that it is virtually never "linear."Nonetheless, to "unpack" or understand the componentsof constituency builders' work, it is helpful to examineoverlapping and intersecting components as if they aresequential. In practice, study participants underscore thecritical value of flexibility, the ability to assess andreassess situations as they change, and the willingnessto rethink strategies while adhering to organizationaltenets.

Decision: Single-Issue VersusMultiple-Issue FocusFor some reform groups, such as the Public EducationNetwork and the 21st Century School Fund, educationissues reside at the heart of their missions. Other organ-izations, such as the Industrial Areas Foundation andACORN, deal with a range of community issues,including schools but also housing; public services such


as water, sewage, and transportation; and public health.The difference between these two approaches is more amatter of emphasis than mutual exclusion: Is the mainfocus on education reform issues? Or is school reformone means to drive community organizing and capacitybuilding?

Decision: Primary ConstituentsThe range of education stakeholders is vast; someactivists argue that everyone should be involved becauseof education's importance to the quality of life, thecommon good, and the future of the country and even,given globalization, the world. Some organizationsfocus on a particular slice of the population, such asparents, while others look to all community members,both individuals and organizations inside as well as out-side the school system. Still other groups draw stake-holders from across the country and from across sectorsinvolved in their school systems including parents,educators, and union officials. For other efforts, busi-nesses, business leaders, and state and local legislators areprimary constituents, along with parents and other com-munity members. Some campaigns focus on buildingworking groups of teachers or networks of principals.Increasingly, efforts seek to recruit and engage students inreform. Whatever their focus, the ways constituencybuilders define their primary constituencies inform theirstrategies and goals. Chapter 6 looks at ways of creatingand developing the potential of diversity among con-stituents. Chapter 7 explores the dynamics of campaignsthat bring together constituents from inside and outsideof the school system.

Decision: Explicit Versus Implicit Focus on EquitySome constituency builders focus on organizing andsupporting specific sectors, such as immigrant, racial orethnic minority, or low-income families whose childrenfrequently are ill-served by public schools. In contrast,other organizations aim to build capacity and fosterengagement among the general public. Those working

38BEM COPY AVAILAbLE

with the public as a whole often see their efforts as away to help build broad-based civic capacity in a demo-cratic society. In general, these inclusive approachesidentify common interests among stakeholders, fosterrelationships among diverse groups, and initiate meansto develop collective solutions. These approaches aresupported by the research of Clarence Stone and col-leagues, who argue that the main obstacles to systemicand sustained school reform "are political in nature; [theobstacles] are rooted in the fact that various groupshave distinct interests that often lead them to workagainst one another in ways that dissipate energies andblunt reform efforts."' All these groups and activists,however, are mindful of the history of education in theUnited States, and believe it is imperative to pressurethe system to remedy long-standing inequities.

Decision: Points of Entry into Reform WorkThere are various routes to systemic impact. Organiz-ational priorities and aims are important factors indeciding on entry points into reform work. Someorganizations work with multiple constituencies on astatewide or citywide basis for comprehensive schoolreform; others begin more locally, focusing, for example,on parents with children in a single school or stakehold-ers in a particular neighborhood. Reform groups alsoemploy a variety of strategies to initiate the constituency-building process. Some start by building one-on-onerelationships with and among constituents or helpingparents map their school system and community; othersbegin by building a coalition of stakeholders deemed"critical" by virtue of their role and status or start withindividuals who act as "sparks" to make change happen.

Organizations also select entry points at various lev-els of the education system, though they often aim forchange throughout the system. Some focus on issues atthe local school as the point of entry; others begin withlegislative backing at the state level. In addition, nationalorganizations often provide support at local levelsacross the country, but also work at the national level,convening conferences, issuing statements of purpose,leveraging funding, and educating legislators and otherpolicymakers.

34

Decision: Level, Intensity, and Aimof Stakeholder InvolvementStudy participants recognize that stakeholders have var-ious preferences and priorities for their participation.Some are willing to engage in building the reformorganization as well as the reform work, while othersparticipate only in public activities directly related toreform. Both are important. One team member pointsout that "getting the troops out" in large numbers forpublic events can leverage power, but a few stalwartsmight manage the day-to-day work.

Similarly, organizations set various expectations forconstituency building. At one end of the spectrum, pub-lic engagement efforts that support litigation for schoolreform, for example, might seek organizational andindividual support in the form of workshop attendanceand sponsorship, observation of court proceedings, orefforts to define the sought-after reform. At the otherend of the spectrum, constituency building may be aproxy term for community organizing a long-term,embedded undertaking to build individual, organiza-tional, and community capacity and power to influencethe issues and institutions, including education, thataffect community life. In any case, the desired level ofstakeholder involvement must inform a campaign'sapproach and strategies.

Decision: Differing Emphases on CommunityDevelopment and School ChangeAll study participants underscore the connectionbetween school reform and development of schools'communities. The emphasis on this link highlights boththe importance of involving communities in theirschools and the role schools play in their communities.For example, Michele Cahill says in a publication ofCross City Campaign for Urban School Reform,"Schools that are connected to community are focusedon broader community development issues. ... With thisshift in thinking comes a new definition of the schoolas a critical institution in the life of the community."'The link between communities and schools has gainedincreasing attention and legitimacy, in part through thework of constituency builders.

3 9


Reform groups take various approaches to strength-ening and supporting this link. Differences amongapproaches often relate to the varying expectations thatorganizations hold for constituency building, as dis-cussed above. At one end of the continuum are reformefforts that build individuals' and organizations' capacityto wield influence in relevant institutions and decisionsthat affect the well-being of neighborhoods and thosethat live and work there. Although school reform iscritical to this agenda, activists also pay great attentionto the processes of building constituency engagement,community networks, stakeholder capacity, and localleadership. Efforts at the other end of the continuumfocus more intently on the ends of reform effortsreforming schools by backing or defeating legislation,for example, or redefining the terms of public debates.These efforts also recognize that engaged, skilled, andknowledgeable constituencies are critical to achievingsuccess. The differences among these approaches, how-ever, signal the need for different strategies, differentallocation of resources, and different staff skills.

Against the background of basic decisions thatunderpin constituency-building efforts, the followingchapters illuminate the common core tasks that reform-ers undertake as they strive to translate shared values,motivating principles, aims, and analyses into tangiblechange and achievements.

Stone, Clarence N., et al, Building Civic Capacity: The Politics ofReforming Urban Schools, Lawrence, KS: University Press of

Kansas, 2001, P. 140.

2 Cahill, Michele, Schools and Community Partnerships: ReformingSchools, Revitalizing Communities, a Schools and CommunityWorking Paper, Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban SchoolReform, 1996, p.

71119,18.,


35

4 0

CHAPTER FIVE

Fostering Collective Action

Constituency builders assert that individuals whojoin together to further shared interests, insteadof struggling alone, are more effective in creat-

ing public will for reform and holding public institu-tions accountable. It is as groups and networks ofgroups that constituents can convincingly claim theirplace in shaping policy debates, gain recognition of thelegitimacy of their concerns, and change the distribu-tion of decision-making power.

To support individuals in forming groups and takingcollective action, constituency builders undertake thefollowing tasks, which are explored in this chapter:

Foster the connection of personal interests withbroader, shared goals, thereby supporting individ-ual engagement in the group.

Develop a sense of collectivity, which requiresbuy-in and skills.

Build individual and group capacity to collect,analyze, and use data.

Promote long-term involvement in the group.

Identify and foster local leadership.

Believing that decision-making must be inclusive toproduce quality education for all students, participantspay particular attention to stakeholders who traditionallyhave been excluded from public debate and policymak-ing. For some organizations, this includes parents,educators, and others outside the school system who areunwelcome when they try to take on roles as monitorsand agents of change in schools and districts. Fororganizations that focus explicitly on educational equityissues, this generally means those living and working inlow-income areas, where chronically low-achievingschools often serve students with minority racial andethnic backgrounds, immigrants, and English languagelearners.


Reform efforts can and do involve a widerange of established groups, including parent, commu-nity, advocacy, and business groups; faith-based organi-zations; education associations; and others. For manyconstituency builders, however, a major challenge andgoal is to recruit, engage, and knit together individualswho typically never have pursued collective action forreform parents, students, community members,teachers, and others. Such work is necessary for nurtur-ing new groups of activist individuals and networks oflocal organizations. This chapter largely focuses on suchefforts.

Study participants say that moving individuals tocollective action generally requires enhancing individu-als' capacities building knowledge about complexeducation issues such as standards, public school fund-ing, bilingual programs, and facilities repair and con-struction, as well as fostering skills needed to analyzedata and issues, develop strategic plans, deal with publicschool bureaucracies, speak cogently and assertivelyin meetings, and interact with educators and publicofficials. Tapping new strengths and talents can bepowerful for those involved, but participants say thatindividual capacity building is most significant when italso encourages individuals to take on significant reformroles and bolsters collective capacity. Critical individualcapacities are those that enhance the group's understand-ing, action, and viability regarding education policy,decision-making, and practice.

Constituency-building and organizing effortsprovide stakeholders with vital arenas, supports, andmechanisms that aim to foster recognition among indi-viduals of their common interests and concerns, and,moreover, of ways to influence institutions such as publiceducation that affect their lives. In the comments on thefollowing pages, study participants consider the develop-ment of individual and group capacity and, in particular,the tasks of moving stakeholders from personal concerns

41BESTCOPYAVAILABLE

to systemic perspectives, from individual encounters witha school system to group engagement, and often fromprivate isolation to public roles. Chapter 8 explores someof these themes further, examining strategies for chang-ing power dynamics, roles, and relationships.

From andividuarl to Member of a GroupStudy participants engage individuals both in reformissues and in the group. Often such work starts with"the personal," such as a mother's worry about the lackof books in her child's classroom or a teacher's recogni-tion that the lessons do not make sense to immigrantstudents. At other times, this work may emerge from acollective dilemma parents' desire for a new schoolbuilding that facilitates dual-language learning or com-munity members' concerns about a proposed voucherprogram. In all instances, study participants stress theneed to connect personal stakes and broader issues, tolink constituents' commitment to work for reform withthe rewards they individually receive in return for theirefforts. One participant, the head of a national organi-zation, points out that in promoting sustained engage-ment, "we would probably do very well to start with thepersonal and give more time to the personal. ... Thatreally invests you and invests other people in you in apowerful way." A local organizer further describes theimportance of the personal, emphasizing the need to((create something that [parents] are so engaged by thatthey will come not because of all the other exteriorthings [e.g., food, social events, group fellowship]. Theyare coming because they are intrinsically getting some-thing out of it."

Creating Meaningfiil EngagementStudy discussants describe a continuum of constituency-building activities, from outreach and recruitment toengagement and long-term commitment. This processis ongoing because constituency builders continuallymust engage new parents and others, expanding localgroups and developing new ones. The underlying aimthroughout the process is to develop knowledgeable,skilled, active "stayers, the people who really dig in theirheels and stay year after year," as one participant put it.These stayers form the core of local efforts, providingstability, continuity, and deep roots; their work includes

engaging new constituents to sustain and expand thestruggle for reform.

Discussing strategies for developing stayers, studyparticipants cited many ways constituency buildersstructure change work to enhance what parents get outof it. Activists often design the work to help build indi-vidual capacity and gather participants on commonground while simultaneously working toward reform.By embedding such intrinsic value in engagement, thereach and meaning of constituency building, especiallyfor long-term participants, goes beyond achieving par-ticular policy changes, important as these might be, toproviding personal returns that are immediate, relevant,and ongoing. Participants' approaches to engagementinclude the following:

Addressing barriers to participation. Thisapproach often is based, as in the NationalCoalition of Advocates for Students' work withimmigrant families in Florida, on "a person-by-person analysis of the barriers ... and [efforts] toeliminate those on an individual basis," says astudy participant. Activities include eliminatinglanguage barriers for parents not fluent inEnglish, using nonwritten communication such ascommunity radio in areas with high levels of adultilliteracy, providing accommodations that allowfamilies of core leaders to accompany them atweekend workshops, and generating in-homee-mail communications capacity. One participant,who regularly trains constituents to develop localprojects, also says organizations should be flexiblein terms of stakeholders' contributions: "I thinkthe more flexible we are with them so thatthey are able to do what they can do when theycan do it the longer they seem to stay."

I Developing personal vision. A community organ-izer underscores the importance of helping parentsand other community members articulate whatthey want for their children and what they expectfrom public schools. In part, this means creatingarenas, such as small meetings or training sessions,in which parents can meet and interact with otherswho understand their aspirations and can stimulatereflection and exploration.

42


M Extending personal spheres. Constituents valueopportunities to expand their personal experi-ences, such as opportunities to meet new people,gain new knowledge and skills, and cross sociallines to establish new collegial relationships.Constituency builders can create these opportuni-ties by organizing parent training sessions thatdraw together parents from various schools;ensuring professional settings for parents attend-ing regional strategy meetings; or developingworkshops that involve representatives from vari-ous sectors, such as parents, educators, teacherunion staff members, and others.

Fostering relationships. Throughout the engage-ment process from individuals' first meetingsto the long-term involvement of stayersconstituency builders recognize the importanceof building and sustaining relationships amongconstituents, although at times with differingemphases. One study participant, who serves onthe board of a citywide parent organization, pointsout the value of creating social links and friend-ships that go beyond the work itself: "We encour-age ... social activities by which parents and chil-dren come together. ... [W]hen we build someconnectivity other than just around whatever thetask is ... we retain those people for a much longerperiod of time."

Several participants recommend integrating suchrelationship building directly into change effortsthemselves, thereby keeping the focus on andenriching the work of reform. For example, meet-ings might include structured encounters, allow-ing people to make new acquaintances, or socialactivities such as a meal or a group sing, fosteringinformal interaction. In sharing personalhistories, one local organizer says, con-stituents "begin to realize that we comefrom all kinds of different places, we havediverse experiences, but there is a wholelot of commonality there too."

Dealing with Divisive IssuesPublic education debates tend to encapsulate contro-versial issues that smolder just beneath the surface ofAmerican life yet rarely are confronted, such as thetensions of the nation's multiracial, multiethnic, andclass-stratified society. Study participants say they oftenface the thorny challenge of dealing with such powerfuland potentially divisive issues. One participant high-lights the difficulty of simultaneously trying toacknowledge social pressures, build group cohesion,and promote reform: "There was a presentation by the[research center] in which they recommended labelingracist actions when they occur." She identifies thequandary: "If you say it, you incite divisiveness." For her,the challenge is deciding between "the data versus thestrategy," that is, deciding whether to confront a broadrange of constituents with data such as student scores,suspension rates, and other statistics of chronically low-performing schools or focus immediately on developingcollaborative strategies for reforming instruction,increasing resources, and decreasing class size. Suchrecurring tensions can be especially problematic whenconstituency builders try to use inclusive approaches.

At times, activists try to defuse explosive issues andhelp constituents develop ready responses to anticipatedproblems. One approach to dealing with divisive issuesemphasizes identifying and supporting issues that createcommon ground among constituents. A participantargues, based on his organizing experience, that findingcommon ground and when possible steering clear ofdivisive issues such as charter schools, zero tolerance,and racism promotes cooperation and helps avoidincreasing discord, confusion, and "intergroup finger-pointing." But many participants do not accept avoid-ance as a feasible response, looking instead for ways to

"What do you do when [some] people's civil

rights are being trampled, but you're trying

to get everyone together at the table?"

Director of a national group


BESTCOPYAVAILABLE

acknowledge and deepen understanding ofthorny issues.

One approach is to reframe discussions, interms of systemic or structural analyses ratherthan personal experience. Facing race or ethnic-ity issues, for example, an organizer might initi-ate dialogue with a data-based advocacy reportor center a discussion on "institutional racism,"a tactic that is less personalized than targeting aparticular teacher perceived as racist by some butnot all constituents. On the other hand, an organizermight deliberately personalize issues that offer all-too-easy distinctions between "good" and "bad" students,such as dropout, discipline, and tracking policies. Forexample, the organizer might provide opportunities forinteraction among parents, including parents of studentsplaced in low academic tracks or involved in disciplinaryprocesses. By adding a human dimension to such poli-cies, constituency builders can help stakeholders seebeyond stereotypes.

At the same time, a study participant recognizes that"It's hard to jump in when there's a conflict alreadygoing on. It's much easier if you build relationshipsbetween people over time, over more and more difficultissues, so you have the social capital to work throughtough issues." Such an approach to constituency build-ing entails a long-term strategy that emphasizes groupcontinuity and development. The head of a nationalorganization reinforces this view, recounting a retreat onrace issues attended by activists for citywide schoolreform who had been working for several years along-side each other sometimes in cooperation, sometimesin opposition. Although attendees did not always agree,they recognized and respected each other's commit-ment. As a result, they could talk about how race helpedshape their perspectives on the city's reform efforts overthe years. According to the study participant, this con-versation never could have happened without attendees'long-term experience with each other.

"What moves [parents] is the love of their

children. But you have to take it from that to

some collective sense."

A participant with many years ofgrassroots organizing experience

Developing a Sense of CollectivityThough constituents might not always be unified in theirconcerns or priorities, those who cultivate the ability towork and act as a group understand their relationshipwith schools differently than those who see themselvesas isolated individuals. Participants talked in study

forums about how to foster this sense of collectivity.The work often involves developing shared issues thatknit together individual concerns.

Without outside support, individuals often lackthe means to generate such a sense of collectivityamong themselves. Constituency builders help createplaces meetings, workshops, training sessions, and soforth where people can interact. In such places, con-stituency builders provide mechanisms a structuredone-on-one exchange about personal experiences withthe school system, for instance, or an exercise for gath-ering information about the local school that allowconstituents to articulate common interests and developa collective stance. At times, constituency builders try tobuild infrastructure for a sense of group identity.

Building on such commonality, these reformers sup-port constituents' ability to "see the bigger picture [andrealize] that they are more powerful if they're together,"according to a study participant. Another participantlinks constituents' personal, shared experiences thatoffer a foundation for action: "They might focus on onestumbling block a racist principal, whatever," provid-ing an opportunity to discuss their rights. Developing asense of legitimacy among stakeholders is critical.Stakeholders may develop this awareness by realizingthat a perceived individual problem is actually a groupconcern; by learning about the rights and responsibili-ties of students, parents, and educators; or by under-standing the structure of a school system's institutionalpower. In all instances, constituency builders look forways to:

I Build constructively on concerns. For example,teachers in Salinas, California, who were con-cerned about classroom activities' relevance forbilingual students, worked together to reformteaching practices, first in their own classroomsand then throughout the school.*

4 4


Provide accessible information. Workshops,newspaper inserts, and other tools can help con-stituents understand the intricacies of educationissues such as districtwide capital plans and aca-demic standards. The Charlotte-MecklenburgEducation Foundation's materials on schoolbudgets, for example, enable a broad range ofstakeholders to grasp this critical information inways that empower them to act.

E Help realize the possibilities of action. Individualssometimes fail to see the potential for improve-ment in schools or, if they do, are hesitant to acton it. The joint efforts of educators and parents toresearch and reform bilingual education policy inAustin, Texas, illustrate how constituencies can bemobilized to recognize and seize opportunities foraction.*

II Generalize constituents' concern for their chil-dren and their schools. This approach, as dis-cussed earlier, seeks a shift from the personal tothe systemic. Within such a framework, a reformagenda of "Not just for my child, but for herclassmates as well" can become "Not just for herschool, but for all schools in the district," andultimately "Not just for our kids, but also forfuture students." Such forward-looking thinkingcame to fruition, for example, in the summer 2001opening of Washington, D.C.'s Oyster School,which was constructed to meet the long-termneeds of its diverse local population.*

While many reformers focus from the start on sys-temic and policy issues, constituents often begin withvery personal and local concerns. Study participants tryto help stakeholders see immediate issues within largerframeworks, link local matters to systemic issues, andreframe personal concerns in policy terms. Thus, thelack of supplies in a particular classroom or school canprovide the touchstone for an inquiry into the wayssupplies are allocated systemwide and, ultimately, rec-ommendations for policy changes. To help stakeholdersachieve this critical shift in perspective, study partici-pants say they work to ensure that constituents "buyinto" the premises of reform and help enhance the skillsnecessary to carry out the work of reform.

Getting Constituent Buy-InThe first step is not always easy. "There's a struggle ofhow to get [people's] buy-in. You have to balancebetween agitating people's vision, getting the big ideasout there, and taking people where they are but not get-ting stuck on [minor issues]," says a study participant.In dealing with these tensions, many participants useapproaches that respect local perspectives while foster-ing the shift to systemic concerns. These approachesinclude:

IN Capitalizing on concrete, specific concerns.Concerns that are easy to point out can serve asentry points into larger, more complex issues. Astudy participant with on-the-ground organizingexperience says, "School finance is very difficultas an issue because it is very complicated. The

In one example, grassroots leaders from ethnic communities across Florida work

in a network that provides business cards, stipends, reimbursements for expenses,

and time sheets to help foster in local leaders a sense of bn organizational iden-

tity" and bn understanding of what it is like to be in a [professional] workplace,

because our meetings are serious."

A national director

=CP

Fostering Collective Action41 C4

r 3 provides more information on these examples.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

physical plant [and] the number of computers arepieces that get parents into the school financeissues. You can see these things." The use of datain analyzing specific concerns is discussed furtherbelow.

Building on personal experiences. Concerns rootedin personal histories can be the basis for con-cretizing more abstract matters. In Latino com-munities, according to a study participant, "youcan use cultural pride as an 'in' to curricularchange."

Asking questions with significant implications.Posing open-ended but pointed questions canlead constituents to larger issues with systemicramifications. One participant who helps commu-nity members organize says, "I try asking parents,tell me about your scores, tell me about yourbudget. I try to push them while I respect wherethey are."

Framing and reframing issues. Constituencybuilders can help parents grasp larger issues thatunderpin their immediate concerns. For example,an issue that loomed large for some parents butseemed silly to others had important systemicroots, according to a study participant: "I had oneexperience with a parent group divided over adress code. I listened and said, 'The issue isn't thedress code. It's how policy is enforced, inequitableenforcement.' Because kids were being treated dif-ferently when they came to school not meetingthe code. I try to help [parents] see the biggerpicture."

Developing Constituent SkillsSome study participants insist that collec-tivity must entail individuals' ability "toseparate their public and private selves[and] ... to take a role in a public situationor in a public sense," as the head of anational organization puts it. Constituentswith a sense of legitimacy and the knowl-edge and skills to raise questions in publicsituations can call for accountability, reframeissues, and suggest remedies. As a long-

time grassroots organizer says, "It's about helping peo-ple develop skills for collective analysis and action."

Participants see the need for training in many over-lapping areas, including:

Immediate skill needs. These are directly relevantskills, such as helping parents think through andpractice conversing with their children's teachers.Such training engages parents through a recog-nized need, lays groundwork for inquiries intobroader education concerns, and starts developingskills for increasingly public roles.

Participation and leadership skills. A broad rangeof skills are needed to analyze information, makedecisions, communicate, and take action.Constituency builders help individuals enhancetheir analytic and strategic skills, such as workingon a team, speaking out for oneself, listeningeffectively, asking "hard questions," identifyingissues, grasping political and bureaucratic con-texts, and acting strategically. These skills canbe learned, expanded, and practiced throughtraining sessions, interacting with group members,observing professional organizers and constituencyleaders, and taking an increasingly active role inmeetings and group efforts. Other skills, such asrunning a meeting, can be learned by observingmeetings and undertaking roles of increasingresponsibility and visibility. Constituents can honeskills associated with more public roles such asspeaking in public, interacting with officials, andresponding to journalists by participating inrole-play exercises, developing and practicing a

"If there is not any mechanism for [parents and

other stakeholders] to learn skills to engage

districts, each other, and bureaucracies, then it

falls apart because all they're doing is knocking

their heads against walls."

A local organizer

4 6Vital Voices: Building Constituencies for Public School Reform

script, observing others in public roles, and partic-ipating in group analyses of strengths, weaknesses,and gains of public actions.

Other technical expertise. To ensure that con-stituents can take advantage of up-to-date tech-nology, study participants say they help parentsand others develop technical skills such as theability to participate in video conferencing and usecomputers. Constituents learn to use computersparticularly for word processing, the Internet forresearch, and e-mail for ongoing communicationwith each other and with other groups.

Using DataAmong the various strategies employed by constituencybuilders, the use of data is pivotal. Knowing how toaccess, understand, and use data are essential skills forassuming decision-making roles and fostering collectiveaction and power.

The use of data can be a powerful educational toolthat helps all audiences grasp patterns and trends inschool systems, most especially regarding inequities andexclusion. For many groups, the intent of helping parentsand communities look at data is so they can see clearlythe ways in which some groups receive inferior schooling.Moreover, stakeholders cannot help shape school policywithout a substantive grasp of procedures and issues. Yetrelevant information can be difficult to obtain and under-stand. Because certain issues provide strategic entrypoints to the heart of policy and practice, they are of par-ticular interest to some study participants. For example, aparticipant says, knowledge about school budgets pro-vides "very powerful expertise" on an issue "that takes youdowntown pretty fast." Work on such topics, as well ashigh-visibility issues such as vouchers, can be seen as a"laboratory for parent leadership development."

Throughout the study, discussions arose repeatedlyabout the meanings and uses of data. Participants exam-ined ways to build skills and create tools that enableconstituents to collect, understand, analyze, and usedata. Participants also raised data issues more indirectly,describing instances in which data played prominentroles. By the end of the study, it was clear that the useof data represents an essential means of building con-stituency and changing power dynamics.


Engaging Stakeholders in Data UseParticipants use various approaches for making dataaccessible to, meaningful for, and usable by stakehold-ers, including:

111 Building on personal experience. Participantsoften begin data training by providing informa-tion that is personally relevant to parents andother stakeholders. This training may involve, forexample, disseminating information about testschildren take, demonstrating how to read a child'sschool files, or providing disaggregated data thatilluminate performance patterns. Starting withsuch concrete, meaningful data can help demystifythe often intimidating concept of "data," illustratethe potential of data-driven strategies and argu-ments, and broaden perspectives about the kindsof data to use.

Using accessible examples and metaphors.Participants help constituents decode educationlingo and understand the relevance of abstractconcepts such as "curriculum" or "academicachievement." One study participant argues thatconstituency builders must be inventive indemonstrating the meaning of various data. Forexample: "Help parents think about [the defini-tion of] learning [by asking them] what they aregood at [and] how they know they are good. Thenask them if they could tell they're good if theywere given a paper test. Most parents say 'no,' andthey have an epiphany."

Using clear contrasts. Some activists stress thevalue of identifying "one issue where there's a clearcontrast, a clear chunk of inequity" that stake-holders can grasp and "hold onto," in the wordsof one participant.

Starting early on. To help constituents becomeincreasingly comfortable with data collection anduse, study participants recommend using data-driven strategies from the early stages of con-stituency building and training. Such strategiesshould be simple and clear, especially at first."A research action might just be setting up ameeting with a school district person to see whois responsible for a particular area," suggests a

participant. Over time, constituents can deviseand employ increasingly sophisticated datastrategies.

Data TrainingStudy participants generally agree that training localparents, community members, teachers, organizers, andothers to use data is "very energizing." Training isimportant because, without it, the tasks of identifying,analyzing, and using critical information can be over-whelming. The kinds of data that participants cite asaccessible, engaging, and useful for constituents include:

Comparative data. Direct comparisons communi-cate patterns and relationships with stark clarity.One participant says, "What really fires up [stake-holders] are, one, cross-campus comparisons and,two, comparisons of what they should have basedon Title 1 are they getting it? By doing this,you can get [parents and others] out of the spiralof blaming their own selves or their context."

1111 Disaggregated data. Data disaggregated by socialcharacteristics such as family income, ethnic orracial group, English proficiency, or genderoften provide useful and realistic pictures of whatis happening in a classroom, school, or school sys-tem, including patterns of inequitable allocationof resources. Data can also point to trends inteaching and learning problems that need specialattention. Several participants argue that suchdata, although often difficult to obtain, "can beeye-opening" for parents, teachers, and otherconstituents.

VI Mapping data. Certain data can be useful inlocating resources in districts and communities,identifying pockets of decision-making power,and recognizing potential allies and beneficialnetworks. Study participants say such data areimportant for helping constituents grasp thedynamics of and influence school debates.

Outcome data. Participants also named specificdata that parents should have and understand.These data, disaggregated. into relevant groupingsand compared across schools, include test scores,suspension and expulsion rates, special educationrates, and graduation rates. Also useful are schoolrankings across the district or state accord-ing to meaningful indicators, such as resourcesavailable, certified staff, and class size.

Study participants also stress that data include manydifferent kinds of information. Often researchers usethe term "data" to refer only to quantitative data suchas test scores, dropout rates, and attendance records.Study participants argue that qualitative data gath-ered through interviews, observations, surveys, focusgroups, and other means are equally important andvalid for consideration. These data often are morerevealing of attitudes, motivations, and causal factorsthat underpin numbers and statistics. Although quanti-tative data are necessary for understanding what is hap-pening, qualitative data can show why and how anevent or trend is occurring.

Using Data Collection and Analysis inConstituency BuildingAs study participants discuss uses of data, critical ques-tions arise: Who decides what data to collect? Who col-

lects information? How are data used? Oneparticipant points to the central quandary ofwhether to give parents raw data or "tochunk it. Do I go through [the collectionprocess] with you? Or do I create a thumb-nail for you and ask you to act?" Variationsin participants' responses are based largelyon their differing aims: Is data collectionand analysis meant to strengthen participa-tion and leadership skills? Or is it mainlymeant to underpin advocacy for reform?

"You have to distinguish between data that make

people angry versus data that make people over-

whelmed or depressed. Data need to be simple

and actionable."

A local organizer and trainer

48


Most often the two aims overlap, but it is useffil tounravel them to understand particular strategies andoutcomes. Some groups use data collection and analysisas ways of building constituency, participation skills, andlocal leadership. For example:

Parents for Public Schools (PPS) uses a mappingexercise as part of the application process for form-ing a PPS chapter. The exercise serves various pur-poses. Parents in the core group learn about theircommunity; identify resources, potential allies, andthreats; and learn how to access data. According toa study participant, the exercise also "teaches thecore group that each individual has a responsibilityin getting [the chapter] started" and helps define aninitial focus, pushing the group to develop a data-driven agenda and strategy for reform.

The Metropolitan Organization, an IndustrialAreas Foundation affiliate, establishes parentresearch action teams to build skills and confi-dence, as well as gather data. A local organizersays, "You try to get people to organize them-selves, and part of that is gathering data. Parentsset up a meeting to get information from a per-son, like a school official. If that person can't pro-vide them with the information they need, theyask if they should talk to someone else. Theorganizer helps ... people ... evaluate how thatmeeting moved them forward."

Several organizations, such as the InterculturalDevelopment Research Association, the NationalCoalition of Advocates for Students, and theInterfaith Education Fund, cite constituents'reflections and self-evaluations as important datain developing constituency skills. One participantsays that reflection and evaluation "is part of anongoing strategy. 'What worked? What didn't?'That way you get people to learn how to pursue,hard, an idea [to learn] how to be persistent."Another stresses, "Every action taken is a lab. Justbecause you don't move forward with a particularaction [it isn't wasted effort]. You can always ana-lyze and learn."

fdiix

DeveRoping "StayersAs noted earlier, study participants see outreach,recruitment, engagement, and other activities as vitalsteps in securing active constituent participation inreform efforts. Yet, for various reasons (explored furtherin Chapter 9), many engaged constituents do notremain focused on public education reform for the longhaul. Families come and go in school districts, individ-ual concerns are resolved, and children graduate or dropout of school. In addition, stakeholders with little freetime face tough choices about where to concentratetheir activism. Within this shifting context, constituencybuilders often face demanding and ongoing rounds ofidentifying, recruiting, and training constituents just tomaintain levels of involvement, let alone expand efforts.At the same time, participants try to develop knowl-edgeable, skilled, active "stayers" who comprise the"core membership" of reform over the long run. Stayersprovide continuity, stability, and consistency; help train,mentor, and support newer recruits; and embed reformwork in their communities.

Study participants identified three aspects ofconstituency building that help determine whether con-stituents become stayers: ongoing mentoring, socialnetworks, and meaningful work.

Ongoing Mentoring and CoachingOne participant, the head of a national organization whohas experience in hands-on constituency building, echoesthe comments of colleagues, saying, "The issue that hasemerged as being larger than the actual training has beenhaving the capacity, either through our own staff orthrough parents coaching other parents, to do ongoingmentoring and coaching. It is this capacity ... that reallybuilds the stayers." Important practices include trainingand supporting local trainers, such as parents and othercommunity members, to train other stakeholders and pro-vide ongoing mentoring support. This approach has mul-tiple benefits, including development of a pool of trainerswho are rooted in the local effort and remain with it afterprofessional staff turn to other neighborhoods. This train-the-trainer approach encourages peer learning and pro-vides an opportunity for constituents to grow into newroles mentoring and coaching that allow them toshare their experiences, skills, and knowledge. Constit-uency builders also help structure and nurture local


454 9

networks of stakeholders. Some study participants incor-porate new technologies, particularly the use of e-mail,into this work, providing both training and equipment.Using these tools, each local mentor can communicatequickly with professional staff and other mentors con-tinuing to benefit from long-distance training and peerexchange while training and mentoring others locally.

Developing NetworksStudy participants stress that stayers value social net-works that provide a sense of community among con-stituents. A network may be an organized group thatmeets regularly, people linked through mutual recogni-tion of their long-term commitment to reform, or asupport system for mentoring and exchanging ideas.Despite this variety, participants agree that networks areimportant in developing and supporting stayers. In gen-eral, a network can provide fertile ground for leadershipdevelopment, support and further reform work, andelicit and sustain stayers' commitment. Networks canfunction in many ways, including the following:

Serve as an important support group in dailywork, providing a sense of vital encouragementand common effort.

Help break down a sense of isolation, "reconnectingpeople to the larger picture" and "re-energizingthem to go out and fight again," according to astudy participant.

Provide opportunities for peer coaching andmentoring. One study participant uses "themeconference calls" on fund raising, media relations,

and other issues to link "already established chap-ter leaders" with new leaders. Another uses e-mailto develop "a leadership network [through which]people can coach each other, so that ... peoplewho have the most experience [are] able to helpthe others along."

Translating Vision into ActionCollective action can help constituents build deepbonds and commitment to reform work, to each other,and to their common vision. A participant, speakingof reform of an entire school system, says, "For actuallyyears, there was a whole set of people who were justenormously active. ... Part of it was that there was a realshared sense of vision. There was not agreement. Peoplefought like cats and dogs. But there was a real sense ofbeing joined at the hip ... of people in this for thelong haul, going to make it work, going to work itthrough, going to fight it out."

At times, the work, relationships, and new experi-ences together represent a profound kind of personaldevelopment. Stayers can gain a sense of growth,accomplishment, and personal meaning that strengthenstheir work and helps further reform.

Promoting Local LeadershipConstituency builders say they must identify and fosterlocal leaders to support ownership of target issues, pro-mote meaningful involvement among stakeholders, andbuild local capacity. All organizations studied put a pre-mium on developing local leaders who can raise grass-roots issues; establish an authenticity based on "real"

constituent engagement; andassume visible roles that carryresponsibility, authority, and influ-ence. At the same time, profes-sional staff engaged in constituencybuilding remain sensitive to possi-ble tensions between themselvesand constituents as to who is "theanointer of leadership," as oneparticipant says. These tensionscan make identification of localleaders difficult. Although partici-pating organizations seek to drawleadership, priorities, and deci-

"I think the thing that has kept those [individuals] in is

their sense of their own development, that they are

different people today than they were before, and that

they are actors, that they are public persons who have

to be dealt with."

A local organizer, referring to a 25-year-old organization thathas drawn on the same group of constituents since its inception

50


sions from grassroots constituents, all facethe challenge of providing leadership them-selves while shifting leadership to localactivists. To meet this challenge, staff mustwalk a fine line between overstepping pre-rogatives and leaving leadership gaps.

Discussing how to identify parents andother stakeholders with leadership potential, study par-ticipants emphasize two approaches. The first approachfocuses on personal attributes that signal leadershippotential. A constituency builder might look for an"activist personality," a person who is high-energy,observant, and analytic. This type of person takes initia-tive, adopts a problem-solving stance, and already isactive in the community. One participant notes thatpersonal leadership can be reflected in other ways aswell, including some such as a quiet posture in groupsituations that do not immediately attract attention.The challenge, she argues, is to be flexible enough toengage a range of personality types. A "personal styles"workshop, for example, can make constituents aware oftheir leadership qualities and able to work with "resist-ant personalities" in school systems.

A second approach to identifying constituentleaders focuses on the "invested quality" of leadership.Participants emphasize that individuals must be investedwith leadership by other constituents, not constituencybuilders. "[A]n operative definition [of what] we arelooking for is people who have followers, who have net-works of relationships," another participant observes. Athird participant stresses the importance of recognizinganyone the community has identified as a leader, even ifshe does not seem to have "leadership qualities." Thisrecommendation may be especially relevant in highly sta-ble communities, such as rural communities. There, afamily's length of residence, church membership, tradi-tional role, or social position can be pivotal factors indefining local leadership, factors that might not be evi-dent immediately to constituency builders. In theseinstances, a study participant points out, a constituencybuilder must "enhance not only what the communityfolks already find in [the leaders], but enhance what ...

they are doing and what they need to do in order to sus-tain ... the process of reform." Such enhancement mightinclude helping the leader understand her position'spotential or finding ways to exert her leadership.

"To be a leader, somebody has to invest you

with leadership."

A national group director


Two important considerations arise from reformers'concepts of local leadership, despite differences amongvarious approaches. First, constituency builders encour-age individuals with leadership potential, whether thatpotential is evident in personal qualities, an existingcommunity role, or both. Constituency builders try toengage these constituents in trainings and meetings tosupport reform activities and broaden their conceptionsof their roles in the community. Second, in manyinstances, constituency builders look to build on estab-lished networks of leaders, support and extend thosenetworks, and develop participatory and leadershipskills in others along the way. These reformers do nottry to build leadership capacity and networks fromscratch. In this sense, the existing resources and capacityof a community are key ingredients for organizing col-lective action.

51

CHAPTER SIX

udn01

The increasing diversity in the United Statesshapes, strengthens, and often challenges publicschool reform efforts. Early reports on 2000

census data show a nation populated with growingnumbers of immigrants from a broad range of cultures,as well as great variety among languages used on aneveryday basis. Such diversity is not new in Americanlife; rather, the recent surge adds to the country's his-toric mix of races, ethnicities, and religions. In addition,economic and class differences abound; although theeconomic floor is moving up for all groups, the gap iswidening between the rich and the poor.

It is no surprise that public schools reflect this diver-sity. Public education is one of the nation's few institu-tional arenas that can and sometimes does cutacross social lines to bring children of varied back-grounds together in the same place, at the same time,around a common purpose. In addition, public schoolsincreasingly face issues and often tensions thatare perceived to be rooted in diversity, such as differ-ences between dietary practices and cafeteria offerings,texts of questionable appropriateness for the classroom,holiday celebrations tied to cultural or religious tradi-tions, and, broadly, differing views about the role ofeducation as a means of socialization into "American"life or as a means of preserving cultural heritages.

Constituency builders help individuals interact, formgroups, and act collectively across social divisions tochange power dynamics, build public will for reform,and leverage change. As discussed below, study partici-pants work with a wide variety of social groupings; evenreformers who work within one ethnic or racial groupoften encounter social divisions that they help bridge.This chapter looks at study participants' constituency-building work against the backdrop of diversity.

on My rsfrty

The chapter examines:

the meaning of "diversity" for reformers;

111 the added value to reform work of bridgingdiversity;

strategic approaches to diversity; and

the challenges of fostering common goals acrosssocial lines.

Practidng [Inclusion:The Broad Range of "Diversity"As noted earlier, study participants stress the impor-tance of including all stakeholders in debates anddecision-making processes of education policy andpractice. Inclusion, they say, is needed to make quality,equitable education available for all children. Theseactivists deliberately work to build constituency acrossvarious social groupings. Even those organizations thatwork with an equity lens to focus on particular racial,ethnic, and cultural groups encounter the challenge ofbringing together diverse groups, such as parents and edu-cators in the Salinas, California, example or parents withand without literacy skills in Florida (see Chapter 3).

In addition, constituency builders face a range ofdiversity that includes divisions not always discernableto outsiders. Moreover, because issues of race, class, eth-nicity, culture, language, and immigrant status inter-twine in many ways in American society, constituencybuilders seldom deal in clear-cut terms with just one ortwo of these social categories. Instead, it is a matter offocusing on which, in a particular instance, are the mostrelevant categories, while also trying to take others intoaccount. The following descriptions, gleaned from studygroup discussions and individual interviews, illuminatethe multiple aspects of "diversity" with which activistscope as they try to knit together individuals and smallgroups into effective constituencies:

Building on Diversity

49

52

El Across race. Constituency building must bein an understanding of historical

context; acknowledgement of the existence andimpact of personal and institutional racism uponchildren, families, and communities; and commit-ment to building a just, multiracial U.S. society.Unless constituency building for school reform isalso committed to this broader goal, it will fail toimprove schools in ways that matter for childrenof color."

M Across class. "It's not a black and white issue formany. In [one region we work in], people don'twant integration, but it's integration with poorpeople that they don't want it's not so muchabout race as long as people have money. It's classissues. ... I've actually found that it's harder tobring parents together across class lines."

M Within race but across educational attainment."There's a lot of tension between and within thedifferent communities. There are divisions withinthe black community, between those who are edu-cated and those who are not, [just] as in the whitecommunity."

Across class and race. "People will tolerate[minority] parents in affluent communities, butsomehow they are seen differently. Schools don'tthink that they have to tolerate [minority] parentsin poor communities. ... It's race and class."

Across immigrant status. "There's so much mis-understanding of each other and so many stereo-types, and it's fraught with tension because peoplesee each other as ripping each other off, some-times literally. People perceive immigrants as tak-ing their jobs."

E Across language, culture, race, and organizationalinterests. "We have a really bad problem hereacross every divide. Whether it is Asian, Hispanic,whomever, everybody owns their own group, andthis is one of the things we have been trying tobridge and trying to figure out just how canwe bridge that gap."

Across geographic lines and school boundaries.A grassroots organizer points out that "diversity is

multilayered. For example, I've been doing a lot ofwork with parents and teachers from four schools.... Some of these schools are very close to eachother, as close as half a mile, and yet there was norelationship among them. This is an all Latinocommunity, and the schools are in close proximity,but they were very isolated from each other. ... Inthis community, we're working within the sameethnicity and language, but it's still across linesschool zone lines."

Another study participant, also working with apopulation relatively homogenous in race and set-ting, finds a different kind of geographic diversity:"[S]ince they are a county organization, they haveto make sure ... even if it is a predominantly whiterural county ... that all the towns are represented.A lot of times people make the assumption thatrural areas are homogenous, and they are not. ...

That is just one way I try to encourage them tobring everyone together, even if it is not necessarilya whole lot of various racial groups in that partic-ular county or school system."

Across groups with varying relationships to pub-lic education. For some constituents, includingstudents, parents, and educators, their roles asstakeholders in public education are quickly evi-dent. But for others including groups such asfaith-based organizations and social serviceagencies as well as members of the general public

their stakeholder status may not readily beapparent. Many study participants strive toinvolve stakeholders in education across institu-tional, organizational, and demographic divides.A head of a national organization says, for exam-ple: "I want to involve all areas of the community,both geographically and demographically. Thiswould include people without children in publicschools the elderly, people without children,people with children in private schools. How doyou get them to be invested in public educationeven though they do not have children in thepublic education system?"

III Across parents with different experiences in pub-lic schools. An experienced organizer points outthe significance of experiential differences: "I've

53


got parents who are on thelocal school council and whoare often paid to do part-timevolunteer work in and aroundthe schools and who show upon every committee at theschool. ... And then I've got ...

parents who are really angry atthe school, so angry they won'teven come in and deal with itbecause they don't think they'llget anywhere. ... There are alot of efforts we've put in ...

to build a broader base thatincludes [both kinds of] parents together."Another constituency builder talks about howsocial groupings become embedded in the struc-ture of the school system: "Parents are so condi-tioned to be divided by race, class, program lines

for example, special education or gifted andtalented."

"There's diversity across institutions that don't normally

work with each other. ... We got three schools and three

churches a Baptist, Pentecostal, and Roman Catholic

church to go together to a hearing of the county

commissioner's court to say that granting the [liquor]

license is against the community's interest."

A local organizer

Across institutional lines. A study participant,whose organization operates at the citywide level,asserts that although "much of the discussion hasfocused on principals and teachers and insidersand parents ... there are many more people besidesparents who care about the school system." Thepoint elicits ready agreement from another partic-ipant who works at the local level: "[T]hat's whyit is so important for us that we also organize theother institutions in the neighborhood, the con-gregations, the businesses. That provides thebroad-based organizing with an external powerbase to draw from."

Bridging Diversity and Adding ValueDespite many challenges, constituency builders in thestudy work hard to bridge social groupings, for example,bringing together stakeholders from many schools in acity; or recruiting stakeholders to represent a city's eth-nic, racial, and geographic mix; or drawing leaders fromacross stakeholder sectors; or creating a network of par-ents from various ethnic, language, and cultural groups.Through this work, study participants have found thatengaging constituents from diverse social groups adds

value in many ways. When constituency builders cancrack through groups' preconceptions of each other andfoster the ability to view situations through others' per-spectives, reform efforts can draw on the experiencesand expertise of a relatively wide range of groups as wellas gain leverage based on the buy-in of diverse groups.

A constituency builder who is leading a citywideprocess of visioning, strategic planning, and implement-ing systemwide reform says:

I think accountability the concept of 'results,'the concept of Tor all children,"closing theachievement gap,"beyond a culture of mediocrityto ... building high-performing learning commu-nities' all of those things ... cross sector bound-aries. ... I think that there is a lot of commonanalysis of what some of the impedimentsof the old system are to building the new. ...

The rethinking-school teachers ... progressiveeducators in the best sense of the word sittingat the table with the president of the ... businesscouncil, the president of the chamber, and themayor ... trying to find the common ground thatis not the least common denominator. ... Notevery issue are you going to get 100 percent agree-ment on, but ... there is a lot of common-senseagreement that can be forged between people. ...

[B]eing on a board that the police chief is on andthat parent leaders are on and that the leader ofthe largest minority youth development organiza-tion is on, a couple of maverick principals, is notas comfortable to [business leaders] as sitting

11.7291.1==l


51

4

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

with 50 guys that look just like themselves. ...[But] the more that they get into schools and ...see what life is like managing in this era, themore they become sensitive to the complexitieshere. ... Some of the stereotypes and the knee-jerk thinking ... start to break down a little bit.

Other study participants agree that intentionallydiversifying involved stakeholders can enrich bothanalyses of and approaches to reform in importantways. One study participant, the head of a nationalorganization, says the group's "overriding strategy" inconstituency building is "to always involve cross-sectoralgroups, so we work with people ... who work for schooldistricts (central office, principals, teachers, union lead-ership) as well as parents and community"

Another study participant points out that a con-stituent group's diversity also can help undercutschools' tendency to label activists as "troublemakers"or "agitators." The participant says, "We do not want[a chapter] to be all one school or all one neighborhoodbecause too quickly you become labeled and becomeineffective."

At times, work with one constituency can help developa new, broader, more diverse constituency group. In oneinstance, a study participant provided computers for par-ents to use in their homes to foster peer support net-works. Drawn by the computers and helping their par-ents use them, several adolescents became engaged inreform work as well, an unintentional but "really goodintergenerational aspect" of the strategy, said the con-stituency builder. This participant also "found, particu-larly in the Latino community, [that] we've had a largenumber of high school students that come to the meet-ings with their parents and who become good on-the-ground advocates in their schools." Thistype of serendipitous introduction ofyouth into reform efforts can lead tomore intentional engagement strategies.Another participant notes, "The youngpeople told us that these [project]approaches weren't the way to bring inyoung people ... . They were bored ... .

They brought in theater, music. Theirideas were much more fun."

Beyond the importance of bringing diverse stake-holders to the table to identify issues, develop reformstrategies, and advocate, study participants cited othervalues of deliberately addressing diversity These includestrengthened engagement strategies, enhanced individ-ual and group capacities, and extended group resources.Other benefits include:

MI Broadening personal experience. People get tomeet new people, often from different social group-ings from different places, classes, or ethnic orracial groups, for example. One study participantpoints out that such encounters especially whenstructured around a joint effort over an extendedtime often are rare experiences for thoseinvolved. Even amid great diversity many peopleremain isolated in their own social groups. On theirown, they can find it difficult to have meaningfulinteraction across social lines. Describing a meetingthat gathered stakeholders from various back-grounds, the participant says: "People really got intothe mix of language it was all bilingual andracially [there was diversity] and that providedthe energy for the meeting. There are not manyother places where people can meet across sociallines where there is an intentionality about topicsand then a discussion on 'How can we worktogether on something we care about?"

Fostering connections. Linking parents acrossethnic, racial, and geographic lines can help miti-gate the sense of isolation that often accompaniesreform work the sense that other efforts "arereally humming along" and that "it is only at myschool [that] there must be something wrong," as

"[D]iverse and larger groups are more effective typ-

ically ... . If you have three different racial groups

coming together around a certain issue, it's pretty

hard to say, 'Oh well. That's just them.'

A local organizer

4.52


a study participant said. Another participant, whohas been involved with various ethnic and culturalgroups for years, says such links can build bridgesnot only across but also within racial and linguisticgroups. Describing a constituency-building effortamong bilingual populations, the participant notesthat Latinos from many countries and Asiansfrom "about six different language and ethnicallydiverse Asian populations" are developing net-works both within their Latino and Asian com-munities and jointly with each other. Suchconnections can give constituents a sense of thepriorities they hold in common and their sharedcommitment to a larger effort. "Sometimes [thecore leaders meet] all together, which they reallylike because it gives them energy and a real senseof not being alone and being part of somethinglarger," says the participant.

Enriching discussions. A widely used constituency-building approach seeks to help individuals broadentheir perspectives, interact with others acrosssocial divides, and learn to listen effectively topeople who might offer other relevant perspec-tives. By enhancing personal experience, theseinteractions can help stakeholders strengthen theircommitment to reform and move from personalto systemic outlooks. In addition, such interac-tions can enrich the work of the group, multiply-ing the supply of experiences and perspectivesfrom which it draws. A constituency builder whoworks with stakeholders from several schools inhis city says, "Typically we have done [meetings]in clusters of schools, eight to 10 parents fromthree or four schools that are working with us inthe same area. ... We found that the conversationshave been much richer ... when we have thediverse group of people together."

Encouraging comparative learning. Parentsinvolved in networks of constituencies and organi-zations have opportunities to learn from a varietyof issues and diverse approaches to reform. Anorganizer who fosters parent engagement instatewide reform finds that parents who attendtraining sessions for reform efforts "have a clearunderstanding of what's supposed to be happen-


53

ing in their [own] schools and how they can beinvolved in that." When stakeholders from variousschools meet, they raise "issues that actually occuracross schools." This broader perspective can helpmove the problem "out of the personal politics ofthe school."

orking Strategkally with DiversityConstituency builders recognize the challenges of creat-ing diverse constituencies, especially in a society thattends toward fragmentation instead of commonalityand highlights individuality instead of the commongood. In the quotes and examples above, activists referto the demands as well as the rewards of bridging socialdivides. Although working across racial, ethnic, andclass lines perhaps poses the most visible challenges, allefforts to knit together social groups whatever thelines that divide them run against the grain of manysocial trends. Participants use various methods ofintentionally building diverse constituencies within thissocial context. The following section summarizes thosemethods.

Establishing Relations with andamong Diverse ConstituenciesParticipants talked about various and, at times, overlap-ping approaches to engaging a range of constituencies.These include:

Cross-sectoral constituency building, a strategyof constituency building among stakeholder sec-tors, including school district employees, unionleaders, parents and other community members,city administrators, higher education professionals,and local elected officials. See Chapter 7 for a dis-cussion of inside/outside strategies for linking those"inside" school systems with parents, communitymembers, and others "outside" those systems.

Developing community networks by buildingrelationships among community-based organiza-tions, including those that do not readily recog-nize their stake in schools, such as serviceproviders, community development corporations,faith-based groups, and immigrant organizations.Such networking complements and supplements

56

efforts to build relationships between school-basedand community-based organizations.

Reflecting demographics by explicitly recruitingkey constituents from across racial, economic, andgeographic lines to "be representative of the city."These people may include those already involvedin community issues, active in community groups,or known to be concerned about local schools.

2 Targeting constituencies strategically or, as onestudy participant put it, "trying to find communi-ties where there are people and institutions thatlook like [they have] the potential to work togetherand figure out how they can build the power ulti-mately to be able to be successful in takingaction."

Using Issues That UniteTo build constituencies, study participants generallyagree that it is important to identifif and use issues thatunite instead of divide. A constituency builder steepedin local organizing talks about what happens whendiverse stakeholders recognize common ground: "Youcan establish changes, differences in how people relateto each other. This happens principally when they see acommon interest and they fight and win together. Theycome to value each other. Teachers see parents comeout to meetings. They see that they need each other."

Constituency builders look in particular for "win-win" and neutral issues as bases for uniting variousgroups in meaningful reform efforts. A win-win issuepromises benefits to diverse sectors of the community.For example, advanced certification for teachers can actas a win-win issue. Encouraging teachers to earn certifi-cation from the National Board for ProfessionalTeaching Standards provides benefits across a range ofstakeholders teachers get prestige and career oppor-tunities, schools gain a positive reputation and status,and parents and students get better-qualified teachers.In addition, employers, civic leaders, and othersthroughout the community welcome the prospect ofgraduates who are better prepared for careers and adultresponsibilities. Constituency builders also can find ithelpful to center on issues that are substantive butperceived as neutral in that they do not fragment con-stituencies. The 21st Century School Fund finds, for

example, that facilities issues can unite parents, stu-dents, community members, educators, and administra-tors, and often open the way for conversations on moresensitive teaching and learning issues.

Groups do not have to agree on every issue to worktogether on a particular issue. According to a partici-pant, "The voucher issue galvanized a lot of support interms of people who are for public education that camefrom very different groups, from Jewish support groupsto clergy for the separation of church and state. ... [I]twas also a useful time to get, for example, non-English-speaking parents from parts of San Antonio to connectwith some African American representatives fromHouston and El Paso. ... [We] set up a retreat a monthago with 17 people there representing teachers, unions,a variety of people representing state and local groups.What we see is that the voucher issue is very useful toestablish and reinforce connections around the state. Itcuts across race and class lines." Yet many of thesegroups have opposing interests on other topics.

In addition, participants look for issues with educa-tional significance those that relate directly to teach-ing and learning. Many issues can inspire activism thathas educational impact while also bringing togethereducators, parents, students, the community, and othersinto cohesive constituencies in, for example, a pushfor smaller class size or stakeholder engagement inschool-based budgets. Other issues, however vital andbeneficial for constituencies, do not offer the sameimpact for education reform. For example, one discus-sant points out the difficulty of moving "beyond thesimple issues shutting down a crack house toteaching and learning issues."

Developing Strategic TimingStudy participants cite a variety of approaches to timingthe joining of diverse groups. Some argue the advantagesof identifying "natural opportunities" for gathering diversepopulations and organizations. For example, an issue thatmany sectors might agree upon, such as a fight againstovercrowding or for bilingual education, can provide suchan opportunity Such natural opportunities can help pro-mote successful joint efforts because they are limited toparticular issues, draw on established concerns, and maynot threaten other organizational interests. Moreover, suc-cess in capitalizing on a natural opportunity can lead to

57


future joint efforts. In other cases, participantsuse long-term strategies that, from the start,intentionally unite stakeholders from varioussectors or social groups. Such strategies aim toenrich reform conversations, foster inclusive-ness, and leverage the legitimacy and power ofdiversity. In still other situations, participantsemphasize the necessity of building con-stituency within communities developingskills and knowledge, building ties and net-works, and fostering community-based andparent-driven work before trying to forgelinks across groups, and especially before work-ing with educators. In these situations, the in-group work helps strengthen constituents' sense of legiti-macy and clarifies goals before they interact with others.

Working to bridge diversity inevitably raises ques-tions of power, status, skills, and experience. How, forexample, can nonprofessional community memberswork on par with professionals who are used to thedynamics and politics of setting agendas, establishingframeworks, and making decisions in meetings?Coming to "the table" does not guarantee equal seating.Constituency builders try to structure equity into reformprocesses. Thus, they might engage various stakeholdergroups at different stages in the constituency-buildingprocess, thereby supporting those who traditionally haveless voice in policy debates. For example, a publicengagement effort focused on defining a "sound, basiceducation" deliberately engaged community groups, edu-cation advocates, parent groups, and others before invit-ing professional educators, who often dominate suchdiscussions.

"We had to get people comfortable with each

other's language and voice. People literally had

trouble understanding each other. Immigrant

parents spoke with accents that were sometimes

heavy They had trouble understanding African

American dialect."

A state group director, referring to an urban effort

The Challenge of AchievingEquitable ParticipationSimply bringing together people of different back-grounds does not ensure a common conversation, letalone collaboration on a shared endeavor. Even afterstakeholders agree to meet, challenges abound ana canaffect decisions about when, where, and how to bringpeople together. All study participants recognize theneed for personal and group skills to interact construc-tively amid diversity. Some challenges are rooted in themost basic logistics of communication. A participantpoints to the need for constituents to "have the patience


to interact with people with different languages and dif-ferent backgrounds," at times a difficult attribute tofind. Other challenges to efforts that value equity andinclusion arise from the norms of inequity and exclusionthat pervade society. To counter assumptions and expec-tations that could undermine constituency buildingamid diversity, study participants suggest in-grouptraining that promotes cooperation across diversegroups, including "diversity training for leaders whereyou allow them, in small forums, to talk very directlyabout race and ethnicity."

Several participants acknowledge difficulty in nar-rowing the power gap between school professionals andparents, especially in terms of institutional power. Thisissue, discussed more fully in Chapter 7, illustrates thedynamics that come into play when constituencybuilders assemble groups with different backgrounds,experiences, expertise, and relationships to educationpolicy. One study participant, who works with bothteachers and parents, describes the early struggle of areform effort to "help [teachers] see parents and othersin the community as having even stronger interests in[the teaching reform] than theirs. ... [The organization]pushed the teachers to reach out, to do home visits andcontact parents. Teachers were the gatekeepers. It washard to get [parents included] on the teachers' agendas."Participants also aim to close the power gap with a vari-ety of other tools. Mechanisms such as home visits andcommunity walks are meant to pull teachers out of theirclassrooms to meet parents and other community mem-bers in the world of their daily lives. Other mechanismstrain educators in ways to collaborate with parents,

F-5 58

reframe educators' views of parents from a "deficit" toan "asset" perspective, or create an understanding that"there is real value in the commun4" The institutionalpower base that educators enjoy, however, often is seenas overwhelming, perhaps even beyond the control ofwell-meaning educators. One constituency builderdeclares forcefully, "I no longer trust public school-based parent outreach and involvement programs,especially in relationship to people of color. It's like avacuum. People get sucked into their school institution,school control."

Yet another perspective is provided by a studyparticipant who oversees a citywide effort to develop ashared vision and strategies for systemwide reform. Theeffort's overarching priorities include a leadership agendaand a capacity-building agenda. Initial capacity-buildingactivities, according to the participant, focused ondeveloping skilled principals who could provideleadership in "this new era of collaboration, of parentinvolvement, of shared decision-making ... of change, ofresult-based education." Although the quote emphasizesprincipal training, it also underscores the need for allactors to grasp changes in the world of school reform

a world in which reformers' achievements in build-ing engaged constituencies, bringing previously silentvoices into the debate, bridging social divides, andenlarging the circle of decision-makers are increasinglybecoming factors that must be taken into account in theday-to-day work of schools.

5 9


CHAPTER SEVEN I

Addressing inside/Outside Dynamics

Study participants see constituency building asvital to school reform partly because it changesrelevant roles, relationships, and power dynamics.

Some of the most challenging relationships to build arebetween constituents who are "insiders" and those whoare "outsiders." This chapter explores:

how constituency builders define who is insideand who is outside,

why many constituency builders see buildinginside/outside relationships as pivotal to theirwork,

common characteristics of inside/outside work,and

challenges that constituency builders face inbridging inside/outside divisions.

All organizations participating in this study operateindependently of any school system, and all work withnoneducators, if not exclusively, then as one of their pri-mary constituencies. Yet participants recognize thatimproving students' experiences and outcomes dependson changing education policies and educators' practices.Even when constituents secure legal mandates forchange, the success of reform efforts depends largely onthe willingness of those responsible for implementingchange. Monitoring and enforcement in every schooland classroom is neither feasible nor, many wouldargue, desirable. In addition, educators constitute amajor political force in many places. For these reasons,many constituency builders seek constructive relation-ships between those working or exerting influence inthe education system and those outside it. For somestudy participants, these cross-sector relationships resideat the core of the work, which they see as building civiccapacity for systemic reform.

In reshaping inside/outside dynamics, constituencybuilders confront a division rooted in institutional struc-:-."

Addressing Inside/Outside Dynamics

ture, history, and perceptions. State and local legislationand district policies vest local decision-making authorityin school boards, superintendents, principals, and otherofficials. Policies mandating inclusive decision-making,a common aim of reform, remain rare, and their imple-mentation more so. Efforts to emphasize credentialsand insulate education from politics have contributedto a perception that education is the realm of experts,having little room or need for family or communityinput.

Barriers to collaboration stem from individuals'experiences, as well. One local organizer describes aconstituent who was active on other issues but so angryabout her grandchildren's experiences at school that sherefused, for a long time, to discuss education. Otherstudy participants have worked with parents who arereluctant to talk with educators because they experi-enced racial discrimination as students years ago,because they emigrated from repressive regimes whereasking questions or voicing opinions about public insti-tutions was dangerous, or because they are not fluent inEnglish. Educators, on the other hand, sometimesexpress a sense of being under siege and undervalued,expected to meet an impossible set of academic andsocial needs without adequate resources or supports.These experiences and perceptions contribute to thechallenge of creating productive relationships acrossinside/outside lines.

Efforts to build inside/outside relationships alsomust take into account broader community contexts,including economic circumstances; the political sphere;and intergroup dynamics regarding race, class, language,and culture. Study participants emphasize, in particular,the importance of race in shaping relationships androles in schools and in reform efforts. One nationalorganization director explains, "Race is part of who isseen as inside and outside. One of the problems is com-ing up against the tenet in the U.S. that black peopleare intellectually inferior. It's in the framework." Jeffrey

60

Henig and colleagues conclude in The Color of SchoolReform.. Race, Politics, and the Challenge of UrbanEducation:

To be sure, the way in which race expresses itselfhas changed since desegregation defined localschool politics. Often indirect, race may expressitself in surprising ways. Nevertheless, race is acritical social and political variable that constrainsboth how internal elites interact with each otherand how they deal with external actors.'

Inside/outside dynamics strongly affect efforts toshift and broaden who has power in decision-makingabout education. Power inequities are particularly starkbetween those working or having access to key playersinside the school system and those outside it. Chapter8 describes specific strategies that constituency buildersuse to shift power, including among insiders andoutsiders.

Detions of Dnsiders and OutsidersConstituency builders use the terms "insider" and"outsider" in various ways. Some study participants usethe terms to describe an individual's official positionor status in an institution. For instance, Cross CityCampaign defines insiders as people employed by theeducation system and outsiders as people not employedby it. While recognizing that people's behavior andinterests are affected by factors other than employmentstatus, the campaign finds this working definition usefulin shaping cross-sector strategies and convening con-stituents with various relationships to public education.

Others use the terms in a more fluid way to denotepower held, roles, or how people are perceived. In thisanalysis, inside/outside status is dependent less on aperson's job and more on that individual's authority orinfluence over a decision. Individuals and organizationsmay play various roles over time or concurrently. At anygiven point, a person can be seen as an insider by someand as an outsider by others.

A person's status can change with the issue beingaddressed, the level of confrontation involved, or therelevant point of entry into the school bureaucracy.For instance, a parent might be accepted as part of theplanning group for a new after-school program, but

58

then find herself in an outsider role and excluded fromdecisions when she raises questions about the school'score curriculum. In other cases, parents move from out-sider to insider roles. A challenge, then, is to retainindependence from school bureaucracy and maintainrelationships with other parents. One local trainerdescribes the risk of constituents gaining access todecision-making circles and then working to keep oth-ers out, so that they are the only ones with insider statusand influence: "A principal will develop a little group ofparents who maybe at one time were pretty strongadversaries, but they become part of the in group, andthey become gatekeepers." The same participant notesthat this dynamic is not unique to schools: "In mylifetime as an activist, I have been part of at least fiveefforts where the organizers became the strongestgatekeepers."

The status of other constituencies also depends oncontext and is seen differently by various parties.Although some constituency builders always see teach-ers as insiders due to their employment status or thepower of teachers unions in some districts, others some-times view teachers as outsiders, since individual teach-ers lack the authority to change school or district policyand are subject to many decisions themselves. Highereducation institutions and local organizations may beseen as insiders when they provide support and assis-tance, but as outsiders when they overstep those roles.Much depends on the individual or group's relation-ships within the system and the community. In thatrespect, insider/outsider status reflects power inequitiesin society that are often based on factors such as raceand class.

For many activists, changing perceptions aboutwhose voice is legitimate is at the heart of constituencybuilding. Constituents need to see their interests aslegitimate and important in order to take public roles inreform. When policymakers and administrators viewconstituents as having legitimate interests in schooldecisions, they are more likely to listen to constituents'opinions and include them in decision-making. Studyparticipants emphasize that, although "in reality, parentsare almost always viewed as outsiders," parents' interestsin and rights regarding public education should givethem insider power and status.

61


Masons To Bridge the Pnside/OutsideDivide in EducationWhether "outsiders" are defined as those not employedby the system or as those not having power in it, allstudy participants say that outside pressure is needed toachieve reform, particularly in terms of ensuring educa-tional equity. Participants help constituents invoke theirconstitutional and statutory rights and use democraticprocesses to exert pressure on public school systems.However, most reformers see their role as not onlyhelping outsiders exert pressure, but also buildingbridges between insiders and outsiders. Even studyparticipants who work almost exclusively with outsideconstituencies in other areas where collaboration is notso important such as water and sewer services, envi-ronmental issues, and banking say education reformrequires a different approach, one that entails buildingrelationships and capacity for cooperation betweeninsiders and outsiders. Local organization directors offerthese analyses of why inside/outside work is necessaryto education reform:

Constituents depend on cooperation to implementreform. Even if constituents succeed in establish-ing a new policy, it might not be effectively imple-mented if educators are alienated and resistant. Astudy participant comments on an instance whenreformers neglected to secure cooperation: "Thepolitical hammer wasn't bringing out the best inanybody. People were resisting it and hunkeringdown and resisting any conversation about whatcould be different, what could be better."

11 Constituents need to keep the focus on improvingschools. Public institutions, confronted with dataabout a problem, sometimes respond by attackingthe data or deflecting attention. "They're respondingto the public relations problem, not the underlyingproblem," observes a participant. By establishingrelationships, constituents can raise problems in rel-atively nonthreatening ways that help move theconversation toward finding solutions.

Ell Constituents seek to help preserve public educa-tion while improving it. Activists struggle tostrike this balance. "We don't want [schools] to befailures, we don't want them to be embarrass-

ments, because that feeds into the hands of[those] who are trying to dismantle public every-thing, including public schools," says a participant."It's such a delicate call about where you put pres-sure and ultimately what your design is, what yourstrategy is."

To some, inside/outside relationships are not juststrategically necessary to achieve and sustain specificchanges in schools; they are vital to building civiccapacity and establishing school-community collabora-tions that meet the complex needs of children and fam-ilies. For instance, researcher Clarence Stone argues thateducation is not merely formal schooling. Human capi-tal development takes place in and out of schools andrequires civic capacity in various sectors, "serious andsustained efforts to make collective investments in thehuman capital ... children represent."' Michele Cahill,in Schools and Community Partnerships, a Cross CityCampaign working paper, identifies five types ofschool-community collaborations. Each type of collabo-ration requires strong, ongoing relationships betweeneducators and community members and organizations:

Services collaborations programs in whichcommunity agencies provide health or other serv-ices in schools.


59

Educational partnerships collaborations inwhich community groups with strong ties to stu-dents' neighborhoods and cultures provide services,activities, or opportunities that boost students'motivation and affiliation with school.

Partnerships for youth development collabora-tions between community youth groups andschools that support children's creative, cognitive,social, and/or spiritual development, often empha-sizing youth leadership.

El Collaborations for community and economicdevelopment programs that use schools asresources for community development, such as byengaging students in housing or small businessdevelopment or by opening school buildings toneighborhood groups.

62

Partnerships for new schools or new governancejoint efforts to redesign schools and decision-

making structures to shift control away fromcentralized bureaucracies to students, families,teachers, and community stakeholders.'

Janice Petrovich, Director of Education, Sexuality,Religion at the Ford Foundation, adds a sixth type ofcollaboration: Public engagement partnershipscollaborations in which community groups buildknowledge on school reform options, promote publicdialogue, and seek consensus on solutions.

Common Characteristics ofInside/Outside WorkMany of the values, strategies, and challenges of buildingon diversity, discussed in Chapter 6, apply to buildingrelationships among inside and outside constituents.Study participants also emphasize the need to addressperceptions of legitimacy and the distinct needs ofinside and outside constituents.

Fostering a Sense of One's Ownand Others' LegitimacySome constituency builders try to help individualsunderstand others' situations as well as their own, open-ing the possibility for members of various groups, suchas parents and teachers, to work together. On one hand,for example, these efforts can help educators recognize"their own oppression" as a study participant termedit and their legitimacy in voicing the need for educa-tional change. One local constituency builder says, "Iapproach teachers by saying, 'You're not getting theresources you need. Look at that school in that affluentarea, at what they have.' " Such efforts also can teachconstituents to recognize their own roles and capacities.

On the other hand, these efforts can help people notemployed by the system, including par-ents, recognize the pressures educatorsface. Participants design forums thatenable inside and outside constituentsto identify common issues and see eachother as allies. One participant comments,"There are human beings within thatsystem. We have people listen across theboard teachers, parents, students inmeetings that parents organize and lead."

Such efforts take various forms. One participantdescribes transforming a traditional school event tobuild understanding and respect among teachers andparents. At T.A. Brown Elementary School in Austin,Texas, the principal, who is also education co-chair ofAustin Interfaith, an Industrial Areas Foundation affili-ate, worked with a team of teachers and parents todevelop a new format for Back to School Night. "Theway it's always been done, Back to School Night is verybureaucratic, with teachers giving out information,telling about schedules and such. It's not relational,"says the participant. About 15 teachers chose to try thenew format, in which parents and the teacher sat in acircle and discussed their experiences in school. Teacherswho tried the new format became advocates of it. Inaddition, the principal notes, "The parents who hadthat experience this year will expect it next year."

In Kentucky and Tennessee, Lincoln MemorialUniversity's Center for Professional Collaboration requiresstudent teachers to involve both their mentor teacher andparents in developing a curriculum unit. With supportfrom the university, student teachers create an environ-ment in which their mentor teachers come to view par-ents as legitimate partners in curriculum development. Asa third party, the university is able to catalyze new rela-tionships. A study participant says, "We might have a par-ent with a history of conflict with an administrator at aschool. But once the parent develops a relationship withthe university, they've bought in and feel they have devel-oped a relationship with both institutions."

Participants say they must prepare for and facilitateforums that bring insider and outsider groups together,so all parties can respect each other's new roles. Onelocal organizer recounts: "After one parent academy, agroup of parents met with the principal regarding whatall the data mean for the school. The organizer had to

"You have to feel you have any power before

you can share that power. Constituent roles

change when this can happen."

A local organizer and trainer

63Vital Voices: Building Constituencies for Public School Reform

coach the principal and had separate coach-ings for the parents. The coachings wereimportant in order to have a productivediscussion." The need for such coaching isongoing. A constituency builder who workswith various sites describes how easily asingle group can perceive and assert thatprogress is due solely to their efforts,undermining any sense of mutual respectand derailing future collaboration. She tells of a projectthat matched Asian community-based organizations(CB0s) with schools that served their constituencies.The joint work helped produce significant improve-ments in services. However, when the school and CBOstaff came together for a conference, teacher teamsdescribed the process without any reference to CBOs."It disempowered the CBOs immediately, just like that,"she says.

Providing Differentiated Roles and SupportsBuilding capacity for collective action does not neces-sarily mean that all constituents play the same roles.Study participants value constituents' ability to applypressure in various ways and bring various resources toreform. For instance, in Portland, Oregon, while thePortland Schools Foundation was working with theboard of education and the superintendent to build broadconsensus around a five-year strategic plan for the schoolsystem, some members of the minority community usedconfrontational tactics to hold the system accountable forimplementing the plan and taking immediate steps tomeet urgent needs. A newspaper account highlights thecontrast to the collaborative planning process, describinghow the protesters "shouted down discussion of thestrategic plan many times, chanting 'No more promises!'and 'Save our kids!' About 150 of them, mainly AfricanAmerican parents, turned out to help take over the boardmeeting for more than an hour."' A constituency builderinvolved in the process explains the parents' strategy:

The minority community said, 'We would rathertake the tactics of protest and civil disobedienceto raise the community's awareness about ourchildren who still have been failing, and to putsome power and fire in the belly behind theachievement gap strategies.' So they never said,

"Some of this work is about how to change per-

ceptions about who cares about kids, who feels

invested, who thinks education is important."

A local constituency builder


'The plan is bad.' They said, 'We don't believethe district has the political will unless pushedvery hard from the outside to make anythinghappen or anything different. We have seenplans and consultants come to Portland in yearsgone by and still our children are at 30 percentto benchmark.'

The foundation welcomed the pressure. "[We] cele-brated the fact that people care that much and thatthey are basically working in a different way and a moreadversarial way towards the same ultimate goals thatthe strategic plan was leading toward," says a studyparticipant.

Sometimes, participants arrange roles to enable con-stituents least susceptible to personal repercussions totake the most public role. For instance, one coordinatorof a parent-principal coalition says, "We deliberatelyhaven't completely formalized ourselves. Only the par-ents sign letters that are controversial." Parents take thelead publicly "because principals' jobs are at risk."Principals and parents develop positions together, thecoordinator compiles arguments into a document, andcoalition members use the arguments in various ways,depending on their roles and the situation.

Varying access to information and recognition ofrisks were the driving forces behind role distinctions ina coalition of parents and students, according to onestudy participant:

The students had a different kind of role thanthe parents as they actually started working withthe school, because the students are in the school

they're part of the school. The parents are notthere every day. And so, for instance, some of thedata collection around conditions in the bath-room, around facilities, around what was reallyhappening around some of the intergroup rela-

6 4

BEST COPY AVALABLE

tions in the school it was the students whowere doing that data collection, because theywere in there. When it was engaging with theteachers, a really interesting thing happened,because the students really pulled back. It wasmuch more the parents engaging with the teach-ers as we started bringing them in, and I thinkit's related to the power relations and who recog-nizes that there are real repercussions for them-selves if they speak out.

Participants emphasize the need for separate sup-ports for various constituencies, particularly when thereare differences in the roles they play or the power theyhold. One local constituency builder describes a taskforce that includes parents, students, administrators,and other community members:

Two of the reasons that I think it's been success-ful, that students have continued to organize inthat school and be a part of that work are, one,that they have their own independent organizingwork and supports for it that allow them to cometo the table and leave the table and do work that'stheir work. ... [Twod it takes a facilitator in those[joint] sessions. It takes a certain amount of sensi-tivity not to be condescending ... and facilitationthat their role at that table will be respected.

Challenges of Inside/0 %hide W rk

Balancing Access versus IndependenceMany study participants combine strategies, applyingpressure from outside the system while building capacityand developing collaborations inside. Participantsdescribe this work as a delicate balance: "There's a pricewith inside/outside work. You have information andaccess, because you're not the enemy," but maintainingthat access limits the available strategies.

Many participants use a variety of tactics on variouslevels. In some cases, constituents have developed col-laborative relationships with state education officials orpoliticians and work with them to pressure school dis-tricts, or constituents work with similar figures at thedistrict level to pressure particular schools. In othercases, collaborative relationships have been closer to theground. One grassroots organizer says, "I haven't found

62

a way to make heavy conflict work at a local school. Itcan work with the district. ... The district-level work isstraight accountability work. We define our demands,organize the constituency, and do a campaign. Themore ruckus we raise, the better chance we have ofwinning." She notes how each tactic affects relation-ships: "We're constantly concerned about how the localschool personnel administration and faculty willview the actions we take at the district level."

Participants who partner with public institutionsexpress wariness about being co-opted. One localorganization director constantly assesses, "Are wegetting too close to district leadership [or] are weindependent?" Others describe the risk of outside con-stituents becoming caught up in personnel politics inschools. One local participant says, "Having good rela-tionships with teachers can sometimes be perceived bythe principal as 'Are they going to use those parentsagainst me?' Parents, in my experience, not always, butcertainly sometimes, run the risk of being used aspawns in a family squabble."

Producing Immediate Improvementswhile Moving toward Systemic ReformIn shaping their relationships with public institutions,study participants balance the need to accomplishshort-term tasks with the need to build capacity forthe institution to perform effectively in the long term.Opinions diverge as to whether an independent groupever should assume a function that the public institu-tion should do itself but currently is not performing. Inone local constituency builder's view, undertaking a dis-crete task, such as drafting a plan or designing a Website, may be necessary when the school system lackscritical resources or faces crisis: "They really don't havethe time, in a sense, to get everything done that needsto be done. Part of what we've done is just said, 'Okay,we'll do some of your work for you.' ... To me, it's partof what teaming and working at public education as acollaborative piece is about. ... Maybe it's a matter ofnot seeing it as their work." Others point to the risk ofcreating the perception that the relevant function is nolonger the institution's responsibility. A state organiza-tion director would only consider taking on a task "toshame them into doing it or give them an example thathopefully is successful, one that they would pick upand do."

6 5


Charter schools are sometimes a flash point for thedebate on appropriate roles for community groups.When a community group operates a charter school, itassumes the primary responsibility of this public institu-tion educating students. Some study participants seecharters as diverting constituents' energy and scarceeducational resources to provide perhaps better educa-tion for only a few students. Meanwhile, the regularpublic schools continue to serve most students and haveless pressure to change, because some of the activistfamilies have left them. Others see in charters a way forfamilies and other community members to create theeducation they want their children to have and for edu-cators to free themselves from bureaucratic restraints.After emphasizing that her goal is ensuring good edu-cation for all children, not just some, one local organizersums up the dilemma for many parents: "Your kids areyour kids. You don't have time for [an organizing group]to fix the school. You have to get them an educationbefore they drop out."

Getting to Core Educational IssuesTo address core issues of what is being taught and how,constituency builders often must help people overcome

a sense that such concerns are the exclusive purview ofprofessional educators. Parents sometimes raise issuessuch as school climate, discipline, special education, andtransportation because they feel able to articulate goalsand effect change in those areas. In contrast, parentsand other community members sometimes feel at seawhen trying to articulate specific academic goals. Onelocal constituency builder describes an incrementalapproach to building parents' sense of legitimacy inraising teaching and learning issues:

It's much easier to move first on an issue parentsidentify, such as the abandoned lot next to theschool being filled with garbage, gangs recruitingtheir kids after school. The closer you can get tothe school, the better. You have to win on some-thing first. Then when you have the follow-upmeeting, you talk about what people are doing inother places. You ask, 'Do you want to work onsomething like that?' You can bring up testscores.

[C]lass size and overcrowding [is] a natural issuethat parents identify as within their bailiwick.They can do something about it. They must do

it. It's critical and they know how. But ina lot of teaching and learning stuff, likegetting quality teachers into a school,parents know that they don't have qualityteachers, they feel very strongly about it,but they don't feel that they have a voiceon that kind of an issue.

"Students identify quality of instruction as a

public issue immediately. It's an issue that they

may not believe they know the solution to, and

they may not always be ready to take the action

that it takes to change, but they don't see it as a

personal problem. They see it as a political issue.

Parents are much more likely, especially early on,

to see teaching and learning issues as personal

problems."

A local organizer


6366

Study participants note that studentsoften raise teaching and learning issuesmore readily. A statewide organizationdirector says:

From high school students, [wehear] a lot about the classesbeing boring, around the kindof interactive stuff that they reallywant to have in their classes,about what engages them inlearning, about the degree towhich teachers either put themdown or really encouragethem. Those are the kinds of

issues that high schoolers bring up that don'talways come from parents.

As families and other community members becomeincreasingly involved in teaching and learning issues,they run a greater risk of being perceived as a threat andhaving doors closed in their faces. One local constituencybuilder describes the progression:

If you have a parent action around facilities thatends up with getting 300 light bulbs replaced inthe school that were out, people inside theschools will applaud. Move and develop to thenext level where you've gotten past the light bulbsand the facility to issues of teaching and learning,and it can get pretty difficult.

Another participant sums up the problem: "Whenparents cross over into teaching and learning issues, it iswar." Teaching and learning issues are sensitive becausethey most raise the question of who has power inschools and who makes the decisions that most affectstudents' lives.

The culture of a particular school, district, andcommunity contributes to educators' attitudes towardparents and other community members. Also, profes-sional norms influence teachers' expectations of controland power in their classrooms and principals' expecta-tions of authority in their schools. Most teachers areused to having what they do in their classrooms be their

business, within ethical bounds. Many educators feelthreatened not only when families raise teaching andlearning issues, but also when discussing these issueswith other educators.

In developing inside/outside relationships, partici-pants seek to affirm that all constituents have a legitimateinterest in classroom practice and to help constituentsraise educational issues without triggering alarm. Someconstituency builders use the current interest in academicstandards as an entrance into sensitive discussions anddecisions about teaching content and methods. Standardsfor what students should know and be able to do havebecome a major focus of education policy in recentdecades, and some study participants see standards as themain tool for reform, partly because they articulate for allstakeholders clear expectations of school outcomes.

The Philadelphia Education Fund used standardsas a lens through which parents, high school teachers,and higher education faculty examined their expecta-tions of students and schools. Teams of teachers, par-ents, and postsecondary faculty wrote standards foracademic content and student performance and devel-oped curriculum units and assessments based on them.Comparing actual student work to the standards,teams engaged in detailed, practical discussions aboutstudent assignments and expectations, as well as impli-cations for broader changes. By introducing the con-cept of standards and their relationship to student

work, the teams also laid the foundationfor developing standards later adopted for-mally by the Philadelphia School District.Many of the parents, educators, and com-munity members on the initial teams laterserved on the district's standards-writingteams, which also were organized and sup-ported by the Philadelphia EducationFund.'

"Many educators do not discuss their practice.

They work in isolation, often in schools that

don't value collaboration. If the educators don't

talk with each other, then they are even less

prepared to talk with parents about teaching

and learning issues, which they feel are their

area of expertise."


6

Protecting Constituentsfrom RepercussionsConstituency builders see part of their role asprotecting constituents, as much as possible,from potential negative consequences ofchallenging power structures. As one localconstituency builder puts it, "You can't havekids getting swatted at, because the adults

7


say `Rah, rah, we want you to be revolutionaries,' andthen abdicate the responsibility.... I know how peoplecome after them, and somebody's got to be there to dealwith those issues."

Who is at risk depends partly on the level of powerbeing challenged. When school leadership is targeted,for example, staff and students are most at risk. Onelocal constituency builder and parent sees the costs thatresult when teachers feel threatened: "My kids havesuffered because I'm doing this work." When districtleadership is challenged, principals are particularly atrisk of being transferred or assigned to office jobs. Onelocal constituency builder recalls a misunderstandingthat had long-term consequences for a coalition ofprincipals and parents:

The hardest time was when the superintendentcalled every school administrator who had cometo a [coalition] meeting and chastised them. [Thecoalition] had invited the superintendent to ameeting. She had just fired custodians, and thepress found out that she'd be at the meeting andwas waiting outside. She thought that [the coali-tion] had set her up. She felt threatened. It madeprincipals afraid to come to meetings. [We] metwith her. It took a long time for [the coalition] torecover.

Participants try to prevent such repercussions partlyby building relationships among groups and differen-tiating roles to protect those most at risk. Manyreformers also try to prepare constituents for negativereactions by having them enact role-plays and thinkthrough effective responses. These activists emphasizethe importance of remaining in public roles, despitethe fact that constituents who feel attacked sometimesare inclined to make the conflict personal. For exam-ple, one youth organizing group trains students torespond to teacher or administrator complaints byoffering to meet with the person as a group, shiftingthe dialogue back into the public sphere.

These challenges of balancing access and inde-pendence in relationships with school systems, ofchanging perceptions of whose voice is legitimate indiscussing teaching and learning issues, and of protect-

ing constituents as they take action continuallyconfront constituency builders as they strive to changeinside/outside power dynamics and, in doing so,improve schools.

Henig, Jeffrey, et al., The Color of School Reform: Race, Politics, and

the Challenge of Urban Education, Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1999, p. 277.

2 Stone, Clarence N., et aL, Building Civic Capacity: The Politics ofReforming Urban Schools, Lawrence, KS: University Press of

Kansas, 2001, P. 4.

3 Cahill, Michele, Schools and Community Partnerships: ReformingSchools, Revitalizing Communities, Chicago: Cross City Campaignfor Urban School Reform, 1996.

Hammon, Betsy, "Schools plan adopted after protest erupts," TheOregonian, June 27, 2000, p. B2.

'This work was part of a multisite demonstration project with theEducation Trust of the American Association for HigherEducation. Philadelphia's effort called the CommunityCompact for College Access and Success entailed collaborationto increase college readiness, enrollment, and retention in fourNorth Philadelphia high schools.


65

BESTCOPY AVAILABLE68

CHAPTER EIGHT

Shifting Power

Constituency builders seek to shift power to abroader array of stakeholders and change howpower is exercised. Study participants help par-

ents, teachers, and others assert the needs and rights ofall children to quality education, hold the systemaccountable for meeting those needs, and participate indecision-making about how to meet them. Chapter 3discusses the importance of these changes and how theycontribute to school reform. This chapter examinesspecific strategies study participants use to help con-stituents gain power and promote excellence and equityin public education. The strategies range from thosefocused on interpersonal dynamics, most often at theschool level, to those emphasizing changes in gover-nance policies, usually at the district or state level.These strategies include:

El forging relationships among groups to encourageeducators to share decision-making and relate toparents and others in new ways (Chapters 6 and 7describe general approaches to building relation-ships, and the first two sections of this chapterexplore more specific strategies);

working specifically with individual schoolor system leaders, such as principals, to enhancetheir willingness and capacity for shareddecision-making;

1111 broadening constituents' power base by involvingmore stakeholders and working in coalitions;

invoking constituents' constitutional and legisla-tive rights, including the rights to free speech,free assembly, due process, and access to thecourts; and

establishing new governance policies that giveconstituents a seat at the table and a vote on keyissues, along with training and support to helpthem to assume new roles.

Constituency-building organizations select strategiesbased on their missions and priorities. For instance,some groups build relationships and capacity acrosspopulations so all stakeholders can formulate andpursue shared goals, while others support particularpopulations in asserting their children's right to quality,equitable education. Strategy decisions also are influ-enced by the complex context of the work. Study partic-ipants help constituents analyze power dynamics inschools and communities, which are affected by diversityfactors as well as inside/outside dynamics. Race, immi-grant status, income, educational level, and politicalstatus and connections are just a few of the factors thatcontribute to discrepancies in power and opportunitiesin society, and all come to bear on public schools. Studyparticipants underscore the complexity of these dynam-ics. Even within groups, there are multiple levels ofpower. For example, teachers who have seniority andstrong relationships with administrators generally exer-cise more influence in schools than their coworkers.

Depending on these factors, participants' strategiesvary greatly in terms of point of entry, relative emphasison relationships among groups, and degree of collabora-tion or confrontation with the school system. However,all their strategies share three elements:

M Permanent, independent constituency-buildingorganizations. Such organizations are critical toensuring that changes in power dynamics andrelationships occur among constituent groups, notjust among particular individuals. Organizationskeep the focus on enabling all constituents, notjust a few, to have input in decisions. This feat isaccomplished by involving large numbers of con-stituents, conducting ongoing recruitment, build-ing strong relationships and collective capacityamong constituents, and facilitating inclusivedecision-making processes and smooth leadershiptransitions. Organizations provide ongoing

Shifting Power

676 9

support for constituents in new roles and helpthem respond to new challenges.

LE Systemic goals. All study participants seekto change power dynamics throughout the pub-lic education system. Some strategies start withbuilding relationships within a single school;with seeking policies that require shareddecision-making.

ill Use of data. Participants train and support con-stituents in collecting and analyzing the manyforms of data that are essential for full involve-ment in decision-making. Information is integralto building capacity for systemic work, analyzingpower structures, and making compelling argu-ments, whether in meetings, before legislativebodies, or in courts of law.

Building Relationships for Shared PowerStudy participants seek shared power and decision-making at all levels of the education system. This sec-tion focuses largely on efforts at the school level and oninteractions between inside and outside constituents.Parents and other community members often enter intoreform work at the school level and encounter assump-tions there that limit their roles. After achieving somechanges at the school level activities that usuallyinvolve developing leadership skills and identifying sys-temic issues constituents sometimes tackle districtpolicies and practices. Often constituents use the same

approaches to build relationships at the district andother levels. Clarence Stone and colleagues affirm theimportance of changing relationships to achieve andsustain reform:

To look at urban school reform in this way is togo beyond such things as pedagogical innovationsat the school level, new management practices, orthe addition of intensified professional develop-ment for teachers. It is to ask whether or notbasically different relationships are put in place.For reform to be fundamental, mobilization hasto be sustained and has to institutionalize newpractices and relationships.'

One of the biggest challenges cited by study partici-pants is transforming schools that have a culture of iso-lation, even among teachers, and power concentrated inthe hands of a few. In such schools, the authority struc-ture excludes other voices. Educators, parents, and oth-ers have become so accustomed to playing narrowlydefined roles and having little communication with eachother that shared decision-making is almost impossibleto envision, never mind implement. In participants'experiences, these schools tend to have the least creativelearning environments and the worst student outcomes,and thus are most in need of change.

Beginning with Shared IssuesStudy participants often initiate relationships by pro-posing joint work on "neutral" issues that offer a com-

mon interest everyone recognizes from thestart. In working together, parents and othercommunity members can demonstrate theircapacity to assume important responsibilitiesand perform key tasks.

When an organization works in multiplearenas such as housing, health care, andeducation it can build relationships witheducators by taking action on an issue onlytangentially related to education, then mov-ing gradually closer to classroom issues. Forexample, Chicago ACORN has found thatsigning children up for free health insuranceis an effective way to begin working witheducators, because it is valued by parents

"[P]rofound parent involvement means sharing

leadership and that means sharing knowl-

edge, responsibility, and most difficult of all,

power. My experiences in Philadelphia have

taught me that this is anything but simple."

Rochelle Nichols Solomona study participant from the Philadelphia Education Fund

writing in Phi Delta Kappa&


and board of education members and boosts schoolmorale. "But then we do something that automaticallychallenges who the principal thinks parents are. ... Itimmediately transforms relationships," says a study par-ticipant. Parents in one school asked the principal aboutteacher vacancies and took on recruitment tasks, "andthat knocks people flat to think that parents would berunning ads and doing interviews to recruit teachers forthe school. But the principals are so desperate for teach-ers that they are not saying, 'No, I don't need any,' or'Stay the hell out of my business.' " The progressionaffects parents' views of their roles, as well as principals'and teachers' perspectives. Educators see that parentscan be effective and sometimes have more freedom toact as advocates than district employees do. Rccognitionof parents' capacity and effectiveness often increaseseducators' willingness to share decision-making.

Initial issues need not be external to schools. TheSenior High Alliance of Principals, Presidents, andEducators, a parent-principal coalition in Washington,D.C., began with efforts to promote school safety."Everyone feels the same about safety and facilities, andprincipals really need parents to fight on those issues,"a study participant points out. As principals see parentsmaking a difference by fighting for better policies andresources, many administrators become increasinglywilling to collaborate with parents and share decision-making on a variety of issues.

Establishing a Mechanism for DiscussionMany schools lack not only democratic decision-making structures, but even forums for educators andparents to discuss schools' goals and educational pro-grams. Study participants have created various tools tofacilitate such communication, and they use those toolsto initiate relationships that can open the door to moreshared decision-making. For example, the PhiladelphiaEducation Fund has structured discussions about stan-dards. Kentucky's Prichard Committee has developeda format called Parents and Teachers Talking Together,which gathers parents and teachers from a school andposes two initial questions: "What do we want for ourstudents?" and "What do we need to get what we wantfor our students?" Parents and teachers are divided intoseparate groups to answer the questions, then come

together to compare lists and prioritize. Often, the twogroups are surprised to find they have similar priorities.When opinions diverge, differences are not necessarilydetermined by who is a teacher and who is a parent.The discussion helps teachers and parents move beyondstereotypes that interfere with productive relationships,develop a sense of common purpose and mutual respect,and improve their communication with each other.Thus, the discussion improves parents' and educators'capacity to work jointly to develop state-mandatedschool plans and to share decision-making on schoolcouncils, which are required by state law to include theprincipal, teachers, and parents from each school.

Study participants often draw on local data or otherresearch to stimulate discussion and expand people'sviews of parents' roles in education. Participants notethat research tends to land mostly on the desks ofcentral administration, and some activists work todistribute research findings more broadly to principals,teachers, and parents. Especially useful is research thatgets educators thinking in new ways about parent andcommunity engagement, raises provocative issues relat-ing to equity, or describes in detail specific reformefforts and educational models. Participants emphasizethe need for facilitated forums that help people analyzedata and examine how that information can be used todrive improvements in their schools.

Participants also use regional and national forumsaway from constituents' school or district as "safe places"to open dialogues and enable parents, students, andothers to demonstrate leadership roles (for more infor-mation, see Chapter 9).

Having Outsiders Bring a ResourceOne way to help educators see the value of workingwith parents and community members is to have themoffer specific resources. In Philadelphia, the AllianceOrganizing Project gave $5,000 minigrants to parent-led teams to conduct reading projects in partnershipwith schools. To get a minigrant, parents and teachershad to conduct "listening campaigns," surveying theircolleagues and fellow parents. In addition, teachers, par-ents, and the principal of the relevant school had to signoff on the project plan. Even such small grants providedeffective incentives for schools to work with parents and

Shifting Power

6971

helped educators recognize that parents could play newroles. Their shared authority over the reading projectsmodeled the power sharing that parents wanted tomove toward more broadly. In some cases, parentsalready had initiated relationships with schools aroundsafety or other issues, and the minigrants enabled theparents to raise teaching and learning issues.

Shaping District PoliciesTo Support RelationshipsDistrict policies greatly affect the ease or difficulty ofbuilding relationships and changing roles. Principalassignment and accountability and school governanceare a few of the important policy areas and are discussedlater in this chapter. Others include, for example, schoolsize, which is a major factor in determining whetherstudents, parents, and educators feel connected to eachother, can communicate effectively, and can develop col-lective capacity for action. In a large school, holdingdiscussions, even just among faculty, can be difficult.Constituency builders help teachers, parents, and othersidentify policy changes that will facilitate positive rela-tionships and shared decision-making.

Relating to the Powers ThatPthwipalls as ne ExampleConstituency builders work with or around principalsin ways that provide useful case studies for changingpower dynamics. Many of the approaches described inthe previous section, in fact, are used to build relation-ships with principals as well as other educators.However, principals unwilling or unaccustomed tosharing power can introduce additional challenges.Principals have a great deal of power at the school level.In most districts, they have legal authority over mostkey decisions at the school, from budgeting to profes-sional development decisions. A productive relationshipwith a principal can enable constituents to share inthose decisions and easily forge relationships with othereducators in the school. Such connections also canaffect district-level work. Many study participants useschools as a base for systemic work, building strongconstituencies at individual schools, then bringingthose constituencies together to work for district-level,or even state-level, reforms. Because principals have

70

relationships and influence beyond their own schools,constituents' relationships with principals can affecthow they are viewed by others in the school district.

Principal Power and RoleSchool reform literature frequently stresses the impor-tance of strong principals, and most study participantsaffirm this point of view. One local organizer notesthat, beyond official roles and responsibilities, principals"end up having a kind of power that people cede tothem in the school. People just assume that the princi-pal has the authority to do certain things whether theydo or don't." The same participant sums up what shewants to see in a principal:

You need the principal to help organize a consis-tent, unified vision about what we're doing andhold the course to that. ... The good principalsknow how to get rid of staff who aren't on theplan, who aren't on program, and they know howto energize the staff who are. They know how tocreate a space for staff to develop a plan aroundtheir own professional development, so they feellike it's their plan. And they know how to bringteachers and community and parents togetherrather than use their power to keep them divided.

To help connect teachers and parents, a principal cancreate mechanisms and supports that enable parents andother community members to be on campus and allowschool staff to venture into the community. On a nitty-gritty level, principals control access to meeting spaceand, to a large extent, staff and students.

Principals demonstrate their commitment to equityon many levels, from setting standards for acceptablefaculty behavior to promoting high expectations for allstudents and ensuring that services are available to helpstudents meet those expectations. One study participantsays that principals must "align the task of the school tothe concerns of the community. ... And that [requires] areal willingness to say, 'This school really is about accessand equity for our students; this school really is aboutgiving this community what it needs."

Some constituency builders see the principal asstruggling to reconcile the often divergent expectationsand needs of teachers, district leaders, parents, and

7


"We don't select schools based on the principal. ...

We've learned that there are surprises ... princi-

pals change either way"

The director of a statewide group

community members regarding not only equity but alleducational issues. The strength of the principal's rela-tionship with each party shapes the way the principalexercises power. Study participants recount instanceswhen a principal's relationship with teachers determinedhis or her willingness to make changes. In one case, aninitially obstructive principal became supportive whenhis teachers, with whom he had a strong relationship,indicated they wanted changes. Likewise, a principalwho initially had supported an effort balked when someof his most prized teachers objected to the changes,which would have entailed their participation in train-ing, openness to new teaching methods, and realloca-tion of resources. "He was not willing to in any wayshake up or take on his veteran teachers," says a studyparticipant.

A principal's relationship with teachers also affectsteachers' attitudes toward other parties. One localorganizer describes a school where teachers were soangry with the principal that they virtually refused todo anything, whether the principal was involved or not.The history of strife, which included racial issues, pre-vented progress, and the community group workingwith the school concluded that dynamics would notchange until the principal departed.

Strategic Responses to PrincipalPowerConstituency builders face a problem:They want a strong and welcoming educa-tional leader, but often, particularly inlow-performing schools, they do not haveone. Study participants respond to thisproblem differently. For some, a willingprincipal is a necessary criterion for work-ing with a school. Faced with schoolswithout willing principals, many con-

stituency builders begin work in otherschools, with the long-term strategy ofbuilding enough support to institute dis-trict-level changes affecting all of theschools, including schools with resistantprincipals. Chicago ACORN tests aprincipal's willingness to work with par-ents by asking for basic information,

such as a list of students, in the context of a neutralcampaign, and works only in schools with cooperativeprincipals. One participant who works with inside andoutside constituencies distinguishes between weak andobstructive principals, noting that she can work withthe former but not the latter.

In contrast, constituency builders at CaliforniaTomorrow (CT) do not base site selection on the princi-pal's initial attitude because they have seen principals shiftfrom support to opposition and vice versa. "It depends onthe kind of change that the community is trying to makehappen and what it sparks in that particular principal,"says a study participant. CT's work in Salinas, California,described in Chapter 3, is part of an effort to developmodels for increasing equity without leadership, or evensupport, from principals. In contrast to the strategy ofstarting with shared issues to form relationships with peo-ple in authority, this approach starts with people commit-ted to equity whether they are principals, teachers,counselors, parents, students, or other community mem-bers and helps them build power for change, first atthe school level, and then the district level. In Salinas,CT formed and supported the Working Group on Race,Language, and Culture that enabled 20 committed teach-ers to examine and advocate instructional strategiesdesigned to overcome barriers of race, language, and

"If you don't have a principal who has that will-

ingness to do the kinds of things that allow you

all as organizers to be successful, then in our

experiences it does not work."

The director of a local organizing group

Shifting Power

71 7 3BEST COPY AVAILABLE

cultural differences. The group's discussions and researchresulted in an accelerated literacy approach for immigrantstudents and English language learners, which was imple-mented by 10 of the teachers. In addition, the group usednewsletters and workshops to expand support for equi-table reform among other teachers and community mem-bers. Although similar strategies in other districts eventu-ally led to working relationships with principals, this didnot happen in Salinas. However, the group's effort wassustained by increasingly broad support in the school, atthe district level, and in the community.

Some study participants describe cases where con-stituents felt they could not work with or around theprincipal and sought a replacement. However, all partici-pants agree, as one put it, "If you shoot for the principal,you'd better not miss." Moreover, even if constituentssucceed in ousting an obstructive principal, there is noguarantee that the successor will be better.

Since an inclusive principal is certainly an asset and,some say, a necessity, many participants seek to expandprincipals' views of parent and community involvementand build principals' capacity to share decision-makingwith constituents. Strategies that start with sharedissues and constituent resources, described above, aimto create new relationships and roles in school settings.Constituency builders also seek to expand principals'perspectives by linking them with others in alternatesettings. Such venues include:

Il Peer networks. The Interfaith Education Fundbrings together the 17 Austin, Texas, principalsinvolved in the Alliance Schools Project. Theymeet monthly, hold each other accountable forprogress, ask each other hard questions, and, whereneeded, provide on-site assistance at each others'schools. The network principals even decided, withorganizers, to "let a school go" from the projectwhen the principal demonstrated a lack of com-mitment, according to a study participant.

IN Cross-sector meetings. Cross City Campaignorganizes study trips and working meetings whereprincipals, district personnel, parents, and com-munity members investigate important issues,such as school-based budgeting and high school

reform. These forums legitimize the voices ofparents, students, and others and provide opportu-nities for principals to interact with other educa-tional leaders who might be more accustomed tosharing power.

District policies heavily influence principals' attitudestoward parents and other constituents. Constituencybuilders help constituents in analyzing how these policiesaffect principals and, sometimes, in advocating for policychanges. Study participants highlight policies thataddress:

Hiring and firing. If school governance councilsthat include parents, such as Chicago's localschool councils, have authority to select principals,then educators have a strong incentive to workwith at least some parents.

E Assignment and longevity. In the view of onelocal constituency builder, principal turnover andinstability can make it almost impossible to workwith a school. Ironically, turnover often resultsfrom efforts to move effective leaders up the lad-der. Retirements also spur turnover. Study partici-pants point to the need for thoughtful assignmentpolicies that provide incentives for principals andteachers to stay and that facilitate orderly transi-tions. On the other hand, districts must considerthe risk of long-term placements that can lead tostagnation and fiefdoms.

1111 Accountability. Principal accountability and com-pensation policies also affect principals' attitudestoward parents and others. In one city, the empha-sis on test results in the district defines, for someprincipals, the role of parents " 'Get your kidhere and get them fed' kinds of things," in thewords of one study participant. The same districthas implemented performance-based principalevaluations, but reportedly with unclear andunevenly applied criteria, and has limited theamount of time for which principals can be paidfor additional tasks, such as supervising extracur-ricular activities. As a result, many principals areangry and feel they are not being fairly evaluatedor compensated. As that sense of unfairness seeps

,74


"The day-to-day, the nitty gritty, the roll-up-

your-sleeves, deeply involved you do not

need 100 people doing that. But there are those

moments ... that you have to demonstrate the

power, and that is the organized people."


into other areas, principals might be likely to per-ceive district support and resources for parentinvolvement as a threat rather than an incentive.

Broadening the Power Base throughCoalitionsThe number and composition of constituents are majorfactors in determining how effectively a group can pressfor change and demand a greater role in decision-making. Study participants wrestle with the question ofwhat constitutes critical mass or, as a participant work-ing in multiple sites defines it, "who and how manypeople it will take to move the body that controlswhat they seek to change." When the Charlotte-Mecldenburg Education Foundation sought highertaxes to benefit education, it needed approval from amajority of voters from across the countywide district.On the other hand, a small number of constituentsmight be able to pilot curricular changes or lobby for apolicy, such as a capital development plan. A localparticipant commented, "The mayor and the board ofeducation think they're flooded if they get 10 calls."

Coalitions enable constituents to develop new rela-tionships, expand their sphere of influence, and broadenthe base for collective action. They are particularly com-mon at the district, state, and federal levels in policycampaigns, but study participants also have built coali-tions for grassroots change. Constituency builders seecoalitions as serving various purposes, and their mem-berships and structures vary accordingly. Some con-stituency builders believe that reform requires coalitionsacross all stakeholder groups. Others focus on helpinginequitably served families assert their needs; they form

alliances with other poorly served groupsand try to facilitate coalitions to helpthose constituents make their voicesheard and pressure the system.

Study participants say they face manychallenges in forming and maintainingcoalitions in a diverse, fragmented societythat stresses individualism over jointaction. As discussed in Chapter 6, dif-ferences in race, as well as class andother characteristics, can make formingrelationships and alliances more difficult.

Study participants' experiences demonstrate that over-coming these challenges is possible, but highly laborintensive. For example, since 1983, the PrichardCommittee's work to bring together Kentucky parents,educators, businesses, politicians, and the media hasbeen essential both to achieving comprehensive statereform legislation and to translating that policy intoschool-level change and improved student outcomes.Moreover, independent constituency-building groupshave been able to help communities overcome racialdivides to pursue educational equity. Following the 1992riots in the Watts/South Central communities of LosAngeles, the MultiCultural Collaborative, CaliforniaTomorrow, and the Achievement Council providedleadership development, reform information, and facili-tation services to Latino and African American fami-lies. From the start, the organizations had one bottomline: They would not tolerate any movement that wouldhurt a community. It all had to be in the shared interestof all African American and Latino, immigrant andnative born. Their work resulted in the formation ofParents and Students Organized, an interethnic parentand student group seeking equitable reform.

Articulating an Agenda for Positive ChangeStudy participants note that alliances are most easilyformed when groups are mobilizing against something;it is much harder to build and maintain an alliance witha positive agenda. To overcome this challenge, someparticipants focus on a specific issue and ally largelywith people having strong personal interests in theissue. For example, the Intercultural Development andResearch Association works with parents to forge

Shifting Power73

alliances with bilingual education teachers regardingbilingual education in Texas. The particular coalitionoften is not the sum of the organization's work, butrather serves as part of a larger strategy that reachesbeyond any particular issue.

Building coalitions for comprehensive systemicreform is particularly challenging. Participants point tothe challenge of formulating a common vision that notonly is broad enough for various stakeholders to buyinto and specific enough for action, but that reachesbeyond students, parents, and educators to draw inbusinesses, community groups, and others. While not-ing that accountability and closing the achievement gapappeal to many sectors, one local constituency builderdescribes the difficulty of reconciling different notionsof what change is needed:

It is really hard work because the business com-munity and the political leaders are more proneto [endorse] the accountability framework andthe testing. They are more comfortable with aframework that is simple and clear. Teacherleaders, the union, parent leaders, site councilmembers, and other community players whowork in schools with kids everyday see things alittle bit less crisply and maybe 'the devil is in thedetails,' in terms of opportunity to learn and pro-fessional development and instructional coachesin school. So, not everyone is on the same page.

Study participants offer this advice on forming broadalliances:

Frame school reform efforts to underscore theimpact on the community as a whole, so eventhose not directly involved see themselves as ben-eficiaries. For example, one participant describesthe use of economic and civil society arguments,citing the state's high poverty, high unemploy-ment, low job creation, and low voter turnoutrates to make the case for investments in educa-tion reform.

Relate each specific school reform goal to largercommunity goals. A national organization directordescribes the challenge: "The nature of the dialoguethat takes place is so specific that it pushes peoplewho are not intimately involved with it out of it."

Use an inclusive reform process and address long-standing inequities that have alienated popula-tions poorly served by schools. For example,immigrant, racial minority, and low-income com-munities in some cities have weathered waves of"school improvement" that have failed to dimin-ish, and in some cases have exacerbated, theachievement gap. The same director states, "Mostof our organizing that we have done in the pasthasn't gotten past this sort of racial point or classpoint. There have been these splinter groups thathave pulled out because they are not assured thatthe system is going to work for them."

Discussants agree that an outside group, such as alocal education fund or a citizens group, generally isbetter able to engage the public in reform than schooldistrict personnel. District leaders, particularly in thosedistricts most in need of reform, often lack credibilityin the community. Whereas the district often is seenas self-interested, an outside group can be seen ascommunity- and child-interested.

Keeping a Coalition Togetherthrough ImplementationAs a vision or policy is implemented, more and moredetailed decisions must be made, and each decision hasthe potential to fracture the coalition. A state organiza-tion director notes, "One of the jobs of keeping the coali-tion together is that somebody has to be thinking abouthow to set the agenda, meaning what gets pushed to thefront burner and what doesn't, and ... control the pace."

Part of that task is steering clear of divisive issues thatare not critical to the coalition's core mission. Groupsstrive to keep such issues from fracturing the coalitionand diverting attention from more essential matters. Forcritical issues, participants use their initial platform orpolicy as the reference point for making decisions.However, each decision can affect various stakeholders,and taking a position might entail or be perceived as

choosing a side. The cost is cumulative; the same statedirector says, "every time you do that, it gets a littleworse." A local coalition organizer recommends definingthe coalition's initial goals in a flexible way, to allow foradjustment for unforeseen factors that are bound to arise.The degree to which the initial process is inclusive canaffect these later negotiations. If everyone involved feels

76


ownership and stakeholders enjoy positive relationshipswith each other, then there is a relatively good chance ofworking out details and making adjustments.

Study participants emphasize the importance ofongoing public pressure to overcome obstacles to reform.A state organization director notes that part of keepingthe public on board is maintaining focus on the relation-ship between reform and broader economic and civicissues: "It is important all the time to keep remindingpeople why you are doing all this ... and constantlyrepaint the picture. ... People have very short memories,and they are not very well informed." Groups also mustshow that reform efforts are producing results. One localorganization director speaks of possible ramificationswithin a decade: "If we don't address some of those sys-temic barriers to building the kind of urban schools wewant for our kids, I don't know if we'll be able to standhere and marshal up the kind of support that we havebeen able to marshal up for our schools."

Bringing and Keeping Politiciansand Businesses on BoardWhile most study participants view their primary con-stituents as parents, educators, or both, many help con-stituents boost their power by forming alliances withother groups, including politicians and businesses.

Constituency builders help engage politicians in dis-cussions and convince them to take leadership roles inreform. Who reformers reach out to is defined by polit-ical context. In one city, local political leaders are seenas essential, as are business leaders, both in lobbying foradequate funding from the state and in forcing systemicchange at central office. "The mayor becomes importantin being another catalyst for not morphing back intothe old bureaucratic inertia," says a study participant. Inanother case, a constituent group has allied with stateofficials, who are leading the reform effort and exertingpressure on districts for reform.

Constituents engage politicians partly through pub-lic events, such as rallies and demonstrations. Theseevents bring education into the public domain andshine a spotlight not only on the issue, but also on theattending official, thus pressuring the official to committo further reform. Another strategy for engaging politi-cians is for constituents to provide briefings for candi-

Shifting Power

dates and hold community forums during electionperiods to form relationships with and secure commit-ments from candidates. One state group directoremphasizes the role of the media, as well: "We speak tolegislators a lot in public by making comments in thepress and especially by talking to editorial writers, get-ting them to push legislators in certain ways."

Relationships with businesses also figure prominentlyin efforts to obtain support from politicians. Particularlywhen attempting to shape state policy, effective advocacydemands not only a broad understanding of systemicissues, but also a huge time investment to stay up tospeed on amendments and other relevant politicaldevelopments. Few parents or others at the ground levelcan make that investment, and most constituency-building groups do not have large staffs. Some studyparticipants rely partly on business allies whose lobby-ists carry their messages. These allies might includechambers of commerce, large corporations, teachersassociations, and civic associations. (The FordFoundation's Constituency Building for Public SchoolReform Initiative did not fund lobbying.)

Business involvement also can bring resources interms of both funds and volunteer time. For example,in Charlotte-Mecldenburg, businesses not only helpedfund broad dissemination of community visioningmaterials, but also encouraged employees to participatein the Charlotte-Mecldenburg Education Fund'seducation summit. In Portland, Oregon, business repre-sentatives have served on planning committees andcontributed expertise regarding administrative aspectsof running large organizations.

Participants use various strategies for bringing andkeeping business on board:

Identify business leaders who will use their net-works of relationships to recruit others.

I Involve the local or state chamber of commerce,which provides an institutional base and legitimacyin the business community.

III Build local alliances with local businesspeople.

Organize visits to schools to break down stereo-types and humanize issues.

7 577

BEST COPY AVAOLABLE

Shape appeals around issues that have resonanceand parallels in the business community. Forinstance, the Portland Public Schools Foundationhas obtained financial and labor investments frombusinesses for leadership and capacity developmentwith principals. The need for strong leadership inschools is consistent with the business perspectiveon how successful organizations function.

In Kentucky, constituency builders encouraged busi-ness involvement by helping to create the Partnershipfor Kentucky School Reform. Following enactment ofthe Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA), thePrichard Committee collaborated with The BusinessRoundtable and chief executive officers of UPS,Humana, and Ashland Oil to form the Partnership forKentucky School Reform, a coalition of more than 50business, government, education, labor, and media lead-ers, including the publishers of the state's two mostprominent newspapers. Members made 10-year pledgesto work together to help implement KERA. The part-nership uses advertising and other public informationstrategies to increase public understanding and involve-ment in reform. UPS, Humana, and Ashland Oil haveprovided $1.5 million for a campaign that has included500,000 newspaper inserts, television and radio adver-tising reaching 97 percent of Kentuckians, mailings,legislative briefings, and a special KERA "school bus"that has traveled the state distributing information. Thepartnership's Business Initiative has encouraged andassisted businesses in developing KERA awareness pro-grams and other education initiatives.

Study participants report a recent shift away frombusiness engagement in public education, as many cor-porations instead direct philanthropic dollars towardcorporate identity efforts, such as funding for arts orsporting events. One participant attributes the shiftpartly to changes in business leadership:

You have got a new generation of leaders. In myview they are not as civicly engaged as the oldergeneration. You have got more of a bottom-linementality, kind of stock market analysis drivingdecisions. So, they are pulling out of all kinds ofstuff, everything, not just education. ... One ofthe generational changes is it is more likely that

these people went to private schools and havechildren in private schools.

A local organizer says the shift also stems from disil-lusionment with the results of past efforts, as businessesappear to feel "a weariness of the problems of publiceducation. Kind of like, 'been there, done that. We triedto fix those and they were not fixable, so we want topull out.' Feeling like it was a bad investment. Folkshere talk about throwing good money after bad and soare gun shy ... that it is just too political, too difficult toget around and make some progress."

Asserting Individual RightsConstitutional and legislative rights represent significanttools for constituents demanding change. Constituentsinvoke federal constitutional rights, including the rightsto free speech, free assembly, due process, equal protec-tion, and access to the courts; state constitutional rights,most notably the right in many states to "adequate" edu-cation; and legislative rights, such as parents' rights toparticipate in decision-making about certain programs.These rights enable constituents to influence decisionsand force specific changes. Such strategies are generallymore confrontational than those described earlier in thechapter and include:

Large demonstrations in which groups showbroad support for change and demand actionfrom those in authority. For example, in 1997,The Metropolitan Organization of Houston,Texas, an Industrial Areas Foundation affiliate,held several "accountability sessions" with citycouncil members and candidates. In each session,between 165 and 1,000 people demanded after-school programs and secured public commitmentsof support.

High-profile publications that increase under-standing, bring public attention to issues, andintensify pressure on the system. These reportsoften draw on data obtained through Freedom ofInformation Act requests. In 1998, the NationalCoalition of Advocates for Students published AGathering Storm: How Palm Beach County SchoolsFail Poor and Minority Children, based on datacollected by the school district and submitted to

7EJ


the Florida Department of Education. The reportraised awareness of tracking and related issues andcontributed to the formation of CARE, a com-munity group tackling the issues.

M Law suits that assert educational rights and forcechanges in policy and practice. The Rose v.Council for Better Education litigation in Kentuckywas a key factor in bringing about passage of theKentucky Education Reform Act.

Administrative complaints that force compliancewith the law. Immigrant parents in Florida havefiled many complaints with the Florida Departmentof Education charging school districts with failingto comply with the state's language rights consentdecree and with the districts' own limited Englishproficiency education plans.

Constituency-building groups use these strategiesmost often at the school district, state, and federal lev-els, partly because these tools are especially suited tochanging policies and practices systemwide. In addition,many groups have found it most effective, given thenature of inside/outside dynamics, to use relationship-oriented methods to bring about school-level change.

Constituents often invoke their individual rightswhen addressing inequities based in longstanding powerdynamics or distribution of resources. These inequitiesoften are rooted in historical events, policies, andtraditional behaviors reaching far beyond the educationsystem, for instance to slavery, immigration policy,industrial developments, and class dynamics. Somestudy participants have found it difficult to build cross-group relationships and broad support on an agenda ofremedying such deeply rooted inequities. However, it isimportant to note that equity agendas are not alwaysaddressed with legal strategies, nor has the use of suchstrategies been limited to remedying inequities.

Administrative complaints and litigation, in particu-lar, usually aim to assert a minority's rights. Education'shistory in the United States shows the importance oflitigation and other confrontational methods indemanding quality, equitable education for AfricanAmerican students, students with disabilities, and

students with limited English proficiency, to name justa few groups. This report deals little with the role oflawsuits in shaping education; the focus here is on con-stituency building. Moreover, the Ford Foundation'sConstituency Building for Public School ReformInitiative, whose grantees form the core of this study'sparticipants, does not fund litigation. However, reformgroups sometimes use a combination of strategies,including filing lawsuits, drawing from multiple fund-ing sources. Litigation, particularly high-profile litiga-tion, can not only achieve legal changes, but also furtherconstituency building by:

Enhancing constituents' sense of legitimacy. Inexplaining why they chose particular sites for con-stituency building, some study participants notethe importance of previous litigation that helpedcreate a history of collective interest.

Providing discovery mechanisms for obtaininginformation, a public forum for presenting dataand expert analysis, and a media attraction. Allthese outcomes can further efforts to educate thepublic. In New York, for instance, the Campaignfor Fiscal Equity has conducted an extensive publiceducation and engagement campaign along with itschallenge to the state's education funding system.

Moreover, as demonstrated in Kentucky and else-where, effective implementation of court orders requiresongoing constituency building.'

A reform group's sheer ability to use confrontationalstrategies can give it leverage as it pursues relationshipswith those in authority in education. The possibility ofa demonstration or a lawsuit can provide an incentivefor district or state leaders to listen to constituent con-cerns and work on collaborative solutions.

Establishing New Governance PoliciesConstituency builders seek to institutionalize new rolesand power dynamics through policies and structuresthat require or support inclusive decision-making.These policies can be a goal of relationship building andother strategies discussed above, as well as a major fac-tor in creating opportunities for furthering relationshipsand exercising power.

Shifting Power

79

A local organizer describes the immediate changesresulting from creation of Chicago's local school coun-cils (LSCs), which themselves resulted from a broadconstituency-building and advocacy campaign:

It used to be, before we had local school councils,that in virtually any school, if I went in with aparent, we were accosted immediately as intrud-ers or maybe not so immediately, becausenobody was around. But when they found us andfigured out we were there, they would throw usout. And there was this bureaucratic kind of offi-cious inhospitality in virtually every school thatyou took as a matter of course. And if you askedto speak to the principal, it was like going to theAlderman's office. You could be kept waiting forhours. It was kind of a culture thing across theboard in public schools.

And after the LSCs, that just changed dramati-cally. There were greeters in every school, so thatthey knew who was coming in and going out ofthe school, but they were glad to see you. Youhad to sign in almost immediately, but then theywere just helpful and glad to see you. Now theschools where we have problems are the aberra-tions rather than the rule. ... The fact that amajority parent body was going to control theprincipal's job just immediately changed the cli-mate. ... Our standards on what is a hospitableenvironment for parents have gone way up sincethen. ... It's one of the few instances of sponta-neous change that just came as a direct result ofthe structural change.

Participants emphasize that, although some successmight be virtually immediate, making governance poli-cies more inclusive is just the first step of reform; a greatdeal depends on support for implementation. In partici-pants' experiences, even when school-based managementbodies hold broad authority, for instance to end a prin-cipal's contract, they are often reluctant to wield it.Whether parents in the body exercise their authoritydepends greatly on their training and support, particularlyfrom independent organizations that aim to expand par-ents' power in schools. Furthermore, power imbalancesand inequities exist within constituent groups, as well as

among them. For instance, including parents on a schoolcouncil does not ensure that all parents' views are repre-sented. In any governance structure, mechanisms areneeded to support and protect minorities' interests.Particularly in multiethnic communities, the parentswhose voices are heard, whether on school-based councilsor elsewhere, are often the ones who are happiest with theschool.

Study participants work at all levels to build supportfor inclusive governance policies and capacity for imple-mentation of those policies. For example, at the nationallevel, Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reformhas published Reinventing Central Office, which drawson reforms implemented in various cities to provide ablueprint for decentralizing district resources, authority,and accountability. Cross City Campaign's school budgetleadership project works with local leaders to supportdistrict administrators in decentralization and to assistprincipals, teachers, and parents in planning and man-aging school resources to improve student outcomes.Parents for Public Schools (PPS) also places a high pri-ority on establishing and supporting implementation ofnew governance mechanisms at its chapter sites. Withfunding from the Ford Foundation's Collaborating forEducation Reform Initiative, PPS of Jackson, Mississippi,is working with other local groups to build capacity forimplementation of the district's new school-based man-agement policy. As one component of the effort,Jackson PPS developed and is providing Ask for Moretraining for site councils in the Lanier High Schoolfeeder system. The training emphasizes using data inschool improvement and also addresses consensusbuilding, serving as a representative, budgeting, andprincipal selection. These are just a few examples of theongoing support study participants provide to con-stituents, to help them use and expand their power toachieve excellence and equity in public education.

s


I Stone, Clarence N., et al., Building Civic Capacity: The Politics ofReforming Urban Schools, Lawrence, KS: University Press of

Kansas, 2001, pp. 7-8.

2 Nichols Solomon, Rochelle, "Conquering the Fear of Flying," PhiDelta Kappan (September 2000), p. 20.

3 See Welner, Kevin G., Legal Rights, Local Wrongs: When Community

Control Collides with Educational Equity, Albany, NY: SUNY Press,2001; Rebell, Michael A. and Robert L. Hughes, "Efficacy andEngagement: The Remedies Problem Posed by Sheff v. O'Neilland Proposed Solution," in Connecticut Law Review, University ofConnecticut, 29:3 (spring 1997), pp. 1154, 1156.

Shifting Power

Key FunctionsIndependent constituency-building organizations strive to give constituents and campaigns:

Overarching goals. As noted in Chapter 2, all organizations represented in the study share thegoals of quality, equitable public education for all children; deep, sustained, and ongoingreform of public education; and democracy in practice. These goals provide a larger contextfor particular campaigns. Although no organization, constituency, or strategy alone willachieve these goals, organizations assess their effectiveness by examining their progresstoward the goals, participants say.

Guiding principles. Participants design constituency-building activities to reflect the samevalues of equity and democratic decision-making they seek in schools.

Identification with a larger effort. Working as part of a group helps counter what one partici-pant calls "the isolation of the activist" and provides a foundation for building relationships.For example, constituents conducting community walks or meeting with district officials canidentify themselves with the organization, gaining a sense of legitimacy and solidarity withothers.

Continuity of effort. Organizations provide continuity when individual constituents and staffmembers move on. Study participants note that organizations also provide continuity in keep-ing reform agendas before the public, even as issues fall out of fashion, school and politicalleaders turn over, and social environments change with, for example, a cooling economy ordemographic shift. Many longstanding organizations offer institutional memories, skills andexperience, deep roots in their communities, established legitimacy and credibility, and agrasp of relevant history and accomplishments all of which can provide a broader contextfor both the particular reform effort and the need for reform.

Infrastructure. Organizations seek to provide staff and constituents with mechanisms, arenas,and tools for effective communications, group decision-making, fiscal management, trainingand capacity building, information, and assessment of current efforts and their context.

Just as local and state organizations serve these functions with constituents, regional andnational organizations play parallel roles, providinglocal constituency builders and constituents with asense of being part of an ongoing, multisite effort, aswell as infrastructure for communication amongsites.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 4,8


CHAPTER NINE

Meetin Or anizationa

rhe organizations that study participants work invary widely in size, staffing, structure, strategies,and constituent makeup.

As they perform key functions, they face numerouschallenges, including two cited repeatedly by studyparticipants:

Participants strive to develop structures and oper-ations that reflect their principles. They alsostruggle at times to balance competing goals.

Constituency building for reform entails workingamid constant change. Organizations need mech-anisms for adapting to changes and integratinglessons learned.

This chapter first explores these challenges and howorganizations, particularly local ones, respond to them.The chapter then examines the role of regional andnational organizations, which themselves face thesechallenges and seek to help local groups cope withthem.

Interplay of Principles and OperationsParticipants seek to develop organizational structuresand operations that embody their guiding principles.In so doing, they sometimes must balance competinggoals.

Democratic Decision-MakingParticipants work with constituents to create democraticdecision-making processes that include diverse con-stituents, allow everyone to be heard, and, at the sametime, are reasonably efficient. A local organizer under-scores the importance of "transparent" decision-making,in which the process and outcome are clear to all.Constituent mobility and other factors can make it dif-ficult to both include everyone (given that there arealways newcomers) and finalize decisions. A local groupdirector describes how she balances these two needs in along-term campaign:

ChAen es

We have been really careful to create a processand structures, with people endowed withauthority to make decisions, to formalize anddocument decisions, so that as there are changesin who is involved, people feel bound by thedecisions made before them. It's critical whenthere's a long process; if every new parent groupchanged everything, it would never go anywhere.

In other situations, participants find other balances,sometimes slowing the pace to include diverse perspec-tives. A national group director recounts:

As we diversify, as we bring in people from back-grounds that have not been at the table before,we have made a conscious commitment to dowhatever it takes to bring them up to speed onthe issues. Because we know the outcomes aregoing to be better and stronger and just a muchbetter picture when we do that. And it is noteasy. For some it is real frustrating.

A local organizer says that slowing the pace and"periodically disorganizing" also are critical to buildingnew relationships and strengthening existing ones.

Shared LeadershipStudy participants say that shared leadership is vital.One dominant personality can exclude other perspec-tives, ideas, and capacities. Such concentrated leadershipalso is relatively ineffective. One regional coordinatorsays, "I tell my parent leaders, 'You can own the workso much that it works against the organization.' "Participants list the downsides of undemocratic processes:

Concentration of leadership makes processes moresusceptible to disruption from turnover. With abroad leadership base, by contrast, the group iswell positioned to survive changes.

A single person carrying the whole load of leader-ship is likely to burn out.

Meeting Organizational Challenges

81 83

Concentration of leadership can splinter a group.A study participant observes, "As soon as someoneis called a leader, you can already see the seeds ofwhat will destroy that leader cynicism, lack oftrust."

If one person has most of the group's contact witheducation or political leaders, that person canbecome a "gatekeeper." The gatekeeper's relation-ships with education or political leaders canbecome more personal than public, and thus lesspowerful.

Study participants work with constituent leaders toconvey a sense that "they have the responsibility to workwith the membership" and "to teach other people tokeep the organization alive," as one participant puts it.For example, in helping parents set up a local chapter,Parents for Public Schools encourages them to form adiverse group and share the work from the start. InTexas, the Intercultural Development ResearchAssociation's parent networks have rotating leadership,so power and opportunities to develop new skills andconfidence are shared.

Balancing Competing GoalsStudy discussions reveal a tension inherent in workingto build constituent capacity and simultaneouslyaddressing the urgent need for reform. For instance, inthe short term, an organization might produce moreschool change by having staff conduct research, produceadvocacy materials, or lobby, rather than invest time inconstituent capacity building. However, all study partic-ipants share the conviction that constituent capacity isnecessary for creating a shared vision, holding systemsaccountable, and changing power dynamics vitalsteps to achieving and sustaining systemic reform. Whilecapacity-building and school-change goals are not incon-sistent, they demand that organizations "attend to bothmeans and ends on a continuous basis" and that, attimes, competing priorities must be sifted out.

Organizations find various balances between capacitybuilding and immediate reform goals. The way a partic-ular organization strikes a balance is rooted in its mis-sion and other initial decisions, such as those describedin Chapter 4 (whether the group's emphasis is on civic

capacity building or school change, whether the groupis mainly an educational change group that uses multi-ple strategies or an organizing group that works onmultiple issues, and so on). Funders' expectations alsoaffect the balance. If a grantor evaluates a group's effec-tiveness based solely on immediate policy changes, thenthe group is less able to invest in the constituent capacitythat will produce long-term change. Participantsemphasize the need for multiple evaluation criteria thatinclude community capacity to achieve and expandreform gains. In addition, participants say short eventhree-year funding cycles do not recognize the needfor sustained, long-term efforts.

One area where participants must strike a balance isin defining staff and constituent roles. Groups differ inthe degree of leadership staff members are invited orallowed to take in identifying priorities, formulatingsubstantive positions and goals, and devising strategies.Some constituency-building efforts are designed aroundspecific goals, such as upholding particular legal rightsor opposing a proposal that staff members have identi-fied as detrimental to quality, equitable education. Inthose cases, staff members recruit constituents to sup-port that goal and often conduct advocacy themselves.In other organizations, particularly multi-issue organiz-ing groups, each constituent group can set its own pri-orities. One multi-issue organization director definesthe staff role this way: "The organizer brings the par-ents together to identify goals and strategies and makessure the plans that parents make get done. ... Theorganizer constantly recruits new people and keeps thegroup lively and democratic." Although staff membershelp constituents shift from personal to systemic per-spectives, issues identified by constituents form thestarting point for reform.

Constant Change, Experimentation,and RenewalConstituency building for school reform takes placeamid constant change that affects all aspects of thework, from formulating goals and mapping powerstructures to recruiting constituents and determiningthe content of training. Changes include educational,policy, and political shifts, as well as turnover amongconstituents and people in power. These changes place


additional demands on organizations as they seek tomaintain continuity, effectiveness, democratic decision-making, and shared leadership. Reform groups continu-ally test and adjust strategies, both to respond to changesand to integrate lessons learned.

Identifying and Responding to Educational,Policy, and Political ChangesStudy participants continually analyze the educational,policy, and political contexts of reform. New or exacer-bated challenges to schools, such as a deepening short-age of qualified teachers, add to the difficulty of shapingand implementing reform. At the same time, new edu-cation policies, proposals, and hot topics can createopportunities, threats, or distractions or a mix of allthree. For example, many participants have long sup-ported standards-based reform, and the approach hasgarnered increasing support in the past decade.However, while these participants welcome standards asa means for holding schools accountable and identifyingimprovement needs, some standards initiatives includepunitive consequences, not just for schools, but also forstudents. These participants struggle to argue that cer-tain provisions can hurt students while maintainingsupport for standards-based reform overall. This para-dox requires reformers to shine a spotlight on provi-sions' details without diverting attention from the broadgoal of quality, equitable schools. Nevertheless, justas promising developments can hold risks,negative developments can present opportu-nities. For example, a school slated for clo-sure can provide a focal point for recruitingmore constituents and engaging them insystemic reform as well as efforts to keeptheir school open.

Shifts in the political landscape andthe makeup of policymaking bodies also canaffect the types of policies that are consid-ered. A campaign for big legislative man-dates faces slim chances in an era of blockgrants, and a tax cut can threaten hard-wonprograms, taking time and attention fromnew campaigns. A local organizer says con-stituents must remain vigilant to hang ontotheir previous gains, even while engaged in

new campaigns: "Some of the city council lawyers aretrying to roll back the tax rate and cut $16 million. Wehave an appropriation of $2 million for after-schoolprograms, so we are a prime target."

Adjusting to Changes in the PlayersStudy participants emphasize the centrality of relation-ships: "Fundamentally, this is relationship-building work,on human, one-on-one levels," says one. Changes in theplayers officials, constituents, and staff have ahuge impact on relationships, and thus on effectiveness.

Educational and Political LeadershipParticipants describe frequent turnover at every levelof the education system, from state education commis-sioners and district superintendents to principals andteachers, as well as in political leadership. Changes ineducational and political leadership not only affect pol-icy, as new leaders arrive with their own agendas, butalso require repeatedly building relationships anew.Leadership turnover in education is one of the reasonsfor building constituencies in the first place; participantsseek to engage constituencies that can provide continu-ity for reform where it is lacking in the educationsystem. However, turnover also constitutes a majorchallenge, demanding that constituency builders andstakeholders "constantly repaint the picture" of the needfor reform, as one participant puts it.

"There is a real problem in four city]. You get an

okay from whomever, but then a new person

comes in and says it's not okay, and you don't

have anything to show that it was approved. We

ran everything as a public process, to have it

documented and open. ... We got approval every

step of the way"

A local organization director


83 85BEST COPY AVAILABLE

School and district leadership changes can be partic-ularly damaging because of the enormous investmentoften required to establish trust between inside andoutside constituencies. One person leaving the schoolsystem or moving to another position can cut off con-stituents' access to that office, information in thatoffice's purview, and others throughout the system (forinstance, principals largely control access to teachersand students). The problem is greatest in schools mostneeding improvement, where students and staff some-times see multiple principals pass through in a singleyear. In urban districts facing principal shortages,schools can languish for months under acting principals,who likely have little incentive for developing relation-ships, particularly with outside constituencies.

Changes in school leadership can result from notonly individual moves, but also systemic restructuring.For example, one city recently reshaped its administra-tion from 22 field offices, each aligned with a highschool and its feeder schools, to 10 regional offices.When the dust settled, constituents had to figure outwhere decision-making authority had come to rest andinitiate relationships with new regional directors, someof whom had no prior knowledge of reformers' concernsor capacity

Responding to high turnover in leadership, partici-pants seek to build broad constituency bases and rela-tionships with relatively stable parts of the educationestablishment, such as teachers, administrative staff, andothers who can provide ongoing support and buildcredibility with incoming leaders. One local organizertells of an incoming principal being greeted by a leader-ship team of parents and teachers who had been collab-orating for more than a year. The team's cohesiveness,accomplishments, and clear priorities, along with itslinks to other reform-oriented principals, convinced thenew principal to support their work. According to aconstituency builder working with the school:

She talked a lot about how she thought she knewwhat she was going to do when she went intothat school. But she also talked about what shefound when she got there, because the schoolitself had already been organized. ... Even though

she didn't come in saying, `I'm totally willing todo this,' that school's organizing team kind oforganized her. What also organized her was thisteam of principals ... that functions as a collabo-rative just among the principals themselves.

One local constituency builder points out thatturnover among political leadership can have benefits,enabling groups and constituents to shift betweenconfrontational advocacy and collaborative approaches:"The changes in the government make rebalancing pos-sible. In a less fluid environment, we might not havebeen able to make those adjustments."

ConstituentsConstituent mobility is a major challenge for study par-ticipants trying to build relationships with and amongconstituents. Families commonly move as parents seekbetter jobs, housing, and schools. Constituency buildingfor school reform also faces a natural "aging out" as stu-dents progress from elementary school to graduation. Inthe longer term, demographic shifts can mean majormetamorphoses in the ethnic or income makeup of acommunity. A participant notes that building con-stituent capacity itself can contribute to constituentturnover:

A byproduct of parent leadership development isthat the parents find confidence and resources,and they can imagine getting out, and they getout get jobs, get homes elsewhere. One parentgot all six of her kids into a charter school. Herheart was [in improving the neighborhoodschool], but how hard was it going to be? Whatwas it going to take? It's the same with princi-pals; you work with them to build capacity, andthey get promoted. The same with classroomteachers; they move up in the system.

Although some constituents leave the particularreform effort, they have gained understanding and skillsthat benefit their own families and the community as awhole.

Study participants attempt to balance, on one hand,keeping constituents involved and, on the other,continually recruiting new constituents, who bring their


own ideas, talents, and energy to the effort. As dis-cussed in Chapter 5, much of constituency building'score work contributes simultaneously to recruitmentand continued engagement. For example, by engagingconstituents in collective action, participants try to builda sense of efficacy that contributes to continued engage-ment and shows potential constituents the need andpotential for change.

StaffStudy participants say the need for professional staffcan hardly be overstated. Some national organizationsencourage, if not require, local groups to have profes-sional staff before becoming members. Yet constituency-building groups from neighborhood to national levelsgrapple with challenges of attracting and retaining staff.Participants say staff members must share the organiza-tion's values and philosophy, demonstrate appropriatelanguage skills and cultural awareness necessary forworking with particular populations, and possess a widerange of relationship-building and other skills.

Such skilled people are scarce. Those available mightnot be satisfied with the relatively low salaries and lackof career ladders at small organizations. In some cases,local groups hire young people, giving them their firstfull-time jobs and serving as the training ground forreform activists. However, a local constituency builderalso notes the difficulty of attracting young people towork on complex, long-term endeavors: "When I thinkabout the 60s and 70s, the work was more concrete inthat we were trying to get entrance into public facili-ties." Some participants refer to generational cycles ofyouth involvement in social change. More young peopleappear to be entering the field now than in previousyears, but participants identify a gap in the generationthat would be assuming leadership. A national organi-zation director asks, "Who do we pass the baton to?"

For the most part, study participants' analyses ofwhat keeps staff engaged echo their criteriafor keeping constituents engaged. A localorganizer puts stock in creating a sense ofshared purpose and fellowship in a move-ment, as well as offering opportunities forlearning through guided readings, seminars,and other forums for exchange. Participants

cite the importance of regional and national groups inhelping meet these needs and providing forums for"re-energizing." Organizations use various strategies foravoiding burnout. For instance, one national group withmany local chapters deliberately rotates local organizersamong sites, partly to enable organizers to build newrelationships and face new challenges and opportunities.

Learning from Experience andExperimentationConstituency-building groups create mechanisms notonly to identify and respond to external changes, butalso to help them reflect on their work and make themost of lessons learned. Study participants' conceptionsof schools' problems and constituency builders' roleshave evolved as they have tackled issues over long peri-ods; developed new relationships; and taken in newresearch on education, reform, and constituency build-ing. Just as they encourage constituents to reflect ontheir efforts, participants promote staff reflection andself-assessment as a means to identify new obstaclesand opportunities, and integrate and share learning.Mechanisms range from organizationwide evaluationand strategic planning processes to informal meetingsand individual journals.

Participants develop and test new strategies as theyassess current circumstances and the success of previouswork. For example, California Tomorrow's work inSalinas, California, was part of a larger effort to create astrategy that did not depend on principals' leadership,or even support, to promote equity in schools. Thestrategy focused on identifying "sparks" staff, parents,or others who would constitute a stable and commit-ted core advocacy team. The initiative yielded valuablelessons on the types of support constituents need andthe importance of working in multiple schools in a dis-trict to get at systemic issues. The group now is adapt-ing the strategy to address the education of AfricanAmerican and Latino students in middle schools to

"My colleagues who have lasted over time have

had connections and reflection."


87Meeting Organizational Challenges BEST COPY AVAILABLE

learn about various settings and develop the modelfurther.

Reflection and experimentation also play an impor-tant role in the long-term development of organiza-tions. Noting the risk of groups becoming "just ascumbersome and difficult" as the structures they seekto change, a national organization director advises:

One of the obligations of organizations that arearound for a period of time is to constantlyexamine how that mission [to help constituentsgain power in schools] plays out in relationshipto what's going on in the world and whether ornot the strategies that it once thought madesense to achieve them ... still work.

The Role of National and Regionalrganizations

Study participants say constituency building is mainlylocal work. One group director explains: "If peoplecome together locally, they not only can break down thepersonal barriers but they can start talking about what-ever reform topic is on the table in real terms." Nationaland regional groups provide local groups with tools andresources to enhance local capacity. They also servesome of the same functions with local groups that localgroups serve with constituents, particularly providing asense of common purpose and membership in a largermovement. In doing so, national groups face some ofthe same challenges, including working amid constantchange and balancing competing goals.

The national and regional groups participating inthis study have various types of structures and relation-ships with local groups. For example, Parents for PublicSchools has local chapters that are formed by groups ofparents with assistance from the national office. In con-trast, members of the National Coalition of Advocatesfor Students are independent child advocacy groups,each having its own approach and constituency, but allworking together toward common goals. Each nationalorganization's structure, relationships, and mission affecthow its central office prioritizes needs, delivers assis-tance, links local groups, and provides leadership. Studyorganizations seek to balance supporting local work,building a national movement for equitable reform, and,in some cases, conducting national advocacy.

0)

Providing Tools and ResourcesMost local groups building constituencies for reform aresmall, with limited staff and financial resources. Bydeveloping tools and resources that can be used by staffand constituents at many sites, national organizationsenhance local capacity and reduce duplication of effort.National organizations also disseminate learning fromone local site to others in the network, and can draw onresources not available to local groups, such as nationalexperts and support from national foundations.

Study participants from national groups try to developresources that are generic enough to be used in varioussettings, yet specific enough to be locally relevant.Common strategies, which often involve designingand piloting materials in collaboration with localgroups, include:

M Producing toolkits for local staff. For example,the Public Education Network drew on the expe-riences of four community groups addressingschool funding to produce School Finance Toolkit:How to Create a Community Guide to Your SchoolDistrict's Budget.

III Providing train-the-trainer curricula. Cross CityCampaign worked with local members to designand pilot a workbook, Community Organizing forSchool Reformers. Local constituency buildersattend training that uses the workbook and thenprovide the training for parent and communityleaders back home.

Leadership Training and NetworksMany study participants from national groups provideleadership training for both local staff and constituentleaders. Training opportunities range from large annualconferences and regional meetings to relatively smallmeetings on particular reform topics. Some groups offertraining for people in particular roles, such as the PublicEducation Network's annual New Director Instituteand the Interfaith Education Network's PrincipalsNetwork meetings. Participants say these gatheringscontribute to a sense of collectivity as well as individuallearning. Participants try to model effective educationalpractice in their training by building on attendees' expe-riences and integrating peer exchange and small-group

88


explorations through site visits and discussions of read-ings or issues.

Using Research and DataMany study participants from national organizationsprovide mechanisms that help local constituencybuilders sort through and use an overwhelming bodyof education research. These mechanisms include com-puter databases that catalog and digest information(such as the National Coalition of Advocates forStudents' database) and e-mail newsletters (such as thePublic Education Network's weekly NewsBlast). Somenational staffs provide additional guidance, such ashelping to analyze local data or, in the case of InterfaithEducation Fund, conducting research on constituent-identified issues for local groups.

Resources for Working with DiverseConstituenciesAs local groups seek to build capacity and connectionsamong diverse constituencies, national groups developresources to support those efforts. Many national organ-izations make their publications more widely accessibleby translating them into multiple languages, and even,as in the case of the National Coalition of Advocatesfor Students, translating locally developed materials.Some national organizations go further, working withlocal groups to test and document new strategies forworking with diverse constituencies, as well as develop-ing recommendations for equitable educational practice.Study participants' initiatives include:

National Coalition of Advocates for Students'Immigrant Students Project and its AsianFamilies/School Partnership Project;

Parents for Public Schools' Rural InitiativeProject; and

Public Education Network's Education and Raceinitiative, in which local education funds conveneconversations about education and race.

Support for Inside/Outside WorkSome national organizations, particularly those whosemission includes bringing together multiple stakeholdergroups, provide mechanisms to further inside/outside

z

relationships. For instance, in addition to annual meet-ings, Cross City Campaign holds smaller topical con-ferences on issues such as performance-based budgetingand high school reform, as well as study visits in whichboth inside and outside constituents participate. Bygathering people away from their home turf, the cam-paign seeks to move them beyond entrenched positions,help them see each other in new ways, and provide a"safe place" for developing new relationships. Eachevent includes cross-site exchange and time for mem-bers of each site to meet alone. The meetings legitimizethe roles of outsiders, as they participate side-by-sidewith education professionals. Cross City Campaign alsohas developed inside/outside collaborations to produceresources for various constituencies. For example, thecampaign worked with the Seattle School District todevelop Budget Builder software, available on theInternet, with which school staff and parents can developthe next year's budget, learn how other cities linkspending to student outcomes, and create reports forparents and others.

Study participants from local groups also describethe value of national organizations providing cover forlocal groups by advancing proposals that might drawfire and "taking the heat," enabling local groups to pre-serve inside/outside relationships.

Organizational DevelopmentNational organizations support formation and develop-ment of local groups in various ways. Areas of focus arecontinuous learning and self-assessment. In addition toproviding forums for exchange and reflection, manystudy participants' groups have created materials to helplocal constituency builders assess their effectiveness,both for internal learning and to demonstrate impact.These materials take various forms:

Parents for Public Schools provides chapters witha school-quality and parent-involvement assess-ment guide to help them compare communityinvolvement and student achievement before andafter a chapter is formed.

Public Education Network has provided grants toselected members to build self-evaluation processes.


89

Cross City Campaign's Indicators Project has cre-ated a framework for examining and documentingthe roles of parent and community groups inreform.

Connecting Local Activists in a LargerMovementMany study participants see the national role as impor-tant not only in supporting local efforts, but also inbuilding a national movement that contributes to sys-temic reform beyond member sites and at all levels,from local to federal.

Building a Sense of CollectivityStudy participants say that a primary role of nationaland regional groups is providing a sense of membershipin a larger movement. Participants emphasize that thisservice is as important for local staff as for constituents.Multisite conferences and newsletters are two commonmeans of countering isolation and creating a sense ofworking toward common goals.

Groups also build a sense of collectivity by engagingconstituency builders from various sites in joint work,such as developing training resources or hashing outsubstantive positions. The National Coalition ofAdvocates for Students (NCAS) increasingly uses col-laborative projects both to deepen relationships amongmembers and to effectively attack the systemic exclu-sion of children of color, immigrants, and poor childrenfrom quality education. Sixteen national, state, and localmembers of NCAS joined the national staff to plan andimplement Mobilization for Equity (MFE), a five-yearproject that entailed articulating a students' rights agendaand coordinating constituency building and advocacy.The director of one MFE member group cites theimportance of collectivity in rectifying power imbal-

ances and fighting racism and exclusion: "Combiningour experiential knowledge from different regions andparts of the system enables us to build a stronger analy-sis of how ... exclusionary agendas are being advancedin the nation."

In addition, just as membership in local groupsincreases constituents' credibility with other local actors,membership in a larger network or coalition oftenboosts a local group's credibility and stature.

Providing LeadershipNational groups seek to influence the national climateand provide leadership for equitable, systemic reform. Anational organization director describes the national cli-mate's impact on local work:

The climate in which we are doing this is beingframed by a whole other constituency and insome ways it's put us in a defensive or a reac-tionary posture. ... What's common in lots oflocal places is we are doing it in a climate wherethere are other forces at work that we are con-stantly having to swat at, that prevent us fromgetting to the real work that needs to be done,which is fixing schools for all kids.

Through publications, large conferences, and mediawork, national groups focus attention on reform issues,influence how those issues are framed, and legitimizelocal work on those issues. National organizations alsoseek to influence how constituents are perceived. Forexample, by appearing on Good Morning America, afounding member of Parents for Public Schools intro-duced millions of viewers to a view of parent involve-ment that puts parents on governing boards, not justbehind bake sale tables.

National organizations also provide some of theleadership in their networks or coalitions.They sometimes play the same "agitating"role with local staff that those staff playwith constituents. In doing so, they face thesame challenge of balancing locally set pri-orities against the need to broaden perspec-tives and expand understanding of systemicissues. A national group director describeswanting to provide leadership and tools tohelp local groups go in new directions, but

"The work of constituency building is primarily

local, and then it's got to be linked and built so

that it has a national resonance."

A national director

0


realizing that "you can't just parachute in there and say,'You really need to do this."

The Public Education Network offers local educa-tion funds (LEFs) competitive grants for projects inparticular areas, such as teacher quality, standards,assessment, and accountability. By asking applicantshow the projects would affect their other work, the net-work helps groups focus on these systemic reform issuesbeyond the terms of the grants. By requiring matchingfunds, the network gives LEFs a platform for approach-ing local funders, a development that might have a pos-itive effect on their grantmaking more generally. Insome cases, work done with the grants has provided thebasis for guides, such as the network's School FinanceToolkit, which are disseminated broadly.

Influencing Federal PolicySome national groups also seek to shape federal policy.Study participants express a variety of opinions on therole of federal policy, as differences exist even amongnational actors and among local activists. One nationalorganization director argues for a stronger federal rolein education, saying states and districts should berequired to meet standards if they receive funding: "Theissue of how well somebody ought to be educated in ademocracy ought not to be an entirely local issue."Without federal policies, some say, each communitymust fight every battle alone. Moreover, there are manyissues that communities rarely address on their own,most notably racial equity.

In contrast, some local constituency builders expressreservations about the federal role, citing previous federalefforts' disappointing results and national discussionsthat seemed simplistic and detached from local strug-gles. A local group director cautions that reformsimposed from above often prompt resistance: "You knowif we've had trouble with [resistance to state policy], howit plays out negatively in [the state], you just multiplythat by hundreds when you go about federal policy."Another local group director argues that the UnitedStates lacks the type of robust, substantive discussion atthe national level that should accompany federal policydevelopment. "At this point I am not sure that we havea good process for the national conversation. I thinkthere's been some progress being made at the local lev-els and at the state level on a process for having these

1.

t

conversations. It seems to me that the national ones arepretty empty." Others disagree. The question of theeffectiveness of federal policy remains the subject ofdebate within many networks. However, even localactivists critical of federal mandates say that theleadership and support provided by national organiza-tions to constituency builders and other reformers iscrucial to their local work and to building a nationalmovement.

Voices from the Field, a study of comprehensive community initiatives,

describes the tension between a) seeking to catalyze and supportmechanisms for neighborhood residents and others to foster and sus-tain neighborhood change and b) seeking to produce broad andmeasurable changes in quality of life. Kubisch, Anne C., et al., Voices

from the Field Learning from the Early Work of Comprehensive

Community Initiatives, Washington, DC: Aspen Institute, 1997, p. 9.

Meeting Organizational Challenges89

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

91

Part III

Conclusion

CHAPTER TEN 1

Conclusion

Through the ongoing efforts of study participantsand many others, the struggle for quality, equi-table public education increasingly has become

the work of a broad group of public schools' con-stituents. Families and communities are asserting theirplace at the decision-making table and demandingreform. These and other stakeholders are showing thatthey care deeply about the education system not justfor their own children, but as a central institution in thelives of our nation's children.

Families, community groups, businesses, and faith-based organizations have demonstrated that ordinarypeople can be a powerful force for education reform.They are using their rights of free speech and freeassembly and their votes to hold the system accountablein communities and states across the country. They arecollaborating with educators to set standards, recruitqualified teachers for low-performing schools, and cre-ate new policies and programs. Educators, too, areshowing that they can assume powerful new roles.Teachers are leading schoolwide reforms, principals arepartnering with community groups to support parentparticipation in decision-making, and superintendentsare collaborating with community members to developnew visions for their school systems.

Fostering and supporting this movement areconstituency-building organizations, which providemechanisms and arenas through which individuals canlearn more about the education system, acquire newskills, develop relationships, and take on new roles.Independent constituency-building groups are showinga way, possibly the only way, to sustain systemic reform.Their contributions include:

building understanding and a sense of sharedinterest in quality, equitable schools;

creating political will and holding public educa-tion institutions accountable; and

changing roles, relationships, and power dynamics.

As they help further school reform, constituencybuilders illustrate a larger lesson about the ways publicinstitutions function in a democracy. Although studyparticipants say they often use a particular crisis or issueas a starting point, their work, at heart, is not a short-term response to specific problems or particular circum-stances. It is an effort to change the way this institutionfunctions in the long term how decisions are made,whose voices are heard, and whose interests are consid-ered. Some participants are doing so by building civiccapacity broadly, forging relationships among diversepopulations, and facilitating their pursuit of commongoals. Others are doing so by supporting families previ-ously excluded from quality education; making real notonly the promise of equal treatment in schools, but alsothe promise of an equal voice in the functioning ofpublic institutions. In both cases, by strengthening thepublic's role in public education, constituency buildersand constituents are strengthening schools, communi-ties, and the practice of democracy.

Conclusion 93

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

ppendices

APPENDIX AI

Profiles of Participating Organizations

All of the groups are private nonprofit organizations.All are independent and nonpartisan. Titles and affilia-tions are those at the time of the study.

Austin Interfaith1301 S. IH 35, Ste. 313Austin, TX 78741(512) 916-0100Study participant: Claudia Santamaria, EducationCo-Chair

Austin Interfaith is a multiethnic, multi-issue groupof over 40 religious congregations and schools from theAustin area. Affiliated with the Industrial AreasFoundation, it seeks to give ordinary citizens a structurethrough which they can negotiate effectively with thegovernment and private institutions that affect theirlives. Austin Interfaith is the vehicle through whichmember institutions defend the interests of theirfamilies and their local communities, helping thesecongregations and schools become an effective force forpromoting democratic values and traditions. It accom-plishes these goals by:

Conducting individual and small group meetingswith clergy and lay leaders.

Conducting workshops to train congregation andschool representatives in how to understand andaffect local and regional political processes.

Developing a large leadership core from thoserepresentatives.

Identifying issues of concern to all sectors of thecommunity.

Strengthening relationships within and amongmember institutions.

Forging alliances across the lines of religion andethnicity to develop a broad-based shared visionfor the Austin area.

Moving that vision into a multi-issue, action-oriented agenda for the organization.

Austin Interfaith's education reform work is part ofthe Alliance Schools Project, which is described underInterfaith Education Fund.

California Tomorrow1904 Franklin St., Ste. 300Oakland, CA 94612(510) 496-0220www.californiatomorrow.orgStudy participant: Laurie Olsen, Executive DirectorFord Foundation Constituency Building for Public SchoolReform Initiative grantee as a member of tbe NationalCoalition of Advocates for Students' Mobilization for Equity

California Tomorrow is dedicated to building astrong and fair multiracial, multicultural, multilingualsociety that is equitable for everyone. Through advocacy,research, and technical assistance, it strives to:

Help people understand the complex issues ofequity and diversity in new ways.

Help institutions be fair and responsive to diversityand to build on diversity as a strength.

Help people work together across raciaUethnicgroups, professional roles, and communities toadvocate for building institutions and policiesthat are inclusive and meet the needs of a diversesociety.

Since 1986, California Tomorrow has built a strongbody of research and a national reputation for facilitat-ing institutional change processes and the challengingdialogue such change demands about intergroup rela-tions, institutional oppression, equity, and access.California Tomorrow works with schools, family-serving institutions, early childhood programs, andcommunities to respond positively and equitably todiverse populations. It identifies and designs new

Appendix A: Profiles of Participating Organizations 95 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

models of practice for a diverse society and guidesand supports the work required to implement thesemodels. California Tomorrow disseminates the learningsof this work through publications, long-term partner-ships, presentations, and technical assistance. As a state-focused organization, it works in partnership with localorganizations to build the capacity of families and com-munities to work together to improve the quality of life.It also convenes people around specific concerns andissues. California Tomorrow engages in advocacy aimedat furthering an equity agenda, fighting exclusion, andpromoting policies that build upon diversity as anational strength.

Center for Professional CollaborationLincoln Memorial UniversityCumberland Gap ParkwayHarrogate, TN 37752(423) 869-6231www.lmunetedu/cpcStudy participant: Connie Wright, Director

Housed in Lincoln Memorial University's School ofEducation, the Center for Professional Developmentpromotes school-community connections and preserviceand continuing education for educators. The center'sprograms emphasize collaboration, linkages to sur-rounding Appalachian communities, and multiculturaleducation. By partnering with local schools, the centerseeks to provide quality placements for teachers-in-training and to serve as a catalyst for change. (The cen-ter director participated in the Prichard Committee'sCommonwealth Institute for Parent Leadership.)

Charlotte Advocates for EducationFormerly the Charlotte-Mecklenburg EducationFoundation2 Wachovia Center301 S. Tryon St., Ste. 1725Charlotte, NC 28282(704) 335-0100www.advocatesfored.orgStudy participant: Tom Bradbury, President

Charlotte Advocates for Education (CAE) was estab-lished in 1991 as the Charlotte-Mecklenburg EducationFoundation by a group of key business and conimpity

leaders who had a vision for cultivating private supportfor local public education. Since that time, CAE hasworked to build citizen awareness and understanding ofthe need for high quality public education in Charlotte-Mecklenburg and to define the issues and advocate forthe changes required to improve permanently the qualityof public education in Mecklenburg County.

In 1998, CAE and six partners received a planninggrant from the Ford Foundation's Collaborating forEducation Reform Initiative (CERI), which seeks tohelp urban districts develop K-16 collaborative partner-ships that have the leverage to create sustainable sys-temic educational reform. The partnership won animplementation grant and is developing strategies forlasting systemic reform. In addition, CAE conducts anannual comprehensive survey of community attitudes,perceptions, and expectations regarding public educa-tion The Annual Community Assessment. It also con-ducts and disseminates budget analysis, using itsCommunity Guide to the School Budget as a communityprimer on the complex issue of school finance.

Chicago ACORN650 S. Clark, Ste. 200Chicago, IL 60605(312) 939-7488www.acorn.orgStudy participant: Madeline Talbott, Executive Director

ACORN (Association of Community Organizationsfor Reform Now) is a community organization thatfights for positive changes in low- to moderate-incomeneighborhoods. In recent years, Chicago ACORN haswon campaigns on children's health insurance, raising theminimum wage, exposing predatory lenders, and improv-ing public education. ACORN operates the GrassrootsSchool Improvement Campaign (GSIC) in partnershipwith the Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reformand the Small Schools Workshop of the University ofIllinois at Chicago. GSIC brings the experience and wis-dom of parent and community residents into schools, sothat they can play key roles in improving classroomlearning. Parents participate in training workshops, visitquality schools, and learn about such issues as teacherrecruitment and retention. GSIC seeks to create a move-ment for school reform in four Chicago neighborhoods.

96


Cross City Campaign for Urban SchoolReform407 S. Dearborn St., Ste. 1500Chicago, IL 60605(312) 322-4880www.crosscity.orgStudy participant: Anne C. Hallett, Executive DirectorFord Foundation Constituency Building for Public SchoolReform Initiative grantee

Founded in 1993, Cross City Campaign (CCC) is anational network of school reform leaders from ninecities: Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Houston, LosAngeles, New York, Oakland, Philadelphia, and Seattle.CCC works to include a diverse group of peopleparents, community members, teachers, principals,central office administrators, researchers, union officials,and fimders in all of its programmatic work. Its mis-sion is to promote the systemic transformation of urbanpublic schools, resulting in improved quality and equity,so that all urban youth are well prepared for postsec-ondary education, work, and citizenship. CCC workstoward three goals: 1) to build local and national con-stituencies to advance systemwide urban school reform;2) to improve systemwide policies and practices onteaching and learning, accountability, and school-siteauthority; and 3) to strengthen the roles of parents andcommunity members as full-school reform partners.

CCC supports efforts to create high-quality schoolsthat ensure educational success for all urban young peo-ple. It advocates policies and practices that moveauthority, resources, and accountability to the schoollevel, reconnect schools with their community, andcompletely rethink the role of school districts. It iscommitted to public schools that challenge and inspireall students to achieve high standards. CCC's work isfounded in the belief that urban public schools, thustransformed, can be restored to the public trust.

Intercultural Development ResearchAssociation5835 Callaghan Rd., Ste. 350San Antonio, TX 78228(210) 444-1710www.idra.orgStudy participant: Aurelio Montemayor, Lead TrainerFord Foundation Constituency Building for Public SchoolReform Initiative grantee as a member of the NationalCoalition of Advocates for Students' Mobilization for Equity

Intercultural Development Research Association(IDRA) is an independent, nonprofit organization thatadvocates the right of every child to a quality education.For almost 30 years, IDRA has worked for excellenceand equity in education in Texas and across the UnitedStates. IDRA conducts research and development activ-ities; creates, implements, and administers innovativeeducation programs; and provides teacher, administra-tor, and parent training and technical assistance.

IDRA is a member of the National Coalition ofAdvocates for Students (NCAS). As part of NCAS'sMobilization for Equity project, IDRA supportsFamilies United for Education Getting Organized(FUEGO), a network of parents who can effectively usesystems advocacy strategies at the national, state, andlocal levels to ensure key student rights for their chil-dren. IDRA provides FUEGO with parent leadershipfor the development of state and local policy initiativesand programs that reflect the wishes and concerns ofminority families in educational access and excellencefor children. Policy areas have included bilingual educa-tion, immigrant students, school finance, equity, vouch-ers, and school accountability. The project seeks to buildpublic will for a powerful equity agenda by training sub-stantial numbers of parents and families of excludedschool-aged children and by building capacity of organ-izations in their communities to understand 1) the rootcauses of their children's school exclusion; 2) how exclu-sion would end if schools provided necessary studentrights; and 3) how systems advocacy strategies must beemployed to achieve this equity agenda.

97 BESTCOPY AVAILABLE

Appendix A: Profiles of Participating Organizations

Interfaith Education Fund1106 Clayton Ln., Ste. 120WAustin, TX 78723(512) 459-6551Study participant: Carrie Laughlin, ResearcherFord Foundation Constituency Building for Public SchoolReform Initiative grantee

Founded in 1989, the Interfaith Education Fund(IEF) provides research, training, technical, and organ-izing support to community organizations in theSouthwestern United States. These local groups aremembers of the Industrial Areas Foundation, a nationalnetwork of broad-based, multiethnic, interfaith organi-zations in primarily poor and moderate income commu-nities. They seek to renew their local democracies byfostering the competence and confidence of ordinarycitizens so that they can reorganize the relationships ofpower and politics and restructure the physical and civicinfrastructure of their communities. IEF has assistedlocal groups on issues such as public education reform,water and sewer infrastructure for the colonias along theTexas-Mexico border, job training and economic devel-opment, and leadership training.

IEF entered education reform with the goals of cre-ating communities of learners, bringing parents into thelife of their children's schools, reshaping the culture ofthose schools, and organizing a broad constituency forlasting public school reform. A major component ofIEF's education reform effort is the Alliance SchoolsProject, which is a partnership between the Texas edu-cation department, IEF, the Texas Industrial AreasFoundation Network, schools, school districts, and par-ents. Schools join the initiative through a process ofextended conversations among and between schoolstaff, parents, and community leaders. The school staffand parents make a commitment to work with the localorganization to restructure their campus. By participat-ing in the network, schools can compete for supplemen-tal state funding and can use an expedited process forobtaining state regulatory waivers. The Alliance SchoolsProject began in 1992 with 32 schools and has grown toover 150 schools.

The Metropolitan Organization3400 Montrose, Ste. 907Houston, TX 77006(713) 807-1429Study participant: Joe Higgs, Lead Organizer

The Metropolitan Organization (TMO) is an inter-faith and interracial coalition of Houston congregationsand schools dedicated to teaching ordinary citizens howto participate in the decisions that affect their families,congregations, and communities. A member of theIndustrial Areas Foundation, TMO consists of congre-gations and other institutions that serve people ofdiverse ethnic and racial origins, incomes, and locationsthroughout the Harris County area.

TMO works on a multi-issue agenda that comesfrom hundreds of individual and small-group conversa-tions that occur among the leaders of member institu-tions. Leaders have worked on winning a city councilinvestment of $1 million to create after-school enrich-ment activities at 50 schools in low-income communi-ties; creating "Safe Zones" around schools by organizingparents to work for improved traffic safety, codeenforcement, and cooperation with police; developing ameans for willing workers to obtain the long-term jobtraining they need to earn a just and living wage;improving drainage and streets in long-neglected areas;and organizing citizenship training for 4,000 legal resi-dents to learn the English language, history, and civicsnecessary to become U.S. citizens. TMO's educationreform work is part of the Alliance Schools Project,which is described under Interfaith Education Fund.

National Coalition of Advocates for StudentsP.O. Box 218Boston, MA 02134(617) 734-0363www.ncasboston.orgStudy participant: Joan First, Executive DirectorFord Foundation Constituency Building for Public SchoolReform Initiative grantee

The National Coalition of Advocates for Students(NCAS) is a national network of 20 child advocacyorganizations that work to improve access to qualitypublic education for children who are most vulnerableto academic failure. NCAS and its member organiza-

93Vital Voices: Building Constituencies for Public School Reform

tions build constituencies for fairer public schools by lit-igating, educating policymakers and other stakeholdersabout the impact of local, state, and federal policiesupon constituent children and families; educating stu-dents and family members to understand their legalrights; supporting community-based organizations asthey build their capacity to effectively advocate forpublic schools that are responsive to the needs of low-income children and families; and training and organiz-ing family members and community leaders so that theymay become skilled, well-informed participants in localschool improvement processes.

NCAS's national staff also develops and implementsprograms and activities to support the academic and lifesuccess of constituent children and families, especiallyin the area of adolescent and child health. Finally, thenational staff provides a variety of supports and assis-tance to NCAS member organizations to strengthentheir capacity to work effectively in their own states andlocalities. NCAS's Mobilization for Equity constituencybuilding for school reform project was a five-year col-laboration of national staff and 16 of NCAS's memberorganizations. NCAS is governed by a national board ofdirectors chaired by Dr. Beverly Glenn, director, theHamilton Fish Institute, George WashingtonUniversity. NCAS's national headquarters is in Boston.NCAS also maintains a field office in El Paso and astaff presence in Florida.

Parents for Public Schools1520 N. State St.Jackson, MS 39202(800) 880-1222Rural Initiative Project: (888) 245-2376www.parents4publicschools.comStudy participants: Kelly Allin Butler, ExecutiveDirector, and Amina Shahid-El, Regional Director,Rural Initiative ProjectFord Foundation Constituency Building for Public SchoolReform Initiative grantee

Parents for Public Schools (PPS) is a national organ-ization of community-based chapters working to recruitfamilies back to public schools, create more meaningfulways for parents to be involved in the improvement ofpublic schools, and advocate for communitywide supportand accountability. PPS's constituency embodies all


community stakeholders; public school parents/PPSmembers are the bridge to each of these in connectingthem to the schools. Local PPS chapters are communitybased. Each chapter has distinct goals, but all chaptersare encouraged to have five areas of work: districtwideinvolvement and systemic change; school improvement;public awareness and communitywide advocacy; schoolrecruitment; and chapter membership. Chapters have leddistrict-level efforts to address overcrowding, improveteacher quality, tackle teacher shortages, strengthenprofessional development, and institute school-baseddecision-making that includes parents. PPS has chaptersin over a dozen states.

The PPS national office disseminates informationabout its model for organizing parents, provides technicalassistance to local chapters, encourages higher standardsfor parent involvement, and develops new strategies foraddressing emerging needs. PPS assists chapters in deal-ing with the media and in grantwriting and donorresearch, and it is developing a guidebook and trainingon site-based management. PPS's Rural InitiativeProject endeavors to replicate its successful model ofparent involvement throughout the rural south. In addi-tion to supporting local work, PPS seeks to build anational presence and voice for public school parents.

Parents for Public Schools ofJackson1520 North State St.Jackson, MS 39202(601) 353-1335www.parents4publicschools.com/jacksonStudy participant: Charles Lindsay, Past President

The founding chapter of Parents for Public Schoolsbegan in 1989 when 20 parents gathered to consider theimpact their collective involvement in the schools mighthave. They were convinced then, and remain convincedtoday, that the best way to support public schools is toenroll their children and commit to improving theirschools shoulder to shoulder with all parents. Theybegan by recruiting, one by one and through informa-tion sessions in their homes, to cultivate a new sense ofthe importance of strong public schools to the commu-nity and a renewed awareness of the sound educationbeing offered in the public schools of Jackson. Theseefforts created a racial balance in four targeted primaryschools in northeast Jackson and were followed by the

passage of a $35 million bond issue the first sincedesegregation.

Beginning in 1995, Jackson PPS has advocated site-based management. In 1999, the school board enacted apolicy requiring each school to form a broad-based sitecouncil. That same year, Jackson PPS began the Askfor More Collaborative, which includes schools, com-munity organizations, families, and the local college'sprincipals institute. Funded by the Ford Foundation'sCollaborating for Education Reform Initiative, thecollaborative seeks to raise student achievement, in partby providing extensive training for school site councils.

Philadelphia Education Fund7 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Ste. 700Philadelphia, PA 19103-1294(215) 665-1400www.philaedfund.orgStudy participant: Rochelle Nichols Solomon, Directorof School and Community Partnerships

The Philadelphia Education Fund helps to improvethe quality of public education for all children inPhiladelphia. Through many initiatives, including directstudent services, professional development for teachersand administrators, public engagement, research, andpolicy recommendations, the fund contributes to ensur-ing that all children can be successful in postsecondaryeducation and beyond. The fund is affiliated with theCross City Campaign.

The fund is a member of the Public EducationNetwork. As a local education fund, one of the fund'sprimary goals is to re-energize community support forpublic education. Two major strategies are employed toaccomplish this work: 1) providing objective researchand information to the policymaking community andthe community at large, and 2) organizing grassrootsefforts to increase support for and participation inpublic education. Current public engagement activitiesinclude Principal for a Day, designed to involvebusiness, political, and civic leaders in the real life ofschools and increase support for public education; theCoalition of Education Organizations, a group corn-

posed of the leaders of the city's professional educationorganizations that seeks to educate and build consensusamong educators for improving schools; and the Penn-sylvania Public Education Partnership, a statewide,grassroots initiative to build a strong coalition of policy-makers, community organizations, and individuals whowill advocate for the state resources needed for all chil-dren to reach high standards.

Portland Schools Foundation516 SE Morrison, Ste. 1200Portland, OR 97214(503) 234-5404www.thinkschools.orgStudy participant: Cynthia Guyer, Director

The Portland Schools Foundation is an independent,community-based organization that mobilizes themoney, leadership, new ideas, and political support nec-essary to ensure a first-rate public education for everychild, in every school, in every Portland neighborhood.The fund uses a three-part integrated strategy toachieve change: 1) strategic funding initiatives supportinnovative teaching and provide the venture capitalneeded for improvement in whole schools and acrossthe district; 2) leadership and advocacy initiatives mobi-lize the community to meet the needs of students andteachers, from creating new partnerships to securingstable, adequate funding; and 3) community and parentengagement initiatives tap into the talent, resources,and energy in the community to help create greatschools for all students in Portland's public schools.Community and parent engagement initiatives addressprincipal leadership, partnerships, school-based leader-ship development, and data and accountability. In addi-tion, the foundation is participating in the redesign ofPortland's high schools to create better, more inclusivelearning communities. The foundation is a member ofthe Public Education Network.

1 0 0


Prichard Committee for Academic ExcellenceP.O. Box 1658Lexington, KY 40588-1658(859) 233-9849 or (800) 928-2111wwwprichardcommittee.orgStudy participants: Robert Sexton, Executive Director,and Lutricia Woods, Community Support CoordinatorFord Foundation Constituency Building for Public SchoolReform Initiative grantee

The Prichard Committee is a citizens group gener-ating support for education improvements for allKentuckians. During the 1980s, the committee advo-cated for comprehensive reform legislation. In 1990,following litigation brought by the state's poorer dis-tricts, the legislature enacted the Kentucky EducationReform Act, after which the committee shifted its workto monitoring and supporting state and local reformimplementation. The committee's principal tasks noware 1) to inform the public through speaking engage-ments, publications, media work, and provision of input(upon invitation) to the Department of Education andthe legislature; and 2) to mobilize parents and otherswho have an interest in quality education and to helpthem to take active roles in supporting and furtheringreform.

The committee sponsors research and has publishedcitizen guides on school law, school-based decision-making, finance, and the primary school program. Italso produces a quarterly newsletter and a monthlynewspaper column. Staff answer questions on a toll-freetelephone line. The committee works with local parentsand citizens through its regional staff and theCommonwealth Institute for Parent Leadership, aportable six-day training curriculum designed to fosteran army of concerned citizens who will work to defendand improve the reforms for all the years necessary toput them in place. In collaboration with KSA-PlusCommunications, the committee has formed ParentLeadership Associates, which provides education leadersand communities across the country with customizedconsulting and training services, as well as materialsthat help parents better understand how to improveschools.


Public Education Network601 13th St. NW, Ste. 900NWashington, DC 20005-3808(202) 628-7460www.publiceducation.orgStudy participant: Wendy Puriefoy, PresidentFord Foundation Constituency Building for Public SchoolReform Initiative grantee

The mission of the Public Education Network(PEN) is to build public demand and mobilizeresources for quality public education for all childrenthrough a national constituency of local education funds(LEF) and individuals. PEN works to educate thenation about the relationship between school qualityand the quality of community and public life. It is basedon the belief that equal opportunity, access to qualitypublic schools, and an informed citizenry are all criticalcomponents of a democratic society. PEN's goal is toensure that the availability of high-quality public educa-tion is every child's right and not a privilege. PEN'swork is founded on the belief that improving publicschool systems is the responsibility of parents, individ-ual citizens, and whole communities. Students, teachers,and school districts all need to be held to high standards.The network advocates for significant changes in howschool systems are funded; overhauling curriculum andassessment practices; ensuring authority and decision-making at the school level; providing ongoing profes-sional development for teachers; and engaging the pub-lic in building relationships between citizens, schools,and the communities they serve.

PEN is a national association of LEFs advancingschool reform in low-income communities across thecountry. LEFs are nonprofit community-based organi-zations dedicated to increasing student achievement inpublic schools and building broad-based support forquality public education. They are independent of theschool districts in which they operate, have boardsreflective of their communities, are professionallystaffed, and work with public school systems serving asignificant population of low-income, at-risk students.LEFs collaborate with school principals, teachers,administrators, boards and districts, businesses, commu-nity organizations, and local citizens to develop and


implement whole-school improvement strategies, createmodel programs, leverage resources, award grants, andenhance the standing of public schools in the community.Active in 31 states and the District of Columbia, PEN's77 LEF members serve more than 10.6 million childrenin over 16,000 schools and 1,200 school districts.

Senior High Alliance of Principals, Presidents,and Educators1340 Ingraham St., NWWashington, DC 20011(202) [email protected] participant: Cathy Reilly, Coordinator

The Senior High Alliance of Principals, Presidents,and Educators (SHAPPE) is an organization of the 17public senior high school principals and parent leadersin Washington, D.C. It has been meeting sinceFebruary 1998. The members originally came togetherto share their frustration and grief at the level of vio-lence in their schools and have evolved into a groupworking to end the isolation of parents and school-based educators.

SHAPPE is establishing a forum for parents andprincipals to strategically influence policies and budgetdecisions that impact the city's teenagers. It is also pro-moting an equitable standard of resources and servicesamong the schools. SHAPPE is functioning as a sup-port group for parents who have felt inadequate andpoorly informed. The active participation by thestrongest principals in the city has meant the group hasstayed grounded in the issues directly affecting theschools and in raising student achievement. SHAPPEis facilitating partnerships between parents and princi-pals of the 17 high schools, between the local seniorhighs and the central administration, and between thepublic schools and private and public agencies and enti-ties that can influence the effectiveness of DC highschools. SHAPPE often works with the 21st CenturySchool Fund.

21st Century School Fund2814 Adams Mill Rd., NWWashington, DC 20009(202) 745-3745www.21csforgStudy participant: Mary Filardo, DirectorFord Foundation Constituency Building for Public SchoolReform Initiative grantee

The 21st Century School Fund was founded on thepremise that communities are responsible for creatinghealthy, safe, and educationally appropriate learningenvironments. Its mission is to build the public will andcapacity to improve urban public school facilities. Whenthe fund was created in 1994, the DC Public Schoolsinfrastructure was failing. Many schools were threatenedwith closure due to low enrollment. Many schools did,in fact, close temporarily due to fire code violations anddegrading facilities. The fund was established to helpdevelop the first facilities master plan in two decadesand to support the parents and community members ofthe Oyster Elementary School who were working tobuild a new school for their neighborhood. Through itswork on these projects, the fund amassed informationand expertise on the needs and challenges facing publicschools and their communities, and developed skill inunderstanding and navigating public policy and federaland local government laws. It also developed its owndata management and dissemination software programs,Format-PRO® and DCSchoolSearch.com, publications,and training tools.

Since 1995, the fund has expanded its focus fromthe District of Columbia to include the District andurban communities nationwide. In the District ofColumbia, the fund continues to work directly with thecommunity, school district personnel, and individualpublic officials on building the DC Public Schoolsinfrastructure. Nationally it provides technical assis-tance, training, and tools to nonprofit organizations;school districts; and local, state, and federal public agen-cies to support their work on school facility issues. Itswork is guided by a vision that one day good publicschools will be both a reasonable expectation and a real-ity in school districts throughout the nation.

102


Washington Parent Group Fund706 W. Fourth St., NEWashington, DC 20002Study participant: Jerald Woody, Sr., President

The Washington Parent Group Fund (WPGF) is acoalition of involved parents, concerned business andcommunity leaders, and forward-looking public schooladministrators. WPGF's mission is to "promote qualityeducation for children through the empowerment ofparents." For 15 years, WPGF has enriched the lives ofthousands of the District's students through more than1,200 projects in over 70 schools. Through its memberschools, WPGF supports a network of more than 3,000parents, affording them the opportunity to interact,learn skills, and gain the confidence they need to beeffective advocates for their children. WPGF's fourmajor program areas are Educational Enrichment,Technical Assistance and Training, Parent Training andLeadership Development Institute, and ComprehensiveSchool Health. WPGF often works with the 21stCentury School Fund.

Appendix A: Profiles of Participating Organizations105

103.0127=1:C.

APPENDIX B

Notes on the Study Design

The Ford Foundation's Constituency Building forPublic School Reform (CBPSR) Initiative aimedto mine the experiences of initiative participants

and share that knowledge among participants and, morebroadly, among school reform practitioners, researchers,and fimders. This report focuses on understanding howgrantees build informed, skilled constituencies who areactive in creating quality, equitable schools for all children.

Study ComponentsThe study was conducted by a partnership of researchersfrom the Academy for Educational Development (AED)and Chapin Hall Center for Children at the Universityof Chicago. The research team, including Janice Hirotaof Chapin Hall, Lauren Jacobs of AED, and JeanThomases, a consultant, implemented a study designmeant to foster sharing among participants and provideinsights for broader dissemination. The aim of the dis-cussions was never to reach consensus on any issue.Instead, the researchers tried to understand constituencybuilding through the various organizational and personalviewpoints of study participants. In order to accomplishthese aims, the design components included:

A study group of 21 practitioners. The groupincluded the seven CBPSR constituency-buildinggrantees. In addition, each grantee representative,working in a national, regional, or state-levelorganization, selected two colleagues, most fromlocal members or affiliated groups, to participatein the study. The participating organizations andindividuals, listed in Chapter 1, are located insites across the country.

Multiple venues for discussion among study par-ticipants. Over two years, participants met in twoin-person convenings of the entire group; multiplestructured telephone conversations; and, in oneinstance, a convening of a subgroup of participants.

Facilitated structured conversations. The researcherspolled participants regarding a variety of possible

Appendix B: Notes on the Study Design

107

subjects for exploration through a constituency-building lens. The three subjects of most interestformed the basis of ongoing conversations overthe two years. The subjects were long-term goalsand vision, building parent constituencies acrossdiverse communities, and inside/outside strategies.Study participants were placed according to theirpreferences into one of three groups, each ofapproximately seven members; each group focusedon one discussion topic throughout the study.

Most of the discussions occurred during con-ference calls of 1.5 hours each. Each group hadthree or four calls that involved the seven partici-pants and three researchers. The researchers facili-tated these discussions, noted important topics asthey arose, and had the calls taped and transcribed.Before the first call, the researchers sent out a list ofquestions for exploration. Before each subsequentcall, the researchers sent out a working memo thatsummarized the major themes of the previous call,including differing perspectives and goals, andraised questions for further discussion.

Individual interviews. The researchers conductedtwo or more individual telephone interviews witheach study participant to talk in greater detailabout the constituency-building strategies, goals,and specific examples of school reform efforts ofthe organization.

IIII Review of materials and literature. The researchersreviewed reports, mission statements, programdescriptions, relevant media coverage, and othermaterials of participants and other constituency-building efforts. The researchers also conducteda review of relevant literature.

Participation in Ford Foundation convenings.During the life of the initiative, CBPSR granteesparticipated in two Foundation-sponsored con-venings a year, where the study researchers inter-


acted with and heard grantees, including thegrantee study participants, discuss a range ofschool reform and constituency-building issues.

111 Review of report drafts. Study participants met inperson to discuss an early draft of the report withthe researchers and also provided comments on alater version.

Design Benefits and ChallengesThe major strength and challenge of the study arosefrom the same source: the range of participants andtheir broad geographic dispersal. The study includedorganizations and individuals that work at local, state,regional, and national levels, and in urban and ruralsites across the country. Participants employed differentconstituency-building strategies toward varied goals,and thus brought different perspectives and insightsto the study table. Such diversity coupled with par-ticipants' ability to reflect upon and articulate theirexperiences was the foundation for rich and complexconversations. These are reflected in the report.

At the same time, such range and dispersal createdchallenges for the study. As researchers, we wanted tocreate dialogue among participants, not simply conductone-on-one interviews with them or make site visits.The latter methods would allow researchers to interactfirst-hand with participants, but they would not beinteracting with each other. However, it was not feasibleto bring people together for multiple convenings for anumber of reasons. The monetary cost was always aconsideration, of course, but equally important were thealready busy schedules of participants. We floated theidea of a listserv, but several participants said theywould not engage in such an effort, a poor choice in anycase because of the lack of personal connection.

Taking into consideration the strengths and drawbacksof the options for group interaction, we chose a mix of in-person and telephone discussions: studywide conveningsat the start and end of the study and a series of conferencecalls among subgroups of participants. The constituencybuilders generously made time for these calls and all par-ticipants received summaries of all calls, allowing for asense of the conversational directions across the groups. Inthe end, however, all of us participants and researchersalike found the conference calls to be poor substitutes

for face-to-face interaction and comfortable familiarity ofin-person conversations. All participants, except theresearchers, were in different locales for the calls, whichinhibited the pace and flow of conversations as well. Inaddition, the need to limit the calls often made it difficultto pursue and extend points the way one could, for exam-ple, at a daylong meeting. Even so, we were able to discusspromising strategies, differing approaches, and quandariesas we covered such topics as the roles of parents and stu-dents in school reform, the role of principals, the develop-ment of long-term "stayers" and local leadership, and theroles and at times tensions of professional constituency-building work

Findings about the Research DesignAs researchers, we gained enormously from the individ-ual and group perspectives voiced on every call. Themultiple in-person, conference call, and interview dis-cussions with the reformers emphasized two broad find-ings rooted in the study methodology:

First, activists have a great deal to teach. But theydo not always have the time, place, and audiencefor articulating and exploring insights about whatthey have learned through their work. Despitelimitations, the study convenings and discussionsprovided such a place and audience.

Second, the exchange among practitioners revealedissues that might not have surfaced through moretypical research methodologies. As researchers, wewere able to listen in on informed inquiry as peersasked for clarification, extended each other's points,and sometimes challenged one another. Conver-sations went in directions and opened areas ofexploration that we might not have discovered ifwe were working in one-on-one situations. Thethematic summaries allowed us to sum up andarticulate discussion themes; test them with partici-pants in follow-up calls and interviews; and eventu-ally highlight, in the report, major aspects, strategicvalue, achievements, and challenges of joining con-stituency building and school reform work

We hope the report allows others to enter into par-ticipants' experiences and share in their knowledge.

105


APPENDIX C

ibliography

This report relies primarily on the work and insights of the 21 practitioners who participated in theConstituency Building Study. Appendix A profiles their organizations and provides contact information.Each organization publishes materials to aid constituents and constituency builders, as well as reports forbroader audiences. Participants' publications were invaluable in the preparation of this report, and manyare cited within the report. It is not feasible to include all of them here, and we encourage readers toobtain publications lists from participants' Web sites and offices. This bibliography primarily includespublications from outside the study group.

Adams, Jacob E., Jr., The Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence: Credible Advocacy for KentuckySchools, The Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 1993. (Not in print. Available atwww.prichardcommittee.org/resources.html.)

Bamber, Chrissie, Nancy Berla, and Anne T Henderson, Learningfrom Others: Good Programs andSuccessful Campaigns, Washington, DC: Center for Law and Education, 1996.

Betten, Neil, and Michael J. Austin, The Roots of Community Organizing, 1917-1939, Philadelphia:Temple University Press, 1990.

Better Together: The Report of the Saguaro Seminar on Civic Engagement in America, Cambridge, MA: JohnF. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 2000.

"Blocks Together: Youth in Action," in Education Organizing, Washington, DC: Center for CommunityChange, issue 10 (fall 2002), p. 14.

Bodilly, Susan J., Lessons From New American Schools' Scale-Up Phase: Prospects for Bringing Designs toMultWe Schools, Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1998.

Cahill, Michele, Schools and Community Partnerships: Reforming Schools, Revitalizing Communities, aSchools and Community Working Paper, Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform,1996.

Carmola, Lisa A., Anne Wheelock, and Joan First, A Gathering Storm: How Palm Beach County SchoolsFail Poor and Minority Children, Boston: National Coalition of Advocates for Students, 1998.

Chang, Hedy Nai-Lin, Nguyen Louie, Benjamin Murdock, Elena Pell, and Ted Scott Femenella,Walking the Walk: Principles for Building Community Capacity for Equity and Diversity, Oakland, CA:California Tomorrow, 2000.

Communities at Work: A Guidebook of Strategic Interventions for Community Change, Washington, DC:Public Education Network, 2001.

Community Organizing for School Reformers: A Training Curriculum, Chicago: Cross City Campaign forUrban School Reform, 1999.

"Community Organizing: The Missing Piece in School Reform?" in Action for Better Schools,Philadelphia: National Coalition of Education Activists 5:3 (fallwinter 1997), p. 1.

Appendix C: Bibliography109

106

Constituency Building and Advocacy for Education Reform.. A Collection of Seminar Papers, New York:Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center, the Graduate School and University Centerof the City University of New York, 2001.

Cuban, Larry, and Dorothy Shipps, eds., Reconstructing the Common Good in Education: Coping withIntractable American Dilemmas, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000.

Delgado, Gary, Beyond the Politics of Place: New Directions in Community Organizing in the 1990s,Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center, 1994.

Organizing the Movement: The Roots and Growth of ACORN, Philadelphia: Temple UniversityPress, 1986.

Engaging the Public: One Way to Organize, Austin, TX: Interfaith Education Fund, 1994. (Originally pro-duced as a paper by the Industrial Areas Foundation for the National Alliance for RestructuringEducation.)

Fantini, Mario, Marilyn Gittell, and Richard Magat, Community Control and the Urban School, NewYork: Praeger Publishers, 1970.

Fine, Michelle, "[Ap]parent Involvement: Reflections on Parents, Power, and Urban Public Schools,"New York: Teachers College Record 94:4 (summer 1993), pp. 682-710.

Fisher, Robert, and Joseph Kling, eds., Mobilizing the Community: Local Politics in the Era of the GlobalCity, Urban Affairs Annual Review 41, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1993.

Friedman, Will, and Aviva Gutnick, Public Engagement in Education, New York: Public Agenda, 1999.

Fruchter, Norm, Anne Galletta, and J. Lynn White, New Directions in Parent Involvement, Washington,DC: Academy for Educational Development, 1992.

Fuhrman, Susan, "Politics and Systemic Education Reform," Philadelphia: Consortium for PolicyResearch in Education, University of Pennsylvania, CPRE Policy Briefs, April 1994.

Gaining Ground: Hard Work and High Expectations for Kentucky Schools, Lexington, KY: PrichardCommittee for Academic Excellence, 1999.

Gittell, Marilyn, Limits to Citizen Participation: The Decline of Community Organizations, Beverly Hills,CA: Sage Publications, 1980.

Gittell, Marilyn J., ed., Strategies for School Equity: Creating Productive Schools in a Just Society, NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998.

Gold, Eva, and Diane Brown, A Report to the Alliance Organizing Project on its Work with Parents,Philadelphia: Research for Action, 1998.

Gold, Eva, and Elaine Simon (Research for Action) and Chris Brown (Cross City Campaign for UrbanSchool Reform), Successful Community Organizing for School Reform and Case Study: Austin Interfaith, partof Strong Neighborhoods, Strong Schools: A Comprehensive Series of Reports on the Findings of the IndicatorsProject on Education Organizing, Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform, 2002.

107


Henderson, Anne T., and Karen L. Mapp, A New Wave of Evidence: Impact of School, Family, andCommunity Connections on Student Achievement, Austin, TX: Southwest Educational DevelopmentLaboratory, 2002.

Henderson, Anne T., Carl Marburger, and Theodora Ooms, Beyond the Bake Sale: An Educator's Guide toWorking With Families, Washington, DC: Center for Law and Education, 1986.

Henig, Jeffrey R., Richard C. Hula, Marion Orr, and Desiree S. Pedescleaux, The Color of School Reform:Race, Politics, and the Challenge of Urban Education, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999.

Heubert, Jay P., ed., Law and School Reform: Six Strategies for Promoting Educational Equity, New Haven,CT: Yale University Press, 1999.

Hill, Paul T., Christine Campbell, and James Harvey, It Takes a City: Getting Serious About Urban SchoolReform, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2000.

Hirota, Janice, Robin Jacobowitz, and Prudence Brown, The Donors' Education Collaborative: Strategies forSystemic School Reform, Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, 2000.

Investing in Our Children: Advocacy and Organizing for School Reform. New York: Edward W. HazenFoundation, 1996.

Katz, Michael B., Improving Poor People: The Welfare State, the "Underclass," and Urban Schools as History,Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995.

Reconstructing American Education, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.

School Reform: Past and Present, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1971.

Kozol, Jonathan, Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools, New York: Crown Publishers, 1991.

Kubisch, Anne C., Prudence Brown, Robert Chaskin, Janice Hirota, Mark Joseph, Harold Richman, andMichelle Roberts, Voices from the Field: Learning from the Early Work of Comprehensive CommunityInitiatives, Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, 1997.

Lederman, Nancy M., Agendas for Reform: Education Reform Proposals for Urban School Systems, NewYork: New York Community Trust, 1995.

Listening, Learning, Leading: A Site Council Involvement Guide, Jackson, MS: Jackson Chapter of Parentsfor Public Schools, 1999.

Mediratta, Kavitha, Norm Fruchter, and Anne C. Lewis, Organizing for School Reform: How Communitiesare Finding Their Voice and Reclaiming Their Public Schools, New York: Institute for Education and SocialPolicy, New York University, 2002.

Montemayor, Aurelio M., "Parents Listening to Parents Is Research," in IDRA Newsletter, San Antonio,TX: Intercultural Development and Research Association, May 1995, p. 4.

Nichols Solomon, Rochelle, "Conquering the Fear of Flying," Phi Delta Kappan, September 2000,pp. 19-21.

Nichols Solomon, Rochelle, and Amy Rhodes, Strong Images and Practical Ideas: A Guide to ParentEngagement in School Reform, Baltimore: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2001.

Appendix C: Bibliography

Olsen, Laurie, "The Data Dialogue for Moving School Equity," in California Perspectives 5, Oakland,CA: California Tomorrow, January 1997, pp. 48-65.

Olsen, Laurie, and Ann Jararnillo, Turning the Tides of Exclusion: A Guide for Educators and Advocates forImmigrant Students, Oakland, CA: California Tomorrow, 1999.

Olsen, Laurie, Ann Jaramillo, Zaida McCall-Perez, and Judy White, Igniting Change for ImmigrantStudents: Portraits of Three High Schools, Oakland, CA: California Tomorrow, 1999.

Parents are Powerful, Washington, DC: Center for Law and Education, 1996.

Quality Now! Results of National Conversations on Education & Race, Washington, DC: Public EducationNetwork, 2000.

Reasons for Hope, Voices for Change: A Report of the Annenberg Institute on Public Engagement for PublicEducation, Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Brown University, 1998.

Rebell, Michael A., and Robert L. Hughes, "Efficacy and Engagement: The Remedies Problem Posedby Sheff v. O'Neill and Proposed Solution," in Connecticut Law Review, University of Connecticut29:3 (spring 1997).

Ryan, Alan, "My Way," a review of Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of AmericanCommunity in The New York Review of Books, August 10,2000, pp. 47-50.

Shirley, Dennis, Community Organizing for Urban School Reform, Austin, TX: University of Texas, 1997.

Stone, Clarence N., ed., Changing Urban Education, Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1998.

Stone, Clarence N., Jeffrey R. Henig, Bryan D. Jones, and Carol Pierannunzi, Building Civic Capacity:The Politics of Reforming Urban Schools, Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2001.

Stone, Rebecca, and Benjamin Butler, Core Issues in Comprehensive Community-Building Initiatives:Exploring Power and Race, Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, 2000.

Te, Bouy, Joan May T. Cordova, Wendy Walker-Moffat, and Joan First, Unfamiliar Partners: AsianParents and US. Public Schools, Boston: National Coalition of Advocates for Students, 1997.

The Texas IA.E Vision for Public Schools: Communities of Learners, Austin, TX: Interfaith EducationFund, 1990.

Weiner, Kevin G., Legal Rights, Local Wrongs: When Community Control Collides with Educational Equity,Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2001.

Williams, Michael R., Neighborhood Organizing for Urban School Reform, New York: Teachers CollegePress, 1989.

Zachary, Eric, and shola olatoye, A Case Study: Community Organizing for School Improvement in the SouthBronx, New York: Institute for Education and Social Policy, New York University, 2001.

109


Academy for Educational Development

The Academy for Educational Development (AED) isan independent, nonprofit organization committed toaddressing human development needs in the UnitedStates and throughout the world. AED's Center forSchool and Community Services uses multidisciplinaryapproaches to address critical issues in education, health,and youth development. To achieve its goals, the centerprovides technical assistance to strengthen schools, schooldistricts, and community-based organizations. It con-ducts evaluations of school and community programswhile striving to provide the skills and impetus for practi-tioners to undertake ongoing assessment and improve-ment. The center also manages large-scale initiatives tostrengthen practitioner networks and accelerate systemschange and uses the knowledge gained from this work toadvocate for effective policies and practices and dissemi-nate information through publications, presentations, andon the World Wide Web. For more information aboutthe work of AED's Center for School and CommunityServices, call (212) 243-1110, or visit the departmentWeb site at www.aed.org/scs.

AEDAcademy for Educational Development

Edit rial and DesignKSA-Plus Communications

2300 Clarendon Blvd., Ste. 600

Arlington, VA 22201

(703) 528-7100

www.ksaplus.com

Chapin Han Center for Childrenat the University of Chicago

Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University ofChicago is a policy research center dedicated tobringing sound information; rigorous analyses; inno-vative ideas; and an independent, multidisciplinaryperspective to bear on improving the well-being ofchildren and the families and communities in whichthey live. Chapin Hall's research agenda currentlyincludes the following major areas: children's services,covering the problems that threaten children and theservices designed to address them; primary supportsfor child and youth development, concerning theresources and activities in communities that enhancethe development and well-being of all children; andcommunity building, focusing on the development,documentation, and evaluation of community-buildinginitiatives designed to strengthen communities asimportant environments for children and families. Formore information, call (773) 256-5212 or visit thecenter's Web site at www.chapin.uchicago.edu.

CHAPIN HALLCENTER FOR CHILDRENAT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

BESTCOPY AVAILABLE

110

Academy for Educational Development Chapin Hall Center for Children

100 Fifth Avenue University of Chicago

New York, NY 10011 1313 East 60th Street

(212) 243-1110 Chicago, IL 60637

www.aed.org/scs (773) 256-5212

www.chapin.uchicago.edu

L91:110111

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

Reproduction Basis

EKICUetei Irdmion Cenler

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release (Blanket)"form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all or classes ofdocuments from its source organization and, therefore, does not require a"Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may bereproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form (either"Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (1/2003)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be ... · ed 481 606. author title....

Documents

Transcript of Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be ... · ed 481 606. author title....